HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-11-16 City Council Agenda Packet
1 11/16/09
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
November 16, 2009
6:00 PM
ROLL CALL
STUDY SESSION
1. Quarterly Update on City Activities related to the High Speed Rail
Project
CMR 432:09 & ATTACHMENT
7:30 or as soon as possible thereafter
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
2. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Rosemary Ralston
Upon Her Retirement
ATTACHMENT
3. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Jannette Huber
Upon Her Retirement
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.
4. Approval of a Contract with Elite Landscaping Incorporated in the
Amount of $1,220,075 for Construction of Greer Park Renovation and
Pump Station Replacement - Capital Improvement Program Project PE-
09002
CMR 423:09 & ATTACHMENT
11/16/09 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. Approval to Utilize the State of California CALNET II (CALNET 2)
Contracts to Order Telecommunications Services Through SBC Global
Services, Inc. dba AT&T Global Services for City-Wide
Telecommunications Services in an Amount not to exceed a Total of
$760,000 Through January 2012
CMR 427:09 & ATTACHMENT
6. Approval of a Utilities Enterprise Fund Purchase Order with DitchWitch
Bay Area in the Total Amount of $285,945 for Delivery of an All Terrain
Directional Boring Unit – Capital Improvement Program Projects GS-
02013 and GS-03007
CMR 419:09 & ATTACHMENT
7. Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept the City Auditor’s
Office Fiscal Year 2010 Work Plan
ATTACHMENT
8. Adoption of Two Resolutions: (1) Adopting a Compensation Plan for
Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees and
Rescinding Resolution Nos. 8844, 8845, 8915, 8950 and 8988, and (2)
Amending Section 1701 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations to
Incorporate the 2009-2010 Compensation Plan for Management and
Professional Personnel and Council Appointees
CMR 435:09 & ATTACHMENT
9. Request for Authorization to (1) Increase Existing Agreement with the
Law Firm of Musick, Peeler & Garrett, LLP by an Additional $52,000 for
a Total Contract Not to Exceed Amount of $102,000; (2) Increase the
Existing Agreement with the Law Firm of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore by
an Additional $60,000 for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $145,000;
and (3) Increase the Existing Agreement with Ferguson Praet &
Sherman by an Additional $50,000 for a Total Not to Exceed Amount
of $115,000
ATTACHMENT
10. Adoption of an Ordinance Approving and Adopting a Plan of
Improvements to the Junior Museum & Zoo to Construct a New
Bobcat Exhibit and to Replace Fencing and Walkways – Capital
Improvement Program Project AC-10000
CMR 431:09 & ATTACHMENT
11/16/09 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 Expressing Appreciation to Mei Wong Upon
Her Retirement
ATTACHMENT
12. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Sridhar Bilgiri
Upon His Retirement
ATTACHMENT
13. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Sandra Domingo
Upon Her Retirement
ATTACHMENT
14. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Adam Nowak Upon
His Retirement
ATTACHMENT
15. Adoption of a Resolution of the Expressing Appreciation to Jerzy
Siegenfeld Upon His Retirement
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
ACTION ITEMS
Include: Public Hearings, Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Reports of Officials, and Council Matters
16. Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the California Avenue
Streetscape Improvements, Phase I; Approval of a Street Tree
Replanting Plan on California Avenue from El Camino Real to the
Caltrain Station as Part of the California Avenue Improvements Capital
Improvement Program Project PE-07005; Approval of a Change Order
in Amount of $96,200 with Suarez & Munoz Construction, Inc. and
Deferral of the California Avenue Street Improvements Phase II
Including Tree Replanting at the Fountain Plaza Area Located Near the
11/16/09 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.
Park Boulevard/California Avenue Intersection, Addition of New Street
Furniture, and Street Repaving and Restriping Until Community
Outreach and Public Review is Complete
(continued by Council Motion on October 05, 2009)
CMR 433:09 & ATTACHMENT PUBLIC COMMENT
17. Public Hearing Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Palo Alto
Municipal Code Chapter 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map), Chapter
18.30(C) (the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District), and
Chapter 18.18 (the Downtown Commercial Community (CD-C)
Zone District) to Modify Restrictions on Ground Floor Uses in
the Downtown Area
(continued by Council Motion on November 09, 2009)
CMR 420:09 & ATTACHMENT
18. Public Hearing Approval of a Tentative Map and Record of Land Use
Action to Create Six Commercial Condominium Units Within an Existing
Office Building at 164 Hamilton Avenue
CMR 428:09 & ATTACHMENT
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
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.
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office
DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2009 CMR: 432:09
REPORT TYPE: STUDY SESSION
SUBJECT: Quarterly Update on City Activities Related to the High Speed Rail Project
RECOMMENDATION
This report is for information only and no action is required.
BACKGROUND
Since passage of Proposition 1A in November last year, approving funds for the High Speed Rail
connection from Los Angeles to San Francisco, the High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) has
initiated environmental and engineering studies for implementation of the train system statewide.
The HSRA consulting team began scoping the Environmental Impact Report for the San Jose to
San Francisco segment.
On May 18th 2009, the City Council adopted Guiding Principles to provide direction to the
City's High Speed Rail Ad Hoc Committee. Mayor Drekmeier appointed Council members
Kishimoto, Barton, Burt, and Klein to this Committee. The Ad Hoc Committee has been
working closely with the Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC) to develop public outreach and
education efforts and to explore urban design solutions that consider community values for the
high speed train project. As reported in the last HSR staff report on July 20, 2009, the California
HSRA team released the draft scoping report for the San Francisco to San Jose High Speed Train
proj ect in June.
DISCUSSION
This report provides a quarterly update regarding activities related to the High Speed Rail
project that have been undertaken at the State and City levels since the last report in July to
Council.
The HSRA and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), an operating administration of the
U. S. Department of Transportation, prepared a j oint programmatic Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIRJEIS) under The California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to evaluate a broad corridor
CMR:432:09 Page 1 of5
1
between the Bay Area and Central Valley for the California High-Speed Train (HST) system,
and selection of a preferred network alternative, preferred alignments and station location
options within the broad corridor between and including the Altamont Pass and the Pacheco Pass
to connect the Bay Area and Central Valley.
The Final Program EIRJEIS evaluates the potential impacts of a full range of alignment
alternatives and station loqltion options in the study region and defines general mitigation
strategies to address potentially significant adverse impacts. The Final Program EIRJEIS was
made available to the public and public agencies on or about May 21,2008 and notice of
availability of the Final Program EIRJEIS was published in the Federal Register on May 30,
2008.
Before approving a proposed preferred HSR alternative and station location options, the
Authority must certify that (1) the Final EIRIEIS has been prepared in compliance with CEQA;
(2) the Final EIR has been reviewed and considered by the agency; and (3) the Final EIR reflects
its independent judgment and analysis as the lead agency
The next steps for the HSRA team include initiation of the Alternatives Analysis, technical
evaluations, and preparation of the draft Project EIRIEIS, scheduled for release in the first
quarter of2011.
The Program EIRIEIS is available for viewing and downloading at the Authority's web site,
www.cahighspeedrai1.ca.gov.
High Speed Rail Alternative Analysis (AA)
Currently staff from the High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) is working on the Alternatives
Analysis (AA) Report to be completed and ready for circulation in Decenlber 2009, although a
final release date has not been given. The AA is an important part of the EIRJEIS as it will
incorporate conceptual engineering information and will identify feasible and practicable
alternatives to carry forward for environmental review and evaluation in the EIRJEIS for the San
Francisco to San Jose section of the HSR Project. The AA will provide the HSRA and the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) with sufficient information and documentation of the
evaluation process to "define a range of reasonable, practicable, and feasible project study
alternatives". The AA will provide information that highlights and compares the alternatives,
and will explain why sonle alternatives will be retained while others will be dropped from further
study in the EIRJEIS. Staff anticipates that the Ad Hoc Committee and Council will need
independent peer review of technical conclusions such as tunneling feasibility and other below
grade options, costs, and railroad operations. As a result, the City has retained outside expertise
as technical documents are released by HSRA staff. Once the document is released, Cities and
the public will have 45 days to review the report and submit comments on the document.
The AA evaluation will consider preliminary proj ect features based on planning and engineering
at, a 2% to 40/0 level of engineering design. This level of detail is enough to understand if an
alternative can feasibly be constructed and if the alternative might encounter significant
environmental, community, and construction-related impacts. In the San Francisco to San Jose
section, with the proposed use of the Caltrain right-of-way, the AA will describe the alternatives
based on alignment and "vertical profile", that is, whether the alignment will be below ground,
at-grade, or elevated.
CMR:432:09 Page 2 of5
Attachment A describes the AA process in full detail and discusses common questions and
answers related to the AA for the High Speed Rail.
HSRA Business Plan
The HSRA submitted their Business High-Speed Train Business Plan in 2008. The Business Plan
provides an estimate of the system's current financial and economic outlook at a very general
level. The program costs include all aspects of managing, designing and building the proposed
high-speed rail systenl, including: construction of the high-speed train system (track, stations,
buildings, bridges, tunnels, power systems, signaling, etc.); right-of-way; environmental studies
and mitigation; design; value engineering; management; rolling stock (trains); testing;
commissioning; operations; and all work required to provide a completely operational system
ready for revenue service.
The Senate Transportation Sub Conlmittee approval is needed before the budget for the HSR is
released. The Senate Subcommittee has expressed concern on the proposed Business Plan and
has only authorized enough budget for 6 months instead of 1 year. The HSRA was asked to
update the Business Plan in order to get more funds. The revised Business Plan is expected to be
available in December 2009.
Community Outreach
An all-day "Teach-In" was held on September 12,2009 in the Palo Alto Cubberley Community
Center organized by Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC) and hosted by the City, in cooperation
with Caltrain and the California High Speed Rail Authority. The goal of High Speed Rail Teach-
In was to bring together experts with elected leaders and the public to understand what is
desirable and feasible for the rail corridor on the Peninsula.
The Teach-In featured a panel of speakers from diverse backgrounds with varying perspectives
on the high speed rail project. Caltrain experts also made a presentation on the basics of best
practices of railroad planning and design. Presentations were followed by series of panel
discussions followed by facilitated community discussions. The panel of experts answered
technical questions asked by the public.
Urban Design and Planning Workshop
A two-day design workshop held on October 10th and 11 th focused on the Palo Alto segment of
the HST/Caltrain corridor, including segments north and south of the City limits in adjacent
cities. This two-day event was similar to a design charrette. This workshop was open to the
public and staffed with design professionals and organizers from the broader design community
who had agreed to volunteer their time to participate in this event in order to minimize costs.
On the first day of the workshop, there was a briefing by design professionals, brainstorming and
interviewing sessions for all participants and an opportunity to form teams to work on design
concepts. A team of national experts also presented conceptual urban design plans at the end of
the 2-day session.
Alternatives Analysis Open House
The High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) held community workshops on September 30th in San
Carlos, October 9th in Sunnyvale and October 13th in San Francisco in order to share and discuss
the alternatives development process and initial design alternatives for the Caltrain Corridor. The
meetings were held "Open House" style, with various stations providing maps illustrating the
CMR:432:09 Page 3 of5
proposed alignment alternatives, informational materials, and project exhibit boards. Staff from
the HSRA was available to respond to inquiries and collect public comments.
Public input received at these meetings will be used in the evaluation process and help determine
which alternatives and design options will be advanced for further environmental and . . . englneenng reVIew.
Context Sensitive Solutions
HSRA held a workshop on November 4, 2009 on using Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS), a
collaborative multi-disciplinary approach, to develop California High Speed Rail system. At this
meeting, the public had an opportunity to learn about a community-input process that will be
used for the Peninsula portion of the high speed rail line from an expert hired by the California
High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) and Caltrain. HSRA had obtained Hal Kassoff, a nationally
known expert on CS S, to assist the CHSRA board of directors, local officials and the public to
understand how CSS works. He has been recognized for his environmentally sensitive and
aesthetic design work in Transportation.
Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) is defined as a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach
that involves all stakeholders to develop a transportation project that fits its physical setting and
preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic and environmental resources while maintaining safety and
mobility. Project with CSS are in harmony with the community and preserve the environmental,
scenic, aesthetic, historic and natural resource values of the area. This is the only section of the
High Speed Rail line to have this additional process, which is designed to integrate concerns and
suggestions from stakeholders in the project as it is being designed. The CSS process is intended
to engage communities along the Caltrain line early in the decision making process to influence a
more sensitive engineering solution that respects community values. In addition to fulfilling the
usual California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Police Act
(NEPA) requirements, CSS will provide an overlay that considers all factors and their impacts on
surrounding communities -not just the rail corridor. It will offer additional transparency and
accountability during the design process.
The PCC supports implementation of Context Sensitive Solutions to be implemented within the
HSR Project and will monitor the implementation ofCSS and adjust as necessary.
Ad-Hoc Committee
City Ad Hoc Committee continues to meet bi-weekly and will focus much of its efforts on
working with the other peninsula communities who are potentially impacted by high speed rail.
The Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC) also continues to engage various community groups
organized around the potential impacts of high speed rail to coordinate local, statewide and
national legislation.
The PCC is in the process of preparing a letter to the HSRA requesting that the environmental
and alternatives assessments on the Peninsula recognize the critical and sensitive nature of the
"Urban Environn1ent" and unique characteristics of the Peninsula Caltrain Corridor and to
consider warranting additional evaluation criteria to the Alternatives Analysis when selecting
alternatives to be carried forward.
CMR:432:09 Page 4 of5
Updates on upcoming PCC events and copies of reports/presentations can be viewed at the
following website http://www.peninsularail.org/ or on the High Speed Rail Authority website at
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/.
City staff has also continued to receive support of volunteer resources from the Californians
Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD) that have provided comprehensive legislative
summaries. Staff will continue to post these periodic updates on its High Speed Rail website as
they become available.
Next Steps
The next milestones for the Proj ect are:
Alternatives Analysis Report -December 2009
Draft EIRIEIS -First quarter of 2011
Final EIRIEIS -End of 2011
Staff will provide another update to Council in February 2010.
RESOlTRCE IMPACT
Approval of $70,000 from the City Council Contingency to fund the High Speed Rail
Informational Symposium, Design Workshop, and Technical Consulting Services was approved
by Council on August 3rd• This includes $50,000 to fund the retention of outside expertise to
provide peer review and analysis of technical documents including the project alternatives
analysis as they are released by HSR staff.
PREPARED BY:
Transportation Engineer
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ATTACHMENTS
A. US Department of Transportation Handout -Common Questions and Answers related to
the Alternatives Analysis for the San Francisco to San Jose High Speed Train Section
CMR:432:09 Page 5 of5
Common Questions and Answers related to the
Alternatives Analysis for the
San Francisco to San lose High-Speed Train Section
, Attachment A
September 2009
What is an Alternatives Analysis? The Alternatives Analysis (AA) is a methodical process to provide the
California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) with sufficient
information and documentation of the evaluation process used to identify and define a range of reasonable,
practicable, and feasible project study alternatives. The AA will incorporate conceptual engineering
information and will identify feasible and practicable alternatives to carry forward for review and evaluation in
the project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the San Francisco to
San Jose section of the California High-Speed Train Project (CHSTP). The AA will provide information that
highlights and compares the alternatives, and will explain why some alternatives will be retained while others
will be dropped from further study in the EIR/EIS. The Authority and the FRA will make the results of the AA
available for public input.
Where do the alternatives come from? The alternatives will take into account previous work conducted
for the Statewide Program EIR/EI5. For the San Francisco to San Jose section, the program document
identified the Caltrain right-of-way as the CHSTP route, with stations in San FranCiSCO, Millbrae, and San Jose.
Optional stations will be considered in Redwood City, Palo Alto, and Mountain View. In addition, the
Authority and FRA will consider public and agency comments provided during a series of public scoping
meetings held this past spring. In addition, input received from the community more recently will also be
considered.
How detailed are the alternatives? The AA evaluation will consider preliminary project features based on
planning and engineering at a 2% to 4% level of engineering design. This level of detail is enough to
understand if an alternative can feasibly be constructed and if the alternative might encounter significant
environmental, community, and construction-related impacts. In the San Francisco to San Jose section, with
the proposed use of the Caltrain right-of-way, the AA will describe the alternatives based on alignment and
"vertical profile;" that is, whether the alignment will be below ground, at-grade, or elevated.
How will the EIR/EIS study alternatives be identified? The Authority has established a ten-step
process to identify practicable and feasible alternatives for study in the EIR/EIS. The steps are illustrated in
the chart below and described in greater detail on the next page. In the gray boxes below, the following
abbreviations are used: PMT = Program Management Team, providing guidance on the design of the overall
HST system and to each of the regional planning and engineering teams on behalf of the Authority; CHSRA =
California High-Speed Rail Authority; FRA = Federal Railroad Administration; and AG = California Attorney
General's Office.
2009
Initial
Development
of Alternatives
L Agencyl
Publici
Stakeholde ....
Outreach
Alternatives Analysis Process
·11~.~~M'i~ ," '.f .:~ .... ,c~r:(~ ~ ~ :~
I FRAI AG '
. Revu:tw'".
. . . -~. 1
Final
Alternatives
AnalYSIS
Report
AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER ~ANUARY FEBRUARY 2010
Project
Description
September 2009
Step 1: Initial Development of Alternatives (August 2009)
Using the selected program-level corridor alignments and station locations, the planning and
engineering team will develop site-specific project alternatives considering existing conditions and
constraints as well as information gathered during the scoping process. It is essential to start with
the selected program alternatives as these were identified as likely to contain the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) with concurrence by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps through the Clean Water Act Section 404
alternatives analysis process.
A presentation will be made to the PMT/ Authority/FRA on the initial alternatives developed for further
consideration through the AA process based on:
• the program-level selected alternatives, alignment routes, and station locations, and
consideration of purpose and need/project objectives;
• public and agency input received during and after scoping; and
• further analysis of the study area to identify alternatives and/or variations and design options that are practicable and feasible.
Step 2: Early Outreach to Agencies, Public, and Stakeholders (September/October 2009)
The alternatives identifjed for further consideration will be presented informally to the local and
regional planning agencies, transportation agencies, and environmental resource agencies in
meetings. A similar effort will be conducted to inform the public. Coordination with Cooperating
Agencies will also be conducted at this time.
Step 3: Revise Definition of Alternatives (October/November 2009)
Based on information and feedback received from early outreach, the Initial Project Alternatives may
be revised and then resubmitted to the Program Management Team (PMT)/Authority/FRA for review.
Step 4: PMT/Authority/FRA Project Alternatives Workshop (November 2009)
A workshop will be conducted by the planning and engineering team with the PMT/Authority/FRA to
review the details and information regarding all alternatives studied to date. This will include
discussion of severe design constraints or conflicts, and environmental impacts and benefits for each
alternative. The purpose of the workshop is to get direction from the Authority and FRA on further
investigation of alternatives, to identify alternatives requiring no further analysis, and to evaluation
conclusions.
Step 5: Alternatives Analysis (M) Draft Report (December 2009)
An AA Draft Report will be prepared that presents the results of the AA process to this point.
Step 6: PMT/Authority/FRA/AG Review (December 2009/January 2010)
The AA Draft Report will be reviewed by the PMT/Authority/FRA. When approved for release, the AA
Draft Report will be posted to the Authority's website.
Step 7: Presentation to CAHSRA Board (December 2009/January 2010)
The results of the AA Draft Report will be presented to the Board as an information agenda item.
Step 8: Outreach to Agencies, Public, and Stakeholders on the M Draft Report (January 2010)
U.S. Department
of Transportation Federal Railroad
Administration
Page 2
Septem ber 2009
The alternatives identified for inclusion in the EIR/EIS will be presented to the local and regional
planning agencies, transportation agencies, and environmental resource agencies through a series of
meetings. A similar effort will be conducted to inform the public. Coordination with cooperating
agencies will also be conducted at this time.
Step 9: Alternatives Analysis (M) Final Report (February 2010)
The AA Draft Report will be finalized and will include the results of outreach meetings and
consultation with cooperating and other agencies. The AA Final Report will be reviewed by the
PMT/ Authority/FRA and posted to the Authority's website when approved for release.
Step 10: Prepare Draft Project Description (February 2010)
Based on the Final AA report, a project description will be prepared that will identify a preferred
alternative. The project description will include information about the CHSTP for the San Francisco to
San Jose section including the horizontal and vertical alignment, the stations/ other facilities such as
sites for maintenance, and the operating schedule for the trains .. Design options to the preferred
alternative, if any, will also be identified. Options may include variations to a vertical alignment, to a
station location or layout, or to any other feature of the design and operation of the HST system that
need to be studied to provide the Authority, FRA/ and the public with reasonable choices to make an
informed decision about the project. The EIR/EIS will evaluate how the preferred alternative
changes existing baseline conditions and how significant the changes are.
How are the number and range of alternatives to be narrowed? Broad sets of criteria have been
defined to help explain the goals of the HST system. Then, specific measures have been developed to
evaluate and compare the project alternatives. The first goal focuses on meeting the purpose and need.
Project Goa I Criteria Measure
Purpose and Need Travel time 30 minutes San Jose to San
Francisco (Express Service)
Intermodal connectivity (Stations) Connections with other
transit services and airports
Operations and maintenance costs Relative measure (None,
Low, Medium/ High) relative
to one-another
The following criteria and measures seek to expand on HST goals to be supportive of local land use
plans, be feasible from an engineering perspective, minimize disruption to neighborhoods and
communities, minimize impacts to environmental resources, and minimize impacts to the natural
envi ro nment.
Project Goal
Land Use Planning
Support
Criteria
Sites within V2 mile available for significant
Transit Oriented Development
Consistent with existing plans and policies
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Railroad
Administration
Measure
Acres suited to
redevelopment/revitalization
within 112 mile
Review of existing zoning /
redevelopment and general
plans
Page 3
Constructa bility
Neighborhood
Compatibility
Protection of
Environmental
Resources and
Natural
Environment
Vertical profile feasibility, compatibility with
adjacent segments
Horizontal clearance through existing structures
(columns, bents, etc.)
Major utility relocations
Ability to maintain Caltrain operations during
construction
Ability to maintain critical traffic operations
during construction
Construction costs
Property displacements -acquisitions (full and
partial)
Properties with access affected
Local traffic effects
Development/construction foot print (stations)
Waterways/wetlands/sensitive species habitat
Cultural resources (historic, archaeological,
paleontological)
Parklands
Noise and vibration
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Railroad
Administration
September 2009
Vertical control points,
grades, length of curves,
combined vertical and
horizontal curves, vertical
profile of adjacent
segments
Locations of existing
columns, bents and width of
structu res
Existence of major utilities
requiring relocation
Qualitative assessment of
High, Medium, Low
Qualitative assessment of
High, Medium, Low
Relative measure (None,
Low, Medium, High
compared to one another)
Number of full or partial
residential acquisitions
Number of properties with
changes in access
Street closures/un-
resolvable capacity
constraints
Property
acquisitions/relocation to
accommodate station
(residential/commercial)
Potential jurisdictional
wetlands and habitat for
I isted species
Listed historic
resources/known
a rchaeolog ica 1/ known
paleontological sites
Existing
parklands/community
facilities that provide
recreation (Section 4(f))
Sensitive receptors
(schools, hospitals,
convalescent homes,
daycare) within FRA
screening distance
Page 4
September 2009
Protection of Visua 1/ scen ic Obstruction of designated
Environmental view corridors and scenic
Resources and resources by elevated
Natural structures
Environment
(Continued) Geologic/soils Soil and slope constraints
(high landslide
susceptibility), seismic
constraints (very strong
groundshaking, cross active
faults)
Hazardous materials Known hazardous
materials/wastes sites from
data base lists
What might be reasons to not advance an alternative for further study? The AA identifies the
alternatives evaluation process. Not all alternatives will be evaluated in the EIR/EI5. Reasons that could
provide a rationale to exclude an alternative from further consideration include:
• Alternative does not meet the purpose and need and project objectives.
• Alternative has environmental or engineering issues that would make approvals infeasible.
• Alternative is not feasible or practical to construct.
• Alternative does not reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts.
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Railroad
Administration
Page 5
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO ROSEMARY RALSTON
UPON HER RETIREMENT
WHEREAS, Rosemary Ralston has served in various capacities for the Utilities Department from
October 13, 1981 to September 11, 2009 as Customer Service Representative, Executive Assistant,
Administrator, Senior Administrator; and
WHEREAS, Rosemary Ralston was essential in the analysis and management of all dollars budgeted
for Utilities programs and projects, and through her nimble fingers and sharp mind worked quickly
through spreadsheets and budget reports to keep the Utilities Department within budget throughout the
years; and
WHEREAS, Rosemary Ralston’s in-depth knowledge of Utilities’ various operations, capital projects,
and commodities purchasing protocols made her a key participant in the many aspects of Utilities
planning, implementation, and communication efforts; and
WHEREAS, Rosemary Ralston developed the award winning Household Hazardous Waste Program
and the Right Tree in the Right Place Program, and was instrumental in the development of the
Management Academy that originated in the Utilities Department; and
WHEREAS, Rosemary Ralston’s strong relationships across departmental lines helped to achieve
solutions to the benefit of not only the Utilities Department, but of other departments as well; and
WHEREAS, Rosemary Ralston’s wisdom, sound judgment and well-placed sense of humor was the
reason that so many employees from all divisions within the department sought her expert advice and
supportive counsel for 28 years; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto desires to recognize the meritorious service of Rosemary Ralston.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto
hereby commends the outstanding public service and records its appreciation as well as the appreciation
of the citizens of this community for the service and contribution rendered during her 28 years of
employment with the City.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: November 16, 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 JANNETTE HUBER
UPON HER RETIREMENT
WHEREAS, Jannette Huber has served the City of Palo Alto from February 3, 1975 to December 3,
2009 as Utilities Trainee, Water Quality Control Plant Operator I and II, Senior Operator, and Operations
Supervisor; and
WHEREAS, Jannette began employment in Palo Alto in a temporary position funded by CETA, a
federal jobs training program that helped place women in nontraditional jobs; and
WHEREAS, Jannette has the distinction of being Palo Alto’s first and longest serving female water
quality control plant operator as well as being California’s first female recipient of the Water
Environment Federation’s quarter-century operator award; and
WHEREAS, Jannette Huber has received numerous commendations including her service in
continuing operation of the treatment plant after the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake; and
WHEREAS, Jannette Huber has demonstrated dedication and initiative and growth in her work; and
WHEREAS, Jannette Huber has enhanced the quality of life and protected the public health of citizens
of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, East Palo Alto Sanitary District, and Stanford
University by operating the Regional Water Quality Control Plant; and
WHEREAS, Jannette Huber, in her 34 years of service has safeguarded and enhanced the water
quality of the Palo Alto Baylands and San Francisco Bay through careful plant operation and treatment of
billions of gallons of wastewater; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto desires to recognize the meritorious service of Jannette Huber.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby
commends the outstanding public service of Jannette Huber and records its appreciation as well as the
appreciation of the citizens of the service area served by the Regional Water Quality Control Plant for the
service and contribution rendered during her 34 years of employment with the City of Palo Alto.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: November 16, 2009
ATTEST: APPROVED:
___________________ ______________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________ ______________________
City Attorney City Manager
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2009 CMR:423:09
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Approval of a Contract with Elite Landscaping Incorporated in the Amount
of $1,220,075 for Construction of Greer Park Renovation and Pump Station
Replacement -Capital Improvement Program Project PE-09002
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract
(Attachment A) with Elite Landscaping Incorporated in the amount of $1,220,075 for
construction of the Greer Park renovation and Pump Station Replacement project; and
2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change
orders to the contract with Elite Landscaping Incorporated for related, additional but
unforeseen work that may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not
exceed $122,000.
BACKGROUND
Johrt 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,
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 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 melding them into a single
concept for each area. These intermediate designs were again presented to interested members
CMR:423:09 Page 10f5
4
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 Public Art Commission also provided input on the location of the artwork to be
included in this project.
This project required a staff level Architectural Review Board (ARB) review. Input from
Planning & Community Environment staff included comments on location and style of some site
furnishings, including bike racks, and on aesthetic screening of the new pump station. A staff
level ARB approval was issued on September 10,2009. These and other issues have since been
addressed in the proposed improvement plan. The revised improvement plan was 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, which Council did by unanimous action at its meeting on
September 21, 2009.
A public meeting was held on November 10, 2009 in conjunction with the Midtown Residents
Association to discuss proposed tree removals associated with the project. The bid documents
show nine trees to be removed in order to accommodate the proposed improvements, and
seventy-four new replacement trees would be planted to implement the base bid landscape plan.
Any revisions that may result from public discourse on the matter would be accommodated
through the change order process after the contract has been awarded.
DISCUSSION
Scope of Improvements
Primary components of the proposed renovation will include development of the vacant Phase
IV area, complete replacement of the park irrigation system, replacement of the children's play
area, miscellaneous improvements to picnic areas, site furnishings and park landscaping. A
pump station and blending tank for reclaimed water serving the park irrigation system is located
on the undeveloped parcel, and its replacement is also included in the main scope of the project.
Alternate bid items to be constructed depending on available budget include improvements to the
dog run, fencing improvements to a softball field that would accommodate temporary dual use as
a dog run, installation of a centralized trash and recycling enclosure, and temporary fencing that
would allow public access to the skate bowl during construction.
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 but will retain its existing
footprint. The existing sand will be replaced by resilient rubber surfacing and a smaller sand
play area will be constructed adjacent to the new play apparatus. The existing intemctive
sculpture of a dolphin will remain and be integrated into the hew design.
The irrigation system and pump station have deteriorated significantly over the years and require
an inordinate amount of costly and time consuming remedial maintenance in order to remain
functional. The new distribution system will be constructed with materials better able to
CMR:423:09 Page 2 of5
withstand the corrosive effects of reclaimed water, and the new pump station will be of adequate
size and power to accommodate the demands of the entire park landscape.
Schedule
The projected duration of construction activity is nine months, from December 2009 through
August 2010, during which time the park will remain closed to the public, except for the skate
park. 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 proposed project time line
reflects a maximum of 180 calendar days for the completion of all work pertaining to the pump
station and irrigation system, and 270 calendar days for the completion of work pertaining to all
other park amenities. This would allow time for the renovated turf to grow in and become
adequately established for use by recreational leagues upon completion of construction.
Staff has worked with the consultant to explore the feasibility in terms of safety and cost
effectiveness of keeping the skate bowl open during some or all of the construction phase, and an
add alternate bid item accommodating this extra level of accessibility will be incorporated into
the contract.
Bid Process
A notice inviting formal bids for the Greer Park Improvements and Pump Station Replacement
project was posted at City Hall on October 19,2009 and sent to 11 builder's exchanges and 35
general contractors. The bidding period was 21 days, and bids were received from 8 qualified
contractors on November 10, 2009 (see Attachment B for a summary of all bids received on the
project). Base bids ranged from a low of$I,137,100 to a high of$I,551,145.
ummarvo I S fB'dP rocess
Bid NamelNumber IFB # 134205 Greer Park Improvements
Proposed Length of Project 270 days
No. of Bids Mailed to Contractors 35
No. of Bids Mailed to Builder's 11
Exchanges
Total Days to Respond to Bid 22
Pre-Bid Meeting? Yes
Number of Company Attendees at 20
Pre-Bid
Number of Bids Received: 8
Bid Price Range From a low of$I,137,100 to a high of$I,551,145 . "'Detailed bid summary prOVided In Attachment B .
Staff has reviewed both bids submitted and recommends that the bid of$I,137,100, submitted by
Elite Landscaping Incorporated be accepted and that Elite Landscaping Incorporated be declared
the lowest responsible bidder. The bid is 24% below the engineer's estimate of $1,489,662. The
low bids for this project can be attributed to the significantly depressed economic conditions,
which are highly conducive to competitive bidding,
CMR:423:09 Page 3 of5
Four add alternate bid items were included in the project: Add Alternate No.1 includes minor
improvements to the existing dog run; Add Alternate No.2 includes the installation of additional
fencing along the perimeter of one softball field in order to accommodate dual use in the future
as a temporary dog run area; Add Alternate No.3 includes construction of a centrally located
storage area for trash and recycling bins, and Add Alternate No.4 includes installation of
additional temporary fencing to allow continued use of the skate bowl during construction.
Based on funds available for the project, staff recommends awarding add alternate bid items 1
through 4 in the amount of $82,975 for a total contract amount of $1,220,075. The contingency
amount of $122,000, which equals 10% percent of the total contract, is requested to resolve
unforeseen problems and/or conflicts that may arise during the construction period.
Staff checked references supplied by the contractor for previous .work performed and found no
significant complaints. Staff also checked with the Contractor's State License Board and found
that the contractor has an active license on file.
RESOURCE IMPACT
In fiscal year 2007-08 the City Council appropriated $400,000 for CIP Project PE-09002, Greer
Park Phase IV Improvements, arid 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 $1,450,000 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
A Negative Declaration was adopted for the Greer Park Master Plan on May 12, 1983. The
Phase IV and related project components are categorically exempt under Section 15301, 15302
and 15304 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Contract
Attachment B: Bid Summary
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CMR:423:09
CHRISTOPHER RAFFERTY
Landscape Architect
·If S. dE{iJdf---
Director of Public Works
Page 4 of5
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR:423:09
AITACHMENT A
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Contract No. C10134205
City of Palo Alto
and
Elite Landscaping, Inc.
SECTION 1.
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS .................................... 1
'1.1 Recitals ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Definitions ............................................................................................................................ 1
SECTION 2. 'rHE PROJECT ................................................................................................... 1
SECTION 3. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ....................................................................... 1
LIST OF DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................................... 1
3.2 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE ................................................................. ; ............. 2
SECTION 4. 'rHE WORK ........................................................................................................ 2
SECTION 5. PRO .. IECT TEAM ................................................................................................ 2
SECTION 6. TIME OF COMPLETION .................................................................................... 2
6.1 Time Is of Essence .............................................................................................................. 3
6.2 Commencement of Work ................................................................................................... 3
6.3 Contract Time ..................... , ..............•................................................................................ 3
6.4 Liquidated Damages ......... "' ............................... "' ................................ "' ............................... 3
6.4.1 Entitlement. .................................................................................................................. 3
6.4.2 Daily Amount ............................................................................................................... 3
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy ....................................................................................................... 3
6.4.4 Other Remedies .......................................................................................................... 3
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time .......................................................................................... 3
SECTION 7. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR .............................................................. 4
7.1 Contract Sum ...................................................................................................................... 4
7.2 Full Compensation ............................................................................................................. 4
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work ........................................................................ 4
7.3.1 Self Performed Work .................... , .............................................................................. 4
7.3.2 Subcontractors ............................................................................................................ 4
Construction Contract Rev. October 9. 2009
SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE ....................................................................................... 4
SECTION 9. INDEMNIFiCATION ............................................................................................ 5
9.1 Hold Harmless ........................................... , .. " .................................................................... 5
9.2 Survival ...••............................................•........•..........................................•..••.........•........... 5
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION ...................................................................................... 5
SECTION 11. INSURANCE AND BONDS ................................................................................ 5
SECTION 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST 'rRANSFERS ............................................................ 5
SECTION 13. NOTICES ............................................................................................................... 6
13.1 Method of Notice ................................................................................................................ 6
13.2 Notice Recipients ............................................................................................................... 6
13.3 Change of Address ...•...•...•..•.•••...•.•..••.•.••••....•...............••••••••••••••.•••••.••••••...•...•................. 7
SECTION 14. DISPUTE RESOLUTION ................................................................................... 7
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes ...................................................................................... 7
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes ........................................................................................... 7
14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes ................................................................................................ 7
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election ................................................................................................. 7
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute ...................................................................................... 8
14.3.1 By Contractor ............................................................................................................... 8
14.3.2 By City .......................................................................................................................... 8
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process .............................................................................. 8
14.4.1 Direct Negotiations ...................................................................................................... 8
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes ...................................................................................... 9
14.4.3 Mediation ..................................................................................................................... 9
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration ....................................................................................................... 9
14.5 Non-Waiver ...•...................................•••.•.••.....•.•...................••..••..••.••...........•...•...••••••.••.•.• 10
SECTION 15. DEFAULT ......................................................................................................... 11
15.1 Notice of Default ............................................................................................................... 11
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default ............................................................................................ 11
SECTION 16. CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ................................................................... 11
16.1 Remedies Upon Default ................................................................................................... 11
Construction Contract ii Rev. October 9,2009
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services ............................................................................................. ' 11
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold ................................................................................................ 11
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract ......................................................................... 11
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default.. ..................................................... 11
16.1.5 ' Invoke the Performance Bond ................................................................................... 11
16.1.6 Additional Provisions ................................................................................................. 12
16.2 Delays by Sureties ..•.•...•••• ,1,1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 11 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 12
16.3 Damages to City ............................................................................................................... 12
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default ............................................................................................ 12
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses .......................................................................................... 12
16.5 Suspension by City for Convenience ............................................................................. 12
16.6 Termination Without Cause ............................................................................................ 13
16.6.1 Compensation ........................................................................................................... 13
16.6.2 Subcontractors .......................................................................................................... 13
16.7 Contractor's Duties Upon Termination .......................................................................... 13
SECTION 17. CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES .................................................. 14
17.1 Contractor's Remedies •...•......•••.•..•.••.••.••••••..•.••..••.•.•...•..............••....••....•....•...•••••••••..••.. 14
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage ................................................................................................... 14
17.1.2. For City's Non-Payment ............................................................................................. 14
17.2 Damages to Contractor ................................................................................................... 14
SECTION 18. ACCOUNTING RECORDS ............................................................................... 14
18.1 Financial Management and City Access ........................................................................ 14
18.2 Compliance with City Requests ...................................................................................... 14
SECTION 19. INDEPENDENT PAR1·,ES ................................................................................ 14
SECTION 20. NUISANCE .....•....••.......••••..••••.••••••••••••••••••...••..••....••.....••••...••....•••••.• ~!I" ••••••••••••• 15
SECTION 21. PERMITS AND LICENSES .............................................................................. 15
SECTION 22. WAiVER ................•..........••••• , ••• , ••.••••••.........•............. , ..•....•• ,', •••• ,', ••••.•.. ,"" •••••• 15
SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW ........................................................................................... 15
SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT .............................................................................. 15
SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT ............................................................................. 15
Construction Contract iii Rev. October 9, 2009
SECTION 26
SECTION 27
SECTION 28.
SECTION 29.
Construction Contract
PREVAILING WAGES ...................................................................................... 15
NON APPROPRIATION ................................................................................... 15
GOVERNMENTAL POWERS .......................................................................... 17
SEVERABILITY ................................................................................................ 17
-iv Rev. October 9, 2009
CONSTRUC1'ION CON'rRACT
THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on ("Execution Date") by and
between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and ELITE
LANDSCAPING, INC. ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following:
RE CITALS:
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the
State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the
statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City.
B. Contractor Is a Corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of
California, Contractor's License Number 645591. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the
State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the
obligations set forth in this Construction Contract.
C. On October 19, 2009, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the
Greer Park Renovation And Pump Station Replacement ("Projecf'). In response to the IFB, Contractor
submitted a bid.
D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contractforthe Project. and
other services as identified in the Bid Documents for the Project upon the following terms and
conditions.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set
forth and for other good and valuable conSideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows:
SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS.
1.1 Recitals.
All of the. recitals are incorporated herein by reference.
1.2 Definitions.
Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract anellor in the
General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract
and in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail.
SECTION 2 THE PROJECT.
The Project is the construction of the Greer Park Renovation And Pump Station Replacement
("Project").
SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
3,1 List of Documents.
The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as "Agreemenf' or "Bid
Documents") consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division
and are hereby incorporated by reference.
1 ) . Change Orders
2) Field Change Orders
3) Contract
4) Project Plans and Drawings
Construction Contract Rev. October 9,2009
5) Technical Specifications
6) Special Provisions
7) Notice Inviting Bids
8) Instructions to Bidders
9) General Conditions
10) Bidding Addenda
11 ) Invitation for Bids
12) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Affidavit
13) Reports listed in the Bidding Documents
14) Public Works Department's Standard Drawings and SpeCifications dated 2007 and
updated from time to time
15) Utilities Department's Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards dated
2005 and updated from time to time
16) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements
17) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations
18) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre-
Qualification Checklist (if applicable)
19) Performance and Payment Bonds
20) Insurance Forms
3.2 Order of Precedence. For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving
inconsistencies between and among the provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall
have the order of precedence as set forth in the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot
be resolved through the order of precedence, the City shall have the sole power to decide which
document or provision shall govern as may be in the best interests of the City.
SECTION 4 THE WORK.
The Work Includes all labor, materials, equipment, services, permits, fees, licenses and taxes, and all
other things necessary for Contractor to perform its obligations and complete the Project, including,
without limitation, any Changes approved by City. in accordance with the Contract Documents and all
Applicable Code Requirements.
SECTION 5 , PROJECT TEAM.
In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide
professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Project
requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other
members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the
Project.
SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION.
Construction Contract 2 Rev. October 9, 2009
6.1 Time Is of Essence.
Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents.
6.2 Commencement of Work.
Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City's Notice to Proceed.
6.3 Contract Time.
Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City's Notice to Proceed, and shall be
completed within two hundred seventy (270) calendar days after the commencement date
specified in the City's Notice to Proceed. Note -Pump station and irrigation system shall be
installed and fully operational within 180 calendar days after the commencement date
specified in the City's Notice to Proceed; all other park amenities shall be installed and fully
operational within 270 calendar days after the commencement date specified in the City's
Notice to Proceed.
6.4 Liquidated Damages.
6.4.1 Entitlement.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that if Contractor fails to fully and
satisfactorily complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will suffer, as a result
of Contractor's failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and
impracticable to ascertain. Such damages may include, but are not limited to:
(i) Loss of public confidence in City and its contractors and consultants.
(Ii) Loss of public use of public facilities.
(Iii) Extended disruption to public.
6.4.2 Dally Amount.
City and Contractor have reasonably endeavored, but failed, to ascertain the actual
damage that City will incur if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the
entire Work within the Contract Time. Therefore, the parties agree that in addition to
all other damages to which City may be entitled other than delay damages, in the
event Contractor shall fail to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within
the Contract Time, Contractor shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of
$500 per day for each Day occurring after the expiration of the Contract Time until
Contractor achieves SUbstantial Completion of the entire Work. The liquidated
damages amount is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the
amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work.
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that this liquidated damages provision
shall be City's only remedy for delay damages caused by Contractor's failure to
achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.4.4 Other Remedies.
City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have
where City's Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor's failure to
achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time.
The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and agreed to
by Change Order executed by City and Contractor in accordance with the requirements ofthe
Contract Documents.
Construction Contract 3 Rev. October 9,2009
SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR.
7.1 Contract Sum.
Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with
the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of One Million Two Hundred Twenty Thousand
Seventy~Five Dollars ($1.220,075.00). [fhis amount includes the Base Bid and all Add
Alternates.]
7.2 Full Compensation.
The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor
and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall
compensate City for all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the
elements or any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in
performance of the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and
any and all expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of the Work. The
Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change Orders Issued, executed and satisfactorily
performed in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents.
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work.
The Contract Sum shall be adjusted (either by addition or credit) for Changes in the Work
involving Extra Work or Deleted Work on the basis of both of the following:
(i) The sum of Allowable Costs as defined in Paragraph 7.2.5 ofthe General Conditions
to be added (for Extra Work) or credited (for Deleted Work) and
(ii) An additional sum (for Extra Work) or deductive credit (for Deleted Work) based on
Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups allowable pursuant
to this Section.
Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups set forth herein are the full
amount of compensation to be added for Extra Work or to be subtracted for Deleted Work that
is attributable to overhead (direct and indirect) and profit of Contractor and of its
Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors, of every Tier. Contractor Markup and
Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups, which shall not be compounded, shall be
computed as follows:
7.3.1 Markup Self-Performed Work.
10% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by Contractor with its own forces.
7.3.2 Markup for Work Performed by Subcontractors.
15% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by a first Tier Subcontractor with its own forces, plus 2.5% thereon for
Contractor's Markup.
SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE.
Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised
personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in
a manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize
in providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project.
Construction Contract 4 Rev. October 9, 2009
SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION.
9.1 Hold Harmless.
To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City,
its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents. employees, representatives and
volunteers (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel
acceptable to City, from and against any and all Losses arising directly or indirectly from, or in
any manner relating to any of, the following:
(i) Performance or nonperformance of the Work by Contractor or its Subcontractors or
Sub-subcontractors, of any tier;
(ii) Performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier, of any of the obligations under the Contract Documents;
(iii) The construction activities of Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors,
of any tier, either on the Site or on other properties;
(Iv) The payment or nonpayment by Contractor to any of its employees, Subcontractors or
Sub-subcontractors of any tier, for Work performed on or off the Site for the Project;
and
(v) Any personal injury, property damage or economic loss to third persons associated
with the performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier, of the Work.
However, nothing herein shall obligate Contractor to indemnify any Indemnitee for Losses
resulting from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee. Contractor
shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Nothing in the Contract
Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of
Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee.
9.2 Survival.
The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract.
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION.
As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance
of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin
color, gender, age, religion. disability, national origin. ancestry, sexual-orientation, housing status.
marital status, familial status, weight or'height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has
read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to
Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all
requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. '
SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.
On or before the Execution Date, Contractor shall-provide City with evidence that it has obtained
insurance and Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General
Conditions. Failure to do so shall be deemed a material breach of this Construction Contract.
SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.
City is entering into this Construction Contract based upon the stated experience and qualifications of
the Contractor and its subcontractors set forth in Contractor's Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not
assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly,
by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment,
hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void.
The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of
Contractor or of any general partner or Joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor. if the
Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the
Construction Contract 5 Rev. October 9, 2009
control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control
means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity.
SECTION 13 NOTICES.
13.1 Method of Notice.
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall
be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following:
(i) On the date delivered if delivered personally;
(ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage
prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided;
(iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission;
(iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or
(iv) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail.
13.2 Notice Recipients. .
All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Claims) from Contractor to City
shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be
addressed to City at:
To City:
Copyto:~
City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Administration
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn: Chris Rafferty
Or
D City of Palo Alto
Utilities Engineering
'250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn:
,In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be
provided to the following:
Palo Alto City Attorney's Office
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, California 94303
Attn.:
All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail.
Construction Contract 6 Rev. October 9, 2009
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to:
Elite Landscaping. Inc.
2972 Larkin Avenue
Clovis. CA 93612
13.3 Change of Address.
In the event of any change of address, the moving party shall notify the other party of the
change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace
any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided.
SEC'rION 14 DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall be resolved by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this
Section 14, in lieu of any and all rights under the law that either party have its rights
adjudged by a trial court or jury. All Contract Disputes shall be subject to the Contract
Dispute Resolution Process set forth in this Section 14, which shall be the exclusive
recourse of Contractor and City for such Contract Disputes.
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes.
14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall not include any of the following:
(i) Penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation imposed by a
governmental agency;
(Ii) Third party tort claims for personal injury, property damage or death relating
to any Work performed by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier;
(iii) False claims liability under California Government Code Section 1.2650, et.
seq.:
(iv) Defects in the Work first discovered by City after Final Payment by City to
Contractor;
(v) Stop notices; or
(vi) The right of City to specific performance or injunctive relief to compel
performance of any provision of the Contract Documents.
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election.
Matters that do not constitute Contract Disputes shall be resolved byway of an action
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, and shall
not be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process. However, the City
reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to treat such disputes as
Contract Disputes. Upon written notice by City of its election as provided in the
preceding sentence, such dispute shall be submitted by the parties and finally decided
pursuant to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the manner as required for
Contract Disputes, including, without limitation, City's right under Paragraph 14.4.2 to
defer resolution and final determination until after Final Completion of the Work.
Construction Contract 7 Rev.October9,2009
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute.
14.3.1 By Contractor.
Contractor's may commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process upon City's
written response denying all or part of a Claim pursuant to Paragraph 4.2.9 or 4.2.1 0
of the General Conditions. Contractor shall submit a written Statement of Contract
Dispute (as set forth below) to City within seven (7) Days after City rejects all or a
portion of Contractors Claim. Failure by Contractor to submit its Statement of
Contract Dispute in a timely manner shall result in City's decision by City on the Claim
becoming final and binding. Contractor's Statement of Contract Dispute shall be
signed under penalty of perjury and shall state with specificity the events or
circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and
the asserted effect on the Contract Sum and the Contract Time. The Statement of
Contract Dispute shall include adequate supporting data to substantiate the disputed
Claim. Adequate supporting" data for a Contract Dispute relating to an adjustment of
the Contract Time shall include both of the following:
(i) All of the scheduling data requir~d to be submitted by Contractor under the
Contract Documents to obtain extensions of time and adjustments to the
Contract Time and
(ii) A detailed, event-by-event description of the impact of each event on
completion of Work. Adequate data to support a Statement of Contract
Dispute involving an adjustment of the Contract Sum must include both of the
following:
(a) A detailed cost breakdown and
(b) Supporting cost data in such form and including such information and
other supporting data as required under the Contract Documents for
submission of Change Order Requests and Claims.
14.3.2 By City.
City's right to commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall arise at any
time following City's actual discovery of the circumstances giving rise to the Contract
Dispute. City asserts Contract Disputes in response to a Contract Dispute asserted
by Contractor. A Statement of Contract Dispute submitted by City shall state the
events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their
occurrence and the damages or other relief claimed by City as a result of such
events.
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process.
The parties shall utilize each of the following steps in the Contract Dispute Resolution
Process in the sequence they appear below. Each party shall participate fully and in
good faith in each step in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process, and good faith
effort shall be a condition precedent to the right of each party to proceed to the next
step in the process.
14.4.1 Direct Negotiations.
Designated representatives of City and Contractor shall meet as soon as possible
(but not later than ten (10) Days after receipt of the Statement of Contract Dispute) in
a good faith effort to negotiate a resolution to the Contract Dispute. Each party shall
be represented in such negotiations by an authorized representative with full
knowledge of the details of the Claims or defenses being asserted by such party in
the negotiations, and with full authority to resolve such Contract Dispute then and
there, subject only to City's obligation to obtain administrative and/or City CounCil
approval of any agreed settlement or resolution. If the Contract Dispute involves the
assertion of a right or claim by a Subcontractor or Sub-subcontractor, of any tier,
against Contractor that is in tum being asserted by Contractor against City ("Pass-
Through Claim"), then the Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor shall also have a
Construction Contract 8 Rev. October 9.2009
representative attend the negotiations, with the same authority and knowledge as
described above. Upon completion of the meeting, if the Contract Dispute is not
resolved, the parties may either continue the negotiations or any party may declare
negotiations ended. All discussions that occur during such negotiations and all
documents prepared solely for the purpose of such negotiations shall be confidential
and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152.
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes.
Following the completion of the negotiations required by Paragraph 14.4.1, all
unresolved Contract Disputes shall be deferred pending Final Completion of the
Project, subject to City's right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to require that the
Contract Dispute Resolution Process proceed prior to Final Completion. All Contract
Disputes that have been deferred until Final Completion shall be consolidated within a
reasonable time after Final Completion and thereafter pursued to resolution pursuant
to this Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties can continue informal
negotiations of Contract Disputes; provided, however, that such informal negotiations
shall not be alter the provisions of the Agreement deferring final determination and
resolution of unresolved Contract Disputes Until after Final Completion.
14.4.3 Mediation.
If the Contract Dispute remains unresolved after negotiaHons pursuant to Paragraph
14.4.1, the parties shall submit the Contract Dispute to non-binding mediation before
a mutually acceptable third party mediator .
. 1 Qualifications of Mediator. The parties shall endeavor to select a mediator
who is a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience
in public works construction contract law and in mediating public works
construction disputes. In addition, the mediator shall have at least twenty
(20) hours of formal training in mediation skills .
• 2 Submission to Mediation and Selection of Mediator. The party initiating
mediation of a Contract Dispute shall provide written notice to the other party
of its decision to mediate. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a
mediator within fifteen (15) Days after the receipt of such written notice, then
the parties shall submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association
(AAA) at its San Francisco Regional Office for selection of a mediator in
accordance with the AAA Construction Industry Mediation Rules .
• 3 Mediation Process. The location of the mediation shall be at the offices of
City. The costs of mediation shall be shared equally by both parties. The
mediator shall provide an independent assessment on the merits of the
Contract Dispute and recommendations for resolution. All discussions that
occur during the mediation and all documents prepared solely for the
purpose of the mediation shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to
California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152.
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration.
If the Contract Dispute is not resolved by mediation, then any party may submit the
Contract Dispute for final and binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of
California Public Contract Code Sections 10240, et seq. The award of the arbitrator
therein shall be final and may be entered as a judgment by any court of competent
jurisdiction. Such arbitration shall Qe conducted in accordance with the following:
.1 Arbitration Initiation. The arbitration shall be initiated by filing a complaint
in arbitration in accordance with the regulations promulgated pursuant to
California Public Contract Code Section 10240.5.
Construction Contract 9 Rev. October 9.2009
.2 Qualifications of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be approved by all
parties. The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or an attorney with at least five
(5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in
arbitrating public works construction disputes. In addition, the arbitrator shall
have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in arbitration skills. In the
event the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator. the provisions of Califomia
Public Contract Code Section 10240.3 shall be followed in selecting an
arbitrator possessing the qualifications required herein .
• 3 Hearing Days and Location. Arbitration hearings shall be held at the offices
of City and shall, except for good cause shown to and determined by the
arbitrator, be conducted on consecutive business days, without interruption or
continuance .
• 4 Hearing Delays. Arbitration hearings shall not be delayed except upon good
cause shown .
. 5 Recording Hearings. All hearings to receive evidence shall be recorded by
a certified stenographic reporter. with the costs thereof borne equally by City
and Contractor and allocated by the arbitrator in the final award .
. 6 Limitation of Depositions. The parties may conduct discovery in
accordance with the provisions of section 10240.11 of the Public Contract
Code; provided. however. that depositions shall be limited to both of the
following:
(i) Ten (10) percipient witnesses for each party and 5 expert witnesses
per party.
Upon a showing of good cause, the arbitrator may increase the number of
permitted depositions. An individual who is both percipient and expert shall,
for purposes of applying the foregoing numerical limitation only, be deemed
an expert. Expert reports shall be exchanged prior to receipt of evidence, in
accordance with the direction of the arbitrator, and expert reports (including
initial and rebuttal reports) not so submitted shall not be admissible as
evidence
.7 Authority of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have the authority to hear
dispositive motions and issue interim orders and interim or executory awards .
• 8 Waiver of Jury Trial. Contractor and City each voluntarily waives its right to
a jury trial with respect to any Contract Dispute that is subject to binding
arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 14.4.4.
Contractor shall include this provision in its contracts with its Subcontractors
who provide any portion of the Work.
14.5 Non-Waiver.
Participation in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall not waive, release or
compromise any defense of City, including, without limitation, any defense based on the
assertion that the rights or Claims of Contractor that are the basis of a Contract Dispute were
previously waived by Contractor due to Contractor's failure to comply with the Contract
Documents, including, without limitation, Contractor's failure to comply with any time periods
for providing notice of requests for adjustments of the Contract Sum or Contract Time or for
submission of Claims or supporting documentation of Claims.
Construction Contract 10 Rev. October 9,2009
SECTION 15 DEFAULT.
15.1 Notice of Default.
In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to
. perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any
provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in
the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract.
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.
Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations
under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may
reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be
reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2)
Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously
prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later
than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice.
SECTION 16 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
16.1 Remedies Upon Default.
If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set
forth above in Section 15, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity,
including, without limitation, the following:
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the
Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the
Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor
and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to
itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all
rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction
Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion,
appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or
Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs
Contractor to resume Work.
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default.
City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part,
upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 15.
City's election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be
communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner
specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of
termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless
otherwise provided therein.
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond.
City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself
all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond.
Construction Contract 11 Rev.Ocwber9,2009
16.1.6 Additional Provisions.
All of City's rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and
shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity.
Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not
waive the City's authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City's right
to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the
Agreement for breaches that are not material. City's determination of whether there
has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by
City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be
binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination
shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the
Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor
to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City.
16.2 Delays by Sureties.
Without limiting to any of City's other rights or remedies, City has the right to suspend the
performance of the Work by Contractor's sureties in the event of any of the following:
(i) The sureties' failure to begin Work within a reasonable time in such manner as to
insure full compliance with the Construction Contract within the Contract Time;
(ii) The sureties' abandonment of the Work;
(iii) If at any time City is of the opinion the sureties' Work is unnecessarily or
unreasonably delaying the Work;
(iv) The sureties' violation of any terms of the Construction Contract;
(v) The sureties' failure to perform according to the Contract Documents; or
(vi) The sureties' failure to follow City's instructions for completion of the Work within the
Contract Time.
16.3 Damages to City.
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default.
City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of
Contractor's default under the Contract Documents.
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses.
In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor's default under the Contract
Documents, City shall be entitled to withhold monies otherwise payable to Contractor
until Final Completion of the Project. If City incurs Losses due to Contractor's default,
then the amount of Losses shall be deducted from the amounts withheld. Should the
amount withheld exceed the amount deducted, the balance will be paid to Contractor
or its designee upon Final Completion of the Project. If the Losses incurred by City
exceed the amount withheld, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and
shall promptly remit same to City.
16.4 Suspension by City for Convenience.
City may. at any time and from time to time. without cause. order Contractor. in writing. to
suspend. delay. or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time. up to an
aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified
as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order. Contractor shall, at
City's expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs
allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension
of the Suspension. if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or. by Change Order,
delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or
expires. Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued
to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by
such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the
Work.
Construction Contract 12 Rev. October 9, 2009
16.5 Termination Without Cause.
City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part
or in whole by giving thirty (30) Days written notice to Contractor. The compensation allowed
under this Paragraph 16.5 shall be the Contractor's sole and exclusive compensation for such
termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or losses, including, but
not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other
consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination
without cause.
16.5.1 Compensation.
Following such termination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from
Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 16.5, City shall pay
the following to Contractor as Contractor's sole compensation for performance of the
Work:
.1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the
portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of
termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor .
• 2 For CloseoOut Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its
Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors for:
(i) Demobilizing and
(ii) Administering the close-out of Its participation in the Project
(including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not
including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty
(30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination •
• 3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the
Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work.
16.5.2 Subcontractors.
Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and
other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are
consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery
against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section.
16.6 Contractor's Duties Upon Termination.
Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless
the notice directs otherwise, do the following:
(i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified In the notice;
(ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities,
except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that Is not
discontinued;
(iii) Provide to City a description, in writing no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of
the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are
outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes,
payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of
the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or
modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine
necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor
to terminate the subcontract. purchase order or contract;
(iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable
terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and
(v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work
already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project
Site or in transit thereto.
Construction Contract 13 Rev. October 9,2009
SECTION 17 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
17.1 Contractor's Remedies.
Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the
following:
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage.
The Work is stopped for ~ixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of
Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any
Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other
than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of govemment, such as a declaration of a
national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any
work stoppage resulting from the City's issuance of a suspension notice Issued either
for cause or for convenience.
17.1.2 For City's Non-Payment.
If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after
receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract
(30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor's intention to terminate the
Construction Contract.
17.2 Damages to Contractor.
In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums
provided for in Paragraph 16.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole
and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses,
including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity. or
other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind.
SECTION 18 ACCOUNTING RECORDS.
18.1 Financial Management and City Access.
Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such Controls as may be
necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants
during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books,
estimates, take-ofts, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings,
receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this
Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later
of (I) final payment or (iI) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for
such longer period as may be required by law.
18.2 Compliance with City Requests.
Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 18 shall be a
condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor
against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract
Documents. City many enforce Contractor's obligation to provide access to City of its
business and other records referred to in Section 18.1 for inspection or copying by issuance
of a writ or a proviSional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent
jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court. without the necessity of oral testimony.
SECTION 19 INDEPENDENT PARTIES.
Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint
venturers of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of
Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein
set forth.
Construction Contract 14 Rev. October 9.2009
SECTION 20 NUISANCE.
Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in
connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract.
SECTION 21 PERMITS AND LICENSES.
Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor
shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other
government jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all
costs and expenses for such licenses, perm its, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No
other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City
inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies.
SECTION 22 WAIVER.
A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be
deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or
condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.
SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW.
This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the
State of California.
SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT.
This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes
all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be
amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.
The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the
Construction Contract or Final Completion, including. without limitation, all warranties, indemnities,
payment obligations, and City's right to audit Contractor's books and records,shall remain in full force
and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract.
SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES.
This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages
in the performance and implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to its authority as a
chartered city, has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages. The City
invokes the exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the
Project is funded one hundred percent (100%) by the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION.
This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo
Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year
in the event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at
any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year
and funds for this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in
the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.
Construction Contract 15 Rev. October 9, 2009
SECTION 28 AUTHORITY.
The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity
and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY. .
In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the
validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed
the date and year first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
D Purchasing Manager
IZI City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
APPROVED:
Public Works Director
Construction Contract 17
CONTRACTOR:
ELITE LANDSCAPING, INC.
By: ____________ _
Name: ---------------------------
Title: ____________ _
Rev. October 9, 2009
TACBMENTB
ITEM DESCRIPTION
Over/Under -Base -(0.24) -(0.23) -(0.22) -(0.21) -(0.21) -(0.15) -(0.12)
1 IAdd Alt. 1 -Dog Run Improvements 41,172 22,955 19,340 22,300 22,600 21,800 23,400 39,n5
Base Bid + 1 1,530,834 1,160,055 1,165,340 1,189,000 1,193,300 1.202,700 1,288,400 1.345.875
Alt. 2 -Softball Field Retrofit 78,126 28,450 41,833 30,550 38,250 38,700 42,600 64,500
Base Bid + 1,2 1,608,960 1,188,505 1,207,173 1,219,550 1,231,550 1,241,400 1,331,000 1,410,375
All. 3 -Trash & Recycling Enclosur 48,658 28,570 32,000 23,900 34,550 24,600 30,700 49,125
Base Bid + 1,2,3 1,657,618 1,217,075 1,239,173 1,243,450 1,266,100 1,266,000 1,361,700 1,459,500
4 IAdd A1t. 4 -Public Access Fencing 5,103 3,000
Base Bid + 1. 2. 3. 4 1.662.721 1,220,075
Page 1 BID SUMMARY.xls
Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
CITY OF PALO ALTO
OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
November 16, 2009
Correction to Item 7: Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept the
City Auditor's Office Fiscal Year 2010 Work Plan
It has been brought to our attention that the report copies in Item 7 were missing the odd numbered
pages. Attached is a complete set.
Respectfully submitted,
rJ(~?.hua;B~
Lynda Flores Brouchoud
City Auditor
Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, Califomia
CITY OF PALO ALTO
OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
November 16, 2009
Finance Committee Recornmendation to Accept the City Auditor's Office
Fiscal Year 2010 Work Plan
At its meeting on October 20, 2009, the Finance Committee unanimously recommended to the City
Council acceptance of the Auditor's Office 2010 Work Plan. We also plan to review the work plan
mid-year for additional Council input on appropriate revisions and updates.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynda Flores Brouchoud
City Auditor
Attachment A City Auditor's Office Fiscal Year 2010 Work Plan
Attachment B October 20, 2009 Finance Committee Minutes (pages 12-22)
CITY OF PALO ALTO
OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
Honorable City Council
Attention: Finance Committee
Palo Alto, California
City Auditor's Fiscal Year 2010 Work Plan
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENT A
October 20, 2009
The City Auditor's Office recommends that the Finance Committee review and recommend to the
City Council approval of the City Auditor's Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Work Plan.
BACKGROUND
Th~ mission of the City Auditor's Office is to promote honest, efficient, effective and fully
accountable City government. To fulfill this mission, the Auditor's Office conducts audits and
examinations of City departments, programs, and services. The purpose of these audits and
examinations is to provide the City Council and City management with-information and evaluations
regarding the effectiveness and efficiency with which City resources are employed, the adequacy of
systems of internal controls, and compliance with City poliCies and procedures and regulatory
requirements.
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires the City Auditor to submit an annual plan to the City Council
for review and approval. This report presents the City Auditor's Work Plan for FY 2010.
As part of our annual review of potential audit subjects, we solicit audit suggestions from City
Council members, members of the public, and staff. We also use information from the City's
adopted operating and capital budgets and financial statements to prepare a spreadsheet model of
potential audit subjects. The model, called the "Citywide Risk Assessment," helps prioritize audit
work by comparing the follOwing ten factors: proposed 2010 expenditures, three-year expenditure
trend, -fund type, proposed five-year capital expenditures, estimated 2010 revenue, three·year
revenue trend, number of staff (budgeted full time equivalents), fund balance, audit requests, and
date of last audit. The results of the Citywide Risk Assessment are attached (see Attachment A).
DISCUSSION -OF PROPOSED AUDIT ASSIGNMENTS
The list of proposed aSSignments for FY 2010 includes a mix of audits and special projects that
address a wide range of concerns and are consistent with the City Auditor's areas of responsibility.
Our proposed work plan supports one of the City Council's Top 3 priorities •• Civic Engagement
(through the Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report). As we complete individual audit
projects, we also look for opportunities to assess progress in areas of City Council priorities.
City Auditor's FY 2010 Work Plan Page 1 of4 October 20, 2009
Of the top ten highest risk areas identified by our Citywide Risk Assessment, the Utilities Department
had the highest· risk (six of ten). This audit was first included in last year's workplan, and the
Auditor's Office selected a consultant with Utilities 'auditing expertise to begin this audit during the
current fiscal year. The Planning & Community Development Department was the highest scoring
General Fund program in the risk assessment,and the proposed workplan includes a
recommendation to add this ,to our performance audit projects.
We welcome your comments and suggestions to help ensure we prioritize our work plan to meet the
City Council's needs. We have included an outline summary of the work plan, along with the
affected City departments (See Attachment B). Following is a description of each of the projects.
AUDIT ADMINISTRATION, FOLLOW-UP, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES:
1. Annual Audit Work Plan and Quarterly Status Reports -The Auditor's Office submits
quarterly reports to the City Council outlining project status and progress towards completing
the assignments on the annual work plan.
2. Annual Audit Recommendation Status Report-The Municipal Code requires the City
Auditor to issue an annual report on the implementation status of recommendations from
recently completed audits. We also meet with departments' mid-year to discuss progress
towards implementing open audit recommendations.
REVENUE AUDITS:
,3. Sales Tax Allocation Reviews (on-going) -Sales tax represents about 14 percent, or $20
million, of projected General Fund revenue for 2009-10. We contract with MuniServices for
quarterly sales tax audit and information services, and we also conduct sales tax audits in-
house. The purpose of these audits is to identify misallocations of local sales tax. In addition,
MuniServices prepares the quarterly sales tax information reports that are provided to the City
Council as information items. Target date: on-going
4. Alternative Fuel Tax Credit Recoveries (NEW) -As part of the Auditor's Office continuous
revenue monitoring efforts and preliminary findings from the vehicle audit, the Auditor's Office
is initiating revenue recoveries from the Federal government's alternative fuel tax program,
which is in effect through December 31, 2009.
FINANCIAL AUDITS AND PROCEDURAL REVIEWS:
5. . Annual External Financial Audit (contracted audit service) -lihe City Charter requires that
the City Council engage an independent certified public accounting firm (currently Maze &
ASSOCiates) to conduct an annual external audit. Target date for completion of the audit of the
June 30, 2008 financial statements: Dec-2009
6. Controls Review of SAP Upgrade and Utilities Module Implementation (on-going) -The
City's SAP upgrade is occurring in two phases -Phase I on Employee Self-
ServicelManagement Self-Service was completed July 2008. Phase II on Utilities billing is
nearing completion. The Auditor's Office has reviewed' general controls throughout the
upgrade. Target date: Nov -2009
City Auditor's FY 2010 Work Plan Page 2 of4 October 20. 2009
7. SAP Account Sampling (NEW) -The City has implemented the SAP system and
upgrades to serve as an enterprise management system for a variety of key financial
information and transactions including payroll, utility billing and financial transactions.
The purpose of these reviews will be to sample accounts within the SAP system to test for
internal controls and efficiencies. Target date: TBD
8. American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) monitoring (NEW) -President Obama
'signed the ARRA in February 2009, providing approximately $787 billion in federal stimulus
grant funds, including $144 billion for state and local fiscal relief. The ARRA requires
unprecedented accountability and transparency of the grant funds. The Auditor's Office will
identify best practices and internal controls to share with departments receiving ARRA funds.
Target date: on-going
PERFORMANCE AUDITS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS:
9. Annual Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) Report (in process) -This will be the
8th annual SEA report. The purpose of SEA reporting is to strengthen public accountability and
help improve government efficiency and effectiveness. Palo Alto's SEA report provides data
about the costs, quality, quantity, and timeliness of City services. It includes a variety of
comparisons to other cities, and the results of an annual citizen survey (the National Citizen
Survey). Target date: Jan-2010 .
10. Audit of Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund (in process) -The purpose of this
review is to evaluate economy, efficiency and effectiveness of fleet and equipment
replacement and maintenance operations. Target date: Fall-2009
11. Citywide Cash Handling (in process) -on July 7,2008, the City Council voted to have the City
Auditor study Citywide cash handling and travel reimbursements, oversight procedures, and
the City Auditor's history of audits on cash services. Target date: Feb-2010
12. Prospective Analysis of Bond Measure Proceeds (in process) -Through the 2008 voter-
approved Measure N, the City is preparing to issue general obligation bonds to rebuild the
Mitchell Park Library and adjacent community center, and renovate the Main and Downtown
libraries. This audit will prospectively evaluate controls for the use of the general obligation
bond funds to ensure the funds are used effiCiently and in compliance with federal regulations
for the use of tax-exempt bond funds. Target date: Spring-2010
,
13. 'Audit of Purchasing Card Transactions (carryover from FY 2008-09) -The purpose of this
audit is to determine the adequacy of controls over purchasing card transactions, and to
assess compliance with existing guidelines and procedures. Target date: TBD
14. Utilities Department (carryover from FY 2008~09, consultant selected) -Several of the
highest 'risk areas identified in the Citywide Risk Assessment pertain to the Utilities
Department. This audit will conduct a preliminary survey of the Utilities Department and
develop an audit scope to identify opportunities for improvements in efficiency and
effectiveness. Target Date: TBD
City Auditor's FY 2010 Work Plan Page 3 of4 October 20. 2009
15. Wastewater Treatment Fund (carryover from FY 2008-09) -The Regional Water Quality
Control Plant provides services to Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford,' and
East Palo Alto. With proposed revenues of $22 million, proposed expenditures of $20 million,
this is one of the areas consistently targeted by our annual citywide risk assessment model.
The purpose of.our audit would be to review the cost-sharing agreements and allocation of
charges to partner agencies. Target date: TBD
16. Planning and Community Development Permit Process (NEW) ~ According to the 2007-08
SEA Report, Planning and Community Development revenue increased 68%, the number of
inspections increased 71 %, and the number of building permits issued decreased 6%. The
Department has also implemented the new Green Building program and certifications. This
audit will focus on the efficiency and effectiveness of the permit process.
Next Steps
After discussing the proposed Work Plan with the Finance Committee, we will ask the City Council
to approve the FY 201 0 Work Plan in November. Meanwhile, we are continuing work on carryover
items from the FY 2008-09 Work Plan. The City Auditor also plans to review the work plan with the
City Council mid-year for appropriate revisions and updates.
As audit work proceeds, we issue quarterly reports describing the status and progress towards
completing each of the approved assignments. The quarterly reports are issued to the City Council
. and discussed at the Finance Committee. Generally, audit reports are heard at the committee level
,(either by the Finance Committee or the Policy and Services Committee) unless the item is
considered to be of interest to the full City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
cX~?~;t3~
Lynda Flores Brouchoud
City Auditor
A~achment A: Citywide Risk Assessment Model
Attachment B: FY 2010 Work Plan Summary
City Auditors FY 2010 Work Plan Page 40f4 October 20. 2009
REF.
NUM.
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
s
C
2009-10 0
CITY CITY PROGRAM! PROPOSED R
DEPARTMENT PotentIal audit subject EXPEND E
Attachment A
Citywide Risk Assessment
s s
THREE C C 2010·14
YEAR 0 0 FlV&YEAR
EXPEND R FUND R "CAPITAL
TREND' E TYPE E EXPEND
s s s s s s
C C THREE C C C C o 2009-10 o YEAR 0 2OO9-1Cl 0 0 0
R PROPOSED R REVENUE R NO. OF R BEG. FUND R AUDIT R
E REVENUE E TREND E STAFF E BALANCE E REQUEST E
RELATIVE WEIGHTS OF FACTORS 5 5 5 1 5 5 5
UTlLmES
PWD
UTlLmES
UTILITIES
HRlASD
PLANNING
UTILITIES
UTILITIES
HRlASD
UTlLmES
PlANNING
PWD
CITYWIDE
CSD
UTILITIES
CITYWIDE
CSD
UTILITIES
PLANNING
PWD
ASD
CSD
CROSS-DEPT
FIRE
PWD
POLICE
POLICE
PWD
UTILITIES
LIBRARY
UTILITIES
PWD
UTlLmES
ASD
MANAGER
PWD
PLANNING
CSD
LIBRARY
CROSS-DEPT
POLICE
CITYWIDE
CITYWIDE
PWD
WATER FUND
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
WASTEWATER COLlECTlON FUND
GENERAL BENEFITS AND INSURANCE FUND
HOUSING 1N-LIEU FUNDS
ELECTRIC FUND
FIBER OPTIC FUND
RETIREE HEALTH BENEFIT FUND
GAS FUND
50,819,348 10
20,458,269 9
32,583,185 10
16,380,916 8
44,614,400 10
2,690,000 5
137,079,000 10
1,576,500 4
6,702,182 7
45.853.012 10
53% 10 SPEC 10
~ 1 SPEC 10
109% 10 SPEC 10
9% 1 SPEC 10
11% 1 SPEC 10
SPEC 10
52,609,000 7
12,350,000 4
24,309,000 6
20,477,000 6
o
o 201% 10
7% SPEC 10 46,850,000 7
126% 10 SPEC 10 2,000,000 2
-3% 3 SPEC 10 0
-4% 3 SPEC 10 31,075,000 6
66,026,634 10
21,987,403 (I
35,682,000 10
15,987,783 8
44,614,400 10
2,434,000 5
129,944,000 10
2,990,159 5
6,702,182 7
45,924,898 10
148% 5
5% 3
3210% 5
4%3
11% 3
168% 5
14% 3
24% 3
-3%
.3%
47
70
36
26
5
109
6
5
49
6 22,092,000 9
7 13,843,000 8
5 0
4 12,437,000 8
1 3,285,000 6
o 9,600,000 7
9 156,424,000 10
1 0
1 29,756,000 9
6 17,901,000 8
2002
2007
2002
2003
2007
2002
o
10
o
10
10
10
o
10
10
o
PlANNINGANDCOMMENVIRONMTDEPT 9,865,369 7 -3% 3 GEN 10 0 5,639,364 8 -17%2 50 6 0 2009 1lI
CIf'·CAPlTALFUND 67,421,000 10 488% 10 CAP 5 130,425,000 9 0 0% 0 0 16,493,000 8 2005 10
OPERATING TRANSFERS-IN 8 NA 10 GEN 10 0 19,664,000 8 14% 3 0 0 0
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT 21,882,847 9 3% 1 GEN 10 0 7,864,698 7 4% 3 146 9 0 2003 10
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM 14,408,486 8 1~ 1 SPEC 10 0 721,000 3 ·18% 2 24 4 0 2007 10
SALARIES AND BENEFITS 92,717,073 10 3% 1 GEN 10 0 0 0% 0 1,055 10 0 2003 10
CUBBERLEY AND HUMAN SERVICES 3,363,930 6 -4% 3 GEN 10 0 167,941 2 36% 4 17 3 0 2001 10
ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 18,980.797 8 -3% 3 SPEC 10 29,805,000 6 918,210 3 -34% 8 77 8 0 0
BUILDINGDMSlON 3,128,814 6 -18% 3 GEN 10 0 4,137,200 6 -19% 2 18 3 0 2009 10
REFUSE FUND 36,494,836 10 17% 2 SPEC 10 7,650,000 3 37,083,123 10 24% 3 38 5 5,887,000 6 0
TREASURY, 1,577,305 4 -~ 3 GEN 10 0 2,900 1 .99% 10 12 2 364,669,000 10 2003 10
RECREATION AND GOLF 6,131,866 7 1% 1 GEN 10 0 5,540,098 6 1% 3 51 6 0 2001 10
YOUTH PROGRAMS 11,658,130 8 10% 1 SPEC 10 0 3,266,529 6, ,3% 3 72 7 0 0
EMERGENCY RESPONSE 17,614,356 8 11% GEN 10 0 2,078,579 5 1% 3 94 8 0 0
TREES 2,334,270 5 -1% 3 GEN 10 0 67,500 1 150% 5 14 2 0 2001 10
PARKING SERVICES 1,268,173 4 3% GEN 10 0 2,090,000 5 3% 3 10 1 0 2001 10
FIELD SERVICES 13,401,085 8 11% 1 GEN 10 0 306,900 2 -5% 1 70 7 0 2008 10
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 13,500,625 8 2% 1 GEN 10 0 2,927,371 5 -9% 65 7 0 0
SUPPORT SERVICES (MKTGAND FINANCIAL
SVCS)
LIBRARY DEPARTMENT
GAS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
VEHICLE FUND· OPERATIONS AND MAINT.
(DSM)
TECHNOLOGY FUND
SPECIAL DISTRICT FUNDS (PARKING)
VEHICLE REPlACEMENT FUND
Fund)
OPEN SPACE AND PARKS
PUBLIC SERVICES'
DEVELOPMENT CENTER SERVICES
TRAFFIC SERVICES
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
ALLOCATED CHARGES
STORM DRAINAGE FUND
288,569 2
6,385,037 7
6.408.786 7
4,471,094 6
3.031,003 6 '
10,662,724 8
1.330,000 4
4,855,070 6
83,000 1
6,402,545 7
3,871,195 6
6,307.759 7
1,882,320 4
o
14,316,318 8
5,623,536 6
37% 8 SPEC 10 0
.~ 3 GEN 10 0
.39% 4 SPEC 10 27,461,000 6
23% 6 SPEC 10 ' 0
28% 7 SPEC 10 0
·28% 4 SPEC 10 5,225,000 3
11% 1 SPEC 10 0
-36'Jj; 4 SPEC 10 670,000 1
-88% 5 SPEC 10 0
4% 1 GEN 10 0
-10% 3 GEN 10 0
0% 1 SPEC 10 0
~ 1 GEN 10 0
o 0
339,080 2
690,000 :I
4,045,160 6
3,131,000 6
10,017,391 8
1,148,000 4
7,492,857 7
769,000 3
579,441 3
207,880 2
6,:194,848 7
452,500 2
0% 0 GEN 10
6% 1 GEN 10
o 20,238,000 9
o 0
-35% 4 SPEC 10 9.651,000 3 5,650,626 6
0%0
27% 4
9% 3
20% 3
24% 3
-2~ 6
6'Jj; 3
13% 3
8% 3
2~ 3
2~ 3
-15% 2
·27% 7
-1%
0% 0
.14% 1
2
54
37
15
6
31
16
36
42
27
9
10
6
5
2
1
5
o
3
0'
5
6
4
o
o
1
o
o
o
o
o
19,592,000 8
751,000 3
17,492,000 8
402,000 2
o
o
o
o
o
o
4,482,000 6
2007
2005
2005
2005
2005
2007
2003
2001
2002
2003
2003
10
10
o
10
o
o
10
10
10
10
10
o
10
10
10
o
REF.
HUM.
8
C
2009-10 0
CITY CfTY PROGRAM! PROPOSED R
DEPARTMENT Potential audit subject EXPEND E
Attachment A
Citywide Risk Assessment . 8 • 8
THREE C C ·201Cl-14
YEAR 0 0 FIVE-YEAR
EXPEND R FUND R CAPITAL
TREND E lYPE E EXPEND
8 8 8 8 8 8
C C THREE C C C C
0 2009-10 0 YEAR 0 2009-10 0 0 0
R PROPOSED R REVENUE R NO. OF R BEG. FUND R AUDIT R
E REVENUE E TREND E STAFF E BALANCE E REQUEST E
RELATIVE WEIGHTS OF FACTORS 5 5 5 1 5 5 5
45 CSD GotFCOORSE 3.301$1 6 4% GEN 10 0 3.310.110 6 (jig 1 0 0 2006 10
46 PWD CIP -BUILDINGS AND FACILmES 5,291,000 6 77% 10 CAP 5 15.716,000 5 0 0% 0 0 0 2005 10
47 PWD COMP. 2.937,508 5 7% 1 SPEC 10 0 0 0 0% 0 14 2 0 2002 10
48 CIlYWlDE OTHER TAXES AND FINES 0 0% 0 GEN 10 0 5,640,500 6 -31% 8 0 0 2007 10
49 CIlYWlDE PERMITS AND LICENSES 0 0% 0 GEN 10 0 6,176,481 7 2% 3 0 0 2003 10
50 FIRE FIRE DEPT 25.166.408 9 10% GEN 10 0 10,645.094 8 5% 3 127 9 0 0
51 POLICE ANIMAL SERVICES 1.731.726 4 5% GEN 10 0 1.146.500 4 14% 3 13 2 0 2007 10
52 POLICE TECHNICAL SERVIces 6.851.516 7 3".4 GEN 10 0 1,195.317 4 1% 3 39 5 0 0
53 ASD TECHNOLOGYFUND-CLlENTSERVICES 4.568.670 6 3% SPEC 10 0 7.231,706 7 -29% 7 11 2 0 0
54 LIBRARY COLLECTIONANDTECHNICALSERVICES 1.802.899 4 0% 0 GEN 10 0 67,000 1 0% 0 11 2 0 200S 10
55 PLANNING Building and devmtfees 0 0% 0 GEN 10 0 4.200,000 6 561% 5 0 0 2003 10
56 UTILITIES WATER· RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 11.098,454 8 37% 8 SPEC 10 0 0 0 0% 0 2 1 0 0
57 UTILITIES ELECTRIC RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 82.692.775 10 15% 1 SPEC 10 0 8.039.252 7 28% 4 8 1 0 0
58 CSD ARTSANDSClENCESDMSION 4.624.411 6 5% 1 GEN 10 0 1.482.218 4 1% 3 39 5 0 0
59 CROS5-DEPT CUBBERLEYCOMMUNfTYCENTER 2.029,052 5 -1% 3 SPEC 10 0 3.623.486 6 58% 5 8 0 0
60 POLICE POLICE DEPT 29.998,316 9 7% 1 GEN 10 0 5.191,217 6 1% 3 167 9 0 0
61 FWD STRUCTURESANDGROUNOS 5.844,113 6 8% 1 GEN 10 0 985.944 3 11% 3 24 4 0 2005 10
62 FWD ADDmONS 895.237 3 -77% 5 SPEC 10 0 3.240,097 6 0% 3 1 0 200S 10
63 ASO ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPT 6.761,297 7 -12% 3 GEN 10 0 3.134.341 6 724% 5 44 6 0 0
64 ATTORNEY CfTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 2.568.560 5 "'" 3 GEN 10 0 1.159.170 4 1264% 5 12 2 0 0
85 HR EMPLOYEEIlABOR RELATIONS 893.862 3 1% GEN 10 0 0 0 0% 0 4 0 2001 10
66 COUNCIL CfTYCOUNCIL 296.300 2 56% 10 GEN 10 0 97.869 1 13% 3 9 1 0 0
67 FWD ENGINEERING 1.696.630 4 -17% 3 GEN 10 0 1,032.350 4 -30% 7 10 2 0 0
68 FWD REFUSE· SOLIO WASTE 7.647.381 7 9% SPEC 10 7.650.000 3 2.516.919 5 -23% 6 24 4 0 0
69 CITYWIDE PROPERTYTAX 0 0% 0 GEN 10 0 25.912.000 9 18% 3 0 0 2007 10
70 HR HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 2.836.891 5 5% 1 GEN 10 0 0 0 0% 0 16 3 0 2001 10
71 PlANNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 460.946 2 129% 10 GEN 10 0 0 0 0% 0 1 1 0 0
72 ASD PRINTING AND MAILING FUND 1.411.460 4 -1% 3 SPEC 10 0 1.337.613 4 -4% 1 4 1 203.000 2 0
73 FIRE ENVIRONMENTAL SAfETY MANAGEMENT 2,497,508 5 6% 1 GEN 10 0 1,253.568 4 -7% 1 13 2 0 0
74 ASO ContracIingiprocurementpmctices 0 0% 0 GEN 10 0 0 0".4 0 0 117,200.000 10 2003 10
75 CROSs-DEPT SPECIAL EVENTS 337.000 2 22% 6 SPEC 10 0 133.000 2 109% 5 1 0 0
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
67
88
UTILITIES
PWo
CIlYWlDE
ASD
PLANNING
CIlYWlDE
CIiYWIDE
FWD
FWD
ASO
CITYWIDE
UTILITIES
ASO
WATER· CUSTOMER SUPPORT SERVICES
(MKTG AND FINANCIAL SVCS)
Clp· STREETS AND SIDEWALKS
UTILfTY useRS TAX
Reserve for encumbrances
PlANNING AND TRANSPORTATION DMSION
OTHER REVENUE
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
CP -PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
STORM DRAIN -SYSTEM IMPROVEME!'ITS
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
SALES TAX
ELECTRJC-CUSTOMER SUPPORT SERVICES
(MKTG AND FINANCIAL SVCS)
Aecounts receivable
1,546.222 4
2,261.000 5
o
o
5.649.513 6
o
o
679.000 3
1.816.299 4
1.221.000 4
o
1.703.400 4
o
22% 6 SPEC 10
-9% 3 CAP 5
0% 0
0% 0
3%
0% 0
0% 0
GEN 10
GEN 10
GEN 10
GEN 10
GEN 10
-41% 4 CAP 5
-68% 5 SPEO 10
0% SPEC 10
0% 0 GEN 10
0% 3 SPEC 10
0% 0 GEN 10
o 58.400 1
10,830.000 4 0
o 11.250.000 8
o 0
o 1.502.164 4
o 101,874,773 10
o 7.000.000 7
5.595,000 3 0
9.651.000 3 0 0
o 1.221.000 4
o 19,650,000 8
o 55.520
o 0
0% 0
0% 0
20% 3
0%0
-12% 1
7014% 5
0% 3
0% 0
0%0
0% 3
-11% 1
-13%
0% 0
9
30
3
13
o
o
o
4
o
o
o
o
o
2
o
o
o
o
8,357.000 7
o
o
o
o
o
1.406.000 4
o
o
o
201)2
2001
2005
2006
2005
2001
2007
o
10
10
10
o
o
10
10
o
o
10
o
10
s
C
2009-10 0
REF. CITY CITY PROGRAM! PROPOSED R
NUM. DEPARTMENT Potential audit subject EXPEND E
Attachment A
Citywide Risk Assessment
s s
THREE C C 2010,,14
YEAR 0 0 FIVE-YEAR
EXPEND R FUND R CAPITAL
TREND E TYP~ E EXPEND
s s s
C C THREE C
0 2009-10 0 YEAR 0
R PROPOSED R REVENUE R
E REVENUE E TREND E
RELATIVE WEIGHTS OF FACTORS 5 5 5 5 .
89 ASD C8Sh handling 0 0% 0 GEN 10 0 0 0% 0
90 ASD Contract managementlvendor performance 0 0% 0 GEN 10 0 0 0% 0
91 ASD Expense account reimbursements 0 0% 0 GEN 10 0 0 0% 0
92 ASD IT strategic plan Implement8iion review 0 0% 0 GEN 10 0 0 0% 0
93 ASD Purchasing cards 0 0% 0 GEN 10 0 0 0% 0
94 ASD Reimbursements formandaled services 0 0% 0 GEN 10 0 0 0% 0
95 CITYWIDE Complaint handIng 0 0% 0 GEN 10 0 0 0% 0
96 CITYWIDE CONTRACT SERVICES 9,075,564 7 -13% 3 GEN 10 0 0 0% 0
97 CITYWIDE Foilow-tilru on council actions 0 0% 0 GEN 10 0 0 0"" 0
98 CITYWIDE Publiclprivale partnership elfecliveness 0 0% 0 GEN 10 0 0 0% 0
99 CLERK CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1,512,286 4 5% 1 GEN 10 0 527,296 3 26941% 5
100 CROSS-DEPT EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 0 0 0% 0 SPEC 10 0 0 0 0% 0
101 CROSS-DEPT Employee paid time off 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0% 0
102 CROSS-DEPT Public records requests 0 0"" 0 0 0 0 0% 0
103 FIRE EMS stalling 0 0% 0 GEN 10 0 0 0% 0
104 FIRE Fire Dept services to Stanford 0 0% 0 GEN 10 0 0 0% 0
105 PLANNING Shutlleservlces 0 0% 0 GEN 10 0 0 0% 0
108 POLICE Noise ordinance enforcement 0 0% 0 GEN 10 0 0 0% 0
107 POLICE Police achooI services 0 0% 0 GEN 10 0 0 0% 0
108 POLICE Proactive enforcement of taxi cabs 0 0% 0 GEN 10 0 0 0% 0
109 POLICE Reimbursementafortralliccitations 0 0% 0 GEN 10 0 0 0% 0
110 POLICE! FIRE Emargency pellOllnei training and tumover 0 0% 0 GEN 10 0 0 0% 0
111 POLICE!FIRE Emergencyresponselnotilicalionsystem 0 0% 0 GEN 10 0 0 0% 0
112 PWD Construction project budget monitoring 0% 0 CAP 5 0 0 0% 0
113 PWD Downtownpublicreslrooms 0 0% 0 GEN 10 0 0 0% 0
114 PWD Home hazardous waste recycling contract 0 0% 0 SPEC 10 0 0 0% 0
115 PWD DISPOSAL 19,871,160 8 30% 8 SPEC 10 0 25,000 1 0% 0
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
UTILITIES
UTILITIES
UTILITIES
CITYWIDE
CITYWIDE
CITYWIDE
HR
123 MANAGER
124 CITYWIDE
125 PWD
126 CITYWIDE
127 ASD
128 CITYWIDE
129 CITYWIDE
130 CSD
131 FIRE
132 POLICE
133 UTILITIES
GAS -DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT (DSM)
(pUBLIC BENEFIT PROGRAMS)
Utilities department staff survey
Water invento/y management
GENERAL EXPENSE
RETURN ON INVESTMENT
SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS
BENEFITS
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
RENTAL INCOME
STORM DRAIN -OPERATIONS AND MAINT.
CHARGES TO OTHER FUNDS
REAL ESTATE
OPERATING TRANSFERS-OUT
TRANSFER TO INFRASTRUCTURE
HUMAN SERVICES CONTRACTS
TRAINING AND PERSONNEL
PERSONNEL SERVICES
ELECTRIC -GENERAUADMIN
581,001 3
o
o
10,192,501 8
o
3,546,939 6
636,821 3
2,397,210 5
o
1,595,681 4
o
617,174 3
1,128,274 4
9,900,212 7
1,110,452 4
2,528,858 5
1,018,100 4
1,4n,588 4
26% 7 SPEC 10
0% 0 CAP 5
0% 0
3% 1
0% 0
-1% 3
4%
SPEC 10
GEN 10
GEN 10,
GEN 10
GEN 10
20% 2 GEN 10
0% 0 GEN 10
17% 2 SPEC 10
0% 0 GEN 10
14% 1 GEN 10
-44% 4 GEN 10
14% 1 GEN 10
-25% 4 GEN 10
14% 1 GEN 10
0% 3 GEN 10
-21% 3 SPEC 10
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o 0
o
o
o
12,342,079 8
o
o 0
o 0 0
o 13,659,764 8
o 12,000
o 10,643,000 8
o 3,400
o 0
o 0
o 0 0
o 0 0
o 0 0
o o 0
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
463% 5
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
5% 3
NA 3
0% 1
0% 0
0%·0
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
s
C
2009-10 0
NO. OF R BEG. FUND
STAFF
7
o
o
5
E
5 o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
11 2
o
6 1
3
o
o
o
o
13 2
5
6
BALANCE
s
C
0
R
E
.1 o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
a
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
AUDIT
REQUEST
2008
2001
2001
2002
20,07
2001
2001
2003
2001
2006
2007
2007
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2003
2002
2001
2002
2001
2001
2001
2007
2001
2005
2002
s
C
0
R
E
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
o
10
10
o
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
o
o
10
10
o
o
o
10
o
o
o
o
10
o
o
o
o
o
o
REF.
NUM.
s
C
2009-10 0
CITY CITY PRQGRAMI PROPOSED R
DEPARTMENT Potential audit subjec:t EXPEND E
Attachment A
Citywide Risk Assessment
s s
THREE C C 2010-14
YEAR 0 0 FIVE-YEAR
EXPEND R FUND R CAPITAl
TREND E TYPE E EXPEND
s s
C C
0 2009-10 0
R PROPOSED R
E REVENUE E
RB..ATIVE WEIGHTS OF FACTORS 5 5 5 5
s
THREE C
YEAR 0
REVENUE R TREND E
134 lmLfTlES GAS-RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 21,990.752 9 8 sPE"e 10 0 0 0 ~
135 PLANNING CDBG FUND 802,259 3 ~ 1 SPEC 10 0 802.259 3 0% 3
136 ASD BUDGET 883.525 3 -1~ 3 GEN 10 0 0 0 ~ 0
137 CITYWIDE REVENUEFROMOTHERAGENCIES 0 0% 0 GEN 10 0 3.160,484 6 2578% 5
138 HR EMPLOYMENT/EMPLOYEEDEVELOPMENT 792.184 3 -9% 3 GEN 10 0 0 0 ~ 0
139 UTILITIES GAS -CUSTOMER SUPPORT SERVICES
(MKTG AND FINANCIAL SVCS)
140 ASD Cal phone uaage
141. FIRE MANAGEMENT
142 PWD . CIP" MISCEllANEOUS
143 PWD REFUSE -STREET SWEEPING
144 ASD N'P
145 CITYWIDE FACIlITIES AND EQUIPT PURCHASES
146 lmUTlES . UIily biIing system proc8SII/ng
147 ASD TECHNOLOGY FUND -PROJECTS
148 MANAGER PAlO AlTOSUSINESS IMPROV DISTRICT
149 PLANNING TRAFFIC MmGIPARKING lill-UEU FUNDS
150 ASD Acc:ounls payable
151 CITYWIDE RENTS AND LEASES
152 POUG,e INVESTIGATIONS AND CRIME PREVENTION
153 PWD STREETS
154 ASD SVCS
155 ASD PURCHASING
156 ASD ACCOUNTING
157 CROSS-DEPT Conflict of Interest policies and forms 700
158 MANAGER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
159 ASD OupIicaIe.payments
160 ASD Em~ phone bill refmburHments
161 CROSS-DEPT PARKING PROGRAM
162 CROSS-DEPT. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY
163 FIRE Ambulance transport programs
184 POLICE ConfidentIal funds
185 POLICE SInIIagic plan implemenllllion
188 AUDITOR CIlY AUDITOR'S OFFICE
187 PWD Capital pPIjects contingency fees
168 CROSS-DEPT ENVIRONMENTALSUSTAINABILITY
189 MANAGER ADMIN AND CITY MANAGEMENT
170 MANAGER SUSTAINABILITY
171. PWD WASTEWATER TMT -OPERATIONS
-END OF LISTING-
1.226.738 4
o
1.032,759 4
2.997.000 5
2.002.263 5
3,559,5n 6
472,104 2
o
1,011,245 4
160,000 2 o 0
o
740,486 3
3,578,625 6
2,500.123 5
1,523.237 4
1.276.376 4
1.757.444 4
o
209.335 2
o
o
o 0
o 0
o
o
o
998.519 3
o
25.285,674 9
2.Q66.677 5
121.198 2
14.255.062 8
6% 1 SPEC 10
~ OGEN 10
11% 1 GEN 10
~O CAP 5
7% 1 SPEC 10
3% 1 SPEC 10
-8% 3 GEN 10
~ 0 SPEC 10
-81% 5 SPEC 10
~ 0 SPEC 10
~ 0 SPEC 10
~ 0 GEN 10
2% 1 GEN 10
o
o
o
12.324.000 4
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
62,080 1
o
o 0
o
177.977 2
1,647,329 4
o
263.377 2
551.617 3
162.000 2
631.000 3
o
o
9%
5% 1
-2% 3
GEN 10 0
GEN 10 10.830.000 4
o 0
278.832 2
586,739 3
6,000 1
SPEC 10 0
-3% 3
·18% 3
~ 0
GEN 10
GEN 10
o
·18% 3 GEN 10
~ 0 GEN10
0% (; GEN 10
0"" 0 SPEC 10
~ 0 SPEC 10
~ 0 GEN 10
~ 0 GEN 10
0% 0 GEN 10
13% 1 GEN 10
0"" 0 CAP 5
GEN 10
GEN
GEN
GEN 10
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o 0
o
o 0
o
o
o 0
o 0
o
o
o
755,215 3
o
o 27.620,291
o
o
o 0
~ 0
0% 0
~ 0
~O
28% 4
·14% 1
0% 0
·100% 10
NA 3
-1% 1
15% 3
~ 0
~ 0
~ 0
-13%
·18% 2
~ 0
~ 0
~ 0
~ 0
~ 0
~ 0
~ 0
~ 0
0% 0
~ 0
~ 0
221% 5
~ 0
2009-1C
NO. OF
STAFF
3
5
5
9
6
12
13
o
19
14
7
10
13
o
o
4
58
9
1
55
s
C
0
R
E
5
o
1
o
1
o
o
2
2
o
.0
o
o
o
o
o
3
2
2
o
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
o
BEG. FUND
BAlANCE
s
C
0
R
E
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
112.000 2
1,777.000 4
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
AUDIT
REQUEST
2001
2002
2007
2005
2001
2002
2006
s
C
0
R
E
5
o
o
o
o
o
o
10
o
o
o
o
o
10
o
o
o
10
o
o
o
o
o
o
10
o
o
10
o
o
10
10
o
o
o
Attachment B
CITY AUDITOR'S FY 2010 WORK PLAN SUMMARY
AUDIT ADMINISTRATION, FOLLOW-UP, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Annual audit work plan and quarterly status reports
2. Annual audit recommendation status report
REVENUE AND FINANCIAL AUDITS/PROCEDURAL REVIEWS:
In process
3. Sales tax allocation reviews
4. External financial audit
5. Controls review of SAP upgrade (including Utility billing)
New for FY 2010 .
6. Alternative Fuel Tax recoveries
7. SAP Account Sampling
8. ARRA Monitoring
PERFORMANCE AUDITS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS:
In process
9. Annual Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) report *
10. Audit of vehicle replacement and maintenance (PWD)
11,. Citywide Cash Handling
12. Prospective Analysis of Bond Measure Proceeds
Carried over from FY 2008-09 Work Plan
13.· Utilities Department
14. Wastewater treatment plant cost allocations (PWD)
15. Audit of purchasing card transactions (Citywide/ASD)
New for FY 2010
16. Planning and Community Environment Department Permit Processing
* Related to Council's Top 3 Priorities
ATTACHMENT B
FINANCE COMMITTEE
4. City Auditor's Fiscal Year 2010 Work Plan
City Auditor Lynda Brouchoud presented the City Auditor's Fiscal 2010 Work
Plan. This included a citywide risk assessment based on information from
the City's budget documents. The Utilities Departl.llent had the highest risk,
and their audit was proposed for the work plan last year. Staff has selected
a utlilties auditing consultant to assist with this audit within the next two
months.. Planning and Community Environment was the first General Fund
program which showed up in the -risk assessment. An audit request was
made to cover the permits and costs in this area. This was proposed as an
addition for the work plan for this year as well. Additional items suggested
as additions to the work plan included the American Reinvestment and
Recovery Act (ARRA) monitoring for Federal Stimulus funds and SAP account
sampling. She noted approval of the work plan meant it would return to full
Council for their approval. This was also planned to return to full Council,
based on feedback, at the midyear point for a discussion about the work
plan. It may provide additional ways for the Auditor's Office to cover the
areas of Council interest and strategiC direction. .
Council Member Klein spoke to the Planning and Community Development
Permit Process. He asked which key components they were assessing. He
has heard references to two different permit processes, one being solar
permits and the second business permits. He asked if one or both of these,
issues was covered in their work plan.
Ms. Brouchoud stated they were looking at the overall permit process. The
items he had mentioned specifically were possible for inclusion If the Finance
Committee so-directed.
City Manager James Keene stated he .and Ms. Brouchoud had discussed this
briefly on a previous occasion. He noted this was a good example of how to
include more definition up front regarding solar and business permits. An
area that has been. stressed upon prior to this was the customer service
timeframes. This has also been discussed with the Planning Director. At
present, there are limited standards and metrics for measuring customer
service aspects in regards to performance, permits, turnarounds and costs.
Council Member Klein asked what exactly they planned to work on, if it was
not the items just fleshed out by the City Manager.
FIN: 091020 FIN 12
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Ms. Brouchoud stated their initial plan was to work on the permit process in
general, spanning out to the larger topic areas based on the audit process.
She said that if the Committee had a specific area they would like Staff to
focus on, they would be open to those directives. The permit process had
not yet been audited, making it difficult to opine at this point on the specific
audit steps. Staff uses a risk-based approach when doing an audit.
Typically, members provide feedback on whether or not there was a specific
audit coverage area which required a deeper focus.
Council Member Schmid followed up on an issue that arose with Measure 8
regarding people complaining about the costs over a range of permit types.
A focus on the impacts of the various types of businesses became an issue
with regard to this.
Administrative Services Director lalo Perez addressed these cost issues over
the various permit types by noting that Staff had committed to a review of
the Occupancy and Use permit fees if the Business License Tax (BlT) in fact
moved forward. They were mindful of the expressed concern that there was
a burden with this Occupancy and Use permit with the BlT. Staff was on
record to review eliminating or reducing this cost.
Chair Burt asked what it might look like to have one person involved in
making the permit process more cohesive with customer service and costs.
He noted it was appropriate to pursue thiS, but wondered how it unfolded
within the audit process.
Ms. Brouchoud stated they had not received a request to include this in the
audit scope. It was understood that~ on a parallel plane, if the department
moved forward with some internal improvements, the audit would consider
this information ...
Chair Burt stated this was more of a parallel comment as opposed to an
actual directive for the audit.
Ms. Brouchoud stated the conversation with Mr. Keene led to a mutually
beneficial timing for the audit since audit staff has a full plate of in-process
projects at the present time. Once 'these are completed, Staff can focus on
the building permit audit, which will allow the department and City Manager
time to complete some of the Improvements mentioned ... It was difficult to
do an audit when some of these changes were transitioning to their finish.
FIN: 091020 FIN 13
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Mr. Keene noted another aspect dealt with whether or not they needed to
change some of the current processes and codes. This was an additional
piece identified in a second tier process. He added, even with the existing
framework, customer service needed to improve, which was the main intent
of this process. Secondarily the goal was to identify ongoing problems. He
said this was to determine the timing and redefinition of these issues
specifically. Staff has already spoken to consultants, and the City had
. undertaken some prior studies already on the permit process. It was
important to look at what's been done in order to implement a definite plan.
He stressed the importance of using all the resources available as wisely as
possible. The coordination and delineation of short-term goals went towards
accomplishing the ultimate goals.
Ms. Brouchoud noted the addition of looking at the customer satisfaction in
the new Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) report. These results
may provide additional information on customer service for the permit
process.
Council Member Klein questioned how risk assessment applied to permits.
Ms. Brouchoud noted she had been using auditing terminology of how audit
incorporate risk assessments, which Is different than the Citywide Risk
Assessment included in the proposed work plan. Entering into the audit, she
stated they use a risk-based approach to identify audit areas. Whether they
start with the general permit process In their work plan, or whether the
advisement was that they focus on a specific permit process within the plan,
they would also use this same approach to define what they are ultimately
looking at within the audit project.
Chair Burt asked if it was fair to say, using the terminology of risk; this
included the significance of any opportunities for Improvement.
Ms •. Brouchoud stated this was the correct assumption. If the Committee
wished Staff to alter this in Jookingat specific permit processes, this was a
possibility. Otherwise, the general permit process was the focus, while they
further narrowed the focus during the audit.
Mr. Keene questioned whether or not there was s.ome way the Auditor might
define what the Auditing Office pursues. A decision on whom to allocate,
and coordination of these efforts would follow. He gave the example of
Utilities Department and some of the issues in the past year. He had
FIN: 091020 FIN 14
FINANCE COMMITTEE
directed the Utilities Director to find some assistance in providing some
strategic analysis of the department for planning and organization work. He
noted it was important to pool the resources to complement each other
without duplicating efforts or interfering with each other.
Ms. Brouchoud stated, with any progress made, whether there was a special
study or not, they go into the audit with the knowledge that they were
making an assessment of the current climate. This was something they did
with any audit in order to open the discussion framework. She noted Council
Member Klein's question was whether or not they wanted to have something
more specific in the initial audit work plan focused on a certain permit
process, or did they want to have a larger scope which would narrow as the
audit progressed.
Chair Burt spoke specifically to the points brought up previously by Council
Member Klein. With regard to solar permitting, he recollected that there had
been a preliminary report on initiatives already taken to improve this
process. He suggested an update on this would be helpful, independent of
how the Auditor might address these same issues during the coming year.
He stated they did not want to wait a year when they have already been told
that those actions are in progress. He asked whether they should schedule
a'n update on the solar and business permit processes. If so, he questioned
when the time was appropriate for such an update, independent of the
pending audit report.
Mr. Keene said that the midyear budget process put them in a position to
give an update. This gave them time to discuss where they were with what
the department was asked to accomplish. He suggested he and Ms.
Brouchoud discuss some of the suggestions which were considered in the
initial plan versus those audit items Staff felt were better dealt with in
another way.
Ms. Brouchoud stated their plan was to return to Council at midyear. Other
projects were keeping them busy up until that timeframe.
Council Member Schmid asked that they focus not on the revenues which
were going up by a certain percentage, but where the actual number of
permits was on the decrease. He did not want this aspect lost when they
focused on just the two areas of customer service and business permits.
FIN: 091020 FIN 15
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Mr. Keene noted their focus on those two areas does not preclude them from
looking into this.
Ms. Brouchoud stated the current plan was to view this very generally with
the possibility to focus later on more specific areas of interest.
Council Member Schmid cited the discrepancy in percentage amounts of
permit revenues versus number of permits sold as a third area of specific
focus. This was likely to flesh out who was paying the higher rates this year
versus previous years.
Mr. Keene stated there was a possible variance between the different
projects as a well as a host of other explanations. However, he noted this
was definitely an area to focus upon.
Ms. Brouchoud noted definite triggers caused them to put this on the work
plan.
Mr. Perez stated there have been several major projects which may factor
into these rate discrepancies.
Chair Burt noted there was a rough correlation between revenue increases
and number of inspections, but a decrease in the number of permits.
Council Member Schmid commented on the system of selection when using
the Citywide Risk Assessment. He asked if the risk assessment actually led
to the audit need areas.
Ms. Brouchoud further explained the selection process. She agreed a return
to Council at midyear with an update would be a good opportunity to further
delineate more specific topic areas to supplement the report which focused
on planning and budget.
Council Member Schmid spoke on goals regarding productivity and other
financial impacts. He suggested a column be added to the recommendation
status report such as regarding potential abuses that might lead to
problems. He noted the importance of knowing any anticipated payback!; in
these audit areas. This information would help 'Council make future
decisions.
FIN: 091020 FIN 16
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Council Member Klein suggested the exploration of some additional topics for
the work plan, one of which included the SAP system. He was interested in
what was accomplished with the new system. .
Ms. Brouchoud noted she did not have the answer to this at the current
time. ...
Council Member Klein asked if the SAP work project must reach completion
in order to answer these additional topical questions.
Ms. Brouchoud stated the item on the proposed work plan was to conduct a
sampling of individual accounts within the SAP system, which is different
than auditing the entire SAP system.
Council Member Klein asked if this was regarded as being within their
capabilities to answer these questions at a future pOint in time.
Ms. Brouchoud noted that resources to do this additional work were a factor.
She stated they would need to go in and review the intention of the SAP
purchasing within a number of modules, over a number of areas. They
would need to look at the intent of these system purchases and then assess
if they were meeting system-wide goals and efficiencies. She stated It was a
potential area for an external auditor or audit consultant .
. Mr. Perez agreed this was a good question. He also agreed a third party
assessor was necessary to do this additional work. It was important that it
was a person who understood the SAP and enterprise resource planning
(ERP) system and its goals. These assessments were based on the scope
intended versus what was delivered considering how the system was being
used. . .
Council Member Klein stated a constituent had complained to him over their
difficulty accessing Utilities account. He thought that the system was
already up and running, but apparently this was not the ca~.
Mr. Perez noted there was the opportunity to talk about this further, the
following week, when it was on the Agenda.
Ms. Brouchoud apologized In that she thought he had referred to a study of
the entire SAP system, and not one specific module such as Utilities.
FIN: 091020 FIN 17
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Mr. Keene thought Council Member Klein was referring to the one module,
but questioned whether this was reflective of the entire SAP system.
Council Member Klein noted he does not use the system on a day-to-day
basis. He does not hold any expertise with it, but he felt a complaint of this
nature deserved follow-up. He was also surprised to find that the system
was not up and running effectively. This lent to the fact that other surprises
may arise. .
Mr. Pere~ reiterated an item was on an upcoming Agenda regarding this.
Mr. Keene agreed this item was in place and that Staff was scheduled to
meet with the Council to ask for additional authority for fund expenditures in
order to make enhancements to the program. This was expected to deal
with these issues. Staff described this as post implementation design
changes based on the practice of using the system.
Ms. Brouchoud asked if this comment was related to the Utilities billing
module.
Mr. Keene confirmed this was related to Utilities. Unfortunately, he stated
these types of~djustments are always needed post implementation.
Practically, the system works, but adaptations were necessary along the way
as Staff became comfortable with the system.
Mr. Perez stated the system was operational and it was a matter of the
Manager's decision not to roll it out until all the impacts to customer service
were explored. It has been delivered and it does work. In some areas they
find enhancements are needed to improve the systems functionality.
Mr. Keene noted this was not antiCipated, but now that it was apparent, it
needed to be addressed. The question was when to address it, and how
many more issues are out there.
Council Member Schmid assumed they would come back with additional
efficiencies in productivity that they could point to.
Mr. Perez stated, if they don't get people online with the program, they
cannot assess efficiencies. With IImit~d deployment, they have noted there
were less paper payments coming in. This likely was a combination of the
online bill paying and people using other services. This bore the need for
FIN: 091020 FIN 18
FINANCE COMMITTEE
more exploration. He noted one of the efficiencies they were interested in
was allowing customer access online to view and pay their accounts.
Mr. Keene noted they had gone from a simple, less integrated computer
system to one with more potential for integration. However, they now need
more engineers in place to run the equipment. Having watched this in other
organizations, he stated all of these ERP systems have gone through this
difficult process. Their appeal was the integration, the complexity and the
linkages. However, the downside was this resulted in a complicated
implementation process. At pOints along the way, Council does need
additional information in order to assess whether or not this was worth it.
Council Member Klein stated the new system took longer for the customer
service person to access the customer's ~ccount.
Mr. Keene noted it does take longer to get to a particular screen because
there were more sequences involved. This slowed progress.
Council Member Klein asked when they might expect this information.
Mr. Keene noted an item was on the upcoming agenda for the more crucial
pieces of maintenance on the system and its enhancements. This was an
upcoming item on the Consent Agenda; however, he suggested it was more
likely better served as an Action item.
Council Member Schmid asked what else might arise as potential problems
when considering the information in the SEA report.
Ms. Brouchoud stated the risk assessment does not pull directly from the
SEA report, but the report remained a source of information on expenditures
and revenues. Information was pulled from the SEA report when describing
the permit process.
Council Member Schmid asked if a committee selection was planned for the
prospective analysis of the Bond Measure proceeds, which was another item
listed in the proposed work plan.
Ms. Brouchoud stated the audit was started in September, and they were
gOing to meet with the Library Bond Oversight Committee to understand
their goals. She reviewed what they hoped to discover in the audit process.
FIN: 091020 FIN 19
FINANCE COMMITTEE
The goal was to understand the internal controls the City has in place for
processing these bonds proceeds.
Council Member Schmid asked if this was the Bond Committee's intention as
well.
Mr. Perez noted there were two separate processes involved: 1) The
process with the Administrative Services Department which was the more
technical aspect, and 2) the project itself, where they are looking at whether
or .not the funds are spent within the language of the Measure.
Chair Burt spoke to work plan with regard to their quarterly status reports.
He noted the format was to conduct the audit and issue the status report.
This included recommendations to the department, the status and the
comments. He asked if there was some way to precisely include in the
status report, considering the results of the audit, some further information
on accomplishments of the recommendations.
Ms. Brouchoud stated it was possible to categorize this information.
However, in practicality, she was not clear how this might be done.
Chair Burt gave the examples of both the ambulance and telephone issues.
Dollar amount savings were clear. Outside of the detailed actions, he noted
the importance of some additional information on the potential outcomes.
Once an audit recommendation was closed, he questioned whether it was
beneficial to report back on the achieved goals in some type of closure
report.
Ms. Brouchoud stated, in her past experience, they had not done it at this
level. She noted Staff could try to work on coming up with a type of
categorization of the audit recommendations. SpeCific outcomes relied on
the individual departments giving information on their progress.
Chair Burt asked if this type of closure reporting, as suggested, was of any
value to the Committee.
Council Member Klein noted cost savings was one area they hoped to hear
back on, as well as compliance of the law and accounting standards.
Ms. Brouchoud stated this year's status report included additional details on
the results of the implemented audit recommendations, which was new
FIN: 091020 FIN 20
FINANCE COMMITTEE
territory for Staff in trying to capture this type of information. Staff is open
to additional changes and will look to include additional categories in the
future. Audit Staff will need additional information from departmental staff
to report on the outcomes of implementing the audit recommendations.
Chai~ Burt suggested the consideration of categories within departmental
Staff's usual reporting. After an item was completed, he questioned the
possible benefits of an additional column reporting on the actual benefits
achieved, and whether or not it was worth it in the long run.
Mr. Perez stated this made sense because the organization wants to know
this Information as well as the community. He was concerned if they were
talking about smaller dollar gains, where the amount of time in tracking and
reporting this may not be worth It.
Chair Burt agreed they did not want Staff spending a lot of time tracking
smaller dollar amounts, where the work spent outweighed the information
gained. In addition to monetary savings, he suggested there were other
ways to qualitatively or quantitatively describe the outcomes and
achievements of the implementation. From the implementation side, he felt
this type of metrics and tracking helped to increase the value of the
implementation. Tracking the nickel and dime-like expenditures was a great
deal of work, but this information was worth knowing. All of this lent to
better decision-making in the future with regard to allocation of resources.
Council Member Schmid asked if the identification of this additional
information was helpful to the Policy and Services Committee . .
Chair Burt agreed these additional reported items may be appropriate to
bring to the Policy and Services Committee.
Ms. Brouchoud asked if this was in relation to the recommendation follow-
up, or the completion of the work plan items.
Council Member Schmid stated there were some items in the work plan that
had gone on to Policy and Services. He stressed the need for sensitivity to
these items.
Chair Burt reiterated the need to identify this clearly in the proposed plan.
FIN: 091020 FIN 21
FINANCE COMMITTEE
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Council Member
Klein that the Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval
of the City Auditor's Fiscal Year 2010 Work Plan.
Council Member Schmid noted the importance of inclusion of language
regarding a return to Council at the midyear point with an update.
Chair Burt verified this was included in the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
5. Discussion of Future Meeting Schedules and Agendas.
Administrative Services Director Lalo Perez thanked the Committee for their
flexibility in scheduling October 27th as a Finance Committee meeting at
7:00 p.m. He noted the November 3rd Finance Committee meeting will not
take place because of the election. The next meeting after that was
scheduled for November 17, 2009. He gave an overview of the items on the
. agenda. He also discussed the business plan for the airport and the drafts
circulating in his office at this time. A meeting was also scheduled for
December 15, 2009 for the formal discussion of the Fiscal Year 2009 which
consisted of the comprehensive annual financial report. A long range
financial forecast may also be provided at this December meeting.
Council Member Klein asked for clarification on what would be discussed at
the next meeting regarding the Calaveras Reserve Funds.
Assistant Director Utilities Customer Service Tom Auzenne gave further
information on an upcoming item for the next meeting which included an
allocation from the Calaveras Reserve to fund what was called the Business
Energy Efficiency Financing Program.
Mr. Perez clarified that the funding from this program was coming from the
Calaveras Reserve. It was not a discussion of the Calaveras Reserve, per se.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:11 p.m.
FIN: 091020 FIN 22
TO: HOr-~ORABLE CITY COUr-~CIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: HUMAN RESOURCES
DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2009 CMR:435:09
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF TWO RESOLUTIONS: (1) ADOPTING A
COMPENSATION PLAN FOR MANAGEMENT AND
PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL AND COUNCIL APPOINTEES AND
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NOS., 8844 8845, 8915, 8950, and 8988
AND (2) AMENDING SECTION 1701 OF THE MERIT SYSTEM
RULES AND REGULATIONS TO INCORPORATE THE 2009-
2010 COMPENSATION PLAN FOR MANAGEMENT AND
PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL AND COUNCIL APPOINTEES
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recolrunends Council adoption of the attached resolutions adopting a compensation plan
for Managelnent and Professional personnel and Council Appointees effective for the pay
periods beginning July 1,2009 and continuing through June 30, 2010; and alnending the
Merit Systeln Rules and Regulations to incorporate the 2009-2010 compensation plan for
Managelnent and Professional personnel.
BACKGROUl"~D
The Managelnent and Professional group includes 242 active elnployees. The Managelnent
and Professional employees are unrepresented and do not have a melnoranduln of agreelnent
or other contract. The benefits for this group are covered in a COlnpensation Plan which is
adopted by resolution of the Council. Over the last six years, the City has strived to contain
increases in personnel-related costs in the Management and Professional group, and the
Managelnent and Professional group has often taken the lead alnong elnployee groups
through Ineasures including receiving no salary increases in some years, pmiicipating fully in
a Inandatory furlough in 2004-05, agreeing to a cap for health insurance at the PERS Choice
rate instead of the PERS Care rate, ilnplelnenting prorated benefits for new pali tilne
elnployees, and a two-tier retiree health prograln with a longer vesting period for new hires.
For the 2008-2009 fiscal year (FY), the group cooperated in eliminating the Variable
Managelnent Compensation (VMC) benefit for that period to help address the City's budget
probleln.
CMR:435:09 Page 10f3
DISCUSSION
Each year, a cOlmnittee cOlnprised of one einployee froin each departInent provides the
City Manager with feedback and concerns on behalf of the Manageinent and Professional
einployees. This year, after collaborating with the Manageinent and Professional
cOlmnittee and considering their input, the City Manager recolmnends:
II No salary increase
II Continuing VMC eliinination frOln 2008-09 through FY 09-10*
II New liinitations on use of Professional Deveiopinent funds to encourage uses that
are Inore directly related to iinproving job-related and professional skills
II Iinplenlentation of 20/0@60 retireinent fonnula for newly hired einployees, with
einployees paying 2% of the einployee share.
(Public Einployees' Retireinent Systein (PERS) Contract mnendinent expected to
be effective "-' Spring 2010)
II Cost sharing of Inedical prenliuln increases (as inlpieinented for Service
Einployees' International Union (SEIU) in Resolution 8994, CMR 414:09).
The group requested tilne to suggest an alternate solution providing silnilar
coverage and equivalent savings; however, if an alternative acceptable to the City
cannot be reached, the new contribution provisions established for SEIU (equal
sharing of preIniuIn increases, with einployee contribution not to exceed 10% of
total preIniuIn amount) will also apply to the Manageinent and Professional group.
Total Cost Savings FY 2010= 3.54%
Other Ininor changes in the conlpensation plan have been ll1ade in order to clarify existing
benefits, policies or processes.
*VMC is intended to be eliininated into the future as a structural cost savings.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The proposed Management and Professional COlnpensation Plan reduces salary and benefit
costs by $1,520,295 across all funds and $805,756 in the General Fund. The reinaining
$714,539 in reductions will be realized in the Enterprise and Other Fund costs. The total
decrease in cost for the Manageinent and Professional COlnpensation Plan is 3.54% of salary
and benefits on an alUlual basis starting in fiscal year 2009-10 and reflects the 2009-10 VMC
and associated pension costs. The current Adopted Budget will be reduced by the above
ainounts in the corresponding funds. It is ilnportant to note that these figures do NOT include
any future savings for the 20/0 at 60 pension fonnula for new employees or the future
einployee contribution to health care since they are not starting in the current fiscal year.
Those savings will be reflected in future budget proposals.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The action recoffilnended by this report is consistent with City Council direction.
CMR:435:09 Page 2of3
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This is not a project under the California Envirollillental Quality Act (CEQA).
ATTACHMENTS
Attaclullent A:
Atta clullent .
Attaclullent C:
PREPARED
Resolution Adopting a COl11pensation Plan for Managel11ent and
Professional Personnel and Council Appointees and Rescinding
Resolution Nos. 8844, 8845,8915,8950,8988
Resolution All1ending Section 1701 of the Merit Systel11 Rules and
Regulations to Incorporate the 2009-2010 COl11pensation Plan for
Managel11ent and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees
Redline Version of Managel11ent and Professional COl11pensation Plan
Sandra T.R. Blanch, Assistant Director, Hunlan Resources
DEPARTMEl'TT HEAD:
RUSS CARLSEN
Director of HUll1an Resources
CITY MANAGER APPROV AL: __ ~--':::' ____ --I----"..F_~ __ _
CMR:435:09 Page 30f3
APP
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COlJNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
ADOPTING A COMPENSATION PLAN FOR MANAGEMENT
AND PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL AND COUNCIL
APPOINTEES AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NOS. 8844, 8845
8915,8950,8988
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does 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 Managenlent Conlpensation Plan, as set fOlih in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and nlade a part hereof by reference, is hereby adopted for Managelnent and
Professional Personnel and Council Appointees effective July 1,2009 through June 30, 2010.
SECTION 2. The Conlpensation Plan as adopted shall be adnlinistered by the
City Manager in accordance with the Merit Systenl Rules and Regulations.
SECTION 3.
revoked by the Council.
The. COlnpensation Plan shall continue in effect until anlended or
SECTION 4. The Director of Adnlinistrative Services hereby is authorized to
inlplenlent the COlnpensation Plan adopted herein in his preparation of forthconling payrolls. He
is fmiher authorized to nlake changes in the titles of elnployee classifications identified in the
Table of Authorized Personnel contained in the 2009-2010 budget, if such titles have been
changed in the COlnpensation Plan.
SECTION 5. Resolution Nos. 8844, 8845, 8915, 8950 and 8988 are hereby
rescinded.
I I
II
II
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
II
111009 sh 8261191 1
*NOT *
SECTION 6. The Council finds that this is not a project under the Califon1ia
EnvirolID1ental Quality Act and, therefore, no envirOlunental iInpact asseSSlnent is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
Deputy City Attorney City Manager
Director of Adn1inistrati ve Services
Director ofI-Iull1an Resources
111009 sh 8261191 2
OF
'-"""'-"' ..... PENSATION
Management and Professional Personnel
And Council Appointees
Effective: Pay period including July 1, 2009
through June 30, 0
COMPENSATION PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
Management and Professional Personnel
As used in this Plan, the term "Management and Professional" refers to all employees,
including Confidential employees, previously classified as "Management and Confidential"
by the City. This group will hereafter be identified as "Management and Professional"
personnel.
SECTION I. COMPENSATION
This section applies to all management and professional elTlployees and does not include
Council Members or Council-appointed officers. Each Council-appointed officer shall be
the responsible decision-maker under this Plan for those employees in departments under
his/her control.
A. MANAGEMENT and PROFESSIONAL COMPENSATION POLICY
The City's policy for management and professional compensation is to establish and
nlaintain a general structure based on marketplace norms and internal job alignment
with broad compensation grades and ranges. Structures and ranges will be reviewed
annually and updated as necessary based on marketplace survey data, internal
relationships, and City financial conditions.
Individual compensation adjustments will be considered by the Council-appointed
officer based on (1) performance factors including achievement of predetermined
objectives; (2) pay structure adjustments; and (3) City financial conditions.
B. BASIC PLAN ELEMENTS
1. Structure. The compensation plan includes separate multi-grade structures for
both management and professional employees. Each grade will have a control point
which is used for budgetary purposes. All management and professional positions
will be assigned an appropriate pay grade based on salary survey data and internal
relationships. All positions are assigned to a pay grade. Actual salary within the
range is determined by performance. The normal working range where most actual
salaries will fall will be within + 50/0 of the control point.
The City began a benchmarking survey in 2006 to establish an updated structure for
management and professional personnel. This survey is expected to be completed in
2010. Upon the completion of the Management and Compensation study, any equity
adjustments will be addressed in the future.
As needed, and no less than every two years and commencing fiscal year 2005-
2006, competitive marketplace studies will be conducted by surveying a maximum of
12 mutually agreeable agencies similar to Palo Alto in number of employees,
2
population and services provided. These studies will focus on general salary trends
for groups of management positions such as first line supervisors, administrative,
confidential, professional and top management. Periodically, and no less often than
ever! four years, studies will include position-by-position comparisons using market
agencies and internal equity data. All studies conducted pursuant to this section shall
be completed by December 31 st and in no event laterthan March 31 in orderto allow
time for Committee review. Depending on the results of these studies, the entire pay
grade structure may be adjusted or individual positions may be reassigned to
different pay grades. Such adjustments will only affect the salary administration
framework. No individual salaries will be automatically changed because of structural
adjustments.
An employee may request in writing a re-evaluation of his/her job based on significant
changes in job content or significant discrepancies between job content and
classification description, and which cannot be described as "other duties as
assigned." The request must contain justification and may be made only during the
period of August 10 through September 10. A statement by management that a job
re-evaluation request will be submitted with the departmental budget does not relieve
an employee from the responsibility of submitting his/her own request during this
period. The HR Director or his designee will respond to such requests within ninety
(90) days, however, this timeline may be extended if necessary. If HR approves
change, the request will be forwarded to ASD who will determine if there is sufficient
funding to cover the cost of the change. If approved by ASD, the reclassification will
be sent to the City Manager for approval. If approved, the change would be
reclassified as part of the budget process and will require Council approval. Any
changes approved as part of the budget process will become effective the first pay
period of the following fiscal year, or, if not approved, the job will be returned to its
previous status.
2. Compensation Adjustment Authorization. Each year the City Manager will
propose as part of the budget process for Council approval a compensation
adjustment based on recommendation received from the Management/Professional
Conlpensation Conlmittee. For fiscal year 2009-2010 the compensation adjustment
to control point shall be 0%. In years when there is an adjustment to control point,
this adjustment will be available for those management/professional employees who
have received an overall rating of "meets" or "exceeds" expectations on their annual
review and who have not been on a performance improvement plan during the
preceding fiscal year. Nothing herein shall preclude an employee's manager from
awarding a control point adjustment increase to an employee on a performance plan
at a later date should employee's performance improve. An additional one percent
(1 %)) (half percent (.5%) attributable to amount allocated in 2007-2008 plan and
additional half percent (.5%) allocated in 2008-2009 compensation plan) will be
allocated toward equity adjustments to address compaction problems as determined
by the City Manager and will be retroactive to July 1, 2007.
3
In the future, the compensation adjustment request will be based on the following
factors: competitive market, changes in internal position relationships, and the City's
ability to pay. Council authorization is required prior to implementation by the
Director of Human Resources.
3. Base and Variable Compensation. Compensation for management and
professional employees includes bi-weekly base salary and is paid on a continuing
basis. On a fiscal year basis, the bi-weekly base salary must fall within pay grade
limits of no less than 25% below the control point and no more than 20% above the
control point.
Base salary increases are earned in accordance with administrative guidelines based
upon growth within the position and peliormance, which nlust meet or exceed
position standards, the salary structure and the City's ability to pay.
The City Manager has eliminated the VMC effective with the 2008-09 fiscal year, but
it may be reinstated in future compensation plans. Because VMC elimination is
intended to yield structural cost savings, any future reinstatement would require new
offsetting structural savings to be implemented in exchange.
4. Peliormance Planning and Appraisal. Peliormance appraisals will be conducted
at the end of each fiscal year during the months of July through Septenlber 30 each
year prior to determining individual erTlployee fixed compensation. This process
includes both review of previous performance plan and preparation of the
performance plan for the next planning period (usually the fiscal year). Performance
plans are jointly prepared by the employee and supervisor with the concurrence of
the department head or Council-appointed officer. The performance plans shall
contain measurable objectives which place special enlphasis on position description
duties or specific assignments. Progress toward nleeting objectives shall be
monitored periodically. The peiiormance appraisals should be implemented in a
manner that will achieve the following objectives:
• Define the employee's job duties and expected level of performance for the next
review period to ensure that both the employee and super..tisor have a clear
understanding of the employee's role and responsibilities;
• Evaluate and document past performance to serve as a basis for establishing
and obtaining future performance standards/objectives;
• Facilitate two-way communication and understanding between the employee
and his or her supervisor;
• Counsel and encourage employees to work toward a learning development plan
and realize their full potential;
• Establish future work plan objectives.
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),
4
supervisors shall make a final determination of the overall performance rating.
Recommendations shall be forwarded to department heads or who will then
determine individual fixed adjustments according to the provisions of the
compensation plan. This process should be completed by September 30th .
C. MANAGEMENT and PROFESSIONAL COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENT
AUTHORIZATION
1 . Council-appointed officers are authorized to pay salaries in accordance with this
plan to non-Council-appointed management, and professional employees in an
amount not to exceed the aggregate of approved management and
professional positions budgeted at the control points in the Table of
Organization for fiscal year 2009-10.
2. Individual management and professional compensation authorized by a
Council-appointed officer under the Management and Professional
Compensation Plan may not be less than 25% below nor more than 20% above
the control point for the individual position grades authorized in Table I of this
plan.
3. The Council-appointed officers are authorized to establish such administrative
rules as are necessary to implement the Management and Professional Salary
Plan subject to the limitations of the approved compensation adjustment
authorization and the approved grade and control point structure.
4. In the event a downward adjustment of a position grade assignment indicates a
reduction in the established salary of an individual employee, the Council-
appointed officer may, if circumstances warrant, continue the salary for such
employee in an amount in excess of the revised grade limit for a reasonable
period of time. Such interim salary rates shall be defined as "Y-rates."
SECTION II. SPECIAL COMPENSATION
This section applies to all eligible regular management and professional positions including
Council Appointed Officers as applicable and including Council ~1embers where indicated.
Eligibility shall be in conformance with the Merit Rules and Regulations and Administrative
Directives issued by the City Manager for the purposes of clarification and interpretation.
A. OVERTIME AND IN-LIEU HOLIDAY PAY
Compensation for overtime work, and scheduled work on paid holidays for certain
designated non-exempt employees shall be in conformance with the Merit Rules and
Regulations and Policies and Procedures. Overtime eligible employees shall be paid at
the rate of time and one-half times the employees' basic hourly salary unless called out
for an emergency arising out of situations involving real or potential loss of service,
property or personal danger, in which case additional pay will be at the rate of two times
the employees' basic hourly salary. Employees who work a schedule where a regular
5
day off falls on a holiday will be paid for the hours they would have normally worked on
that day. If the holiday falls on a non-workday for an exempt employee, the enlployee
may, with supervisory approval, take another day off within the pay period or the
following pay period.
B. WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION PAY
Where management and professional employees, on a temporary basis, are assigned
to perform all significant duties of a higher classification, the City Manager may
authorize payment within the range of the higher classification for the specified time
frame. Working out of class pay is normally not to exceed 100/0 more than the
employee's current salary and shall be documented on a Personnel Action Form, with a
description of the additional duties to be performed and an end date.
C. STAND-BY PAY
Employees eligible for overtime may be entitled to stand-by pay, approved by the City
Manager on a case by case basis, in extreme circumstances involving unavailability of
non-management staff. Compensation is as follows:
Monday through Friday
Saturday, Sunday, Holidays
D. NIGHT SHIFT PREMIUM
$40 per day
$58 per day
Night shift differential shall be paid at the rate of 50/0 to regular full-time employees who
are regularly assigned to shift work between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., or to employees
who are temporarily assigned to work a full shift between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
UNIFORM PURCHASE PLAN -SWORN POLICE, FIRE PERSONNEL, and OPEN
SPACE PERSONNEL
Uniforms including cleaning will be provided with replacement provisions on an as-
needed basis in conformance with department policy.
F. WINTER CLOSURE -2009
The winter closure will be December24-January 1 .
Not all City facilities are closed during the Winter Closure; employees must check
with their supervisor to find out if the closure is applicable to their positions. During
the Winter Closure, employees may elect to use paid leave balances such as
management leave, vacation or holiday pay ortake time off without pay. Employees
who wish to work during the Winter Closure should make arrangements with their
supervisors regarding work assignments.
G. GROUP INSURANCE
6
1. By March 1,2010, the Management and Professional Committee will propose a
health care contribution plan that provides comparable plan coverage and cost
savings to the health plan changes set forth in Modification 8 of Resolution
#8994 (the "SEIU plan.") In the event that the proposed alternative contribution
plan is not adopted by City Council, then the "SEIU plan" shall apply to the
management and professional employees, CAO's and Council Members,
including active employees retiring after June 30, 2010.
It is the intent of the City Manager and Management and Professional
COrTlmittee to have substantially the same health benefit as SEIU.
2. Effective Date of Coverage for New Employees
For newly-hired regular employees coverage begins on the first day of the
month following date of hire for the health plan, dental plan, vision care plan,
long term disability and life insurance plans if these benefits are elected.
3. Active Employee Health Plan
(a) Based on an employee's family status, the City shall pay up to the monthly
medical premium for the second most expensive plan among the existing
array of plans available during the term of this compensation plan on behalf
of eligible employees (including Council Appointed Officers and Council
Members) and dependents. Eligible dependents include spouses, children
under the age of 23 and never married (natural, adopted, or stepchildren),
economically dependent children, and domestic partners registered with
the Secretary of State. If PERS changes the plans it offers, the City will
continue to provide an equivalent benefit at an equivalent cost.
(b) The City agrees to offer a program to active management and professional
personnel (including Council Appointed Officers and Council Members)
enrolled in PERSCare prior to 1/6/07 who elected the PERSChoice health
plan in which the City vI/ill reimburse the employee and/or dependents for
any covered medical expense which exceeds the $2 million Lifetime
Maximum Benefit.
(c) City medical premium contributions will be prorated for part-time
employees hired or newly assigned to a part-time work schedule on or
after January 1, 2010 based on the number of hours per week the part-
time employee is assigned to work.
(d) Coverage for Domestic Partners:
(1) Domestic Partnership Registered with the California Secretary of
State: Employees may add their domestic partner as a dependent to
7
their elected health plan coverage if the domestic partnership is
registered with the Secretary of State.
(2) Domestic Partnership Not Registered with the California Secretary of
State: Domestic partners who meet the requirements of the City of
Palo Alto Declaration of Domestic Partnership, and are registered
with the Human Resources Department, will be eligible for
reimbursement of the actual monthly premium cost of an individual
health plan, not to exceed the maximum monthly City employer
contribution for one-party coverage under the CalPERS Health
Benefits Program (or PORAC if a safety department employee) for
an employee covered under this agreement. Evidence of premium
payment will be required with request for reimbursement.
(e) PERS Choice Reimbursement Plan
Management and Professional personnel enrolled in the PERS Choice
medical plan may subnlit a request for payment, as specified below, for
non-covered medical expenses, incurred during the period of January 1,
through December 31, of the plan year, that exceed $2,500. The
maximum annual reimbursement amount provided under this program is:
• $700 for employees enrolled in the Employee-Only category;
• $900 for employees enrolled in the Employee and One
Dependent category, and
.. $1,100 for employees enrolled in the Family category.
Any amounts reimbursed to an individual under this program would be
included in the enlployee's gross income and is not PERSable.
This program shall oniy reimburse employees for medical expenses that
are not reimbursed through any other means and meet the definition in
Section 213(d) of the Internal Revenue Code. (Examples of eligible
expenses include medical plan deductibles and co-payments, prescription
drugs, dental care, hearing care, and vision care.) However, in order to
have any expenses reimbursed under this program, the eJTlployee must
have allocated 100% ($2,500.00) of their 2009 calendar Excess Benefit
funds into the Medical FSA option during the election that occurred in
November 2008. In addition, all such reimbursements from the Excess
Benefit Program must have been solely for medical expenses, as defined
by Section 213( d) of the Internal Revenue Code. If the employee has
designated his/her Excess Medical funds for any other qualifying
expenses (Le. dependent care, Professional Development, Deferred
Compensation contributions), the employee would not be eligible for
reimbursement under this program.
8
Employees may submit one claim for the entire plan year's expenses
during January. Any amounts remaining from the PERS Choice
reimbursement plan after the claims for the plan year had been processed
shall be forfeited.
4. Alternative Medical Benefit Program
If a regular employee and/or the employee's dependent(s) are eligible for medical
insurance through another employer-sponsored or association medical plan, the
employee may opt for alternative medical insurance coverage through the other
employer-sponsored or association plan and waives his/her right to the City of Palo
Alto's medical insurance coverage for same individuals. Employees electing alternative
coverage and no City coverage will receive cash payments of approximately half of the
"average monthly premiums: for their medical insurance coverage. "Averaged monthly
premiums" are the average of the Kaiser HMO, Blue Shield HMO and PERS Choice
PPO premiums for the employee's City medical coverage available through the Public
Employee Retirement System (PERS).
The rates for 2009 are as follows:
One party: $260.00
Two parties: $520.00
Family: $675.00
The rates for 2010 are as follows:
One party: $269.77
Two parties: $528.81
Family: $701.41
5. Retiree Health Plan
(a) Employees Hired Prior to January 1, 2004
Monthly City-paid premium contributions for a retiree-selected health
plan through the CalPERS Health Benefits Program will be made as
provided under the Public Employees" Medical and Hospital Care Act.
The City's monthly employer contribution for each employee retiring on
or after January 1,2007 and prior to July 1, 2010 shall be the amount
necessary to pay for the cost of his or her enrollment in a health
benefits plan up to the monthly premium for the second most expensive
plan offered to management and professional personnel during the
contract term (among the existing array of plans.)
For the 2009 calendar year, the City's contribution toward dependent
coverage is 800/0 of the difference between the applicable "Employee
and One Dependent" or "Family" maximum employer contribution for
active management and professional personnel and the maximum
9
employer contribution for "Employee Only" coverage. For 2010 the
City's contribution will increase to 85%. For 2011, the City's
contribution will increase to 90%.
(b) Post -1 Ii 104 Hires
For those Management and professional employees hired after January 1,
2004, the PERS law vesting schedule set forth in Government Code section
22893 will apply. Under that law, an employee is eligible for 50% of the
specified employer health premium contribution after ten years of service credit,
provided at least five of those years were performed at the City of Palo Alto.
After ten years of service credit, each additional service credit year increases
the employer contribution percentage by 5% until, at 20 years' service credit,
the employee will be eligible upon retirement for 100% of the specified
employer contribution and 90% of their dependent coverage. The City of Palo
Alto's health premium contribution for eligible post -1/1/04 hires shall be the
minimum contribution set by PERS under section 22893 based on a weighted
average of available health plan prelTliums.
Active employees retiring after June 30,2010 will be subject to health premium
contributions as set forth in Resolution #8994, modification 8.
It is the intent of the City Manager and Management and Professional
Committee to have substantially the same health benefit as SEIU.
6. Dental Plan
a) The City shall pay covered plan charges on behalf of all eligible employees
and dependents. (Domestic partners who are either registered with the
Secretary of State or who meet the requirements of the City of Palo Alto
Declaration of Domestic Partnership, and are registered with the Human
Resources Department are considered dependents under the plan.)
Benefits for regular part-time employees vv'ill be prorated as follows:
Employees who will work less than full time, will receive prorated
premium costs for dental benefits in accordance with hislher
percentage of a full-time work schedule. Part time employees
currently receiving full benefits will not be impacted.
b) The City's Dental Plan provides the following:
.. Maximum Benefits per Calendar Year-$2,000 per person
.. Lifetime Maximum for Orthodontics-The City will pay up to
$2,000.00 for orthodontia coverage (not included in annual
dental maximum)
10
• Major Dental Services
• Orthodontics
• Basic Benefits (All other covered services)
First Calendar Year of Eligibility
Subsequent Calendar Years
*Usual, Customary, and Reasonable
500/0 UCR*
500/0 UCR*
700/0 UCR*
70%-100%
Effective 1 /1 /07 the City added composite (tooth covered) fillings for
posterior teeth to the dental plan.
For each dental plan member, the percentage of coverage for basic benefits
will begin at 700/0 for the first calendar year of coverage and increase by 100/0
(up to a maximum of 100%) effective the first day of the next calendar year
as long as the member utilizes the plan at least once during the current year.
Per the Delta Dental contract effective October 1, 2005, if the member does
not utilize the plan during the current year, the percentage of coverage for
the next calendar year shall remain unchanged from the current year.
If a dental plan member ever loses coverage under the plan, the applicable
percentage of coverage for basic benefits provided during any future period
of coverage will commence at 700/0 as if the dental plan nlember was a new
enrollee. Examples of when a member might lose coverage under the plan
would include:
• Employee goes on an unpaid leave of absence and elects not to pay the
required dental premiums for his/her family's coverage during the leave.
• Employee elects to drop one or more covered dependents from the plan
during an open enrollment period so that they tTlight be covered on a
spouse's non-City of Palo Alto dental plan.
7. Basic Life Insurance
The City shall provide a basic group term life insurance with Accidental Death
and Dismemberment (AD&D) coverage, in an amount equal to the employee's
annual basic pay (rounded to the next highest $1,000) at no-cost to the
employee. AD&D pays an additional amount equal to the employee's annual
basic pay (rounded to the next highest $1,000).
8. Supplemental Life And AD&D Insurance
An employee may, at his/her cost, purchase additional life insurance and
additional AD&D coverage equal to one-or two-times his or her annual salary.
The maximum amount of life insurance available to the employee is up to
$325,000 and the maximum amount of AD&D coverage available is up to
$325,000.
11
9. Long Term Disability Insurance
a) The City shall provide long term disability (L TO) insurance vvith a benefit of
2/3 monthly salary, up to a maximum benefit of $1 0,000 per month. The City
shall pay the premium for the first $6,000 of base monthly salary. For
employees whose base monthly salary exceeds $6,000, the employee shall
pay the cost of the required premium based upon their monthly salary
between $6,000 and $15,000.
b) For employees whose base monthly salary exceeds $6,000 and who have
no eligible dependents covered under the City's medical, dental or vision
plans, the City will pay up to $17.50 per month towards the employee's cost
for LTD coverage.
10. Vision Care
a) The City shall provide vision care coverage for en1ployee and dependents.
Coverage is administered by Vision Service Plan (VSP). The plan provides
an exam every 12 months; lenses every 24 months; frames every 24
months, all subject to a $20 co-payment as defined in the Vision Services
Benefits Plan A schedule. Benefits for regular part-time employees will be
prorated as follows:
Employees hired after January 1, 2004, who will work less than
full time, will receive prorated premium costs for vision benefits in
accordance with his/her percentage of a full-time work schedule.
Part time employees currently receiving full benefits will not be
impacted.
b) Effective July 1, 1996, dependents include eligible domestic partners who
are either registered with the Secretary of State or who meet the
requirements of the City of Palo Alto Declaration of Domestic Partnership,
and are registered with the Human Resources Department.
H. EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PLAN
The Employee Assistance Plan (EAP) provides employees with confidential
personal counseling, work and family related issues, eldercare, substance abuse, etc.
In addition, EAP programs provide a valuable tool for supervisors to refer troubled
employees to professional outside help. This service staffed by experienced
clinicians is available to employees and their dependents by calling a toll-free phone
line 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Guidance is also available online.
12
I. SAFETY DIFFERENTIALS
1. Police Department -Personnel Development Program
Pursuant to administrative rules governing eligibility and qualification, the following
may be granted to sworn police personnel:
P.O.S.T. Intermediate Certificate: 5% above base salary
P.O.S.T. Advanced Certificate: 7 1/2% above base salary
2. Fire Department -EMT Differential
Pursuant to administrative rules governing eligibility and qualification, the following
may be granted to sworn Fire personnel:
EMT Differential: 3% above base salary
J. MANAGEMENT and PROFESSIONAL BENEFIT PROGRAM
Management and professional employees are eligible for Sections 1 , 2, 3, and 4 of
the Management Benefit Program. City Council Members are eligible for Section 3
only.
1 . Professional Development -Reimbursement
The purpose of this program is to provide employees with resources to improve
and supplement their job and professional skills. ReilTlbursement for authorized
self-improvement activities may be granted each management and professional
employee up to a maximum of $1 ,500 per fiscal year. The following items are
eligible for reimbursement, and employees are encouraged to pursue activities
under subsections (a)-(d) as the top priority:
a. Civic and professional association memberships
b. Conference participation and travel expenses, which must occurwithin the
compensation plan period.
c. Educational programs/tuition reimbursement. The education must maintain
or improve the employee's skills in performing his or her job, or be
necessary to meet the express requirements of the City or the
requirements of applicable law. The education to which the reimbursement
relates must not be part of a program qualifying the employees for another
trade or business; or be necessary to meet the minimum educational
requirements for qualification for employment. Permissible educational
expenses are refresher courses, courses dealing with current
13
developments, academic or vocational courses, as well as the travel
expenses associated with the courses.
d. Professional and trade journal subscriptions not to exceed 12 months.
e. Gym/health club memberships. Reimbursement of these expenses is
limited to the compensation plan year and taxable to the employee.
f. Effective July 1 , 2009, purchase of job related computer hardware is limited
to one computer purchase every three (3) years. Purchase of other
peripheral hardware such as printers and nlonitors is limited once every
three years from the last date purchased after July 1, 2009. The size of
free standing monitors purchased are not to exceed 26 inches. Approval
will be at discretion of department head and signature is required on
reimbursement form; and will be approved in pro-rated amounts for
computer and other hardware purchases. Reimbursement of any of these
expenses is taxable to the employee.
g. Internet access, computer software and telecommunication equipment will
be approved at discretion of department head. Reimbursement of any of
these expenses is taxable to the employee.
Amounts under this professional development program will be pro-rated in the
first year of elTlployment (based on the number of pay periods remaining in the
calendar year) but will not be pro-rated upon separation of employment.: The
maximum amount for Professional Development reimbursement for employees
who move into a position covered by this compensation plan from a position
under another City of Palo Alto bargaining group will be the lesser of:
(1) $1,500 less any amounts they have ieceived in the fiscal yeai of
their position change through any other City of Palo Alto Tuition
Reimbursement or Professional Development program; or
(2) An amount obtained by subtracting any amounts the employee
may have received in the fiscal year of their position change through
any other City of Palo Alto Tuition Reimbursement or Professional
Development progranl from the sum of:
(i) the number of months of the current fiscal year that the
employee served in previous bargaining unit and multiplying it by
one-twelfth of that unit's Tuition Reimbursement or Professional
Development annual maximum benefit; and,
(ii) the number of months of the current fiscal year that the
enlployee will serve in the position covered by this compensation
plan multiplied by $125.
14
2. Professional Development Leave
Authorized paid leaves of absence for up to one year may be granted in
accordance with the follo\J\Jing requirements:
a. Eligibility is subject to a minimum City service requirement of five years.
b. Compensation during the Professional Development Leave shall not
exceed 50% salary and full benefits.
c. When granted, a Professional Development Leave shall require an
employee commitment of at least two-years' service following return from
the Leave. To the extent the full two-year commitment is not fulfilled, the
employee shall re-pay the City a pro rata amount of the salary paid during
the Leave based on the percentage of the two-year commitment not
fulfilled.
d. The Professional Development Leave program shall relate to the
employee's job assignment.
e. An employee's job assignnlent activity shall be adequately covered during
his/her absence with emphasis on the development of subordinates.
f. The leave of absence period shall be adequately coordinated with
departmental priorities and workload.
g. Professional Development Leaves shall be based on internship exchanges,
and/or loaned executive arrangements; scholastic and/or authorship
programs; or educational travel-study plans.
Leave of absence schedules will be apportioned among all levels of
management and professional employees and will be based on an evaluation of
each employee's performance record. Each paid sabbatical leave will be
limited to a maximum of one year and not more than two employees being on
leave simultaneously. Sabbatical leaves must be cleared in advance and
approved by a Council-appointed officer for his/her subordinates. Professional
Development Leaves granted in excess of 30 days shall be noticed to the
Council.
3. Physical Examinations
All management and professional employees are eligible to receive an annual
physical examination as follows:
a. Use the periodic health exam benefit as provided under the PERS
Health Plan option you have selected. Each of the PERS Health Plans
15
provides for a periodic physical examination. The examination must be
performed by your primary care physician-unless he/she refers you to
another physician.
b. The types of tests and the frequency of the tests cannot exceed AMA
guidelines. The guidelines are a suggested minimum based on
research studies concerning preventative care. The judgment of your
physician is the final deterrriinant for your care.
c. Any additional necessary asymptomatic tests that are required by your
physician that are not covered by your health plan, will be reimbursed by
the City. Any symptomatic tests will be covered under your PERS
Health Plan.
The Reimbursement for Periodic Physical Exam Form is available on the
Human Resources Intranet site. This benefit will not be pro-rated.
4. Excess Benefit
This benefit is designed to meet the requirements of Section 125 of the Internal
Revenue Code. Every calendar year, each employee will be provided with
$2,500 that they can designate among the following options:
a. Medical Flexible Spending Account (Medical FSA). Provides
reimbursement for excess medical/dental/vision, or expenses that are
incurred by employees and their dependents which are not covered or
reimbursed by any other source, including existing City-sponsored plans.
This includes prescribed medications and co payments as well as over-the-
counter drugs, including: antacids, allergy medicines, pain relievers and
cold nledicines. However, nonprescription dietary supplements (e.g.
vitamins, etc.) toiletries (e.g. toothpaste), cosmetics (e.g. face cream), and
items used for cosmetic purposes (e.g. Rogaine) are not acceptable.
b. Dependent Care Flexible Spending ,Ll,ccount (Dependent Care FSA).
Provides reimbursement for qualified dependent care expenses under the
City's Dependent Care Assistance Program (DCAP), subject to the
following limits: Dependent care expenses will be reimbursed only to the
extent that the amount of such expenses reimbursed under this
Management Benefit Program, when added to the amount (if any) of
annual dependent care expenses that the participant has elected under the
City's Flexible Benefits Plan, do not exceed the maximum permitted under
the DCAP.
1) The annual amount submitted for reimbursement cannot exceed the
income of the lower-paid spouse.
16
2) The expenses must be employment-related expenses for the care of
one or more dependents who are under 13 years of age and entitled to
a dependent deduction under Internal Revenue Code section 151 (e) or
a dependent who is physically or mentally incapable of caring for
himself or herself.
3) The payments cannot be made to a child under 19 years of age or to a
person claimed as a dependent.
4) If the services are provided by a dependent care center, the center
must comply with all state and local laws and must provide care for
more than six individuals (other than a resident of the facility).
5) Dependent care expenses not submitted under this section are eligible
under the City Dependent Care Assistance Plan (DCAP). However, the
maximum amount reimbursed under DCAP will be reduced by any
amount reimbursed under the Excess Benefit Plan.
c. Non-taxable Professional Development Spending Account.
Provides reimbursement for Non-Taxable professional development
expenses (e.g.,job-related training and education, seminars, training
manuals, etc.) to the extent they are not paid or reimbursed under any
other plan of the City.
d. Deferred Compensation.
Provides a one-time contribution to the employee's City-sponsored 457
Deferred Compensation plan with either ICMA-RE or the Hartford.
Amounts designated by employees to either the Medical FSA, Dependent Care
FSA, or Professional Development options are done so on a "use -it-or-Iose-it"
basis. This means that any amounts designated and not used by the end of the
calendar year (or end of the extended grace period for the medical FSA) will be
forfeited by the employee and returned to the plan.
Specified amounts under this benefit will be applied on a pro-rata basis for
employees who are part-time or who are in a management or professional pay
status for less than the full fiscal year. Such benefits will be pro-rated in the first
year of employment (based on hire date) but will not be pro-rated upon
separation of employment.
K. LEAVES
1. Sick Leave
a) Sick leave shall be accrued bi-weekly provided the employee has been in a
pay status for 50 percent or more of a bi-weekly pay period. Sick leave
17
shall be accrued at the rate of 3.7 hours per bi-weekly pay period for those
employees working a forty-hour duty schedule. Those assigned work
schedules, which are greater or lesser than forty hours will accrue sick
leave at the ratio of their work schedule to forty hours.
b) Employees may use up to twenty hours of sick leave per calendar year for
personal business. The scheduling of such leave is subject to the approval
of the appropriate level of Management.
c) Employees leaving the municipal service shall forfeit all accumulated sick
leave, except as otherwise provided by law and by Section 609 of the Merit
Rules and Regulations. In the event that notice of resignation is given, sick
leave may be used only through the day which was designated as the final
day of work by such notice.
d) Employees that were hired before December 1, 1983 and who leave the
municipal service in good standing, or who die while employed in good
standing by the city, and who have fifteen or more years of continuous
service shall receive compensation for unused sick leave hours in a sum
equal to two and one-half percent of their unused sick leave hours multiplied
by their years of continuous service and their basic hourly rate of pay at
termination. Full sick leave accrual will be paid in the event of terrriination
due to disability. See Merit System Rules and Regulations, Chapter 6,
Section 609.
e) Up to nine days of sick leave per calendar year may be used for illness in
the immediate family, including a registered domestic partner.
f) Management and Professional errlployees eligible, as specified above if
hired before December 1, 1983, to be compensated for sick leave may
annually convert sick leave hours in excess of 600 to cash or deferred
compensation, according to the formula set forth above, up to a maximum
of $2,000 per fiscal year.
18
2. Management Annual Leave
At the beginning of each fiscal year regular management and professional
employees will be credited with 80 hours of annual leave. This leave is granted
in recognition of the eAira hours ~Jlanagement and Professional employees vv'ork
over their regular schedule. This leave may be taken as paid time off, added to
vacation accrual (subject to vacation accruallinlitations), taken as cash ortaken
as deferred compensation. When time off is taken under this provision, 10-hour
shift workers will receive one shift off for each 8 hours charged; 24-hour shift
workers will receive one-half shift off for each 8 hours charged. Entitlement
under this provision will be reduced on a prorated basis for part-time status, or
according to the number of months in paid status during the fiscal year;
enlployees who have used more than the pro-rated share at the time they leave
City service shall be required to repay the balance or have it deducted fronl
their final check. Unused balances as of the end of the fiscal year will be paid
in cash unless a different option as indicated above is elected by the employee.
3. Vacation
Vacation will be accrued when an employee is in pay status and will be credited
on a bi-weekly basis. Total vacation accrual at anyone time may not exceed
three times the annual rate of accrual. Each eligible employee shall accrue
vacation at the following rate for continuous service performed in pay status:
(a) Less than nine years. For errlployees completing less than nine years
continuous service: 120 hours vacation leave per year; provided that:
(i) The City Manager is authorized to adjust department head annual vacation
accrual to provide for a maximum of 160 hours for those hired between
July 1, 1996 and June 30, 2001; and
(ii) The City manager is authorized to adjust the annual vacation accrual of
employees hired on or after July 1, 2001, to provide up to 40 additional
hours (Le., to a maximum annual accrual of 160 hours) for service with a
prior employer.
(b) Nine, but less than fourteen years. For errlployees conlpleting nine, but not
more than fourteen years continuous service; 160 hours vacation per year.
(c) Fourteen, but less than nineteen years. For employees completing
fourteen, but not more than nineteen years continuous service; 180 hours
vacation leave per year.
(d) Nineteen or more years. For employees completing nineteen or more
years continuous service; 200 hours vacation leave per year.
19
(e) Once each calendar year an en1ployee may cash out vacation accrual
balances in excess of 80 hours. An employee may cash out a minimum of 8
hours to a maximum of 120 hours of accrued vacation provided the
eITlployee has taken 80 vacation hours in the previous 12 months.
4. Bereavement
Leave of absence with pay of three days may be granted an employee by the head of
his/her department in the event of death in the employee's immediate family, which is
defined for purposes of this section as wife, husband, son, son-in-law, step-son,
daughter, daughter-in-law, step-daughter, mother, mother-in-law, father, father-in-law,
brother, brother-in-law, sister, sister-in-law, grandmother, grandmother-in-Iaw,
grandfather, grandfather-in-Iaw, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, registered
domestic partner, or a close relative residing in the household of employee. Such leave
shall be at full pay and shall not be charged against the en1ployee's accrued vacation or
sick leave. Requests for leave in excess of three days shall be subject to the approval
of a Council-Appointed Officer for employees under his/her control.
L. RETIRENIENT PENSION
1 . Effective pay period inclusive of 1/6/07, the City's Public Employees' Retirement
Systen1 (PERS) benefits changed to the 2.7% at 55 formula for non-safety
members (from 2% at 55).
The City shall amend its contract with CalPERS to provide ITliscellaneous
employees hired on or after the effective date of the CalPERS contract
amendment with the CalPERS retirement formula two percent (2.0%) of final
salary at age sixty (60). The City will implement this change on January 1 ,
2010 or as soon thereafter as possible.
2. Employee Share. Effective May 1, 1984, the City agreed to pay the 7%
employee contribution to PERS. Effective pay period inclusive of 1/6/07, the
employee share of the PERS contribution increased to 8% from 7%. The City
pays 6% and the employee pays 2% of the 8% PERS employee share for the
2.7 at 55 retirement benefit formula. This provision applies to Council-appointed
officers and all regular management and professional employees, except that
for sworn police and fire management employees the City shall continue to pay
the mandatory nine percent (9%) of the employee's PERS contribution. For
employees hired after the implementation of the 2%@60 retirement formula,
eITlployees covered by that formula shall pay two percent (2%) of pay toward
the seven percent (7%) employee contribution and the City shall pay (5%).
3. Final Compensation. Final compensation for purposes of retirement shall be as
set forth in the City's contract with CaIPERS, which provides that final
20
compensation may be the pay rate and special compensation during any
consecutive twelve month period.
4. Notwithstanding subsection 2 above, if an employee designates his Oi hei final
compensation period as the year of employment immediately preceding the
effective date of his or her retirement upon filing a notice of retirement, the
amount of the PERS contribution as described above will be converted to a
salary adjustment of equal amount on a one-time irrevocable basis
5. Employee PERS contributions shall be made on a tax deferred basis, in
accordance with Section 414(h)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code. All provisions
of this subsection are subject to and conditioned upon compliance with IRS
regulations.6. As of October 20, 2001 and March 9, 2002, the City provides
the Public Errlployees' Retirement Systen1 (PERS) Benefit, "3% at 50" full
formula (Section 21362.2) for safety members.
M. AUTOMOBILE EXPENSE ALLOWANCE
For those employees whose duties require use of a City automobile, the City
Manager (or in the case of Council-appointed officers, the City Council) may
authorize payment of up to $325 per month in lieu thereof.
N. COMMUTE INCENTIVES and PARKING
Employees who qualify may voluntarily elect one of the following commute incentives:
1. Civic Center Parking. Employees assigned to Civic Center and adjacent
work locations. The City will provide a Civic Center Garage parking permit
Employees hired after June 30, 1994 may initially receive a parking permit for
another downtown iot, subject to the availability of space at the Civic Center
Garage.
2. Public Transit The City will provide monthly Commuter Checks worth the
value of:
$40 for employees traveling two or more zones on Caltrain;
$40 for employees using the Dumbarton Express, BART, the ACE train or a
commuter highway vehicle;
$35 for employees traveling within one zone on Caltrain;
$35 for employees using VTA, and other buses.
These vouchers may be used toward the purchase of a transit pass.
3. Carpool. The City will provide $30 per month to each eligible employee in a
carpool with two or more licensed drivers.
21
4. Vanpool Program. The City will provide Commuter Checks worth the value
up to $60 to each employee voluntarily participating in the Vanpool Program.
These may be used toward payment of the nl0nthly cost of the vanpool.
Employees must fulfill the basic requirenlents of the Employee Commute
Alternatives Program to qualify.
5. Bicycle. The City will provide employees with $20 per month to eligible
employees who ride a bicycle to work.
6. Walk. The City will provide employees with $20 per month to eligible
employees who walk to work.
7. Changes to commute incentives program. Revisions to this commute
incentive program are being developed to be considered and authorized by
Council during the 2010 fiscal year. Once the program changes are finalized, a
meeting will be scheduled to meet and discuss the revisions.
O. AT-WILL STATUS
Department heads hired after July 1 , 2004 will be "At-Will" employees whose terms of
employment are specified by an employment contract. Any current department head
or the Assistant City Manager may elect to remain covered by the Merit Rules or to
become At-Will employees with an ernploynlent contract that shall include a
severance package. All current executive managers shall maintain all the benefits
they presently have or would have as a new executive manager.
P. ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR
The Mayor shall receive $150 monthly, and the Vice Mayor $100 monthly to defray
additional expenses of these offices.
Q. REIMBURSEMENT FOR RELOCATION EXPENSE
Policy Statement
The City of Palo Alto, in rare instances, may provide a Basic Relocation Benefits
Package for new management and professional employees, upon the approval of the
City Manager or designated subordinate. In addition, the provision of "Optional
Benefits" or portions thereof, may be extended for exceptional circumstances and
only the approval of the City Manager or designee, or for Council-appointed officers,
the City Council.
The details of the Relocation Expense program are specified in the City's Relocation
Expense policy.
22
R. MEAL ALLOWANCE
Management and professional employees assigned to attend night meetings are
eligible to receive reimbursement for up to $20.00 per dinnei. This provision covers
only receipted meals actually taken and submitted for reimbursement.
S. REDUCTION IN WORKFORCE
The City will make every effort to follow the 2005 transition plan if a reduction in
workforce is necessary in 2009 or 2010. The Management/Professional
Compensation Committee shall be involved in development of changes to the
transition plan.
T. GRIEVANCES REGARDING COUNCIL APPOINTED OFFICERS
Notwithstanding the grievance procedures provided in Chapter 11 of the City of
Palo Alto's Merit System Rules and Regulations, any Management and
Professional employee who is supervised by a Council Appointed Officer and has
a grievance against that Council Appointed Officer or regarding the conduct of that
Council Appointed Officer shall, following an attempt to resolve the grievance
pursuant to Step One (informal discussion), summarize the grievance regarding
the Council Appointed Officer in writing and submit it to the Director of Human
Resources for review and resolution using the methods he/she considers
appropriate.
U. MERIT RULES
The City will include members of the Management/Professional Compensation
Committee in discussions regarding revision of the Merit Rules and Regulations.
SECTION III. MANAGEMENT FELLOW PROGRAM
The City has created a program for Management Fellows when funding is
available. The program's purpose is to create limited duration entry level
positions for graduate students. A management fellow will be an "at will"
employee whose term of employment shall be no more than one year. A
Management Fellow shall be PERS exempt, but will receive limited vacation,
limited sick leave, limited health care benefits and other Iin1ited benefits, as
determined by the City Manager. Sections I and II of this Plan shall not apply to
Management Fellows, except as specified by the City Manager.
23
Classifications Effective 7/1/2009
Management Compensation 2009
Class No.1 Grade Control Approx. Approx. Approx.
Job Code Title Code Point Annual Biwkly Hourly
157 Adm Human Res 040 7,920 95036 3,655 45.69
50 Adm Pin & Comm Envrn 040 7,920 95036 3,655 45.69
171 Adm Public Works 040 7,920 95036 3,655 45.69
98 Adm Spec Events 040 7,920 95036 3,655 45.69
76 Admin Assistant 070 6,325 75900 2,919 36.49
1009 Administrator, Refuse 040 7,920 95036 3,655 45.69
126 Arts & Culture Div Mgr 029 10,461 125528 4,828 60.35
1007 Assistant Director Human Resources 023 12,179 146141 5,621 70.26
1001 Assistant Director Planning & Comm Env 020 13,127 157519 6,058 75.73
1003 Assistant Director Utilities Engineering 019 13,468 161616 6,216 77.70
6 Assistant Director Utilities Operations 021 12,810 153712 5,912 73.90
1002 Assistant Director Uti Cust Support Svs 023 12,179 146141 5,621 70.26
2001 Assistant Director, Library Services 029 10,461 125528 4,828 60.35
111 Assistant Fire Chief 025 11,584 139007 5,346 66.83
132 Assistant Police Chief -Adv 019 13,468 161616 6,216 77.70
115 Asst Build Official 033 9,456 113464 4,364 54.55
108 Asst City Atty 026 11,288 135450 5,210 65.12
109 Asst City Clerk 044 7,157 85884 3,303 41.29
107 Asst City Manager 014 16,619 199431 7,670 95.88
143 Asst Dir Public Wrks 023 12,179 146141 5,621 70.26
170 Asst Dir UtiAdm Svcs 023 12,179 146141 5,621 70.26
65 Asst Dir UtiRes Mgmt 019 13,468 161616 6,216 77.70
73 Asst Director Adm Svcs 025 11,584 139007 5,346 66.83
10 Asst Director Planning & Comm Envrnmt 020 13,127 157519 6,058 75.73
168 Asst Fleet Mgr 041 7,724 92685 3,565 44.56
102 Asst Mgr WQCP 033 9,456 113464 4,364 54.55
88 Asst Planning Off 032 9,697 116356 4,475 55.94
30 Asst To City lV1gr 032 9,697 116356 4,475 55.94
100 Auditor 047 6,637 79644 3,063 38.29
118 Chief Bid Official 026 11,288 135450 5,210 65.12
128 Chief Information Officer 026 11,288 135450 5,210 65.12
7 Chief Planning & Transportation Official 025 11,584 139007 5,346 66.83
112 Chief Pig Official 027 11,012 132143 5,082 63.53
82 Chief T ransp Off 027 11,012 132143 5,082 63.53
40 City Traffic Engr 031 9,951 119413 4,593 57.41
96 Claims Investigator 046 6,799 81578 3,138 39.22
24 Communication Specialist 043 7,343 88109 3,389 42.36
89 Contracts Administrator 039 8,123 97469 3,749 46.86
153 Coord Child Care 042 7,542 90501 3,481 43.51
41 Coord Environ Protec 027F 10,021 120245 4,625 57.81
186 Coord Lib Circ 048 6,466 77584 2,984 37.30
195 Coord Pol Tech Svcs 028 10,745 128940 4,959 61.99
123 Cub Ctr & Hum Svc Div Mgr 028 10,745 128940 4,959 61.99
191 Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall 022 12,501 150010 5,770 72.12
9 Deputy City Attorney 036 8,769 105228 4,047 50.59
99 Deputy City Auditor 032 9,697 116356 4,475 55.94
71 Deputy City Clerk 051 5,996 71948 2,767 34.59
55 Deputy City Mgr Spec Proj 018 13,803 165631 6,370 79.63
52 Deputy Dir Adm Svcs 027 11,012 132143 5,082 63.53
75 Deputy Dir Pw Oprns 025 11,584 139007 5,346 66.83
159 Deputy Director Comm Svcs 031 9,951 119413 4,593 57.41
60 Deputy Fire Chief 022 12,501 150010 5,770 72.12
Classifications Effective 7/1/2009
Management Compensation 2009
Class No .1 Grade Control Approx. Approx. Approx.
Job Code Title Code Point Annual Blwkly Hourly
20 Deputy Fire Chief -EMT 021 12,810 153712 5,912 73.90
81 Dir Adm Svcs 015 14,881 178568 6,868 85.85
72 Dir Comm Svcs 016 14,519 174221 6,701 83.76
133 Dir Human Resources 018 13,803 165631 6,370 79.63
131 Dir Libraries 021 12,810 153712 5,912 73.90
134 Dir Plan/Comm Envir 018 13,803 165631 6,370 79.63
135 Dir Pw/City Engr 016 14,519 174221 6,701 83.76
121 Dir Utilities 009 17,257 207085 7,965 99.56
2002 Division Head, Library Services 037 8,542 102503 3,942 49.28
1006 Division Manager, Recreations & Golf 026 11,288 135450 5,210 65.12
12 Emergency Svcs Coord 039 8,123 97469 3,749 46.86
129 Engr Mgr -Electric 023 12,179 146141 5,621 70.26
120 Engr Mgr -WGW 023 12,179 146141 5,621 70.26
138 Executive Assistant 043 7,343 88109 3,389 42.36
1005 Executive Assistant to the City Manager 043 7,343 88109 3,389 42.36
46 Financial Analyst 046 6,799 81578 3,138 39.22
139 Fire Chief 016 14,519 174221 6,701 83.76
127 Fleet Manager 034 9,225 110698 4,258 53.22
194 Golf & Parks Div Mgr 025 11,584 139007 5,346 66.83
91 HR Business Analyst 037 8,542 102503 3,942 49.28
101 Human Resources Rep 049 6,306 75671 2,910 36.38
90 Landscape ArchitectlPk Planner 037 8,542 102503 3,942 49.28
69 Legal Administrator 040 7,920 95036 3,655 45.69
167 Manager Employment 035 8,989 107869 4,149 51.86
21 Manager Energy Risk 022 12,501 150010 5,770 72.12
122 Manager Supply Res 023 12,179 146141 5,621 70.26
86 Managing Arborist 040 7,920 95036 3,655 45.69
79 Mgr Accounting 032 9,697 116356 4,475 55.94
141 Mgr Arts 041 7,724 92685 3,565 44.56
49 Mgr Budget 031 9,951 119413 4,593 57.41
164 Mgr Cornm Oper 031 9,951 119413 4,593 57.41
192 Mgr Comm Svc Fac 040 7,920 95036 3,655 45.69
84 Mgr Communications 038 8,327 99924 3,843 48.04
145 Mgr Comp Oper & Appl 031 9,951 119413 4,593 57.41
142 Mgr Competitive Assessment 029 10,461 125528 4,828 60.35
179 Mgr Cust Svc & Meter Reading 030 10,215 122575 4,714 58.93
140 Mgr Data Comm & Tele 031 9,951 119413 4,593 57.41
63 Mgr Economic Dev 028 10,745 128940 4,959 61.99
185 Mgr Electric Oprns 027 11,012 132143 5,082 63.53
44 Mgr Emp Benefits 035 8,989 107869 4,149 51.86
45 Mgr Employee Relations 031 9,951 119413 4,593 57.41
93 Mgr Env Control Prog 036 8,769 105228 4,047 50.59
39 Mgr Envrn Compliance 023 12,179 146141 5,621 70.26
105 Mgr Fac Maint & Proj 032 9,697 116356 4,475 55.94
35 Mgr Fire Protect 030 10,215 122575 4,714 58.93
151 Mgr Human Res & Dev 035 8,989 107869 4,149 51.86
57 Mgr Inv Debt & Proj 031 9,951 119413 4,593 57.41
32 Mgr IT 030 10,215 122575 4,714 58.93
158 Mgr Lab Services 033 9,456 113464 4,364 54.55
175 Mgr Main Lib Svcs 034 9,225 110698 4,258 53.22
92 Mgr Maint Oper 035 8,989 107869 4,149 51.86
51 Mgr Planning 031 9,951 119413 4,593 57.41
Classifications Effective 7/1/2009
Management Compensation 2009
Class No. I Grade Control Approx. Approx. Approx.
Job Code Title Code Point Annual Biwkly Hourly
95 Mgr Pur & Cntr Admin 032 9,697 116356 4,475 55.94
103 Mgr Real Property 031 9,951 119413 4,593 57.41
198 Mgr Risk & Benefits 031 9,951 119413 4,593 57.41
160 Mgr Solid Waste 031 9,951 119413 4,593 57.41
110 Mgr Tech Support 035 8,989 107869 4,149 51.86
87 Mgr Util Info Syst 034 9,225 110698 4,258 53.22
150 Mgr Util Mkt Svcs 030 10,215 122575 4,714 58.93
156 Mgr Util Oprns Wgw 029 10,461 125528 4,828 60.35
48 Mgr Util Telecomm 025 11,584 139007 5,346 66.83
68 Mgr Utility Rates 030 10,215 122575 4,714 58.93
178 Mgr Wqc Plant 023 12,179 146141 5,621 70.26
1008 OES Coordinator 038 8,327 99924 3,843 48.04
172 Open Spc & Parks Div Mgr 078 10,418 125008 4,808 60.10
163 Parking Examiner 043 7,343 88109 3,389 42.36
147 Police Captain-Adv 023 12,179 146141 5,621 70.26
148 Police Chief-Adv 015 14,881 178568 6,868 85.85
149 Police Lieut-Adv 029 10,461 125528 4,828 60.35
77 Project Mgr 041 7,724 92685 3,565 44.56
38 Public Commun Mgr 035 8,989 107869 4,149 51.86
137 Rec & Yth Sc Div Mgr 026 11,288 135450 5,210 65.12
74 Safety Officer 043 7,343 88109 3,389 42.36
187 Sr. Engineer 031 9,951 119413 4,593 57.41
117 Sr. Accountant 039 8,123 97469 3,749 46.86
14 Sr. Administrator 035 8,989 107869 4,149 51.86
152 Sr. Asst City Atty 020 13,127 157519 6,058 75.73
130 Sr. Auditor 039 8,123 97469 3,749 46.86
13 Sr. Business Analyst 034 9,225 110698 4,258 53.22
11 Sr. Deputy City Attorney 032 9,697 116356 4,475 55.94
188 Sr. Electric Project Engineer 029 10,461 125528 4,828 60.35
106 Sr. Executive Assistant 035 8,989 107869 4,149 51.86
199 Sr. Financial Anlyst 039 8,123 97469 3,749 46.86
26 Sr. Project Engineer 031 9,951 119413 4,593 57.41
53 Sr. Project Manager 029 10,461 125528 4,828 60.35
25 Sr. Resource Originator 027 11,012 132143 5,082 63.53
64 Sr. Resource Planner 029 10,461 125528 4,828 60.35
33 Sr. Technologist 034 9,225 110698 4,258 53.22
190 Staff Accountant 047 6,637 79644 3,063 38.29
70 Staff Asst To Cm 046 6,799 81578 3,138 39.22
27 Supervising Electric Project Engineer 034 9,225 110698 4,258 53.22
28 Supervising Project Engineer 036 8,769 105228 4,047 50.59
155 Supt Animal Services 040 7,920 95036 3,655 45.69
183 Supt Golf Course 034 9,225 110698 4,258 53.22
173 Supt Parks 034 9,225 110698 4,258 53.22
165 Supt Pw Opns 031 9,951 119413 4,593 57.41
144 Supt Recreation 032 9,697 116356 4,475 55.94
43 Supv Animal Svcs 047 6,637 79644 3,063 38.29
85 Supv Bldg Inspection 039 8,123 97469 3,749 46.86
162 Supv Bldg Services 049 6,306 75671 2,910 36.38
97 Supv Data Proc 036 7,641 91687 3,526 44.08
47 Supv Elect Opns Prog 039 8,123 97469 3,749 46.86
114 Supv Elect Systems 033 9,456 113464 4,364 54.55
161 Supv Facil Mgt 040 7,920 95036 3,655 45.69
Classifications Effective 7/1/2009
Management Compensation 2009
Class No.1 Grade Control Approx. Approx. Approx.
Job Code Title Code Point Annual Biwkly Hourly
83 Supv Golf Course 040 7,920 95036 3,655 45.69
113 Supv Insp/Surv Pw 041 7,724 92685 3,565 44.56
169 Supv Jr Museum 043 7,343 88109 3,389 42 .36
78 Supv Librarian 043 7,343 88109 3,389 42.36
22 Supv Open Space 042 7,542 90501 3,481 43.51
154 Supv Parks 040 7,920 95036 3,655 45.69
166 Supv Police Service 041 7,724 92685 3,565 44.56
174 Supv Public Works 040 7,920 95036 3,655 45.69
58 Supv Rec Prog 042 7,542 90501 3,481 43.51
62 Supv Recycling Prog 048 6,466 77584 2,984 37.30
124 Supv Repro & Mail 051 5,996 71948 2,767 34.59
176 Supv Revenue Collections 047 6,637 79644 3,063 38.29
197 Supv Shop & Field Wgw 037 8,542 102503 3,942 49.28
177 Supv Theatre Programs 043 7,343 88109 3,389 42.36
42 Supv Util Mtr Rd&Fld 037 8,542 102503 3,942 49.28
94 Supv Uti Constr-Inspect 041 7,724 92685 3,565 44.56
182 Supv Water Trans 037 8,542 102503 3,942 49.28
180 SupvWGW 037 8,542 102503 3,942 49.28
181 Supv Wqc Oper 039 8,123 97469 3,749 46.86
189 Supv Wtr MtrlCrs Con 043 7,343 88109 3,389 42.36
8 Transportation Manager 031 9,951 119413 4,593 57.41
23 Transportation Projects Mgr 036 8,769 105228 4,047 50.59
184 Veterinarian 033 9,456 113464 4,364 54.55
146 Warehouse Supv 050 5,739 68869 2,649 33.11
Confidential Classifications
Class No.1 Grade Control Approx. Approx. Approx.
Job Code Title Code Point Annual Biwkly Hourly
905 Human Rsrce Asst Cnf 082 5,575 66893 2,573 32.16
903 Legal Sec-Conf 080 5,752 69015 2,654 33.18
67 Secretary to City Attorney 048 6,036 72426 2,786 34.82
1004 Senior Legal Secretary -Confidential 085 6,325 75900 2,919 36.49
*NOT
RESOLUTION NO. ---
RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING SECTION 1701 OF NIERlT SYSTEM
RULES AND REGULATIONS TO INCORPORATE THE 2009-2010
COMPENSA TION PLAN FOR MANAGEMENT AND
PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL AND COUNCIL APPOINTEES
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1.
anlended to read as follows:
Section 1701 of the Merit Systenl Rules and Regulations is hereby
"1701. Conlpensation Plan for Managelnent and Professional
Persolmel and Council Appointees incorporated by reference. That
certain Conlpensation Plan entitled "City of Palo Alto COlnpensation
Plan--Managenlent and Professional Persolmel and Council
Appointees," effective pay period including July 1, 2009 tlu-ough
June 30, 2010, is hereby incorporated into these Merit Systeln Rules and
Regulations by reference as though fully set forth herein. Said
Conlpensation Plan shall apply to all Managenlent and Professional
enlployees and Council Appointees, except where specifically provided
otherwise herein.
In the case of conflict with this chapter and any other provisions of the
Merit Systeln Rules and Regulations, this chapter will prevail over such
other provisions as to enlployees in classifications covered by said
Conlpensation Plan."
The changes to the Merit Systenl Rules and Regulations provided
for in resolution shall not affect any right established or accrued, or any offense or act
conlnlitted, or any penalty of forfeiture incuned, or any prosecution, suit, or proceeding pending
or any judgnlent rendered prior to the effective date of this resolution.
II
II
II
II
II
II
091110 sh 8261192 1
*NOT YET APPROVED*
SECTION 3. The Council finds that this is not a project under the Califo111ia
Envirolunental Quality Act and, therefore, no envirolUllental inlpact assessnlent is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
Sf. Deputy City Atto111ey City Manager
Director of HU111an Resources
Director of Adlninistrative Services
091110 sh 8261191 2
OF PALO ALTO
COMPENSATION PLAN
Management and Professional Personnel
And Council Appointees
Effective: Pay period including July 1,
through June 30,
COMPENSATION PLAN FOR CITY PALO ALTO
Management and Professional Personnel
As used in this Plan, the term "Management and Professional" refers to all employees,
including Confidential errlployees, previously classified as "Management and Confidential"
by the City. This group will hereafter be identified as "Management and Professional"
personnel.
SECTION I. COMPENSATION
This section applies to all management and professional employees and does not include
Council Members or Council-appointed officers.
Each Council-appointed officer shall be the responsible decision-maker under this Plan for
those employees in departments under his/her control.
A. MANAGEMENT and PROFESSIONAL COMPENSATION POLICY
The City's policy for management and professional compensation is to establish and
maintain a general structure based on marketplace norms and internal job alignment
with broad compensation grades and ranges. Structures and ranges will be reviewed
annually and updated as necessary based on marketplace survey data, internal
relationships, and City financial conditions.
Individual compensation adjustments will be considered by the Council-appointed
officer based on (1) performance factors including achievement of predetermined
objectives; (2) pay structure adjustments; and (3) City financial conditions.
B. BASIC PLAN ELEMENTS
1. Structure. The compensation plan includes separate multi-grade structures for
both management and profeSSional employees. Each grade will have a control point
which is used for budgetary purposes. All management and professional positions
will be assigned an appropriate pay grade based on salary survey data and internal
relationships. All positions are assigned to a pay grade. Actual salary within the
range is determined by performance. The normal working range where most actual
salaries will fall will be within.:!: 5% of the control point.
The City began a benchmarking survey in 2006 to establish an updated structure for
management and professional personnel. This survey is expected to be completed in
Upon the completion of the Management and Compensation study, any
equity adjustments will be addressed in the future.
As needed, and no less than every two years and commencing fiscal year 2005-
2006, competitive marketplace studies will be conducted by surveying a maximum of
2
12 mutually agreeable agencies similar to Palo Alto in number of employees,
population and services provided. These studies will focus on general salary trends
for groups of management positions such as first line supervisors, administrative,
confidential, professional and top management. Periodically, and no less often than
every four years, studies will include position-by-position comparisons using market
agencies and internal equity data. All studies conducted pursuant to this section shall
be completed by December 31 st and in no event later than March 31 in order to allow
time for Committee review. Depending on the results of these studies, the entire pay
grade structure may be adjusted or individual positions may be reassigned to
different pay grades. Such adjustments will only affect the salary administration
framework. No individual salaries will be automatically changed because of structural
adjustments.
An employee may request in writing a re-evaluation of his/her job based on significant
changes in job content or significant discrepancies between job content and
classification description, and which cannot be described as "other duties as
assigned." The request nlust contain justification and may be made only during the
period of August 10 through September 10. A statement by management that a job
re-evaluation request will be submitted with the departmental budget does not relieve
an erTlployee from the responsibility of submitting his/her own request during this
period. The HR Director or his designee will respond to such requests ffi-f~~t¥
If HR approves change, the request will be forwarded to ASD who will determine if
there is sufficient funding to cover the cost of the change. If approved by ASD, the
reclassification will be sent to the City Managerfor approval. If approved, the change
would be reclassified as part of the budget process and will require Council approval.
Any changes approved as part of the budget process will become effective the first
pay period of the following fiscal year, or, if not approved, the job will be returned to
its previous status.
In the future, the compensation adjustment request will be based on the following
factors: conlpetitive market, changes in internal position relationships, and the City's
ability to pay. Council authorization is required prior to implementation by the
Director of Human Resources.
3. Base and Variable Compensation. Compensation for management and
professional enlployees includes bi-weekly base salary and Variable Management
Compensation (VMC). Bi 'JJeel<ly base salary is paid on a continuing basis. Variable
Management Compensation is an annual cash periormance award based upon
merit. On a fiscal year basis, the sum of the bi-weekly base salary and the VMG must
fall within pay grade limits of no less than 25% below the control point and no nl0re
than 20% above the control point. Funding for VMC's shall be calculated using
salary plus benefits as of July 1, 2008 for all authorized positions in the table of
organization as of January 1, 2009 and excluding all frozen positions.
Base salary increases are earned in accordance with administrative guidelines based
upon growth within the position and performance, which nlust meet or exceed
position standards, the salary structure and the City's ability to pay. In addition,
employees may earn Variable Management Compensation by meeting or exceeding
objectives established under the annual periormance planning and appraisal system.
Variable Management Compensation requalification is necessary for each appraisal
period.
For those eligible retirees "'ho retire during the year, any applicable VMC shall be
prorated based on the number of months the employee worked during his/her fiscal
year. Employees ¥vho resign from the City of Palo Alto are not eligible for prorated
VMC if they leave during the eligible year.
The City Manager has eliminated the VMC effective with the 2008-09 fiscal
year, but it may be reinstated in future _ . Because
VMC elimination is intended to yield structural cost savings, any future
reinstatement would require new offsetting structural savings to be
implemented in exchange.
4. Performance Planning and Appraisal. Performance appraisals will be conducted
at the end of each fiscal year during the months of July through September 30 each
year prior to determining individual employee fixed and variable compensation. This
process includes both review of previous performance plan and preparation of the
performance plan for the next planning period (usually the fiscal year). Performance
plans are jointly prepared by the employee and supervisor with the concurrence of
the department head or Council-appointed officer. The performance plans shall
contain measurable objectives which place special emphasis on position description
duties or specific assignments. Progress toward meeting objectives shall be
4
monitored periodically. The performance appraisals should be implemented in a
manner that will achieve the following objectives:
• Define the employee'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 document past performance to serve as a basis for establishing
and obtaining future performance standards/objectives;
• Facilitate two-way communication and understanding between the employee
and his or her supervisor;
• Counsel and encourage employees to work toward a learning development plan
and realize their full potential;
• Establish future work plan objectives to be considered for a VMC .
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 deterrTlination of the overall performance rating.
Recommendations shall be forwarded to department heads or who will then
determine individual fixed and variable componsation adjustments according to the
provisions of the compensation plan. This process should be completed by
September 30 th, 2009.
C. MANAGEI\/IENT and PROFESSIONAL COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENT
AUTHORIZATION
1. Council-appointed officers are authorized to pay salaries in accordance with this
plan to non-Council-appointed management, and professional employees in an
amount not to exceed the aggregate of approved management and
professional positions budgeted at the control points in the Table of
Organization for fiscal year 200g~-G-91Q.
In addition, for fiscal year 2008 09, Council apPOinted officers are authorized up to 3~~ of
salary plus benefits for management and professional positions, plus unused
Variable Management Compensation funds from the previous fiscal year to
apply toward Variable Management Compensation for individual management
and professional employees \vho qualify under the provisions of this
Management and Professional Compensation Plan .
2. Individual management and professional fixed and 'Variable compensation
authorized by a Council-appointed officer under the Management and
Professional Compensation Plan may not be less than 25% below nor more
5
than 20% above the control point forthe individual position grades authorized in
Table I of this plan.
3. The Council-appointed officers are authorized to establish such administrative
rules as are necessary to implement the Management and Professional Salary
Plan subject to the limitations of the approved compensation adjustment
authorization and the approved grade and control point structure.
4. In the event a downward adjustment of a position grade assignment indicates a
reduction in the established salary of an individual en1ployee, the Council-
appointed officer may, if circumstances warrant, continue the salary for such
employee in an amount in excess of the revised grade limit for a reasonable
period of time. Such interim salary rates shall be defined as "Y-rates."
SECTION II. SPECIAL COMPENSATION
This section applies to all eligible regular management and professional positions including
Council Appointed Officers as applicable and including Council Members where indicated.
Eligibility shall be in conformance with the Merit Rules and Regulations and Administrative
Directives issued by the City Manager for the purposes of clarification and interpretation.
A. OVERTIME AND IN-LIEU HOLIDAY PAY
Compensation for overtime work, and scheduled work on paid holidays for certain
designated non-exempt employees shall be in conformance with the Merit Rules and
Regulations and Policies and Procedures. Overtime eligible employees shall be paid at
the rate of time and one-halftimes the employees' basic hourly salary unless called out
for an emergency arising out of situations involving real or potential loss of service,
property or personal danger, in vvhich case additional pay vvil! be at the rate ofrNo times
the employees' basic hourly salary. Employees who work a schedule where a regular
day off falls on a holiday will be paid for the hours they would have normally worked on
that day. If the holiday falls on a non-workday for an exempt employee, the employee
may, with supervisory approval, take another day off within the pay period or the
following pay period.
B. WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION PAY
Where management and professional employees, on a temporary basis, are assigned
to perform all significant duties of a higher classification, the City Manager may
authorize payment within the range of the higher classification for the specified time
frame. Working out of class pay is normally not to exceed 100/0 more than the
employee's current salary and shall be documented on a Personnel Action Form, with a
description of the additional duties to be
6
C. STAND-BY PAY
Employees eligible for overtime may be entitled to stand-by pay, approved by the City
Manager on a case by case basis, in extreme circumstances involving unavailability of
non-management staff. Compensation is as follows:
Monday through Friday
Saturday, Sunday, Holidays
D. NIGHT SHIFT PREMIUM
$40 per day
$58 per day
Night shift differential shall be paid at the rate of 5% to regular full-time employees
who are regularly assigned to shift work between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., or to
employees who are temporarily assigned to work a full shift between 6:00 p.m. and
8:00 a.m.
E. UNIFORM PURCHASE PLAN -SWORN POLICE, FIRE PERSONNEL, and OPEN
SPACE PERSONNEL
Uniforms including cleaning will be provided with replacement provisions on an as-
needed basis in conformance with department policy.
F. WINTER CLOSURE -200g~
The winter closure will be tho \ttook of December~24~ January 1.
Not all City facilities are closed during the Winter Closure; employees must check with their
supervisor to find out if the closure is applicable to their positions. During the Winter
Closure, employees may elect to use paid leave balances such as management leave,
vacation or holiday payor take time off without pay. Employees who wish to work during
the Winter Closure should make arrangements with their supervisors regarding work
assignments.
G. GROUP INSURANCE
1. By March 1 , 2010! the Management and Professional Committee will propose a
health care contribution plan that provides
comparable plan coverage and cost savings to the health plan changes set
forth in Modification 8 _ the "SEIU plan."
In the event that the proposed alternative contribution plan is not adopted by
City Council! then the 'SEIU plan" shall apply to the management and
professional employees, CAO's and Council Members, including active
employees retiring after June 30, 2010.
It is the intent of the City Manager and Management and Professional
Committee to have substantially the same health benefit as SEIU.
7
+ __ 2. Effective Date of Coverage for New Employees
For newly-hired regular employees coverage begins on the first day of the
month following date of hire for the health plan, dental plan, vision care plan,
long term disability and life insurance plans if these benefits are elected.
~ __ 3. Active Employee Health Plan
(a-L Based on an employee's family status, the City shall pay up to the monthly
medical premium for the second most expensive plan among the existing
array of plans available during the term of this compensation plan on behalf
of eligible employees (including Council Appointed Officers and Council
Members) and dependents. Eligible dependents include spouses, children
under the age of 23 and never married (natural, adopted, or stepchildren),
economically dependent children, and domestic partners registered with
the Secretary of State. If PERS changes the plans it offers, the City will
continue to provide an equivalent benefit at an equivalent cost.
(b) The City agrees to offer a program to active management and professional
personnel (including Council Appointed Officers and Council Members)
enrolled in PERSCare prior to 1/6/07 who elected the PERSChoice health
plan in which the City will reimburse the employee and/or dependents for
any covered medical expense which exceeds the $2 million Lifetime
Maximum Benefit.
(c) City medical prem ium contributions will be prorated for part-time
employees hired or newly assigned to a part-time work schedule on or
after January 1 ! 2010 based on the number of hours per week the part-
time employee is assigned to work.
(d) Coverage for Domestic Partners:
(1) Domestic Partnership Registered with the California Secretary of
State: Employees may add their domestic partner as a dependent to
their elected health plan coverage if the donlestic partnership is
registered with the Secretary of State.
(2) Domestic Partnership Not Registered with the California Secretary of
State: Domestic partners who meet the requirements of the City of
Palo Alto Declaration of Domestic Partnership, and are registered
with the Human Resources Department, will be eligible for
reirnbursement of the actual monthly premiunl cost of an individual
health plan, not to exceed the maxinlum monthly City employer
contribution for one-party coverage under the CalPERS Health
Benefits Program (or PORAC if a safety department employee) for
8
an employee covered under this agreement. Evidence of premium
payment will be required with request for reimbursement.
PERS Choice Reimbursement Plan
Management and Professional personnel enrolled in the PERS Choice
medical plan may submit a request for payment, as specified below, for
non-covered medical expenses, incurred during the period of January 1,
through December 31, of the plan year, that exceed $2,500. The
maximum annual reimbursement amount provided under this program is:
• $700 for employees enrolled in the Employee-Only category;
• $900 for employees enrolled in the Employee and One
Dependent category, and
• $1,100 for employees enrolled in the Family category.
Any amounts reimbursed to an individual under this program would be
included in the employee's gross income and is not PERSable.
This program shall only reimburse employees for medical expenses that are
not reimbursed through any other means and meet the definition in Section
213(d) of the Internal Revenue Code. (Examples of eligible expenses
include medical plan deductibles and co-payments, prescription drugs, dental
care, hearing care, and vision care.) However, in order to have any
expenses reimbursed under this program, the employee must have allocated
100% ($2,500.00) of their calendar Excess Benefit funds into the
Medical FSA option during the election that occurred in November In
addition, all such reimbursements from the Excess Benefit Program must
have been solely for medical expenses, as defined by Section 213(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code. If the employee has designated his/her Excess
Medical funds for any other qualifying expenses (i.e. dependent C8ie,
Professional Development, Deferred Compensation contributions), the
employee would not be eligible for reimbursement under this program.
Employees may submit one claim for the entire plan year's expenses during
January. Any amounts remaining from the PERS Choice reimbursement
plan after the claims for the plan year had been processed shall be forfeited.
Alternative Medical Benefit Program
If a regular employee and/or the employee's dependent(s) are eligible for medical
insurance through another employer-sponsored or association nledical plan, the
employee may opt for alternative medical insurance coverage through the other
employer-sponsored or association plan and waives his/her right to the City of Palo
Alto's medical insurance coverage for same individuals. Employees electing alternative
coverage and no City coverage will receive cash payments of approximately half of the
9
"average monthly premiums: fortheir medical insurance coverage. "Averaged monthly
premiums" are the average of the Kaiser HMO, Blue Shield HMO and PERS Choice
PPO premiums for the employee's City medical coverage available through the Public
Employee Retirement System (PERS).
The rates for 2007 are as follows:
One Party: $230.00
1\\'0 Party: $460.00
family: $5Q5 .00
The rates for 2008 are 3S follows:
One party: $250 .00
TINa parties: $500 .00
Family: $645.00
The rates for 2009 are as follows:
One party: $260.00
Two parties: $520.00
Family: $675.00
The rates for 2010 are as follows :
One party: $269.77
Two parties: $528.81
Family: $701 .41
45. Retiree Health Plan
(a) Employees Hired Prior to January 1, 2004
Monthly City-paid premium contributions for a retiree-selected health
plan through the CalPERS Health Benefits Program will be made as
provided under the Public Employees" Medical and Hospital Care Act.
The City's monthly employer contribution for each employee retiring on
or after January -U1 )2007 and prior to July 1! 2010 shall be the amount
necessary to pay for the co~t of his or her enrollment in a health
benefits plan up to the monthlylpremium forthe second most expensive
plan offered to management and professional personnel during the
contract term (among the existing array of plans.)
For the 200~+ calendar year, the City's contribution toward dependent
coverage is §.-70% of the difference between the applicable "Employee
and One Dependent" or "Family" maximum employer contribution for
active management and professional personnel and the maximum
employer contribution for "Employee Only" coverage. For 201.QOO the
10
City's contribution will increase to §.+5°10. For 201100, the City's
contribution will increase to ~gooio.
(b) Post -1/1/04 Hires
For those Management and professional eITlployees hired after January 1,
2004, the PERS law vesting schedule set forth in Government Code section
22893 will apply. Under that law, an employee is eligible for 500/0 of the
specified employer health premium contribution after ten years of service credit,
provided at least five of those years were performed at the City of Palo Alto.
After ten years of service credit, each additional service credit year increases
the employer contribution percentage by 5°1o until, at 20 years' service credit,
the employee will be eligible upon retirement for 100°10 of the specified
employer contribution and 90°10 of their dependent coverage. The City of Palo
Alto's health premium contribution for eligible post -1/1/04 hires shall be the
mininlum contribution set by PERS under section 22893 based on a weighted
average of available health plan premiums.
Active employees retiring after June 30, 2010 will be subject to health premium
contributions as set forth in Resolution #8994, modification 8.
It is the intent of the City Manager and Management and Professional
Committee to have substantially the same health benefit as SEIU .
a6 . Dental Plan
a) The City shall pay covered plan charges on behalf of all eligible employees
and dependents. (Domestic partners who are either registered with the
Secretary of State or who meet the requirements of the City of Palo A!to
Declaration of Domestic Partnership, and are registered with the Human
Resources Department are considered dependents under the plan.)
Benefits for regular part-time employees will be prorated as follows:
Employees who will work less than full time, will receive prorated
premium costs for dental benefits in accordance with his/her
percentage of a full-time work schedule. Part time employees
currently receiving full benefits will not be impacted.
b) The City's Dental Plan provides the following:
• Maximum Benefits per Calendar Year-$2,000 per person
• Lifetime Maximum for Orthodontics-The City will pay up to
$2,000.00 for orthodontia coverage (not included in annual
dental maximum)
• Major Dental Services 50°10 UCR*
11
• 0 rthodo ntics
• Basic Benefits (All other covered services)
First Calendar Year of Eligibility
Subsequent Calendar Years
*Usual, Customary, and Reasonable
50% UCR*
70% UCR*
70%-100%
Effective 1 /1 /07 the City added composite (tooth covered) fillings for
posterior teeth to the dental plan.
For each dental plan member, the percentage of coverage for basic benefits
will begin at 700/0 for the first calendar year of coverage and increase by 10%
(up to a maximum of 1 00%) effective the first day of the next calendar year
as long as the member utilizes the plan at least once during the current year.
Per the Delta Dental contract effective October 1 , 2005, if the member does
not utilize the plan during the current year, the percentage of coverage for
the next calendar year shall remain unchanged from the current year.
If a dental plan member ever loses coverage under the plan, the applicable
percentage of coverage for basic benefits provided during any future period
of coverage will commence at 70% as if the dental plan menlber was a new
enrollee. Examples of when a member might lose coverage under the plan
would include:
• Employee goes on an unpaid leave of absence and elects not to pay the
required dental premiums for his/her family's coverage during the leave.
• Employee elects to drop one or more covered dependents from the plan
during an open enrollment period so that they might be covered on a
spouse's non-City of Palo Alto dental plan.
Basic Life Insurance
The City shall provide a basic group term life insurance with Accidental Death
and Dismemberment (AD&D) coverage, in an amount equal to the employee's
annual basic pay (rounded to the next highest $1,000) at no-cost to the
employee. AD&D pays an additional amount equal to the employee's annual
basic pay (rounded to the next highest $1,000).
Supplemental Life And AD&D Insurance
An employee may, at his/her cost, purchase additional life insurance and
additional AD&D coverage equal to one-or two-times his or her annual salary.
The maximum amount of life insurance available to the employee is up to
$325,000 and the maximum amount of AD&D coverage available is up to
$325,000.
12
Long Term Disability Insurance
a) The City shall provide long term disability (LTD) insurance with a benefit of
2/3 monthly salary, up to a maximum benefit of $1 0,000 per month. The City
shall pay the premium for the first $6,000 of base monthly salary. For
employees whose base monthly salary exceeds $6,000, the employee shall
pay the cost of the required premium based upon their monthly salary
between $6,000 and $15,000.
b) For employees whose base monthly salary exceeds $6,000 and who have
no eligible dependents covered under the City's medical, dental or vision
plans, the City will pay up to $17.50 per month towards the employee's cost
for LTD coverage.
Vision Care
a) The City shall provide vision care coverage for employee and dependents.
Coverage is administered by Vision Service Plan (VSP). The plan provides
an exam every 12 months; lenses every 24 months; frames every 24
months, all subject to a $20 co-payment as defined in the Vision Services
Benefits Plan A schedule. Benefits for regular part-time employees will be
prorated as follows:
Employees hired after January 1, 2004, who will work less than
full time, will receive prorated premium costs for vision benefits in
accordance with his/her percentage of a full-time work schedule.
Part time employees currently receiving full benefits will not be
impacted.
b) Effective July 1, 1996, dependents include eligible domestic partners who
are either registered with the Secretary of State or who meet the
requirements of the City of Palo Alto Declaration of Domestic Partnership,
and are registered with the Human Resources Department.
H. EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PLAN
The ElTlployee Assistance Plan (EAP) provides employees with confidential
personal counseling, work and family related issues, eldercare, substance abuse, etc.
In addition, EAP programs provide a valuable tool for supervisors to refer troubled
employees to professional outside help. This service staffed by experienced
clinicians is available to employees and their dependents by calling a toll-free phone
line 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Guidance is also available online.
I. SAFETY DIFFERENTIALS
13
1. Police Department -Personnel Development Program
Pursuant to administrative rules governing eligibility and qualification, the following
may be granted to sVl/orn police personnel:
P.O.S.T. Intermediate Certificate: 5% above base salary
P.O.S.T. Advanced Certificate: 7 1/20/0 above base salary
2. Fire Department -EMT Differential
Pursuant to administrative rules governing eligibility and qualification, the following
may be granted to sworn Fire personnel:
EMT Differential:
J. MANAGEMENT and PROFESSIONAL BENEFIT PROGRAM
Management and professional employees are eligible for Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of
the Management Benefit Program. City Council Members are eligible for Section 3
only.
1. Professional Development -Reimbursement
__ Reimbursement for authorized
self-improvement activities may be granted each management and professional
employee up to a maximum of $1 ,500 per fiscal year. The following items are
eligible for reimbursement . , ,~-'---.,'
a. Civic and professional association memberships
b. Conference participation and travel expenses, vvtJich must occur within the
compensation plan period.
c. Educational programs/tuition reimbursement. The education must maintain
or improve the employee's skills in performing his or her job, or be
necessary to meet the express requirements of the City or the
requirements of applicable law. The education to which the reimbursement
relates must not be part of a program qualifying the employees for another
trade or business; or be necessary to meet the minimum educational
requirements for qualification for employment. Permissible educational
expenses are refresher courses, courses dealing with current
developn1ents, academic or vocational courses, as well as the travel
expenses associated with the courses.
14
d. Professional and trade journal subscriptions not to exceed 12 months.
e. Gym/health club memberships. Reimbursement of these expenses is
limited to the compensation plan year and taxable to the employee.:.
y, Effective July 1! 2009, purchase of job related computer hardware is limited
to one computer purchase every three (3) years. Purchase of other
peripheral hardware such as printers and monitors is limited once every
three years from the last date purchased after July 1, 2009. The size of
free standing man itors purchased are not to exceed 26 inches. Approval
will be at discretion of department head and signature is required on
reimbursement form
.:...PuFchase of job related computer
soft\vare, hardware, internet access, telecommunication equipment and
home office equipment/furniture. Rei mbursement of any of these
expenses is taxable to the employee.
Internet access, computer software and telecommunication equipment will
be approved at discretion of department head . Reimbursement of any of
these expenses is taxable to the employee.
Amounts under this professional development program will be pro-rated in the
first year of employment (based on the number of pay periods remaining in the
calendar year) but will not be pro-rated upon separation of employment.: The
maximum amount for Professional Development reimbursement for employees
who move into a position covered by this compensation plan from a position
under another City of Palo Alto bargaining group will be the lesser of:
(1) $1,500 less any amounts they have received in the fiscal year of
their position change through any other City of Palo Alto Tuition
Reimbursement or Professional Development program; or
(2) An amount obtained by subtracting any amounts the employee
may have received in the fiscal year of their position change through
any other City of Palo Alto Tuition Reimbursement or Professional
Development program from the sum of:
(i) the number of months of the current fiscal year that the
employee served in previous bargaining unit and multiplying it by
one-twelfth of that unit's Tuition Reimbursement or Professional
Development annual maximum benefit; and,
(ii) the number of months of the current fiscal year that the
employee will serve in the position covered by this compensation
plan multiplied by $125.
2. Professional Development Leave
15
Authorized paid leaves of absence for up to one year
accordance with the following requirements:
granted in
a. Eligibility is subject to a minimum City service requirement of five years.
b. Compensation during the Professional Development Leave shall not
exceed 500/0 salary and full benefits.
c. When granted, a Professional Development Leave shall require an
employee commitment of at least two-years' service following return from
the Leave. To the extent the full two-year comrrlitment is not fulfilled, the
employee shall re-pay the City a pro rata amount of the salary paid during
the Leave based on the percentage of the two-year commitment not
fulfilled.
d. The Professional Development Leave program shall relate to the
employee's job assignment.
e. An employee's job assignment activity shall be adequately covered during
his/her absence with emphasis on the development of subordinates.
f. The leave of absence period shall be adequately coordinated with
departmental priorities and workload.
g. Professional Development Leaves shall be based on internship exchanges,
and/or loaned executive arrangements; scholastic and/or authorship
programs; or educational travel-study plans.
Leave of absence schedules will be apportioned among all levels of
management and professional employees and will be based on an evaluation of
each employee's performance record. Each paid sabbatical leave wiil be
limited to a maximum of one year and not more than two employees being on
leave simultaneously. Sabbatical leaves must be cleared in advance and
approved by a Council-appointed officer for his/her subordinates. Professional
Development Leaves granted in excess of 30 days shall be noticed to the
Council.
3. Physical Examinations
All management and professional employees are eligible to receive an annual
physical examination as follows:
a. Use the periodic health exam benefit as provided under the PERS
Health Plan option you have selected. Each of the PERS Health Plans
provides for a periodic physical examination. The examination must be
16
performed by your prin1ary care physician-unless he/she refers you to
another physician.
b. The types of tests and the frequency of the tests cannot exceed A~J1A
guidelines. The guidelines are a suggested minimum based on
research studies concerning preventative care. The judgment of your
physician is the final determinant for your care.
c. Any additional necessary asyn1ptomatic tests that are required by your
physician that are not covered by your health plan, will be reimbursed by
the City. Any symptomatic tests will be covered under your PERS
Health Plan.
The Reimbursement for Periodic Physical Exam Form is available on the
Human Resources Intranet site. This benefit will not be pro-rated.
4. Excess Benefit
This benefit is designed to meet the requirements of Section 125 of the Internal
Revenue Code. Every calendar year, each en1ployee will be provided with
$2,500 that they can designate among the following options:
a. Medical Flexible Spending Account (Medical FSA). Provides
reimbursement for excess medical/dental/vision, or expenses that are
incurred by employees and their dependents which are not covered or
reimbursed by any other source, including existing City-sponsored plans.
This includes prescribed medications and copayments as well as over-the-
counter drugs, including: antacids, allergy medicines, pain relievers and
cold medicines. However, nonprescription dietary supplements (e.g.
vitamins, etc.) toiletries (e.g. toothpaste), cosmetics (e.g. face cream), and
items used for cosmetic purposes (e.g. Rogaine) are not acceptable.
b. Dependent Care Flexible Spending Account (Dependent Care FSA).
Provides reimbursement for qualified dependent care expenses under the
City's Dependent Care Assistance Program (DCAP), subject to the
following limits: Dependent care expenses will be reimbursed only to the
extent that the amount of such expenses reimbursed under this
Management Benefit Program, when added to the amount (if any) of
annual dependent care expenses that the participant has elected under the
City's Flexible Benefits Plan, do not exceed the maximum permitted under
the DCAP.
1) The annual amount submitted for reimbursement cannot exceed the
income of the lower-paid spouse.
17
2) The expenses must be employment-related expenses for the care of
one or more dependents who are under 13 years of age and entitled to
a dependent deduction under Internal Revenue Code section 151 (e) or
a dependent who is physically or mentally incapable of caring for
himself or herself.
3) The payments cannot be made to a child under 19 years of age or to a
person clain1ed as a dependent.
4) If the services are provided by a dependent care center, the center
must comply with all state and local laws and must provide care for
more than six individuals (other than a resident of the facility).
5) Dependent care expenses not submitted under this section are eligible
under the City Dependent Care Assistance Plan (DCAP). However, the
maximum amount reimbursed under DCAP will be reduced by any
amount reimbursed under the Excess Benefit Plan.
c. Non-taxable Professional Development Spending Account.
Provides reimbursement for Non-Taxable professional development
expenses (e.g.,job-related training and education, seminars, training
manuals, etc.) to the extent they are not paid or reimbursed under any
other plan of the City.
d. Deferred Compensation.
Provides a one-time contribution to the employee's City-sponsored 457
Deferred Compensation plan with either ICMA-RE or the Hartford.
Amounts designated by employees to either the Medical FSA, Dependent Care
FSA, or Professional Development options are done so on a "use -it-or-Iose-it"
basis. This means that any amounts designated and not used by the end of the
calendar year (or end of the extended grace period for the medical FSA) will be
forfeited by the employee and returned to the plan.
Specified amounts under this benefit will be applied on a pro-rata basis for
employees who are part-time or who are in a management or professional pay
status for less than the full fiscal year. Such benefits will be pro-rated in the first
year of employment (based on hire date) but will not be pro-rated upon
separation of employment.
K. LEAVES
1. Sick Leave
a) Sick leave shall be accrued bi-weekly provided the employee has been in a
pay status for 50 percent or more of a bi-weekly pay period. Sick leave
18
shall be accrued at the rate of 3.7 hours per bi-weekly pay period for those
employees working a forty-hour duty schedule. Those assigned work
schedules, which are greater or lesser than forty hours will accrue sick
leave at the ratio of their work schedule to forty hours.
b) Employees nlay use up to twenty hours of sick leave per calendar year for
personal business. The scheduling of such leave is subject to the approval
of the appropriate level of Management.
c) Employees leaving the municipal service shall forfeit all accumulated sick
leave, except as otherwise provided by law and by Section 609 of the Merit
Rules and Regulations. In the event that notice of resignation is given, sick
leave may be used only through the day which was designated as the final
day of work by such notice.
d) Employees that were hired before December 1, 1983 and who leave the
municipal service in good standing, or who die while employed in good
standing by the city, and who have fifteen or more years of continuous
service shall receive compensation for unused sick leave hours in a sum
equal to two and one-half percent of their unused sick leave hours multiplied
by their years of continuous service and their basic hourly rate of pay at
termination. Full sick leave accrual will be paid in the event of termination
due to disability. See Merit System Rules and Regulations, Chapter 6,
Section 609.
e) Up to nine days of sick leave per calendar year may be used for illness in
the immediate family, including a registered domestic partner.
f) Management and Professional employees eligible, as specified above if
hired before December 1, 1983, to be compensated for sick leave may
annually convert sick leave hours in excess of 600 to cash or deferred
compensation, according to the formula set forth above, up to a maximum
of $2,000 per fiscal year.
2. Management Annual Leave
19
At the beginning of each fiscal year regular management and professional
employees will be credited with 80 hours of annual leave. This leave is granted
in recognition of the extra hours Management and Professional eITlployees work
over their regular schedule. This leave may be taken as paid time off, added to
vacation accrual (subject to vacation accrual limitations), taken as cash ortaken
as deferred compensation. When time off is taken under this provision, 10-hour
shift workers will receive one shift off for each 8 hours charged; 24-hour shift
workers will receive one-half shift off for each 8 hours charged. Entitlement
under this provision will be reduced on a prorated basis for part-time status, or
according to the number of months in paid status during the fiscal year~
Unused balances as of the end of the fiscal year will be paid
in cash unless a different option as indicated above is elected by the employee.
3. Professional Development Leave
Authorized paid leaves of absence for up to one year will be granted in
accordance "lith the folloloving requirements;.
a. Eligibility is subject to a minimum City service requirement of five years.
b. Compensation during the Professional Development Leave shall not
exceed 50~4, salary and full benefits.
c. ""hen granted, a Professional Development Leave shall requ ire an
employee commitment of at least two years' service follolNing return from
the Leave. To the extent the full two year commitment is not fulfilled, the
employee shall Fe pay the City a pro rata amount of the salary paid during
the Leave based on the percentage of the wicryeaf--Bommitmont not
fulfilled.
d. The Professional DO\/elopment Leavo program shall relate to the
employee's job assignment.
e. An employee's job assignment activity shall be adequately covered
during his/her absence with emphasis on the development of subordinates.
f. The leave of absence period shall be adequately coordinated v'iith
departmental priorities and workload.
g. Professional Development Leaves shall be based on internship
exchanges, and/or loaned executive arrangements' scholastic and/or
authorship programs; or educational tra'Jol study plans.
20
Leave of absence schedules \vill be apportioned among all levels of
management and professional employees and \\'ill be based on an
evaluation of each employee's performance record. Each paid sabbatical
leave \"iill be limited to a maximum of one year and not more than two
employees being on leave simultaneously. Sabbatical leaves must be
cleared in advance and approved by a Council appointed officer for his/her
subordinates. Professional Development Leaves granted in ex:cess of 30
days shall be noticed to the Council .
34. Vacation
Vacation will be accrued when an employee is in pay status and will be credited
on a bi-weekly basis. Total vacation accrual at anyone time may not exceed
three times the annual rate of accrual. Each eligible employee shall accrue
vacation at the following rate for continuous service performed in pay status:
(a) Less than nine years. For employees completing less than nine years
continuous service: 120 hours vacation leave per year; provided that:
(i) The City Manager is authorized to adjust department head annual vacation
accrual to provide for a maximum of 160 hours for those hired between
July 1, 1996 and June 30, 2001; and
(ii) The City manager is authorized to adjust the annual vacation accrual of
employees hired on or after July 1, 2001, to provide up to 40 additional
hours (Le., to a maximum annual accrual of 160 hours) for service with a
prior employer.
(b) Nine. but less than fourteen years. For employees completing nine, but not
more than fourteen years continuous service; 160 hours vacation per year.
(c) Fourteen. but less than nineteen years. For employees completing
fourteen, but not more than nineteen years continuous service; 180 hours
vacation leave per year.
(d) Nineteen or more years. For employees completing nineteen or more
years continuous service; 200 hours vacation leave per year.
(e) Once each calendar year an employee may cash out vacation accrual
balances in excess of 80 hours. An employee nlay cash out a minimum of 8 hours to a
maximum of 120 hours of accrued vacation provided the employee has taken 80
vacation hours in the previous 12 months.
4.~ Bereavement
21
Leave of absence with pay of three days may be granted an employee by the head of
his/her department in the event of death in the employee's immediate family, which is
defined for purposes of this section as wife, husband, son, son-in-law, step-son,
daughter, daughter-in-law, step-daughter, mother, mother-in-law, father, father-in-law,
brother, brother-in-law, sister, sister-in-law, grandmother, grandmother-in-Iaw,
grandfather, grandfather-in-Iaw, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, registered
domestic partner, or a close relative residing in the household of employee. Such leave
shall be at full pay and shall not be charged against the enlployee's accrued vacation or
sick leave. Requests for leave in excess of three days shall be subject to the approval
of a Council-Appointed Officer for employees under his/her control.
L. RETIRErvIE~IT PENSION
1. Effective pay period inclusive of 1/6/07, the City's Public Employees' Retirement
System (PERS) benefits changed to the 2.7% at 55 formula for non-safety
members (from 2% at 55).
The City shall amend its contract wi th CalPERS to provide miscellaneous
employees hired on or after the effective date of the CalPERS contract
amendment with the CalPERS retirement formula two percent (2.0%) of final
salary at age sixty (60). The City will implement this change on January 1 !
2010 or as soon thereafter as possible.
2. Employee Share. Effective May 1, 1984, the City agreed to pay the 7%
employee contribution to PERS. Effective pay period inclusive of 1/6/07, the
employee share of the PERS contribution increased to 8% from 7%. The City
pays 60/0 and the employee pays 2% of the 8% PERS employee share for the
2.7 at 55 retirement benefit formula. This provision applies to Council-appointed
officers and all regular management and professional employees, except that
for sworn police and fire management employees the City shall continue to pay
the mandatory nine percent (9%) of the employee's PERS contribution. For
employees hired after the implementation of the 2%@60 retirement fonnula,
employees covered by that formula shall pay two percent (2%) of pay toward
toward the seven percent (7%) employee contribution and the City shall pay
(50/0).
3.
~~~ ____ Notwithstanding subsection 2 above,
--
_ effective the pay period inclusive of
1/6/07 , upon filing a notice of retirement, the ~o City paid amount of the PERS
22
contribution as described above(g~<, for sworn police and fire management
porsonnel) will be converted to a salary adjustment of equal amount on a one-
time irrevocable basis
I _
-or any other designated consecutive year
f~~ _____ Employee PERS contributions shall be made on a tax deferred basis, in
accordance with Section 414(h)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code. All provisions
of this subsection are subject to and conditioned upon compliance with IRS
regulations.
~4.-_As of October 20, 2001 and March 9, 2002, the City provides the Public
Employees' Retirement System (PERS) Benefit, "3% at 50" full formula (Section
21362.2) for safety nlembers.
M. AUTOMOBILE EXPENSE ALLOWANCE
For those employees whose duties require use of a City automobile, the City
Manager (or in the case of Council-appointed officers, the City Council) may
authorize payment of up to $325 per month in lieu thereof.
N. COMMUTE INCENTIVES and PARKING
Employees who qualify may voluntarily elect one of the following commute incentives:
1. Civic Center Parking. Employees assigned to Civic Center and adjacent
work locations. The City will provide a Civic Center Garage parking permit.
Employees hired after June 30, 1994 may initially receive a parking pernlit for
another downtown lot, subject to the availability of space at the Civic Center
Garage.
2. Public Transit. The City will provide monthly Commuter Checks worth the
value of:
$40 for employees traveling two or more zones on Caltrain;
$40 for employees using the Dumbarton Express, BART, the ACE train or a
commuter highway vehicle;
$35 for employees traveling within one zone on Caltrain;
$35 for employees using VTA, and other buses.
These vouchers may be used toward the purchase of a transit pass.
3. Carpool. The City will provide $30 per month to each eligible employee in a
carpool with two or more licensed drivers.
23
4. Vanpool POO+-Program. The City will provide Commuter Checks worth the
value up to $60 to each employee voluntarily participating in the Vanpool P-Het
Program. These may be used toward payment of the monthly cost of the
vanpool. Employees must fulfill the basic requirements of the Employee
Commute Alternatives Program to qualify.
5. Bicycle. The City will provide employees with $20 per month to eligible
employees who ride a bicycle to work.
6. Walk. The City will provide employees with $20 per month to eligible
employees who walk to work.
O. AT-WILL STATUS
Department heads hired after July 1, 2004 will be "At-Will" employees whose terms of
enlployment are specified by an employment contract. Any current department head
or the Assistant City Manager may elect to remain covered by the Merit Rules or to
become At-Will employees with an employment contract that shall include a
severance package. All current executive managers shall maintain all the benefits
they presently have or would have as a new executive manager.
P. ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR
The Mayor shall receive $150 monthly, and the Vice Mayor $100 monthly to defray
additional expenses of these offices.
Q. REIMBURSEMENT FOR RELOCATION EXPENSE
Policy Statement
The City of Palo Alto, in rare instances, may provide a Basic Relocation Benefits
Package for new management and professional employees, upon the approval of the
City Manager or designated subordinate. In addition, the provision of "Optional
Benefits" or portions thereof, nlay be extended for exceptional circumstances and
only the approval of the City Manager or designee, or for-Council-appointed officers_,
the City Council.
The details of the Relocation Expense program are specified in the City's Relocation
Expense policy.
24
R. MEAL ALLOWANCE
Management and professional employees assigned to attend night meetings are
eligible to receive reimbursement for up to $20.00 per dinner. This provision covers
only receipted meals actually taken and submitted for reimbursement.
S. REDUCTION IN WORKFORCE
The City will make every effort to follow the 2005 transition plan if a reduction in
workforce is necessary in The Management/Professional
Compensation COlTlmittee shall be involved in development of changes to the
transition plan.
T. GRIEVANCES REGARDING COUNCIL APPOINTED OFFICERS
Notwithstanding the grievance procedures provided in Chapter 11 of the City of
Palo Alto's Merit System Rules and Regulations, any Management and
Professional employee who is supervised by a Council Appointed Officer and has
a grievance against that Council AppOinted Officer or regarding the conduct of that
Council Appointed Officer shall, following an atternpt to resolve the grievance
pursuant to Step One (informal discussion), summarize the grievance regarding
the Council Appointed Officer in writing and submit it to the Director of Human
Resources for review and resolution using the methods he/she considers
appropriate.
U. MERIT RULES
The City will include members of the Management/Professional Compensation
Committee in discussions regarding revision of the Merit Rules and Regulations.
SECTION III. MANAGE~.~ENT FELLOVV PROGRAM
program's purpose is to create limited duration entry level positions for graduate
students. A management fellow will be an Hat will" employee whose term of
employment shall be no more than one year. A Management Fellow shall be
PERS exempt, but will receive limited vacation, lin1ited sick leave, limited health
care benefits and other limited benefits, as determined by the City Manager.
Sections I and II of this Plan shall not apply to Management Fellows, except as
specified by the City Manager.
25
FROM CITY ATIORNEY
November 12, 2009
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
RE: Request for Authorization to (1) Increase Existing
Agreement with the Law Firm of Musick, Peeler &
Garrett, LLP by an Additional $52,000 For a Total
Contract Not to Exceed Amount of $102,000; (2)
Increase the Existing Agreement with the Law Firm
of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore by an Addi onal
$60,000 for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of
$145,000 i and (3) Increase the Existing Agreement
with Ferguson Praet & Sherman by an Additional
$50,000 for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of
115 00
Dear Members of the Council:
The City Attorney's Office requests authorization to
increase the existing agreement with the law firm of Musick,
Peeler & Garrett, LLP by an additional $52,000 for a total not to
exceed amount of $102,000. Musick, Peeler & Garrett, LLP was
retained to represent the City in the United States Department of
Transportation matter.
Funding for this contract does not require addi tional
budgetary authority as it can be accommodated within the Gas Fund
budget for 2009-10.
The City Attorney's Off requests authorization to
increase the existing contract with the law firm of Liebert
Cassidy Whitmore by an additional $60,000 for a total not to
exceed amount of $145,000. Liebert Cassidy Whitmore has
represented the City in general personnel matters since 1999.
This current contract is for legal services relating to general
personnel matters for f cal years 2008-09 and 2009 10. The
091106 sd17061179
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
November 12, 2009
PAGE 2
RE: Request for Authorization to (1) Increase Existing
Agreement with the Law Firm of Musick, Peeler &
Garrett, LLP by an Additional $52,000 For a Total
Contract Not to Exceed Amount of $102,000; (2)
Increase the Existing Agreement with the Law Firm
of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore by an Additional
$60,000 for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of
$145,000; and (3) Increase the Existing Agreement
with Ferguson Praet & Sherman by an Additional
$50,000 for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of
$115,000
addi tional funding of $60,000 is necessary in order to provide
sufficient legal support relating to labor relations matters.
Funding for this contract does not require additional
budgetary authority as it can be accommodated wi thin the general
benefits/internal services fund budget for 2009-10.
The City Attorney's Office requests authorization to
increase the existing agreement with the law firm of Ferguson,
Praet & Sherman by an additional $50,000 for a total not to exceed
amount' of $115,000. Ferguson Praet & Sherman has represented the
City in litigation matters since 2005. This current contract is
for legal services relating to litigation matters for fiscal years
2008-09 and 2009-10.
Funding for this contract does not require
budgetary au thori ty as it can be accommodated wi thin
Attorney's budget for 2009-10.
additional
the City
Respectfully submitted,
sdl/sh
091106 sdl 7061179
/J7 ;?J" r-----
Gary M. Baum
City Attorney
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO MEI WONG
UPON HER RETIREMENT
WHEREAS, Mei Wong has served the City of Palo Alto from June 24, 1982 to
November 20, 2009 as a Technician II, Professional I, Water Quality Control Laboratory
Technician, and Chemist; and
WHEREAS, Mei Wong has enhanced the quality of life and protected the public
health of citizens of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, East Palo
Alto Sanitary District, and Stanford University by performing thousands of analytical
laboratory tests at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant; and
WHEREAS, Mei Wong, in her 27 years of service to Palo Alto has supported
protection of water quality of the Palo Alto Baylands, San Francisco Bay, and Palo Alto
drinking water through excellent quality assurance and quality control work at the
Regional Water Quality Control Plant laboratory; and
WHEREAS, Mei Wong has the respect of her peers and has demonstrated
competence, resourcefulness, quality, a strong intellect, good problem solving, and an
excellent overview of Plant work; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto desires to recognize the meritorious service of Mei
Wong.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Palo Alto
hereby commends the outstanding public service of Mei Wong and records its
appreciation as well as the appreciation of the citizens of the service area served by the
Regional Water Quality Control Plant for the service and contribution rendered during
her 27 years of employment with the City of Palo Alto.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: November 16, 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 SRIDHAR BILGIRI
UPON HIS RETIREMENT
WHEREAS, Sridhar Bilgiri has served the City of Palo Alto from June 27, 1994 to
November 20, 2009 as a Water Quality Control Laboratory Technician; and
WHEREAS, Sridhar Bilgiri has enhanced the quality of life and protected the public
health of citizens of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, East Palo
Alto Sanitary District, and Stanford University by performing thousands of analytical
laboratory tests at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant; and
WHEREAS, Sridhar Bilgiri, in his 15 years of service to Palo Alto has supported
protection of water quality of the Palo Alto Baylands, San Francisco Bay, and Palo Alto
drinking water through excellent quality assurance and quality control work at the
Regional Water Quality Control Plant laboratory; and
WHEREAS, Sridhar Bilgiri, has worked over 40 years in analytical laboratories; and
WHEREAS, Sridhar Bilgiri has the respect of his peers and has demonstrated
experience, punctuality, respectfulness, gentleness, diligence, loyalty, dependability,
sincerity, responsibility, and industriousness; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto desires to recognize the meritorious service of
Sridhar Bilgiri.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Palo Alto
hereby commends the outstanding public service of Sridhar Bilgiri and records its
appreciation as well as the appreciation of the citizens of the service area served by the
Regional Water Quality Control Plant for the service and contribution rendered during his
15 years of employment with the City of Palo Alto.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: NOVEMBER 16, 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 SANDRA DOMINGO
UPON HER RETIREMENT
WHEREAS, Sandra Domingo has served the City of Palo Alto from June 10, 1985 to
November 13, 2009 as a Staff Secretary and an Administrative Associate II; and
WHEREAS, Sandra Domingo began her career administratively supporting the capital
improvement programs in Public Works Engineering before moving to the Regional
Water Quality Control Plant in 1989; and
WHEREAS, Sandra Domingo has enhanced the quality of life and protected the
public health of citizens of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, East
Palo Alto Sanitary District, and Stanford University by supporting the operation of the
Regional Water Quality Control Plant; and
WHEREAS, Sandra Domingo, in her 24 years of service has supported protection of
water quality of the Palo Alto Baylands and San Francisco Bay through excellent
administrative work at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant; and
WHEREAS, Sandra Domingo has demonstrated professionalism, knowledge,
respectfulness, responsiveness, friendliness, and enthusiasm; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto desires to recognize the meritorious service of
Sandra Domingo.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Palo Alto
hereby commends the outstanding public service of Sandra Domingo and records its
appreciation as well as the appreciation of the citizens of the service area served by the
Regional Water Quality Control Plant for the service and contribution rendered during
her 24 years of employment with the City of Palo Alto.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: November 16, 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 ADAM NOWAK
UPON HIS RETIREMENT
WHEREAS, Adam Nowak has served the City of Palo Alto from July 14, 1986 to
November 20, 2009 as Water Quality Control Plant Trainee, Water Quality Control Plant
Operator I and Operator II, and Water Quality Control Plant Senior Operator; and
WHEREAS, Adam Nowak has enhanced the quality of life and protected the public
health of citizens of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, East Palo
Alto Sanitary District, and Stanford University by operating the Regional Water Quality
Control Plant; and
WHEREAS, Adam Nowak, in his 24 years of service has safeguarded and enhanced
the water quality of the Palo Alto Baylands and San Francisco Bay through careful plant
operation and treatment of billions of gallons of wastewater; and
WHEREAS, Adam Nowak has demonstrated a commitment to hard work, safety,
reliable operation, and teamwork; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto desires to recognize the meritorious service of
Adam Nowak.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Palo Alto
hereby commends the outstanding public service of Adam Nowak and records its
appreciation as well as the appreciation of the citizens of the service area served by the
Regional Water Quality Control Plant for the service and contribution rendered during his
24 years of employment with the City of Palo Alto.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: NOVEMBER 16, 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 JERZY SIEGENFELD
UPON HIS RETIREMENT
WHEREAS, Jerzy Siegenfeld has served the City of Palo Alto from March 2, 1987 to
November 20, 2009 as a Maintenance Mechanic; and
WHEREAS, Jerzy Siegenfeld has enhanced the quality of life and protected the public
health of citizens of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, East Palo
Alto Sanitary District, and Stanford University by maintaining the Regional Water
Quality Control Plant; and
WHEREAS, Jerzy Siegenfeld, in his 22 years of service has safeguarded and
enhanced the water quality of the Palo Alto Baylands and San Francisco Bay through
careful maintenance of plant machinery and treatment systems; and
WHEREAS, Jerzy Siegenfeld has made numerous safety improvements and has
demonstrated expert skills in welding and pipefitting, professional work, and team
problem solving; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto desires to recognize the meritorious service of
Jerzy Siegenfeld.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Palo Alto
hereby commends the outstanding public service of Jerzy Siegenfeld and records its
appreciation as well as the appreciation of the citizens of the service area served by the
Regional Water Quality Control Plant for the service and contribution rendered during his
22 years of employment with the City of Palo Alto.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: November 16, 2009
ATTEST: APPROVED:
___________________ ______________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________ ______________________
City Attorney City Manager
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2009 CMR:433:09
REPORT TYPE: REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
SUBJECT: Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the California Avenue
Streets cape Improvements, Phase I; Approval of a Street Tree
Replanting Plan on California Avenue from EI Camino Real to the
Caltrain Station as Part of the California Avenue Improvements Capital
Improvement Program Project PE-07005; Approval of a Change Order
in Amount of $96,200 with Suarez & Munoz Construction, Inc. and
Deferral of the California Avenue Street Improvements Phase II
Including Tree Replanting at the Fountain Plaza Area Located Near the
Park Boulevard/California Avenue Intersection, Addition of New Street
Furniture, and Street Repaving and Restriping Until Community
Outreach and Public Review Is Complete
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In September 2009, City staff requested its contractor to stop work on the California Avenue
Street Tree Replacement Project shortly after the tree removal on California A venue due to
insufficient public input and outreach on the California Avenue Improvement Project.
On October 5th, Council directed staff to engage the public in the selection of replacement trees
on California Avenue and requested formal review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB)
and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) to gain community support for the tree
replacement plan.
Following Council direction, staff held community meetings on October 8th and October 22nd.
In addition, staff met with the ARB and PTC during the months of October and November to
obtain input on street tree replacement plans (Attachment A). The general consensus from the
community and the ARB is that the replacement trees should contain a mixture of deciduous and
evergreen trees, trees should have a potential to grow the largest canopy possible and street trees
should reflect a unifying theme with gateways at both ends. The PTC wanted a more
comprehensive streetscape plan before trees are planted to ensure the tree replanting was flexible
in accommodating any future design changes. Staff believes quite strongly that tree replanting
should occur this winter in order to capture as much tree growth as possible. Other elements of
the plan such as the streets cape can proceed after tree replanting without disruption to the street
trees. A replanting Plan C, (Attachment B) was presented to the ARB on November 5th, and the
general consensus was the design should have prominent gateway trees at both the Caltrain and
EI Camino Real entrances onto California A venue and should have additional unifying street
trees to give more continuity to the streetscape. During the ARB meeting, many community
CMR:433:09 Page 1
16
members spoke in favor of Plan C and wanted street trees planted this winter to avoid delay.
Additional modifications to include these recent comments resulted in the development of the
Street Tree Replanting Plan. The deferral of the tree replanting at the plaza fountain area will
allow for design flexibility with the new street furniture and fountain layout as suggested by the
PTC and ARB A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared for Phase I of this project
which includes adding approximately 75 street trees and adding temporary greening elements
such as large planter pots along the sidewalk behind the curb. The preferred Street Tree
Replanting Plan (Attachment H) was developed with a theme which embraces the existing
diversity of the neighborhood while harkening back to the original oak grassland environment.
The plan integrates with the adjoining neighborhood tree selections and incorporates community
comments and is coordinated with the future streetscape concepts to be refmed with the
community this winter.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the California Avenue Streetscape
Improvements, Phase I (Attachment G);and
2. Approve a Street Tree Replanting Plan on California Avenue from EI Camino Real to
the Caltrain Station as Part of the California A venue Improvements Capital
Improvement Program Project PE-07005 (Attachment H); and
3. Direct Staff to execute a Change Order in Amount of $96,200 with Suarez & Munoz
Construction, Inc.(Attachment I), upon final architectural review approval; and
4. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more
additional change orders to the contract with Suarez & Munoz Construction, Inc. for
related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the
total value of which shall not exceed $19,240; and
5. Defer the California Avenue Street Improvements Phase II including tree replanting
at the fountain plaza area located near the Park Boulevard/California Avenue
Intersection, addition of new street furniture, street repaving and restriping, until
community outreach and public review is complete.
BACKGROUND
In 2005, the California Avenue Area Development Association (CAADA) appealed to the City
for streetscape improvements similar to the ones completed on University Avenue. In 2006,
CAADA worked with the City on developing a conceptual "master" plan with a request for
funding. Given limited funds, City staff from the City Manager's office, Public Works
Department and the Transportation Division with input from project stakeholders developed a
master plan and applied for grant funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. As
part of the original 2006 grant application, the requested improvements included street tree and
street light replacement, traffic lane reduction, addition of bicycle lanes, pedestrian crosswalks
and bulb-outs, new irrigation, new street furniture, new newspaper racks and a new fountain.
After several unsuccessful attempts to obtain grant funds, City staff worked together with
CAADA to develop a reduced project scope ultimately resulting in the removal of irrigation,
pedestrian bulb-outs and street lighting.
Page 2
The California Avenue Improvements Capital Improvement Project became part of the fiscal
year 2007-2009 Adopted Capital Budget using reimbursements from various City funds and a
contribution from CAADA. During 2008 and 2009, Public Works and Transportation Division
staff met periodically with CAADA to develop the project which included street tree
replacement, enhanced colored crosswalks and street furniture. Project information was
distributed through CAADA, their members and Palo Alto Neighborhood Associations, however
the City did not properly engage the community during the design phase to gain support of the
project's scope.
On August 26,2009, the contract for the street tree replacement portion of the plan was awarded
to Suarez & Munoz Construction, Inc. at the staff level since it was below the $250,000
threshold requiring Council approval. On September 3rd an email notification of the upcoming
work was sent to CAADA, which they distributed to their members and Palo Alto Neighborhood
associations. On September 9th, staff distributed notices of work start-up for tree removal to all
addresses on California Avenue. The Public Works project manager received staff-level
Architectural Review and a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption and
tentative approval on September 14th which required a 14-day public review period. Staff,
however, prematurely proceeded with tree removal on September 14th during the time the public
would be able to request a hearing with the ARB.
In late September staff issued a press release and attended the Farmer's Market acknowledging
the lack of proper procedure, poor public outreach and apologizing to the broader community for
the tree removals on California Avenue. In early October staff halted work on the California
A venue Street Improvement project until further public outreach on the street tree replacement
plan could occur and subsequent City Council approval (CMR: 400:09). City staff, two City
arborists, Canopy, a Palo Alto-based urban forestry nonprofit organization, Dave Muffly, an
arborist and board member of Canopy and Barrie Coate, a well respected arborist in the area,
worked together to select replacement tree choices and developed a plan including 15 possible
tree species suitable for our climate, soil type and the downtown conditions.
Staff obtained design input on the street tree replanting plan from two community meetings.
Local arborists, Canopy, ARB and the PTC and Royston Hanamoto Alley and Abey (RHAA),
landscape architects, developed several street tree replacement plans. During the first community
meeting on October 8th and the first ARB hearing on October 15th, staff presented 15 tree species
of various sizes and possible tree replanting locations. The community requested staff to replant
the largest trees possible and to include a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees to retain the
unique and eclectic California Avenue downtown experience. During the first ARB hearing,
staff was asked to consider some consistency in the tree selection while considering special
treatment at the California A venue entrances at EI Camino Real, the Caltrain Station and at the
pedestrian crossings. The City contracted RHAA to consult with staff; local and staff arborists;
and Canopy which resulted in a deciduous planting plan and an evergreen planting plan
(Attachment A). These options included 9 tree species with unifying evergreen or deciduous
trees and were presented at the second community meeting on October 22nd and at the PTC
hearing on October 28th,
RHAA worked with staff to develop a new plan based on input from the community, ARB and
PTC resulting in Plan C, (Attachment B) which provided cohesiveness using a balance of
Page 3 8
evergreen and deciduous trees. This planting plan was presented to the second ARB meeting on
November 5th and incorporated a mixture of 47 deciduous and 28 evergreen trees on both sides
of the street to take advantage of the sun/shade orientation of California A venue. The ARB
requested that Plan C include more prominent "gateways" at both the Caltrain and EI Camino
Real entrances onto California A venue and should have additional unifying street trees to give
more continuity to the streetscape. During the ARB meeting, many community members spoke
in favor of Plan C and wanted street trees planted this winter. As a result, RHAA modified Plan
C to include additional oak trees at the gateways and added more unifying trees in the
development of the Street Tree Replanting Plan. The final plan is included as Attachment H.
DISCUSSION
California Avenue Streetscape Project
The coordination and input resulting from the community meetings and public hearings
(Attachments C, D, E and F) assisted staff and RHAA to develop the Street Tree Replanting Plan
(Attachment H) as the preferred plan.
The implementation of the proposed improvements for preferred Street Tree Replanting Plan
would include:
• A mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees to unify the street, provide cohesiveness
and sun/shade orientation with a theme which harkens back to the original oak
grassland environment, and integrates with the adjoining neighborhood tree selections
• Native oak trees located at the EI Camino Real/California Avenue and Caltrain
entrance/California A venue gateways
• Deciduous trees located at pedestrian crossings and at the Caltrain entrance to provide
colorful accents
• Larger tree sizes including possibly up to 48 inch to 36 inch box trees considered at
the larger planting sites and 24 inch box trees considered within the sidewalk areas
• Enhanced tree planting using structural soil 5 feet square by 3 feet deep with two
drainage holes 6 feet deep inside the tree wells to improve drainage
• Drought tolerant tree species ensuring the long range health of the California
Avenue's urban forest
• Repair of existing irrigation at the larger planting areas
• Deferral of the tree replanting at the fountain plaza area located near the Park
Boulevard/California A venue Intersection to allow for design flexibility with the
street furniture placement and fountain installation during Phase II
With these project elements, this project will restore the canopy of California A venue with tree
species that are able to thrive in a streetscape environment. The intent of the project is to provide
an aesthetically pleasing street using a variety of trees; to create strategic opportunities for areas
to receive sun and shade year round; to provide a diverse canopy over time and to compliment
the unique quality of the area. Temporary planter pots with fragrant unique shrubbery or small
trees may be considered in combination with the street furniture and tree replanting at the
fountain plaza area as part of the second phase.
Given the heightened sensitivity of the tree removal on California A venue, the community has
voiced an urgent need to plant trees as soon as possible. In addition, staff and consulting
CMR:433:09 Page 4 of8
arborists have indicated the need to plant trees during this optimum winter planting season to
maximize tree health. The winter season is optimal for replanting when the trees are dormant
because it avoids interruption during the growing period and provides the least amount of shock
to the trees. Given these factors, staff recommends immediate replanting.
Once the Council has approved the final Street Tree Replanting Plan (Attachment H), the
Planning Director will take action on the Architectural Review of Phase I. Pursuant to the
Municipal Code, the Director's decision shall not become final for 14 days following notice of
the decision, unless the decision is appealed to the Council.
In order to balance the Municipal Code's procedural requirements with the community's desire
to plant street trees as soon as possible, staff is proposing a contract change order with Suarez &
Munoz Construction, Inc. in the amount of $96,200, but will not issue the change order until the
architectural review approval is final. Due to the need to begin replanting immediately, re-
bidding the entire contract is not practicaL Upon issuance of the change order, staff will work
with its contractor, Suarez & Munoz Construction, Inc., to replant 24, 36 and 48 inch box trees,
reconstruct the sidewalk planting areas using structural soil, install 4 x 4 feet tree grates, and
relocate the existing exposed aggregate planters. See contract change order and summary of
work in Attachment I. A contract change order with Suarez & Munoz Construction Inc. and
issuance of a Notice to Proceed would have construction beginning immediately upon final
architectural review approval of the recommended planting plan with an estimated completion
end date of February 17, 2010. Given the possibility of a 4-week lead time to receive the tree
grates from the manufacturer, the excavation of the tree wells may not begin until mid-December
when the grates arrive to ensure the excavated tree wells are protected to ensure safe working
conditions during construction
Since staffs policy is to cease all construction during the holidays in the California Avenue
Business District, staff will work with the California Avenue merchants, businesses and the
community to inquire how construction disruption could be minimized. Based on discussions
with the contractor, staff has developed a construction schedule that will work during the holiday
season. The noisiest work such as demolition and excavation will be complete during the first
few weeks followed by relatively quiet tree planting operations during the end of December and
into January. Construction will be limited to weekdays, no work will commence during
Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year holidays, noisy construction operations will be limited
between from 11:30 am to 1:30 pm (during lunch hours for the restaurants), and the traffic
impacts will be minimal.
Staff recommends deferring the remaining California A venue Street Improvements, Phase II
(new benches, bike racks, news racks, kiosks, colored crosswalks, replanting of the plaza and
possible lane reconfiguration and large planter pots) until public feedback is received from
community meetings to be scheduled this winter. For additional pubic correspondence received
for the project, see Attachment J.
Milestones & Next Steps
California Avenue Tree Planting -Phase 1
Community Outreach Before and During Construction Phase November and December
Council Approval of Preferred Street Tree Replacement Plan November 16th
CMR:433:09 Page 5 of8
Director Action on Architectural Review (Phase 1) November 1 i h
Staff to process change order and issue Notice to Proceed December 1
with Suarez & Munoz Construction, Inc. (tree replacement contractor)
Begin Street Tree Replacement (ordering trees and December 1
preparing tree wells, planting trees no later than February 2010)
End Street Tree Replacement (weather permitting) February 2010
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase II
Community outreach on Phase II elements including street Winter 2009/10
furniture, resurfacing, possible lane reconfiguration and planters
Begin concept design for California Avenue Improvements January 2010
ARB and PTC conceptual design review of Phase II elements Spring 2010
Council Approval of Phase II California Avenue Improvements Spring 2010
Complete design and construction documents for phase II Summer 2010
Begin street furniture installation Summer 2010
Begin street resurfacing including restriping Summer 2010
Phase II of the California Avenue Improvements including street furniture and possible lane
reconfiguration concepts will return to the ARB, PTC and City Council next spring after
community input is received this winter.
RESOURCE IlVIPACT
A total of $525,000 had been appropriated to this project since FY 2007 through FY 2009.
Funding sources, of this project include the General Fund, CAADA, the Street Maintenance and
Street Light CIP project.
There is sufficient balance from the appropriation to provide resources for the remaining scope
of the project.
Initially, the project began with the California Avenue Fountain Repair PE-07005 and was
funded with $32,000 from the infrastructure reserve.
In fiscal year 2007-2008, the California Avenue Improvements Capital Project PE-07005 was
added into the non-infrastructure management plan and called for replacement of street trees,
street lights, reconfiguration of vehicle lanes to accommodate bike lanes, new street furniture,
crosswalk enhancements and repair or replacement of the fountain estimated at $335,000. A total
of $50,000 of these funds was allocated for the fountain repair. Reimbursements from various
funding sources include the general fund, CAADA, the Street Maintenance and Street Light
CMR:433:09 Page 6 of8
Improvement capital improvement projects. A mid-year adjustment in fiscal year 2008-2009
increased the budget by $300,000 for the streetscape improvements. The project would be
accomplished with current staff resources given the project has limited funding.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This project supports several key policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan, including:
POLICY L-15: Preserve and enhance the public gathering spaces within walking distance of
residential neighborhoods. Ensure that each residential neighborhood has such spaces.
GOAL L-4: Inviting, Pedestrian-scale Centers That Offer a Variety of Retail and Commercial
Services and Provide Focal Points and Community Gathering Places for the City's Residential
Neighborhoods and Employment Districts.
POLICY L-21: Provide all Centers with centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of
identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches,
street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art.
POLICY L-22: Enhance the appearance of streets and sidewalks within all Centers through an
aggressive maintenance, repair and cleaning program; street improvements; and the use of a
variety of paving materials and landscaping.
PROGRAM L-18: IdentifY priority street improvements that could make a substantial
contribution to the character of Centers, including widening sidewalks, narrowing travel lanes,
creating medians, restriping to allow diagonal parking, and planting street trees.
POLICY N-14: Protect, revitalize, and expand Palo Alto's urban forest through public
education, sensitiv.e regulation, and a long-term financial commitment that is adequate to protect
this resource.
PROGRAM N -17: Develop and implement a plan for maintenance, irrigation, and replacement
of trees in parks, parking lots, and City rights-of-way.
POLICY L-28: Maintain the existing scale, character, and function of the California Avenue
business district as a shopping, service, and office center intermediate in function and scale
between Downtown and the smaller neighborhood business areas.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study and a
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for the California A venue
Streetscape Improvements, Phase I. (Attachment G). The 20-day public comment period for this
document ran from October 21, 2009 through November 9, 2009. The mitigation measures that
are called out for this project address the potential aesthetic impacts of the tree removal. No
comment letters were received on the Draft MND. Phase II will undergo separate environmental
analysis next year when the project components are better defined.
Page 7
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Planting Palettes Plans A and B
Planting Palette Plan C
Summary Notes of October 8, 2009 and October 22, 2009 Community
Meetings
Attachment D
Attachment E
Attachment F
Attachment G
Attachment H
Attachment I
Attachment J
ARB Staff Report and minutes dated October 15,2009 (w/o attachments)
PTC Staff Report and minutes dated October 28, 2009 (with attachments)
ARB Staff Report and minutes dated November 5th (w/o attachments)
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (hardcopies for Council,
Libraries and Development Center only, also available for review at
the link below:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebanklblobdload.asp?BlobID=17433
Street Tree Replanting Plan
Contract Change Order and Summary of Work with Suarez & Munoz
Construction, Inc.
Public Correspondence from 0
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
Page 8 8
PLAN A: PREDOMINANTLY EVERGREEN
PACENTRAL
490
-BENCH
TRASH RECEPTACLE
BIKE RACK
o PUBUCART
(E) EXISTING TREE
VALLEY OAK
California Avenue
City of Palo Alto, CA
LARGE DECIDUOUS
SIGNATURE ENTRY
TREE
LARGE EVERGREEN
SIGNATURE TREE
SOUTHERN LIVE OAK
360
350-330
DECIDUOUS ACCENT
TREE AT PEDESTRIAN
CROSSING
SHUMARD OAK
DECIDUOUS ACCENT
TREE AT PEDESTRIAN
CROSSING
FREEMAN MAPLE
LARGE DECIDUOUS
STREET TREE TO MATCH
EXISTING
LONDON PLANE
ATIACHMENTA
-------------------~-.... -~~-
BACKGROUND TREES INTERSECTION
TALL EVERGREEN • ACCENT TREE AT
CANARY ISLAND PINE i-IOLMFORD PEAR
•
EVERGREEN
UNIFYING
STREET TREE
ELEGANT TRISTANIA
.. DECIDUOUS PlAZA
W TREE
CHINESE PISTACHE
10.22.09
GlTvtPALD ALTO
PLAN B: PREDOMINANTLY DECIDUOUS
-'-P.!..!R""'O'-'PO"-'S"'E=D'--______________________ ~ ............................ __ ~ ...... __
-BENCH
TRASH RECEPTACLE
BIKE RACK
(I PUBLIC ART
(E) EXISTING TREE
VALLEY OAK
California Avenue
City of Palo Alto, CA
lARGE DECIDUOUS
SIGNATURE ENTRY
TREE
lARGE EVERGREEN
SIGNATURE TREE
SOUTHERN LIVE OAK
DECIDUOUS ACCENT
TREE AT PEDESTRIAN
CROSSING
SHUMARD OAK
DECIDUOUS ACCENT
TREE AT PEDESTRIAN
CROSSING
FREEMAN MAPLE
LARGE DECIDUOUS • TALL EVERGREEN • ACCENT TREE AT
STREET TREE TO MATCH' BACKGROUND TREES < INTERSECTION
EXISTING
LONDON PLANE CANARY ISLAND PINE HOLM FORD PEAR
1111111111 &&
ATTACHMENT A
~ DECIDUOUS <. UNIFYING
STREET TREE
SILVER LINDEN
& DECIDUOUS PLAZA
W TREEE
CHINESE PISTACHE
10.22.09
CITvtPALO ALTO
PLANe
PROPOSED
-BENCH
TRASH RECEPTACLE
BIKE RACK
PUBLIC ART
(E) EXISTING TREE
LARGE DECIDUOUS
SIGNATURE ENTRY
TREE
VALLEY OAK
California Avenue
LARGE EVERGREEN
SIGNATURE TREE
SOUTHERN LIVE OAK
DECIDUOUS ACCENT
TREE AT PEDESTRIAN
CROSSING
SHUMARD OAK
DECIDUOUS ACCENT
TREE AT INTERSECTION
FREEMAN MAPLE
LARGE DECIDUOUS
STREET TREE TO
MATCH EXISTING
LONDON PLANE
•
TALL EVERGREEN
BACKGROUND
TREES
CANARY ISLAND PINE
•
EVERGREEN
ACCENT TREE
ELEGANT TRISTANIA
ATIACHMENTB
DECIDUOUS
UNIFYING
STREET TREE
SILVER LINDEN
• DECIDUOUS FOUNTAIN
AREA TREE
CHINESE PISTACHE
11.05.09
CIT~ALU ALTD
ATTACHMENT C
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements
Summary of Community Meeting at Escondido School
October 8, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Introductory Remarks
Attachment B
The community wanted to be informed about what went wrong with the J!:t:9cess that resulted in
the street trees being removed. Staff apologized for the mistake and mentioned that this will be
further investigated so that this type of mistake would not happen again.
Discussion
City staff presented a new tree replacement concept plan as noted in Attachment D that identifies
possible tree species and planting locations along California Avenue from El Camino Real to the
Caltrain Station. Staff explained that there were challenges in selecting trees that would thrive
in a hardscape environment such as in California Avenue. The tree canopy size, shape, water
needs, rooting conditions and viability to thrive in a hardscape environment were considered in
the proposed tree species. There were three types of planting sites presented based on those
factors, for a total of75 replacement trees. Sixteen (16) large canopy trees within open planting
sites, fifteen (15) large canopy trees with 4 feet square tree grates and (44) smaller canopy trees
utilizing 3 feet square tree grates were proposed.
A panel of arborists, Barrie Coate of Barrie D. Coate and Associates, Dave Dockter and Eric
Krebs representing City staff, and David Muffly of Canopy answered questions from the public
ranging from tree size, how the soil should be prep~ for planting, tree growth rate over time
and tree canopy shade considerations. It was noted that it is difficult to find large container sized
trees with acceptable quality root systems compared to trees in smaller containers.
There were many ideas and comments generated from the meeting. The comment cards and
transcript will be compiled and made available to the public and used in designing alternative
concept plans with the arborists for the next public meeting in October. These alternates will be
vetted for comments and preferences, which will go into the final plan for board and commission
approval.
• There was a general consensus that a nUx of deciduous and evergreen trees of different
sizes and species should be considered.
• A resident's suggestion to add temporary large container trees to address the current
denuded landscape was widely supported by the attendees.
• A preference for establishing a larger canopy was shown, and the arborists discussed how
best to achieve this with planting site preparation, initial tree planting sizes, and
appropriate tree care.
• People in general were very concerned about long term viability of the planting.
Next Steps
The community was encouraged to provide comments on the new tree replacement concept plan
and to attend the ARB and Plaiming and Transportation Meetings scheduled in October.
Prepared by Elizabeth Ames October 9, 2009 Page 1 ofl
The two plans are similar in that both provide strong entrance experiences at both ends of
California Avenue, at EI Camino Real and at Park Boulevard, with the use of ornamental
pear trees with large signature oaks. Deciduous trees which provide vibrant seasonal
color were selected for use at intersections and cross walks and as focal points for people
entering the business district from the parking lot alleys. Ornamental pears were used to
unify and balance the street at the entrances and mid street at the Birch intersection.
Their locations, smaller stature and spring bloom, as well as fall color, provide rhythm
and interest to the street.
There were many ideas and comments generated from the meeting.
• People were very concerned about the length of time needed for a mature tree to
establish a large tree canopy.
• There were concerns regarding the choice of the Tristanias because they ate not fast
growing.
• As a short term solution, there was a general consensus to use temporary container
trees or other landscape elements to address the current denuded landscape
• The arborists concurred that the concept plans incorporated tree species that would
thrive in the streetscape environment given appropriate tree care, the use of structural
soil and use of initial street tree sizes of 15 gallon to 24 inch boxes to allow proper
tree root establishment over time.
• There was general consensus that the street tree species selected would have long
term viability in the area and the concept plans incorporated a variety of trees as
suggested from first community meeting.
• There was general support of the deciduous plant palette with mqre evergreen species
should be incorporated.
• The design should have a balance and rhythm for people proceeding along the street.
• The design should consider the nortblsouth orientation of the streets for tree selection.
Next Steps
The comment cards will be compiled and made available to the public and used in
designing a preferred concept plan.
The community was encouraged to provide comments on the new tree replacement
concept plans and to attend the Planning and Transportation, ARB and City Council
Meetings scheduled in October and November. A final concept plan will need City
Council approval.
Prepared by Elizabeth Ames Updated 10/26/09 Page20f2
ATTACHMENT 0
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
Agenda Date: October 15, 2009
From: ~ Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer
Department: Public Works Engineering Division
Subject: California Avenue Streetscape Changes [09PLN-OOI76]: Request
by Public Works Engineering on behalf of the City of Palo Alto for
California Avenue streetscape modifications from EI Camino Real to
the CalTrain Depot, including replacement and addition of street trees,
replacement of street benches, bicycle racks, news racks, kiosks,
planters and waste receptacles, addition of bicycle racks, crosswalk
improvements and restriping of traffic lanes and automobile parking
spaces .
. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) receive public testimony, discuss
the context and overall project scope, provide a recommendation on the tree replacement plan
and continue the hearing on the remainder of the project to a date uncertain for further
discussion and recommendation on the other components of the California A venue
Streetscape Project (replacement of street benches, bicycle racks, news racks and kiosks,
planters and waste receptacles, addition of bike racks, crosswalk improvements and restriping
of traffic lanes plans) to allow for additional public input and outreach.
The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) will review the project on October 28,
2009. Staff intends to provide an update to the ARB on November 5, 2009, after the PTC
hearing.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The project involves a new streets cape design to promote pedestrian and bicycle activity
in the downtown area along California Avenue from EI Camino Real to the Caltrain
Station. New street trees, tree grates, benches, trash receptacles, colored crosswalks,
to gain public input on the selection of replacement trees and other California Avenue
Improvement project elements while also including formal reviews by and recommendations
from the Architectural Review Board and the Planning and Transportation Commission. The
City Council asked staff to return with a tree replacement plan in November in an effort to
begin replanting the area this winter and to consider returning with the other streetscaRe
project elements at a later date once public input was received. See CMR 400:09
(Attachment C).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proj ect Setting
The urban and architectural context of the site has been an important consideration in the
project design. The site is in a fully developed urban setting, with intensive development
extending on both sides of California Avenue. On the east end of the project, the Caltrain.
Station with pedestrian,bicycle and train traffic creates a strong visual boundary which
will be reinforced by the placement of a new fountain. On the west end of the project at
EI Camino Real, the placement of native grasses and granite rocks in the center median
creates another strong visual boundary reinforced by EI Camino Real. An eclectic mix of
art sculptures within the center medians and poetry inscribed in the brick walkways along
California Avenue create a unique downtown experience.
Initial Streetscape Plan
A total of72 new street trees (59 Red Maples, 7 Canary Island Pines, 3 Chinese
Pistaches, and 3 London Planes) were proposed to be planted at the proposed tree
locations shown on the California Avenue Site Plan. See Attachment A, figure 1. The
City Standard tree wells with 3' by 3' decorative metal grates (see Attachment A, figure
2) were to be installed for new street trees planted in the concrete sidewalks. The metal
grates will enhance the aesthetic look of the business district. The existing tree wells in
California A venue sidewalks are open wells and are not conducive to high pedestrian
activity.
Six of the seven exposed aggregate concrete planters which had trees and vegetation in
them were proposed to be removed. The existing locations of the six concrete planters
are ideal areas to plant large benchmark/signature type trees since they are not in concrete
sidewalks and are in larger planting areas. One exposed aggregate concrete planter that is
propped to remain is on California Avenue near Ash Street as it is filled in with concrete
to support an art piece. See Attachment A, figure 3.
There are two concrete kiosks with attached benches that were proposed to be
demolished. See Attachment A, figure 4. These kiosks could be replaced with a bulletin
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements-Application No. 09PLN-00176
3
See the California Avenue Site Plan Attachment A, figure 1 for locations of existing and
proposed pedestal-mounted news racks. Refer to Attachtrient A, figure 9 for pictures of
existing freestanding and pedestal-mounted news racks.
The existing fountain is not operating" and is in need of replacement. The Public Art
Commission will be requesting proposals from artists for the fountain design. The Art
Commission plans to select a number of the proposals and then will be asking for public
feedback on a preferred fountain design. The Community Services Department Division
of Arts and Sciences is working with the Public Art Commission to replace the California
Avenue fountain possibly in Spring 2010. See Attachment A, figurelO.
DISCUSSION
Based on recent concerns over the tree removal and design elements along California
Avenue, and review requirements associated with this capital improvement project, staff
has halted all work on the project and is engaging in additional community outreach,
including comment by the ARB, PTC and City Council. The streetscape elements, other
than the street trees, may be implemented over the next eight months depending on public
input, budget constraints, board, commission and City Council approvals.
The street trees subject of this application were large Holly Oaks. A large percentage of
these trees had problems, ranging from dead or dying, hazards due to structural
conditions, canker disease, conflicts with sidewalks and curbs, to nuisance problems such
as acorn drop and unsightly sooty mold. They required frequent tree trimming due to
conflicts with the street lights and building storefronts and were subject to storm related
damage. Both the former and current Public Works Arborists recommended the fazed
replacement of these trees.
The replacement trees initially planned were a mix of:
• Red Maple
• London Plane, and
• Chinese Pistache
The tree selection, size and location is now being revisited based on input from Canopy,
Planning and Public Works Arborists, Barrie Coate, Registered Consulting Arborist and
from the public during the October 8th community meeting. This public outreach process
has resulted in selection of additional or different species of comparable size and
characteristics. See Attachment D.
To ensure better growing conditions for the new shade trees, staffhas improved the
planter basin design by providing a minimum of 75 cubic feet of rooting area, use of
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements-Application No. 09PLN-00176
5
guidelines developed and implemented by the Utilities Department that protect trees from
utility maintenance and installation. It should establish a five~year trimming cycle and
address. the staffing, standarQs and funding necessary to carry out such a cycle."
Program N -18: Actively pursue funding for tree planting; and
Goal N-15: Require new commercial, multi-unit, and single family housing projects to
provide street trees and related irrigation systems.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
City staff is preparing an Initial Study and mitigated Negative Declaration that will discuss
the current scope of the project including input on tree selection received during the extended
outreach.
TIMELlNE
Action:
Application Submitted
Tentative Approval
Request for Hearing
City Council Meeting on Project Status
Community Meeting to receive input on tree selection
ARB Public Hearing
PTC Public Hearing
Council Review of Tree Selection
ATTACHMENTS
A. Project Plan
Date:
July 29,2009
September 14,2008
September 24, 2009
October 5, 2009
October 8, 2009 ..
October 15, 2009
October 28, 2009
November 16, 2009
B. Tentative Approval Letter dated September 14,2009
C. CMR 400:09
D. Summary of October 8th Community Meeting and proposed planting plan
Prepared by: Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer
Manager Review: Julie Caporgno, Planning and Transportation Official
California Avenue Streetscape Improvemenls-Application No. 09PLN·00176
7
ATTACHMENT F
1 Thursday October 15,2009
2 Architectural Review Board
3 Verbatim Millutes
4
5 DRAFT EXCERPT
6
7
8 Board Member Lee: Let's move to New Business, California Avenue Streetscape Changes.
9 Request by Public Works Engineering on behalf of the City of Palo Alto for Califomia Avenl1e
10 streetscape modifications from EI Camino Real to the Cal train Depot, including replacement and
II addition of street trees, replacement of street benches, bicycle racks, news racks and waste
12 receptacles, addition of bicycle racks, crosswalk improvements and restriping of automobile
13 parking spaces. We have a Staff Report from Elizabeth today.
14
15 NEW BUSINESS:
16
17 California Avenue Streets cape Changes I09PLN-00176]:
18 Request by Public Works Engineering on behalf of the City of Palo Alto for California Avenue
19 streetscape modifications from El Camino Real to the CalTrain Depot, including replacement
20 and addition of street trees, replacement of street benches, bicycle racks, news racks and waste
21 receptacles, addition of bicycle racks, crosswalk improvements and restriping of automobile
22 parking spaces.
23
24 Ms. Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer, Public Works: Good l110ming. We have here Eric Krebs,
25 ,our City Arborist from Public Works Operations, and also Kate Rooney is the Project Manager
26 for Public Works Engineering. In the audience also is Mike Sartor, the Assistant Director of
27 Public Works just in case there are other questions.
28
29 With that what we wanted to do is recommend that the ARB focus on the street tree replacement
30 for California Avenue rather than go into all the streetscape elements at this time given the
31 concerns about the tree removal we wanted to get the trees planted as soon as possible. This is
32 the best-case scenario to put in the trees by early as November ifit goes to Council for approval.
33 So that is why we are trying to segment the two components, the streetscape elements, and the
34 street trees.
35
36 What we have initially just a briefhistory. The initial streetscape project was on Califomia
37 Avenue fi.'om El Camino to the Caltrain station and that included streetlights, bulb outs to
38 provide more pedestrian connectivity. That also included the new benches and the fountain and
39 a restriping. The big ramp project did not go forward because we did not get the grant funds.' So
40 the project now that we have currently funded does not include the streetlights, nor the pedestrian
41 bulb outs, hut it has the same theme of pedestrian/bicycle connectivity. Califomia Avenue is a
42 bike route from El Camino to the Caltrain station, hence that is why the project still includes the
43 colored crosswalks for the pedestrians and the bicycle racks and the whole revamped streetscape.
44
45 We also have an initial project of a fountain at the end of the project here. That is the in the
46 planning stages. There will be an artist selected and then that will go through a public process of
City of Palo Alto October 15, 2009 Page 1 of19
1 working very closely with Canopy and Susan Rosenberg of Canopy to develop the concept plan,
2 the criteria for the street tree selections, and to revise our thinking about the planting conditions
3 on the street.
4
5 I will talk about the plantingJ;onditions really quickly and Eric can answer any other questions.
6 We decided to change our pHmtingdetail below ground to allow for a much better rooting
7 condition for the new trees. We have expanded the planning hole to a five foot by five foot
8 square, three feet deep, with structural soil, good soil amendment, and then the best possible
9 rootstock we can locate with the Arborist.
10
11 A lot of people have been asking for very large trees right away and Barrie Coates and Dave
12 Dockter and Eric were very clear about how you choose trees. It is not simply the size of the
13 original tree, it is the condition of that tree, the condition of the hole you are planting it in, and
14 the goal is to achieve the best, healthiest canopy possible. So as we look to the availability of
15 our tree selections we are looking for large size initial plantings but as long as the roots are
16 healthy and the trees are healthy that is more important to achieve the goal of a large canopy.
17
18 When we looked again at the trees with the Arborist and the Canopy we realized there were
19 basically three types of planting sites on California Avenue. Elizabeth showed pictures of a
20 couple of those. Maybe we could flip back to one of the streets scenes. In this case you have a
21 rather constrained sidewalk planting site with the awning and the building setback. That type of
22 situation would call for a smaller canopy tree. In all of these places we are trying to maximize
23 the canopy for the available location. But this particular type oflocation would be a three by.
24 three tree grate with a smaller canopy tree.
25
26 If you flip to the next, yes that one, that one has a little bit better setback and no canopy. So that
27 can allow for a larger sidewalk tree and we have noted that on our plan as a four by four grate
28 even though the sub-grade detail is the same. It would have a larger grate and could
29 accommodate a larger tree.
30
31 Then the picture you had of the bulb out, one more. That is the one. Underneath that banner
32 there is a bulb out that goes into the street, and that is an existing planting area that has irrigation
33 and the larger area. Those sites can handle the largest canopy trees. We call those a large
34 canopy open planting site.
35
36 So after looking at the street in terms ofthat the Arborists all got together and came up with a list
37 of 13 viable street tree selections that they felt would survive well on California Avenue, adopt
38 both to the conditions, be easily maintained, and produce good effects. For these selections
39 evergreen and deciduous trees were selected.
40
41 So you can tell from this graphic, and we have it up here too. This shows the highlight tree
42 graphic on the bottom, shows where the smaller canopy trees would go. About half of the street
43 trees are of this particular type. Then the four types of trees presented are also in your handouts
44 iftheyare a little hard to read up there. Then if you want to click to the four by four. Sorry, the
45 tally was based on the input we got after our October 8, last Thursday, public meeting over at
46 Escondido School. I think we had over 100 people, I think easily over 100 people attend. We
City 0/ Palo Alto October /5, 2009 Page 3 0/19
I didn't seem to be included in the study at all even though you said it would be commented on
2 later. The intensity, the length of the arms, all of the safety things that go with illuminating
3 proper crosswalks at intersections. I wanted to comment on that. '
4
5 The second thing is that no one has mentioned, the Staff has mentioned any underground
6 conflicts particularly sewer lines, electrical lines, provide a definite restraint on selecting things.
7 I was curious if there was a plan or a study or if anyone has looked into it.
8
9 Then third, typically the radius of the tree and the conflict with a building is a graphic that is
10 provided so that the general public would have more of an understanding of how much
II maintenance and what the conflict would be to trim the trees to fit to the buildings. Even though
12 in general someone has acknowledged the idea that the diameter ofthe tree is relevant it would
13 be instructive to have the natural diameter ofthe tree or the planned diameter ofthe tree shown
14 on a graphic. Thank you for your time.
15
16 Board Member Lee: Thank you for your comments. The next speaker is Fred Balin followed by
17 Terry Shuchat.
18
19 Mr. Fred Balin. 2385 Columbia. Palo Alto: I live in College Terrace. My wife and I were very
20 disturbed by what happened with the tree removal. We sprang into action after the City Manager
21 said that they were going to have to replant the trees with red maples in two weeks, and we were
22 going to go through a similar process of no input from the public just as occurred when the trees
23 were taken down. We. decided that we had to do something. Other people working
24 independently also got involved. Through kind of parallel tracks of independent ~itizens we
25 were able to bring together Barrie Coates to the Farmer's Market who had a great talk for us and
26 the City has brought him into the process.
27
28 We have been looking at the tree selection process and we were looking at what :vvent wrong. I
29 have two comments to make with regard to the process. Number one, in your packet you have a
30 letter that went from the City Planner to Public Works on the 14th to begin the announcement of
31 the Staff level ARB that then commenced, and there would be a 14-day period for notice. The
32 way notice is supposed to come, which is mentioned on the last paragraph in bold, apparently is
33 to be announced in the next Architectural Review Board Agenda. There is no public notice in
34 the papers or anything like that. The next Agenda date was for the 24. If you look on the 24th 011
35 the back here there are about six words about the ARB decision, the architectural decision, but
36 no discussion of trees. So what I am saying here is the process that you have is when you have a
37 Staff level ARB and there is to be notice afterwards there is effectively no notice at all.
38
39 To the issue of the tree selection, I think we are in the midst of a much better process going
40 forward over what we had in the past. We had a great meeting with Barrie Coates. We had a
41 very spirited but informative discussion with Public Works and the four Arborists last Thursday
42 night. Some good things have come out it. What we are advocating as a citizen's ad hoc group
43 is that all this input that has come in with regard to the trees and the infonnation that has been
44 assembled with regard to what is the best options in te11l1S of the soil, and the size, and the
45 placement should result in maybe three concepts from the group of Arborists that has a mix of
46 trees in it, each for the various reasons of the Arborists. So there is a choice of the overall
City of Palo Alto October 15, 2009 Page 5 of19
I California Avenue. Also, we as our business group, there again after many, many meetings
2 decided.that we like the uniform look as with University Avenue, as with Castro, as with Los
3 Altos, with most city streets. Thank you.
4
5 Board Member Lee: Thank you. We will next hear from Herb Borock followed by Mary
6 Gordon.
7
8 Mr. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto: Good morning Chair and Board Members. This
9 project includes the removal ofthe trees. The current Staff Report seems to omit that part. The
10 Planning Staff on behalf of the Director of Planning issued a tentative decision on September ,14
11 and I filed a timely notice requesting a hearing before the ARB, which is attached to the letter I
12 have that you have at places. So you have the role under the California Environmental Quality
13 Act and the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance to sit in judgment, get evidence, follow the rules of
14 noticing' before making any kind of decision.
15
16 One thing is that you can't make a decision on a piece of the project. You have to make a
17 decision on the entire project at one time. So I believe it is inappropriate this morning for you
18 collectively to make a recommendation about the replacement trees. You may want to give your
19 individual opinions but anything that looks like a collective decision including straw votes I
20 believe would be against the law.
21
22 The other thing is you need to have hearings following the rules of the California Environmental
23 Quality Act and the City'S own zoning code in Chapter 18.77, which requires proper noticing.
24 There hasn't been any noticing I am aware of for this meeting outside the Brown Act noticing.
25 There hasn't been a public notice ad. Although you were told at a previous meeting that there
26 would be an ad for an environmental assessment there has been no Mitigated Negative
27 Declaration prepared yet. I believe that such an environmental assessment needs to be
28 independent ofthe applicant. The applicant is Public Works Engineering and the Staff Report
29 you previously received indicated that it is Public Works Engineering that is going to be doing
30 the environmental assessment. I believe that should be the under Current Plmming section.
31
32 The situation we are in now is that the City is in two roles. In one role it is the applicant on this
33 project and wants to get some opinions at a late date about the tree replacement but on the other
34 hand the City in a quasi-judicial role sits as the decider as to whether or not the impacts of this
35 project have been properly mitigated. The tentative decision said that the project was exempt
36 from the California Environmental Quality Act. Everything that has been done to date would be
37 consistent with that because to date there has been no Mitigated Negative Dedaration. So I hope
38 the City isn't misleading us by promising a Mitigated Negative Declaration and then at the last
39 minute saying that the project is exempt anyway. Thank you.
40
41 Board Member Lee: Thank you. We will next hear from Mary Gordon followed by Frank Ingle.
42
43 Ms. Mary Gordon, 16 Roosevelt Ave. Palo Alto: Good morning. Not even good evening at this
44 early hour. I would like to focus just rather briefly I think on a broader view. It does seem to
45 me, and I shared this great concern about the decision to remove the holy oaks without having
46 clear and full knowledge of what was going to take place for the public in general. In addition to
City of Palo A 110 Oclobel' 15, 2009 Page 70f19
1 discourage vandalism. The merchants will be offered a second Farmer's Market set up for one
2 afternoon a week in addition to the one Sunday morning to attract more foot traffic.
3
4 So what is not like? Everyone wins. The public anger is diffused. The City revenue increases.
5 The merchants will get good publicity, which should increase their chances of surviving the
6 recessIOn.
7
8 What do we need to do to get this started immediately? We need an okay for any changes to
9 City regulations, which might prevent it. We need to find a champion to promote the idea. We
10 need to get the idea out in the Weekly, Daily, and the Post. We need to find a way to okay a
11 second Farmer's Market, and mostly find a way to make this happen quickly rather than finding
12 ways not to do anything. Thank you.
13
14 Board Member Lee: Thank you. Our final speaker will be Susan Rosenberg.
15
16 Ms. Susan Roseberg, 1425 Stanford Ave, Palo Alto: Hi, I am the Chair of Canopy. I want to
17 thank you all for being here today. I don't know if you are familiar with Canopy so I just want to
18 give you a really brief rundown. We work with the City. We were formed in Palo Alto in 1996
19 and we work closely with City Staff to plant trees, and also to educate the public about the urban
20 forest and the value that the trees bring to Palo Alto. We were unfortunately not included in the
21 process that went on in California Avenue. But we are included in the process now. We have
22 been working with the Staff and coming up with the tree selections.
23
24 What I would like to say is that the trees that were selected here were reviewed by City Staff,
25 Eric Krebs, and Dave Dockter, both very well known and very well respected Arborists. Also by
26 Barrie Coates who has a reputation up and down this state as well as Dave Mufflie. I think that
27 any of the trees that are on this list would be very good trees on California A venue.
28
29 I would caution you about selecting the trees that received the most votes at the meeting last
30 Thursday. I think that the people that were at that meeting certainly don't represent the whole
31 community. I think that you also need to leave the tree choices up to the Arborists who are
32 involved because availability of the trees is not always assured. So thank you very much.
33
34 Board Member Lee: Thank you. T don't have any more cards so let's go to the Board for their
35 comments and questions. Alex, would you like to start off?
36
37 Board Member Lew: Where to begin on this one? I would say of the tree selections that have
38 been developed, I am not an Arborist so I don't want comment in too much detail about it, but I
39 would agree that there isn't on the very small tree wells, the three by three ones there is not a lot
40 of space. I walked through that area. I think we do have to sort of recognize that. Say like on
41 Castro Street, University A venue there was a conscious decision to put a larger tree in and they
42 were put in the parking spaces. Then that really gives the trees -there is more space between the
43 tree trunk and the building favade. So I think in terms of that the one tree species that struck me
44 was the ornamental pear because I have used that on some projects. It is fairly columnar
45 compared to I think, I mean the picture show it as equal size to the other trees, but I think in my
46 experience that one is much more of a taller, narrower tree.
Cily 0/ Palo Alia Oclober 15. 2009 Page 90/19
1 Board Member Solnick: My main comment is I think that is a far bigger mistake than the
2 removal of the trees, which was definitely a mistake. I think this project is suffering from an
3 absence of any cohesive design because it has no designer and never did evidently. So what you
4 had was designed by a merchant group with Public Works it sounds like. Now a much broader
5 public has become involved in reaction to the tree removal, and Public Works is feeling very
6 contrite. So they are actually providing less leadership at this point I would say, maybe they
7 actually had too much before, now they probably have too little. So there is really no design
8 guidance here. We are talking about selecting trees by a vote, by holding up placards. This is a
9 very important street in Palo Alto, and we are not just talking tree species we are talking about a
10 whole new streetscape. For the City not to have engaged a landscape designer or architect for
11 this project is just astounding. It is truly astounding. Cali fornia wants to think of itself as a real
12 place. It is not just the other downtown but it is a downtown. Can you imagine this happening
13 on University? That the whole streetscape is -well, maybe it was done that way, I don't know.
14 The whole streetscape was done without any design input. I can't imagine. Even EI Camino the
15 guidelines were done with design input.
16
17 Board Member Lee: Sorry, Dave, was that a question to Staff? Did you want to respond to that
18 question about University Avenue?
19
20 Mr. Mike Sartor. Assistant Public Works Director: I would like to make one clarification for My.
21 Solnick's information. When the Master Plan was developed for the grant application in 2006
22 we did have an architect involved in that. It was a person that lives on California Avenue,
23 Heather Troutman. She helped put together the overall Master Plan for the project.
24
25 After that the project was scaled back because we did not receive the grant. The estimate at the
26 time was about $2.5 million and it included a complete new streetlight system, a series of bulb
27 outs into the street, as well as the planting plan. That planting plan was carried forward in the
28 new reduced project. Just as a clarification we did have an architect involved.
29
30 Board Member Solnick: Once that got scaled back there was no there is none now, which is
31 really the main point.
32
33 Mr. Sartor: Well, the tree replacement plan was the same plan that was included in the original.
34
35 Board Member Solnick: But see I am not addressing the tree replacement plan. I am addressing
36 the streetscape plan. I think it is really a hazard to isolate out whether legally or not the tree
37 thing. This is a street and this is a streets cape. The design needs to be though out as a whole not
38 as just thinking tree species.
39
40 Mr. Sartor: I agree with that and the plan as of now is to take the overall streetscape concept
41 through a design process, which would include public meetings. It would include involvement
42 of architects, and landscape architects. The primary elements of the rest of the plan are street
43 furniture and traffic issues. The full intent is to take all of those elements of the plan back to the
44 public through a series of meetings with the community, with the Palo Alto Bicycle Commission,
45 with yourselves as we come up with a program for the rest of the project. We beg your
City oJ Palo Alto October J 5, 2009 Page 11 oJ 19
1 designers and Arborists are for. I think you need to come back to us with a plan as with any
2 other project and then we weigh in on it.
3
4 I will SOli of second what Alex said, and I would favor what the merchant group is saying that I
5 think it is far more successful to have a street that has more uniform tree species. That doesn't
6 meart that all the trees need to be the same. What it does mean is that there need to be enough of
7 a single species to create a rule and then you can make exceptions to that rule. This is all
8 exceptions. This is a plan of exceptions. So you need to have a dominant tree of some kind and
9 then within that you Cart make small changes.
10
11 Board Member Lee: Thanks David. It looks like there are a few points of clarification from
12 Staff.
13
14 Ms. Ames: Yes, thank you. So what we have presented is a concept. It is more of an
15 opportunity of where the certain sizes of trees can go, and we did Wartt to get design feedback on
16 the theme, the color scheme, like your comment about the accent tree at the crosswalks or some
17 kind of a theme throughout the streetscape is valuable to us. I apologize but we are going to
18 come back to you on November 5 with taking into consideration these comments as wen as the
19· community's comments. So it is going to be a balance artd hopefully that clarifies the concept
20 plan that you have before you today is just a preliminary.
21
22 Ms. Rooney: I would like to add to that too. I completely understartd your comments about the
23 lack of designer and the lack of designer for the whole project. One ofthe reasons why you
24 don't have more refined concept plarts that show design elements is because we are in the
25 process of getting comments from the Arborists, from you, from the public, and as I mentioned
26 the Arborists and designers are going to be putting together two or three concept plans to bring
27 back and refine with the public. I just mentioned it briefly but we are conscious of design related
28 types of decisions for entryways, balancing, having a cohesive statement for the street, having
29 accents, large trees balancing each other across the street. It is not really clear, you are right,
30 from the graphic that is presented here how that can be incorporated.
31
32 Can you switch to the large open canopy slide? There you go. We are not there yet but it is pali
33 of our thinking is what I am trying to get at. When we have developed the graphics over this
34 weekend you will be able to see that the larger canopy trees are anchoring and defining spots for
35 the street experience. There is a large pair up at the El Camino entrance that will define the
36 choices for those trees, which will tie into a similar anchoring spot down at the end of the street.
37 I am just trying to say we are thinking of it in telIDS of appropriate design. We are working with
38 a landscape architect who is helping us with the graphics, and we do have Arborists and Staff.
39 The reason why you are not seeing any ofthat really right now is because that is what we are
40 working on, but I do really understand your comments about having a designer to get to a
41 cohesive statement for the street.
42
43 Board Member Lee: May I just follow up with a question then to your comment about the City
44 has a landscape architect working with your department in guiding the choices for the specific
45 site and not other streets in Palo Alto. Is this specific or does this happen at every -if University
46 Avenue was experiencing some kind of a project that landscape architect would be ... ?
City o[ Palo Alto October 15, 2009 Page 13 0[19
I
2 Board Member Solnick: By the way, one comment about the nomenclature. It says this in the
3 Staff Report. There is no such thing as Stafflevel ARB. ARB stands for Architectural Review
4 Board. It is Staff level architecture review. I think the public gets very confused by this and I do
5 too.
6
7 Mr. Sartor: I would like to defer to my Planning colleagues to answer that question. Thank you.
8
9 Ms. Alicia Spotwood, Secretary: Just for clarification the packet or your report does not include
10 the Streetscape Improvement Plan submittal, the grant application submittal that shows the
11 whole project plan for the street.
12
13 Board Member Lee: Okay. Shall we pass the baton to Clare?
14
15 Board Member Malone Prichard: I think we all, everybody here, agrees this isn't going forward
16 in the best way it can but we are not going to beat a dead horse. We are where we are so let's
17 move on. The Council has instructed us to move forward with planting new trees so assuming
18 that is legal that is what I am going to focus on.
19
20 I agree with both of my colleagues that it is not really the ARB's role to select species. I don't
21 think you are asking us to do that. So I will just say that the things that I tend to look for when
22 reviewing a designer's drawings for any type of a streetscape is I would look for seasonal
23 variation, and I would not want to see mono culture, but I do want to see some sense of order. So
24 yes, I probably should be one dominant tree and there should be some specialty trees in certain
25 locations. I would prefer to see those locations somehow relate to whatis going on at the street,
26 be it street comers, or building setbacks. I leave that to the designers to decide what it should be
27 relating to but there should be some kind of sense of order.
28
. 29 What you are doing down at the end recognizing the fountain and recognizing that should be
30 something special, that is exactly what I am talking about. Do that and then continue that at
31 other locations that makes sense down the street. Beyond that, that's about it. I look forward to
32 seeing what you bring forward at the next meeting.
33
34 Board Member Lee: Thank you Clare. Well, we have an opportunity here and I think one
35 community member mentioned let's take our best step forward. I think that what the Staff has
36 prepared is quite helpful in terms of giving us this mapping. I see it as a mapping in telIDS of
37 understanding where it might be best to plant smaller trees versus where there are opportunities
38 for larger trees and an open planting situation.
39
40 I think this Board is largely composed of consultants with specialized knowledge. We are not
41 Arborists. I speak for myself that I have some experience working with landscape architects on
42 urban designs and even on streetscapes and boulevards, however I am very comfol1able with the
43 City have Staff members with specialized knowledge, and open the process to a community to
44 receive feedback. Ultimately, and I think one community member actually point to the fact that
45 we have two Staff members who are very highly recommended and have terrific reputations, and
46 in addition we have two other Arborists who are going to kind of come together and make a
City of Palo Alto October 15, 2009 Page 15 of19
1 world and part of the streetscape experience. Generally that continuity of the experience of two .
2 trees that are the same or that establish a rhythm long enough so that you experience that one
3 species of tree can be quite powerful. So I just wanted to advocate not the monoculture but some
4 kind of a tree planting structure perhaps in how the canopies meet or the kinds of trees that there
5 is continuity in that experience.
6
7 Evergreen versus deciduous, very difficult question and everybody is going to have a different
8 answer for you. Again, I go back to our consultants in terms of the Arborists and the specialized
9 knowledge that might speak to orientation, where perhaps canopies exist or awnings, or smaller
10 buildings versus taller building, just how much sidewalk width that you have. In terms of letting
11 in light or not letting in light and for me that is the difference between the evergreen and the
12 deciduous. So I think those are the constraints or the factors that go into that decision.
13
14 Related to that I just wanted to mention for the evergreen and deciduous discussion the shadow
15 effect in terms of how hospitable that environment is and where the location of benches and
16 outdoor seating occur. The difficulty in urban design is that we are designing a framework that
17 might change. Storefronts come and go. We can kind oflook at the zoning for where there
18 might be outdoor seating. For example, one cafe might not have outdoor seating right now but
19 later they will so that is why it is a little bit difficult. If you could maybe, as you move forward,
20 take some cues in terms of where the seating occurs now, where there are opportunities for
21 seating and maybe the next owner of the business might come and think about outdoor seating. I
22 know on the end towards Caltrain that sidewalk where there is a bus stop I just see a lot of
23 benches there .. It is opposite the south of the fount.ain, that area on California Avenue whcre that
24 last piece of Park Boulevard ends and you are in the condos there. Across from Whitestone. It
. 25 seems like there is a lot of sidewalk there and not a lot of trees. I think that has to do with where
26 that property line is sitting. But there are a lot of benches and it is very open and there are no
27 trees planted right now. Even in our proposed concept map plan there are no highlighted in
28 terms of possible. So I wanted to point to that area in terms of maybe there could be more street
29 trees there or at least something in terms of, I don't know. Somebody had mentioned this whole
30 temporary large container trees or planting. I think it is a lovely idea. However, it is difficult in
31 terms of designing for continuity of the street and in terms of the timing and the process of the
32 implementation ofthis new tree planting. I did see that there are definitely areas even in this
33 mapping that seem bare where there seem to be more benches than trees, and that is just one
34 area. So I wanted to point that out.
35
36 I think that in an ideal environment, an ideal kind of land of the -I mean considering the
37 economy and budgets and cities. It would be terrific ifthere was an urban design or a master
38 plan of this moment of this year with an urban design consultant to work with the City in a real
39 sort of way in developing everything from plants to benches and site furnishings and kiosks and
40 all of this. I understand the pressures of this economy and just in terms of cities sometimes not
41 having just the freedom and the latitude to do that. So recognizing that how can we as a team
42 perhaps but particularly our leadership in the City begin to make decisions and think about this
43 process? I did want to point to Staffthat has been working very hard I imagine in a very
44 concentrated period of time in putting this together. I think that their efforts should be
45 recognized. Of course we are in this situation but let's look forward. Those are my comments.
46
City 0/ Palo A 110 October J 5. 2009 Page 170/19
1
2 Okay, thank you. There is a motion to continue this item.
3
4 SECOND
5
6 Board Member Malone-Prichard: Second.
7
8 MOTION PASSED (4-0-1-0, Board Member Wasserman absent)
9
10 Board Member Lee: All in favor? (ayes) That passes four to zero with one absent.
City of Palo Alto October 15, 2009 Page 19 of 19
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENT E
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Clare Campbell, Planner
October 28, 2009
DEPARTMENT: PlalUling &
Community Environnlent
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements (Phase I): Request by Public
Works Engineering on behalf of the City of Palo Alto for California Avenue
streetscape modifications from EI Camino Real to the Caltl-ain Depot,
focusing on tree replacement. The street improvement project involves various
upgrades to the public right of way along Califomia A venue. The overall
project includes replacement and addition of street trees, replacement of street
benches, news racks, waste receptacles, replacement and addition of bicycle
racks, crosswalk improvements and restriping of road and automobile parking
spaces. An Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration have been
prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) requirements for Phase I of the project, the replacement and addition
of street trees within the project area. The other components ofthe project as
described above are Phase II and will undergo a separate environmental
analysis when the details have been more fully developed.
RECOMMENDATION
At the City Council's direction, Staff recommends that the Planning and Transp0l1ation
Commission (PTC) review and comment to Council on Phase I of the Califomia Avenue
Streets cape Improvements, the tree replacement plan.
BACKGROUND
h12005, the California Avenue Area Development Association (CAADA) submitted a request to
the City for streetscape improvements including street tree and street light replacement, traffic
lane reduction, addition of bicycle lanes and pedestrian crosswalks, new street furniture, new
newspaper racks and fountain repair. The existing street trees were reaching the end of their life
span, some were conflicting with street lights and store fronts, and some had already been
removed because of disease.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
2
hl 2006, CAADA worked with the City on developing a general master plan for the area in order
to seek grant funding. Staff developed a conceptual streetscape plan for the area and applied for
grant funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The California Avenue
streetscape plan called for a complete and more unifom1 tree canopy, street improvements and
other amenities.
When the grant application was unsuccessful, the City sought to address portions ofthe project
through the City's Capital hnprovement Program (CIP), and continued to work with CAADA on
the certain elements of the plan including street tree replacement, street lights, street furniture,
fountain replacement, new trash/recycling containers and newspaper racks. In 2007, Public
Works staff surveyed California A venue and identified trees which were candidates for removal
based on the following criteria: health, structure, placement and aesthetics, and in addition,
identified potential sites for new tree installations. The survey reflects approximately 92 tree sites
that include 68 existing trees and 24 potential new tree locations (Attaclunent E). None of the
trees along California Avenue were heritage or protected trees. In January 2009, due to the high
cost of replacing the street light system, staff decided to eliminate streetlight work from the
project and use this money to replace street trees. This change was reflected in an updated
description of the CIP.
A tentative staff-level Architectural Review approval was issued on September 14,2009 for the
above project. The tentative approval letter described a 14 day request for public hearing period
within which a request for hearing before the Architectural Review Board (ARB) may be
submitted. It was during this 14 day request for hearing period that the project prematurely
proceeded and 63 street trees were removed.
The 2006 MTC grant application document (Attachment C) is often refelTed to as the "Califomia
Streetscape hnprovement Plan", or "master plan." The grant application document provides
extensive background for the overall project, including the outreach and collaboration that took
place in defining the focus of the street improvements. For clarification this document was never
reviewed and adopted as an official master plan, it is just commonly referred to as such.
Project Description
The California A venue Streetscape Improvements have been divided into two phases. Phase I is
comprised of the replacement and addition of approximately 65 street trees and Phase II is
comprised of various upgrades that may include replacement of street benches, news racks,
waste receptacles, replacement and addition of bicycle racks, crosswalk improvements,
additional parking and possible restriping of roadway lane configuration to reduce travel lanes
and make the street more bicycle and pedestrian friendly.
On September 14th, 15th and 16th, 2009,63 street trees were removed along California Avenue's
commercial center. The pre-existing public street trees along the Califomia A venue consisted of
a variety of species, mixed ages and size. Individual tree conditions varied broadly. The tree
health conditions ranged from fair to poor health due to less than favorable growing conditions
such as limited above ground clearance from buildings, constricted trunk and planter space in the
sidewalk and inadequate soil volume for long tem1 root growth. Separately, the branch and trunk
City of Palo Alto Page 2
structure of most of the trees was fair, although many of the trees had scarred or damaged limbs
or trunks from vehicular contact over the years.
After the trees were removed, due to the concerns raised by the public the City stopped all work
and began a concerted effort to communicate with the community, The City contracted with
landscape architects Royston, Hanamoto, Alley & Abey (RHAA) to design appropriate
landscape palettes based on the results of the collaboration efforts of the Planning and Public
Works Arborists, Barrie Coate (Registered Consulting Arborist), Canopy, and the community.
As a result of the trees removal, Phase 1, the installation of the street trees has become a high
priority for the City and community. The Phase II work is generally described in the
Architectural Review Board staffreport (Attachment E) and a background summary of the
possible street restriping work has been prepared as Attachment G, however, this component of
the project has not been fully developed. Therefore, at this time the focus of the PTC should be
the plan for the replacement trees. Phase II of the project is anticipated to be presented to the
PTC in Spring 2010.
The City conducted a Community Meeting on October 8, 2009 at Escondido School to gather
input from the community regarding the tree replacement plan. The meeting was well attended
and many raised concerns about the project. Attachment C is a staffprepared summary of the
meeting.
Architectural Review Board Comments
The general tree planting plan was reviewed on October 8 by the Architectural Review Board
and then the item was continued to November 5,2009. The comments provided on the project
focused on the following design concepts:
• Temporary container plantings should be used to supplement the newly planted trees until
they have grown in more.
• Tree selection should create a sense of continuity and balance/rhythm; more uniform species
and or structure is preferred to provide a strong theme for the street.
• Accent trees should be installed at appropriate locations.
• Special gateway treatments are needed for the two "ends" (EI Camino Real and the Caltrain
Station ofthe street).
There were seven members of the community that spoke at the ARB meeting voicing various
concerns on the project components and the overall review process. Please refer to the verbatim
minutes of the meeting (Attachment F) for details.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES:
Planting Palette
On October 22, a second Community Meeting was held to discuss the two planting palettes
(Attachment A) that were developed. The main difference between the two palettes is that one is
predominantly evergreen and the other predominantly deciduous. This difference is primarily
expressed through the use of an evergreen or deciduous tree for the common thread tree along
City of Palo Alto Page 3
the full length ofthe street. This feature unifies the street and provides strong continuity for the
street tree character,
The two palettes share similar design goals with enhanced entrance experiences at both ends of
California Avenue, at EI Camino Real and at Park Boulevard, with the use of ornamental pear
trees and large signature oaks. The Valley Oaks, iconic native trees to the area, are used at the EI
Camino entrance as a gateway treatment. Deciduous trees, which provide vibrant seasonal color,
were selected for use at intersections and cross walks and as focal points for people entering the
business district from the parking lot alleys. Ornamental pears were used to unify and balance
the street at the entrances and mid street at the Birch intersection. Their locations, smaller stature
and spring bloom, as well as fall color, provide rhythm and interest to the street.
Attachment B provides a summary of the issues raised at the October 22 community meeting.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This project supports several key policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan, including:
POLICY L-15: Preserve and enhance the public gathering spaces within walking distance of
residential neighborhoods. Ensure that each residential neighborhood has such spaces.
GOAL L-4: Inviting, Pedestrian-scale Centers That Offer a Variety of Retail and Commercial
Services and Provide Focal Points and Community Gathering Places for the City's Residential
Neighborhoods and Employment Districts.
POLICY L-21: Provide all Centers with centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of
identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches,
street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art.
POLICY L-22: Enhance the appearance of streets and sidewalks within all Centers through an
aggressive maintenance, repair and cleaning program; street improvements; and the use of a
variety of paving materials and landscaping.
PROGRAM L-18: Identify priority street improvements that could make a substantial
contribution to the character of Centers, including widening sidewalks, nmTowing travel lanes,
creating medians, restriping to allow diagonal parking, and planting street trees.
POLICY N-14: Protect, revitalize, and expand Palo Alto's urban forest through public
education, sensitive regulation, and a long-term financial commitment that is adequate to protect
this resource.
PROGRAM N-17: Develop and implement a plan for maintenance, irrigation, and replacement
of trees in parks, parking lots, and City rights-of-way,
POLICY L-28: Maintain the existing scale, chm'acter, and function of the California Avenue
business district as a shopping, service, and office center intermediate in function and scale
between Downtown and the smaller neighborhood business areas.
City of Para Alto Page 4
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project, Phase I, is subject to environmental review under provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the CEQA
requirements (Attachment I). The 20-day public comment period for this document runs from
October 21, 2009 through November 9, 2009. Phase II will undergo separate environmental
analysis when the project components have been determined.
NEXT STEPS
Phase I will return to the Architectural Review Board for review and recommendations on
November 5. The project is tentatively scheduled to go to City Council for fmal action on
November 16.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A.
Attachment B.
Attachment C.
Attachment D.
Attachment E.
Attachment F.
Attachment G.
Attachment H.
Attachment I.
Proposed Planting Palettes
Summary Notes of October 22,2009 Community Meeting
Summary Notes of October 8,2009 Community Meeting
2006 Capital Grant Application for California Avenue Streetscape
Improvements ("Masterplan") -(Hardcopies for Commission, Libraries and
Development Center only, also available for review at this link:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.orginews/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1394&TargetID
=268 )
ARB Staff Report dated October 8, 2009 (w/o attachments)
ARB Meeting Minutes dated October 8, 2009
California Avenue Street Restriping Project Background
Correspondence
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study (hardcopies for
Commission, Libraries and Development Center only, also available for review
at the link below:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.orginewsidisplaYllews.asp?NewsID=1394&TargetID=268)
COURTESY COPIES
Elizabeth Ames, PWE
PREPARED BY: Clare Campbell, Planner
REVIEWED BY: Julie Caporgno, Chief Planning and Transportation Official
DEP ARTMENTIDNISION HEAD APPROV ~~~=-".....d~::::::=====----
. Curtis
City of Palo Alto PageS
ATTACHMENT A -
• r~ I
Z =J . tn =:J W PARK IILYO. PARI(III..VO.
::J W J 0 J "
D! ~~ ::J ='J~ w (!) JI c j1 D! -w (J
> W ~~ =:;. J. W C
> IIIRCH STAIIY >-81ACH STIIP ., "
..J ...J
l-I-
Z Z « « eli Z Z u. --LU
:E :E (t:
F'
0 0 !-,
U.·I
C C .~U
')!
W W 1,,£,
tl)
D! ~ U.t
D-D.. MIH(\SoiI~E
;j' -1 : UJ • • • • ~~1> « III =IS' ;:( =J,ftt I ~ z Z "4~
« « ...J ..J LL.
"""" Il. C. ,.*J <t. lJ
!~ :....J
~ «
i 9 t '5X: ~ *~ I • E'3
III
I 14-•
il ~ I
~ I, II tl~ tl
~I
n ~
J :., i
t 3: HN nl J t
It §~I ~ UJ ~i I UJ e 11:: 3
(!.)
rx: z
iJl Ii ' .. ~ "f'I':~ uJ UJ ~ t I ),
0 ..
Ii J
t:::~.'" n~ .~
() 1
C) I (\J :;]
UJ C rr. (j)
£1. > ... -=r. .. ~ !U « i . ~ .-' z i ~ \! ;:';
>(',( ! i ~ i ~ ~ 0 , !.I If,,,.··
Vq.l 11 I ; ... CiJ
Kl. {J
EVERGREEN UNIFYING STREET TREE
TRJSTANIA LAURINA 'ELEGANT'I ELEGANT TRISTANIA
PlAlJA
i}
Wt;
; v 'ir. • . ::~'-'~
1
... LJlLJ~:' IdJl [ [WI II ~ II '!LJ~i ~lllJLJ ~i J i L_I ... _ _ _.. _ Ii:. ~. .. _. • .. _ .. .., ". _ . a;._. _ . .fit. I' ' ,.... =.... ~ ~ .. -.., I CALJfORHIAA~ -CAUFOIIMA.A~. \@'.! :-..... rtrl, •. -.-.... C· : ~... ". -... I -car·· ~. -~ :-/1 !. ~ I I 11 r:J:" n;---: I I' ~ r 7< O~ ~ ~ I I I 11 r ! . I Ii, r : j.l L" lin;1 ~~,
-4
CAl~ E ES CIT¥tPALD ALTO
~ ~~ •
hI
-tt
II I
til
II J '. L ,.J ~J' 1I'" .. ;j 1I~1 Ut
II iii •
t.
!= ~i .. f' _i
i! ,~
in
Ji!
I:::J ~ ....:(
I E::J ~ ..g: ,
~ i! u
t4-~,
~
~ ~
;
I
!
! ~
l ~ ... ~ ~ ,
~ .~
] I
i
I'ARKBI.IID.
• I
. ~n I
-:' ASMITRUT
=~~r
o
I.b
W
W a::
I-
W ~
::l
I-<C
Z
CJ -~ en < 0 en >-::l UJ
..J 0 ..J < :::J > -Q < -~
U < Ctl W 0
C -l
tn
W :::>
(.) C> ~ w a:: ::;)
c:t a
..J
] -.'
"}
J'
81RCHnRlil' J;
:!-,--
•
j-
-],
I
i
{
.[~
-.
It .
A$HSrRElT
:[
.-\
HIMOSALAHE t.. =d' I , , ~ • ~; !I ~ I ,
3 ~J! D
~"wo~[
(I) w !,u
ft: IcY,
t--LU
UJ
t:t:
J"';' V1
UJ
IJJ >
~
""""
0 u.. --J
<.t:
U
DECIDUOUS ACCENT TREE AT INTERSECTION
PYRUS CALLERYANA 'HOLMFORD' , HOLMFORD PEAR
~ . .JWCJLtUL ULL~. I! 11 .. <=)ll~! ~._ I. ~U L., d L_I ~ ~ ! v-:: e -I'
il <:AUI'ORNIA A.VI. ... C . .~ ~RN"''''VL ® .... ~ .-% ,.' e IIE,,_ ~ -... "-tt:} ~m . (' n"j "lnt'I'"T "'If '~!~"I "r'~r[~ S~-'[ "'j ~ '( ~L~~. I l. E ., I , l P 1"'7 JI r-::r-.;... -
CALI iA E STRE T ES CI~-ZPALO ALTO
C) z -UJ en
0
.:w::
U
Z cs: -.:w::
I-UJ w
C w a.
l-e(
w w ~ a:: «
I-0
c I-O'! « Z :i
W :::l
U :r.: en
U --e( c a:: en « :i J :::l
0 J:
U)
::J en
:::l C 0 -D!
U W
:::l W 0
C
]
PARKil.l.VO.
I .. -li
61RCHsrlleT
A.SHSTAIET
~"(
tl'~.;J
Z ~ o
U" ~~ ,,,,,I
~
(.)
CJ Z -II)
II) o a:: u z « -~ t-en w
C
W
.Q.
.~
W w
II: w t-..J 0.. 1-< z~ w «
u~ U w «~ -CI)=
:J ~ o ~ li" :J~ a u. _ n::
u~ w «
C
]
PARK 8~VO.
]
IIIItC" ITR~T
.. , .
AfHSTfleET
LARGE EVERGREEN SIGNATURE TREE
QUERCUS VIRGIANA I SOUTHERN LIVE OAK
LJ UeJUcLJ I, n .. --..... ..--.. -.. • .. 5 !i m
i-CAUFORNIAA""'-0"
J:
-:':,:. 0.:
.;~~
~.~
"~i
'.
h· nirr If ·'11-.. f ir·l~m
-4
CAl~FORN AV~~1¥ ~Tull= TD ii= ... _9'~ ....... r'h.:a.. .... 6~_
" L~ _ __ UUJ~ u! L_I
CAI.If:ORNIA A""'-~~ ~
'j ·"111 -W ;:~~.
CITWALD ALTO
DECIDUOUS FOUNTAIN AREA TREE
PISTACHE CHINENSIS I CHrNESE PISTACHE
LJ LJUiJI UWI I! Il~ ~LJ I ILJLU I , Ii L J(&) n ." - . -.. --. - -•. , s; . ." ~ ,-' .. -... iii .. -.• -.... .. . _.. -.. . ~ l> Z ~ m
! '" . .... CAUFOIIMAA.VE. ® ! Pf Iii (fAir .oil' f if"l'-----il -,I 'II '[~ I :~~!
~ . -I
CAL~FORNiA E ES cl~LpALD ALTO
·-J~
,I
l
1I!11.01 flU t
.t
• . ~" .. ;L~
'LARGE DECIDUOUS STREET TREE TO MATCH EXISTING
PLATANUS ACERIFOllA I LONDON PLANE TREE
LJUuL~tiJ! UWI 11 \'~LJ ILJWU U ~ .. -." .. -=. _.. ." ~ . -. .. !... -.,. i ., -". --..
::t ... .. % CAL.IFOIlNIAAVe. o
<:AUI'OItNIAAYL .a: :
;; -...... ,. -~'"-.... ~. = _"._ •.• _r.! " t. _.. ,,' ,. _., .. n nTlnr I r Ii ~'l) ~:n t. : 1 ,,--:~. -! :-FriLJ" ~~~
)'1 -I ~ ( n;1 I . ""
CALI ,
""" CIT'h:.iJlALD ALTO
ATTACHMENT B
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements
Summary of Community Meeting at Escondido School on October 22,2009 at 6:30 PM
by Elizabeth Ames -PWE
Introductory Remarks
The City contracted with Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abbey, Landscape Architects, to develop
two concept street tree replanting plans based on input from City staff, arborists, CANOPY, the
community and the Architectural Review Board. The City asked the community to provide
comments to help in development of a preferred street tree replanting plan.
The California Avenue Streetscape Improvements are proposed to be implemented into two
phases withthe street tree replacement going first. At a later date, the City will meet with the
community to get input on the second phase ofthe project which includes streetscape fumiture
and other enhancements.
The City reviewed the next steps that would be needed to implement a street tree replanting plan
as soon as possible:
Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting
Architectural Review Board continued hearing
City Council Meeting to approve street tree replanting plan
Contract change order is issued to authorize
Suarez and Munoz Construction
to implement the tree replanting plan, purchase trees
October 28th
November 5th
November 16th
November 1 i h
Community outreach Ongoing through construction phase
Begin site preparation and complete tree
planting through holiday
Discussion
November 17th to mid-December
City staff presented two concept plans as noted in Attachment B that identifies possible tree
species and planting locations along California A venue from EI Camino Real to the Caltrain
Station.
The main difference between the plans is that one is predominantly evergreen and the other
predominantly deciduous. The use of either evergreen or deciduous trees as a common thread
along California Avenue provides uniformity. Other tree species were selected at street
intersections to accentuate the connecting streets and pedestrian crossings.
October 23, 2009 Page 1 of2
, The two plans are similar in that both provide strong entrance experiences at both ends of
California Avenue, at EI Camino Real and at Park Boulevard, with the use of ornamental pear
trees with large signature oaks. Deciduous trees which provide vibrant seasonal color were
selected for use at intersections and cross walks and as focal points for people entering the
business district from the parking lot alleys. Ornamental pears were used to unify and balance
the street at the entrances and mid street at the Birch intersection. Their locations, smaller stature
and spring bloom, as well as fall color, provide rhythm and interest to the street.
There were many ideas and comments generated from the meeting.
• People were very concerned about the length of time needed for a mature tree to establish
a large tree canopy
• As a short telID solution, there was a general consensus to use temporary container trees '
or other landscape elements to address the current denuded landscape
• The arborists concurred that the concept plans incorporated tree species that would thrive
in the streetscape environment given appropriate tree care, the use of structural soil and
use of initial street tree sizes of 15 gallon to 24 inch boxes to allow proper tree root
establishment over time
• There was general consensus that the street tree species selected would have long tetID
, viability in the area and the concept plans incorporated a variety of trees as suggested
from first community meeting .
Next Steps
The comment cards will be compiled and made available to the public and used in designing a
preferred concept plan.
The community was encouraged to provide comments on the new tree replacement concept plans
and to attend the Planning and Transportation, ARB and City Council Meetings scheduled in
October and November. A final concept plan will need City Council approval.
October 23, 2009 Page 20f2
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements
Summa.-y of Community Meeting at Escondido School
October 8, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Introductory Remarks
ATTACHMENT C
The community wanted to be infOlmed about what went wrong with the process that resulted in
the street trees being removed. Staff apologized for the mistake and mentioned that this will be
further investigated so that this type of mistake would not happen again.
Discussion
City staff presented a new tree replacement concept plan as noted in Attachment D that identifies
possible tree species and planting locations along California A venue from E1 Canlino Real to the
Caltrain Station. Staff explained that there were challenges in selecting trees that would thrive
in a hardscape environment such as in California Avenue. The tree canopy size, shape, water
needs, rooting conditions and viability to thrive in a hardscape environment were considered in
the proposed tree species. There were three types of planting sites presented based on those
factors, for a total of75 replacement trees. Sixteen (16) large canopy trees within open planting
sites, fifteen (15) large canopy trees with 4 feet square tree grates and (44) smaller canopy trees
utilizing 3 feet square tree grates were proposed.
A panel of arborists, Barrie Coate of Barrie D. Coate and Associates, Dave Dockter and Elic
Krebs representing City staff, and David Muffly of Canopy answered questions from the public
ranging from tree size, how the soil should be prepared for planting, tree growth rate over time
and tree canopy shade considerations. It was noted that it is difficult to find large container sized
trees with acceptable quality root systems compared to trees in smaller containers.
There were many ideas and comments generated from the meeting. The comment cards and
transcript will be compiled and made available to the public and used in designing alternative
concept plans with the arborists for the next public meeting in October. These alternates will be
vetted for comments and preferences, which will go into the final plan for board and commission
approval.
• There was a general consensus that a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees of different
sizes and species should be considered.
• A resident's suggestion to add temporary large container trees to address the CUD'ent
denuded landscape was widely supported by the attendees.
• A preference for establishing a larger canopy was shown, and the arborists discussed how
best to achieve this with planting site preparation, initial tree planting sizes, and
appropriate tree care.
• People in general were very concerned about long term viability of the planting,
Next Steps
The community was encouraged to provide comments on the new tree replacement concept plan
and to attend the ARB and Planning and Transportation Meetings scheduled in October.
Prepared by Elizabeth Ames October 9,2009 Page 1 ofl
ATTACHMENT D
Transportation for Livable Communities Program
CAPITAL GRANT APPLICATiON
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements
Palo Alto, California
Submitted to the MetrolPo~ota01l Transportation Comm~ssnon
by the Palo Alto Department of Public Works
wi1h the California Avenue Area Development Association
June 23, 2006
SedDon lOune! Project Summary
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Transportation for Livable Communities
2006 Capital Program
Project Title:
PlI'ojec~ Description:
Funding Request:
Local match:
Total Project Cost:
Sponsoring Agency:
Contact Person:
Phone Number:
FAX Number:
EGmaii Address:
MaitOng Address:
Co-Sponsoring Agency:
COll1tact Person:
Phone Number:
fAX Number:
E~mail Address:
Mamng Address:
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements
California Avenue from EI Camino Real to the Caltrain
station, approximately 1/3 mile, would receive streetscape
improvements meant to: improve pedestrian access and
safety via bulb-outs and crosswalks; improve bicycle access
and safety via bike lanes and racks; reduce travel lanes.
street parking, and calm traffic; improve bus facilities;
improve the connection to the California AvenlJe Caltrain
station; replace outdated amel1~jes like street trees. street
lights and street furniture; creale a pedestrian plaza; create
gateway features; add to the public art; and revitalize an
important historic business and residential district.
$1,650,000
$520,000 from various City sources
$2,170,000
Palo Alto Department of Public Works
Bob Morris
650-329-2454
650-329-2299
bob.morris@citvofpaloalto.org
250 Hamilton Avenue, MS6B
Palo Alto, CA 94301
California Avenue Area Development Association
Ronna Devincenzi, President
650-688-6295
650-852-0361 attn: Ronna
rdevincenzi@akrealtv.com
P.O. Box 60826, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Section Two: Project NarratDve
CALIFORNIA AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
'There have been times when streets were a primary focus of city building -
streets rather than individual buildings." Allan Jacobs
The City of Palo Alto wishes to construct streetscape improvements on a four block,
one-third m'ile stretch of California Avenue from EI Camino Real (State Highway 82) to
the Ca'ifornia Avenue Caltrain station. This span of California Avenue is a
Neighborhood Center serving the everyday needs of the surrounding residential
neighborhoods. It includes two grocery stores, a drug store. and a variety of smaller
retail shops, personal services. offices and restaurants. Californta Avenue also has two
high-density residential complexes. It is a key transit hub with a train station and bus
stops servicing various transit agencies. The street is part of Palo Alto's designated
bike route system. While the California Avenue Business District's primary role is to
serve the neighborhood residents, it is also a popular lunchtime destination for the
23,000 workers from the adjacent Stanford Research Park and a nighttime destination
for students and faculty from Stanford University.
Residents and merchants find California Avenue's sidewalks to be narrow and
obstructed. The long crosswalks pose a safety concern for pedestria~s. Although th~
street is a deSignated bike route, it currently falls to satisfactorily and saf~ly .
accommodate bicyclists. Finally, California Avenue has not received any substantial
streetscape improvements since 1957 and consequently, the street, sidewalks,
streetlights, street trees and various other amenities are outdated and in poor condition.
California A venue, view toward EI Clfmino Real.
The City has an 86' right-of-way: 66' street, with S' of sideWalk and a S' free strip on each side.
Traffic counts: 9,100 vehicles per dOfY, 1,000 pedestrians per day, Ofnd 900 bicycles per day.
The California Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project (Project) proposes to update
California Avenue with an emphasis towards alternative transportation and transit
improvements. particularly to the pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The proposed
improvements are the result of an extensive planning and collaborative process
Se~tiorm Two: Project Narrative
between the City of Palo Alto and the California Avenue Area Development Association
(CAADA), a non-profit association of merchants, professionals and property owners in
the business district. Various public commissions, transit agencies, and neighborhood
and business associations have reviewed the conceptual designs, provided input, and
support the Project.
The purpose of the Project is threefold. First, it is to reconfigure the public right~of-way
to improve pedestrian and bicycling viability, safety and convenience. Second, it is to
improve transit facilities and connections. Third, it is to revitalize Palo Alto's "other"
downtown by creating a vibrant pedestrian and bike oriented commercial and residential
district with modern street amenities.
The Project proposes to:
!j Eliminate one vehicle lane in each direction to balance the street use and to
upgrade California Avenue to a Class II or Class III bikeway
Ii Improve the pedestrian facilities, particularly the crosswalks
• Improve the bus stops
4) Improve the access and viability of the Caltrain slation connection
" Redesign a median island near the Caltrain statton to create a pedestrian plaza
and gateway portal with public art
(i Replace outdated and mismatched streetlights with more aesthetic, pedestrian-
scale fixtures
CP Plant new street trees in the parking lanes to free up sidewalk space for a
pedestrian promenade, street furniture and restaurant tables and chairs
Ii Provide new, modern street furniture including benches, bike racks, kiosks, news
racks and way-finding signage
City Council is expected to adopt the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development
(PTOD) zoning district centered around California Avenue (see Attachment 3). The
PTOD will make it easier for developers to construct high-density residential complexes
and capacity within the district. In fact, developers are already working with Palo Alto
on improving the California Avenue area. A nearby high-density residential complex for
seniors is under construction and plans for a mixed-use high-density residential
complex are currently under review by the City. New public soccer fields are nearing
completion a few blocks away. Within 8~10 years, several hundred residential housing
units with accompanying office and retail space are planned to be constructed on .
California Avenue (across EI Camino Real). Furthermore, many businesses along
California Avenue have recently been rebullt or remodeled and plans are underway for
others to do the same. Streetscape and transit improvements along California Avenue
are therefore considered key to encourage future high density residential and transit
oriented development.
2
§eC¢OOill Two: /Project Narrative
PROJECT READINESSS CRITERIA
1. Collaborative planning process
The inception of the Project occurred during the summer of 2005 when CMDA
appealed to the City Council for long overdue streetscape improvements.
Council responded by offering CMDA $50,000 towards improvements
contingent upon CMDA matching funds (at a 1:4 ratio, or $12,500) and
developing a prioritized comprehensive master plan for the street. CMDA,
working with staff from the City's Planning, Public Works and Utilities
Departments and the City Manager's Office, prepared a general master plan and
delivered it to the City in January of 2006. Since that time, City staff has
developed the master plan into a set of conceptual plans and cost estimates.
The project cost estimate for the full master plan is $2,170,000. However, to
date the City has only budgeted the $50,000 that Council directed. Recognizing
the need and wishing to accomplish at least part of the master plan, the City
Manager met with CAADA in April and agreed to find additional funding for
CAADA's two highest priority items: the replacement of the street lights and
street trees. The City estimate for these two items is over $500,000 and the City
has identified potential funding sources. However, the City will not be ablE;! to
procure funding for the balance of the master plan for the foreseeable future as
the City is fiscally constrained by a 10-year, $100,000,000 Infrastructure
Management Plan that was developed to renovate City facilities that have
suffered from deferred maintenance.
The Project is not conducive to phasing as the proposed improvements only
occur over a 4-block length of California Avenue. Staff feels that breaking the
project into two phases, for instance, into two 2-block phases, is not cost-
efficient. Certain improvements, like new conduit, span the entire length of the
project and are most efficiently installed all at once by one contractor. The
increased design and construction costs for breaking one median-sized project
into two small projects would either increase the grant amount and/or limit the
amount of streetscape improvements that could be constructed. Furthermore,
one phase of construction will be'less disruptive for the businesses and visitors to
California Avenue.
The conceptual plan has been shared and discussed with the California Avenue
merchants, the community at large, and with numerous community and transit
groups, including:
(t Nearby neighborhood associations
<» Homeowners associations for complexes on California Avenue
Ci Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce
<» Valley Transportation Agency
o Caltrain
G Stanford University's Marguerite Shuttle
3
SeCIUOItl Two; Project NlIIII'rative
I) Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Commission (PABAC)
Q Palo Alto's Public Art Commission
A community-wide public meeting was held on June 6,2006, in an establishment
on California Avenue. Staff presented plans and estimates to approximately 60
community leaders, merchants and residents. Valuable input was received and
has been incorporated into the project. Three local newspapers have run articles
on the Project and the City has a webpage devoted to the Project
(www.cityofpaloalto.org/public-works/ca-streetscaping.html). which includes an )
online survey that asks residents for their input. The survey and website have
generated considerable interest in the Project producing valuable feedback. One
compelling survey outcome shows the community, the City. and CMDA
agreeing on the three highest priority elements for the Project: 1} pedestrian
accommodations; 2) improved bicycle accommodations; and, 3) improved street
amenities. A summary of survey results is attached. Should the City receive a
grant for the Project. community outreach will continue through the final design.
Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) zone:
As mentioned earlier. Palo Alto is about to adopt the PTOD. This timely zoning
change is meant to encourage. streamline and remove restrictions for the
development of high-density, multi-family residential complexes in and around
California Avenue's inter-modal transit hub. The PTOD and other zonrng
requirements require development projects to include affordable housing. The
PTOD has been presented to and discussed wilh numerous City stakeholders
and transit agencies. It has been recommended for approval to the City Council
by the City's Planning and T ransportaUon Commission, being scheduled for
adoption by the City Council in July 2006. Adoption of the PlOD will be
complementary to the Project.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan:
The Project has been closely coordinated with the Planning Division. It is
consistent with and meets many of the goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Program L·18 says, "Identify priority street improvements that could make
a substantial contribution to the character of the Centers, including
widening sidewalks, narrowing travel lanes, creating medians, restriping to
allow diagonal parking. and planting new street trees."
Policy L-21 states. "Provide all Centers with centrally located gathering
spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage economic
revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches. street trees,
kiosks, ... and public art." .
Policy L-29 says, "Encourage residential and mixed-use residential
development in the California Avenue area."
4
Section Two: Project Narntive
The planning process to date for the Project has identified the following proposed
project components:
Pedestrian facilities/crosswalks:
Pedestrians currently cross California Avenue at long, not well-defined and
consequently unsafe crosswalks that have been the site of pedestrian/auto
accidents and many near-misses. In order to increase safety for pedestrians:
new crosswalks will be added; crosswalk lengths will. be shortened by installing
sidewalk extensions ("bulb-outs"); crosswalks will employ different surface
treatments to make them more visible; and, pedestrian islands and refuge
spaces along the median of the street will be provided. ADA-compliant
wheelchair ramps will be installed at all crosswalks to provide disabled access.
Bicycle facilities:
California Avenue currently has two vehicle lanes in each direction. However,
there are no designated bike lanes despite the fact that the street accommodates
approximately 1,000 bike trips a day. Bicyclists are forced to share the. narrow
vehicle lanes with cars. The 2003 Palo Alto Bicycie Transportation Plan
identified the need for further study to enhance bicycling in this commercial
corridor. The City's Transportation Division has determined that traffic volumes
currently do not require two travel lanes in each direction. As it is the intent of
the Project to deemphasize automobile use and emphasize other modes of
transit, the Project proposes to essentially eliminate one vehicle lane in each
direction to provide more space in the road for bicycles, thereby increasing the
safety for bicyclists. Two options are currently under consideration: (1) providing
a wider shared traffiC lane for bikes and cars to share (Class III bikeway), or (2)
installing striped bike lanes (Class II bikeway). The preferred altemative will be
determined during final design. Additiona"y, the City proposes to install new bike
racks and to work with Caltrain regarding the relocation of bike lockers.
Bus service:
California Avenue and the Caltrain station are served by VTA line 88, Stanford
Marguerite Lines C & RP, and the Deer Creek Caltrain Shuttle. The City has
been in contact with the Valley Transportation Authority and Stanford University's
Marguerite Shuttle to present the conceptual plan for the Project and to
determine if improvements can be made to bus stops. For instance, the
Marguerite Shuttle currently loops through the Caltrain parking lot as they have
no bus stop on California Avenue near the Caltrain station. Accordingly, the City
will seek to add a shuttle stop on California Avenue. The VTA, Samtrans and the
Dumbarton Express also provide bus service to California Avenue with stops on
EI Camino Real. If the City receives a grant, we will continue to work with transit
agencies to improve these facilities.
5
SectioQ Two: Project Narrative
Caltrain:
Of the 34 train stations along the Peninsula, the California Avenue train station
ranks 111h in ridership. Platform improvements are under design. Caltrain also
plans to improve safety for train users at the station by installing a pedestrian
crossing or pedestrian tunnel that will allow passengers to safely access
platforms on both sides of the tracks. This will allow Caltrain to increase the
number of train stops at the California Avenue station and for the bus lines to
increase stops, as well. increasing inter-modal transit opportunities. The City and
Caltrain have been in discussions designed to seek cooperative service
improvements, such as: relocation of the 72 existing bike lockers off of the
proposed pedestrian plaza and onto the underutilized Caltrain parking lot;
crosswalk improvements; signage improvements; and development of a gateway
feature and associated pedestrian plaza outside the train station.
Pedestrian plaza:
As mentioned above, there is a large median island in the center of the drop-off
loop outside the Caltrain station. The bike/pedestrian tunnel under the railroad
tracks that connects North California Avenue to California Avenue COmes up in
this island. City surveys indicate that 2,000 people per day, including many
school children, walk or bike through this tunnel connecting California Avenue to
the surrounding residential areas and Jordan Middle School. There are 72 bike
lockers in the island. If the bike lockers could be relocated off the island and onto
the Caltrain parking lot, this median island, with its mature grove of trees,
pedestrian paths and fountain, could become a }/:brant pedestrian plaza and
gateway feature for this end of California Avenue.
Traffic calming:
The Project will include differentiated bike lanes and crosswalks, bulb-outs,
median islands, signage , and landscaping to calm traffic. Additionally, one travel
lane will be eliminated in each direction, further reducing traffic speeds and
impacts.
Streetlights:
Existing streetlights are 1950's era, freeway style tall aluminum poles and arms.
Light from many streetlights is blocked by the tres canopy below, resulting in
inadequate and unsafe lighting levels. The Project proposes to replace all
streetlights using new, tall fluted poles at intersections to better light crosswalks
and new, post-top style lights in between the inte;sections and underneath the
tree canopy. It is anticipated that the conduit will also have to be replaced. Also,
the Project proposes much-needed lighting in the pedestrian alleys off California
Avenue where night lighting is virtually non-existent. One idea is to use solar
powered lights for the alleys. These improvements will create a better~lighted,
safer and more pedestrian scale sidewalk experience.
6
Section Two: Project Narrative
Street trees:
California Avenue has a mature canopy of approximately 50 existing street trees,
but many trees are in decline-and the species are mismatched. Most of the trees
are in. and impose on, the sidewalk, resulting in narrow, obstructed sidewalks
and necessitating continuous and costly sidewalk maintenance. The current
canopy has been pruned on one side to keep it away from the buildings, which
has resulted in some trees leaning out into the street. Many trees drop large
seed pods onto the sidewalks, creating a hazard for pedestrians. The Project
proposes to remove most of the existing trees and plant new street trees in the
current parking lane and in existing bulb~outs. The trees in the parking lane will
be planted in individual concrete curb planters. The trees will be watered by a
new irrigation system. The tree root zone will be prepared with structural soil to
encourage deep roots and healthy trees, thus minimizing adjacent pavement
damage and maintenance. An electrical outlet is proposed at each tree to
accommodate decorative string lights in the trees to improve nighttime ambiance.
CAADA and the City are concerned about the loss of the existing canopy, thus,
the City plans to remove most of the existing trees OVer a number of years, taking
out the worst trees first and leaving the good trees until new trees have had a
chance to mature. Furthermore, some of the nicest existing trees will be retained
and worked Into the final design.
Landscaping:
The Project includes the construction of bulb-outs, median islands and street tree
planters. The City proposes to landscape these spaces with native, drought-
resistant plants and to install new "smart" irrigation systems that automatically
turn off when it rains.
Public art:
California Avenue has 14 distinctive pieces of public art including a fountain. The
pieces are in good shape except for the fountain, which needs extensive
plumbing and structural repairs. The budget for this project includes a line item
of $100,000 to install additional public art. One option for the public art is that the
City's Public Art Commission has been offered a public art water feature by a
world renowned Bay Area artist to replace the existing fountain. The water
feature, which includes benches, is valued at $350,000. In a gesture of good
faith, the artist has offered to build and install the water art project (except for the
plumbing) at a discounted cost of $100,000. The water feature could also dou ble
as a pedestrian gateway and a rest area. other options for public art are to
repair the eXisting fountain and to add to the collection of art along the street.
Certain blank walls of buildings along Califomia Avenue have been identified as
prime candidates for murals, of which California Avenue already has many.
7
Section Two: IProjecit NarntDve
Street furniture:
Most of the existing street furniture is old and in disrepair. The Project proposes
to install new street furniture, including bike racks, benches, kiosks, and garbage
and recycling cans. The City is exploring a photo-voltaic powered touch-screen
kiosk that would display transit maps and schedules, bike routes, a directory of
businesses, and points of interest. .
News racks:
California Avenue currently has a clutter of mismatched news racks. CAADA
intends to request that City Council designate the California Avenue area a
"special" news rack area, which will allow the City to limit the number, location
and type of news racks. In anticipation of Council designating California Avenue
a "special" news rack area, the City has included custom containers for the news
racks in the project estimate.
Signage:
Way-finding signage is generally lacking on California Avenue. The Project
proposes to develop and iniplement a signage program, with particular emphasis
on transit facilities. Kiosks may also be used for way-finding.
Sustainability;
The City is committed to sustainability and has adopted "green" policies and cost-
benefit analyses to achieve environmental benefits. Accordingly, the City is
interested in incorporating as many sustainable design features as possible in
the Project, including: photo-voltaics for street lights, alley lights and kiosks;
drought-resistant landscaping; "smart" irrigation systems; structural soil for street
trees; benches made from recycled material; and recycling containers.
History:
California Avenue has a long and interesting history. This area of Palo Alto was
originally the town of Mayfield, established in 1867 with the streets named after
Civil War heroes: Lincoln (now California Avenue), Sherman, Sheridan and
Grant. The town, with California Avenue its main street, included taverns, hotels,
a drugstore, a blacksmith, a livery stable, a lumberyard, a brewery, a church and
a school. Palo Alto eventually annexed Mayfield in 1925. Since Palo Alto
already had a Lincoln Avenue, Mayfield's Lincoln Avenue was renamed
California Avenue. At least one building, at the corner of California Avenue and
Birch Street. remains from before the turn of the 20th century. The City would like
to resurrect and commemorate some of the history of the area by installing signs
and plaques along the street as part of the Project. The community has said that
they feel the Project is an opportunity to create a theme for California Avenue.
respecting and representing its unique history.
8
Section Two: Project Nl1Irrrative
Gathering space for neighborhoods;
California Avenue 'IS fortunate to include a wide variety of ethnic, cultural.
religious and commercial enterprises. There are currently a number of street
fairs and events each year: To Life! Jewish Street Festival; the "Running of the
Bulls" Charity foot race; Halloween Trick or Treat event for kids; and the Summer
Twilight Concert, The City would like to encourage street fairs and community
events on California Avenue in the future by providing street amenities such as
electrical outlets. benches. shade trees, bike racks and public art as part of the
Project.
2. Funding
The project would be funded by TLC and various City sources, al/ currently
secured. as follows:
City match:
Streetlight Replacement Project
Street Maintenance Project
Art in Public Spaces Project
California Avenue Improvements Project
Public Works Operating Budget
CAADA's match to City
Match Total
TLC grant
Project Total
200.000
157.500
50,000
50,000
50,000
12,500
$520.000
i1,650,OOO
$2,170,000
Additionally. the City is planning a project of approximately $500,000 to resurface
and restripe California Avenue in the summer of 2007. The City has applied for
STP funds (88% from STP, 12% City match) and will find out in the fall of 2006
whether or not the grant will be awarded. If the grant is awarded, the City will
apply to postpone the resurfacing project until 2008 so that it can be done after
the conclusion of the streetscape project (since the streetscape project includes
new bulb·ouls, tree planters in the parking lane, and trenching down both sides
of California Avenue to Install new irrigation and electrical service). In the
unlikely event that the STP grant is not awarded this fall. the City will reapply for
the grant next fiscal year in anticipation of doing the resurfacing project in the
summer of 2008. If the City fails to receive STP grant money in each of the next
two fiscal years, the City will fund the resurfacing of California Avenue in the
summer of 2008 via its Street Maintenance Project. In any case, the City will
resurface and rest ripe Cal Ave at the conclusion of the streetscape project, but
it's important to note that the resurfacing is a separate project with separate
funds.
3. The project is not dependent upon other uncompleted major capital projects. If
for any reason, the street resurfacing project described above is not completed
9
Secdon Two: Project NarratAv,e
by the time the streetscape project is ready to be constructed in the summer of
200B. the City would go ahead with the streetscape project. None of the
streetscape improvements are contingent upon other projects. Although
undesirable because of cost and disruption concerns. street resurfacing can
occur after the streetscape improvements have been installed. .
4. Upon award of a TlC grant and development of plans, the City will prepare an
Initial Study for the Project which staff anticipates will result in a mitigated
negative declaration per CEQA and NEPA requirements. Much of the project is
essentially a maintenance project replacing existing infrastructure with new
infrastructure in the same location. Traffic impacts will be addressed in the
environmental review, as well as for the transportation benefits resulting from
increased opportunities for walk, bike and multi-modal trips. With a reduction in
vehicle trips. air quality is improved, Loss of street parking. caused by new street
trees and bulb-outs eHminating some existing street parking. will be mitigated by
increased use and availability of other modes oftransil. The California Avenue
area currently has two large public parking garages one street to the west,and
large public surface parking lots one street to the east; thus, the loss of a few
street parking spaces will not significantly reduce the overall parking availability.
5, The project is entirely within City right-ot-way and no new permits or easements
are needed.
6. There is no utility relocation phase within the project area.
7. A" affected departments within the City and all transit agencies affected by the
project have been involved in the development and/or review of the project.
including \/TA. Caltrans. Caltrain. and Stanford's Marguerite Shuttle.
8. The project is not difficult to engineer. Conceptual engineering has been
completed.
9. All local agencies and community associations enthusiastically support this
project.
10. There are no pending lawsuits related to the project.
10
SectiollH Two: IFrojec~ Narra~ive
BASIC ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
1. The TLC grant funding request is $1,650,000.
2. The City of Palo Alto assures that a local match of $520,000, a 24% match of the
total project cost of $2,170,000, will be availa ble. The City funds to provide the
grant match are as follows:
Streetlight Replacement Project
Street Maintenance Project
Art in Public Places Project
California Avenue Improvements Project
Pu bHc Works Operating Budget
CAADA's match to the City
TOTAL CITY CONTRIBUTION
$200.000
157,500
50,000
50,000
50,000
12,500
$520,000
In addition to the grant match, the City proposes to use staff to manage the
project, including: project management; coordination; community outreach;
environmental review; bid and award; construction management; inspection; and
grant processing.
3. The ctty of Palo Alto agrees to abide by all applicable regulations, including
NEPA and ADA. The project terminates at EI Camino Real, which is the subject
of the Main Street Silicon Valley initiative by Joint Venture Silicon Valley. The
goal of this initiative of local elected officials, business leaders and community
leaders is to collaborate on creating a shared vision for revitalizing the EI Camino
Real corridor as an attractive, economically viable corridor. The improvements
proposed along California Avenue are completely compatible with the design
goals of the EI Camino Real main street project.
Furthermore, Palo Alto is in the process of completing City Council review and
approval of Draft Schematic Design Plan for EI Camino Real. funded through a
Caltrans Demonstration Planning Grant, sponsored jOintly by the City of Palo Alto
and Caltrans Office of Community Planning. The project's goal is to identify
"context sensitive" highway design solutions that reflect and support the City's
objectives of planting large canopy trees in narrow medians and creating a more
pedestrian, bicycle and transit friendly environment on EI Camino Real.
4. The project is wellwdefined and results in a more usable segment, with
continuous travel by pedestrians, bicyclists, automobiles and buses from EI
Camino Real to the Caltrain station.
5. The City of Palo Alto understands and agrees to all of the MTC project delivery
requirements as described in the grant application Call for Projects packet and in
MTC Resolution 3606.
11
SectiolD Two: Project N Illirrative
CAPITAL EVALUAT!ON CRITERIA
1. TLC Program Goals are met. including:
Cj The Project was developed through a collaborative planning process
~ The Project improves a range of transportation choices by adding
pedestrian, bike and transit facilities
Cj The Project supports high-density housing and mixed-use
developments
(0 The Project supports the City's PTOD
(t The Project will enhance the communiW's sense of place
2. Community Involvement
a. Community involvement has occurred through an inclusive and
collaborative planning process.
b. The Project was derived from the City's Comprehensive Plan and PTOD.
Conceptual designs were prepared and made available to the public for
review and comment.
c. The Project has wide support, including the City Council, various City
Departments, transit operators and community stakeholders.
3. Project Impact -The Project remedies a current problem and will result in:
• a range of transportation options
• improved pedestrian and bicycle access and safety
• improved transit access
Ii a street design that deemphasizes the automobile and emphasizes
pedestrian, bicycle and transit use
(t traffic calming
~ a streetscape design that promotes a pedestrian and bicycle-friendly
environment
li a strong sense of community place
@ improved air quality by reducing vehicle trips
\I economic revitalization of an outdated area
4. Land Use Links
a. The Project supports channeling new growth to the California Avenue
area.
b. The Project is in an area that will be rezoned (via the PTOD) to support
the development of a mixed-use, high-density residential projects.
c. The Project is in an area where major transit infrastructure exists.
d. The Proiect encourages investment in an area of Palo Alto that has lagged
behind comparable areas of the City.
12
Sectiol1l TlI1Iree: Attacbmelll~s
List of Attachments
ATTACHMENT ~JO.
1. Maps of California Avenue area:
Project Location Map 1
Bikeway & Transit Map 2
Housing Density & Occupancy Map 3
2. Aerial Site Plan 4
3. Conceptual drawings
Proposed improvements 5
Mayfield Development Agreement 6
4. Photographs
Existing conditions 7
Proposed conditions 8
5. Estimates
Summary Project Cost/Budget Estimate 9
Itemized Construction Cost Estimate 10
6. Online survey results 11
7. Letters of Support:
~ CAADA
III Canopy -Trees for Palo Alto
8 Public Art Commission
ct Palo Alto Central East Residential Association .. Palo Alto Housing Corporation
~ California State Senator Joe Simitian
It Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
II Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Coimmission
(j College Terrace Residents' Association
~ Evergreen Park Neighborhood
(II Stanford University
Callforn6a Avenl!.Os Streetscape RmprovemenQs
Location of Proposed Project
Attachment 1
•
E_lltt~O"
-:.-;--.-~~
~ " . I -----.... '.. "'-~ """"-"'''"''''''-''L'''',==_"=,,, '~ Aln .. ~,,,
".. ·¢-~-------"~e .-_,_-_ ..
. '
:-... "~ 'l\ '-
.~
It'l. A:;"-\
1;
6
Ash
,~llli.!t.~~
~i!~-f~·y. .",,~
COfl1ltlll
. PiTnei(On ~,.--..
Qosrtul
Ii .... ,."'"
~.,.t,~J\C~ift_
o 500 1.000 -----
OJ • .go
~; ,"", U·
~'Il,.ovtot Sr:
2.000
1 inch equals '.000 feet
....
., .. .. c:
:: := ..
'" ,,"' "-,
3,00.0 ,Feel
California Avenue Area
Designated Bikew:1Qy and Transit Map
Attachment 2
:Legend
• Piltnood ,(see table)
Hc"I!!pI~nlt'l pelf IC'.
o
11 .. 5 I '
10" 15
15· 20
"NoIGI' PfMJofitrifdll Tmnsit Oriented Districl ~rprOD)
O~te: ,J Llna 2006
Sourc~s: 20DQ Census or Population and Houslngda1t1J,
CensLisBlock Gmus, 8m:1 Cit· of Palo AI1Ct P,lanifltil'lg DlvlEl,ion
H I
Smdih
,&,(jntI:J I,,~~)
r-:' ~:,
<1~
~Jt
':0' 0.25 •
••• ".' c=lIioiiiic:=J •• ' Mil 1 i:neh SQuals
City 01 Palo Alto/Stanford Mayfield Development A9rteernen~
Conceptual Drawings of Proposed Housing
t. 0"-"I' "
J r ... "'f ',' '
EI Camino Real (See Housing Map, Residential Project 4)
Upper California Avenue (See Housing Map, Residential Project 5)
I,
! I
Attachment 6
Ca-lJiwrnla Avanue Streeascapa P8'oj~d
Existin Conditions
California Avenue looking West iowlJJv'(i] EO Camino Re210.
Attachment 7
C dJlftxl'lt8! A,\fefU.!U' S~r&ettiCfll~>D Project
e,xi:strng 'Conditions
'Califamial J1h'lllnueStreetGCIPI prOJRC
Ex~sUng, Conditions
.1
California Avenue Sireetscape Project
Proposed Fixtures and Amenities
t '?'~.
t~
It..
~;;~4::t
Post-top sidewalk light Cobra street light
Attachmsnt 8
California Avenue Streetscape Project
Proposed Fixtures and Amenities
Street tree in "0" planter
Bike racks
Trash receptacle
2
~'~:".~-. iJb.~, •. ,.,-y~ ~I~
, .g ~~-~ .. ---r
Attachment 8
CAL'FORNIA AVENUE STREETSCAPE fMPROVEMENTS
SUMMARY ESTIMATE AND BUDGET
ITEM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
CONCEPTUAL LEVEL CONSTRUCTION/PROJECT
COST ESTfMA TE
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT AMOUNT
BULB-OUTS 8
MEDIANS 8
CROSSWALKS 21
NEW STREETLIGHTS 45
NEW STREET TREES 50
NEW IRRIGATION 3,900 LF
ELECTRICAL OUTLETS AT TREES 3,400 LF
LANDSCAPING Lump sum
NEWSRACKS 140
STREET FURNITURE, SIGNAGE Lump sum
PUBLIC ART Lump sum
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
CONTRACTOR'S OVERHEAD 8. PROFIT 10% of construction
DESIGN 15% of construction
DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCIES 20% of construction
ESCALATION 10% of construction
TOT AL PROJECT COSTS
PROPOSED PROJECT BUDGET
BUDGET SOURCE
CtTy MATCH:
STREETLIGHT REPLACEMENT PROJECT
STREET MAINTENANCE PROJECT
ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROJECT
CAliFORNIA AVE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
PUBLIC WORKS OPERATING BUDGET
CAADA
CITY MATCH TOTAL
TLC GRANT
TOTAL PROJIECT BUDGET
COST
$150,000
$40,000
$215,000
$275,000
$145,000
$175.000
$160,000
$30,000
$70,000
$40,000
$100,000
$1,400,000
$140,000
$210,000
$280,000
$140.000
$2.170,000
AMOUNT
$200,000
$151,500
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$12,600
$520,000
$1,650,000
$2,110,000
Last updated 6/22/2006 Attachment 9
CALiFORNiA AVENUE STREETSCAPE IIMPROVEMENTS
ITEMIZED COST ESTIMATE
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT AMOUNT UNIT COST COST
BULB-OUTS
Bulb·outs at CaJlBirch Intersection:
West corner
Concrete curb & gutter 90 If SaO/lf 2.700
Wheelchair ramps 2 $1,500 3,000
Sidewalk 70 $10/s1 700
Storm drain inlets 2 $3.000 6.000
Storm drain laleral (no manhole. over main) 8 It $20011f 1,600
Abandon one storm drain inlet 1 $2.000 2.000
Irrigation 400 sf S5/sf 2.000
Plants. soil 400 !if $5/sf 2.000
T rafflc control Lump sum 1.000
West corner (Village Stationary) $21,000
North corner
Concrete curb & gutter 100 If $3011f 3,000
Wheelchair ramps 2 $1,500 3,000
Sidewalk 40 $lO/sf 400
Storm drain inlets 1 $3,000 3,000
Starn drain lateral (no manhole) 1811 $20011f 3,600
Irrigation 500 51 S5/sf 2,500
Plants, sad 500 sf '51st 2,500
Traffic control Lump sum l.QQ.Q
North comer (Keebel & Shuchat) $19.000
Easl corner
Concrete curb & gutter 80 S30llf 2.400
Wheelchair ramps 2 $1,500 3,000
Irrigation 250 sf $5/sf 1.250
Plants. soil 250 sf $5/sf 1.250
Traffic control Lump sum 1.100
East corner (True Hair Salon) $9,000
South corner
Concrete curb & gutter 60 If S3011f 1.BOO
Wheelchair ramps 2 $1,500 3,000
Storm drain inlet 1 $3,000 3,000
Storm drain lateral 70 S200/lf 14,000
Irrigation 250 s.~ $S/sf 1.250
Plants, soil 250 ~f $5/sf 1,250
T rafflc control Lump sum 700
South corner (Antonio's Nut House) $25.000
Last updated 6/22/2006 Altachment 10
2
CALIFORNiA AVENUE ST1REETSCAPE IMPROVE1VlENTS
ITEMIZED COST ESTI'MATE
BUlb-outs at Cal/Ash intersection:
South corner (Round Table PIzza)
Concrete curb & gulter 100lf $3011f 3,000
Wheelchair ramps 2 $1,500 3,000
Storm drain inlets 1 $3,000 3,000
Storm drain lateral 6511 $20011f 13,000
Storm drain manhole 1 $4.000/ea 4.000
Irrigation 300st $5/st 1.500
Plants, soil 300 sf $5/sf 1,500
Traffic control Lump.sum 1,000
South corner (Round Table Pizza) $30,000
East corner
Concrete curb & gutter 70 It $3011f 2.100
Wheelchair ramps 1 $1,500 1,500
Irrigation 150 ~f $5/5( 750
Plants, soil 150 sf $5/sf 750
Traffic control Lumpl!um 900
East corner (Elanor's) $6,000
Bulb-out at Mimosa Lane
Concrete curb & gutter eo II $301lf 2,400
Wheelchair ramps 1 $1,500 1,SOO
Storm, drain inlets 1 $3,000 3,000
Irrigation 200 sf $5/sf 1,000
Plants. soil 2000Sf $5/8t 1,000
Traffic control Lump!1um 1.100
Bulb-out at Mimosa Lane $10,000
Bulb-out midblock bet Park & Birch
Concrete curb & gulter 50 If $3011f 1.500
Wheelchair ramps 1 $2,000 2,000
Storm drain Inlets 1 $3.000 3.000
Storm drain lateral 6511 $2ool1f 13.000
Storm drain manhole 1 $4,000/e8 4.000
Irrigation 300 sf $5/sf 1.500
Plants, 5011 3006' $S/st 1.500
Traffic control Lump sum 3,500
Bulb-out midblock bet Park & Birch $30,000
TOTAL FOR ALL 8 BULB-OUTS ON CAL AVE $150.000
MEDIAN ISLANDS
Curb 50011 $20/1' $10,000
Concrete 2,000 sf $10/sf $20,000
Traffic control Lump ~um ~10,000
TOTAL 8 $.40.000
Last updated 6/22/2006 Attachment 10
CALJFORNIA AVENUE STREETSCAPE ~MPROVEW1ENTS
JTEMIZED COST EST~MATE
3 CROSSWALKS
at CallBl(ch intersection
Sawcut and remove asphalt and concrete,
inslallnew stamped concrete 1.800 sf $20/sf 36.000
T raffle control Lumpsllm 4,000
At Cal/Birch intersection (4 total) $40,000
at Cal/Ash intersection
Sawcut and remove asphalt and concrete.
install new stamped concrete 1,400 sf $20/s' 28,000
Traffic control Lump sum 2,000
AI CallAsh intersection (3 total) $30,000
at Cal/Park intersection
Sawcul and remove asphalt and concrete.
install new stamped concrete 1,400 sf $20/sf 28,000
Traffic control Lump sum 2,000
AI eal/Park intersection (3 tOlal) $30,000
at CaJlPark intersection near loop
Sawcut and remove asphalt and concrete,
inslall new stamped concrete 1.400 sf 520/s' 28.000
Traffic control Lump sum 2 .. 000
At eal/Park intersection near loop (4 total) $30,000
al7 midblock locations
Sawcut and remove asphalt and concrete,
install new stamped concrete 3,900 $20/sf 78,000
Traffic control Lump sum 7.000
at7 midblock locations $85,000
TOTAL FOR ALL CROSSWALKS (21IotaJ) $215,000
4 STREET LIGHTS
Remove tall streetlights 10 $1,000 10,000
Replace existing tall streetlights 25 $2,000 50,000
Install new post-top streetlights 20 $4,000 60,000
Replace conduit 3.400 If $40/1f 135,000
$275,000
5 STREET TREES
Sawcut & remove asphalt & concrete 100 sf $5/sf 500
Structural soil 10 cy $100/cy 1,000
Install curb 2511 $201lr 500
Irrigation 30 s.f $5/sf 150
Tree 1 $300/ea 300
Plants, soil 30 sf $5/s( 150
Traffic control Lump f,um 400
Total for each "D" planter $3,000
Last updated 6/2212006 Attachment 1 0
CALIFORNIA AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
~TEM'ZED COST ESTIMATE
STREET TREES -CONTINUED
Demo existing street trees 50 $500/ea 25,000
Patch sidewalk 1500 sf $10/sf 15,000
"0" planters 25 $3,000/ea 75,000
Plant new trees in existing bulb-outs. jnci struct, soil 25 $1,200/ea 30,000
50 NEW STREET TREES IN BULB-OUTS & liD" PLANTERS $145,000
6 IRRIGATION SERVICE
Sawcut pavement, install pipe. backfill trench 3,400 If $401lf 135,000
Stub-outs to "0" planters and bulb-outs 500 $401lf 20,000
New valves, backflows, meters Lump sum 20.000
$175,000
7 ELECTRICAL OUTLETS AT TREES
Sawcut pavement, install pipe, backfill trench 3,40(j If $40/lf 135,000
Boxes, outlets, meters Lump sum 25,000
$160,000
8 LANDSCAPING Lump sum $30,000
9 NEWS RACKS (4 newsracks per container) 35 containers $2.000/ea $70,000
10 STREET FURNITURE, SIGNAGE Lump sum $40,000
11 PUBLIC ART Lump sum $100.000
CONSTRUCTK>N TOTAL 51,400,000
CONTRACTOR'S OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10% of construction $140,000
DESIGN 15% of construction $210,000
CONTINGENCY 20% of construction $280,000
ESCALATION 10% of construction ~14Q.000
PROJECT TOTAL $2,170,000
Last updated 6/22/2006 Attachment 10
SURVEY RESULTS AN[f) ANAlVS~S
Summary
This report contains an analysis oflhe resulls the California Av~nue SLreetscape Improvements
on-line survey that can be accessed from www.Cilyofi>nioAllo.Dl.g
The survey uri is: hllp:llwebsUiveyor.net/wsb.dll/670S/calif <lye stud~l.htm
The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took the survey in the 21 day
period from Thursday, June I, 2006 to Thursday, June 22, 2006. 124 completed responses were
received to the survey during this time. The intent of the survey was to provide project outreach
to the Cali fom ia A venue community members and collect the ir input and feedback.
Who Responded
Based on the demographics portion of the survey. the majority of the respondents live in Barron
Park (38 respondents), Evergreen Park (29). and College Terrace (23). These results show that
more outreach is needed to capture the views of residents in other Cal A ve neighborhoods.
particularly Ventura. an adjacent neighborhood. See Attachmem 3 for neighborhood locations.
For ages 18 and up, the results show an even Age distribution.
Question 6 -Demographic Infonnation:
ple"S8 select the answer that best describes where you Ih,e:
!al38 B<lrton Park a.r I Charles\on Meadows
c::J 0 (harreston T ,mace
_ 2J CofeQe Tellace
c=::J I Community Center
~ 0 Crescent Park
~ OOowntownNorlh _ 2 Duveneck/St Francis
_ 29 EVe¥gre.m PlJ'k
_ 0 Fairme&dow
_ 0 Grean AcrBS
I3iIi!ii!I 0 Greenmeoldow
MIJiI 3 Leland Manor{Garland
c:=J 5 Mldtown/Mlllown W~st
iiii!lI 0 Oalc. Creek
_ 2 Old P~lo Alto
~ 0 Pdlo A~o 11~ls
~ I Palo Verde
c:::J 1 ProfessorvWIe c:::J 0 Research Par\(,
IIfMI 0 Southgate
f.!!!IIj :1 ~nford Unlversny
c:::l I lkliver~ity Pdrk
i\IIIII 0 lklivIT.i(y South
c:::::J I VentUl' II
[',J!'jJ 10 Other
Atiachment 11
~ummary of respondent age distribution:
Legend:
Results
Based on Questions 3 and 5. the improvements that people would most like to see are Pedestrian
Improvements, Amenities, and Bicycling Facilities. respectively. Additionally, respondents
indicated a strong interest in moving the sidewalk trees to the street to free up sidewalk space.
According to Queslion 4, 74% of respondents would like to see private autos deemphasized on
Cal Ave. While vehicle parking was rated as very important, th¢ responses indicated that people
are generally satisfied with current parking availability. In addiliM, the responses show that off·
street parking (Jots andlor garages) is far more important than QQ.-street parking.
Question 3:
Please rank the following items (1 ==Iow. 5~high):
BDc~cUng FacUl1jes: legend:
How importanl? How satisfied?
2
III 1 (Low)
• 2 o 3
• 4
D . _ 5 (Hiah)
Attachment 11
Amenities: legend:
How important? How satisfied?
• • o • o
1 (LoW),
2
3
4
5 (High)
Question 4: ' ,
How would you like to see California Avenue accommodate trafflc?
M.=. =w=34~?-(e-:-domln~ant~ly-V6""'h""'icl:-e -rOlJ-t-e w"""'it,..,-n-.......
_ 55 Change trom 2 lanes to I laf\e in •.. * c::::J 24 0t1\er
·Nolie: 19 of the 24 itOtherlJ responses indicated they were in favor of either
reducing vehlcle/anas or transforming the street into some or all of
pedestrian/bike/bus only.
4 Atiachment 11
,Question 5:
Of the foUowing options, prioritize onRy those dnmges tlitBJt are of Intere~t to YOl:!o (p'I~ase
note, you can prioritize from 1 to up to B§ mamy as 9.)
700 ~==:;:-.. " . .,
550
SOD
S50
SOD
450
400
350
300
·250
200
150
100
so
.1123%1. ...
5
fiiiiiiiiiil6-ll I'olore pedestrian friendly
IIiiiiiiiiI SI71'oiore bicycle f,letldly
c=:::J :012 Moreoo·slleet parking _ :m More df'~lIeer p.:srIQng
r::=::::J 5~O Ae~thet<c ~ldeW<llk and street liO ...
~ :illl New street furnbJre
:tiJD PubIc aft
",3 [nstall new tr~s II"> (troet pfant. .. _;:Z$ Tree~ hts
Attachment 11
May 17,2006
CaUfonllbl A nan·tht Ar:e21 !DltlYt90pm,emt Ai~i)(ia:Li®crlI
c'A.A.IIl>.A..
r. O. B&}I !aim4 Pailo A~~tb, CA 943~
To: Palo Alto City Council
From:CAADA
As a robust fltst effort at revitalizing the California Avenue commercial corridor, we at
the California Avenue Area Development Association (CAADA) would like to thank the
City Council for supporting a further look into improving tht! streetscape on California
Avenue.
We want to thank Frank Benest. Susan Alpan,Bob Morris and their respective staffs for
the hard work they have put into our conceptuai streetscape plan, as well as Mr, Moms'
continued efforts to locate outside agencies that might contribute additionallogisticaI
andlor financial support to this concepr:uoJ plan.
We are in support of the application for the Metropolitan Transportation Commissions'
Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) Grant, and will work with Mr. Morris, to
ensure that we have an excellent chance that oW' project will be seleCted'for trus gi,aot
We will work to garner support for it from community stakeholders, including our
neighboring residents' associations.
The CAADA Board of Directors unanimously supports the idea of improving our
streetscape on California Avenue. We look forward to working together to fine tune its
design details such as: replacement trees in conjunction with the phased removal of the
current canopy that minimizes the loss of shade, aesthetically flowing, smaUer street
lanes that can accommodate bikes, passenger cars and transport verucles; additional bulb-
outs, new and ample street lighting, new crosswalks, new street furniture, a pedestrian
plaza. and public art that that will turn the conceptual plan mlo an actual slIeetscape that
may be implemented here.
If approved, the investment made in a fInal plan will help fulfill City Council's
conunitment to strengthen our city's retail base, resulting in more robUSI sales tax
revenues that are needed to dri ve municipal services.
. I . / Smc~re y, )/ ' l." /'L:.c'l'Lll_::Z,_ /:?t.t. )l'~L..·("""'iil
Ronna Devincenzi I
CAADA, Board of Directors President
P. O. Box 60826
Palo AJto, CA, 94306
650-688-6295
CI"N OF PALO ALTO
!?EC'~NED
Executive Direc/of
Catherine Manineau
Program Director
lana Dilley
Board of DirecuJrs
Susan Rosenberg
Chair
Marty Deggeller
Vice·Cholr
lanie Wheeler
rreosurer
Forest PresiOn. HI
Secretory
Anne Draeger
John McClenahan
Dilye Muff\y
Brooks Nelson
JerrNewbom
Jane Slocklin
Adv/soYy COlHl11i11ee
Ron Bracewell
Tony Carrasco
Herb Fong
Carroll Harrington
Joe Hirsch
Leannah Hunl
Carol Jansen
Jeanne Kennedy
Mary McCullough
Scot! McOi/vray
Beuy Meh2er
Nanc), Peterson
CarolYrl Reller
Lauren Bonar Swe<zey
John Warren
Canopy IS Pa/() Ail() based nonprofit
advocOie lor the urban I()N!st and
works 10 edllcatl!, inspIre alld
tl'lgage the community as Stewards
O/YDulIg and mature trees
CANOPY
June 19, 2006
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto. CA 94301
Dear Council.
Canopy hudily and heartOy emliOrRS t'he CaJifornia A venue
Streetscape Improvement Project.
Two years ago Canopy and the City of Palo Alto co-sponsored a talk
by Kathleen L. Wolf. PhD, University of Washington, on the vaJue
trees bring to a commercial district Her landmark research
(http://www.cfr.washington.edu/research.envmindJ) shows what Palo
Alto learned years ago with University Avenue; .ret! are aKa essellTltDaA
eReIlllD~lmt for a thriving urban "hub", Shoppers are willing to:
Gl'rsvellonger distances, stay longer, and visit flee-shaded
districts more frequently
oPay up to 11 % more fOI products in a district with large trees
Canopy worked with Managing Arborist. [)ave Sandage, and CAADA
in the e2rly stages of this project. We applaud the work of city staff
who saw the grander vision of wbat CaJifomia Avenue could become
and developed the California A venue Streetscape Improvement
Project.
We look forward to working with the City and CAADA on this long
overdue and very exciting project
My Best,
~
Susan Rosenberg, Chair
Cc: Frank Benest. City Ma.nger
3921 Easl Sayshore Road. Palo A 110. CA 94303 Phone6;il·96<\·6110 FaJI: 650-964-6173 wIWI.CAnopy.Org
Pedestrian Fcncil·ities:
How important?
\Jshlels Panting Faciiit4es:
How important?
3
legend:
• III o
III o
How saris tied?
legem~~:
How satisfied?
• • o • o
1 (Low)
2
3
4
5 (High)
1 (Low)
2
3
'4
5 (Hioh)
Attachment 11
Division of
Arts & Culture
Public Art
Commission
June 12,2006
Mayor Judy Kleinberg
Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Aito, CA 94301
Cityof Pal0'Al~o
Departmzrtt of Community Services
Dear Mayor Kleinberg and Members of the City Council,
I am writing this letter on behalf of the Palo Alto Public Art Commission to let you know of
the Comrnission's strong interest in, and support of, the graOllhat the City of Palo Alto is
submitting to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the California Avenue Master
Plan. We understand that the grant proposal asks for 1.5 milllon which includes $125,000 for
a public art component for a fountain project.
As you know the Public Art Commission has worked closely over the years with the
Ca1ifornia Avenue Area DeveJopmenl Association (CAADA) to eSlablish-California Avenue
as a business and leisure destination and one to view public art. It is now a wonderful
example of a business district partnering with the arts.
The Public Art Commission has voted unanimously to support the fountain project on
California Avenue. We are very excited about having identified nationally recognized, Bay
Area sculptor. Bruce Beasley, as the artist for this project. Beasley was included in the New
York Museum of Modern Art's seminal exhibition The Art o/Assemblage in 1961. and the
foUowing year at the age of twenty-two was the youngest artist to be included in the
museum's permanent collection. We are very lucky. and honored that he has agreed to
participate with the City. We see the fountain site as the crowning glory on this pedestrian
gateway to California Avenue.
1 want to thank you the City Council members for your great support of the Public Art
Commission in maintaining a permanent city art collection of high quality that includes
Byxbee Park and the Art in Public Places coltection.
Sincerely.
RCfYt-~
Ron Cooper
Chair, Public Art Comrnission
City of Palo Alto
eli't O~'" Pt,~ .-.. ,. "',
Cc: Frank Benest, City Manager ~\J~LlC WOrn.;·':: C~'·.:' . ,: .. ,,".;
Bob Morris, Project Manager, California Avenue./
Linda Craighead. Co-director, Arts & Culture and staff liaison to the Public Art
Commission
Pa 10 Alto A.;I Center
1313 Neweli Road
Palo Alto, i.A 94303
-:t?Q ??'j.,
r-----~---~~~~~-~~~-~-------~------------___ ~_
PALO ALTO CENTRAL EAS'"[ RESIDENTIAL ASSOGA110N
June 14, 2006
Vice Mayor -Yoriko Kishi moto
Coucil Member -Larry Klien
City Manager -Frank Benest
Bob Morris
Re: CAADA application for Transportation for Livable Communities grant
At the May 23, 2006 board meeting the board of directors of Palo Aho Central East Residential
Association discussed CAADA plan to apply for the Transportation tor Livable Communities grant. As
an association we support CAADA's efforts to fund a streetscape redesign on California Avenue which
would entail new trees, lighting, crosswalks, bike lanes, street furnit~e and public art.
We hope that you wiU take this letter into consideration when deciding on the Transportation for Livable
Communities (TLC) Grant.
If you should have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact ffi2 at the below numbers or via e-
mail atildriana@mbhm.net.
Respectfully Submitted,
a(A.Ui/V'L-£JJi~iPJ
Adriana DaSilva, CCAM
Managing Agent of Palo Alto Central East Residential Assocaition
crri Of PAtO ALTO
Mdnagl:'d by MB Homeowners Mandgernent ~ Managing Agent; I-\uridna DaSilva
Miiiling Address: 700 Gale DliVl:' #14, Campbell CA 95008
Phone: 650~539-902D/408-871-9500 Fax: '!O~·S71-9515
~ ~PALO ALTO HOUSING
ill
725 Alma Street· Palo Alto. CA 9430 I • (650) 321·9709 • fax (650) 321·4341
June 14,2006
Mayor Kleinberg and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94.30 I
Re: Transportation for Livable Communities Grant Application (JLC):
California Avenue Streetscape Improvemenls
Dear Mayor Kleinberg and Members of the Palo Alto City Council:
Palo Al[O Housing Corporation (PAHC) is a private non-profit public benefit corporation that
develops, acquires, and manages low-and moderate-income housing. Wirh more (han 600 units
owned and managed by its related entities, it is Ihe largest private owner ofaffordable rental
housing in Palo Alto. Two of PAHC's developmenls are in the arta to be directly affected by the
proposed improvements in the TLC for California Avenue. PAHCsupports this grant application.
The population that PAHC serves near California Avenue area includes families with children,
the elderly. and those living with disabilities. California Park Apartments, at 230 I Park
Boulevard, is adjacent to the California Avenue Cahrain station. Its reSidents are [ami lies with
maximum incomes of 60% of area median income. The Sheridan Apartments at 360 Sheridan
Avenue is approximately [our blocks away, serving elderly and di,abled residents with incomes
that average 40% of area median income. Low-moderate income homeowners reside at Birch
Court Condominiums at Birch and Grant, which PAHC built in 1985. Improvements in pedestrian
access, safety and aesthetics along California Avenue will directly benefit all of these residents.
The proposed improvements will create a more anracrive gateway into [he California Avenue
area and strengtheo the connections to transit optioos. More broadly. these improvements would
reinforce the identity of this special district and enhance the qual ily of life for those living in the
surround ing neighborhoods.
Sincerely.
PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION
~fs~~r
Executive Director ()
cc: Frank Benest, City Manager
0''-''01,. <l1'''1(i~ lI:1'ATt! ellf"ITOt... JlOO,,", 40C~
e.ACA").t~,."O. c: .. 951.114
'(1. ,,'4, 0!)1-<1.01I
.... 101 Sl l:j,""a&
June 9, 2006
Mr. Doug Johnson
f6S08USlTO
SENATOR
S. JOSEPH SIMITIAN
&:LEV50N'rH SENATe: OISTRlcY
Metropolitan Ttansportatiotl Cotnalission
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Re: City of Palo Alto Transportatit)l"l for Livable Communities Gyant
DelU'Mr. Joi'uuon:
l ,,&rp.CT 0,1''''';;
100 TCYtl1 !I: C<)uNTRv V'I. ... A~::!
;a"f..,) "L.TQ. ell ~"lO. (.r., :/lSCII d8~ ~lu
,'~:, IEI!:lOIIlS,)·G370
':i"n ..... ~'1. o.'PtCC:
)01 ,),,:,:'",,\1 :T" I'IOOM l!:l'~ S"~I'-':' :r:lUZ. C.\ $3060
(I!J. ,~2h 4~.,.C...:'l1 ~A' rua 4~!).'!\l:1"
CaUiornla Avenue, the second downtown ot the City of PDla Alto, Is overdl1l~ for
upgrading. X would like to ~pport the Ci.ty's application tor 2l Metr0l'c.1it,n
Tran..sportation COmmission Transportation for Livable CODUl\unlties gthl"\t of
+$1,700,000 towllrd a total project estimated at some $2, 100}000, with the balance t,) I:ome
trom Oty hinds.
The California Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project would emphasize transit
imptovements, particularly for pedestrians and bfcyclists, The one--third mUe strt'tch of
CaJitorrua Avenue hom El Cmnino Real to the CalTrain station is an historic dish'lct of
retail conunerci81 and professional businesses and high~den$ity residential cO.ll1ple).~~.
In addition (0 the train statiol'\ It is a trangit hub with numerous bus stops and a
designated bike route. However, despite its brisk adi:vlty, California Avenue hll:, been
something of a step child in terms of physIcal improvements. The streei itself,
sidewalks, streetlights, street tree! and other fearures are l.n poor cOJ'\dition. n,e
California Avenue Area Development A!soclation hillS worked 'With the City to idl~ntify
and prioritization what needs to be done.
r encourage you to 81ve the City of Palo Alto's proposal every coruiderlltiOl.'\, 11u.('tk
you.
Sincerely,
~~~~
S. Joseph Slmitian
State Senator, 'Eleventh District
cc: Frank B~ne9t, City Manager
I J,~ H"rtllJ~!;I\ .I..if..
iI".[];, ,!!i),~r.<. C·.., \',. g~j,
",.~ 'lli';'~·:, ,~~ Ii H
-Ii": (tli5r;~ 1:.14L1"
W.!o'illfNI(M1er;(!·"1I'1'iiJII! ;;lIff,
.. • .... "".I;\IiI!f;t~hQth.,.,rI111. ,'>!lft,
BOiln" Hi'
1it1Ji~r;ft~'t
.~""" .kll'In 'iii' li~1l
'~!:'l'llj'i"'h~ ~~~I'~
I/~ ';'.21:'11
'i!!w", Cf\ln.lJ!'.~
!.;!;I'1l'
11b'r:liIl(IW".
I~m'''' ~;lIlUI",1 ~ .. it'l.
Hi,m:W\i:tu_
·1·tl!\!L"Jl,,~t'j.\\r
Ihiliiiir~ 1I'lI.i,i!nI\
I'Ia<l(l~~ ~w..ilil'l jI,~
l~l'iI,'~r
Ei"L,f!t'yi!7 BllilWp,r U'·.
im~.t J~I'i •. t'I~
. lll," II [1,,'1)1'i J,A~lidi '
ImbMil·tirlll~
..;;" .. tilollt!Mmli:
~,m_li\iiIi~.
~.il9JI~! ","ph~'ll!l'i't
1.00.'JI!!!iF It£; t;;r41~.5i~, lir~lti.tr~ _'.111"""" '!IlfJ'~IU [l\lpilll!! '\liniu~
liM Mk\'lItSM ;1!'WI~II·'"I~,,"··rM!p!l<I'
11IiI1iIlrt_
iIIl].!!iiI 'ilwUCd ~P;jflt "''liIJI'!lI~Ifi~f.:Il'ln~
1I'll1~ 1I1ir1ll
!iIJ.~I . .iii~ 1.';.Ilrilfolli'!i
i\lii'''~~2
frr;, 1r.,,;dl')l'l ,'" fl,Vi~iI rdil , .. go
:!,Iillk SOltbln
,," rl~.~r>¥ rllJ:14l ~iI'iI;!iill~n
','IDi IWl:';::Q ![~~~.
I!iJI;nMrl\'lli!n,IT
j'~:'I~~1 n~~Wl~r.I,.·,:h"dll!~
" r;~'lI'!ir~
I~p 1I!l!llllitr
-,I!.;.;,t"il. j~~i.r, ;~iI!:tr~:rnrj! rvif\t1!~
·tr~
r'!::\,l::Jfid ,OJ, 11:0
~'.~ i !!'fretii'I.~
" .
~":f:i'!i )'CII~' ~ Ltd)i Ki'!::1 n!;n::t;g
~Ile:mbl:!tl'o oe rb.'1i: Ctty Coutl{il
eiLy 'I~( P.lIIi::· !o\~1t~
H~~ilmIH)l1l\"'C'
P,llio /\1(0, CA ~;~itH}H
The P.llu. All!;) Clli.unoor of CommctCil hI pi~ased 1.0 suppmt the Cil}!'s
IlJppllcl~~ir.:m rQr the Tml1~p[)rtllltl[lt.1 for l1Vl1lhk Cmnl11unHi.c5 (inmt;
il.pon5i\.ltOOby tt:1.c: Melropo~dtiln i1r.1I!n.&-;p£l:rito!Hi I,m Cllmu1tJ ;.~ril:m \V>I; iU{l!tI,gJ)'
il!!eHI!\'" C n.!!,t lne enl'lan.;enUltlE of CI1I],1 fom[.u .A "tn lJe d~, ilelot:tprn/Jr:1t ate./) w~ II.
n(ll only meet bljilt t:taeed nil thecrl.~(l:ri~ of tht .. ,~.rra;nt
W;; $Upport me City ~bll:0i.er"s pUrpP5e of' !t!l;ProjClt:~: 'IQ:
I!!I Ut,vitiiUze ,Pm~o Alto's ~!ofh~r'" downh}wl~. cte.fI,Hng:II ~'~tmmt .
. .~nd bj;ke Qn'e'nte.d ·~(;Imm~tt'j~i iMrl'tMLdcl,1iUIJldlS!:ri:qI'. , .. vc ai\d ftlceh='e bh; rche Ilrt.d pede!mlltn IIlCC(l$!'~i1~!'mt)~nr,r;i'{L
i;. " ' ' -, i :/>,~; iiil_
,. R'Cpbt1l:'t}'1e' \!~:rett:jl~iI1IS ~ .. '~nlh IThnJl!' Jc~lhe:u~. fl'=smlmullCtlel
fi:~rf(,lrC5
Plant new i'\.tree~ u-e·es in th-e ')!1Ir~j n.m, III.IWO c t~ r ruB.'! lip tfne ~.ij;lewJJ.I k
for pr:';,h~;"[n,fJf1I:\i, sllfelt f!.L11I1IHJ~'ot .una rl!~l/llH7ii1nt t.1!Jlitf;J; .a:t!u .c:\ilauli .u.nd
pfo"l~ a t';;:!.r~(JPJ' iOr U«5
II: !J'!'O\ljde n(!~w modem M1r6£t fumtlure LIl~ludl:ng ~~~Il~hf;!ii blkcl t1Jcks..
Ibi;~(e ,loc~~n.ki"Hki. ne'!.\·s, rnl,;'k~~_ 'J,tl3y"Ji ndj Fig 1ign.age :l11~dpu~~B~C
art
Al~!l ut] .a <: Iiloi I );$t to g~ne!rale 1()c.lI~ c~':OJ'ln nu.;: de ... ·!;,'; 11:.p'me.li~
I[JPJ)t;I:I1UJl /:II t.'ii
!\II C~nnpl~m~nt tne iPcod'lliltrr;iFQ a~~d TnLrt1!f Ori(;!ll;tcd f)t:!·.'e+opmc.rlt
z·()fIe. which w~1l e~~o';nm_ge lUfJ,h ,den~il~ :It!stdeml.iul dc ... cd(l~Hnellt
,ilTUlmd Ca;hfl'JmH" ,.\"'>tfllJ'i:
1'11ill !'in.td:r:~cc1Ionu ""r out' Chy bri.ngs '.I\~.(~tll<:r lhe bu~itlC~·!l.L~!i1 'lhe tL~!I~denl,'4
i!.:r~d I;:'ommilltcrn ijn 1'41~ Ilrel Ir.,i( !i~ e v·:J 1 !I{I Ii,!l hllL' ,,', E·",·;:::~:ifllg urb.ai!Jj rIH[~ ';;If!!d ~
gnHu m~tr-cn(!d wnft tht' :Clr~'~ ltiHl'liI'rlHf'nent tOjtl'!l. P:ilr:t r:f (,)lL[' GHY. wi~t
In:iur~, ius !fy;;;:~,eSB.
Trumt }'\),!.l: f\H' Y(,Id.r r,;i,JtiJi:l.refll1lb1 n
SHlccreJy,
C" -, " ,....,...~ ,:1J"'r~
S "'TIdr'] Ln ml!~r~~n:s.t
('!r,nll·tril1's~l~P~c
....
t.l'fll,o i\tC(1 C~mmbe:r e,f Cmnn1'l~r:.:e
PABAC
June 14, 2006
Bob Morris
Public Works Engineering
City afPalo Alto
P. O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Subject: California Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project
Dear Mr. Moms:
At the June 6, 2006 committee meeting of the Palo Alto Bicycle A9visory
Committee (P ABAC), staff presented the preliminary cOfichpt drawings for the
California Avenue Streelscape Improvements and discus:)ed the elements to be
included in the City's Transportation Fund for Livable Communities (TLC) grant
application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
By una.nimous vote. P ABAC endorsed the preliminary concept plan and proposal to
apply for TLC funds for the project. The committee noted thai the plan would
improve safely for bicyclists, address the need for improved bicycle parking and
improve circulalion at the intersection of Park Boulevard and California Avenue,
which is heavily used by bicyclists.
P ABAC looks forward to further opportunities 10 provide input as this project moves
forward.
Sincerely •
. ..//,/ /) .• ~ 7ttv?d~~ 4~/
Richard Swent, Chair
Collt:ge Terrace Residents' Association
2290 Princeton Street, Palo Altc, California 94306
June 19.2006
RE: California Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project
Dear Mayor Kleinberg and members of the Palo Alto City Council.
On behalf of the Board of Directors for the College Terrace Residents' Association (CTRA). I'm
writing to convey our strong support for the Streetscape Improvements Project for California
Avenue between EI Camino Real and the Callrain station. This project seems like a perfect fit
for the MetropOlitan Transportatioo Commission's "Transportation for Livable Communities"
program, and now is an excellent time to re-energize the relatively neglected portion of Palo Allo
that lies west of the train tracks.
The College Terrace neighborhood is situated just across EI Camino Real from this project, with
roughly 880 households, including a healthy mix of single family homes, apartments.
townhouses, duplexes and cottage clusters. Having Palo Alto's "second downtown" so close
by. and having access to Caltrain to get to work. baseball or hockey games is an important part
o( what makes our neighborhood so livable. Many of our residents walk, bike or "trip link" to the
California Avenue business district regularly. It is still a great place to enjoy a meal or meet a
friend (or coffee, as well as to mail a letter or get many of our household errands done, In fact,
on Friday evenings and weekends. you see a lot of people with pets and children. strolling or
biking on College Ave and California Ave towards Calif. Ave downtown area.
There is no denying, however. that in recent years the loss of some key neighborhood~serving
businesses and the lack of public infrastructure investment hava contributed to a sense of
stagnation in this onCe prosperous business district. Last October, our elected Board members
included the following as one of our key action items for 2005-07:
Advocate for improvements in the California Avenue business district that would revitalize this
'second downtown', encourage a balanced retail and service mix, and generate new city
revenues. (See www.ctra.orqllssues&Ops2005.pdf )
'rhe turning point came last summer when the California Avenue Area Development Association
(CAADA) initiated a series of meetings that brought together a broad-based group to brainstorm
about solutions. Members of our Board of Directors participated in these meetings, along with
business owners. residents. customers. tree advocates, neighbors and key City staff. Thanks to
seed money from the City Council and strong staff support. the brainstorming list was refined
into a prioritized list of improvements, and ultimately into the conceptual design for this grant
application -al\ in record time.
Page 1 of2
Morris, Bob
CI ' •
From:
Sent:
·(0:
Subject:
Dear Mr, Morris,
, i 'iF '¥ii!i
MagIC [magic@ecomagic.orgl
Wednesday. June 21. 2006 9:;);) AM
Morris. Sob
California Avenue Sireetscape Improvements
I am writing to convey the views of residents and properti owners of the Evergreen Park
Neighborhood with respect to the proposed improvements to the Californid Avanue Commerci3t
District 5treetsca~e.
Our neighborhood of 400 homes with 1,000 residents adjoins the business district.
evergreen Park residents work, shop, own property, and emF loy others in the distrLct.
I recently used our neighborhood associatlon email list, ~hich reaches 80 households, and
the occasion of a neighborhood block party (attended by m¢re than 150 peoplel to invite
comment on the proposad Changes, r received only positive responses. The sole concerns
expressed were that the project not divert city funds from more pressing needs, and that
tree replacement be managed 50 that new trees' canopies b~ large enough to maintain
present pavement shadinq prior to the removal of existing trees ("no net lossu of canopy
at any time during the project).
Residents were enthusiastic about increasing overall tree canopy, altering streets to
provide additional safety to pedestrians and bicyclists, reducing non-r:e~iidence-related
,parlcing in Evergreen Park and other nearby r:esidential neighbor hoods I and engaging :both',
·,neighborhood residents and merchants in the design process.' I
Thank you for considering these views.
David Schrom, President
Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association
I, !
"
" I
v V'" L L, 'v V V I I • V I"'"
STANFORD
U.NIV!!RSITY
June 22, 2006
1
, ~
, Ii
: I I
; !
I'
Stanford Univer!lity supports the City of Palo Alto's goal to improve the existing
streetscape along California Avenue. We are pleased to add our support and advocacy
for the funding you are seeking through grant applications to the VT A and MTC.
As YOll know, Stanlor~ University haa an extensive alternative trllDSportation program.
This program includes a comprehensive shuttle system c~Ued the UMarguerite" which
includes California A venue and California Avenue Caltrairi Station as part of its service
area. The grant applicatiOns the City of Palo Alto is submittiug are for funding for
improvem.;nts:along California Avenue that will ~mprove tJl~ 8ffieJ~c:Y ,of the shuttle ~d
~e appear~c~ of th~ shuttle stops, The planned lmprov~ts '\YI1l allQw the Marguerite
~u~l~ ,el;ii~r lC:c~s, : ~d • ~l r impr()V~ ~e c~nnec;tioD: ~ ~e" C~~~ system" The
P~~P" ~fp.~pvem~~t~ ~l\ alSf ~fke ~~if~ Aven~'more con~u~~'Ve to cyclmg, an l~p'~o~ym~~t;i~~t ~Y{~~e ,~, ~at1y a~Pre~lated by 0~~9~ents ;anp ,~ploy~cs that '~~~t~~~ot~r~v~rty~v'IlI,Caltf01lllaAVenue. 'r :' ':. !I: ;
! IhIiHII; I' iI' f I: I':! ';j f! I' , ' , , , I~ ~lo~ipg,:pl~ase let:ine mow if we can 'assist you in any other Ways in your elfforU t~
secure'this 'fiptA" .' ' , ',': "rlDi "
~:
Sincerely,
~~~
Je McCown
rector of Community Relations
Bob MQnis, Sr Project ManagCT
Pub,lie Works Bnginelfring
" I
~ d I: ;.. ~ i Office 0( Public Af.faira ',:, 'I : i ' , .,:, COwMII1U1tllDcl'Co!lPllv. Rel!llioll8 i "
'\' ~~!~e r~~ ~~8t ~~r~1 ~I+fd. CA. MlO~'~~ T '~O.ns:331J: ~ ;~1o·715~5ft
I ,', I I: iii, '. , i I' I.:', " ' i ,IL I .:," I,!I , •
"
", . . :':. :1 ; , . '! ..
, ' " I'
" . ,::
; ,'" ':
, 'I ~ . '.:': :
'" ;', ~, " ,1 , , '
;'
I,' I
" '
f,
i I " :\
'I
'j ~
......., '/ ) ec .:J
ATTACHMENT E
Architectural Review Board
... ·r
Staff Report
Agenda Date: October 15, 2009
From: (?~ Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer
Department:
Subject:
Public Works Engineering Division
California Avenue StreetscapeChanges [09PLN-OOI761: Request
by Public Works Engineering on behalf of the City of Palo Alto for
California Avenue streetscape modifications from EI Camino Real to
the CalTrain Depot, including replacement and addition of street trees,
replacement of street benches, bicycle racks, news racks, kiosks,
planters and waste receptacles, addition of bicycle racks, crosswalk
improvements and restriping of traffic lanes and automobile parking
spaces.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) receive public testimony, discuss
the context and overall project scope, provide a recommendation on the tree replacement plan
and continue the hearing on the remainder of the project to a date uncertain for further
discussion and recommendation on the other components of the Califomia Avenue
Streetscape Project (replacement of street benches, bicycle racks, news racks and kiosks,
planters and waste receptacles, addition of bike racks, crosswalk improvements and restriping
of traffic lanes plans) to allow for additional public input and outreach.
The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) will review the project 011 October 28,
2009. Staff intends to provide an update to the ARB on November 5, 2009, after the PTC
hearing.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The project involves a new streetscape design to promote pedestrian and bicycle activity
in the downtown area along Califomia A venue from EI Camino Real to the Caltrain
Station. New street trees, tree grates, benches, trash receptacles, colored crosswalks,
potential lane reconfiguration from 4 lanes to 2 lanes, and ADA compliant ramps arc
integrated with the new landscaping and street resurfacing to promote safety and enhance
the appearance of Cali fomi a Avenue. See Project plan set. (Attachment A).
The project construction has stopped until the City has completed the process of obtaining
community input and support for the project design. A phased installation is being
considered to expedite tree replacements this winter, with installation of other elements
in Spring 2010 after completion of the public review and approval process.
BACKGROUND
A tentative staff-level ARB approval was issued on September 14, 2009 for the above
project. The tentative approval letter, attached to this report (Attachment B), describes a 14
day request for public hearing period within which a request for hearing before the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) may be submitted. The request for hearing period ended
September 28, 2009, which would have become the effective approval date allowing
construction to commence, except that a healing request by the ARB was proposed by staff
on September 24,2009, when the ARB received an informational report and were informed
th at the item had been advertised for the October 15, 2009 ARB hearing. On September 28,
2009, a citizen submitted a fonnal request for an ARB hearing for the project.
Pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.76, a tentative approval may
be issued for minor projects as set f011h in 18. 77 .070, except when detelmined by the
Director to be major, pursuant to subsection (2)(1). Subsection 2(I) states that the ARB
reviews major projects, which can include "any minor project that the Director detennines
will significantly alter the character or appearance of a building or site." Minor projects can
also be refelTed to the ARB.
A t the beginning of the 14-day request for hearing period, on September] 4th and
continuing through the 16"\ the project proceeded and 63 trees were removed 011
Califomia A venue between EI Camino Real and the Caltrain Station. Although there
was an overall design plan in accordance with a streetscape improvement plan in the
City's Capital Improvement Program (PE-07005) which had been developed over a
number of years with input from various stakeholders, implementation of the street tree
replacement element of the project began without proper public engagement. Elements of
the design including tree species and the lane re-configuration of California Avenue have
been called into question and the project has stopped to ensure community awareness and
support for the project.
On October 5,2009, the City Councill'eceived a status report 011 the next steps of the project
C~l'j[:lrn';l':\:lt'nl'" St"'~(ll~.('ctpt~ Implo'/(;l11enICl-· f\nrlllf'",I""" No. O~'PLr-.I-OO 176
2
to gain public input on the selection of replacement trees and other California A venue
Improvement project elements while also including fornla1 reviews by and recommendations
from the Architectural Review Board and the Planning and Transportation Connnission. The
City Council asked staff to retum with a tree replacement plan in November in an eff01i to
begin replanting the area this winter and to consider retuming with the other streetscape
project elements at a later date once public input was received. See CMR 400:09
(Attachment C).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proj ect Setting
The urban and architectural context of the site has been an important consideration in the
project design. The site is in a funy developed urban setting, with intensive development
extending on both sides of California Avenue. On the east end of the project, the Caltrain
Station with pedestrian, bicycle and train traffic creates a strong visual boundary which
will be reinforced by the placement of a new fountain. On the west end of the project at
EI Camino Real, the placement of native grasses and granite rocks in the center median
creates another strong visual boundary reinforced by EI Camino ReaL An eclectic mix of
ali sculphlres within the center medians and poetry inscribed in the brick walkways along
Califomia Avenue create a unique downtown experience.
Initial Streetscape Plan
A total of 72 new street trees (59 Red Maples, 7 Canary Island Pines, 3 Chinese
Pistaches, and 3 London Planes) were proposed to be planted at the proposed tree
locations shown on the Califomia A venue Site Plan. See Attachment A, figure 1. The
City Standard tree wens with 3' by 3' decorative metal grates (see Attachment A, figure
2) were to be installed for new street trees planted in the concrete sidewalks. The metal
grates will enhance the aesthetic look of the business district. The existing tree wells in
Califomia Avenue sidewalks are open wells and are not conducive to high pedestrian
activity.
Six of the seven exposed aggregate concrete planters which had trees and vegetation in
them were proposed to be removed. The existing locations of the six concrete planters
are ideal areas to plant large benchmark/signature type trees since they are not in concrete
sidewalks and are in larger planting areas. One exposed aggregate concrete planter that is
propped to remain is on Califomia A venue near Ash Street as it is filled in with concrete
to supp01i an ali piece. See Attachment A, figure 3.
There are two concrete kiosks with attached benches that were proposed to be
demolished. See Attachment A, figure 4. These kiosks could be replaced with a bulletin
(;,llifot!)r;1 AVel1l1B :;In:'(~lsc,~pe Improvements·· .l\pplicalion No. 09PLN-00176
3
board type kiosk.
Three (3) old wooden strcct benches were proposed to be replaced with new cast iron
benches and thiJ1een (13) additional benches will bc added on the sidewalks of California
Avenue. The new benches will be 6 feet long with center armrests. See Attachment A,
figure 5. Metal bcnches were prefen'ed by Public Works Operations Division who will
maintain them once installed. The color ofthe benches will match the new waste
receptacles. The color proposed for the waste receptacles are "wcathered brown",
The bike racks were proposed to be replaced with the City Standard bike racks. See
A ttachment A, figure 6. The color will match the new benches and the waste receptacles.
In addition to replacing the existing bike racks, 22 additional bike racks will bc installed
on Califomia Avenuc as requested by the City's Transportation Division due to expected
future increase of bike traffic on California Avenue.
The exposcd aggregate waste receptacles were proposed to be replaced (see Attachment
A, figure 7) on California Avenuc with more decorative stainless steal receptacles that
will take both trash and recyclables. The type and modcl of waste receptacles will be the
same for bodl California Avenue and University Avenue districts; only the color schemes
shall be different. Sec Attachment A, figure 7 for the type and color scheme being
proposed for California A venue. The units will be powder coated with "weathered
brown" color. The Palo Alto insignia will be laser cut with green background plates. The
receptacles will be anchored to the sidewalk.
California A venue was proposed to be resurfaced and resbiped from four lanes to two
lancs with stamped colored asphalt concrete at all crosswalk locations. After meetings
with the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) and the City's Transportation
Division, a reduction of the number of traffic lanes from two lanes each direction to one
lane was proposed to make California Avenue a more bicycle friendly con-idol' by
accommodating a wider shared travel lane. CUITently there are no bike lanes on
California A venue. The street parking on California A venue is a mixture of angled and
parallel spaces. By reducing the lanes to one lane each direction, more parallel parking
spaces can be conve11ed to angled, increasing the number of total parking spaces. Also
through the street maintenancc program, the crosswalks at intersections and at mid~blocks
will be restriped and the path highlighted with "brick red" colored "brick" pattel11
stamped asphalt (see Attachment A, figure 8) to enhance visibility.
Staff will be proposing to amend the City's news rack ordinance to create a special news
rack area for the California A venue area to require owners of freestanding news racks to
remove thcm or replace them with pedestal-mounted news racks at the same locations.
The existing pedestal-mounted news racks in the Califomia Avenue area wou1d remain.
-----.. -~-7f>
See the California Avenue Site Plan Attachment A, figure 1 for locations of existing and
proposed pedestal-mounted news racks. Refer to Attachment A, figure 9 for pictures of
existing freestanding and pedestal-mounted news racks.
The existing fountain is not operating and is in need of replacement. The Public Ali
Commission will be requesting proposals from al1ists for the fountain design. The Ali
Commission plans to select a number of the proposals and then will be asking for public
feedback on a prefen-ed fountain design. The Community Services Department Division
of Al1s and Sciences is working with the Public Art Commission to replace the Califomia
A venue fountain possibly in Spring 2010. See Attachment A, figure 1 O.
DISCUSSION
Based on recent concerns over the tree removal and design elements along Califomia
A venue, and review requirements associated with this capital improvement project, staff
has halted all work on the project and is engaging in additional community outreach,
including comment by the ARB, PTC and City Council. The streets cape elements, other
thl':ll1 the street trees, may be implemented over the next eight months depending on public
input, budget constraints, board, commission and City Council approvals.
The street trees subject of this application were large Holly Oaks. A large percentage of
these trees had problems, ranging from dead or dying, hazards due to stmctural
conditions, canker disease, conflicts with sidewalks and curbs, to nuisance problems such
as aCOl11 drop and unsightly sooty mold. They required frequent tree trimming due to
conflicts with the street lights and building storefronts and were subject to storm related
damage. Both the former and cun-ent Public Works Arborists recommended the fazed
replacement of these trees.
The replacement trees initially planned were a mix of:
• Red Maple
• London Plane, and
• Chinese Pistache
The tree selection, size and location is now being revisited based on input from Canopy,
Planning and Public Works Arborists, Ban-ie Coate, Registered Consulting Arborist and
from the public during the October 8th community meeting. This public outreach process
has resulted in selection of additional or different species of comparable size and
characteristics. See Attachment D.
To ensure better growing conditions for the new shade trees, staffhas improved the
planter basin design by providing a minimum of 75 cubic feet of rooting area, use of
Cnlif,:"";;l ·\":1111, !~I('JctS(;;lprJ IIIlprow,l11enlS-Applic1Hlon No. OflPLN·00'176
5
engineered soil mix technology and a generous watering basin beneath the new sidewalk
grates.
The project is now proposed to be constructed in a minimum of two phases dependent on
public input on the design elements. The first project phase would be to replant street
trees this winter to capture the best planting season. A second phase would be to
incorporate the other components ofthe streetscape project and begin work next Spring
pending necessary approvals.
This first phase of work would include removal of the existing exposed aggregate
concrete planters, demolishing concrete sidewalk next to the back of curb and excavating
for the new street tree wells, replanting street trees with an acceptable species including
utilizing structural soil and installing new 3 feet and 4 feet square City Standard tree
grates at new locations along California Avenue.
Staff would like input on the overall streetscape plan and recommends focusing ARB
review and comments on the street tree replanting plan which includes the tree species,
tree size and number, location of trees, and tree grates.
Staff recommends that the other streetscape elements could be developed and finalized
during additional ARB public hearings anticipated early next year after receiving input
from community meetings
POLICY AND REGULATION IMPLICATIONS
ConfOlmance with the Comprehensive Plan
This project shall support the policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan,
including:
Policy T-14, "Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations,
including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping
centers, and multi-modal transit stations. "
Goal N-3: A Thriving "Urban Forest" That Provides Ecological, Economic, and Aesthetic
Benefits for Palo Alto.
Program N-17: Develop and implement a plan for maintenance, inigation, and
replacement of trees in parks, parking lots and City right-of-way. "This plan should
include guidelines to reduce the impact of large vehicles on street trees, including the
tearing of branches by tmcks. It should also suggest altematives to the practice of
routinely trimming trees to accommodate 14-foot clearances. The plan should include
(;;lliforni;. ;WOI1!,L SI(l,()I~>I;,lpe Improvel11enls-Applicalion No, O!)PLN·OO"176
6
guidelines developed and implemented by the Utilities Department that protect trees from
utility maintenance and installation. It should establish a five-year trimming cycle and
address the staffing, standards and funding necessary to carry out such a cycle."
Program N-18: Actively pursue funding for tree planting; and
Goal N-15: Require new commercial, multi-unit, and single fami1y housing projects to
provide street trees and related irrigation systems.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
City staff is preparing an Initial Study and mitigated Negative Declaration that will discuss
the current scope of the project including input on tree selection received during the extended
outreach.
TIMELINE
Action:
App1ication Submitted
Tentative Approval
Request for Hearing
City Council Meeting on Project Status
Community Meeting to receive input on tree selection
ARB Public Hearing
PTC Public Hearing
Council Review of Tree Selection
ATTACHMENTS
A. Project Plan
Date:
July 29, 2009
September 14,2008
September 24,2009
October 5,2009
October 8, 2009
October 15, 2009
October 28,2009
November 16,2009
B. Tentative Approval Letter dated September 14,2009
C. CMR 400:09
D. Summary of October 8th Community Meeting and proposed planting plan
Prepared by: Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer
Manager Review: Julie Caporgno, Planning and Transportation Official
7
ATTACHMENT F
1 Tllllrsday October 15, 2009
2 Architectllral Review Board
3 Verbatim Milllttes
4
5 DRAFT EXCERPT
6
7
8 Board Member Lee: Let's move to New Business, Califolllia Avenue Streetscape Changes.
9 Request by Public Works Engineering on behalf ofthe City of Palo Alto for Califolllia Avenue
10 streetscape modifications from El Camino Real to the Caltrain Depot, including replacement and
11 addition of street trees, replacement of street benches, bicycle racks, news racks and waste
12 receptacles, addition of bicycle racks, crosswalk improvements and restriping of automobile
13 parking spaces. We have a Staff Report from Elizabeth today.
14
15 NEW BUSINESS:
16
17 California Avenue Streets cape Changes [09PLN-00176J:
18 Request by Public Works Engineering on behalf of the City of Palo Alto for Califolllia Avenue
19 streetscape modifications from El Camino Real to the CalTrain Depot, including replacement
20 and addition of street trees, replacement of street benches, bicycle racks, news racks and waste
21 receptacles, addition of bicycle racks, crosswalk improvements and restriping of automobile
22 parking spaces.
23
24 Ms. Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer, Public Works: Good mOl11ing. We have here Eric Krebs,
25 our City Arborist from Public Works Operations, and also Kate Rooney is the Project Manager
26 for Public Works Engineering. In the audience also is Mike Sartor, the Assistant Director of
27 Public Works just in case there are other questions.
28
29 With that what we wanted to do is recommend that the ARB focus on the street tree replacement
30 for California Avenue rather than go into all the streetscape elements at this time given the
31 concelllS about the tree removal we wanted to get the trees planted as soon as possible. This is
32 the best-case scenario to put in the trees by early as November ifit goes to Council for approval.
33 So that is why we are trying to segment the two components, the streetscape elements, and the
34 street trees.
35
36 What we have initially just a brief history. The initial streetscape project was 011 Califol11ia
3 7 Avenue fi'om EI Camino to the Cal train station and that included streetlights, bulb outs to
38 provide more pedestrian connectivity. That also included the new benches and the fountain and
39 a restriping. The big ramp project did not go forward because we did not get the grant funds. So
40 the project now that we have currently funded does not include the streetlights, nor the pedestrian
41 bulb outs, but it has the same theme of pedestrianlbicycle comlectivity. Califomia Avenue is a
42 bike route from EI Camino to the Caltrain station, hence that is why the project still includes the
43 colored crosswalks for the pedestrians and the bicycle racks and the whole revamped streetscape.
44
45 We also have an initial project of a fountain at the end of the project here. That is the in the
46 planning stages. There will be an artist selected and then that will go through a public process of
City of Palo Alto October 15. 2009 Page 1 of 19
I what it looks like. The project also includes news rack podium, a pedestal type of news racks to
2 organize to kind of organize the news racks that are out there now. They are kind of displaced in
3 miscellaneous areas.
4
5 So that is the whole project but really what we want to do is focus on the tree replacement and
6 how that interacts with the existing conditions. So what we will go through is focus on the tree
7 replacement plan. Kate will go over that and so will Eric on the tree species and public
8 comments that we received on our October 8 community meeting. What we want to do is take
9 these comments back to the second community meeting, which is October 22, and then finally to
10 the Planning Commission on the 28, and then ultimately this is the best-case scenario for the tree
11 replacement is to go to Council on November 16. Then ultimately plant the trees this winter.
12
13 So what we have right now, this is at EI Camino looking onto California Avenue looking east.
14 We have some native landscaping here, granite rocks, here is the California Avenue sign, as you
15 can see that is the gateway into Cal Ave.
16
17 This is the opposite end this is where the fountain is. This is not in operation and this is going to
18 be redone into some kind of fountain with some art element, but we don't know what that is yet.
19 Then there is some landscaping opportunities here as a backdrop. This is the other end of Cal
20 Ave and here is the Caltrain station there on the right.
21
22 This is just some examples of the architecture there. Here is an open area, landscape area where
23 a large tree could be placed. This is also looking east, this is where the fountain is, and here are
24 some constraints for the trees. There are some awnings sticking out. I don't know if you can
25 that. Here are outdoor dining areas here, awnings protruding out into the sidewalk. That is also
26 a limitation on the type of tree that can go there given the canopy. The canopy sizes my conflict
27 with those areas. That is just a consideration for you.
28
29 It is going to go into the new tree-planting plan. This is as a result ofthe community outcry over
30 the trees. So we have a whole new tree replacement plan. It is based on the site constraints. We
31 would like to get your opinions if we could on if you would deciduous or evergreen type trees,
32 color, if you want a color theme in the area. So we are looking for some feedback to take to the
33 community and the Planning Commission. So I will turn it over to Kate and to Eric.
34
35 Ms. Kate Rooney, Project Manager, Public Works Engineering: Thank you. As Elizabeth was
36 saying there are a lot of constraints on the boulevard. We deeply apologize for the way the
37 project has progressed to date but in some ways we are now hearing everybody's input, hearing
38 your input, and coming to a better plan than we had originally worked up. It is because we are
39 hearing from everybody and we are incorporating the information into the new streetscape street
40 plan.
41
42 So we started working with four arborists, our Staff Arborist, Eric Krebs, Dave Dockter, a
43 Planning Arborist, then Fred Balin and his wife invited Barrie Coates to speak at the Falmer's
44 Market and he graciously volunteered to also work with us on our panel of arborists. So Bal1'ie
45 Coates was at our public meeting and helped with our tree selections. We also worked with
46 Dave Mufflie, who is a Board Certified Arborist fOlmerly with Canopy. So we also have been
City of Palo A Ito October J 5, 2009 Ptlge 2 ofl9
I working very closely with Canopy and Susan Rosenberg of Canopy to develop the concept plan,
2 the criteria for the street tree selections, and to revise our thinking about the planting conditions
3 on the street.
4
5 I will talk about the planting conditions really quickly and Eric can answer any other questions.
6 We decided to change our planting detail below ground to allow for a much better rooting
7 condition for the new trees. We have expanded the planning hole to a five foot by five foot
8 square, three feet deep, with structural soil, good soil amendment, and then the best possible
9 rootstock we can locate with the Arborist.
10
11 A lot of people have been asking for very large trees right away and Barrie Coates and Dave
12 Dockter and Eric were very clear about how you choose trees. It is not simply the size of the
13 original tree, it is the condition of that tree, the condition of the hole you are planting it in, and
14 the goal is to achieve the best, healthiest canopy possible. So as we look to the availability of
15 our tree selections we are looking for large size initial plantings but as long as the roots are
16 healthy and the trees are healthy that is more important to achieve the goal of a large canopy.
17
18 When we looked again at the trees with the Arborist and the Canopy we realized there were
19 basically three types of planting sites on California Avenue. Elizabeth showed pictures of a
20 couple of those. Maybe we could flip back to one of the streets scenes. In this case you have a
21 rather constrained sidewalk planting site with the awning and the building setback. That type of
22 situation would call for a smaller canopy tree. In all of these places we are trying to maximize
23 the canopy for the available location. But this particular type oflocation would be a three by.
24 three tree grate with a smaller canopy tree.
25
26 If you flip to the next, yes that one, that one has a little bit better setback and no canopy. So that
27 can allow for a larger sidewalk tree and we have noted that on our plan as a four by four grate
28 even though the sub-grade detail is the same. It would have a larger grate and could
29 accommodate a larger tree.
30
31 Then the picture you had of the bulb out, one more. That is the one. Underneath that banner
32 there is a bulb out that goes into the street, and that is an existing planting area that has irrigation
33 and the larger area. Those sites can handle the largest canopy trees. We call those a large
34 canopy open planting site.
35
36 So after looking at the street in terms of that the Arborists all got together and came up with a list
37 of 13 viable street tree selections that they felt would survive well on Califomia Avenue, adopt
38 both to the conditions, be easily maintained, and produce good effects. For these selections
39 evergreen and deciduous trees were selected.
40
41 So you can tell from this graphic, and we have it up here too. This shows the highlight tree
42 graphic on the bottom, shows where the smaller canopy trees would go. About half of the street
43 trees are of this particular type. Then the four types of trees presented are also in your handouts
44 if they are a little hard to read up there. Then if you want to click to the four by four. Sorry, the
45 tally was based on the input we got after our October 8, last Thursday, public meeting over at
46 Escondido School. I think we had over 100 people, I think easily over 100 people attend. We
City of Palo Alto October J 5, 2009 Page 3 of /9
1 presented this type ofinfonnation and we got feedback on people's preferences for types of
2 trees, individual tree species, general comments, and I think that is also part of your attachment.
3 So the tallies are actually what people voted on on the comment card. People picked some really
4 good trees. So we are going to be moving forward with their selections.
5
6 Same thing for the four by four locations. We presented trees of which were both evergreen and
7 deciduous and drought tolerant. Eric can answer questions on any of the tree choices. You can
8 see from the graphic down below there are about 15 or so of this larger canopy tree.
9
10 Next slide, the largest canopy tree. These are really large signature trees. They would be used to
11 anchor the comers of the intersections, to state the entrance to the boulevard, to have strong
12 physical presences on the street. Their choices would be dictated by some extent by where they
13 are use and how they are used but you can see we also got some clear preferences from the
14 public on those too.
15
16 What we really heard from the public overall was aside from justifiable anger was really a desire
17 not to have a monoculture, a desire to have a large variety of trees. Most people made comments
18 that they wanted to see a mix of the deciduous and evergreen, and they wanted to get as much
19 tree canopy out there as soon as possible. They also had some suggestions on putting in
20 temporary large container tree plantings to supplement the streetscape while the trees are being
21 grown in. There was a lot of concern about appropriate climate tree choices, trees that can
22 establish easily, can be well maintained, but don't have hazardous litter, or other problems. Are
23 there any questions at this point that you would like us to answer, before we move to the next
24 step?
25
26 Board Member Lee: Perhaps you can just move on and we will have time to go back with
27 questions to Staff
28
29 Ms. Rooney: Okay. All right, so given all that input what our next steps are -we have been
30 working with the Arborists again and we will be getting your comments back. This afternoon
31 the Arborists are developing some alternate concept plans based on the all the feedback and the
32 preferences for layouts of the streetscape in terms oflarge deciduous, large evergreen, a nice
33 rhytlun to the street so that when you go down it it makes sense and it is not just a jumble of
34 different species. As we develop those we will be taking them back to the public on October 22
35 at Escondido School auditorium to get more input, present those to the public, see if we can
36 refine them, and get a direction on which concept plan will be the final plan. So that is also what
37 we are asking for your feedback on and any general comments.
38
39 Board Member Lee: Thank you. Does that conclude Staffs presentation? Okay, good. I have a
40 few cards, and Alicia I believe you have a few more. There are quite a few cards. I thought
41 perhaps each speaker would be given three minutes to give comments. The first speaker will be
42 Bruce and the second speaker Fred Balin.
43
44 Bruce. -Didn't list his address or last name: Thank you for the opportunity to speal(. I have an
45 interest in California Avenue even though street lighting has been excluded from the project I
46 just wanted to indicate there are pedestrian safety illumination at crosswalks and intersections
City of Palo Alto October 15. 2009 Page 4 of19
1 didn't seem to be included in the study at all even though you said it would be commented on
2 later. The intensity, the length of the arms, all of the safety things that go with illuminating
3 proper crosswalks 'at intersections. I wanted to comment on that.
4
5 The second thing is that no one has mentioned, the Staffhas mentioned any underground
6 conflicts particularly sewer lines, electrical lines, provide a definite restraint on selecting things.
7 I was curious if there was a plan or a study or if anyone has looked into it.
8
9 Then third, typically the radius of the tree and the conflict with a building is a graphic that is
10 provided so that the general public would have more of an understanding of how much
11 maintenance and what the conflict would be to trim the trees to fit to the buildings. Even though
12 in general someone has acknowledged the idea that the diameter of the tree is relevant it would
13 be instructive to have the natural diameter of the tree or the planned diameter of the tree shown
14 on a graphic. Thank you for your time.
15
16 Board Member Lee: Thank you for your comments. The next speaker is Fred Balin followed by
17 Terry Shuchat.
18
19 Mr. Fred Balin, 2385 Columbia, Palo Alto: I live in College Terrace. My wife and I were very
20 disturbed by what happened with the tree removal. We sprang into action after the City Manager
21 said that they were going to have to replant the trees with red maples in two weeks, and we were
22 going to go through a similar process of no input from the public just as occurred when the trees
23 were taken down. We decided that we had to do something. Other people working
24 independently also got involved. Through kind of parallel tracks of independent ~itizens we
25 were able to bring together Barrie Coates to the Farmer's Market who had a great talk for us and
26 the City has brought him into the process.
27
28 We have been looking at the tree selection process and we were looking at what went wrong. I
29 have two comments to make with regard to the process. Number one, in your packet you have a
30 letter that went from the City Planner to Public Works on the 14th to begin the announcement of
31 the Staff level ARB that then commenced, and there would be a 14-day period for notice. The
32 way notice is supposed to come, which is mentioned on the last paragraph in bold, apparently is
33 to be announced in the next Architectural Review Board Agenda. There is no public notice in
34 the papers or anything like that. The next Agenda date was for the 24. If you look on the 24th on
35 the back here there are about six words about the ARB decision, the architectural decision, but
36 no discussion of trees. So what I am saying here is the process that you have is when you have a
37 Stafflevel ARB and there is to be notice afterwards there is effectively no notice at all.
38
39 To the issue ofthe tree selection, I think we are in the midst of a much better process going
40 forward over what we had in the past. We had a great meeting with Barrie Coates. We had a
41 very spirited but informative discussion with Public Works and the four Arborists last Thursday
42 night. Some good things have come out it. What we are advocating as a citizen's ad hoc group
43 is that all this input that has come in with regard to the trees and the information that has been
44 assembled with regard to what is the best options in terms of the soil, and the size, and the
45 placement should result in maybe three concepts from the group of Arborists that has a mix of
46 trees in it, each for the various reasons of the Arborists. So there is a choice of the overall
City of Palo Alto October 15, 2009 Page5of19
I selection that could be presented to the public and from those choices the public should make the
2 decision, possibly in a vote that could be held on California Avenue with placards in various
3 buildings, ballot boxes that you could put in, and that is the way it should be decided. Council
4 may want to make the ultimate final decision, and may consider it an advisory vote, but I think
5 that is the best way to have maximum public engagement, and tremendous opportunity for
6 education and interest as a positive result from what happened here with this removal. Thank
7 you.
8
9 Board Member Lee: Thank you. We will next hear from Terry Shuchat followed by Herb
10 Borock.
11
12 Mr. Terry Shuchat, 290 California Ave. Palo Alto: I have lived in Palo Alto for about 75 years.
13 I own a store in California A venue and am also a property owner on California Avenue.
14
15 Our business group, CAADA has been working with the City for approximately five years 011
16 this project. This project started off several years ago. We were tentatively given $500,000 by
17 the City. That would have included lighting, water for all the trees, electrical, really a major
18 project. Over the years it got cut down. We have had huge numbers of meetings with City Staff.
19 Eric was at our last City meeting. When I say City I am referring to our group but it was
20 basically mostly City people there. So there had been lots of City input on this and at our last
21 meeting it was announced by the City Staff that they had decided that all the trees would come
22 down at one time and that it would be starting in a couple of weeks, or within a week actually.
23
24 A lot of people have sort of been under the impression that our business group got together a
25 bunch of money, hired a tree cutter, and cut the trees down. But there has been huge, huge City
26 input in this. Eric came up with the red maple tree. Actually our group had decided we kind of
27 like pistachio, and Eric said no these are the reasons you want red maple. Now, Eric is a City
28 Arborist. He is paid for by the City. He knows what grows well on City streets. He should be
29 respected by the City for his choice. Once the public came forth and said, we don't like red
30 maple, Eric says oh, maybe red maple is not the right tree. So I don't know where you came up
31 with red maple originally but you gave us .... well, at our meeting you are the one that said red
32 maple.
33
34 Board Member Solnick: This is not meant to be a dialogue between Public Works.
35
36 Mr. Shuchat: Excuse me. I will dialogue with all of you. Anyway, the trees that have been
37 suggested they are all beautiful trees. They are magnificent trees. But they are all shown out in
38 big open field planting areas. I think that any trees to be considered really should be trees that
39 have been proven successful on city streets, or trees like the ones on University A venue, trees
40 that are on Castro, trees that are in Los Altos. Trees that work. One of the major problems with
41 the holy oak trees that we used to have was that the canopies were growing larger and larger. As
42 they are growing the trees had to be cut back on the building side so as not to interfere with glass
43 windows and roof overhangs. Therefore the weight of the trees, the majority ofthe trees were
44 tipping out towards the street. So you can take a tree, and someone can see a beautiful tree and
45 say that is a magnificent tree, but it doesn't mean that tree will work. What I can see here is
46 these trees all look absolutely huge. I would find it hard to believe that those should go on
City o[ Palo Alto October 15, 2009 Page 60[19
I California Avenue. Also, we as our business group, there again after many, many meetings
2 decided that we like the uniform look as with University Avenue, as with Castro, as with Los
3 Altos, with most city streets. Thank you.
4
5 Board Member Lee: Thank you. We will next hear from Herb Borock followed by Mary
6 Gordon.
7
8 Mr. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto: Good morning Chair and Board Members. This
9 project includes the removal of the trees. The current Staff Report seems to omit that part. The
10 Planning Staff on behalf of the Director of Planning issued a tentative decision on September 14
11 and I filed a timely notice requesting a hearing before the ARB, which is attached to the letter I
12 have that you have at places. So you have the role under the California Environmental Quality
13 Act and the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance to sit in judgment, get evidence, fo How the rules of
14 noticing before making any kind of decision.
15
16 One thing is that you can't make a decision on a piece of the project. You have to make a
17 decision on the entire project at one time. So I believe it is inappropriate this morning for you
18 collectively to make a recommendation about the replacement trees. You may want to give your
19 individual opinions but anything that looks like a collective decision including straw votes I
20 believe would be against the law.
21
22 The other thing is you need to have hearings following the rules of the California Environmental
23 Quality Act and the City's own zoning code in Chapter 18.77, which requires proper noticing.
24 There hasn't been any noticing I am aware of for this meeting outside the Brown Act noticing.
25 There hasn't been a public notice ad. Although you were told at a previous meeting that there
26 would be an ad for an environmental assessment there has been no Mitigated Negative
27 Declaration prepared yet. I believe that such an environmental assessment needs to be
28 independent of the applicant. The applicant is Public Works Engineering and the Staff Report
29 you previously received indicated that it is Public Works Engineering that is going to be doing
30 the environmental assessment. I believe thatshould be the under Current Platming section.
31
32 The situation we are in now is that the City is in two roles. In one role it is the applicant on this
33 project and wants to get some opinions at a late date about the tree replacement but on the other
34 hand the City in a quasi-judicial role sits as the decider as to whether or not the impacts of this
35 project have been properly mitigated. The tentative decision said that the project was exempt
36 from the California Environmental Quality Act. Everything that has been done to date would be
37 consistent with that because to date there has been no Mitigated Negative Declaration. So I hope
38 the City isn't misleading us by promising a Mitigated Negative Declaration and then at the last
39 minute saying that the project is exempt anyway. Thank you.
40
41 Board Member Lee: Thank you. We will next hear from Mary Gordon followed by Frank Ingle.
42
43 Ms. Mary Gordon, 16 Roosevelt Ave. Palo Alto: Good morning. Not even good evening at this
44 early hour. I would like to focus just rather briefly I think on a broader view. It does seem to
45 me, and I shared this great concern about the decision to remove the holy oaks without having
46 clear and full knowledge of what was going to take place for the public in general. In addition to
City of Palo Alto October 15. 2009 Page 70f19
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
that now that that has occurred it does seem to me that we have to view an opportunity here that
both is rewarding and responding to the citizens in the area that have spoken loudly and clearly
in regard to the mitigation. r think one should bear in mind that it goes far beyond just removing
mature trees and then substituting in, in a sense, a like number of trees that are new, that will take
years to accomplish the same kind of regeneration that our mature trees had. We see it all over
Palo Alto and it has been going on for years because Palo Alto has a reputation as being a
community of trees and all the wonderful things that go with that. So I think this needs to be fed
into your thinking.
Also, in conjunction with that is a very important opportunity to increase the ability to
regenerate. In other words, have more broadly sensitive reaction to the whole concept of the
California Avenue community of both businesses, which are very important, but also all of those
who use it. I have been using that area for I suppose now 60 years. As a matter of fact I clearly
remember when the access over the tracks was eliminated. So I would like you to really think
about the area that I think has been truly neglected, which is the area of the fountain, the trees in
that area, from the standpoint of having a real community node to this entry to the city that is
really attractive. It has been glary and really uninviting for a long time. So as you look atthe
plans that are currently proposed it seems to me at least there should be an oppOltunity to rethink
making that a truly different and far more inviting space. There is an opportunity and I don't
think this should be overlooked. Thank you.
Board Member Lee: Thank you. Our next speaker is Frank Ingle followed by Susan Rosenberg. ,
Mr. Frank Ingle. 814 Richardson Ct. Palo Alto: I have been a resident of Midtown for about 30
years. My personal interest is damage control. I have a short proposal that I sent to the City
Council and to the Planning Commission and to this Board. I have no personal stake or financial
interest in this. I am just a citizen in the matter.
It is a short page and I will just read it to you. The trees on California Avenue are down. Let's
mourn them for a day and then get to work. Tars and feathers might make the citizens feel better
but the trees are gone. If you will remember Mountain View, Castro Street renovation it went on
for several years and the downtown businesses suffered greatly. Alma Plaza and Edgewood may
never recover. Let's not let this happen on California Avenue.
So here is my proposal. Let's do what we can right now. Each merchant 011 the street will be
invited to rent or buy large box plants and box trees and arrange them on the sidewall\: in front of
their site as long as they do not block the passage along the sidewalk. The City will hold a
contest for the best effort in various categories. Sidewalk seating for restaurants will be
encouraged as long as the weather permits. The City will offer the merchants low interest loans
to rent the plants. The City will get the money back and also continue to get sales tax from the
businesses. This will stimulate the recovery ofthe street and hopefully prevent failure of the
businesses during the long renovation of the street and the planting and growing of the new trees.
The rented box trees and plants may display the name of the nursery that rented them such as
Reynolds Nursery for example. It would be the duty ofthe merchant to water and take care of
their own small public garden. The City should agree to provide additional patrolling to
City of Palo A Ito October 15, 2009 Page80fl9
1 discourage vandalism. The merchants will be offered a second Farmer's Market set up for one
2 afternoon a week in addition to the one Sunday morning to attract more foot traffic.
3
4 So what is not like? Everyone wins. The public anger is diffused. The City revenue increases.
5 The merchants will get good publicity, which should increase their chances of surviving the
6 receSSIOn.
7
8 What do we need to do to get this started immediately? We need an okay for any changes to
9 City regulations, which might prevent it. We need to find a champion to promote the idea. We
10 need to get the idea out in the Weekly, Daily, and the Post. We need to find a way to okay a
11 second Farmer's Market, and mostly find a way to make this happen quickly rather than finding
12 ways not to do anything. Thank you.
13
14 Board Member Lee: Thank you. Our final speaker will be Susan Rosenberg.
15
16 Ms. Susan Roseberg, 1425 Stanford Ave, Palo Alto: Hi, I am the Chair of Canopy. I want to
17 thank you all for being here today. I don't know if you are familiar with Canopy so I just want to
18 give you a really brief rundown. We work with the City. We were formed in Palo Alto in 1996
19 and we work closely with City Staff to plant trees, and also to educate the public about the urban
20 forest and the value that the trees bring to Palo Alto. We were unfortunately not included in the
21 process that went on in California A venue. But we are included in the process now. We have
22 been working with the Staff and coming up with the tree selections.
23
24 What I would like to say is that the trees that were selected here were reviewed by City Staff,
25 Eric Krebs, and Dave Dockter, both very well known and very well respected Arborists. Also by
26 Barrie Coates who has a reputation up and down this state as well as Dave Mufflie. I think that
27 any of the trees that are on this list would be very good trees on California A venue.
28
29 I would caution you about selecting the trees that received the most votes at the meeting last
30 Thursday. I think that the people that were at that meeting certainly don't represent the whole
31 community. I think that you also need to leave the tree choices up to the Al'borists who are
32 involved because availability of the trees is not always assured. So thank you very much.
33
34 Board Member Lee: Thank you. I don't have any more cards so let's go to the Board for their
35 comments and questions. Alex, would you like to start off?
36
37 Board Member Lew: Where to begin on this one? I would say of the tree selections that have
38 been developed, I am not an Arborist so I don't want comment in too much detail about it, but I
39 would agree that there isn't on the very small tree wells, the three by three ones there is not a lot
40 of space. I walked through that area. I think we do have to sort of recognize that. Say like on
41 Castro Street, University Avenue there was a conscious decision to put a larger tree in and they
42 were put in the parking spaces. Then that really gives the trees -there is more space between the
43 tree trunk and the building fa~ade. So I think in terms of that the one tree species that struck me
44 was the ornamental pear because I have used that on some projects. It is fairly columnar
45 compared to I think, I mean the picture show it as equal size to the other trees, but I think in my
46 experience that one is much more of a taller, narrower tree.
City 0/ Palo Alto October J 5, 2009 Page 90/19
1
2 I think there are also some other comments too on University from the public about the very end
3 like around the fountain area. I think that some of you early plans were showing some canary
4 island palm trees down at the end and whatever. Okay, pine trees. It seems to me ifthe business
5 district would prefer more of a unifonn look but there is some interest in the public of having a
6 mixture of trees I would actually look at breaking it in, breaking it down by certain zones. To
7 say like that end could have a very distinct tree because that is a very different place than the rest
8 of the block. Or say like on Castro Street the new plantings most of it is sycamores but wherever
9 they have a crosswalk they have like crepe myrtles or pastiche, some accent. There is a main
10 tree, a primary tree, and then there is an accent tree right at crosswalks or entrances to the
11 parking garages or wherever. It gives it a little bit of order so it is not just random multiple
12 different tree species, but there is some sort of structure to it. I think that that could work on
13 California Avenue given there is similar structure as Castro Street in tenns of the building
14 placements, and the alleys, and parking garages.
15
16 On the four by four tree selections, again I am not an Arborist, but I recall seeing a lot of ash
17 trees at Stanford that had huge root problems and buckling the sidewalks. I don't know if it is
18 the exact tree that is being proposed here. It could be a very different variety or different species
19 but I would be careful about that. Then also on the shumard red oak it is has been my experience
20 that it does hold onto the brown leaves all winter long and it is not really that attractive a tree.
21 Most of the time we don't get cold enough weather to get the leaves to change color. It happens
22 once every, I don't know, five or ten years, but it is really not -the intent is to get the fall color
23 and I think there are other trees that would give the fall color. I think that that tree is sort of good
24 because it is a little bit more columnar than a long broad canopy. I would support coming up
25 with a couple of different schemes very quickly and let's try to get the trees in this year. I know
26 everybody is sort of shock about the tree removal. I live near Castro Street and we have had to
27 redo the trees twice in ten years. Even though it is initially shocking it is amazing how fast a
28 well-selected and well-planted tree can grow. We don't need to spend an exorbitant amount of
29 money on very large box trees. We just have to be patient. The new sycamores on Castro Street
30 in like a year may have grown to the same size as the previous tree, which was sort of not well
31 thought out and took ten years and never really grew. So let's pick the trees out carefully and
32 let's just get it done.
33
34 Board Member Lee: Thank you, Alex. David.
35
36 Board Member Solnick: I have a number of thoughts about this but they are mostly stepping
37 back from tree species. Was there ever a designer on this project? A landscape architect,
38 landscape designer, urban designer, someone outside of the applicant, someone beyond the
39 applicant?
40
41 Ms. Ames: No, there was no landscape designer on the project. Now we have somebody on
42 board to help us with the graphics but we are trying to get your feedback and the public's
43 feedback as opposed to having a landscape architect come in and do the design. But we didn't
44 have one in the past, no.
45
Cify 0/ Palo A/to October 15. 2009 Page 100/19
1 Board Member Solnick: My main comment is I think that is a far bigger mistake than the
2 removal of the trees, which was definitely a mistake. I think this project is suffering from an
3 absence of any cohesive design because it has nodesigner and never did evidently. So what you
4 had was designed by a merchant group with Public Works it sounds like. Now a much broader
5 public has become involved in reaction to the tree removal, and Public Works is feeling very
6 contrite. So they are actually providing less leadership at this point I would say, maybe they
7 actually had too much before, now they probably have too little. So there is really no design
8 guidance here. We are talking about selecting trees by a vote, by holding up placards. This is a
9 very important street in Palo Alto, and we are not just talking tree species we are talking about a
10 whole new streetscape. For the City not to have engaged a landscape designer or architect for
11 this project is just astounding. It is truly astounding. California wants to think of itself as a real
12 place. It is not just the other downtown but it is a downtown. Can you imagine this happening
13 on University? That the whole streets cape is -well, maybe it was done that way, I don't know.
14 The whole streetscape was done without any design input. I can't imagine. Even El Camino the
15 guidelines were done with design input.
16
17 Board Member Lee: Sorry, Dave, was that a question to Staff? Did you want to respond to that
18 question about University Avenue?
19
20 Mr. Mike Sartor. Assistant Public Works Director: I would like to make one clarification for Mr.
21 Solnick's information. When the Master Plan was developed for the grant application in 2006
22 we did have an architect involved in that. It was a person that lives on California Avenue,
23 Heather Troutman. She helped put together the overall Master Plan for the project.
24
25 After that the project was scaled back because we did not receive the grant. The estimate at the
26 time was about $2.5 million and it included a complete new streetlight system, a series of bulb
27 outs into the street, as well as the planting plan. That planting plan was carried forward in the
28 new reduced project. Just as a clarification we did have an architect involved.
29
30 Board Member Solnick: Once that got scaled back there was no -there is none now, which is
31 really the main point.
32
33 Mr. Sartor: Well, the tree replacement plan was the same plan that was included in the original.
34
35 Board Member Solnick: But see I am not addressing the tree replacement plan. I am addressing
36 the streetscape plan. I think it is really a hazard to isolate out whether legally or not the tree
37 thing. This is a street and this is a streets cape. The design needs to be though out as a whole not
38 as just thinking tree species.
39
40 Mr. Sartor: I agree with that and the plan as of now is to take the overall streetscape concept
41 through a design process, which would include public meetings. It would include involvement
42 of architects, and landscape architects. The primary elements of the rest of the plan are street
43 furniture and traffic issues. The full intent is to take all ofthose elements ofthe plan back to the
44 public through a series of meetings with the community, with the Palo Alto Bicycle Commission,
45 with yourselves as we come up with a program for the rest ofthe project. We beg your
City of Palo Alto October 15. 2009 Page II of /9
1 forgiveness at this point. We are focusing right now at Council direction from two weeks ago to
2 focus on getting the trees done.
3
4 Board Member Solnick: I understand the process. I understand what you are saying but I
5 completely disagree with it. I disagree with a process that what has happened here is ...
6
7 Actually, I would like give an example of a very similar situation in North Fair Oaks where I
8 used to live. There was a decision to redo the street drainage. The streets there were just
9 pavement with no curb and gutter, no nothing, just 20 feet of pavement. They decided the
10 drainage was a problem so Public Works of San Mateo County went to the community and gave
11 them five different options of what they could do. Then the community voted on it. Pm sorry
12 the community didn't vote on it, each block of this whole neighborhood voted on which ofthe
13 different options they wanted. So one option was a valley gutter. One option was a regular curb
14 and gutter. One option was just a swale, a concrete swale at each end. Then they had two
15 options with that a two"foot wide one and a three"foot wide one. And, of course one option was
16 to do nothing.
17
18 So what happened was each block voted on it and not surprisingly each block voted something
19 different. So now when you drive through North Fair Oaks you have one block that did nothing,
20 another one with a twowfoot valley gutter, then another one with a three-foot valley gutter, then
21 another one with curb and sidewalk. So that is what happens when you have no design and you
22 let the public be the designer. My main point is the public and Public Works are the client. That
23 is the most important thing I can say. They are the client. Their input is extremely important.
24 Public Works' input is extremely important. But the relationship that works is the client and a
25 designer, and this project has no designer. It has turned the public into the designer instead of
26 being the client. That I predict is going to lead to chaos.
27
28 It is unfortunate that the absence of leadership that was exhibited in the removal of the trees has
29 been grossly exacerbated now by this process that seems to be going forward.
30
31 So let me comment more specifically about this. This drawing that we are seeing here is a
32 perfect example of that. To me, what I am referring to is the concept plan that we got. At first
33 . glace it looks to me like chaos. There is no order that I can see to this. I know that there are
34 individual decisions, very local decisions made at specific points like this tree in the bulb out,
35 and this tree in the four by four, and this tree is the tree by three. They are very local decisions,
36 which may make sense from just that local point of view. There is no overarching vision of what
37 this street might look like. So it is just a collection of little tiny decisions. There needs to be a
38 picture. There needs to be a design and the community needs to be included in that just as a
39 client would.
40
41 A couple of other things and then I will stop. Actually, the temporary plantings idea is one that I
42 got the email on that some time ago and actually responded to the Staff. I thought that was a
43 great idea and I still do.
44
45 There was one other comment that I have forgotten at the moment. I don't really think the ARB
46 should be deciding which trees should be put in. I agree with Alex that that's really what
City 0/ Palo Alto October 15, 2009 Page 120/19
1 designers and Arborists are for. I think you need to come back to us with a plan as with any
2 other project and then we weigh in on it.
3
4 I will sOli of second what Alex said, and I would favor what the merchant group is saying that I
5 think it is far more successful to have a street that has more uniform tree species. That doesn't
6 mean that all the trees need to be the same. What it does mean is that there need to be enough of
7 a single species to create a rule and then you can make exceptions to that rule. This is all
8 exceptions. This is a plan of exceptions. So you need to have a dominant tree of some kind and
9 then within that you can make small changes.
10
11 Board Member Lee: Thanks David. It looks like there are a few points of clarification from
12 Staff.
13
14 Ms. Ames: Yes, thank you. So what we have presented is a concept. It is more of an
15 opportunity of where the certain sizes of trees can go, and we did want to get design feedback on
16 the theme, the color scheme, like your comment about the accent tree at the crosswalks or some
17 kind of a theme throughout the streetscape is valuable to us. I apologize but we are going to
18 come back to you on November 5 with taking into consideration these comments as well as the
19 community's comments. So it is going to be a balance and hopefully that clarifies the concept
20 plan that you have before you today is just a preliminary.
21
22 Ms. Rooney: I would like to add to that too. I completely understand your comments about the
23 lack of designer and the lack of designer for the whole project. One ofthe reasons why you
24 don't have more refined concept plans that show design elenlents is because we are in the
25 process of getting comments from the Arborists, from you, from the public, and as I mentioned
26 the Arborists and designers are going to be putting together two or three concept plans to bring
27 back and refine with the public. Ijust mentioned it briefly but we are conscious of design related
28 types of decisions for entryways, balancing, having a cohesive statement for the street, having
29 accents, large trees balancing each other across the street. It is not really clear, you are right,
30 from the graphic that is presented here how that can be incorporated.
31
32 Can you switch to the large open canopy slide? There you go. We are not there yet but it is pal1
33 of our thinking is what I am trying to get at. When we have developed the graphics over this
34 weekend you will be able to see that the larger canopy trees are anchoring and defining spots for
35 the street experience. There is a large pair up at the EI Camino entrance that will define the
36 choices for those trees, which will tie into a similar anchoring spot down at the end of the street.
37 I am just trying to say we are thinking of it in telms of appropriate design. We are working with
38 a landscape architect who is helping us with the graphics, and we do have Arborists and Staff.
39 The reason why you are not seeing any of that really right now is because that is what we are
40 working on, but I do really understand your comments about having a designer to get to a
41 cohesive statement for the street.
42
43 Board Member Lee: May I just follow up with a question then to your comment about the City
44 has a landscape architect working with your department in guiding the choices for the specific
45 site and not other streets in Palo Alto. Is this specific or does this happen at every -if University
46 Avenue was experiencing some kind of a proj ect that landscape architect would be ... ?
City o/Palo Alto October 15, 2009 Page 130/19
I
2 Ms. Rooney: Royston, Hanamoto, Alley and Abey are the landscape architects who have been
3 helping us develop our graphics for the public meetings and prepare design graphics and
4 concepts. We can talk about having them provide more.
5
6 Board Member Lee: I was just asking in terms of what the relationship is, thank you.
7
8 Ms. Rooney: Right, they are currently on contract with us for this project. When we did San
9 Antonio we also had a landscape architect develop these similar types of concept plans that we
10 brought to the public after gathering input.
11
12 Board Member Solnick: It sounds like you are saying, you keep saying they are developing the
13 graphics as if they are drafts people. It sounds like they are primarily drafting or coloring. Are
14 they actually designing?
15
16 Ms. Rooney: I think Mike might be able to give some direction on that. Up until now they have
17 not been designing but they have been helping us. I think maybe Mike might want to .....
18
19 Mr. Sartor: I will try to give it another go. Back in 2005-2006 there was a Master Plan
20 developed for the overall project. It included the streetscape and the street trees and the
21 streetlights. The concept plans that were carried forward for the street tree replacement came
22 from that Master Plan.
23
24 Board Member Solnick: I would think we might have a copy ofthat then. Ifwe were to
25 evaluate this relative to a Master Plan that was developed in 2005-2006 the ARB would norma]]y
26 see that.
27
28 Mr. Sartor: The Planning Department recommended a Staff level ARB and in the Staff level
29 ARB packet is the concept plan that includes both the street tree replacements as well as the
30 streetscape proposal. Now what we have done today at Council direction is to attempt to
31 separate the streetscape elements for further review, design review as well as public comment,
32 and focus on the street tree replacement process because time is of the essence in that regard.
33
34 As far as the overall streetscape elements that go beyond that the street furniture, the striping, the
35 fountain, all of those are subject to further design, review, and that process. I hope that helps.
36
37 Board Member Lee: Thank you for that clarification. David, follow up?
38
39 Board Member Solnick: Even the way you are talking about it Mike, you are talking about it as
40 a bunch of individual elements. Like I said, I hear what you are saying I just think it is being
41 conceptualized in pieces. And you are comments to me are confirnling that because you are
42 talking about these individual elements and there is no overarching design or concept that I am
43 seeing. Maybe there was one and maybe this conforms to it but I have no way of evaluating that.
44 Do we have the 2005-2006?
45
46 Mr. Sartor: I believe you do have the Stafflevel ARB submittal.
City of Palo Alto Octobel' 15, 2009 Page 14 of 19
I
2 Board Member Solnick: By the way, one comment about the nomenclature. It says this in the
3 Staff Report. There is no such thing as Stafflevel ARB. ARB stands for Architectural Review
4 Board. It is Staff level architecture review. I think the public gets very confused by this and I do
5 too.
6
7 Mr. Sartor: I would like to defer to my Planning colleagues to answer that question. Thank you.
8
9 Ms. Alicia Spotwood, Secretary: Just for clarification the packet or your report does not include
10 the Streetscape Improvement Plan submittal, the grant application submittal that shows the
11 whole project plan for the street.
12
13 Board Member Lee: Okay. Shall we pass the baton to Clare?
14
15 Board Member Malone Prichard: I think we all, everybody here, agrees this isn't going forward
16 in the best way it can but we are not going to beat a dead horse. We are where we are so let's
17 move on. The Council has instructed us to move forward with planting new trees so assuming
18 that is legal that is what I am going to focus on.
19
20 I agree with both of my colleagues that it is not really the ARB's role to select species. I don't
21 think you are asking us to do that. So I will just say that the things that I tend to look for when
22 reviewing a designer's drawings for any type of a streetscape is I would look for seasonal
23 variation, and I would not want to see monoculture, but I do want to see some sense of order. So
24 yes, I probably should be one dominant tree and there should be some specialty trees in certain
25 locations. I would prefer to see those locations somehow relate to what is going on at the street,
26 be it street comers, or building setbacks. I leave that to the designers to decide what it should be
27 relating to but there should be some kind of sense of order.
28
29 What you are doing down at the end recognizing the fountain and recognizing that should be
30 something special, that is exactly what I am talking about. Do that and then continue that at
31 other locations that makes sense down the street. Beyond that, that's about it. I look forward to
32 seeing what you bring forward at the next meeting.
33
34 Board Member Lee: Thank you Clare. Well, we have an opportunity here and I think one
35 community member mentioned let's take our best step forward. I think that what the Staff has
36 prepared is quite helpful in terms of giving us this mapping. I see it as a mapping in telms of
37 understanding where it might be best to plant smaller trees versus where there are opportunities
38 for larger trees and an open planting situation.
39
40 I think this Board is largely composed of consultants with specialized knowledge. We are not
41 Arborists. I speak for myself that I have some experience working with landscape architects on
42 urban designs and even on streetscapes and boulevards, however I am very comf0l1abie with the
43 City have Staff members with specialized knowledge, and open the process to a community to
44 receive feedback. Ultimately, and I think one community member actually point to the fact that
45 we have two Staff members who are very highly recommended and have terrific reputations, and
46 in addition we have two other Arborists who are going to kind of come together and make a
City oj Palo Alto October IS, 2009 Page ISojl9
I decision here. It is very difficult when there is a very large client base, which might be the City
2 of Palo Alto when you think about it in terms of this important boulevard and who engages here,
3 and building the future.
4
5 I think it is in our best interest to work with the City and rely on those with specialized
6 knowledge in making those final decisions as the City, and having some faith in the City in
7 moving and taking their best step forward and looking forward, and working with the community
8 and kind of understanding the community's choices, and implementing change here.
9
10 So having said that there are a few things about the site that I, as somebody with architectural
11 landscape experience, just want to point out. It seems like California Avenue is a major
12 boulevard, it is, and has very important ends. One end is El Camino. It is a very important node.
13 There is a potential for a gateway. What is my experience of this important California business
14 district? What is my introduction at this point? So I just wanted to point to that as an urban
15 design location where there should be something special marking it, and I think that our Staffhas
16 pointed to there is an existing tree, it has a larger canopy, it is established so maybe that is
17 something for our consultants to take cues from.
18
19 On the other end we have Caltrain. Now that area has undergone significant change. I
20 appreciate the community members input in terms of coming out from that tunnel. At one point
21 you can come right across and now you come out of a tunnel and for me, my experience as a user
22 is that it is very glaring. There are very few trees. There is a lot of pavement. How can we
23 make that a more hospitable area where people would like to inhabit it in a real sort of way?
24 With the opportunity at the end with the art piece, and understand that the Public Ali
25 Commission is going to move forward in tenns of asking for submissions for a possible
26 commission for that fountain. What a terrific opportunity there. I just encourage the City to
27 when you look at those intersections and the paving and a lot of the street amenities and benches
28 that we recognize that that is another gateway for people who are coming regional traffic, local
29 traffic, neighborhoods that are crossing the way. How can we help the retail and the business
30 district at that end in terms of our streetscape supporting those businesses? So I just wanted to
31 point that location out.
32
33 I think my colleagues have already talked about these areas where for example I think Staff
34 mentioned seasonal color or something at intersections or comers. The hard part on California
35 Avenue is that you have these lanes that end kind of mid-block and it is Ash Street but it doesn't
36 go through. So maybe knowing there are existing trees there but perhaps there are opportunities
37 at the end of Park Boulevard, both sides of Park Boulevard, Ash Street, Mimosa Lane, even these
38 mid-block areas, and areas that actually connect those pedestrian ways that connect back to
39 parking lots where you have some seasonal color or some kind of pedestrian scale flowering tree.
40 It doesn't have to be flowering those are my personal choices, but something that might be of the
41 scale of a pedestrian and something that marks those comers.
42
43 Now having said that, I think everybody has spoken about continuity and in terms of this desire
44 to get away from a monoculture. Well, I am actually with the Board here in terms of again to go
45 back to the size of the street, the length, it is not that long. When you think of great streets there
46 is a terrific book, Alan Jacobs, Great Streets that talks about all these different streets around the
City oj Palo Alto October 15, 2009 Page 160J 19
I world and part of the streetscape experience. Generally that continuity of the experience of two
2 trees that are the same or that establish a rhythm long enough so that you experience that one
3 species of tree can be quite powerful. So I just wanted to advocate not the mono culture but some
4 kind of a tree planting structure perhaps in how the canopies meet or the kinds of trees that there
5 is continuity in that experience.
6
7 Evergreen versus deciduous, very difficult question and everybody is going to have a different
8 answer for you. Again, I go back to our consultants in terms ofthe Arborists and the specialized
9 knowledge that might speak to orientation, where perhaps canopies exist or awnings, or smaller
10 buildings versus taller building, just how much sidewalk width that you have. In terms of letting
11 in light or not letting in light and for me that is the difference between the evergreen and the
12 deciduous. So I think those are the constraints or the factors that go into that decision.
13
14 Related to that I just wanted to mention for the evergreen and deciduous discussion the shadow
15 effect in terms of how hospitable that environment is and where the location of benches and
16 outdoor seating occur. The difficulty in urban design is that we are designing a framework that
17 might change. Storefronts come and go. We can kind of look at the zoning for where there
18 might be outdoor seating. For example, one cafe might not have outdoor seating right now but
19 later they will so that is why it is a little bit difficult. If you could maybe, as you move forward,
20 take some cues in terms of where the seating occurs now, where there are opportunities for
21 seating and maybe the next owner of the business might come and think about outdoor seating. I
22 know on the end towards Caltrain that sidewalk where there is a bus stop I just see a lot of
23 benches there. It is opposite the south of the fountain, that area on California Avenue where that
24 last piece of Park Boulevard ends and you are in the condos there. Across from Whitestone. It
25 seems like there is a lot of sidewalk there and not a lot of trees. I think that has to do with where
26 that property line is sitting. But there are a lot of benches and it is very open and there are no
27 trees planted right now. Even in our proposed concept map plan there are no highlighted in
28 terms of possible. So I wanted to point to that area in terms of maybe there could be more street
29 trees there or at least something in terms of, I don't know. Somebody had mentioned this whole
30 temporary large container trees or planting. I think it is a lovely idea. However, it is difficult in
31 terms of designing for continuity of the street and in terms of the timing and the process of the
32 implementation of this new tree planting. I did see that there are definitely areas even in this
33 mapping that seem bare where there seem to be more benches than trees, and that is just one
34 area. So I wanted to point that out.
35
36 I think that in an ideal environment, an ideal kind ofland of the -I mean considering the
37 economy and budgets and cities. It would be terrific ifthere was an urban design or a master
38 plan of this moment of this year with an urban design consultant to work with the City in a real
39 sort of way in developing everything from plants to benches and site furnishings and kiosks and
40 all of this. I understand the pressures of this economy and just in terms of cities sometimes not
41 having just the freedom and the latitude to do that. So recognizing that how can we as a team
42 perhaps but particularly our leadership in the City begin to make decisions and think about this
43 process? I did want to point to Staff that has been working very hard I imagine in a very
44 concentrated period of time in putting this together. I think that their efforts should be
45 recognized. Of course we are in this situation but let's look forward. Those are my comments.
46
City o[ Palo A Ito October 15, 2009 Page 170[19
1 Did anybody have any follow up comments?
2
3 Board Member Solnick: I had one.
4
5 Board Member Lee: David.
6
7 Board Member Solnick: It is really just a follow up to a couple of things you said. One of the
8 smaller ones about the gateway I think the word gateway is overused. Everybody thinks their
9 project is a gateway. I actually think the EI Camino, as you pointed out, is in fact - I think the
10 word is appropriate here. I think it is the perfect example of how this plan doesn't show any
11 aspect of gateway in the tree planting in those three different graphics shown right at that EI
12 Camino intersection.
13
14 The bigger point is about the sense of continuity. One very important aspect of design is
15 balancing sort of individual design decisions with broader public design decisions. A street is a
16 perfect example of that in that the architecture and the buildings are very individual. There
17 really is no this isn't like a shopping center. It is very individualized stores and offices and so
18 on along the street. What pulls together a street like this is the public domain and that is how
19 University works, that is how Castro Street works. By having a really strong theme it shows that
20 not only are we individuals, which are expressed in the individuality of the stores, but we are
21 also a community. If you don't do that, if it is all individualized and segmented then there is
22 really a statement that we really don't get along that well, we really can't decide on anything, it
23 is just all a series of individuals. The street, the purpose of a street, one of the main design
24 purposes besides access of course, is to tie things together into a community. That is why the
25 sense of continuity along the street is so important. Without that this project will never be
26 successfuL I think it is better to err on the side of continuity than to err on the side of
27 individuality.·
28
29 Board Member Lee: Thank you. I have one follow up comment. I am sorry that I forgot to
30 mention this. I had the opportunity to participate in a high-speed rail design workshop recently.
31 By chance I was working with a landscape architect at two tables devoted to Califomia Avenue.
32 Some of the comments that were received from community members were that part of the
33 identity of California Avenue is, and one person actually told us that California A venue is the
34 'avenue ofthe arts.' The history behind this street is that there has been a lot of public art. I
35 think that that is one other thing to note that should be kind of, obviously you have already begun
36 to think about it in tenns of where the fountain sits, but where those other public art pieces sit
37 and those should be mapped I think in any ofthese proposals so that we get as much infOlmation
38 as possible for the community and for this Board and the Planning Commission so that we
39 understand all of the markers and the identity of the street.
40
41 It looks like we might be able to take a break and move onto item number two. We do need to
42 continue this.
43
44 MOTION
45
46 Board Member Solnick: I will move to continue it.
City 0/ Palo A Ito Octobel' J 5, 2009 Page 180/19
1
2 Board Member Lee: Okay, thank you. There is a motion to continue this item.
3
4 SECOND
5
6 Board Member Malone-Prichard: Second.
7
8 MOTION PASSED (4-0-1-0, Board Member Wasserman absent)
9
10 Board Member Lee: All in favor? (ayes) That passes four to zero with one absent.
City 0/ Palo Alto October 15, 2009 Page 190/19
Califol'llia Avenue Street Restl'iping Project
Background
ATTACHMENT G
The improvement of the bicycle facilities along Califomia Avenue in the business district
was identified as a high priority project in the 2003 Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan
(Exhibit 1). The Recommended Bikeway Map (Exhibit 2) identified this area "enhance
bicycle safety -further study needed." In addition, Califomia A venue is included in the
Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development Combining District. The zoning regulations for
the PTOD foster densities to support transit use and pedestrian and bicycle travel.
During further Public Works public outreach effolis during the development of the scope
ofthe Califomia Avenue project in 2005/06, conu11lUlity members identified three high
priority elements: (1) improved pedestrian accommodations, (2) improved bicycle
accommodations and (3) improved street amenities.
Beginning in 2006, TranspOliation staff proposed reducing one travel lane in each
direction to provide more space for safe bicycle travel, by providing either one wider
shared lane or one travel lane with bike lanes in each direction. The street parking on
Califol11ia Avenue is a mixture of angled and parallel spaces. With input from the Palo
Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee, and recognizing the need to retain as much on-street
parking as possible, consideration has been given to creating a designated Class III
bicycle route in the business district with wide shared travel lanes while retaining
diagonal parking.
The intent of the streetscape plan is to develop transpo11ation and roadway improvements
for a safer, multi-modal street which better accol1lmodates bicycles, vehicles, and
pedestrians. Possible improvements include creating a signed bike route along Califomia
Avenue from Park Boulevard to EI Camino Real, reducing the number of travel lanes
from four to two, providing more visible colored "brick" pattem stamped asphalt
crosswalks, new diagonal parking spaces and new handicapped parking spaces, and
installing new bike racks on the sidewalks.
After further refinement, the street restliping concept plan will be presented at
community-wide meetings and to stakeholder groups (Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory
Committee, City/School Traffic Safety Committee, transit operators, etc.) in2010 to
solicit fUliher public before the concept plan is finalized. A fully vetted plan wil1lhen
undergo environmental review and be presented to the Planning and Transportation
Commission and City Council for review and approval.
Table 6-3
High Priority Projects -Total Estimated Cost
STRATEGIC IMPROVE::YIENTS
Project #
A. Bicycle Boulevards -Serves All Cyclists, School Commute
2 Castilleja/Park £3oulevard/Wilkie Way
28 Matadero Avenue/ylargarita Avenue
31 EI Camino Way/Maybell Avenue/Donald Drive
12 Everett A venue/Palo Alto Avenue
14 Homer A venue
16 Chaucer/Boyce/Melville
4 Extension of Bryant Street Bike Boulevard
B. Undercrossings -Serves All Cyclists, School Commute, Pedestrians
66 South Palo Alto Caltrain Undercrossing
61 Everett A venue Caltrain Undercrossing
60 California Avenue Caltrain Undercrossing .
62 Homer A venue Caltrain Undercrossing
C. Major Streets Routes
Exhibit A
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
~.
Estimated
Cost*
$66,256
$20.000
$14,034
$22,824
$21,924
$28,674
$29,757
$5,000,000
$5,000,000
$5,000.000
$5,000,000
1. Collectol's & Residential Arterials -Serves Skilled Cyclists, School Commute
30 Los Robles A venue Bike Lanes
24 Charleston Avenue/Arastradero Road Bike Lanes
6 Middlefield Road Bike Lanes
18 Embarcadero Road Bike Lanes
2. Major Arterial Streets -Serves Skilled Cyclists and Commuters
19 Califol11ia A venue (Business District)
3 A Ima Street
27 Hanover Street/Porter Drive Bike Lanes
I EI Camino Real Bike Route
33 West Arastradero Road (Alpine to Page Mill)
LOCAL OR SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
Intersections -Serves Skilled Cyclists and/or School Commute Routes
Arastradero/Ei Camino Real
Five Signalized Oregon Expressway Crossings
Stanford A venue/EI Camino Real
Churchill/El Camino Real
San Antonio/Charleston
San Antonio/Middlefield
Newell/Embarcadero
El Camino/Embarcadero
* Total estimated costs include 30% for contingency, design and administration.
343700
PALO ALTO BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
$81,545
$68,939
$208,591
$190,568
$245,473
$836,727
$671,765
$512,121
$88,636
$68,939
TBD
TBD
$100,000
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Page 6 - 9
ti:~'illf'-1(1 f1JfrJ..tOrl"~$1
~ .. ' ........
'·.";.i,U'I-f
.J~l!il
[~h-rr~l
~'~II:L't"""1'
It ... b.".
" ... w.I."",:!
hi.]f. fl'J..fri
:f,y,I;',',m;'J~;;-~H 1,,""Jl'l~~1¥.<;»i r;,~"
• b::rlq S ... -'f'c ;t.r~ . .!1 :!eliilil
• ~Ff1iII!1t bft~t',:~ ~·l:l:f~~ It,:~,ittt r:L
T-m~r\b
-0 ~.1~~_ DIi·&'l'w itir..:t~ !t-04 P:.;i!1:-'~Ei
~"~"'...I·Iti(ll,JtI
'l1"c;i\o''''''~!'~-tnt:'"
ill !<~'"' 111"'·: .... "...,7, "~
E:dlihU B
!Ji Ir'r~"""'(:1!'J~1
,.'1. :l~7"q: r':''1"t_i.~VI'H1
,I 'md~-!:'::'r-!'1
lit !t::IF!!·lrr~_~.r,L~~L fit:r:u'JU J,;j'! P.lilibl""Y·
Iii ~'!:Er-rn;,;1' 1",::T§1:!f
Iii ~_li.i't"iir!l"''''!:!iu.
fl'-ii~.4
,t:"'!pV"'J! .~
lijceewNtiliii)lt~I!¢l't:u: '.dfWl:J!!IlI:
Betten, Zariah
Subject: FW: California Avenue Tree Selection Comments
- ----Original Message - - - - -
From: r. rem ling@att . net [mailto: r . reml ing@att . net]
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 5:24 PM
To: Rooney, Kate
Cc: Council, City; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Boord
Subject: California Avenue Tree Selection Comments
Dear Katel
ATTACHMENT H
You asked me to tell you that I was the women who wore purple. Here is a short summary of my
comments and thoughts. I think I already mentioned most of them at the meeting, but there are
one or two other ideas that I felt I should add.
I have been a gardener in California for 20 years (San Jose: 8, and Palo Alto: 12). I am by no
means a street tree expert, but I am thinking about this problem as jf it were my backyard,
which it is in away, since I spend many a Sunday morning there. I did take some horticulture
classes at Foothill which may also influence some of my comments.
1. There is wonderful permeable concrete available now. One example can be seen at the Blue Sky
Nursery and Cafe in Half Moon Bay. The owners will gladly share information with you about it,
and I see no problem applying it on wafkabfe surfaces (I think they even use it for their parking
area, and there may be some street surface also, but I'm not sure)
http://blueskyfarmsltd . com/contact. php
2. Diversity is good. It does not only look more interesting, but it is also healthier. Different
trees attract different insects that keep each other in check. And if some trees should get
diseased, one only has to replace one species (hopefully). It looks to me that roughly 70 trees
need to be replaced. For the bulk of it I would recommend to pick 10 good choices and use about
7 per type. That would be my preferencel I also recommend that each business owner should get
input on the trees in front of their business.
The arborists know much more about which types of trees should be selected than I do. I just
would minimize acorns and other trip hazards, and of course keep long-term maintenance cost
(including water needs) in mind.
3. As for deciduous Vs evergreens: I would pick more deciduous trees for the South side of the
street (the side Cafe Brioche is on), simply because that side will be more in the shade, and .in
Winter it would be nice to have some more light coming through. Since the sun is lower then, it
will also allow more light into the street (for the Farmer's Market) and to the North side
businesses.
1
4. I am still concerned about the longevity of the trees. I would hope that at least some species
are picked that we can expect to live for more than 30-40 years. I understand that it is a
challenging environment, but maybe we need to look at some trees that excel in that type of
environment. I am no expert, but maybe some palms, or desert trees (Le. mesquite -honey
mesquite can survive the winters in EI Paso, TX) could be mixed in.
5. Here comes a point dear to my heart. We live in Palo Alto, our name (and emblem) includes a
Redwood tree. Would it be possible to get ONE single Redwood tree planted on the island between
the fountain and the railroad tracks (closer to the tracks)? I think it would make a wonderful
focal point driving or walking down California street in this direction, there may be enough room to
let it grow for the next 100 years or more, and I think it would fit into the staggered color pallet
framing the fountain which is already in the plan. It will be visible driving up and down Alma, and
at least the trunk will be visible from the train. It could become a true signature tree for our
town. I understand that it has high water needs, but I hope the town can afford ONE tree I ike
that.
6. When I lived in San Jose in the early 1990s, the downtown tree planting project asked for
donations and volunteers. So my husband and I already have our names on one of the trees there.
I wonder if a tree adoption project could also help here. I did not really perceive a budget
problem for this project at yesterday's meeting, but it may be another way to include Palo Altans
and solidify their ownership on these trees,
7. As mentioned yesterday, maybe Palo Alto could borrow some of the trees that are boxed up on
Stanford's Campus Drive (near the gas station and the sports center). I have no details as to why
they are there, but it seems to me that they were removed for construction and are waiting to be
placed when the construction is finished, so the timing may work out very well. They may allow
more immediate beautification for this holiday season on California Street -just a thought.
8. And here is my last and final concern:
In the meeting yesterday, I got two for me contradicting messages. We want to plant the trees
as soon as possible, and we have to wait untif the new plan is approved (and I do not even want to
go into striping, etc. and how this may be related to the trees).
If I understand it correctly then
* the sites and sizes for the holes are all finalized,
* trees of good quality may be difficult to come by on short notice (although, it may be easier
than in previous years, due to the economy),
* site preparation may not start until mid/late November,
* site prep will take several weeks, or may not happen right away due to the holiday season, and
this means that
* the trees may potentially need to be planted in January and February.
If we plan to get the trees in place at the optimum time (November 1, +/ -one month) or as close
to it as possible, it allows the roots to get established a little bit before the ground gets too cold
and they shut down. This would prepare them optimally for a good growing season next spring.
2
If the planting gets delayed to March (which could happen if there is any delay in the approval
process), then the water and maintenance needs of the trees will be much higher to get them
ready to leaf out and get ready to pull the nutrients they need for a successful first year of
growth. At that time, it may be better to plan for planting in November 2010.
Anything that can be done to PARALLEL PROCESS, and plant even just some trees sooner rather
than later will be beneficial to the trees and their growth. The sites with their optimized soil
preparation will need to be prepared no matter what, it would be good if we don 't have to wait on
that and just pull it in. We may have to wait for the trees (which we still need to select). But -
in my humble opinion -that really should be the bottle neck here, not site prepl
Thank you very much for listening and your consideration. Please let me know if you have any
questions, or if I can help in any way.
Sincerely,
Roswitha Remling
3
DRAFT ADOPTBD ON:
ATTACHMENT I
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Cali/ornia Environmental Quality Act .
DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Date: October 20, 2009
Project Name:
Project Location:
Applicant:
Owner:
Project Description:
California Avenue Streetscape hnprovements -Phase I
The project site is centrally located in the city of Palo Alto, in the
northern part of Santa Clara COWlty, west of U.S. Highway 101 and east
of State Route 82 (EI Camino Real). The project area is limited to the
100 through 400 blocks of California Avenue, which is bounded by the
Caltrain station to the east and El Camino Real to the west.
City of Palo Alto, Public Works Engineering
Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
The California Avenue Streetscape hnprovements have been divided into two phases. Phase I is
comprised of the replacement and addition of approximately 65 street trees and Phase II is
cODlprised of various upgrades that may include replacern,ent of street benches, news racks,
waste receptacles, replacement and addition of bicycle racks, crosswalk improvements,
additional parking and possible restriping of roadway lane configuration to reduce travel lanes
and make the street more bicycle and pedestrian friendly.
This environmental review will focus on Phase I of the project. Phase II, will undergo separate
environmental analysis when the project components have been detennined.
II. DETERMINATION
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 determlnati~n:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION Is hereby adopted.
X 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 have been added to the project and,
therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
~l~\,\Ur~""'~~~Wi\1!:aI'lI aRNlll~~~i" ...
The attached' initial study incorporates all relevant infonnation regarding the potential
enviromnental effects of the project and confinns the detennination that an EIR is not required
for the project.
__ "'_I"'_ .. _fi<iII' ______ III4l ___ ..... ~nmooU!l<
In addition, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project:
Aesthetics -1: A reforestation and landscape plan to replace removed trees in place or add trees
in optimum locations shall be approved by the City Council.
Aesthetics -2: Replacement tree characteristics (species, size" location, etc.) shall be
promulgated by city staff and consultants, with input by the public and stakeholders. Planting
basin design shall provide acceptable growing conditions that increase root and canopy growth
(versus standard 3' x 3' planting traditions).
Aesthetics -3: Other landscape enhancements shall be considered to serve as temporary
greening elements along the streetscape during the establishment period of the new trees.
Enhancements shall consider placement'oflarge decorative planter pots behind curb spaced apart
from the newly planted sidewalk trees; planted with a combination of fragrant or showy or
unique shrubbery (such as rosemary, carpet rose, ornamental grasses); or small trees, evergreen
(yew pine, citrus or Carolina laurel) or deciduous (flowering maple, princess flower or crape
1J'!lJ:r!~~ ___ ~~' ___ ~_I ___ ,'i!< __ ....".._:.t
Adopted by City Council, Attested by Date
Director of Planning and Community Environment
Signed after the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been approved
Page 2 of2
California Avenue
Streetscape Improvements
Phase I
Initial Study
Prepared by
City of Palo Alto
October 20, 2009
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page I Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 3
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ..................... 7
A. AESTHETICS .......................................................................................................... 8
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES .............................................. 1 0
C. AIR QUALITy ...................................................................................................... 11
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 12
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................. 13
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY .............................................................. 14
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..................................................................... 15
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................. 16
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .......................................................... 17
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................ 19
K. MINERAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 19
L. NOISE .................................................................................................................... 20
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING ......................................................................... 21
N. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................. 22
O. RECREATION ...................................................................................................... 22
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ................................................................ 23
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .............................................................. 24
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCB. .............................................. 25
III. SOURCE REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 27
IV. DETERMINATION ....................................................................................................... 28
CaIifomia Avenue Streetscape Improvements Phase [ Page 2 Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. PROJECT TITLE
California A venue Streets cape Improvements -Phase I
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, Planner
City of Palo Alto
650-617-3191
4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto, Public Works Engineering
Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer
5. APPLICATION NUMBER
09PLN-00176
6. PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is centrally located in the city of Palo Alto, in the northem part of Santa Clara
County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and east of State Route 82 (EI Camino Real), as shown on
Figure I, Regional Map. The project area is limited to the 100 through 400 blocks of California
A venue, which is bounded by the Caltrain station to the east and EI Camino Real to the west,
as shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map.
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements Phase I Page 3 Initial Study
~
IIIIlull
I>:
h.;~r'J d
I ~I "j ';
U111flrCfIJ
ftlti.l!;(~h .
'-!-",Uutlt
@I:I
iMllflfo'Plllk
'&'
1IIIU·,jd
lh,k',
':i!;ill~l;f l{~(C'J.fl.\'. .":; .c.;1l"-~"
h"I;) 'I~
t!:·I(\'~1 ~:·I.l."'''i P.lI.1,.
','
" r~ICJWIO "I'poil 01,50"13 Gill'''' COlmlY, .f.
,®
. 'PaIQ ,\110
. (l!,ylun"~8af,~
• '-~:"'J1td<j !~\:~iljh
Figure 1: Regional Map
.JOIlY
··I.!IlWUOII
'lark .. f.
OtegOI'll"
III C.\I.~,~·C.i\I,I .... .,.... AVA
.,
I
Figure 2: Vicinity Map
Avenue Sireel8cApe Improvemenls Phase I Page 4 Inililll Study
7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The pmject area is designated as Regional/Community Commercial in the Palo Alto 1998 -
20 I 0 Comprehensive Plan. This land use designation includes larger shopping centers and
districts that have wider variety goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas.
They rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores,
furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters, and non-retail services such as
offices and banks. California Avenue is designated as a "collector" street in Palo Alto's
roadway hierarchy. This type of roadway collects and distributes local traffic to and from
alterial streets and provides access to adjacent properties.
8. ZONING
The project area is zoned CC(2)(R)(P), Community Commercial (2) with a Retail and
Pedestrian shopping combining district overlay. The project area also falls within the
boundaries of the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) overlay district. The
project will not result in a change of use and does not conflict with the existing zoning.
The CC Community Commercial district is intended to create and maintain major commercial
centers accommodating a broad range of office, retail sales, and other commercial activities of
community-wide or regional significance. The CC community commercial district is intended
to be applied to regional/community commercial centers identified by the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan. The community commercial (2) (CC(2)) subdistrict is intended to modifY
the site development regulations of the CC community commercial district, where applied in
combination with such district, to allow site specific variations to the community commercial
uses and development requirements in the CC district.
The (R) Retail shopping combining district is intended to modifY the uses allowed in a
commercial district, where applied in combination with such district, to allow only retail,
eating and service oriented commercial development on the ground floors.
The (P) Pedestrian shopping combining district is intended to modifY the regulations of the CC
community commercial district in locations where it is deemed essential to foster the continuity
of retail stores and display windows and to avoid a monotonous pedesttian environment in
order to establish and maintain an economically healthy retail district.
The California A venue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining
District is intended to allow higher density residential dwellings on commercial, industrial and
multi-family parcels within a walkable distance of the California Avenue Caltrain station,
while protecting low density residential parcels and parcels with historical resources that may
also be located in or adjacent to this area. The combining district is intended to foster densities
and facilities that: (1) Support use of public transportation; (2) Encourage a variety of housing
types, commercial retail and limited office uses; (3) Encourage project design that achieves an
overall context-based development for the PTOD overlay area; (4) Require streetscape design
elements that are attractive pedestrians and bicyclists; (5) Increase connectivity to surrounding
existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and (6) Implement the city's Housing
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements Phase r Page Initial Study
Element and Comprehensive Plan. A. PTOD combining district may be applied to a parcel
through rezoning of the site that is within the specified boundaries of the district.
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Background
In 2005, the California Avenue Area Development Association (CAADA) submitted a request
to the City for streetscape improvements including street tree and street light replacement,
traffic lane reduction, addition of bicycle lanes and pedestrian crosswalks, new street furniture,
new newspaper racks and fountain repair. The existing street trees were reaching the end of
their life span, some were conflicting with street lights and store fronts, and some had already
been removed because of disease ..
In 2006, CAADA worked with the City on developing a general master plan for the area in
order to seek grant funding. Staff developed a conceptual streetscape plan for the area and
applied for grant funding from the Metropolitan Transp0l1ation Commission. The California
Avenue streetscape plan called for a complete and more uniform tree canopy, street
improvements and other amenities.
When the grant application was unsuccessful, the City sought to address portions of the project
through the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and continued to work with CAADA
on the certain elements of the plan including street tree replacement, street lights, street
furniture, fountain replacement, new trash/recycling containers and newspaper racks. In 2007,
Public Works staff surveyed California Avenue and identified trees which were candidates for
removal based on the following criteria: health, structure, placement and aesthetics, and in
addition, identified potential sites for new tree installations. The survey reflects approximately
92 tree sites that include 68 existing trees and 24 potential new tree locations. None of the trees
along California A venue were heritage or protected trees. In January 2009, due to the high
cost of replacing the street light system, staff decided to eliminate streetlight work from the
project and use this money to replace street trees. This change was reflected in an updated
description of the CIP.
A tentative staff~level Architectural Review approval was issued on September 14, 2009 for
the above project. The tentative approval letter described a 14 day request for public hearing
period within which a request for hearing before the Architectural Review Board (ARB) may
be submitted. It was during this 14 day request for hearing period that the project prematurely
proceeded and 63 street trees were removed.
Proposed Project
The California Avenue Streetscape Improvements have been divided into two phases. Phase I
is comprised of the replacement and addition of approximately 65 street trees (see attached
map) and Phase II is comprised of various upgrades that may include replacement of street
benches, news racks, waste receptacles, replacement and addition of bicycle racks, crosswalk
improvements, additional parking and possible restriping of roadway lane configuration to
reduce travel lanes and make the street more bicycle and pedestrian friendly.
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 6 Initial Study
This environmental review will focus on Phase I of the project. Phase II, will undergo separate
environmental analysis when the project components have been determined.
10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The project area is a commercial zone with a variety of restaurants, retail and grocely stores
and is surrounded primarily with similar non-residential uses within a two block radius. Further
to the n0l1h and south, residential uses become the dominant land use.
11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED
Not applicable.
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 offMsite as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as projectMlevel, indirect as well as direct, and constluction as well as operational
impacts.
3) Once the lead agency· has determined that a pm1icular 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 ElR 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 ElR 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.
California Avenue Streetscape Iniprovements -Phase I Page 1 Initial Study
b) Impacts Adequately Addl'essed, 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 meaSllres 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 I'efined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions fOl' 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 previollsly prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page 01' pages where the statement is
substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used 01' individuals
contacted should be cited in the discllssion.
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, ifany, 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. Discllssions 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 Po te n tia lIy Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Substantially degrade the existing visual 1,2,5,7 X
character or quality ofthe site and its
surroundings?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 1,2-MapU, X
public view or view cOI'ridor? 5, 7
c) Substantially damage scenic resources, I, 2-Map U, X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock 5
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
d) Violate existing Compre 2,5,7 X
policies. -" visual resources?
e) Create a new sOllrce of substantial light or 1,5,6 X
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in Ihe area?
f) Substantially shadow public opeuspace 1,5,6 X
(other than public streets and adjacent
sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. from September 21 to March 21?
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements Phase I Page 8 Initial Study
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project includes the replacement of approximately 65 mature street trees along the
designated California Avenue project area. As part of the tree replanting, new trees will be added and
some will be moved to more appropriate locations along the sidewalk. The removal of the trees has
potential significant visual impacts unless mitigation is incorporated.
The pre-existing public trees in the project area consisted of a variety of species, mixed ages and size.
Individual tree conditions varied broadly. The tree health cond itions ranged from fair to poor health,
due to less than favorable growing conditions such as limited above ground clearance from buildings,
constricted trunk and planter space in the sidewalk and inadequate soil volume for long term root
growth. SeparateJy, the branch and trunk structure of most of the trees was fair, although many of the
trees had scarred or damaged limbs or trunk from vehicular contact over the years
The City has solicited input from Canopy (www.t:anopv,org), a Palo Alto based urban forestry
nonprofit organization, and BaITY Coate, a well-respected arborist in the Bay Area, along with
community input on the tree replacement species, size and location. The project is subject to review to
ensure that the final design and plant selection meets the City's Architectural Review standards, which
promotes visual environments that are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same
time, are considerate of each other. The final landscape plans will also be reviewed by the Planning
and Transportation Commission and City Council who will make the decision on the project. These
public hearings along with additional community meetings provide the community opportunities to
give input and to be included in the process.
Mitigation Measures:
Aesthetics -1: A reforesta tion and tandscape plan to replace removed trees in place or add trees in
optimum locations shall be approved by the City Council.
Aesthetics -2: Replacement tree characteristics (species, size, location, etc.) shall be promulgated by
city staff and consultants, with input by the public and stakeholders. Planting basin design shall
provide acceptable growing conditions that increase root and canopy growth (versus standard 3' x 3'
planting traditions),
Aesthetics -3: Other landscape enhancements shall be considered to serve as temporary greening
eLements along the streetscape during the establishment period of the new trees. Enhancements shall
consider placement of large decorative pLanter pots behind curb spaced apart from the newly planted
sidewalk trees; planted with a combination of fragrant or showy or unique shrubbery (such as
rosemary, carpet rose, ornamental grasses); or small trees, evergreen (yew pine, citrus or Carolina
laurel) or deciduous (flowering maple, princess flower or crape myrtle).
Significance after Mitigation: Less Than Significant
--------------::---' -----~,
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 9 foitial Study
B. AGRlCULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
In detelmining whether impacts to agricultmal 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.
In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state's inventory offOl'est land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest
Legacy Assessment project; and the fOl'est carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols
adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially PotentiaJJy Less Than No
Slgnilicant Significant Signlficallt Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
MitIgation
Incorporated
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, 1 X
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping arid
Monitol'ing Program of the California
Resollrces Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,2-MapL9 X
lise, 01' a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause 1 X
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section I 2220(g) I) or
timberland (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 45262)?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion 1 X
e)
offorest land to non-forest use?
Involve other changes in the existing 1 X
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Fanlliand, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest lise?
DISCUSSION:
The project area is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Fannland", or "Farmland of Statewide
Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Fannland Mapping and Monitoring Program
I PRC 12220(g): "Forest land" is land that can SUppOlt lO-percent native tree cover of any species,
including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest
resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and
other public benefits,
2 PRC 4526: "Timberland" means land, other than land owned by the federal government and land
designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a
crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including
Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis after
consultation with the district committees and others.
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements Phase) Page Initial Snldy
of the Califomia Resources Agency, The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by
the Williamson Act. The project area is within a fully developed urban area and has no impacts on
forest or timberland,
Mitigation Measures: None Required
C. AIR QUALITY
Issues and Suppol'ting Information Resources I Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Signlftcant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless (mpact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation 1,5 X
ofthe applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay
Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected ah'
quality violation indicated by the following:
i. Direct and/or indirect operational 1,5 X
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 pal1iculate matter ofless than 10
microns in diameter (PM IO);
ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) 1,5 X
concentrations exceeding the State
Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine
parts pel' million (ppm) averaged over
eight hOllrs or 20 ppm fOl' one hour( as
demonstrated by CALlNE4 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 P; or c) project would increase
traffic volumes on nearby roadways by
10% or more)?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 1,5 X
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal 01' state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed qUflntitative thresholds for ozone
precursors )1
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels 1,5 X
of toxic air contaminants?
I. Probability of contracting cancer for the 1 X
Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl)
•
exceeds 10 in one million
California Avenlle Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 11 Initial Study
•
I
e)
f)
Issues and Supporting Infonnatlon ReSOUI'ces I
Sources Potentially Potentially Less Tllan No
Significant Signiflcant S igo iflcan t Impact
Would the pl'oject: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
it Ground-level concentrations of non-1 X
carcinogenic TACs would result in a
hazard index greater than one ( I) fol' the
MEl
Create objectionable odors affecting a 1 X
substantial number of people?
Not implement all applicable construction 1 X
emission control measures recommended in the
Bay Area Air QlIality Management District
CEQA Guidelines?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project involves minimal construction activity and therefore will not conflict with any
applicable air quality plans, expose any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants, nor add any
objectionable odors to the neighborhood. Palo Alto is located within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), this regional agency regulates air pollutant emissions
from stationary sources and through its planning and review process. All development in Palo Alto is
subject to the BAAQMD regulations,
Mitigation Measures: None Required
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supp0l1ing Infol'mation Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significnnt Signiflcant Signiflcant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 1,2-MapNI, X
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
5,7
or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
Califomia Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Selvice? I
b) Have a substantial adverse effect 011 any 1,2-MapNI, X
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
5,7
policies, regulations, including federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vemal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
internlption, or other means? i
c) Interfere substantially with the movement of 1,8-MapNl, X
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
5,7
migratOlY wildlife corridors, or impede the lise
of native wildlife nursery siles?
California Avenue Strcetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 12 fnitial Shldy
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentinlly Potentinlly Less Tllnn No
Significnnt Significant SignificHnt ImpHct
Would the project: Issues Unless ImpHct
Mitigation
IncorporHted
d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 1,2,3,4,5,7 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 1,5 X
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
DISCUSSION:
The project area is located within a fully developed urban setting, There are no sensitive plant or
animal species identified in this area, The street trees to be replaced are not species identitied as
"protected" under the City's municipal code and their removal did not conflict with local ordinances.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
E. CUL TURAL RESOURCES
lssues and Supporting Information Resources Soul'ces PotentiHlly Potentially Less ThHn No
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
SignificHnt Significant Significant ImpHct
Would the project: Issues Unless ImpHct
Mitigation
IncorpOl'ated
Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural l,tO X
resource that is recognized by City Council
resolution?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1,2-MapL8 X
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 1,2-MapL8 X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2-MapL8 X
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Adversely affect a historic resource listed or 1,2-MapL7, X
eligible for listing on the National and/or 10
California Register, 01' listed on the City'S
Historic Inventory?
Eliminate important examples of major periods I X
of Califomia history or prehistory?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project involves minor construction activities within the public right-of-way that is
located within a fully developed and previously disturbed area. The proposed project will not create
any cultural impacts to the affected area. 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
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 13 Initial Study
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
Califol11ia, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in
mitigation planning.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Siguificant 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 eat1hquake fault, 11 X
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Pdolo Ea11hquake 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) Stron~ seismic ground shaking? 2-MapNIO X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, 2-MapNS X
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? 2-MapNS I X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss 1 X
of topsoil?
c) Result in substantial siltation? I X
d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 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?
c) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in 2-MapN5 X
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantiallisks to
life or property?
f) Have soils incapable of adequately 1 X
SUppo11ing the use of septic tanks or
altemative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
g) Expose people or property to major 1,5 X
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 14 Initial Study
I
.------~ .... --.-~----___ ___,----___r_----.,____----__r_----.__--__, geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated
through the use of standard engineering
_<iesign and seismics~a~fe~~~tY,,--te_c_hn_i-&g_ue_s_? ___ -,--____ ~ ___ --"L--_~ ___ -'-___ --' ___ -.J
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project involves minor construction activities within the public right of way (sidewalk)
of a fully developed commercial area. Although the project is located in an area with expansive soils
and has a high potential for surface rupture along fault traces and potential for earthquake-induced
landslides where sloped, the tree installation project is limited to defined planting areas/tree wells that
are bounded by concrete and/or the curb. The proposed project would not create any new geology,
soils and seismicity impacts.
Generally, 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 result in any significant adverse
short or long-term impacts related to geology, soils or seismicity.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources PotentiRlly Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant SlgnlficRnt Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless ImpRct
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Generate greenhollse gas emissions, either 1,5,9 X
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or 1,5,9 X
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhollsegases?
DISCUSSION:
While the state of Califomia has established programs to reduce GHG, there are no established standards for
gauging the significance of greenhouse gas emissions. Neither CEQA nor the CEQ A Guidelines provide any
methodology for analysis of greenhollse 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 fi'om the
environment in which it would occur, and what mitigation measures are available to avoid or reduce impacts.
Although greenhouse gas emissions generated by development projects in the City of Palo Alto, 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.
California A venue Slreetscape Improvemenls -Phase I Page 15 Initial Study
I
Trees and GHG
Although approximately 65 trees were removed from California A venue, the project includes replacement and
the installation of additional trees along the same area. Trees in cities affect GHG in three main ways:
l. As they grow, they remove carbon dioxide and other GHG from the atmosphere and sequester them in their
leaves, branches, trunks and roots; when the trees die, however, the carbon is released back into the air
through decomposition.
2. By shading buildings in summer and blocking cold winter winds, trees reduce electricity and natural gas
use, which reduces the production of GHG at the power plant or home furnace.
3. Wood from dead trees can be used to produce energy, create biofuel, and for thermal heat and cooling,
replacing fuels that produce more GHG.
The pl'oject is minor in scope and will not have an overall significant effect on carbon sequestration. Trees
provide a temporary holding place for GHG, and the installation of replacement and new trees would offset the
minimal impacts that the removal may make.
In an effOl·t to make a good faith effort at disclosing environmental impacts and to conform with the CEQ A
Guidelines [§ l6064(b )], it is the City's position that, based on the nature and size of this project, 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 Ol'der S-3·05, AB 32 and the City's Climate Protection Plan. For these reasons,
this project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change associated with
greenhouse gas emissions. As such, impacts are considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health and Safety if the
ltd t b . t th th h d t' I primary Issues are re a e o a su 'lee 0 er an azar. ous ma erla use.
Issues aud 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 1,5 X
environment through the routing transport, use,
01' disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,5 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 1,5 X
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Conslmct a school on a property that is subject 1,5 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
Califol11ia A venue Streetscape Improvements Phase I Page 16 Initial Study
I
result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
f) For a project located within an airport land use I 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 in a safety
hazard for people residing or working the
project area?
h) Impair implementation of or physically 1,2-MapN7 X
i)
j)
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk 1,2-MapN7 X
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,5 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?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project is minor in scope and does not involve the use, creation or transportation of
hazardous materials. California Avenue is not designated as an evacuation route nor located within or
near the wildland fire danger area. The proposed project would have no impacts with regard to public
safety, hazards and hazardous materials.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Signincant Significant Signincllnt Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 1,2,5 X
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 2-MapN2 X
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
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)?
Califol1lia Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 17 rnitial Study
Cf-Substantially alter the existing drainage patlern 1,5 X
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would resull in substantial
erosion or sil!alion on-or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,5 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 runoffin a manner which would result
in flooding on-or off-site?
e) Crente or contribute runoff water which would 1,5 I X I I exceed the capaci ly of existing or planned I ~
I s\ormwater drainage systems or provide
I
substantial additional sources of polluted
I i runoff?
r-t) Otherwise substantially degrade w!lter quality? 1,5 X
g) Place housing within a tOO-year flood hazard 2-MapN6 X
,
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard i
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rale Map or I other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-ye~lr flood hazard area 2-MapN6 • X
structures which would impede or redirect ! flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures loa significant risk 2.MapN8 X
of loss, injury or death involve flooding,
including flooding as a result of the faillll'e ofa
levee or dam or being located within a IOO-year
tlood hazard arel:l?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow? 2-MapN6 X
k) Result in stream bank instability? 1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project involves minimal construction activities and is not anticipated to create any new
hydrology and water quality impacts.
All development is required to comply with building codes that addrcss flood safety issues.
Development projects are required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction
activities as specified by the California Stom1 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 conuibution 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 pCltaining to storm water nm-off and water
quality.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Califomia Avenue Streetscape ImprovemenlS -Phase 1 Page 18 Initial Study
I
I
J. 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? 1,5 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 genel'al plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? i
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 1,2 X
conservation plan or natural community
consel'vatio~n?
d) Substantially adversely change the type 01' 1,5 X
intensity of existing or planned land use in the
area?
e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with 1,5 X
the general character of the surrounding area,
including density and building height?
f) Conflict with established residential, 1,5 X
recreational, educational, religious, or scientific
uses of an area?
g) Convert prime falmland, unique farmland, 01' 1,2,3 X
farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to
non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project involves minor work in the public right-of-way (sidewalk) and does not impact the
existing land uses along Califomia Avenue. The improvements are intended to compliment and enhance the
existing commercial district and are not anticipated to create any land use impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
K. MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Thall No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: IsslIes Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incoroorated
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 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
impol'tanl mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land lise plan?
DISCUSSION:
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 19 Initial Study
I
i
I
I
The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Departmet:J,t of Conservation (DOC),
Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ~ I). 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.
L. NOISE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Tllan No Impact
Signiticant Significant Significant
Would tbe project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation i
Illcorporated
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise 1,2,12 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 01' generation of 1,2,12 X
excessive ground borne vibrations or ground
borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient 1,2,12 X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 1,2,12 X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land lise 1 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?
t) For a project within the vicinity of a private 1 X
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing 01' working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to 1 I X
increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an
existing residential area, even if the Ldn would
i remain below 60 dB'?
h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in 1 X
an existing residential area, thereby causing the
Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?
i) Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an 1 X
existing residential area where the Ldn
currently exceeds 60 dB? i I
j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1 X
I development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?
k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1 X . i
than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other
rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or
greater?
I) Generate construction noise exceeding the 1,12 X
California Avenue Strcelscape Improvements -Phase I Page 20 Initial Study
a)
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially , Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors
by 10 dBA or more?
DISCUSSION:
AU development, 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 construction
activity. Short-term temporary constmction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in
impacts that are expected to be less than significant. The project is located in busy commercial district
with an active train station in the immediate vicinity; the existing noise conditions are not quiet and the
temporary construction activities will not create any new significant noise impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources I Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
S ignifican t Significant SignlOcant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Induce substantial population growth in an I X
area, either dil'ectly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
I infi'astructure )?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing I X
c)
d)
e)
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, 1 X
necessitating the construction of replacement
housi~g elsewhere?
Create a substantial imbalance between 1 X
emj)loyed residents and jobs?
Cumulatively exceed regional or local 1 X
population projections?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project involves minor work in the public right-of-way (sidewalk) and does not encourage
development and therefore will not create any new population and housing impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 21 Initial Study
i
N. PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues and Supporting Information Resourtes Sources Potentially Potentially 1 Less Than No Impact I
Signmcant Signll1ca nt Significant
Would the proJett: Issues Unless Inlpact
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 01' physically altered governmental
facilities, the constrllction of which could calise
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? I X
b) Police protection? I X
c) Schools? I X
d) Parks? I X
e) Other public facilities? I X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project involves minor work in the public right-of-way (sidewalk) and does not encourage
growth and development and is not anticipated to generate new users as to create impacts to the
existing public services for the City.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
O. RECREATION
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
SlgnlHcant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Would tile project increase the use of 1 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 X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
en v ironment?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project involves minor work in the public right-of-way (sidewalk) and does not
encourage growth and development in the City and is not anticipated to generate new users as to create
impacts to the existing City recreational facilities.
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 22 Initial Study
I
I
Mitigation Measures: None Required
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
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 the capacity ofthe existing 1,5 X
circulation system, based on an applicable
measure of effectiveness (as designated in a
general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking
into account all relevant components of the
circulation system, including but not limited
to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion 1,5 X
management program, including but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic pattems, 1,5 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 1,5 X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., frum equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,5 X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,5 X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 1,2,5 X
programs supporting altemative
transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit &
bicycle facilities)?
h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection 1,5 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
vohune/capacity ratio (VIC) value to increase
by 0.01 or more?
i) Cause a local intersection already operating at 1,5 X
LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more?
j) Calise a regional intersection to deteriorate 1,5 X
from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause
critical movement delay at such an
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase r 23 Initial Study
intersection already operating at LOS F to 1
I
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 1,5 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 1,5 X
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
m) Cause queuing impacts based on a 1,5 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 spill back Queues on ramps.
n) Impede the development or ftmction of 1,5 X
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? ..
0) Impede the operation of a transit system as a 1,5 i ." X
result of congestion?
p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project involves minor wOl'k in the pubJic .. ight~of-way (sidewalk) and does not encourage
growth and development and is not anticipated to create traffic, transportation or parking impacts.
Mitigation: None Required
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than I No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exceed wastewater h'eatment requirements of 1,5 X
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new 1,5 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 1,5 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 1,5 X
California Avenue ~treetscape Improvements -Phase I PIIge24 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially ! Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
MItigation
i Incorporated
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 1,5 X
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project thut it has inadequate
i capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient l,5 X
permitled capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes 1,5 X
and !egulations reluted to solid waste?
h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration 1,5 X
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the Prul~ct?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project does not encourage growth and development and therefore no increase in the
demand on existing utilities and service systems or impacts to these services are expected.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues and Supporting InformatlOlI Resources I
Would the project: .
i
Sources
a) Does the project have the potential to I ,2,3,4,7, I 0
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 I
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
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
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
LesllThan
Significant
Impact
x
x
No Impact
,--_e;;.;;ffi=-ec~l~ ofprobabJe future pro: ... ie;:-.:c:..ctsCj,)..;;..? ________ ._----'-_____ -'-__ . ____ L-___ .~ ____ ---"
California Avenue Slreetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 25 Initial Study
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial eyaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a' significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there wlll 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 X
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will 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 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.
to .. Zo-cer
Date
California A venue Streetscape Improvements -Page 28 Initial Study
CALIFORNIA AVENUE SITE PLAN
SCALE: ,"=40'
LEGENDS:
~ (E)BENCH TO BE REPLACED GJ (E)TRASH RECEPTACLE
~ (N)BENCH ® (E)KIOSK
B~ (E)BUS BENCH TO REMAIN
~ (N) BIKE RACK
(E)STREET TREE w~ (E)WALL BENCH TO REMAIN REMOVE (E)STREET TF
p
(N) RED MAPLE ~ (E)PRIVATE BENCH TO REMAIN •
_ (E)NEWSRACK .'. R/R (E)STREET TREE
(#=NUMBER OF RACKS) ~+~ R/R (E)STREET TREE
(E)STREET LIGHT W/ ® R/R (E)STREET TREE
POLE # • R/R (E)STREET TREE
(E)DOUBLE HEAD STREET
LIGHT W/ POLE #
~
· ATTACHMENT B
MTC Capital Grant Application for California
Streetscape Improvements, June 23, 2006
This document can be viewed on the web at the following address
under "Capital Grant Application" tow·ards the 'bottom of the page:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=139
4&TargetID=268
(E) SPECIES
TREE N0'I or (N) TREE
1 Holly Oak
• 2 Holly Oak
3 Holly Oak
4 London Plane
5 Blue Spruce
6 Pistache
7 Pistache
8 Pistache .... -.
9 Pistache
10 Pistache 1-------11 Pistache
12 Pistache
13 Stone Pine
14 Stone Pine
15 Stone Pine
16 Stone Pine
17 Liquid Ambar
18 Blue Spruce
19 Holly Oak
20 Holly Oak
21 Pittosporum !
22 Red Oak
23 Bottle Brush
24 Holly Oak
25 New tree
26 Blue Spruce
27 New tree
28 New tree
29 New tree
30 Holly Oak
31 Holly Oak
32 New tree
33 New tree
34 Holly Oak
~-35 New tree
36 Holly Oak
37 Holly Oak. -38 New tree
39 Holly Oak
40 Holly Oak
41 New tree r 42 Holly Oak
43 New tree
44 Holly Oak
45 Holly Oak
46 New tree
47 New tree
48 Holly Oak
49 Blue Spruce
50 Bottle Brush
51 New tree
2007 Tree Location/Condition Survey
California Avenue
HEALTH STRUCTURE PLACEMENT AESTHETICS
0-4 pts 0-4pts 0-4 pts 0-4 pts DISPOSITION
3 3 3 1 Remove & replace w/London Plane
2 3 4 1 . Remove & replace w/L9ndon Plane
1 3 4 1 Remove & replace w/London Plane
4 4 3 3 Keep
2 2 1 1 Remove & replace w/Pistache
3 3 4 4 Keep .. _.
3 3 4 4 Keep
3 3 4 4 Keep
" -3 3 4 4 Keep
~
3 3 4 4 Keep
3 3 4 1 Keep
3 3 4 4 Keep
Remove & replace w/Pistache in (N) site
Remove & replace w/Pistache in (N) site
Remove & replace w/Pistache in (N) site
Remove & replace w/Plstache in (N) site
2 1 0 2 Keep
1 2 4 2 Remove & demo planter, plant (N) tree
Remove, do~ot replace, poor site
2 1 4 1 Remove & re21ace, move 8 ft east
Remove, demo planter, replace 6 ft east
Remove & replace, improve site
Remove, no replacement
3 1 4 2 Remove & replace -In front of 103 Cal Ave --Remove, demo planter, plant w/new tree
Plant new tree in-(e) planter@260 Cal Ave
Reestablish site in front of 260 Cal Ave
New tree in front of 260 Cal Ave
3 3 3 3 Keep
3 2 3 3 Keep. Consider R&R in (N) bulb-out
lin (N) bulb-out @ 310 Cal Ave
East of door @ 320 Cal Ave, consider bus stop
R&R 13 ft east
In bulb-out bet 344 Cal Ave & crosswalk
3 2 4 3 Keep
Keep . ....... -
At 370 Cal Ave in reconfigured bulb-out --Keep ---Keep
5 ft east of #42 --Remove
At Bank of West, consider crosswalk
3 1 1 3 Remove
2 3 4 3 Keep
At 454 Cal Ave east of roof drain
At 460 Cal Ave 10ft east of property line
2 3 3 3 Keep or R&R in modified bulb-out --R&R w/same tree as #48
3 2 4 4 Keep
Atv 490 Cal Ave 14 ft west of (E) site
2007 Tree Location/Condition Survey
California Avenue
~~O~a=k~~~-~-~-~-~-~-~-+R~e=~~,~~re~re~~~~ 1~1_~ak 3 4 I 3 3 Keep, improve site
54 Holly Oak Keep, improve site
55 Holly Oak I-:-:K:-=-ee"-'p-'-'-,_i:cm-'-'p'--r:-=-ovc...:e'-s::..:.:it:-=-e _________ 1
56 Blue Spruce 3 3 4 4 Keep
. 57 New tree At 463 Cal Ave 9 ft east of property line ~ Holly Oak Remove
I 59 New tree At 461 Cal Ave 3 ft east of right property line
60 Holly Oak 4 3 4 4 Keep
61 New tree 25 ft east of tree #60
~_ New tree 25 ft east of tree #61
63 Holly Oak Remove -streetlight conflict
64 New tree At 439 Cal Ave
65 .J~II, Oak Remove
66 New tree 3 -nnmodlfieCfbi_u_'b_-_ou_t ________ -I
67 Blue Spruc;;e~-~3-1-~311--,,~II~il-Keep-
68 New tree At 421 Cal Ave .~----------~ 00 ~~~k ~~ve -~~~~~~~~~"------I 70 New tree Between 415 & 417 Cal Ave ~7--I--~~-~--+-~-~--~-~~~--:-'--'-~-~'--"--------1 1----:7==1:--__+_--:H707."y~O-ak:_'__1_-__ 3-____ + __ ----,3=--------1-_---:::-3 _-t-__ -:::2. ___ ---t:-:Ke_e...Llp _________________________________ 1
72 Holly Oak 3 3 3 2 Keep
73 Holly Oak 3 3 3 2 Keep
74 Crepe Myrtle R&R
75 Holly Oak Remove
1--76 New tree In bulb-out bet 344 Cal Ave & crosswalk
1-_--:7=7_ Holly Oak Remove -streetlight conflict
78 New tree ~~~ Ave 1-----;;;;7::::"9 New tree 125east of"""'"' ;#7-8,-------'-------------------·
r-~ -I----~--~-~~_____,~-------80 Ho--:I~ly~O~a~k_4-__ --I--~---__+_--~-+_-~-~R~e-m-o--ve---m-re-etIlilg~ht_co_n_fl_ic __ t ________ 1
81 ~1~ly-O-a-k_+---4--_+--4--~~-3-_+---3--~K-ee~p-----_-------------~
82 c-i_d _A-=--m-,b_a_r I--___ I--_--=-_-t-_--:-_-+-__ -:--_+K_--::-e_e-'------p ___ _
83 Holly Oak 3 3 3 3 Keep
84 Holly Oak Remove and replace in bulb-out
85 Holly Oak 3 3 3 3 Keep
86 New tree At 241 Cal Ave r---ar Holly Oak K~ep _____ 1
88 J~::.::ed=_,:.:M-:.::a::!:p~le_+_----~-_--+-~---1_--__I_::::K_=:__ee='p~, needs structural pruning
89 Liquid Ambar R&R ~~=-~~~~~--+---~------~-----+-------------.. -~~'---~-~------------~Ujd Ambar R&R away from curb
Iquid Ambar R&R away from curb
Liquid Ambar ~wayf:--ro-m-cu-r:-b-----~~~~~~~~======:
Survey performed by Eric Krebs, Managing Arborist
Agenda Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
ATTACHMENT F
m=
November 5, 2009
Architectural Review Board
Clare Campbell, Planner
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
Department: Planning and
Community Environment
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements (Phase D: Request by
Public Works Engineering on behalf of the City of Palo Alto for California
Avenue streetscape modifications from EI Camino Real to the Caltrain
Depot, focusing on tree replacement. The street improvement project
involves various upgrades to the public right of way along California
Avenue. The overall project includes replacement and addition of street
trees, replacement of street benches, news racks, waste receptacles,
replacement and addition of bicycle racks, crosswalk improvements and
restriping of road and automobile parking spaces. An fuitial Study and
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for
Phase I of the project, the replacement and addition of street trees within
the project area. The other components of the project as described above are
Phase IT and will undergo a separate environmental analysis when the
details have been more fully developed.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment to Council on
Phase I ofthe California Avenue Streetscape Improvements, the tree replacement plan.
SUMMARY
Background
The City contracted with landscape architects Royston, Hanamoto, Alley & Abey (RHAA) to
design appropriate landscape palettes based on the results of the collaboration efforts of the
Planning and Public Works Arborists, Barrie Coate (Registered Consulting Arborist), Canopy,
and the community.
The City conducted two Community Meetings at Escondido School (10108 and 10/22) to gather
input from the community regarding the tree replacement plan. The meetings were well attended
and many raised concerns about the project. Attachment B includes the staff prepared summaries
Page 1 of3
of the two meetings. The first community meeting on October 8 was a more general discussion of
the project and possible resolutions. At the second meeting on October 22, RHAA and staff
presented two plant palette designs (Attachment A) that were based on feedback from the
community, tree professionals, and the ARB.
Previous Review
The ARB previously reviewed the general tree planting plan at their October 15 meeting and
continued the project to November 5, 2009. The comments provided on the project focused on the
following design concepts:
• Temporary container plantings should be used to supplement the newly planted trees until they
have grown in more.
• Tree selection should create a sense of continuity and balance/rhythm; more unifonn species
and or structure is preferred to provide a strong theme for the street.
• Accent trees should be installed at appropriate locations.
• Special gateway treatments are needed for the two "ends" (EI Camino Real and the Caltrain
Station of the street).
There were seven members of the community that spoke at the ARB meeting voicing various
concerns on the project components and the overall review process. Please refer to the verbatim
minutes of the meeting (Attachment E) for details. .
Planting Palette Alternatives
The primary difference between the two palettes is that one is predominantly evergreen and the
other predominantly deciduous. This difference is primarily expressed through the use of an
evergreen or deciduous tree for the common thread tree along the full length of the street. This
feature unifies the street and provides strong continuity for the street tree character.
The two palettes share similar design goals with enhanced entrance experiences at both ends of
California A venue, at EI Camino Real and at Park Boulevard, with the use of ornamental pear
trees and large signature oaks. The Valley Oaks, iconic native trees to the area, are used at the EI
Camino entrance as a gateway treatment. Deciduous trees, which provide vibrant seasonal color,
were selected for use at intersections and cross walks and as focal points for people entering the
business district from the parking lot alleys. Ornamental pears were used to unify and balance the
street at the entrances and mid street at the Birch intersection. Their locations, smaller stature and
spring bloom, as well as fall color, provide rhythm and interest to the street.
The project is scheduled for review by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) on
October 28, 2009; the staff report is Attachment C. A summary of the PTC meeting discussion
will be provided to the ARB either before or at the November 5 meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Staff haS received numerous comments on the project since the October 5 and those are included
in Attachment F for review.
NEXT STEPS
The project is tentatively scheduled to go to City Council for fmal action on November 16.
Page 2 on
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project, Phase I, is subject to environmental review under provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the CEQA
requirements (Attachment G). The 2Q..day public comment period for this document runs from
October 21, 2009 through November 9, 2009. Phase IT will undergo separate environmental
analysis when the project components have been detennined.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A.
Attachment B.
Attachment C.
Attachment D.
Attachment E.
. Attachment F.
Attachment G.
Attachment H.
" " Proposed Planting Palettes
Summary Notes of October 8.and October 22, 2009 Community Meetings
PTC Staff Report dated October 28,2009 (w/o attachments)
ARB Staff Report dated October 15, 2009 (w/o attachments)
ARB" Meeting Minutes dated October 15,2009
Correspondence
Draft Mitigated Negative Dec1arationlInitial Study available for review at the
link below:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.orglnewsidisplaynews.asp?NewsID=1394&TargetID
=268) ,
2006 Capital Grant Application for California Avenue Streetscape
Improvements ("Masterplan") -(Hardcopies for ARB Members, Libraries and
Development Center only, also available for review at this link::
http://www.cityofpaloalto.orginewsidisplaynews.asp?NewsID=1394&TargetID
=268 )
COURTESY COPIES
Elizabeth Ames, PWE
Prepared By: Clare Campbell, Planner
Manager Review: Catherine Siegel, Advance Planning Manager CO!l!!:t;;7 ...... --
Page 3 of3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Thursday November 5, 2009
REGULAR MEETING -8:30 AM
City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
ROLLCALL:
Board members:
Grace Lee (Chair)
Alexander Lew (Vice Chair)
Clare Malone Prichard
Judith Wasserman
Heather Young
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Staff Liaison:
Russ Reich, Senior Planner
Staff:
Amy French, Manager of Current Planning
Jason Nortz, Planner
Clare Campbell, Planner
Board Member Lee: Let's continue on with item number two, California Avenue Streetscape
Changes. A request by Public Works Engineering on behalf of the City of Palo Alto for
California Avenue streetscape modifications from EI Camino Real to the CalTrain Depot,
including replacement and addition of street trees, replacement of street benches, bicycle racks,
news racks and waste receptacles, addition of bicycle racks, crosswalk improvements and
restriping of automobile parking spaces. Do we have a Staff Report?
24 2. California Avenue Streets cape Changes [09PLN-00176]:
25 Request by Public Works Engineering on behalf of the City of Palo Alto for California
26 Avenue streetscape modifications from EI Camino Real to the CalTrain Depot, including
27 replacement and addition of street trees, replacement of street benches, bicycle racks, news
28 racks and waste receptacles, addition of bicycle racks, crosswalk improvements and
29 restriping of automobile parking spaces.
30
31 Ms. Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer, Public Works Engineering Division: Good morning.
32 Thank you for hearing this item once more. It took awhile to get to this point. Looking back,
33 October 5, a month ago we went to the City Council based on the outcry of the trees being
34 removed the Council asked the Staff to come up with a planting plan and work with the
\ City 0/ Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page J 0/35
I community. So we have done that. We have met with you. We had two meetings with the
2 community, and a meeting with the Planning Commission. There is a Planning Commissioner
3 here this morning, Commissioner Samir Tuma, who would like to do a recap of that meeting.
4 Basically I think what we have is a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees. We have the
5 architect from Royston, Hanamoto, Aley and Abbey, the Principle is Barbara Lundberg and
6 Dave Marcoullier. They are here to present the project to date, Plan C. We have made a lot of
·.7 enhancements. We also have our Staff Arborist, Eric Krebs here at the table for questions.
8 David Muffly is in audience. He is a certified arborist as well who has helped us with this plan.
9 I wanted to also thank Canopy, Susan Rosenberg, and Catherine Martineau who helped develop
10 this plan to date. So I would like to turn it over to the Planning Commissioner for his recap of
11 what happened at that meeting.
12
13 Mr. Samir Tuma, Vice-Chair, Planning Commission: Good morning nice to see you all. Ijust
14 . will be brief. I think that the essence of the concern from the Planning Commission was that this
15 project was moving forward without a comprehensive plan and a comprehensive overview of
16 what the project is going to look like.
17
18 There was a lot of recognition on the part of the Commissioners that there is an urgency and the
19 urgency is created by the concern from the community and also direction from Council to move
20 forward with some portion of the project, and particularly focusing on the trees. The discussion
21 around the timing issue I would characterize the conclusion of the Commission as one that there
22 would be a preference for a plan that took into account the entire project before moving forward.
23 However, in the absence ofthat if the Council and others are determined to move forward and do
City 0/ Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 2 0/35
1 something with the trees that the planting and the trees be put in in such a way that allows for
2 maximum flexibility own the road in terms of adding the other components. What I mean by
3 that is for example we could envision a scenario where not necessarily every tree that ultimately
4 would be planted would be planted now. So we could use at some of the prominent intersections
5 and things where there may be other components of the project that get installed we could use
6 trees in planters, we could use boxes, we could use any of a variety of things that people who are
7 much more informed about how all of this works than those of us on the Planning Commission,
8 but it just seemed that there could be a way to phase the tree planting if you will in such a way
9 that it doesn't preclude other elements of the project coming in.
10
11 Again, I think the preference would be to do a master plan here and do it all right. There was a
12 lot of concern that there really wasn't design. The way that his evolved was that there was a
13 master plan back in 2006 and a number ofthe elements of that master plan were just sort of
14 plucked out ofthe plan due to a lack of funding. It didn't seem to us that that has been
15 redesigned rather what was left was what we were going to move forward. There was concern
16 that you are just not going to have a very cohesive feeling. So anything th~.t we can do to
17 preserve the flexibility going forward is something the Planning would be very supportive of. I
18 am here to answer any questions if you have any. Thanks.
19
• 4
20 Ms. Ames: Thank you. Also, I just want to point out that the project has been broken out into
""'-" ,,:-.----.-. ,-.;,..~'"'-~.
21 two phases. So we are working on the street tree replacement plan. We have utilized
22 consistently the four by four grates, not the three by three and the four by four mix that we had
23 before. Maybe we mentioned this before but we enhanced the planting detail to a five foot
City of Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 3 of35
1 square by three-foot deep structural soil planting welL That street tree replacement plan is phase
2 one. Essentially we are also going to relocate the aggregate planters that are out there, the
3 exposed aggregate planters. We are not going to demolish those. We may put those back
4 depending on how phase two is developed.
5
6 Phase two would be the street benches, all the street furniture, the trash receptacles, possibly new
7 kiosks, new planters next to the benches. The new planter comment really was consistent at all
8 the community meetings. So hopefully the restriping, the enhanced crosswalks, all of the
9 furniture will be implemented in phase two. Staff did not feel that there was a conflict with the
10 street tree replacement phase. So that concludes mine and I can turn this over to Royston,
11 Hanamoto, Aley and Abbey for the presentation. Thank you.
12
13 Ms. Barbara Lundberg, Royston, Hanamoto, Aley and Abbey: Good morning. California
14 Avenue Business District evolved informally and organically as a business and social center
15 serving the surrounding neighborhood. Working closely with the City Staff, City Arborists, the
16 Canopy organization, and the community we have developed a concept and design theme that
17 reflects California Avenue reflecting the surrounding neighborhood and its urban forest with a
18 great variety of trees balancing deciduous and evergreen trees balanced on each side of the street.
19
20 So before I show that plan I just kind of want to review the design process that has happened.
21 This was the initial plan. We called this a site assessment plan. This plan was really just to kind
22 of understand the constraints of the site, understand where trees could be planted, and understand
23 some of the other limitations like the setbacks. There are a variety of setbacks as well as such
City of Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 4 0/35
things as awnings and overhangs, their heights and dimensions, and the varying dimension of the
2 sidewalk from 12 feet and lesS. So this plan was presented to the community on October 8 and at
3 this meeting the varieties of trees were selected.
4
5 So based on that input we then developed a Plan A and a Plan B, which showed the varieties of
6 trees as well as an arrangement. This Plan A was a predominantly evergreen arrangement. Plan
7 B was a predominantly deciduous arrangement that was presented to the community on October
8 22 and the Planning and Transportation Commission on October 28. From the feedback that we
9 received at each one of those meetings we then developed Plan C.
10
11 This is Plan C. Walking down California Avenue one would perceive the street trees as kind of
12 .an informal arrangement of grolJ.pings ()fvarying species of trees. It is actually a very cohesive
13 plan that has structure, rhythm, and balance. A small detail in that is that now all the tree grates
14 are four feet in the sidewalk. The plan places trees along the street based on important design
15 criteria such as entry gateway trees at each end of the street framed by evergreen accent trees,
16 accent trees at the intersections and at pedestrian crossings, accent trees at the fountain plaza, and
17 background trees that serve as kind of a visual terminus as well as a visual barrier of the railroad
18 tracks.
19
20 Now I will show you each one of the species of trees. This is the large deciduous signature entry
21 tree located here. This is the Valley Oak and this is a very important tree. This tree is native it is'
22 considered kind of a heritage tree that is reminiscent of the original grassland environment. I
City olPaloAlto November 5, 2009 Page 5 0135
think also serves as kind of an important connection to the Foothills with its many existing
2 Valley Oaks.
3
4 The evergreen accent tree framing those entry trees is a Tristania, Elegant Tristania. That is an
5 evergreen tree. It has a contrasting form and texture, and frames the entry Valley Oaks on both
6 ends of California A venue.
7
8 The deciduous accent trees at the pedestrian crossing. This is the Shumard Oak. Those are
9 located in these locations here. It is a tree that as an accent tree, a deciduous accent tree, it has
10 kind of a broader canopy and that is also used in the plaza in front of the Starbuck's. It is a tree
11 that will shade the street, the sidewalk in the summertime and then provide the warming sunshine
12 . with its loss of leaves in the wintertime.
13
14 The other accent tree at the intersection is the Freeman Maple. This is a tree that doesn't have as
15 broad a canopy. It is more upright. It is framed by an evergreen tree behind it and it will serve
16 as a better accent tree where you have vehicles crossing the intersection.
17
18 Then we have a couple of trees, this is the fIrst one of them, that really kind of serve as a
19 unifYing element along the streetscape. It will be a combination of an evergreen and a deciduous
20 tree. This is a deciduous tree. It is a Silver Linden and it is on both sides of the street providing
21 that unifYing element.
22
City of Palo Alto Navember 5, 2009 Page 60/35
I The other tree is the Southern Live Oak. Once again, this is part of our unifYing tree along the
2 whole way along California Avenue. These trees-were placed at important locations to respond
3 to the southern exposures and the northern exposures along California Avenue.
4
5 In the fountain plaza area there are already existing Pistache trees. We are enhancing those as an
6 accent tree in that area, and a tall evergreen as the background tree, which once again is the
7 visual barrier as well as serves as a kind ofthe visual terminus to the whole streetscape plan, and
8 then adding more Sycamores along the edge of California Avenue in this location bringing in
9 more of the neighborhood character along California Avenue.
10
11 So this is a cross-section looking east from EI Camino Real at the entry. These would be the
12 Elegant Tristania that frame the larger deciduous Valley Oaks.
13
14 This is a section looking west from Birch Street showing the accent trees with the evergreen Live
15 Oaks behind it and further in the background the large deciduous Valley Oaks. This kind of
16 shows you the layering effect that we were looking at.
17
18 Now, these are a series of slides that will show you what the streetscape will look like as it grows
19 from where it is installed to ten years to 20 years. So we have this is looking north from
20 California A venue to Del Sol. So this is as is installed.
21
22 Board Member Wasserman: Is that at Ash Street?
23
City 0/ Palo Alto November 5. 2009 Page 7 0/35
Ms. Lundberg: Yes. Let me go back a second. So here we have as it is installed, ten years, and
2 20 years.
3
4 Board Member Wasserman: That is in the summertime when the leaves are out.
5
6 Ms. Lundberg: Yes it is. You notice people have not aged along the way either.
7
8 Okay, looking west near Birch Street to El Camino Real, which is right along this area here,
9 looking that way. Here we are ~hen it is installed, ten years, and 20 years. You will notice the,
.. ,~-.
10 pattern of shadow on the asphalt areas in the sidewalks. Then the third in the series is looking
11 east from Park Boulevard to the train station. So that is the fountain plaza area right there so if
12 you were looking this way. It has it as installed, ten years, 20 years, and you will notice this.is
13 the large Valley Oak that is one of the gateway, entry, signature trees.
14
15 So in closing, we feel this is a streetscape design reflecting California Avenue as an extension of
16 the community and retaining its own independent character as a business district. So I will open
17 it up for questions.
18
19 Board Member Lee: Thank you for your presentation. I have just two cards from members of
20 the public who wish to speak to this item. If you would like to speak please fill out a card. OUf
21 first speaker will Margaret Heath followed by Michael Eager. You will have three minutes.
22 Margaret.
23
City of Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 8 of35
I Ms. Margaret Heath, Palo Alto: Good morning. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I actually
2 wish to speak in support of the Plan C. I have been following this closely, attended all the
3 meetings, and I really like the way the plan has evolved and that we have more evergreen trees. I
4 would wish for a few more evergreen trees, or higher trees, outside Palo Alto Central perhaps for
5 the residents who lost a large tree there and the Tristanias will not have the same impact for them
6 at all.
7
8 I just want to _____ who have helped prepare the plan. Thank you.
9
10 Board Member Lee: Thank you for your comments. We will next hear from Michael Eager
11 followed by Doria Suma.
12
13 Mr. Michael Eager, Palo Alto: Hi, I live on Park Boulevard about four blocks from California
14 Avenue. I want to acknowledge that Staff has put in a lot oftime and effort. One thing that I
15 want to particularly mention is that I have seen a good, an excellent cooperation with the.
16 community of listening to community feedback, and responding to it. Most of my questions
17 have gotten answered about the plan. This to me looks like a good evolution from the two
18 preliminary plans that we heard, addresses issues about tree selection, addresses issues about
19 summer and winter foliage.
20
21 In a perfect world this would all have been done some months ago. We would have had the
22 entire streetscape plan with the street furniture. It would have been discussed with the
23 community then. That didn't happen. I would be nice if we could rollback the clock and do
City o/PaloAlto November 5, 2009 Page 9 0/35
1 things differently. We can't. This I think is an excellent plan to move forward with this part,
2 plant the trees, and look at the issues about where do you want crosswalks, how do we want to
3 do them, do we want restriping, do we want to two lanes, do we want four lanes, and have that
4 all as the second phase hopefully with the same level of community input. Thank you.
5
6 Board Member Lee: Thank you. Our next speaker is Doria Suma followed by Sairus Patel.
7
8 Ms. Doria Summa, Palo Alto: Thank you. Ijust want to thank the team that worked really hard
9 for putting Plan C, which I think is a very good plan, together. Especially thankil1g Kate Rooney
10 and Dave Muffly.
11
12 I agree that this all should have been done differently with an overall design in mind but I am,
13 very happy that the City has moved very quickly to try to replace the trees. I support Plan C with
14 the exception that there are probably ,a few tweaks where there were opportunities for larger trees
15 that were neglected. Thank you very much.
16
17 Board Member Lee: Thank you. We will next hear from Sairus Patel followed by Alan or
18 Barbara Weller.
19
20 Mr. Sairus Patel, Palo Alto: I have lived in Palo Alto for 23 years and I chose to move to the
21 California Avenue neighborhood 16 years ago specifically because of its small, walkable nature,
22 and friendly neighborhood feeling. It is often regarded as sort of a second poorer cousin to
23 University Avenue inevitably. Even though we can't compare with architecture or architectural
City 0/ Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 100/35
1 interest I think Plan C is just a brilliant way to distinguish ourselves by the selection of trees and
2 by the design principles that have been so carefully worked on.
3
4 University A venue and Castro Street have London Plane Trees, some of the classic downtown
5 same tree throughout feeling. In California Avenue as someone alluded to we feel more
6 connected to the Foothills than Downtown Palo Alto. The gateway of Valley Oaks would be just
7 an absolutely thrilling gateway when they grow out. The fall color at intersections, four comers
8 of Ash Street and sort of the brackets around Birch Street, again are something that would be
9 fantastic and something that University Avenue doesn't have. So I really see California Avenue
10 for instance in the fall as being more of a destination where people will come and enjoy those
11 sorts of design elements.
12
13 I would just like to say that California Avenue is incredibly wide. People often don't think about
14 it but it is a full six lanes wide, four lanes of traffic and two quite generous parking sections.
15 University Avenue is four by that count. So it is sort of bespeaks to the urgency of having some
16 kind of planting precede this planting season and not delaying it much longer.
17
18 As a digital typographer I know that it is always good design to think of the whoteprocess of the
19 selection of paper for a book, the font selection, the weight of the book, the cover. In this case
20 though I feel proceeding in stages is the most prudent way to rectifY the situation. I think we
21 have a fantastic plan. In the future you will hear comments from me about more median strips
22 and more bulb-outs, but for now I will withhold that. So I comment the Staff for a fantastic plan.
23 I am a Canopy trained street tree planter and I have had Canopy's Volunteer of the Year A ward a
City of Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 11 of35
1 couple of years ago, and I completely endorse this. I am really excited about seeing trees come
2 up during this holiday season. So thanks.
3
4 Board Member Lee: Thanks. Alan or Barbara Weller followed by Ruth Gordon.
5
6 Ms. Barbara Weller, Palo Alto: Hi, I am speaking on behalf of myself, my husband Alan Weller, ~ ...
7 and John Perry who were not able to be here. I want to strongly endorse the Plan C. I think the
8 City has done an outstanding job in listening to the community and what our comments were.
9 We have had numerous meetings with the arborists and other City employees and I think it has
10 been a very successful process. It didn't start off that way but I think it has ended up that way
11 and we really appreciate what the City has done.
12
13 I think that the plan that has been put together really reflects - I like the theme of it kind of
14 combining the neighborhoods, looking at the trees that were in the neighborhoods, and bringing
15 California Avenue in there. I think we all would really like to see this implemented as quickly as
16 possible because walking down California Avenue today is not a very pleasant experience
17. watching the heat rising from the sidewalk because there is no shade at all.
18
19 I don't have an issue with this project having been broken up into two different phases. The
20 second phase is about the street furniture. I think that can easily be incorPorated into whatever
21 trees are out there that are planted in this first phase. So I again I strongly support this and I
22 commend the Staff for the excellent outreach that they have done and coming out with this new
23 Plan C. Thank you.
City of Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 12of35
1
2 Board Member Lee: Thank you. Our next speaker is Ruth Gordon followed by Fred Balin.
3
4 Ms. Ruth Gordon, Palo Alto: I am a Landscape Architect. I am also speaking for my mother,
5 Mary Gordon, who spoke before you before but unfortunately she was out of town. Our biggest
6 concern is this apparently became available on Tuesday night to the public, this Plan C. So we
7 were not able to see it. The other design professionals in the city that probably are interested
8 were not able to see it either. So that is our concern that we need more time to review it
9 properly. It seems like there still are some unresolved issues of continuity and cohesiveness in
10 the plan, though I can see that it has been carefully thought-out but still seems like there may
11 need to be more continuity in the streetscape. At the very least we think that the two ends of the
12 . California Avenue. should be taken out, include them in.the phase two study area for next spring, .
13 because those are critical nodes and their design needs to be studied in a very thorough manner.
14 Thank you.
15
16 Board Member Lee: Thank you. Our next speaker would be Fred Balin followed Herb Borock.
17
18 Mr. Fred Balin, Palo Alto: Good morning. I live in College Terrace and I am speaking for my
19 wife Anne and myself. We are part of the ad hoc citizens' group that has been very involved in
20 the California Avenue tree replanting process. Today's proposed four-paragraph design concept
21 accurately reflects the feelings of many residents and business owners of the California Avenue
22 area and that it is special by virtue of its evolution from and integration with its surrounding
23 neighborhoods. That is one of the reasons why the recent loss of 42 evergreens, 37 Holly Oaks,
City of Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 13 of35
1 and five Blue Spruce, a total of 80 percent of the 52 sidewalk trees removed coupled with the
2 City's September 21 st announcement of plans for complete tree replacement with deciduous Red
3 Maples within two weeks was followed by such an active and'engaged community response.
4 The incorporation of outside expert arborist Barrie Coate and Dave Muffiy matched with a
5 concerted effort by the City to dive into the thick of this emotional situation has generated a
6 productive, creative tension, and synergy.
7
8 Plan A and B were an important step toward an overall concept but the details were lacking. The
9 plan with the deciduous tree as unifier contained only three evergreens on the sidewalks andthe
10 plan with an evergreen unifier featured a small slow growing tree that no one was really excited
11 about. The flurry of activity and interaction since then brings-us today's much-improved Plan C
12 with its three native Valley Oaks near EI Camino, 14 evergreen Southern Live Oaks on the
13 streets, and a variety and persistence of fall colors. There is still room for some improvements.
14 Although the Tristanias are evergreens they are very small, have no major crown, and are not a
15 part of Old Palo Alto. When this area was Mayfield there were a lot of oak trees. There are still
16 quite a few on Stanford A venue and of course at the Stanford Arboretum. It would be nice to
17 have an even greater connection to the original feel of California Avenue as well as a way to
18 soften the massing of the buildings near the two gateways. Thank you.
19
20 Board Member Lee: Thank you. Our next speaker is Herb Borock followed by Joy Ogawa.
21
22 Mr. Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Good morning Chair Lee and Board Members. Many of the
23 previous speakers have essentially said that it okay to violate the process as long as they like the
City of Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 14of35
1 results. Many of them are here for the next item. I would suggest to them that detail and
2 procedure is everything and you can't pick and choose which projects you thin,k should follow
3 the procedure and which are not based upon having been included in some process and you like
4 the results when proper procedures have not been followed.
5
6 At your places I have a letter describing to you why I believe this item shouldn't even be on your
7 agenda but since you are continuing with it why you are prohibited from taking a collective
8 action. You may as individuals speak about it but I don't believe under the City's laws, under
9 the Brown Act, and under the California Environmental Quality Act that you are permitted to act
lOon this item as I described in my letter.
11
12 Previously the City Staff had issued a tentative decision on a project that consisted of six items
13 of which removing and replacing street trees was only one of the six items. I filed a timely
14 request for a hearing before the ARB and in fact that is what your agenda item is listed as but
15 that is not what you are discussing. You are discussing something else, which is phase one of a
16 two-phase project. The Chief Planning and Transportation Official told the Planning and
17 Transportation Commission that they are two different projects, the one that you are talking
18 about now and the one that is listed on your agenda.
19
20 It is also bad planning and bad architectural design process. I paraphrase one of the members of
21 the public who spoke before the Planning and Transportation Commission who is a landscape
22 architect who said normally you do the master plan first. That is, you would be approving a
23 master plan, and when you implement it the last thing you is put in the trees. One of the things is
City of Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 150f35
1 that work on putting in the street furniture and working on the street is going to impact those
2 trees after you have planted them. So it doesn't make any sense from a practical standpoint to
3 put in the trees first. From a planning standpoint it is also a bad idea.
4
5 Designing the street geometry, the street lanes, and the parking also might affect where you put
6 the trees. In fact, some Planning Commissioners suggested that you might want to extend the
7 sidewalk, narrow California A venue and you would be putting trees closer to the centerline of
8 that street. The excuses that I heard from some people that you would have to wait a year to
9 plant the trees, and you can only plant them at this time of year is nonsense.
10
11 I would request that the Board and the Council follow proper law instead of following advice as
12 they did when they g~ve you your direction. The adv~ce was only from the Director and
13 Assistant Director of Public Works. On planning issues they should get advice about the law
14 from the Planning Division and from the City Attorney's Office. Thank you.
15
16 Board Member Lee: Thank you. Our last speaker will be Joy Ogawa.
17
18 Ms. Joy Ogawa, Palo Alto: Good morning. Plan C I was just was able to take a look at this
19 morning because it wasn't available to the public before that. So my impressions are really just
20 kind of impressions from just viewing them. It is kind of interesting to me that there has been all
21 this public support that has been stated for Plan C, and my impression is just that Plan A and
22 Plan B were so awful that people were like yes, Plan C is an improvement. Yes, I agree there
23 has been movement towards an improved plan. That is a good thing. I really don't see Plan Cas
City 0/ Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 160/35
1 being nearly there. It is just not there yet. People have been talking about tweaks. I think it
2 needs a little bit more than a few tweaks. I think emphasis needs to be put on the improvements
3 that need to made on Plan C not just on the fact that Plan C is so much better than Plan A or Plan
4 B.
5
6 For instance, just looking at the plan I notice that there is the area around Country Sun and Bank
7 of the West is very lacking in good canopy in the wintertime. There is kind of this sparse area
8 there and would like to see a tree actually in the planting area next to the tables and chairs in
9 front of Country Sun. I don't know why there is no tree planned for that area. It is a very large
10 planting area. Frankly, that area could use the shade in the summertime. That seating area is so
11 hot in the summertime and those solar light things provide absolutely no shade. They are a
12 visual kind of treat that is supposed to be providing these lights. in the nighttime but they don't
13 really work until, they don't really show until nighttime, and in the summer it doesn't get dark
14 until nine o'clock. California Avenue is dead at nine o'clock so the interest that these solar lights
15 are supposed to present really don't do much for the street or the community if they are showing
16 off their lights at dark in the summertime. Maybe in the wintertime when it turns dark earlier
17 they present this great interest. But to not plant a tree in that spot, the very large planting spot,
18 just because you want to provide plenty oflight to these solar lights I don;t as somebody who
19 lives nearby and could walk by and look at the solar lights but never does because they don't
20 really work until it is too late for me. I guess I will stop there. Thanks.
21
22 Board Member Lee: Thank you for your comments. Let's go to the Board for any questions or
23 comments. Did you want to clarify?
City o/Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 17 0/35
1
2 Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: Yes, I just thought I would mention in response to
3 Mr. Borock's statements, I did bring the letter upstairs to the City Attorney to make sure that
4 there was an awareness there. The fIrst hearing that on October 15 was heard for that project as
5 Mr. Borock said. It was continued to today's date. The same ad wording was used. I will just
6 read the response.
7
8 The City has elected to bifurcate this process into two phases. The replacement and addition of
9 trees is one, and phase two the addition of street furniture, lane configurations, news racks, and
10 other street amenities. Because phase two has not yet been fully defIned yet, and because the
11 tree replacement phase can move forward independently from phase two this does not involve an
12 improper segmentation under CEQA. Council has directed that the tree replanting move forward
13 quickly and that the ARB and Planning Commission review and comment on the proposed plan.
14
15 So your purview today is to provide the requested feedback.
16
17 Board Member Lee: If I may just ask a question of Staff. I did want to understand better, I had
18 heard about one lane of traffic in each direction versus four lanes of traffic and bike lanes
19 perhaps being revised. There was a comment about bulb-outs. I am assuming for traffic calming
20 measures, or something where we would gain area for planting. Can you comment on what the
21 challenges are in terms of losing planting area? If this plan was to proceed as a phase one and
22 let's say the trees were planted as soon as possible is there a challenge ahead in terms of some of
23 these trees having to come out perhaps if the traffIc lanes or bike lanes were to be revised?
City 0/ Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 180/35
1
2 Ms. Ames: It is a little hard to tell at this point because we have to vet the whole second phase
3 with the community and where the bulb-outs would go. At this point it doesn't seem that there is
4 a conflict. The bulb-outs will be at the intersections where we have colored crosswalks
5 proposed. The bulb-out issue is actually very expensive and we don't have funding for that.
6 That could be a future phase maybe if we got grant funding. At this point it seems that the tree
7 planting would not conflict with the bulb-out concept. The bulb-out concept really wouldn't
8 happen for quite some time.
9
10 Board Member Lee: Just to follow up, in terms of the central median can you speak to any
11 revisions that you anticipate on the planting in the median?
12
13 Ms. Ames: Yes. So the whole lane reconfiguration is really up in the air. We have to go back to
14 the community to go over the phase two elements and that would include the lane
15 reconfiguration from four lanes to two, the medians will probably stay the same. We are not
16 proposing and we don't have the funds to enlarge the medians at this time. It is similar to like
17 the bulb-out concept where we are taking away street infrastructure and putting planting areas in
18 there, that could possibly be maybe a third phase because of the funding constraints. We will
19 look at lane reconfiguration and changing the parking spaces possibly, and again that would also
20 get modified if we decided to go with a third phase say for enhanced bulb-outs and medians.
21
City 0/ Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 190/35
Board Member Lee: Thank you. I understand that our Board is asked to just simply provide
2 some comments that you will take to Council on what is being proposed today. Did anybody
3 else have any questions? Judith, would you like to start us off?
4
5 Board Member Wasserman: Sure. It is hard to know where to begin. I think I would like to say
6 that I am in agreement with the Planning and Transportation Commission in my concern that
7 there is no plan here. it distressed me to read that Royston, Hanamoto, Aley and Abbey, which is
8 a really fine landscape architectural firm of history and note, was hired to design appropriate
9 landscape palettes when in fact they should have been hired to design the streetscape and the
10 whole shooting match. It is like being hired to paint the room that hasn't been built yet. It
11 doesn't make any sense. So I have a whole lot of things to say but the end of it is that I think
12 whatever we do should ~e done with as much flexibility as possible. Put them in big boxes on
13 wheels and move them around for heaven's sake or something like that.
14
15 I would like to ask for example, I know that we can't pay for the medians and the bulb-outs,
16 could you paint them on the street with stripes? So pedestrians had places of refuge when the
17 cross the street. Is that possible?
18
19 Ms. Ames: I would have to defer that question to the Transportation Division. I am not sure if
20 they would want to do something like that. It may not be considered totally safe. It might
21 happen. It could be done.
22
City of Palo Alto "Nowmber 5, 2009 Page20of35
1 Board Member Wasserman: It would be at least a signal to show everybody we were thinking
2 ahead.
3
4 The pictures showed colored paving. Is the colored paving in phase two? Okay. So here is the
5 story. There is a public art project at the gateway to California Avenue that is not marked on the
6 plan bec.ause nobody recognizes it as a public art project. It is called California Avenue
7 California Native. It is about 20 to 25 years old now. It includes the banners that depict
·8 California species. It includes the California granite boulders and California native grasses,
9 some of which have been uprooted and replaced by annuals because people didn't quite
10 understand what a public art project was. Also, this fries me every time I go by there, there is a
11 sign that says California Avenue, it is big kind of cast concrete sign, and it has a painted stripe
12 around it. That stripe is supposed to be the golden color of California not some dead pink color.
13 Anybody with a paintbrush and a can of paint that wants to fix that for me I will buy them coffee
14 at Starbuck's or any place of their choice.
15
16 When it comes to the streetscape and the trees and the locations of the trees it is my personal
17 opinion and I think it is good planning practice that the streetscape trumps the awnings. You
18 . pick a tree that you limb-up so that eventually the awnings are under the tree. You can see the
19 awnings and you have the trees, you have canopy, you have shading, you deal with the urban
20 heat island effect by having big trees, not by having a bunch of lollypops that look pretty part of
21 the year. So that should be the primary concern.
22
City of Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 2] of35
1 I think it is wonderful to have accents at various places but it is not that long a street. If you have
2 accents at every intersection and every event you lose the continuity of the street trees, what you
3 are calling unifying street trees. I don't think there are enough ofthem to have a unifying effect.
4 I think they are just constantly broken up by accents and backgrounds to the accents, which is
5 kind of a neat concept. Why don't you have the backgrounds to the accents be the unifying
6 street tree? Then you have better continuity.
7
8 I wanted to ask how much of the tree location is affected by the existing holes in the ground?
9 Does anybody know?
10
11 Mr. Eric Krebs: The trees are placed in accordance to the utilities, the underground utilities,
12 mostly because of all the conflicts we have with trees and utilities. So unless you want to move
13 all the utilities on California Avenue those are the best planting areas.
14
15 Board Member Wasserman: Okay. That is interesting.
16
17 Ms. Kate Rooney, Public Works: I would like to add to that because that is one site constraint
18 but that was not .... We have to plant a tree where it is going to survive with its roots. So the
19 utilities as well as other parameters constrained the sites. We also did place the trees, and the
20 firm did design this. It was not simply -I feel just to give you that comment -it was not simply
21 where can we put a tree. We tried to space trees as well as possible where there wasn't a utility
22 conflict to get the best layout possible.
23
City of Palo Alto November 5,2009 Page 22 of35
1 Board Member Wassennan: That is very interesting. Okay, suppose in the future the street was
2 narrower, the sidewalk was in some places possibly wider. The sidewalks are not narrow but
3 let's say the sidewalks are the same and the street got narrower, and you could plant the trees in
4 bulb-outs in what is now the street, like they do on University Avenue. That would be a very
5 different concept than what you have here. It would free up the sidewalks, it would shade the
6 asphalt, and it would be completely precluded by doing this plan. Please, anybody?
7
8 Ms. Rooney: This did come up at the Planning and Transportation Commission also.
9 Commissioner Lippert spoke at the very end of the meeting, at about 10:30, and made the
10 comment that even if phase two does involve a landscape architect and the public meetings and
11 all the transportation input, and recommended doing a bigger overhaul of putting trees into bulb-
12 outs and D-wells, the trees that are planted in these tree grates are movable. There are
13 techniques to pick up and move large trees. So it does not preclude a.change later.
14
15 Board Member Wassennan: Okay. That is reassuring. I have a comment about the gateway at,
16 shall we call it the Izzy's end ofthe street. It is' called a gateway and there are three trees, and
17 there is no symmetry. I am curious to know why that is considered a gateway concept. You
18 could actually take that third tree and put it in the median where the annual plantings go and it
19 would look much more gateway-ish. You have done that actually on Birch Street. I really don't
20 think you need a gateway concept at Ash and all the rest of them.
21
City of Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 23 of35
1 So my last question has to do with Valley Oaks living in the asphalt. You think these trees that
2 like to live by themselves out on hillsides are going to do okay down here in our so-called urban
3 environment?
4
5 Mr. Krebs: Well, the sites that we chose for Valley Oaks are the open planting areas. So they
6 are not in the four by four tree grates. They are out in the open. They are sort of bulb-outs as
7 they are. So they have more room for canopy both in distance from the building and in distance
8 from the vehicle traffic. So the sites should be suitable for Valley Oaks.
9
10 Board Member Wasserman: Do we have any examples in town of Valley Oaks living in the
11 concrete and asphalt like that?
12
13 Mr. Krebs: Oh yes. I am trying to think of one. We have a lot of oaks. I think most ofthem are
14 Live Oaks that you see painted with the white paint that are out in the street.
15
16 Board Member Wasserman: Yes, we are fond of those.
17
18 Mr. Krebs: The last one that I remember that was really a real nice oak was the one out in front
19 of Town & Country along El Camino. We lost that and we replanted with Valley Oak again. Of
20 course it is not anywhere near the tree that was there before. Valley Oaks are used not as street
21 trees although these are street trees. These are improved sites. These sites are not the typical
22 three by three sites we see in the downtown areas of not just Palo Alto but a lot of cities.
23
City o[Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 24 0[35
Board Member Wasserman: So what you are saying is when you say 'open landscape areas' you
2 mean there is not a tree grate and it is not in the sidewalk, but the area is how big? We don't
3 have any details here at all. Nobody has shown us pictures of where the trees are going. We
4 have a plan but are we supposed to just say yes, those are nice trees? That is not what we do.
5
6 Board Member Lee: Go ahead Kate.
7
8 Ms. Rooney: We are looking for your comments, your comments about the Tristania or the entry
9 tree being put in the median, and comments such as that, as well as your general comments. The
10 question about how big is the average bulb-out for the Valley Oaks and the other trees in the
11 bulb-outs, I think they are about six to ten feet square or round. I was out there measuring them
12 the other day. . ..
13
14 Board Member Wasserman: Okay.
15
16 Board Member Lee: Judith, I know that you were not present at our previous meeting and just to
17 give you a summary, it seemed like there was consensus on the Board in terms of all of us
18 acknowledging that we are not arborists. We actually often work with consultants and defer to
19 their expertise. In this case I believe there are four consultants who know a lot about trees. So
20 there was discussion of that. I just wanted to let you know that it did come up.
21
22 Board Member Wasserman: I appreciate that and that is kind of why I said, you know, what I
23 know about trees? I can look at this pattern of green, and pink, and yellow, and say that it
City of Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 25 of35
1 doesn~t have much pattern to it partly because the spacing is constrained by other issues. So I
2 thought it was interesting that in response to that the designers said, paraphrasing, I can't do this
3 the way we usually do this on a street so I am going to find another rule. My rule in my practice
4 is you have to have a rule and it doesn't matter what the rule is as long as you can live by it and
5 make it work. So okay, ifthe rule is we are going to bring the neighborhood into this sort of
6 eclectic street scene then I think I can live with that. I think we need to have canopy. I think we
7 need to have shade in the summertime. That would be my primary criterion. If you can tell me
8 that those little yellow things will give me shade in the summer that goes across the street I will
9 buy it. I think the whole plaza is a whole other thing. I think the Public Art Commission has a
10 project for the plaza. I think it should not be included in this plan. I think that the bike lockers
11 down there are the ugliest things on the face of the Earth. There seems to be some rule that bike
12 lockers have to be ugly. I have never seen an attractive. one, although Gary Layman said it is not
13 true. So I think the plaza needs to be treated as a plaza and I think going ahead and planting
14 three more Sycamores, because there happens to be one on the comer now, when they are the
15 only Sycamores on the whole street seems to be I don't know what. I think I better stop here.
16
17 Board Member Lee: Kate.
18
1 9 Ms. Rooney: Just to answer a few concerns you brought up, some of the question you had as to
20 why. We looked at the Platanus down by the apartments and vetted those trees with the public
21 and the arborists. One of the reason why that was selected there is because there are Platanus
,,--..
22 that run down Park Boulevard and it ties in around the comer. We also heard from a couple of
23 people who live in those apartments that they prefer large deciduous trees there as opposed to
City 0/ Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 26 0/35
I evergreens because of how cold that can be in the wintertime. I feel a little disadvantaged
2 because you are new to this in some ways and I wish we could talk more.
3
4 Board Member Wasserman: I had an office on California Avenue for many years. It has been
5 15 years since I moved out of there so I am not conflicted. I go down California Avenue all the
6 time. I go to the Farmer's Market every Sunday. It is not like I am new to this at all.
7
8 Ms. Rooney: No, no I don't mean that.
9
10 Board Member Wasserman: Okay, so if you are going to have the Platanus on that side can you
11 bring them around to the other side? Can you do something unifying with the plaza as the end,
12 as. the terminus, as going to have a wonderful art project. Take it out .ofthis plan or fix it so that
13 it looks like something and it is not half this and partly that and bits and pieces.
14
15 Ms. Ames: Thank you. These are the kind of comments we do want to receive from the ARB,
16 these general comments. If you want more of a unifying tree, if you want more symmetry, those
17 are the kinds of comments we are expecting from the Board. Not so much the tree species. I
18 know it is a little confusing that you are looking at just the landscaping plan and maybe this is
19 not the typical submittal but those are the comments that we want to take and consider in
20 tweaking the plan so to speak.
21
22 Board Member Wasserman: Well, I figure at the very least the plaza should have a plan, a
23 unifying plan.
City of Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 27 of35
1
2 Board Member Lee: Okay, should we move onto another Board Member then and continue with
3 our comments? If you did want to follow up we will give you that opportunity. Go ahead Clare.
4
5 Board Member Malone Prichard: I will start with one question on the crosswalks. Is there a
6 possibility that any of these crosswalks will be relocated? I know there were some mid-block
7 crossings on this street.
8
9 Ms. Ames: It is hard to determine what the crosswalk layout will be. We did have an initial plan
10 that needs to be vetted with the community. So we did have some mid-block crossings and also
11 at the intersections. I am assuming that that is going to move forward.
12
13 Board Member Malone Prichard: Thanks. So the reason I ask that is in looking at the plans
14 there are some deciduous accent trees at the pedestrian crossings, which mayor may not be in
15 the right place. One of the things I agree with in Judith's comments is there is an awful lot going
16 on here. Maybe we need to simplifY a little bit. One way to make the plan more flexible would
17 be to not have special trees just for pedestrian crossings.
18
19 I like what is happening with the Freeman Maples at the Birch Street comers. I think that is
20 really a nice way to anchor the comers. That might be something you could consider at other
21 comers as well.
22
City of Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 28 of35
1 I was also surprised to see the London Planes just four of them down at the end. I understand
2 there is one existing one so I think it would be a better approach to either continue some of those
3 London Planes further down the street or just not have any London Planes rather than having that
4 funny little thing happening over there.
5
6 We have a couple of maples in the medians. Do we think there is going to be any impact on
7 those for future streetscape changes? If you change the number of traffic lanes, etc.?
8
9 Ms. Ames: I think the medians are going to stay the same. We are not changing those planting
10 areas.
11
12 Board Member Malone Prichard: I dolike se~ing the tt:ees. in the median. So] am glad to see
13 that happen. I am also in agreement with Judith that if there is some kind of special project
14 going on at the end of the street that maybe there shouldn't be any new plantings there now. We
15 still have some trees there. Let them stay and work out that project as an entire plan and then
16 incorporate new plantings into the new design.
17
18 The one other thing is the Chinese Pistache that you have down at the end, which are lovely.
19 You might want to consider bringing those up the street as welL That's all. Thanks.
W -
21 Board Member Lee: Thank you, Clare. I did want to 61:re{hlfcoiiunents"~fare Vi'ce=Chair
22 Lew. I am going to pass the baton to Vice-Chair Lew to Chair the rest of the meeting. I am in
23 conflict on item number three and do have a time constraint today.
City a/Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 29 0/35
2 I want to applaud Staff as well as community members working with Staff in terms of the effort
3 involved here. I think that the plan compared to our last meeting it seems like there has been a
4 lot more simplification, there is a larger understanding, and it seems to me that this is a
5 framework to work from and a very good foundation to start with.
6
7
8
I understand the Planning Commission's question in terms of the lack of a master plan and this
desire for maximum flexibility. I think in an ideal world with bigger budgets and a broader
9 vision just from the beginning we would take that road. However, I agree with Staff and I
10 believe one Planning Commissioner who spoke to this is an opportunity to provide a framework.
11 There has been a lot of communication between Staff and members of the public in coming to
12 some consensus. If there are. changes to be made later, and I understand phase.two to be site.
13 furnishings. These are very light pieces, newspaper racks, kiosks, trash receptacles that can work
14 around tree plantings. There was I think a Staff comment in terms of some of these trees could
15 actually move. We probably won't widen the street and lose the curb edge where we will be
16 destroying planting are for these new trees. If anything it will be an opportunity to gain more
17 plants that will work with this framework, so given that, I believe Plan C to be a very positive
18 direction.
19
20 At first glace when I opened my packet I thought oh my goodness, there are so many colors on
21 this sheet. -However, after having heard the presentations, and knowing the groundwork that has
22 been laid, and talking with residents, and also looking at the shape of the tree in some of these
23 drawings. I think in the previous hearing I had actually asked for or wanted to challenge the
City of Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 30 of35
1 team to think about more accent trees at intersections, at these public crossings. While I think
2 that continuity and cohesiveness unifying the streets cape is very important with one tree or a
3 couple of trees. I am on the fence of accent trees at pedestriahintersections, particularly around
4 Birch Street and at the end of the plaza around the fountain are very positive gestures.
5
6 My only comment that I had was in terms of the gateway along El Camino. I appreciate Board
7 Member Wasserman's question about planting in the median. I also was wondering about that
8 gateway being strong enough to be read as a gateway. I believe one community member or
9 someone mentioned that there should be some continuity or cohesiveness at two ends of the
10 street. So I would just offer the comment that perhaps on the Caltrain side and on the EI Camino
11 side, those two ends, that there is something that connects those two very important ends, and
.12 there. is this continuity.
13
14 Then I did want to second Board Member Malone Prichard's comment regarding the London
15 Plane trees. I guess I read the legend and said, okay where is that existing large deciduous street
16 tree and how can we match the existing? Maybe that will bring in the pattern but unfortunately it
17 is just right at the end along those residences.
18
19 Those are my comments and I will pass the baton to Vice-Chair Lew.
20
21 Board Member Lew: I would say when I first opened up the various plans I was sort of
22 concerned that there were too many different species of trees on this very small block with
23 limited infrastructure. After Ms. Lunberg's presentation I could see that it is possible to have
City of Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 31 of35
1 complimentary pairings of trees. I think that what is happening at the Birch Street intersection is
2 very nice, the pairings of those.
3
4 I am concerned though that in the middle of the block where we do have the pedestrian crossings
5 that there are too many different species and that the unifYing street tree, the London, isn't really
6 dominant enough. So I think I would agree with Board Member Malone Prichard that maybe we
7 simplifY the plan a little bit just in eliminating or just unifYing the deciduous accent tree, which is
8 the Shumard Oak. Maybe somehow we simplifY it a little bit or if Ms. Lunberg has images of
9 how in the mid-block that those different trees are complimentary and that they work together
10 then I think that would be fine.
11
12 I live on a block that probably has seven different kinds of street trees and they somehow all
13 blend together. It is a residential street and it is not an urban street. I think in the urban context
14 it is really harder to have all of the landscape work together. In the suburban context you have
15 multiple layers of landscape and lawns that sort of bring it all together but I am really hard-
16 pressed to think of a single, any urban downtown street that has this many trees. I can't really
17 think of any. Most of the ones I can think of have many four trees and then maybe there are a
18 few great specimen trees. I am thinking if we could do one more round of simplification on-this
19 I think it would be a great plan. I do agree that C is better than A and B.
20
21 Then I think my last concern is really similar to Board Member ,Wasserman's concern about the
22 Valley Oaks. I think that whatever trees go into the plan have to be proven in an urban situation
23 in these very small wells. On Castro Street in Mountain View they tried doing these Idaho
City of Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 32 of35
1 Locust and 15 years went by and they never really matured or anything. It was a nice tree but it
2 just didn't work in the urban tree well. So I think there are a lot of trees in here that are very nice
3· but I have not really seen them in comparable downtown locations. I would really urge all the
4 arborists. . . Yes.
5
6 Ms. Rooney: The Tilias, the Silver Leaf Lindens, are a tree that get very big and provide a lot of
7 canopy. They are used in sidewalks and drip plantings already in Palo Alto and then also in
8 other city settings and have done very well. I think one of the pictures we had show a young
9 one.
10
11 The Southern Live Oak is the evergreen tree of choice that replaced the Stone Pines on San
12 Antonio. So those are also planted in a narrow sidewalk strip and have been proven as a good
13 street tree in our area. We really tried very hard to meet the criteria and Barrie Coate, Dave
14 Muffly, Eric Krebs, and Dave Dockter all felt that these were appropriate choices.
15
16 Board Member Lew: Okay, well good. I hope they work because it is fairly traumatic having to
17 take out trees that don't perform well.
18
19 Then I would actually also agree with some of my colleagues on the Board that really at the two
20· gateways, like at the EI Camino end to me the Valley Oak is great when you have one by itself
21 and you really highlight the structure of the tree. I have seen them put together, groupings too,
22 but in a way as a gateway it is sort of stronger by itself. Although it may not really work planted
23 in the median.
City 0/ Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 33 0/35
I
2 Then at the other end, I would actually support a tree like a Sycamore because the other end is
3 very open and I think it really does need a large tree. It doesn't necessarily have to be a
4 Sycamore. I think the concept that is missing at the end there is that I think if you had like two
5 sides of Sycamores with the Pistache in the middle that is great. As we have it now we have a
6 row of Sycamores, a row of the Pistache, and then some pine trees, and then not much at the bus
7 stop. I think the design intent is good but the reality of actually putting it in that space and fitting
8 it around the bus stops and everything then to me that design just doesn't work. So then I would
9 say if I can't put any trees along the bus stop then maybe the trees in the middle have to be the
10 same as the Sycamores or whatever it is to make that kind of adjustment. That area is so wide as
11 it is now and it really doesn't feel like a place. I know there is some discussion about moving the
12 bike racks. I think moving the bike racks would be number one on the list and then work the
13 trees around that constraint. I know that is a touchy subject. So that is it.
14
15 Then I think to the Planning Commission's concern and also some of the previous Board
16 Member Solnick's concern about not having a master plan. It seems to me this whole problem
17 came about because of lack of money. So if it is really just trees and street furniture then we
18 should just go ahead and move oIJ and plant the trees and work on phase two next year. So that
19 concludes my comments.
20
21 Did you guys have any other follow ups? No. Great. It is looking good.
22
23 Board Member Wasserman: We are not supposed to vote on this?
City 0/ Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 34 0/35
1
2 Board Member Lew: We are not voting it is just comments, right? So we don't have any
3 motion. Great, well good lucK. It is looking much better.
4
5 Ms. Rooney: Thank you very much for your comments. We have taken careful notes so we will
6 try to get a final iteration for Council.
7
8 Board Member Lew: Great, thank you. We are going to take a short break.
City of Palo Alto November 5, 2009 Page 35 of35
ATIACHMENTG
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Envirorunent
250 Hamilton Avenue,S" Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2441 FAX (650) 329-2154
www.cityofpaloalto.org
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
A notice, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources
Code 21 et that the . will not have a effect on the environment.
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements have into two phases. I is comprised of
the replacement and addition of approximately 65 street trees and Phase II is comprised of various upgrades
that may include replacement of street benches, news racks, waste receptacles, replacement and addition of
bicycle racks, crosswalk improvements, additional parking and possible restriping of rOadway lane
configuration to reduce travel lanes and make the street more bicycle and pedestrian friendly.
The·purpose of this notice to you that the Alto Planning Staffhas recommended that a
Mitigated Negative Declaration be approved for this project. City Planning Staff has reviewed the Initial
Study for the project, and based upon substantial evidence in the record, finds that although the proposed
project could initially have a significant effect on the environment, changes or alterations have been
incorporated into the project to avoid or reduce impacts to a point where clearly no significant effects will
occur. It should be noted that the approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration does not constitute approval
of . ect under The decision to the will made seDara1tely
(;01mtrten1ts regarding the correctness, or of this mitigated negative declaration·
are invited· and must be received on or before the end of the public review period. Such comments should be
based on specific environmental concerns. Written comments should be addressed to the City of Palo Alto,
PJanniDg Department,25O Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. For additional infonnation regarding
this Mitigated Negative Declaration, please contact Clare Campbell at 650-617-3191.
Aesthetics -1: A reforestation and landscape plan to replace removed trees in place or add trees in
optimum locations shall be approved by the City Council.
Aesthetics -2: Replacement tree characteristics (species, size, location, etc.) shall be promulgated by
city staff and consultants, with input by the public and stakeho1ders. Planting basin design shall provide
acceptable growing conditions that increase root and canopy growth (versus standard 3' x 3' planting
traditions).
Aesthetics -3: Other landscape enhancements shall be considered to serve as temporary greening
elements along the streetscape· during the establislllnent period of the new trees. Enhancements shall consider
placement of large decorative planter pots behind curb spaced apart from the newly planted sidewalk trees;
planted with a combination of fragrant or showy or unique shrubbery (such as rosemary, carpet rose,
ornamental grasses); or small trees, evergreen (yew pine, citrus or Carolina laurel) or deciduous (flowering
maple, princess flower or crape myrtle).
Prepared by:
Clare Campbell, Planner c:£2<=Q
Signature
\.0 ... t..b ... C4'
Date
Page2of2
DRAFT ADOPTED ON: _________ _
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
California Environmental Quality Act .
DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I. . DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Date: October 20, 2009
Project Name:
Project Location:
Applicant:
Owner:
Project Description:
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I
The project site is centrally located in the city of Palo Alto, in the
northern part of Santa Clara County, west ofU .S. Highway 101 and east
of State Route 82 (EI Camino Real). The project area is limited to the .
100 through 400 blocks of California Avenue, which is bounded by the
Caltrain station to the east and EI Camino Real to the west.
CityofPalo Alto, Public Works Engineering
Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
The California Avenue Streetscape Improvements have been divided into two phases. Phase I is
comprised of the replacement and addition of approximately 65 street trees and Phase II is
comprised of various upgrades that may include replacet1lent of street benches, news racks,
waste receptacles, replacement and addition of bicycle racks, crosswalk improvements,
additional parking and possible restriping of roadway lane configuration to reduce travel lanes
and make the street more bicycle and pedestrian friendly.
This environmental review will focus on Phase I of the project. Phase II, will undergo separate
environmental analysis when the project components have been determined.
n. DETERMINATION
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:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
Aitllunngb the project, as pmposed, could have a signnfncant effect on ~be
environment, tbere wiIR not be a significant effect on the environment in this
case because mitigation measures have been added to the project and,
therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
~~~ IlfiS ~ 1 .. rCltf'lr. i fa' %':l'iSiP't'~lf "$, IJItWIW~d! ;~tT 3 ilia limn
The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential
environmental effects of the project and confinns the determination that an EIR is not required
for .tbe project.
fu addition, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project:
Aesthetics -1: A reforestation and landscape plan to replace removed trees in place or add trees
in optimum locations shall be approved by the City Council.
Aesthetics -2: Replacement tree characteristics (species, size, location, etc.) shall be
promulgated by city staff and consultants, with input by the public and stakeholders. Planting
basin design shall provide acceptable growing conditions that increase root and canopy growth
(versus standard 3' x 3' planting traditions).
Aesthetics ~ 3: Other landscape enhancements shall be considered to serve as temporary
greening elements along the streetscape during the establishment period of the new trees.
Enhancements shall consider placementoflarge decorative planter pots behind curb spaced apart
from the newly planted sidewalk trees; planted with a combination of fragrant or showy or..
unique shrUbbery (such as rosemary, carpet rose,· ornamental grasses); otsmall trees, evergreen·
(yew pine, citrus or Carolina laurel) or deciduous (flowering maple, princess flower or crape
lO .... 2C ... ~
Prepared by Project Planner Date
Adopted by City CouncD, Attested by Date
Director of Planning and Community Environment
Signed after the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been approved
Page2of2
California Avenue
Streetscape Improvements
Phase I
Initial Study
Prepared by
City of Palo Alto
October 20, 2009
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements Phase I Page I Initial Study
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKl!ST
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 3
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ..................... 7
A. AESTHETICS ......................................................................................................... 8
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES .............................................. 10
C. "'AIR QUALITy ...................................................................................................... 11
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................. : ............................................ 12
E. CULTIJRAL RESOURCES .................................................................................. 13
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY .............................................................. 14
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ........................................ ; ....................... : .... 15
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................. 16
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .......................................................... 17
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................ 19
K. MINERAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 19
L. NOISE ................................................................................................................... ;20
M. POPlTLATION AND HOUSING ............... :: ........................................................ 21
N. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................. 22
O. RECREATION ...................................................................................................... 22
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ................................................................ 23
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ........................ ~ ..................................... 24
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................... 25
III. SOURCE REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 27
IV. DETERMINATION ....................................................................................................... 28
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements Phase I Page 2 Initial Study
ENViRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION .
1. PROJECT TITLE
. California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I
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, Planner
City of Palo Alto
650-617-3191
4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
City. of Palo Alto, Public Works Engineering
Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer
5. APPLICATION NUMBER
09PLN-00176
6. PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is centrally located in the city of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara
County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and east of State Route 82 (EI Camino Real), as shown on
Figure 1, Regional Map. The project area is limited to the 100 through 400 blocks of California
Avenue, which is bounded by the Caltrain station to the east and EI Camino Real to the west,
as shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map.
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 3 Initial Study
Figurel : Regional Map
Figure 2: Vicinity Map
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 4 Initial Study
7. GENERAL PLAN DESJIGNATION
The project area is designated as Regional/Community Commercial in the Palo Alto 1998
2010 Comprehensive Plan. Thi~ land use designation includes larger shopping centers and
districts that have wider variety goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas.
They rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores,
furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters, and non-retail services such as
offices and banks. California Avenue is designated as a "collector" street in Palo Alto's
roadway hierarchy. This type of roadway collects and distributes local traffic to and from
arterial streets and provides aCcess to adjacent properties.
8. ZONING
The project area is zoned CC(2)(R)(P), Community Commercial (2) with a Retail and
Pedestrian shopping combining district overlay. The project area also falls within the
boundaries of the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) overlay district. The
project will not result in a change of use and does not conflict with the existing zoning.
The CC Community Commercial district is intended to create and maintain major commercial
centers accommodating a broad range of office, retail sales, and other commercial activities of
community-wide or regional significance. The CC community commercial district is intended
to be applied to regional/community commercial centers identified by the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan. The community commerdal (2) (CC(2)}subdistrlct is intended to modify
the site development regulations of the CC community commercial district, where applied in
combination with such district, to allow site specific variations to the community commercial
uses and development requirements in the CC district.
The (R) Retail shopping combining district is intended to modify the uses allowed in a
commercial district, where applied in combination with such district, to allow only retail,
eating and service oriented commercial development on the ground floors.
The (P) Pedestrian shopping combining district is intended to modify the regulations of the CC
community commercial district in locations where it is deemed essential to foster the continuity
of retail stores and display windows and to avoid a monotonous pedestrian environment in
order to establish and maintain an economically healthy retail district.
The California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining
District is intended to allow higher density residential dwellings on commercial, industrial and
multi-family parcels within a walkable distance of the California A venue Caltrain station,
while protecting low density residential parcels and parcels with historical resources that may
also be located in or adjacent to this area. The combining district is intended to foster densities
and facilities that: (1) Support use of public transportation; (2) Encourage a variety of housing
types, commercial retail and limited office uses; (3) Encourag~ project design that achieves an
overall context-based development for the PTOD overlay area; (4) Require streetscape design
elements that are attractive pedestrians and bicyclists; (5) Increase connectivity to surrounding
existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and (6) Implement the city's Housing
California Avenue StrF\p_t~c"n'\P. Improvements Page 5 Initial Study
Element and Comprehensive Plan. A PTOD combining district may be applied to a parcel
through rezoning of the site that is within the specified boundaries of the district.
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Background
In 2005, the California A venue Area Development Association (CAADA) submitted a request
to the City for streetscape improvements including street tree and street light replacement,
traffic lane reduction, addition of bicycle lanes and pedestrian crosswalks, new street furniture,
new newspaper racks and fountain repair. The existing street trees were reaching the end of
their life span, some were conflicting with street lights and store fronts, and some had already
been removed because of disease.
In 2006, CAADA worked with the City on developing a general master plan for the area in
order to seek grant funding. Staff developed a conceptual streetscape plan for the area and
applied for grant funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The California
A venue streetscape plan called for a complete and more uniform tree canopy, street
improvements and other amenities.
When the grant application was unsuccessful, the City sought to address portions of the project
through the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and continued to work with CAADA
on the certain elements of the plan including street tree replacement, street lights, street
furniture, fountain replacement, new trash/recycling containers and newspaper racks. In 2007,
Public Works staff surVeyed California Avenue and identified trees which were candidates for
removal based on the following criteria: health; structure, placement and aesthetics, and in
addition, identified potential sites for new tree installations. The survey reflects approximately
92 tree sites that include 68 existing trees and 24 potential new tree locations. None of the trees
along California Avenue were heritage or protected trees. In January 2009, due to the high
cost of replacing the street light system, staff decided to eliminate streetlight work from the
project and use this money to replace street trees. This change was reflected in an updated
description of the CIP.
A tentative staff-level Architectural Review approval was issued on September 14, 2009 for
the above project. The tentative approval letter described a 14 day request for public hearing
period within which a request for hearing before the Architectural Review Board (ARB) may
be submitted. It was during this 14 day request for hearing period that the project prematurely
proceeded and 63 street trees were removed.
Proposed Project
The California A venue Streetscape Improvements have been divided into two phases. Phase I
is comprised of the replacement and addition of approximately 65 street trees (see attached
map) and Phase II is comprised of various upgrades that may include replacement of street
benches, news racks, waste receptacles, replacement and addition of bicycle racks, crosswalk
improvements, additional parking and possible restriping of roadway lane configuration to
reduce travel lanes and make the street more bicycle and pedestrian friendly.
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 6 Initial Study
This environmental review will focus on Phase 1 of the project. Phase II, will undergo separate
environmental analysis when the project components have been determined.
10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The project area is a commercial zone with a variety, of restaurants; retail and grocery stores
and is surrounded primarily with similar non-residential useswi;thin a two block radius. Further
to the north and south, residential uses become the dominant land. use.
11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED
Not applicable.
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.
CalifomiaAvenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 7 Initial Study
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
dt>cument 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 individuaJs
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.
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 en.d of the checkJist. Discussions of the basis for. each answer
and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potentiaJ significant impacts are inc1uded.
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 1,2,5,7 X
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 1, 2-Map L4, X
public view or view corridor? 5, 7
c) Substantially damage scenic resources, 1, 2-Map L4, X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock 5
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan 1,2,5,7 X
policies regarding visual resources?
e) Create a new source of substantial light or 1,5,6 X
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
f) Substantially shadow public open space .. 1,5,6 X
(other than public streets and adjacent
sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. from September 21 to March 21?
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 8 Initial Study
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project includes the replacement of approximately 65 mature street trees along the
designated California Avenue project area. As part of the tree replanting, new trees will be added and
some will be moved to more appropriate locations along the sidewalk. The removal of the trees has
potential significant visual impacts unless mitigation is incorporated.
The pre-existing public trees in the project area consisted of a variety of species, mixed ages and size.
Individual tree conditions varied broadly. The tree health conditions ranged from fair to poor health,
du~ toJess than favorable growing conditions such as limited above ground clearance from buildings,
constricted trunk and planter space in the sidewalk and inadequate soil volume for long term root
growth. Separately, the branch and trunk structure of most of the trees was fair, although many of the
trees had scarred or damaged limbs or trunk from vehicular contact over the years
The City has solicited input from Canopy (www.canopy.org), a Palo Alto based urban forestry
nonprofit organization, and Barry Coate, a well-respected arborist in the Bay Area, along with
community input on the tree replacement species, size and location. The project is subject to review to
ensure that the final design and plant selection meets the City's Architectural Review standards, which
promotes visual environments that are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same
time, are considerate of each other. The final landscape plans will also be reviewed by the Planning
and Transportation Commission and City Council who will make the decision on the project. These
public hearings along with additional community meetings provide the community opportunities to
give input and to be included in the process.
Mitigation Measures:
Aesthetics -1: A reforestation and landscape plan to replace removed trees in place or add trees in
optimum locations shall be approved by the City Council. .
Aesthetics -2: Replacement tree characteristics (species, size, location, etc.) shall be promulgated by
city staff and consultants, with input by the public and stakeholders. Planting basin design shall
provide acceptable growing conditions that increase root and canopy growth (versus standard 3' x 3'
planting traditions).
Aesthetics -3: Other landscape enhancements shall be considered to serve as temporary greening
elements along the streetscape during the establishment period of the new trees. Enhancements shall
consider placement of large decorative planter pots behind curb spaced apart from the newly planted
sidewalk trees; planted with a combination of fragrant or showy or unique shrubbery (such as
rosemary, carpet rose, ornamental grasses); or small trees, evergreen (yew pine, citrus or Carolina
laurel) or deciduous (flowering maple, princess flower or crape myrtle).
Significance after Mitigation: Less Than Significant
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 9 Initial Study
B. AGRiCULTURAL AND FOREST 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 fannland.
In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to infonnation compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest
Legacy Assessment project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols
adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Issues and Supporting information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project;-Issues Unless Jmpact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, I 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?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,2-MapL9 X
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause I X
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 1 2220(g)1) or
timberland (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 45262)?
Result in the loss of forest land or conversion I X
offorest land to non-forest use?
Involve other changes in the existing 1 X
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
DISCUSSION:
The project area 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
1 PRC 12220(g): "Forest land" is land that can support lO-percent native tree cover of any species,
including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest
resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and
other public benefits.
2 PRC 4526: "Timberland" means land, other than land owned by the federal government and land
designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a
crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including
Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis after
consultation with the district committees and others.
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 10 Initial Study
of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by
the Williamson Act. The project area is within a fully developed urban area and has no impacts on
forest or timberland.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
C. Am QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation 1,5
of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay
Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
b)
Direct and/or indirect operational 1,5
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 le~s than 10.
microns in diameter PM 10 ;
ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) 1,5
concentrations exceeding the State
Ambient Air Quality Standard ofnine
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 7·
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 1,5
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
recursors 7
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels 1,5
of toxic air contaminants?
i. Probability of contracting cancer fur the 1
Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl)
exceeds lOin one million
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Page 11
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incor orated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Initial Study
No
Impact
X
X
X
.,
X
X
X
e)
f)
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-I X
carcinog~nic TACs would result in a
hazard index greater than one (I) for the ,
MEl
Create objectionable odors affecting a 1 X
substantial number of people? ~ -, ..
Not implement all applicable construction 1 X
emission control measures recommended in the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project involves minimal construction activity and therefore will not conflict with any
applicable air quality plans, expose any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants, nor add any
objectionable odors to the neighborhood. Palo Alto is located within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), this regional agency regulates air pollutant emissions
from stationary sources and through its planning and review process. All development in Palo Alto is
subject to the BAAQMD regulations.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Do 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-MapNl, X
directly or through habitat modifications, on 5,7
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
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-MapNl, X
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 5,7
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 1,8-MapNl, X
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 5,7
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nurse~ sites?
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 12 Initial Study
~~es and Supporting information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
I
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
I d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 1,2,3,4,5,7 X
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
e)
preservation policy or as defined by the City of
Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 8.1 O)?
Conflict with any applicable Habitat 1,5 X
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
DISCUSSION:
The project area is located within a fully developed urban setting. There are no sensitive plant or
animal species identified in this area. The street trees to be replaced are not species identified as
"protected" under the City's municipal code and their removal did not conflict with local ordinances.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
I a)
b)
c)
d)
• e)
t)
Significant . Significant Significant . Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural 1,10 X
resource that is recognized by City Council
resolution?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1,2-MapL8 X
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 1,2-MapL8 X
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2-MapL8 X
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
A!1versely affect a historic resource listed or 1,2-MapL7, X
eligible for listing on the National and/or 10
California Register, or listed on the City's
Historic Inventory?
Eliminate important examples of major periods 1 X
of California history or prehistory?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project involves minor construction activities within the public right-of-way that is
located within a fully developed and previously disturbed area. The proposed project will not create
any cultural impacts to the affected area. 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
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 13 Initial Study
'-~ -....
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.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
F. GEOLOGY SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of or death
Sources
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, 11
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
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? Referto·Division of Mines and
Publication 42.
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of ?
Result in substantial siltation?
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
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
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to
life or
Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
of waste water?
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I
2-MapNS
2-MapNS
Potentially
Significant
Page 14
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
Initial Study
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
.. ,,:-
geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated
through the use of standard engineering
design and seismic safety techniques?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project involves minor construction activities within the p..9blic rigbt of way (sidewalk)
of a fully developed commercial area. Although the project is located in an area with expansive soils
and has a high potential for surface rupture along fault traces and potential for earthquake-induced
, landslides where sloped, the tree installation project is limited to defined planting areas/tree wells that
are bounded by concrete and/or the curb. The proposed project would not create any new geology,
soils and seismicity impacts.
Generally, 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,
deyelopment 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.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
G GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either 1,5,9 X
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or 1,5,9 X
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
DISCUSSION:
While the state of California has established programs to reduce GHG, there are no established standards for
gauging the significance of greenhouse gas emissions. 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 generated by development projects in the City of Palo Alto, 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.
California A venue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 15 Initial Study
Trees and GHG
Although approximately 65 trees were removed from California Avenue, the project includes replacement and
the ihstal1ation of additional trees along the same area. Trees in cities affect GHG in three main ways:
1. As they grow, they remove carbon dioxide and other GHG from the atmosphere and sequester them in their
leaves,branches, trunks and roots; when the trees die, however, the carbon is released back into the air
through decomposition.
2. By shading buildings in summer and blocking cold winter winds, trees reduce electricity and natural gas
use, which reduces the production of GHG at the power plant or home furnace.
3. Wood from dead trees can be used to produce energy, create biofuel, and for thermal heat and cooling,
replacing fuels that produce more GHG.
The project i~J:l1inor in scope and will not have an overall significant effect on carbon sequestration. Trees
provide a temporruyh-oldingplace for GHG, and the installation of replacement and new trees would offset the
minimal impacts that the removal may make.
In an effort to make a good faith effort at disclosing environmental impacts and to conform with the CEQA
Guidelines [§ 16064(b )], it is the City's position that, baSed on the nature and size of this project, 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, AB 32 and the City's Climate Protection Plan. For these reasons,
this project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change associated with
greenhouse gas emissions. As such, impacts are considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health and Safety if the
l d b' h h h d . I przmary lssues are re ate to a su ijeet ot er t an azar ous matena use.
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 1,5 X
environment through the routing transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
! b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,5 X
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
I
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous 1,5 X
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Id) Construct a school on a property that is subject 1,5 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 arid, as a
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements Page 16 Initial
result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public 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
h)
i)
j)
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working the
project area?
Impair implementation of or physically 1,2-MapN7 X
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk 1,2-MapN7 X
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,5 X
environment from existing hazardous materials
contamination by exposing future occupants or
users ofthe site to contamination in excess of
i
soil and ground water cleanup goals developed
for the site?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project is minor in scope and does not involve the use, creation or transportation of
hazardous materials. California Avenue is not designated as an evacuation route nor located within or
near the wildland fire danger area. The proposed project would have no impacts with regard to public
safety, hazards and hazardous materials.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Signiflc~nt Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
• Incorporated
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 1,2,5 X
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 2-MapN2 X
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that th~te would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume"1r-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
I
uses or planned uses for which permits have
I been granted)?
California A venue Improvements -Page 17 Study
!
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,5 X
of the site or area, including through the
alteration ofthe 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 1,5 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 1,5 X
exceed the capaci~ of existing or planned
storrnwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,5 X
g) Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood hazard 2-MapN6 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 lOO-year flood hazard area 2-MapN6 X
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk 2-MapNS X
of loss, injury or death involve flooding,
includi.ng flooding as a re&ult of the failure of a.
levee or dam or being located within a lOO-year
flood hazard area?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 2-MapN6 X
k) Result in stream bank instability? 1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project involves minimal construction activities and is not anticipated to create any new
hydrology and water quality impacts.
All development is required to comply with building codes that address flood safety issues.
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).
TheBMPs 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 arid Federal standards pertaining to storm water run-off and water
quality.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 18 Initial Study
:.'
•
J. 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? 1,5 ","',"; .·.~·d X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 1,2,3,4,5 I' 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 X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
d) Substantially adversely change the type or 1,5 X
intensity of existing or planned land use in the
area?
e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with 1,5 X
the general character of the surrounding area,
including density and building height?
f) Conflict With established residential, 1,5 X
recreational, educational, religious, or scientific
uses of an area?
g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or 1,2,3 X
farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to
non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project involves minor work in the public right-of-way (sidewalk) and does not impact the
existing land uses along California A venue. The improvements are intended to compliment and enhance the
existing commercial district and are not anticipated to create any land use impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
K. 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) R~ult in the loss of availability of a known 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
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
DISCUSSION:
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements Phase I Page 19 Initial Study
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-I). 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: NQoe R.equired. .. .
L. 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 1,2,12 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 1,2,12 X
excessive ground borne vibrations or ground
borne noise levels?
c) A substantial pennanent increase in ambient 1,2,12 X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) . A substant.ial temporary or periodic increase in 1,2,12 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 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 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 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 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 X
existing residential area where the Ldn
currently exceeds 60 dB?
j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1 X
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?
k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1 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 1,12 X
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 20 Initial Study
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction
activity. Short-term temporary construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in
impacts that are expected to be less than significant. The project is located in busy commercial district
with an active train station in the immediate vicinity; the existing noise conditions are not quiet and the
temporary construction activities will not create any new significant noise impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: . Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Induce substantial populatio"n groWth in an 1 .. -X
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing 1 X
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, 1 X
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Create a substantial imbalance between 1 X
employed residents and jobs?
Cumulatively exceed regional or local 1 X
population projections?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project involves minor work in the public right-of-way (sidewalk) and does not encourage
development and therefore will not create any new population and housing impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
California A venue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 21 Initial Study
N. 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 physicaJly 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 ofthe
public services:
a) Fire protection? 1 X
b) Police protection? 1 X
c) Schools? 1 X
d) Parks? 1 X
e) Other public facilities? 1 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project involves minor work in the public right·of·way (sidewalk) and does not encourage
growth and development and is not anticipated to generate new users as to create impacts to the
existing public services for the City. .
Mitigation Measures: None Required
O. RECREATION
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
a)
b)
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Would the project increase the use of 1 X
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration ofthe
facility would occur or be accelerated?
Does the p'roject include recreational 1 X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment? .
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project involves minor work in the public right-of-way (sidewalk) and does not
encourage growth and development in the City and is not anticipated to generate new users as to create
impacts to the existing City recreational facilities.
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 22 Initial Study
Mitigation Measures: None Required
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significan t Significant
Would the project: Issues .. Unless· Impact
Mitigation
. Incorporated
a) Exceed the capacity of the existing 1,5 X
circulation system, based on an applicable
measure of effectiveness (as designated in a
general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking
into account all relevant components ofthe
circulation system, including but not limited
to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion 1,5 X
management program, including but not
limited to level of servIce standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, 1,5 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 1,5 X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,5 X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,5 X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 1,2,5 X
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit &
bicycle facilities)?
h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection 1,5 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 1,5 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 1,5 X
from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause
pritical movement delay at such an
Califurnia Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 23 Initial Study
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 1,5 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 1,5 X
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
m) Cause queuing impacts based on a 1,5 X
comparative analysis between the design
queue length and the available queue storag~
capacity? Queuing iinpacts include, but are
not limited to, spill back 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 1,5 X
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?
0) Impede the operation of a transit system as a 1,5 X
result of congestion?
p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1,5 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project involves minor work in the public right-of-way (sidewalk) and does not encourage
growth and development and is not anticipated to create traffic, transportation or parking impacts.
'Mitigation: None Required
Q. 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 1,5 X
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new 1,5 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 1,5 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 1,5 X
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 24 Initial Study
I
][ssues and Supporting Information Resources I Sources Potentially I Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: . Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
serve the project from existing entitlements .,
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 1,5 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 1,5 X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes 1,5 X
and regulations related to solid waste?
h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration 1,5 X
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result ofthe project?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project does not encourage growth and development and therefore no increase in the
demand on existing utilities and service systems or impacts to these services are expected.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
R. 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 1,2,3,4,7,10 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 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)?
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 25 Initial Study
' ..
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
c)
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Does the project have environmental effects 1,5 .. X
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
DISCUSSION:
The removal of the trees created visual impacts affecting the aesthetic quality of the immediate project
vicinity, but with the implementation of the prescribed mitigations, the impacts would be reduced to a less
than significant level. As discussed in the Biological Resources section, this project does not impact
sensitive wildlife or plant habitats. The goal of the project is intended to enhance the visitor's experience
and create an inviting and welcoming commercial district.
The project's cumulative impacts are limited to the GHG emissions. A project of this minor scope is not
anticipated to create cumulatively considerable impacts of any other nature. See the Greenhouse Gas
Emissions section for further discussion.
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 26 Initial Study
SOUR.CE REFERENCES
]. Project Planner's knowledge of the site and the proposed project
2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-20] 0
3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title] 8 -Zoning Ordinance
4. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Municipal Code ChaR~er 8.] 0.030,.June 2001
5. Project Plans
6. MTC Capital Grant Application for California Streetscape Improvements, June 23, 2006
7. 2007 Arborist Survey
8. Public Works Project Update, September 27,2009
9. Center for Urban Forest Research (http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/cufr/protocols.shtml)
] O. Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory .
11. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
12. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 9.1O-Noise Ordinance
ATTACHMENTS
A. Project Plans
B. MTC Capital Grant Application for Ca]ifornia Streetscape Improvements, June 23, 2006
C. 2007 Arborist Surv~y
California Avenue Streetscape Improvements Phase I Page 27 Initial Study
DETERMINATION
On the basis ofthis initial eyaluation:
I find tbat the proposed project COULD NOT bave a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find . that although the proposed project conld have a significant effect . on the
environment, tbere 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 X
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially. significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on tbe 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 theeffects1hat 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 Em or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
to ... Zo-cer
rOJeet Planner Date
California A venue Streetscape Improvements -Phase I Page 28 Initial Study
·i,:~;;:(~t)t<lEVV'S~;Adl:<> ..• .... ~iR/R (E)STREETTREf W/RED MAPLE. ;":f~::t~k~::;iLl::tR:jK$)=~j:~~~~;~~~; ;~~~~;~~~~~~ ~SLL~~:D PINE
!cJ/.·PQIi:;'E¥{ ... . •... ~. R/R (E)STREETTREE. W/CHINESE PISTACHE :'(?;.:~'.>t~~~~f~~i~~~1~!:#~~~
PLAN SHEET
. ATTACHMENTB
MTC Capital Grant Application for California
. .
StreetscapeImprovements, June 23,2006
This document can be viewed on the web at the following address
under "Capital Grant Application" towards the bottom of the page:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.orginews/displaynews.asp?NewsID= 139
4&TargetID=268
"rREE NO.
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
47
48
49
50
51
2007 Tree Location/Condition Survey
California 'Avenue
(E) SPECIES HEALTH STRUCTURE PLACEMENT AESTHETICS
or (N)TREE I 0-4 pis 0-4 pts 0-4 pts 0-4 pts DISPOSITION
Holl 3 3 3 1 Remove & replace w/London Plane
Holly Oak 2 3 4 1 Remove & replace w/London Plane
Holly Oak 1 3 4 1 ove & replace w/London Plane
London Plane 4 4 3 3 Keep
Blue Spruce 2 2 1 1 Remove & replace w/Pistache
Pistache 3 3 4 4 Keep
Pistache 3 3 4 4 Keep
Pistache 3 3 4 4 Keep
Pistache 3 3 4 4 Keep
Pistache 3 3 4 4 Keep
Pis tache 3 3 4 4 Keep
Pistache 3 3 4 4 Keep
Stone Pine Remove & replace w/Pistache in (N) site
Stone Pine Remove & replace w/Pistache in (N) site
Stone Pine I Remove & replace w/Pistache in (N) site
Stone Pine Remove & replacew/Pistache in (N) site
Liquid Ambar 2 1 0 2 Keep
Blue Spruce 1 2 4 2 Remove & demo planter, plant (N) tree
Holly Oak Remoye, do not replace, poor site
Holly Oak 2. 1 4 1 Remove & replace, move 8 ft east
Pitiosporum I Remove, demo planter, replace 6 ft east
Red Oak .. ---.-'-.::--:----Remove & replace; improve site . . .
tile Brus-h-... ..... ..... __ .. _ . -.. ~' ~'-Remove, no replacement--' ___ ._c. ________ . __ ..
Holly Oak 3 1 4 2 Remove & replace
New tree In front of103 Cal Ave .
Blue Spruce Remove, demo planter, plant w/new tree
New tree Plant new tree in (e) planter @ 260 Cal A
New tree Reestablish site in front of 260 Cal Ave
New tree New tree in front of 260 Cal Ave .
Holly Oak' 3 3 3 3 Keep
Holly Oak 3 2 3 3 Keep. Consider R&R in (N) bulb-out
New tree In (N) bulb-out @ 310 Cal Ave
New tree East of door @ 320 Cal Ave, consider bus stop
Holly Oak R&R 13 ft east
New tree In bulb-out bet 344 Cal Ave & crosswalk
Holly Oak 3 2 4 3 Keep
Holly Oak Keep
New tree At 370 Cal Ave in reconfigured bulb-out
Holly Oak Keep .... __ .----.---Keep
._-
Holly Oak
New tree 5 ft east of #42
Holly Oak Remove
New tree ArSank of West. consider crosswalk
Holly Oak 3 1 1 3 Remove
Holly Oak 2 3 4 3 Keep
New tree At 454 Cal Ave east of roof drain
New tree At 460 Cal Ave 10ft east of property line
. Holly Oak 2 3 3 3 Keep or R&R in modified bUlb-out
Blue Spruce R&R w/same tree as #48
Bottle Brush 3 2 4 4 Keep
New tree Atv 490 Cal Ave 14 ft west of (E) site
52 Holly Oak
53 Holly Oak
54 Holly Oak
55 Holly Oak
56 Blue Spruce
57 New tree
58 Holly Oak
59 New tree
60 Holly Oak
61 New tree
62 New tree
63 Holly Oak
64 New tree
65 Holly Oak
66 New tree
67 Blue Spruce
68 New tree
69 Holly Oak
70 New tree
71 Holly Oak
72 Holly Oak
73 Holly Oak
74 Crepe Myrtle
75 Holly Oak-.. --_ .. --76 New tree
77 Holly Oak
78 New tree
79 New tree
80 Holly Oak
81 Holly Oak
82 Liquid Ambar
83 Holly Oak
84 Holly Oak
85 Holly Oak
86 New tree
87 Holly Oak
88 Red Maple
89 Liquid Ambar
90 Liquid Ambar
91 Liquid Ambar
92 Liquid Ambar r---
2007 Tree Location/Condition Survey
California Avenue
Remove, do not replace (stop light)
3 4 3 3 Keep, improve site
Keep, improve site
Keep, improve site
3 3 4 4 Keep
At 463 Cal Ave 9 ft east of property line
Remove
At 461 Cal Ave 3 ft east of right property line
4 3 4 4 Keep
25 ft east of tree #60
25 ft east of tree #61
Remove -streetlight conflict
At 439 Cal Ave
Remove
In modified bUlb-out
3 3 3 3 Keep
At 421 Cal Ave
Remove
Between 415 & 417 Cal Ave
3 3 3 2 K~~p
3 3 ti±= Keep
3 3 -" Keep
R&R
-" . _._ .. --_ ........ .. -.. ~.-..
In bulb-out bet 344 Cal Ave & crosswalk
Remove -streetlight conflict
At 341_ Cal Ave
25 east of #78
Remove -streetlight conflict
4 4 3 3 Keep
Keep
3 3 3 3 Keep
Remove and replace in bulb-out
3 3 3 3 Keep
At 241 Cal Ave
Keep-
Keep, needs structural pruning
R&R
R&R away from curb
R&R away from curb
R&R away from curb --
Survey performed by Eric Krebs, Managing Arborist
:
STREET TREE REPLANTING PLAN
PROPOSED .---... ----------~ .... _-_ .... _---.~---~ ~---.---... ---------~---------~-------.
-BENCH
TRASH RECEPTACLE
BIKE RACK
* PUBLIC ART
(E) EXISTING TREE
PROPOSED PHASE
2 FOUNTAIN AREA
TREATMENT
VALLEY OAK
California Avenue
LARGE DECIDUOUS
SIGNATURE ENTRY
TREE
LARGE EVERGREEN
SIGNATURE TREE
SOUTHERN LIVE OAK
DECIDUOUS ACCENT
TREE AT PEDESTRIAN
CROSSING
SHUMARD OAK
•
DECIDUOUS ACCENT (j .. " DECIDUOUS
TREE AT INTERSECTION ." ,... UNIFYING
. STREET TREE
FREEMAN MAPLE SILVER LINDEN
..
AITACHMENTH
MOLLIE STONES
.~J. f7\
120 ~
NORTH
--_ ..... _----_ ... _-------
e" DECIDUOUS FOUNTAIN
AREA TREE
CHINESE PISTACHE
11.16,09
GITvtiJALO ALTO
ATTACHMENT I
Contract Change Order Form
Project Title: California Avenue Street Tree Replacement Project Number: PE·07005
Contract Number: S10133291 Date: 11112109
Contractor: Suarez and Munoz Construction, Inc. Change Order #3
Number:
Descripticm of Change Order
Background Information: tion for C0#3
Change Order Justification: See attached justification for C0#3
Description of Work to be Performed: See attached justification for C0#3
Incorporates Field Order Number(s):
Cost Time
This change order will: This change order will:
0 Not change cost 0 Not change time
~ Increase cost by $ ,96,185.76 'j< Increase time by 12 days
0 Decrease cost by $ 0 Decrease time by days
The date of completion as of this change order is
Note GIL account number (s) here (see GIL #'s below): **Februa[y 171 2010.
Basis for change in cost: **The Contractor agr~es that the Contract
0 Unit price(s) unit prices will remain the same up to the
new date of completion at no additional
~ Lump sum cost.
0 Cost plus %
0 Other:
ApPENDIX B -CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
Contract Change Order
City of Palo Alto
Department:
Contract Number:
Contract Change Order Form -continued
The undersigned Contractor approves this Change Order as to the changes, if any, in the contract price specified for each Line Item
and as to the extension of time allowed, if any, for completion of the entire work on account of each Line Item, and agrees to furnish
all labor and materials and perform all work necessary to complete any additional work specified therein, for the consideration stated
therein. It is understood that the time and cost adjustments set forth in this Change Order include full compensation for any impacts
or delays associated with the Line Items addressed in this Change Order.
Accepted for Contractor: Accepted for City of Palo Alto:
By: ~ By:
Title: prl)J~cf IVI.tMr()-~ Title:
Date: JJ I 1'2_/ 0 &) Date:
ApPENDIX B -CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
Summary of Amounts Payable Under Contract (For Internal Purposes Only)
Amount of Original Contract $ 108,500
Net affect of all Change Orders $ 108,620
Revised Contract Total: $ 217,120
Compare to: I
Original Contract Amount: $ 108,500
Add: Contingency, if any: $ 21,700
Total Authorized Funding: $ 130,200
Change orders shall not be initiated for Council-approved contracts if the revised contract total
exceeds the total authorized funding amount.
Document Preparation
WOOJAEKIM
By:
Title: ENGINEER
Date: 11/12/09
City Approval-Required on all change orders
By:
Title; Division Head
Date;
City Approval-Department Head signature required when anylndividlull
Change Order exceeds $10,000.
1:). • "" .
Title: Director of Public Works
Date:
ApPENDIX B -CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
California Avenue Street Tree Replacement Project Change Order Summary
(CIP PEM 07005, Contract # SlO133291)
Original Scope of Work:
The original scope of work for the California A venue Street Tree replacement project
was to demolish the existing exposed aggregate concrete planters and the concrete kiosks,
and replace all the street trees on the public sidewalks and planters between EI Camino
Real and Park Avenue and to replace some trees on CaltrainlTransit Depot. All the trees
were supposed to be replaced with 15 gallon size trees. All the tree wells in the concrete
sidewalks were to be constructed per the City Standard with 3' by 3' metal grates.
Originally, the 15 gallon size trees were supposed to be planted by digging a 3 feet square
planting well and backfilling with soil amendment. A similar planting detail would have
been used for planting 15 gallon trees in larger planter areas.
Project Status:
All the street trees and the stumps that were in the original scope to be removed were
removed except for three. In order to remove all the tree stumps, some of the concrete
sidewalks were removed to make the opening larger for stump removal. Saw cuts were
made for tree wells in new locations. The project was then put on hold to come up with a
new planting plan. For safety reasons, all the existing tree well openings are plugged
with a thin layer of concrete temporarily which will need to be removed once the project
progresses again.
Change Order #3 Work Required:
With the new tree planting plan, various species of trees, 24 inch box in size or larger,
will be planted. The trees in the sidewalk will be 24 inch. In open planter areas, 36 inch
or 48 inch boxes will be planted if possible. The replanting of the plaza area between
Park Avenue and the Caltrain Station will occur after planning the Phase II project and is
not included in this change order. In the concrete sidewalk tree wells, Engineered Soil
Mix (ESM) will be installed instead of soil amendments, and the tree grates will be
upgraded to larger 4' by 4' metal grates. Approximately 5' by 5' by 3' deep of space will
be filled in with ESM. There will be a total of 66 trees planted. At each of those planting
sites, two-six inch diameter drainage holes approximately 3' deep will be excavated at the
bottom of the tree well and backfilled with medium sand or fine gravel to enhance
drainage. Furthermore, in the planter areas, if there are existing automatic irrigation
system, bubblers will be extended to irrigate the new trees there. The six concrete
planters that were to be demolished will be salvaged and moved to Municipal Services
Center for future use. There are four planters which have electrical outlets in them which
. will be relocated. The irrigation systems in the concrete planters will be capped or
relocated as part of the original scope of work. The two concrete kiosks which were
supposed to be demolished will remain.
([)
smc
Suarez & Muftoz Construction, Inc.
General Engineering and Landscape Contractors
20975 Cabot Blvd., Hayward, CA 94545·1155
Lie. No. 873996, Class A. B, C8. C27
(510) 782-6065
(510) 782-6078 FAX
PCO#1
Date: September 21,2009
Project: California Avenue Street Tree Replacament Project (City of Palo Alto)
C.h~ge Upsize from 15 Gal to 24" Box Trees DeSCrIption.:
To: City of Palo Alto Attn: Woojae Kim
Fax: via email
I Item NolDescription IQuantity IUnits 124" Box" 115 Gal
I 1 ~<4" DOX tree I 51 lEA 1$ 600.00 I $ 300.00
"24" Box of various species
Schedule Imrct: I o days
Delta
$ 300.00
Total
If you have any questions or need any further Information please give me a call at (510) 782-6065.
Thank you,
bmJw; & mw, e~, J-oo.
John Suarez
extension
$ 15,300.00
$ 16,300.00
GO
smc
Suarez & Mufioz Construction, Inc.
General Engineering and Landscape Contractors
20975 Cabot Blvd., Hayward, CA 94545-1155
Lie. No. 873996, Class A, B, C8, C27
(510) 782-6065
(510) 782-6078 FAX
PCO#3
Date: September 24, 2009
Project: Callfomia Avenue Street Tree Replacement Project (City of Palo Alto)
De C.hatinge Add 1 ea Metal Tree Grate Stake Per Tree scnp on.:
To: City of Palo Alto Attn: Woojae Kim
Fax: via email
Item No Description Quantity Units Unit Price
Add 57ea Metal Tree Grate
1 Stakes, Labor & Material 57 EA $ 44.18
Total
Schedule Impact: I o days I
Extension
$ 2,518.26
S 2,518.26
If you have any questions or need any further information please give me a call at (510) 782-6065.
Thank you,
bww; & ~ e~, 3M,
John SUarez
Cost Breakdown
Material Amount
Metal Tree Stake $ 28.97
Subtotal $ 28.97
Tax@9.75% $ 2.82
TotarMaterial $ 31.80
Total Labor & Material $ 38.09
15% Markup $ 5.71
1% Bond $ 0.38
$ 44.18 pel' tree stake
1. RtIIPartners
888,,333 .. 3090
~'lI:l\i:r ....... Grftt~ Stak~ fot 36" bO~ $iZl):lr~e$
avanable. up-pn r'quest,
. . ·Grate·Stalf,o·System .is:a st_~l'~ti\tre
fits mostfrft grfltes...R:ecomQ\end
... -"1' ... ..,... of nhol~ aOgiirn.~nt ternpt •• It,fu.
. a:he,slrap:bBf' is ,a~i~$ta~le.for
'tree h~ught. Tbe UV ws'St~u_f "ln11
.s,a4iiJs.'bl~ ·IM allows;(~tn.~tuhl'
.Q:m.~~m· "nl. The «1~t<l.:stftk.'. ,$ nnWdl!r~
aD
smc
Suarez & Munoz Construction, Inc.
General Engineering and Landscape Contractors
20975 Cabot Blvd., Hayward, CA 94545~1155
Lie. No. 873996, Class A, B, C8, C27
(510) 782-6065
(510) 782-6078 FAX
peo#s
Date: October 1, 2009
Project: California Avenue Street Tree Replacement Project (City of Palo Alto)
Ch~nge Demo IIRat Slabsll
Description.:
To: City of Palo Alto
Fax: via email
Item No Description
1 Demo URat Slabs"
Schedule 1m ret: I 0 dayS
AUn: Woojae Kim
Quantity Units Unit Price Extension
1 LS $ 2.750.00 $ 2,750.00
Total $ 2,750.00
If you have any questions or need any further Information please give me a call at (510) 782.(3065.
Thank you,
~ & rTlunw; e~t 3M.
John Suarez
aD smc
Suarez & Mufioz Construction, Inc.
General Engineering and Landscape Contractors
20975 Cabot Blvd., Hayward, CA 94545-1155
Lic. No. 873996, Class A, B, C8, C27
(510) 782-6065
(510) 782-6078 FAX
PCO#11
Date: October 22, 2009
Project: California Avenue Street Tree Replacement Project (City of Palo Alto)
Change CU Soli
Description. :
To: City of Palo Alto
Fax: via email
Item No Description
Excavate & Install CU Soil
approximately 3' deep (5'x5');
Includes Filter Fabric and
Pea Gravel and Fertilizer
1 Tablet per Detail
Excavate & Install Topsoil 2'
2 deep (3'x3')
33" Mulch
Clarification:
Attn: Woojae Kim
Quantity Units Unit Price Extension
120 CY $ 260.00 $ 31,200.00
-25 CY $ 125.00 $ (3,125.00)
-3.5 CY $ 75.00 $ (262.50)
Total $ 27.812.50
Price is based on CU Soil quantity of 162 TN. any additional quantity Installed will be billed at the unit price per CY
based on unit weight of CU Soli @ 1.35 TN/CY.
Exclusions:
Removal of temporary concrete.
Schedule Imrct: I 12 days
If you have any questions or need any further information please give me a call at (510) 782-6065.
Thank you,
~ & ~ e~J JfIU.
John Suarez
Grate stake
manufactured
J.R. Partners.
Trim stakes to
height just above
ties. -
Flexible or plastic
tree ties, fasten to
stakes one above
the other at 1/2
to 3/4 the height
of the tree.
Tree stake, locate parallel to
street curb. and flush to edge of
grate opening. typo
model frame and grate
as manufactured by Urban Accessories
Face
of curb
A
.~
1/8" minus gravel -fill to
bottom of tree grate FERTILIZER TABLET
Size Container , Tablet.
15 gal. I 6
PCC Curb and Gutter ~ 24" J 10
l:r:.::'\.~:;:;::;~~.:;:Jj __ Fertilizer tablet. see
schedule for amount
soil mix. compacted 95%
NOTES
1. Contact Underground Service Alert (USA) @ (800)
642-2444 at least 48 hours prior to beginning
excavation work to located existing utilities.
2. Installed. irrigation lines per Plans/Engineer
direction before proceed with installation of
Engineered soil mix.
SECTION A-A 3. If tree planting is delayed after tree wells are.
constructed. holes sholl be filled and barricades
secured to grates.
Rev By Dote A~=b:k 0 .HQN 4/4/07 Street Tree Planting
with Engineered Soil Mix PE No,-Z"$,At -1fI3I/ .
Date ~J.1)t)
Scale: NTS City of Palo Alto Standard Dwg
No. 603A
SDI5a'lIJaE
GD
smc
Suarez & Mufioz Construction, Inc.
General Engineering and Landscape Contractors
20975 Cabot Blvd., Hayward, CA 94545-1155
Lic. No. 873996, Class A, B, C8, C27
(510) 782-6065
(510) 782-6078 FAX
PCO#13
Date: October 28, 2009
Project California Avenue Street Tree Replacement Project (City of Palo Alto)
~h~nge 4'x4' Tree Grates in lieu of 3'x3' Description.:
To: City of Palo Alto
Fax: via email
Attn: Woojae Kim
Item No Description Quantity Units Unit Price
Added Cost to Install4'x4'
1 Tree Grates in lieu of 3'x3' 39 EA $ 80.00
2 Additional 4'x4' Tree Grates 9EA $ 580.00
Total
Schedule Impact: I o days I
extension
$ 3,120.00
$ 5,220.00
$ 8,340.00
If you have any questions or need any further information please give me a call at (510) 782-6065.
Thank you,
~ & rTIunw; e~, ~.
John Suarez
aD
smc
Suarez & Muftoz Construction, Inc.
General Engineering and landscape Contractors
20975 Cabot Blvd., Hayward, CA 94545-1155
lIc. No. 873996, Class A, B, C8, C27
(510) 782-6065
(510) 782-6078 FAX
PCO#14
Date: October 28, 2009
Project: California Avenue Street Tree Replacement Project (City of Palo Alto)
Change 6"0 x 3' deep Drainage Pits Description.:
To: City of Palo Alto Attn: Woojae Kim
Fax: via email
Item No Description Quantity Units Unit Price extension
6"0 x 3' deep Drainage Pits;
1 Backfill with Sand 132 EA $ 40.00 $ 5,280.00
Total $ 5,280.00
Schedule Imrct: I 0 days
If you have any questions or need any further information please give me a call at (510) 782-6065.
Thank you.
~ & ~ e~, Jw.
John Suarez
CD)
smc
Suarez & Munoz Construction, Inc.
General Engineering and Landscape Contractors
20975 Cabot Blvd., Hayward. CA 94545-1155
Lic. No. 873996, Class A, B, C8, C27
(510) 782-6065
(510) 782-6078 FAX
PCO#15
Date: October 28, 2009
Project: California Avenue Street Tree Replacement Project (City of Palo Alto)
O C,hat·nge Salvage Planters in Lieu of Demo escrp Ion.:
To: City of Palo Alto Attn: Woojae Kim
Fax: via email
Item No Description Quantity Units Unit Price
Salvage Planters and
Transport to Palo Alto Corp
1 Yard 6EA $ 1,200.00
Bid Line Item No. 16
2 (Remove Concrete Planters) -6 EA $ 1,000.00
Total
Schedule Impact: I 0 days I
Extension
$ 7200.00
$ (6,000.00)
$ 1,200.00
If you have any questions or need any further information please give me a call at (510) 782-6065.
Thank you.
bwwr.& ~ e~, JM.
John Suarez
(])
smc
Suarez & Munoz Construction, Inc.
General Engineering and Landscape Contractors
20975 Cabot Blvd., Hayward, CA 94545-1155
Lie. No. 873996, Class A, B, C8, C27
(510) 782.s065
(510) 782.s078 FAX
PCO#16
Date: October 28, 2009
Project: California Avenue Street Tree Replacement Project (City of Palo Alto)
Change Electrical Work DeSCription.:
To: City of Palo Alto Attn: Woojae Kim
Fax: via email
Item No Description Quantity Units Unit Price Extension
T&M Not-te-Exceed Price for
Electritian to Remove & Re-
Install Electrical Outlets at
1 Planters 1lS $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00
Total $ 4,000.00
Schedule Impact: I o days I
If you have any questions or need any further information please give me a call at (510) 782.so65.
, Thank you,
~ & 1T1unuv; e~, J'OO.
John Suarez
([)
smc
Suarez & Munoz Construction, Inc.
General Engineering and Landscape Contractors
20975 Cabot Blvd., Hayward, CA 94545-1155
L1c. No. 873996, Class A, B, C8, C27
(510) 782-6065
(510) 782-6078 FAX
PCO#17
Date: October 28, 2009
Project: California Avenue Street Tree Replacement Project (City of Palo Alto)
~hange Additional Sawcutting Description.:
To: City of Palo Alto Attn: Woojae Kim
Fax; via email
Item No Description Quantity Units Unit Price Extension
1 Sawcutting Crew@$155/HR 2 DY $ 1,240.00 $ 2,480.00
Total $ 2,480.00
Schedule Impact: I o days I
If you have any questions or need any further information please give me a call at (510) 782-6065.
Thank you,
~ & rTlunw; e~, Jnv.
John Suarez
(])
smc
Suarez & Munoz Construction, Inc.
General Engineering and Landscape Contractors
20975 Cabot Blvd., Hayward, CA 94545-1155
Lic. No. 873996, Class A. B, C8, C27
(510) 782-6065
(510) 782-6078 FAX
PCO#18
Date: October 28, 2009
Project: California Avenue Street Tree Replacement Project (City of Palo Alto)
~hange Additional Concrete Demo Descnptlon.:
To: City of Palo Alto
Fax: via email
Item No DeSCription
1 Demo Concrete
Schedule Impact: I o days I
Attn: Woojae Kim
Quantity Units Unit Price Extension
550 SF $ 2.00 $ 1,100:00
Total $ 1,100.00
If you have any questions or need any further information please give me a call at (510) 782-6065.
Thank you,
~&~e~,Joo,
John Suarez
aD
smc
Suarez & Munoz Construction, Inc.
General Engineering and Landscape Contractors
20975 Cabot Blvd., Hayward, CA94545-1155
Lie. No. 873996, Class A, B, C8, C27
(510) 782-6065
(510) 782-6078 FAX
PCO#19
Date: October 28, 2009
Project: California Avenue Street Tree Replacement Project (City of Palo Alto)
Desccrlh~nge Additional Concrete Paving ptlon.:
To: City of Palo Alto
Fax: via email
Item No Description
1 Concrete Sidewalk
Schedule Impact: I o days I
Aftn: Woojae Kim
Quantity Units Unit Price Extension
650 SF $ 10.00 $ 6,500.00
Total $ 6,500.00
If you have any questions or need any further information please give me a call at (510) 782-6065.
Thank you,
~ & ~ e~, 3M.
John Suarez
GD
smc
Suarez & Munoz Construction, Inc.
General Engineering and Landscape Contractors
20975 Cabot Blvd .• Hayward, CA 94545·1155
Lie. No. 873996, Class A, B. C8. C27
(510) 782-6065
(510) 782-6078 FAX
PCO#20
Date: October 28. 2009
Project: California Avenue Street Tree Replacement Project (City of Palo Alto)
O ~hat·nge Upsize from 15 Gal to 48" Box Valley Oak Trees esenp Ion.:
To: City of Palo Alto
Fax: via email
Attn: WooJae Kim
Item No Description Quantitv Units Unit Price
1 48" Box Tree 8EA $ 1,550.00
2 15 Gallon Trees ·8 EA $ 300.00
Total
Schedule Impact: I o days I
Extension
$ 12400.00
$ (2,400.001
$ 10,000.00
If you have any questions or need any further information please give me a call at (510) 782-6065.
Thank you,
~ & 1T1wrw; e~, JM.
John Suarez
aD
smc
Suarez & Muftoz Construction, Inc.
General Engineering and landscape Contractors
20975 Cabot Blvd., Hayward, CA 94545-1155
lic. No. 873996. Class A, B. C8, C27
(510) 782-6065
(510) 782-6078 FAX
PCO#21
Date: October 28, 2009
Project: California Avenue Street Tree Replacement Project (City of Palo Alto)
Des ~hatlnge Bubblers for large Trees in Planter Areas cnp on.:
To: City of Palo Alto
Fax: via email
Attn: Woojae Kim
Item No Description Quantity Units Unit Price
1 Tree Bubblers per Detail 513 36 EA $ 80.00
Total
Clarifications:
Assumes point of connection to existing irrigation is within same planter area.
Schedule 1m ret: I 0 days
Extension
$ 2,880.00
$ 2,880.00
If you have any questions or need any further information please give me a call at (510) 782-6065.
Thank you,
b.ww; & ~ e~, JM.
John Suarez
Rev
0
Scale:
Bubbler -~---,
1/2" Marlex Street Ell Berm
NOTES:
By Date
JT 8/09/06
NTS
48"
...... -r..t-t---Roo t Ball
~.,..;,-~ •• -'-c' -,--' '+' _ Backfill
Material
1/2" Salco A/R PVC Flex Hose
(Length as required)
1/2" X 3/8" PVC Schedule 80
Male Adapter (Typ.)
King Bros CV-MF Series Check Valve
(TxT)
1/2" Threaded Side Outlet
PVC Schedule 40 Tee (SxSxT)
or Ell (SxT) connected to
Irrigation Spinklerline
1. Install Bubbler above root ball. Install bubbler
on uphill side of plant at rootball edge where
applicable. Allow 6" minimum distance
between bubbler and tree.
2. All tree planting shall use this detail unless
otherwised specified.
Irrigation: Bubbler
Installation for Trees in
Ground
p No. 35411 Cover and other Areas Date 5/14/07
City of Palo Alto Standard Dwg
No. 513
•
([)
smc
Suarez & Munoz Construction, Inc.
General Engineering and Landscape Contractors
20975 Cabot Blvd., Hayward, CA 94545-1155
Lie. No. 873996, Class A, B, C8, C27
(510) 782-6065
(510) 782-6078 FAX
PCO#22
Date: November 10, 2009
Project: California Avenue Street Tree Replacement Project (City of Palo Alto)
Ch~nge Upsize from 15 Gal to 36" Box Trees Description. :
To: City of Palo Alto Attn: Woojae Kim
Fax: via email
Item No Description Quantity Units Unit Price Extension
1 36" Box Trees 7EA $ 1000.00 $ 7.000.00
2 15 Gal Trees -7 EA $ 300.00 $ (2,100.00)
Total $ 4,900.00
Schedule Impact: I o days I
If you have any questions or need any further information please give me a call at (510) 782-6065.
Thank you,
~&~e~t3M.
John Suarez
GD
smc
Suarez & Munoz Construction, Inc.
General Engineering and Landscape Contractors
20975 Cabot Blvd., Hayward, CA 94545-1155
Lie. No. 873996. Class A. Bt C8, C27
(510) 782-6065
(510) 782-6078 FAX
PCO#23
Date: November 10, 2009
Project: Califomia Avenue Street Tree Replacement Project (City of Palo Alto)
O ~hatinge Remove & Replace Approximately 15' of Curb & Gutter escnp on.:
To: City of Palo Alto Attn: Woojae Kim
Fax: via email
Item No Description Quantity Units Unit Price
Remove & Replace Approx
1 15' of Curb & Gutter 1 LS $ 1,125.00
Total
Schedule Impact: I o day I
Extension
$ 1,125.00
$ 1,126.00
If you have any questions or need any further information please give me a call at (510) 782-6065.
Thank you,
~ & ~ e~, 3M.
John Suarez
CID
smc
Suarez & Munoz Construction, Inc.
General Engineering and Landscape Contractors
20975 Cabot Blvd., Hayward, CA 94545-1155
Lie. No. 873996, Class A, a, C8, C27
(510) 782-6065
(510) 782-6078 FAX
PCO#24
Date: October 28, 2009
Project: California Avenue Street Tree Replacement Project (City of Palo Alto)
~hange Tree Allowance Descnption.:
To: City of Palo Alto
Fax: via email
Item No Description
1 Tree Nursery Allowance
Schedule Imrct: I Odays
Attn: Woojae Kim
Quantity Units Unit Price Extension
1 LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00
Total $ 2,000.00
If you have any questions or need any further information please give me a call at (510) 782-6065.
Thank you,
bmJw; & 'TfIunw; e~, JfU}.
John Suarez
Staff
Catherine Martineau
Executive Director
Sharon Kelly
Program Director
Anwyn Hurxthal
Development Mgr.
Board of Directors
Susan Rosenberg
Chair
Susan Ellis
Vice-Chair
James Cook
Treasurer
Roy C. Leggitt, III
Secretary
Matthew Bahls
Faye Brown
. Urban K. Cummings
Marty Deggeller
. Carole Langston
Dave Muffly
Brooks Nelson
Advisory Committee
Tony Carrasco
Anne Draeger
Herb Fong
Patricia Foster
Carroll Harrington
Joe Hirsch
Leannah Hunt
Carol Jansen
Jeanne Kennedy
John McClenahan
Mary McCullough
Scott McGilvray
Nancy Peterson
Forest Preston, III
Carolyn Reller
Jane Stocklin
Lanie Wheeler
Lauren Bonar Swezey
CANOPY is a Palo Alto
based nonprofit advocate
for the urban forest and
works to educate, inspire
and engage the community
as stewards of young and
mature trees.
ATTACHMENT J
November 12, 2009
Mayor Drekmeier and City of Palo Alto Council Members
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mayor Drekmeier and members of the Palo Alto City Council:
On behalf of Canopy I would like to express our unqualified support for the California
Avenue street tree replanting plan to be presented at the November 16 Council meeting.
We urge you to approve it and thus ensure that the trees be planted this planting season.
In a record amount of time, City Staff has reached out to the community and organized a
public outreach effort to guide the design of the replariting plan. It has involved two
public meetings and surveys, two Architectural Review Board meetings, one Planning
Commission meeting and many technical team meetings.
The resulting plan was designed by a Senior Principal Landscape Architect at Royston
Hanamoto Alley & Abey and incorporates the advice of several independent expert
arborists and all of the arborists on City Staff, as well as that of the ARB, the Planning
Commission, and Canopy. Most importantly it responds to the feedback and wishes of
the community.
This plan also represents state-of-the-art-urban forestry practice both in terms of the
careful selection of climate appropriate species, the hand selection of individual trees
and the planting details. We are pleased that it incorporates a variety of deciduous and
evergreen trees, including locally native trees. We believe this plan not only will create a
beautiful canopy for California Avenue, but will also maximize the environmental and
economic benefits that the trees will bring to the community.
We look forward to continuing our participation in the replanting effort and in
particular organizing a festive volunteer event at the occasion of the planting.
Respectfully,
Catherine Martineau
Executive Director
c.c. James Keene
Canopy 3921 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 t: 650 964 611 0 f: 650 964 6173 canopy.org
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 1 of2
Rooney, Kate
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
maggi650@aol.com
Monday, October 26, 2009 11 :44 PM
Rooney, Kate
davemuffly@yahoo.com; brentbarker@gmail.com; fbalin@gmail.com
Subject: Fwd: California Avenue Trees
Kate,
This is to correct an error in the second paragraph of the email I sent you last night. The tree I was referring to in
the predominantly evergreen plan is, of course, the Elegant Tristania, and not the Tilia Tormentosa as I
mistakenly called it. Sorry if that was confusing, though you probably figured out my error.
Maggie Heath
-----Original Message-----
From: maggi650@aol.com
To: kate.rooney@cityofpaloc;llto.org
Sent: Sun, Oct 25, 2009 11 :05 pm
. Subj~ct: California Avenue Trees
Dear Kate,
Having had ·the weekend to compare the two draft plan ideas from last Thursday's public meeting, my conclusion
is that both plans have elements that could work well.
I like the idea of the deciduous Lindens a~ the "unifying" street tree. Not only are they lovely trees, but they can
be pruned to grow upright so as not to obscure the merchant's signs, and then branch out above for a higher
canopy.
On the other hand, the proposed Tilia Tormentosa in the "predominantly evergreen plan" will grow to a permanent
height that obscures the store signs, much as the holly oaks did.
However, if the "unifying" street tree is the deciduous Linden, then it is really important to have sufficient numbers
of evergreens to break up what will otherwise be avery bleak winter street scape along length of the California
Avenue. A secondary "unifying" street tree.
I would prefer to see a number of evergreen Southern Live Oak or Coast Live Oak mixed in with the deciduous
Lindens as the "secondary unifying" tree. This would give a nice balance between the lovely deciduous Lindens
with their silvery leaves in summer and late fall color, but give us some green for the winter months. They, like
the lindens, can be pruned up so their canopies break above the merchant's signs. And they are natives.
In addition, strategically placed evergreen trees will have the advantage of providing some cover for pedestrians
on rainy winter days.
Althe EI Camino California Avenue intersection, I believe the native Vall~y Oaks are a splendid choice for all the
reasons put forth. However, I plead the case for justone Redwood on the opposite side ofthe street from those
behind the City Bank Building. .
My reasoning is that this one native Redwood would provide coherence and balance entering California Avenue,
compliment the proposed native Valley Oaks, and together with them provide a truly inspired and spectacular
.-....
11110/2009
!3'~~.«>\~~:~~M:
Page 2 of2
entrance to the California Avenue Business District. Even though Redwoods do need more irrigation, and despite
what I have written below, if there is one place to plant a tree that needs irrigation, this would be it.
Common to both plans, the suggested deciduous accent trees at the main intersections, with' their spectacular fall
color, will work really well.
The intersection that is conspicuously bare however, is the stretch on either side of the Mimosa Lane
intersection. Since the solar metal umbrella installation may preclude a tree on the Country Sun side of the
Mimosa Lane intersection, the Bank of the West side is a spot just crying out for a deciduous accent tree to match
and"balance the fall color ofthose across the street.
The one tree that I strongly oppose is quite so many Holmford Pears. My main objection to them is that they need
to be irrigated during their entire life. Otherwise they are stunted and branches die back. Planting so many pear
trees in a harsh street scape environment, and which are completely dependent on continuous well maintained
irrigation to thrive, however pretty, is simply a poor choice. A few for accent yes, many no.
Also, since Palo Alto is serious about encouraging residents to reduce the amount of landscaping dependent on
water, this is the wrong example to set.
On a final pear note, the blossoms of the flowering pears have a faint but truly nauseating smell if you are close or
underneath them. From a distance they are lovely.
Though some citizens have advocated for flowering trees, I would answer that spring and summer color can be
provided much better at the street level plantings. As for color in the fall, as the plan is evolving it looks as if the
sequential fall colors of the deciduous trees will be a sight to behold. '
At the far end of the street, although I heard the rationale for having the Plane trees wrap around the corner onto
California Avenue, from a design perspective that doesn't make sense to me. That end of California Avenue
needs to tie in with the rest of California Avenue, not Park Avenue. Depending on what the residents of the
, building behind say;-I would much prefer to see evergreen Southern Oaks or Coast Live Oaks to provide
coherence and tie in with the rest of California Avenue, as a foil to the spectacular fall color of the Chinese
Pistache, and for their color in the winter months. '
As the plan moves forward, I hope you will share my observations with the other parties who are involved in the
process. At last Thursday's meeting I was surprised to learn that Dave Muffly had not been included at the tree
meeting(s) that came up with Plan A and Plan B. I hope that you will be able to make sure he is at any and all
future m~tings involving trees for California Avenue. He has such an enormous wealth of and specialized
knowledge of all things concerning trees. I would also hope that Barrie Coates will have a chance to comment on
any plan before it is finalized. Also that Barrie Coates and/or Dave Muffly be in charge of selecting the larger trees
because of their extensive experience and specialized knowledge of tree root systems.
This also comes with my thanks for all the extra work you have been putting in to help move the California
Avenue tree replanting along, and the very helpful material you have provided at the public meetings.
Sincerely,
Margaret Heath.
""!"". "'4.
11110/2009
Page 1 of1
Rooney, Kate
From: Richard Stolee [rstolee@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27. 2009 9: 15 AM
To: Rooney, Kate
$.ubJ,ct: Modified plan
Dear Kate,
Just to lend my support for a modified plan that that you and Dave Muffy are proposing that adds more
evergreens.
Richard Stolee
440 Sherman Ave Suite 440 (California corridor Business owne~ )
984 S. California Ave (California Ave resident)
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Warning: This e"mail is intended for the use of the person to whom it is addressed & may contain information that
is privileged and confidential. If you receive this e-mail in error, please contact Richard Stolee at 650-326-8930
11110/2009
.' .. :-:~,~
Page 1 of 1
Rooney, Kate
From: BDonog4579@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 27,20099:23 AM
To: Rooney, Kate
Subject: Grant master plan California Ave.
Review of the subject plan has revealed that a "rush" to do anything is now occurring on California Avenue.
The phased improvements, tree grates in the asphalt street area, and illumination improvements are all
appropriate and well outlined in the original plan.
Comments at the ARB for some modifications to the street light arm lengths at intersections and appropriate
alleys and plazas with some fixture changes are very inexpensive investments which return a good value to the
Public.( "Correct levels of lighting with positive uniformity and distribution").
A detailed graphic analysis of the nominal diameters of fully grown trees and the location of conflicting awnings
etc is minimal must. Please publish it on the web site and confirm that you are not repeating the poor design
which you just removed.
A few large trees at new medians and the wandering of the two new vehicle lanes around these islands will
cause the visual impact to appear "artistic and sensitive to the setting". The elimination of two vehicle lanes
allows for the planting of landscaping in the existing asphalt area.
Please eliminate the staff which desires to make this work a limited maintenance project and appreciate the
design professionals which can improve the area. A phased construction will allow for a more reasonable cost
. over a few years.. .
Mr. B. Donoghue
11110/2009
Rooney, Kate
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject:
Dear Kate,
Eileen Stolee [estolee@comcast.net]
Tuesday, October 27. 20091:36 AM
Rooney. Kate
tree selection for California Avenue
First of alJ" thank you for being a calming presence at a'l1: t:l'I:emeetings reg~+ding the'
Cali fornia AveIlue .... tree selection.
I am now asking the Public Works Department to please consider more large canopy, shade
producing, evergreens in the overall plan.
As I stated at the'; last meeting at;. Escondido ... in my opinion, the street scape plan needs
to have a more balanced selection of large evergreens repeated along the street, not just
at the entrance, end, and in front of El Sol restaurant. Please take into consideration
the citizens that will walk and stroll the streets looking for shade ! .. ,
I can't emphasize enough how important shade is to a walking street which this has always
been. People like me have purchased our homes because of the location of this wonderful
walking street and the businesses.
Having small shadeless signature trees will not create a walking street where one will
linger and shop. Please give us a street we can ALL be proud of and don't make us wait 5
years to be able to enjoy it again! The business and development interests are not the
only ones you should be thinking about",
You and Dave Muffly came up with a very nice plan. I'm asking you to take another look at
what you both worked on and consider the evergreen trees suggested,
Sincerely,
Eileen Stolee
California Avenue and Princeton
"
1
Rooney, Kate
From: doria summa [doriasumma@gmail.com]
Wednesday, October 28, 2009 9:55 AM Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rooney, Kate; Emslie, Steve; Planning Commission
Cal Ave. tree replacement
Dear City Staff and Planning Commissioners,
I have been deeply concerned about the astonishing removal of the trees on California
avenue that occurred suddenly, and without due process.
I look forward to the city Manager's office report to shed some light on precisely how
this happened so that we may avoid such disasters in the future.
Last Thursday City staff presented the public with two options: a "predominantly
deciduous" option and a "predominantly evergreen"
option.
Surprisingly both these options deviated from an earlier plan, that had been devised by
staff in conjunction with an independent expert, that was was much more appropriate.'"
The problems with Plans A & B as presented last Thursday to the public include but are not
limited to the following:
* There was NO actual predominantly evergreen plan. The proposed "evergreen" plan
was split 50-50% between evergreens and deciduous
trees, and the "deciduous plan was well over 90% deciduous.
* Each plan presented a "unifying" tree. There was no support for the ill chosen
unifying,.
tree in the evergreen plan, Tristania, as it is slow growin~, small and would not
'be'appropriate for the setting.
* There is a paucity of native species, more native evergreen oaks should be used.
* The recommended Pear should be eliminated as it would would provide an
inadequate canopy and require to much water.
* There is an underutilized opportunity at the entrance, in some larger planting areas
midway and at the train plaza to plant large native
species including valley oaks and at least one Sequoia.
Of course the utmost care should be given to the precise placement, selection, planting
and attention to our new trees to ensure the healthiest growth. To ensure the best outcome
please include input from independent experts to come up with a better plan, plan C, and
to oversee the process as we move forward.
Thank you,
Doria Summa
(650) 858 2920 Home
(650) 867 7544 Mobile
1
upcoming Architectural Review Board Meetingon Cal Ave Trees Page 1 ofl
Rooney, Kate
From: Todd Burke [tburkeus@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:42 PM
To: Rooney, Kate
Subject: Re: upcoming Architectural Review Board Meeting on Cal Ave Trees
Thanks Kate. I'll see you tonight. I will be speaking on the need for a 3rd plan and
presenting the relevant points.
Thanks,
Todd
+ 1-650-208-2303"
From: "Rooney, Kate" <Kate.Rooney@CltyofPaloAlto.org>
To: "Rooney, Kate" <Kate.Rooney@QtyofPaloAlto.org>
~: "Ames, Elizabeth" <Ellzabeth.AmeS@CityofPaloAlto.org>i "Clerkson, Linda"
<Llnda.Clerkson@CltyofPaloAlto.org>
Sent: Wed,. October 28,2009 1:06:22 PM
Subjectt upcoming Architectural Review Board Meeting on Cal Ave Trees
Hi,
Thanks for your interest and participation in the California Ave project. Attached is the mailing which was sent
today to the Cal Ave residents and owners and College Terrace area. I'm sending it on to you since you are on
the contact list for the project. I hope you may attend.
Thanks,
Kate
«arb notice (7).doc»
_ .. -: ..
N!/IO/2009
Page 1 of1
Rooney, Kate
From: . Jenny HopklnsonU~mny'h;....tutor@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, October 30,20095:57 PM
To: Rooney, Kate
Subject: Greg Brownmuralist -p@int some big,Jrees on walls,. Calif.Ave
Dear Kate Rooney
I have shopped on California Avenue for 35 years, and it has been my top favorite place to shop and to
browse and have coffee or lunch. It's not California Avenue any more -to me. But I know we have to
move beyond regret, so I suggest that the City commission Greg Brown, the muralist, to' paint some
beautiful, big trees on building walls, to relieve the "industrial area" look and atmosphere that has
become the new California Avenue.
In addition, could the City place some trees in boxes along the sidewalks to bring back some "greenery"
and nature to the area?
I would like to request that the City make public the architectural plans for the new California Avenue. I
have heard rumors that there will be three~story buildings in the plans. Is that true?
Kind regards,
Jenny Hopkinson ..
1111012009
;~ .
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Pria Graves [priag@birketthouse.com]
Monday, November 02, 2009 11:06 AM
Architectural Review Board
Emslie, Steve
California Avenue Trees
Dear Chair Lee and board members:
I am very concerned that the Planning and Transportation Commission has recommended
delaying the replanting of trees along California Avenue until a complete plan for the
redevelopment of the street can be completed and reviewed.
While this might seem on the surface to make sense, I believe that in the interest of
community healing it would be far better to plant the trees as soon as possible, taking
advantage of the fact that this is the best time of year for planting trees. If a few
trees need to be relocated in a year to accommodate physical changes to the street
environment, that is preferable to the effects of leaving the street bare of trees for a
full year. Each time residents see the bare street, it is a reminder of the inappropriate
and unauthorized removal of the existing trees. Planting new trees will begin to allow
that wound to heal.
In addition, it takes-5 -10 years for trees to reach the size where their environmental
benefits are significant. The longer we wait to plant, the longer we'll be without those
benefits!
Please support the community's desire to move ahead with the replanting. As the Chinese
proverb says, the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The next best time is now!
Pria Graves
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
From: Lorna Shapiro [mailto:duckwalk@pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, November 02,20092:00 PM
To: campbell, Clare
Subject: Re: cal Ave ideas
Hi Clare,
I want to present my ideas regarding changes planned for California A venue. Instead of
calling you, I see that it will be much better to list and email my ideas, to you (now that
they have become so many.) Please share these ideas with the various people working
on the California A venue project.
Make California Ave. look more like Mountain View's Castro Street district: where
restaurants can extend their eating outdoors ... with all kind of beautiful flower containers
on the street to beautify the street and eating area (and block parking and fumes.)
1. At present, California Ave. street is currently being used as a Farmer's Market and
Street Fair. The street (itself) needs to be smoothed over and resurfaced. As it is now,
there are dangerous deep cracks, holes, and knobs in the street which pose a problem for
pedestrians (accident's waiting to happen) walking in the street.
2. Whatever trees are chosen for the sidewalks, they should not be the type that spritzes
sticky stuff onto parked cars ... or people eating outdoors at the restaurants. (Here are
some more perhaps obvious thoughts, yet I'll mention them anyway.) Better not to
choose trees that loose their leaves twice a year. Better not to choose tree species that are
already on a danger list: due to current insect problems, tree fungus, or such. Better not
to choose trees that will eventually cause root problems for sidewalks and street. Make
sure that they are not trees that will drop annoying or heavy articles on people. Perhaps it
might be worth considering low water usage trees (certainly not "high" water use.)
Do choose attractive trees ... perhaps even a "variety" of trees to portray greater street
interest. (Also, variety represents the great diversity in our culture.)
3. Incorporate lot's of beautiful seasonal flowers and greenery. Some of the upscale
restaurants are already doing this themselves, other restaurant and businesses may need
help. Keep some low end cost restaurants on California Ave., but help them beautify the
sidewalk walkway front of their restaurant ... so that they don't have to look so cheap.
Build shaded seating potentially outside of them. Keep outdoor·garbage and
recycie containers easily accessible to these areas. Blend these containers into the
environment ... or even employ artists to make them look comic, cutesy, artistic.
4. Make the street and sidewalk very modem, beautiful, functional--and a good
example for great pedestrian thoroughfare --including the continued use of the street for:
farmer's market and street fairs, maybe even children and animal parades and fashion
shows (in the future.) I think in the future, California Ave. should have more potential
for many more street fairs going on throughout the year.
5. Also, make sure that the sidewalks and street have great wheelchair and mobile
chair access. (We have a handicapped and aging population that needs this --getting
from sidewalk to street. Also, more handicapped parking is needed. And, especially in
downtown Palo Alto on lUniv. Ave. -in front of restaurants, Stanford movie theatre,
Apple computer.) Also, some of the people walk with canes and other assists and they
need a place to sit down and rest a moment. Maybe even provide electric recharging
stations for mobile chairs eledric bike§ and eh!dJtllc C21K'§.)
6. Individuals and families on bicycles need a place to park and lock their bikes --
especially during the Farmer's Market. (I can foresee when the Farmer's Market may
lengthen in street space --keep that in mind, when planning.)
7. Before changing anything, make sure the street and sidewalk "old" under
structures get a replacement --water pipes, sewage pipes, and electrical cables. Do
this "before" the new trees, street and sidewalk get placed in. (This work needs to be
done efficiently and effectively ... not retro work ... after everything else is in place.) Be
sure to coordinate these efforts with all the other public departments ... so the projects are
done in the best order in the most cost effective way.
8. Be sure to preserve businesses that are already at that location. In other words,
make changes in ways that do not close off businesses that need to operate while this is
all being done (otherwise they will end up shutting down because business is bad --
people can't get to them.) Or, ifthe street and sidewalk work is too restricting--
businesses will feel forced to move. Merchants have to make a living. Let the
businesses know what you are doing and when, so that they can plan access to their stores
in advance, (maybe they can temporarily make access to their store available from a back
entrance.) Plan any temporary re-Iocation (if need be) for the Farmer's Market and
Street Fairs --let the vendors and public know well in advance, so things won't have to be
shut down, postponed or cancelled. Street fair organizers need to know this information
well in-advance, for organizing, programming and advertising purposes.
9. Once everything is in place: open up the use of the street for other kinds of
weekend street fairs --for other groups of people (nationalities) and holiday sales
events. Make a place for street fair groups to set up banner emblem locations over
the street (at Caifornia Ave. and EI Camino ... or at Page Mill and EI Camino) and
alongside California street.
With baby boomers "retiring" soon, there is a lot of potential for these hobbyists to
want to sell their wares during holiday events and street fairs. Even though many
businesses have moved and outsourced skills to other countries for cheaper labor, local
individuals still have quality skills that should be treasured and shared. As a nation, we
never know when we will have to resource those skills and build back those businesses.
Eventually, even progressing third world countries will eventually increase their prices
for their goods, especially if they are the only ones making such products. Without
diversity and choices ... monopolies will take over and charge whatever they like. We
need to retain all skills in this country, so as not to let such takeover exist ... otherwise a
day will come when prices will go sky high. Retirees and hobbyists need something
to do to take up their time and earn some extra cash... give them a place and outlet to sell
their wares --farmer's market and street fairs (or a more permanent place.) Maybe set
up some work for high school helpers (for pay) to help seniors get their stalls and
displays set up and set down. Encourage seniors to sell their wares, set up resources to
help them.
10. Let's make this area a shining example of beautification, multi-community function,
extended open air outdoor seating of restaurants, great pedestrian walkway, ample and
comfortable seating available on sidewalk so people can rest a spell, hold casual
conversations, sit and eat (after they have purchased food at the food stalls at the Farmer's
Market or Street Fairs.
Let's get Palo Alto's name on the map ... for this landscape project ... so that
"other" cities will want to follow a modem beautification mUlti-purpose plan,
too.
I think I've about covered it all, now.
Although, I do wonder why all this is being done, now, while our economy is in such a
bad state. I don't like the idea that the residents will have to pick up the tab for all this
work, with increases in our taxes, at this time. Why wasn't this project, along with that
of the library, be placed on a waiting list and begun when the economy is in much better
shape? I'm against raising taxes when people's paychecks are dwindling and the job
market is at it's lowest (or will be even more so right after Christmas.) Already the city
has a huge shortfall of money to work with, why do this project right now?
The original trees on California Ave. should have been left alone, and this project (along
with the library) should have waited for better economic times. (For now, only the street
should be improved upon for safety issues for Farmer Market and Street Fair use.)
Personally, I actually do understand why the trees were removed. If one is planning to
"entirely redo" the sidewalks and streets, it is easier to remove the trees and start from
scratch. But, that should only be done, if everything is planned and ready to be set in
action. It's sad that the trees were chopped down and killed ... for people do love them
and enjoy them (as they add so much texture and beauty to the street and store fronts.)
They are living entities ... or were so. This just shows the disrespect that our society
shows to other living entities ... that we can just chop everything down. We are all part
of a major ecosystem that depends on each other for sustenance and vitality. When one
major area begins to falter ... then all other areas begin to falter, as well. Our eco-system
is connected, and thrives together. We need to teach this concept to the society and our
children so that they will take better care of their environment and make better
sustainable choices.
Now, I'm somewhat worried that now that these trees are gone ... that the project to redo
the street might be eventually placed on hold --after all, because of the economic
recession. I certainly would understand that reasoning, if this were to happen. But,
because this project could take years before it becomes reenacted, the trees should not
have been cut down. Better yet, is to have preserved them and taken them out (when the
time was just right) and give them to resident properties. My feeling is that the city
should take steps to do only the necessary stuff that needs to get done, save the more
frivolous choices for later when the economy is much better. I don't wish to downplay
the project, as I believe it has lots of great potential, I just feel that it might not be
something that we should be doing right now, while the economy is down.
Lori Shapiro
On Nov 2, 2009, at 9:59 AM, Campbell, Clare wrote:
Sent per your request.
Clare Campbell, Planner
650-617-3191
From: Lorna Shapiro [mailto:duckwalk@pacbetl.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 1: 17 AM
To:. Campbell, Clare
Subject: More Re: Cal Ave ideas
Clare,
I've thought of one more idea to go with the electric recharging stations for: mobile chairs, electric
bicycles, and electric vehicles and golf carts. Set up solar panels along California Ave. and in the
parking garage to handle the needs of the electric vehicles and golf carts. Include a place to lock the
electric bicycles while they are recharging. Have a shaded spot for the mobile chairs to recharge, as
those people will probably need to remain seated in their chairs as they recharge ... unless you can
devise something else for them to sit in. Places like the coffee shops and restaurants would be
good "solar" recharging centers for electric chairs and bicycles because people could spend a good deal
of time in those places eating, drinking, using their computers, or reading.
Lori Shapiro
On Nov 2,2009, at 9:59 AM, Campbell, Clare wrote:
Sent per your request.
Clare Campbell, Planner
650-617-3191
11112/2009
Rooney, Kate
From:
Sent:
To:
Sairus Patel [sairuspatel@yahoo.com]
Wednesday, November 04, 20094:32 PM
Rooney, Kate: Architectural Review Board
Subject: Feedback on Plan C for California Ave Tree Planting
Dear Ms Rooney and ARB,
Page 1 of 1
As a Canopy-trained tree-planting leader, a recipient of Canopy's Out-on·a·Llmb volunteer award in 2006, and a 16·
year resident of the California Ave neighborhood, I'm writing to say I am very pleased with the Califomla Ave tree
planting Plan C on several counts:
---Functional ---
The deciduous unifying tree (as well as other deciduous trees specified) will give us the benefits of light and warmth in
the outdoor seating areas in the winter, and dappled shade the rest of the year when the trees are in leaf.
The evergreen trees will give much-needed shade throughout the street and their foliage will provide winter Interest,
hopefully distracting the eye from much of the architecture of the area and providing respite from the glare of the 6-lane
wide street (4 lanes oftraffic plus two lanes of parking -much wider than University Ave).
Having about one-third evergreen trees feels like the right balance, and is appropriate for our climate, which favors
evergreens .
••• Designed well···
I am particularly exciteq ab,out,\he native ~re~ design el,ment, inclu,d,ing the gateway of valley oaks at E;I Camino Real.
California Ave "feels" more connected to the foothills than downtown Palo Alto for several reasons, and the oak element
nicely echoes that.
The Incorporation of fall colour (something that University Ave lacks) is pleasing as well: rings of colour at the two
major Intersections, as well as the pines at the train station providing a dark backdrop for the flaming Chinese Pistaches
in the tall .
••• Suggestions •••
I'd like to propose a couple Of tweaks to the plan:
1. The area outside Bank of the West currently only has two silver lindens speCified. Please consider putting more,
larger-growlng trees in this area. Walking from Country Sun to the European Cobblery one encounters a driveway, a
parking lot with a driveway, the bank building itself with Its formidable concrete "mesh" In front, and another driveway. It
is an area of the street I avoid walking if possible because of the glare of the sun on all that sidewalk. It is particular1y
stark, given that Country Sun doesn't have trees in front of it.
2. Please select something larger than the Elegant Trlstanfas. I understand that they fulfill the design element of
bracketing either end of the street, but I strongly believe a larger tree would be more appropriate for both of those
'locations: on the EI Camino Real side, the huge Radio Shack building on the corner needs more of a visual screen than
the trlstania specified there can ever provide, and on the other end of the street, the huge areas of sidewalk outside
Molly stone's as well as the nousing units at Palo Alto Central could benefit from a taller tree.
I commend the City on being so responsive to citizen feedback, and I look forward to the execution of the plan this fall
as a satisfying way to welcome in the new year.
Regards,
Sairus Patel
1244 California Ave, Palo Alto CA 94306
650-320-0090
11110/2009
Page 1 of 1
Rooney, Kate
From: trebuchet@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 20096:06 PM
To: Rooney, Kate
Cc: Ames, Elizabeth; Sartor, Mike; Krebs, Eric
Subject: Re: Plan C release for review.
Dear Kate
It was very kind of you to call me personally to inform me that Plan C is up and available to review.
Also, thank you all for listening to my California Ave resident and habituee input, and for working hard
to incorporate it into a presentable plan.
I'm sure I will enjoy careful perusal. A death in my close circle may preclude my attendance. If so, Alan
Weller has indicated he is willing to speak my support.
Thank you again, Kate and colleagues,
John Peery
6503222218
. From: "Rooney, Katell <Kate.Rooney@CityotPaloAlto.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 200917:11:56 -0800
To: Rooney, Kate<Kate.Rooney@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Ames, Elizabeth<Elizabeth.Ames@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Sartor,
Mike<Mike.Sartor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Krebs, Eric<Eric.Krebs@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject:
Thank you very much for your interest and participation In the California Avenue project. I wanted to let you know
that the proposed tree planting Plan C, which will be reviewed at the Architectural Review Board meeting
tomorrow morning at 8:30, Is posted to the City of Palo' Alto's website. It is on the homepage ahd the fourth item
down the list. I hope this reaches you in case you would like to attend the board meeting tomorrow, or if you
would like to send comments to me.
We tried to incorporate solid design principles reflecting the California Avenue feel, and incorporate the comments
we.received regarding a better mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, a better analysis with our independent
arborist, and many other comments we have received.
Thanks again for your comments and participation.
Kate Rooney
11110/2009
Page 1 of 1 .
Rooney, Kate
From: BetteUK@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 6: 19 PM
To: Rooney, Kate
Subject: Letter of appreciation
Dear Kate:
Please convey my heartfelt appreciation to the arborists and others that designed
the exquisite tree plans for California Avenue. I was impressed with plans A and B
when I reviewed them at the meeting at the Escondido School meeting and Plan C
looks beautiful too!
The caring, skill and dedication that went into this projectjs evident.
Although disturbing events sometimes can't be prevented--what matters is how
they are dealt with. The tree inciqent is being responded to in the best possible way
imaginable and I look forward to our new streetscape with great anticipation;
It is unlikely I will be able to attend your meeting tomorrow.
Thank you for all of the efforts you are making to create a most special California
Avenue.
Sincerely,
Bette
CBette V. 1(jernan, :MPT
366 S. C4trjomia )Ivenue #8
CPafo )IUo, cafiJomia 94306
(650) 324-3639
6etteut@ao!com
11110/2009
Rooney,' Kate
From:
Sent:
'Fo;:
Cc:
Subject:
Brent Barker [brentgbarker@gmail.comJ
Wednesday, November 04, 20096:38 PM
Rooney, Kate
Ames, Elizabeth; Sartor, Mike; Krebs, Eric; Architectural Review Board; Emslie, Steve
Re:
I. wanted to exp+ess my appreciation for the time and effort you and the rest of the design
team·have put into formulating Plan C for the California Avenue Project, and importantly,
for letting the public participate in the process. You clearly listened to our concerns
and preferences.
Overall, I think you have created a very solid plan with good design principals and a
thoughtful selection of trees that will serve to blend the street with the surrounding
neighborhoods. One suggestion in the way of fine tuning the plan would be replace the
Tristanias with larger evergreens while adhering to the same design concept of opening and
closing the business district with these trees. I was thrilled to hear that you may be
pursuing larger trees for the initial planting, and spending the considerable time and
effort it will take to find large specimens with good root systems.
I hope things go well with the ARB. They should be pleased with the great attention you
have given to both thematic and visual design.
Brent Barker
858-1684
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Rooney, Kate <Kate.Rooney@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
> Thank you very much for your interest and participation in the
> California Avenue project. I wanted to let you know that the proposed
> tree planting Plan C, which will be reviewed at the Architectural
> Review Board meeting tomorrow morning at 8:30, is posted to the City
> of Palo Alto's website. It is on the homepage and 'the fourth item
> down the list. I hope this reaches you in case you would like to
> attend the board meeting tomorrow, or if you would like to send comments to me.
>
> We tried to incorporate solid design principles reflecting the
> California Avenue feel, and incorporate the comments we received
> regarding a better mix of evergreen and deciduous tree.s, a better
> analysis with our independent arborist, and many other comments we have received.
>
> Thanks again for your comments and participation.
>
> Kate Rooney
>
>
Brent Barker
Freelance Writer
650-813-9433
650-388-0927 (cell)
1
Page 1 of 1
Rooney, Kate
From:
Sent:
Jens & Suzan Jensen [madjensen@sbcglobal.net]
Wednesday, November 04,20097:41 PM
To: Rooney, Kate.
Subject: Re:
Kate,
thank. you for keeping us updated. and for also leaving a voice message. I appreciate the changes made
that are reflected in Plan C. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the meeting tomorrow.
Bets regards,
Jens Jensen
650-493-0322
On Nov 4, 2009, at 5:11 PM, Rooney, Kate wrote:
Thank you very much for your interest and participation in the Callfomia Avenue project I wanted to
let you know that the proposed tree planting Plan C, which will be reviewed at the Architectural
Review Board meeting tomorrow moming at 8:30, is posted to the City of Palo Alto's website. It is
on the homepage and the fourth item down the list. I hope this reaches you in case you would like
to attend the board meeting tomorrow, or if you would like to send comments to me.
We tried to incorporate solid design principles reflecting the Callfomia Avenue feel, and Incorporate
the comments we received regarding a better mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, a better
analysis with our independent arborist, and many other comments we have received.
Thanks again for your comments and participation.
Kate Rooney
Il1lO/2009
,"
Page 1 of1
Rooney, Kate
From: maggi650@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday. November 04. 2009 10:38 PM
To: Rooney. Kate
SubJect: Re:
Dear Kate.
Thank you for the reminder of the ARB meeting in the morning, and I do plan to speak in support of Plan C.
Best,
maggie heath
---··Original Message-----
From: Rooney. Kate <Kate.Rooney@CityofPaloAlto.org>
To: Rooney, Kate <Kate.Rooney@CltyofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Ames. Elizabeth <Elizabeth.Ames@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Sartor, Mike <Mike.Sartor@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
Krebs, Eric <Eric.Krebs@CityofPaloAlto.org> '
Sent: Wed, Nov 4,20095:11 pm
Thank you very much for your interest and participation in the California Avenue project. I wanted to let you know
that the proposed tree planting Plan G, which will be reviewed at the Architectural Review Board meeting
tomorrow morning at 8:30, is posted to the City of Palo Alto's website. It is on the homepage and the fourth item
down the list. I hope this reaches you in case you would like to attend the board meeting tomorrow, or if you
would like to send comments to me.
We tried to incorporate solid design principles reflecting the California Avenue feel, and incorporate the comments
we receh1ed regarding a better mix of'evergreen'and deciduous trees,a better analysis with'our independent
arborist, and many other comments we have received.
Thanks again for your comments and participation.
Kate Rooney "
11110/2009
Rooney, Kate
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Kate,
Susan Rosenberg [susanpa@sonic.netJ
Thursday, November 05; 2009 7:12 AM
Rooney, Kate
Architectural Review Board; Martineau, Catherine
Califomia Avenue Trees
The Plan C design for the California Avenue trees reflects a unique. understanding of the
character of both the street and the trees that are proposed. The combination of species,
purposefully sited to mark the beginning of the business district, and the entrance to
crosswalks, offers a practical mix of shade for hot weather and sunshine during the
winter.
Working with professionals, city staff, residents, and Canopy, you've developed a
wonderful design. It addresses the many constraints that limit choice. when selecting trees
for a business district. Light poles, underground utilities, and minimum sidewalk space
have had as much to do with design decisions on California Avenue as whether to plant
deciduous or evergreen trees.
It has not been an easy job, you've managed it well.
There is a Chinese proverb, "The best time to plant a tree· was 20 years ago. The next best
time is now." Over the next couple of months we have a window of opportunity to ensure
that trees are planted under the best of conditions; cool temperatures and rainfall.
Canopy has the experience, the volunteers and the tools, and we look forward to the
. opportunity to worlCwith' the City and the community on t'his plariting.
My Best,
Susan Rosenberg
Chair, Canopy
.' "It
Tree Choices
Rooney, Kate
From:
Sent:
Barrie D. Coate [bccoate@verizon.net]
Friday, November 06, 2009 9:45 AM
To: Rooney, Kate
Subject: Re: Monday Meeting
Kate,
The emails present excellent solutions to the controversy.
Congratulationsl
Barrie
Barrie D. Coate and Associates
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos, CA 95033
408-353~ 1 052
408-353~ 1238-fax
-----Original Message -----
From: Rooney. Kate
To: Dave Muffly ; Dave Marco.uJlier ; Dockter, Dave; Krebs. Eric
Cc: Martineay. Catherine; bccoateOVerlzon.net
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 1: 16 PM
Subject: RE: Monday Meeting.
Hi Dave,
Pa~e 1 of 1
Sorry for the confusion. We had been emalling this morning and I thought you were going to be there:
Everyone came to the conclusion that we needed an evergreen to replace the Engelmans, so that narrowed the
list to Tristania 'elegans', Michelia doltsopa and 'Majestic Beauty' Wilson Olive.
The Tristania was selected since not all the Michelias have Irrigation in the proposed locations. And the Olive,
though a really nice tree in· other locations, would have a really hard time being limbed up to 14' in the street
setting.
If you have some info on good 24" box availability of the Tristania 'Elegans', and good info on it's growth rate
which we need to show is not like a slower Tristania, that would be really helpful.
Also, if you want to start locating the other trees, that would be good too. Valley Oaks in large boxes.
, 'Cathedrals' alteast in 24"s. Shumards and others preferably in 24"s. All pending good condition and root stock
.as we've all discussed and informed the public.
I'll send the drawing as soon as I get it from Paul M.
I'm copying Barrie Coate for his comments, which we greatly appreciate, since he is unable to attend Thursday
morning's Architectural Review Board meeting.
~Talk with you soon and see you Wednesday.
,\.:
Kate
1111012009
from: A Richter [mailto:ahrichter@gmail.com]
§ell1lit: Friday, [\lovember 06, 2009 5:46 PM
ltiJ): Morariu, Kelly
C<c: Katsanes, Darlene; Elise DeMarzo
$l!JllbJje<ct: New California Avenue Streetscape
My computer sept the email before I finished typing .... but. ...
There are 14 public artworks in the California Street area. The tree project will be in two planting phases
. with minor street renovation thatwilf include bollards, new crosswalks and a few other details. There
was no mention of any of the artworks or their sites by the Architecture and Landscape firm. If you
watched the tapes, Commissioner Judith Wasserman did point out the fact that there are two very
important public artworks at each of the designated gateways .... the entrance to California Avenue and
the the proposed water fountain design at the end of the street.
I spoke with the firmls consultant who would like a list of the artworks and their locations. They are
eager to collaborate. ~ think that the artwalk maps have the locations ..... need to check this by Larisa. The
new proposed Plan C does not not have any of the art locations on their map including' the pi~s in the
median ... Jungle Jane, Untitled Cedar. There will be some median tree planting. The CA Ave CA Native
piece, which no one knew about as a public art piece, is in an area being discussed to have some type of
tree consideration.
Some thought.. . .there are indications that the fountain plaza will have a mal(eover next year. Although it
will probably be after the fountain is installed (unless there are options to work/collaborate with public
works and the consultants) we could "direct" the plaza design. The bike lockers are coming out and their
seem to be hedge vegetation planted in its place. the tree design was confusing as the picture
representation was eschewed. They werenlt quite clear on what trees should be there but they want to
"tie" the two gateways to make them have something in "common". I suggested that the public art was
what is common. The consultant loved the idea and said that she would use that again .... .1 want her to
take this consideration in their plans!
Although many folks spoke in favor of the Plan C, there seem to be some additional information that is
being asked for before ARB completely sign off on it with their recommendations. Most folks just
wanted trees back but did comment that the plan appeared faulty. This could give us squeak room for
some suggestions as they pertain to the artworks and the plans in and around them.
One immediate suggestion would be for us to do a walk through with City staff and discuss what their
perception is being planned for the area in and around the artworks.
I hope that this helps in gaining some insight into what is being proposed. the Art Commission does
need to have a seat at the table to ensure that artworks wonlt be destroyed, covered up or lost due to new
tree planting.
Ally
11112/2009
Page 3 of3
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 5:20 PM, A Richter <ahrkhter@gnlaiLcom>wrote:
Kelly,
I attended the ARB meeting yesterday on the tree relocation and renovation of some sites on califronia
Avenue.
What I heard is that there is a possibility for flexibility at both end of the street which are being
designated as !1gateways!1. It was interesting to hear that the architectual and landscape group was not
aware of the fountain replacement project nor aware of the
11/12/2009
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 2009 CMR: 420:09
REPORT TYPE: ACTION ITEM
SUBJECT: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code
Chapter 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map), Chapter 18.30(C) (the Ground
Floor (GF) Combining District), and Chapter 18.18 (the Downtown
Commercial Community (CD-C) Zone District) to Modify
Restrictions on Ground Floor Uses in the Downtown Area
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
. The purpose of these changes to the Zoning Ordinance is to address concerns about the loss of
revenue generating retail and potential degradation of downtown economic vitality. Specifically,
degradation resulting from an increase in ground floor office space in the downtown core due to
dispersal of retail and personal service uses into the area outside the core. The existing Ground
Floor Combining District regulations allow the Director to approve ground floor office use if a
Use Exception is requested at a time when the City's annual downtown ground floor vacancy
rate calculation is above 5% if allowed by the underlying CD-C regulations. Since a vacancy
rate of approximately 10% is anticipated this year, the section of the code allowing Use
Exceptions is recommended to be removed in order to ensure preservation of downtown retail
uses. To balance this action, and concentrate retail in higher foot traffic areas, an amendment is
proposed to relax existing restrictions in the CD-C zone outside the GF combining district, to
allow the flexibility to lease ground floor space for either office or retail uses. Also
recommended are adjustments to the boundaries of the Ground Floor Combining District to
better reflect the critical areas of retail in the downtown core.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommends that the City Council adopt
the proposed ordinance (Attachment A) to include:
• Removal of P AMC Section 18.30(C).040 eliminating the option for a Use Exception
based on vacancy rate in the downtown core covered by the GF Combining District;
CMR: 420:09 Page 1 of5
• Removal of PAMC Section 18.18.060(f)(1) providing an increase in flexibility for
ground floor uses in the periphery of the downtown; and
• Addition of GF Combining District to the existing properties on the south side of
Hamilton Avenue (the 200 block between Emerson Street and Ramona Street) and to the
Aquarius Theater and the two restaurant sites immediately to the north on Emerson, to
protect these strong retail areas.
Staff generally concurs with the P&TC recommendations, but continues to support adjusting the
boundaries of the GF district to remove sites that are marginally viable for retail uses as
described below:
• Removal of GF protection from properties along Alma Street, and portions of High Street
(near Hamilton Avenue);
• Removal of GF protection from properties along the circle ramps connecting University
Avenue and Alma Street; and
• Removal of GF protection from three miscellaneous non-retail parcels along Kipling and
Cowper north of University.
BACKGROUND
In order to address concerns about the vacancy rate of downtown ground floor retail spaces, the
P&TC initiated the zoning ordinance changes on July 22, 2009, requesting that staff conduct
outreach meetings with owners of property and businesses in the downtown core. City staff
attended and hosted meetings as described in the P&TC staff report (Attachment E). On
Septeluber 23, 2009, the P&TC reviewed the ordinance prepared by staff that was based on the
P&TC comments at the initiation hearing and comments from property and business owners.
The P&TC staff report provides additional background regarding the current Ground Floor
Combining District (GF) and the Downtown Commercial Zoning District (CD-C) code which are
included as Attachments B-D.
DISCUSSION
The draft ordinance (as recommended by the P &TC) is included as Attachment A. The proposed
ordinance is intended to modify the land use regulations in the downtown based on a re-
examination of current conditions and the efficacy of the existing regulations. The goal of these
changes is to support the vitality of the downtown core of strengthening controls in the core and
allowing more flexibility in the periphery. Based on the discussion at the initiation meeting on
July 22,2009, and comments received dU11ng public outreach, staffmade four recommendations
to P&TC of what areas of the downtown should be included in the core as described in the staff
report dated September 23,2009, and in the discussion below.
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On July 22 and September 23, 2009, the P&TC held public hearings regarding the proposed
ordinance. There were two speakers at the first hearing and three speakers at the second hearing.
The P&TC staff reports, meeting minutes, and responses to Commissioners' questions are
attached to this report as Attachments E-I and are available on the City's website at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.orgicivica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=l7098
CMR: 420:09 Page 2 of5
The P&TC divided its recommendation into six separate votes.
1. The P&TC voted unanimously to recommend removal of PAMC Section 18.30(C).040 so
that there will no longer be the option for a Use Exception based on vacancy rate.
2. The P&TC voted (4-3) to remove PAMC Section 18.18.060(f)(1) so that existing and future
retail located in the CD-C zone outside the GF zone could become office in the future.
3. The P&TC voted unanimously to add GF protections to the existing retail on the south side
of the block of retail on Hamilton Avenue (the 200 block between Emerson Street and
Ramona Street) and to the Aquarius Theater and the two restaurant sites immediately to the
north on Emerson.
4. The P&TC voted unanimously to not limit "uses of concern" (restaurants, financial
institutions, etc.).
5. The P&TC voted unanimously to retain the existing zoning of University Avenue east of
Cowper Street and the properties on Bryant between University Avenue and Hamilton
Avenue.
6. The P&TC voted (4-3) to retain the existing zoning of properties on Alma, High Street,
University Avenue, Kipling or Cowper.
Attachment A is the revised draft ordinance as recommended by the P &TC at the September 23,
2009, hearing.
In addition to the elements included in the formal recommendation other issues were discussed in
depth by the P &TC at the meeting. These include the following:
r.' Retaining the current restrictions on existing retail in the CD-C to apply to retail existing
between March 19, 2001 and 2009.
2. Adding the GF combining district to the properties located on both sides of Emerson Street
between Hamilton Avenue and Forest Avenue.
ALTERNATIVES
An alternative to the P &TC recommendation, as recommended by staff, would be to adjust the
boundary of the GF combining district to remove several properties including:
• Removal of GF combining district from properties along Alma Street, and portions of
High Street (near Hamilton Avenue). (525, 529, 535-539 Alma Street, 115 & 135
Hamilton Avenue, 542 High Street)
• Removal of GF combining district from properties along the circle ramps connecting
University Avenue and Alma Street. (115-119, 102-116, 124, 125 University Avenue)
• Removal of GF combining district from three miscellaneous non-retail parcels along
Kipling and Cowper north of University. (440 Cowper Street and 437 & 443 Kipling
Street)
Staff supports this alternative in order to remove the ground floor restriction from sites that are
not viable for retail uses.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The GF cornbining district does not ensure that businesses will provide a point of sale (personal
service and service businesses which do not generate sales tax, are allowed in the GF), but focus
CMR: Page
on the core of the downtown retail district would add to the vibrancy and walkability of the
business district. By clustering retail and personal service uses, retail studies show that foot
traffic and additional sales will result. For example, in the recent studies by Gruen & Gruen
Associates, retail experts in the Bay Area, found that "a critical mass of proximate and
synergistic retail" is required for a successful downtown district.
The additional proposed change recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission,
providing flexibility to property owners to change from retail to other uses (after March 21,2001
or thereafter), would also allow owners to bring in retail tenants into formerly non-retail spaces,
by providing for reversion from retail to the former non-retail use. The potential economic
impact of this primarily is in the occupancy of buildings that have been left vacant rather than
locating a retailer that "locks in" the retail use forever. The lack of flexibility for marginal retail
uses (e.g., 529 Alma) has resulted in vacancies for as long as 3 years. With the ability to
alternate between retail and other approved uses, long term vacancies can be avoided and the
economic vibrancy of the shopping district will be maintained. Allowing this type of flexibility
will allow property owners to change from retail to other uses as the economy and demand for
space fluctuates.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
In addition to Policies that support the retail vitality of the University AvenuelDowntown area,
the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan specifically directs evaluation of the ground floor retail
requirements through Program L-9:
Continue to monitor development, including the effectiveness of the ground floor
retail requirement, in the University A venuelDowntown area. Keep the Planning
Commission and City Council advised of the findings on an annual basis.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This action is categorically exempt (per Section 15305 (Class 5) of the CEQA Guidelines) from
the provisions of CEQA as they comprise minor alterations to land use limitations and can be
seen to have no significant environmental impacts.
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR: 420:09 Page 4
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Attachment H:
Attachment I:
CMR: 420:09
Draft Ordinance with Exhibits (Exhibit 1, property list, and Exhibit 2, map
showing proposed revised locations ofGF combining district)
Map showing existing location of CD-C zoning and GF combining
Ground floor use restrictions for CD-C zoning district (pAMC Section
18. 18.060(f)
GF zoning district regulations (P AMC Section 18.30(C).060)
P&TC staff report dated September 23, 2009 (w/o attachments)
P&TC staff report dated July 22,2009 (w/o attachments)
Excerpt Minutes ofP&TC meeting September 23,2009 (Council only)
Excerpt Minutes ofP&TC meeting July 22, 2009 (Council only)
Commissioner Questions and Response to Questions
Page 5 of5
NOTE YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT A
Ordinance No. --Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Sections 18.30(C).040, 18.18.060(F), and 18.08.040 (The
Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding
Ground Floor Use Restrictions in the Downtown Area
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that:
(a) The Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing
held September 23, 2009, reviewed, considered, and recommended that Sections 18.08.040 (the
Zoning Map), 18.30(C), and 18.18.060(f) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to delete
Sections 18.30(C).040 and 18.18.060(f)(1), and to rezone properties as listed in Exhibit 1 and
shown on Exhibit 2.
(b) The Council, held a public hearing on November 9, 2009, and considered the
recommendation by staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission.
( c) The proposed ordinance is in the public interest and will promote the public
health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth, and is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning
Map," is hereby amended by adding the Ground Floor (GF) combining district to the properties
listed on Exhibit 1.
SECTION 3. Section 18.30(C) (Ground Floor (GF) Combining District Regulations)
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to delete Section 18.30(C).040 (Use
Exemptions).
SECTION 4. Section 18.18.060(f) (Restrictions on Office Uses) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code is hereby amended to delete Section 18.18.060(f)(l) and rename Section
18. 18.060(f)(2) to 18. 18.060(f)(1 ).
SECTION 5. This action is categorically exempt (per Section 15305 (Class 5) of the
CEQA Guidelines) from the provisions of CEQ A as they comprise minor alterations to land use
limitations and can be seen to have no significant environmental impacts.
II
II
1
091103 syn 0120418
NOTE YET APPROVED
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of
its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
091027 syn 0120418
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
2
EXHIBIT 1
The following properties will be added to the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District:
200-228 Hamilton Avenue APN 120-27-008
230-238 Hamilton Avenue -APN 120-27-009
240-248 Hamilton Avenue APN 120-27-010
412 Emerson Street APN 120-26-106
420 Emerson Street APN 120-26-025
430 Emerson Street APN 120-26-026
EXHIBIT 2
~ ---I
2SD
!!I
2 I
I w lO) I ~
iUEROON8T1fi:T
11
11
MIGHI :rAII!ET
• I I: !
1:' ~
1132 ill! m I I i.
116-122 !--
HIO i '1
I
Legend
c:::J CD-C (GF) (P) Zone c::J CD-C (P) Zone
ALMA STREET
v .. = .. = .... = ..... = .. = ... = ...................... c.= .... =,.,-J!I,----,--,===
The City of
Palo Alto
JcuUer, 2009~18 15:48:30 Jc Downlown Zoning (\\oo-mapslgls$\glsladmln\PersonallPlamlng.mdb)
ATTACHMENT 8
S01
COWPER STREET
I-1--'--
--
···························1
~l!l I--J:~i h~ 457-4671 !
WAVERLEY STREET
Downtown Zoning with
Ground Floor Retail
Protections
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
-. 0' 3.58'
This documanll. a graphIc "'p",senIaUon only of besl available SOIJrtes.
The CIIy of Palo AIIo assumes no rSSPDnsiblll1y for any errors @1989102009 CIIy of Palo Alto
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
ATTACHMENT C
18.18.060 Development Standards
(d) Hotel Regulations
(1) Hotels, where they are a permitted use and generate transient occupancy tax (TOT),
may develop to a maximum FAR of2.0: 1.
(2) Hotels may include residential condominium use, subject to:
(A) No more than 25% of the floor area shall be devoted to condominium use;
(B) No more than 25%) of the total number of lodging units shall be devoted to
condominium use; and
(C) A minimum FAR of 1.0 shall be provided for the hotel/condominium building( s).
(e) Exempt Floor Area
When a building is being expanded, square footage which, in the judgement of the chief
building officia~ does not increase the usable floor area, and is either necessary to conform
the building to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, regarding handicapped access,
or is necessary to implement the historic rehabilitation of the building, shall not be counted as
floor area.
(f) Restrictions on Office Uses
(1 ) In all CD subdistricts, no medical, professiona~ or general business office shall be
located on the ground floor, except such offices which:
(A) Have been in continuously in existence in that space since March 19,2001, and, as of
such date, were neither non-conforming nor in the process ofbeing amortized
pursuant to Chapter 18.30(D;
(B) Occupy a space that was not occupied by housing, retail services, eating and drinking
services, personal services, or automotive service on March 19,2001 or thereafter;
(C) Occupy a space that was vacant on March 19,2001;
(D) Are located in new or remodeled ground floor areas built on or after March 19, 2001
if the ground floor area devoted to housing, retail services, eating and drinking
services, personal services, and automobile services does not decrease; or
(E) Are on a site located in an area subject to a Specific Plan or Coordinated Area Plan,
which specifically allows for such ground floor medical, professional, or general
business offices.
(2) In the CD-S and CD-N subdistricts, the following requirements shall apply to office
uses:
(A) No new gross square footage of a medical, professional, general business, or
administrative office use shall be allowed, once the gross square footage of such
office uses, or any combination of such uses, on a site has reached 5,000 square feet.
, (B) No conversion of gross square footage from any other use to a medical, professional,
general business, or administrative office use shall be allowed once the gross square
footage of such office uses, or any combination of such uses, on a site has reached
5,000 square feet.
Ch. 18.18 -Page 9 (Supp. No 13 10/1/2007)
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
ATTACHMENT 0
18.30(C).030 Conditional Uses
Chapter 18.30(C)
GROUND FLOOR (GF) COMBINING DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Sections:
18.30(C).010 Specific Purpose
18.30(C).020 Permitted Uses
18.30(C).030 Conditional Uses
18.30(C).040 Use Exception
18.30(C).010 Specific Purpose
The ground floor combining district is intended to modifY the uses allowed in the CD commercial
downtown district and subdistricts to allow only retail, eating and drinking and other service-oriented
commercial development uses on the ground floor. For the purposes of this chapter, "ground floor"
means the first floor which is above grade. Where the ground floor combining district is combined
with the CD district, the regulations established by this chapter shall apply in lieu of the uses
normally allowed in the CD district. Except for the regulations relating to uses set forth in this
chapter, all other regulations shall be those of the applicable underlying CD district.
(Ord. 4098 § 2 (part), 1992)
18.30(C).020 Permitted Uses
(a) The following uses shall be permitted in the OF combining district:
(1) Eating and drinking;
(2) Hotels;
(3) Personal services;
(4) Retail services;
(5) Theaters;
(6) Travel agencies;
(7) Entrance, lobby or reception areas serving nonground floor uses;
(8) All other uses permitted in the underlying district, provided such uses are not on the
ground floor.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), not more than twenty-five percent of the ground floor
area not fronting on a street may be occupied by a use permitted in the applicable
underlying CD district.
(Ord. 4098 § 2 (part), 1992)
18.30(C).030 Conditional Uses
(a) The following uses may be conditionally allowed on the ground floor in the OF ground
floor combining district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with
Ch. 18.30 -Page 7 (Supp. No 13 -10/1I2007)
18.30(C).040 Use Exception
Chapter 18.76 (permits and Approvals) and with the additional finding required by
subsection (b):
(1) Busmess or trade school;
(2) Commercial recreation;
(3) Day care;
(4) Financial services, except drive in services;
(5) General business service;
(6) All other uses conditionally permitted in the applicable underlying CD district,
provided such uses are not on the ground floor.
(b) The director may grant a conditional use permit under this section only ifhe or she
makes the following finding in addition to the findings required by Chapter 18.76
(permits and Approvals): The location, access or design of the ground floor space of the
existing building housing the proposed use, creates exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply
generally to property in the same district.
(c) Any use conditionally permitted pursuant to this section shall be effective only during
the existence of the building that created the exceptional circumstance upon which the
finding set forth in subsection (b) was made.
(Ord. 4826 §§ 94, 95,2004: Ord. 4098 § 2 (part), 1992)
18.30(C).040 Use Exception
(a) Application may be made to the director of planning and community environment for
an exception to the otherwise permitted or conditionally permitted ground floor uses, to
allow a use permitted in the applicable underlying CD district, if the following
conditions are met:
(1) The initial application for the exception is made when the vacancy rate for ground
floor properties within the GF combining district, as determined by city survey, is
five percent (5%) or greater. (The city shall conduct the vacancy rate survey in
September of each year.); and
(2) The applicant can demonstrate that the ground floor space for which the application is
being made has been vacant and available for occupancy six months or more at the
time of the application.
(b) Any exception granted pursuant to this section shall be for a specific use, and shall be
effective for five years, or less time if requested by the applicant.
(Ord. 4098 § 2 (part), 1992)
{Supp. No 13 -10/1/2007 Ch. 18.30 -Page 8
ATTACHMENT E
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM: Jennifer Cutler
Planner
AGENDA DATE: September 23, 2009
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
SlTBJECT: Amendment of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.0S.040 (the
Zoning Map), Chapter 18.30(C) (the Ground Floor (GF) Combining
District), and Chapter 18.18 (the Downtown Commercial Community
(CD-C) Zone District) to Modify Restrictions on Ground Floor Uses in the
Downtown
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend
amendment of the Zoning Map and Text Changes to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter
IS.30(C) (Ground Floor (GF) Combining District) and Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter IS.18
(Downtown Commercial Community (CD-C) District) to City Council for the purpose of
modifying the restrictions on ground floor uses, as set forth in Attachment A with attached
Exhibits.
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND:
The purpose of these changes to the Zoning Ordinance is to address concerns about the loss of
revenue generating retail and potential degradation of downtown vitality from an increase in
ground floor office space in the downtown core and due to dispersal of retail and personal
service uses into the area outside the core.
The changes to the Zoning Ordinance were initiated by the P&TC on July 22,2009, with the
request that staff conduct outreach meetings with owners of property and businesses in the
downtown core to get feedback on the potential code changes. City staff attended meetings of the
Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Business Improvement District on August 5th and
12th, respectively. Following those meetings, staff sent out notice cards to downtown property
and business owners for two meetings held at City Hall on August ISth and 25th, A follow-up
meeting with interested parties to discuss potential map changes was held on September 2nd,
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Ground Floor (GF) Combining District
The regulations contained in the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District were initially
implemented in 1986 with the creation of the CD zoning district as a subdistrict to that district.
The GF combining district restricts ground floor uses, unless a conditional use permit is granted,
to the following:
(1) Eating and drinking;
(2) Hotels;
(3) Personal services;
(4) Retail services;
(5) Theaters;
(6) Travel agencies;
(7) Entrance, lobby or reception areas serving on ground floor uses.
The only significant changes since the original 1986 code are the inclusion of conditional uses
which include commercial recreation, daycare, financial services, and others (see Attachment C
for the full list). This combining district also contains a section allowing for a request for a use
exception when the vacancy rate for ground floor properties within the GF combining district is
five percent (5%) or greater, and the ground floor space has been vacant and available for six
months or more.
Commercial Downtown (CD) District
The restrictions on ground floor use in commercial districts throughout the City were
implemented at a City Council Meeting on November 19, 2001. These restrictions bar medical,
professional, or general business offices located on the ground floor except in certain situations,
including existing offices, and locations that have not been occupied by housing, retail,
restaurants, personal services or automotive services since March 19,2001 (Attachment B).
These restrictions are different from the GF restrictions, in that they protect only existing ground
floor retail by preventing ground floor office if there is or has been retail (or one of the uses
listed above) in that location on or since March 19, 2001. These restrictions do not include a
provision allowing the Director to issue Use Exceptions upon a determination that a specified
vacancy rate has been exceeded, as is found in the GF district.
Vacancy Rate
Current estimates place the vacancy rate for ground floor spaces in the downtown core Ground
Floor (GF) Combining District at approximately 10%. The formal calculation of the vacancy rate
in the downtown core is conducted each September and reported to City Council shortly
thereafter. It is calculated based on the square footage of ground floor space vacant at that time.
This report outlines proposed changes to these existing zoning designations and the zoning map
developed by staff, based on input from downtown property and business owners, to help address
potential problems related to high vacancy rates.
DISCUSSION:
The predominate zoning classifications in the downtown area are CD-C(GF)(P) on both sides of
University Avenue and north of Hamilton A venue between Alma and Waverley Streets, and CD-
C(P) located on Lytton A venue between Alma & Kipling Streets to Forest Avenue between
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Emerson & Waverley Streets. Attachment A shows a map of these zones. Most of the unmarked
properties in the downtown core area are either Planned Community (PC) zones or Public
Facility (PF) zones (Attachment B).
The CD-C regulations, as well as those of the other commercial districts within the City, include
restrictions on ground floor office uses. These restrictions focus mostly on protecting existing
housing, retail, restaurants, personal services and automotive services in the ground floor space.
These regulations do not provide any opportunity for sites with these uses to revert to office
under any conditions but they do not prevent office from continuing where it currently exists.
The intent of the OF restrictions is to modify the uses allowed in the CD commercial downtown
district and subdistricts to allow only retail, eating and drinking, and other service-oriented
commercial development uses on the ground floor. The OF code, Palo Alto Municipal Code
(PAMC) Section 18.30(C).010, lists specific uses allowed on the ground floor, but allows for a
Use Exception when the vacancy rate for ground floor properties within the OF combining
district is five percent (5%) or greater and the applicant can show that the location has been
vacant and available for six months or more. There is no provision for a Use Exception in the
similar restrictions existing within the CD district (PAMC Section 18.18.060(f)).
Business Outreach:
Two meetings with downtown property and business owners were held at City Hall on August
18th and 25th to discuss four key questions. These meetings had an attendance of approximately
15-20 people each. A follow-up meeting with interested parties to discuss the specific map
changes was held on September 2nd• The four questions addressed in these discussions were as
follows:
1. Should the vacancy rate required for a use exception request to allow ground floor
office in the Oround Floor (OF) combining district be increased (from its current 50/0),
or should the use exception process be removed completely?
2. Should the restrictions in the Commercial Downtown Community (CD-C) district
outside of the OF zone be revised to allow office space where retail currently exists?
3. Should the OF district boundaries be revised? If so, what areas should be added to the
OF district, and which should be removed?
4. Are there certain uses that should be limited in quantity in the downtown core?
Restaurants and financial institutions are two that have been discussed. If so, what
limits might be set?
The meetings revealed a high level of consensus between those who attended the meetings, as
well as those who called in with comments. Attendees voiced strong support for removal of the
use exception from the code (Item 1) so as to protect what was felt to be the essential continuity
of retail in the downtown core. Item 2, the increased flexibility in ground floor uses outside of
the OF Combining District, also received significant support, as long as the map boundaries were
adjusted to include certain valuable retail areas, and provide relief for some OF-zoned sites that
City of Palo Alto Page 3
are not desirable for retail (Item 3). Alma Street was called out as a particularly difficult location
for retail, but the vitality of the Emerson Street retail corridor was discussed as a potential area
for added protection. Attendees agreed that financial institutions that act like offices were
inappropriate on the ground floor of buildings in the core where the continuity of the pedestrian
environment is so important, but acknowledged that could be addressed through existing
conditional use permit process. There was strong opposition to the idea of restricting other uses,
such as restaurants, which support the vitality of downtown and are generally limited and
controlled by economic factors.
Staff Recommended Changes to Ground Floor (GF) Combining District Regulations:
Staff recommends removal ofPAMC Section 18.30(C).040 so that there will no longer be the
option for a Use Exception based on vacancy rate.
Staff Recommended Changes to Downtown Comnlercial (CD-C) District Regulations:
Staff recommends removal of PAMC Section 18.18.060(f)(1) so that loss of flexibility of ground
floor uses in the downtown core covered by the OF Combining District will be balanced by an
increase in flexibility for ground floor uses in the periphery of the downtown.
Staff Recommended Revisions of Zoning Map:
Staff recommends revisions to PAMC Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) to remove from and
add specific properties to the OF Combining District. The list of properties is provided as
Exhibits 1 and 2 of Attachment A. The key changes and other considerations included:
• Removal of OF protection from properties along Alma Street, and portions of High Street
(near Hamilton Avenue).
• Removal of OF protection from properties along the circle ramps connecting University
A venue and Alma Street.
• Added OF protections to the existing retail on the south side of the strongest block of
retail on Hamilton Avenue (the 200 block between Emerson Street and Ramona Street)
and to the Aquarius Theater and the two restaurant sites imnlediately to the north on
Emerson.
• Three miscellaneous non-retail parcels along Kipling and Cowper north of University are
also proposed to be removed from the OF zoning.
• No changes to University A venue east of Cowper Street.
• No changes to Bryant between University A venue and Hamilton A venue.
Staff believes-that these changes reflect the areas of downtown that are most valuable as retail
assets and provide a logical retail core that is not just University Avenue, but the "t" created by
University A venue and Emerson Street as it connects to the Aquarius Theatre in one direction
and the SOFA district in the other.
Discussion of the properties along Emerson Street between Hamilton Avenue and Forest Avenue
resulted in the conclusion that those properties are not as strong candidates for the OF combining
district as they are separated from the downtown core retail by Casa Olga on the comer of
Hamilton Avenue and Emerson Street and likely to stay retail without additional restrictions. The
retail emphasis is also focused only on one side (west) of Emerson Street.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Staff Recommended Limits on Businesses of Concern:
Staff recommends no changes to the limits on specific businesses of concern. This
recoriunendation in regards to financial institutions is based on the finding that financial
institutions are currently restricted by a requirement for a Conditional Use Permit within the GF
Combining District, and can therefore be required to provide an active pedestrian environment
on the street prior to granting of any permit. In regards to a concern expressed by the P&TC
about the number of restaurants, the public feedback received strongly supported the idea that
economic forces would provide sufficient controls, and that the additional process and expense
that would be imposed on potential new restaurants in order to limit their numbers would have a
significant negative impact on the vitality of downtown.
Planning & Transportation Commission Comments at Initiation:
Minutes of the meeting to initiate these changes to the Municipal Code are included as
Attachment E of this report. Staff has prepared a table of the comments received at that meeting
and responses as Attachment F.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
In addition to Policies that support the retail vitality of the University AvenueIDowntown area,
the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan specifically directs evaluation of the ground floor retail
requirements through Program L-9:
Continue to monitor development, including the effectiveness of the ground floor
retail requirement, in the University A venueIDowntown area. Keep the Planning
Commission and City Council advised of the findings on an annual basis.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This action is categorically exempt (per Section 15305 (Class 5) of the CEQA Guidelines) from
the provisions of CEQA as they comprise minor alterations to land use limitations and can be
seen to have no significant environmental impacts.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Ordinance with Exhibits (Exhibits 1 and 2, property lists, and Exhibit 3, map showing
proposed revised locations of GF combining district)
B. Map showing existing location ofCD-C zoning and GF combining
C. Ground floor use restrictions for CD-C zoning district (PAMC Section 18.18.060(f»
D. GF zoning district regulations (pAMC Section 18.30(C).060)
E. P&TC Meeting Minutes, July 22,2009.
F. Table showing PTC's Concerns and Staff's Responses
Prepared by: Jennifer Cutler, Planner
Reviewed by: Amy French, Current Planning Manager
DepartmentiDivision Head Approval: __ C]~..I-~Z.lI"-~:oo.......;:~~~~~:..3w' ~~.~~~.--____ _
Curtis Williams, Director
City of Palo Alto Page 5
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
ATTACHMENT F
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM: Jennifer Cutler
Planner
AGENDA DATE: . July 22, 2009
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
SUBJECT: Initiation of Zoning Map and Text Changes to Palo Alto Municipal Code
Chapter 18.30(C) (the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District) and Palo
Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial Community
(CD-C) Zone District) to Modify Restrictions on Ground Floor Uses
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) initiate changes to
the Zoning Ordinance to modify the restrictions on ground floor uses in Palo Alto Municipal
Code Chapter 18.30(C) (the existing Ground Floor (GF) Combining District) and Palo Alto
Municipal Code Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial Community (CD-C) District), and direct
the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) to prepare the proposed zoning
ordinance text and potential zone district boundaries.
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND:
The purpose of these changes to the Zoning Ordinance is to address concerns about the revenue
generating retail and downtown vitality of downtown through increased office uses on ground
floor in the downtown core and due to dispersal of retail and personal service uses.
Ground Floor (GF) Combining District
The regulations contained in the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District were initially
implemented in 1986 with the creation of the CD zoning district as a subsection to that district.
The text of the regulation, which stays essentially intact from the original 1986 regulations, was
converted as a combining district separate from the CD zones in 1992. The only significant
changes since 1986 are the inclusion of conditional uses which include commercial recreation,
daycare, financial services, and others (see Attachment C for full list). This combining district
also contains the use exception wording from the original ground floor section of the CD zone.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
This section allows for request for a use exception when the vacancy rate for ground floor
properties within the GF combining district is five percent (5%) or greater, and the ground floor
space has been vacant and available for six months or more.
Commercial Downtown (CD) District
The restrictions on ground floor use in commercial districts throughout the City were
implemented at a City Council Meeting on November 19, 2001, in response to a Colleague'S
Memo dated March 15, 2001. These restrictions bar medical, professional, or general business
offices located on the ground floor except in certain situations, including existing offices, and
locations that have not been occupied by housing, retail, restaurants, personal services or
automotive services since March 19, 2001 (Attachment B). These restrictions do not include a
provision allowing the Director to issue Use Exceptions upon a determination that a specified
vacancy rate has been exceeded, as is found in the GF district.
Vacancy Rate
Current estimates place the vacancy rate for ground floor spaces in the downtown core Ground
Floor (GF) Combining District between 10 and 15 %. The formal calculation of the vacancy rate
in the downtown core is conducted each September and is calculated based on the square footage
of ground floor space vacant at that time. With the vacancy rate potentially above the 5%
threshold, there are also concerns that areas on the edge of the CD-C and GF areas may not be
strong retail locations and therefore detract from the vitality of the downtown core. Some
examples include spaces at 265 Lytton, and 530 University.
This report outlines potential changes to these existing zoning designations and the zoning map
to help address potential problems related to high vacancy rates. If the P &TC agrees that this
issue should be addressed, it should initiate the zone change and staff will return with a proposed
ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
The predominate zoning classifications in the downtown area are CD-C( GF)(P) on both sides of
University Ave and north of Hamilton between Alma and Waverley, and CD-C(P) located on
Lytton between Alma & Kipling to Forest between Emerson & Waverley. Attachment A shows a
map of these zones. Most of the unmarked properties in the downtown core area are either
Planned Community (PC) zones or Public Facility (PF) zones (Attachment A).
The CD-C regulations, as well as the other commercial districts within the City, include
restrictions on ground floor office uses. These restrictions focus mostly on protecting housing,
retail, restaurants, personal services and automotive services that exist in the ground floor space.
These regulations do not provide any opportunity for sites with these uses to revert to office
under any conditions.
The intent of the GF restrictions is to modify the uses allowed in the CD commercial downtown
district and subdistricts to allow only retail, eating and drinking, and other service-oriented
commercial development uses on the ground floor. This combining district is primarily used on
properties in the downtown but since 2001, also applies to properties along Middlefield Road in
Midtown. The GF code, Palo Alto Municipal Code (FAMC) Section 18.30(C).010, lists specific
City of Palo Alto Page 2
uses allowed on the ground floor, but allows for a Use Exception when the vacancy rate for
ground floor properties within the GF combining district is five percent(5%) or greater and the
applicant can show that the location has been vacant and available for six months or more. There
is no provision for a Use Exception in the similar restrictions existing within the CD district
(PAMC Section 18.18.060(1).
Revisions to the CD-C and GF zones that have been suggested for potential discussion include
(but are not restricted to) the following:
1. Increase the vacancy rate (to 15 or 20%) required in the GF combining district
applied to the downtown core before a Use Exception may be considered and issued
by the Director (P AMC 18.30(C).040). This revision to the code would strengthen the
downtown retail core by preventing significant requests for use exceptions when the
City is in an economic downturn.
2. Allow office on the ground floor of buildings within the CD-C district outside of the
GF downtown core, regardless of their previous use. This revision to the code would
encourage property owners to allow retail without excluding the possibility of
converting back to office at some future date. This revision to the code would
encourage concentration of retail use to those locations covered by the GF combining
district. Alternatively, this flexibility could be limited to certain sites only.
3. Revise the boundary of the downtown GF combining district to expand or contract
the boundary to better reflect the current downtown core, and to Include the most
viable CD-C retail areas.
4. Differentiating between retail use and restaurant use. This might be a method for
limiting the number of restaurants within the downtown core, to maintain and
encourage a greater variety of retail use. Since the City no longer limits the number
of downtown restaurants serving alcohol on a block by block basis, the number of
conversions from retail use to restaurant use in the GF area has increased and that
number could increase further in the future. It is generally true for Palo Alto's
downtown core that once a commercial space has converted to restaurant use, with all
of the associated tenant improvements, it is less likely convert back to retail use.
Business Outreach:
On July 8,2009, city staffmet with developers, owners and managers of downtown properties,
and representatives from the Downtown Business Improvement District and Chamber of
Commerce, to solicit their reactions to the proposals listed above, as well as to receive any
recommendations they might have on the subject. The comments received at that meeting
included the following:
1. It is a misconception that more retail floor area means more sales tax, as the level of
retail quality can decline.
2. A certain amount of office space is needed because office tenants support the retail
and make the downtown active during the daytime.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
3. Restaurants are the anchor tenants for Palo Alto's downtown and extend the active
hours of downtown.
4. Downtown areas not covered by the GF combining district should have more
flexibility of uses including office, similar to SOFA II restrictions.
5. Dentists and walk-in service banks are also good uses in a downtown because their
clients also support nearby retail shops.
6. Removal of the use exception provision contingent upon a 5% vacancy rate in GF
district was generally supported, but support was not unanimous.
7. Removal of GF combining district from certain properties along Alma Street, and
'from properties on University Avenue north of Cowper Street.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
In addition to Policies that support the retail vitality of the University A venuelDowntown area,
the Palo Alto Conlprehensive Plan specifically directs evaluation of the ground floor retail
requirements through Program L-9:
Continue to monitor development, including the effectiveness of the ground floor
retail requirement, in the University AvenuelDowntown area. Keep the Planning
Commission and City Council advised of the findings on an annual basis.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This action (initiation of zoning changes) by the Planning and Transportation Commission is not
considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Any subsequent
zoning map amendment would be subject to review under CEQA.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Map showing location of CD-C zoning and GF overlay
B. Ground floor use restrictions for CD-C zoning district (PAMC Section 18.18.060(f))
C. GF zoning district regulations (p AMC Section 18.30(C).060)
D. Commercial Downtown (CD) Monitoring Report CMR, May 18,2009.
Prepared by: Jennifer Cutler, Planner
Reviewed by: Amy French, Current Planning Manager
Department/Division Head Approval: __ Q~~E.Z...::...........,;.~_UJ.-;......;=-..;:om~~L_~.w:;.""'::...-~:--____ _
Curtis Williams, Interim Planning Director
City of Palo Alto Page 4
ATTACHMENT G
1 Planning and Transportation Commission
2 Verbatint Minutes
3 September 23, 2009
4
5 EXCERPT
6
7 Ground Floor Retail Vitality and Protection Ordinance: Review and recommendation to
8 city Council to amend the Zoning Map and Text of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter
9 18.30(C) (Ground Floor (GF) Combining District) and Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter
10 18.18 (Downtown Commercial Community (CD-C) Zone District) to Modify Restrictions
11 on Ground Floor Uses.
12
13 Ms. Jennifer Cutler, Planner: Yes. Good evening Commissioners. This item is a City initiated
14 action. In the Staff Report for this item we have provided a draft ordinance, which includes
15 changes to both the CD-C zoning district and the GF Combining District, as well as the map
16 where these zones apply.
17
18 These changes are recommended by Staff based on extensive research and public outreach since
19 our last meeting on this item when it was initiated. The public outreach included attending
20 meetings of the Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Business Improvement District, as well
21 as three separate meetings at City Hall to which property and business owners in the CD-C and
22 GF Districts were invited by custom notice cards that were sent to all listed property owners and
23 business owners. The intent of these recommended changes are to modify the ground floor use
24 rules in the Downtown, to enhance and protect the vitality of the Downtown core.
25
26 The existing GF District covers the core of Downtown, which you can see in orange on the map
27 up above here. In these code sections there is a list of seven permitted uses and five
28 conditionally permitted uses on the ground floor level. None of these uses are office. This
29 district also has a provision in it that allows a use exception when the City's calculated vacancy
30 rate of the ground floor area in this Ground Floor District grows above five percent. The current
31 estimate is approximately ten percent, though the official count for 2009 has not yet been
32 completed. So the previous count of 4.21 percent still stands. So at this time use exceptions are
33 not currently available.
34
35 The CD-C Zone covers all of Downtown and is shown in yellow where it is not combined with
36 the GF Combining District. This district has a greater number of allowed uses including office,
37 but there is a section of this code, which prevents office on the ground floor if the space has been
38 occupied by housing, retail services, restaurants, personal services, or automotive services since
39 March 2001. This protects existing retail but Staffs outreach has told us that it also prevents
40 some cautious property owners from taking a chance on retail if there is a chance that they might
41 want to switch back to office in the future. The fact that the CD-C District does not have
42 flexibility for ground floor uses once it has been retail also has the effect of spreading the
43 Downtown retail thin rather than allowing it to concentrate in the core orange section of the map
44 for the Downtown.
45
46 Staff s recommendation included in the Staff Report and draft ordinance are based on comments
47 fron1 the Commission at the initiation of this zone change in July and the public outreach
48 meetings. The recommendations include, first to strengthen the ground floor retail protections in
49 the GF core by removing the provisions for the use exception and vacancy rate calculation.
Page 9
1 Second, to balance this increased restriction by loosening the restrictions on ground floor uses in
2 the periphery of Downtown, in the areas that are yellow covered by the CD-C District but not the
3 GF. Three, revisions to the map so that the GF District is adjusted to include some areas that
4 should continue to have protection on ground floor uses but remove it from those areas that are
5 not part of that essential Downtown core.
6
7 The public outreach also involved a discussion of possible limits on restaurants and other uses of
8 concern. The public feedback that was received strongly supported the idea that economic
9 factors would provide sufficient controls and that additional process and expense that would be
10 imposed on potential new restaurants in order to limit their numbers would have a significant
11 negative effect on the vitality of Downtown.
12
13 The next steps in this process will include additional outreach and then review by the City
14 Council. We expect the additional outreach will include sending additional custom notice cards
15 to all property and business owners within the CD-C and GF Districts as well as making specific
16 calls to the owners of those properties who are proposed to be specifically added to or removed
17 from the GF District.
18
19 Several questions were received by Staff from the Commissioners and responses have been
20 provided at places. Staff is available to answer any additional questions. Thank you.
21
22 Chair Garber: Commissioners, we will go directly to public comments. If you would I would
23 like you to hold any questions of those members of the public that may be speaking but we will
24 leave the public comment period open so that if we have questions of them when it comes back
25 to us for questions and comment we can ask people to approach and ask them directly at that
26 time. After we get through the public comments my proposal here is that we give each of us five
27 minutes to ask questions and/or comments so we can get through one row of comments. Then
28 potentially I would suggest that we do some straw polls querying the Commissioners specifically
29 on the recommendations by Staff and then we can open it up to further discussion. Ideally we
30 would get through this item in about an hour and a half or so under that plan. Is that acceptable?
31 I am seeing general nods of heads. Okay.
32
33 Let us invite the public to come and speak. We have three cards. The first is Jim Thoits
34 followed by Chop Keenan. You will have three minutes.
35
36 Mr. Jim Thoits, Palo Alto: Thank you very much. I am with Thoits Brothers. First of all I
37 would like to thank Staff and Curtis for the outreach to the business community and the property
38 owners on this process. We have attended the meetings and had a very good session and I
39 commend them for their work on this.
40
41 We have added some properties into the GF zone and we feel we have a good relationship with
42 what is being presented. There is one exception I would like to address and that is the property
43 at 285 Hamilton. We built this in 1969 as Thoits Brothers. It was designed around an office "Use.
44 Originally Great Western was in there for quite a few years if you remember. They left to move
45 across to 300 Hamilton. When they moved there Cornish & Carey occupied that space and was a
46 realty office for some time. When Cornish & Carey vacated your own developmental center
47 showed interest in it and they have been there since.
48
Page 10
1 We feel that the configuration of the building lends itself to an office use. It has a deep eave
2 setback. The retail accessibility and visibility is limited at that building. The use of the building
3 since inception has been office. We have enjoyed the office community there. I think it brings
4 vitality to the comer in its use. The use as a bank, the Cornish & Carey office, and now your
5 Development Center is an area that does see vitality. It sees a lot of activity back and forth. So
6 we feel that we would like to exclude this one property from the GF zone. I would like the
7 Commission to give this some consideration. Thank you very much for that. If there are any
8 questions I can answer now I can do that.
9
10 Chair Garber: There ~s a distinct possibility that you may be asked questions once we get
11 through the rest of the pUblic. Thank you. Chop Keenan followed by Faith Bell.
12
13 Mr. Chop Keenan, Palo Alto: Good afternoon. Well, I too want to echo Jim on the Staff
14 outreach on this. It has just been a delight to engage. It has been a lot of fun, a lot of arm
15 wrestling. There was no fait a complete, here is what we are going to do. It was really to gather
16 our input in huge contrast to maybe the Measure A output. Sorry, I couldn't help myself
17
18 So I know Jennifer walked every block in town. She had her walking shoes and so did the
19 people in my office. So we looked at every single property. We want to see the core
20 strengthened. The safety valve of the vacancy rate has been important, but hasn't been relevant
21 because it has been pretty vibrant for a long time. That vacancy rate is well in excess often
22 percent. There are spaces that are paying rent but that are vacant such as the old Magnolia's.
23 My guess is this is well north of 15 percent right now.
24
25 The other point I want to make is that these are symbiotic uses, office and retail. Those office
26 workers are customers so it is important that it be viewed that way and not as something that is
27 mutually exclusive.
28
29 I own the Aquarius Theater. It is one of those that is being proposed for GF on Emerson. I don't
30 have a big problem with it. I have turned down a lot of other alternatives for that property
31 because I just like to have the theater Downtown. I think it brings some vibrancy. Although
32 theaters don't pay a lot of rent it adds to our other holdings and so I would say that it is a little
33 deep, and I am not going to worry about it. Ifwe want to do something different there we will
34 come forward and talk about it then but it is way too deep to be all retail. Maybe the first 60 feet
35 would be more appropriate.
36
37 The ability to flip in and out of office in the yellow CD-C zone is essential. It is in my opinion
38 the quid pro quo here. We do not, when we have an office vacancy, even consider retail because
39 it is a one-way street. Once it goes to retail you can't flip back to office. The market has a funny
40 way of figuring these things out. Retail buildings, we get retail users and so I would encourage
41 you that that is a critical part of our endorsement of this densification of the GF zone. Thank
42 you.
43
44 Chair Garber: Thank you. Faith Bell, our last speaker.
45
46 Ms. Faith Bell, Bell's Books, Palo Alto: Hello once again. I would just like to lend my support
47 to the idea of the ground floor retail being extended along Emerson Street. I think that is
48 historically a retail district and has grown a lot in that way recently. I am distressed to think
49 about the circle at the end of University Avenue not being retail. I am also distressed to think
Page 11
1 . about High Street not staying with a retail orientation. I think that to exclude that end of town
2 from a retail requirement will deaden it. I think that traditionally and historically it has been
3 retail. My father had a business going on the circle in 1935, and I would like to see that end of
4 town stay vibrant. I think that once you let it all revert to office spaces that won't happen.
5
6 I would also like to make a quick comment about the process here. While there are many people
7 in the development community who I respect I am somewhat concerned that it seems as if they
8 are the people who are primarily asked to give input to this process. I would have hoped that
9 there were some kinds of present legal parameters for determining which buildings count as
10 more suitable to retail application rather than people whose financial interests are so very strictly
11 tied to it. I would have thought that the master plan or some such document would have had
12 some guidelines to that and I would certainly like to see that brought to bear on it. So thank you
13 for your attention.
14
15 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners, let's give ourselves each five minutes to ask
16 questions andlor make comments. We will get through one round of that and then we will do a
17 couple of straw polls to find out where the sensitive points are and then try and focus our
18 remaining discussion on those particular points. Commissioner Holman would you like to go
19 first?
20
21 Commissioner Holman: Sure, and I won't initially take five nlinutes. One question is a
22 procedural question. I do see that Susan Barnes, the Economic Development Planner, is here and
23 I was wondering if she might be asked to sit at the table because I am sure there are going to be
24 questions.
25
26 Chair Garber: Perfectly happy to have your five minutes start now.
27
28 Commissioner Holman: Okay. I had asked a question about SOFA II because my recollection,
29 and I did not have time to look it up, but my recollection of SOF A II is that ground floor retail is
30 required on the street fronts on Emerson Street. Could Staff give that indication, please?
31
32 Ms. Cutler: Yes, there is a specific section of SOFA II for sites on the Homer/Emerson corridor,
33 which is defined as Homer Avenue between Alma and Ramona, so I believe that is three blocks,
34 and Emerson Street between Forest Avenue and Channing, which I believe is two blocks that are
35 under restrictions that are very similar to what the CD-C has at the moment as well. Protection
36 for ifit has existing retail, eating and drinking, personal service, automotive services now or
37 since March 19, 2001.
38
39 Commissioner Holman: You said between Homer and Addison, right? What were the streets?
40
41 Ms. Cutler: Channing and forest.
42
43 Commissioner Holman: Okay. So what consideration was given to connecting those retail
44 requirements or was that considered?
45
46 Mr. Curtis Williams. Planning Director: There was much consideration. I would say that that's
47 probably the -although I have to say that we didn't focus on the fact that SOFA had that down
48 there but more the fact that there was retail down there and particularly that this is sort of a
49 corridor to Whole Foods and that node. So there was a lot of discussion about that. I think
Page 12
1 ultimately the reason it wasn't was it starts to make that GF corridor start to stick out in a
2 different direction then and it is not sort of clustered together and separated by I guess it is Casa
3 Olga there too. That is certainly an issue for the Commission to discuss. There is logic to that
4 kind of connection but again starting to extend fingers of the GF down seemed somewhat
5 contrary to trying to sort of focus on it and compress it between Lytton and Hamilton. So
6 certainly we heard opinions on both sides of that issue and they both have some valid points. I
7 think you can probably ask for some of the folks out here to comment about their perspectives
8 because you will get both from them.
9
10 Commissioner Holman: I had hear, and I only heard this, I am not trying to start a rumor it is
11 just something I heard, that Casa Olga was going to be redeveloped, the property is going to be
12 redeveloped. Has Staffheard anything about that?
13
14 Mr. Williams: I have heard that from time to time but there has not been any kind of
15 presentation to us about any change on that site, not that I am aware of.
16
17 Commissioner Holman: A question for Susan Barnes. When I look at the circle and removing
18 the ground floor requirements there what pops into my mind is the situation that we have at
19 California Avenue where the train station is. It is not too dissimilar to the situation that we have
20 here. One of the things that are really problematic about California Avenue is leaving that train
21 station there are just dead walls there. While this wouldn't be dead walls I would like your
22 feedback on the impact of people again coming from the Stanford side, people coming from the
23 train station. They are coming along and they are not going to see the interface with retail and
24 services there but potentially offices. Could you comment on that and compare it to California
25 Avenue if you might?
26
27 Ms. Susan Barnes, Economic ResourceslRedevelopment Program Manager: We talked quite a
28 bit about that and what we were hearing from a number of the businesses and property owners
29 there is that the configuration of the buildings specifically on the south side there was not very
30 conducive to retail uses, and what was happening was people were walking directly from the
31 train station and were not stopping at those businesses. There had been a lot of turnover and that
32 type of thing.
33
34 I actually kind of like that circle and I kind of often gave the position that if we really did have a
35 walkable comnlunity that those places were accessible and the parking wasn't as difficult and
36 things like that. But really what we heard from property owners and a number of businesses was
37 they didn't think it was very conducive, especially in those first few spaces there.
38
39 I think it is a little bit different than the California Avenue area just by virtue of the types of
40 businesses that are there. The Plantation Cafe tried very, very hard to make it there and had a lot
41 of difficulty. So I don't know. I think it is one of those areas that we had kind of want to .....
42
43 Mr. Williams: If I could add, I think also one of the difficulties was that isn't, unlike the other
44 streets here where you are up on a flat surface and it is easily walkable and connectable, you
45 have the vehicular traffic coming under there and up, and just is kind of a mess and sort of
46 difficult to anticipate particularly a highly viable retail space but celiainly there have been retail
47 spaces there. They have not been too long lasting but they continue to pop up there. So like
48 Susan said, it is another one of those areas that there was a lot of discussion about.
49
Page 13
1 Commissioner Holman: I will pass now of course because of the five nlinutes but I am going to
2 have some follow-ups to that line of questioning.
3
4 Chair Garber: Sure. Commissioners, someone else? Commissioner Fineberg.
5
6 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to follow up on Commissioner Holman's question about
7 Casa Olga. If one is to believe what one sees in the newspaper the intermediate care facility that
8 located at that site is being closed. The folks that called that home are moving out in a very short
9 period of time, and I believe there was a quote from Jim Baer talking about working with the
10 developers to determine an advantageous way to redevelop the property that would benefit the
11 public. Again, I understand that until there is something concrete they are not going to come to
12 Staff but that plants a seed in my mind that more than any time in the last 30 years that property
13 is likely to be redeveloped. So I don't necessarily know what the answers are for that block on
14 Emerson but I think we ought to consider what happens with Emerson with the assumption that
15 there is high likelihood that in a short period of tinle it will be developed. We need to zone for
16 what we want, the community, what gets built will be what we allow. So the community needs
1 7 to have some discussion and thought as to what should be there when it is, if it is indeed
18 redeveloped. Again, I am going from what I read in the press, it is likely to be redeveloped more
19 so than in the past. That's it.
20
21 Mr. Williams: Excuse me, Chair Garber. First of all, Ijust want to let you all know, I apologize,
22 but I need to go next door to the Council Candidate orientation. I will probably be running back
23 and forth during this meeting. So if you see me get up and leave I will probably be back.
24
25 I did want to point out that one of the things we want to stress here is that just because something
26 or a site is in this yellow area, which wouldn't have the same protection as before, does not nlean
27 that it would not be retail. There is nothing that says that it now has to be office. There are lots
28 of areas around the perimeter of this that either developed as retail before we had these
29 regulations or even outside the yellow and have developed as retail. So it is just a matter of is
30 there flexibility to go in and out. Maybe Casa Olga is a location that it is a criticallynchpin and
31 you feel like that needs to have that protection. I just want to be sure we are not assuming that
32 everything in yellow is automatically office just because it doesn't have that same level of
33 protection.
34
35 Chair Garber: Thank you. I failed to inform the Commission that the Planning Director is going
36 to be flipping between meetings. The other thing to note is that both the Planning Director and
37 the City Attorney will have to leave early this evening in preparation of arriving here very early
38 tomorrow with the anticipated furlough issue. So take advantage of them while we have them.
39
40 Commissioner Fineberg, did you have a follow up? Okay. Commissioner Tuma and then
41 Keller.
42
43 Vice-Chair Tuma: I want to delve into a little bit about the input from the community and
44 various components of the community because I think this is a situation where obviously Staff
45 highly valued the input from the business community. They are probably better well situated
46 than Staff or the Planning Commission for that matter to really understand the nuances of the
47 business climate. So I am very inclined to rely on that information as well but I want to make
48 sure that we have an adequate cross-section of different players who have had not only the
49 opportunity which was through the invitations that were extended by Staff but who actually did
Page 14
1 come in and talk to you folks. So there are a couple of specific areas in the Staff Report where it
2 sounds like you are relying fairly heavily on that input.
3
4 One of those has to do with whether or not there should be any limits put on restaurants. So that
5 is by way of example, but I think it would be helpful for us and the public to understand, and
6 there was one comment made by one of our speakers as to who all was involved in these
7 discussions, not only who was invited but who was actually involved and formed the basis for
8 some of the recommendations that we have here. I did see the list that was provided in response
9 to Commissioner Martinez's question but that didn't really sort of identify for me on the
10 particular issues that were relying on this input, who were the players that were given that input.
11 So if you could give us a little bit more background on that that would be great.
12
13 Ms. Cutler: One of the other attachments that I included with our responses to Commissioner
14 Martinez's questions was the list of questions and kind of the outline we provided at each of
15 these meetings. We started with a meeting that was mostly property owners. The second
16 meeting we had property owners and business owners were both invited. We held it here. That
17 meeting was really a useful because we did have a good mix, a number of different business
18 owners or managers as well as property owners. Also in addition to that Curtis and Susan
19 attended the Downtown Business Improvement District meeting, the Chamber of Commerce, so
20 we got some more feelers out there to the business owners. We covered all of these topics as
21 best we could in those discussions with all of them.
22
23 Vice-Chair Tuma: I know sometimes with outreach we ask for participation and we don't get it,
24 or we get it but it only comes from sort of one perspective or a couple of perspectives. Do you
25 feel that through the discussions that you have had that the various different perspectives are all
26 reflected in the recommendations that you have made or were some of the recommendations that
27 you have made in the absence of input from certain sectors?
28
29 Ms. Cutler: From the diversity of people that we had I feel that we did have representatives of
30 small business owners, people who owned just one property, larger property owners. So we had
31 representatives from each of those sectors. While there are different opinions between the
32 different people we had good discussion and at the end of these meetings I feel like in general the
33 consensus was of support of these recommendations.
34
35 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Could you comment on Mr. Thoits' request regarding 285 Hamilton?
36
37 Ms. Cutler: At the moment I believe our recommendation is to keep that block of Bryant in the
38 GF overlay. While it has some difficulties at the moment with the new development on the
39 comer of University and Bryant I think it is important to hold onto to trying to keep that a good
40 strong retail. Removing that comer from the GF might be of concern because it breaks up
41 potential future continuity but I think part of what he has to say about it not being conducive to
42 . future retail use because of the design of the building does have some merit as well.
43
44 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, but just be clear, we are not changing anything there.
45
46 Ms. Cutler: Correct. Weare not proposing any changes for that site.
47
48 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay.
49
Page 15
1 Chair Garber: Go ahead.
2
3 Ms. Barnes: I think that Bryant Street has been problematic for a while. We have had sonle
4 concerns about the amount of turnover of businesses on Bryant Street. We also recognize the
5 fact that with the revitalization of the Walgreen's comer that that street is going to yet change
6 again. There has been an awful lot of construction there. It has been problematic for those
7 businesses that have been located there. The reason that we have kind of kept that particular
8 piece in is for the kind of continuity that Jennifer is talking about. There are a number of small
9 businesses across the street there and the synergy seenlS to work, but she is right also about, and
10 Jim is also right about the configuration of the business and it is problematic.
11
12 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. One last question again related to outreach. For the properties that are
13 being changed either in or out has Staffhad discussions with every single owner and business
14 operator of those properties to make sure they understand that this is going on and to get their
15 feedback on it?
16
17 Ms. Cutler: I don't believe that we have had individual discussions with everyone of them. I
18 believe our goal would be once we have a recommendation from the Planning Commission we
19 would do outreach to them so they are aware of what that final recommendation from the
20 Planning Commission is to Council before the Council sees this issue.
21
22 Vice-Chair Tunla: Okay, thank you.
23
24 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller and then Lippert.
25
26 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. First of all I would assume that there is universal agreement
27 with respect to eliminating the potential of the use exception, which is the Staff recommended
28 change to Ground Floor, the first change. I think we will probably see that in the straw vote.
29
30 Secondly, with the second item I hear a concern about the idea of there being two-way -in other
31 words, right now going to retail is a ratchet. Ifit becomes retail it has to stay retail. I understand
32 that that is a concern for property owners to go to retail. So firstly I think we don't want to lose
33 the existing retail that is there and reducing the protection for the existing retail uses if there is
34 some property that becomes vacant then there might be a desire to make it not retail, and that
35 would cause some sort of discontinuities in whatever retail exists. So I think there is a desire to
36 strengthen retail. I agree with the members of the public, the property owners that office uses do
37 enhance retail, but office uses on second or upper floors enhance retail more than office uses on
38 the ground floor. So office uses above retail is much more synergistic than office uses down on
39 the ground floor that cause a breakup of the retail uses and cause the pedestrian flow to be
40 broken up. An example of that if you will is that with the Wells Fargo Bank at University and
41 Bryant sort of breaks that up in a way that is not desirable. The Union Bank at Waverley is not
42 quite as problematic because there is nothing on Waverley that is there that you would really
43 walk to, but still that one is somewhat problematic. In contrast the American Express office,
44 which is a financial services office, is really small. It doesn't break things up, it looks like a
45 retail establishment, and it behaves like an ordinary retail establishment in the sense that people
46 go there for travel and things like that as opposed to -and even Union Bank is sort of open to the
47 public while the Wells Fargo is a private bank.
48
Page 16
1 In terms of flipping in and out of office I think that there are a couple of ideas that we could
2 have. One idea is either having a CUP to go into office from retail or to require the existing
3 retail stay as retail not to relax that, but if new retail then either allow that to go back and forth or
4 allow a CUP for new retail. So I would like us to consider more flexibility in terms of this than
5 simply deregulating the non-ground floor rules portion of the CD-C zone.
6
7 I also want to draw attention to Attachment D, 18.30(C).020. In particular it says permitted uses
8 and there is a big loophole in terms of letter (a)(7), entrance, lobby or reception areas serving
9 non-ground floor uses. There are examples of that that work reasonably well, if you look for
10 example, there is a small lobby area next to the Lululemon Athletica, there is a small lobby area
11 next to the CVS for example that works reasonably well, it is not intrusive. On the other hand, if
12 you look at the lobby area that has been put on the University Avenue circle, the circle portion, it
13 takes up the whole space, and it is much bigger than is needed for a lobby area. So I would
14 suggest that we constrain the size of the lobby/reception area. In fact by allowing that full floor
15 lobby area we have essentially de facto broken up that space along the curve. I would like us to
16 think more carefully before deleting things from the Ground Floor protection particularly if there
17 is no protection at all about ground floor. If it is completely deregulated that seems to me overly
18 problematic with that.
19
20 With respect to Bryant Street I think that the fact that the current building at, I think it is, 285
21 University sort of sticks out and sort of makes it uncomfortable to walk around the comer on
22 Bryant Street makes that retail on the logical west side of Bryant hard to get to. One of the
23 reasons I was in favor some time ago about having the full seven-foot setback would be to
24 enhance the pedestrian traffic going down Bryant Street. I think that whatever is built there I
25 would hope that it be done in such a way that it enhances that pedestrian traffic.
26
27 Finally, I would like to say thank you for keeping the Aquarius the way it is. I appreciate that
28 and I am sure that a lot of other people do.
29
30 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert followed by Commissioner Martinez, and myself.
31
32 Commissioner Lippert: I have several questions and then I would like to make a couple of
33 statements. Looking at the map here I would like to follow up on Commissioner Holman's line
34 of questioning with regard to the areas around University circle that are going to be taken out of
35 the GF District. With the construction that is going on there isn't it a little premature to be
36 looking at that and saying we don't think it is going to function as a retail space? It really has
37 not come into the public domain. In fact, I remember what was there previously was a
38 Blockbuster video, and we know what happened to Blockbuster, and there was a luggage store
39 that was there for awhile. Then there was a travel agency that was there and they all seemed to
40 be doing moderately well until they were closed down for the construction work. Adjacent to
41 that where the E*Trade is that used to be NBBJ, an architecture firm, so that obviously fell under
42 office use. Then on the flip side or the backside looking at the comer I guess the comer of High
43 Street and Hamilton is the Fazani parking lot. The Fazanis' have never really done anything
44 with that lot. Isn't it a little premature to take a blank lot and then takeaway something that it
45 hasn't even had an opportunity to build a building? The Fazani's in fact have been very reluctant
46 to have landscaped it or made it into viable parking following our regulations. So that is the
47 question.
48
49 Ms. Cutler: Would you like an answer and discussion?
Page 17
1
2 Commissioner Lippert: Yes, please.
3
4 Ms. Cutler: Part of what this really gives us the opportunity to do is to think conceptually about
5 the Downtown and what the important retail areas are, and which areas based on traffic patterns,
6 existing buildings, but also future desires for the area might work better or worse for retail, might
7 be more or less important to the Downtown core and the vitality. Spreading retail throughout the
8 entirety of Downtown, there isn't enough retail to do that, and so thinking about where it is is
9 really important and is really viable for retail. These ends are often more difficult because if you
10 are not a destination retailer then you don't get as much foot traffic because you are right at the
11 end there. When you are over by the train station that is slightly different because you do have
12 people coming from the train so you get a bit of that, so that was some of the discussion of those
13 over there in terms of the viability there. Also some of the discussion of some of the other side
14 streets and continuing it along, keeping all of the existing retail, part of this discussion of
15 loosening up the regulations in CD-C is a recognition that we want to focus our protection and
16 our attention on what areas of Downtown we think are really important for retail. Then let the
17 others follow economic factors.
18
19 Commissioner Lippert: One of the bright spots focusing on retail is that we do have Patagonia in
20 there and they are benefiting from the fact they are next to a parking structure. On the flip side
21 of that we have the last remaining full service copy shop in the Downtown. They are really
22 supported by traffic from I guess Stanford University, jobs that they have through people that do
23 large-scale printing. Doesn't it make sense with University circle being a gateway to the city to
24 think of it in terms of perhaps future mixed use where you wound up with ground floor retail and
25 it could even be housing above it because it is right near a transit center? Does that not make
26 sense?
27
28 Ms. Cutler: I think that is a valuable discussion for the Commission to have this evening about
29 what areas are going to be valuable and useful, being aware of those areas that are difficult in
30 terms of visibility as cars come through, as I believe Curtis mentioned earlier, as they come up
31 from underneath Alma along University they kind of miss the first few buildings on University,
32 so there is a loss there of visibility, and then also the connection to the train station and to
33 Stanford. That is traffic that goes through there.
34
35 Commissioner Lippert: I will pick up my line of questioning on the other side.
36
37 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez.
38
39 Commissioner Martinez: As a relatively new comer to Palo Alto I thought it was important to
40 listen to the comments and sort of get a sense of the history of this problem. When I first looked
41 at it I thought about one of the reasons why I wanted to live in Palo Alto, and that is because I
42 felt the Downtown was so vibrant that it was pedestrian friendly and encouraged us to walk, all
43 of those things as an urban designer that I really care about. So I had to ask myself well, what is
44 driving this problem? Is it from an economic perspective that we want to encourage retail that is
45 long lasting? To support the retail that we have that could benefit from having those vacancies
46 filled with retail that brings additional customers Downtown? Is it an urban design perspective
47 where we want to enhance the pedestrian experience? I anl sure there is a truth to all of this. So
48 I still was not sort of satisfied that I had reached the ultimate reason why we want to do this.
49
Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Certainly when I look at the map I agree with your recommendations for those changes. I have
seen in other cities that retail that is located along high-speed or faster speed streets for some
reason doesn't do well. Maybe people are not drawn to it because of the traffic noise and the
idea of safety. Maybe there is something else to it, but I feel I can support your
recommendations that on the circle we don't have retail or give it as an option that office would
probably be as equally supported.
8 I do have some concerns about what we characterize and what-we have included as retail. I am
9 also sympathetic for those property owners that have buildings that are not suitable for retail. I
10 think we definitely have to take that into consideration. I remember when I was working in New
11 York there was a ban on travel agencies because the Planning Department felt they were kind of
12 boring to the pedestrian experience. Granted at the time there were a lot of them on 5th Avenue.
13 It also calls into question sort of our assumption about what is good retail and what we have
14 included. I think a design office like the former NBBJ was as vibrant as a travel agent, maybe a
15 little bit more. So I would really ask that we look hard at what we are including in this list of
16 ,acceptable retail. I think even financial institutions, I think the banks we have were designed a
17 long time ago before we invented urban design. I think if we looked at it from a pedestrian/retail
18 experience now, and even the banks would design them in a different way that they became more
19 pedestrian friendly. So just in closing I would really like us to take a hard look at what we have
20 included as acceptable retail before we go forth with what we include and exclude in ground
21 floor retail. Thank you.
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
47
48
Chair Garber: Thank you. Although I have been here slightly longer than Commissioner
Martinez I was not at this last meeting that this was discussed. I was out of town so I am
benefiting from a lot of the discussion here. Thank you.
A couple of quick questions. There is a property at the comer of Cowper and University, which
is not included as one of the colors. Is there a reason for that or is there supposed to be a color
there that is not shown?
Ms. Cutler: The properties that are within the Downtown that don't have a particular color to
them generally are either Planned Communities, PC zones, or are Public Facilities, PF, so are not
part of the CD-C and don't have the GF.
Chair Garber: So that one comer is probably a PC?
Ms. Cutler: Yes.
Chair Garber: I had one other question. I don't recall but I don't believe there has ever been an
ordinance written in this way in this community. I am curious if the Staff is familiar with other
communities that may have created ordinances around the amount of storefront that can be
dedicated on a block to a singular use or occupancy. It may be all owned by a single landowner
but it may have different occupancies or there may be percentages applied to that in order to
establish the vitality that particular community is interested in. Is the Staff familiar with that sort
of an approach? I am not recommending it I am just curious.
Mr. Williams: I understand. You are talking about an amount of storefront for a particular use.
Page 19
1 Chair Garber: Yes, so for a community that would seek to avoid for instance the B of A problem
2 that we have on that particular block where it is all one use.
3
4 Mr. Williams: Yes, but suppose that use were in three different buildings scattered throughout
5 the block that is not what you are talking about. Maybe you are talking about continuous ....
6
7 Chair Garber: Contiguous.
8
9 Mr. Williams: One use in one building.
10
11 Chair Garber: Yes.
12
13 Mr. Williams: I think there are cities that have done that at least for anything new coming in,
14 they probably have grandfather provisions for things that are there, that do try to set frontage
15 widths for businesses if they are narrower they tend to encourage more doors, more windows,
16 nlore retail probably than if they are larger spaces that might handle a larger retail. Then again,
17 that might be more difficult to get in and you end up with banks or offices or something like that.
18 I believe, I don't know what comes to mind right now, but I have seen in some locations where
19 they do that from more a design perspective maybe than the use, and say you have to have a
20 maximum width.
21
22 Chair Garber: For instance in like a PTOD zoning you might create that.
23
24 Mr. Williams: Yes, sure.
25
26 Chair Garber: Okay. That is all I have. Commissioners, lets do a couple of quick straw polls.
27 What I am going to be doing is walking down the Staff recommendations here. We will do these
28 quickly so that we can spend .....
29
30 Commissioner Holman: Commissioner Garber, I am really not comfortable we have had enough
31 discussion yet to do straw polls unless your straw poll is just an initial .....
32
33 Chair Garber: I think it is just an initial here because I am thinking it might help us focus our
34 conversation.
35
36 Commissioner Holman: Okay, as long as we can revisit.
37
38 Chair Garber: Yes, I am not precluding.
39
40 Commissioner Holman: Okay. All right.
41
42 Chair Garber: In addition to you I think there are some other Commissioners that want to
43 continue lines of questions.
44
45 Commissioner Holman: All right thank you.
46
47 Chair Garber: Abstaining is fine too, yes. It is just a straw poll. So let me just ask the
48 Commissioners, if the Commissioners would raise a hand to tell me if they would support the
49 Staff recommended changes to Ground Floor Combining District regulations where the Staff
Page 20
1 recommends the removal of P AMC Section such that there will no longer be the option for the
2 use exception based on vacancy rate. All those in favor? Okay, that is all of us.
3
4 Do the Commissioners support generally the Staff recommended changes to Downtown
5 Commercial Districts so that the loss of flexibility on the ground floor uses in the Downtown
6 core are covered by GF Combining District will be balanced by an increase in the flexibility in
7 the ground floor uses in the periphery of the Downtown? All those in favor? Four, so there is
8 some discussion there. Good.
9
10 Let me break the next one into three pieces. The Staff recommended revisions of the zoning
11 map. First let me ask if there is support for the Stafr s recommendation of the removal, the three
12 bullets that remove the GF protections. These are for the properties along Alma Street, portions
13 of High Street near Hamilton Avenue, removal of the GF protection properties along the circle
14 ramps connecting University Avenue and Alma Street, and then the three miscellaneous non-
15 retail parcels along Kipling and Cowper north of University. Support for those? One, two, three.
16
1 7 Then let's see if there is support for the addition to the GF protections to the existing retail on the
18 south side of the strongest block of retail on Hamilton Avenue and to the Aquarius Theater and
19 the two restaurants immediately to the north on Emerson. Support for that? That is six.
20
21 Then finally is there support to not change University A venu~east of Cowper and not change
22 Bryant between University and Hamilton Avenue. Support? One, two, three, four, five.
23
24 Okay, Commissioners, Commissioner Holman, and then Lippert.
25
26 Commissioner Holman: Yes, and I guess first I will make my argument for the circle. The
27 purpose of that is we talk a lot in this community about connectivity. That was a four-three
28 straw poll so I am going put out my best effort here, or hopefully. We talk a lot about
29 connectivity and I think what is similar to the California Avenue train station issue is that there is
30 that blank wall. I understand the restaurant there has had a hard time surviving but there is that
31 blank wall that leads you down there. It is really problematic. That building, I am not
32 particularly for demolishing buildings, but that building should just be blown up and start over.
33 It is terrible from a pedestrian and connectivity and retail vibrancy. It just loses it big time. I
34 don't want to create that same thing here.
35
36 When people come from Stanford campus, when they come offEl Camino, when they come
37 from the train station there really needs to be a vibrant comer there. There is a parking garage
38 right behind it so there is adequate parking. Along with Commissioner Lippert, I have been here
39 a long time 34 years I think it is, and there have been long-term uses, successful uses, there.
40 There was a sporting goods store there forever. I think it was Bungee Travel or somebody was
41 there for a very long tinle. Blockbuster was there for a very long time. There have been some
42 long-term surviving businesses there.
43
44 I guess I have a problem with the development on the south side of the circle not getting much
45 traction because in zoning we say that you can't create your own disadvantage, basically. That
46 building that new building is designed such the whole ground floor is basically a lobby. So it
47 seems to me that what we have allowed there with the design of that building is a difficult
48 building to rent as retail. So you have created your own challenge.
49
Page 21
1 Chair Garber: Commissioner, help me because I am either not following or slightly confused,
2 both of which are entirely possible. Are you relating that to this second Staff recommendation or
3 is that just specific to the changes to the map where we are removing things and that was the
4 item that was ...... ?
5
6 Commissioner Holman: I am currently talking about the removal of the properties on the circle.
7 That is what I am talking about.
8
9 Chair Garber: Okay.
10
11 Commissioner Holman: So that is one issue. I think they have created their own challenge
12 there.
13
14 I would agree with Commissioner Keller, and there have been proposals and opportunities that
15 have been presented down Alma and at the comer of Hamilton and High Street, so I just don't
16 see the logic in taking that out. So I could hit several different points here.
17
18 As far as Emerson Street and adding, it may be a finger but it is one block, all we are talking
19 about is one block being added to connect to the SOFA II district. It is one block. So I would
20 want to add that.
21
22 I don't want to confuse us by covering a whole lot of points at once so I will probably stop there
23 for the moment.
24
25 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Lippert and then Keller.
26
27 Commissioner Lippert: I just want to follow up on Commissioner Holman's comment with
28 regard to University circle. Again, I can see it being problematic but that is an area that has just
29 been born. There are many things that are going to be happening in that area over the years it
30 just hasn't been given a chance. Even though we are in an economic downturn tum right now
31 whatever happens there is vital to the transit center. The dream team plan is to make that a major
32 plaza and entry into the city. So in some ways if that ever turned to ground floor office and
33 remained that way we would be stuck with that if ever we were to enhance or improve the transit
34 center, and that connectivity with Palm Drive. So I think it is something that we dearly need to
35 hold onto in terms of it being a gateway to the city.
36
37 Chair Garber: Commissioner, forgive me Commissioner Tuma has a question related to that.
38 Sorry, never mind.
39
40 Commissioner Lippert: I had one other question in there. Once you demolish a building does it
41 revert back to the underlying Ground Floor Retail zoning or does that go with the previous use
42 that was there? So an example is an office that moved into a retail space. Let's say it was one of
43 the small retail shops on Bryant Street, which aren't doing particularly well, the gallery spaces.
44 Ifwe were to intensify what could be built there, and those were demolished, would that office
45 space remain with that property on the ground floor or would it then revert back to it having to
46 be leased as retail with whatever uses above it?
47
48 Mr. Williams: I believe that if it were demolished and start over that it would need to conform
49 then to the use which if the GF exists there then it would have to be a retail ground floor use that
Page 22
1 comes back. Differentiate that from just changing the tenant but leaving the existing building
2 there that can continue to go as office, like 285 Hamilton has done, go from office to office to
3 office. If you scraped it and built a new building then our code as far as nonconforming uses
4 basically says that if you construct something anew that then you have to comply with the use
5 that is the basic use for the site.
6
7 Commissioner Lippert: So basically what I am looking at is there would be a viable life to it
8 because as smaller buildings came into wanting to take advantage of the land and the
9 intensification of that land there would be an opportunity for rebirth. So there would be in some
10 ways a self-fulfilling death to that ground floor office use with intensification of that land.
11
12 Chair Garber: Commissioner, forgive me one more time. I apologize. I am thinking that the
13 topic of the University circle is a particularly hot one and maybe what we should do is draw out
14 any other comments that are specific to it before we move on and then we can come back to you.
15 Would that be acceptable?
16
17 Commissioner Lippert: Yes, except I keep losing my line of thought on this.
18
19 Chair Garber: Your choice.
20
21 Commissioner Lippert: Why don't we go ahead and I will come back to my thought.
22
23 Chair Garber: I know that Commissioner Tuma had a comment about that. Commissioner
24 Fineberg and Martinez, and then we will come back to Lippert and then Keller. Commissioner
25 Fineberg followed by Martinez.
26
27 Commissioner Fineberg: When I am thinking about the area on University circle the question
28 comes to mind why are we considering making the changes, and what are we trying to
29 accomplish? In my mind, there are multiple factors that affect that area that come into play. So
30 it hinges to me on then what are we trying to accomplish? The multiple factors that come into
31 play are the economics. Right now we are in a recession. Retail tenants are hard to find. It
32 might be more profitable for a landowner to rent to an office use, office tenants. There are what
33 I will call safety issues. When a person is shopping in the neighborhood how safe do they feel?
34 Is there a vital environment with lots of people? Or is it dirty or unoccupied and dark, or light
35 and clean and open and vital? There is convenience. There is either parking or hard to find
36 parking. There are public bathrooms or not There are either lots of cars and traffic or it is easy
37 to get to. There are also profit motives of both landowners who want to maximize their income
38 streams, there are profit motives from business owners who would prefer probably paying less
39 rent and having more customers, and there are also the residents who live and work and shop or I
40 should say people who live and work and shop and who will be customers in those stores. They
41 don't all have consistent goals and desires. So what are we trying to accomplish? Are we
42 reacting and changing zoning because there is a short-term economic downturn? Are we going
43 to rezone and then regret it if the economy picks up or are these re-zonings things that will stand
44 the test of time that five and ten years later will serve us well? I am not sure on that University
45 Avenue area that I know the answer to that right now. I am not sure I know the answer to what
46 is going to make it vital for the people who are in the area. We have talked about the City's
47 outreach to the business owners and the landowner and property owners. This is actually a
48 question for Staff. Do we have any sense of what is it that people want there? Is it that the
49 businesses would need lower rents? Is there some type of business that we can say that is what
Page 23
1 would attract people to come to University circle? Then what zoning would support that if it is
2 retail or have we simply come to the conclusion that we are giving up, it can't be retail, it needs
3 to be office? So if Staff could address that.
4
5 Mr. Williams: Well, first of all we are not saying anything needs to be office and we don't
6 believe that we are going to see some wholesale change by making that change. There are lots of
7 areas down here again that -this ordinance in the yellow that requires retail to remain retail is
8 now eight years old. There were lots of retail spaces in those areas before we had that provision
9 that required that. Now there are surely some properties where it may be found to be beneficial
10 to convert to office but there are also properties that I know I have fielded phone calls about
11 somebody wanting to put retail into one of those yellow areas that is office now. When they find
12 out that they can't ever convert that back to office they don't do it. So we don't have some retail
13 spaces come in that might otherwise.
14
15 I think your question is a good question as far as what we are trying to do. I think what we are
16 trying to do generally is assure that we don't begin to have, first and foremost, incursions of even
17 the flexibility for incursions of office into the primo core of Downtown retail, ground floor retail.
18 So that is what the first and obviously there is pretty good consensus there on that first issue of
19 the vacancy rate.
20
21 Then the others are I think not as clear-cut. The second recommendation relates more to a sense
22 but perhaps not a highly quantified one of having that flexibility and that being advantageous to
23 accommodate some retail in spaces that are not going to get it now, and by the same token not
24 sort of diluting retail by requiring it in outlying areas where maybe it could better be focused in
25 the core.
26
27 Then relative to the mapping I think again that is trying to look at are there spaces that are more
28 marginal where retail doesn't seem to be particularly strong to sort of rate the core restriction but
29 we still would anticipate that a lot of those areas are still going to remain retail, some of them
30 probably won't. I think those are the grayest areas you have already discussed. We have heard
31 and seen discussed arguments on both sides of those for University circle, for Emerson, and for
32 Cowper on the far end was one we discussed quite a bit and left it in, and Bryant at High Street
33 as well. So those are grayer areas and I guess there don't have to be chang~s to the map but we
34 think that these can help strengthen again identifying where that GF zone really goes and
35 providing more flexibility to the other sites.
36
37 Chair Garber: Please go ahead.
38
39 Ms. Barnes: If I could follow along, as we started to talk about this and got more concerned
40 about the retail vacancy in the Downtown I contacted Economic Development Directors in about
41 20 other Silicon Valley cities. We talked about our five percent threshold and whether or not
42 that five percent threshold made sense, and what their vacancy rates were like, and what numbers
43 they were looking at. Almost exclusively in the downtowns that were vital we found out that
44 there was no flexibility in that downtown core. That it was retail, however they defined retail,
45 and that they intensified that core.
46
47 The kinds of fluctuations that we did see were they had concerns about types of businesses. For
48 example in Los Gatos they were really concerned about chains. So they went about defining
49 what they thought a chain was and some place with seven or more establishments was
Page 24
1 considered a chain according to their rules and that kind of goes along with the conversation that
2 we had about restaurants. People talked about restaurants but almost unanimously we heard
3 from both business owners and property owners that the market would dictate that and that was
4 part of why we were are as vital as we are was because the market had dictated good uses in the
5 spaces that we had. But we did actually try to get some more information from other cities that
6 had vital districts and were concerned about maintaining those districts as well.
7
8 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioners, Tuma, Martinez, Keller let's try and keep our comments
9 brief because we need to try and nl0ve this along.
10
11 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. So here is my thinking on the circles. I think when we look at what
12 Planning Director just told us about what we are trying to do here, which I think I agree with,
13 strengthen the core, keep it solid that area right there - I go Downtown for a lot of things and I
14 come up Alma Street from where I live down in Barron Park or I am coming from Stanford I
15 spend almost no time as a consumer at that end of University. That doesn't mean that there
16 aren't viable businesses that could be there from time to time but I am not convinced that that is
1 7 integral to strengthening the core. I think if you could have some from time to time office space
18 there with the proximity to transit it would make a lot of sense to be able to have that flexibility.
19 So to me keeping it only as ground floor retail isn't as big a driver and I think you could get
20 some benefit by having some ground floor office there. The people who work in those offices
21 then could shop and contribute to the retail. I don't know, I just think it is not necessarily that
22 accessible from a retail perspective. There may be certain businesses that it works for there. The
23 proximity to transit in a way says let's allow more office there. The strength of the office there
24 could participate in the retail. So I don't think removing this restriction is necessarily a bad
25 thing. I think it is actually a good thing. I think it would contribute to the flexibility and the
26 viability.
27
28 Chair Garber: I am going to interrupt just briefly. Do any of the public speakers that have
29 spoken like to speak to this particular issue? Mr. Keenan.
30
31 Mr. Keenan: Cicero said not knowing your history is like looking at the world through the eyes
32 of a child. In 1984 when we built the 300 and 400 office buildings there, Wells and now Chase,
33 the biggest grossing restaurant in Downtown was the Burger King where Pizza My Heart is.
34 Retail is a very fragile business. You see them come and they go. Frankly, no change is fine.
35 The impetus for this was gee, we have a vacancy factor that is starting to be meaningful, and
36 those protections are now the release valve is operative. The fact of the matter is that there is no
37 big rush. They don't get people saying we want to put offices in that core retail. It is not the
38 issue. But, we are almost unanimous, and you were unanimous on keeping that core solid. The
39 "best of' we really want to be restrictive.
40
41 There is a quid pro quo from a property owner's point of view and that is flexibility on the CD-
42 C, the yellow up there, to flip in and out depending on what the market is telling you. I can tell
43 you retail pays more than office right now but demand shifts. I own the Fazani parking lot. It is
44 just a terrible retail comer. I have a little jewel box of a retail building approved there and I am
45 not going to build it. It is just not a good retail location. Where Pampas is right now, that is my
46 first baby, my first building. We bought it from Earl Scheib for $70,000. He had all those auto
47 painting deals for $1995. I left that building three years vacant because I couldn't do anything
48 else but retail. My first use in there was an architect and then it switched to retail and now it is
49 retail forever. I don't want to look, if I ever lose that tenant, that I am going to have to go dark
Page 25
1 three years waiting for the next retailer. I think Patagonia is doing okay so it flips in and out, and
2 the restaurant is doing okay. It is a tough market right now so I think they have more runway in
3 front of them. The Fazani building on the comer is not a good retail comer. Somebody said
4 high-speed traffic really affects those areas in terms of retail viability, they are not walkable, and
5 so I would encourage you to take that into consideration.
6
7 Then Karen Holman's comment that one block, just give me that one block on Emerson, I defer
8 that I am the daddy of the Emerson resurgence. I will let Faith be the grandmother of the
9 resurgence because she was there first, and she was the true pioneer. Coming down to Whole
10 Foods, which we developed, and the Little Bijou Theater and redeveloping all that into retail that
11 was us. You have Anna Eshoo's office on the comer there of Forest and Eme:t;.son, that's office.
12 My office is on the other comer. You have a skin guy. It is eclectic. These pure lifestyle
13 centers, retail, are dying all over America that are a lot better done than this with a lot better
14 parking. So the idea of really burnishing our golden geese here, which is University Avenue and
15 what you see in orange there, I think, is great but we need a little more flexibility to hard lining
16 those changes.
17
18 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Martinez and Keller. I am sorry, you have a question
. 19 from Commissioner Keller, and then we will go to Comnlissioner Martinez.
20
21 Commissioner Keller: Thank you Mr. Keenan. My question is the proposal by Staff is to have
22 no controls on the non-GF portion of CD-C. I am wondering whether some sort of control like a
23 CUP or something on the new experimental retail could go back or is there some sort of
24 approach that you think would work and allow you to experiment with retail and not have a one-
25 way ratchet that would be more than simply no control at all.
26
27 Mr. Keenan: It kind of gets to be more fashionable than the rule of law. The dirty little secret
28 about Palo Alto that I don't like to spread is that historically, it has changed but historically you
29 have zoning, you stay in the zoning box, you go to ARB, you are compelling at ARB. We don't
30 see you guys. We don't see the City Council. It is beautiful. The PC has sort of changed that.
31 You have never seen me do a PC. I stay in the zoning box. So I want to go and be compelling to
32 the Architectural Review Board contextually, what does this building look like, but the CUP
33 process, which incidentally everything in Menlo Park is a CUP. Everything is a use permit, and
34 everything is politicized. Decisions are not made in Palo Alto time they are made in commercial
35 time. So CUPs I think are a significant hurdle that is not enough to give up my safety valve on
36 really what is important in the GF.
37
38 Commissioner Keller: I realize this perhaps going too far but what I am wondering is suppose
39 what we did is we say any new retail in the CD-C you could go anyway you want, you could go
40 back and forth, and any of the existing retail that is over there in order to go from that that's
41 existing presumably for some period of time would require a CUP to go the other way?
42
43 Mr. Keenan: Well, I am always trying to find the middle of the table and I appreciate your
44 gesture but I will give you an example. The Thoits Brothers own, they have a gym in there on
45 Emerson and it is sort of on Karen's block. That was the Chronicle. They had their news bureau
46 in there, an office use, and it went to retail. These things get too theoretical. You are not going
47 to see that yellow all go to office tomorrow. It is like when we did the down zone in Downtown
48 Palo Alto from 3: 1 FAR to 1: 1 FAR. Everybody took the ground floor square footage and
49 multiplied it times three and said do you realize we could have 4.0 million feet of new buildings
Page 26
1 in Downtown Palo Alto? The fact of the matter is that there is economic value in all of these
2 buildings that preclude that. It becomes too theoretical. I think this is that case. You are not
3 going to see any wholesale changes. You nlight see a little around the edges but from a property
4 owner's point of view flexibility and meeting the market and getting good retailers that is just
5 what helps us keep it vital. It focuses your good stuff where you do have good parking. We
6 work hard, spent $42.0 million on new parking structures Downtown. So I think keeping the GF
7 strong, stronger without a relief valve nobody here is arguing for a relief valve, but there is that
8 flip.
9
10 Commissioner Keller: If the Chair will indulge me I will just ask you one more question.
11 Sometimes on the Commission there have been discussions about the idea, which was mentioned
12 by Susan Barnes the idea of basically chain stores versus non-chain stores. Do you have
13 thoughts in terms of what kinds of restrictions we might consider sometime in the future? As
14 long as you have the floor.
15
16 Mr. Keenan: You want to go San Francisco? Retail is fragile and I will just leave it at that. You
17 eliminate chain stores which is where they get the capitalization and that would be a disaster, as
18 would eliminating restaurants or constraining restaurants. We don't have many anchors here.
19 Our biggest anchor is now Apple. It is a huge store. It is remarkable. The second biggest is
20 probably Borders. It is one of their very top stores. We are not going to get Urban Outfitters
21 where Magnolia went. I just heard that today. So it is a very fragile item. If we had to take
22 those stores off of the table what do we have left?
23
24 Commissioner Keller: I am not suggesting that we eliminate chain stores but if we limit them in
25 some way so that we have more of mix, do you have any thoughts on that?
26
27 Mr. Keenan: I think it is a huge nlix now and the pejorative chain I think is really misused. It
28 usually just means that somebody who is in that business doesn't want a new competitor.
29
30 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you.
31
32 Chair Garber: Okay, let's interrupt and get refocused back on University circle. Comnlissioner
33 Martinez. I'm sorry, Commissioner Holman.
34
35 ConlIDissioner Holman: You asked for members of the public and there is another member of
36 the public who wishes to speak.
37
38 Chair Garber: Please, Faith Bell.
39
40 Ms. Bell: I appreciate the opportunity to speak. First I want to say that it is significant to me
41 that the landowners and merchants of the affected buildings are not being informed at this point
42 in the process. I think that is really a mistake.
43
44 Second, I would like to say that the owner of Jungle Digital Copy has spoken to me and is
45 strongly opposed to the lapse of the Ground Floor zoning for his building. I think that is
46 significant.
47
48 Third, I would like to note that there is the relatively new parking structure there in that location.
49 When we were discussing it at previous meetings people were saying that parking was
Page 27
1 problematic there because there wasn't something visible at the street. I think that with proper
2 signage that could be really encouraged.
3
4 Fourth, I would like to remind everyone that the last figure I heard on empty office space vacant
5 in town was 110,000 square feet. I don't know if that is true or not but if that is the case we
6 certainly don't need more ground floor office space.
7
8 I would like to support Commissioner Lippert's comments regarding the potential of the
9 buildings that are under construction now. I know that the designer of the building that is on the
10 circle there spoke at one of the previous meetings where I was with you, saying that he had
11 dreams of a really vibrant retail for the bottom of that building. He had designed it with that in
12 mind. I would also like to mention that the rents could be a significant factor in this and if the
13 landlords were willing to bring the rents to within something more manageable we could get a
14 more vibrant retail mix that was not just chains. Ifwe want to bring a town into place here that
15 draws people to something other than what the Stanford Shopping Center looks like then maybe
16 we need to be looking at that. When the developers cry hard times maybe they need to be
17 looking at the rents too. I don't know because I am not in that business. I rent to myself.
18 Thanks for designating me the grandmother job.
19
20 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez.
21
22 Commissioner Martinez: If I understand this correctly we are not precluding retail on the ground
23 floor of University circle.
24
25 Ms. Cutler: No, it would just be removing the Ground Floor overlay. So it would be reverting
26 back to the CD-C, just those allowed uses, which include all of the uses that are allowed in the
27 GF District as well as a number of others.
28
29 Commissioner Martinez: So we can just allow the market forces to do what they are going to do.
30
31 Ms. Cutler: Precisely.
32
33 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. From my point of view whether it is retail or something else,
34 office, on the circle is less important than the circle itself. It feels like it could be a grand
35 gateway to University Avenue. The buildings with due respect could have been a little bit more
36 vigorous to reinforce that. Unfortunately we have what we have. That doesn't preclude public
37 improvements to street trees and street furniture and lighting and paving as a way to make a
38 grand sense of entrance to the Downtown. I think that is far more important than what type of
39 use occurs on the ground floor.
40
41 I think high-tech offices reflect greatly on Palo Alto as do sort of unique retail. There is no
42 guarantee that retail there would be more than a nail salon or a dry cleaners or anything else. So
43 I think to insist that it can only be retail is really putting the cart before the horse, and really
44 imagining something which may not come to fruition.
45
46 I just wanted to say on the plan that is being proposed when I first looked at it I thought well,
47 why are we imposing restrictions at this point in this recession? Then I looked at it again and I
48 asked why are we imposing restrictions at this point in the recession? I think in the latter way of
49 looking at it what I was thinking was that with vacancies of ten, 15, one speaker even said up to
Page 28
1 20 percent we have the potential of having vulnerable retail spaces converted to office. This is
2 not for the duration of a recession this is five, ten, 15 years, who knows. That doesn't contribute
3 to the vitality of Downtown, not to the core. So I am very much in support of the planning
4 ordinance for the Downtown core and really looking at ways of enhancing our commercial
5 district. Thank you.
6
7 Chair Garber: Commissioners, before we go on we need to finish up with Commissioner Lippert
8 and I have not taken straw polls on the final two Staff reconunendations, which we need to do,
9 which will bring us into a conversation about restaurants. Commissioner Lippert.
10
11 Commissioner Lippert: One more line of questioning here real quick. With regard to the five
12 percent threshold that we currently have in place if we were to relax and allow for the conversion
13 of ground floor retail into commercial office because of this threshold that we hit, is it the
14 differential or the delta? Say we are at ten percent so it would be the difference between that ten
15 percent and the five percent that would be permitted to be converted to ground floor office or
16 would it be the whole ten percent?
17
18 Ms. Cutler: My understanding of the way that it works, and if I get this wrong you can correct
19 me, is that the City does a calculation of what percentage of the square footage in the GF zone is
20 vacant. Based on that calculation that is done once a year in the fall, around this time, then it is
21 either over the five percent or not. If it is over the five percent then people can request a use
22 exception to allow office on the ground floor given certain conditions, the six month vacancy and
23 available being one of the primary ones. Once that calculation is done in the fall we don't
24 recalculate it again until the following fall. So that use exception is available until it is
25 recalculated again and determined to be less than five percent.
26
27 Commissioner Lippert: So that would be available to any ground floor retail space even if we
28 were to exceed, let's say we were fill all of that ten percent square footage with office space it
29 could even gobeyond that.
30
31 Ms. Cutler: If space could be shown to have been vacant for six months and available for six
32 months they could request that use exception until we recalculated the vacancy rate again the
33 next fall and determined that it was less than five percent.
34
35 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. I would like to make some comments here if I might?
36
37 Chair Garber: Go ahead.
38
39 Commissioner Lippert: I think that Commissioner Martinez really hit the nail on the head in
40 what he was saying in terms of preserving the Downtown. I would like to put some legs on this
41 if I might. By that what I mean is I think we have an opportunity here in the relaxation in the
42 yellow area. We are in a very, very, very difficult economic time right now. The idea that I see
43 or maybe this is what Staffwas trying to get across here is that because we have reached this
44 threshold trying to get more offices into the Downtown area and by relaxing that standard
45 eventually at some point we are going to see the economy return and there really is a symbiotic
46 relationship between office and retail. You cannot have one without the other. If you have only
47 office space you wind up with a Downtown Dallas. Dallas' zoning is two zones office and
48 parking. That is it. Sorry, there is one more zone, there is a retail zone. It is the Neiman Marcus
49 department store. Off in a small comer is a food court. That is what you wind up with. It is a
Page 29
1 deadly downtown. It doesn't work. You need to have office and retail in order for the two of
2 them to be able to survive and they need to be symbiotic. So by relaxing I think the yellow area
3 and allowing for ground floor office uses in that conversion we will see a critical mass eventually
4 return and strengthen the retail core to our city.
5
6 I also feel that we must draw a line in the sand and preserve those retail uses. So I am in support
7 of what I see here today. I am not, however, in support of taking the area around University
8 circle and simply taking the Ground Floor overlay off of that, the Ground Floor retail overlay.
9 So those are my comments.
10
11 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners, to keep things moving here lef me poll you on the
12 last StaffreconIDlendation, which was the Staff recommendations on Limits on Businesses of
13 Concerns, in which the Staff is recommending that we do not limit. Commissioner Holman.
14
15 Commissioner Holman: Before polling don't you think we ought to have at least one round of
16 just comments on that one topic.
17
18 Chair Garber: Sure, we can do that. Would you like to start us off?
19
20 Commissioner Holman: Sure. I found the language in the Staff Report interesting because it
21 says in regards to a concern expressed by the PTC about the number of restaurants and public
22 feedback received strongly supported the idea that economic forces would provide sufficient
23 controls and that the additional process and expense that would be imposed on potential new
24 restaurants, so I am a little bit unclear on what that means the cost imposed on potential new
25 restaurants that is unclear to me, in order to limit their numbers would have a significant negative
26 impact on the vitality of Downtown. What is missing for me in these comments is but what does
27 good zoning practice say. That seems to be missing. The comments that are indicated here are
28 just from public and property owners.
29
30 There is a reason why, and I would Staff to comment, there is a reason why for instance Los
31 Gatos, I am not proposing this but, Los Gatos limits chain stores or doesn't allow chain stores.
32 There is a reason why Burlingame restricts the number of restaurants. So can Staff conIDlent on
33 that, please?
34
35 Ms. Cutler: I would say that in terms of what good zoning practice that we took into
36 consideration and maybe didn't mention in the Staff Report was more about a concern about
37 over-restriction. That in providing a list of allowed uses on a site providing flexibility rather
38 than narrowing it too much. Also, I have heard from the Planning Commission a strong interest
39 in supporting new businesses that want to come in and allowing them a process that is no over-
40 burdensome. So when we heard a lot of comments and concerns about that that seemed a very
41 important part of evaluating this option. If there was some sort of additional process that had to
42 keep track of how many restaurants for instance there were in the Downtown that that adds a
43 whole other layer whenever a new business is coming in. It wouldn't affect existing businesses
44 because they wouldn't need to be asking for pennission to·come in if they are existing. So we
45 definitely take into consideration both the input from the outreach as well as just a general
46 zoning practice of providing flexibility of what is or is not working because we can't as planners
47 dictate what types of uses really are going to survive in a certain location.
48
Page 30
1 Commissioner Holman: I guess what is still missing for me is the discussion about what creates
2 a good shopping and dining sector. It isn't an exact science, understood, but I have heard
3 retailers talk about people who come to eat don't necessarily come to shop. People who come to
4 shop eat. There is that. I have also heard developers say that once a building is converted to a
5 restaurant that it is going to be there for a very long period of time because of the capital
6 investment. I have also heard both members of Staff, members of the community, developers,
7 you have heard this Commission say too that restaurants, and I am not trying to pick on
8 restaurants or restaurant owners it is land use that is what it is about is uses. That restaurants are
9 parking hogs. They don't have the biggest return on sales tax dollars per square foot, and once
10 they are in place they are going to be there for a long time. So we are not going to get retail in
11 those locations. One of the major businesses Downtown that has left I went in after the
12 Thanksgiving big sales held this last year. They don't know I am on the Commission. They
13 don't know me from Adam. I was in shopping and asked how was it? Their immediate
14 comments from two people at the counter were well, it was okay but it really wasn't what it
15 could have been if we had more retail around here. There is no place for people to come
16 shopping for children's clothing or toys, and they named a few other things. And, he mentioned
17 that there are too many restaurants. That is one indication. I think there is serious consideration
18 for the impacts of restaurants specifically, and market forces are necessary but I think it is also
19 important to decide as best we can what is appropriate and what is most desirable in our retail
20 districts. So that is I guess what I find nlissing in the Staff Report and in that discussion, impacts
21 and benefits. I just don't see that here. So I am hoping the Commissioners will hopefully take to
22 heart some of these comments if you find value in them and we can discuss them.
23
24 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma, Keller, Fineberg, and then Lippert.
25
26 Vice-Chair Tuma: Did you say that you had reached out to the other Econonlic Development
27 Coordinators 20-odd so in the area, and you talked about this topic about restaurants? Could you
28 give us a little bit more detail about what the feedback was from other cities?
29
30 Ms. Barnes: Sure. What we did when we initially began to sort of explore this situation, I
31 belong to a group called Silicon Valley Economic Development Alliance, so what I did was I
32 reached out to the Economic Development Directors in all of these other cities and asked them a
33 couple of questions. One of the questions was if you had a restriction on your ground floor retail
34 and whether or not there was a threshold at which other kinds of uses could locate there. Like I
35 said, almost completely across the board they said now we don't have a threshold percentage.
36 Some of them were considering a threshold percentage.
37
38 Vice-Chair Tuma: Sorry, let me just for expedience sake, did you specifically discuss the
39 restaurant issue?
40
41 Ms. Barnes: I am trying to think. We asked if there were restrictions because that is how I got
42 the question answered about the chains. We asked if there were restrictions on restaurants and
43 Burlingame was not one of the cities that we reached out to. It was more sort of San Mateo and
44 south. That is where I got the answer back about chains and that was the only restriction that I
45 heard back from anyone in that group that responded.
46
47 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, so of the 20 that you did talk to none of them that you know of have
48 restrictions on restaurants?
49
Page 31
1 Ms. Barnes: The only mention that I got back and I could explore it in further conversations a
2 little bit more deeply, from those that I got responses from that is where that information on
3 chains came.
4
5 Vice-Chair Tuma: In the discussions that Staff has generally had around in the various different
6 meetings and discussions have you had any input from anybody in those discussions that
7 indicated that limiting restaurants was a good idea?
8
9 Ms. Cutler: I did not hear that. There definitely was agreement that the capital investment in a
10 new restaurant is a significant one. There was definitely agreement to that but there seemed to
11 be a lot of enthusiasm for the importance of the restaurants and the vitality of the Downtown,
12 that it meant that businesses were open later, had more activity longer say in comparison to Los
13 Altos where most of the businesses close at five or six o'clock because there are so few
14 restaurants.
15
16 Vice-Chair Tunla: Okay. I am not in favor of putting a limit on restaurants. When I think about
17 just in the last couple of years the little bit of evening activity that I see on California Avenue it
18 generally comes out around the restaurants, and in particular having the counter and the Indian
19 restaurant and the Starbuck's, all those are starting to add some vitality and some presence of
20 residents in the evenings. I do think that the economy and the business trends will sort of take
21 care of this. I realize that for larger scale restaurants you do put in infrastructure, and they are
22 there, and they are there to stay. I think they add a lot of vitality to a district so I would not be at
23 all in favor of putting any kind of limits. I think we let the marketplace do that.
24
25 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, Fineberg, and then Lippert.
26
27 Commissioner Keller: So let nle make some observations by way of comparison. If you look at
28 Castro Street in downtown it is essentially restaurants. There is hardly anything else there in
29 downtown. Basically, you go there for restaurants. I would say it is 80 or 90 percent restaurants,
30 there are a handful of other stores, there is a little market, the Mountain View Market, and a few
31 other uses like the Odd Fellows things, but essentially it is restaurants. There is hardly any other
32 retail. I think that shows the problem of having too many restaurants that essentially it is a
33 restaurant designation and nothing else. There are some office uses on top but that is basically it.
34
35 If you look at downtown Menlo Park it is a mix of restaurants. There are somewhat fewer
36 restaurants than in Downtown Palo Alto but there are a lot of other more healthy mix of retail. It
37 doesn't seem to go that much into evening, which does speak to Commissioner Tuma's point.
38 On the other hand the idea is that there is a lot more retail going on there, mixed kinds of retail in
39 downtown Menlo Park than there is in Downtown Palo Alto. Interestingly enough Menlo Park is
40 going through its own process of how much increased density that they want there. That may
41 wind up converting that entirely into who knows what.
42
43 I am also familiar with say downtown Los Gatos. There are a couple of streets in the Old Town
44 where there is a mixture of restaurants and other uses that seems to be a reasonably healthy use.
45 Downtown Los Gatos seems to have a lot going on there in the evening. Downtown San Mateo I
46 am familiar with 3rd and 4th Street, B Street around there. That has more restaurants but there is a
47 mixture of uses. There is a grocery store there that seems to do pretty well and a couple of other
48 uses like that.
49
Page 32
1 So it seems to me if you think about this it may be seen that there is an optinlal amount of
2 restaurants that one might have. If you have not enough then you get something which sort of
3 rolls up the sidewalks at night. I remember when I was a grad student here in the late 1970s and
4 early 1980s Downtown Palo Alto rolled up its sidewalks. Now the amount of restaurants that we
5 have now seems to have created a night life and a little bit more flow and that to keep more hours
6 as contrasted as was mentioned with Los Altos where there is hardly a soul there any time at
7 night. On the other hand, when you have too many restaurants you crowd all the other uses and I
8 think that is a problem. So just like in a shopping center one would have a reasonable mix. You
9 want a little bit of this and a little bit of that and a little bit of this in a shopping center or a
10 neighborhood center. You don't want one grocery store and two restaurants you want a mixture
11 of uses in a shopping center or neighborhood center. You similarly want a mix of uses
12 Downtown. I think that we don't know have the information to be able to make the decision
13 whether to limit restaurants to 30 percent, 50 percent, 70 percent because we don't have the data.
14
15 What I would recommend that we do is in ternlS of limits on Business of Concern is to get that
16 data. Find out what the uses are in terms of restaurants and what the uses are in terms of other
17 kinds of retail, and find out what the mixture is in Downtown. That will give us a sort of a better
18 idea of where we are in that threshold.
19
20 One thing that certainly affects the amount of businesses and the kinds of businesses there is
21 rents. In Palo Alto the rents are considerably higher than in some surrounding areas. Partly the
22 redevelopment and intensification of uses tends to increase the rents and there is a tradeoff
23 between rents and what kind of retail can go there. Particularly, as was mentioned, chain stores
24 can afford to pay higher rents and that can also crowd out local retail uses in some ways. For
25 example at one point in time Continental Chrome was Downtown and now moved to a side street
26 where it is a smaller space and the rent is cheaper. So I think we need to understand that a little
27 bit better to do that.
28
29 I do think that we are not actively proposing to kill retail by removing retail protections. Weare
30 more passively doing it. If we believe totally in market forces then we wouldn't have put the
31 CUP on housing in RLM districts, where market forces were causing large-scale conversions of
32 RLM on East Meadow Circle and on West Bayshore and the Hyatt to convert to housing. We
33 felt that was the pendulum moving too far in one direction. So the idea that market forces
34 themselves are good enough I think is not necessarily the case. We have seen the economic
35 downturn we are in is exactly as a result of market forces. So I don't think that in and of itself is
36 sufficient. We don't want Downtown to become Swiss cheese. I am really pleased that the
37 landowners are keen on allowing us to eliminate the potential for the use exception. I appreciate
38 that greatly but I do think that we need to think about what the optimal kind of relationship of
39 different kinds of businesses there and try to create that for our Downtown for the long-term
40 health of the Downtown. My understanding before I came here is that when the Stanford
41 Shopping Center came about Downtown basically died because all the retail traffic went to the
42 Stanford Shopping Center. That was before my time but I am hoping that we can nurture it back
43 to health through appropriate and judicious zoning rules. Thank you.
44
45 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg, then Lippert, Martinez, Garber, and Holman.
46
47 Commissioner Fineberg: The question of how to consider restaurants in the Downtown mix to
48 me absolutely begs for consideration viewed through the eyes of our Comprehensive Plan. I
49 have to admit I didn't drag my binder here to the meeting tonight so I can't look down at all the
Page 33
1 policies and programs and see what it says. I do have a copy of the Vision Statements thanks to
2 Staff because it is going to be the third item on our agenda tonight. I would agree with
3 Commissioner Keller that we don't have enough information now to determine what the
4 Comprehensive Plan says and what that mix should be based on prevailing wisdom of what
5 makes a vital neighborhood retail district.
6
7 I want to read though part of the Vision Statement, I am sorry I shouldn't say it is a Vision
8 Statements it is one of the seven themes of our Comprehensive Plan. It talks about meeting
9 residential and commercial needs. The last sentence of that theme is, "The City is committed to
10 retaining existing businesses, nlaintaining vital commercial areas, and attracting quality new
11 businesses." So if I can construe from that a business district that is 1 00 percent restaurants is
12 too much. What that threshold should be less than 100 percent I don't know. I think that is the
13 question we are trying to answer and we need more information to answer that.
14
15 Given that we know that usually once a business has significant tenant improvements and it
16 won't revert back from being a restaurant, given that we know that if we are trying to build
1 7 walkable neighborhoods, if we are adding families in the PTOD districts, if we are adding family
18 housing near University that is walkable to the train, I would think it is assumed that we need to
19 have services that would meet the daily needs, the neighborhood serving retail services for those
20 residents. Things like restaurants. Things like dry cleaners, grocery stores, book stores,
21 children's clothing stores. There is that whole wonderful mix so that the residents who live there
22 can walk, that things can be attainable to them within a IS-minute walk. There are needs that go
23 beyond the restaurants. So I think we need to understand more what that mix would be before
24 we start either imposing or removing things that would change that mix.
25
26 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Lippert, Martinez, and then Garber.
27
28 Commissioner Lippert: I begin by saying that I am not inclined to support putting any
29 limitations on restaurants. I will begin by saying that restaurants are probably the most intensive
30 retail uses that you can possibly have. I will back that up with talking about the occupant load
31 based on the Building Code. For a restaurant it is an occupancy load, which is one per 15 square
32 feet. A retail load is one per 150 square feet. What they take into account is that you are going
33 to have merchandise in that store. So from that point of view you have a ten times greater
34 occupant load with a restaurant use than you do with a standard retail use. Now that is just a rule
35 of thumb I am using and it is just from the Building Code, but from that point of view in order to
36 have an economic and viable Downtown you really want to have a lot of bodies there. You want
37 to have a lot of people, you want to have a lot of activity, and that is what a Downtown is really
38 all about, having activity on the street.
39
40 Mountain View I think is an excellent example. You can walk down that street on a weekend
41 and you run into people because the sidewalks are so packed. Yes, they are lacking certain retail
42 functions, but they have one of the most successful brick and mortar bookstores on the peninSUla
43 in terms of people visiting it. The reason why they have that is because they have a
44 concentration of people. They also have a used bookstore that is also one of the most successful
45 brick and mortar used bookstores on the peninSUla. They also have a theater for the performing
46 arts in their downtown, again another reason for having restaurants is that people can dine and
47 eat before and after going to the theater. So if you look at downtown Mountain View and Castro
48 Street as being a negative I wish that we had their problems right now in terms of a critical mass
49 of people.
Page 34
1
2 So I don't see any reason to limit the number of restaurants in the Downtown area. I think: it is
3 like any other retail use. It is something that we need and especially if we want to have a viable
4 workforce and people working in our Downtown in office space, these people need to eat and the
5 best thing that we can do is provide them a wealth of wonderful places and not put any
6 restrictions on that.
7
8 In closing, I just want to say one other thing. When I moved to Palo Alto, Palo Alto was not a
9 destination for restaurants. You went out to dinner, yes you went our for Chinese food, you went
10 out for some other ethnic foods, but when you thought about it you didn't say oh, I really want to
11 eat at a wonderful restaurant. You went to San Francisco for that. Today we have some
12 wonderful restaurants that stand on their own that draw people from other communities here
13 rather than San Francisco. I am thinking of Junoon, Tamarind, and Chocolat. Those are all
14 wonderful restaurants. We are also beginning to see them crop up on California Avenue. By
15 putting a restriction on the number of restaurants we are beginning to say, you know something
16 Palo Alto isn't thought of as a destination any more in the way of people wanting to come here to
17 dine.
18
19 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez, then myself, and then Holman, and then I would like to
20 move to motions and we can work through them one by one.
21
22 Commissioner Martinez: I think we are all feeling kind of intuitively that we are kind of
23 reaching an upper limit on the number of restaurants. I know we are not in agreement of how
24 many that should be or if you could ever have too many. I am' sure as Commissioner Lippert
25 says that Mountain View is a wonderful place for having so many restaurants of so many
26 different kinds that no matter what kind of mediocre food you want you can find it there.
27
28 Palo Alto is different. Despite the nunlber of restaurants, going to Commissioner Fineberg's
29 point, we are still kind of a mixed retail area lacking in some businesses that provide family
30 retail. I was struck by the comments about the importance of chain stores. I thought that was a
31 fascinating insight into sort of what is driving a lot of our local economy. I think there needs to
32 be a greater emphasis on Gap, Gap Kids, stores of that nature Downtown. That also supports
33 some of the smaller retail. I don't think it is a time to put limits on restaurants but I think it is a
34 time to look at what we can do to invigorate the rest of the retail economy. Thank you.
35
36 Chair Garber: A couple of comments but let me first, because I did not weigh in on the
37 University circle conversation. In particular I want to align myselfwith some of the thoughtful
38 comments that Commissioner Martinez has mentioned. When I look at the map it makes sense
39 for me for the core protections to extend all the way down to Alma. I think Commissioner
40 Martinez really hit it on the head in that is the gateway and what really matters there, if I am
41 understanding his conmlents correctly, is that the expression and the streetscape create an
42 invitation, a gateway, to the rest of that street. What happens behind that really has far less
43 impact. This is and will become even more so, more important, hopefully as this whole area is
44 developed over the next ten to 15 years with the development of Stanford, etc., and will become
45 a very important entryway as well as linkage to the other side of El Camino. So I think the
46 comments that talk about how the street and how the city as opposed to what those specific uses
47 are, which are actually relatively small compared to the overall impact has caused me to think
48 differently about that.
49
Page 35
1 Regarding the general marketplace, I have spent a good portion of nly professional life dealing
2 with very large retail centers and malls, etc. I appreciate the public's comment about retail being
3 delicate. Getting a retail store into someplace and keeping them there for even three-quarters of
4 a year to get them going is not an easy thing and requires a tremendous amount of gumption, and
5 a tremendous amount of luck. The same thing is even more true with restaurants. I think one of
6 the key things that Palo Alto has going for it is a dramatically different demographic that
7 supports the retail that occurs along University Avenue than these other communities, certainly
8 something like Mountain View, to a lesser extent Menlo Park, but certainly nowhere near what
9 the demographic is for Palo Alto. Mountain View is much more of a destination although there
10 are residents of Mountain View that would argue with me. The demographic really supports a
11 lot more than restaurants and that is in large part why we have things, which are not restaurants
12 there.
13
14 I don't think, and I don't think anybody else here believes, that we would every get anywhere
15 close to 100 percent restaurants. Even if we did, about seven out often of them would die out in
16 that first year anyway and the luck of trying to get them back into place is pretty low. So I align
17 myself with Commissioner Tuma's observations. The marketplace structures a tremendous
18 amount of the activity and the urban vibrancy that occurs on that street despite the way that we
19 may want to zone it, which is not to say that we shouldn't. I think the concept of strengthening
20 the core is. spot on and should be rigorously supported by both the business community, which it
21 sounds like it is, as well as the Planning Staff and this Commission.
22
23 It makes sense to me that there is this little wing or fmger that begins to extend down Emerson
24 and ties that in. I don't necessarily have a sense as to whether it should be - I don't feel it is
25 necessary that it do that right now. I am really much more interested in focusing on University
26 Avenue. I really like that area of Palo Alto and it is in large part because the businesses are
27 small and you end up with all these different storefronts some of which are businesses, some of
28 which are retail, but seeing that mix and that vibrancy is working now. Knowing that the
29 ownership along those streets is so cut up into all these individual lots the likelihood of those
30 being accumulated and that sort of vibrancy going away is pretty low for many years to come.
31 So I am not as worried about trying to create a statement there and a policy around that just yet.
32 It is imaginable to me that we could come back and visit that in five or seven years or something
33 of that sort, but again I think the focus this evening is really around University Avenue.
34
35 The last thing I was going to mention is regarding restaurants. Again, I do not believe in the
36 short-term or the long-term that limiting restaurants is a key issue here. Ifwe suddenly find that
37 in five year's time the percentage of restaurants is 75 percent of the street or even 40 or 30
38 percent of the street I would say that there is probably reasonable cause to say what is going on
39 and we should be doing something there. Given what we have now and the sort of dynamic
40 environment that we want have where there is going to be a lot of change, and we talk about
41 dynamism, and the urban experience it is not just people on the street, but it is getting new
42 retailers on the street. There is a lot of give and play to that. The changing out of retailers
43 moving be it for rent or for market or because they have outgrown a space and they want to get
44 into a better marketplace and they take it upon themselves to move into a different marketplace
45 adds to the vitality and the renewal that has to occur on streets like this, and is I think unique for
46 Palo Alto, one of the great strengths that we do have a lot of things not just people but also
47 retailers and businesses moving through the community. So those are just some general
48 comments.
49
Page 36
1 Commissioner Holman, you had some final comments and then I propose that we take each one
2 of the Staff recommendations as a motion and then we can amend it as we go. I would like to do
3 those as separate motions so that we don't lose ourselves trying to get all the details into one
4 giant motion. Commissioner Holman.
5
6 Commissioner Holman: Yes, maybe three or four comments. I agree that the restaurants are an
7 important part of a vital shopping district. Commissioner Tuma's comments I absolutely agree
8 about California A venue but we are not talking about California Avenue we are talking about
9 University Avenue.
10
11 I think frankly we have gotten either to the tipping point or very close to the tipping point in
12 Downtown. Restaurants whether they last a year and then trying to get another one in there
13 might be difficult but nevertheless the capital investment is there. There is an inclination and a
14 drive to try to get another restaurant there not another use. So that is another thing.
15
16 Market forces playa huge force. They are a big force, and a huge part in creating a good retail
17 sector for any kind of shopping experience. Again, I am a zone for what you want person. We
18 need to look at what the parameters are within which we want the market forces to operate.
19
20 I am going to make one more pitch for the circle there. It is, I agree with our new Commissioner
21 but I look at that in a little different way. I think that gateway and the continuation of the retail,
22 and now that we have that parking garage right there it seems all the more reason why retail
23 would succeed there. So I am not inclined to remove that. I do note also that it is not just a hard
24 economic time for the business community. We are compassionate about the challenges that the
25 community is facing. I hope we are also compassionate about the challenges that the City faces.
26 If you just do simple math, and I don't have the square footages here, but if you just do simple
27 nlath we are looking to remove 12 properties from the GF and add six. So are we reducing the
28 amount of retail square footage that we have that will contribute to the City's bottom line?
29
30 Commissioner Keller's comment also about we are not requiring these properties to convert from
31 retail to office but we are allowing it. The whole reason that the GF zoning was put into place to
32 begin with was because there was a large movement that was converting ground floor to office.
33 In a retail section you don't have to have a whole lot of conversions to office before you break
34 that synergy. The one thing I am disappointed about in the Staff Report is it doesn't really talk
35 about those synergies and the importance of them, and the connectivity like from Emerson, from
36 Forest to Hamilton that one block. Yes, there are, Mr. Keenan is absolutely correct and we owe
37 a lot to Mr. Keenan because he has done a lot of revitalization in this community. That said, I
38 think there is a great amount of flexibility within the GF zoning allowances service, retail, hotels.
39 There is a good amount of flexibility there and I think we need to be looking out for the public's
40 best interest even ahead of looking out for the private property interests, not being unsympathetic
41 to that in any means.
42
43 One thing that I had asked Mr. Williams if we could talk about tonight is I think the City ought
44 to be, and I am very interested in doing some things for the business community like working to
45 get the sidewalks clean like Mr. Keenan and I talked about beforehand. I know he is very, very
46 interested and I have watched it over time. It is one of my big frustrations. Like allowing the
47 sandwich boards that help promote business. We have now I think just one cross street sign
48 Downtown that leads people from University Avenue down the side streets. There are a lot of
49 things we need to do to help the businesses survive and thrive that we are not doing. I did ask
Page 37
1 Mr. Williams to see if we could talk about that a little bit this evening and he said yes. So I hope
2 we will and this isn't just a matter of putting constraints on property owners. They seem to be
3 amenable to that but it is also not a quid pro quo swap. We need to be making best land use
4 decisions in the public's best interests.
5
6 Chair Garber: At the suggestion of Commissioner Fineberg let me read Policy B-20, which talks
7 about the University Avenue Downtown. The Policy states support and enhance the University
8 AvenuelDowntown area as a vital mixed use area containing retail, personal service, office,
9 restaurant, and entertainment uses. Recognize the importance of an appropriate retail mix
10 including small local businesses to the continued vitality of Downtown. Then there are a couple
11 of sentences of description here. The University Avenue Downtown area is a regional retail and
12 entertainment attraction, and a professional office and service commercial center for Palo Alto.
13 Its historic buildings, architectural variety, and public improvements contribute to its economic
14 success. In the past the City has taken steps to maintain the area's strong retail function by
15 limiting the amount of first floor office space. To protect the area's scale and character the total
16 amount of nonresidential floor space allowed is also regulated.
17
18 So Commissioners, let's take these, and I apologize that this has gone on longer than we had
19 hoped here. Let us work through potentially four motions here. We will take the first two
20 recommendations as motions one and two, and then we will do the last recommendation the
21 Limits on Businesses of Concern as motion number three. Then motion number four will be the
22 recommended revisions to the zoning map and I am putting that last only because I think there
23 will be the most amount of discussion around that particular piece.
24
25 May I ask the Vice-Chair to make the motion here?
26
27 MOTION
28
29 Vice-Chair Tuma: Sure. Move that the Planning and Transportation Commission follow the
30 Staff recommendation with respect to changes to the Ground Floor Combining District
31 regulations, removal ofPAMC Section 18.30(C).040.
32
33 SECOND
34
35 Commissioner Keller: Second.
36
37 Chair Garber: The motion is seconded by Commissioner Keller. Any discussion by the maker?
38
39 Vice-Chair Tuma: No.
40
41 Chair Garber: The seconder?
42
43 Commissioner Keller: No.
44
45 MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
46
47 Chair Garber: All those in favor of the motion say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? That motion
48 passes unanimously.
49
Page 38
1 Commissioner Tuma, a motion on number two?
2
3 MOTION
4
5 Vice-Chair Tuma: Sure. Move the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend the
6 Staff recommendation for removal ofPAMC Section 18.18.060(:t)(1).
7
8 SECOND
9
10 Chair Garber: I will second the motion. Any discussion by the maker?
11
12 Vice-Chair Tuma: No.
13
14 Chair Garber: None by the seconder. Any discussions by Con1ll1issioners? Commissioner
15 Keller and then HolnlaJ.l.
16
17 Commissioner Keller: I think that it makes sense to have some flexibility on CD-C but not
18 complete decontrol. In particular with respect to the potential for taking some of the green
19 parcels, namely the ones that are being rezoned from what is now nlandatory retail to no control
20 on that, the combination of those is particularly problematic.
21
22 It seems to me that the City can do things to enhance retail. The biggest thing the City can do to
23 enhance retail is to fix the permit process. I have heard from a lot of retailers and potential
24 retailers the process for getting permits out of our Development Office is worse than pulling
25 teeth and getting a root canal on the other ones. In particular I have heard before a lot of the
26 collapse of retail on Bryant that they wished that there was more lighting on Bryant. So before
27 we go through the process of allowing decontrol on that, complete decontrol, I think we should
28 take particular measures to figure out what we can do to strengthen the retail in this district at the
29 times when the economy does come back. In particular that we provide some flexibility in
30 particular in things that have not historically been retail to allow experimentation without it being
31 a one-way ratchet. Thank: you.
32
33 Chair Garber: Are those just general comments or was there an amendment that you were
34 proposing?
35
36 SUBSTITUTE MOTION
37
38 Commissioner Keller: Well, if I were to make a motion what I would recommend is to amend
39 Section 18.18.060(:t)(1) in such a way that existing retail uses have to stay as retail uses and new
40 retail uses can revert back to non-retail. That is something that I would float as a trial balloon as
41 a companson.
42
43 Perhaps I should make that as a substitute motion that existing retail uses according to Section
44 18. 18.060(:t)(1 ) stay as retail and new uses that are converted to retail could become retail and
45 revert back.
46
47 Chair Garber: Is there a second to the substitute motion? I am seeing none. That motion dies.
48 Is there any further discussion on the primary motion? Commissioner Holman.
49
Page 39
1 Commissioner Holman: Just kind ofa reiteration of what I stated before about removal of the
2 restrictions and working towards the City's and publics best interest. So it is comments I have
3 already made before.
4
5 Commissioner Keller: Are you going to make a motion?
6
7 Commissioner Holman: Well, I think the way that we could go is a substitute motion would just
8 be the counter of this.
9
10 Commissioner Keller: I am wondering if you would simply not want any changes or if you
11 would allow some sort of flexibility?
12
13 Commissioner Holman: It is easier I think if we can point to locations on the map that you
14 would be referring to in terms of flexibility. I think that would be helpful.
15
16 SUBSTITUTE MOTION
17
18 Commissioner Keller: What I am simply saying is that things that are currently retail would stay
19 as retail that is what my substitute motion was, and things that are not currently retail which are
20 not covered by the restrictions on retail could experimentally be placed as retail, and if it didn't
21 work out it could revert back to office. So that was my motion because there were comments by
22 the Staff and by some members of the public that they were unwilling to convert existing office
23 uses to retail uses and have it forever stay as retail if it did work that way. That was what I was
24 proposing.
25
26 Chair Garber: Commissioners, I need you to either nlake an amendment, a substitute motion, or
27 otherwise we shouldn't be discussing.
28
29 SECOND
30
31 Commissioner Holman: I will second that. There is a little discomfort with that though because
32 there is no City Attorney here to comment on if we can kind of do this mish-mash. I will second
33 the motion and see what happens.
34
35 I do have one comment that actually plays into this that I meant to ask earlier and apologize that
36 this didn't come at actually the appropriate time. In the Staffpresentation .....
37
38 Chair Garber: Actually, if I may if ....
39
40 Commissioner Holman: It is very relevant to this motion.
41
42 Chair Garber: Okay, so you would be seconding the Substitute Motion so I will remove the fact
43 that I said it had died. Weare moving on and the speaker therefore has no comments but the
44 seconder does.
45
46 Commissioner Holman: I do, again with the caveat that I don't know what the City Attorney
47 would say about that. The other thing is I am a little concerned because in the Staff presentation
48 there was a comment that said that there would be additional outreach after the Planning and
49 Transportation Commission meeting. Apologies to everybody, I did mean to ask this question
Page 40
1 earlier because is that going to be as a result of our actions, and so we are not going to have
2 feedback on that, and then it is going to go to Council based on the outreach comments? What is
3 the purpose of that? It seems like all of that outreach should have happened before the Planning
4 Commission meeting unless I am missing something.
5
6 Ms. Cutler: I believe the goal of further outreach between now and the City Council meeting
7 would be to make sure that all of the affected members of the Downtown are aware of what the
8 Planning Commission's final recollunendation to the Council is. So if there are changes from
9 what Staff had been discussing that they are aware of that and able to speak to Council about
10 that.
11
12 Commissioner Holman: Thank you for that clarification.
13
14 Chair Garber: Discussion from the Commissioners. Comnlissioner Tuma, did you have a
15 comment relative to the planners? Okay. Commissioner Keller.
16
1 7 Commissioner Keller: One comment with respect to outreach to the pUblic. I believe that there
18 was a member of the public who pointed out that there was not sufficient outreach to the
19 business owners of the parcels that were being rezoned from the mandatory GF. I realize that is
20 not part of this motion but I believe that one member of the public had made that comment. I am
21 not sure how much outreach was made in terms of the people who are business owners in the
22 non-GF portion that are retail for which they might be at risk for raising rents at some point in
23 time and losing that as a retail use.
24
25 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and Martinez and then we will call the question.
26
27 Commissioner Fineberg: I support the substitute motion because I think it honors the goals of
28 the Comprehensive Plan to retain mixed use and a diverse amount of varied businesses
29 Downtown. It protects the existing retail, which is in place but then provides the flexibility for
30 the areas to have that two-way ratchet if they are currently office space. I think it also honors the
31 goals that City Council has had of preserving retail.
32
33 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez.
34
35 Commissioner Martinez: I have a question about the substitute motion. Arthur what do you
36 mean when you say retail will stay retail?
37
38 Commissioner Keller: What I mean is that the provisions of Section 18.18.060(f)(1) apply only
39 to those parcels for which the provisions now apply.
40
41 Chair Garber: If you would give us an example.
42
43 Commissioner Keller: Basically my understanding of this Section is that there are some parcels'
44 within the CD-C District, non-GF portion, which have retail uses now on the ground floor.
45 According to this provision those uses require that they remain retail. If the motion as originally
46 proposed, to which I am making a substitute motion, if that motion is passed then those parcels
47 could become non-retail use, could become office use. There was at least one member of the
48 public who .said that he has chosen not to take an office use and experiment with the retail use
49 because he has been concerned that if he did that it would have to stay office, it would be
Page 41
1 ratcheted in one direction. So I am basically limiting the 18.18.060(f)(1) only to apply to those
2 uses that are currently forced to remain retail and to allow experimentation on the uses that are
3 not currently retail, to allow the offices use to become retail and to revert back, back and forth at
4 will.
5
6 Chair Garber: So, Commissioner Keller if I understand you correctly, and forgive me
7 Commissioner Martinez the properties, which are currently brown or orange up there, would
8 remain retail.
9
10 Commissioner Keller: No, I am refeni.ng to the yellow properties. We are talking about the
11 yellow properties for CD-C. The brown properties are CD-C with GF. So the yellow properties
12 currently are partially retail and partially non-retail. Anything that is retail now under this
13 current ordinance has to stay as retail and anything that is not retail if it becomes retail it ratchets
14 and stays as retail from now on. What I am simply saying is I am freezing it so that those things
15 that are forced to be retail now remain as retail and anything in the future that becomes retail that
16 is currently non-retail doesn't have to stay retail and can go back and forth.
17
18 Chair Garber: Let's see if Commissioner Martinez is satisfied with his question.
19
20 Commissioner Martinez: Yes, I think I get it.
21
22 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert.
23
24 Commissioner Lippert: The only concern I have is that what you have described, and I think
25 Commissioner Holman hit on is I think there might be some legal issues which could represent a
26 taking in that you have one zone and two disparate policies in terms of how to interpret that
27 zone. That runs into legal land use questions.
28
29 Chair Garber: Planning Director, forgive me and welcome back. Thank you for your ping-pong
30 game. Weare in the midst of a question here which I don't think you were in the room to hear
31 the beginning of. We are taking each of the recommendations bullet by bullet and making
32 motions around them. There was a motion made to support the Staff recommendation to change
33 the Downtown Commercial District regulations, bullet point nUlTlber two. A substitute motion
34 was made to create a -how would you describe it Commissioner Keller? The yellow properties
35 if they currently are occupied by retail they would have to remain retail. If they are not occupied
36 by retail they could be changed to retail but then would have to remain retail.
37
38 Commissioner Keller: The current ordinance if they are changed to retail they have to remain
39 retail forever. Under my proposal places that are not retail that become retail in the existing
40 building those could revert back. However existing retail uses have to remain as retail. In other
41 words, essentially what would happen is that certain sections would have a date of March 19,
42 2001 through some date in 2009 when the ordinance took effect.
43
44 Chair Garber: Essentially you would have a map where the yellow is and there would be some
45 of the brown or orange inside that yellow.
46
47 Commissioner Keller: No it wouldn't be brown or orange because it wouldn't have the GF
48 designation by zoning. It would have the GF designation. by continuation of the current
49 restriction. Therefore we are not taking from the current property owners because it is already
Page 42
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
47
48
49
GF. We are simply allowing new properties that do not have the GF restriction to not have to
have it in the future.
\
Conm1issioner Lippert: My point is that you are giving property rights to one group but not the
other.
Chair Garber: Planning Director, any advice for the Commissioners?
Mr. Williams: I don't think: there is a legal reason you can't make that distinction. I think: it is a
little bit of a bookkeeping thing for us to keep a record of what is retail now. It wouldn't be our
recommendation that you go there but that is obviously the Commission's determination. The
reason we wouldn't recommend it is we have talked about some properties that currently are in
that yellow area, they are retail, but we don't think: it makes a lot of sense to require them to
remain retail, or at least not to the extent that they are already. So do you really want to do that
and just give the flexibility to the new ones but that is your call.
Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Tuma.
Vice-Chair Tuma: To me this is completely arbitrary. We are picking this time because this
happens to be -we are not doing this based on a policy that we are trying to effectuate. Weare
doing this because well, as of right now those are in and those are out. It just seems completely
arbitrary to me.
The other thing is having the flexibility in these outlying buildings, having a good vibrant
Downtown is partly having enough office space and whether that is ground floor or not when
you are outside of the core CD-C seems to me to be good policy. Again I go back to the
marketplace will help this area resolve that. These are feeder areas. So the substitute motion to
me just doesn't fundanlentally the problem I have with it is it just seem arbitrary. Those that
are in now are in, those that aren't aren't, and that just seem inappropriate.
Chair Garber: Just before I go to Commissioners Keller, Holman, and Lippert I will likely not
support the substitute motion only because I believe that again the focus should be on University
Avenue and anchoring that ground floor retail there, and to ,allow these sort of bits and pieces to
exist outside of that doesn't support the overall concept of trying to focus our energies on
University Avenue, it still allows these other occupancies to use but if there is greater diversity
and change in those I think: that is fme. That is the way that those zones should work.
Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: So I notice that Planning Director had specified that he was' aware of
some properties that are currently retail for which retail doesn't make as much sense. I am
wondering if it would help the discussion if you could cite a property without being problematic.
Mr. Williams: The one we have cited before is Spago at 265 'Lytton property, a very large space
that has worked sometimes as a restaurant. It is probably maybe the only thing it could work as
given the way it is configured. It has been vacant for some time. There is a small retail taking
up a small part of that right now. It is out at the mid-block on Lytton where there just really is
not the kind of foot traffic to support that and that is why a Stars or Spago or something has to be
a destination that goes there. So it could sit vacant for a long time. So some of these at the
periphery like that mid-block on Lytton or Hamilton, the sort of far reaches it seems counter
Page 43
1 productive to require them just because they have most recently been retail to remain forever in
2 that designation.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: So let me just quickly say that here we are allowing retail to become non-
5 retail perhaps by neglect if you will, allowing them to have anything. At least this is much better
6 than what the City deliberately did 20-some years ago where the City prior to my involvement
7 deliberately killed retail in South El Camino Real and forced it to become housing. So this is not
8 nearly as bad but I am wondering if some Planning Conlmissioner 20 years hence might wish we
9 hadn't done this sinli1arly.
10
11 Chair Garber: Well, every new Planning Commissioner is smarter than all the others by
12 definition. Commissioner Holman and then Lippert and then let's get to the question.
13
14 Commissioner Holman: I am actually going to remove my second but I sort of wish that this
15 topic and the next one were considered together because I do have comments and suggestions on
16 the GF where it goes and where it doesn't go. So I really think these go hand in glove but I think
17 this one as a standalone motion doesn't have the merit that I would hope that it might.
18
19 Chair Garber: Okay. In that case if Commissioner Lippert will allow let me call the question of
20 the primary motion, which is supporting the Staff s recommendation.
21
22 Commissioner Holman: Excuse me but for me these go hand in glove. I am not going to be able
23 to vote up or down on this without also having the consideration of the next bullet point. They
24 go absolutely hand in glove.
25
26 Chair Garber: The next bullet point being the zoning map or the order that I had suggested
27 which is that we go to Recommended Limits on Businesses of Concern?
28
29 Commissioner Holman: The zoning map. Sorry, but I am sure you can understand why.
30
31 Chair Garber: So let me see if I am understanding what you are suggesting the Commission do
32 here. To no longer support the substitute motion but create another substitute motion where we -
33 well we could do it that way too but what I anl hearing is there is a substitute motion to say let us
34 consider Staff recommendations bullets number two and three together.
35
36 Commissioner Holman: That is correct. It could be a series of amendments it doesn't have to be
37 a substitute motion. It could be a series of amendments either to the main motion or independent
38 amendments, or we could table the current motion. There are a number of ways to address it.
39
40 The reason being depending on what we do with the zoning map is going to absolutely determine
41 what I do in regard to the current motion.
42
43 Chair Garber: So let's just table the motion. Do you think we can get through the Limits of
44 Businesses of Concern topic and then go to the zoning map topic? My recommendation is that
45 we create a motion supporting the Staff s recommendation here and then take an inlmediate vote
46 on that to just see if we can get through that.
47
48 Commissioner Lippert: I call the question. I have called the question you have to do it.
49
Page 44
1 Commissioner Keller: Actually sir, calling the question requires a vote and tabling is priority
2 over calling the question. I move to table.
3
4 Commissioner Lippert: But we have a main motion and I was recognized to speak after
5 Commissioner Holman and you were not.
6
7 Chair Garber: Okay, now I am completely confused. Any help, Mr. Planning Director?
8
9 Mr. Williams: I think you should either vote on the main motion or vote to table. I think the
10 result is the same way, I assume it is going to reflect the same position. If there is a majority of
11 you that is not supportive of the substitute motion right now then that majority would vote to
12 table if you vote on tabling. Ifnot, then I don't know I just see it coming out the same way. So
13 whichever vote you take first but I do think it is appropriate to vote on either the motion or
14 tabling. I think that is the Chair's prerogative as far as who was first in line.
15
16 Chair Garber: Okay. I think that what we should do is go back to the primary motion and either
17 get that up or out and then we will move forward from there.
18
19 So without further comment.
20
21 Commissioner Keller: You can't. I object.
22
23 Chair Garber: Planning Director ...
24
25 Commissioner Keller: According to Robert's Rules of Order ....
26
27 Chair Garber: Which we do not follow.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: Calling the question is a motion that requires a vote and it is not simply
30 an un-voted motion.
31
32 Chair Garber: Okay, rather than debating the issue. All those in favor of calling the question to
33 the original motions, all those in favor of supporting an immediate vote say aye. (ayes)
34 Opposed? (nay) That passes four to three.
35
36 Mr. Williams: Now you vote on the motion.
37
38 MOTION PASSED (4-3-0-0, Commissioners Holman, Keller, and Fineberg against)
39
40 Chair Garber: The primary motion. So let's vote on the primary motion which is to support
41 Staff's recommendation that removes PAMC Section 18.18.060(f)(1) so that the loss of
42 flexibility of ground floor uses in the downtown core covered by the GF Combining District will
43 be balanced by an increase in flexibility for ground floor uses in the periphery of the Downtown.
44 All those in favor say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? (nays) The motion passes four to three
45 with Commissioners Martinez, Garber, Tuma, and Lippert supporting it and Commissioners
46 Holman, Keller, and Fineberg not supporting it.
47
48 MOTION
Page 45
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
47
48
49
Okay, we will go to a motion that supports the Staffreconunendation on Limits of Business of
Concern. Do I hear a second to that motion?
SECOND
Vice-Chair Tuma: Second.
Chair Garber: Seconded by Commissioner Tuma. The maker has no comments. Does the
seconder?
Vice-Chair Tuma: No.
Chair Garber: None. Is there discussion regarding this? Commissioner Holman and then
Keller.
Commissioner Holman: I really ask Commissioners to consider what the consequence of this is
and what the consequence is to the City and the public. So what we just did by majority vote
was say that existing retail that is required to remain in place can convert to non-income
producing, non-retail use. If we also take out 12 properties and add but six we are further
exacerbating the loss of retail generating properties to the City. Am I not understanding the
motion?
Chair Garber: We are talking about bullet point number four as opposed to the map, restaurants
primarily.
Commissioner Holman: Oh, I am sorry. I thought you were looking at bullet point number
three. My apologies. Skipped one on me.
Chair Garber: I apologize. Are there comments regarding? Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Briefly. I am going to support this motion just because we don't have
any time to deal with this. I believe that the proper time for dealing with this is when we are
doing the Comprehensive PIal.} Update, when we are talking about retail mixes and we are
talking about retail in general. That is the proper venue and I hope we get the data back that I
have requested one that so we can do the appropriate analysis at that time.
\ Chair Garber: So noted. Any other discussion? Commissioner Holman.
Commissioner Holman: If I might, Ms. French do you know if we are going to have opportunity
to address this under the Zoning Ordinance Update? The primary focus has not been Downtown.
Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: We are done with the Zoning Ordinance Update.
Do you mean the Comprehensive Plan?
Commissioner Holman: I am sorry, the Comprehensive Plan Update, yes.
Ms. French: I thought I saw Julie blow through here and maybe she is on her way back, I don't
know. So I don't know the answer to that. Could somebody just state what the actual motion is
about, it is something about business restaurants, that one?
Page 46
1
2 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yes, the motion I believe was to adopt the Staff recommendation to make no
3 changes to the limits on specific businesses of concern.
4
5 Ms. French: Thanks, that's great for the record.
6
7 Chair Garber: With that let us ....
8
9 Commissioner Holman: I am going to oppose the motion because I don't know that we can
10 address this during the Conlprehensive Plan Update. I have no information that indicates we will
11 be able to and I think it is something that needs more study. So sorry.
12
13 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg.
14
15 Commissioner Fineberg: In preparing for tonight's nleeting I renlember reading something that
16 amendments to the Comprehensive Plan can be initiated at any time by the Planning
17 Commission, I believe it was Staff, or project applicants. So is there a mechanism that we can
18 bring this back on our agenda whether it be concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan Update or
19 in advance of it or after it so that it as an item can get the consideration that it warrants? The
20 answer to that would influence how I would vote on this.
21
22 Chair Garber: If I may prompt Staff there just happens to be on November 18, under Future
23 Agenda Items, a review of business and economics chapter in the Comprehensive Plan.
24
25 Ms. French: That looks promising.
26
27 Chair Garber: Thank you for your optimism. Commissioner Fineberg, does that help. you?
28
29 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes it does and I think we can satisfy our needs then.
30
31 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman.
32
33 Commissioner Holman: With that assurance I can support the nl0tion.
34
35 MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
36
37 Chair Garber: All those in favor of the motion as stated say aye. (ayes) All those opposed?
38 That motion passes unanimously.
39
40 Let us go to bullet point number three. Let us first state the motion. Conlmissioner Keller.
41
42 MOTION
43
44 Commissioner Keller: I move the third bullet of the third item, which is added GF protections to
45 the existing retail on the south side of the strongest block of retail on Hamilton Avenue (the 200
46 block between Emerson Street and Ramona Street) and to the Aquarius Theater and the two
47 restaurant sites inlmediately to the north on Emerson. That is a single motion separate from any
48 other thing we consider on this item.
49
Page 47
1 SECOND
2
3 Vice-Chair Tuma: Second
4
5 Chair Garber: Would the maker like to speak to their motion?
6
7 Commissioner Keller: I think that this is a clear area where retail is certainly contiguous with
8 existing retail and it certainly strengthens to add GF protection to these identified parcels that
9 Staff recommends.
10
11 Chair Garber: Seconder?
12
13 Vice-Chair Tuma: No.
14
15 Chair Garber: Discussion?
16
17 Commissioner Holman: Could the motion please be restated? I am sorry.
18
19 Commissioner Keller: The motion is if you look at Staff recommendation on the Zoning Map I
20 am making the revision to the PAMC Section 18.08.040 to add the properties that are listed on
21 the third bullet, added GF protection to that whole section, that whole paragraph. That is it for
22 this motion. It is just the entire third bullet of this. I am not doing deletions. I am not doing the
23 no changes at this time.
24
25 MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
26
27 Chair Garber: Does that help? I see no lights for discussion. All those in favor of the motion as
28 stated say aye. (ayes) All opposed? The motion passes unanimously, thank you.
29
30 May I have another motion for the remainder or some portion of the remainder?
31
32 MOTION
33
34 Commissioner Keller: I am going to make the motion that we make no further changes, no
35 removals, and no further changes to the Zoning Map at this time.
36
37 SECOND
38
39 Commissioner Lippert: I will second that.
40
41 Chair Garber: Would the maker like to speak to their motion?
42
43 Commissioner Keller: I think in particular with the way that the second motion went earlier
44 tonight that this is not the time to remove controls on these parcels. If the second motion had
45 gone differently I might have felt differently but not under these circumstances.
46
47 Chair Garber: The seconder?
48
49 Commissioner Lippert: I don't need to say anything.
Page 48
1
2 Chair Garber: I see a light from Commissioner Holman. Commissioner Holman.
3
4 Commissioner Holman: I would like to add a friendly amendment to the motion, hopefully a
5 friendly amendment to the motion to continue Emerson from Hamilton to Forest both sides of
6 the street. There are a couple of other places but I would like to add those as an initial thought.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: Let me restrict my motion simply to not recommending the first two
9 removals and let Commissioner Holman's proposals be separately voted on, is that okay?
10
11 Chair Garber: Okay, so that does not limit Commissioner Holman from making motions to make
12 other additions separately.
13
14 Commissioner Keller: Yes that is correct.
15
16 AMENDMENT (SUBSTITUTE MOTION)
17
18 Commissioner Holman: So I will make a separate amendment motion to add ....
19
20 Chair Garber: This would be a substitute motion.
21
22 Commissioner Holman: No it is a separate amendment to the motion.
23
24 Chair Garber: I see, thank you.
25
26 Commissioner Holman: To add Emerson between Hamilton and Forest to connect the South of
27 Forest Avenue area and the Downtown GF District to be protected by the GF zone.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: May I inquire whether you are also referring to --there are some
30 residential or non-retail properties along there, are you including those? On the logical east side
31 of Emerson.
32
33 Commissioner Holman: There is a combination of uses. Again this doesn't require that they
34 change.
35
36 SECOND
37
38 Commissioner Keller: Okay, well I will accept your amendment.
39
40 Chair Garber: Seconder?
41
42 Commissioner Lippert: No.
43
44 Ms. Cutler: May I ask for clarification?
45
46 Chair Garber: Yes.
47
48 Ms. Cutler: I would like to clarify that you mean both sides of the street along that entire block.
49
Page 49
1 Commissioner Holman: Yes.
2
3 Ms. Cutler: Thank you.
4
5 Chair Garber: I believe that is understood by the maker and seconder as well. So that
6 amendment fails unless you make it a substitute motion.
7
8 Commissioner Holman: It is an amendment as a separate nlotion. I believe Commissioner
9 Keller seconded it. It is a motion.
10
11 Chair Garber: You were offering it as?
12
13 Commissioner Holman: As a separate amendment motion.
14
15 Commissioner Lippert: Excuse me the first time around she was making a friendly amendment.
16 I was not accepting it. The second time she was making it a formal amendment where we would
1 7 have to vote on it.
18
19 Commissioner Holman: So I already made the motion and I believe there was a second.
20
21 Commissioner Keller: I am seconding it.
22
23 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioner Holman would you like to speak to your motion?
24
25 Ms. French: I have to step in because there is no attorney here. We have not advertised this
26 portion of the map as proposed changes so I am a little bit concerned if we are adding tonight.
27 The first motion was that no further map changes would be added and now it is a substitute
28 motion saying oh yes, further map changes are being made and these are not ones that we had
29 put forward tonight.
30
31 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma.
32
33 Vice-Chair Tuma: We can't do this. This has not been noticed. These owners, these business
34 members have no idea this is going on. I just don't see how we could just throw this into the
35 mIx.
36
37 Commissioner Lippert: We would need to initiate first and notice that this was going to happen
38 and then we would have to have a formal hearing on it. That is my reason for saying no to the
39 amendment. I should have spoken up.
40
41 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
42
43 Commissioner Keller: I appreciate the Commission's predicament that we are in. Unfortunately
44 the motion that we made number two where we removed retail protection from there that
45 essentially removed retail protection from a large swath, which is much too broad and that is
46 why I was opposed to that. I realize that as a losing party to the second motion if we were to
47 limit that geographically so that the removal did not apply to these parcels along Emerson then
48 we wouldn't need this motion. But because the second motion essentially eliminated all
49 protection to Emerson, a thriving retail district that connects with the retail district in SOFA this
Page 50
1 is problematic. So if somebody on the prevailing side would move for reconsideration on the
2 second motion so that we could amend it to eliminate that we wouldn't have this problem.
3
4 Chair Garber: Let's not make it more complex than it is. Commissioner Holman.
5
6 Commissioner Holman: This shouldn't be this hard. The Commission is very challenged
7 because we don't have legal representation, which is exceedingly frustrating. I am prone to say,
8 and I don't know if this is legally allowed either, is that we move the first motion. Somebody on
9 the prevailing side retract the second motion and we continue the whole rest of this until another
10 meeting when we can have proper legal representation and authority.
11
12 What I recall from past is because this is a recommending body, what I recall Attorney saying is
13 that we aren't restricted to exactly what was noticed because it is a recommending body. If we
14 were the City Council then it absolutely would not be allowed. Again, I am going from memory.
15 I am not the attorney. So I think if we could just get off the dime and move the first motion
16 forward and continue the rest of it to a date certain when we can have proper legal guidance I
17 would be most comfortable with that. Sorry for the challenges but we are in the situation that we
18 are in and it is most unfortunate.
19
20 Chair Garber: Commissioners? Full stop is what I am hearing.
21
22 Commissioner Lippert: I am going to call the question.
23
24 Vice-Chair Tuma: I think you are hearing none of the Commissioners on the prevailing side are
25 willing to reopen those motions.
26
27 Chair Garber: That is true. I am uncertain at the moment what question is actually on the table
28 to be voted on. Thank you. Wouldn't you know it would be the one evening that our attorney is
29 not here?
30
31 Ms. French: I have to agree with Commissioner Holman that I don't think it is absolutely illegal
32 because as she says it is a recommending body. So you certainly can do what you would like to
33 that extent because it is not an actionable legislative act. However, we have done a certain
34 amount of outreach and we are going to be doing more I guess. Do you want to weigh in? Julie
35 is here to weigh in.
36
37 Chair Garber: So Commissioners let's do this let's take action on the motion that Commissioner
38 Holman has posited, the amendment. Then let's see if we can move forward as best we can.
39
40 Commissioner Holman: I have one question I apologize, like I said this really shouldn't be this
41 hard. Was there no discussion at all at that the Commission might do something different than
42 what the Staff recommendation is or what the discussions were? We do have that purview. We
43 do have that possibility. So was there no discussion that the outcome might be different than
44 what is recommended here?
45
46 Ms. French: In the outreach meetings there was discussion about Emerson as a possibility and
47 through those outreach discussions it seemed that things were just fine on Emerson so Staff did
48 not recommend it. It had been brought up as a possibility in the outreach sessions. It just is not
Page 51
1 identified as a Staff recommendation so I think you can make statements and see where your
2 motion goes.
3
4 Ms. Julie Caporgno, Chief Planning and Transportation Official: I haven't been involved with
5 this that much but my understanding is that you would be able to make a recommendation on
6 anything within the area that you currently looked at in conjunction with this. Now if you are
7 expanding beyond that area then you would have a problem. I think Staff would not be
8 supportive even if it is legally possible to proceed with something that wasn't noticed that was
9 outside the area I think for disclosure purposes and to make sure that there was an appropriate
10 public process we would definitely encourage you to come back and revisit that at a subsequent
11 meeting if it is beyond the scope of the area that was identified.
12
13 Ms. French: Technically it is not beyond the scope because it is in the CD-C. We are not
14 beyond the yellow. If we were beyond the yellow we would have real problenls.
15
16 Chair Garber: Okay. So the question has been called let us vote. All those in favor of the
17 amendment as stated, and forgive me would you please just restate the content of that?
18
19 Commissioner Holman: The GF Zoning District be extended on Emerson between Hamilton and
20 Forest.
21
22 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
23
24 Commissioner Keller: Just so we don't have a problem, I assume you are referring to the portion
25 ofCD-C that is between Hamilton and Forest, and excludes the property on the comer of Forest
26 and Emerson that is not part of the CD-C currently. In other words, we are restricting it to
27 yellow. The portion of which Congresswonlan Anna Eshoo's office is in is not part ofCD-C as
28 far as I can tell from the map.
29
30 Commissioner Lippert: That property is a PC.
31
32 Commissioner Holman: I think that is a PC so that is fine.
33
34 Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
35
36 MOTION PASSED (4-3-0-0, Commissioners Garber, Tuma, and Lippert opposed)
37
38 Chair Garber: All those in favor of the motion as stated say aye. (ayes) All those opposed?
39 (nays) That motion passes with Commissioners Holman, Martinez, Keller, and Fineberg
40 supporting the motion and Commissioners Garber, Tuma, and Lippert not supporting it.
41
42 Ms. French: Who seconded that? We are trying to keep track.
43
44 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. Okay, we are back to the main motion, which had been
45 attempted by Commissioner Keller. Would the Commissioner like to try that again?
46
47 Commissioner Keller: Is this the add voting?
48
49 Chair Garber: This would be the add voting, yes.
Page 52
1
2 Commissioner Keller: So then it is the adds that we are doing I think. We didn't vote on the
3 adds yet. Sorry, we voted on the adds already that was unanimous. I think what we are voting
4 on is the removals.
5
6 Chair Garber: You are right it is the removals.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: This is the no removals and the only change is Emerson between the CD-
9 C between Forest and Hamilton.
10
11 Ms. French: I am sorry to interrupt this might be out of order. Can we just make sure there is
12 focus? The three miscellaneous non-retail parcels, they are not retail now, on Kipling and
13 Cowper north of University. They are kind of out there on their own. You are saying you are
14 not interested in touching those.
15
16 Commissioner Keller: We are not touching those at this time.
17
18 Chair Garber: Do I hear a second to that motion? I'm sorry that is already in place~ Remind me
19 who actually did second that.
20
21 Commissioner Lippert: I seconded it but then they amended it.
22
23 Chair Garber: Okay, so' I am assuming that speaker that made the motion has nothing more to
24 say. The seconder?
25
26 Commissioner Lippert: I am not going to be supporting the nlotion because I was not in support
27 of the amendment. You can't withdraw the second so I am just not going to support it. I am just
28 not going to vote in support of the motion.
29
30 Commissioner Holman: I will second then.
31
32 Commissioner Lippert: No. I have already seconded it. You can vote on it I am just not going
33 to be supporting it.
34
35 Chair Garber: He is just not going to be supporting it.
36
37 Commissioner Holman: I thought you were withdrawing your second. I apologize.
38
39 Chair Garber: No. So is there discussion by the Commissioners? Commissioner Fineberg.
40
41 Commissioner Fineberg: One issue that was just brought up that I don't know if it is going to
42 warrant a friendly amendment and maybe I will know from a show of smiles or thumbs down.
43 The question of whether we need to deal with whether any of these amendments apply to PCs.
44 We just talked about that one particular parcel. In our previous study session there had been
45 comments about whether we should address PC so that if they were ever redeveloped whether
46 the GF would apply to those PCs. I think if we do not do a friendly amendment now or a
47 substitute amendment then we will be deciding that PCs stay off on their own with no coverage
48 with the GF overlay. So how do we sort of thumbs up or thumbs down that?
49
Page 53
1 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma.
2
3 Vice-Chair Tuma: My recollection is that the discussion and the feedback that we had from the
4 Planning Director was that PC is its own zone with its own zoning and it has its own parameters.
5 So if you are going to change anything there that PC would have to be revisited so there would
6 be essentially no effect whatsoever about having this overlay on it or not. I am not even sure that
7 you could do it but even if you did it wouldn't change it because the zoning is its own legislation,
8 its own PC, and has its own parameters.
9
10 Ms. French: Yes, I believe that you would have to individually each separate parcel, parcel-by-
11 parcel, go to add such a PC-GF legislatively. You could not do it blanket all PCs shall have or
12 all PCs in this area shall have.
13
14 Commissioner Fineberg: I will take that then as an absolute thumbs down on considering that at
15 this time and I would support the motion.
16
17 Chair Garber: Conunissioner Martinez.
18
19 Commissioner Martinez: I just wanted us to restate the motion.
20
21 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
22
23 Comnlissioner Keller: The motion is with respect to the Staff recommended revisions of the
24 zoning map we are not doing the first bullet removal, we are not doing the second bullet
25 removal, we are not doing the fourth bullet removals, we are not making changes with respect to
26 the last two bullets, however we are adding the CD-C portions of Emerson between Forest and
27 Hamilton are being added to the GF Overlay protection.
28
29 Ms. French: Both sides of the street.
30
31 Commissioner Keller: Both sides of the street with the exception of the PC portion that is not
32 currentl y CD-C.
33
34 Chair Garber: May I ask Staff to take the laser pointer and point to these areas?
35
36 Ms. Cutler: Let's see, the first bullet point is removal ofGF from properties along Alma and
37 portions of High Street near Hamilton so that is down here, which we are not doing according to
38 the current motion. The second bullet point is removal of GF protection from properties along
39 the circle ramps connecting University Avenue and Alma Street, which is here, which again
40 based on the current motion I believe you are not proposing. Bullet point four we skip down to
41 the three miscellaneous properties that are not retail currently but are currently in the GF zone
42 the current nlotion proposes to leave them as they are in the GF zone. Number five is that no
43 changes would be made to University Avenue east of Cowper Street so that is these properties
44 here, and the motion I believe is to go with that recommendation and not make any changes
45 there. Bullet point number six is no changes to Bryant Street between University Avenue and
46 Hamilton, which is right here this block, and I believe the motion currently on the table is to
47 leave that as it is in the GF zone.
48
Page 54
1 The amendment I believe was to take the block of Emerson between Hamilton and Forest on
2 both sides of the street where it is yellow in this picture in the CD-C and add those to the GF.
3
4 MOTION FAILS (3-4-0-0, Commissioners Martinez, Garber, Tuma, and Lippert opposed)
5
6 Chair Garber: Thank you. With that let's call the question. All those in favor of the motion as
7 stated say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? (nays) That motion fails with Commissioners
8 Martinez, Garber, Tuma, and Lippert opposed and Comnlissioners Holman, Keller, and Fineberg
9 supporting the motion.
10
11 So let me just ask the Commissioners if there is any other discussion or motion that needs to be
12 added to this particular item. Commissioners Tuma, Keller, and Holman.
13
14 MOTION
15
16 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. I am going to make a motion that with respect to bullet points five and
17 six, the no changes to University Avenue east of Cowper and no changes to Bryant between
18 University and Hamilton.
19
20 SECOND
21
22 Chair Garber: I will second that. Would the maker like to speak to their motion?
23
24 Vice-Chair Tuma: What I am trying to do here is knock off items that I think we have violent
25 agreement on. Those two bullet points seem to fall into that category. My sense is that at least
26 the vast majority of the Commission is fine with that and I just want to try to knock those off.
27
28 MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
29
30 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman? Okay. All those in favor of the motion as stated say aye.
31 (ayes) All those opposed? The motion passes unanimously.
32
33 Commissioner Holman. I apologize Commissioner Holman. Con1missioner Keller was ahead of
34 you. Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller is giving you precedence Commissioner
35 Holman.
36
37 Commissioner Holman: There are other things I would like to do but I think out of frustration I
38 shan't. I don't want to let the opportunity pass without mentioning that this Commission I hope
39 would support expeditious activities on the part of the City and the City Staff to work with
40 property owners to make improvenlents such as an improvement to the I know actually that the
41 City Manager is looking at and working towards getting rid of the multi-tentacled process for
42 approvals and looking at improvements to the Downtown Business District including signage,
43 cleaning the sidewalks and such. So I am hoping the Commissioners would help support
44 Council in directing improvements in that area to support the business districts including plaques
45 and sandwich boards.
46
47 Chair Garber: So your recommendation here is not necessarily to make it a motion but we can
48 make that something that we ask Staff to revisit and we can agendize that separately.
49
Page 55
1 Commissioner Holman: Absolutely. If we could have a straw poll. It is not a motion because it
2 is not before us as an action but again Mr. Williams, Planning Director, did say that we could
3 comnlent on that this evening.
4
5 Chair Garber: Okay. I am happy to do a straw poll. Are the Commissioners in favor of asking
6 Staff to agendize that item for a discussion at a later time? Seeing nods around the table.
7 Commissioner Keller and then Tuma.
8
9 Commissioner Keller: I would like that to be done particularly if there were size limitations.
10 There are some sandwich boards off of Downtown that I noticed that are overly large,
11 particularly one on Alma Street.
12
13 MOTION
14
15 I move that we do not do bullets one, two, and four of the Staff recommended provisions of the
16 zoning map.
17
18 Chair Garber: Do I hear a second for that?
19
20 SECOND
21
22 Commissioner Lippert: I will second that.
23
24 Commissioner Fineberg: Point of clarification. What do you mean by do not do? The opposite
25 of what is stated?
26
27 Conlmissioner Keller: We do not accept Staff recommendation for the removal of GF protection
28 on any of the parcels that has recommended.
29
30 Chair Garber: Bullet points one, two, and four.
31
32 Commissioner Lippert: I will support that.
33
34 Chair Garber: That is seconded by Commissioner Lippert. Would the maker like to speak to
35 their motion?
36
37 Commissioner Keller: No.
38
39 MOTION PASSED (4-3-0-0, Commissioners Martinez, Garber, and Tuma opposed)
40
41 Chair Garber: If there is no more discussion, Commissioners in favor of the motion as stated say
42 aye. (ayes) All those opposed? (nays) The motion passes with Commissioner Holman, Keller,
43 Fineberg, and Lippert in support and Commissioners Martinez, Garber, and Tuma not supporting
44 it.
45
46 Conlmissioners, anything else? Thank you. I will close the public hearing and we will take a
47 five-minute break.
48
49 Commissioners, let us start item number two.
Page 56
ATTACHMENT H
1 Planning and Transportation Commission
2 Verbatim Minutes
3 h~~WM
4
5 EXCERPT
6
7 Initiate Zoning Map and Text Changes to the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District and
8 Downtown Commercial Community (CD-C) Zone District.
9
10 Ms. Jennifer Cutler, Planner: Good evening Commissioners. This item is a City initiated action.
11 The intent tonight is for the Commission to consider the initiation of possible zone map and text
12 changes for the Ground Floor Combining District and for the Downtown Commercial
13 Community, the CD-C, zone district, and to hear discussion of what these changes might include.
14 Since this is an initiation the issue will return to the Commission for additional discussion once a
15 draft ordinance has been prepared and which time they will make a reconunendation to Council.
16
17 A map of the existing CD-C zoning Downtown as well as the location of the Ground Floor
18 Combining District is available on the wall and we have actually put it up on the screen as well.
19 Both the CD zone and the GF Combining District zone text in relation to ground floor
20 restrictions are included in the attachments to the Staff Report.
21
22 One important element of tonight's discussion is to keep in mind that there are two places in the
23 code where ground floor uses are restricted. So we ask everyone to try and state clearly whether
24 their comments pertain to the Ground Floor Combining District or to the restrictions to ground
25 floor uses which can be found in the CD-C District because those are slightly different but there
26 are a lot of similarities and I know there is often confusion between those.
27
28 Staff has prepared several possible items that could be included in an ordinance revision and
29 welcomes additional suggestions. Tonight we are requesting input on the four changes that were
30 listed in the Staff Report. Those changes are one, increase in the vacancy rate, which is required
31 in the GF Combining District. Two, is the possibility of allowing office and other uses on the
32 ground floor of buildings within the CD-C District, but those that are located outside the GF
33 Downtown core. Number three is to revise the boundary of the Downtown Ground Floor
34 Combining District either expanding or contracting in places where appropriate. Number five is
35 a discussion of differentiating between retail uses and restaurant uses and whether there should
36 be a differentiation of those.
37
38 Staff is available to answer any questions and follow up with any additional research if
39 requested.
40
41 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you. We have just one card from the public. I see we now have two
42 cards from the public. So we will go to the public first before we come to Commissioners. You
43 will have three minutes to speak. The first speaker is Herb Borock followed by Bob Moss. Mr.
44 Borock.
45
46 Mr. Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Thank you Vice-Chair Tuma. I was in these Council Chambers
47 when the use exception of five percent vacancy rate was included in the CD zone district
48 regulations many years ago. I recall Council Member Levy opposing it because he said a five
Page 9
1 percent vacancy rate is a normal vacancy rate. The idea of permitting an exception at a normal
2 rate didn't make sense.
3
4 I don't believe you should initiate any changes based on the Staff Report. This isn't something
5 that is being brought to you because you asked for the Staff to bring it to you or the Council
6 asked the Staff to bring it to you. It is coming from the Staff. Instead what you get on page 3 in
7 the passive voice saying that somebody has recommended changes and this is some of those
8 changes. I believe and if they are coming from people in the community there would be a letter
9 attached as to whoever it is that is making the proposal. If you are being given examples I would
10 like to see what the other suggestions are. If Staff itself has a recommendation as to what
11 specific things should be changed that is what should be appearing in the report. There is a
12 suggestion that this has something to do with preserving retail yet it has recommendations for
13 areas that would make it easier for offices on the ground floor.
14
15 You had a discussion earlier this evening about how long it would be taking to do a
16 Comprehensive Plan revision. Suddenly you are being asked on two items, this item and the
17 next item, to make very specific changes in what seems to me a hurry, especially since the
18 economic conditions at least in the minds of the property owners don't appear to be particular
19 long-term, otherwise they would be lowering the rents enough to fill those spaces. So I don't see
20 any particular reason or any crisis that requires us to suddenly change any of this. In any event,
21 ifStaffbelieves changes are warranted I would like to see a more specific recommendation with
22 the authorship of the proposers. Thank you.
23
24 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you. Bob Moss will be our last speaker on this item.
25
26 Mr. Robert Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you Vice-Chair Tuma and Commissioners. I also remenlber
27 when this first was enacted more than 20 years ago. Initially surveys were made Downtown of
28 the vacancy rates on a regular basis. I can only recall one instance in the last 23 or 24 years
29 when the vacancy rate was over five percent and that was a very brief spike and it went back
30 down to about three and a half or four percent in about four or five months. So this is unusual.
31 The other thing I found unusual about it is I have been tracking vacancy rates along EI Camino
32 partiCUlarly in the Barron ParklVentura area since the mid 1970s. The last census I took was a
33 few months ago and the vacancy rate was approximately 12 or 14 percent. That includes several
34 properties that have been vacant for 25 or 30 years so you really shouldn't be counting them. In
35 the last four months there have been three additional vacancies where people have closed
36 businesses and gone out, which is not a huge amount even though there are something like 150
37 or 160 businesses along EI Camino and El Camino Way.
38
39 Where Downtown seems to be having a significant problem I am not seeing it citywide. I am not
40 seeing it on EI Camino and South Palo Alto so I am kind of puzzled about this. I think it is a
41 good idea to try to retain retail on the ground floor. It might be useful at least initially to put in a
42 temporary increase in the allowed vacancy rate to maybe ten or 15 percent. But have it expire in
43 two or three years when the economy has gotten better and go back to the five percent we have
44 now because this is a very unusual situation. As I say, we have had very rare occasions where
45 we have had over five percent. As Herb said full occupancy is usually considered a vacancy rate
46 of three or four percent. So we have been better than that consistently.
47
48 The one thing the Staff Report has that I find interesting although I am not sure I would
49 implement it is the problem with excessive restaurants. If you go into Downtown Mountain
Page 10
1 View Castro is very heavily restaurant oriented. There are very few shops to shop in. There are
2 some down the side streets but it is overwhelmed with restaurants. This is not good for trying to
3 get a business type environment. So if we are getting a lot of restaurants we ought to look at
4 putting in some kind of limitation so we don't have restaurants taking over the temporary retail
5 vacancies and driving retail out in the future. So that is something you can consider.
6
7 The other aspect is this is revising the boundary and I am not sure whether that is really
8 something you want to do now. I anl not sure whether you want to make it bigger or smaller or
9 where you would change it and why you would want to revise it. So without a compelling
10 reason for adding or removing blocks I think it probably ought to, be left the way it is.
11
12 Finally, the office on the ground floor, if you are going to allow that it should be done very
13 carefully and very cautiously. Office uses will drive out retail. One of the biggest problems you
14 have with an office use is they close at five 0' clock and they go home and they leave a vacant
15 building and it kills the vitality of Downtown. So if you have too many offices on a block it is
16 really bad for retail. I would be very careful about allowing additional office on the ground
17 floor. Thank you.
18
19 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you.
20
21 Mr. Williams: Mr. Chair can I make a couple of comments please before you deliberate?
22
23 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yes, please go right ahead.
24
25 Mr. Williams: Thank you. I just wanted to respond to a couple of questions and add a little bit
26 more to the Staff presentation. First of all as far as the initiation of the ordinance goes this is
27 something that has come upon us not in the last few days but in the last year certainly. Jim
28 Keene in his new role as City Manager and I, as well as Steve Emslie and the Staff you see here,
29 have met several times on this issue and our concern about the amount of vacancy that is in
30 Downtown. Downtown is one of our major sales tax generators and we have had a couple of
31 inquiries from property owners who have looked at this section of the code on the Ground Floor
32 Retail and the five percent vacancy and asked what is it now and how can I request putting in an
33 office use? I have somebody on the second floor in my building and I would like to extend them
34 down. They are ready to jump down and take that office space if they can. We have basically
35 told them we don't do the count until the end of the year, that is what the code says, and then we
36 will talk about it. So we have had a lot of concern that we are going to get more and more of
37 those kinds of requests as the vacancy rate, we know and when we come back to you we will
38 provide a better inventory of this, but right now it is approximately 15 percent, triple the five
39 percent number. So it is going to probably be awhile before it is back down to five percent. It is
40 not just a matter of it is 15 percent and in six months it is going to be back down to five percent.
41 So we are facing this issue right now.
42
43 We are also facing some issue about some of the properties on the perimeter of the Downtown
44 area that have not ever really functioned very well as retail but they have had retail there, but
45 they have been vacant for some tinle now and have not had retail replacements. Some of the
46 properties on Alma and Lytton and that do not appear to be very good, particularly when they are
47 mid block, very good retail spaces. To some extent that detracts from sort of the concentration
48 that we have on University Avenue and the side streets there. So that raised our concern about is
Page 11
1 there a need to really look here at the fringe areas and providing more flexibility there and
2 providing less flexibility on the ground floor of University Avenue and the GF zoning area.
3
4 Then we have certainly talked to some of the major landowners and businesses Downtown and
5 our fear was that there would be a lot of resistance to raising this rate because they generally
6 want to have a lot of flexibility for what to do, but actually we have gotten sort of the reverse. I
7 think most of them are interested in preserving the retail. They know it is sort of synergistic with
8 the rest of the properties they have there so there doesn't seem to be much objection in the OF
9 area to doing that.
10
11 So in any event we thought it was important to bring this forward"and try to do it. It is not a rush
12 type thing where it needs to be done in the next month or even two months but certainly as we
13 get into fall we would like to be able to get something to the Council so they can consider this
14 and hopefully have something in place about the time or shortly after we do our next required
15 survey and report out to them.
16
17 As I mentioned, there is the sales tax generation aspect of the Downtown. There is also sort of
18 the question of if we do modify the vacancy rate what is the right number? I heard Mr. Borock
19 and Mr. Moss talking about five percent was adopted awhile ago that is a standard number. I
20 think we have to ask should there be any nunlber? Should there even be a vacancy rate outlet
21 here or should we basically be saying we want ground floor retail and it doesn't really matter
22 how high that vacancy rate goes. I think someone said once that office gets established there
23 then it is very difficult to move it out. The current language says that it is supposed to move out
24 in five years. I wouldn't relish being the person to try to tell that office user that might bea very
25 successful office user there that they now have to leave because the vacancy rate is back down to
26 five percent and it was only a five-year approval in the first place.
27
28 So I think we really do need to look at these things in a timely way. We certainly are willing, as
29 mentioned in the report, willing to look at the restaurant issue as well. That is something I think
30 the people we have talked to Downtown are very resistant to change. They would like to have
31 the flexibility to do restaurants and feel like that is almost the anchor of Downtown is I think
32 what one of them said is that is what really brings a lot of people to Downtown. By the same
33 token it does have, as Mr. Moss says, the effect to some extent of once you get a restaurant in
34 somewhere there is a lot of infrastructure that goes into that in terms of equipment and tenant
35 improvenlents that are often hard to undo to get retail reestablished in that place. So it is
36 something we would certainly be willing to look at as part of this effort as well. Thank you.
37
38 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you. So procedurally just a couple of questions to clarify with Staff.
39 The only thing we can do tonight is initiate or not initiate.
40
41 Mr. Willianls: Correct.
42
43 Vice-Chair Tuma: We are not actually giving any specific direction on what the components of
44 the changes would be. Although you have asked for guidance on not only the items you have
45 listed as one through four but any other thoughts that the Conlffiission has. You will be coming
46 back with a draft ordinance if we were to initiate.
47
48 Mr. Williams: That is right.
49
Page 12
1 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, great. So I have a question 'for Commissioners procedurally_ It seems
2 to me that we need to come to some consensus on whether we are going to initiate or not to make
3 the discussion about what the recommendations would be with respect to what those changes
4 might be. I would rather come to that consensus sooner rather than later in the discussion but I
5 don't think people would necessarily be prepared to do that now. Again, I intend to do that with
6 a straw poll and then assuming that we are inclined to move forward with initiation test each of
7 the various components of what the recommendations might be also with straw polls to give
8 some more concrete guidance to Staff. Does that make sense to folks?
9
10 If at any point people feel like we are there I think we should focus the first part of the discussion
lIon to initiate or not to initiate and once we get there then let's get into the substance.
12
13 Mr. Larkin: Just to clarify the initiation itself takes a motion but in terms of any guidance on
14 what would actually go into the changes that would just be done with a straw poll because the
15 Commission can't really act on that tonight.
16
17 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, just to clarify that. We wouldn't necessarily want a motion that was
18 voted on prior to getting into getting into the discussion about the other items, correct?
19
20 Mr. Larkin: I don't know that it matters what order it is done. I think obviously if you are not
21 going to initiate it is not worth getting into the other items.
22
23 Vice-Chair Tuma: That is what I was trying to avoid. I want to make sure that everyone is or I
24 don't want to have a whole big long discussion about topics if we are not going to initiate.
25
26 Mr. Larkin: I think rather than do a straw poll and then a vote you can just vote to initiate and
27 then talk more about what you would want to see come back.
28
29 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, fair enough. Great. Commissioner Holman.
30
31 Commissioner Holman: We have had some other items that have come to us for initiation and
32 sometimes we end up getting into a lot of fine grain detail about what would actually be coming
33 back to us. So what I am hoping we can avoid is getting into the arguments pro or con, different
34 aspects of what might come back to us but rather focus on the kinds of things that we would be
35 interested in seeing in what would come back to us.
36
37 Vice-Chair Tuma: I would concur with that completely. So with that I have lights from
38 Commissioners Keller, Fineberg, and Lippert in that order. Commissioner Keller.
39
40 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I believe we have had problems in the past of making a
41 motion, which was voted on, and then having comments follow the close of the motion. We
42 have been told in the past that once we make a motion we may not comment further on it. We
43 were once told that.
44
45 Mr. Larkin: I don't know why that has been a problem. Because of the way that this was
46 agendized it is agendized in a way that would allow you to make comments. What you can't do
47 is direct what goes into the motion until that is in front of you because tonight you are just
48 initiating. I think you can make suggestions as to things that the Staff should be coming back
49 with as items to explore.
Page 13
1
2 MOTION
3
4 Commissioner Keller: So with the understanding that we can make a motion, at some point vote
5 on the motion, and continue to make comments I am going to kick it offby making a motion that
6 we initiate. Then after that I would like to come back and make some comments.
7
8 SECOND
9
10 Commissioner Holman: Second.
11
12 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, motion by Commissioner Keller and seconded by Commissioner
13 Holman that we initiate. Would you like to speak to the motion?
14
15 Commissioner Keller: Yes. Firstly I take credit or blame for this particular item. When we
16 talked about the retail report for the Comprehensive Plan discussion a few months ago and that
17 was coincident with the Report to Council based on the study that was done in 2008. At that
18 point I specifically mentioned that we need to consider bumping up the threshold. There was a
19 member of the public that commented that this did not come from the Commission and in fact it
20 came from me and I don't remember if there were any other comments from Commissioners
21 about it but I do specifically remember having nlentioned that.
22
23 My thought or rationale at the time was that if we were to allow because of a there is a
24 difference between a blip, which this is essentially a blip. We hope that this is not a long-term
25 trend. We hope this is a temporary thing because of a deep recession. If it were a long-term
26 trend then you might consider allowing office to creep in but essentially that would be the death
27 of Downtown because you would be getting Swiss cheese. You would essentially have offices
28 creeping in creating holes in the retail of Downtown and thereby losing the vibrancy of the mix
29 of kinds of measures.
30
31 I will basically want to come back after we vote on this make more detailed comments but
32 essentially I think that we need to do this in order to prevent making Downtown into a Swiss
33 cheese of retail with holes of office. Thank you.
34
35 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Holman, would you like to speak to your second?
36
37 Commissioner Holman: Just briefly. I appreciate Staff bringing this forward and appreciate the
38 proactive aspect of it. I think we should initiate for a few reasons but among those primarily
39 would be the preservation of existing and ongoing retail uses. We need to support them with the
40 continuation and the synergy, as you mentioned Curtis, of other retail uses. So that is why I
41 seconded the motion.
42
43 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, would anybody else like to speak on the motion? Commissioner
44 Fineberg.
45
46 Commissioner Fineberg: I have a question for Staff that goes specifically to the need for
47 whether or not to initiate. It relates specifically to the discretion that the Director has when
48 reviewing and approving an exception. Weare now in a condition where we are it?-excess of the
49 five percent vacancy and a property owner may bring forward an application for the exception.
Page 14
1 Does the Director have the discretion to simply say no? Can the Director say no sometimes? If
2 they say yes sometimes must the Director say yes in all similar cases?
3
4 Mr. Williams: Well, I think there are some findings and determinations that need to be made. It
5 says an application for uses permitted if the application is made and the vacancy rate is five
6 percent or greater, demonstrate that the ground floor space has been vacant/available for six
7 months, and then it is limited. Are there other findings?
8
9 Ms. Amy French. Current Planning Manager: We had a little discussion the other day at the pre-
10 Commission meeting and Curtis was not available for that portion of it. Basically we discussed
11 how there really are not findings here as you would normally see for a use permit or such. It just
12 basically said if these conditions are met five percent and they can demonstrate then there are no
13 other findings. So it would be rather difficult for the Director to say you haven't met the third
14 finding because there isn't a third finding.
15
16 Mr. Williams: Yes.
17
18 Mr. Larkin: It would be a quasi-judicial decision by the Director. The only way that the
19 Director would be able to deny the request is ifhe felt that it didn't meet the six-month standard
20 or there wasn't the vacancy rate or they weren't actually trying to market the property. So there
21 are areas where the Director would have discretion but it wouldn't be because we don't like this
22 particular office use or anything like that.
23
24 Vice-Chair Tuma: I am going to chime in on this just for a second because we did discuss this at
25 some length at the pre-Commission meeting and one of the suggestions at that point is part of
26 what we certainly are in a position to do is to suggest that findings be developed. We may have
27 some thoughts on what those might be but one of the possibilities coming out of tonight's
28 meeting would be that findings should be developed, put together, and brought back as part of
29 the ordinance where there are specific findings that need to be made. So that is certainly one of
30 the opportunities that is before us tonight.
31
32 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So if the findings are met that the vacancy rate is greater than
33 five percent or it has been vacant for six months the Director could not decide that it is not
34 consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for retail retention, it is not consistent with
35 Council's mandate to preserve neighborhood serving retail, so those policies and co~es or
36 programs I should say wouldn't be sufficient to support the Director in a no decision. Is that
37 correct?
38
39 Ms. French: The first point is it is an 'and' not an 'or.' The second thing is there are other
40 permits in the Title 18 like a Conditional Use Permit or other permits usually one of the first
41 findings is that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. So that would be one of the things
42 we could consider adding into a finding but it is not there now.
43
44 Commissioner Fineberg: So without that the Director has no discretion and the answer is a yes
45 and so we would be adding those controls. Okay, thank you.
46
47 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Lippert on the topic of initiation.
48
Page 15
1 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. I would definitely support initiation. One of the reasons why I
2 moved to Palo Alto, actually the area where we live is Downtown North, is because we are in
3 proximity to the Downtown. One of the things that we really love about being near the
4 Downtown is all the wonderful retail and restaurants and other services that there. Weare able
5 to leave our house, not take our car, and walk down University Avenue and treat it like it is a
6 neighborhood shopping center. I wish that there were some other uses that were defined when
7 we moved here to Palo Alto there were bookstores and movie theaters, which seem to have
8 evaporated. I think that it is hard to regulate bookstores but they surely are missed in terms of
9 the quality and character of Palo Alto. When we first moved here I think there were four or five
10 movie theaters in the Downtown all within walking distance. Those would have been desirable
11 uses to have preserved as well.
12
13 So I think that the crux of any smart growth and livable community is that we have a mix of uses
14 and that includes the preservation of retail and commercial. So I would definitely support
15 initiation of what is being proposed here.
16
17 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, great. Just to round out the crowd I am very supportive of this as well.
18 My wife and I from time to time, because we live in South Palo Alto, we go over to California
19 Avenue in the evenings. There are a couple of restaurants at one end but the rest of it has
20 nothing going on and we talk about this from time to tinle. It is generally because they have a lot
21 of office or the types of retail that close down early. So it is not a very vibrant section of town.
22 We certainly don't want that sort of result.
23
24 MOTION PASSED (5-0-2-0, Commissioners Garber and Rosati absent)
25
26 So with that I am prepared to call the question and ask for a vote. All those in favor of the
27 motion, which was to initiate these changes say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? That passes
28 unanimously five to zero.
29
30 What I think would make the most sense here is to go down the line. If each Commissioner is
31 prepared to when you get to your comments and questions address the four items that are on
32 page 3, and if you don't have any comments or a position on any of those that is fine as well.
33 Then add to that any additional items that you want to see considered. I will try to keep track of
34 these and then we will do some quick polling in the end to make sure we give some clear
35 guidance to Staf£
36
37 Mr. Larkin: Sorry to interrupt. You had asked me at one point to do the time checks and I was
38 just going to point out it is nine o'clock. I think you are well on track but there is one other itenl
39 tonight.
40
41 Vice-Chair Tuma: Right, thank you for that. That's great. We do have one other item and we
42 would need to sort of make a decision as to whether we would start that item after ten o'clock if
43 we don't think we can get through item three by ten. So Commissioner's thoughts, can we get
44 through all four of these items tonight and be done by eleven? Okay, very good point. So with
45 that let's go down the list here. I have in this order Commissioners Keller, Fineberg, Lippert,
46 and Holman, and then me if there is anything left.
47
48 Commissioner Keller: I guess I am next. So the first thing is that essentially we have an
49 anomaly. I guess there are a couple of anomalous situations. First of all we have a very deep
Page 16
1 recession. It is interesting that the term depression came along because people were fearful of
2 calling the Great Depression a recession so they created a new term called a depression, which
3 turned out to be far worse. A little history for you.
4
5 So hopefully it is a big recession and not a depression this time. We also have the situation that
6 essentially what has happened over the last ten or 20 years is that retail rental rates have gone up
7 dramatically squeezing out things like bookstores, and essentially making it hard for nl0vie
8 theaters and other uses that provide a mix of uses Downtown. These rental rates have gone too
9 high and it may be tliat the desires of landlords/property owners for how much rent they should
10 charge are excessive and they need to recalibrate that to base market.
11
12 The reason I start offwith those comments is essentially if you charge a huge amount of money
13 you can keep a property open for six months. If somebody owned more than five percent of the
14 Downtown retail, which probably exists, there are probably a nurrlber of property owners that
15 own more than five percent of the retail Downtown. They could deliberately raise the prices on
16 their properties, keep their properties vacant, and trigger this situation. Thereby allow
17 themselves to get office space down there. Now I am not suggestion anybody would be as
18 nefarious as to do that but it essentially indicates that there is problem with our current
19 ordinance. Creating findings would go a long way towards reducing that but it seems to me that
20 one of the findings if we were to have findings should be that based on the vacancy and the rent
21 being asked in some sense is consistent with rents being chosen.
22
23 Now am I allowed to talk about specific properties as exemplary?
24
25 Mr. Williams: I think so as long as there is not any kind of permit in front of you for that
26 property.
27
28 Commissioner Keller: Great, thank you. so the first thing I am not going to mention a particular
29 property but there was a recent opening of a restaurant Downtown that replaced a restaurant that
30 closed. I am not going to mention which particular restaurant it is. I happen to go in there to eat
31 and asked the owner, so you are new here. This particular restaurant moved from an off
32 University Avenue location to a University Avenue location and I asked how is the rent
33 compared to the old place? The restaurateur basically mentioned that the rent is killing them and
34 he or she hopes that they will be able to increase business sufficient to cover that rent. So it is
35 pretty clear that rents are not being accommodated significantly in order to be able to accomplish
36 fuller occupancy of these units.
37
38 Similarly, Bob & Bob off of Downtown on High and Forest was forced from Downtown because
39 of the rents being too high. They relocated over to Los Altos on El Camino to essentially the
40 middle of nowhere if you will. That business failed in part because of that relocation. Instead of
41 lowering the rent, which could have been done to that owner and retail establishment, and
42 keeping that retail establishment the rent is too high. In fact, since Bob & Bob moved out which
43 I believe was over a year ago that location is still vacant. So instead of the owner receiving some
44 rent for that place, which would have been lower in order to be able to keep that establishment,
45 we have a rent that is for this location that is effectively zero because nobody's paying it. So I
46 think that is a consideration.
47
48 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller, if I may. We just collectively agreed we were going to
49 try to get through this item and the next item by eleven 0' clock. That gives us approximately ten
Page 17
I minutes each to get through all the comments that are directly related to items that would or
2 wouldn't go in a potential modification of the ordinance. So if you stick to focusing on those
3 that would be great.
4
5 Commissioner Keller: I appreciate that. I think that that is important prefatory material for us to
6 really understand what the impact of vacancies are and how they can be caused and not caused.
7
8 I think that it would be useful to increase the vac~cy rate formula perhaps 20 percent with the
9 understanding that we would revisit this in the future. In any event we should create findings,
10 that is item one.
11
12 Item two I don't really understand the issue here because in some sense if you allow office use
13 regardless of the previous use I am not sure I understand that. So I just request that that
14 reasoning be clarified because it doesn't quite make sense to me. Do you want to respond to
15 that?
16
1 7 Ms. Cutler: The issue there is the distinction between the area that is in the core of Downtown
18 that on the map is in orange, those are the areas that are covered by the Ground Floor Combining
19 District, and that is where we have the five percent vacancy rate as part of the code., The
20 distinction that we were making in item number two is about all of the properties that are in
21 yellow which are in CD-C but do not have the ground floor overlay. Since those areas are
22 farther from the core there has been discussion that maybe a concentration of the retail uses
23 along the center of this core is more important, and that maybe the fringes are not as appropriate
24 for retail all the time. That we would strengthen the ground floor retail restrictions for that core,
25 the orange area in the Ground Floor Combining District, but maybe loosen them some for the
26 yellow area which is just the CD-C with no combining district.
27
28 Commissioner Keller: What restrictions do we currently have for the yellow area?
29
30 Ms. Cutler: They are very similar. The precise code is attached to your Staff Report. They do
31 not contain this five percent vacancy rate.
32
33 Ms. French: I was just going to add specifically on number two what we are trying to get at
34 there, the flexibility is right now if somebody were to go in there and it had been office and a
35 retailer wanted to come in and occupy that space our code dis-incents allowing that retail to
36 come in because we are going to forever hold them to keeping a retail use there. Getting some
37 flexibility would mean they could have a retail use come in there and then they could at some
38 point maybe go back to office. So that is the kind of flexibility as an example.
39
40 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So this is something that is referred to as a ratchet in that
41 sometimes you can go one way but you can't go the other way. So essentially what you are
42 allowing is to go both ways.
43
44 Mr. Williams: Right. So the real difference is the Ground Floor Retail District requires retail on
45 the first floor, period. I mean a retail, restaurant, personal service type business. The CD-C
46 District in general doesn't require those uses. It allows office and some other uses on the first
47 floor as well except if you already have retail then you can't do anything else with it, like Amy
48 said. Then if something right now is an office use, it is vacated, there is a change for retail to
49 come in, I know there have been instances I have heard of where they ask if there is any
Page 18
1 flexibility and they end up not leasing it for retail because they don't want to get boxed in to
2 where they can't convert it back to office in three years or so if the retail doesn't work out. So
3 that really sort of frees the retail ifit is there but ifit is not there already then it isn't bound the
4 way the Ground Floor Retail (GF) District is.
5
6 So this would look at that area and there are a wide range of options that we could look at as far
7 as either just taking away that requirement so you had the flexibility to do either one, or we
8 might define it in a specific way so maybe if it is at comers it would still be restricted to retail.
9 Maybe we take the GF District and we extend it up to certain areas where we think that there are
10 really viable retail pockets but other areas aren't restricted. So those are the kind of things we
11 would be looking at and coming back to you with recommendations on.
12
13 Commissioner Keller: Another thing you can consider is in terms of the findings is whether
14 there has historically been retail there, could be one of the findings to consider. That might be
15 another way of handling it. So in terms of that now I understand what number two is.
16
17 With respect to number three I just want to make sure that we don't have islands of retail
18 separated by office because that can be problematic. Even if you have a restaurant for example
19 there is the Tamarind Restaurant on University Avenue at the intersection of Tasso. If you
20 essentially make an island of that that may harm that restaurant if you don't have retail
21 continuing up through there.
22
23 With respect to number to four I do think it makes sense to think about limitation of restaurant
24 use. I think we have talked about that in the past. I realize that restaurants in some sense
25 collectively make an anchor to the Downtown hut there is another term for anchor, which is
26 something that makes something sink. If we have too many restaurants Downtown could sink in
27 the process of that and essentially become largely what Downtown Mountain View is which is a
28 place to eat and then leave, or go eat and then go to the Theater Works and essentially nobody
29 does anything else there as far as I can tell.
30
31 A couple of other quick comments. I am sympathetic with your issue that the use exception
32 being a limited duration in some sense is problematic. The issue is that leases might be aligned
33 with that use exception and you can make sure that the leases do not get renewed. People
34 typically amortize their tenant improvements along the lease duration.
35
36 Also with respect to office on the ground floor I observe that if you look at 18.30(C).020(a)(7),
37 which is Attachment C, it says entrance, lobby, or reception areas serving non-ground floor uses.
38 There appears to be no limitation to that. I would suggest that you consider a conditional use
39 permit to the extent that an entry, lobby, or reception area exceeds a certain square footage. For
40 example, the property on University Circle, if you understand what I mean by that, there is a new
41 building that went in there which is a facebook building and the entire ground floor is an entry,
42 lobby, or reception area for what used to be Bungee Travel that was a retail use. So by using this
43 exception that retail use was essentially converted into an office use. So I think that is a loophole
44 that should be covered by a ClTP since it is more than simply a certain square footage.
45
46 Finally, I would like to reiterate my comment earlier about the retail rental rate being somewhat
47 related to nlarket rate under some discretionary thing should be considered one of the fmdings so
48 that landlords can't charge excessive rental rates in order to obtain the six month vacancy that
49 they should charge market rates. If this brings down rental rates to the extent that we can
Page 19
1 actually have new businesses thriving Downtown then we may get more of the mix of businesses
2 that we had ten or 15 years ago as opposed to the ones we have now, which are essentially .
3 restaurants and high-end retailers, so more people in Palo Alto would find it desirable to shop
4 there.
5
6 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Fineberg.
7
8 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to start with a moments worth of prefatory comments.
9 The situation that we are seeing with redevelopment on University Avenue in my mind is more
10 complicated than simply a temporary economic downturn. Up until last September we had what
11 I call a lot of funny money in the economy. Money that was being used to develop properties
12 that were not viable, money that people were putting forward because there was no risk with the
13 development. The financial collapse that happened and subsequent reregulation that is coming
14 into play at the federal level is dramatically changing that landscape and that funny money at
15 least until we have our next colossal mess is gone. When we have properties on University
16 where landlords don't have tenants and landlords don't have lenders it is not the recession that is
17 causing it. It is simply not a viable redevelopment. That development is not going to happen in
18 six months. It is not going to happen in a year. They are going to have to have tenants. They
19 are going to have to have financing and the econonlies in the project are going to be completely
20 different. That is not Palo Alto process causing it. That is not residents causing it. It is not the
21 Staff. It is just how the world is now and it is going to change slightly in six months or two
22 years.
23
24 In order for developers, in order for property owners to plan they need a consistent set of
25 predictable conditions. Right now they know they can come to our Planning Director and with a
26 'vacancy rate in excess of five percent they can convert to offices. If offices pay rent in excess of
27 retail that is what they are going to plan on doing. They will run the numbers and if they can
28 make more money holding it vacant for six months, they will do that, take the short-term hit, and
29 then for however many more years they will have the increased revenue. So it is a simple
30 economic calculation that a landowner will do in his or her best interest.
31
32 So we have the option of changing the regulations that change the behaviors that change the
33 conditions that those landowners will use in making their decisions. On the first item I would be
34 curious to have more discussion on whether 15 to 20 percent is the correct amount to trigger an
35 exception process or whether no condition triggering that exception process would be a better
36 state. Should itsimply be an absolute it is GF that's that it will remain retail? I don't know what
37 the impacts of either path would be. Do we have two landowners that own 30 percent of
38 Downtown that could easily trigger it? Do we have such a disparate ownership that no one could
39 trigger a 15 or 20 percent vacancy rate? So we need to know what the concentration of
40 ownership is.
41
42 I would also wonder if we have no condition under which there can be a conversion to office, do
43 we then not need to have findings. I don't want to make it a simpler process just so it is a
44 simpler process but if we have it as an absolute condition that there be no exception we don't
45 have to go through the fine grain analysis of what are findings. If we want that flexibility to
46 allow exceptions when appropriate then those findings become critical and I would want input
47 from both the business community, Staff, and Commission in future discussions for what is
48 going to work.
49
Page 20
1 On the second point, thank you Staff for your comments because to be frank what was written in
2 the Staff Report I did not understand the intent of what the second item is and with the additional
3 comments from Staff it seems like a very reasonable incentive not just a giveaway. One question
4 with that is would there be wisdom in adding some kind of a starting date for when it would
5 become a two-way flow? So if it was retail prior to X date there is no converting to office so you
6 don't lose from you have now and that would not penalize people that made the right decisions
7 in the past. I think that is how that one would work. Then you won't lose the retail that you do
8 have in your CD-C.
9
10 On the third one I would want to get some information about, I am kind of trying to ask you to
11 predict the future, but is there any estimate of how many of those buildings in the CD-C would
12 convert from retail to office or raise rents on retail to drive retail out? I don't have any sense of
13 what those impacts might be. I would agree with previous comments that we don't want to tum
14 it into Swiss cheese.
15
16 On the fourth item I would be in favor of a mechanism to limit the number of restaurants. When
17 I go to Castro Street in Mountain View it is absolutely clear that it is a restaurant destination.
18 Our University corridor is trending in that same direction. I would also want to see some
19 discussion on if there are other categories of businesses. Do we want nlore nail salons and hair
20 shops? I don't what other and maybe off University on the side streets are there other categories
21 of businesses we are also seeing too many of? Would there be a way to make that something
22 that could change as distortions develop? And is there mechanism to build in that if there is a
23 distortion we could react quickly? That I think would be a good tool. That's it.
24
25 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you. Commissioner Lippert.
26
27 Commissioner Lippert: Well, the restrictions that were put on back in 2001 were based on the
28 dot.com bubble or pre-dot.com bubble. At that time there were really significant high tech
29 ventures that were poaching retail space and converting it into office space. That is why that was
30 implemented. I would gladly welcome those times back at this point.
31
32 The truth is that when it comes to point number one what is important is that we have a blend of
33 uses and mixes. That 15 percent, 20 percent, or five percent really doesn't mean very much.
34 What is important is in order to have a viable Downtown you need to have commercial office,
35 you need to have professional services, you need to have financial services, and you need to have
36 retail, and they all need to be able to work together. Having ground floor retail really makes our
37 Downtown vibrant and alive, and it makes it a livable, walkable, usable community. To take
38 retail space and convert it into more office space at a time when we have a vacancy in office
39 space just doesn't make any sense. We have a glut of office space, empty commercial office
40 space. I just don't see us having when the vacancy rate number trips being able to open up and
41 make more retail space available for office space how that really benefits us. What we really
42 need is a viable blend of retail, office space that is going to work and make the Downtown area
43 vibrant.
44
45 So in some ways I was listening to what Curtis said and I almost support the idea of just
46 forgetting about what that vacancy rate is completely and shoving it out the door, and saying
47 look ground floor in that area is retail, we need it.
48
Page 21
1 With regard to the second, allow offices on the ground floor of buildings. When you think about
2 the Downtown it isn't just University Avenue, it is the fingers of streets that come off of
3 University Avenue. In the tin Ie that I have been in Palo Alto we have seen how Emerson, the
4 Emerson corridor, has become another almost like intersection of Broad Street and Market where
5 we now have an annex down in the SOFA area, which is a viable retail district. So what I would
6 want to see I guess is University Avenue and at least the first block on each side of University
7 Avenue to be viable ground floor retail. What it does is begin to then expand the Downtown into
8 other areas and begins to create a more viable Downtown. So I would entertain definitely
9 looking at being able to expand and contract that boundary and looking at what that means.
10
11 With regard to differentiating between retail uses and restaurant uses I don't think so. I don't
12 have a fear of Downtown Palo Alto becoming like Castro Street. In fact, Castro Street has
13 benefited from Palo Alto. Book Buyers used to be in Downtown Palo Alto. Book Buyers is now
14 on Castro Street. They have been there the last ten years. That is one of my favorite bookstores.
15 I go to Castro Street to go browsing through used bookstores and CDs and whatever. I don't see
16 a differentiation between retail uses and restaurants. I think it is whatever the market brings that
17 makes us into a viable wonderful Downtown for being able to spend time.
18
19 Lastly, the only other thing that I really want to make a comment on, and now that it is on the
20 table looking at this are banks. Banks are great activity killers. What I mean by that is banks are
21 only open from nine to four. They generally in these days and times turn their backs on the
22 street. They want to be secure themselves so they are not watching the street. They are closing
23 themselves off from the street. My bank, which is Union Bank, has frosted their windows on one
24 whole side. It used be that you could stand in the bank and look out across the street and you
25 can't do that any more. Wells Fargo bank now has three branches on University Avenue. They
26 have their private services, they have taken over the bank on Cowper, and they also have the
27 other bank on Hamilton. How much market share does a bank need in order to remain viable?
28 All that it does is kill those blocks from after four o'clock and in the early morning hours. So if
29 anything I wouldn't limit restaurants I would limit banks maybe, financial institutions. So that is
30 my two cents. I look forward to looking at the initiation and having more substantive things to
31 bring back.
32
33 Vice-Chair Tuma: Great thanks. Commissioner Holman.
34
35 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. One quick nod to Commissioner Lippert. Bijou, Festival,
36 Biographic, Aquarius, Varsity, and Stanford those were the theaters here in the early 1980s.
37
38 Commissioner Lippert: Not to mention the one that used to be at EI Maghrib, Moroccan
39 restaurant.
40
41 Commissioner Holman: That's right. That may have been the Biographic I am not sure. At any
42 rate as to item number one I have been known to say in the past zone for what you want so I
43 appreciate Curtis's comment about not having a percentage but just make it a ground floor
44 requirement. Other Commissioners have commented to that effect too and I would support that.
45 I think to answer Commissioner Fineberg if I might I think would of course eliminate the need
46 for findings.
47
48 Allowing ground floor in the CD-C district outside the GF regardless of previous use I think that
49 is a possibility in combination with number three. Number three from my perspective there are
Page 22
1 some areas where again akin to some of Commissioner Lippert's comments, I think there are
2 some areas were we ought to expand the GF and I think there are probably a couple of areas
3 where we ought to remove it. Alma has been mentioned as a location to remove it and I think
4 that is probably very likely.
5
6 Differentiating between retail use and restaurant use, as Curtis knows I have been concerned for
7 a long time about how much restaurant use we have Downtown and how it displaces other uses
8 long, long, long term. Because of the capital investment once a restaurant goes in it doesn't
9 convert back to other retail for nlany, many years. They also have large parking impacts, not the
10 highest retail sales return. There are a lot of good things about them but they also in too large a
11 proliferation they have some pretty significant negative impacts as well.
12
13 Commissioner Lippert did however mention something else I had in my notes, which was
14 putting limits on financial institutions.
15
16 I was interested in the business outreach because as I read the comments I didn't see any
17 comments that looked like they came from retailers. They looked like they came from property
18 owners, and maybe larger property owners. So I would be curious to know what the PAd had to
19 say and what individual business owners, if there was outreach to them, I would be interested in
20 knowing what they have to say going forward. Some of the things that I think we could do to
21 help sonle of these owners and businesses is we have needed I think for a long time to do
22 something to improve the process. I hear so many complaints of people who don't want to go
23 public because they don't want to literally, valid or not valid, basis or no basis, they don't want
24 to go public with their complaints of getting permits to open a new business because they are
25 worried that if they want to expand or do any other revisions to their businesses or expand that
26 this would be held against them. Businesses just go through arduous process, at least as it is
27 described to me, to get permits. That may seem a little disparate from this but it really isn't from
28 my way of seeing this because I think if we are going to add some restrictions I think we ought to
29 also look at what we can do to make life easier to after all attract more retail business which is
30 what this is all about anyway, attracting and retaining. So that is one.
31
32 Just a couple of other comments about this, again in these conversations with these businesses
33 what else can be done to support the businesses. I know recently there has been an allowance,
34 rather than businesses just doing it I think there has been a trial allowance maybe it is to allow
35 sandwich boards. That is my understanding anyway. So perhaps there are other things like that
36 that are no cost but that really help promote the businesses. If they have to present something
37 then it can be done in a well-designed fashion rather than things just popping up.
38
39 The other thing is permitting for events. I have also heard just kind of torturous processes that
40 people have to go through for that. The other thing I would be interested in looking at is those of
41 us up here and sitting at the table down there are well familiar with the advantages to
42 communities of local independent businesses. So perhaps there is something we can do to
43 promote or incentivize the local independent businesses. They tend to stay longer, put more
44 back into the community, more likely to stay because of their investment in the comnlunity, and
45 they are more likely to stay in ups and downs in an economy.
46
47 While we are doing this if it is not going to delay things there have been issues that have come
48 up in the past having to do with hours of operation. One particular case on Ramona between
49 University and Hamilton for instance that I can recall they satisfy the literal definition of retail
Page 23
1 but their hours of operation were very, very limited and then by appointment. So it really caused
2 a break in that retail synergy that we have long talked about.
3
4 The other thing again, if this isn't going too far and doesn't cause delays, is window coverings
5 and type of glass because that is another issue that has come up over time. Transparency of the
6 window materials is important if it is going to be retail and again keep people going from shop to
7 shop to shop.
8
9 It is important to have office. You do need a nlix but we have two, three, four story buildings
10 and offices can be located other than on the ground floor.
11
12 A question about PCs. Is it possible to initiate changes to PCs that might not have ground floor
13 retail? Again, not saying that it would have to change immediately but such that if the use ever
14 changed that it would have to convert to retail. We do have some PCs in this area.
15
16 Mr. Larkin: I think that would probably be possible. You can rezone it so that if it redeveloped
17 it would have to redevelop as ground floor retail.
18
19 Commissioner Holman: Redevelop is one thing. I am not talking about redevelopment I am
20 talking about a change of use.
21
22 Mr. Larkin: Or otherwise you could amortize the zoning and require them to -well, without a
23 specific example it is difficult. But you could amortize it and make sure they get full use out it
24 and after a period of years they would be required to change the use. I don't think you can do it,
25 pass the zoning ordinance to say tomorrow now you are ground floor retail.
26
27 Commissioner Holman: That was not what I was after.
28
29 Mr. Larkin: Or tomorrow if they change tenants. You would have to amortize that use.
30
31 Commissioner Holman: Okay, Staff if you could come back with some information about that
32 maybe perhaps which locations that might apply to.
33
34 The other thing again, I alnlost hate to mention this but I will-I won't. I think I will stop there.
35 It is just one other thing which is signage. I think there is something that in hard economic times
36 we tend to look at how we can cut back on expenditures and attract new dollars or generate new
37 dollars and sometimes I think we get in kind of a gather the wagons around and kind of restrict
38 our thinking. I think there are some opportunities that might exist where the City could spend
39 perhaps a little bit of money to help make the retail environment more attractive. Clean
40 sidewalks are one thing I would absolutely mention. Doing something about some of those
41 things are an expenditure of funds that I think would be helpful to attract a long-term financial
42 benefit to everybody involved. So I will stop there. Thank you.
43
44 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. So before I go through the four items one of the things that is going to
45 be extremely important when this comes back is a fair level of detail on the outreach to the
46 business community. I would offer by way of suggestion things like -well first of all, not just
47 going to the usual suspects but rather making sure that we are talking to some of the smaller
48 building owners, we are talking to the Chamber of Commerce, we are talking to the Downtown
49 Business Association, a real spectrum, and offering a variety of opportunities or avenues for
Page 24
1 input from those folks. Not just hey let us know, but holding some open forums for discussion
2 and things like that. So what is going to be real important is sort of the level of outreach and the
3 feedback from that. Everybody who is involved in this and who would be impacted by this
4 because I think that collective wisdom is I think very, very important to making sure we are
5 making the right decisions here. I think we all have the same goals in mind but these are people
6 that this is what they do every day. So I think we need to make sure we get that feedback.
7
8 That being said, on items one through four I anl supportive of looking at all of those. I think it is
9 all-important. Those are all important discussions to have. On item one I am not necessary open
10 or closed to it being zero as opposed to having some threshold. I think that is one of the key
11 issues for me in terms of input from the community. I want to make sure we don't have some
12 unintended consequence of doing that.
13
14 With respe,ct to the other three, I think having flexibility in the CD-C(P) District makes a lot of
15 sense. I think we definitely should reexanune the boundaries. I am supportive of differentiating
16 between retail use and restaurant use.
17
18 I did have a question. On the map there are a series of, I think there are five or six buildings on
19 University Avenue that are white. In other words they don't appear to be part of this district. Is
20 there some reason? Should those be reexanlined? Maybe the existing uses are not necessarily
21 but should that be looked at is the question for Staff
22
23 Ms. Cutler: Those locations that are not colored in by the orange or the yellow but are kind of
24 within that area, most of those are Planned Community, PC, Districts so they were developed
25 with individual zoning regulations, and therefore are not covered by these zoning designations.
26 Or they are Public Facilities. So they are plazas and Downtown parking lots, etc.
27
28 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. So if it is a parking lot and if at some point that parking lot was
29 converted to a building in that process would we look at whether it should be included? Is that
30 how that would work as a matter of course?
31
32 Mr. Williams: Well, they are generally right now public parking lots. So they are PF zoning.
33 So to be developed as private developments they would require a zoning change and in that
34 zoning change if it were to a PC you could consider the specific use otherwise it would be
35 probably to a CD-C or GF zoning that would require, especially ifit is on University Avenue, it
36 would be GF.
37
38 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. One of the other things that I think is worth looking at or exploring in
39 this process is if we do go down a route of continuing to have a trigger, I don't know whether we
40 actually would put it in the code or not, but somehow an opportunity to reexamine this in three to
41 five years or some sort of timeframe like that. Where if the economy significantly changes, not
42 if someone just thinks about it, but we actually have a trigger that says we will look at this again
43 in some period of time to make sure that it is doing what we want it to do. So again not to be left
44 to the memories of those involved but rather actually make it part of the ordinance that in sonle
45 relevant amount of time we would look at this again. I think that is worth discussing as to
46 whether that would be in there or not.
47
48 It looks like we have a few more comments. Let's go through the rest of the comments. I think
49 Commissioner Fineberg was first.
Page 25
1
2 Commissioner Fineberg: On the fourth point, and I appreciate this extra round of comments
3 because sometimes other Commissioner's comments spur additional thoughts. On the fourth
4 point would it be worthwhile approaching the idea of differentiating restaurant use by looking at
5 it in terms of a regulation of single purpose uses? So that when lenders for instance loan money
6 to businesses for tenant improvements they have a different set of criteria when the tenant
7 improvement is a single purpose use, nleaning a restaurant. That may be a way to approach how
8 to regulate rather than as a class of businesses. Banks might fall under that too if they are a kind
9 of a bank that builds a vault. The cash vault tends to be very single purpose use. You are either
10 going to be cash or jewelry or it is going to be a really cool conference room with thick walls.
11
12 The idea of regulating banks made me think about what is a bank? It used to be we could all
13 define what a bank was and it was a place that people went in with cash, there were teller
14 windows, and now we have things that are called banks that are really offices where you go in
15 and get mortgage paperwork, or offices where you meet with an investment broker and you are
16 trading securities over the internet. They are really office uses that are owned by the institution
17 that is legally registered as a bank. So is there a way to look at the actual use in the space rather
18 than what is the form of ownership? The might trigger a way to reduce the amount of office
19 space that is owned by banks that are not behaving like a bank. So kind of looking at what the
20 purpose of the business is rather than the form of ownership, and then what the build out is. I
21 don't know whether you would control that through the regulations in zoning or at the place
22 where you issue the building permit for the single purpose uses. I will leave that to you to
23 explore. Thanks.
24
25 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Lippert.
26
27 Commissioner Lippert: Just a couple more comments. We have also lost a number of real
28 important services. The Downtown really doesn't have a viable copy shop. I know that there is
29 one. I use it when I have to but we don't have a Kinko's. I have to drive to Menlo Park. I have
30 to drive to California Avenue for Kinko' s. We used to have three or four copy shops in the
31 Downtown area. We used to have a cobbler in the Downtown area. So we have lost a lot of
32 those, they are not really retail they are personal services. So that would be something that I
33 would be interested in seeing that we try to retain or preserve.
34
35 Then with regard to theaters I used to go to Century 16 but now I go to Redwood City because I
36 can take the train up to Redwood City and then I can walk around, and I can eat dinner, and then
37 I can go to a movie in Redwood City. If I decide to drive because there are a lot of us we get
38 free parking. The preservation of our theaters, they are really puny, but they are inlportant art
39 house theaters. In the preservation of theaters, I hate to say this, but if there is some way to have
40 some sort of a TDR program where rather than seeing them get converted into bookstores or
41 some other retail use they were preserved and even added onto and get bonus floor area, that
42 would be something I think would be a positive thing.
43
44 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller.
45
46 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. A couple of comments. I am in support of the idea of
47 mandatory ground floor without exception. The way to handle exceptions could be by rezoning
48 it to non-ground floor. We have the ability to do that so that might be the best way of doing that
49 process if you will.
Page 26
1
2 With respect to a trigger for CD-C for number two perhaps there might be findings in terms of
3 dealing with that so that you have a little bit more discretion in terms of that and also give some
4 more direction in that issue.
5
6 We might think in terms of density for particular uses like restaurants and such. I think that there
7 is a difference between a bank that behaves like a bank, although sonle people may have some
8 criticism, the Wells Fargo Bank on Hamilton and Waverley behaves like a bank. People walk in
9 there, they walk out, they see tellers and such. The Union Bank on Waverley and University
10 behaves like a bank. The Wells Fargo on University and Bryant does not behave like a bank it is
11 really an office. It should be treated as an office and we should make that distinction. I think the
12 Fidelity on Ramona and University doesn't really behave like a bank either. First of all it is a
13 brokerage house. So that should be more considered office. I don't see people have much of an
14 issue going to the second floor. So I would be in favor of amortizing those uses out to encourage
15 ground floor retail in both of those locations. I am not nearly as concerned with the E*Trade that
16 is on University Avenue between High and Alma because that is not necessarily that viable a
1 7 location for retail. It is sort of on the fringe.
18
19 I am wondering with the future transitions of what is going on with high-speed rail whether or
20 not there is a train station there for high-speed rail, what transitions are happening there. I think
21 that may make major transitions to what happens on Alma Street. So I would be leery of making
22 major changes to the zoning on Alma Street away from retail depending on what happens there.
23 If for example some of the proposal for under-grounding high-speed rail involve, even if we
24 don't have a station, involve more intensity of uses that may make Alma Street more viable. So I
25 want us to consider that more carefully.
26
27 I am in support of Commissioner Lippert's suggestion of theater TDR.
28
29 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Commissioner Holman.
30
31 Commissioner Holman: I have just a couple of things. The parking lots, I think they are all
32 public parking lots but the question is could we go ahead and extend for instance the GF overlay
33 on them even though they are probably zoned PF. Could we have a PF FG? The reason is
34 because I guess I have been around long enough that people come up with very clever ways to
35 get around requirements. I think if we had a GF overlay the intention would be very, very clear
36 as to what the purpose is should they ever be rezoned. So if Staff could come back with
37 something about that.
38
39 I am not sure of the best way to preserve the theaters is TDRs but I think other communities do
40 look at ways to preserve their theaters. So I am also interested in that and thank Commissioner
41 Lippert for bringing that up.
42
43 Then in the near distant future we are also going to be looking at basements, which would
44 include the Downtown area in basements. Do you want us to keep those issues separate or
45 combine? Keep them separate? We are talking about ground floor here. So keep the issues
46 separate I would presume.
47
48 Mr. Williams: I would think so, yes.
49
Page 27
1 Commissioner Holman: Okay. That's it. Thank you.
2
3 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. I am going to take a stab instead of doing everything by straw poll I
4 am going to take a stab at summarizing where I think the Commissioners are on various items. If
5 I get it wrong then tell me I get it wrong. I think we can get the bulk of this out because there
6 seems to be quite a bit of consensus.
7
8 So here is what I heard. On items one through three the unanimous consensus of the
9 Commission was that all three of those items should be investigated and potentially part of an
10 ordinance that comes back. On item four what I heard was with the exception of Commissioner
11 Lippert who is not in favor of differentiating the others were. I also heard that the Commission
12 would like Staff to look at whether there should be other categories of businesses to limit
13 including banks, and that seemed to be unanimous across the Commission. Then the other thing
14 that I heard was that there should be an examination of theater preservation efforts, whether that
15 is TDR or otherwise. I hadn't comnlented on that and I would be in favor of it. The only other
16 Commissioner I think who had not commented on it would be Commissioner Fineberg who is
17 indicating to me she would also be supportive. Did I get that part right so far, Commissioners?
18 Commissioner Holman.
19
20 Commissioner Holman: I anl not sure if the comment was specifically intended to be banks or
21 fmancial institutions, because there is a difference.
22
23 Vice-Chair Tuma: Financial institutions, right, good point. I think the consensus was other
24 categories including but not limited to financial institutions. So that being said what I heard
25 beyond that were a host of other ideas, which I saw Staff diligently taking notes on. if there are
26 any other suggestions that Commissioners made that they would like us to straw poll on I am
27 happy to do that or if there is any other issues that Staff would like us to straw poll on I am
28 happy to do that. Otherwise, you could simply take the comments that have been made on board
29 as things to look at. Commissioners, any need to straw poll on specific items? Commissioner
30 Keller.
31
32 Commissioner Keller: I think it might be worthwhile straw polling on the idea of mandatory
33 ground floor versus a threshold trigger.
34
35 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Don't want to run afoul of any procedures here but I assume that we
36 do this simply by a show of hands and then I read that into the record.
37
38 Mr. Larkin: I think that is fine as long as you are recognizing that you are not committing
39 yourselves to anything. Staffwill come back with a recommendation and Commissioners are
40 free to change their minds because it is a straw poll and not a vote.
41
42 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. So I guess the Commissioners who would favor essentially a
43 prohibition on anything other than ground floor retail.
44
45 Mr. Larkin: It is really in favor of exploring the concept because there still needs to be outreach.
46
47 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thanks for that clarification. So by a show of hands those that would support
48 basically a prohibition on anything other than ground floor retail.
49
Page 28
1 Mr. Williams: So elinlinating the threshold.
2
3 Vice-Chair Tuma: Better said, eliminating the threshold. Commissioner Lippert.
4
5 Commissioner Lippert: Just a clarification on that. That would also include personal services as
6 well, correct?
7
8 Mr. Williams: Personal services are allowed like retail is allowed so that would be allowed still.
9 So this is essentially prohibiting the threshold for office.
10
11 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Commissioner Keller.
12
13 Commissioner Keller: I think the way to think about it is essentially eliminating the exception
14 process independent of vacancy rate.
15
16 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Commissioner Fineberg.
17
18 Commissioner Fineberg: This is just that we would be in favor of exploring this process.
19
20 Vice-Chair Tuma: They are going to explore it either way. I think the direction was they are
21 going to explore the various different options but whether there is more of a preference towards
22 essentially eliminating the threshold. So those who would be in favor of that conceptually raise
23 their hands. That is Commissioners Lippert, Fineberg, Holman -that would be four
24 Commissioners in favor of that and one opposed.
25
26 Is there anything else that we should straw poll on before we close this item? Commissioner
27 Holman.
28
29 Commissioner Holman: Just a clarification. Tonight's Chair did a nice job of encapsulating
30 those things that there were numerous comments on. Some of us make other comments about
31 other things that people didn't comment on. Will Staff come back with responses and
32 investigation of those additional comments, like for instance local independent business
33 incentive or promotion?
34
35 Mr. Williams: We will definitely look at all of those. I am not saying we will have any -some
36 of them I think are ones that probably are outside the scope of being able to do something
37 quickly on and we will let you know that. Others we will probably be able to handle. So we will
38 look at all of them and let you know why we did or did not address them.
39
40 Commissioner Holman: Appreciate that thank you.
41
42 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Commissioner Keller, one last comment before we go on?
43
44 Commissioner Keller: Yes. Two other issues. I am assuming we don't need a straw poll for the
45 issue of whether there should be findings for item two that Staff raised. You will just consider
46 that and that is not the kind of thing we need to go into.
47
Page 29
1 I am wondering whether we need to straw poll or not the issue of the potential for amortization
2 out from uses that are not retail essentially on University Avenue or whether that is something
3 that we shouldn't weigh in on at this point.
4
5 Mr. Larkin: That is outside the scope of what we are doing tonight. So that requires separate
6 notice so you should not be straw polling on that.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you.
9
10 Vice-Chair Tunla: Okay. With that we will close item three and move onto item four.
Page 30
Planning & Transportation Commission
September 23,2009
Item 1: Questions from Commissioner Keller:
ATTACHMENT I
1. Instead of deleting 18.18.060(1)(1), could a CUP be used to temporarily allow non-
retail uses, so as not to lose long-standing retail outside the (GF) district? (There is
successful retail on Emerson between Hamilton and Forest that wouldn't be protected
otherwise.
A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) may be an option, but the ClTP process provides a lack
of certainty to the potential lessee, which could be problematic, and CUPs are not tied to
a specific time period. They may require review, but do not expire, so they could not be
used to temporarily allow office.
There are many examples in the periphery of downtown that show that successful retail
will remain even when not required to do so. Staff is recommending for those locations
where retail is an important part of the City's vision for downtown that the GF zone be
extended. lfthe Commission feels that the block of Emerson between Hamilton and
Forest should be included then that could be discussed.
Planning & Transportation Con1IDission
September 23,2009
Item 1: Questions from Commissioner Martinez:
1. The Downtown vacancy rate has been stated to be 10 -15%. That approaches 1 in 7
properties. Are those vacancy rates including all rentals downtown, including offices
and non-retail and space above the groundfloor?
The formal calculation of vacancy rate for 2009 has not yet been calculated, but staff
estimates it to be at approximately 10% for the total ground floor area ( square footage)
within the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District, regardless of current or past use.
Space above the ground floor is not included.
2. I am trying to understand the magnitude of the problem. How many non-conforming
ground floor offices exist in the Downtown area under consideration? How much has
that number increased in the last year?
The Use Exception allowed when the vacancy rate rises above 5% has not yet been used
within the downtown GF Combining District, so there has been no increase in the last
year. The calculation is prepared by the City in the fall of each year and though it is
estimated to be above 5% at this time, no Use Exception may be requested until the
official count has been completed and reported to City Council. Additionally, a Use
Exception would only be allowed at that time if there is a space that has been vacant and
available for at least 6 months. The problem is that, if the vacancy rate kicks in, staff will
receive requests for conversions to office, and it may be very difficult to then require
reversion to retail when the economy improves. Staff has received at least two inquiries
regarding potential conversions.
3. Is there any distinction among Planning's definition offinancial services'? For
example, are Chase and Wells Fargo, Fidelity, and American Express and E*TRADE all
lumped into this category?
No, there is not a particular distinction in the definition, which states that 'financial
services' means a use providing financial services to individuals, firms, or other entities.
The term "financial service" includes banks, savings and loan institutions, loan and
lending institutions, credit unions and similar services. Within the GF COITlbining District
this use would only be allowed with an application for a Conditional Use Permit. The Use
Permit process allows staff to distinguish between each type of financial service relative
to its appropriateness as a pedestrian-oriented use.
4. Planning's meetings with Downtown business and property owners unfortunately
weren't well attended. Are there any documents that provide more insight into how
businesses and property owners are being affected by the unprecedented vacancies and
ground floor offices?
The outreach meetings held by staffwere publicized with notice cards sent to all property
owners for properties within the CD-C and (GF) districts and to all business owners
whose contact information was taken from the most recent membership of the downtown
business improvement district. Staff also attended meetings of the Chamber of
Commerce and Downtown Business Improvement District to discuss these issues. These
two meetings had approximately 12 and 6 attendees, respectively, some of whom were
not in attendance at the outreach meetings at City Hall. Attendees of these City Hall
meetings included some representatives from the Downtown Business Improvement
District, the Chamber of Commerce, as well as large and small property owners, and
multiple local business owners. The following people signed in to one or more of these
City Hall meetings:
RoxyRapp John McNellis Sherry Bij an
Bruce Barry Cornelia Pendleton Don Douglas
Chop Keenan Anne Senti-Willis Ron Nunan
Sam Arsan Ed Hoffacken Annie Nunan
Jon Goldman Faith Bell Jim Nunan
Jim Thoits Leilani Merrill Rick Barry
Fred Thoits Joyce Yamagina Phyllis Munsey
Jim Baer Jeff Selzer Abraham Khalil
Attached you will find a copy of the handout provided at these meetings which included a
list of questions asked of these attendees in order to receive feedback and input into the
development of the ordinance revisions proposed by staff.
5. There are acceptable GF uses that are quasi-offices, such as travel agents. Is there a
rule of thumb that it's retail if it's open to the public, and it's offices if has little or no foot
traffic?
The definitions (PAMC 18.04.030) of retail services (definition (125)) and offices
(definitions (6), (61), (95), and (116)) provide guidance to staff on this issue, and include
many examples that show the intent of the use categories. For instance, "Retail service"
means a use engaged in providing retail sale, rental, service, processing, or repair of items
primarily intended for consumer or household use. The definition then goes on to list the
types of items that might be sold and a few specific types of retail stores. When an
unusual use is presented that is not specifically included in one or the other definition
staff will discuss which use category it most closely resembles and where it might best
meet the intent of the zoning district. In these cases the amount of foot traffic would
likely be an element considered. In addition there are other uses beyond retail which are
allowed, including "personal service" which means a use providing services of a personal
convenience nature, and cleaning, repair or sales incidental thereto. This definition also
includes a list of example uses, including beauty salons, copying services, film
processing, art and music studios.
Downtown Retail Vitality and Protection
August 25, 2009
Purpose Statement: To Enhance and Protect Downtown Retail Vitality Through
Modified Ground Floor Retail Regulations.
Problem Statement: Existing regulations may allow conversion of ground floor retail
space in the downtown core with vacancies in excess of 5%,
possibly to the detriment of the vitality of retail throughout the
downtown. Also, preserving seemingly marginal retail sites on the
perimeter of downtown may detract from the retail core and/or
result in long tenn vacancies.
Potential Changes:
1. Should the vacancy rate required for use exception request to
allow ground floor office in Ground Floor (GF) combining
district be increased (from its current 5%), or should the use
exception process be removed completely?
2. Should the restrictions in the Commercial Downtown
Community (CD-C) district outside of the GF zone be revised
to allow office space where retail currently exists?
3. Should the GF district boundaries be revised? If so, what areas
should be added to the GF district, and which should be
removed?
4. Are there certain uses that should be limited in quantity in the
downtown core? Restaurants and financial institutions are two
that have been discussed. If so, what limits might be set?
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2009 CMR: 428:09
REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: Approval of a Record of Land Use Action and a Tentative Map to
create six commercial condominium units within an existing office
building at 164 Hamilton A venue.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the City Council
approve a Tentative Map to create six (6) commercial condominium units within an existing
office building at 164 Hamilton Avenue based on the findings and conditions stated in the draft
Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
BACKGROlTND
The project is to request for approval of a Tentative Map to subdivide the existing approximately
10,395 square foot three-story building at 164 Hamilton Avenue into six (6) airspace
condominium units. The drawing submitted for this application (Attachment C) contains all
infom1ation and notations required on a Tentative Map pursuant to PAMC Section 21.12.040.
The Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Title 21 do not require that the division of airspace for
condominiums be shown on the map. Because the application is a request to create more than
four condominium units, this request cannot be processed administratively, and, therefore,
requires review and recommendation by the Commission and approval by the City Council,
pursuant to PAMC 21.08.090.
DISCUSSION
The existing three-story office building at 164 Hamilton Avenue was constructed in 2006 and is
situated on an approximately 0.104 acre site in the CD-C (P) zone district as shown on the
location and zoning map (Attachment B). Three existing standard parking spaces are provided at
the rear of the building, accessed from an alleyway. Although the site is within the Downtown
Parking Assessment District, no additional parking assessments would be required since no
building additions are proposed in conjunction with this Tentative Map application.
CMR: 428:09 Page 1 of3
The Tentative Map would create six (6) "for sale" condominium units inside an existing
commercial building. Although the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Title 21 do not require that
the division of condominium airspace be shown on a Tentative Map, the applicant has indicated
that each condominium unit would approximately be 1,100 square feet in size, with two units on
each of the three floors. No exterior improvements are proposed in conjunction with this
Tentative Map application.
The use of each of the proposed condominium spaces would be required to comply with the
provisions ofPAMC Chapter 18.18 'Downtown Commercial (CD) District' and PAMC 18.30(B)
'Pedestrian Shopping Combining District.' The entire building was designed for office use, and
was approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment through the
Architectural Review Board process in 2005. The building has been leased by Facebook since
October of 2006, and was one of Facebook's main office locations in Palo Alto. Facebook
recently relocated its main offices to another location in Palo Alto, but is still the tenant of the
entire building, with its lease expiring in 2011. The proposed ground floor level condominium
units would continue to contain offices uses.
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On October 28, 2009, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) voted unanimously,
recommending that the City Council approve the Tentative Map. The PTC motioned to
incorporate an amendment so that item #2 under Section 3 'Tentative Map Findings' of the Draft
Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) states that the proposed Tentative Map does not
conflict with any Comprehensive Plan goals or policies. The PTC staff report and minutes from
the October 28, 2009 public hearing are included in Attachments C and D.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
Approval of the Tentative Map to create six (6) airspace commercial condominium units inside
an existing building would not have economic impacts on the City.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
City staff has determined that this Tentative Map application is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Municipal Code. There are no other substantive policy implications.
TIMELINE:
Action:
Tentative Map Application Received:
Tentative Map Application Deemed Complete:
Commission Meeting on Tentative Map:
Scheduled Action by Council on Tentative Map:
ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW:
Date:
October 6,2009
October 15, 2009
October 28,2009
November 16, 2009
This Tentative Map application is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301 (k) of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, which exenlpts the subdivision of
existing commercial buildings, where no physical changes occur.
CMR: 428:09 Page 2 of3
ATTACHMENT A
APPROVAL NO. 2009-
(DRAFT) RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 164 HAMILTON AVENUE:
TENTATIVE MAP 09PLN-00239
(SPI 164 HAMILTON, LP -PROPERTY OWNER)
At its meeting on November 16, 2009, the City Council of
the City of Palo Alto approved the Tentative Map to subdivide an
existing three-story building at 164 Hamilton Avenue into six (6)
airspace commercial condominium units, making following
findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background.
of 0 Alto ("City Council") finds,
The City Council of the City
determines, and declares as
follows:
A. Proposed by Ryan Amaya of Kier & Wright on behalf of
SPI 164 Hamilton, LP, this Tentative Map application involves the
subdivision of an existing office building in the CD-C (P) zone
district into airspace commercial condominium units, with no
proposed building additions or exterior improvements.
B. The Tentative Map includes information on the
sting parcel and onsite conditions. The drawing is in
compliance with the applicable provisions of the City',s Subdivision
Ordinance. The Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision
Ordinance do not require that the division of air space be shown on
the Tentative Map. The plan contains all information and notations
required to be shown on a Tentative Map pursuant to Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 21.12.040.
C. On October 28, 2009, the Planning and Transportation
Commission conducted a duly noticed publ hearing and recommended
that the City Council approve Tentative Map.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review The City as the lead
agency has determined that this Tentative Map application is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(k) of the CEQA Guidelines, which
exempts subdivision of existing commercial or industrial buildings.
SECTION 3. Tentative Map Findings.
A legislative body of a ty shall deny approval of a Tentative
Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California
Government Code Section 66474) :
1
1. That
applicable general
65451:
the proposed map is not consistent with
and specific plans as specified in Section
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. site does not
lie within a specific plan area. The land use designation in the
area of the subdivision is Regional/Community Commercial, which
allows non-retail services such as offices and banks in addition to
retail establishments and restaurants. The existing building was
constructed in 2006 and has been used as an of space. As such,
the proposal to create six (6) airspace commercial condominium
units would not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan land use
designation for the site.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed
subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific
plans:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. There are no
Comprehensive Plan provisions that preclude the subdivision of
commercial office space.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type
of development:
This finding cannot be made in the firmative. The te is
physically suitable for the type development since it already
exists on site. The creation of the commercial condominium units
does not impact the te in any way.
4. That the te is not physically sui table for the
proposed density of development:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The te is well
suited for the proposed level of density of development in that
building already exists and the map only creates the ability for
separate ownership of portions of the existing building. The
density of development is not impacted.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habi tat:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The subdivision will
not cause environmental damage in that the subdivision only divides
the spaces within an existing building. No additional floor area or
any other exterior changes are proposed in conjunction with this
Tentative Map.
2
6. That the design the subdivision or type of
improvements likely to cause serious public health problems:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The design of the
subdivision will not cause serious health problems in that the
subdivision only divides existing spaces and any improvements
associated with the subdivision would only divide up the interior
spaces in full compliance wi th I applicable codes to ensure
publ safety.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of
improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public
at large, for access through or use of, property within the
proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may
approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or
for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously' acquired by the public. This
subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements
established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no
authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that
the public at large has acquired easements for access through or
use of property within the proposed subdivision.
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The subdivision of
the existing parcel will not conflict with easements of any type.
SECTION 4. Approval of Tentative Map. Tentative Map
approval is granted by the City Council under PAMC Sections 21.13
and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section 66474, subject
to the provision stated in Section 6 of this Record.
SECTION 5. Parcel Map Approval.
A. A Parcel Map 1 in conformance wi th the approved
Tentative Map, all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC
Section 21.16)1 and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 1 shall
be filed with the Planning Division and the Public Works
Engineering Division within two (2) years of the Tentative Map
approval date.
B. The Parcel Map submitted for review and approval by
the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall be in
substantial conformance with the Tentative Map titled, "Tentative
Map for a One Lot Subdivision for Condominium purposes" consisting
of 1 page, dated October 16, 2009. A copy of this plan is on file
in the Department of Planning and Community Environment, Current
Planning Division.
3
SECTION 6. Term of Approval.
Unless a Parcel Map is led within a two-year period from
the date of Tentative Map approval, or such extension as may be
granted, the Tentative Map shall expire and all proceedings shall
terminate. Thereafter, no Parcel Map shall be filed without first
processing a Tentative Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[d]).
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
APPROVED:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Those plans prepared by Kier & Wright titled, ~Tentative Map for a
One Lot Subdivision for Condominium Purposes", for 164 Hamilton
Avenue consisting of one (1) page, dated October 16, 2009.
4
accessed from an alleyway. Although the site is within the Downtown Parking Assessment District,
no additional parking assessments would be required since no building additions are proposed in
conjunction with this Tentative Map application.
The Tentative Map would create six (6) "for sale" condominium units inside an existing commercial
building. Although the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Title 21 do not require that the division of
condominium airspace be shown on a Tentative Map, the applicant has indicated that each
condominium unit would approximately be 1,100 square feet in size, with two units on each of the
three floors. No exterior improvements are proposed in conjunction with this Tentative Map
application.
The use of each of the proposed condominium spaces would be required to comply with the
provisions of PAMC Chapter 18.18 'Downtown Commercial (CD) District' and PAMC 18.30(B)
'Pedestrian Shopping Combining District.' The entire building was designed for office use, and was
approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment through the Architectural
Review Board process in 2005. The building has been leased by Facebook since October of 2006,
and was one of Facebook' s main office locations in Palo Alto. Facebook recently relocated its main
offices to another location in Palo Alto, but is still the tenant of the entire building, with its lease
expiring in 2011. The proposed ground floor level condominium units would continue to contain
offices uses.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
City staff has determined that this Tentative Map application is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Municipal Code. There are no other substantive policy implications.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This Tentative Map application is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301 (k) of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, which exempts the subdivision of
existing commercial buildings, where no physical changes occur.
TIMELINE:
Action:
Tentative Map Application Received:
Tentative Map Application Deemed Complete:
Comnlission Meeting on Tentative Map:
Scheduled Action by Council on Tentative Map:
A TT ACHMENTS:
A. Draft Record of Land Use Action
B. Location Map
C. Tentative Map (Commissioners Only)
City of Palo Alto
Date:
October 6,2009
October 15, 2009
October 28, 2009
November 16, 2009
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
Attachment D
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
October 28, 2009
EXCERPT
Chair Garber: So we will go immediately to our first item, which is 164 Hamilton Avenue. A
request by Ryan Amaya of Kier & Wright on behalf of SPI 164 Hamilton, LP for a
recommendation of approval for a Tentative Map to create six commercial condominium units
within an existing office building. Does Staff have a presentation?
NEW BUSINESS
Public Hearings:
1. 164 Hamilton A venue: Request by Ryan Amaya of Kier & Wright on behalf of SPI
164 Hamilton, LP for a recommendation of approval for a Tentative Map to create six
commercial condominium units within an existing office building. Environmental
Assessment: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301 (k) of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Zone District: CD-C(P).
Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: Very brief. I want to say that the owner, Gary
Miranda, is here and he can or cannot make a presentation. He is definitely here for questions. It
is a very simple matter. It is a Tentative Map for a commercial condominium of approximately
six units. They do not need to show how large those units are though it has been said that they
are about 1,100 square feet in size with two units on each of the three floors. There are no
exterior improvements in conjunction with this Tentative Map application. The next step is after
the Council review of this would be, as it says in the Record of Land Use Action, a parcel map
filing. So Staff is here for questions as is the property owner.
Chair Garber: Thank you. It appears we have one card, is that from the property owner, Martin
Bernstein?
Chair Garber: No, he is not the property owner. He is a member of the pUblic.
Chair Garber: I see, apologize. There are a few too many distractions up here this evening. So
why don't we hear from the one member of the public Commissioners and then we will come
back to us and if we have any questions. Martin Bernstein you will have three ~nutes.
Mr. Martin Bernstein, Palo Alto: Thank you Chair Garber and Commissioners. I am a neighbor
of this property. I fully support the Staff presentation and the Staff proposals and
recommendation for this, and urge you to vote approval. Thank you.
Chair Garber: That was succinct. Thank you very much. Commissioners, questions or
comments? Commissioner Keller and then Holman.
Page 1
1 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. In terms of the draft Record of Land Use Action it mentions
2 number 2. In terms of the Tentative Map findings it is, "That the design or improvement of the
3 proposed subdivision is not consistent with the applicable general and specific plans." "The
4 analysis says the finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The design is consistent with the
5 following Comprehensive Plan Policy B-7, which states, "Encourage and support the operation
6 of small, independent businesses." The condominium subdivision would create small office
7 tenant spaces within one existing office building resulting in 'for sale' spaces for smaller
8 companies to purchase and occupy."
9
10 What I am wondering is the extent to which the -let me make a distinction between the physical
11 changes to occupy smaller space and the legal changes to allow those smaller spaces to be
12 separately owned. Now I could understand how the physical changes to make separate spaces
13 occupied by six different tenants allows for smaller companies to occupy. What I am wondering
14 is what kind of small businesses are financially able to purchase one of these six units and to the
15 extent that that actually enhances the ability for the kind of office use mix we want. How does it
16 affect Downtown? What kind of businesses would be able to afford it? Is it doctor's offices? Is
17 it lawyer's offices? What kind of office space would this become based on that?
18
19 Ms. French: I might see if the property owner would like to respond as far as offering what he
20 had in mind by doing this project as far as the type of businesses he would like to have in his
21 building.
22
23 Chair Garber: May I just ask for a clarification actually from the attorney as to if this outconle
24 would have any affect on our action this evening?
25
26 Mr. Donald Larkin, Assistant City Attorney: Not unless there was a Comprehensive Plan policy
27 that discouraged this type of ownership then that would be relevant. In terms of what businesses
28 go in, as long as they are permitted in that zone then I don't think it is relevant.
29
30 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller are you suspicious that there may be a conflict with the
31 Comprehensive Plan?
32
33 Commissioner Keller: I am suspicious that the claim to reason by Staff, because I assume Staff
34 wrote this paragraph, and if it wasn't written by Staff I would like to know who wrote it. I am
35 wondering about the voracity of this particular statement. I am skeptical as the degree to which
36 having ownership properties enhances Comprehensive Plan Policy B-7 or whether having rental
37 properties is more consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy B-7. Since that is the only
38 Comprehensive Plan policy cited then I am questioning the voracity of this statement.
39
40 Mr. Larkin: It may be a more relevant finding to say that there are no Comprehensive Plan
41 policies that conflict with this action. We can revise the Record of Land Use Action to reflect
42 that because you are right. There probably are many Comprehensive Plan policies that would
43 support something like this but to pull one out of a hat probably isn't appropriate. The more
44 appropriate finding is that there isn't anything that conflicts with this action.
45
Page 2
1 Chair Garber: That being the case, would that satisfy your suspicion if that were rewritten to
2 reflect that?
3
4 Commissioner Keller: Well, put it this way, to the extent to which having small office
5 ownership spaces versus small office rental spaces is enhancing of Comprehensive Plan Policy
6 B-7, if small office rental is more effective towards this then the answer might mean that it
7 would be in conflict with B-7. So that is why I think it would be helpful to get the answer from
8 the applicant.
9
10 Chair Garber: Mr. Attorney.
11
12 Mr. Larkin: Comprehensive Plan Policy B-7 doesn't say that small, independent businesses
13 must rent or that rental properties are encouraged or that ownership is encouraged. It doesn't
14 address that at all. So I think it is up to the property owner to determine. If the property owner
15 didn't think that these were viable for sale units then he wouldn't be suggesting that they
16 condominiumized.
17
18 Commissioner Keller: I actually, personally as a Commissioner, object to the Chair providing
19 legal questions for counsel. If our legal counsel believes that my question is out of line then the
20 counsel should interject his objection. However, if the counsel did not have any objection to the
21 question being answered I am not sure why the Chair wished to squelch my question.
22
23 Chair Garber: I am trying to move things along and it is my prerogative. Thank you very much.
24 Commissioner Tuma, did you want to weigh in on the topic?
25
26 Vice-Chair Tuma: Off the top of my head I can see venture capitalists, attorneys, CPAs,
27 architects, real estate firms, any variety of firms wanting for one reason or another to own a piece
28 of property instead of renting. I think there is a whole host of companies that would. In fact,
29 some people prefer to own simply because they see it as an investment and a way to park capital
30 instead of having to rent. The availability of small offices to purchase I can tell you from my
31 own experience is extremely limited.
32
33 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, did you have anything else or should we go to .....
34
35 Commissioner Keller: I actually object to this process. I object to a fellow Commissioner
36 answering a question that I actually directed to Staff and the applicant.
37
38 Chair Garber: One moment please. Would the attorney like to weigh in here? I am not
39 understanding what the problem is.
40
41 Mr. Larkin: I don't have a problem either way. If the applicant wants to answer the question the
42 applicant can answer the question. I don't think it is particularly relevant to the decision.
43
44 Chair Garber: I believe he used the word 'relevant.' Is the process out of line in some way?
45
46 Mr. Larkin: I think any Commissioner that wants to ask me a question can ask me a question.
Page 3
1
2 Chair Garber: Okay. Would you like to ask the applicant a question?
3
4 Commissioner Keller: I think I already expressed my question of the applicant. If the applicant
5 wishes me to repeat I would be happy to, but I did address my question to the applicant. I don't
6 think that the attorney objected to my asking the question of the applicant.
7
8 Chair Garber: Nor did the Chair. Would the applicant care to approach?
9
10 Mr. Gary Miranda, SPI Holdings: Our affiliate owns the property. What we are really doing is
11 just providing the flexibility for smaller businesses to buy. We are not committed to selling but
12 if that opportunity arises and I think the range of tenants or users that you mentioned are all ones
13 that we have thought of architects, real estate firms, other financial planning, and what have you.
14 Those are all very likely candidates for properties of this size. Candidly, one of the reasons that
15 we thought of it is we were going to buy a property for our own firm. It was about 15,000 feet
16 and we said what we really need is like 3,000 feet. So that though kind of helped spur this idea.
17 We think Downtown Palo Alto is kind of the ideal place for that sort of opportunity.
18
19 Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
20
21 Mr. Miranda: Does that answer that question?
22
23 Commissioner Keller: Yes, thank you.
24
25 Mr. Miranda: Okay, thanks.
26
27 Chair Garber: Anything else? Commissioner Holman, and then Fineberg, and Tuma did you
28 want to go again or were you just weighing in on that? Okay. Commissioner Holman.
29
30 Commissioner Holman: If you will bear with me just for a moment you will see where it is
31 going. It is number 4, that the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
32 development. As a building obviously it is fine, it has been approved.
33
34 I am interested though in what conditions of approval there were. The reason for that is because
35 if because of the density of development Downtown there is no parking to speak of, I think there
36 were three parking places behind this. Then if it happens to be six different ownerships and there
37 was a TDM program for instance how could that be managed, overseen, etc.?
38
39 Ms. French: I can answer that. There was no TDM program. It went from the Craig Hotel and
40 it lost square footage to become the Facebook building. So there was no TDM that I am aware
41 of. Again, because it was a net reduction in square footage and certainly there were just the
42 parking spaces that were on the site previously.
43
44 Commissioner Holman: It is from the Craig Hotel? I am a little bit confused.
45
Page 4
1 Ms. French: Yes, it used to be the Craig Hotel and it was removed and it became the office
2 building that you see there now, back in 2006 through the ARB process~
3
4 Commissioner Holman: There are no conditions of approval that would affect this finding?
5
6 Ms. French: Julie wanted me to make sure that I mentioned that it is in the Downtown Parking
7 Assessment District. So they paid into the Parking Assessment District many years ago. What
8 was your next question?
9
10 Commissioner Holman: It is part of the same question. I understand that they paid into the
11 Parking Assessment District, so thank you for that. Were there other conditions of approval that
12 might affect this finding for the project?
13
14 Ms. French: The conditions of approval were related to the construction and completion of that
15 project per ARB plans and building permit plans.
16
17 Commissioner Holman: Okay, thank you.
18
19 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Fineberg followed by Lippert.
20
21 Commissioner Fineberg: One quick note. On Attachment A, which is the Record of Land Use
22 Action, I believe there should be a note on the top of it that it is not yet approved. It is future
23 dated and I believe members of the Commission understand. But since it is going into the record
24 for the public it would be helpful when these future real proposed documents come up that the
25 proposed version of it say 'not yet approved.'
26
27 Secondly, forgive me for imperfect memory, but I would like to ask Staff whether any of the
28 proposed changes that we discussed here at Commission several weeks ago regarding the ground
29 floor retail, did any of those proposed changes affect this site? If they did, how did they?
30
31 Ms. French: This site was not among those properties that were to be changed as far as their
32 zoning. As far as the regulations related to the CD-C, because this is the CD-C(P), it is not the
33 CD-C(GF) or Ground Floor, or Ground Floor P. It is the CD-C regulations that talked about
34 having flexibility between office and other uses. So it is office now and it doesn't need to go to
35 retail. Any flexibility that we may have heard from the Commission about that Ground Floor
36 Retail Protection Ordinance is not going to adversely affect this or really affect it in any way
37 since it already an office building designed as such and used as such.
38
39 Commissioner Fineberg: Is this property within that area where we introduced the two-way
40 ratchet, that if they go to retail they can ratchet back to office later?
41
42 Ms. French: Yes it is.
43
44 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so this is an example of where that two-way ratchet clause can
45 come about and be helpful. Okay, great.
46
Page 5
1 Then another question I have about this is I understand that there is no external construction, and
2 there is no new building, there is no new addition. The subdivision within the structural work
3 inside the building is going to yield six individual units that will be used very differently than
4 one large building. Does CEQA or does prudent consideration of the Comprehensive Plan
5 require us to think about how many employees might be in the new physical build out? Or how
6 many car trips, how much traffic? Simply because there is no external construction do we ignore
7 that maybe it is going to be ten times the employees or one-tenth of the employees? Can we get
8 information and analyze that or because it is only internal are we prescribed from analyzing that?
9
10 Ms. French: Well, the first part of that question was about CEQA and CEQA considers this an
11 exempt project. So there is no environmental review. As far as real time, it is in the Downtown.
12 The build out of the Downtown was considered years ago with the Environmental Impact Report
13 as far as the maximum build out, parking needs, etc. It is Parking Assessment District. So even
14 in the building today not subdivided could have a fluctuation of office personnel or staff and we
15 wouldn't have an analysis each time they want to change, increase, or reduce staffing. So I don't
16 know if Don has anything to add.
17
18 Mr. Larkin: All that the Tentative Map is doing is allowing them to sell off airspace rights
19 within the building. So the Map itself, the action that the Commission is being asked to take
20 tonight isn't going to have an effect. In fact, as the applicant says they don't have to sell it, and
21 they may not sell it. It gives them the flexibility to sell off chunks of the air pace within the
22 building as they see fit or as there is a need.
23
24 Ms. French: I would add in the end there is a finite occupancy of the building and that would
25 have been considered originally when it was converted or when the building was built for office.
26 There is a finite fire, safety related occupancy maximum.
27
28 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, great. My last comment is in the analysis of consistency with
29 the Comprehensive Plan I was troubled in particular by the second finding used to justify
30 consistency with Comprehensive Plan. I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion but just
31 as a sort of theoretical way of thinking about findings for consistency if we are to analyze the
32 overall consistency with this document saying that it is consistent because there is one tiny-
33 weenie, little, I believe it is a policy, doesn't do justice to the substance of the shear strength and
34 importance of the Comprehensive Plan. So I was very pleased to hear what the attorney said that
35 the finding could be worded more in that there is nothing that is inconsistent or that there be
36 significant numbers of substantive polices where it is consistent. I don't think that that is
37 necessarily going to change the course on this but when the analysis comes back where we are
38 using incredibly nit-picky items to justify consistency it just doesn't pay respect to the
39 meaningfulness and the import of the document. Thank you.
40
41 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert.
42
43 Commissioner Lippert: First of all, I want to thank the Chair for trying to move things along
44 here, and also the applicant for keeping your presentation very brief.
45
Page 6
1 I have a several small questions that I need to ask. First of all, this is the first time I have seen a
2 condominiumization in the Downtown. I have seen this before on San Antonio Road where we
3 reviewed condominiumization of commercial office space. Are there any other buildings in the
4 Downtown that are condominium office that you know of?
5
6 Ms. French: Not that I know of. I wish Jim Baer was in the audience he may know.
7
8 Commissioner Lippert: Then with regard to condominiumizing the building it doesn't preclude a
9 large office user from leasing the entire building. It just makes it a little more problematic in
10 terms of getting the individual owners together to lease their spaces. Is that correct?
11
12 So if we had another Facebook that wanted to go into say a building like this there would be no
13 problem with having one user in there, no use and occupancy issues?
14
15 Ms. French: Sure, or you could have six individual property owners renting to the same user for
16 the whole building too if it ended up going that way. The people that buy the units are not
17 necessarily going to be businesses that go in there.
18
19 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then one last question is in the past we have had like Digital, and
20 we have Facebook, and a number of other large companies that have leased individual offices
21 throughout the Downtown trying to make the Downtown their headquarters. Are there still other
22 buildings that would be conducive to this if this was taken out of the equation?
23
24 Ms. French: Yes, I can't think of an address offhand but I anl sure there are buildings in the
25 Downtown area that would lend themselves to a subdivision like this. This is a newer building
26 so it has nlore modem conveniences. I don't know if the older buildings would lend themselves
27 to subdivision.
28
29 Commissioner Lippert: So it doesn't substantively diminish the inventory of large office space
30 in the Downtown?
31
32 Ms. French: This one project doesn't and again I don't have a list of other ones but I don't know
33 of any offhand.
34
35 Commissioner Lippert: If there aren't any other speakers ...
36
37 Chair Garber: Please go ahead.
38
39 MOTION
40
41 Commissioner Lippert: I move the Staff recommendation as stated. I don't need to go through it
42 do I?
43
44 Chair Garber: You may ask if there is a friendly amendment. I suspect that perhaps
45 Commissioner Fineberg might have one.
46
Page 7
1 Commissioner Lippert: Well, I need a seconder first.
2
3 Chair Garber: Yes, you do. Is there is a second?
4
5 SECOND
6
7 Commissioner Fineberg: Second.
8
9 Chair Garber: Second by Commissioner Fineberg. Does the speaker wish to speak to their
10 motion?
11
12 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. I don't see a problem with this. My only concern is that it may
13 diminish a large user building but if the individual owners of the building where to get together
14 they could very well lease the building to a single tenant if they so desired. So from an
15 ownership point of view I think it is very desirable. In fact, when it comes to Prop 13 as the
16 condominiums come up for resale they would be reappraised and would be reevaluated in terms
17 of property tax accordingly. Whereas if this was an ownership building as owners flip in and out
18 of a limited partnership there would be no turnover in terms of property tax. So I think it is very
19 desirable. I think it could work and I support what is being proposed here.
20
21 Chair Garber: The seconder?
22
23 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to propose a friendly amendment that in the Record of
24 Land Use Action in Section 2 the language be changed per the City Attorney's language
25 reflecting that there are significant programs or policies that are inconsistent.
26
27 Commissioner Lippert: I will accept that.
28
29 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. Other than that I would concur with what Commissioner
30 Lippert has said and that's it.
31
32 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, discussion?
33
34 Commissioner Keller: Yes. First, I think that the attempt to move things along actually took
35 more time than if things had been allowed to proceed at its normal pace. Secondly, let the record
36 show that this particular project is consistent with the Land Use Program L-20, which says,
37 "Facilitate reuse of existing buildings." That particular program, I am not suggesting that it be
38 added to the item, but that would have been a much better thing for Staff to reference if they
39 were referencing anything than B-7, which is not necessarily appropriate.
40
41 In any event, I think this is a reasonable thing to do. I have no objection to it with the
42 understanding that there are tenants either way and hopefully this will allow, by subdividing it
43 into smaller spaces, this will allow the building to be reoccupied faster than having to find a
44 tenant for the entire building.
45
46 MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
Page 8
1
2 Chair Garber: I see no more lights. We will close the public hearing. All those in favor of the
3 motion as stated say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? The motion passes unanimously. Thank
4 you very much.
5
Page 9