The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009-12-14 City Council Agenda Packet 1 12/14/09 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. A binder containing supporting materials is available in the Council Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting. Special Meeting Council Chambers December 14, 2009 6:30 PM ROLL CALL CLOSED SESSION Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - POTENTIAL/ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation against the City of Palo Alto by Summerhill Redwood Gate LLC Authority: Government Code § 54956.9(b)(3)(C) Council Conference Room 7:00 or as soon as possible thereafter STUDY SESSION 2. Joint Mee ting with the Utilities Advisory Commission Regarding City Utilities Issues ATTACHMENT Council Chambers 8:00 or as soon as possible thereafter SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 3. Adoption of a Resolution Expressi ng Appreciation to Susie Ord Upon Her Retirement ATTACHMENT 4. Adoption of a Resolution Expre ssing Appreciation to Anun Aruna mata Upon His Retirement ATTACHMENT 12/14/09 2 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 5. Adoption of a Resolution Expressi ng Appreciation to Liz Thomas Upon Her Retirement ATTACHMENT 6. Proclamation Expressing Appr eciation to Sam Yates for His Outstanding Efforts with the Color of Palo Alto ATTACHMENT 7. Proclamation Expressing A ppreciation to Sunny Dykwel for Being Selected as One of the 100 Most Influential F ilipina Women in the United States ATTACHMENT 8. Proclamation Commending the Ou tstanding Public Ser vice of N ancy Nagel, Karl Van Orsdol, Wendy Hediger and Julie Weiss on the City’s Sustainability Team 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 09, 2009 November 16, 2009 CONSENT CALENDAR Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members. 9. Approval of an Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Family Resources Foundation in Palo Alto for Mut ual Cooperation and Support CMR 458:09 & ATTACHMENT 12/14/09 3 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 10. Approval of a Con tract with E lite La ndscaping Incorporated, in th e Amount of $1,220,075 for C onstruction of Greer Park Renovation and Pump Station Replacement - Capital Improvement Program Project PE- 09002 (continued by Council Motion on November 16, 2009) CMR 423:09 & ATTACHMENT 11. Approval of an Extended Producer Responsibility Policy and Adoption of a Resolution Supporting State an d National Extended Producer Responsibility Actions CMR 456:09 & ATTACHMENT 12. Approval of a Cooperative Agreem ent with the City of Mountai n View for the S an Antoni o Road Bridge Overpass Repair Project – Capita l Improvement Program Project PE-06001 CMR 436:09 & ATTACHMENT 13. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Utilities Public Benefit Contract for Commercial Energy Efficiency Progra ms with Ecology A ction to Allow Up to $559,166 in Additional Funds Over Four Years a nd Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2010 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $279,583 within the Electric Fund to Expand Commercial Energy Efficiency Program CMR 425:09 & ATTACHMENT 14. Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $381,583 for Costs Related to Constructing a Temporary Library and Teen Center at the Cubberley Community Center; Approval of a Contract with Johnsto ne Moyer, Inc., in a Total Amount Not to Exceed $227,463 to Convert the Cubberley Co mmunity Center Auditorium Into a Temporary Libra ry to Replace the Mitchell Park Library (Capital Improvement Program Project PE-09010) CMR 463:09 & ATTACHMENT 12/14/09 4 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 15. Adoption of a Resolu tion Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Letter of Support for the WAVEON E Application for a $2,500,000 Grant Funded by the California En ergy Commission State Energy Program, and to Negotiate and Execute a Tw o-Year $2,835,000 Direct and In- Kind Funded Public/Private Part nership Agre ement wi th W AVEONE, Contingent Upon t he Ful l A ward of t he State Grant A pplied for by WAVEONE CMR 477:09 & ATTACHMENT 16. Adoption of a Resol ution Amending the FY2007-FY2009 Compens ation Plan for Limited Hourly Personnel Adopted by Resolution No. 8759 to Revise the Provisions Related to Term of Employment CMR 459:09 & ATTACHMENT 17. Adoption of a Resolution Expressi ng Appreciation to Janice Hall Upon Her Retirement ATTACHMENT 18. Adoption of a Res olution Expre ssing Appreciation to Bradley He rran Upon His Retirement ATTACHMENT 19. Adoption of a Resoluti on Expressing Appreciation to Diana Ward Upon Her Retirement ATTACHMENT 20. Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Gary Clarien Upon His Retirement ATTACHMENT 21. Adoption of a Resol ution Expressing Appreciation to Doug J. Fox Upon His Retirement ATTACHMENT 12/14/09 5 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 22. Adoption of a Resolution Declaring Weeds to be a Nuisance and Setting January 11, 2010 for a Public Hearing for Objections to Proposed Weed Abatement CMR 441:09 & ATTACHMENT 23. Request for Authorization to Increase Existing Agreement with the Law Firm of Duncan We inberg, Genzer & Pembroke, P.C. by an Addi tional $155,000 for a Total Contract Not to Exceed Amount of $215,000 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. ACTION ITEMS Include: Public Hearings, Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Reports of Officials, and Council Matters 24. PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of (1) a Mitigate d Negative Declaration; (2) a Site and Desi gn Review Application for the Demol ition of Three Commercial Buildings (Including the Palo Alto Bowl and Motel 6) and the Cons truction of a Four-Sto ry Building Containing 167 Hotel Guestrooms, and 26 Three-Story Re sidential Townhomes on a Site Comprised of Four Parcels of Land Zoned RM-1, RM-15 and CS; (3 ) a Tentative Map Merging t he Four Parc els into a 3.62 Acre Parcel for Condominium Subdivision into a Hote l Unit and 26 Residential Units; and (4) a Record of Land Use Action for A pproval of the Project Located at 4301 and 4329 El Camino Real CMR 443:09 ATTACHMENT A - C ATTACHMENT D - E ATTACHMENT F - H ATTACHMENT I - O 12/14/09 6 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 25. PUBLIC HEARING: Pursuant to Government Code Section 30061, Title 3, Division 3, Relating to the Supplemental Law Enforce ment Services Fund , to Consider the Po lice Chief’s Request to Purchase Computer Forensic Software, Glob al Positioning Devices, Radio Earpieces, Remote Area Lighting Sy stems, Patrol Team Operation Kits, Replacement K-9 Unit, and Addi tional Funding for the Crime Scene Evidence Collection Vehicle CMR 462:09 26. PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of Pr oposed Participation by the City of Palo Alto the “City“ in the Califor niaFIRST Program of the California Statewide Communities Development Authority. Participation in the CaliforniaFIRST Program will Enable Property Owners to Finance Renewable Energy, Energy Effici ency and Water Efficien cy Improvements on Their Property Through t he Levy of Contractual Assessments Pursuant to Chapter 29 of Divi sion 7 of the Streets & Highways Code (“ Chapter 29”) an d the Issuance of Improvement Bonds Under the Improvement Bo nd Act of 1915 (Streets and Highways Code Sections 8500 and Follo wing) Upon the Security of the Unpaid Contractual Assessment s. Chapter 29 P rovides that Assessments May be Levied Under it s Provisions Only with the Free and Willing Consent of the Owner of Each Lot or Parcel on Which an Assessment is Levied at the Time the Assessment is Levied; and 1) Adoption of a Res olution Authorizing the City of Palo Alto to Join the CaliforniaFIRST Program; Author izing the California Statewide Communities Development Authority to Accept Applications from Property Owners, Conduct Contra ctual Assessment Proceedings and Levy Contractual Assessments Within the Territory of the City of Palo Alto and Authorizing Related Actions, and 2) Resolution Authorizing Sacramento Count y to Appl y for and Receive State Ene rgy Program Funds on Behalf of the City of Palo Alto CMR 449:09 & ATTACHMENT PRESENTATION 27. Presentation of Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report for F iscal Year 2009 – Annual Report on City Government Performance ATTACHMENT 12/14/09 7 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. 28. Approval of the Finance Committee Recommendation to Adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) to Transfer $809,000 from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) to the Technology Fund in Fiscal Year 2010 CMR 479:09 & ATTACHMENT 29. Ad Hoc Committee Monthly Report on High Speed Rail 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. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO SUSIE ORD UPON HER RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Susie Ord provided 24 years of dedicated service to the City of Palo Alto in a variety of capacities such as Parking Monitor, Community Service Officer, Community Crime Prevention Officer and Program Coordinator; and WHEREAS, Susie Ord received 59 letters of commendation from members of the public, Palo Alto Police Department and City Officials for her outstanding and dedicated public service; and WHEREAS, Susie Ord performed hundreds of home security inspections and Community Watch Meetings in order to provide the residents of Palo Alto with pertinent information and tips to keep them and their families safe; and WHEREAS, Susie Ord was responsible for creating, developing and administering 23 Citizen Police Academies and numerous advanced academies. Over the years, approximately 500 people have participated in these very popular programs; and WHEREAS, Susie Ord has been responsible for coordinating numerous other community outreach programs such as National Night Out, the “Heads Up” Newsletter, the Bicycle Licensing Program, Community Outreach and Events (C.O.R.E.), Health and Safety Fairs; and WHEREAS, Susie Ord has been described in her supervisory evaluations as “extremely hard working and diligent,” “known for her grace and kindness” and “has an undeniable commitment to the organization and to the City of Palo Alto.” NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby commends the outstanding public service of Susie Ord and records its appreciation, as well as the appreciation of the citizens of this community, upon her retirement. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: DECEMBER 14, 2009 ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________ ______________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________ _______________________ City Attorney City Manager RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO ANUN ARUNAMATA UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Palo Alto Animal Services acknowledges Anun Arunamata for his twenty-two years of service; and WHEREAS, Anun has participated in over fifty thousand spay and neuter surgeries; and WHEREAS, Anun has worked in animal control by covering emergency field work as an on-call officer; and WHEREAS, Anun has assisted by covering the office and performing adoptions, redemptions and answering numerous requests for assistance with animal issues; and WHEREAS, Anun has provided an invaluable historical prospective; and WHEREAS, Anun has supported the mission and goals of the Animal Services Division of the Palo Alto Police Department. NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby commends the outstanding public service of Anun Arunamata and records its appreciation, as well as the appreciation of the citizens of this community, upon his retirement. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: DECEMBER 14, 2009 ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________ ______________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________ _______________________ City Attorney City Manager RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO LIZ THOMAS UPON HER RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Liz Thomas provided 22 years of dedicated service to the City of Palo Alto as the staff secretary for the Investigative Services Division of the Palo Alto Police Department; and WHEREAS, Liz Thomas received 11 letters of commendation from members of the public, Police Department and District Attorney’s Office for her dedication, outstanding service and professionalism; and WHEREAS, Liz Thomas was recognized by Chiefs Chris Durkin, Lynne Johnson and Dennis Burns for her hard work and assistance with several high profile sexual assault and homicide cases; and WHEREAS, Liz Thomas was recognized by Chief Johnson for her outstanding work with the Palo Alto Police Department Volunteer Program. NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby commends the outstanding public service of Liz Thomas and records its appreciation, as well as the appreciation of the citizens of this community, upon her retirement. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: DECEMBER 14, 2009 ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________ ______________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________ _______________________ City Attorney City Manager CITY OF PALO ALTO PROCLAMATION The Color of Palo Alto WHEREAS, the artist Samuel Yates first arrived in Palo Alto in 2001 to create a public art project that would involve every parcel in the city, and thus every person in the city; WHEREAS, he began his project without a computer, a place to sleep, or a place to work, and spent three years tirelessly raising the resources to complete it, he was hosted by seven different local families during the seven-year project, from age 26 to 33, at great physical, personal, professional, and financial expense; WHEREAS, he took color specimens in the form of digital photographs from dawn to dusk in sun and rain, heat and cold, from all 17,729 ground parcels in Palo Alto from January to December 2005, alphabetically by street from A to Z, using an electric scooter and other survey and computer equipment electrically charged with solar and wind power from a "portable solar garage," to determine the average color of each parcel, street, neighborhood, hour, day, date, month, season, etc. in Palo Alto, to be used as colors in paint, pixels, and products thereafter as a language of color and source of civic identity, needing four different but identical cameras to take all 200,000+ specimens which he later sorted and used to determine the colors; WHEREAS, he designed and built a "portable solar garage" in the Civic Center Plaza to turn the colors of Palo Alto into intrinsic symbols of sustainability, promote four of the City's environmental initiatives, and celebrate Palo Alto's history of garage inventors, working to create the nation's first photo-assisted 9-1-1 emergency response system in 2003. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Peter Drekmeier, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council do hereby proclaim that "The Color of Palo Alto" is either the Mode of Means (HSV 139, 74, 60), Mean of Means (HSV 106, 46, 46), Mean of Modes (HSV 108, 52, 37), or Mode of Modes (HSV 201, 100, 100), being the various averages of these 341,171,215,872 points of color data gathered by the artist from every parcel in Palo Alto. Presented: December 14, 2009 ______________________________ Peter Drekmeier Mayor CITY OF PALO ALTO PROCLAMATION SUNNY DYKWEL 100 MOST INFLUENTIAL FILIPINA WOMEN IN THE U.S. WHEREAS, Sunny Dykwel has been selected by the Filipina Women’s Network as one of the 100 Most Influential Filipina Women in the United States in 2009 because of her outstanding achievements and the positive impact she has made in the local community; and WHEREAS, Sunny Dykwel served on the board of the Palo Alto All Schools Fund and was instrumental in the merger with Palo Alto Foundation for Education to create what is now known as Partners in Education; and has served on numerous school bond and parcel tax campaigns; and WHEREAS, Sunny Dykwel was a founding director of the Palo Alto Downtown Business Improvement District, aka Palo Alto Downtown Business and Professional Association, and served as Advocacy Chair; and WHEREAS, Sunny Dykwel is a founding member of the Friends of Lytton Plaza which initiated the renovation of Lytton Plaza through a public-private partnership with the City of Palo Alto and which raised $400,000 for this project; and WHEREAS, Sunny Dykwel serves on the Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission and on the boards of the Palo Alto PTA Council and Palo Alto Family YMCA. She also served on the boards of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, Palo Alto University Rotary Club, and the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation where she chaired the Palo Alto Black and White Ball in 2004 and 2006; and WHEREAS, Sunny Dykwel has been a driving force behind the success of the organizations where she devoted her time, energy, and resources to support the Palo Alto community for two decades; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Peter Drekmeier, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council, recognize Sunny Dykwel on her selection by the Filipina Women’s Network as one of the 100 Most Influential Filipina Women in the United States in 2009, and commend her for the extraordinary contributions she has made to our community, and extend my sincere best wishes. Presented: December 14, 2009 ___________________________ Peter Drekmeier Mayor CITY OF PALO ALTO PROCLAMATION Commending the Outstanding Public Service of Nancy Nagel, Karl Van Orsdol, Wendy Hediger and Julie Weiss on the City’s Sustainability Team WHEREAS, the sustainability efforts of the City of Palo Alto were formalized by the appointment of a Sustainability Team for the years 2007-2009; and WHEREAS, Nancy Nagel, Karl Van Orsdol, Wendy Hediger and Julie Weiss, worked enthusiastically and tirelessly on many initiatives that contributed to the overall success of the Sustainability Team and to the advancement of many of the City’s environmental goals; and WHEREAS, the Team completed the Climate Protection Plan that sets citywide goals for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions within Palo Alto, and also established the Climate Protection Team to monitor emissions from City operations; and WHEREAS, the Sustainability Team convened the Community Environmental Action Partnership (CEAP) with representatives from many segments of the community who are dedicated to improving community-wide collaboration on important environmental issues; and WHEREAS, the Team established the Palo Alto Downtown Farm Shop pilot project to offer organic products to downtown employees, promote the purchase of locally grown food, and support regional farmers through a subscription program; and WHEREAS, the Sustainability Team enhanced the City’s Green Procurement Policies to encourage the purchase of products and services with less impact on human health and the environment; and WHEREAS, the Team challenged City employees to take personal actions through the promotion of the “Palo Alto Goes Green Campaign,” the City’s Green Team and the “Cool Commute Challenge” program. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Peter Drekmeier, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council, hereby gratefully records its sincere thanks and appreciation to Nancy Nagel, Karl Van Orsdol, Wendy Hediger and Julie Weiss, for their dedication and excellent contributions as members of the City’s Sustainability Team. Presented: December 14, 2009 _____________________________ Peter Drekmeier Mayor TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE: DECEMBER 14,2009 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 John Lucas Greer Park is a 22-acre neighborhood park located at 1098 Amarillo A venue 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 Callander 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 1 5 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 spa~e 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 interactive sculpture of a dolphin will remain and be integrated into the new 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 timeline 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. ummaryo 1 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 $1,220,075 to a high of$I,551,405 *Detailed bid summary provided in Attachment B. Staff has reviewed both bids submitted and recommends that the bid of $1,220,075, submitted by Elite Landscaping Incorporated be accepted and that Elite Landscaping Incorporated be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The bid is 25% below the engineer's estimate of $1,662,721. The low bids for this project can be attributed to the significantly depressed economic conditions, which are highly conducive to competitive bidding. A protest filed by the second low bidder was determined to be without merit and was denied by the Director of Administrative Services. CMR:423 :09 Page 3 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, and in fiscal year 2008-09 appropriated an additional $1,450,000 for the replacement of the pump station and irrigation system, and renovation of other existing park facilities. This $400,000 appropriated for Phase IV is funded from Development Impact Fees, and the remaining balance of$I,450,000 will come from the Infrastructure Reserve. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed Greer Park Improvements project IS consistent with existing City policies, including the master plan for the park. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 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 Attachment C: Bid Protest Correspondence between City of Palo Alto and Goodland Landscape Construction PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CMR:423:09 CHRISTOPHER RAFFERTY Landscape Architect Ii 1 &A: GLENN S. ROBERTS Director of Public Works Page 4 of5 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR:423:09 Page 5 of5 ATTACHMENT 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. THE PROJECT ................................................................................................... 1 SECTION 3. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ....................................................................... 1 LIST OF DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................................... 1 3.2 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE ............................................................................... 2 SECTION 4. THE WORK ........................................................................................................ 2 SECTION 5. PROJECT 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 TRANSFERS ............................................................ 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 16.1.2 16.1.3 16.1.4 16.1.5 16.1.6 Delete Certain Services ............................................................................................. 11 Perform and Withhold ................................................................................................ 11 Suspend The Construction Contract ......................................................................... 11 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default.. ..................................................... 11 Invoke the Performance Bond ................................................................................... 11 Additional Provisions ................................................................................................. 12 16.2 Delays by Sureties ........................................................................................................... 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 ForWorkStoppage ................................................................................................... 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 PARTIES ................................................................................ 14 SECTION 20. NUISANCE ......................................................................................... ~ ............. 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 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 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: R E CIT ALS: 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 Contract for the 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 and/or 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 "Agreement" 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 Daily 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 of the Contract Documents. Construction Contract 3 Rev.Ocrober9,2009 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). [This 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 of the 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 setforth 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: City of Palo Alto City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Copy to: 12] 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. SECTION 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 12650, 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 by way 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 Contractor's 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 required 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 turn being asserted by Contractor against City (UPass- 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 negotiations 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 ofthe arbitrator therein shall be final and may be entered as a judgment by any court of competent jurisdiction. Such arbitration shall be 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 California Public Contract Code Section 10240.3 shall be followed in selecting an arbitrator possessing the qualifications required herein . • 3 Heari ng 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.Ocrober9,2009 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. October 9, 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 terminatiQg 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 Close-out 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 sixty (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 government, 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-offs, 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, permits, 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 requirementforthis Project and declares thatthe 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 [gJ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney APPROVED: Public Works Director Construction Contract 17 CONTRACTOR: ELITE LANDSCAPING, INC. 8y: ____________ _ Name: ------------------------- Title: ___________ _ Rev. October 9,2009 ITEM DESCRIPTION -Base I Alt. 1 -Dog Run Improvements 41,172 Base Bid + 1 1,530,834 2 IAdd Alt. 2 -Softball Field Retrofit 78.126 3 IAdd Alt. 3 -Trash & Recycling Enclosur 48,658 Base Bid + 1,2,3 1,657,618 4 IAdd Alt. 4 -Public Access Fencing Base Bid + 1.2.3.4 -(0.24) 22,955 1,160,055 28,450 1,188,505 28,570 1,217,075 rTACBMENTB -(0.23) -(0.22) -(0.21 ) 19,340 22,300 22,600 1,165,340 1,189,000 1,193,300 41,833 30,550 38,250 1,207,173 1,219,550 1,231,550 32,000 23,900 1,239,173 1,243,450 Page 1 -(0.02) 14,387 1,476,933 31,220 1,508,153 BID SUMMARY.xls Divisions Ad.ministration 650.329.2992 650.323.1741 fax Budget 650.329.2260 650.323.1741 fax Infonnation Technology 650.329.2182 650.617.3109 fax Real Estate r:;~:;itt fax . Finance 650.329.2264 650.323.1741 fax Accounting 650.329.2264 650.323.1741 fax Purchasll'lg 650.329.2271 650329.2468 fax Investments 650.329.2362 650323.8356 fax December 4, 2009 Mr. Thomas Wortham Goodland Landscape Construction, Inc. 2455 N. Naglee Road, #402 Tracy, CA 95304-1324 RE: DENIAL OF PROTEST AFFIRMED ATTACHMENT C Gtyof P~QAlt9 Administrative Services Department ADDITIONAL PROTEST ITEM PRESENTED DECEMBER 2 DENIED Dear Mr. Wortham: This letter serves to inform you that after reviewing your Protest LeUer of November 13,2009 (Attachment A), your Appeal Letter dated November 25,2009 (Attachment B), additional documentation provided by Elite Landscaping Incorporated (Elite) prior to the December 2 meeting and considering the additional evidence you submitted at our December' 2, 2009 meeting. I am affirming the decision to deny this Protest as 'stated to you November 17 j 2009 (Attachment C). Additionally, lam also denying the additional protest Item 'yo!J presented at our meeting December 2', 2009 that was not submitted with your original protest of November 13. This Issue is your allegation that Elite was allowed to change the pricing of their bid response. I have considered this protest item even though this was not originally submitted with the Bid Protest and thereby not within the time required. My decision is based on the following. ,1. Elite Mobilization Cost Is within the' guJdell~es of the speoIfication as outlhied In the Bid. Elite submit,ted a breakdown between its mobilization and bonding costs showing that the mobilization costs met the specification. Revenue Collections 650.320.2317 650.617.3122 fax 2, Elite confirmed that It would self perform the playground resilient surface work and their Contractor's License :allows this. They understand that ,they must obtain certification to install Surface America products or be certifIed to submit an approved alternative, Elite confirmed that they are authorized by t~e rnanl.,lfaoturer to install Spectra Turf Which appears to bean acceptable alternate. ," ) Parking Citations 650.329.2252 As for your new protest item made to me December 2, thc:jtlElite was able to change the prices of their bid -I see no evidence that this occurred. As a matter of practice In reviewing Elite's Bid at the time of ~he Bid opening November 10,2009, and sirlce Elite was the appa~ent low bidder. staff requested from Eilte clarification to line Item pricing for Line 7 within the Alternate 1 Bid Section. Price written and listed for this line I)tated $350,000 dollars. Bid total for Line Item 1-9 stated $22,955 as well as this was the value indicated In their Bid , Summary page which was slg'nett by EII.te.Ente clarlfiecl that, this was a cl,etical error and that .the value for Line 7 in the Alternate #1 is $3,500 dollars. The Palp Alto Municipal Code Section 2. 30. 480 permits the City to waive minor bid Irregularities provided they do nol change the total bid amount. The key fact is that this clarification to a clerical error did not change the Bid value submitted of $1,240.075. Moreover. staff deemed this to be a non- material mistake similar to the two non-material mistakes yOlJ had admitted to in your own bid response. p.o, Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 " ) ) I ) ,- As for the additional allegation you made December 2, that the value for Bid Alternate 2 was in error ($27.950 versus the listed value In the Bid of $28,570) I find no merit to this either. In review, the Bid value is indeed $28,570 as was listed in the bid, which your company (Dena Wortham) has now also acknowledge is correct. In conclusion the Bid Grand Total used to make a determination for award never changed. Thank you again for submitting a bid to the City of Palo Alto for this project. We look forward ,to you participating in future City Bids. ~ rnrectOfOfAdTnt::- City of Palo Alto Cc: Bid File Cara'Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney Jose Arreola, Contracts Administrator Greg Pustelnik, Purchasing Manager Attachment A: Letter of November 13, 2009 Attachment B: Letter of November 25,2009 Attachment C: Letter of November 17, 2009 A GoodLanD Landscape Construction, Inc. -===::+,;:::' ==-- November 13, 2009 City of Palo Alto Attention: Manager of Purchasing and Contract Administration Jose Arreola 250 Hamilton Avenue, Mezzanine Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: Greer Park Renovation and Pump Station Replacement; Bid # 134205 Dear Mr. Arreola After a review of the Greer Park bid results and e-mail correspondence sent by Chris Rafferty on November 12 explaining that Elite Landsoape's only listed Sub-contractors were SOl of Clovis for concrete and fencing, and Kious Electric of Fresno, Goodland Landscape Construction believes that Elite's Bid should be deemed Non-Responsive for the following reasons. 1. Section 01721 Mobilization Part Four. Section 4.2 states "The total amount BID under this Item of work shall not exc.eed (5) percent of the Contractor's total bid." Line Item 1 on Elite's .bld proposal under "Bonding & Mobilization" has a total of $85,000. Their total bid is $1,137,100. (5) percent of the total bid Is $62,000. Elite's line item 1 total exceeds the Bid Specification's allowable amount by $23,000. This clause in the specifications is used to protect the public Interest preventing the General Contractor from frontloading the billing with the intentions of finanolng the project through over billing, Whether this was Elite's intent Is unknown, however It was spelled out clearly in the specifications and definitely should be considered a Material ,Defect in their Bid Proposal. • Tel.: 209.835.9956 Falc 209.835.9554 2. Page 22 of the Bid Form package "Subcontractor listing Form" quotes section 4100,8t Seq., of the Public Contract Code: Any work subcontracted for an amount exceeding one half of one percent requires that subcontractor to be listed on this part of the Bid Fonn. The resilient surfacing work for this project Is worth approximately $50,000. This amount far exceeds the required threshold for subcontractor listing. After researohlng Elite's lIoense classlflcallon's we found no D~12 specialty license which Is used by the resilient surfaoe companies. The specified Surface America did not recognize Elite as a certified Installer. If Elite's response to this issue is that they intend to self perform the resllientsurface work under their "AI> License the City should review their experience and what their approach to meeting and following the speCifications will be. If Elite cannot self perform this work they could possibly 4Bid Shop" this task giving them the economical advantage the subcontract listing law is in plaoe to protect against. In the Asphalt line Item # 5 Elite has a dollar amount of $21,000. Will Elite self perform this work? The City should research this issue also. They listed SOl for concrete and fencing only. (SOl appears to be owned by the same owner of Elite Landscaping) This only leaves Elite to perfonn this work and they may not have the experience. On past projects they have listed both Resilient Surface Subcontractors, and Paving Subcontractors. If the City's research concludes that Elite failed to list Subcontractors for work their firm does not have the experience to perform It is im'peratlve that the City reject the Elite Bid as Non-Responsive. If their finn was allowed the leeway to shop for subcontractors for these two tasks after the bid it would give Elite a clear economic bidding advantage against Goodland. There was only a $9000 difference In. our two Bid Proposals. These two items could have, easily made the difference in the lowest Responsive Bidder. e 2455 N. Naglee Rd. #402 Tracy, CA 95304·7324 In closing. without a copy of the Elite Landscaping Bid Proposal It Is difficult to say what other mistakes may have been made. We requested a copy of their bid and It was not available as of November 12. 2009. The two items listed above rise to the level of Material Defects in the Elite Bid Proposal. Their Bid should therefore be considered to be Non-Responsive and rejected on that basis. Goodland Landscape should therefore be considered the lowest Responsible Bidder and awarded the Greer Park Renovation and Pump Station Replacement Project. We received your correspondence Friday morning November 13. 2009 informing us that this project was going to the City Council Monday the 16th, Please give our protest the consideration described within the Glty's Polley for Protest Procedure. The Integrity of the bidding proCeSs is crucial now more than ever and the City's attention to our concerns would be greatly appreciated. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to oontact me at 209-835-9956 . V~ry Truly Yours, ~OOdl nd Landscape Construction. Inc. ~~~~ .~ omas Wortham . ~ Vice President B November25,2009 City of Palo Alto GoodLanD Ll!!ndacape Construction, Inc. Attention: Direotor of Administration Services Lalo Perez 250 Hamilton Avenue, Mezzanine Floor, ,Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: Greer Park Renovation and Pump Station Replacement; Bid # 134205 . Bid Protest Appeal Dear Mr. Perez Upon rl!!vlewlng the November 17, 2009 Bid Protest Response authored by Jose Arreola Goodland Landsoape construction has the following comments and ooncerns. The Bonding and Mobilization Issue seem curious, Goodland's bond cost for this bid was $10,965.00. We contaeted two other bIdders whose bond cost was below $15,000. Please see attached bond worksheet multiplier as proof the City can see clearly see this is not a random bond cost We are suggesting that the City now having this Information perhaps should request such a worksheet from the Elite Company. The language In Section 01721 Mobilization part one includ~s the term "Incidentals" as a description of what is Included In the Mobilization line Item. Our position Is stili that the mobilization includes the bond cost. It seems to convenient that.the copy of the bid we received from the City after our protest had notes beside this bid item #1 that reflected the exact figures we referenced In our protest letter of $62,000.00 which we assume was'Elite's Mobilization cost and $23,000.00 which we are assuming was the bond cost. On the other two Sub Contractor listing Issues we were able to use Elite's Bid to research the references they listed as completed projects. All of the contacts we spoke with had no knowledge of whether Elite was capable of self performing Asphalt work or Resilient Surfacing as subcontractors were used. Rick Salinas with the City of Modesto explained that on their HWY 99 landscape project there was minor asphalt repair work that Elite subbed out, the other project Elite had constructed for the City of Modesto named Oliver Wright Park had resilient surfacing that they subbed out. We also contacted Nathan Houx with the City of lathrop who explained that his experience with Elite Included no self performance of these two Items. We learned that Elite had~constructed many parks In lathrop for Developers, and that Mr. Houx would welcome a call from your City If you were Interested with their City's experience with the Elite Company. We contacted John Joyner with the City of Tracy who confirmed the same experience, which was that Elite had subbed those Items out in the past. While the asphalt experience Issue may seem elementary to overlook the resilient surface Issue Is not. Specifically warranty Issues, insurance liability Issues, and quality control Issues shOUld drive the Clly to verify that Elite Is certified to Install the product they Intend to substitute for the specIfied Surface America product. They are not certified to Install Surface America rubber products now or before the bid. Material suppliers of all these Resilient Surface Types require certified Installers to install their product to keep their warranties in tact. We learned thIs as a result of researching Pebbleflex of which we are stili going through the long certification process. It would be in the best interest of the City to contact the Architect of record on this project and have thero research this issue. Goodland would be Interested In the Architects findings. Tlie liability of having an un-certified installer of this material would be significant. We suggest the City ... Tel.: 209.835.9956 Fax: 269.835.9554 e 2455 N. Naglee Rd. 11402 Tracy, CA 95304-7324 attorney review all of these Issues paying close attefltlon to this issue specifically, reg;:\rdless if we are awarded the job the City should protect itself on th Is Issue. Elite should have provided the City with a Pre· Bid certificate, and completed job references verifying they have the experience and Insurance to install their substituted product. If they don't, your projeot is no place for on the job training at tax payer expense attempting to perform a very dlHlcult task for experienced installers. Goodland should be awarded the project If Elite,does not meet the above referenced standards, . In closing It Is our experience that the time to address this Issue would be as 800n as possible, your City does not require·oertlfled payrolls as we learned on the Cubbertey Project. Therefore anyone or any company oan show up and work on the Greer Project find the City has no way of policing these actions. The bidding public needs to know that the specification requirements matter. The experience level of a self performing General Contractor Is crucial to the success of the proJect. We hope we have made our positions clear and are wllll.ng to answer any questions that may arise upon your review. Thank you for allowing us to participate In the protest process. You may teach me at 209-835-9956. ~ Thomas R. Wortham Goodland Landscape Construction, Inc. Nathan Houx City of Lathrop Office 209-941-7363 Cell 209-992-0749 Attachments-Bonding Letter Original Protest Letter c Divisions Administration 650.3~'.26!}2 650,323.1741 fax Budget 650.329.2260 650.323.1741' fax InfoIlJlaUon Techriology 650.32.9.2182 650.611.9109 fax Rea1Estate 650.329.226\& 650.323.174] fax Finance '650.329.'2.2M 650,323.1741 fax Acrountlng 650.329.2264 65V.92J.1141 fllX Purchasing 650.329.2271 6/10.329.2468 fax Investments 650.329.2362 650.323.8356 fax Revenue CollectiOtlS 650.320.2317 650.6]7.3122 (ax Parking CitatiotlS 650.329.2252 November 17 ~ 2009 Goodland Landscape Construction o Inc. 2455 N. Naglee Road, #402 Tracy, CA '95304-7324 g~9(Pa1Q Alto Administrative Services Department Re: Greer ~ark Renovation and Pump Station Replacement: Bid Protest. Mr. Wortham: In response to your protest fetter dated November 13. 2009 received yesterday' morning related to our project for Greer Park Renovation and Pump Station Replacement; you raised three main points for clarification. . Purchasing has Investigated your complaints and determined they do not have .merlt for the reasons below. 1) On line item #1 of our Base Bid you point out that the '''Mobilizationtl should not exceed five (5) percent of the total bid· per Section 01721 of the Teohnlcal Specifications. After reviewing the documentation I pointed out that Item #1 Includes two components of the project; the Mobilization, which is within the 5% as required, and the Bonding cost. I confirmed \\!Ith a representative for Elite Landscaping (Ellt~) that the bid amount for lin~ item #1 Includes both the MobiUzatlon and the cost of the Bonds. The Mobll1~atlon component Is below the 5% as specified in the Technical Specifications. 2) On line item #9 of our aase Bid. within the Playground Equipment the contractor Is to provIde a "Resilient Surface" as part of the same Item (the cost within the lump sum of the Playground EquIpment). You state that Elite did not list a subcontractor for this part of the work and that based on your ' estimation the work Is worth $50,000. When a contractor does not list a subcontraptor for certain part of the work we take this to mean that the general contractor will self perform -that Is the case here; I confirmed this with Elite. As for the cost, since Elite will be self performing the work the estimated cost of the work does not matter. You also state that Elite does not have a . specialty D .. 12 Contractor's License. Our soJ1cltation required only a Class A. General Engineering contractor's license -Elite has met this requirement. The work can be performed with a Class A license whloh is the broadest possl~la license. , p.o. BOl( 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Pdnled wUhsoy.baud In"" on 100% r~cycl.d'l'.p.r prorelSoo without tl1lodno " . -Ad.lnini8tratton 650.329.2692 650.32S.1741 £ax Budget 6511.329.2260 . 6!lO.323.1141 £ax . Information Thclmolosr 650329.2181 . 650.617.3100 fax . RealBstale 650.329.2264 650.323.1741 fax Finance 650.&29.2264 650.323.1741 fax Accounting 600.329.2264 650.&23.1141 fax == 650.329.2468 tax Investments 650.329.2362 650.323.8356 lax Revenue CollectiOnB 650.a20.2317 650.6173122 fax Parking Otations 650.329.2252 9.0/. of R~oAltq , Administrative Services Department 3) On our line #5 oftha Base Bid we require a lump sum for Asphalt Pavement; Elite has quoted $21,000 for this Item and they will self .. perform the asphalt work. Based on the above. your protest is denied. Given the nature of your protest. the City will deem this response the Purchasing Manager's response and permit you to appeal directly to the CIty's Director of AdminIstrative Services. Such appeal must be filed within five (5) workfng days from the date of receipt of this response. ,The appeal must be made In writing to: City of Palo Alto. Attention: Administrative Services Director, Administrative Services Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, 41h Floor,. Palo Alto, CA 94301. Such appeal must Include the grounds for the appeal and copies of the original protest and this response. You must also send Purchasing a COPY. of all materials sent to the Director of AdmInistrative Servlce.s. The decision of the CIty's Administrative Services Director Is flnal. Very truly yours, ~.cLo~ Contracts Administrator 00. Greg Pustelnik Elite Landscape p.o. Box 10250 PaloAlto,CA 94300 I'dl"ed with. eoy-baOEd ink. on 100% recyded'pil'er p'o<~& •• d wlthOUI chlorlne TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 11 FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE: DECEMBER 14,2009 CMR:456:09 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Approval of an Extended Producer Responsibility Policy and Adoption of a Resolution Supporting State and National Extended Producer Responsibility Actions EXECUTfVESUNrndARY Staff recommends that Council approve an Extended Producer Responsibility Policy to create incentives for manufacturers and suppliers to reduce waste and pollutant releases in Palo Alto. Extended Producer Responsibility is the concept of having a product producer be responsible for the consequences of the product for the product's entire life cycle. Staff is also recommending adoption of a resolution supporting state and national efforts to implemept the Extended Producer Responsibility concept on the widest geographic scale possible, where implementation will be most efficient. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve an Extended Producer Responsibility Policy (Attachment A); and 2. Adopt an Extended Producer Responsibility Resolution supporting state and national producer responsibility actions (Attachment B). BACKGROUND Currently, manufacturers and suppliers have insufficient incentives to reduce waste and pollutant releases associated with products they make and sell. Many of the costs of that waste and pollutant production are shifted to consumers and the public at large as the products move into commerce. Local government is often expected to deal with the resultant disposal of waste and clean-up of pollutant releases. Economists refer to this phenomenon as the creation of "externalities" -the creation of a cost external to the commercial transaction. That is, the sale price of the product does not cover the full cost to society of the product. The environment is either degraded, or society (typically local government) is forced to step in and pay for waste management and pollutant clean- up costs. A conceptual solution to the problem of "externalities" is referred to as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). The concept is that the producer of the product must retain financial and/or physical responsibility for the waste and pollutant releases associated with the product through out CMR:456:09 Page 1 of 3 the life cycle of the product. Examples moving toward this concept include the "bottle bill" which requires an advance deposit on drink containers to fund recycling; however, the manufacturers have no role in ensuring the packaging they created gets recycled. Advance deposits are not EPR and these types of efforts have fallen short of a fully effective system, as evidenced by the large number of drink containers which are still found in local creeks. However, such programs do demonstrate the need for moving toward fully effective producer responsibility. DISCUSSION Staff is now recommending that Council approve a framework Policy (Attachment A) to establish a program for Extended Producer Responsibility in Palo Alto. Palo Alto cannot achieve its Zero Waste Goal without EPR. Per the May 2006 Palo Alto Waste Composition Study, greater than 25% of the waste disposed by the community cannot be diverted from landfills due to its composition. Specific products and packaging and implementation details would be added to the framework over time as they are developed. The first specific item being considered for inclusion (at a later date) is expanded plastic packaging. The most common expanded plastic is Styrofoam TM. Expanded plastic packaging is used to protect many types of products as they are shipped in commerce. Expanded plastic can be formed into blocks or made into "peanuts". When discarded carelessly and blown from trucks, expanded plastic litters creeks, San Francisco Bay and ultimately, the ocean. Expanded plastic breaks into small pieces making it extremely difficult to retrieve from natural ecosystems. Chemical breakdown occurs extremely slowly, if at all, in the marine environment. Researchers have found an alarming build up of plastic in the plankton zone of the oceans in recent years with ingestion by animals becoming increasingly common. Council has adopted an Ordinance eliminating expanded polystyrene food service containers at food service establishments which becomes effective on April 22, 2012. Styrofoam TM is one brand of expanded polystyrene. Palo Alto had been one of the few cities attempting to recycle expanded plastic but had to discontinue the program early in 2009 due to the high costs of attempting to recycle the material. Even when the program was in place, expanded plastic was (and is) a common constituent found in Palo Alto's creek clean-ups. Small pieces of plastic foam expanded plastic were (and are) building up in the natural vegetation in the creeks because they become virtually impossible to remove. . Other forms of packaging protection exist that are far more readily recycled and are not causing negative impacts in marine environments; paper-based ones being the most common. Paper products are fully recyclable, where expanded plastics are extremely difficult to recycle. While the goal would be to discontinue the use of expanded plastic packaging, vendors could choose to arrange for take back because the packaging step had already occurred nationally or internationally. In those cases vendors could arrange to have take back occur in a variety of ways, including the collaboration with other manufacturers to establish an infrastructure to efficiently and inexpensively collect and recycle the packaging or utilizing their existing supply chains. A mail- back system is one specific method that has worked for certain office products. This policy will internalize the "externalities" described above and move manufacturers toward substitute packaging products. EPR, while placing the responsibility on the producers of those products, also places the burden of any increased cost only on those who use those products, rather than on the entire community subsidizing the cost through increased waste management rates with the creation and maintenance of expensive collection programs. When brand owners are responsible CMR:456:09 Page 2 of 3 for ensuring their products are recycled responsibly, and when health and environmental costs are included in the product price, there is a strong incentive to design and purchase goods that are more durable, easier to recycle, and less toxic. Staff is also recommending that Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment B) which supports state and national efforts to create geographically broad Extended Producer Responsibility Programs which will ultimately be more efficient than Palo Alto acting alone. To date, at least 25 County Boards of Supervisors or Agencies and 53 City and Town Councils in California have adopted EPR resolutions or signed pledges of support for the California Product Stewardship Council. The California Product Stewardship Council is a non-profit corporation whose mission is to shift California's product waste management system from one focused on government funded and ratepayer financed waste diversion to one that relies on producer responsibility in order to reduce public costs and drive improvements in product design that promote environmental sustainability. NEXT STEPS Following approval of the Extended Producer Responsibility Policy, staff will consider adding specific products and packaging to the Procedures Section. The first item targeted for consideration is expanded plastic packaging. RESOURCE IMPACT Adoption of the attached Policy will not consume significant staff resources. As specific products and packaging are added to the Procedures Section, the resource impacts of each addition will be evaluated. Adoption of the attached Resolution will not consume any City resources. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The attached Policy and Resolution are consistent with City's Zero Waste Operational Plan and its Clean Bay Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Neither the attached Policy nor the Resolution meet the definition of a "project" pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15378(b)(2) (general policy and procedure making.) ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: EPR Framework Policy for City Purchased Products and Packaging Attachment B: Resolution Supporting Extended Producer Responsibility PREPARED BY: Rene Eyerly, Solid Waste Manager Phil Bobel, Manager Environmental Compliance DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAOER APPROVAL: CMR:456:09 'OLENN S. ROBERTS Director of Public Works Page 3 of3 CITY OF PALO ALTO ATTACHMENT A EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY POLICY POLICY STATEMENT The City recognizes that it cannot achieve Zero Waste without Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and that many products and packaging received from vendors have substantial negative environmental and economic impacts at the end of their useful lives. EPR, or Product Stewardship, means whoever designs, produces, sells or uses a product takes responsibility, both financial and physical, for minimizing its environmental impact through all stages of the product's life cycle. The producer, having the greatest ability to minimize impacts, has the most responsibility. This policy requires producers, or their agents (Le., vendors) doing business with the City of Palo Alto, to practice EPR for certain products and packaging, from design through the end of product life. Therefore, effective April 22, 2010, it shall be the Policy of the City of Palo Alto to require vendors of designated products and packaging to take the following actions with respect to covered packaging and products: 1. PACKAGING: Minimize and reduce packaging and require convenient, responsible, timely vendor take-back of designated packaging at the point of delivery at nominal additional cost to the City of Palo Alto. 2. PRODUCTS: Require convenient, responsible, timely vendor take-back (for reuse, recycling or responsible disposal) of designated products at the point of delivery at nominal additional cost to the City of Palo Alto. This policy shall be implemented to the extent feasible by the management of City contracts, purchase orders and agreements. Designated packaging and products, once identified for inclusion in the Policy, will be listed in the "Procedures" section below. Packaging and products will be added as practical alternatives and options are identified. Identified packaging and products will typically be those that are toxic, costly to manage, contribute to litter or marine debris, lack a convenient infrastructure to recycle and those that are banned from landfills (e.g., electronics, batteries, mercury-containing devices). The first packaging being considered for designation is expanded plastic packaging. Expanded plastics include, but are not limited to, foam or cushion blocks, trays, and packing "peanuts". Expanded plastics also include those made from polystyrene (aka Styrofoam TM), polyethylene, polypropylene and polyurethane. Expanded plastics are found in creeks, San Francisco Bay, and the oceans of the world. Small pieces of plastic are building up in the plankton zone in oceans where they are ingested by marine animals. Expanded plastics are lightweight, break into small pieces, are extremely difficult to recycle, are of low value, and local recycling markets do not exist. APPLICABILITY OF TIDS POLICY This policy shall apply to all City operations. This Policy will also be included in the Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Chapter of the Palo Alto Purchasing Manual and the City's Policies and Procedures Manual and shall be implemented, to the extent feasible, via contracts, purchase orders and agreements. PROCEDURES City staff and lessees will all be responsible for adherence to the Policy. Purchasing staff shall assist in assuring that purchasing documents contain the requirement for EPR. Changes to this Policy must be coordinated through the City Managers Office. Questions and/or clarifications of this Policy should be directed to the Public Works Department. ATTACHMENTB NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Supporting State and National Extended Producer Responsibility Actions WHEREAS, manufactured goods and packaging constitute about 75 percent of the materials managed by the City of Palo Alto's garbage and recycling program, costing Palo Alto residents and businesses about $30 million a year in refuse rates and millions more in taxes to manage; and WHEREAS, on February 8, 2006 California's Universal Waste Rule (CCR, Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 23) became effective that makes it illegal to throw in the garbage items defined as "universal waste," which includes household batteries, fluorescent bulbs or tubes, thermostats, other items that contain mercury, as well as electronic devices including VCRs, microwaves, cellular phones, printers, and radios; and WHEREAS, state policies currently make local governments responsible for achieving waste diversion goals and enforcing product disposal bans, both of which are unfunded mandates; and WHEREAS, Universal Waste management costs are currently paid by taxpayers and rate payers and are expected to increase substantially in the short term unless policy changes are made; and WHEREAS, local governments do not have the resources to adequately address the rising volume of discarded products; and WHEREAS, costs paid by local governments to manage products are in effect subsidies to the producers of hazardous products and products designed for disposal; and WHEREAS, there are significant environmental and human health impacts associated with household products that contain toxic ingredients, including mercury, lead cadmium, and other toxic chemicals that when disposed of improperly can contaminate water supplies; and WHEREAS, Extended Producer Responsibility is an environmental policy approach in which producers assume responsibility financial and/or physical for the management of post- consumer products, so that those who produce and use products bear the costs of recycling and proper disposal; and WHEREAS, when brand owners are responsible for ensuring their products are recycled responsibly, and when health and environmental costs are included in the product price, there is a strong incentive to design and purchase goods that are more durable, easier to recycle, and less toxic; and 1 091117 syn 6051007 NOT YET APPROVED WHEREAS, it is timely to develop and support extended producer responsibility legislation to address the universal waste sector of the waste stream in response to the state ban on universal waste from household disposal; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The Council urges our representatives in Sacramento to pursue statewide extended producer responsibility legislation targeted at universal waste that will give incentives for the redesign of products to make them less toxic, and shift the cost of recycling and proper disposal of products from the local government to the producer and distributor of the product. SECTION 2. The City of Palo Alto will continue to support extended producer responsibility initiatives and statewide legislation beyond universal waste to cover areas including other hazardous products, bulky packaging, and items like plastics and multi-material products that are difficult to recycle. SECTION 3. The City will continue to develop Environmentally Preferable Purchasing policies that give preference to City vendors who employ environmentally responsible practices such as leasing products, offering less toxic alternatives, and who take responsibility for collecting and recycling their products at the end of their useful life. SECTION 4. If the state does not pass effective legislation within the next 18 months, or if industry does not implement a comprehensive effective take-back system within the next 18 months, the City of Palo Alto will consider adopting and implementing a model mandatory take- back ordinance requiring local retailers, who sell products that become universal waste, to have in place a system for the convenient acceptance and collection of used universal waste for recycling or proper disposaL INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deputy City Attorney City Manager 2 091117 syn 6051007 12 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2009 CMR:436:09 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Approval of a Cooperative Agreement with the City of Mountain View for the San Antonio Road Bridge Overpass Repair Project -Capital Improvement Program Project PE·06001 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached Cooperative Agreement with the City of Mountain View (Attachment A) that will provide for the repair of the San Antonio Bridge overcrossing. BACKGROUND The San Antonio Road overcrossing at Alma Street was originally constructed in 1961 and was seismically retrofitted in 1994. The structure has been maintained by the City of Mountain View with cooperation from Palo Alto under an existing cooperative agreement for maintenance dated August 31, 1979. The overcrossing consists of the main San Antonio Road structure and two ramps leading to Alma Street. Approximately two-thirds of the bridge is in Mountain View and one-third is in Palo Alto. After a routine bi-annual inspection in 2005, Caltrans placed the structure on the list of "structurally deficient" bridges. The City of Mountain View subsequently obtained a substantial Federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP) grant and a Gas Tax grant that will provide the majority of the funding. DISCUSSION The San Antonio Road overcrossing has deteriorated to the point that it needs major upgrades in order to prevent further deterioration and possible compromise of its structural integrity due to deterioration in the reinforcing steel (rebar) due to water intrusion. The work will include replacement of bridge railing portions, repair of curbs, sidewalks, vehicle barriers, joint seals and placement of a concrete overlay over portions of the roadway. Traffic detours will be needed for certain phases of this work, which have been reviewed and approved by the City of Palo Alto's Planning and Community Environment Department's Transportation Division. The City of Mountain View will notify residents of the impending project work via changeable message signs on all approaches to the work area, newspaper and website postings. City of Palo Alto staffwill include project and contact information on the City website and prepare a press release. Page 1 On December 7, 2009, the City of Mountain View awarded a construction contract to American Civil Constructors West Coast, Inc., for repairs to the San Antonio Road overcrossing in the amount of $590,095 (Attachment B). The bulk of the funding for this repair will come from the federal grant with the remaining local share coming jointly from Mountain View and Palo Alto. The attached Cooperative Agreement with the City of Mountain View outlines cost, maintenance and liability responsibilities for each jurisdiction. Since approximately 2/3 of the overpass is in Mountain View and 1/3 is in Palo Alto, the Cooperation Agreement specifies that Mountain View shall pay for 2/3 of the local matching fund costs and Palo Alto shall pay for 1/3 of the local matching fund costs. The attached Cooperative Agreement is focused on the upcoming construction project and does not replace the August 31, 1979, agreement which outlines responsibilities for ongoing, day-to-day maintenance ofthe structure. TIMELINE The CitY of Mountain View anticipates that repairs will begin in January 2010 and last for approximately two months. RESOURCE IMPACT The San Antonio Road overpass repair project, PE-06001, is funded in part by a $597,000 Federal Highway Bridge Program (HBR) grant. City of Mountain View matching funds in the amount of $174,000 (66%) and City of Palo funding of $90,000 (34%) will make up the remainder of the $861,000 total project. Funding for the City of Palo Alto share is available in CIP PE-06001. Failure to approve the Cooperative Agreement with the City of Mountain View would result in the loss of the $597,000 in federal funding, jeopardize the City of Mountain View's ability to obtain federal grants in the future and increase future repair or replacement costs due to deferred maintenance. A breakdown of the funding distribution is shown on Attachment C. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation does not represent a change in City policy. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City of Mountain View is the lead agency for this project and has determined that the project is maintenance work and as such is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act review pursuant to Section 15301, "existing facilities". ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Cooperative Agreement Attachment B: Bid Summary Attachment C: Cost Estimate and Funding Distribution /' /{----PREPARED BY: CMR:436:09 Karen Ben{ard . Senior Engineer Page 2 of3 DEPARTMENT HEAD: IiROB~1U Director of Public Works CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: JAMES Page 3 ATTACHMENT A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW AND THE CITY OF PALO ALTO FOR SAN ANTONIO ROAD OVERPASS REPAIR., PROJECT 05-22 , This contract is dated for identification this day of ,2009, and is made by and between the CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, a California Charter City and municipal corporation, whose address is p.o. Box 7540, Mountain View, California, 94039 (hereinafter "MOUNTAIN VIEW"), and the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a CaIifornia Charter City and municipal corporation, whose address is 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California, 94301 (hereinafter "PALO ALTO"). RECITALS WHE~AS, MOUNTAIN VIEW and PALO ALTO are parties to a maintenance agreement between the CitY of Mountain View and the City of Palo Alto concerning the San Antoiuo Road overpass; and " WHEREAS~ MOUNTAIN VIEW is planning to make significant maintenance improvements to th~ San Antonio Road overpass for the benefit of MOUNTAIN VIEW and PALO ALTO as a portion of the bridge is located in each jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, both MOUNTAIN VIEW and PALO ALTO will benefit from the repairs rriade to the San Antonio Road overpass; and WHEREAS, Federal funding is available for a significant portion of the actual' construction cost of the project to rehabilitate the San Antonio Road overpass; and WHEREAS, the Federal funding is contingent upon local matching funds for nonconstruction COStsi and WHEREAS, MOUNTAIN VIEW and PALO ALTO are mutually interested in the project to rehabilitate the San Antonio Road overpass as it is 'in need of repair and maintenance and it serves both communities; and, WHEREAS, MOUNTAIN VIEW and PALQ ALTO have each agreed to contribute to the project to rehabilitate the, San Antonio Road overpass; , NOW, lHEREFORE, the parties hereto do agree as follows: 1.. Scope of Agreement. 'This Agreement is intended to set forth the general terms and conditions for improvements to the San Antonio Road Overpass Repair, Project 05-22 (hereinafter "Project"), as well as the obligations of each party with respect -1- to design, bidding process, construction, construction management of the Project and funding for the Project. 2. Construction Costs. a. Bid: MOUNT A1N VIEW issued a Notice to Bidders and bid documents for the Project and ,selected the lowest responsible bidder. The bid was awarded to AmeriCan Civil Constructors West Coast, Inc., of Benicia, Califorriia (hereinafter "Contractor"). The Contractor's Project Proposal bid, including a contingency, is attached hereto as Attachment 1. - 1. Grant. The California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans") has authorized Federal Highway Bridge Program funding for the construction of the Project in the amount of Eight Hundred Fifty-Four Thousand Three Hundred Fourteen Dollars ($854,314). 2. Remainder of Costs. MOUNTAIN VIEW and PALO ALTO each agree to pay their proportionate share of local matching or nonconstruction costs, including; but not limited to, engineering design, project nianagement and administrative costs as itemized in Attachment 2 to complete the Project. Approximately two-thirds (2/3) of the San Arl.tonio Road overpass is located in MOUNTAIN VIEW and one-third (1/3) is located in PALO ALTO. Accordingly, MOUNTAIN ~W~s proportionate share-of the local matching funds for the Project shall be sixty-six percent (66%) or $174,000 and PALO ALTO's proportionate share of the local matching funds shall be thirty-four percent (34%). or $90,000. 3. Obligations of the Parties. a.' Mountain View: (1)' MOUNTAIN VIEW has concluded a bid process for. the Project in accordance with State and local ~aws -and selected the lowest responsible bidder. (2) MOUNTAIN VIEW will enter into an agreement with the Contractor for the Project on behalf of MOUNTAlN VIEW and PALO ALTO. MOUNTAIN VIEW will manage the contract upon execution of an agreement with the Contractor. (3) MOUNTAIN VlEW shall invoice PALO ALTO for its proportionate share of the Project as set forth in Attachment 2. -2- (4) MOUNTAIN VIEW will notify residents of the impending Project work to be done, if necessary. . (5) MOUNTAIN VIEW will provide all necessary engineering, inspection. and administrative serVices in connection with the Project. ( 6) MOUNTAIN VIEW shall permit PALO ALTO to inspect the Project work if PALO ALTO so requests. (7) MOUNTAIN VIEW shall be responsible for all grant reporting and compliance requirements. (8) MOUNTAIN VIEW shall require the Contractor to list PALO ALTO as an additional insur~d on its General Liability and Automobile Liability insurance. b. . Palo Alto: (1) PALO ALTO will pay MOUNTAIN VIEW for its proportionate share of the Project in two installments. PALO ALTO will make the first payment in the amount of Forty-Five Thousand Dollars ($45,000) within thirty (30). days of MOUNTAIN VIEW's execution of an agreement with the Contractor for the Project or thirty (30) days after the City Council approves this Agreement, whichever is later. PALO ALTO will make the second payment for the balance of its proportionate local share of the Project (less any unexpended contingency) within thirty (30) days of receipt of a final invoice from MO~AlN VIEW· following completion of the Project. (2) PALO ALTb's proportionate share of the Project shall not exceed the amount set forth in Attachment 2, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement. 4. Hold Harmless. Pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, MOUNTAIN . VIEW and PALO ALTO shall £ully indemnify and hold each other's city, its officers, employees and agents harmless from any· damage or liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8) ocCurring by the recent negligent acts or omissions or willfulness conducted by the indemnifying party, its officers, employees or agents under or in connection with any work, author·ityor jurisdiction delegated to such party under this' Agreement. No party, nor 'any officer, employee or agent thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the other parties hereto, their officers, employees or agents, under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to such other parties under this Agreement. 5. Miscellaneous Provisions. a. Access to Public Ri~ht-of-Wax: Both parties agree to provide access to the public right-of-way for purposes' of construction and.construction management of the Project. The parties shall use their best efforts to enter into an encroachment agreement, as necessary, for that purpose. b. Construction Equipment: Both parties agree to make space available for the Contractor(s) equipment during the construction and construction management phases of the Project. c. Early Termination: (1) In the event that Caltrans does not provide fuitding at the level anticipated by the parties for the Project, either party may elect to terminate this Agreement by providing written notice of termination to the other party within sixty (60) days. (2) If, fol1~wing execution of the agreement with the Contractor Jor the construction of the Project., the estimated Project costs increase and exceed the Project . contingency, MOUNTAIN VIEW shall notify PALO ALTO promptly. Following notification of the increased cost, PALO ALTO and MOUNTAIN" VIEW shall meet in a timely manner to discuss alternative ~ding sources and strategies for completion of the Project. If the parties are unable to agree on new funding amounts or to lQcate other . sources of funding for the Project, then either .party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon ten (10) days notice to the other. (3) . In the eaSe of a force majeure event, MOUNTAIN VIEW may terminate this Agreement upon ten (10) days notice to PALO ALTO. As used ~erein, "force majeUre event" means any matter or condition beyond the reasonable control of MOUNTAIN VIEW, indudiRg war, public emergency or calamity, fire, earthquake, . extraordinary inclement weather, Acts of God, strikes, labor disturbances or actions, civil disturbances or. riots, litigation brought by third parties against MOUNTAIN VIEW, or any act of a superior governmental authority or court order which delays or prevents MOUNTAIN VIEW from performing its obligations or administer construction of the Project under Section 3 of this Agreement . . (4) MOUNTAIN VIEW and PALO ALTO shall remain responsible for Project costs incurred., whether before or after termination of this Agreement, in connection with termination of the Project construction agreement, in the same i f proportion to eamorganization's monetary contribution as set forth in Section 2 of this Agreement. d. Claims: Claims arising out of actions subject to this AgreemeJ:1.t shall be administered by the city with jurisdiction over the geographic area in which the claim arose. e. . ASsignment: Neither party may assign or tro\ffiSfer any interest in this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other. f. Notices: All notices and other communications required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and may be delivered by hand, by facsimile transmission with verification of receipt or by United States mail, postage prepaid arid return receipt requested,addressed to the respective parties as follows: Public Works Department Attention: DirectOf of Public Works City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, Sixth Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Public Works Depart:r.i:tent Attention: Public Works Director City of Mbuntam View . 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94041 or to such other address as any party may designate by notice in accordance with this s~on. A copy of any notice of a legal nature, including, but not limited to, any claims against either party, its officers or employees shall also be served in the manner specified above to the following addresses: . City Attorney City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, Eighth Floor . Palo Alto, CA 94301 -5-. City Attorney City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94041 Notice shall be deemed effective on the date deliver~d or,if appropriate, on the 'date delivery is refused. g. Attorney's Fees: In the event either party breaches any of the terms, covenants or provisions C?f this Agreement/and the other party commences litigation to enforce any provisions of this Agreement, the cost.of attorney's fe~s and the attendant expenses.will be payable to the prevailing party by the nonprevailmg party upon demand. h. Successors and Assigns: The terms ot this Agreement shall be binding and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their successors and assignS. . i. Governing Law: The parties agree that the law governing this Agreement shall be that of the State of California. j. Venue: In the event that stiit shall be brought by either party hereunder, the parties agree that trial of such action· shall be exclusIvely vested in a State court in the County of Santa Clara or, where appropriate, in the United States District Court for the . Northern District of California, San Jose, California. . k. Headings: The headings of the sections and subsections of this Agreement are inserted for conv.enierice only. They do not constitute a part of this Agreement and shall not be used in its construction. . 1. Waiver: The waiver by any party to this Agreement of a breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of that or any other provision of this Agreement. -6- m.' . Integration: This Agreement, including all exhibits attached hereto, represents the entire ,understanding of the parties as to those matters contained herein. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters covered hereunder. TIlls Agreement may only be amended by written agreement executed by both parties. . . n. Severability: If any t~rm, covenant, condition or provision of this Agreement, or the' application thereof to, any person or circumstance, shall to any extent be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the terms, covenants, conditions or provisions of thi~ Agreement, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated thereby. o. Amendment:, This Agreement ~y be amended in writing ~d signed by both parties. p. Entire Agreement: This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties with respect to the subject matter herein. There are no rep!esentations; agreements or understandings (whether oral or written) between 'or among the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement which are not fully expressed herein. -7- IN WTINESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed by MOUNTAIN VIEW and by PALO ALTO. CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, a California Charter City and municipal corporation Public Works Director FINANCIAL APPROVAL: Finance and Administrative Services Director City Manager City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney JLQ/9/ ATY OlO..Q6-12-09AA CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California Charter City and municipal corporation By: ______________ -------- Public Works Director FINANCIAL APPROVAL: Finance Director B~ __ --------__ --------~ . City Manager By: ____________________ __ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ~8- PROPOSAL FOR SAN ANTONIO ROAD OVERPASS REPAIR, PROJECT 05-22 FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BHLS 5124 (024) TO: CITY CLERK City Hall, 500 Castro Street, Third Floor Mountain Vie-w, CA 94041 Na~e of Bidder: A'N!h!eA V> eli( t I Co"sl:ew:.br'l Wesl: Ct2(A.~i::fh c:: ~ Business Address: ;370/ 114/JA-t' ),12::."'1<-, tf~ nl c.,: A. cA 1~s-/o , Business Phone: C. 70"'9 "}..." -SlQa,1 ,~ceofReside~e:~~~, ~b.J~'~iA~,~cA~--____________________ ~ ____ ___ In aa:ordance with the Notice to Bidders, the undersigned as bidder, declares that he has carefully e",mined the locations of the proposed work, the plans and specifications therefor and the proposed forms of contract and bonds mentioned or referreq to in said Notice and on file in the Public Works Deparbnent 0.£ the aty of Mountain View; and he proposes. and agrees that if this proposal is accepted he will contract with the ety of Mountain View; in the form of contract on file in the Publi~ Works Department, to, at his own cost and expense, do all the work and furnish all the equipment, materials and labor, necessary to completely perform said contract, in, the manner and time prescribed by said contract and plans and specifications and according to the requirements of tJae Public Wqrb Director, a1)d to d~ aU oth~ things , ~,~ .. provided-or called for by said contract form, and that he win execute and/or provide ~Il bortd~ . a~d msUJ.!anee certificates required by law and/or by said contract and/ or ~tioned in said Notice to Bidp,ers, all in accordance to and subject to all appli<:able laws, and that he win take in fuJI payment therefor the following unit prices, to wit: / ATTACHMENT 1 Item No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 SAN ANTONIO ROAD OVERPASS RBPAIR, PROJECT 05-22 FEDERAL-AID PR<?JECT NO. BHLS 5124 (024) BID SCHEDULE Item With Unit Price Written In Words Qty. Unit Unit Price Mobilization and Demobilization 1 Lump Lump Sum Sum . Project Safety Measures 1 Lump . Lump Suni Sum Traffic Control System. 1 Lump Lump Sum Sum Construction Area Signs 77 Each' 00 -l.s:a::: . Temporary Railing (Type K) 660 Linear $;J.5~ Feet Temporary Crash Cushion 22 Each $~OO.f9 . Temporary Non-Sand Filled Crash Cusmon 1 Each " ModUle $.lfQQ Portable changeable Message Sign 4 Each .f(} $-5"00,- . Remove and Replace AC Surfacing 1 Lump. .lump Sum Sum ) Remove Concrete Barrier 59 Linear $/~O~ Feet Structural Concrete, Bridge 2 Cubic $Ia~ (F) Yards Portland Cement Concrete (Patch) 53 Cubic $;J.?S;!E (F) Feet Inject Crack (Epoxy) 30 Linear $ :10. ffJ Feet P .. 2 SJI{x)o- $ I. 000- '$ '~C>OO- fJ9 $3~lf')O, - $/1:. 5'"00. g! $'-~tOO . e9 $3S0 o.!!9 $ ~cco. .92 slOW. qQ co. $ RgS-O,.;..o- $2o.0m~ $/'1S'75:$ . !It $;). 700 14 Prepare Concrete Bridge Deck Surface 41,800 Sq~are $O.~ dJ. (F) Feet $;;1.0 qaO; 15 Furnish Polyester Concrete Overlay 2,610 Cubic $73? $lqOS30.~ (Fl Feet -" 16 Place Polyester Concrete Overlay 41,800 Square $1.99 $n,tooflS (F) Feet 17 Joint Seal (MR 1") 52 Linear $7o.~ $3~6~O. QSl .(F) Feet .. 18 Joint Seal (MR 1 lh") 275 . Linear 00 $lqlJ.S-o.~ (F) . Feet $20.- 19 Bar Reinforcing Steel (Bridge) 2,000 Pounds $'l..~ $ L( 00029 (II) 20 Install Concrete Barrier 59 Linear $'100.!! $~3.'09.~ . Feet .. 21 Remove and Replace Concrete Barrier 1 Lump LUnip $ 10. OOO,Y1. Corner Section, Repair Location B3 Snm Sum 22 Minor Concrete (Curb and Gutter) 17 Cubic $l,Soo.s $ 4:1 5"00,92 (F) . . .' 'A Yards 23 Miscellaneous Metal (Bridge) 1,000 Pounds y!9 $4.000.fB (Ill $ . 24 Reconstruct Metal Beam Guard Railing 1 Lump Lump 00 Sum Sum $ ~~St>o.- Construction Contingency to Be Expended 25 OOy Upon Written Authorization from the 1 Lump Lump Engineer Sum Sum $ 80.000.00 (F) -Final Pay Item per Section 9-1.015 of the State Stand~rd Specifications .' ~ TOTAL BID $ S-90 oC<) s: ~ . 1 TOTAL BID WORDS: f=:",-e. ftNY"'-dv-ed n :t"\'efy t~OlA.SQ.:.,d Q..Y\i n; off'/. flll't, do/Iv S rr~ce~j P-3 Atta~ent2 SAN ANTONIO ROAD OVERCROSSING REPAIR PROjECf 05--22 : COST ESTIMATE AND FUNDING DISTRIBUTION Funding Sourfes (rounded) Mountain Palo Fed@ral View Alto Construction Estimate $ 590,000 Construction Engineering 85,000 Construction .subtotal $ 675,QQQ S597.ooo S 52.000 . $ 26.000 . Design 64,000 42,000 22,000 )PBPermit· 21,000 14,000 7,000 . Other Services 5,000 3,000 2,000 Project Management 40,000 26,000 l~OOO City Administration (6.S%) 56,000 37,000 12~ Soft Costs Subtotal 186,000 122,000 64,000 . TOTAL PROTHCI' $861.000 $59Z.ooo $174.000 .$2IU100 . Estim.8ted Mountain View Costs $174,000 Current MountaiIl View Funding $ 78,000 Estimated Mountain View Shortfall $96,000 RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ATTACHMENT B Atta~hment 1 SAN ANTONIO ROAD OVERPASS REPAIR, PROJECT 05-22 SUMMARY OF BIDS BIDDER BIDAMOUN1' , American Civil Constructors West Coast, Inc. -$590,095 Truesdale Corporation $608,608 Anderson Pacific, Inc. $689,750 Bugler Construction $722,611 . William P. Young Construction $732,802 AJ Vasconi General Engineering $749,664 Disney Construction, Inc. $759,095 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE $772,000 ATTACHMENT C SAN ANTONIO ROAD OVERCROSSING REPAIR PROJECT 05-22 COST ESTIMATE AND FUNDING DISTRIBUTION Attachment 2 Funding Sources (rounded) Mountain Palo Federal "ielV AJto Construction Estimate $ 590,000 Construction Engit:leering 85,000 Construction Subtotal $ 675.000 $597.000 $ 52J)Q0 $26.000 Design 64,000 42,000 22,000 jPBPermit· 21,000 14,000 7,000 Other Services 5,000 3,000 2,000 Project Management 40,000 26,000 14,000 City Administration (6.5%) 56,000 37,000 19,000 Soft Costs Subtotal 186,000 122,000 64,000 TOTAL PROJECT $861,OQO $597.000 $174,000 .$90.000 . Estimated Mountain View Costs $174,000 Current Mountain View Funding $ 78,000 Estimated Mountain View Shortfall $%,000 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2009 CMR:463:09 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $381,583 for Costs Related to Constructing a Temporary Library and Teen Center at the Cubberley Community Center; Approval of a Contract with Johnstone Moyer, Inc., in a Total Amount Not to Exceed $227,463 to Convert the Cubberley Community Center Auditorium into a Temporary Library to Replace the Mitchell Park Library (Capital Improvement Program Project PE-09010) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: 1. Adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment A) in the amount of $381,583 for remodeling the Cubberley Community Center auditorium into a temporary Mitchell Park Library, for future security alarm, telecommunications, shelving and other small contracts related to the temporary library and for upgrades to a classroom used as a temporary Teen Center during construction ofthe Mitchell Park Library Community Center. 2. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract (Attachment B) with Johnstone Moyer, Inc., in the amount of $227,463 for construction of improvements at the Cubberley Community Center auditorium that will convert it into a temporary library facility to serve as a replacement for the Mitchell Park Library during its upcoming construction. The construction bid includes the price of bid alternates 1 through 4 that total $3,911. 3. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Johnstone Moyer, Inc., for related, additional but unforeseen work which may deveiop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $34,120. BACKGROUND On July 7, 2008, Council directed staff to proceed with placing on the November 2008 ballot a library/community center bond measure. Measure N, which passed on November 4, 2008, includes funding for construction of a new and expanded Mitchell Park Library and Community Center (MPLCC), renovation and expansion of the Main Library and renovation of the Downtown Library. During construction of the Downtown Library and the MPLCC, staff and 14 books would be moved into a temporary library that will be located at the remodeled auditorium of the Cubberley Community Center. Funding for a temporary library had been approved in Fiscal Year 2010 as CIP PE-0901O, with an initial funding amount of $75,000. On March 2, 2009, Council approved a contract with Group 4 Architecture in the amount of $79,525 to identify a location for a temporary library and Teen Center and to provide conceptual layouts and costs (CMR:149:09). On September 14, 2009, staff and Group 4 Architecture updated Council on the Measure N library bond measure projects and presented design and construction management contracts for approval (CMR:368:09). At that meeting, Contract Amendment No.1 with Group 4 Architecture in the amount of $92,034 was approved to complete the final design of the temporary library and to provide construction administration services (CMR:368:09). Incorporated into the Council's motion to approve the staff recommendations was an amendment directing Library staff and the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) to readdress some elements of the design for the Downtown Library. As a result of this direction and after review by the LAC, shelving height was increased from 66" to 84", four additional 84" high shelves were added, along with two additional computer stations. It was also determined that Library Administration staff should remain at the Downtown Library (CMR:409:09). DISCUSSION Measure N Library Project Update Construction documents for the Downtown Library are approximately 90 percent complete and have been submitted to the Building Division for a building code compliance review. The design development plans (which outline the general design concept and details) for the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center (MPLCC) are 100 percent complete and have been reviewed by the Library Advisory Commission (LAC), the Parks & Recreation Commission (P ARC), the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Art Commission. Plans were also presented to citizen focus groups, teen groups and to the community, the latest being a community meeting for the MPLCC on October 28th. Review by these committees will continue through at least January 2010 and additional community meetings will be scheduled for 2010, prior to the start of construction. Project Description Group 4 Architecture was initially contracted to study alternative locations and design options for a temporary MPLCC. Working with staff from the Public Works, Library and Community Services Departments, the Cubberley Community Center Auditorium was identified as the best location for a temporary library while a new Mitchell Park Library was being constructed. The auditorium is currently rented by various community groups whose rental agreements will expire on December 31, 2009. Staff has been able to accommodate these renters in other rooms of the Cubberley Community Center. An approximately 5,090 square foot temporary library with books, computer terminals and seating will be located in the main auditorium area. The Mitchell Park Library currently has approximately 83,000 volumes in the collection. The temporary library will accommodate approximately 45,000 volumes, 28 reader table seats, 10 study carrel seats, 18 computers and associated seats and 10 lounge seats. Used shelving and furniture will be taken from the Downtown and Mitchell Park Libraries and re-used in the temporary library whenever possible. CMR:463:09 Page 2 Shortly after completion of the temporary library, some furniture and Technical Services staff currently located at the Downtown Library will be moved into what is now the kitchen area at the back of the auditorium. Once the Technical Services staff has been relocated to the auditorium, construction on the Downtown Library can begin. Later, when construction on the new MPLCC is ready to begin, additional furniture, books and shelving will be moved into the auditorium. Once the books from the MPLCC have been moved in the summer of 2010, the temporary library will be opened to the public and construction on the new MPLCC library will begin. Any remaining books not housed in the temporary library will be stored elsewhere. Technical Services staff will remain in the temporary library at the Cubberley Community Center until their new spaces at the MPLCC have been completed. Library Administration staff currently located at the Downtown Library will be moved to the Main Library for the duration of the Downtown Library renovation and moved back to the Downtown Library when that work is completed. The Teen Center now at the MPLCC will be relocated to a classroom at the Cubberley Community Center just prior to demolition of the existing MPLCC. Bid Process A notice inviting formal bids for the Temporary Library project was sent to twenty-three contractors. The bidding period was 15 working days. Bids were received from 16 contractors on November 17,2009, as listed on the attached bid summary (Attachment B). Bids ranged from a total low bid of $244,349 to a high of $450,444, which includes the cost of five bid alternates. Bid alternates 1 through 3 are for the removal and replacement of overhead lamps that contain small amounts of hazardous materials, bid alternate 4 is for the addition of overhead fans for summer cooling and bid alternate 5 is for painting the rooms and trim. Staff recommends that bid alternates 1 through 4 be approved, at a total cost of $3,911 and that bid alternate 5 be deferred until the temporary library is closed and furnishings removed. to tractors Number of Bids Mailed to Builder's 12 15 Yes • Number of Company Attendees at 18 Pre-Bid Meetin 16 $244,349 to $450,444 Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid of $227,463 submitted by Johnstone Moyer, Inc., for the base bid plus Bid Alternates 1 through 4 be accepted and that Johnstone Moyer, Inc., be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The bid is fifty percent below the engineer's estimate of $568,000 dollars. Staff contacted Group 4 Architecture in an effort to . determine why the engineer's estimate was significantly higher than even the highest bid CMR:463:09 Page 3 of6 received. The estimating subconsultant used by Group 4 Architecture does not typically estimate small scale projects such as the temporary library. That, combined with the economy which has spurred some contractors to bid jobs at-cost, resulted in a conservative engineer's estimate. Staff is working with Group 4 Architecture to negotiate a reduced construction administration contract that reflects the lower construction cost. A contingency amount of 15 percent is requested because renovations of older buildings tend involve more unforeseen conditions due to incomplete archival blue prints, as well as dry rot and termite damage which may be uncovered during construction. Staff confirmed with the Contractor's State License Board that the contractor has an active license on file. Staff checked references supplied by the contractor for previous work performed and found no significant complaints. RESOURCE IMPACT A BAO in the amount of $381,583 (Attachment A) is requested to provide funding for construction of the temporary library and to provide for future small contracts for a security system and related electrical and telecommunications work and for new shelving and modular furnishings to supplement existing furnishings that will be relocated from the Mitchell Park and Downtown Libraries. It also includes an allowance to upgrade (add partitions, extend electrical and data for computer connections) a classroom formerly used by the JCC that will serve as a temporary Teen Center. Staff has been meeting internally and with bond counsel and the external auditor to determine the most advantageous time for a bond sale, and the best way to coordinate the sale of bonds with the construction schedule and funding. Staff has also been working with bond counsel to establish guidelines and a decision-making process to determine items for which bond funds may be appropriately used. In addition, at the October 27, 2009, Library Bond Oversight Committee meeting, a question was asked as to whether costs for the temporary library were bondable costs. As a result of that query, staff directed bond counsel to further research the issue of construction costs for the temporary facilities. The bond counsel determined that, because the temporary library costs are necessitated by the project itself those costs can in fact be bondable as a site improvement related to the greater library bond projects. Therefore, these construction costs can be recovered at the time of the bond sale for the MPLCC in the spring or summer of 2010, although items such as furniture, fixtures, and similar equipment for the temporary library remain non-bondable. Based on the newly developed framework, staff plans to complete similar analysis as other new and unique cost issues arise. Costs for non-bondable expenses such as furnishings will be funded through the Infrastructure Reserve. Bondable expenses will be reimbursed to the Infrastructure Reserve at the time of the first bond sale in the spring or summer of201O. Bond Council has reviewed the following specific items related to the temporary spaces: Bondable Costs Temporary Library construction cost -Johnstone Moyer, Inc. Contingency (15%) Subtotal: CMR:463:09 $227,463 $34,120 $261,583 Page 4 of6 Temporary Library -Misc Contracts, Estimated Costs Security Systems & Access Card Readers -Infrastructure installation (conduit, wire, security keypads and panels) Library Shelving -Relocating and re-using certain shelving from Mitchell Park Library, leasing additional shelving units as-needed, seismically anchoring and removing all shelving when the temporary library is disestablished Telephone and computer data -Purchasing and installing new panels/switchboards for the telephone/data systems (OPX) Interior furnishings for Technical Services -Remove Pivot office panels at the Downtown Library and reinstall at the Temporary. Library. Purchase new Pivot panels and parts, if necessary Teen Center -Misc Contract, Estimated Cost Installing conduit and cables for telephone and computers Subtotal: Total Bondable Costs, PE-090 10: Non-Bondable Costs-Estimates Temporary Library Telephone -Purchasing new telephones compatible with the OPX phone system Subtotal Total Non-Bondable Costs, PE-09010: TotaIBAO: POLICY IMPLICATIONS Approval of this contract is consistent with City policies. TIMELINE $25,000 $30,000 $25,000 $30,000 $5,000 $115,000 $376,583 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $381,583 Construction on the temporary library will start shortly after contract approval and is anticipated to be complete with staff within four months (approximately early May of 2010). The Downtown Library can begin construction after completion ofthe temporary library. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is an interior renovation and is therefore categorically exempt. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Budget Amendment Ordinance Attachment B: Construction Contract Attachment C: Bid Summary CMR:463:09 Page 5 of6 PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR:463:09 GLENN S. ROBERTS Director of Public Works /' / / J-~"~'V / C Page 6 of6 Attachment A ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2010 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF $381,583 TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) PROJECT PE-09010, LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY CENTER -TEMPORARY FACILITIES The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 15, 2009 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2010; and B. In Fiscal Year 2009 through Fiscal Year 2010, the Council appropriated a total of $263,566 for the design, construction management contract, hazardous material abatement and other miscellaneous works for CIP Project PE-09010, Library and Community Center -Temporary Facilities (Project); and C. Design of the Project was completed. Construction of the Project was put out to bid and the total amount of the lowest responsible bidder was $227,463; and D. Security systems and related electrical/communications need to be installed at the Project location and teen center classroom upgrade. The estimated costs for the installations are $60,000; and E. Library shelving and furniture, interior furnishings for technical services are additional improvements that need to be installed to keep the Project serviceable. The estimated costs for these works are $60,000; and F. Proceeds from Measure N Library Bonds and the Infrastructure Reserve will provide the necessary funds for the works identified in Section C through E of this ordinance. The table below identifies which of the costs will be paid by the Measure N Library Bonds or the Infrastructure Reserve. The Infrastructure Reserve shall be available to temporarily fund the Project, and shall be reimbursed upon the receipt of proceeds from issuance of Measure N Library bonds as provided in the following table; and Description Costs To Be Costs To Be Total I Paid by the Paid by the Measure N Infrastructure Library Bonds Reserve Construction cost $227,463 0 $227,463 (Section C) 15% contingency $34,120 0 $34,120 allowance on construction cost Security systems $55,000 $5,000 $60,000 and related electrical/telecomm unications and teen center upgrade(Section D) Library shelving, $60,000 $60,000 furniture, interior furnishings for technical services (Section E) i Total Costs $376,583 $5,000 $381,583 G. City Council authorization is needed to amend the Fiscal Year 2010 budget to make available the funds required for the Project. SECTION 2. The sum of Three Hundred Eighty One Five Hundred Eighty Three Dollars ($381,583) is hereby appropriated to CIP Project PE-09010, Library and Community Center Temporary Facilities. SECTION 3. The Infrastructure Reserve is hereby decreased by Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) with a remaining balance of Six Million Three Hundred Ninety Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Eight Dollars ($6,398,758). SECTION 4. The Infrastructure Reserve shall be available to temporarily fund the Project in an amount not to exceed Three Hundred Seventy Six Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Three Dollars ($376,583) and shall be reimbursed as proceeds are received from the issuance of Measure N Library Bonds. SECTION 5. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance. SECTION 6. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. SECTION 7. On July 21, 2008, the Council confirmed the Director of Planning and Community Environment's approvals of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center project and a 2007 Addendum to the 2002 final Environmental Impact Report for the Main Library. The Downtown Library was determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act review pursuant to Section 1 01, "existing facilities". INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney APPROVED: Mayor City Manager Director of Public Works Director of Administrative Services ATTACHMENT B CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Contract No. C10134408 City of Palo Alto and Johnstone Moyer, Inc. Project: Temporary Library Improvements Project SECTION 1. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS .................................... 1 1.1 Recitals ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 1 SECTION 2. THE PROJ ECT ................................................................................................... 1 SECTION 3. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ....................................................................... 1 LIST OF DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................................... 1 3.2 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE ............................................................................... 2 SECTION 4. THE WORK ........................................................................................................ 2 SECTION 5. PROJECT 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 .............................................................. 3 7.1 Contract Sum ...................................................................................................................... 3 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 C1 0134408 Rev. November 1. 2009 SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE ....................................................................................... 4 SECTION 9. INDEMNIFiCATION ............................................................................................ 4 9.1 Hold Harmless .................................................................................................................... 4 9.2 Survival ........................................................................................................ ; ...................... 5 SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION ...................................................................................... 5 SECTION 11. INSURANCE AND BONDS ................................................................................ 5 SECTION 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS ............................................................ 5 SECTION 13. NOTiCES ............................................................................................................ 5 13.1 Method of Notice ................................................................................................................ 5 13.2 Notice Recipients ............................................................................................................... 6 13.3 Change of Address ............................................................................................................ 6 14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes ...................................................................................... 6 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 ...................................................................................... 7 14.3.1 By Contractor ............................................................................................................... 7 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 ...................................................................................... 8 14.4.3 Mediation ..................................................................................................................... 8 14.4.4 Binding Arbitration ....................................................................................................... 9 14.5 Non-Waiver ....................................................................................................................... 10 SECTION 15. DEFAULT ......................................................................................................... 10 15.1 Notice of Default ............................................................................................................... 10 15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default ............................................................................................ 10 SECTION 16. CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ................................................................... 10 16.1 Remedies Upon Default ................................................................................................... 10 16.1.1 . Delete Certain Services ............................................................................................. 11 16.1.2 Perform and Withhold ................................................................................................ 11 Construction Contract C 10134408 ii Rev. November 1. 2009 16.1.3 16.1.4 16.1.5 16.1.6 Suspend The Construction Contract ......................................................................... 11 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default.. ............................................... 11 Invoke the Performance Bond ................................................................................... 11 Additional Provisions ................................................................................................. 11 16.2 Delays by Sureties ........................................................................................................... 11 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 ............................................................................................ 12 16.6.1 Compensation ........................................................................................................... 12 16.6.2 Subcontractors .......................................................................................................... 13 16.7 Contractor's Duties Upon Termination .......................................................................... 13 SECTION 17. CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES .................................................. 13 17.1 Contractor's Remedies .................................................................................................... 13 17.1.1 For Work Stoppage ......................................................................................... ; ......... 13 17.1.2. For City's Non-Payment ............................................................................................. 13 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 PARTIES ................................................................................ 14 SECTION 20. NUISANCE ....................................................................................................... 14 SECTION 21. PERMITS AND LICENSES .............................................................................. 14 SECTION 22. WAiVER ............................................................................................................ 14 SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW ........................................................................................... 15 SEC'nON 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT .............................................................................. 15 SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT ............................................................................. 15 SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES ...................................................................................... 15 Construction Contract C10134408 iii Rev. November 1, 2009 SECTION 27 SEC'nON 28 SECTION 29 SECTION 30 NON APPROPRIATION ................................................................................... 15 GOVERNMENTAL POWERS .......................................................................... 15 ATTORNEY FEES ............................................................................................ 15 SEVERABILITY ................................................................................................ 16 Construction Contract C 1 0134408 iv Rev. November 1, 2009 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on ("Execution Date") by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("Cityn), and JOHNSTONE MOYER, INC. ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following: REC ITALS: 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 818919. 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 November 2, 2009, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the Temporary Library Improvements Project ("Project"). In response to the IFB, Contractor submitted a bid. D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and other services as identified in the Bid Documents for the Project upon the following terms and conditions. . I 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 and/or 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 Temporary Library Improvements Project ("Project"). SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 3.1 List of Documents. The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as "Agreement" or "Bid Documents") consist of the following documents wh ich 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 C1013440 1 Rev. November 1, 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 C10134408 2 Rev. November 1, 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; D not later than __ [g] within seventy-five (75) calendar days after the commencement date specified in 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 Daily 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 $500.00 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. 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 Two Hundred Twenty-Seven Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-Three Dollars ($227,463.00). [g] [This amount includes the Base Bid and Add Alternates 1 through 4.] Construction Contract C1 0134408 3 Rev. November 1, 2009 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 cover 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 of the 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. 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; Construction Contract C1 013440 4 Rev. November1,2009 (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 ofthe 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 INSLIRANCE 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 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. Construction Contract C 1 0134408 5 Rev. November 1,2009 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: City of Palo Alto City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Copy to:[gj City of Palo Alto Public Works Administration 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Karen Bengard 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 All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to: Johnstone Moyer, Inc. 1720 S. Amphlett Blvd., Suite 250 San Mateo, CA 94402 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. SECTION 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. Construction Contract C10134408 6 Rev. November 1, 2009 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 12650, 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 by way 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. 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 Contractor's 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 required 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. Construction Contract C 1 0134408 7 Rev. November 1, 2009 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 turn being asserted by Contractor against City ("Pass- Through Claim"), then the Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor shall also have a 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 negotiations pursuant to Paragraph 14.4.1, the parties shall submit the Contract Dispute to non-binding mediation before a mutually acceptable third party mediator. Construction Contract C10134408 8 Rev. November 1. 2009 .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 be 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 . • 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 California 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. Construction Contract C10134408 9 Rev. November 1. 2009 .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. 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: Construction Contract C10134408 10 Rev. November 1,2009 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. 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. Construction Contract C1 0134408 11 Rev. November 1. 2009 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. 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 Close-out 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. Construction Contract C1 0134408 12 Rev. November 1,2009 .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. SECTION 17 CON'rRACTOR'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 sixty (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 government, 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. Construction Contract C10134408 13 Rev. November 1, 2009 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-offs, 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. 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, permits, 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. Construction Contract C1 0134408 14 Rev. November 1, 2009 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. [gI 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. Or D The Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. Copies of these rates may be obtained at cost at the Purchasing office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5,1810, and 1813 of the Labor Code. 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. 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 ATTORNEY FEES. Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney's fees through the completion of mediation. If the claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation and in any dispute described in Paragraph 14.2, Construction Contract C 1 0134408 15 Rev. November 1, 2009 the prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provision of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorney's fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attomey's' fees paid to third parties. SECTION 30 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. Construction Contract C1013440 16 Rev. November 1, 2009 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 fZl City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney APPROVED: Public Works Director Construction Contract C1 0134408 17 CONTRACTOR: JOHNSTONE MOYER, INC. By: ___________ _ Name: ---------------------- Title: _________ _ Rev. November 1. 2009 CONTRACTOR Johnstone Moyer Rusciano Const. Kuehne Const CF Contracting Base Bid $ 223,552.00 $ 385,848.00 $ 292,565.00 $ 326,425.00 Add Alt. #1 $ 840.00 $ 2,208.00 $ 3,191.55 $ 1,200.00 Add AIt.#2 $ 210.00 $ 450.00 $ 992.37 $ 400.00 AddAIt. #3 $ 131.00 $ 276.00 $ 644.96 $ 200.00 Add Alt. #4 $ 2,730.00 $ 41,862.00 $ 1,422.91 $ 50,000.00 Add Alt. #5 $ 16,886.00 $ 19,800.00 $ 8,885.00 $ 12,200.00 GRAND TOTAL $244,349.00 $450,444.00 $307,701.79 $390,425.00 CONTRACTOR DPR Builders Calstate Const. B-Side Pencon Base Bid $ 372,254.00 $ 292,000.00 $ 349,535.00 $ 325,000.00 Add Alt. #1 $ 1664.00 $ 8,500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,500.00 Add Alt. #2 $ 292.00 $ 2 000.00 $ 552.00 $ 400.00 Add Alt. #3 $ 390.00 $ 1000.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 Add Alt. #4 $ 2900.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 3,500.00 Add Alt. #5 $ 8,500.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL $ 386,000.00 $ 323,500.00 $ 361,837.00 $ 333,650.00 Nexgen Builders Hung Const. $ 315,600.00 $ 333000.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 900.00 $ 280,00 $ 500.00 $ 375.00 $ 400.00 $ 2,790.00 $ 32,000.00 $ 8,151.00 $ 9,000.00 $328,796.00 $375,800.00 S&H Const. R.C. Benson & Sons $ 294,500.00 $ 310,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1700.00 $ 400.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ 400.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 29,000.00 $ 9,800.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 310,000.00 $ 350,400.00 BCI Builders $ 315,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 9,500.00 $330,700.00 Southland Const. $ 252,222.00 $ 1 190.00 $ 330.00 $ 170.00 $ 1,442.00 $ 6,113.00 $ 261,467.00 Ron Paris Const $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 289,896.00 1,840.00 330.00 440.00 3,210.00 9,590.00 $305,306.00 PageConst 289,635.00 1,306.00 321.00 218.00 3,158.00 2,722.00 297,360.00 ~ ~ I s:: m z -I o 15 TO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2009 CMR: 477:09 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Letter of Support for the WAVE ONE Application for a $2,500,000 Grant Funded by the California Energy Commission State Energy Program, and to Negotiate and Execute a Two-Year $2,835,000 Direct and In-Kind Funded PubliclPrivate Partnership Agreement with WAVE ONE, Contingent Upon the Full Award of the State Grant Applied for by WAVE ONE RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council adopt a Resolution: (a) Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Letter of Support of WAVE One's application for $2.5 million in energy efficiency funding from the State Energy Program "Municipal and Commercial Building Targeted Measure Retrofit Program (MCR),,; (b) Authorizing the City Manager, contingent upon the full award of the state grant applied for by WAVE ONE, to negotiate and execute a Letter of Intent and a PubliclPrivate Partnership Agreement with WAVE ONE, providing $2,835,000 in direct and in kind City funding, in exchange for W AVE ONE implementing the $2.5 million grant MCR Program in downtown Palo Alto, and WAVE ONE obtaining commitments for an additional $1.5 million in energy efficient investments over two years by the downtown property. owners currently leasing to small and medium-sized commercial businesses. CMR: 477:09 Page 10f6 The City would provide the following as "Leveraged Funds" identified in WAVE One's MCR grant application to the California Energy Commission: 1) Up to $725,000 as direct City funding for the administration and implementation of lighting efficiency improvements, with paybacks of less than five years in City- owned garages, parking lots, and Civic Center stairwells. Potential sources of funding have yet to be finalized, but may include a loan from the Utilities Calaveras Reserve, with interest paid by the General Fund, or funding from the City Infrastructure Reserve. 2) Up to 900 hours of staff time (approximately $110,000 in salary and benefits) over the next two years as "in kind" funding by the City Manager's Office, City Attorney's Office, the Public Works, Planning and Community Environment, and Utilities Departments, in support of the WAVE ONE MCR Program targeting downtown businesses; and 3) A new $2 million Electric Efficiency Financing Program, funded by the Calaveras Reserve. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Under the Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, the California Energy Commission (CEC) received funds to implement and administer specific programs under the State Energy Program (SEP) umbrella. The CEC has issued a Request for Proposals for grant applications to implement "Municipal and Commercial Building Targeted Measure Retrofit Programs." The City of Palo Alto is collaborating with several organizations seeking SEP efficiency grants for programs targeting both residential and commercial Utilities customers, including W AVE ONE. There is no state reporting requirement or grant-related financial risk to the City if the WAVE ONE MCR grant application is, or is not, funded by the CEC. BACKGROUND The ARRA was enacted by Congress to preserve and create jobs, promote economic recovery, assist those most impacted by the recession, provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances, and to make investments that will have long term economic benefits. The US Department of Energy allocated $226 million in ARRA funding for the California SEP. In October 2009, the CEC published RFP #400-09-402, the "Municipal and CMR: 477 :09 Page 2 of 6 Commercial Building Targeted Measure Retrofit Programf1 (MCR). The MCR focuses on achieving significant energy savings from targeted retrofit measures where opportunities exist in large numbers across the state's municipal and commercial building sectors. The awarded projects are intended to be completed with a 24-month period. DISCUSSION America's small business sector has traditionally been under-represented in securing conservation and efficiency usage reductions and cost savings for a number of reasons. This program seeks to increase reductions in this sector by attacking the problem that the small or medium-sized business tenant's return-on-investment for efficiency improvements has not been economically viable. The problems stem from the length of typical leases, usually less that the life of the installed measure, and the utility cost indifference of the property owner and/or manager serving tenants under a triple net lease. WAVE ONE Palo Alto is a not-for-profit organization legally associated with Acterra. On November 3, 2008 the City Council adopted a Resolution formally recognizing the environmental goals of WAVE ONE. WAVE ONE is seeking this SEP funding opportunity to create and implement a plan which could obtain significant energy efficiency improvements among the small and medium-sized businesses in the downtown core of Palo Alto. WAVE ONE proposes to address multiple end use systems including heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), lighting, and control modification. In addition, there will be significant efforts to improve tenant awareness and incorporate consumption monitoring, Green Business certification, and Zero Waste in a coordinated and holistic approach to maximize the benefits to the target market of small and medium-sized businesses in the downtown core of Palo Alto. WAVE ONE proposes to: • Assist up to 100 small and medium-sized businesses to achieve approximately 50 percent savings in selected Hghting systems; • Utilize local labor programs to train individuals in long-term green job technologies; CMR: 477:09 Page 3 of6 • Drive market transformation by penetrating up to 66 percent of eligible small and medium- sized businesses in downtown Palo Alto; • Identify and implement additional opportunities for energy efficiency improvements, waste reduction, and sustainable practices; and • Work collaboratively with the Utilities Department and with program participant permission, to use consumption data to measure and verifY actual energy reductions achieved by participants as measured against a base period beginning January 1,2005. With adequate funding and partnerships with local government, educational institutions, and labor organizations, WAVE ONE believes its unique programmatic approach to small business efficiency will not only provide value to the City of Palo Alto and its small and medium-sized business sector, but that the WAVE ONE business model can successfully be reproduced regionally and nationally across the small business sector. The MCR RFP will partially evaluate Applications based on demonstrated public participation and community involvement through "Leveraged Funds. II Leveraged Funds greatly increase the cost-effectiveness of a program because the achieved energy savings are measured against Grant funds and not against total funds used. Applicants must identifY sufficient Leveraged Funds so that the energy savings for each Grant dollar received are comparable to or greater than other Applicants. The City's cost-effective direct and in kind contribution of $2,835,000 over the two year MCR implementation period represents a substantial contribution toward the Leveraged Fund submission totaL WAVE ONE has also obtained additional Leveraged Funds including $1 million of in kind services from Premier Properties for all WAVE ONE administrative, insurance, equipment, telecommunications and facility costs. Downtown property owners have also pledged an additional $1.5 million in direct funding to support additional efficiency improvements beyond the CMR program. The Applicant or "Prime Bidder" on the MCR program application can be a private entity rather than a local government agency, but the CEC requires Prime Bidders to develop a private/public partnership. Staff supports the WAVE ONE approach to improvements in small business water and energy efficiency, recycling, and other environmentally sensitive end uses. The Utilities, Planning and Community Environment, and Public Works Departments will assist the WAVE CMR: 477:09 Page 4 of6 ONE program by targeting budgeted programs and services to the small and medium-sized business sector. RESOURCE IMPACT The City will not have any fiscal or fiduciary responsibility for any grant funds awarded to WAVE ONE. If the grant is not successful, the City is not responsible for funding this program or to provide efficiency investments in support of the WAVE ONE grant application. If the full $2.5 million grant application is successful and awarded to WAVE ONE, the City Manager will negotiate and execute a Letter of Intent and a PubliclPrivate Partnership Agreement detailing the roles and responsibilities of both parties, pursuant to the requirements of City Policy and Procedure 1-25/MGR, "PubliclPrivate Partnerships." It is anticipated that the City's financial involvement will be up to $2,835,000 in direct and in kind funding. The breakdown is as follows: 1) Up to $725,000 for lighting efficiency improvements, with paybacks ofless than five years. Potential sources of funding have yet to be finalized, but may include a loan from the Utilities Calaveras Reserve, with interest paid by the General Fund, or funding from the City Infrastructure Reserve. 2) Up to 900 hours of staff time (approximately $110,000 in combined salary and benefits) over the next two years as "in kind" funding. Staff time will include the following departments (with 864 estimated hours of in kind contribution): City Manager's Office Sustainability 144 hours Planning and Community Environment Permitting and Planning 240 hours Public Works Facilities 48 hours Utilities Public Benefits 432 hours There will also be miscellaneous support required from the City Attorney's Office and.the Administrative Services Department; and, 3) The new $2 million Electric Efficiency Financing Program, funded from the Calaveras Reserve. POLICY IMPLICATIONS CMR: 477:09 Page 5 of6 Establishing a successful public-private partnership with WAVE ONE, contingent upon grant funding, will reinforce the City of Palo Alto's policies and goals to encourage energy efficiency installations and to assist customers in their attempts to use electricity more effectively. Goals being supported include the City Council Priority Number Three, "Environmental Protection," the Ten Year Energy Efficiency Program, and the Climate Protection Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City's support of WAVE One's grant application process does not constitute a project pursuant to Section 21065 of the California Public Resources Code, thus no environmental review under CEQ A is required. ATTACHMENTS A. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Letter of Support for the WAVE ONE Application for a $2,500,000 Grant Funded by the California Energy Commission State Energy Program; B. Summary of the WAVE ONE Application for $2,500,000 Grant From the Municipal and Commercial Building Targeted Measure Retrofit (MCR) Program Funded by the California Energy Commission State Energy Program (SEP); C. Section C.6 of the Grant Application -Collaboration with National and State Programs; and D. Letter of Support of WAVE One's application for $2.5 million in energy efficiency funding from the State Energy Program "Municipal and Commercial Building Targeted Measure Retrofit Program (MCR)" to the California Ener.A"t1"-f-..8"\ PREPARED BY: PREPARED BY: TOM AUZENNE Assistant Director, Utilities Customer Support Services CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: 477:09 Page 6 of6 NOT YET APPROVED .ATTACHMEN1"A· Resolution No. ---. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Letter of Support for the WAVE ONE Application for a $2,500,000 Grant Funded by the California Energy Commission State Energy Program, and to Negotiate and Execute a Two- Year $2,895,000 Direct and In-Kind Funded Public/Private Partnership Agreement with WA VE ONE, Contingent Upon the Full Award of the State Grant Applied for by W AVE ONE WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto ("City") adopted a Climate Protection Plan establishing environmental goals; a Ten Year Energy Efficiency Program implementing customer energy efficiency programs, rebates and services; and "Environmental Protection" as one of it's Priorities; WHEREAS, WAVE ONE, A CONSERVATION RESEARCH CENTER FOR SMALL BUSINESSES (W AVE ONE), is an organization located in Palo Alto that is fiscally allied with Acterra, a non-profit California corporation in Palo Alto; WHEREAS, On November 3, 2008, the City Council directed the City Manager to establish guidelines so that members of the City's Sustainable Design Team will continue to support the WAVE ONE goals to assist any small or medium sized Palo Alto businesses to become certified as "Green Businesses" and to achieve the California 2020 Energy Goals, the City'S energy Goals and the California 2020 Water Goal; WHEREAS, W AVE ONE has applied for a $2.5 million grant under the "Municipal and Commercial Building Targeted Measure Retrofit (MCR) Program" of the California Energy . Commission to assist .100 or more Palo Alto small and medium-sized downtown Palo Alto businesses increase their efficient use of energy; WHEREAS, the City will not have any fiscal or fiduciary responsibility for any grant funds awarded to W AVE ONE through application to the MCR Program; and WHEREAS, W AVE ONE proposes to join with the City in a PubliclPrivate Partnership to implement the energy savings measures required by the MCR Program grant; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: 1 091210 syn 6051029 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 1. The Council recognizes that WA VE ONE will apply to the California Energy Commission for a $2.5 million grant under the "Municipal and Commercial Building Targeted Measure Retrofit Program". SECTION 2. The Council recognizes WAVE ONE as an Palo Alto organization that, in conjunction with existing City programs and services, will assist 100 or more Palo Alto businesses to become more energy efficient. SECTION 3. The Council authorizes the City Manager to execute a Letter of Support for WAVE One's application for $2.5 million in energy efficiency funding from the State Energy Program "Municipal and Commercial Building Targeted Measure Retrofit Program (MCR),,; SECTION 4. The Council authorizes the City Manager, contingent upon the full award of the state grant applied for by W AVE ONE, to negotiate and execute a Letter of Intent and a Public/Private Partnership Agreement with WAVE ONE, pursuant to the requirements of City Policy and Procedure 1-25/MGR, "PubliclPrivate Partnerships", and providing $895,000 in direct and in kind City funding, in exchange for WAVE ONE implementing the $2.5 million MCR Program in downtown Palo Alto, and WAVE ONE obtaining an additional $1.5 million in energy efficient investments over two years by the downtown property owners leasing to small and medium-sized commercial businesses. The City would provide the following as "Leveraged Funds" identified in WAVE ONE's MCR grant application to the California Energy Commission: 1) $725,000 as direct City funding for the administration and implementation of lighting efficiency improvements, with paybacks of less than five years in City- owned garages, parking lots, and Civic Center stairwells. Funding will be finalized at a later date, but may include a loan from the Utilities Calaveras Reserve, with interest paid by the General Fund, or funding from the City Infrastructure Reserve. 2) Up to 900 hours of staff time (approximately $110,000 in salary and benefits) over the next two years as "in kind" funding by the City Manager's Office, City Attorney's Office, the Public Works, Planning and Community Environment, and Utilities Departments, in support of the W AVE ONE MCR Program targeting downtown businesses; and 3) A new $2 million Electric Efficiency Financing Program, funded by the Calaveras Reserve. SECTION 5. The Council finds that the City's support of WAVE ONE's application does not constitute a project pursuant to Section 21065 of the California Public Resources Code, thus no environmental impact assessment is necessary. 2 091210 syn 6051029 NOT YET APPROVED INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deputy City Attorney 091210 syn 6051029 3 Mayor APPROVED: City Manager ATTACHMENT B I SUMMARY OF THE WAVE ONE APPLICATION FOR A $2,500,000 GRANT FROM THE MUNICIPAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDING TARGETED MEASURE RETROFIT (MCR) PROGRAM FUNDED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION STATE ENERGY PROGRAM Author: James Baer WAVE ONE The Wave One Conservation Research Center for Small Businesses (Wave One Center) is a an existing collaboration between the City of Palo Alto (City) environmental, waste reduction, and efficiency programs and Wave One, a California nonprofit organization serving small and medium-sized businesses in the downtown Palo Alto area. The Wave One Center operational area encompasses the 43 contiguous blocks of Downtown Palo Alto consisting of 380 buildings, 3.5M square feet, 1050 businesses, 10,500 employees, $275M sales in 2008, and 150,000 weekly visitors. Downtown is one ofthe most successful and vibrant central business districts in California. The goal of the Wave One Center is to manage the effective delivery of energy efficiency services to small businesses with an overall energy and water reduction target of 40% by the end of 20 12. The Wave One Center will penetrate 66% of the Downtown, with no fewer than 500 businesses occupying not less than 2 million square feet. The Downtown Building owners of in excess of2 million square feet have signed letters indicating their willingness to consider energy efficiency investments subject to reasonable payback periods. The Wave One Center can be the catalyst for a market transformation for the delivery of energy efficiency services to small businesses. The Media and Communications strategies of the Wave One Center and the professionals it has assembled will establish brand identification for energy efficiency accomplishments, and will deploy web portals, social media, and web pages customized for every small business participant. There is no other small business program comparable to the Wave One Center in the United States. THE MUNICIPAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDING TARGETED MEASURE RETROFIT (MCR) PROGRAM The Targeted Retrofit measures identified by the California Energy Commission that will be deployed by the Wave One Center include Bi-Level Garage Lights, BI-Level Stairwell Lights, Daylight Dimming Indoor Lights, Wall Pack and Parking Lot High Efficiency Lights, LED Task Lighting, Load-Shedding Lighting Controls, Wireless Programmable Thermostats, Service Technologies for HV AC, Variable Speed Controls for HV AC and for Kitchen Exhaust. The Wave One Center will measure the results of each efficiency measure. Energy and peak demand reductions will be reported based on a defined series of product specifications and quantities. FUNDING AND EXPENSES The Wave One Center has applied for a $2.5 million grant under the Municipal and Commercial Building Targeted Retrofit Program (MCR Program) as described in Application for RFP #400- 09-402. The RFP evaluates an Application based on its ability to demonstrate public participation and community involvement through Leveraged Funds. Leveraged Funds greatly increase the cost- effectiveness of a program because the energy savings are measured against Grant funds and not against total funds used. A successful SEP Applicant must include sufficient Leveraged Funds so that the energy savings for each Grant dollar received are comparable to or greater than other Applicants. The Wave One Center has current commitments for $1 million of "In-Kind" services, including all administrative, insurance, equipment, telecommunications and facility costs which will be provided by Premier Properties, a for-profit Palo Alto company. Additional Leverage Funds can consist of funding by downtown businesses, property owners, City staff time, pro bono professional services, advisory board participants, and mature volunteers with advanced skills. Small and medium-sized businesses in the Wave One Center's target area have indicated that if $2 million of grant funds are available for hardware retrofits, they would be willing to contribute an additional $1.5 million to fund additional efficiency improvements. If the CEC grant is awarded, the Wave One Center has projected the Administrative cost for servicing 500+ businesses over a two-year period between $750,000 and $1,000,000. The Wave One Center will apply to foundations and donors for funds to offset Administrative costs and achieve the $2 million in grant funding for hardware installation required to achieve the trigger point for the additional investment of$1.5 million pledged by Downtown businesses. Existing City Utilities programs such as Right Lights+, Commercial Advantage rebates, custom rebates, MeterLinks, and the pilot $2 million interest-free Electric Efficiency Financing Program, also constitute Leveraged Funds ifused in conjunction with the Wave One Center MCR Program. To the extent that the City contributes more funding for efficiency improvements at its facilities more MCR grant funding will be available to make upgrades at small commercial bUildings. This City payment if approved by the City Council, in addition to the $1.5MilIion pledged by the business community, will result in achieving the recommended MCR fund leveraging. WAVE ONE CENTER FUNDS CEC GRANT PROCEEDS Administration $ 750,000 lighting upgrades $ 1,250,000 HVAC controls $ 500,000l $ 2,500,000 Admin Breakdown including In-kind support CEC Grant In Kind Total FIELD SERVICES 1.1 Wave One $ 562,000 $ 24,000 $ 586,000 1.2 Premier Properties Management $ -$ 622,843 $ 622,843 1.3 City of Palo Alto $ -$ 110,000 $ 110,000 LABOR & TRAINING $ 28,000 $ 45,200 $ 73,200 LEGAL & ACCOUNTING 80,000 $ 60,000 $ 140,000 ADMINISTRATION $ -$ 334,000 $ 334,000 MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS $ 80,000 $ 238,000 $ 318,000 TOTAL ADMIN $ 750,000 $ 1,434,043 $ 2,184043 Estimated Program Funding for Construction CEC GRANT-Payment for lighting upgrades and HVAC Controls $ 1,750,000 CITY LOAN PAYMENTS -Electric Efficiency Financing Program for Businesses $ 2,000,000 CITY REBATES -on upgrades $ 250,000 DOWNTOWN OWNERS $ 1,500,000 DONORS $ 500,000 TOTAL $ 6,000,000 GREEN JOBS AND GREEN JOB TRAINING The Wave One Center creates quality green jobs by involving labor and employment organizations. The Wave One Center provides Green Job Training by involving the union apprentice programs, De Anza Community College and the Haas Center at Stanford. PARTNERS The City will be named as a "Partner" in the RFP Application. This does not create any fiscal or fiduciary responsibility for the City. There are many Partners for the Wave One Center that provide "In Kind" services, though some are paid consultants. Public Agencies include the City, Kirsch Center for Environmental Studies at De Anza Community College and NOVA, the Local Workforce Investment Agency. Nonprofit organizations include Santa Clara and San Benito County Trade Council, Working Partnerships USA, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Pipe Fitters Local Union, Haas Center for Public Policy at Stanford apprentice and journeyman training centers for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Pipe Fitters Union, Acterra, Sustainable Silicon Valley, Chamber of Commerce, Green Building Alliance and other environmental organizations for which we are awaiting final commitments. Professional organizations include Seiler and Company, DLA Piper, Fedarra, Maynard Public Relations, 1185 Design, Chamber of Commerce, Embarcadero Media Co., IDEO, Harrington Lighting Ventures, Field Diagnostics, Rosendin Electric and ACCO Heating and Cooling. ATTACHMENT C Section C.6 of the Grant Application C.6. COLLABORATION WITH NATIONAL AND STATE PROGRAMS. C.6.A: Introduction C.6.B: CEC 2008 Strategic Plan GoaIsC.6.C: National Programs C.6.D: LDC Electric Public Benefits Program C.6.E: City Sustainability Programs C.6.F: Other Local Government Programs C.6.G: Community Programs C.6.A: INTRODUCTION. In 2008, Wave One established the Wave One Conservation Center for Small Business (WOCCSB) as a direct response to the California Energy Commission (CEC) Strategic Plan for the Commercial Sector, with particular focus on the Small Business sector. The Wave One partnership modified several program components of the original Wave One Small Business Research Center, to specifically address, the goals of the CPUC Strategic Plan. The proposed Wave One Program also addresses Department of Energy (DOE) goals and supports City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) projects funded by an American Recovery and Reinvestment CARRA) Block Grant, enhances and complements CPAU's state-mandated Electric and Natural Gas Public Benefits (PB) programs, and created the impetus for the new CPAU pilot off-bill electric efficiency revolving financing program for small business. The Wave One Program also supports and co-markets other sustainability programs offered by the City including water and energy efficiency audits and rebates, renewable energy purchasing, photovoltaic installation, new technologies such as geothermal heating and cooling systems, advanced metering infrastructure, composting and recycling. By assembling and presenting all of the locally-administered environmental programs serving Palo Alto businesses, the Wave One Program greatly reduces administrative and general costs, including outreach and marketing, service installation, program measurement and verification, and program and regulatory accomplishment reporting. C.6.B. CEC 2008 STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS. C.6.B.(2) Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Achievements. The Wave One MCR Program proposes to deploy both traditional and state-of-the-art HV AC technologies and is working with the City to develop and implement local jurisdiction-approved standards that will simplify and streamline HV AC permitting when Tenant Improvement work is performed in a building. See Section C Introduction, Section E, Section H and Appendix 3. C.6.B.(3) Codes and Standards. The Wave One MCR Program has as its goal to achieve 50% energy savings with respect to lighting as measured ANSIIASHRAEIIESNA standard 90.1-2001 and to document methodology necessary to achieve this lighting goal and replicate the impacts across the country. See Section C Introduction, Section C.2., Section C.lO, Section E, Section H and Appendix 3. Page 1 of 6 C.6.B.(4) Workforce Education and Training. The Wave One MCR has developed innovative green job partnerships programs with De Anza Community College Kirsch Center for Environmental Sciences, NOVA, a Local Workforce Investment Agency, Working Partnerships USA, the Santa Clara and San Benito Trade Council and training organizations within the Santa Clara County construction trade unions. See Section C.1, Section C.7, Section C.11, Section D and Appendix 3. C.6.C. NATIONAL PROGRAMS. As stated in the "Background" Page 1 of the Request for Proposals, the State Energy Program is to align with the following national Goals: "increasing jobs, reducing US oil dependency through increases in energy efficiency and deployment of renewable energy technologies, promoting economic vitality through an increase in "green jobs" and reducing green house gas emissions The DOE encourages states to focus their program on market transformation initiatives." The Wave One MCR Program accomplishes each of the national goals: (a) Increasing "green jobs" and training. See Section D for details of Workforce Development and Job Creation. (b) Increases in energy efficiency See Section C.1, Section C.lO and Section E. for details of energy, peak demand and GHG emissions reduction. (c) Deployment of renewable energy technologies, though not an element of the Wave One MCR Program, the larger Wave One Conservation Research Center for Small Businesses facilitates renewable energy purchases of the City's nationally-recognized Palo AltoGreen program. (d) Market transformation will be achieved by recruiting 66% of Downtown Palo Alto small businesses to participate in the Wave One MCR Program. Downtown Palo Alto is the retail, financial, legal and social media center of Silicon Valley. Downtown Palo Alto academics and business and technology leaders are powerful "influencers" throughout the Silicon VaHey region and beyond. See Section C.2, Section C.3 and Section C.9 for details of recruitment, communication and Market Transformation. C.6.D. LOCAL DISTRIBUTION COMPANY (LDC) ELECTRIC PUBLIC BENEFITS PROGRAMS The City of Palo Alto's Utilities Department (CPAU) is the local distribution company (LDC). As such it annually collects and applies 2.85 percent of sales to their AB 1890-mandated Electric Public Benefits program. With a proposed budget for FY 2010-11 of $3.5 million, approximately 80 percent paid for by the 2,200 commerciaVindustrial customers, CPAU is poised to strongly support Wave One's program with their ongoing programs using audits, rebates and zero-interest loans for the small commercial business community. These programs include: C.6.D.(1) Right Lights+. Since March 2008, Wave One has been involved in recruiting over 75 small businesses to participate in the Right Lights+ program. CPAU Right Lights+ program could include certain Targeted Retrofits. C.6.D.(2) Commercial Advantage Prescriptive Rebate. Page 2 af6 CPAU provides specific rebate amounts for prescribed energy efficiency installations and retrofits. The Commercial Advantage rebate include some of the Targeted Retrofits proposed for the Wave One program. C.6.D.(3) Commercial Custom Rebate. The Commercial Custom Rebate program was designed to provide rebates for retrofit procedures and devices (excluding equipment replacement) exceeding Title 24 standards. These custom rebates could be applicable to Targeted Retrofits. C.6.D.(4) HVAC Re-commissioning. CPAU offers re-commissioning studies for commercial buildings larger than 30,000 square feet by a statewide-recognized company, Ennovity. There are twenty commercial buildings in the Wave One MCR Program that will be eligible for this re-commissioning. These re- commissioning efforts performed by Ennovity for several of the buildings could support the Targeted Retrofits. C.6.D.(5) CPA renewable energy rebate program California Senate Bill 1 (signed August 24,2006) required all publicly-owned utilities to offer specified minimum incentives for PV systems, on or before January 1,2008, for a ten year period. The budget to meet CPAU's share of the total California PV installation goal is projected to be $13 million, averaging $1.3 million per year for ten years. The PV Partners Incentive program is designed to continuously provide incentives based on the rate of PV system installation up to the ten year maximum of $13 million. If the demand for customer incentives is accelerated in the early program years, the program will reach the SB 1 goals in less than ten years. This program will be marketed and supported by Wave One in the small business community. C.6.D6 $2 Million Interest Free Loan Program: 2009 CPAU will implement California's first unsecured publically-owned utility (POU) Zero Interest Loan Program for commercial energy efficiency with an initial funding of $2 Million for a pilot- program revolving loan fund, the "Electric Efficiency Financing Program." The loan terms and repayment will be tied to energy cost savings similar to an On Bill Financing program. Wave One has assisted with the design and implementation of the CPAU Loan Program. The CPAU loan program will bridge the divergent financial interests between a Landlord and a Tenant so that, together, they can invest in energy efficiency and share energy cost savings. C.6.D7 LED Parking Lot & Street Lights ARRA Block Grant Funds: 2009 The City allocated $437,000 of ARRA Block Grant funding for an energy efficient LED streetlight program using Echelon's LonWorks dimmable technology. The City will evaluate the installation of additional prescriptive Targeted Retrofits on the City's twelve public surface parking lots as part of the Wave One MCR Program. C.6.DS Electronic Monitoring of Energy Use at Primary Meter The City may be installing meters as part of their "MeterLinks" program on primary electric panels throughout Downtown Palo Alto. The daily uploaded data from this "automated metering infrastructure" program will precisely track and energy consumption at IS-minute intervals on a next-day basis. The Wave One MCR Program will install monitors on all subpanels so that energy efficiency measures can be more precisely monitored. C.6.D9 AB 1103 Utility Company Measurement of Energy Use Page 3 of 6 CPAU has upgraded its customer billing and record-keeping data that enable CPA to provide state-of-the-art consumption and billing data. With customer permissions, CPAU will make billing and energy use information available for the Wave One MCR Program. C.6.D10 Palo AltoGreen Renewable Energy Program In 2003 the City established a renewable energy program known as Palo AltoGreen pursuant to which a ratepayer can elect to pay a kWh surcharge to enable the City to purchase renewable energy for that customer's energy requirements. 5,992 members, (over 21% of the City's residential customers) have enrolled in Palo AltoGreen. Since March 2008, Wave One has recruited over 50 small businesses to participate in Palo AltoGreen. The Palo AltoGreen program was honored by the Department of Energy as the Green Power Program Supplier of the Year for 2008. C.6.Dll Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) SCVWD provides extensive rebates for water conservation installations including High Efficiency Toilets and Urinals, aerators for faucets and showers, landscape and irrigation controls and other landscape management features. Wave One has reviewed the water conservation opportunities for nearly 100 small businesses. e.6.E. CITY SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAMS. C.6.E.(1)Green Ribbon Task Force In January 2006, the City Council commissioned a "Green Ribbon Task Force on Climate Protection" to "recommend tangible steps and local actions by all stakeholder groups, including the City, to reduce global warming and encourage sustainable practices." The Green Ribbon Task Force completed its formal recommendations in December 2006. C.6.E.(2) Climate Protection Plan In December 2007, Palo Alto became one of the first cites in California to adopt a comprehensive Climate Protection Plan in support of State AB 32. The Palo Alto Plan calls for reducing GHG emissions to a level that is 15% lower than base year 2005, and to achieve 33.3% Renewable Energy by 2015. Both of these goals exceed AB 32 goals. e.6.E.(3) Green Building Ordinance, Zoning Chapter 18.44 In 2008, Palo Alto adopted mandatory green building requirements for both residential and commercial properties. Under the Green Building Ordinance, a commercial property, whether new or renovated, must satisfY LEED Silver standard; a residential property, whether new or renovated, must satisfY Build It Green standards. No project is able to pull a building permit or receive a certificate of occupancy if it fails to comply with the standards of the Green Building Ordinance. C.6.E.(4) Comprehensive Plan Amendment The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan for 1998-2010 is, perhaps, California's most progressive general land use plan. The Comprehensive Plan update, now underway, for the period 20 I 0-2020 advances not only Palo Alto's Climate Protection Plan but also national and state conservation and energy efficiency goals such as those embodied in: (i) AB 32; (ii) CPUC Strategic Plan; (iii) CEC Integrated Energy Policy; (iv) California Water Plan 2009 Update; (v) Strategic Directives of the California Integrated Waste Management Board; and (vi) Federal programs of the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency. Page 4 of6 C.6.F. OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS. C.6.Fl) ABAG/Santa Clara County Certified Green Business Program. Since July 2008, Wave One has collaborated with the Santa Clara County Certified Green Business Program as established by ABAG, and has managed nearly 100 small businesses through the certification process. The ABAG program certifies businesses that demonstrate conservation outcomes related to lighting, plumbing, waste stream management, and compliance with environmental laws. C.6.F2City Zero Waste Program The City Zero Waste program has established a goal of achieving Zero Waste (commonly defined as 90% or> diversion from landfill to recycling or compost) by 2020. Wave One is working with the City and GreenWaste to divert 90% or > waste streams of Downtown Palo Alto small businesses. The City, GreenWaste and Wave One distribute printed and electronic educational materials to the targeted businesses. C.6.F3) GreenWaste Compost & Recycle Program Wave One collaborates with GreenWaste, the City's refuse contractor. GreenWaste has initiated composting and recycling programs that should reduce waste stream delivery to landfill by more than 75% by 2012. Since March 2008, Wave One has managed every Downtown Palo Alto small business that has enrolled in the GreenWaste compost and recycling program. A business that participates in the GreenWaste program, receives refuse cost savings of between 30% and 50%. These savings are available for investment in conservation and energy efficiency measures of the Wave One MCR Program. C.6.G. COMMUNITY PROGRAMS. C.6.G(1) Community Environmental Action Partnership In March 2008, the City of Palo Alto in conjunction with community groups created the Community Environmental Action Partnership (CEAP). CEAP brings together different segments ofthe community (businesses, neighborhoods, schools, medical services; non-profit organizations, churches) to implement the Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan. Wave One has been leader of the business sector ofCEAP since its inception. C.6.G.(2) Chamber of Commerce Palo Alto Business Goes Green Palo Alto Business Goes Green (PABGG) was initiated in January 2006 to assist Palo Alto businesses implement conservation and energy efficiency measures primarily through the ABAG Certified Green Business program. In June 2009, The Chamber of Commerce designated Wave One as its Environmental Partner and as its sole source for managing the certified green business process. C.6.G.(3) Wave One Conservation Research Center for Small Businesses In May 2008 Wave OnelPalo Alto was formed as a nonprofit organization to manage the effective delivery of conservation and energy efficiency programs to Palo Alto small businesses. Wave One has assisted nearly 100 small businesses through a rigorous series of conservation and energy efficiency undertakings. C.6.G.(4) Wave One Energy Star Portfolio Manager Service Page 5 af6 California AB 1103 requires commercial building owners to perform an Energy Star analysis of its energy efficiency and to make this information available before selling, financing or leasing a property. Wave One will perform Energy Star evaluations for a building owner for $150 -far less than could be performed by an individual property owner. Page 6 af6 December 15,2009 Mr. Andrew Ferrin, Contracts Officer California Energy Commission 1516-9th Street, MS-18 Sacramento, CA 95814 ATTACHMENT D DRAFT On behalf of the City of Palo Alto I am writing to express our strong support for the WAVE ONE funding application under the "Municipal and Commercial Building Targeted Measure Retrofit Program" (RFP #400-09-402). America's small business sector has traditionally been under-represented in securing conservation and efficiency usage reductions and cost savings for a number of reasons. WAVE ONE seeks to increase reductions in this sector by attacking the problem caused due to the fact that the small or medium-sized business tenant's return-on-investment for efficiency improvements has not been economically viable. The problems stem from the length of typical leases, usually less that the life of the installed measure, and the utility cost indifference of the property owner and/or manager serving tenants under a triple net lease. With adequate funding, and partnerships with local government, educational institutions, and labor organizations, WAVE ONE believes its unique programmatic approach to small business efficiency will not only provide value to the City of Palo Alto and its small and medium-sized business sector, but that the WAVE ONE efficiency and sustainability business model can successfully be reproduced regionally and nationally across the small business sector. We also believe in their approach to this historically underserved market sector and are prepared to support their efforts with both the direct and in kind funding identified in the application. Thank you for you consideration ofthe WAVE ONE application. Sincerely, James Keene City manager City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: HUMAN RESOURCES DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2009 CMR: 459:09 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution Amending the FY2007-FY2009 Compensation Plan for Limited Hourly Personnel Adopted by Resolution No. 8759 to Revise the Provisions Related to Term of Employment RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council adopt a resolution amending the FY2007-FY2009 Compensation Plan for limited hourly personnel to revise the provisions related to term of employment allowing for limited hourly personnel to work more than 1,000 hours in a fiscal year with the approval of the City Manager. DISCUSSION As part of ongoing discussions about the City's financial and budget situation, the City Manager has been meeting with staff from Human Resources and Administrative Services to identify opportunities to create additional flexibility for meeting organizational staffing needs while working within a constrained fiscal environment. The City must maintain the ability to provide services but with a higher degree of flexibility and responsiveness. One of these ways is through a mechanism that allows the City Manager to make temporary assignments, which allow for the continuation of services while organizational structure reviews occur, and giving the City time to determine the most effective ways for providing the services or whether the services are in fact critical to the community and City operations. Temporarily filling positions on a limited basis also generates some level of salary and benefit savings as these temporary positions do not receive the City's full benefit package. For management level duties, the Limited Hourly Compensation Plan generally provides the mechanism for making temporary assignments. However, the current provisions in the Plan only allow employees in such assignments to work less than 1,000 hours in a given fiscal year (about 6 months offull time employment). Given the current economic uncertainties and organizational restructuring, staff had identified a need to expand this provision of the Limited Hourly Compensation Plans in such a way that would allow certain management assignments to be filled temporarily on a full-time basis for longer than the approximate six month period imposed by the current provisions. Additionally, it sometimes takes longer than 6 months to recruit for positions. Staff recommends amending the provisions of Sections I and V to allow for the extension of limited hourly employment terms beyond 1,000 hours. This provision would only CMR:459:09 Page 1 of 3 allow an extension with the approval of the City Manager. Staff anticipates that extensions would only be granted on a limited basis, and the new language would require staff to review any extension every six months. Typically, the Limited Hourly Compensation Plan would be amended concurrently with the SEIU hourly contract and brought forward to Council at the conclusion of those negotiations. However, SEIU hourly negotiations are just beginning and this limited scope amendment to the Plan is necessary now given current organizational needs. This change is part of an ongoing process by Human Resources and Administrative Services staff to evaluate opportunities that will allow for organizational restructuring and flexibility. Staff anticipates returning to Council in the near future with updated plans, and as necessary with amendments to accommodate City needs. RESOURCE IMPACT As mentioned above, limited hourly employees are not eligible for the City's full benefit package. They can receive holiday and/or overtime pay depending on hours worked, but they do not receive paid leave or health or retirement benefits. Limited Hourly personnel also contribute 7.5% of their salary to the alternative PTS retirement plan (instead of contributions toward Social Security) if they work less than 1,000 hours in a fiscal year. By allowing limited hourly employees to work in excess of 1,000 hours in a fiscal year, the City would be required to enroll these limited hourly employees in CalPERS (California Public Employee Retirement System). This enrollment would create an added cost to the City, where the City would contribute 18% of salary for each limited hourly employee working over 1,000 hours. The average hourly rate for the Management Specialist classification is $54.87. If this individual worked 1,500 hours, the City would pay $82,305 in salary costs and $14,815 in PERS costs. However, if the employee is temporarily filling a permanent position that is vacant, there will likely be net savings to the City due to the reduced benefit costs. For comparison purposes, a regular permanent position has a benefit expense of approximately 50 percent of salary. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The 1,000 hour limit on hourly employment has been a longstanding proVISIOn in City compensation plans; however, this change will enhance management's ability to be flexible and responsive to changing needs as the City works to address and correct its fiscal restraints. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This report is not a project requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CMR:459:09 Page 2 of3 Attachment A: Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the FY2007- FY2009 Compensation Plan for Limited Hourly Personnel Adopted by Resolution No. 8759 to Revise the Provisions Related to Term of Employment PREPARED BY: SANDRA T. R. BLANCH Assistant Human Resources Director DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: RUSS CARLSEN Human Resources Director CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR:459:09 Page 3 of3 Attachment A * * * NOT YET APPROVED * * * Resolution No. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the 2007-2009 Compensation Plan for Limited Hourly Personnel Adopted by' Resolution· No. 8759 to Revise the Provisions Related to Employment WHEREAS, on October 1, 2007 the Council Adopted Resolution No. 8759, approving the 2007~2009 Compensation Plan for Limited Hourly personnel (the "Compensation Plan"); and WHEREAS, Sections I and V of the Compensation Plan provide provisions for terms of limited hourly employment; and WHEREAS, the Compensation plan currently limits hourly employment to a maximum of 1000 hours per fiscal year; and WHEREAS, working within the currently constrained fiscal environment, City staff has identified a need to give the City additional flexibility in meeting organizational staffmg needs at the management level while it reviews organizational structures; and .. ..." ". WHEREAS, allowing extension of limited hourly employment beyond 1,000 hours in a fiscal year, on a limited basis and subject to the approval of ·the City Manager, will give the City the additional flexibility it needs to make permanent staffmg decisions. NOW, TIIEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: '. SECTION 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article ITI of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees adopted by Resolution No. 8759, is hereby amended to revise Section I as follows (new language shown in underline): "SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS At-Will Employment: Employee or Employermay terminate employment at any time with or without notice or cause. Limited Hourly Employee: An "At-Will" employee working full time or part time on a temporary basis (Intermittent), employees who work on an on-call basis or an employee working hours up to six consecutive months in support of a. specified seasonal program such as summer camps or Internships (Seasonal). Limited Hourly Employees work less than 1000 hours per fiscal year, unless otherwise authorized as provided in Section V of this Plan. 091209 sh 8261214 1 * * * NOT YET APPROVED * * * PERS-Retiree: An individual that has retired from the Public Service System and returns to work on an intermittent or seasonal basis in a Limited Hourly classification notto exceed 960 hours within a calendar year. Intern: An individual who has earned or completed course work toward an Associate Bachelor's or Master's Degree and offers his or her services for a limited and specific period of tim~ in exchange for gaining actual work experience. Internships may be paid or unpaid depending on the assignment and budget of the requesting department. Summer internships typically consist of 6-12 week assignments between.June and September. Assignments for interns working during the school year may be for the entire duration of a course or semester." SECTION 2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Compensation Plan for Limited Hourly Personnel adopted by Resolut.ion No. 8759 is hereby amended to revise Section V as follows (new language shown in underline): . II II II II II "A. Limited Hourly Classifications. The maximum employment terms for limited hourly employees shall be less than 1000 hours during any fiscal year,. unless otherwise approved as provided in section V(B). The maximum hours for a retired PERS employee is 960 hours in a calen.4ar year. Limited hourly employees' are "At-Will" employees and may be terminated at any time without right of appeal. Limited Hourly employment will not affect the pr(>bationary period or the service hire date of regular classified employment. B. Extension of Limited Hourly Employment. The City Manager may authorize a Limited Hourly Employee to work more than 1000 hours per fiscal year; subject to all applicable rules and regulations. Such authorization. along with a statement of the anticipated duration shall be provided in writing to Human Resources in advance of the extension of limited hourly employment. The duration of the employment assignment shall be reviewed every six months to ensure appropriateness of extension and ability to fund the extension within a department's allocated hourly bUdget.n . 091209 sb 8261214 2 * * * NOT YET APPROVED * * * SECT10N 3. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environtllental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: 'ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sf. Deputy City Attorney 091209 sh 8261214 December ---' 2009 Mayor APPROVED: City Manager Director of Administrative Services Director of Human Resources 3 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO JANICE HALL UPON HER RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Janice Hall began her career with the City of Palo Alto on March 8, 1982 as an assistant at the Animal Shelter; and WHEREAS, Janice Hall transferred to the Police Department in November 1984 and as an Office Specialist was instrumental in the conversion to automated data; and WHEREAS, Janice Hall promoted to Records Specialist in January of 1999 and Community Service Officer in charge of alarms in August of 2001, and WHEREAS, Janice Hall played a critical role in the development and administration of the City’s Alarm Ordinance and became a Code Enforcement Officer in 2007; and WHEREAS, Janice Hall has had an excellent relationship with the Department’s volunteers and has received numerous commendations for her outstanding service to the public and assistance to other agencies; and WHEREAS, Janice Hall is recognized by her peers, City Staff, and police personnel for her professionalism, knowledge and dedication; and WHEREAS, Janice Hall has been an advocate for, and mentor to her fellow employees over the course of her 29 year career and has served the citizens of Palo Alto with dedication, professionalism, and enthusiasm; and WHEREAS, Janice Hall plans to spend her retirement enjoying time with her family. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby gratefully records and extends its sincere appreciation of the community to Janice Hall for her faithful and excellent service rendered to the City. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: December 14, 2009 ATTEST: APPROVED: ________________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS FORM: ________________________________ _____________________________ City Attorney City Manager RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO BRADLEY HERRAN UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Bradley Herran has provided exceptional service as a Property and Evidence Technician to the City of Palo Alto and its’ community for 25 years; and WHEREAS, Bradley Herran’s work as an Evidence Technician resulted in a 100% accuracy rate during very strict Evidence Room audits; and WHEREAS, Bradley Herran was an integral member of the Police Department’s Evidence Team, resulting in convictions in such cases as the Herbert Kay homicide, the Hak Joo Kim homicide and the Romel Reid Sexual Assault cases; and WHEREAS, Bradley Herran’s expertise over the years has helped the department bridge the gap by moving from Polaroid cameras to 35mm cameras to digital cameras and from cassette tapes to VHS tapes to high tech surveillance equipment; and WHEREAS, Bradley Herran was selected as the 1990 Outstanding Public Service Award Recipient for exemplary evidence work, particularly in the areas of chemical and fingerprint analysis; and WHEREAS, Bradley Herran was unanimously selected for and completed a six month internship in the City Manager’s office in 1992; and WHEREAS, Bradley Herran has always been a very soft-spoken, approachable colleague and friend as witnessed through his work as a peer counselor in the 1990s; and WHEREAS, Bradley Herran received over twenty-five commendations and official “Thank Yous” during the course of his career. NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby commends the outstanding public service of Bradley Herran and records its appreciation, as well as the appreciation of the citizens of this community, upon his retirement. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: DECEMBER 14, 2009 ATTEST: APPROVED: ________________________ ________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________ _________________________ City Attorney City Manager RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO DIANA WARD UPON HER RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Diana Ward began her career with the City of Palo Alto on July 25, 1977 and served the City of Palo Alto and its citizens as a Police Records Specialist in the Palo Alto Police Department; and WHEREAS, Diana Ward was first assigned to the Personnel and Training Division in the Police Department for 2 years then was given the opportunity to transfer to the Police Records Division in 1978 where she served citizens in that capacity for 30 years assisting citizens on the phone and in person, processed reports, warrants, and performed scanning and data entry into Law Enforcement Databases contributing to officer safety; and WHEREAS, Diana Ward during the course of her 32-year career with the City of Palo Alto has received numerous commendations for her performance and customer service. NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby commends the outstanding public service of Diana Ward and records its appreciation, as well as the appreciation of the citizens of this community, upon her retirement. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: DECEMBER 14, 2009 ATTEST: APPROVED: ________________________ ______________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ City Attorney ___________________________ City Manager RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO GARY CLARIEN ON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Gary Clarien has served the City of Palo Alto for the past thirty-four years and has made significant contributions to the City of Palo Alto in his capacity as Arts Producer, Palo Alto Art Center; and WHEREAS, Gary Clarien was one of the very first employees of the Palo Alto Art Center and was instrumental in creating the adult studio program of classes in a variety of artmaking media; and WHEREAS, Gary Clarien worked to create and maintain the Art Center’s ceramic studio, a program that is regionally recognized for its safety and professionalism; and WHEREAS, Gary Clarien, over three decades, has inspired thousands of emerging and established artists, showcasing the power of making art as a creative outlet, a form of recreation, stress relief, and even therapy; and WHEREAS, Gary Clarien through his professional excellence, wisdom, integrity, and humanity, has earned the high esteem of his City of Palo Alto colleagues across departments and divisions. NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby gratefully records its appreciation, as well as the appreciation of the citizens of this community, for the outstanding public service rendered by Gary Clarien, along with our best wishes for a rewarding and fulfilling life during retirement. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: DECEMBER 14, 2009 ATTEST: APPROVED: _______________________ _______________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ City Attorney _______________________ City Manager RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO DOUG J. FOX ON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Doug J. Fox has served the City of Palo Alto for the past twenty-seven years and has made significant contributions to the City of Palo Alto in his capacity as Park Maintenance Person; and WHEREAS, Doug J. Fox, has been active in our maintenance programs and services that have kept our City Parks, playground facilities, athletic fields, tennis courts, landscaped areas, business districts, as well as school athletic fields clean, safe, fun, and esthetically pleasing for visitors and participants; and WHEREAS, Doug J. Fox has been implementing safe environmental practices, including the City’s Integrated Pest Management Program which has contributed to the significant reduction of pesticides in parks and City facilities; he has been utilizing only mechanical methods of weed removal in all Palo Alto Unified School District properties; and WHEREAS, Doug J. Fox has been an exemplary colleague and mentor, providing new staff with institutional maintenance knowledge only acquired through years of service; he has been willing to assist with the completion of any and all projects; and WHEREAS, Doug J. Fox, through his professional excellence, wisdom, integrity, and humanity, has earned the high esteem of his City of Palo Alto colleagues and has set the bar high for those who follow. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby gratefully records its appreciation, as well as the appreciation of the citizens of this community, for the outstanding public service rendered by Doug J. Fox, along with our best wishes for a rewarding and fulfilling life during retirement. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: DECEMBER 14, 2009 ATTEST: APPROVED: ________________________ ______________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ City Attorney ___________________________ City Manager TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: FIRE DATE: REPORT TYPE: SUBJECT: DECEMBER 14, 2009 CMR: 441:09 CONSENT Adoption of a Resolution Declaring Weeds to be a Nuisance and Setting January 11, 2010 for a Public Hearing for Objections to Proposed Weed Abatement RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council: 1) Adopt the attached resolution declaring weeds to be a public nuisance and setting J anuarj 11, 2010 for a public hearing; and 2) Direct staff to publish a notice of hearing in accordance with the provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. DISCUSSION Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 8.08 specifies weed abatement procedures. The chapter requires property owners or occupants to remove certain weeds, as defined in Section 8.08.010 that exist upon their premises, public sidewalks, streets or alleys. It also specifies the procedures to be followed to abate weeds, in the event owners do not remove them. These procedures are: Resolution of the City Council declaring weeds to be a public nuisance. This resolution sets the time and place for hearing any objections to the proposed weed abatement. Publication of notice. This notice informs property owners of the passage of the resolution and provides that property owners shall remove weeds from their property, or the abatement will be carried out by Santa Clara County (County). The City then publishes a legal advertisement in the local newspaper announcing the date of the public hearing. Public Hearing. The Council must conduct a public hearing, at which time any property owner may appear and object to the proposed weed destruction or removal. After the City Council hearing and considering any objections, the Council may allow or overrule any or all objections. If objections are ovenuled, the Council is deemed to have acquired jurisdiction to proceed, at which point the County will be asked to perform the work of destruction and removal of weeds. The action taken by the Council at the December 14 meeting will set this public hearing date for January 11, 2010. On March 21, 1977, the City Council approved an agreement with Santa Clara County for the CMR: 441: 09 Page 1 of 2 administration of weed abatement within the City of Palo Alto. This agreement has reduced the City's costs and staff time required for administration of weed abatement. For the past 32 seasons, the weed abatement program has been expeditiously carried out by the County Department of Agriculture and Resource Management with results satisfactory to Palo Alto residents. RESOURCE IMPACT There is no direct fiscal iInpact of this action to the City. The City of Palo Alto administers the weed abatement program with the County Departnlent of Agriculture and Resource Managenlent with a minimal amount of staff time. All charges for the weed abatement services are included as a special asseSSlnent on bills for taxes levied against the respective lots and parcels of land. Such charges are considered liens on these properties. The Weed Abatenlent Program is a cost recovery program and does not receive funding from city or county general funds. Begiluling in 2009, and pursuant to Government Code Section 39573 and Health and Safety Code 14902, the County will include an inspection/investigation charge of$298 to property owners who are issued a notice to abate at the time of initial inspection. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Santa Clara County Counsel has determined the Weed Abatement Program to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308. ATTACHMENTS A: Resolution Declaring Weeds to be a Nuisance and Setting January 11, 2010 for a Public Hearing for Objections to Proposed Weed Abatement ?~"~/ "' "D · Prepared By: _________ --'''--__ GORDON SIMPKINSON Acting Fire Marshal Department Head Review:_-i1/,~~~_· .w,..r::l __ A/t....--....!:..1I7Lf4r~ ...... Ioo[.I· ~~d ____ _ 141ciIOLAS ~ARO Fire Chief City Manager Approval: ___ -.'-~~-=---z---=--4I~----lo'----- CMR: 441: 09 Page 2 of 2 Council to be a Nuisance and January 11, 10 a Public Hearing for Objections to Weed Abatement weeds, as defined in Section 8.08.01 O(b) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, are anticipated to develop during calendar year 2010 upon streets, alleys, sidewalks, and parcels of private property within the City of Palo Alto sufficient to constitute a public nuisance as a fire n1enace when dry or are otherwise combustible, or otherwise to constitute alnenace to the public health as or dangerous. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Weeds, as defined in Section 8.08.010(b) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which are anticipated to develop during calendar year 20 1 0 upon streets, alleys, sidewalks, and parcels of private propeliy within the City of Palo Alto, are hereby found and determined to constitute a public nuisance. Such nuisance is anticipated to exist upon some of the streets, alleys, sidewalks, and parcels of private propeliy within the City, which are shown, described, and delineated on the several maps of the properties in said City which are recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, reference in each instance for the description of any particular street, alley, or parcel of private propeliy being hereby made to the several maps aforesaid, and, in the event of there being several subdivision maps on which the same lots are shown, reference is hereby made to the latest subdivision Inap. SECTION 2. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the said public nuisance be abated in the lnamler provided by Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a public hearing shall be held on Monday, the 11 th day of January, 2010, at the hour of7:00pln, or as soon thereafter as the matterlnay be heard, at the Council Chambers of the Civic Center of said City, at which the Council shall hear objections to the proposed weed abatement of such weeds and give any objections due consideration; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Fire Chief of the City of Palo Alto is directed to give notice of the public hearing in the time, maImer and forn1 provided in Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Unless the nuisance is abated without delay by the destruction and removal of such vveeds, the work of abating such by the County of Santa Clara Department of Agriculture and Resource Managelnent Office on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, and 091120 sh 8261203 the thereof assessed upon lots which, and/or in the front rear of which, such shall have been destroyed and relnoved. SECTION 4. Santa Clara County, County Counsel determined the Weed Abatelnent Progrmn to be categorically exempt froln the provisions of the CalifOlniaEnvironnlental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15308. INTRODUCED AND NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager ~------------------------Director of Adnlinistrative Services Fire Chief 091120 sh 8261203 2 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California REPORT TYPE: CONSENT FROM CITY ATTORNEY December 9, 2009 RE: Request for Authorization to Increase Existing Agreement with the Law Firm of Duncan Weinberg by an Additional $155,000 For a Total Contract Not to Exceed Amount of $215,000 Dear Members of the Council: The City's Attorney's fice requests authorization to increase the existing legal services agreement with the law firm of Duncan, Weinberg, Genzer & Pembroke, P.C. (Duncan Weinberg) by an additional $155,000 a total not to exceed amount of $215,000, to be funded by the Gas and Electric Enterprise Funds, for fiscal year 2010. This amendment would increase the not to exceed amount but not the term of this ting 2 year agreement. Duncan Weinberg is a Washington D. C. -based law firm that represents many California publicly-owned utilities, including the Ci ty' s gas and electric utili ties. The City often shares legal costs with other publicly-owned utili ties represented by Duncan Weinberg. The City's gas and electric utilities are heavily regulated at the state, regional and federal level, which often requires legal analysis and intervention in regulatory proceedings. Duncan Weinberg has represented the City's electric utility in federal and regional regulatory proceedings before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, and the Western Electricity Coordinating Council. Over past several years the utility industry has experienced increased regulation over regional reliability requirements, and the California e1ec c utility industry has also experienced a major restructuring of the State's electricity markets. This has resulted increased interventions and interactions for the City 091209 sdl 7061180 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL December 9, 2009 PAGE 2 RE: Request for Authorization to Increase Existing Agreement with the Law Firm of Duncan Weinberg by an Additional $155,000 For a Total Contract Not to Exceed Amount of $215,000 in iability and compliance proceedings. The City has also participated in interventions at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regarding new electricity market rules and tariffs to preserve the value of its energy portfolio, such as its Western contract for hydroelectricity deliveries. In addition, Duncan Weinberg has provided expertise in reviewing Department Transportation regulations of gas systems and the Ci ty' s compliance with the DOT's gas operator qualifications program. Typically, the electric markets have seen significantly more activity in terms of changing rules and market constructs than other markets, and have required the majority of the services Duncan weinberg. These costs have been largely shared with the City's similarly-situated publicly-owned electric utilities in Santa Clara and Alameda, through the Bay Area Municipal Transmission Group. Savings realized through just one proceeding in which both Santa Clara and Palo Alto successfully intervened amount to a rough $700,000 per year for Palo Alto. Funding for this contract does not require additional budgetary authority as it can be accommodated with the Gas and Electric Enterprise Fund budgets for 2009-10. Respectfully submitted, ~~, /~' Gary M. Baum City Attorney sdl/sh 091106 sd17061180 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2009 REPORT TYPE: ACTION DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 443:09 SUBJECT: Approval of (1) a Mitigated Negative Declaration; (2) a Record of Land Use Action; (3)a Site and Design Review application for the demolition of three buildings (including Palo Alto Bowl and Motel 6) and the construction of a four-story building containing 167 hotel guestrooms, and 26 three-story residential townhomes on a site comprised of four parcels of land zoned R-1, RM-15 and CS; and (4) a Tentative Map merging the four parcels into a 3.62 acre parcel for condominium subdivision into a hotel unit and 26 residential units, located at 4301 and 4329 EI Camino Real. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed project is a mixed use redevelopment of a 3.62 acre site comprised of four lots having multiple zone districts to build a four story hotel and three-story ,residential condominiunls, including four affordable units. The Homewood Suites hotel and residences would replace the Palo Alto Bowl, Motel 6 and a commercial services building. The proposed land uses and design are in compliance with the site's three existing zone regulations and Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The four lots are to be merged into one parcel for subdivision into condominium units, pursuant to the City and State subdivision regulations. The project includes the provision of a bicycle/pedestrian path and easement along the eastern edge of the site, COl meeting Monroe Drive to Cesano Court, for improved access to a signalized intersection on El Camino Real. Vehicle access to the hotel would be from El Camino Real, while the residential units would be accessed from Monroe Drive via a new private street, Ryan Lane, leading to the motor courts. The project has been reviewed and recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and Architectural Review Board (ARB) in five public hearings, as well as by the community in several outreach meetings conducted by Steinberg Group Architects on behalf of the applicant, Barry Swenson Builders, and the owner, Palo Alto Bowl LLC. RECOMMENDATION Staff, the Planning and Transportation Commission, and the Architectural Review Board recommend that the City Council: 1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment H). CMR: 443:09 Page lof6 2. Approve the Record of Land Use Action approving a Site and Design Review and Tentative Map application to allow the construction of a new mixed use project including one four- story, 167-unit hotel and 26 three-story detached and duplex-type condominium units located at 4301-4329 El Camino Real subject to the findings and conditions of approval contained in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). BACKGROITND The project is located at 4301 and 4329 El Camino Real, on four parcels at the southeast comer at the intersection of El Camino Real and Monroe Drive (Attachnlent B). The site consists of multiple zoning designations: Service Commercial (CS), Multi-Family Residential (RM-15) and Single-Family Residential (R -1 ). The Comprehensive Plan map designation is Service Commercial. The site is located in the Los Altos School District. The 3.62 acre site's surrounding uses are described in background section of Attachment C. Motel 6 is on the northerly 51,401 square foot (sf) parcel, which also includes a small commercial building and together, these buildings occupy 29,304 sf of floor area. PlalUling department staff has determined that the Palo Alto Bowl building is not a historic resource. Generally, to be evaluated as an historic resource a property would need to be at least 50 years old, have architectural significance, or known association with a significant person or historical event. There was no information available that indicated the property would qualify as a historic resource. The Palo Alto Bowl building, including the restaurant, is 30,459 sf of floor area on lot having an area of approximately 94,525 sf. The renlainder of the site is in use as a parking area for Palo Alto Bowl, and vacant land (the R-1 zoned lot). Vehicular access to all uses on the site is currently from El Camino Real. There are mUltiple protected trees on the site including both street trees and on-site oaks and redwoods. The project is subject to review and action by the City Council because residential and nonresidential mixed use projects proposed within the CS zone district and having four or nlore residential units are subject to Site and Design Review approval upon recommendation by the PlalUling and Transportation Commission and Architectural Review Board. In addition, the City Council must review and act on the Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes, since the number of resulting condominium units exceeding four units (26 residential units and one hotel unit, with associated common areas). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project at 4301 and 4329 El Camino Real includes the demolition of 64,263 square feet of existing commercial development floor area and construction of a mixed use development having 179,594 sf of new floor area including one four-story, 167-unit hotel and 26 three-story detached and duplex-type condominium units. Four of the residential units would be affordable to home buyers have moderate incomes (80% to 120% of the area median income). The hotel will be located along the southwestern edge of the site facing El Camino Real on the CS zoned portion of the site. The residential portion of the project will be located directly behind the hotel on the rear half of the lot along the northern and eastern property lines. The site planning for the project is consistent with area. The hotel is located along El Camino Real and is consistent with similar uses in the area and the 26 residences in the rear half of the lot provide transition to the fl,djacent R-1 properties. The hotel will be owned by Hilton and operated as a Homewood Suites. The hotel will be four- stories with a maximum height of 47'6" above grade, which is lower than the 50' maximum allowed height limit. The hotel would consist of 167 guest rooms with a ground level reception CMR: 443:09 Page 2 of6 area, meeting rooms and a dining area. The dining area is for hotel guests only and will serve catered meals only. The area that will conlprise the 167 -hotel units totals 62,609 square feet. The hotel, including the rooms and other facilities would total 125,034 square feet for a total floor area ratio (FAR) of2.0 on its portion of the site, the maximum allowable FAR for hotels in the CS zone district. A total of 172 parking spaces are proposed for the hotel. Of those, 158 spaces will be provided in a one-level underground garage and 14 spaces will be provided at ground level. Vehicular access for hotel guests and employees will be limited to El Camino Real. Additional vehicular access for the residential portion of the project is proposed from Monroe Drive. No hotel vehicles will be permitted to access the site from Monroe Drive, except for emergency vehicles. An elevator and stairway would provide access from the parking garage to all hotel levels. The hotel design includes a generous courtyard that would be built around a large existing oak tree. The project includes the preservation of the mature oak tree in the courtyard, and a modification of the hotel building during the ARB review process provided the necessary solar access for this tree. Another mature oak tree located in the center of the proposed residential development will be transplanted along the southeastern edge of the public pedestrian and bicycle path. Eight street trees along El Camino Real (six London Planes, one Gingko, and one Scarlet Oak) would be . removed and replaced with twelve London Plane trees. In addition two Coast Live Oak trees would be added to each side of the hotel entry along El Camino Real. Five oaks and two redwood street trees on Monroe would be retained, while seven street trees along Monroe (one Pear tree, three Myoporum trees, one Tree of Heaven, one Oak tree and one Redwood tree) would be removed. The 14" oak (tree #17) is disfigured and is located where the Ryan Court driveway is proposed and a new 96" box valley oak tree will be located near the hotel entry as replacement. The 22" redwood (tree #24) is in poor condition and is located where the bike path is proposed and will be replaced with an 84" box specimen tree (Parrotia Persica) at the comer of the property. The residential portion of the project will consist of 26 three-story detached and duplex style ownership condominium units. The residences would have a height of 31 '3" from grade. Ten detached single family units and eight two-unit attached duplex type residences are proposed. The 26 units range from 2,068 to 2,167 square feet in size, including garages. An agreement with the City has been signed, subject to project approval, for four of these units to be sold to moderate income home buyers. Each unit would provide open space areas consisting of ground level patios and second and third floor balconies. In addition to the private open space areas provided to each unit, a common open space area would be provided adjacent to the hotel garden area. An eight foot solid wall separates the common open space area from the hotel community garden area. The common open space area includes amenities such as picnic tables and barbeque grills. PedestrianlBicycle Path The project includes the creation of a public pedestrian and bicycle path easement located at the rear of the site. The connection would enable movement between Monroe Drive and Cesano Court along the eastern edge of the property. The connection would provide an alternative path of travel that is safer than the existing path of travel along E1 Camino Real, particularly for children traveling across El Camino Real to school. The easement would connect on the eastern edge of the project, which is the only possible location because the bicycle and pedestrian easement will need to connect to an existing public easement, created when the neighboring Cesano Court Planned Community (pC-3036) was established. CMR: 443:09 Page 3 of6 Site Access Vehicular access to the site will be provided using two main entries. Access to the residential portion of the site would be provided along Monroe Drive. Access to the hotel portion of the project would be provided at a right-inlright-out only driveway along El Camino Real. Vehicular circulation will be restricted between the residential and hotel uses. This would encourage hotel guest and employees to enter and exit the site from El Camino Real only and not to travel through the Monroe Drive Neighborhood. Access would be provided between the sites for emergency purposes only. Proposed improvements to the Monroe Drive frontage include a narrowing of the street width. This would provide two purposes: (1) to allow appropriate width to construct a sidewalk and (2) serve as a traffic calming measure into the existing residential neighborhood. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) Review The project was reviewed by the PTC on June 10, 2009 to ensure compatibility with the Site and . Design Review approval findings of Section 18.30(G).060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (P AMC) and on November 18, 2009 in compliance with the City and State Subdivision regulations. The PTC staffreports and meeting minutes are available on the City's website. The PTC voted 5 to 1 (Commissioner Holman opposed, Commissioner Feinberg absent) to recommend City Council approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Site and Design Review on June 10, 2009, with two additional conditions related to merging lots and transportation demand management. On November 18, 2009, the PTC voted 6-0-1 (Commissioner Tuma absent) to approve the Tentative Map. Recommendations were based upon the findings and conditions of approval located in the Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). During the Site and Design Review, the PTC asked that the applicant provide additional information for the ARB and City Council consideration. The PTC members expressed an interest to create a more pedestrian friendly environment along Monroe Drive by recommending relocation of the sidewalk to the inside edge of the new trees closest to the comer of Monroe Drive and El Camino Real. Some PTC members also recommended looking at an alternative hotel entrance that fronts El Camino Real to achieve greater overall consistency with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the Context-Based Design Criteria of the Palo Alto Zoning Code. More detail concerning the pedestrian public path easement was also requested to ensure the public path easement provides a safe path of travel. During the Tentative Map review, the PTC discussed the sidewalk placement, bicycle/pedestrian path, private streets, trees, approval conditions and map process. Approval conditions and findings related to trees have been amended to address inconsistencies noted by the PTC. There were four speakers providing comments on the project. Two of the speakers expressed concern about the loss of the bowling alley. Staff received questions from Commissioner Martinez. Responses are included as Attachment J. The staff reports from the June 10, 2009 and November 18, 2009 PTC meetings are included as Attachments C and E, respectively. The PTC meeting minutes are included as Attachment D and F, respectively (for Council members only) and are available on the City's website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=16642. CMR: 443:09 Page 4 of6 ARB Review The project was reviewed by the ARB on August 6, 2009, October 1, 2009, and November 5, 2009. The Novenlber 18,2009 PTC report (Attachment E) summarizes project changes reviewed and recommended by the ARB. The ARB was supportive of the project and recommended approval by a vote of (5-0-0) with the condition to come back on consent calendar to address six specific conditions of approval: 1) Reexamine the hotel entry elevation with respect to the various proportions; 2) Reexamine the EI Canlino Real elevation, particularly at the center 100' area in the middle of the hotel with slightly more modulation; 3) Show gutters and downspouts on all residences; 4) Show grade changes on Monroe elevation; , 5) Show concrete lentils on all residences; 6) To consider landscaping that compliments the trellis feature along EI Camino Real. The ARB staff reports are available on the City's website and in City files for public review. The ARB consent calendar review of project details is tentatively scheduled for December 3, 2009. RESOURCE IMPACT The project's addition of 26 residential units, along with its replacement of the existing Motel 6 with a larger hotel would yield the City annual revenues in the form of property taxes, sales taxes, utility user taxes, and transient occupancy taxes, estimated in the $250,000 to $350,000 range. One-time revenues would include impact fees of approximately $920,000, and documentary transfer tax in the $70,000 to $85,000 range. On the expenditure side, the project's residential portion will create additional demand for City services, but these will be offset by the developer impact fees mentioned above. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This project is the first project with a hotel since the zoning ordinance amendment of2005 ,which allowed additional FAR (2.0: 1) for hotels and is also the first hotel project since the 2009 zoning ordinance amendment which addressed extended stay hotels. Hilton Homewood Suites is a residential-style hotel targeting travelers who are on the road for a few nights or longer. Under the Homewood Suites business model it is anticipated that fewer than 20% of the guests will stay for periods of longer than 10 days. The proposed hotel will comply with the requirements of P AMC 18.16.060 (d) including recently adopted provisions by Council to regulate extended stay hotels. The Comprehensive Plan designation is a mix of Service Commercial, Multi-Family Residential, and Single Family Residential per the Palo Alto 1998 -2010 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project for a new mixed use including a hotel and multi-family residential is consistent with the land use designation. The project is also consistent with Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policies related to business and economics. The Comprehensive Plan encourages owners to upgrade or replace existing commercial properties so that these commercial areas are more competitive and better serve the community. The existing commercial properties would be redesigned to be more attractive and inviting for pedestrians. The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and CMR: 443:09 Page 5 of6 compliance with the Site and Design review criteria are incorporated into the Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). ENVIRONIVIENTAL REVIEW . The draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration, which reviewed the environmental issues related to the project, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), was circulated for a 20-day public comment period on June 17, 2009. No comments were received on the Draft Negative Declaration during the comment peliod. A copy of the environmental document is provided as Attachment H. The Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration must be adopted prior to the Council decision on this project. PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CURTIS WILLIAMS Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachnlent G: Attachment H: Attachment I: Attachment J: Attachment K: Attachment L: Attachnlent M: Attachment N: Attachment 0: Attachment P: Record of Land Use Action Location Map PTC Staff Report June 10,2009 (w/o attachments) PTC Verbatim Minutes of June 10, 2009 PTC Staff Report November 18, 2009 (w/o attachments) PTC Verbatinl Minutes of November 18,2009 ARB Staff Report, November 5, 2009 (w/o attachments) Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoling Reporting Program Commissioners' questions and staff responses Monroe Park Neighborhood Letter LEED Checklist Green Point Rated Checklist Applicant's Presentation (Council only)* Applicants Palo Alto Bowl Summary to Council Letter (Council only)* Project Plans (Council only) *Submitted by Applicant CMR: 443:09 Page 6 of7 COURTESY COPIES Aaron Barger, Barry Swenson Builder, Applicant Ryan Leong, Palo Alto Bowl, LLC, Property Owner Jonathan Chao, Steinberg Architects, Designer/Architect " Lil1l1ea Wickstrom, Monroe Park Neighborhood Association, President Al1l1e Harrington, Cessano Court Resident Alex Lantsberg, Northern California Carpenters Regional Council CMR: 443:09 Page 7 of7 ATTACHMENT A APPROVAL NO. 2009-06 RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 4301-4329 El Camino Rea~: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW AND TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATIONS [FILE NO.08PLN-00313 & 09PLN-00157] (PALO ALTO BOWL, LLC., APPLICANT) On _December 14, 2009, the City Council approved the Site and Design Review and Tentative Map application for a new mixed use project including one 4-story, 167 unit hotel and 26 three-story detached and duplex-type townhomes on a 3.62 acre site located in the CS (Service Commercial), RM-15 (Multi-Family Residential), and R-1 (Single Family Residential) zone districts. making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as follo"Y's: A. On October 6, 2008 Aaron Barger, on behalf of Palo Alto Bowl, LLC., applied for a Site and Design Review application for a new mixed use project including one 4-story, 167 unit hotel and 26 three-story detached and duplex-type townhomes for a total of 179,594 square feet. B. The Project would include the demolition of 64,263 square feet of existing commercial development including the one- story Palo Alto Bowl building, a three-story motel, and one-story retail building and the construction of 179/594 square foot mixed use project including one 4-story, 167-unit hotel and 26 three- story detached and duplex-type condominium units. C. On July 9, 2009 Aaron Barger, on behalf of Palo Alto Bowl, LLC., applied for a Tentative Map application for a single condom'inium parcel of land with a hotel unit and 26 for sale residential units. D. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed and recommended approval of the Site and Design Review Project on June 10, 2009. E. Following Commission review, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed and recommended approval of the Si te and Design Project on November 5,2009. F. Following staff review/ the Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the Tentative Map Project on November 18, 2009. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency for The Project has determined that the project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guideline section 15070, Decision to Prepare a Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was prepared for he Project and it has been determined that no potentially adverse impacts would result from the development that cannot be mitigated, therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was available for public review beginning May 29, 2009 through June 17, 2009. The Environmental Impact Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration are contained in CMR: 443:09 SECTION 3. Site and Design Review Findings. 1. The use will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites, in that: The project is designed to be a mixed use project and incorporates an fective site layout that is consistent with the surrounding uses. Specifically, the hotel is located along the EI Camino Real frontage, adjacent to similar commercial uses and zoning, and the residential use serves as an appropriate transition to the homes at the rear of the s . City standards and regulations will help to ensure that the use, or operation, of the site will be conducted in a manner that is compatible with the existing uses located in the immediate area. During construction[ it is expected that there will be temporary impacts to the area in terms of construction- related noise, dust/debris and traffic. These impacts will be offset by applicable City construction standards, such as restrictions on hours of construction, the City's noise ordinance, and the mitigation measures found in the attached draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment H) 2. The Project is consistent with the goal of ensuring the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas, in that: As this site is located in the Service Commercial [ Multi-Family Residential [ and Single Family Residential zone districts, and surrounded by both one and two story office buildings, the replacement of an existing motel, bowling alley, and single story small retail buildings with a new hotel and residences. should not reduce the overall functionality of the immediate area. Hotel and multi-family residential uses are expressly permitted in the Palo Alto Municipal Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and help to support employment uses and revenue generation in the City. Other hotel facilities can also be found in the CS Zone District along EI Camino Real in the southern end of Palo Alto. 3. Sound principles environmental design and ecological balance are observed in the Project, in that: The project will replace a disturbed area on the tel which is currently developed with a motel l a small one-story retail building l a commercial building occupied by a restaurant and bowling alleYI and parking lot areas. The project will protect significant trees on the site and provide for enhanced landscaping and open space. Green building features will be incorporated to achieve LEED Silver compliance for the hotel and Build it Green (BIG) certification for the residences. This application was subject to an environmental impact assessment (EIA) , and it was determined that with appropriate mitigation measures l detailed in the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment H) I there will be no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed development 4. The use Comprehensive Plan, will be in that: in accord with Palo Alto The Comprehensive Plan designation is a mix 9f Service Commercial, Multi-Family Residential, and Single Family Residential per the Palo Alto 1998 -2010 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project for a new mixed use including a hotel and multi- family residential is consistent with the l~nd use designation. The project is also consistent with The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policies related to business and economics. The Comprehensive Plan encourages owners to upgrade or replace existing commercial properties so that these commercial areas are more competitive and better serve the community. The commercial properties could be redesigned to be more attractive and inviting for pedestrians. These properties could be redesigned to provide addi onal housing through mixed use development. Goal L-1: A well designed, compact city providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods I work places, shopping districtsl public facilities and open spaces. Policy L-4: Maintain Palo Alto/s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of s commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto's desirable qualities. Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics of mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development. Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-site parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. Policy N-17: Preserve and protect heritage trees, including native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property. Goal B-1: A thriving business environment that is compatible with Palo Alto's residential character and natural environment. Goal B-3: New businesses that provide needed local services and municipal revenues, contribute to economic vitality, and enhance the city's physical environment. Additional applicable Comprehensive Goals and Policies are provided in Attachment H of the June 10, 2009 PTC Staff Report. SECTION 4. TENTATIVE MAP FINDINGS A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map, if makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474) : 1. That the proposed map is applicable general and specific plans as 65451: not consistent with specified in Section This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The site does not lie within a specific plan area and is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. The land use designation in the area of the subdivision is Service Commercial which allows mixed use development and the zoning designation is CS, RM-15 and R-1 (8000). The proposed mixed use development of multi-family residential and one hotel is consistent with the land use and zoning designations of the site. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The map is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: (1) Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics of mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use developmenti (2) Policy L-11: Promote increased compatibility, interdependence, and support between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods; (3) Policy N-17:Preserve and protect heritage trees, including native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property; (4)Policy B-9:Encourage new businesses that meet the city's business and economic goals to locate in Palo Alto. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The site can accommodate the proposed mixed use development. The site is adjacent to established service commercial and residential development. The site is relatively flat and has mUltiple connections for bikes, pedestrians, and cars. The site planning for the project is consistent with area in that the four- story hotel is located along EI Camino Real in the CS zoned portion of the site and is consistent with similar uses in the area. The project transitions to the 26 residences in the rear half of the lot that is adjacent to the neighboring R-1 properties 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision would be consistent with the site development regulations of the RM-15 zone district. The proposed density of 26 units is far less than the allowable density of 56 units. The proposed density of development is not considered growth inducing with respect to service and utility infrastructure or with respect to access. The proj ect will also have a less than significant impact on traffic demand. 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 can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision would not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat. The site does contain a number of mature landscape trees. Many of these were identified as being significant 'due to their size and health and have been proposed to remain. 16 trees are defined as protected ordinance size trees. They include #15-20, 22-25, 27, 34, 38, 42, 55 and 85. The building footprint is located on the location of protected coast live oak #42, and is proposed to be relocated to the eastern edge of the property adj acent to the public path easement entry at Cesano Court. One coast live oak #17, a public and protected tree, is proposed for removal to facilitate a new driveway curb cut onto Monroe Drive. The tree has been determined to be in to poor of health for relocation so a new 96llvalley oak tree is proposed as a replacement tree and will be located at the hotel entry adjacent to the eastern property line. One redwood tree #24 is in poor condition and is located where the bike path is proposed and will be replaced with an 84" box specimen tree (Parrotia Persica) at the corner of the property. The largest protected tree on the property, coast live oak #55, is a large mature healthy tree visible from EI Camino Real, and is to be a retained focal point of the site planning, outdoor use and enjoyment. There are 23 publicly owned street trees The project includes removal of the 14 publicly owned trees. These trees would be replaced with 16 new street trees and new landscaping along both the EI Camino Real and Monroe Drive street frontage. 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision of the existing parcels will not cause serious public heal th problems. The resul ting mixed use development will not cause a public health problem in that it is designed to provide access for emergency services, will supply necessary utility services, such as sanitation, and is designed per City and State standards to ensure public safety. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public a t large, for access through or use of, property wi thin 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. The subdivision of the existing parcels will not conflict with existing public easements. New utility easements and new public rights of way will be created and the plan is designed to maintain public access throughout the site. SECTION 5. SITE AND DESIGN APPROVALS GRANTED. Site and Design Approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.30(G) .. 070 for application 08PLN-00104, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 5 of the Record. SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval. Planning and Transportation Division 1. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans received and date stamped October 20,2009, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. 2. The plans show a new entry sign located along the southeast property line. An application and approval for architectural review pursuant to PAMC Chapter 16.20 is required for new signage for the proposed business establishment prior to installation. 3. If the project applicant is unable to dedicate to the City the public path easement prior to submittal for building permits, the project would need to be revised so that the daylight plane measurement is based on the existlng property line as opposed to the proposed property boundary created by the public path easement. 4. The applicant shall provide a photometric plan prior to ARB submittal that identifies all potential light impacts to neighboring residential properties, including any potential impacts from hotel use onto any residential units located on the project site. 5. Prior to building permit submittal, applicant shall provide City with funding for proposed traffic calming measures. 6. All mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be incorporated into the project implementation. 7. The project subject to meeting all the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.44, the City's Green Building Ordinance. 8. To the extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the ~indemnified parties) from against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. Planning Arborist PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 9. Tree #17 is a 14-inch diameter coast live oak that was considered for relocation, but staff determined the tree would not survive the efforts because of poor structure and conditions. Therefore, the tree shall be mitigated with a new 96-inch valley oak, at the hotel entry adjacent to the eastern property line. Mitigation shall also include a Regulated Tree Management Program [2] . A security guarantee of 150% of the in kind size cost shall be kept by the city for a period of two years, pursuant to the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.25-6. 10. Tree #42 is an 18.5-inch diameter coast live oak that will be retained, protected and relocated to an approved location on the site. Tree #24 is an 22-inch diameter redwood that will be removed and replaced with a 84-inch box specimen tree {Parrotia Persica)at the northwest corner the property. Mitigation shall also include a Regulated Tree Relocation and Management Program [3] . A security guarantee of 150% of the in kind size cost shall be kept by the city for a period of two years, pursuant to the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.25-6. 11. Tree #55 is a mature 46.5-inch diameter coast live oak that will be retained and protected. The prominent tree is highly visible from EI Camino Real, and therefore considered a significant aesthetic resource, as well as an ordinance size biological resource. The project could impose significant impacts to the roots from parking garage construction and canopy degradation by denying solar access to the leaf area. According to the shading study requested by staff l approximately 25% of leaf area will be permanently impacted by year round new building shade, and additional leaf area shaded by shorter periods of solar access, all critical to the tree/s survival, ability to withstand insect and disease and retention in the s plan. Mitigations shall be as follows: a. A Regulated Tree Management Program [4] shall be provided. A security guarantee of 150% of the in kind size cost shall be kept by the city for a period of two years, pursuant to the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.25- 6. It shall recommend measures for below ground I above ground and maintenance measures: (a) Below ground, engineer optimum soil and root growing conditions for the limited growing area imposed upon the tree, including watering, aerating, fertilizing surface treatments and other measureSj (b) above ground, engineer a solar access solution by providing sufficient artificial light integrated into the building design (timed, powered by photovoltaic system or other approved method, and designed to minimize visual prominence). Provide easy to follow maintenance program for branch and twig blight, insect controls, pruning, inspection and reporting schedule, etc. A security guarantee of 150% of the appraised market value shall be kept by the city for a period of five years, pursuant to the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.25-6. The following recommended conditions will also apply to the above three oak trees (#17, 42 and 55) to be retained: 12. TREE APPRAISAL & SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. (Reference: CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.25). Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall prepare and secure a tree appraisal and security deposit agreement stipulating the duration and monitoring program. The appraisal of the condition and replacement value of all trees to remain shall recognize the location of each tree in the proposed development. Listed separately, the appraisal may be part of the Tree Survey Report. For the purposes of a security deposit agreement, the monetary market or replacement value shall be determined using the most recent version of the "Guide for Plan Appraisal", in conjunction with the Species and Classification Guide for Northern California. The appraisal shall be performed at the applicant's expense, and the appraiser shall be subject to the Director's approval. a. SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. Prior to grading or building permit issuance, as a condition of development approval/ the applicant shall post a security deposit for the 150% of the appraised replacement value of the following trees: (#15-16,18-20/22-23,25,27,34,38,42,55,and 85), to be retained and protected. The total amount for this project is: $ . The security may be a cash deposit, letter of credit, or surety bond and shall be filed with the Revenue Collections/Finance Department or in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. b. SECURITY DEPOSIT MONITORING PROGRAM. The project sponsor shall provide to the City of Palo Alto an annual tree evaluation report prepared by the project arborist or other qualified certified arborist, assessing the condition and recommendations to correct potential tree decline for trees remain and trees planted as part of the mitigation program. The monitoring program shall end two years from date of final occupancy, unless extended due to tree mortality and replacement, in which case a new two year monitoring program and annual evaluation report for the replacement tree shall begin. Prior to occupancy, a final report and assessment shall be submitted for City review and approval. The final report shall summarize the Tree Resources program, documenting tree or site changes to the approved plans, update status of tree health and recommend specific tree care maintenance practices for the property owner(s). The owner or project sponsor shall call for a final inspection by the Planning Division Arborist. c. SECURITY DEPOSIT DURATION. The security deposit duration period shall be two years (or five years if determined by the Director) from the date of final occupancy. Return of the security guarantee shall be subject to City approval of the final monitoring report. A tree shall be considered dead when the main leader has died back, 25% of the crown is dead or if major trunk or root damage is evident. A new tree of equal or greater appraised value shall be planted in the same area by the property owner. Landscape area and irrigation shall be readapted to provide optimum growing conditions for the replacement tree. The replacement tree that is planted shall be subject to a new two-year establishment and monitoring program. The project sponsor shall provide an annual tree evaluation report as originally required. 13. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REVIEW. Prior to submittal for staff review, the plans submitted for building permit shall be reviewed by the project site arborist to verify that all the arborist's recommendations have been incorporated into the final plan set. The submittal set shall be accompanied by the project site arborist's certification letter that the plans have incorporated the following information: a. Final Tree Protection Report (TPR) design changes and preservation measures. b. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080. c. Outstanding items. Itemized list and which plan sheet the measures are to be located. d. Landscape and irrigation plans are consistent with CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.45 and Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks and PAMC 18.40.130. 14. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on the relevant plan sheets: a. Sheet T-1 Tree Protection-"it's Part of the Plan (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/urbancanopy.a sp), Applicant shall complete the Tree Disclosure Statement. Inspections and monthly reporting by the project arborist are mandatory. (All projects: check #1; with tree preservation report: check #2-6; with landscape plan: check #7.) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the TPR approved by the City, (Title of certified arborist report entered here, dated , 2009) shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index. c. Protective Tree Fencing Type. Delineate on grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans, Type II fencing around Street Trees and Type I fencing around Protected/Designated trees as a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (per the approved Tree Preservation Report) per instructions on Detail #605, Sheet T-1, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans. d. Site Plan Notes. Note . Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated in the Tree Protection Report on Sheet T-1 and the approved plans". Note #2. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall include a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree-- before working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at ( David Babby at Arbor Resources 650-654- 3351) i Note #3. "Basement foundation plan. Soils Report and Excavation for basement construction within the TPZ of a protected tree shall specify a vertical cut (stitch piers may be necessary) in order to avoid over- excavating into the tree root zone. Any variance from this procedure requires City Arborist approval, please call (650) 329-2441." Note #4. Utility plan sheets shall include the following note: "Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors! City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T-1 for instructions." 15. LANDSCAPE PLANS. a. Make the following changes in plant material for the following species! and planting specifications (if any) b. Provide a detailed landscape and irrigation plan. c. Encompassing on-and off-site plantable areas out to the curb shall be approved by the Architectural Review Board. A Landscape Water Use statement! water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for the project. A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant will prepare these plans! to include: i. All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. ii. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity! size! and locations. iii. Irrigation schedule and plan. iv. Fence locations. v. Lighting plan with photometric data. vi. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated! aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. vii. All new trees planted within the public right-of-way shall be installed per Public Works (PW) Standard Planting Diagram #603 or 604 (include on plans)! and shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. viii. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep! backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. ix. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. For trees! PW Detail #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside an aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover! pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards. x. Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow device is adequately obscured with the appropriate screening to minimize visibility (planted shrubbery is preferred/ painted dark green/ decorative boulder covering acceptable; wire cages are discouraged) . d. Planting notes to include the following mandatory criteria: i. Prior to any planting/ all plantable areas shall be tilled to 12" 4epth, and all construction rubble and stones over 1" or larger shall be removed from the site. ii. Note a turf-free zone around trees 36" diameter (18" radius) for best tree performance. e. Mandatory Landscape Architect (LA) Inspection Verification to the City. The LA of record shall verify the performance measurements are achieved with a separate letter of verification to City Planning staff, in addition to owner's representative for each of the following: i. Percolation & drainage checks have been performed and is acceptable. ii. Fine grading inspection of all plantable areas has been personally inspected for tilling depth, rubble removal, soil test amendments are mixed and irrigation .trenching will not cut through any tree roots. iii. Tree and Shrub Planting Specifications, including delivered stock, meets Standards in the CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.30-3.50. Girdling roots and previously topped trees are subject to rejection. 16. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance, a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. DURING CONSTRUCTION 17. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM/ Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading/ digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be preformed using 'air-spade' method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans. 18. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the project site arborist, (name of certified arborist of record), with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the city for review. 19. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 20. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. A mandatory Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 21.TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 22.GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to 1 trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY (Required for commercial projects with landscape plan--delete if not needed) 23.LANDSCAPE INSPECTION. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of written verification that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 24.TREE INSPECTION. The contractor shall call for an inspection by the Project Arborist. A final inspection and report by the project arborist shall evaluate all trees to be retained and protected, as indicated in the approved plans, the activity, health, welfare t mitigation remedies for injury, if any, and for the long term care of the trees for the new owner. The report shall provide written verification to the Planning Department that all trees t shrubs, planting and irrigation are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. The final arborist report shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to written request for temporary or final occupancy. The final report may be used to navigate the security guarantee return process, when applicable. 25.PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650-329-2441) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. POST CONSTRUCTION (Required for commercial projects with landscape plan--delete if not needed) 26.MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered t fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices Pruning (ANSI A300-2001 or current version) . Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE 27.Sheet L5.1. The irrigation detail #6 is not adequate for trees. Provide two bubblers ea. Per PWE Detail #513. 28.Include CPA Sheet T-1 on the Index and in the plan set. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 29.The Planning Department shall be in receipt of written verification that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. POST CONSTRUCTION 30.Maintenance. All landscape shall be maintained/ watered/ fertilized l and pruned according to Best Management Practices Pruning (ANSI A300-2001). Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. Planning Housing 31. Since the area is less than 5.0 acres in size/ the project must provide a 15% BMR contribution calculated as 26 units X 15% equals 3.9 units. 32. Based on the above calculationl at least three (3) units of the 26 units shall be provided for sale at the permitted BMR prices to qualified buyers through the City/s BMR Program. And the remaining 0.9 units shall be satisfied through the payment by the developer of a pro-rated BMR in-lieu fee on the market price (or appraised value l if greater) of the non-BMR units. The BMR units must comply with the City/s standards for BMR units. As described in the Standards I BMR units must be provided in proportion to the unit types/ sizes/ and floor plans as the market rate units/ and must be located throughout the development in all buildingsl sections l and locations. In designing the BMR unit interior floor plans/ the applicant should attempt as much as possible l given the exterior dimensions of the homes I to meet the BMR unit standards for bedroom size. Building Department 33. For the Residential Townhouse units, please clarify if these units are to be part of a condominium parcel map or if the units will have fee simple individual parcel maps. 34. Clarify the Occupancy Use Group(s) for the Hotel Site in the Project Data Sheet. It appears that this project may have some mixed uses, such as group A-2 Assembly meeting/ dining rooms and Office/ group B and Storage/ group S uses. 35. If the Hotel is a mixed use occupancy building, then provide an Allowable Area calculation for the mixed occupancies, show if the building area is to be based on either Non- separated occupancies per CBC 508.3.2 or by Separated occupancies using CBC 508.3.3. If Fire Walls are required per CBC 705.1, then clearly show on the Hotel Floor Plan(s) the location(s) of these walls. 36. Clarify in the Project Data sheet if the Hotel building is to be sprinkelered or not? 37. Clarify on the Project Data sheet if the parking garage that is located below grade is to be provided with a 3-hr fire- r~sistive horizontal assembly and will be considered as a separate and distinct building for the purpose of determining area limitations. (CBC 509.2) 38. On sheet A2.01: Hotel Plan -First Floor Plan: provide on the plans the minimum required plumbing fixture count for the restrooms on each floor based on the 2007 CA Plumbing Code, CPC Table 4-1. 39. On sheet A2.01: Hotel Plan -First Floor Plan: provide the setback dimension from the (N) Hotel Building to the south property line. 40. On sheet A2.01: Hotel Plan -First Floor Plan: provide an exiting analysis for the (N) building, including the area for each room, occupant load, required nurr~er of exits and separations of required exits. Clarify on the floor plan if the exterior courtyard is enclosed or open to the grade or side street. If the courtyard is enclosed, then show the occupant load and the exits to the building from the courtyard. 41. On sheets A2.01 to A2.04: Hotel Plan -First to Fourth Floor Plans: provide accessible guest rooms as required per CBC 1111B.4.2 and Table 11B-3 and for hearing impaired accessible rooms per Table 11B-4. The arrangement of the accessible guest rooms shall be dispersed among the various classes of sleeping accommodations to provide a range of options applicable to room sizes, costs, amenities provided, etc. as per CBC 1111B.4.1. 42. A geotechnical report is required for the construction of the (N) Hotel Commercial building. 43. The completed and approved plan submittal package should be sent to an approved Outside Plan Check Consultant for plan review. Public Works Engineering 44. The proposed development will need a tentative-final map process. The applicant shall submit an application for a major subdivision with the Planning division. 45. Offsi te improvements will be required for this proj ect .. At minimum, these are: the resurfacing (grind and overlay, full width) of Monroe Dr., and the removal and replacement of the curb, gutter, and sidewalk along all project frontages. 46. Sheet AO.05 -The fire truck access will require bollards or similar traffic control device installed on both sides to prevent through traffic. 47. The underground parking structure shall be "built like a boat". No exterior subgrade drainage systems are lowed. 48. This proj ect must meet the State Regional Water Quali ty Control Board's (SRWQCB) revised provision C.3. The applicant is required to satisfy all current storm water discharge regulations and shall provide calculations and documents to verify compl iance . The proj ect must al so enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to the first building occupancy sign-off. Offsite property or ROW cannot be used to satisfy the C.3 requirements. 49. The site shows very limited usage of natural methods of stormwater pollution prevention measures. The applicant shall investigate and incorporate more non-mechanical storm water treatment measure into the project. Ut ity Sheet -If the loading area/dock contains a drain then it shall connect to the sanitary sewer (SS) through a manually operated fail-safe valve. 50. Utility Sheet -The loading area shall be covered if possible. 51. The applicant is required to meet with Public Works Engineering (PWE) prior to final ARB submittal to verify the basic design parameters affecting grading, drainage and surface water infiltration. The applicant is required to submit a conceptual site grading and drainage plan that conveys site runoff to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. In order to address potential storm water quality impacts, the plan shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMP's) to be incorporated into the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required for the project. The SWPPP shall include permanent BMP's to be incorporated into the project to protect storm water quality. (Resources and handouts are available from Public Works - Engineering. Specific reference is made to Palo Alto's companion document to "Start at the Source", entitled "Planning Your Land Development Project"). The elements of the PWE-approved conceptual grading and drainage plan shall be incorporated into the building permit plans. 52. A Grading and Excavation Permit issued by the CPA Public Works Engineering (PWE) Division is required for the proposed project. Any grading permit issued in conjunction with a phased project implementation plan will only authorize grading and storm drain improvements. Other site utilities may be shown on the grading plan for reference only, and should be so noted. No utility infrastructure should be shown inside the building footprint. 53. Installation of these other utilities will be approved as part of a subsequent Building Permit application. 54. The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering. This plan shall show spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, shall be maintained. The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the applicant's monthly City utility bill will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available from Public Works Engineering. 55. An easement or easements are required as follows: Various easements as required for access to site and bike path. The location of easements and the timing of separate easement documents shall be discussed with Public Works Engineering. 56. A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at mlnimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto's Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. A handout describing these and other requirements for a construction logistics plan is available from Public Works Engineering 57. The applicant shall obtain a Street Work Permit from Publ Works Engineering for pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk and or construction proposed in the City right-of- way. Sec. 12.08.010. 58. A portion of the proposed work is within the State of California or County of Santa Clara right-of-way_ A permit must be obtained from the applicable agency _ Evidence of permit approval shall be submitted to the Planning and Public Works Departments. 59. A detailed site-specific soil report prepared by a licensed soils or geo-technical engineer must be submitted which includes information on water table and basement construction issues. Measures must be undertaken to render the basement waterproof and able to withstand all projected hydrostatic and soil pressures. No pumping of ground water is lowed. In general, Public Works Engineering recommends that structures be constructed in such a way that they do not penetrate existing or projected ground water levels. 60. The applicant is required to paint the nNo Dumping/Flows to Adobe Creek" logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. Include maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan, if such a plan is part of this project. 61. The proj ect includes the construction of dumpster and recycling areas as part of a food service facility. Regulations require that the dumpster/recycling area be adequately roofed or covered. 62. The proj ect includes the construction of dumpster and recycling areas. City guidelines require that this area be covered. The plans include a loading dock. Storm runoff from loading docks where chemicals or hazardous materials may be handled shall not drain to a street, gutter, or storm drain. See 16.09.032(b) (4) (D). It is recommended that the loading dock(s) be covered to preclude the need for a drain. 63. The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. 64. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 65. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP's) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. Chapter 16.09) . (PAMC 66. All construction within the City right-of-waYI easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Speci cations of the Public Works and Utility Departments. 67. All sidewalks and curb and gutters bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. Sec. 12.0B.010. 6B. All unused driveways shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. Sec. 12.0B.090. 69. The Public Works Inspector shall sign the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off. Similarly, all as-builts, on-site grading, drainage and post- developments BMP's shall be completed prior to sign-off. 70. A curb ramp for the disabled will be required at the corner of Monroe Dr. and EI Camino Real. 71. Subdivision Agreement is required to secure compliance with condition of approval and security of improvements onsite and offsite. No grading or building permits will be issued until Final or Parcel Map is recorded with County Recorder. 72. The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Fire l and Transportation Departments after approval of this map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. These improvement plans must be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal of a parcel or final map. 73. The proj ect subdivision includes significant complexi ty involving, final map and coordination infrastructure design and construction. Developer shall appoint a Project Manager to coordinate with City, Public Works and Utility, engineering staff. Public Works will conduct daily and longer term communication with appointed project manager in order to facilitate timely review and approval of design and construction matters. 74. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City's jurisdiction shall conform to standard specifications of the Public Works and Utility Department. Sec. 12.0B.060. / 75. The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording of the final parcel or subdivision map to guarantee the completion of the "on" and "offll site condition(s) of approval. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Planning, Utilities and Public Works Departments. Water Quality Control 76. Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system 77. New dumpster areas shall be covered. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area and run-off from the area 78. Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 79. Residential buildings with 25 or more units provide a covered carwash area for vehicle washing by residents. The carwash area is required to drain to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer. 80. Copper roofing materials. On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper granule containing asphalt shingles and copper gutters shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing and gutters on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. 81. Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of the space with undesignated tenants or future use will need to meet all requirements that would have been applicable during design and construction. If such undesignated retail space becomes a food service facility the following requirements must be met: 82. Grease Control Device (GCD) Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.103(a) & cited Bldg/Plurr~ing Codes: 1. The plans shall specify the manufacturer details and installation details of, all proposed GCDs. (CBC 1009.2) 2. GCD (s) shall be sized in accordance with the 2007 California Plumbing Code. 3. GCD(s) shall be installed with a minimum capacity of'500 gallons. 4. GCD sizing calculations shall be included on the plans. See a sizing calculation example below. 5. The size of all GCDs installed shall be equal to or larger than what is specified on the plans. 6. GCDs larger than 50 gallons (100 pounds) shall not be installed in food preparation and storage areas. Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health prefers GCDs to be installed outside. GCDs shall be installed such that all access points or manholes are readily accessible for inspection, cleaning and removal of all contents. GCDs located outdoors shall be installed in such a manner so as to exclude the entrance of surface and stormwater. (CPC 1009.5) 7. All large, in-ground interceptors shall have a minimum of three manholes to allow visibility of each inlet piping, baffle (divider) wall, baffle piping and outlet piping. The plans shall clearly indicate the number of proposed manholes on the GCD. The' Environmental Compliance Division of Public Works Department may authorize variances which allow GCDs with less than three manholes due to manufacture available options or adequate visibility. 8. Sample boxes shall be installed downstream of all GCDs. 9. All GCDs shall be fitted with relief vent (s) . (CPC 1002.2 & 1004) 10. GCD(s) installed in vehicle traffic areas shall be rated and indicated on plans. 83. Drainage Fixture Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.106(c) & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes: 1. To ensure all FSE drainage fixtures are connected to the correct drain lines, each drainage fixture shall be clearly labeled on the plans. A list of all fixtures and their discharge connectionl i.e. sanitary sewer or grease waste line, shall be included on the plans. 2. A list indicating all connections to each proposed GCD shall be included on the plans. This can be incorporated into the sizing calculation. 3. All grease generating drainage fixtures shall connect to a GCD. These include but are not limited to: a. Pre-rinse (scullery) sinks (direct connection) b. Three compartment sinks (pot sinks) (direct connection) c. Drainage fixtures in dishwashing room except for dishwashers shall connect to a GCD (direct connection) i. Examples: trough drains (small drains prior to entering a dishwasher), small drains on busing counters adjacent to pre-rinse sinks or silverware soaking sinks 'd. Floor drains in dishwashing area and kitchens e. Prep sinks (indirect connection) f. Mop (janitor) sinks g. Outside areas designated for equipment washing shall be covered and any drains contained therein shall connect to a GCD. h. Drains in trash/recycling enclosures i. Wok stoves, rotisserie ovens/broilers or other grease generating cooking equipment with drip lines (indirect connection) j. Kettles and tilt/braising pans and associated floor drains/sinks 4. The connection of any high temperature discharge lines and non-grease generating drainage fixtures to a GCD is prohibited. The following shall not be connected to a GCD: a. Dishwashers (direct connection) b. Steamers (indirect connection) c. Pasta cookers (indirect connection) d. Hot lines from buffet counters and kitchens (indirect connection) e. Hand sinks (direct connection) f. Ice machine drip lines (indirect connection) g. Soda machine drip lines (indirect connection) h. Drainage lines in bar areas (indirect connection) 5. No garbage disposers (grinders) shall be installed in a FSE. (PAMC 16.09.103 (e)) 6. Plumbing lines shall not be installed above any cooking, food preparation and storage areas. 7. Each drainage fixture discharging into a GCD shall be individually trapped and vented. (CPC 1014.5) 84. Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas PAMCr 16.09.032b(16) : 1. New buildings constructed to house FSEs shall include a covered area for all dumpsters, bins, carts or container used for the collection of trashr recycling, food scraps and waste cooking fats r oils and grease (FOG) or tallow. 2. The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. 3. Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins serving FSEs are optional. Any such drain installed shall be connected to a GCD. 4. I'f tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in the covered area. 85. FSEs shall have a sink or other area drain which is connected to a GCD and large enough for cleaning the largest kitchen equipment such as floor mats, containers, carts, etc. Recommendation: Generally, sinks or cleaning areas larger than a typical mop/janitor sink are more useful. Utilities Engineering 86 The applicant shall comply with all the Electric utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 87. The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1- 800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 88. The Applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all ut ity ,services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. 89. A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all building permit applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal. 90. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. 91. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 92. This project requires three(3) padmount transformers and one (1) padmount switch location unless otherwise approved in writing by the Electrical Engineering Department. The location of the padmount transformers and switch shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16. 93. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property as required by the City. 94. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer's switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 95. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 96. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 97. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility's padmount transformer and the customer's main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 98. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilit Rule & Regulation #18. 99. If the customer's total load exceeds 2500kVA/ service shall be provided at the primary voltage of 12,470 volts and the customer shall provide the high voltage switchgear and transformers. Utilities Rule & Regulation #3. 100. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer's expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. 101. Any additional facil ies and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. 102. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18-D(2) . 103. The developer owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment and associated substructure as required by the City. In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed within the subdivision as required by the City. 104. The civil drawings must show all existing and proposed electrical facilities (i.e. conduits, boxes, pads, services, and streetlights) as well as other utilities. 105. The developer/owner is responsible for all substructure installations (conduits, boxes, pads, streetlight system, etc.) on the subdivision final map. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and all work must be inspected and approved by the Electrical Underground Inspector. Rule & Regulation #16-A(2) . 106. The developer/owner is responsible for all underground services (conduits and conductors) to single-family homes within the subdivision. All work requires inspection and approval form both the Building Department and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 107. The tentative parcel map shall show all required easements as requested by the City. Utilities Water, Gas & Wastewater PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 103. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall schedule the WGW utilities field inspector at 650/566-4503 to visit the site and review the existing water/wastewater fixtures to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not schedule this inspection, they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures. 104. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. PRIOR TO WGW BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL 105. The applicant shall submit a completed water gas-wastewater service connection application -load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). Utility applications/Load sheets or preliminary loads need to be submitted early in the process so utilities can review the impact on existing WGW mains. 106. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. A looped water system is required to construct this project. The applicant is required to install a new section of 8" water main from Miller Ave to Wilkie Way. 107. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain I' horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing util ies, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. 108. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply (reclaimed water, gray water l etc.). 109. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility services and/or mains as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility services and/or mains. 110. Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located below the next upstream sewer main manhole cover shall be protected by an approved backwater valve per California Plumbing Code 710.0. The upstream sewer main manhole rim elevation shall be shown on the plans. 111. Flushing of the fire system to sanitary sewer shall not exceed 30 GPM. Higher flushing rates shall be diverted to a detention tank to achieve the 30 GPM flow to sewer. 112. Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions: 1. The pump(s) be limited to a total 100 GPM capacity or less. 2. The sewage line changes to a gravity flow line at least 20' upstream of the City clean out. 3.The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time not exceed 20 seconds each cycle. 113. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off- site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant may be required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. 114. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant's expense. 115. Each place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water, gas and wastewater services. 116. A separate water meter and backflow preventer shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and 'landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo, Alto' water efficiency standards. 117. An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) shall be installed for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Util ies to comply with requirements of California administrative code, tit 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 118. An approved double detector check valve shall be installed for the existing or new water connections for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (if the applicant intends to have an alternate source of water available for irrigation or toilet flushing, i.e. reclaimed water or gray water, an approved reduced pressure detector assembly will be required for the fire service). Double check detector check valves shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line. Show the location of the double detector check assembly on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the City connection and the assembly. 119. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must conform with utilities standard details. 120. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilties procedures. 121. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 122. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for any utility work in the EI Camino Real right- of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW engineering section. 123. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with the installation of the new utility service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facil ies will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. SECTION 6. Term of Approval. Site and Design Approval. the project is not commenced council approval, the approval force or effect, pursuant to 18.82.080. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk ApPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Deputy City Attorney In the event actual construction of within two years of the date of shall expire and be of no further Palo Al to Municipal Code Section APPROVED: Director of Planning and Community Environment Page 31 '\'!. ~ ... ''\-" .;Ii ~. '1t. ~.., .. Legend c:::J Project Site City Jurisdictional Limits : I:: : ~ Palo Alto City Boundary Jnortz.2009-OlH)113:41:43 (\lco-maps\gl~isladrrinlPen;onal\jnortz.mdb) 0 ; (D The City of Palo Alto '1"""""4 C\S <1.) ~ ~ 8~ I-·8~ z C\S C\S U.I U<1.) .~ ~< :t: U O\~ « Ng I-M·~ I-~8 « I~ ,.,....-t 0 M ~ This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS ~ --0' 250' This doct.ment Is a graphic reprasantation only or best available sources. The City or Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any IHTOIS. Cl9891D 2009 City or Palo Alto ATTACHMENT C PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: Jason Nortz, Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: June 10,2009 SUBJECT: 4301 and 4329 EI Camino Real [08PLN-00313]: Request for Site and Design Review for the demolition of 64,263 square feet of existing commercial development floor area and construction of 179,594 square feet of new floor area including one 4-story, 167 unit hotel and 26 three- story detached and duplex-type condominium units on a 3.62 acre site located at 4301 and 4329 EI Camino Real. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The site is zoned RM-1, RM-15 and CS. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the application for Site and Design Review, based on the findings and draft conditions of approval in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). COMMISSION PURVIEW The project is subject to site and design review in accord with Chapter 18.30(I) because the project proposes more than four residential units. BACKGROUND Site Information The Proj ect is located on the southeast comer at the intersection of EI Canlino Real and Monroe Drive. A bank is located northwest of the site across Monroe Drive. Northeast of the site are City of Palo Alto Page 1 three single-family residences that are part of the Monroe Park neighborhood. To the east of the site is a Planned Community (PC-3036) site comprised of the Palo Alto Greens, 42 condominiums and seven single family residences along Cesano Court. Cesano Court is accessed from El Camino Real by way of the Commercial Service (CS) Zone District that includes a piano store, spa and residential contractor's office, located contiguous to the southeast comer of the proposed development site. West of the site, across El Camino Real are hotel and office buildings that are located in the City of Los Altos. The site is comprised of four parcels for a total of3.62 acres addressed as 4301 and 4329 El Camino Real. It is presently occupied by Motel 6 on the northerly end of the site, a small commercial building with three service oriented businesses fronting El Camino Real on the Motel 6 site and the Palo Alto Bowl building that includes a restaurant on the south and two vacant lots at the northeast comer. Motel 6 and commercial business buildings occupy 29,304 square feet of built space on a 51,401 square foot lot. The Palo Alto Bowl building is 30,459 square feet on an approximately 94,525 square foot lot. The remainder of the proposed site is parking area and vacant land. Vehicular access to all uses on the site is currently located on El Camino Real. There are multiple protected trees on the site including both street trees and on- site oaks and redwoods. The site consists of multiple zoning designations: Service Commercial (CS); Multi-Family Residential (RM-15) and Single-Family Residential(R-1). The site is located in the Los Altos School District. Proj ect Description The project at 4301 and 4329 El Camino Real proposes the demolition of 64,263 square feet of existing commercial development floor area and construction of 179,594 square feet of new floor area including one four-story, 167 -unit hotel and 26 three-story detached and duplex -type condominium units. The project is a mixed use developnlent. The hotel will be located along the southwestern edge of the site facing El Camino Real. The residential portion of the project will be located directly behind the hotel on the rear half of the lot along the northern and eastern property lines. The site planning for the project is consistent with area in that the four-story hotel is located along El Camino Real in the CS zoned portion of the site and is consistent with similar uses in the area. The proj ect transitions to the 26 residences in the rear half of the lot that is adj acent to the neighboring R -1 properties. Subdivision The project will consist of a single condominium parcel of land with a hotel unit and 26 for sale residential units. The applicant will apply for a tentative map in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Subdivision Map Act. The subdivision is not before the PTC at this time. Hotel Component The hotel will be owned by Hilton and operated as a Homewood Suites. The hotel will be four- stories with a maximum height of 47'6" above grade, which is lower than the 50' maximum allowed height limit. The hotel would consist of 167 guest rooms with a ground level reception area, meeting rooms and a dining area. The dining area is for hotel guests only and will serve catered meals only. The area that will comprise the 167-hotel units totals 62,609 square feet. The hotel, including the rooms and other facilities would total 125,034 square feet for a total City of Palo Alto Page 2 floor area ratio (FAR) of2.0 on its portion of the site, the maximum allowable FAR for hotels in the CS zone district. A total of 172 parking spaces are proposed for the hotel of those, 158 of the proposed parking spaces will be provided in a one-level underground garage and the remaining 14 spaces will be provided at ground level. Vehicular access for hotel guests and employees will be limited to EI Camino Real. Additional vehicular access for the residential portion of the project is proposed from Monroe Drive. No hotel vehicles will be pennitted to access the site from Monroe Drive, except for emergency vehicles. An elevator and stairway would provide access from the parking garage to all hotel levels. There are four room types proposed. These would consist of a 965 square foot two bedroom double suite floor plan; a 631 square foot double queen suite floor plan; a 504 square foot king suite floor plan; and a 480 square foot studio suite floor plan. All rooms would include kitchen facilities. Amenities would include a large outdoor courtyard within the hotel area protecting a very large existing oak tree; outdoor seating area, exercise room, business center and meeting room for hotel guests and an indoor lodge area providing catered meals for hotel guests only. Residential Component The residential portion of the project will consist of26 three-story detached and duplex style for sale condominium units. The residences would have a height of 31 ' 11" from grade. Ten detached single family units and eight two-unit attached duplex type residences are proposed. The 26 units range from 2,068 to 2,167 square feet in size, including garages. The residential site area is 95,138 square feet. The building areas total 54,560 square feet which is equal to the allowable FAR of 0.57 as determined to be the blended FAR calculation using a mix of RM -15 and CS zone district standards for the residential portion of the proj ect. The blended FAR calculation is a combination of FAR requirements for the R-l, RM-15 and RM-30 zoning districts. There are three types of residential units: five Unit A models at 2,167 square feet each; five Unit B models at 2,073 square feet each; eight Unit C models at 2,102 square feet each; and eight Unit D models at 2,068 square feet each. The Unit A and Unit B models are stand-alone units and do not share a comnl0n wall with an adjacent unit. The Unit C and Unit D models are designed as duplex type residences and each unit shares a wall with an adjacent unit. All units would include four bedrooms and three and a half bathrooms. All units would include a two-car enclosed garage, one bedroom and a bath on the ground level. The second floor would consist of the living area, kitchen, and half bathroom. The third floor would consist of three bedrooms and two bathrooms. Each unit would provide expansive open space areas consisting of ground level patios and second and third floor balconies. Each unit would provide two balconies on the second floor located at front and rear of the unit. Unit A models include two balconies on third floor located off of the master bedroom and hallway area. Units B, C, and D include only one third floor balcony located off of the master bedroom. In addition to the private open space areas provided to each unit, a community open space area would be provided adj acent to the hotel garden area. The residential units are proposed as for sale condominium units. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Public Path Easement and Vehicular Access The proj ect includes the creation of a public pedestrian and bicycle path easement located at the rear of the site. The easement would be 10 feet wide and 5,524 square feet in site area. The connection would enable movement between Monroe Drive and Cesano Court along the eastern edge of the property. The connection would provide an alternative path of travel that is safer than the existing path of travel along EI Camino Real, particularly for children traveling across El Camino Real to school. The easement would connect on the eastern edge of the project, which is the only location that is possible because of the necessity that the bicycle and pedestrian easement connect to an existing public easement that was created when the neighboring Cesano Court Planned Community (PC-3036) was established. Vehicular access to the site will be provided using two main entries. Access to the residential portion of the site would be provided along Monroe Drive. Access to the hotel portion of the project would be provided at a right-inlright-out only driveway along El Camino Real. Vehicular circulation will be restricted between the residential and hotel uses. This would encourage hotel guest and employees to enter and exit the site from El Camino Real only and not to travel through the Monroe Drive Neighborhood. Access would be provided between the sites for emergency purposes only. Proposed improvements to the Monroe Drive frontage include a narrowing of the street width. This would provide two purposes: (1) to allow appropriate width to construct a sidewalk and (2) serve as a traffic calming measure into a residential neighborhood. Sustainable Design The site design includes a variety of private yards and common open space area that would be available for the individual residences. The hotel design includes a generous courtyard that would be built around a large existing oak tree. In addition to the oak tree in the courtyard the site design would preserve four additional oak trees and three redwood trees. The project plans incorporate a variety of sustainable design concepts that would help the development achieve both LEED Silver certification for the hotel portion of the proj ect and Green Rated Verification for the residential portion of the project. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES Zoning The site consists of mUltiple zoning designations: Service Commercial (CS); Multi-Family Residential (RM-15) and Single-Family Residential (R-l). CS comprises the greatest portion of the site at 132,524 square feet (84% of the site). The CS portion of the site extends along the entire El Camino Real frontage and approximately 95% of the Monroe Drive frontage. RM-15 accounts for 21,725 square feet (13%) of the site. The RM-15 portion of the site extends along the eastern boundary of the lot adjacent to R-l neighbors. The R-l portion of the site accounts for 3,498 square feet (3%) of the site. The R-l portion is situated in the northeastern comer of the project site and is adjacent to Monroe Drive and the neighboring R-l properties. The project complies with the FAR allowed under the combined CS, RM-15 and R-l parcels. The CS zone allows for a FAR of2.0 for a hotel, and 0.6 FAR for residential area. The RM-15 allows 0.5 FAR for the residential area. The residential site area is 95,138 square feet. The City of Palo Alto Page 4 building areas total 54,560 square feet which is equal to the allowable FAR of 0.57 as determined to be the blended FAR calculation using a mix ofRM-15 and CS zone district standards for the residential portion of the project. The blended FAR calculation is a combination of FAR requirements for the R-1, RM-15 and RM-30 zoning districts. The total building area is 179,594 square feet or 1.16 FAR. The hotel will be 125,034 square feet and the residences will be 54,560 square feet. The site planning of the project is consistent with area in that the four- story hotel is located along EI Camino Real and transitions to the 26 residences in the rear half of the lot that are adjacent to the neighboring R-1 properties. Zoning compliance tables are attached to this report as Attachment G. Staff notes that residential blended FAR was calculated including the private streets. Site Connection An important aspect of this project that enables the project to minimize neighbor impacts is the creation of two vehicular access points; one exclusively for the residential portion of the project and one exclusively for the hotel guests and employees. The residential portion of the project is accessed from Monroe Drive. Upon entering Monroe Drive residents of the project would travel onto Ryan Lane. Ryan Lane is proposed as a private interior drive that would allow each homeowner to gain access to their required parking spaces via three motor courts perpendicular to Ryan Lane, which would then run parallel to the residential units. Private streets such as Ryan Lane and the three contiguous motor courts are proposed so that 1) paved areas are minimized, 2) landscape and building areas are enhanced, and 3) public liability and maintenance of the streets would remain the responsibility of the developer and the future homeowners. The City would be granted public easements across all walkways, streets, and drive lanes except for the hotel entry along EI Camino Real. The hotel entry would remain protected to prevent cut through traffic attempting to gain access to Monroe Drive. By granting public easements to the City, the development would allow members of the public to gain access to the site and prevent the creation of a gated community. The proposed street widths are 26 feet for each of the motor courts and 24 feet for Ryan Lane. Ryan Lane's proposed width, at 24 feet, would accommodate travel lanes only, with 13 guest parallel parking spaces proposed alongside Ryan, adjacent to the hotel. Only emergency vehicles would be able to access the residential portion of the site from El Camino Real. While private streets have been a recent concern of the community, staff notes that 1) this application has been under discussion for over a year and was subn1itted on October 6,2008, prior to the recent heightened concern, 2) guest loverflow parking is provided at 0.5 spaces per unit, 3) CC & R's would require that garages remain free to accommodate parking rather than storage or other uses, and 4) there are less units than prior projects and reduced potential for parking in the neighborhood, given the adjacent configuration. The applicant is aware however, of the pending proposed "private streets" initiative and that revisions could be required if the initiative is deemed applicable. TrafficlParking The project would result in the construction of approximately 179,594 square feet of commercial and residential space. A Traffic Impact Analysis and Neighborhood Traffic Study was prepared by Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants for the project. The study covers operational level of service analysis and parking analysis, and site access and circulation, and findings that indicate the project would result in less than significant impacts. City of Palo Alto PageS The existing uses generate an estimated 1,305 daily trips, 38 AM peak hour trips, and 156 PM peak hour trips. The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 1,082 daily trips, with 930 trips generated by the hotel use and 152 trips generated by the townhomes. The proposed project, including the 167 unit hotel and 26 residential units, is estimated to generate 223 fewer daily trips, which includes 52 more AM peak hour trips, and 58 less PM peak hour trips. To estimate the number of trips from the proposed project uses that would use the local neighborhood streets, it was assumed that 25 percent of the residential traffic accessing San Antonio Road (headed to/from the east) would 'cut-through' the neighborhood -this is a more conservative estimate than the results of the origin-destination (OD) survey. Only the traffic generated by the residential portion of the project was assumed to use the neighborhood streets, as the motel access is provided on EI Camino Real. Thus, the total number of vehicles expected to use the neighborhood streets is approximately eight vehicles per day (25 percent of the residential traffic headed east on San Antonio Road, or 25 percent of 17 percent of 152 trips). The Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) Index was used to determine project impacts on neighborhood traffic. Based on TIRE thresholds, the project would have to add more than 97 daily trips to the local streets. The addition of eight daily trips is below the TIRE thresholds, and the project's impact is considered to be less than significant. Traffic concerns have been voiced, however, by the neighboring comnlunity, and specifically identified four main concerns already existing: 1. Travel speeds of eastbound right turn vehicles at the Monroe DrivelMonroe Drive (fork) intersection. 2. Travel speeds along northerly Monroe Drive between the Monroe Drive fork and Miller Avenue. 3. Northbound left tum vehicles cutting into the eastbound travel lane at the northern Monroe DrivelMiller Avenue intersection. 4. Sight distance westbound and southbound at the western Del Medio AvenuelMiller Avenue intersection. The results of the traffic study and comments provided by neighbors also identified potential improvements: 1. Enhanced, colored pavement marking to tighten the curb radius along the southwest comer of the Monroe DrivelMonroe Drive intersection. 2. Median island to prevent northbound left tum vehicles from traveling into the travel lane for eastbound vehicles at northern Monroe DrivelMiller Avenue intersection. The median may also help to slow vehicles, especially westbound traffic, on Monroe Drive. 3. Provide a warning sign to alert drivers to sight distance obstruction at western Del Medio A venuelMiller Avenue intersection. 4. Removal of trees to restore adequate pedestrian sight lines and stopping sight distance for vehicles. In June 2007, as part of the rezoning of the existing Palo Alto Bowl site, the Monroe Park Neighborhood Association (MPNA) met with City Staff to evaluate both the pre-existing traffic problems and the potential traffic problems associated with the proposed project. It should be City of Palo Alto Page 6 noted that the MPNA previously requested a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP) in 2003 but did not meet all of the necessary requirements. The MPNA feels strongly that with the existing conditions and the development of the proposed mixed use project a NTCP should be implemented in the neighborhood. As pali of the previous re-zoning of the Palo Alto Bowl and Motel 6 site in 2007, Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council directed that staff begin working on traffic calming measures for the neighborhood. The project applicant has offered to contribute $25,000 for the following recommended traffic calming measures: • Pavement markings or other measures to tighten the curb radius along the southwest comer of the Monroe DrivelMonroe Drive intersection. • Median island to prevent northbound left tum vehicles from traveling into the travel lane for eastbound vehicles at northern Monroe Drive/Miller Avenue intersection. The median may also help to slow vehicles, especially westbound traffic, on Monroe Drive. • A warning sign to alert drivers to sight distance obstruction at western Del Medio A venuelMiller Avenue intersection. In addition to the above listed traffic calming measures the project applicant is also willing to implement speed tables at the three recommended locations as part of their financial contribution: • On northern Monroe Drive between EI Camino Real and Monroe DrivelMonroe Drive fork • On northern Monroe Drive between Monroe DrivelMonroe Drive fork and Miller Avenue. • On Miller Avenue. City staff does not feel that the first and third speed bump locations are warranted. City staff believes that the City can implement these traffic calming measures with the contribution from the proj ect applicant for this development proposal. The traffic calming measures will be added as a condition of approval subject to the project approval. The MPNA is equally concerned about safety issues for school children. Monroe Park neighborhood children are required to attend the Los Altos Unified School District for elementary school and the Mountain View/Los Altos Union High School District for high school. Because of this, travel to school requires crossing EI Camino Real. This presents an unsafe condition given the potential increase in traffic along EI Camino Real and within the Monroe Park neighborhood. Because these potential travel impacts are associated with EI Camino Real, City staff would work directly with Cal Trans to implement any changes associated with this intersection. The project will meet the parking requirenlents set forth in the City of Palo Alto's Zoning Ordinance. The 172 parking spaces for the hotel would exceed the requirement for one space per guest room. 158 of the proposed parking spaces would be provided in a one level underground garage and the remaining 14 spaces would be provided at ground level. All 26 residential units would provide two-car garages which meets the requirement of 2 spaces per unit. There would be a total of 13 guest spaces for the residential units which would exceed the requirement of nine City of Palo Alto Page 7 guest spaces. There would be 18 covered bicycle parking spaces for the hotel which would meet the requirement of one space per ten guest roonlS. The residential units would include 32 bicycle parking spaces (26 for residential units and six spaces for guests) which would meet the parking requirements. Public Path Easement The public path easement proposed by the project results from a unique set of circumstances. In 1983 and 1986 the Palo Alto Bowl acquired a substantial easement from each of the two R-l neighbors at the eastern edge of the property. These easements are currently paved and fenced so that they can be used exclusively by the Palo Alto Bowl for parking. As part of the project the . applicant has negotiated with the two R-l neighbors for the creation of the public path easement. The existing easements are much larger than the proposed public path easement. The existing easement areas that are greater than the area need for the public path easement will be returned to each R-l neighbor for their exclusive use. The applicant has proposed using the eastern edge of the public path easement as the boundary for the purpose of establishing daylight plane. No portion of the public path easement is being used for the purposes of determining FAR or lot coverage. The size of the proposed public path easement is approximately 5,524 square feet. Because the City can not require the project dedicate a public path easenlent on land it does not currently own, staff supports measuring the daylight plane on the eastern edge of the public path easement along that portion of the public path easement that is adjacent to the two neighboring R-l properties. This provision is reflected in a condition of approval contingent upon the public path easement being dedicated to the City. If the project applicant or neighbors are unable to dedicate to the City the public path easement, the project would need to be revised so that the daylight plane measurenlent is based on the existing property line as opposed to the proposed easement line created by the public path easenlent. South EI Camino Real Design Guidelines The proposed project site is located within the Hotel Area, a corridor area, as defined by the South EI Camino Real Design Guidelines (Guidelines). It is not considered a strategic site within the Hotel Area. The area is characterized by large and small-scale hotels as well as auto- oriented retail comnlercial uses. Although presently pedestrian activity is light, the Guidelines look toward accommodating such activity and creating an interesting gateway into the City. With that in mind the Guidelines indicate new buildings should front EI Camino Real with entries fronting the street or be clearly visible from the street providing recognizable and easily accessible entries for both pedestrians and vehicular arrivals. The project proposal complies with many of the specific Guidelines for the Hotel area relative to site planning and design such as street frontage, parking lots, landscape and hardscape. The exception would be that the Guidelines indicate that all buildings should have entries facing EI Camino Real. The proposed hotel entry does not front on El Camino Real. The project proposes to utilize as many existing trees as possible. In particular the site plan is designed around a very large oak centrally located on the hotel parcel. In addition the project also intends to preserve four oaks trees and three redwood trees. Building design and signage will be further evaluated by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) City of Palo Alto Page 8 to confirm compliance relative to the Guidelines and the Context Based Design Criteria (P AMC 18.12.060) The Context Based Design Criteria (PAMC 18.12.060) contains specific findings that would relate to the multi-family residential portion of the project. Below Market Rate Housing (BMR) After calculating and comparing the greater of the required fee under Chapter 16.47 or BMR requirement per program H-36 (Below Market Rate or BMR Housing Program of the 2002 Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan) for a mixed used project, it has been determined that requirements of the Program H-36 apply to this project. Since the area is less than 5.0 acres in size, the project must provide a 15% BMR contribution calculated as 26 units mUltiplied by 15% equals 3.9 units. Based on the above calculation, at least three (3) units of the 26 units must be provided for sale at the permitted BMR prices to qualified buyers through the BMR Program. The remaining 0.9 units would be satisfied through the payment by the developer of a pro-rated BMR in-lieu fee on the market price (or appraised value, if greater) of the non-BMR units. The BMR units must comply with the City's standards for BMR units. As described in the Standards, BMR units must be provided in proportion to the unit types, sizes, and floor plans as the market rate units, and must be located throughout the development in all buildings, sections, and locations. In designing the BMR unit interior floor plans, the applicant must attempt as much as possible, given the exterior dimensions of the homes, to meet the BMR unit standards for bedroom size. A BMR agreement is required to be recorded upon approval of the Final Map. Site and Design Findings Section 18.16.060 (b) (1) requires that mixed use projects with greater than four residential units require review from the PTC. In addition to this section of the municipal code, Section 18.30(G).060 of the PAMC requires the PTC to review the project and recommend approval or changes such that the project is compatible with the following Site and Design findings: 1. To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The project is designed to be a mixed use project and incorporates an effective site layout that is consistent with the surrounding uses. Specifically, the hotel is located along the EI Camino Real frontage, adjacent to similar commercial uses and zoning, and the residential use serves as an appropriate transition to the homes at the rear of the site. City standards and regulations will help to ensure that the use, or operation, of the site will be conducted in a manner that is compatible with the existing uses located in the immediate area. During construction, it is expected that there will be temporary impacts to the area in terms of construction-related noise, dust/debris and traffic. These impacts will be offset by applicable City construction standards, such as restrictions on hours of construction, the City's noise ordinance, and the mitigation measures found in the attached draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment F). 2. To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. City of Palo Alto Page 9 As this site is located in the Service Commercial, Multi-Family Residential, and Single Family Residential zone districts, and surrounded by both one and two story office buildings, the replacement of an existing motel, bowling alley, and single story small retail buildings with a new hotel and residences. should not reduce the overall functionality of the immediate area. Hotel and multi-family residential uses are expressly permitted in the Palo Alto Municipal Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and help to support employment uses and revenue generation in the City. Other hotel facilities can also be found in the CS Zone District along El Camino Real in the southern end of Palo Alto. 3. To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. The project will replace a disturbed area on the site, which is currently developed with a motel, a small one-story retail building, a commercial building occupied by a restaurant and bowling alley, and parking lot areas. The project will protect significant trees on the site and provide for enhanced landscaping and open space. Green building features will be incorporated to achieve LEED Silver compliance for the hotel and Build it Green (BIG) certification for the residences. This application was subject to an environmental impact assessment (EIA), and it was determined that with appropriate mitigation measures, detailed in the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment F), there will be no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed development. 4. To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designation is a mix of Service Commercial, Multi-Family Residential, and Single Family Residential per the Palo Alto 1998 -2010 Conlprehensive Plan. The proposed project for a new mixed use including a hotel and multi-family residential is consistent with the land use designation. The project is also consistent with The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policies related to business and economics. The Comprehensive Plan encourages owners to upgrade or replace existing commercial properties so that these commercial areas are more competitive and better serve the community. The commercial properties could be redesigned to be more attractive and inviting for pedestrians. These properties could be redesigned to provide additional housing through mixed use development. The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are incorporated into the Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). Goal L-J: A well designed, compact city providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping districts, public facilities and open spaces. Policy L-4: Maintain Palo Alto's varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto's desirable qualities. Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics of mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-site parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. Policy N-17: Preserve and protect heritage trees, including native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property. Goal B-1: A thriving business environment that is compatible with Palo Alto's residential character and natural environment. Goal B-3: New businesses that provide needed local services and municipal revenues, contribute to economic vitality, and enhance the city's physical environment. Additional applicable Comprehensive Goals and Policies are provided in Attachment H. The draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) incorporates these findings. ALTERNATIVES A. Conduct PTC, discuss and then continue for additional information; or B. Require site plan revisions to be made, and incorporate all revisions prior to Architectural Review Board (ARB) review. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) This project is the first mixed use project with a hotel since the zoning ordinance amendment of 2005 which allowed additional FAR for hotels and is also the fist hotel project since the 2009 zoning ordinance amendment which addressed extended stay hotels. The hotel will be owned by Hilton Hotel Corporation and operated as a Hilton Homewood Suites. Hilton Homewood Suites is a residential-style hotel targeting travelers who are on the road for a few nights or longer. Under the Homewood Suites business model it is anticipated that fewer than 20% of the guests will stay for periods of longer than 10 days. The proposed hotel will comply with the requirenlents ofPAMC 18.16.060 (d) including recently adopted provisions by Council to regulate extended stay hotels. The applicant projects that once the hotel has achieved rent and occupancy stabilization, the TOT paid by the hotel will be $850,000 annually. The project is subj ect to the ordinance recently adopted by Council to regulate extended stay hotels. TIME LINE The Site and Design review process provides for the following review: PTC, ARB, and then City Council for final action. If PTC recommends approval, then ARB in August, and City Council in September or October. City of Palo Alto Page 11 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project is supject 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. The public comment period for this document will close on June 17, 2009. To date, no comments have been received on the Draft Negative Declaration. The project would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or historic resources. The uses are appropriate for the site and the development would not result in an adverse visual impact. There is nothing in the nature of the proposed development and property improvements that would have a substantial adverse effect on human beings, or other life or environmental impacts once mitigation is implemented to reduce potential impacts to the users of the new mixed use project in the area of biological resources, noise, seismicity and air quality. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Draft Record of Land Use Action Attachment B: Location Map Attachment B 1: Site Plan* Attachment C: Project Description Letter* Attachment C1: SupplePlent to Project Description Letter* Attachment C2: Traffic Calming Analysis Memo* Attachment C3: Traffic Calming Cost Estimates Memo* Attachment D: LEED Checklist* Attachment E: Green Point Rated Verification Checklist* Attachment F: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment G: Zoning Compliance Table Attachment H: Comprehensive Plan Table Attachnlent I: Site Plans (Commissioners only)* Attachment J: Final Transportation Impact Analysis & Neighborhood Traffic Study* (Only available at this link: http://www. cityofpaloalto. orglknowzone/agendas/planning. asp) * Submitted by applicant COURTESY COPIES: Aaron Barger, Barry Swenson Builder, Applicant Ryan Leong, Palo Alto Bowl, LLC., Property Owner Linnea Wickstrom, Monroe Park Neighborhood Association, President PREPARED BY: Jason N ortz, Plru.mer REVIEWED BY: Amy French, Manager of Current Planning DEPARTMENTIDIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: _____________ _ Curtis Williams, Interim Planning Director City of Palo Alto Page 12 ATTACHMENT D 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 2 Verbatim Minutes 3 Junel~2009 4 5 EXCERPT 6 7 4301 and 4329 EI Camino Real* (Palo Alto Bowl): Request by Aaron Barger, on behalf of Palo 8 Alto Bowl, LLC, for Site and Design Review for the demolition of 64,263 square feet of existing 9 commercial development floor area and construction of 125,034 square feet of new floor area 10 including one 4-story, 167 unit hotel and 26 3-story detached and duplex-type townhomes on a 11 3.70 acre site located at 4301 and 4329 EI Camino Real. Environmental Assessment: An Initial 12 Study has been completed and a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in 13 accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The site is zoned as RM-1, 14 RM-15, and CS. 15 16 Mr. Jason Nortz, Planner: Yes, thank you Chair Garber. Good evening Commissioners. The 17 proposed project before you this evening if for the demolition of 64,263 square feet of existing 18 commercial development floor area and the construction of 179,594 square feet of new floor area 19 including one four-story, 167 unit hotel and 26 three-story detached and duplex type 20 condominium units on a 3.62 acre site located at 4301 and 4329 EI Camino Real. 21 22 The proj ect will consist of a single condominium parcel of land with a hotel unit and 26 for sale 23 residential units. The applicant will apply for Tentative Map in accordance with the procedure 24 set forth in the Subdivision Map Act. The Subdivision is not before the Commission at this time. 25 26 The project site is comprised of four parcels with multiple zoning designations. Service 27 Commercial, which comprises the largest portion of the site accounting for just over three acres. 28 There is Multifamily Residential, which comprises a half acre of the site, and Single Family 29 Residential, which accounts for the remaining one-eighth of an acre. The site is located in the 30 Los Altos School District and the Mountain View-Los Altos High School District. 31 32 The site is presently occupied by a Motel 6 at the northerly end of the site, a small commercial 33 building with three service-oriented businesses fronting EI Camino Real on the Motel 6 site, and 34 the Palo Alto Bowl building that includes a restaurant on the southern end of the site. There are 35 two vacant lots, which occupy the northeast comer of the site. The remainder of the proposed 36 site is parking area and vacant land. 37 38 The proj ect is being proposed as a Mixed Use Development consisting of a hotel and multifamily 39 residential units. Both of the proposed uses are permitted uses per the Palo Alto Municipal Code 40 and both uses are consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. It should 41 be noted that the project initially was proposed for more residential units and a smaller 151-room 42 hotel. After numerous meetings with adj acent neighbors the applicant reduced the number of 43 residential units to 26 units and increased the size of the hotel to 167 rooms. It should also be 44 mentioned that per zoning standards the site could accommodate up to 56 residential units. 45 Page 1 1 The proposed location of the hotel is along the southwestern edge of the site facing El Camino 2 ~Real with part of the hotel also fronting Monroe Drive. The proposed location of the residential 3 portion of the project is located directly behind the hotel on the rear half of the lot along the 4 northern and eastern property lines. The site planning for the project is consistent with the area 5 in that a four-story hotel is located along El Camino Real in the Service Commercial zoned 6 portion of the site and is consistent with similar uses in the area. The project transitions to the 26 7 residences in the rear half of the lot that is adjacent to the neighboring single-family zoned 8 properties. 9 10 The project also includes the creation of a public pedestrian and bicycle path easement located at 11 the rear of the site. The easement would be ten feet wide and approximately 5,500 square feet in 12 area. The connection would enable movement between Monroe Drive and Cesano Court along 13 the eastern edge of the property. The connection would also provide an alternative path of travel 14 that is safer than the existing path of travel along El Camino Real. 15 16 The project is subject to Site and Design Review in accord with Chapter 18.30 of the Palo Alto 17 Municipal Code because it is a mixed use project with more than four residential units. The Site 18 and Design Review process begins with Planning and Transportation followed by the 19 Architectural Review Board, and then Council for final action. A Mitigated Negative 20 Declaration was prepared in accordance with CEQA and circulated for a 20-day public review 21 period ending June 17, 2009. The document identifies potential impacts related to biological 22 resources, noise, seismicity, and air quality, with nine mitigation measures to address the issues. 23 To date some'comments were received from members of the Monroe Park Neighborhood 24 Association specifically related to potential traffic impacts. 25 26 The applicant is here to make a brief presentation and answer any questions that you may have. 27 Also, Current Planning Manager, Amy French will address the additional information that was 28 requested of Staff prior to this evening's meeting. Thank you. 29 30 Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: That was Jason Nortz and I want to add that after I 31 make a statement Don Larkin will have something to say regarding Planned Community's and 32 their relationship or lack of relationship to this project. 33 34 Today we did receive more than 38 questions from Commissioners Keller, HQlman, and 35 Fineberg. We did forward those to the applicant. Because they came today we were not able to 36 prepare written responses for you but you should have at places the questions, or we can make 37 sure they are distributed. They are on the back table for members of the public. Again, the 38 applicant has received those questions and I understand he has prepared written responses that he 39 is interested in passing out. 40 41 I would like to suggest that prior to engaging Staff with question as is the usual way here that the 42 Comn1ission hear the applicant's presentation and receive those answers to today's questions. 43 Then Staff can follow up with discussion if there are any unanswered questions or follow-ups to 44 those questions. So that is what I had to say I will pass it over to Don. 45 Page 2 1 Mr. Don Larkin, Assistant City Attorney: I think this is well documented in the Staff Report but 2 for benefit of members of the public who may be following I wanted to go over a little bit about 3 the Commission's role in Site and Design Review. This is a true quasi-judicial matter unlike PC 4 applications, which were what the last few development items the Commission reviewed have 5 been. Because it is a quasi-judicial matter the code outlines what the scope of this review is and 6 what the Commission's task is. The main portion of it under Site and Design for the 7 Commission are the four Site and Design findings and the Commission is tasked with focusing 8 on those four. Obviously the other questions lend themselves to that. 9 10 Just to reiterate, those findings are to ensure the construction and operation of the use in a 11 manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of 12 adjoining or nearby sites. This gives the Commission a fairly broad scope to discuss in addition 13 to the obvious things like traffic flow, parking issues, and those sorts of issues. The second is to 14 ensure the desirability of investment or the conduct of business, research, educational activities, 15 or other authorized occupations in the same or adjacent areas. The third and four are to ensure 16 the sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance, and to ensure that the use 1 7 will be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. Within each of those areas I think your scope is 18 fairly broad but just as a reminder because it is a true quasi-judicial matter any conditions that 19 the Commission is recommending be imposed on the project have to have a nexus to the project. 20 It is not like a PC application where you are trying to find public benefits. There actually has to 21 be a true nexus to the proj ect in order to impose conditions. 22 23 Ms. French: One more thing I wanted to mention is Curtis Williams, the Director, will be 24 running a little bit late tonight. We have members of Staff from Transportation and the Planning 25 Arborist in the Council Chambers. 26 27 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners, let us hold our questions. There is one quick 28 question for the attorney. 29 30 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. With respect to the fourth item, Palo Alto Comprehensive 31 Plan does that by extension include all the applicable zoning ordinances? 32 33 Mr. Larkin: Yes. The applicant is building under the existing zoning. They are not asking for 34 any zone changes, so yes. 35 36 Commissioner Keller: So to the extent that we agree or disagree with whether the proposed 37 application actually does meet the applicable zoning is open for our interpretation and analysis? 38 39 Mr. Larkin: You are free to make findings that the applicant does or does not meet the 40 applicable zoning. 41 42 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 43 44 Chair Garber: Let us hold our remaining questions until we have heard the applicant and the 45 members of the public that wish to speak. Then we can combine our comments and our 46 questions later. The applicant may now speak. You will have 15 minutes. Page 3 1 2 Mr. Rob Zirkle, Applicant: Thank you very much. I am an Associate Principal with Steinberg 3 Architects. I am very happy to be a part of the project team presenting this to you tonight and 4 look forward to a presentation that maybe helps to answer some of those 38 questions. We have 5 the benefit of having the extended project team here so at the conclusion we can field asmany of 6 those as you would like. So with I will just dive right in. 7 8 I think the spirit that made this project possible in the eyes of project sponsors was a ruling in 9 April 2007 with regard to this site that encouraged a couple of key features that really mandated 10 a direction and an interest in this project for the team. Specifically, those rulings and findings 11 are that it beconle a nlixed use project that includes a residential component. That it encourage 12 the combination and aggregation of the parcels that make up this project together to allow this to 13 happen. Then also the desire for a hotel project which as is stated in the excerpt from the 14 minutes of that meeting that it could result in an interesting project but also provide for 15 significant revenue from the hotel portion of the project as well. 16 17 So with that backdrop it is easy to see when you look at this site why the Commission would feel 18 that way and why the project applicants would be interested in pursing a mixed use project with 19 a hotel component and residential on this site. This site is actually quite interesting in terms of 20 the amount of frontage that fronts Camino. It is one of the last parcels of this size along this 21 portion of El Camino Real that would have the capacity for this kind of project to begin with. 22 The neighborhood itself, which is adjacent, including a few of those homes adjacent to the actual 23 project site are scattered with a very eclectic mix of homes and size of homes, but there are along 24 this edge of the project strong reasons to think about buildings that begin to respond to the size 25 and scale of the adjacent neighborhood. The frontage along El Camino with the new 26 development that has occurred across the street and down the street gives reason to think about 27 what the frontage of a project like this on this site could become and how it could fall in the El 28 Camino Guidelines fill in the gap in the tooth a little bit along this portion of the street. 29 30 These are just a few images of the context which all of you are familiar with. It is comprised of 31 some underperforming assets both visually and otherwise. When you drive by it begins to 32 scream out for something quite nice to happen on this site. Images of what has happened along 33 El Camino Real begin to talk about a direction and a strategy for use and for massing that points 34 us in a particular direction that we are talking about tonight. 35 36 So with that being said I wanted to give you just a quick little history of how we started to where 37 we ended up tonight. I think it will help bracket the problems that we faced for you a little more 38 clearly so that you maybe in the context of the history of the project you can understand a little 39 more specifically how we arrived where we arrived. This is a diagram that pursuant to the April 40 2007 Commission meeting that talked about the aggregation of these parcels that basically 41 creates a saleable, marketable project that is based on the zoning overlays on the site. It would 42 allow for, in the aggregated view of the CS, RM-15, and R-lland uses here, a residential 43 development that would be more stacked flat in nature. We can talk more specifically about this 44 a little later on, about this blended view of FAR and density. Just to give you a sense, we are 45 talking about when you go through and do that calculation a little over 90,000 square feet of 46 allowable residential dwelling square footage pursuant to the zoning guidelines, and as little as Page 4 1 19,871 square feet of standalone commercial retail. It begins to beg the question of whether or 2 not this is actually the best way to approach the site even though the zoning might support a view 3 of the world like this. We took the attitude that that was not the highest and best use of the site 4 even though it might have been a possible permutation. One of our earlier schemes that we put 5 out there in the world for discussion with both the City and the neighbors was a hotel frontage as 6 we talked about here along El Camino and something that was akin to the previous slide in the 7 kind of stacked flat development that we can put on the backside of the parcel. All this is 8 accessing a large subterranean structure to provide the adequate number of parking spaces to 9 support the residential and the hotel, about 150 guest suites in the hotel and about 80 residential 10 units in total on the site. 11 12 There were several things that came out of this which was this was maybe not the best direction 13 for the project either, as we had sort of considered the last one. We got lots of opinions on all 14 sides about what made the most sense here and this was likely not the direction that was going to 15 get the most support across a wide audience. So in thinking about that we essentially established 16 kind of a code of ethics for ourselves about how to move the project forward. They are kind of 17 are summed up in these bullet points. Wanting very much to do something that is pursuant to 18 both the spirit and the technical analysis of what the City would like to have happen on this site 19 in terms of a mixed use project. Not work behind the scenes to create this project but really 20 engage both the City and the neighbors to find a place where we could all agree was a use for the 21 site that was its highest and best. Creating a more lower density housing solution that helped 22 bridge the gap between El Camino Real and the adjacent neighborhood, public benefits of an 23 easement of a public bicycle path, which helped connect Monroe back to Cesano Court, to divert 24 pedestrian traffic through that amenity in the site instead of driving everything out to El Camino. 25 Putting more parking than what is required because one of the knocks on residential development 26 in an infill sense is there is never enough parking. Then trying to provide a project that provides 27 a little more parking than is required to help ameliorate some of those concerns. Whatever 28 traffic concerns were elicited from a traffic analysis we would try to address in the design of the 29 site. Then also create a project that was beneficial for the City financially that established a good 30 set of impact fees and ongoing revenue. 31 32 So with that said, this is the proposed site design. You can see El Camino Real here. You can 33 see Monroe here. The site is effectively split in two by Ryan Lane, which is a private street, 34 which is 26 feet wide that has allowable guest parking to service the residential development. 35 Access to the hotel is from El Camino, the porte-cochere is accessed from that drive. Access to 36 Ryan Lane to access the residential units from a vehicular standpoint is from Monroe. The idea 37 is that at this knuckle between circulation patterns we are going to suggest and work with the 38 City both the Fire Department and Public Works to come up with a strategy that prohibits hotel 39 access and residential access from occurring past this point. So the site circulation that services 40 both of those uses are kept more exclusive for those uses, which will help in tum keep traffic in 41 the neighborhood to a minimum as it relates to the hotel. 42 43 There are 26 freestanding and attached townhome units that are about 2,000 square feet, four 44 bedrooms, three and one-half bath. They are separated by a series of motor courts to access side- 45 by-side parking so there is no tandem parking included in the design of the units. So there is a 46 sufficient depth in the garage that you can park two cars and have enough room for storage and Page 5 · 1 stuff. So you don't have things sitting outside or cars sitting on the street and thereby increasing 2 the amount of traffic that is parked on the street. There are nice, intended to be very landscaped 3 and pleasant, entries between the units themselves to create a very strong sense of front door. 4 5 One of the key features of the whole site design is trying to keep as many of the existing trees as 6 possible but definitely this large oak in the middle of the site, which has become a very clear 7 organizing feature for the design of the hotel. It is paramount in the design of this courtyard 8 space, which services the hotel units themselves. 9 10 Just drilling down a little n10re specifically in this next slide about the edge between the existing 11 neighborhood and our residential product here is our ten-foot bike path that connects out to this 12 existing easement at the end ofCesano Court. The area shaded in red here is land literally given 13 over to the adjunct R-l neighbors by the project applicant to create a very, I am going to call it, 14 defensible space between new development and existing development that keeps the taller 15 buildings sort of away from the site as much as possible creating an amenity that is both 16 beneficial for the existing neighborhood and the existing neighbors, but also certainly for the 1 7 future residents of the proposed townhomes. 18 19 In aggregate the amount of square footage in this easement and this dedicated parcel is pretty 20 close to 20,000 square feet. That is a lot of area to give up. It is done so in a spirit of 21 cooperation with the neighborhood itself to try to create something that works for all of us. 22 I 23 Just a quick note about the revenues. There is reoccurring annual revenue that we estimate based 24 on hotel occupancy and so forth to the City that is a little over $2.0 million at this point in our 25 estimate. A detailed look at the impact fees for this project is also significant as well. This is a 26 project that is a pretty good deal for the applicant. It is a pretty good deal for the City certainly 27 in terms of revenue we feel. 28 29 One key thing to point out here is that there are no new trips generated in the traffic analysis for 30 this project. In fact, there are actually slightly fewer trip~ generated. So there is no impact fee 31 here per se but the project applicant is prepared to contribute a sum of money to help mitigate 32 any traffic concerns, or some traffic concerns I should say, that the neighborhood has about 33 potential impacts on their neighborhood from this development, and is contributing a tidy sum of 34 money to see that through. 35 36 The traffic calming measures themselves are probably maybe a little more illustrated on this slide 37 here, which is a series of speed tables, which help control the speed along Monroe. Essentially 38 what we are trying to do is keep people from wanting to cut-through the neighborhood that might 39 be coming or going from this site. There is an idea about the bicycle striping along this street. 40 There is a series of speed tables, as I pointed out, through the neighborhood to help mitigate this. 41 There is an additional calming measure at this fairly wide radius to create a little bit of a sharper 42 tum to keep traffic slowing as it comes onto Monroe. It is interesting to note, I think again, that 43 this is something that we are proposing to help try to do and help be a part of, in spite of the fact 44 that the traffic studies proved out that this generates no impact in terms of traffic, but it is 45 certainly a perceived issue. We definitely want to be a partner in helping make everyone feel 46 good about this. Page 6 1 2 So that is a quick tour through the project. I am sure you have many questions as we certainly 3 found out today. Certainly happy to answer them in sunl total or in any piece bf you would like. 4 So feel free to ask us when we are done. Thank you very much. 5 6 Chair Garber: Thank you. We have two cards and a few more coming, four cards from the 7 public. Doug Franke followed by Linnea Wickstrom. You will have three minutes. 8 9 Mr. Doug Franke, Palo Alto: Good evening City Council Members. I am the property owner at 10 116 Monroe Drive directly behind the Palo Alto Bowl parcel. When this project began my 11 family offered donations often feet width of the whole yard totally about 2,000 square feet of the 12 City of Palo Alto in order to join the existing bike path from Los Alto to Palo Alto. We did this 13 out of concern for Palo Alto and Mountain View's children who have been using EI Camino to 14 get to school in Los Altos. All of Monroe Park neighborhood children go to Los Altos schools. 15 We are also donating about 250 square feet to the new developer to accommodate an historic oak 16 tree that would otherwise be in jeopardy of the new development up in that right top corner. 17 18 Palo Alto Bowl has had use of 54 percent of our land and title for overflow parking for the past 19 21-plus years. Now that the land reverts to us we will be adopting responsibility of seven 100 or 20 so foot tall trees over the square feet of the land in our backyard. We ask the City Council 21 tonight to direct Public Works and the City Attorney to grant us periodic access to those 54 22 percent of our R-l property, which will be landlocked by the path and the new development. 23 Without access to this land via the City access the bike path at Cesano Court, which is the City'S 24 little easement between Cesano Court and the curvature of that bike path, this property is 25 essentially land-locking us unless we can get through there with possible maintenance equipment 26 for these trees. 27 28 We just found out today from Mr. Nortz and the City Attorney that they would not grant access 29 across there and we are asking for period access so we can get equipment back there and help 30 cherry pick the trees or clean them up. This is a crucial deciding factor to our signing over the 31 bike path to the City of Palo Alto. We need to be able to access our property on occasion and not 32 at peak hours. 33 34 Again, we kindly ask Council to direct Public Works and the City Attorney to allow us periodic 35 passage to our land via Cesano Court and the City easement that already exists at that juncture. 36 Thank you. 37 38 Chair Garber: Thank you. Linnea Wickstrom followed by Anne Harrington. 39 40 Ms. Linnea Wickstrom, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live on Monroe Drive and am the President 41 of the Monroe Park Association and I will represent the neighborhood as best I can in my 42 commentary, although a number of other neighbors will also give their own input. 43 44 As the developer pointed out we have seen a lot of change in the development prospects. We 45 have met on a few occasions with City Staff and the developer has held several neighborhood 46 meetings. It appears with this plan that the City will get the revenue it needs and some housing Page 7· 1 stock for ABAG. The developer partners will get the revenue they need, and the neighborhood I 2 think has a reasonably planned development given our location abutting EI Camino in a CS zone. 3 4 Since the first Planning and Transportation Commission meeting the neighborhood has had three 5 main concerns, the safe routes to school because we attend Los Altos schools, housing density, 6 and traffic. The developer has worked extensively with two neighbors to implement the bicycle- 7 pedestrian path. Details of the design and visibility have yet to be worked out given all the 8 fencing along the private yards in the development. I have also talked to the developer about 9 extending the sidewalk all the way down to the Monroe comer for continuity and to continue that 10 path. 11 12 For housing density the developer has reduced that a lot from the early plans. I just want to 13 comment that although the Negative Declaration identifies no impact given the population of all 14 of Palo Alto adding 26 housing units is an increase of around 26 percent to the 95 or so Palo Alto 15 residences in the neighborhood whose routine travel paths use the 100 and 400 blocks of Monroe 16 and Miller to get to and from EI Camino and San Antonio. So to us within our neighborhood 1 7 that is a fairly large impact. 18 19 On traffic, though the hotel will not access Monroe traffic concerns still cause a majority of 20 respondents in the neighborhood though not all to oppose the access to the housing from Monroe 21 particularly given the patterns to the Los Altos and Mountain View-Los Altos high schools and 22 the routes to the freeways. The developer has, and they note, made major contributions towards 23 meeting our traffic concern~ They have paid. for an enlarged study that included the traffic 24 internal to the neighborhood, worked with City Staff to secure acknowledgement of traffic 25 calming requirements, and put up a good deal of money. 26 27 I asked the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Staff to immediately work 28 with the neighborhood to complete planning the internal traffic calming measures for which we 29 qualify based on the Fehr & Peers study and Palo Alto's criteria, and commit to putting those 30 measures in place in the next few months. We already qualify. We don't have to have the 31 development. 32 33 Plan and budget for measures in front of the hotel at the intersection of Monroe and EI Camino 34 and in the CS zone of Monroe to increase safety at that intersection, safety nleasures that will be 35 made more necessary by the new development. The 26 new four bedroom houses with families 36 going to Los Altos schools, which means out Monroe and up El Camino, left onto EI Camino. 37 38 Third, based on current LOS F AM peak conditions, additional density in the neighborhood, and 39 projections for 20 to 40 percent increase in El Camino traffic, U-turns necessary to access the 40 hotel and to leave the hotel to go south commit to working with Caltrans on making egress from 41 the Monroe Park neighborhood onto El Camino possible for us and the 26 percent of new 42 residents. Thank you and sorry for going over time. 43 44 Chair Garber: Thank you. Ms. Wickstrom, you have a question from one of the Commissioners. 45 Commissioner Keller. 46 Page 8 1 Commissioner Keller: Thank you very much. I have a question for you about whether or not the 2 bicycle-pedestrian path from Monroe to Cesano Court eliminates or does not eliminate your 3 earlier request for a traffic light at Monroe and EI Camino. How is that affected by it? 4 5 Ms. Wickstrom: The two are necessarily related. The bicycle and pedestrian path is a safe route 6 to school for all those kids who bicycle and walk. The intersection of EI Camino and Monroe is 7 increasingly dangerous and impossible for car traffic. So all those parents who are driving their 8 kids to school, all those parents who may be going out to San Antonio to go north, or Arastradero 9 to go north, and anybody commuting to San Antonio to go out to 280 needs to use that 10 intersection to tum l~ft. We have vast numbers of V-turners, and the traffic signalization may be 11 off, so the two are two different kinds of traffic. So no, it doesn't eliminate our need for further 12 management of the EI Camino-Monroe intersection for car traffic. 13 14 Commissioner Keller: Okay, let me just take this quick opportunity to -have you thought about 15 whether or not having a traffic light at that intersection would increase cut-through traffic 16 through the neighborhood? 17 18 Ms. Wickstrom: Yes, that is one of the reasons we have been -within our neighborhood we 19 have thought about -Ms. Herole of F ehr & Peers suggested that maybe Caltrans could do sharks 20 teeth and a 'keep clear' to at least keep people from blocking the box. We have also -consensus 21 in the neighborhood would be no V -turns at that intersection would help because if you put a 22 traffic signal there it may have the unintended consequence of causing people to go left. 23 24 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 25 26 Chair Garber: Thank you. Anne Harrington followed by Deirdre Cromme. 27 28 Ms. Anne Harrington, Palo Alto: Good evening. I would like to first thank the development 29 partnership for the level of communication they provided to the neighbors and also to their 30 rapidity to reacting to current problems in the neighborhood. For Cesano Court it is solved 31 looking at the project going forward. We have been focused mainly on the impact of the bicycle- 32 pedestrian path coming through and for this portion of the review looking at what we can do to 33 make that safe for everybody, the people that live there and the people that are using it. 34 35 Starting with the bike path itself we want to make sure there is visibility into the bike path and 36 that it is well lit. That the entrances at both ends are safe, providing visibility to people entering 37 and leaving. The developers assure us that there will be lighting and appropriate fencing, and I 38 understand that will come forth at the ARB in the design before the ARB meeting. 39 40 We are concerned about the visibility into the bike path. It is over 400 feet long and we just 41 want to make sure children and other people using it are visible, that that doesn't become a 42 tunnel. We want to keep it safe. 43 44 Moving out from the bike path itself as cyclists and pedestrians come around the condo they will 45 encounter two driveways exiting from the underground garage. We have been having 46 discussions about how to make that safe both for the people exiting the garage and for the Page 9 1 cyclists coming by. We have talked about adding mirrors to the condo and also some kind of 2 light signal when the garage door opens to signal pedestrians and cyclists that there will be traffic 3 exiting. Those cars will be leaving on commute at the same time the students will be going by 4 and exiting into the morning sun. Another way to increase the safety in that area would be to 5 reduce the number of LOS drivers we get who think they are finding a shortcut. To look at 6 improving and increasing the signage, the 'no through street' signage. 7 8 Finally, the EI Camino, Los Altos, Cesano intersection is renowned for.red light running. 9 Although I understand the conventions of traffic studies say there will be no increase from the 10 current utilization in reality there will be. So we would like to have some look into how to make 11 that intersection safer. Thank you. 12 13 Chair Garber: Thank you. Deirdre Cromme followed by our last speaker, Susan MacDermid 14 15 Ms. Deirdre Cromme, Palo Alto: Hello Commission Members. Once again in theory this plan 16 sounds really good but because I happen to live in the neighborhood I know there are some flaws 17 in the logic that has been used in the traffic study. So I want to comment on those and really it is 18 a follow up to what Linnea was talking about. 19 20 First of all I want to talk about the premise that preventing access from the motel to Ryan Lane 21 will encourage nlotel guests and employees to enter and exit the project from EI Camino Real not 22 to travel through Monroe Drive neighborhood. That is flawed reasoning. People who are 23 coming from that motel and who want to go on San Antonio to access 101 are most definitely 24 going to tum the comer on Monroe and drive right through our neighborhood. The reason this is 25 a concern is that the main exit point from our neighborhood is on that very nexus of where Ryan 26 Lane intersects Monroe Drive. Putting Ryan Lane as an egress onto Monroe Drive is going to 27 put the whole system out of whack. Right now we can barely get ourselves from Monroe onto EI 28 Camino and so we are going to have this tipping point once we have people from the motel 29 turning onto Monroe and people on Ryan Lane trying to get off of Monroe. There is just going 30 to be a huge traffic jam right at that little nexus of Ryan Lane and Monroe, which is only 100 31 feet or so from EI Camino. So we are going to have people from the motel coming through our 32 neighborhood. We are also going to have people coming down Ryan Lane trying to get out onto 33 Monroe to tum left. Those people who want to go to take their kids to school in the morning 34 have to make a left hand tum onto Monroe. I don't know how as people are turning onto 35 Monroe we are going to allow people from Ryan Lane to get onto Monroe at the same time. I 36 hope you can visualize this. I know it is a little bit confusing when I am talking. So I think Ryan 37 Lane egress onto Monroe is a mistake. I don't think it is going to work. It is too narrow of an 38 area to put an egress for 262,000 square foot homes where many of them will have three cars 39 leaving. It is also across the street from Union Bank, which is impacted by traffic. 40 41 So I think also in the traffic study there is inadequate analysis of the EI Camino-Monroe 42 intersection, which is one of the Monroe Park residents primary traffic concerns. In the PM this 43 intersection goes from a class D to a class F intersection by 2015. That is in Table ES-l. There 44 is no discussion about this. Also, in the AM I think there is no analysis on the project's 45 increased delays at this intersection, which are already at class F. 46 Page 10 1 One other statement. Weare bordered by two class'-F intersection by our neighborhood that is 2 the intersections of San Antonio and EI Camino and Arastradero if it is not class F yet it is on its 3 way to being. So it is a highly in1pacted area. Thank you. 4 5 Chair Garber: Thank you. Our final speaker, Susan MacDermid. 6 7 Ms. Susan MacDermid, Palo Alto: I ask to go back to the traffic study, if it is possible. If you 8 could take a look at this I am a resident of Cesano Court. I am closest to the project site. If you 9 could look at EI Camino Real and Cesano court I would like to peti~ion that there is additional or 10 larger signage on EI Can1ino Real to indicate there is no egress from Cesano Court. We have a 11 huge amount of traffic that comes in and turns around. 12 13 Second, I would like to ask the Planning and Transportation Commission to take a look at the 14 bike path that comes out behind the project site right where the cul-de-sac ends, which is where 15 my home is. There is a sidewalk that continues down Cesano Court and abruptly ends right in 16 front of Anne's house. There is no sidewalk out to EI Camino Real. There is no room for a 17 sidewalk out to EI Camino Real as this street is now situated. So that part of in front of Anne's 18 house, which is the seventh home on the street, is right across from the parking garage. The kids 19 are either going to have to cross that road as people are coming out of that parking garage and 20 then somehow get onto that sidewalk and get out onto EI Camino Real. So we do ask that you 21 look at this traffic situation and look at the bike path and find a safe path for the kids right out to 22 EI Camino Real and don't leave them dead-ended partway down Cesano Court. 23 24 Also, any mediation that you can do to the traffic that comes in that doesn't actually have a 25 destination and has irritated drivers turning around and speeding back out of our cul-de-sac. 26 27 Two more points. On the Franke request for the easement it is as you can see right next to my 28 home and I am absolutely fine with it. Trying to be a good neighbor. 29 30 Finally, I think it is a reasonable development I think there are just a couple of traffic related 31 issues that we can improve. Thank you. 32 33 Chair Garber: Thank you. Does the Staff and/or applicant have any comments related to the 34 issues that were raised by the public before we move on? 35 36 Mr. Larkin: The applicant is entitled to three minutes. 37 38 Mr. Zirkle: I don't think we have anything to say in response to the questions. 39 40 Chair Garber: Okay. Staff. 41 42 Ms. French: I thought I would mention the one comment about traffic passing from the hotel 43 down Ryan there has been a suggestion that bollards be placed in what is shown as the kind of 44 hatched area. I think the Fire Department suggested that. That is something that could help with 45 that by using bollards discouraging traffic to cut through. 46 Page 11 1 Chair Garber: All right. I have lights from Commissioners Tuma and Holman. Commissioner 2 Tuma. 3 4 Vice-Chair Tuma: The first question relates to one of the requests or comments from the public. 5 This is for the City Attorney. Did you want to make any comment or have any discussion on the 6 City'S position with respect to the requested easement for taking care of the trees? 7 8 Mr. Larkin: The City doesn't have an easement that would allow traffic from Cesano Court onto 9 the bike path so we can't grant what we don't have. 10 11 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Have you had an opportunity to, and maybe this more non-legal Staff, 12 think about how that could be achieved? I think it is a fairly reasonable request. If there are 13 trees that they are going to need to maintain they are going to need to have access to it. How can 14 we accomplish that? 15 16 Mr. Nortz: I have been working with the Public Works Department regarding this issue. They 17 have suggested that an access gate could be provided without creating any additional easement. I 18 think their concern is allowing maintenance vehicles access to the public path easement because 19 of potential damage that could occur from maintenance vehicles traveling on that easement. I 20 think they are willing to accommodate some sort of access for maintenance it just depends on to 21 what extent at this point. So that is kind of where we are at and Public Works is still kind of 22 further reviewing the request. 23 24 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, thank you. I question that I had, and I see several of the other 25 Commissioners had in the questions that were submitted. It deals with the blended FAR 26 calculations. I have seen them in the packet and I understand kind of mathematically how they 27 were arrived at. Can you Staff talk about other situations in which they have been used and 28 whether there is any controlling statute or code provisions on how blended FAR is calculated? 29 30 Mr. Curtis Williams, Interim Director: Good evening. Yes. There is not a specific code 31 provision about how to deal with this situation. We have interpreted the code in a couple of 32 specific instances particularly Arbor Real and the Summer Hill Redwood Gate project near the 33 Elk's. Those both had multiple zoning categories, which have different standards. They were 34 both master developments so basically one development crossed the boundaries and it would be 35 kind of nonsensical to try to draw a line exactly where those boundaries of the zone district was 36 and then have completely different appearing and standard base criteria for what was essentially 37 trying to be the same product in a cohesive project. 38 39 So in both of those instances we essentially calculated what was required under each zoning and 40 the amount of area that each of those zoning categories covered, and then accumulated that total 41 FAR and then had the homes built under that but across so that there was some consistency of 42 the development. 43 44 The bottom line was that we wanted to assure that the transitions that were in the zoning were 45 maintained so that when we got to issues like setback and daylight plane adjacent to an R-l area 46 for instance or anything at the perimeter of the boundary that we were maintaining those Page 12 1 standards so that we did have the appropriate separation from the next property and so that 2 overall the site did transition as per the zoning. J 4 So in this particular case we have the R-l homes to the rear, we have the hotel, we have the 5 portion at the back that is partly CS zoning which typically translates to like an RM-30 zoning 6 for residential if there is mixed use in there, and then RM-15 and a little sliver ofR-l which is 7 kind of insignificant as far as the calculations go. So it is really the RM-15 and RM-30 portion. 8 So to get a cohesive development we sort of averaged those out and apply it consistently across 9 the board to the development but then make sure that the setbacks and transition right at the 10 property line are consistent with the RM..;15, which is what the zoning is back there. 11 12 So that is fundanlentally the way it was done on those other two projects as well. 13 14 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, great. One more question for now and then I will pass on. The 15 transition between the residential and the hotel I have some concern there about the traffic flows 16 and how do you make it accessible for fire and safety but not just have employees and the like 17 going through there. Does the City of Palo Alto, I know other communities have either universal 18 codes or universal keys for access to rem<;>vable barriers, do we have those types of mechanisms? 19 It seems like a somewhat obvious solution here. 20 21 Mr. Williams: I am not sure of the specifics of it but yes we have mechanisms whereby 22 emergency access personnel can have those codes and nobody else does. So they are able to use 23 that access way. 24 25 Mr. Nortz: In addition to that I can think of one particular example. The alleyway across the 26 street between the Old Pro and the Development Center at 285 Hamilton there are removable or 27 lockable bollards there that allow access to maintenance vehicles, I believe specifically sanitation 28 vehicles. 29 30 Chair Garber: They also exist in College Terrace on some of those streets. 31 32 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, great. That's it for now. 33 34 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman and then we will go to Lippert and I am going to interrupt 35 before we go to Commissioner Keller, excuse me. 36 37 Commissioner Holman: We are going to keep the public hearing open so we can ask questions 38 of the public. 39 40 There were a lot of questions asked and it is very hard to sit here and digest them on the spot so 41 if Staff could go through those and also I know that I asked three of four other questions that are 42 not in this list. So if we could just go through those. 43 44 Also I would appreciate Staff s response to these. Some of them should be I would think ready 45 knowledge, maybe not all of them but some of them. 46 Page 13 1 Mr. Williams: I am going to tum it over and let Amy do kind of a summary of questions that 2 came up in multiple places. To go through everyone of the 38 questions I think would be very 3 time consuming. So if we have missed something follow up and ask us that please. 4 5 Comnlissioner Holman: Then might I suggest at some point in this procedure that we take five 6 minutes or seven minutes and allow Commissioners and members of the public to read these. 7 8 Chair Garber: Commissioners? 9 10 Commissioner Holman: I was suggesting that Staff go through what they can now in summary. 11 12 Chair Garber: Do Commissioners care to take five minutes to read through this document then? 13 We will do that. The public is welcome to sit here and watch us do that for five minutes. 14 Commissioners, . let us end our reading. Commissioner Holman, would you like to continue your 15 questions? 16 17 Commissioner Holman: My understanding is the City Arborist is here for a limited time so I will 18 direct questions first to City Arborist. Mr. Dockter? One question is along Monroe do we know 19 if there is any plan to underground utilities? 20 21 Mr. Dave Dockter, Planning Arborist: I was not able to ascertain whether the utilities were 22 going to be under-grounded. Currently they are overhead, the 12kbr overhead over the oak trees. 23 So I don't know if the Staff Planner had found that out from Utilities Department or not so I 24 can't answer that. 25 26 Commissioner Holman: From a planning standpoint I would presume this would be the time to 27 do it while we have an application for a significant project here, if there is a plan to do so. 28 29 Mr. Dockter: It would relate to the ongoing maintenance of the oak trees and the redwood trees 30 that are associated with the project. They are currently being pruned to keep clear from the 31 power lines. 32 33 Commissioner Holman: There are a number of trees that are being retained along there as well 34 as a number of trees that are being removed. 35 36 Mr. Dockter: Yes. 37 38 Commissioner Holman: I would like the City Arborist response to the application. This is both 39 a Planning Staff question and an Arborist question. The preference to make best utilization of 40 the trees that are along the Monroe street, the sidewalk, would it be feasible to put the sidewalk 41 inboard of the trees that exist on Monroe and the new trees that are on Monroe? One is would it 42 be feasible and the other is what would be the better user experience relative to the trees? 43 44 Mr. Dockter: It would be feasible either way. Feasibility on not the street side would be how 45 much room there would need to be between the trees and the buildings. Where the buildings are 46 located and the footprint it is almost an applicant question. A sidewalk could be built on either Page 14 1 side of the oak trees with equal protection for the trees. It could be fill without impacting like 2 cutting the roots on either side. So I think it is more of a building placement proximity question. 3 4 Commissioner Holman: Being a tree person, relative to the user experience what would be the 5 better user experience, inboard of the street or at the street for the sidewalk? 6 7 Mr. Dockter: There is typically in pedestrian and transportation fields to separate the driving and 8 the vehicles from the walking experience trees are often used to separate the two. So in one 9 sense a sidewalk on the other side of the trees would be safer for people walking along the 10 sidewalk if trees became a buffer or barrier between moving cars and the sidewalk walking 11 expenence. 12 13 Commissioner Holman: Thank you for that. Also the development that surrounds the large 14 heritage tree, is that tree adequately protected from your perspective, according to the plans as 15 they are developed to this point in time, in terms of encroachments and such? 16 17 Mr. Dockter: At this point in time with the application there are a couple of dynamics occurring 18 relating to the tree. One is the footprint of the building and the groundwork and protection for 19 the roots are relatively protective for the tree. We believe that survival of the tree is reasonably 20 committed in good shape as far as the groundwork. 21 22 There is a provision in the mitigation measures, it is Mitigation Measure D-2, and it is 23 questioning the solar access to the tree. As we know it is a mature coast live oak that has been 24 growing with full sun for quite a long time, its whole life actually. This mitigation measure 25 assesses the solar access that probably will be needed for the tree and putting a tall building and 26 literally shading the tree could be a substantial detriment if not carefully looked at. So this 27 mitigation measure asks for a solar study to be assessed and done for the tree. If a significant 28 amount of shading is deemed to be an issue for the tree then this mitigation measure asks for 29 some alternative massing or alternative designs be put forth just for the Architectural Review 30 Board and the Planning Staff to look at. It is not mandating that it has to be changed but it does 31 ask for some alternatives to be looked at to assess whether it would be something that the tree 32 could tolerate or not. If not then it could potentially be a known foreseeable declining impact to 33 the tree. So it is yet to be determined fully but I believe it is 80 to 90 percent there as far as 34 protection for the tree. 35 36 Commissioner Holman: Thank you for that. Just one last question is without sitting down and 37 adding things up how many protected trees are being preserved, how many removed, and how 38 many of those are in good condition? Kind of a summary of the tree retention, removal, and the 39 ones being transplanted too, is there a summary of those numbers? 40 41 Mr. Dockter: Yes it is on page 12. There are 16 protected trees. Of those there are two trees 42 that are recommended for relocation. The project proposes to remove two redwoods that Staff 43 has asked be retained and the rear pedestrian path be located around those two redwoods. So in 44 total at risk are four protected trees. We are asking that two of those be relocated and literally be 45 move and that two be retained. If so, then the Mitigated Negative Declaration would declare that 46 there would be no significant impact. Removing the trees would end up being something that Page 15 1 would need to be reevaluated. So currently the way Staff recommendations are for the four trees 2 is that the project would be mitigated with the relocation of two trees and the retention of two 3 redwoods. Is that clear, Commissioner? 4 5 Commissioner Holman: It is thank you for that. Just one last. It appears that the street trees 6 along EI Camino are all being replaced. Is that correct? 7 8 Mr. Dockter: That is still to be determined yet. I spoke with Mr. Krebs, the Managing Arborist 9 in Public Works, today and he mentioned that they do not necessarily need to be replaced one to 10 one. Public Works wants to see proper spacing of new street trees progressing and marching 11 along EI Camino Real. So whether there are going to be nine new trees or one to one that is still 12 yet to be determined before the Architectural Review Board review would occur. 13 14 Commissioner Holman: Thank you so much. 15 16 Mr. Dockter: You are welcome. 17 18 Commissioner Holman: I'll cede to other Commissioners if they questions for the Arborist. 19 20 Mr. Nortz: I would also like to add that a solar study was provided after the Mitigated Negative 21 Declaration was prepared. Weare currently reviewing it and it is going to be part of the ARB 22 review process. We are planning on doing a site visit with our Arborist and their Arborist 23 following this meeting and prior to the ARB. 24 25 Commissioner Holman: So this body if it is going to make a determination about the Mitigated 26 Negative Declaration, how can we do that without knowing what the results are of the solar 27 study? 28 29 Mr. Williams: The Mitigated Negative Declaration already includes the mitigation measure. If 30 it is not satisfactory they need to redesign to provide adequate light. 31 32 Chair Garber: All right. Commissioner Keller and then Lippert. 33 34 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I understand with respect to my question number one that the 35 drawings page AO.01 reflect on the left hand side the calculations by the applicant of the 36 proposed blended FAR and height. I am wondering if Staff verified those calculations or if they 37 accepted those without redoing the calculations and ensuring they are correct. 38 39 Mr. Nortz: I did review them based on the numbers they provided and they were correct. 40 41 Commissioner Keller: With respect to the R-1 property, which is the little sliver in the upper left 42 hand comer of the drawing, I notice that up there in the Palo Alto Bowl site plan that is on the 43 screen which is the thing that was given at places that there seems to be a wavy or curvy line at 44 the top where the bike path is. It appears that the reason it is kind of curvy is because some of 45 the land for the R -1 area has been ceded to the adj acent R -1 property. I am wondering if that 46 land that is no longer part of that R-1 rectangular strip is counted as part of the FAR or not. Page 16 1 2 Mr. Nortz: I don't believe they are counting any FAR towards that portion. I don't know why it 3 is shown to be shown wavy the way that it is on the plans. It might be better if the applicant 4 address that question more specifically. 5 6 Commissioner Keller: In your FAR calculations you don't know whether or not the site area 7 under which the FAR is calculated includes or doesn't include how much of that R-l section is 8· included. Is that correct? 9 10 Mr. Jonathan Chao, Steinberg Architects: Excuse me Commissioner it does not include that. 11 The FAR calculation does not include the land ceded over to the existing R-l neighbor. 12 13 Commissioner Keller: So you identify R-l and RM-l5 but you don't identify how much is R-l 14 and how much is RM-l5? 15 16 Mr; Chao: We do identify on sheet AO.Ol. 17 18 Commissioner Keller: It says RM-l and RM-l5 but it doesn't separate how much is R-l and 19 how much is RM-l5 as far as I can tell. 20 21 Mr. Chao: If you look at sheet AO.Ol the diagram on the upper half of the sheet there are three 22 stacked site plans that show a CS residential, RM-l5, and R-l residential. At the very top of the 23 page there is an R-l and it shows the site area as 3,498 square feet. 24 25 Commissioner Keller: Let's see. What I see here on the top is that it says site area equals 3,498 26 square feet, correct? 27 28 Mr. Chao: That is the one. 29 30 Commissioner Keller: So that 3,498 square feet that is a rectangular portion? 31 32 Mr. Chao: That is not the rectangular portion. 33 34 Commissioner Keller: It is labeled as being a rectangular portion so I am a little confused. 35 36 Mr. Chao: I apologize for that. This sheet is diagrammatic. From doing the area calculations 37 that 3,498 represents the wavy portion. It does not include the land given over to the neighbors. 38 39 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. We did not get the issue of question two, which is the 40 version of Attachment B, which includes the zoning areas adjacent to this. In general we request 41 that when you give the equivalent of Attachment B that it has all the zoning districts on the map. 42 It is a little hard for us to do that analysis without knowing what the adjacent zoning is and we 43 were not given that. My understanding is that the area that is further away from Camino to 44 the logical top of this diagram is all R-l, is that correct? And that to the right are various kinds 45 ofPCs and other higher density RM. There is a comment in the reply that you made to the 46 Commission with respect to the idea - I will get to that in a moment. Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 You did provide a usable version of B-2. This is the issue of number four, my question, which is that there was a statement made by Staff to the effect that because this site is adjacent to a PC zone, high density residential that the 150 foot perimeter does not apply. But I would assume that a 150-foot perimeter applies to R-1 and adjacency to high density residential does not trump the R-1 150 foot perimeter. Am I confused there? Could you elaborate on that? Mr. Williams: You mean the R-1 to the rear where those residences are? Commissioner Keller: Yes, the R-1 to the rear where the residences are I presume surrounding that R -1 would be a 150-foot perimeter of a maximum height limit of 35 feet. Am I correct there? Mr. Williams: It is 200 feet to the hotel. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. That information should be provided. Usually we see a diagram showing the 150 foot so that we can actually see that there is 150 feet around there and there is. The explanation that was provided to us didn't explain that in a proper way. Thank you. 21 There was a comment made by a member of the public which echoes my question number six 22 I about whether hotel traffic that is destined for San Antonio Road would prefer to go through the 23 neighborhood rather than making a U-turn after crossing a bunch of lanes of traffic to make the 24 U-turn on Dinah's Court to head towards San Antonio. Is there any comment from Staff about 25 that analysis by the public that retraced mine? 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Nortz: I am going to refer to our Transportation Staff member, Rafael Rius, to answer that specific question. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. It is good to see you again. Chair Garber: Excuse me I am afraid you can't unless you are directly called upon by one of the Comnlissioners. Please. Mr. Rafael Rius, Traffic Engineer, Transportation Division: There may be some traffic, probably more of the employees of the hotel. In terms of the analysis they were not included. They were assumed to use EI Camino to San Antonio. When we start making assumptions about a certain amount of traffic cutting through that would probably need to be applied also to the existing uses, which would come out to a net reduction. So we do feel that it would be minimal or Fehr & Peers that did the traffic study felt that way and I concur with that. Commissioner Keller: With respect to the comment that was made about the increased congestion on Monroe because of the 26 housing units, do you have a response to that? Mr. Rius: There is a method of nleasuring how much traffic and whether or not it would cause an impact. Based on the studies that were done a certain percentage was applied to the number Page 18 1 of vehicles destined towards San Antonio or 101 and the actual number fell well below the 2 threshold to trigger a significant impact. Even if they did really extremely conservative 3 estimates of residential traffic cutting through the neighborhood it still would not trigger it. 4 5 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I think that Linnea Wickstrom of the neighborhood 6 association has a comment to nlake. Can I ask you to give your comment? 7 8 Ms. Wickstrom: Just to answer your question about why would somebody cut through the 9 neighborhood you can cut through the neighborhood. I do it all the time to go to San Antonio in 10 about 60 to 70 seconds max to California street and San Antonio. To do that coming out of the 11 hotel in 100 feet or so you have to go across three lanes of traffic to get to a left tum lane, make a 12 U-turn at Monroe, then you have the Los Altos Avenue light, the Del Medio light, San Antonio 13 and El Camino LOS F intersection, tum left onto San Antonio. You have then the Lafayette 14 light and the California light. So it all takes a lot longer to go out on San Antonio and to go out 15 Charleston is way out of your way. So just in brief. 16 17 Commissioner Keller: Or people would make aU-tum if they didn't want to make an 18 unprotected left at -if they could not make it across that many lanes of traffic quickly to make 19 the left at Monroe presumably they would make the left and Dinah's Court where there is a 20 protected left tum. 21 22 Ms. Wickstrom: Right but it far easier to just zip through the neighborhood. 23 24 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Do you have any comments about that, Mr. Rius? 25 26 Mr. Rius: As I mentioned, there is a possibility that employees that are familiar with the local 27 streets might do it as Linnea mentioned during the peak periods when it is congested. During the 28 off-peak I would probably estimate that traveling on El Camino would be a lot shorter than it is 29 during the peak hours. 30 31 Commissioner Keller: So I take it that your answer, if I can paraphrase, is that employees would 32 know about it. Guests wouldn't know about it and therefore they wouldn't use it, or at least they 33 wouldn't figure it out, and the hotel would presumably tell people the routes to get to various 34 places. 35 36 Mr. Rius: I would assume that they would instruct them the simplest route and not through the 37 neighborhood. What I mentioned about the analysis is if we were going to make assumptions 38 about the project traffic using the neighborhood traffic from the existing use would be subject to 39 similar assumptions. 40 41 Commissioner Keller: Is it also fair to say that if there was some number of cars going that way 42 that the thresholds of the tire rules basically are sufficiently high that it is hard to get past that? 43 44 Mr. Rius: That is correct, yes. 45 Page 19 1 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I think I will close for now and come back later on the one 2 question, which is the blended height limitation. I can understand the rationale for a blended 3 FAR. I can see that there is some argument that can be made for a blended FAR. I really can't 4 see an argument that can be made for a blended height limitation. It sort of reminds me of the 5 story about this rat which was surrounded by nine cats and it was really worried, but on the 6 average it was nine-tenths cat and one-tenth rat and therefore it wasn't nearly as afraid. That is 7 the problem with averages there. So could you explain how you could have uneven heights and 8 have that be blended when you actually have a higher thing in RM -15 that would be otherwise 9 allowed. 10 11 Chair Garber: Please don't feel obligated to use the animal analogy. 12 13 Mr. Williams: Don't worry. I understand the concern there. We had much the same concern 14 but I think that overall again in looking at trying to develop a cohesive plan that to have this RM- 15 15 boundary be at 30 feet versus 31 feet ·11 inches, which is what is proposed, and then kick up 16 to something higher in the area of CS around did not seem to be again a very coherent type of a 17 design patter. However, if the Commission is not comfortable with that I think the alternatives 18 are either say 30 feet or one other thing we discussed is at least that row along the back property 19 line there as a transition, the first row of houses, being at RM -15 height so that you do have that 20 immediate adjacency. I think if you are going to do that please listen to the applicant as far as 21 what the constraints are on doing that. The thought was if you are looking for development that 22 seems to be pieced together as a consistent whole having that height similarity, not necessarily 23 uniformity but similarity, the maximum of31 feet, 11 inches is an appropriate interpretation. 24 25 Commissioner Keller: I think that the interesting thing here is that in some sense we are setting a 26 precedent about blended FAR. It seems to me that this more properly is a Variance for that 27 additional height in the RM-15 zone, for an additional one foot, 11 inches. With the strange 28 configuration of sort of overlays of this project being on multiple parcels, which have different 29 zoning, that that might be a justification for a Variance. I would be more comfortable with the 30 idea of considering a Variance for this than trying to create a blended height rule that could make 31 new law and be cited as precedent for some other project. Thank you. 32 33 Chair Garber: Would the Attorney like to address the question of precedent? 34 35 Mr. Larkin: I don't know if there necessarily is a question. There is precedence for doing this. 36 37 Chair Garber: Does such an action create a precedent and would the Commission and/or the City 38 be required to address it as such if it were passed in that way? 39 40 Mr. Larkin: I don't know. I think we have done it before so if it does create a precedence then 41 we have created it. 42 43 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 44 45 Commissioner Keller: Mr. Attorney. 46 Page 20 1 Mr. Larkin: We may not have done the height before we will have to look at that. 2 3 Commissioner Keller: Yes, you said we have done it before. Do you have any reason to believe 4 that we'have actually done it for height? 5 6 Mr. Larkin: We are looking at that. I have reason to think we did but I am not sure if it actually 7 got approved in that way. 8 9 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 10 11 Chair Garber: To what degree is the Commission or any City body held to these sorts of actions 12 as precedence? My understanding, and I am asking the question, is that short of there being 13 some actual law there is no precedent. 14 15 Mr. Larkin: That is correct. The rrue is to treat similarly situated properties similarly. So to the 16 extent that there is a similarly situated property that comes along we would probably apply the 17 same rules. 18 19 Chair Garber: That would be a choice at that point as opposed to a rule. 20 21 Mr. Larkin: Yes, and I think the better option would be to take the experience from this project 22 and create a hard and fast rule so that we know what to do in the future, and so there isn't a 23 question about whether we are creating something. 24 25 Chair Garber: Should we decide to. 26 27 Mr. Larkin: That is right. 28 29 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 30 31 Conunissioner Keller: To look at this, you are suggesting that the City is under an obligation to 32 look at similarly situated properties similarly. If we were to allow this for this project and a 33 subsequent project were to similarly have a multiply zoned property for which they requested a 34 blended height rule and we refused it, would they have a potential tort on their hands in terms of 35 an abuse of discretion? 36 37 Mr. Larkin: I think at point we would recommend if there was a desire to do it or not to do it to 38 go forward with an ordinance that would clarify the situation. It is an unusual situation in that 39 youhad mentioned it is three parcels. It is not three parcels it is one parcel with three kinds of 40 zoning on it, and that is an unusual situation. It is not unique, we have had others, but it is 41 unusual so the better practice if the Commission is concerned about creating a precedent or not 42 creating precedent is to clarify this through the Zoning Ordinance. 43 44 Commissioner Keller: So would it be reasonable to avoid saying there is precedent to use a 45 Variance approach if that is justifiable instead? 46 Page 21 1 Mr. Larkin: Well, again a Variance is the same thing because if you are going to create a 2 Variance based on findings that you have one parcel with three types of zoning on it and another 3 project comes forward as another parcel with three types of zoning you have due process 4 considerations, and there may be rationale for creating different findings but you are going to 5 have to look at your prior findings and you are going to want to have some consistency. 6 7 Commissioner Keller: The difference is that the nature of Variances can be explicitly appealed 8 while situations of discretion with respect to blended FAR have no explicit basis in zoning law. 9 Therefore it is not clear that there is a mechanism for appealing such a decision. 10 11 The other issue is that with respect to Variance the findings are made explicit while with respect 12 to this there are no explicit findings it is in fact in some sense not even rising to the level that 13 would be in the Record pf Land Use Action, as far as I can tell. Therefore essentially it is buried 14 within the process and not called out and that is problematic to me. 15 16 Mr. Larkin: I am not saying that a Variance isn't something that is possible. I am just 17 addressing the question about a Variance can set a precedent as well. 18 19 Chair Garber: Commissioners, I will remind you that our City Arborist needs to leave in a little 20 less than 30 minutes so if anybody has other questions let me pass the floor to Commissioner 21 Lippert. 22 23 Commissioner Lippert: I would like to begin by saying that I am well aware of the cut-through 24 traffic issue through Monroe Park. As an avid cyclist I come down Wilkie .Way, cross Adobe 25 Creek, and do take Monroe Drive to cut across and make a left hand tum and cut through Los 26 Altos to get to Foothill Expressway. So I am quite aware of the traffic issues there. I also bank 27 at the comer there so I am familiar with going through that neighborhood. 28 29 I would like to begin my line of questioning with regard to the streets or driveways that are 30 proposed here. Is Ryan Lane proposed to be a either a street or street easement, or simply a 31 driveway with a name? 32 33 Mr. Williams: I believe it is a private street easement. So it is a private street with an easement 34 over it for access. 35 36 Commissioner Lippert: So it is for public access. 37 38 Mr. Williams: That is my understanding and the applicant may correct that but there is not a 39 gate at the front of it. There is a gate at the other side connecting to the hotel. 40 41 Commissioner Lippert: The City Council and the Commission has been wrangling with trying to 42 reinforce street patterns and to not have private streets running through developments. We were 43 actually trying to I guess in some way liberate those and make them more public friendly. 44 Where do we stand with those policy discussions? 45 Page 22 1 Mr. Williams: We have not come back to you with anything specifically. As you know, there is 2 an initiative proposed that is out for signatures at this point to try to define public street widths or 3 private street widths and circumstances. That is certainly an issue that is before you with this. 4 Our sense was that this was sort of so internalized and that we did want to have this separation, 5 not allow this connection, between the hotel and the residential traffic that this was an 6 appropriate location for a private street and for not looking at it as a public throughway. 7 8 Commissioner Lippert: But as far as the street pattern, I am not even talking about whether they 9 are public or private. The street pattern itself isn't very conducive to the Monroe Park pattern. 10 11 Mr. Williams: No, but this is just the comer and the back of it doesn't connect to any other 12 streets. So you just basically have what you internally are connecting at the comer to El Camino 13 and Monroe Drive. 14 15 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. What is being proposed here would be a tufted area that would 16 separate I guess what we are looking at as the hotel access to the driveway to the underground 17 parking as well as the residences there. So there is no real connection through there except by 18 way of pedestrian. 19 20 Ms. French: And emergency vehicles. If there are bollards there they can remove those and go 21 through. 22 23 Commissioner Lippert: Did Staff or the applicant look at the possibility of just serpentining 24 through the site? Just making it real arduous to cut through and begin to use a serpentine to limit 25 the way people can get through the site rather than actual physical barriers? 26 27 Mr. Nortz: We did not explore that possibility. The applicant might want to also address that 28 question. 29 30 Commissioner Lippert: I guess I can ask the architect from Steinberg Group. Can you approach 31 the mike? Thanks. Did you look at all at using a serpentine perhaps to go through the site in 32 terms of to begin to limit access but yet making it a little bit better in terms of circulation? 33 34 Chair Garber: Meaning to reduce the desire to get through the site quickly and directly. 35 36 Commissioner Lippert: Correct. 37 38 Mr. Chao: To specifically answer your question no we didn't look at a serpentine pattern 39 through the site. As we talked with the neighbors and kind of interrogated the programmatic 40 relationships between the housing and the hotel itself it made more sense to us to completely 41 bifurcate those circulation patterns from each other. So you are not allowing the site itself to be 42 a conduit for egress from the hotel to cut through our site to get through the Monroe 43 neighborhood. So it was just literally the 26 residential units that would have a level of 44 familiarity with the neighborhood that would make a choice to one direction or another but it 45 wouldn't be the 167 hotel units that would be somehow or another enabled to go through the site. 46 So bifurcating them was the most sensible way for us in terms of controlling that access. Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Commissioner Lippert: If you would allow me for a moment, I am just going to refer to the three fingers that you have there as left, center, and right. if you were to take the center finger that you have there and the houses that you have to the left of it, the A and B configurations, the Cs and Ds in the middle, and the As and Bs towards the hotel, if you were to take those and make those into a grouping of two more duplexes there. In other words, combine them so that you had double duplexes on that street there. You could take the street that is in the center and link it with the street that is on the left making a U, completing a serpentine through there. Mr. Chao: Just so I understand your question, you are talking about this. Commissioner Lippert: Actually I would do it with the center and the left one, is what I am talking about. Mr. Chao: So this one and this one. Commissioner Lippert: Right. Mr. Chao: So you are saying coming through the site and then coming out that way? So you are saying eliminating the egress and ingress from Monroe all together? 22 Commissioner Lippert: Sort of. I am not saying eliminate that one. What I am saying is, if you 23 I would allow me, come up through the center from hotel, come up from El Camino, make a left 24 and turn, come up the center, and then come down and then out onto Monroe. What might 25 happen is more residents would take EI Camino Real rather than entering or existing off of 26 Monroe. I am also thinking it would also begin to clean up some of the issues with regard to 27 access to the bike path and making the bike path connection through the site a little friendlier or 28 easier, and making it more pedestrian as well as bicycle friendly there. Cutting down traffic, if 29 you are meandering through a site you are less inclined to meander through the site, you would 30 take the quickest route, which would be El Camino Real. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Chair Garber: Just so I am understanding here, you are not suggesting that although they might actually do that, your real suggestion here is in terms of the utilization of the site to find a way to make the egress and entrance to and from the site less direct. Commissioner Lippert: Correct. Then also making it a little bit more of the street pattern of the Monroe Park neighborhood. If you look at Monroe Park it is really meandering streets with dead ends and cul-de-sacs and lots of twists. It would also allow for that centerpiece of Ryan Lane also to be landscaped a little bit more creating more of a center for that development. Chair Garber: Okay. Mr. Chao: That is not a scheme that we have looked at, no. Page 24 1 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then I guess with regard to the access to the R .. 1 properties off of 2 those fingers. I know that the City Attorney mentioned that it is possible to have some sort of 3 gated, well you mentioned it. 4 5 Mr. Nortz: I mentioned it specifically for either of the two R-1 properties located along the 6 northeastern edge. I believe it is 114 and 116 Monroe specifically the issue was brought up for 7 116 Monroe Drive more or less creating a gate for access for maintenance purposes. 8 9 Chair Garber: Just so I understand. Your recommendation was to allow the one landowner to 10 get to the triangular piece of property that had been cordoned off by the bicycle and walkway in 11 the back as opposed to allowing access between the motor courts, if I am reading this correcting 12 and those private properties. 13 14 Mr. Nortz: That is correct. It was actually Public Works who we worked with directly and that 15 was their recommendation. 16 17 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert you are asking the question about specifically allowing 18 access between those private properties and the motor courts. 19 20 Commissioner Lippert: Correct. I have seen precedent for that specifically a lot of the 21 residences in Barron Park along the Gunn High School property line. Their driveways are 22 actually used for Fire Department access to the back of the Gunn site. So there is precedent for 23 that where there has been an access easement placed on the driveway itself. These are 24 driveways. So in that case we could have something like that where there would be an access 25 easement for the R-1 property owners to access the rear of their properties. Is that a possibility? 26 27 Mr. Nortz: So if I understand you correctly, then the vehicles would be traveling down the bike 28 path? 29 30 Commissioner Lippert: No, they would be traveling down the motor court, the right finger, and 31 the center finger, to gain access to the R -1 property and they would have to traverse the bike path 32 of course but traversing a bike path is not the same thing as access and sitting and driving on a 33 bike path. 34 35 Mr. Williams: A couple of thoughts. One is I think that kind of thing might be available for an 36 emergency access type situation to the rear of those homes. I think those homes already have 37 access from a public road in the front. We don't typically allow multiple accesses to lots. There 38 are lots that have alleys or something so occasionally that is the case but just to provide it for 39 these two lots is creating essentially in some respects a public road for two or three properties 40 there through what are essentially private driveways. So for anything other than emergency 41 access I am not sure that would be really desirable. 42 43 The second thing is the idea of the serpentine I think that is a good concept but I think the site is 44 too small to do that. I think if you try to do that with Ryan Lane basically that you get into sort . 45 of90-degree turns and for fire trucks and other large vehicles it would be problematic. You 46 would be basically cutting up the whole continuity or contiguity of the residential with this main Page 25 1 street that comes through. Not to mention opening up the possibility for the hotel guests to be 2 going in and out on Monroe too. While I understand that wouldn't be easy, it would be there and 3 I think that has been one of the neighborhood's main concerns through this whole process, that 4 there not be access even if it is made to be difficult access for the hotel guests and employees to 5 be getting out on Monroe. 6 7 Comn1issioner Lippert: There are two issues here. The first one is the access that I really want 8 to talk about. What I am suggesting here, there are residential properties all along the motor 9 courts there and that really is an access only for, and the neighbors in the R -1 properties have 10 asked for access so that they can go and maintain their trees. So that would be the only reason 11 for them to be using that. It would not be a driveway access. 12 13 What I am thinking of is that in going through this since you already have traffic going back 14 through the motor courts there is no reason why some sort of use easement could not be placed 15 on the motor court access for the benefit of the R -1 residents. 16 17 Chair Garber: Forgive me for interrupting, and correct me if I am wrong City Attorney, but we 18 are dealing with two private parcels here and I suspect that if the owners of the R -1 lots had 19 some interest in this they could approach the owners of this property and work out some sort of 20 agreement. Short of us getting involved directly to demand an easement or something of that 21 sort, can we actually even do that? We are not connecting two public ways. 22 23 Mr. Larkin: I don't think there is any nexus for us to require that. I think that is something that 24 could be discussed between the two property owners. 25 26 Chair Garber: Am I misunderstanding something? 27 28 Commissioner Lippert: Two of the public speakers that we had initially were requesting that. 29 30 Mr. Larkin: That is right. There were two public speakers requesting it and it is an interesting 31 option but I think that is not something we can condition the project on. 32 33 Chair Garber: Because they are two private property owners. 34 35 Mr. Larkin: Yes, they are two private property owners and there is no nexus to this development 36 that has to do with the maintenance on the private property. 37 38 Commissioner Holman: Chair Garber? 39 40 Chair Garber: Actually, if Commissioner Lippert will allow me, Commissioner Keller had ..... . 41 42 Commissioner Holman: I didn't mean to interrupt but understanding that what the City Attorney 43 is saying is that we can't require the applicant to do that, however, to satisfy Commissioner 44 Lippert's concerns and address the public's concerns we could ask the applicant if they would 45 agree to entertain such discussions. I think that might satisfy Commissioner Lippert's situation. 46 Might it? Page 26 1 2 Chair Garber: One moment. I assume you are with the applicant would you identify yourself, 3 please? 4 5 Mr. Ryan Leong, Applicant: We would be happy to entertain that discussion with our neighbors. 6 It is not an issue. I think the issue that needs to be addressed by the City is whether or not as part 7 of the bike path easement they will allow access over that. Obviously we can control the motor 8 court but since that is going to go to the City the City has to decide whether or not access can be 9 granted over the pedestrian easement. 10 11 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman. 12 13 Commissioner Holman: So just for clarification, since the applicant has responded in like 14 manner or in the manner they just did, so we could condition any approval such that because they 15 have agreed to it. 16 17 Mr. Larkin: No, you still can't condition approval of the project on that. They have agreed to it 18 but you can't condition approval or denial of the project on them reaching an agreement with the 19 private property owner. Just because they have agreed to talk to the other property owner 20 doesn't mean they are going to reach agreement and we can't require them to reach agreement. 21 22 Commissioner Holman: Understood, but. .... 23 24 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert and then Keller. 25 26 Commissioner Lippert: What I see here is a collision of a variety of things. Number one is the 27 R-l property owners that currently have a parking lot in their backyard and wanting access to 28 that area that they are now going to be using for trees. The second part of it is that we have a 29 bicycle path that goes along the perimeter of the site that is going to be used for pedestrians and 30 bicyclists and it is going to be on the R-1 property. Then we have these motor courts that do 31 traverse the multifamily site and dead end at the property line and the bicycle path. I am just 32 trying to figure out a way all three of them sort of work together without feeling really disjointed 33 because in our findings of Site and Design we are trying to find a way that this development 34 happens in a harmonious way. What I see are bunch of edges that come together and they don't 35 really facilitate or work together with each other. That is really what I am getting at here. 36 37 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 38 39 Commissioner Keller: So I am not a lawyer and I don't even play one on TV but let me make a 40 couple of observations. The first observation is that the applicant is essentially abandoning part 41 of the easement for the R -1 properties that is currently used or available for parking for the 42 bowling alley. 43 44 The second thing is that the applicant is essentially requesting that the R-l properties in question 45 n1ake available an easement for bicycle and pedestrian path through their property, which they 46 do not have to do. That is not an easement that currently exists and they are making that Page 27 1 easement in favor of the City. The property owners as a condition of making that easement to 2 the City could condition that easement on access to the rear of their property. So the property 3 owners have leverage over the City and over the applicant who is trying to get this bicycle and 4 pedestrian path to happen and the City, which is obviously interested in accepting this easement 5 to do so conditionally on providing that access. So there is some sort of nexus in there. 6 7 Thirdly, from a Site and Design point of view independent from the legal issues there is the 8 consideration that a curvy bike path is not a safe condition from my humble perspective. 9 Therefore several things have to happen. Either that bike and pedestrian path needs to be 10 straightened so that there is a complete and full sightline from Monroe so that any student 11 bicycling to elementary or middle school can see all the way through to where the curve is 12 towards Cesano Court, so they can tell if there are any people lurking in there. The curvy lane 13 provides a clear and present danger to doing that. So that is one of the considerations. The other 14 part of that consideration is that providing bike and pedestrian access to this easement from the 15 three motor courts would provide benefit by allowing the people living in the motor courts who 16 also attend school at the same place as the rest of Monroe Drive does, they would want access to 17 the bike and pedestrian path in addition. Furthermore, it provides an escape in the event of an 18 unsafe condition on that bike and pedestrian path to escape the bike and pedestrian path and go 19 back to the residences. So there are multiple reasons for' considering this interchange both legal 20 and reasonable from a Site and Design and public safety issue. I believe Mr. Baer has a 21 comment. 22 23 Chair Garber: Let me recognize you in one moment. Let me just make sure the Commissioners 24 understand that if I am reading the plan correctly there actually are gates but they are not from 25 the motor courts they are from the walkways onto the bike lane. Mr. Baer and then 26 Commissioner Lippert. 27 28 Mr. Jim Baer, Applicant: The applicant would like to cooperate in any way to create what is a 29 good outcome. Let me run through what is a good outcome. The bicycle path has no nexus that 30 could require that to be created. It has been an enormous positive effort by the applicant with the 31 two R-l neighbors in having a very positive mutual outcome of what is now a fenced off, terrible 32 asphalt area that is a large portion of the backyard of the two southeastern R-l properties to have 33 them cooperate in creating the bicycle path and to get them back property that is better used by 34 them than under the current easement. So there has been terrific cooperation in making that 35 happen. 36 37 The one issue addressed that is a challenge is how to get maintenance, one neighbor has 38 requested that, from the Cesano Court path into the Franke property. It has these challenges that 39 the Planning Staff has already identified. Public Works has a standard street opening 40 encroachment permit process that requires a definition of the time period for the use, the vehicle 41 access, and insurance from the party entering. So there is a way to create a safe access off of 42 what will be a public pathway connecting all the way through to Cesano Court. The challenge 43 with creating it as a direct path is it requires both the Cesano Court Condominium Association 44 and the commercial property, the Rose property as you move next, so it is not just a matter of 45 getting the condominium association to say we like it in a new location better than in the current Page 28 1 location that requires a third party. We do have the legal problem of there are not nexuses to 2 compel any of the parties to do this. 3 4 I want to get you where you want to be. The purpose is to be helpful. One is the applicant 5 would like to say if there is not a way to get access with Public Works through that path then 6 subject only to the kind of limitations that safety and preservation of trees would impose that we 7 would cooperate in creating access for tree maintenance to the neighbor. Commissioner Keller 8 hits it exactly on the head. We have multiple private agreements going on that are not 9 consummated yet. So that privately that can take place with a statement by the applicant saying 10 we are really going to make this happen if Public Works can't get them access. 11 12 The straightening out we can't control. Planning Staff and the R-l neighbors with whom we are 13 interacting can't control that outcome. The safety issues are part of what will have to happen for 14 that pathway. I guess to make it easy something is happening that couldn't be compelled by the 15 City in any redevelopment of this property and something highly cooperative has.been taking 16 place between the R-l neighbors and it is not done yet. So the opportunity to create a successful 17 outcome for the tree maintenance if it can't be done off the public right-of-way you hear the 18 applicant saying we are willing to do that. However, Staff and the City Attorney need to identify 19 this on the record and at the same time saying we can't impose a bike path, we can't impose 20 gates onto a bike path, therefore we can't condition the project on those but these things are in 21 the works and part of the applicant. I hope that. clarifies the intention. 22 23 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Lippert and then Keller. 24 25 Commissioner Lippert: I don't mean to be the speck in the ointment here. If some sort of access 26 off the right motor court can be accommodated by the applicant in the way of an easement for 27 the R-l property owner I think it would be a better solution than trying to get access to that R-l 28 property off of Cesano Court. I will leave it at that. 29 30 For a moment I just want to go back to the serpentine road and what Acting Director Williams 31 said. I don't believe the fire access is diminished any further because you still have fire engines 32 that can get through and make the necessary turns either way. Fire engines would get through 33 because we have the right amount of road. It is just whether that is a better configuration in 34 terms of trying to reinforce the street pattern. I will just leave that at that for now. 35 36 What I do want to talk about is the blended zones that we have on this one parcel. Where I see it 37 happening is and what is important are the edges of the property and what happens abutting 38 adjacent properties. What happens internal to the site is really inconsequential. It doesn't really 39 make a difference. Along Monroe street you don't have any adjacent or abutting properties so 40 along there it doesn't really make a difference. Along EI Camino Real you don't have any 41 adjacent or abutting properties. The only place where the blended rate does make a difference is 42 along the back of the property line, the R-l, and the adjacent property, which is multifamily to 43 the right. In those cases you are not increasing the noncompliance so I don't see it as being 44 necessarily an issue. 45 46 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Rosati, Holman, and then Keller. Page 29 1 2 Commissioner Rosati: Thank you. I have a few questions. One has to do with the employees 3 that will be working in the hoteL I just wanted to note to the Planner that it mentions in the 4 report that there are 1 72 parking spots for 167 units but I would imagine that some spots would 5 be required for the employees. So I just wanted to make a note of that. I don't know the number 6 of employees the hotel may require at any time. 7 8 Mr. Nortz: The information regarding employees was not provided it was just relevant to the 9 units. The applicant may have additional information. 10 11 Commissioner Rosati: I would just suggest that you get that information and consider it in your 12 reVIew. 13 14 Mr. Nortz: Sure. 15 16 Commissioner Rosati: I think it is a little bit misleading to say we only need 167 parking spots 17 and this plan is proposing 172, therefore exceeding the requirement when the piece for the 18 employees is missing. 19 20 The other question I have has to do with the private streets. There is a note in there about private 21 streets. The question is if while this proj ect is being reviewed the parallel process that is defining 22 some guidelines on private streets is implemented and adopted what is the impact on this 23 project? Can we go back and or somehow condition this to the adoption of the new guidelines 24 that we may be working on on a separate track? 25 26 Mr. Larkin: Are you talking about something the City is considering or are you talking about the 27 initiative measure? 28 29 Commissioner Rosati: As mentioned in the report, we are looking at private streets and we have 30 had an ongoing discussion of defining possibly a specific ordinance for it. 31 32 Mr. Larkin: I don't think you can apply an ordinance that mayor may not be adopted in the 33 future to this proj ect. I think that at the time that ordinance is adopted it could have an inlpact on 34 the project if the developer doesn't have vested rights. That is something the Commission would 35 want to make a recommendation one way or the other and the Council is going to adopt the 36 policy one way or the other. 37 38 The initiative is a little different because in the case of the initiative the Council and the 39 Commission don't get to decide whether or not to apply it to projects in the pipeline that is 40 defined in the initiative. 41 42 Chair Garber: Forgive me for interrupting. That initiative should the Commission decide to 43 pursue it would be a separate action from the action that is before us right now, correct? 44 45 Mr. Larkin: Yes, if the Commission were to pursue new guidelines that would be additional 46 action. The initiative is going to follow its own course. Page 30 1 2 Chair Garber: Planning Director. 3 4 Mr. Williams: I just wanted to also add that in Don's first part of the answer about if the City 5 develops new policies or ordinances it is within our sort of jurisdiction to determine who those 6 apply to and how as far as projects that come through. It has generally been the practice of the 7 City not to apply those to projects that have received, in fact generally not projects in the pipeline 8 too, but at least that have received some level of approval, discretionary project approval, 9 already. 10 11 Commissioner Rosati: Thank you for clarifying. A third question has to do with 'revenue 12 projections. Have those been validated by City Staff? 13 14 Mr. Nortz: When it was originally in for preliminary ARB back last June they were validated. I 15 do believe the rates change annually so I would have to go back and check those numbers, but it 16 would be incremental to the rate adjustment. 17 18 Mr. Williams: I think you are talking about the TOT that went from ten percent to 12 percent at 19 one point but that has been some time now. We have looked at this and I think they are on the 20 conservative side. I think that the assumptions as far as room rates and occupancy and that were 21 pretty conservative in making that and it is unlikely to be less than that if it is the full 22 compliment of 167 rooms. 23 24 Commissioner Rosati: Is part of the process also to look at the incremental cost that a 25 development like this has on the City, like City services? 26 27 Mr. Williams: That is not part of your purview to do that but the Council always has a resource 28 impact section and we will have a brief, but some study of the cost as well as the revenue. Then 29 we will also be looking at the increased property tax as well for the residential portion as part of 30 that, and the service inlpacts associated with the project. 31 32 Commissioner Rosati: This is fairly objectively out of the purview of the conversation but many 33 people are asking the question and I would like to know what the answer is. Has a project been 34 looked at to relocate Palo Alto Bowl or replace it in the city somewhere with an equivalent type 35 of entertainment amenity for the city? 36 37 Mr. Williams: There is not at this point any specific effort devoted to that or certainly not a 38 proposed relocation. 39 40 Commissioner Rosati: Any site that may be identified for something similar? 41 42 Mr. Williams: No, we have not done that. 43 44 Commissioner Rosati: Thank you. 45 Page 31 1 Chair Garber: For Commissioner Rosati's benefit, remind me of the parking calculation is based 2 on the number of units in the hotel and that is what gives us the quantity that is required. 3 Commissioner Holman. 4 5 Commissioner Holman: I am reminded that as a part of the SOFA Plan I jokingly tried to zone 6 Channing and High for picnic tables but that wasn't taken seriously either. 7 8 So question for City Attorney and Director. I have a lot of thoughts and comments about the 9 proposal both positive and not. I know there is a great deal of effort going into this. At the root 10 of it though is how legal is it? Director started out by saying we don't have a process that allows 11 blending of FAR, heights, and such. The applicant provides two examples where this was done 12 before Arbor Real and Summer Hill at the Elk's site. Commission didn't review those so I 13 certainly had no awareness that that was happening. So I am challenged by any legality of what 14 is being proposed. 15 16 Mr. Larkin: I am confident about the legality of the blended FAR because you are dealing with a 17 project that doesn't have an FAR per area, it is an FAR per parcel and the only way to calculate 18 that is by blending. I think that the same logic applies to the blended height FAR. I don't know 19 that it is as clear in my head as the blended FAR but I think the same logic applies. 20 21 Commissioner Holman: So clarify for me once again, these are separate parcels. 22 23 Mr. Larkin: No, no there is one parcel with three different types of zoning on it. That is why 24 with the blended FAR it is very difficult to say you can have some FAR in this nebulous comer 25 of the parcel, and some FAR in this comer of the parcel, because there is just one parcel. 26 27 Commissioner Holman: The Staff Report identifies it as four parcels. 28 29 Mr. Williams: I think there are four parcels. They are not coterminous with the zoning districts 30 though that are here. So that RM-15 is part of the same parcel that the CS where the Palo Alto 31 Bowl is located. Then where the Motel 6 is' all CS but it is actually two parcels and a little R-l 32 sliver at the back. So there is not an RM-15 parcel and 'a CS parcel and an R-l parcel. Well, 33 there is an R -1 parcel but that is not being built on. The dilemma is that it is all in these different 34 shapes and different zonings. So our take was that you could blend this as long as you are still 35 making the transition and the perimeter as Commissioner Lippert was saying was effectively 36 meeting the zoning at the perimeter there. As I understand that is being done as far as the 37 setbacks go. Again, I think you might argue the height at that point might be an issue because 38 technically it is one foot and 11 inches over right at that point closest to the perimeter property 39 line. 40 41 Chair Garber: Would it help for the applicant to give some clarification on the parcels? 42 43 Mr. Larkin: I think we figured it out. I was confused because one of the parcels has the two 44 types of zoning on it. And it will be one parcel once it is merged with multiple zoning. 45 46 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert you had a follow up and then we will continue. Page 32 I 2 Commissioner Lippert: I guess the point that I am trying to make is what is important here is not 3 what happens internally to the site it is what happens at the perimeter of the site. While 4 Commissioner Keller is absolutely correct that in the blending it doesn't fall precisely where 5 those parcels are what they are actually proposing makes for a better proposal and development 6 even though it doesn't follow the law, it follows the spirit of what the rules are. So it puts the 7 height and the density towards the front of the site, towards EI Camino Real, and puts the lesser 8 height towards the R-l properties, and it also puts density tighter against the multifamily that is 9 to the right. So from the letter yes it doesn't comply. From in fact a Site and Design point of 10 view it makes a hell of a lot of sense. 11 12 Chair Garber: ConlIDissioner Holman were you done? 13 14 Commissioner Holman: No. I am going to try this a little different way and maybe it can be 15 described a little different in response. There are lot lines. There are parcels, correct? So that is 16 where I am still stuck and not exactly tracking what is being stated as far as it is okay to do the 17 blended rates. The other question I have relative to that is if those lot lines exist, the 18 development, it is real hard to tell, but it looks like there are structures crossing lot lines. So that 19 is troubling too. So I need a little bit different explanation or stated a different way to help me 20 understand how this is legal. 21 22 Mr. Larkin: Well, the lot lines will have to be removed so there won't be buildings crossing lot 23 lines. I was mistaken. I didn't get a set of the plans so I wasn't aware of where the existing 24 parcelization was but what I said is still correct in that the different zones don't correlate to those 25 existing lot lines. So the larger of the lots has CS and RM-15 on the same lot and because they 26 are not going to be creating individual parcels, it will be one parcel with different zones, and the 27 only way to calculate FAR is to do a blended rate. If you have one parcel with different zoning it 28 is hard to figure out what FAR you apply to what portion of the lot. 29 30 Commissioner Holman: I anl sorry I am being really dense on this but if you are saying for 31 instance let's just talk about the Palo Alto Bowl site. It is not just two zones though it is two 32 parcels. 33 34 Mr. Larkin: It is but those two zones don't correlate to those two parcels. 35 36 Commissioner Holman: How can that be? 37 38 Mr. Williams: The Palo Alto Bowl site is one parcel. It has two zones on it. 39 40 Commissioner Holman: So the Staff Report is incorrect when it says there are four parcels. 41 42 Mr. Williams: No, there are three parcels on the Motel 6 site, two of them are zoned CS and one 43 of them is zoned R-l. 44 45 Commissioner Holman: In the Staff Report there was a map and one of my comments was it 46 looked like the map in the Staff Report was incorrect. If I look at the plot map in the set plan it Page 33 1 drawn differently than what is in the Staff Report. That was one of my questions that was not 2 included in what is at places. 3 4 Ms. French: So you are talking about Attachment B of the Staff Report that shows heavy lines? 5 6 Commissioner Holman: I believe that is it. 7 8 Ms. French: It is showing three parcels associated with the hotel area and then one parcel 9 associated with Palo Alto Bowl so it is a total of four parcels. 10 11 Commissioner Holman: Which appears to be different than what is in the plan sets, which 12 indicate that there are four parcels. It is different than what is on Attachment B. 13 14 Mr. Nortz: I think the confusion is if you are referring to sheet AO.Ol the applicant describes the 15 existing parcel zoning differently. He is showing it broken out as four parcels however the CS 16 and RM-15 portions, which appear to be two parcels are actually one. That is the Palo Alto 17 Bowl site and it is all CS and RM -15 zoning. It is split 77 and 23 percent. The adjacent Motel 6 18 site that is zoned CS they are including the small parcel directly behind it that is also zoned CS 19 that runs up against the R -1 parcel. 20 21 Chair Garber: Would you please put the City's GIS map that has the parcels on there on the 22 overhead? 23 24 Commissioner Lippert: If Chair might allow me while they are setting up? 25 26 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert. 27 28 Commissioner Lippert: The applicant here intends to remove all the property lines, which is 29 ministerial to do a combination of lots like that doesn't come before us. 30 31 Conunissioner Holman: Nor is it suggested in the Staff Report that that's going to happen. 32 33 Chair Garber: Can you walk us through the parcels there? As you are trying to get the pointer to 34 work, I am assuming that as a condition of this recommendation to the Commission that Staff is 35 recommending that the applicant, and the applicant appears to be complying with the 36 recommendation, to put all these four lots together. 37 38 Mr. Larkin: In order for the project to proceed they will need to merge the four lots. 39 40 Chair Garber: Planning Director. 41 42 Mr. Williams: We can certainly require that as a condition as well. So this is the Palo Alto Bowl 43 site. Single-family' residences to the rear. This is the Motel 6 site. So the existing Palo Alto 44 Bowl site is one parcel, the RM -15 portion of this parcel is divided about two-thirds to thre~- 45 quarters of the way back that part is RM-15 but it is not a separate parcel. So you are right, it 46 was incorrectly shown on that plan page because that plan page did say parcel on it. Then the Page 34 1 Motel 6 site has one, two, three parcels. These two parcels are both zoned CS but they are 2 separate parcels. This last one here is zoned R-l. 3 4 Commissioner Holman: That provides much better clarification. Thank you. I have other 5 questions but if there is anything else related to this. 6 7 Chair Garber: Actually, why don't you go ahead because we are going to try and get through 8 everyone's comments here? 9 10 Commissioner Holman: Okay. Comments or questions? I still have questions. 11 12 Chair Garber: You can do questions and then we can do comments with a motion later. 13 14 Conlmissioner Holman: Okay. The common open space for the multifamily. I had asked a 15 question about that being tucked up by the hotel separated by a street and by a stand of trees. 16 What is the likelihood of the multifamily homes using that? 17 18 Mr. N ortz: It is hard for Staff to say since we are not the ones that proposed that area. I think 19 the applicant is probably best suited to answer that question. 20 21 Commissioner Holman: I would hope Staff would have an opinion about the likelihood of that 22 but if not, I will move onto the next one. 23 24 Ms. French: I might add to that that if this gets to the ARB that is the venue where the details of 25 landscaping and play equipment might happen there and get into that grain of use and design. 26 27 Commissioner Holman: I think that would be really important to Site and Design, the 28 approximate location of that common open space with the multifamily residential. 29 30 The new housing along Monroe, no being an architect looking at these is a bit hard for me to tell 31 if those front on Monroe or side on Monroe. It is a little bit hard to tell. It is AO.07. 32 33 Chair Garber: Should we be asking the applicant? 34 35 Mr. Chao: Yes they do front on Monroe Avenue. 36 37 Commissioner Holman: So that takes me to a question having to do with Attachment G that was 38 provided to us later. I think it said that the front setback of 20 feet was not applicable. The 39 applicant response indicated that the rear of the site is the part of the site that abuts the path. So 40 why is it or how is it determined that the rear of the site abuts the path and not the front of the 41 site be along Monroe so we have a 20 foot setback? 42 43 Ms. French: Again, the plan is to merge all of these parcels so we are thinking of this as one 44 parcel. The narrowest part of the basically EI Camino Real is the front. 45 46 Chair Garber: Will the houses have EI Camino addresses? Page 35 1 2 Mr. Nortz: That is yet to be determined. 3 4 Commissioner Holman: There is a practical function of these as well. So I don't know if the 5 City has latitude for that. The narrowing of the Monroe, two or three things about that. Who 6 owns the street, Monroe where it is proposed to be narrowed, who owns the street? 7 8 Ms. French: That is City right-of-way. 9 10 Commissioner Holman: So what it would appear to me is if the sidewalk was being proposed for 11 inboard, because the sidewalks are required as part of development, is that correct? 12 13 Mr. Nortz: I don't know if they are required for part of the development. They have been 14 proposed with the development. 15 16 Commissioner Holman: I think they are required and if Staff could confim1 that would help. 17 18 Ms. French: It would be good design practice as part of a Site and Design project to propose 19 way finding for pedestrians. So I think they proposed it know that we would ask that to be good 20 design. There is nothing that says you must put a sidewalk in. 21 22 Commissioner Holman: So it would appear then that the way this is being proposed, my 23 preference would be that the sidewalk be inboard of the trees per previous discussion and 24 questioning of City Arborist. What appears to me now is that City land is being ceded to an 25 applicant who is using that land to provide sidewalk and I had understood, maybe incorrectly, 26 that sidewalks were required as a part' of development. So that is one piece of it. 27 28 The other piece of it is does Staff agree or not, or does Staff have enough information to know if 29 narrowing of the street at those points would provide traffic calming? 30 31 Mr. Nortz: As far as the traffic calming issue I believe that question was referred to our 32 Transportation Staff. I believe Rafael Rius does have an answer to that question as far as acting 33 as a traffic calming measure. 34 35 Mr. Rius: Currently there is on street parking. So when there are no cars currently parked and 36 with the new curb it would provide some calming effect but it might be sort of negated when you 37 are comparing it to when cars are currently parked there and it has already been narrowed down. 38 39 Commissioner Holman: Okay, thank you. The hotel, as I understood the Staff Report and look 40 at the drawings, it appears that there is no entrance to the hotel building itself from EI Camino. 41 Do I read that correctly? 42 43 Mr. Nortz: That is correct. 44 45 Comn1issioner Holman: Okay. How does Staff reckon that that satisfies the EI Camino Design 46 Guidelines or not? Page 36 1 2 Ms. French: The Guidelines are just that, guidelines. We do our review of projects and balance 3 these things. We look at safety. We look at EI Camino Guidelines. We look at existing 4 conditions such as the oak tree. So in the case of some of the EI Camino Real Guidelines are met 5 as far as providing substantial building frontage along EI Camino that is one of the guidelines. 6 Tree planting, we want to see trees at 25 to 33 feet spacing along EI Camino. So it is a balancing 7 of looking at the different guidelines. Does it meet every single guideline? Well, maybe not 8 having an entry is not meeting one of the guidelines but is not a zoning code. We are doing a 9 balancing of zoning code and guidelines. 10 11 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman, one of the Commissioners had wanted to ask the City 12 Arborist a question and I know we have been keeping it here and then we can get back to you. 13 14 Commissioner Holman: Please. I had no idea. 15 16 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 17 18 Commissioner Keller: This is going back to the earlier issue that I had brought up in terms of 19 potentially straightening the bike path. I was referring to straightening the bike path from 20 Monroe straight across to where the S-curve is to Cesano. I was not proposing to adjust the 21 portion from Cesano. So there would be only one S-curve instead of a bunch of ones. If we 22 were to continue the bike path straight across in a straight path to the right side of the property 23 where it curved over to go to Cesano would that change or impinge on any existing trees to the 24 best of your knowledge, Mr. Dockter? 25 26 Mr. Dockter: No, I do not believe it would impinge on the existing. These are relocated and 27 new locations pretty much where the red dot will be approaching. Right in there. 28 29 Chair Garber: He is talking about fronl that point to Monroe. 30 31 Commissioner Keller: From part of the S-curve to Monroe making that portion straight. That is 32 what I am talking about. I am not talking about changing the S-curve. 33 34 !vIr. Dockter: There are existing trees through there that would dictate how the path goes, yes. 35 36 Commissioner Keller: So if you started at the Monroe portion and went straight across through 37 there so the top edge was even all the way what impact would that have on trees? It looks like at 38 least on the next two parcels there is no issue, or is there an issue? 39 40 Mr. Dockter: That is correct. There is relatively no issue from here towards Cesano. These 41 trees are fixed in here and that would dictate where the path could go. We will be revisiting that 42 in detail with the applicant and the site arborist and myself included. But the trees are a pretty 43 fixed entity. We would need to look at the width of the path and how straight it could or could 44 not be. 45 Page 37 1 Commissioner Keller: Right, okay. There are some issues in the parcel that is on the part of 2 Monroe that we see but on the two inward parcels that go to Monroe where it makes the curve, 3 on those two parcels it could continue straight without being an issue, with the potential that it 4 would take more land from those two parcels to nlake it straight. Is that correct? 5 6 Mr. Dockter: That would be correct. A straight is relative how it cuts across to Cesano, yes. 7 There is very little restriction that exists on the two parcels here. 8 9 Commissioner Keller: Then at the end it would necessarily have to curve to get to Cesano but at 10 least a larger portion of it would have visibility to Monroe so people before they entered that 11 street could be aware of the safety of that bike lane by making that portion straighter. Is that a 12 reasonable assessnlent? 13 14 Mr. Dockter: To Cesano. 15 16 Commissioner Keller: In other words, somebody entering from Monroe would have. sufficient 17 sightlines 80 percent of the way across to be able to see whether that bike lane was safe without 18 anybody lurking in there· if that bike lane was straightened out as opposed to hugging the 19 property line as much as possible, which is what it does now. 20 21 Mr. Dockter: We would have to look at that with Transportation. 22 23 Chair Garber: I have two follow up questions here. Planning Director. 24 25 Mr. Williams: I was just going to note that I don't think that is a question for Mr. Dockter as far 26 as the sight visibility. I think our traffic engineer has looked at the issue of this alignment, the 27 potential to do some things to modify it, and has tried to keep it as much straight and accessible 28 and visible as possible within the constraints of number one the trees, number two the property 29 owner's desire. I go back to some extent to what Mr. Baer said before. There is a very delicate 30 negotiation process between the applicant and those neighbors to align this pathway and 31 concerns particularly about how much of the neighbors' land --they are getting a major benefit 32 in getting this easement area back as part of their parcels. But on the other hand they don't want 33 to have that pathway then starting to take up a large chunk of what they just got back. So to the 34 extent that the pathway stays closer to the property line that is better for them. One of them at 35 least has asked, and I don't know if he made a statement here tonight or not, but to try to actually 36 bring that all the way to the corner at the property line and do kind of a 90 degree or to get the 37 Cesano connection relocated. Those are not -this is all a very delicate balance. 38 39 Chair Garber: Is it not the case that the entire bike path is not on this parcel? Those are all on 40 the private properties? 41 42 Mr. Williams: That is right. 43 44 Chair Garber: So again the nexus here is not on those things. What they are doing is sharing 45 agreements that they have come to with us not that we have any true impact on them unless there 46 is something that truly has a nexus on the project. Page 38 1 2 Mr. Williams: That is correct, although we certainly want to have a functional bike path or we 3 are not going to accept it. At this point we feel like it is a functional and safe path. 4 5 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma and then Lippert. 6 7 Vice-Chair Tuma: You just covered what I was going to talk about. 8 9 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert. 10 11 Commissioner Lippert: I don't want us to get mired down with the details of the bike path. 12 Riding on Wilkie Way and coming off of Wilkie onto Adobe Creek and then off onto Monroe 13 Drive is far curvier and much less in the way of sightlines. As a cyclist I broke my collarbone on 14 straight, clear Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road where I had clean lines of sight and yet managed to hit 15 an obstacle. What is important here is that where you reach Monroe Drive is it is gated. So as a 16 bicyclist approaches Monroe Drive they don't come whipping around off of the bike path onto 17 Monroe Drive. The same thing doesn't happen where a bicyclist like myself comes along 18 Monroe Drive and decides to cut through the bike path and goes whipping through there either. 19 There are controls that are placed there that actually require that a cyclist slow down. So I don't 20 see it as being an issue. 21 22 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 23 24 Commissioner Keller: I am not as much worried about the speed of the bicyclists although I 25 certainly think that is a concern that some may have. I am concerned about the safety of young 26 children going to elementary school traversing this path that there might be people lurking there 27 trying to cause nefarious actions. That is what I am more concerned with at this particular 28 location. My question for Mr. Dockter was that if the bike path is straightened out it wouldn't 29 have any impact on the trees of the two inward parcels of the bike path but it could have impacts 30 on the originating bike path at the Monroe entrance. That answers my question, thank you. 31 32 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman back to you. 33 34 Mr. Larkin: While you are getting your place I can clarify on the sidewalks. The code says that 35 sidewalks shall be installed to locations, grades, and widths approved by the City Engineer. I 36 take it to mean that sidewalks are required but I also know that we have exemptions for 37 sidewalks in certain parts of town like Barron Park where there are no sidewalks in certain 38 neighborhoods. This is one of the areas that generally do not have sidewalks. 39 40 Commissioner Holman: Sheet AO.07 again. Would Staff care to comment on the transitional 41 aspect of the new housing to the existing housing that is shown in the middle drawing on that 42 page? 43 44 Ms. French: The question was the transition between the single family R-l and the new homes? 45 46 Commissioner Holman: Yes, according to the drawings. Page 39 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 Ms. French: Right. There is quite a bit of distance between the two and then there are trees. So those provide buffer as far as the design is concerned. That is going to be again an ARB focus that we will be looking to them to put forth the design of the buildings. Commissioner Holman: I am looking at consideration of the scale of those buildings introduced to that degree into a neighborhood that isR-1. So I am wondering if .... I Ms. French: The height particularly? Commissioner Holman: Yes, and the massing. Mr. Nortz: Well, I did look at those three particular parcels in terms of their square footage and they were all well over 2,000 square feet. The one that borders Monroe Drive on the comer was close to 3,000 square feet. Commissioner Holman: Are you talking about the new ones or the existing ones? Mr. Nortz: I am talking about the existing ones. In the proposed ones particularly the ones that border the rear of the property along the easement are proposed as all unit A and unit B units and they range in size from I believe about 2,000 square feet to 2,100 square feet. So in terms of massing they are smaller than what the neighboring R-1 properties along Monroe. \ Commissioner Holman: I would disagree with that. In terms of FAR they are smaller, in terms of stacking they have a very different impression. You can stack up FAR a bunch of different ways. I don't mean to be contrarian about it but you understand what I am saying. Mr. Nortz: I do and I actually was trying to research the height of those neighboring R-1 properties and was unable to get to that before tonight's meeting. However, I do think that is a relevant talking point that should be discussed especially during the ARB review. Commissioner Holman: That goes to the point I was making too about what is considered the front or even if they are not the front setbacks that that those be consistent with the neighborhood pattern, similar to what we would do in Individual Review, although there is a street that separates but stilL Mr. Williams: Again, I guess Staff's take on this was this is not part of the single-family neighborhood this is a transition between the single-family neighborhood and the hotel. It is zoned in a transitional way as RM-15. So you are going to get that kind of gradation and that appears especially as Amy says with the distance between the properties, the structures, to us to be an appropriate transitional scale and height. Commissioner Holman: Okay. I think the only other question I had probably is that the hotel entry. This Commission has spoken many times about neighborhoods that tum their backs on the streets and become essentially gated communities. That to me is more or less what this one - there are a lot of good things about this project and I have not stated those yet. There are a Page 40 1 number of good things about it too. The concern I have is that this project is totally oriented 2 internally. So was there any consideration of having a circular entryway? I understand how you 3 wouldn't want to have hotel guest drop off on EI Camino but was there any consideration of 4 haying a circular for instance entryway that goes into the property off EI Camino that would 5 provide a presence to the street? . 6 7 Mr. N ortz: That is something I believe the applicant should address. It was not brought up in 8 any of our preliminary meetings whether it was the Development Review Committee or the 9 preliminary ARB. That issue was not addressed. I don't know if the applicant addressed that 10 outside of those meetings or not. 11 12 Mr. Williams: I think the applicant probably should speak to the previous iterations of the plan 13 because there were some previous iterations of the plan that did open up the hotel more towards 14 the street and residential. I think you could sort of see it more from the residential. I don't think 15 it was ever up at the street but it was more like sort of an L of residential on one side and the L of 16 the hotel on another comer. I don't know that we have those plans here but there were earlier 17 versions that were different and there were difficulties with all of those. 18 19 Commissioner Holman: I think the applicant put those up early on. 20 21 Mr. Zirkle: Do you want me to address it? 22 23 Commissioner Holman: Yes, please. 24 25 Mr. Zirkle: This is one version of that idea of trying to put some idea about lobby and arrival 26 closer to EI Camino. So I certainly understand the spirit of the question. I think for us the 27 overriding factor was kind of the pragmatics of arrival considering the speed that you are 28 traveling along EI Camino, the propensity for multiple cars arriving at the hotel at the same time. 29 What seemed sensible and maybe a little safer was to inboard a little bit, not a lot, granted we 30 were showing the previous scheme out here on the comer but moving this in gives a little bit of a 31 buffer to slow down, have enough time to pull in and turn around and drop off. I am not aware 32 there is any other hotel along EI Camino that is of this sort of scale and flavor that has a porte- 33 cochere or arrival of any kind off of EI Camino that is of sort of a functional pull up, drop off, 34 front door experience. My sense is that the reason is the case for exactly what we are talking 35 about here, just trying to keep EI Camino safe, keep hotel drop off safe by pulling it inside. 36 37 Commissioner Holman: My point here, and I am not going to belabor it, but my point here is 38 that again there is no interaction with street of this building. I went up and down EI Camino 39 early this morning and I looked at parts of EI Camino that are older development not every single 40 block of it but I looked at fair stretches of EI Camino that is older development. I have to say 41 that a lot of the older development does a much better job than our "New Urbanist EI Camino 42 Design Guidelines" of being interactive with the street. It is quite a disappointment. So if this 43 project at its size turns its back on the street we are going to have a lot of dead space there that I 44 think the public is going to ask how that happened again. The hotel has chosen to make all of the 45 spaces inside and uses inside private to the hotel users. So there is no opportunity at this point 46 for and no kinds of entrances into the hotel for public use. I am challenged greatly by that. Page 41 1 2 Chair Garber: Is that it? 3 4 Mr. Zirkle: One thing I just wanted to point out and I appreciate your concern. 5 6 Chair Garber: Let me just interrupt. Zariah, did you get that Mr. Zirkle was the speaker for both 7 of these moments? Continue. 8 9 Mr. Zirkle: While it is true that we have sort of flip-flopped the arrival, and the porte-cochere, 10 and the entry the hotel is a pretty specific programmatic function. It is basically rooms that 11 stack. It is not like a mixed use project where you could align that with retail or something like 12 that. So what we have tried to do is really investigate the nature and quality of this entire favade 13 as you see it on the oblique, as you travel down the street and as you arrive into the project, and 14 functionally we have positioned the meeting rooms which are kind of the most public space that 15 you have in a hotel to position itself and have a relation and visibility to the street. It is sort of 16 the best you can do with moving the porte-cochere for necessary reasons off EI Camino to make 17 the hotel as interactive programmatically as you can on EI Camino. 18 19 Commissioner Holman: I am not the architect but in my lay opinion and just viewing other 20 developments consider the former Hyatt Rickey's project for instance, there was a hotel 21 configured very differently. There was a hotel there. They also had a strip of retail that 22 addressed the street. If you go further up EI Camino from these you have a series of hotels and 23 motels going all the way up to University Avenue that address the street in one fashion or 24 another either as entries to the hotel or some kind of life on the street and then the entrance to the 25 hotel or nlotel is set off the street. So I am not convinced that there is not a better way to address 26 the public, address the street, and create a lively interaction with the street with this building. 27 28 Chair Garber: Thank you. Just before we get to Commissioner Keller one question. Although 29 this is not a PC is it appropriate for us to consider a TDM requirenlent? I guess they have 30 offered one but we can condition that in any way that we like to address a number of the issues 31 regarding bike access, and safety, and parking, etc., yes? 32 33 Mr. Larkin: Yes because there would be a nexus to the hotel and the residential. 34 35 Chair Garber: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Keller and then let's take a few minute break 36 and then we will return with hopefully a motion for us to discuss. 37 38 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. First let me correct the record with respect to although the - 39 if you think of the residen!ial as sort of like an E-shape in terms of Ryan Court and the motor 40 courts. The motor courts are 26 feet wide but according to what I see as the map Ryan Court 41 itself is 24 feet wide as the spine of the E. I see the applicant nodding with respect to that. There 42 was a mention earlier that it was 26 feet but I just want to correct the record on that. 43 44 So let me make a broad observation first and then drill down a little bit. The broad observation is 45 that we do have this situation of four parcels with three different kinds of zoning being merged 46 into one parcel with multiple uses on it. So the question of how you deal with a multi -zoned Page 42 1 parcel, particularly a multi-zoned parcel with mUltiple uses on it is an interesting challenge. I 2 actually applaud the developer and the applicant and architect and Mr. Baer in trying to puzzle 3 out this issue and very cleverly come up with something that pretty much maximizes what can be 4 put on the parceL I think it has an extremely clever way of doing this. I have never ever on this 5 dais seen a situation where the actual amount of FAR being built exactly equals the amount of 6 FAR being allowed. I have never seen that ever happen before. So I am quite impressed. My 7 hat comes off to you. 8 9 I think the issue is in terms of this notion of blended zoning if you wilL I think that some 10 principles do make sense. From my point of view I can see an argument can be made for 11 blended FAR. I can see an argument being made for that because otherwise it is hard to make a 12 unified kind of design in here. So when you are blending the parcels making some sort of idea of 13 blended FAR does make some sense to the extent that you are not overweighting some portion 14 that would have a lower density with some portion that would have a higher density. After all, 15 the nature of the zoning is to provide some degree of buffering. So to the extent that you 16 overweight a lower density zone with FAR from a higher density zone that would tend to be an 17 issue from this blending. So take into account this idea of the buffering nature and that the 18 project itselfhas some sort of buffering, the zoning applied in terms of the R-l and RM-15 are 19 intended to have some kind of buffering, I think that sort of gives the spirit of what we are trying 20 to accomplish. So blending the FAR I think makes some sense except with respect to paying 21 attention to the density of the lower zoned areas. 22 23 Blending heights does not make any sense at alL It is sort of like saying that let's suppose you 24 have a zoned area that is R-l next to a zoned area that is GM, if that ever existed hypothetically. 25 One had a 30 foot height limit and the other one had a 50 foot height limit the idea of being able 26 to put a much higher height just because of the average doesn't make ,any sense to me. 27 28 The idea that makes sense to me is that you really want 30 feet where the 30 feet belongs and if 29 you want to go up to 50 feet where the 50 feet belongs if that were allowed that would make 30 sense. In this case it is 30 and 35. There may be reasonable findings for the foot and 11 inches 31 in terms of Variance for that. I think it makes sense to try to think about whether a Variance 32 would give you that height. There are a lot of unique features in this parcel that might provide 33 the conditions necessary to provide a Variance but I am really quite concerned about the 34 precedent we are making about this blended height. Blended height is not something that I can 35 support. If this project has a blended height as an explanation for the FAR particularly without it 36 being called out in anything in terms of the Record of Land Use Action I am going to have to 37 vote against it for that reason alone. I do not like the precedent on that even though the project 38 has a lot of merits. I think it has to be done from my perspective in terms of a Variance if that is 39 allowable. 40 41 The next issue is in terms of boundary. I agree with Commissioner Lippert that essentially the 42 project is internal and it makes some sort of internal sense. The setbacks and all those make 43 sense with respect to the perimeter of the project. Now essentially we have two kinds of uses 44 that are separate from each other. We have the hotel use, which essentially faces El Camino 45 even though you can't get into it from El Camino, but essentially it hugs El Camino. Therefore, 46 for the hotel use the kinds of setbacks and such for the hotel use make sense with respect to El Page 43 1 Camino and with respect to the Monroe comer. Those setbacks make a lot of sense and I think 2 that those have been analyzed. Obviously the setbacks are met with respect to the adjacent 3 properties opposite this from Monroe because there is a big driveway in between. So that is not 4 an Issue. 5 6 But with respect to the residential portion of this for Monroe and the adjacent R-1s and adjacent 7 multifamily residential to the logical south those in some sense have to meet their own kind of 8 thing. So in some sense those are not fronted on EI Camino they front on Monroe. Therefore the 9 front setback that should apply for that portion is the setback from Monroe. What makes sense 10 to me about the front setback from Monroe is that is what those relate to. The housing does not 11 relate to EI Camino. The housing relates to the rest of the housing on Monroe and it should have 12 a relationship with the rest of the housing on Monroe by having a front setback that is 13 appropriate to Monroe for that portion. 14 15 Similarly in some sense you have a side setback with respect to the residential property for the 16 R -1 s and you have the rear setback with respect to the residential portion with respect to the 17 multifamily residential to the logical south. That kind of makes sense to me and I would like to 18 see that from an exterior point of view and that analysis done. I think that that's what this project 19 is doing and it makes sense. I am going to call on you, Mr. Baer, later but let me just finish this 20 Issue. 21 22 So I think that in some sense this issue of blended FAR may have some justification. Blended 23 heights is a travesty that we should not allow. In terms of perimeters I think that there is some 24 justification for that but you have to interpret it in a reasonable manner and I don't think we are 25 interpreting it here in a reasonable manner. I think Mr. Baer would like to respond so I will 26 allow you to do that. 27 28 Mr. Baer: Yes, thank you for the opportunity. We did not do a good job in clarifying for Staff. 29 The front yard is Monroe. We did treat the residential project as Monroe being the front yard, 30 and no building is placed on the R-l. In the CS zone district for mixed use projects the 31 setback ... 32 33 Chair Garber: Are you looking for the new chart in the back that was provided to us tonight? 34 35 Mr. Baer: There is table that has the site development regulations. The front yard in a CS zone 36 is zero to ten feet and whatever is necessary to create an eight to 12 foot distance from face of 37 curb. Then in the answer to the questions we had stated that the bike path is either a rear yard or 38 an interior side yard. They can't be street side. Those are ten feet, which we satisfy. These not 39 only fact to Monroe they have stoops and porches facing Monroe. I am really sorry the time was 40 spent on that with our misdirecting. We didn't identify that. 41 42 Chair Garber: To clarify, as far as the legal description, if you will, Monroe would be a side 43 yard. However, what you are telling us is that you are treating Monroe as a front yard and using 44 front yard setbacks even though it is a side yard legally. 45 Page 44 1 Mr. Baer: I am going to go one-step different. I think the narrower length is your front yard so 2 Monroe is your front yard under any definition of yard in the Zoning Ordinance. That is why we 3 presumed that that was the front yard. Even if we were to say we have a commercial 4 development that is entirely CS and contained within CS with the hotel portion and the 5 residential, if you took the residential and said where is the logical front yard or where is the 6 definitional narrow front yard that is the front yard. 7 8 Chair Garber: Okay. Then the other piece I just want to clarify because I was trying to confirm 9 it here, there is no building on portion of the site that is zoned R -1. 10 11 Mr. Baer: And in terms of the continuity of the neighbors. Ifwe were not doing the blended 12 height the Monroe home nearest to the R -1 facing Monroe would be 35 feet not 31 feet, 11 13 inches. So even in that transition this benefits the Monroe frontage. That is not to denigrate the 14 importance of blended height being a different issue. 15 16 Chair Garber: Just again to be clear here, your proposed height for the housing that occurs in the 17 RM -15 site is 31 feet, 11 inches, which is less than the RM height that is otherwise required of 18 33 foot, six inches. I was looking at your chart here. 19 20 Ms. French: The 33 foot, six inches was what the applicant had arrived at as the blended height. 21 22 Mr. Baer: Thirty feet would be the height limit strictly for RM-15. The benefit of blending isn't 23 just an urban layout that is livable. We have to look to what is livable for the people who live 24 there after we look that there are no impacts on the R-1 neighbors. Understand that from 25 speakers tonight. Then we have to look at do you want to live in this community or not and we 26 think the blending makes a lot of sense. I am sorry I should only be answering questions but 27 thank you for the opportunity. 28 29 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 30 31 Commissioner Keller: I think that there is from a design point of view there is some merit to 32 having the project be 31 feet, 11 inches. We have seen a lot of projects come by here for which 33 the Variances say there have been justifications along the line of this is a unique parcel with 34 unique zoning. I have been hard pressed to find that being the case. I think this project has a lot 35 more justification for making that claim than a lot of the ones I have seen here. Therefore I think 36 the findings for the Variance for the height on the RM-15 portion may be justifiable and nlay be 37 met. That might be a better way of doing it rather than a precedent. 38 39 Let me continue on. I believe that there was a proposal to narrow I believe it was Miller at Del 40 Medio, is that correct? 41 42 Mr. Nortz: Del Medio. 43 44 Commissioner Keller: Is that located in the City of Palo Alto or the City of Mountain View? 45 46 Ms. French: That is in Mountain View. 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 Commissioner Keller: Am I correct that there was a drawing shown that basically had that narrowing? Was it only on Monroe not on Miller? I may have read the diagram wrong. Can you put that up? Not the zoning map the traffic calming measures. There is a parking restriction and something ove.r there at E and C, which are at Miller and Del Medio. So I did see something correct. So I believe Linnea Wickstrom has a comment. Would you approach the microphone, please? Ms. Wickstrom: These are part of the calming recommendations that came out oftheFehr & Peers study. Those purple lines that you see around the comer on the south side and the other side are proposed red curb because of the very low visibility on that comer. Also, there are three redwood trees on that comer and if one came out we would have a lot better visibility. But there are a number of traffic mitigations that we would like to discuss with the City as alternatives for that comer but no narrowing. Commissioner Keller: No narrowing but those red curbs or removal of trees would have to be negotiated with the City of Mountain View. Ms. Wickstrom: No, that is Palo Alto on that side. Commissioner Keller: That side of Del Medio and Miller is in Palo Alto? Ms. Wickstrom: Yes. Commissioner Keller: The border is so confusing around here. Chair Garber: Just the same this is outside of what we need to be or can be talking about here. They may be recommendations but there is nothing unless the attorney tells me otherwise we can't condition anything over there. Mr. Larkin: No, there is no nexus to this project for that. .. Commissioner Keller: Are these proposals as part of what is being funded or is that basically the City gets some money and can do whatever it wants with that money? Mr. Larkin: The funding is a voluntary contribution by the applicant it has nothing to do with the project proposal. Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. The next issue is in some sense perhaps the most serious issue from my perspective of whether this map plan works. If you go to the map that this diagram A.O.OI what we essentially have here is not a parcel map but a zoning map·and a land use map. The three diagrams in the middle are essentially zoning diagrams indicating how the residential portion is divided up into the three zones for CS, RM-15, and R-l. If you look at the diagram in the lower left it sort of is labeled hotel and also the one above it that says blended residential, essentially the residential portion which is in the upper right hand comer of AD.OI has kind of a panhandle that goes along the side of the hotel. So that piece of land is considered Page 46 1 land area that is used in order to calculate the FAR of the residential portion. When you go to 2 the next page, AO.02, it looks like that piece of land is in fact used as the parking for the hoteL 3 So I am confused as to how you can use the parking space for the hotel and count it towards the 4 land area that is used to calculate the FAR of the residential portion. So perhaps somebody could 5 enlighten me on how you can count hotel parking as housing land for FAR. 6 7 Mr. Williams: The applicant may wish to add to this because there was some discussion some 8 time ago and I may not recall all of it. What Staff directed that the applicant needed to do was to 9 show the hotel area that comprised the 2.0 FAR calculation. So they drew this line around so 10 that the hotel square footage at 2.0 floor area ratio for it, and in doing that the way it was done it 11 excluded that area of it. Now they could include that and could theoretically increase the size of 12 the hotel. But they didn't want to increase the size of the hotel. So we counted that as 13 residential. I understand that is a little awkward but I think if the Commission is uncomfortable 14 with that I think the result would be that the residential portion would have to be reduced further. 15 I think they have worked very closely with the neighborhood and with us to try to get the 16 residential as Jason said down, while the FAR may be less than half the density that would be 17 allowed on this site. So that is how we go to that point. It is largely an artificial exercise of kind 18 of how do you divide up this property into what is the hotel portion that meets the 2.0 FAR and 19 what is the portion that the residential calculations are based on. That worked for us moving 20 forward with this and I think that is a consideration for the Commission if you are not 21 comfortable with that to look at it a different way but we were comfortable with that. 22 23 Commissioner Keller: I just have some concern about that because essentially it is sort of 24 gerrymandering property if I can coin a phrase. 25 26 Commissioner Lippert: If I could persuade my colleague, if this was two separate parcels the 27 City allows for offsite parking agreements. So as long as the hotel site does comply with the 28 parking you could rent out FAR to another property for parking purposes. So in this case, the 29 residential zone makes it parking and it is renting out the balance of its space to the hoteL 30 31 Commissioner Keller: While that may be the case if it were actually two separate parcels interior 32 setbacks would apply and the hotel might not meet the interior setback necessary for the 33 appropriate parcel. 34 35 Commissioner Lippert: Parking is permitted within the setback. 36 37 Commissioner Keller: My understanding is that the line pretty much hugs the hoteL Does the 38 underground garage protrude outside the boundary of the hotel portion? 39 40 Mr. Williams: I believe so. I believe it is under the street. 41 42 Chair Garber: Would the applicant like to address the question? 43 44 Mr. Baer: Yes, and there was an earlier question where Director Williams said, does the 45 applicant want to respond? Thank you for identifying this has been a cleverly managed mixed 46 use process to create a balancing of FAR. We have worked really hard. Page 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 The reasoning for the entry is that it is a necessary fire and shared access in order to get into the residences. So the allocation was not coincidental that whatever was necessary to get to that FAR for the housing but to the justification and sensibility of it was that a portion of that would be necessary were we doing other than a condominium plan. If we were defining that as legally separate for the residences it is consistent with what Commissioner Lippert is saying is there is both justification because of a portion of that is absolutely necessary to be able to build the residential project for fire ingress and egress. There is another theme here that we think you will recognize and kind of what my letter said. It really is okay to distinguish a project that has been incredibly sensitive to density and impacts to the neighbors as you hear from the neighbors today who were complimentary of the way the , applicant, not me representing the applicant, but how the applicant has approached the neighbors to create a low density, low impactful project, creating very positive outcomes for the R-l neighbors, and to create what really is the only revenue opportunity for the City on the board. This is a delicate balancing and we understand that by identifying boy, this has been cleverly managed we still think that that allows you to make the findings that this was cleverly managed for a very good outcome on behalf of the City and on behalf of the neighbors. We can't camouflage that. We have managed to that end, but we think it is a worthy one and hope you and the Council Members will also. 22 I Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, how are we doing? 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 j, 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I think that the issue that I had asked on question 11 with respect to providing bollards or something that prevents access through there except for emergency vehicles has already been answered I believe. So let me say that I think that on the whole this is a very clever project that tries to satisfy a multi-constrained problem that is quite difficult to do. I do think it is a clever solution to the problem. I think that part of the reason that we kept the RM -15 zoning in there is to provide some sort of buffering in terms of the rear. I think that to a larger extent that is done. I understand your issue with respect to the FAR. I am amazed at how you were able to do that. I think that Commissioner Lippert certainly seems to be very sympathetic to your point of view. I am wondering with respect to the issue of the problem of blended height if we were to suggest that this be done as a Variance with findings for a Variance so that it would be made explicit and not be handled in the future at the Staff level in which nobody would see it, but that it be. explicit and that everybody would be aware of it. On some other projects that didn't require Site and Design or whatever we might not even know about it and then this blending could become a precedent and I think that is a bad idea. I think it really should be a Variance. What is the best way of handling the need for having a Variance on there? Mr. Larkin: I don't think you have to approve the blended height as part of the Site and Design in which case it would be up to the applicant to come up with another way to do it either through one of the exception process. I don't think you can condition that a Variance has to go to a hearing at the Planning Commission because our rules allow for Staff to approve a Variance and then if it is appealed it will go to the Planning Commission. Page 48 1 2 Commissioner Keller: I am not suggesting that a Variance has to go to the Planning 3 Commission. I realize that not all Variances do but when you have a Variance you have notice 4 to the public of such a condition occurring. When you have blended FAR you have no notice to 5 the public of any unusual process occurring. So I am wondering if we were to move this forward 6 and I also don't like the idea of Design Exceptions being granted at the ARB for this kind of 7 thing. I think this is actually a Variance. So the question is how do we say that we want to 8 condition approval on this project with either the removal of the condition where the RM-15 9 portion is above 30 feet or the application by the applicant of a Variance for exceeding that, how 10 would we do that? 11 12 Mr. Williams: Well, I think you could probably have a condition that essentially says that either 13 they meet the height limit at 30 feet, as Donald was saying you could basically just say that. 14 Then if they wanted more than that they would have to within that RM -15 area come in with a 15 Variance. That would be their -you don't have to say how they do that. 16 17 The way they could do that could either be as part of Site and Design or as a subsequent action. 18 So if you approved it with a condition then they could come in separately with that Variance 19 with the potential to have it appealed. You would see the Variance if it is appealed and wouldn't 20 see it if it wasn't. That is certainly the Commission's prerogative to have that kind of condition 21 or just basically say the height in the RM -15 area has to be 30 feet high and can't exceed 30 feet 22 and let the process take care of itself otherwise. 23 24 I think you were also making a point about future projects that don't undergo necessarily 25 Commission review and that. Was that what you were looking towards how you sort of address 26 that? 27 28 Commissioner Keller: Exactly. 29 30 Mr. Williams: I think that is more probably at this point a direction. Certainly if you take that 31 action we were just talking about and don't allow this to proceed then that is direction right there. 32 If you did and you had that concern and just provided us a direction we would certainly take that 33 direction and if it was a project that wasn't coming through that full process then we would not 34 use the blended height. 35 36 Commissioner Keller: Well, in particular the issue of using a Variance process allows 37 appropriate notice because more people are aware of that happening through a Variance process 38 than happening through this blended height, which is highly unusual. The findings may be met 39 because of the blending to be able to accomplish what you want but it gives the public notice. 40 The nature of the zones is to provide the appropriate stair stepping of massing. I think that it 41 allows you to accomplish the goals and yet provide appropriate notice to the public. 42 43 Chair Garber: I think your point is made. Did the applicant have a thought on this topic? Then 44 Commissioner Tuma had a follow up. 45 Page 49 1 Mr. Baer: Knowing that you were hoping for a break nearer to nine and maybe this something 2 that the Director of Planning and City Attorney this would be a question. 3 4 Chair Garber: I think we are going to plow ahead here and see if we can get this done. 5 6 Mr. Baer: Would it satisfy the Commission's concern about findings and notice to the public if 7 the Council hearing were noticed that at that agenda would be both the Site and Design review 8 and a Variance and that we went through the 600-foot notification? Does that work or not ~ork? 9 10 Mr. Larkin: I think the preference would be to follow the Variance process, which is a 11 Director's level hearing to begin with and then if there is an appeal that appeal would go 12 forward. 13 14 Ms. French: It is a hearing by request only. So it is a Staff level. It could be advertised in 15 conjunction with an Architectural Review Board notice. 16 17 Chair Garber: Hold you thought for a mon1ent. Commissioner Tuma. 18 19 Vice-Chair Tuma: Let me try something here. From what I am hearing and my sense from 20 Commissioners there is not a lot of heartburn about the height in this particular project. It is 21 more a concern about precedent value and that the height difference that is being asked for here 22 probably makes sense particularly given the buffer and the bike path and all the rest of that. 23 24 Mr. City Attorney, could we move this project forward and then also request that Staff look at 25 whether we should amend our ordinances to deal with blending of both FAR and height and 26 come back to us with one of the possible outcomes being that we have a policy that doesn't allow 27 blending of height. That could be one possible outcome of that discussion but that we come back 28 on an ordinance. So this possibly would allow us to move this project forward, wouldn't 29 introduce the delay of a Variance process, but at the same time address the issue of the potential 30 precedence value by examining this in a full-blown hearing and discussion as to whether we 31 should have this type of mechanism available or not. Again, one of the outcomes may be it is 32 not appropriate going forward and if someone has this kind of situation they need to come in and 33 ask for a Variance. 34 35 Mr. Larkin: I think yes. The short answer is yes. You have the discretion at this point to move 36 the project forward. I think that you also have the discretion to pass an ordinance that would 37 preclude blended height in the future. 38 39 Chair Garber: Planning Director. 40 41 Mr. Williams: I would just like to add to that if the Commission does that I would take that as 42 direction, and this is primarily because of a workload issue and not knowing how soon that 43 would get back to you, is that we would take that as direction not to use that on other projects 44 until and unless we get back to the Commission and have that discussion. 45 46 Vice-Chair Tuma: I suspect that would be the intent of Commission. Page 50 1 2 Chair Garber: Commissioners, I know you all want to take a break. I think we are very close 3 here and with your permission I would like to plow ahead on this issue. Commissioner Lippert 4 quickly. 5 6 Commissioner Lippert: I was going to take a stab at a different approach, which is we already 7 have the tools. The Variance process I don't support and part of the reason is that it requires 8 findings for unreasonable hardship and I don't see unreasonable hardship here. What I do find 9 however is that it does fall into the purview of the Architectural Review Board and the DEE 10 process, Design Enhancement Exception. That is something that we already have. It is well 11 within the realm or scope of the ARB to review to it, and then we are not setting any precedents 12 it just falls within the course. In some ways DEEs and Variances are somewhat synonymous in 13 terms of what it is and the process that it takes and it would not hold up the applicant. 14 15 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma, a motion? 16 17 Vice-Chair Tuma: First, I do have a couple of quick additional questions and then I am prepared 18 to make a motion. The first question has to do with the extended stay ordinance. What was the 19 amount of extended stay that someone could have and still meet the ordinance? 20 21 Mr. Williams: None. 22 23 Vice-Chair Tuma: None? 24 25 Mr. Williams: Unless a development agreement was prepared, reviewed by the Commission, 26 approved by the Council, which accommodated some compensation for the lost revenue. At this 27 point the applicant has not prepared that but certainly in the future if that were their intent they 28 could come forward with a proposed development agreement to address that. 29 30 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, because the applicant does anticipate something in the neighborhood 31 of eight percent of the stays here being longer than 30 days. So there is no current development 32 agreement that has been proposed? 33 34 Mr. Williams: No, and we have advised the applicant they would need to come forward with 35 that. 36 37 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Another question for Staff. If the developer wanted to how many 38 houses could they put on this property? What is the maximum number? 39 40 Mr. Nortz: Fifty-six. 41 42 Vice-Chair Tuma: Fifty-six, okay. A question for the developer. My understanding is that you 43 were going to be asking for one condo unit for the hotel. Is that the intent? So there is no intent 44 here to have any condos within the hotel, is that correct? 45 46 Mr. Baer: No condominiums within the hotel. Page 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, very good. So with that. Chair Garber: Let me interrupt and just give the applicant a moment to respond to anything before we close the public hearing. Is there any desire for the applicant to take three minutes? I am seeing a no over there. We will close the public hearing. Commissioner Tuma. MOTION 10 . Vice-Chair Tuma: I would like to make a motion that the Planning and Transportation 11 Commission recommend that City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve 12 the application for Site and Design Review based on the findings and draft conditions of 13 approval in the Record of Land Use attached as Attachment A to this evening's Staff Report, and 14 additionally that the approval be conditioned on the following two items. One is that the four 15 lots be merged. The second is that appropriate TDM measures be required. 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 SECOND Commissioner Lippert: Second. Chair Garber: The motion was made by Commissioner Tuma and seconded by Commissioner Lippert. W ouId the maker like to address their motion? Vice-Chair Tuma: I would. In my mind this is one of those projects that is in part a byproduct of a lot of work that many people at the City have done over time. Two things in particular, one is we amended the zoning code awhile back to allow for bonus 2.0 FAR for hotels and this project goes a long way towards meeting the vision, the intent, and what we proposed and passed in terms of density for hotels for the city. Additionally, we rezoned this property with the hope that we would get a project very similar to what we have gotten. So we find ourselves in a position where we encouraged certain things through policies, planning, and 10 and behold we got just what we asked for. So to me that is kind of a very good starting point. It doesn't mean that we don't have to address other issues, and I think the discussion this evening has done a great job in terms of uncovering those issues, but I think it is time to move this project forward. A couple of things of note in terms of what the developer has done in this particular situation. They have worked extensively with the community, with the neighborhood, and made strides towards addressing issues, significant issues. We had at one point a proposal for 80 housing units. We now have 26 and that seems to have gone a long way towards addressing some issues here. The bike path and the connectivity along the backside is something that doesn't come easily. There has been obviously a lot of discussion, a lot of negotiation, and it sounds like there is still some more discussion and negotiation to make that come to pass. What we are looking at is an amenity, if you will, for the city and for this project that comes with a lot of give and take. I am pleased that those negotiations are not finalized because I think some of the concerns that were expressed by members of the public can be addressed through those very negotiations. If the developer wants to make this happen they are going to have to find a way to make the landowners happy and make the landowners have access to the trees and be able to do the things Page 52 1 that they need to do. So I think that those remaining issues with respect to access can be arrived 2 at and resolved through negotiations. 3 4 In terms of the EI Camino Guidelines and how this project addresses EI Camino itself as Staff 5 pointed out the Guidelines are guidelines. This isn't perfect in terms of meeting those guidelines 6 but I think perhaps there are things that can be done at the ARB level in terms of addressing El 7 Camino itself, but the entrance being where the entrance is in this particular proposal makes a lot 8 of sense to me. So I think we can deal with that. ARB can deal with making it better but I just 9 don't think it is appropriate for the entrance to be right on El Camino in this particular situation 10 and these are guidelines. 11 12 Finally, I do think that we can deal with this issue, the precedent value of this issue, or the 13 concern of setting precedent with respect to height and blending through amending the Zoning 14 Ordinance in such a way that either this is a tool that exists or this isn't a tool that exists. If it is a 15 tool that exists then we can take the time to carefully' define what that should look like and 16 certainly not try to decide on that issue tonight. At the same time, I think it is extremely 17 important that we move this project forward. It is a project that truly meets many of the goals, 18 visions, policies that the City and the people on this body have set out in order to make happen, 19 and I really want to see this happen tonight. 20 21 Chair Garber: Thank you. Seconder, would you like to address your participation? 22 23 Commissioner Lippert: I made enough comments this evening. I think in the spirit of trying to 24 get out of here I will just echo what my colleague said and go with that and let's vote. 25 26 Chair Garber: Commissioners? Commissioner Holman and then Keller. 27 28 Commissioner Holman: there are many things to laud about this project. The effort that the 29 applicant has put in to working with the neighbors, the path, the easement for the path just itself, 30 how much effort has gone into the calculations as Mr. Baer said, there are many calculations that 31 have gone into this and ways to try to make this work. I do appreciate that. There are like I say 32 several aspects of this I do respect and appreciate. 33 34 There are concerns that I have that don't really allow me to kind of blink and look the other way. 35 I am very concerned about looking at blended rates when there is no process for doing that. I am 36 concerned about and some of this we are not looking at that much difference. So if we are not 37 looking at that much difference instead of just looking the other way to reduce the height of 38 buildings by one foot, 11 inches. I don't know what the impact specifically is to the units at the 39 back but I am just not comfortable going well, we will come back later and change the code so 40 that what we have done already would have been legal. Nor am I really satisfied that well, we 41 will use a DEE or a Variance because it is not good process, it is just frankly not. I am not happy 42 to be in this position. This doesn't mean I am going to have to say no on the vote but we will see 43 where we can get to going taking this forward. 44 45 The Monroe street frontages there are height requirements. There are heights that are established 46 by the proposal. I have said this many times, there is a very different impact of a flat topped let's Page 53 1 say building and a gabled roof. You can have a gabled roof at 40 feet and it would appear much 2 lower than a 30-foot or 35 foot height modem square building. That is not a preference for either 3 type it is just talking about compatibility and impact. So if we look at the first Site and Design 4 finding it says to ensure construction and operation of the uses in a manner that will be orderly, 5 harmonious, and compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining or nearby sites. So if 6 we really want to transition from the hotel as it is on Monroe into multifamily housing into the 7 neighborhood, and we really are going into the neighborhood with this. Then we either need to 8 reduce the height of those houses or the design of those particular ones need to be altered to 9 some extent such that they are a better transition to the single-family neighborhood. 10 11 The EI Camino Design Guidelines, they are design guidelines but there is also a vision for a 12 grand boulevard. This is a large project and I am happy believe me to have a hotel coming to 13 town and on EI Canlino. It is however a large project and there are existing businesses to the, I 14 call it, south towards San Antonio. There is a parcel across the street that could be redeveloped 15 as retail or retail and services. If we present this long block face that doesn't interact with the 16 street we have essentially lost an opportunity. How are we going to get people walking on EI 1 7 Camino if we are turning our back to EI Camino? So I would much encourage the applicant to 18 look at some way to create what could be, I am not going to try to design it, what could be a 19 grand entrance that features this tree. You can still get -that doesn't have to be the main 20 entrance but there needs to be some reconfiguring of that design such that it addresses the street. 21 There is a reason we have those guidelines and the grand vision for EI Camino. 22 23 The sidewalk on the Monroe side needs to be inboard of the trees. That is a much better, much 24 safer, much more pleasant experience to walk. It will get people actually to walk there as 25 opposed to putting them right up against the cars. I am also not comfortable with a project that 26 uses public right-of-way to provide a private improvement that is required. While the Director 27 can eliminate the need for those sidewalks it is required as City Attorney clarified. So we can't 28 sit here and say it is okay to use public right-of-way for private improvement. People may be 29 okay with that design but it is not something we should be doing. Our job is to enforce the rules 30 of the City. It is one of our jobs, and to review projects. So I am not comfortable with that 31 either. 32 33 The blended rate for FAR calculations. I am a little more sympathetic to that now that I have 34 finally, only at tonight's meeting been able to discern that that's not a separate parcel at the back 35 of the Palo Alto Bowl site. That it is separate zoning but not a separate parcel. That doesn't 36 cause me as much trouble as it did and they are not developing on the R-l parcel so I am not 37 troubled by that. 38 39 So I guess I would pose to the maker of the motion are any of my comments, conditions or 40 amendments that you would entertain as part of your motion? 41 42 Vice-Chair Tuma: I did write them down as you were going because I figured 'We would have 43 this conversation. The. first one has to do with height and the blended height and whether or not 44 there is an issue there. I assume that the applicant wouldn't be coming to us with something they 45 know arguably exceeds what is allowed here unless this was something that was necessary to 46 make the project work. That being said, I guess I would ask you if we dealt with the height issue Page 54 1 on just the one unit on Monroe that abuts the R-l, the last unit basically, because it is the 2 transition that you were concerned about to the house that is there? 3 4 Commissioner Holman: Transition and compatibility. 5 6 Vice-Chair Tuma: Right. 7 8 C;:ommissioner Holman: If I might interrupt for just a second. I just realized that I left one out 9 and that is the issue that Commissioner Keller brought up, which is counting the hotel property, 10 the parking for the hotel, as part of the residential FAR calculation. It seems to me and we can 11 talk about this, it seems to me that the more likely scenario there would be that that would be 12 counted as a part of the hotel parcel and that there would be an easement granted across it for fire 13 access to the residential. That seems to me that would be the more standard approach as opposed 14 to counting it as part of the residential. 15 16 Again, I am just concerned about us not following rules that are in place and where that puts us, 1 7 and what precedent it sets. Enough said. 18 19 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. I guess on this issue I don'tsee it as us not following the rules that are 20 in place. I see this as arriving at a creative solution to a difficult problem and I am not that 21 concerned about the precedent value. 22 23 Let me try to address a couple of the other ones. In terms of the sidewalks. I live in Barron Park 24 as you know and it is an area where most of the streets don't have sidewalks, some do some 25 don't. This is an area that I understand primarily doesn't have sidewalks, right? So I am not as 26 concerned about the fact they would be using part of that right-of-way for sidewalks. It is an 27 area that otherwise people just walk in the street anyway. So I think by having the sidewalk 28 there we are actually providing a better solution for pedestrians in an area where there is cut- 29 through traffic. Even one of the members of the public says she does it herself. So I think by 30 having the sidewalk there we are actually winding up with a better solution, and the fact that it 31 takes some of the right-of-way but at the same time provides a traffic calming because we are 32 going to narrow the street there anyway, to me sounds like a good idea. 33 34 Chair Garber: May I? 35 36 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yes. 37 38 Chair Garber: A way to think about that is you had said why should we be taking away public 39 right-of-way for private benefit. I think the proposition that is being offered us is that it is not for 40 private benefit but it is for public benefit. The two public benefits are one that you end up with a 41 calmer street, and two, that you end up with a safe route to school, which you don't have now. 42 43 Commissioner Holman: I don't think, at least I did not intent to use public property for private 44 benefit. It was public property for private development requirement. 45 Page 55 1 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Let me ask Planning Director, given the fact that there are a lot of 2 streets in this neighborhood that don't have sidewalks would we be able to require that they have 3 a sidewalk here? 4 5 Mr. Williams: Yes, it is probably Engineering's decision. When they see the Tentative Map my 6 guess is they probably would not require that. But again the sidewalk is part of the public right- 7 of-way. I am not sure I heard her last comment about private, the last word of your phrase. 8 9 Commissioner Holman: The point is that, and perhaps I am reading the plan wrong, but if the 10 sidewalk were not moved out, in other words if the street were not narrowed to accommodate the 11 sidewalk the sidewalk would then have to be on land that I don't think exists such that it would 12 not cause an impediment to the development as it is proposed. So that is the issue. 13 14 Mr. Williams: I would question whether Public Works would require that if the sidewalk had to 15 be on private property. If there were room to put it in the right-of-way then they may require it 16 but I don't think th~y would require it on private. 17 18 Commissioner Holman: If I might just follow up with that. I don't know where the property line 19 is so I don't know if inboard of those trees is still the public or private land. 20 21 Mr. Williams: Okay. 22 23 Ms. French: It looks private to me. We would have to have an easement across that. It is more 24 complex to have the public sidewalk on private property. 25 26 Vice-Chair Tuma: To me the reason we would potentially be narrowing the road here is for 27 traffic calming. The fact that then gives us more real estate to work with I think is a nice 28 byproduct of that process. So again I just don't have a lot of heartburn over that and I don't see 29 it as giving the developer something. I see it as actually giving the neighborhood an amenity in 30 calming the traffic and putting a sidewalk in there where there is cut-through traffic. Both of 31 those seenl to make sense to me. 32 33 Again, I think the ARB can help the developer address the El Camino Guidelines through things 34 that are beyond me but it is what the ARB does, and helps make the building better address EI 35 Camino. So that is where I am on those three issues. 36 37 Mr. Williams: Mr. Chair? I would add that when this goes to ARB I would like to have Jason 38 highlight for them these particular issues that came up at the Commission to be sure that they do 39 focus on the frontage of the hotel and the pedestrian issues on El Camino, the sidewalk and that 40 kind of frontage, the frontage of these homes over here on Monroe to look like the front of 41 homes, and anything else that has come up tonight that is particularly of a design concern. 42 43 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, that makes sense. 44 45 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman, anything else? 46 Page 56 1 Commissioner Holman: No. 2 3 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, Rosati, Lippert, and then myself. 4 5 Commissioner Keller: I want to reiterate my comment earlier that this is a very clever solution 6 to maximizing FAR being built on an over-constrained problem. I think it does in broad terms 7 satisfy the essentially challenge that we, the Planning Commission and City Council, gave to the 8 owners of these parcels when we rezoned it to CS knowing full well that CS had a 2.0 FAR for 9 hotels. So I think that that was certainly part of that intent and the developer certainly took 10 advantage of that and tried to create something that met more or less the spirit of that. I think 11 that our intent was met in terms of not having this be a primarily residential property, which is 12 what it could have been if we had not rezoned the RM-30 to CS. So I think that intent was met 13 as well, and basically be able to create a much more unified property. 14 15 I am also quite amazed at the forethought of creation ofPC-36 to provide an easement from 16 Cesano Court to a nonexistent who could ever think that a bike and pedestrian path would be 1 7 ever be created through there. It is phenomenal that there is an easement already there so this 18 could connect to it. I don't know how old PC-3036 is but certainly it long predates my being on 19 the Commission. It must have been quite a leap of faith at that time to expect that the 20 connectivity would happen and I applaud the developer and the adjacent property owners in 21 terms of realizing that vision and realizing that there is an easement on Cesano Court to make 22 this connection happen. Excuse me? That was Curtis, great. So I think that was quite a good 23 thing to make this happen. This idea of and realization of this connectivity through the bike and 24 pedestrian lane is the kind of the creative planning and process that we should be doing. I think 25 that is fantastic. 26 27 That being said, without making it a condition of the motion, I would like encourage the design 28 process here so that there be not only connectivity between the bike lane and the walking paths 29 between the houses but in fact those walking paths are too narrow to be used for bicycles. They 30 are certainly fine for walking but for bicycles it looks like the thing is fairly narrow and therefore 31 access to the pedestrian and bike path from the motor courts makes a lot of sense, particularly 32 since I would suspect that somebody living in these properties would likely have their bicycles in 33 the garage and not have them go out the front door. Therefore one would take the bicycle out of 34 the garage, go on the motor court, and want to go into the pedestrian and bike path to Cesano 35 Court, and not do that by wandering around through the back, traipsing your bicycle through the 36 house in order to get to the pedestrian path. That doesn't seem to work very well. So I would 37 still encourage that. 38 39 I am troubled by the issue of blended height. I am somewhat mollified by the clever approach of 40 Vice-Chair Tuma in terms of essentially putting the breaks on here and making notice that this a 41 Gore v. Bush where the Supreme Court said it is not a precedent for the future, which is quite 42 unusuaL So that being said, I think that we will have to visit this whether we do so through a 43 process or whether when this happens it comes back to us for advice. I am not sure how it can be 44 done without agendizing it or whatever but how we deal with that. I know that our plate is rather 45 full. I am not sure which decade this will come back to us in terms of dealing with blended Page 57 1 heights so I am quite concerned with when that comes back to us. Certainly it does present a 2 conundrum. 3 4 We explicitly had the idea when we had RM-15 retained here of having a buffer between the 5 front CS and the rear R-I. To a large extent that was met by having the residential be in the rear. 6 It does provide a buffer. I think that I agree with Commissioner Holman that in some sense we 7 create zoning and we are trying to create zoning and trying to minimize the number of exceptions 8 that are created for that zoning. Unfortunately it is difficult to foresee all contingencies although 9 it would be ideal if we could think about that. We don't come across many blended zoning 10 issues so I am not clear the extent to which we would foresee, but that is an issue for the future. 11 12 With respect to the sidewalk looking at A.O.05 without moving the any of the buildings it does 13 appear that there is sufficient setback within the property of the property owner, there is setback 14 in order to put the pedestrian path inboard of the trees without having to affect the footprint. I 15 don't know if this makes sense or not but it could possibly be done. There is nothing wrong with 16 having a pedestrian sidewalk be inside the property of the parcel. So that is something that I 17 would like to see the ARB consider particularly since it appears based on the tree arrangement to 18 be quite feasible. I do understand the cleverness of solving both problems of narrowing the 19 street of Monroe Drive and putting a bicycle there. The concern I have with that is that 20 essentially having this somewhat curvy pedestrian path, in fact especially at the first curve below 21 what is labeled 6AO.06 does provide some degree of a pedestrian hazard with the pedestrian lane 22 coming out a little further. So I anl concerned about the safety of that particular bulb out and 23 whether that might present a car that wants to go straight and not curve around the sidewalk. So 24 perhaps straightening that out a little bit might be a good idea in any event no matter what is 25 done to not have that abrupt transition on that sidewalk. 26 27 I am going to close with a comment on the EI Camino Design Guidelines. It seems to me that 28 the EI Camino Design Guidelines remind me of one of my favorite sayings. I think it is by a guy 29 named Van de Snepscheut who said that, "In theory there is no difference between theory and 30 practice but in practice there is." What is interesting to me about that is the EI Camino Design 31 Guidelines are a wonderful theory but they seem to have some trouble ~mplementing in practice. 32 We have had all kinds of applications of the EI Camino Design Guidelines to such wonderful 33 places as Alma Street, which seems to be far away from EI Camino but yet nonetheless it makes 34 sense to have EI Camino Design Guidelines happening there. 35 36 I think that tlle idea ofEI Camino Design Guidelines seems kind of misplaced because in some 37 sense what it is saying is push everything up to the street. N ow what is interesting when you 38 push things up to the street and there are these build to lines and such is that essentially you are 39 kind of pressing pedestrian space. You are sort of creating this tower against the street and the 40 pedestrians to quote a comment made some time ago by Commissioner Holman, is that they are 41 essentially pushed off the sidewalk into the adjacent street. You are essentially making this 42 canyon effect on EI Camino. To me a grand boulevard is not these four story buildings on build 43 to against the street with a few trees stuck in there, building as close to the street as making that 44 pedestrian friendly. That doesn't seem to make sense. My idea of a grand boulevard is Champs- 45 Elysees in Paris where you have a grand space. You have a great big setback with trees and stuff 46 like that. Another example is Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn where I grew up. Essentially on Page 58 1 Ocean Parkway you have three lanes in each direction with some sort of minimal nledian and 2 then you have a wide expanse of a greenery area separating service roads, and then behind that 3 you have tall apartment buildings with setbacks in front of those where you have green space 4 broad expanse. To me that is a grand boulevard. The idea of the EI Camino Design Guidelines 5 seems like a developer's dream. No setbacks just build as close as you can to the street and that 6 is good enough. So I think that in some sense the EI Camino Design Guidelines are somewhat 7 misplaced as a concept. I can understand the degree to which they are being applied but it seems 8 to be problematic in gen~ral. I would certainly like to revisit that. 9 10 So I think that I am going to reluctantly vote for this proposaL The reason it is reluctantly is 11 because in some sense it is such a carefully jiggered thing that in some sense it is too careful, and 12 I think it sort of cuts as many comers that makes me somewhat uncomfortable. Thank you. 13 14 Chair Garber: Commissioner Rosati followed by Lippert. 15 16 Commissioner Rosati: Thank you. I believe that the project would be an excellent land use 17 outcome for Palo Alto. So I will support the motion. I think it is going to be an excellent 18 outcome for the neighborhood. 19 20 A couple of comments. First it struck me to see a remarkable can do attitude from all the parties 21 involved. I am pretty impressed with what is considered by some a willingness to compromise I 22 actually see it as a willingness to be pragmatic and to make a big project, a remarkable project, 23 come to life. I really appreciate how the neighbors, the applicant, the Planning Staffhave 24 worked together and I find that very commendable. I wish that other projects had been and will 25 be approached the same way because we do need outcomes and we need to be able to make 26 things happen in the city. 27 28 I think that some of the complexities are really nothing more than engineering a workable 29 solution that seems to be a win-win solution in this case, where every party is pretty happy with 30 the outcome at least at the beginning. While I agree with the Staff s findings and the 31 recommendations I also agree very strongly with Commissioner Holman's wish to see the front 32 of the hotel be more integrated and more aligned with the south EI Camino Real Guidelines, 33 which I do think are very meaningfuL In particular I am concerned about the fact that we have 34 an opportunity as a large project like this, a big section of EI Camino is being renovated if you 35 like, to bring a little piece of that vision closer to life. So I wish that the applicant in working 36 with the Planning Department and the ARB going forward applies the same level of intelligence 37 and creativity solve this little piece of challenge left. I think just by looking at the blueprint that 38 there is more that could be done. In particular I would like you to imagine children walking on 39 that sidewalk and feeling safe, and members of the neighborhood pushing strollers on that 40 sidewalk and feeling safe. How would you do that? How would you create that feeling of safety 41 in that specific block where you are now going to be building a new hotel? If you succeed with 42 that then you will have also contributed to making the frontage ofEI Camino a better place. 43 44 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Lippert and then myself. 45 Page 59 1 Commissioner Lippert: I really didn't have anything to add. I was going to really comment on 2 Commissioner Holman's alluded to amendments and since they are not amendments there is no 3 real reason for me to comment. 4 5 Chair Garber: When the City does see the bike path I would recommend that you write yourself 6 a note to include a discussion about the safety of the path, especially the foliage such that it does 7 not create opportunities for lurkers, and that it is safely lit. 8 9 Regarding Commissioner Holman's concern about how we would get back to some of the issues 10 specifically regarding the blended FAR as well as blended height. I think we do actually have a 11 good example of where the Commission did take a leap of faith in creating an action and coming 12 back and sort of creating an ordinance around what at that time was an exception and could only 13 be allowed because we were looking at the PC and that was the 449-451 Addison project. We 14 recognized that we were going to make an exception that was clearly precedent setting and then 15 we came back later to turn that into an ordinance, which memorialized that if you will. So I 16 think it is not aberrant for us to do this and I would hope that this would give you some comfort 17 that we can actually tie this up in the future, hopefully in less than a decade. 18 19 Commissioner Keller and I on different projects have had differing opinions on the use of the El 20 Camino Guidelines but I think I will echo some of the other Commissioners, Rosati and Lippert 21 particularly, that this is an opportunity for the ARB to show us how good they can be in making 22 that elevation work for us both potentially in terms of its scale and how it is broken up, and 23 potentially making recommendations for use of the rooms, entrance, exits. There are some uses 24 there that could potentially allow that even if they are not used on a day-to-day basis, but 25 presumably there are some architectural ways to make that street embody the goals of what the 26 guidelines do. 27 28 This is a great use of this property that is being proposed. I with my other Commissioners would 29 like to applaud the applicant as well as Staff for putting in the hours to make this happen. As has 30 been noted it is a highly collaborative effort, which is great to see in our community. It is rarely 31 celebrated or exercised and when it does happen, thank you. It makes our job up here that much 32 easier. I would like to particularly thank the landowner for committing their resources, meaning 33 their consultants, to go forward and deal directly, honestly, and iteratively with the community. I 34 would like to thank the architect in particular for showing us the design evolution, in particular 35 the schemes that you investigated to show us the range of solutions that we went through. I think 36 that help a lot in terms of allowing the Commission to understand how it is you got to the 37 solution that you are presenting. In addition, the team sort referred to it as a code of ethics that is 38 good work. I think it goes a long way to helping the community understand how it is you are 39 going to show your success. In no small way to the two neighbors who have the property that 40 have been working closely and cooperatively with both the applicant to repurpose their 41 properties and their easements. That is above and beyond. The work that you are doing on 42 behalf of the City in that --what more can we say than thank you for doing that. 43 44 With that Commissioner Holman and then we will vote. 45 Page 60 1 Commissioner Holman: Yes, sorry to speak again but there are a couple of things I think need to 2 be addressed. I really, really, really wish I could support this however I feel duty bound to say 3 that we have to make the findings. I personally cannot make the first or second finding. Even 4 though I have made comments that could address those issues, if I vote for this it is saying that I 5 can make the findings and maybe these other things will happen. But not knowing whether they 6 will happen or not I can't have my vote saying I can make the findings because I don't know 7 what the outcome is going to be of those issues. 8 9 Just quickly about the heights. I am hoping that the height issue can be resolved because these 10 are desired heights and not necessary heights. The biggest issue here, which by the way 11 regarding 449 Addison that was a PC with findings. I think quite frankly there is justification 12 that this should have been a PC and we wouldn't be struggling with it so much. I don't think we 13 would. Zoning isn't up for compromise. Zoning is put in place to set a reasonable set of 14 expectations. Unless we can make findings for exceptions then we don't just say it is a good 15 project, a lot of effort has gone into it, so we ought to approve this. That is not how from my 16 background, my reading that is not how we need to be doing business. So I am truly not 17 comfortable with that and I think many aspects of the projects are wonderful, I wish I could, but I 18 cannot as I view my duty I cannot support it. So I will be voting no. 19 20 Chair Garber: I hear you. Let me try and encourage you to change your mind. The reasons are 21 because I believe that the findings can be met in both cases. I believe that in the one case, which 22 is I think the only argument in my head that comes close. 23 24 Commissioner Holman: Which case are you referring to? 25 26 Chair Garber: That comes close to being outside of the envelop if you will is the blended height 27 question. I feel that that is such a small detail relative to the overall project that it should not get 28 in the way of a project of this caliber which in every other way is at or below the intensity and 29 meets the uses that we have as a Comnlission as well as the City has asked to occur on the site. 30 31 Commissioner Holman: That is not one of the Site and Design findings, though. I was saying I 32 could not make the Site and Design findings one and two. I am uncomfortable with these other 33 issues but it is the Site and Design findings that I need to make and I cannot make one and two. 34 35 Chair Garber: The first one is the use will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be 36 orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. 37 So how would this project not meet those findings? 38 39 Commissioner Holman: Well, I think as previously stated I don't think it is compatible in its 40 transition into the neighborhood and I don't think it is a good transition compatible with the 41 existing use to the again I call it north, Palo Alto is not laid on a north-south grid, toward Page 42 Mill and to the small uses that are 011 the sanle block to the San Antonio side. I think having a, 43 as far as entrances are concerned as far as interaction with the street is concerned, it does 44 detriment to those projects. 45 Page 61 1 Chair Garber: However, we try and zone for how we want to use things and those adjacent sites 2 would allow for the s.ame intensities and quite nearly except for the 1.6 feet .... 3 4 Commissioner Holman: Excuse me it has not to do with the intensity. It has to do with the fact 5 that it does not interface with the street. And that lack of interaction with El Camino is a 6 detriment to other uses adj acent to it, current and potential. 7 8 Chair Garber: Again, I hear you and I am not trying to argue. I am just trying to get to the base 9 of it. If that edge along El Camino were retail meaning that there would be opportunities for 10 smaller businesses to have entrances and exits directly out onto the sidewalk that would more 11 directly enliven the street. That use is not required necessarily for the zone that we have here. A 12 hotel was an allowable use. I think the applicant is absolutely right that to try and have an 13 entrance for the hotel off of El Camino is frankly a dangerous thing. You would not want to 14 have someone stopping and existing, and coming in and out of cars and buses, etc. from El 15 Camino nor would you want to necessarily have a bulb out to accommodate that. So having the 16 entrance off of El Camino makes a lot of sense and I think that is supported by any number of the 17 other hotels that exist on El Camino. I think what you would then look for are opportunities, as 18 we are hoping the ARB will do for us, to find ways to address the spirit of the El Camino 19 guidelines in that case. Does any of that make any sense? 20 21 Commissioner Holman: It does but I think we are coming at this from totally different 22 perspectives. You and I know each other quite well, and I respect very much your perspectives 23 and I think on this one we are just coming at from very different perspectives. I am not saying 24 there ought to be an entrance to the hotel at El Camino. I am saying there is possibility, again 25 not the designer and not an architect. I think there is possibility to have an off-El Camino 26 entrance to the hotel. Yes the property is zoned for hotel. There are a number of hotels that have 27 traditionally had other uses as part of a hotel that were accessible to the public. Yes, retail 28 services/retail stores are not provided in this particular project. So those kinds of aspects of a 29 hotel use could satisfy my issues, my concerns that this hotel turns it back on the street. There 30 are at least two different ways to address that and this project does not that a hotel could. 31 32 Chair Garber: I hear you. 33 34 Commissioner Lippert: If the Chair would permit me? 35 36 Chair Garber: Okay. 37 38 Commissioner Lippert: I could phrase it in a different way. There are a number of planning 39 principles that are well known that we don't often refer to. El Camino Real is a rather wide 40 boulevard and because it is a wide boulevard it does make sense to bring height and mass up to 41 the frontage there. In fact, if we were to entertain stepping the hotel back in essence what you 42 would be getting is very much the same of what currently exists where the existing Palo Alto 43 Bowl is back. That space is not filled with activity and greenery and niceties and ~enities but 44 in fact it is filled with parking, and it becomes a parking lot. So the idea is that you pull the 45 building up to the frontage, you pull it up to the street so that the building itself begins to create a 46 room along El Camino Real. I don't feel like teaching or lecturing about planning principles I Page 62 1 invite my fellow Commissioners to get the necessary documentation behind the EI Camino Real 2 guidelines and why we use them. 3 4 There is one aspect that I do agree with Commissioner Holman on, which I believe is within the 5 purview of the ARB that perhaps the building should be punctuated in some way, shape, or form 6 that does accentuate the California Live Oak tree. 7 8 MOTION PASSED (5-1-0-1, Commissioner Holman voted no, Commissioner Fineberg absent). 9 10 Chair Garber: Commissioners, let's vote. All those in favor of the motion as stated say aye. 11 (ayes) All those opposed? (nay) That motion passes with Commissioners Rosati, Keller, 12 Garber, Tuma, and Lippert voting yes, Commissioner Holman voting no, and COmniissioner 13 Fineberg absent. Thank you to the applicants and Staff. 14 Page 63 ATTACHMENT E PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: Jason Nortz Planner AGENDA DATE: November 18, 2009 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment SUBJECT: 4329 EI Camino Real: Review and Recommendation of a Request by Aaron Barger on behalf of Palo Alto Bowl LLC, for a Tentative Subdivision Map for Condominium Purposes to create 26 residential units and a hotel unit on a 3.62 acre site for redevelopment subject to Council approval of it Site and Design Review application (recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission on June 10,2009.) Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been completed and a draft Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the City Council approve the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) and proposed Tentative Map to create 26 residential units and one hotel unit on a site at 4301-4329 EI Camino Real. SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION: The application requested is a Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes for one hotel unit and 26 for-sale residential condominium units with common areas associated with the residential units and hotel unit on a single parcel of land. Background information related to the project's details and history, including the Site and Design Review, has been included within the Record of Land Use Action, which contains findings and conditions of approval. The Tentative Map drawings are in general conformance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18 (Zoning) and Chapter 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (P AMC). Various code requirements have also been incorporated into the draft City of Palo Alto Page 1 conditions of approval for this application. The action required of the PTC is a recommendation on the Tentative Map. On August 6, October 1 and November 5, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the site design and architecture of the 26 residential units and one hotel and recommended approval for the City Council. On June 10,2009 the PTC had recon1ffiended approval of the Site and Design Review application. Modifications to the plans since the PTC review are outlined later in this report. Tentative Map Findings A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474): 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The site does not lie within a specific plan area and is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. The land use designation in the area of the subdivision is Service Commercial which allows mixed use development and the zoning designation is CS, RM-15 and R-1(8000). The proposed mixed use development of multi-family residential and one hotel is consistent with the land use and zoning designations of the site. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The map is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: (1) Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics ofmixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development; (2)Policy L-11 :Promote increased compatibility, interdependence, and support between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods;(3) Policy N-17:Preserve and protect heritage trees, including native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property; (4 )Policy B-9 : Encourage new businesses that meet the city's business and economic goals to locate in Palo Alto. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The site can accommodate the proposed mixed use development. The site is adjacent to established service commercial and residential development. The site is relatively flat and has mUltiple connections for bikes, pedestrians, and cars. The site planning for the project is consistent with area in that the four-story hotel is located along EI Camino Real in the CS zoned portion of the site and is consistent with similar uses in the area. The project transitions to the 26 residences in the rear half of the lot that is adjacent to the neighboring R-1 properties. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision would be consistent with the site development regulations of the RM-30 zone district. The proposed density of26 units is far less than the allowable density of 56 units. The proposed density of development is not considered growth inducing with respect to service and utility infrastructure or with respect to access. The project will also have a less than significant impact on traffic demand. 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 habitat: City of Palo Alto Page 2 This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision would not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat. The site does contain a number of mature landscape trees. Many of these were identified as being significant due to their size and health and have been proposed to remain. 16 trees are defined as protected ordinance size trees. They include #15-20, 22- 25,27,34,38,42,55 and 85. The building footprint is located on the location of protected coast live oak #42, and is proposed to be relocated to the eastern edge of the property adjacent to the public path easement entry at Cesano Court. One coast live oak #17, a public and protected tree, is proposed for removal to facilitate a new driveway curb cut onto Monroe Drive. The tree has been determined to be in to poor of health for relocation so a new 96"valley oak tree is proposed as a replacement tree and will be located at the hotel entry adjacent to the eastern property line. The largest protected tree on the property, coast live oak #55, is a large mature healthy tree visible from El Camino Real, and is to be a retained focal point of the site planning, outdoor use and enjoyment. There are 23 publicly owned street trees.The project includes removal of the 14 publicly owned trees. These trees would be replaced with 16 new street trees and new landscaping along both the El Camino Real and Monroe Drive street frontage. 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision of the existing parcels will not cause serious public health problenls. The resulting mixed use development will not cause a public health problem in that it is designed to provide access for emergency services, will supply necessary utility services, such as sanitation, and is designed per City and State standards to ensure public 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. The subdivision of the existing parcels will not conflict with existing public easements. New utility easements and new public rights of way will be created and the plan is designed to maintain public access throughout the site. Scope of PTC Review The reason the PTC and City Council must review and act on this Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes is that the number of resulting condominium units (26 residential units and one hotel unit, with associate common areas) will exceed four units. The Subdivision Map Act (Government Code 66427) notes that a condominium map "need not show the buildings or manner in which the buildings or the airspaces above the property shown on the map are to be divided, nor shall the governing body have the right to refuse approval of a tentative map of the project on account of the design or the location of buildings on the property shown on the map that are not violative of local ordinances or on City of Palo Alto Page 3 account of the manner in which airspace is to be divided in conveying the condominium." Also, the tentative map "need not include a condominium plan or plans ... and the governing body may not refuse approval of a tentative map on account of the absence of a condominium plan." The scope of the PTC review for the purposes of this Tentative Map application is limited to the "design" and "inlprovement" of the proposed subdivision. In this context, the terms "design" and "improvement" are defined in the Subdivision Map Act as follows: "Design" means: (1) street alignments, grades and widths; (2) drainage and sanitary facilities and utilities, including alignments and grades thereof; (3) location and size of all required easements and rights-of-way; (4) fire roads and firebreaks; (5) lot size and configuration; (6) traffic access; (7) grading; (8) land to be dedicated for park or recreational purposes; and (9) other specific physical requirements in the plan and configuration of the entire subdivision that are necessary to ensure consistency with, or implementation of, the general plan or any applicable specific plan as required pursuant to Section 66473.5. (Government Code, Subdivision Map Act Section 66418) The Subdivision Map Act (Government Code, section 66419) defines improvement as: (a) "Improvement" refers to any street work and utilities to be installed, or agreed to be installed, by the subdivider on the land to be used for public or private streets, highways, ways, and easements, as are necessary for the general use of the lot owners in the subdivision and local neighborhood traffic and drainage needs as a condition precedent to the approval and acceptance of the final map thereof; and (b) "Improvement" also refers to any other specific improvements or types of improvements, the installation ofwhich, either by the subdivider, by public agencies, by private utilities, by any other entity approved by the local agency, or by a combination thereof, is necessary to ensure consistency with, or implementation of, the general plan or any applicable specific plan. The design and improvement of the subdivision should be distinguished from the design of the approved structures to be located within the subdivision, which were addressed by the PTC during their review of the Site and Design Review application on June 10, 2009. Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 21, Subdivision Ordinance, Section 21.08.010, the proposed condominium project is subject to Tentative Map and Final Map review. The PTC recommends to the City Council on the Tentative Map, and both are reviewed during public hearings. The Final Map, once submitted, is reviewed only by City Council on consent calendar. BACKGROUND: The site is comprised of four parcels for a total of3.62 acres addressed as 4301 and 4329 EI Camino Real as shown on the location map (Attachment C). It is presently occupied by Motel 6 on the City of Palo Alto Page 4 northerly end of the site, a small commercial building with three service oriented businesses fronting El Camino Real on the Motel 6 site, the Palo Alto Bowl building that includes a restaurant, and two vacant lots at the northeast comer. Vehicular access to all uses on the siteis currently located on El Camino Real. The site consists of multiple zoning designations: Service Commercial (CS); Multi- Fanlily Residential (RM -15) and Single-Family Residential (R-l). The site is located in the Los Altos School District. Planning and Transportation Commission Review The project was reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) on June 10,2009 to ensure compatibility with the Site and Design Review approval findings of Section 18.30(G).060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (P AMC). The PTC staff report and meeting minutes are available on the City's website. The PTC was supportive of the proposal and, by a vote of 5 to 1 (Commissioner Holman opposed, Commissioner Feinberg absent), recommended the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Site and Design Review based upon the conditions of approval located in the Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). The PTC requested that the applicant provide additional information for the ARB and City Council to review. The PTC specifically expressed an interest to create a more pedestrian friendly environment along Monroe Drive by recommending relocation of the sidewalk to the inside edge of the new trees closest to the comer of Monroe Drive and El Camino Real. The PTC also recommended looking at an alternative hotel entrance that fronts El Camino Real so to achieve greater overall consistency with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the Context-Based Design Criteria of the Palo Alto Zoning Code. More detail concerning the pedestrian public path easement was also requested to ensure the public path easement provides a safe path of travel. Zoning and Subdivision Code Compliance Staff and City departments have determined that the Tentative Map application is in compliance with zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances. The Tentative Map plan set includes information on the existing parcels and onsite conditions. The drawings are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. These plans contain all information and notations required to be shown on a Tentative Map (per P AMC Sections 21.12), as well as conforming to the design requirements concerning the creation of lots, streets, walkways, and similar features (P AMC 21.20). Site Connection An important aspect of this project that enables the project to minimize neighbor impacts is the creation of two vehicular access points; the Monroe Drive entrance is exclusively for the residential tenants of the development, and the El Camino Real entrance is exclusively for the hotel guests and employees. Residents of the project would travel onto Ryan Lane from Monroe Drive. Ryan Lane is proposed as a private interior drive that would allow each homeowner to gain access to their required garage spaces via three motor courts perpendicular to Ryan Lane, which would then run parallel to the residential units. Ryan Lane and the three contiguous motor courts are proposed as private so that (1) paved areas are minimized, (2) landscape areas are enhanced and (3) public liability and maintenance of the streets would remain the responsibility of the developer and the future homeowners. City of Palo Alto Page 5 The City would be granted public easements across all walkways, streets, and motor courts except for the hotel entry along El Camino Real. The hotel entry would remain protected to prevent cut through traffic attempting to gain access to Monroe Drive. By granting public easements to the City, the development would allow members of the public to gain access to the site and prevent the creation of a gated con1illunity. The proposed street widths are 26 feet for each of the motor courts and 24 feet for Ryan Lane. Ryan Lane's proposed width, at 24 feet, would accommodate travel lanes only, with 13 guest parallel parking spaces proposed alongside Ryan Lane with eight spaces adjacent to the hotel and six spaces adjacent to the residential development. Only emergency vehicles would be able to access the residential portion of the site from El Camino Real. While private streets have been a recent concern of the community, staff notes that 1) the project has been under public discussion for over a year (the project application was submitted on October 6, 2008, prior to the recent amendments), 2) guest loverflow parking is provided at 0.5 spaces per unit, 3) CC & R's would require that garages remain free to accommodate parking rather than storage or other uses, and 4) there are less units than prior projects and reduced potential for parking in the neighborhood, given the adjacent configuration. Public Path Easement The public path between Monroe Drive and Cesano Court included in the project results from a unique set of circumstances. In 1983 and 1986 the Palo Alto Bowl acquired a substantial easement from each of the two R-1 zone district neighbors at the eastern edge of the property. These easements are currently paved and fenced so that they can be used exclusively by the Palo Alto Bowl for parking. As part of the project the applicant has negotiated with the two residential neighbors for the creation of the public path easement. The existing easements are much larger than the proposed public path easement. The existing easement areas that are greater than the area needed for the public path easement will be deeded back to the two neighbors for their exclusive use. No portion of the public path easement is being used for the purposes of determining FAR or lot coverage. The size of the proposed public path easement is approximately 5,524 square feet. The City can not require the applicant dedicate a public path easement on land it does not currently own. A condition of approval for the development project is contingent upon the public path easement being dedicated to the City. If the project applicant or neighbors are unable to dedicate to the City the public path easement, the project would need to be revised so that the daylight plane measurement is based on the existing property line as opposed to the proposed easement line created by the public path easement. Below Market Rate Housing (BMR) After calculating and comparing the greater of the required fee under Chapter 16.47 or BMR requirement per program H-36 (Below Market Rate or BMR Housing Program of the 2002 Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan) for a mixed used project, it has been determined that requirements of the Program H-36 apply to this project. Since the area is less than 5.0 acres in size, the project must provide a 15% BMR contribution calculated as 26 units multiplied by 15%, which equals 3.9 units. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Based on the above calculation, at least three (3) units of the 26 units must be provided for sale at the permitted BMR prices to qualified buyers through the BMRProgram. The remaining 0.9 units would be satisfied through the payment by the developer of a pro-rated BMR in-lieu fee on the market price (or appraised value, if greater) of the non-BMR units. The BMR units must comply with the City's standards for BMR units. As described in the Standards, BMR units must be provided in proportion to the unit types, sizes, and floor plans as the market rate units, and must be located throughout the development in all buildings, sections, and locations. In designing the BMR unit interior floor plans, the applicant must attempt as much as possible, given the exterior dimensions of the homes, to meet the BMR unit standards for bedroom size. A BMR agreement is required to be recorded upon approval of the Final Map. Update on Site and Design Review Application The applicant has made positive revisions to the design of the mixed use development project since the P &TC reviewed the Site and Design Review application at the June 10,2009 meeting. Revisions were presented to the ARB for their review during three public hearings, as noted. The ARB unanimously (5-0) recommended approval of the Site and Design Review application, with a few detail drawings and the final detailed EI Camino Real elevation to be scheduled for ARB consent calendar approval. Key design changes reviewed and recommended by the ARB are provided in Attachment AI. POLICY IMPLICATIONS City staffhas determined that this Tentative Map application, proposed subdivision and site layout, are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Municipal Code. There are no other substantive policy implications. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Site and Design Review application included the Tentative Map request in the project description. The public comment period for the project closed on June 17,2009 and no comnlents were received. TIMELINE: Action: Preliminary ARB Application Received: Preliminary ARB Hearing: Formal Project Application Received: P&TC Hearing of Site and Design Review Application: Tentative Map Application Received: First Architectural Review Board Hearing: Second Architectural Review Board Hearing: Tentative Map Application Deemed Complete: Third Architectural Review Board Hearing: Architectural Review Recommendation: P&TC Review of Tentative Map: Council review of Tentative Map & Site and Design: City of Palo Alto Date: March 24, 2008 June 19,2008 October 6, 2008 June 10,2009 July 9,2009 August 6, 2009 October 1, 2009 October 22,2209 November 5,2009 November 5, 2009 November 18, 2009 December 14, 2009 Page 7 ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Record of Land Use Action AI. Summary of Key Design Changes B. Project Description Letter C. Location Map D. Site Map E. ARB Plans for Infonnation Only (PTC Only) F. Tentative Map (PTC Only) COURTESY COPIES: Aaron Barger, Barry Swenson Builder, Applicant Ryan Leong, Palo Alto Bowl, LLC., Property Owner Jonathan Chao, Steinberg Architects, Designer/Architect Linnea Wickstrom, Monroe Park Neighborhood Association, President Anne Harrington, Cessano Court Resident Alex Lantsberg, Northern California Carpenters Regional Council Prepared by: Jason Nortz, Planner Reviewed by: Amy French, Current Planning Manager Department/Division Head Approval: ____________________ _ Curtis Williams, Director City of Palo Alto Page 8 ATTACHMENT F 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 2 Verbatim Minutes 3 November 18, 2009 4 5 DRAFT EXCERPT 6 7 4309 and 4329 EI Camino Real*: Review and recommendation of a request by Aaron Barger 8 on behalf of Palo Alto Bowl LLC, for a Tentative Subdivision Map for Condominium Purposes 9 to create 26 residential units and a hotel unit on a 3.62 acre site for redevelopment subject to 10 Council approval of a Site and Design Review application (recommended by the P&TC on June 11 10,2009.) Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been completed and a draft Negative 12 Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act 13 (CEQA) requirements. 14 15 Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: Good evening Chair and Commissioners. As you 16 noted the project is the Tentative Subdivision Map for condominium purposes to create 26 17 residential units and one hotel unit on the 3.62 acre site, which is actually four parcels being 18 combined into one. 19 20 The development of the project was reviewed under a separate Site and Design Review 21 application. This was recommended for approval by the Planning and Transportation 22 Commission on June 10 of "this year and by the Architectural Review Board on November 5 of 23 this year as well. 24 25 The proposed location of the hotel is along the southwestern edge of the site facing EI Camino 26 Real. Part of the hotel is also fronting on Monroe Drive. The hotel will only be accessed from 27 EI Camino Real. The residential portion is accessed from Monroe Drive via Ryan Lane, a 28 private interior drive. Ryan Lane is going to allow each homeowner to gain access to their 29 required garage spaces via three motor courts perpendiCUlar to Ryan Lane. Ryan Lane and the 30 three contiguous n10tor courts are proposed as private so that paved areas are minimized, 31 landscape areas are enhanced and public liability and maintenance of the streets would remain 32 the responsibility of the developer and the future homeowners. CC&Rs will be added as part of 33 the Final Map and will require that garages remain free to accommodate parking of vehicles 34 rather than storage and other uses. 35 36 The City would be granted public easements across all walkways, streets, and motor courts 37 except for the hotel entry along EI Camino ReaL The hotel entry would remain protected to 38 prevent cut-through traffic attempting to gain access to Monroe Drive through the site. The 39 project also includes the creation of a public, pedestrian, and bicycle path easement located at the 40 rear of the site. The easement is ten feet wide and approximately 5,550 square feet in area. The 41 connection extends between Monroe Drive and Cesano Court along the eastern edge of the 42 property. Owners of the residential units will be able to access the easement via entry gates 43 provided at the end of each motor court. 44 45 Staff and City departments have determined that the Tentative Map application is in compliance 46 with zoning, Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision, and other codes and ordinances. Page 1 1 2 Provided at places are a response to Commissioner Martinez's earlier email. They were sent out 3 to the Planning Commission earlier today. Also at places are the old site plan from the June 10 4 Planning Commission meeting, the Private Streets Ordinance, and also an email that was 5 received from the President of the Monroe Park Neighborhood Association, Linnea Wickstrom. 6 7 I would also like to make a note of a few errors in the Staff Report. First page 6 of the Staff 8 Report~ eighth line down refers to there being 13 guest parallel parking spaces, six of which will 9 be adjacent to the residential development. The correct number should be five spaces not six. 10 11 Second, Attachment Al is provided by Staff and Attachment B is provided by the applicant. The 12 applicant is here to give a brief presentation and answer questions. Before that, Mr. Larkin is 13 here for a brief summary of the Private Streets Initiative with respect to legal aspects with 14 respects to this project. 15 16 Mr. Donald Larkin, Assistant City Attorney: Thank you. The short answer is that the Private 17 Streets Initiative doesn't have a whole lot to do with this project. There were a number of 18 questions about this from Conunissioners and I wanted to address some of those questions. 19 20 The Private Streets Initiative was adopted by the City Council in October of this year as a result 21 of the initiative petition that was circulated by Bob Moss and others. There was a question about 22 why this particular ordinance had not been reviewed by the Planning Commission initially. That 23 is a quirk of our Charter and how we process initiatives. Under the Election Code an initiative is 24 brought to the City and there is a chance for various Boards and Commissions to review it, for an 25 environmental review to be done, and for an economic feasibility to be done with regard to the 26 ordinance. Under our code none of that happens. A petitioner collects the signatures, gives a 27 notice of intent to circulate that gives a general description of what the ordinance is that they are 28 attempting to pass, and then brings in the ordinance with signatures. If there are enough 29 signatures the Council has two choices either adopt the ordinance as is with no review or put it 30 on the ballot. In our case the City Council was comfortable with the majority of what was in the 31 ordinance and decided to just adopt it to save the pretty heavy expense of having an initiative 32 placed on the ballot. 33 34 The reason it doesn't apply to this project is because the initiative itself did not change the City's 35 definition of private streets and under the City'S definition of private streets this project wouldn't 36 have any. Not just because they have called them motor courts or something else but because 37 our definition of private street means a parcel of land that is not dedicated as a public street used 38 for ingress from two or more lots, which do not have the required minimum frontage on a public 39 street. In this case it is one lot, not two or more, one lot with multiple units but one lot. It is not 40 a separate parcel of land and we don't actually have a minimum street frontage. So the definition 41 of private streets doesn't apply. 42 4 3 We are going to be fixing that definition because that was not one of the things that was adopted 44 by the initiative ordinance, and you will have an opportunity to review that definition. Curtis 45 tells me that is going to be before you on December 9,2009. 46 Page 2 1 Chair Garber: Thank you. 2 3 Mr. Larkin: One other thing not related to the Private Streets Initiative. In the Staff Report 4 starting on page 2 there is a very good description straight from the Code on the Tentative Map 5 Findings. Those are the items that are the subject of this hearing. You have had a previous 6 hearing on the Site and Design Review and have made your recommendations on the Site and 7 Design Review. Those recommendations are not on the agenda for tonight. Those findings that 8 are listed on page 2 and the first two-thirds of page 3 are the findings that you are being asked to 9 review and make tonight. 10 11 Chair Garber: Thank you. Does that complete the Staffs presentation? Okay. The applicant 12 may make a presentation as welL Yu will have 15 minutes. Please identify yourself when you 13 get to the microphone. 14 15 Mr. Aaron Barger, Development Manager, Barry Swenson Builder: Good evening 16 Commissioners.. We are one of the five members of the ownership group of this property, the 17 Palo Alto Bowl, LLC. 18 19 I would like to take this time to thank you for reviewing our Tentative Map application for the 20 Palo Alto Bowl mixed use project. Our group purchased the property about two and a half years 21 ago and we have worked diligently with neighborhood groups, City Staff, and our design and 22 development team to propose a project that meets the goals of the City'S General Plan, fits in 23 well with the surrounding community, and is also a viable project for our partners. 24 25 As Staffhad mentioned in their presentation our project includes roughly a 170-room hotel and 26 26 townhouse style condominiums. Through our process with the City we have gained 27 considerable support. Back in June, on June 10, we got a five to one vote in the Planning 28 Commission and we waited until after ARB's review of your approval before coming back with 29 our Tentative Map. We went through three hearings at the ARB, which just on November 5 30 received unaninl0us approval from them. Today we are here to discuss our Tentative Map. I 31 think we are currently scheduled for December 14 to go in front of the City Council for final 32 approvaL 33 34 I am joined today with our design team, our architects from Steinberg Architects, and our civil 35 engineer, Sandis to answer any questions you may have about oufproject. Thank you. 36 37 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners, I thought we would go directly to the public to hear 38 from them and then we can combine our questions and comments, and then eventual action at 39 that time. We have four speakers. If there is anyone else that would like to speak they should 40 fill out a card and you can hand that perhaps to Amy or Curtis or Don. Because we only have 41 four we will give you each five minutes. The first person to speak is Marilyn Masciarelli 42 followed by Donna BerryhilL 43 44 Ms. Marilyn Masciarelli, Palo Alto: I have lived in Palo Alto since 1971. At that of course we 45 took everything that was here for granted. In recent years I can see that we can no longer do that. Page 3 1 That we really need to speak up when the benefits of Palo Alto are being chipped away piece by 2 piece by various developers who of course profit from Palo Alto's name. 3 4 In the report that the Staff made in item number 5 of the negative statenlents that they say are 5 wrong they evaluate the effect of this development on the fish and worms and squirrels and so 6 on. I would like to argue that they neglected to mention the fauna that go to this area frequently 7 and that would be the young people, the teenagers, the families, and the bowlers who will be 8 damaged by this development. Now I feel a little like Don Quixote here because this thing is 9 clearly greased and there is no point in saying don't do it, don,'t do it. What I would like to 10 suggest is that there be a solution as there was with the JJ&F Market where the Market plan was 11 included ultimately in the final design. If the hotel is important enough and thought out well 12 enough I don't see why there couldn't be a bowling alley or arcade or other recreation facility 13 included in that hotel. I am sure Mr. Barger thinks that is a terrible idea because it would cost 14 more but these are the things that make Palo Alto great. I have grandchildren growing up here. 15 They go to the Palo Alto Bowl. These are part of the wildlife of the community so to speak and 16 it is completely ignored in the Staff Report. 17 18 So I would just like the Commissioners to consider these things and maybe ask the developer to 19 maybe put a little change in his plans and add that. Thank you very much. 20 21 Chair Garber: Thank you. Donna Berryhill followed by Linnea Wickstrom. 22 23 Ms. Donna Berryhill, Palo Alto: Hi, thank you for letting me speak. Well, I concur with what 24 she said. F or me I have a three-year-old grandson that bowls at the bowling alley. I am the 25 oldest one in my family, my daughter, her husband we all go together. We bowl. The only other 26 thing we can do together in this city is eat and none of us really need to eat the much so we like 27 to be able to go to the bowling alley. I have a lot of friends that are very upset about this. They 28 were not able to come because they are at work or some of them are bowling right now, it is their 29 night to bowl. Why do we need more condominiums? Why do we need more hotels? Are the 30 hotels really all filled up already on EI Camino? Are the condominiums all sold? Do we have 31 that many people that can afford to come in and buy a condominium right now? 32 33 I worked as a real estate advertiser for many, many years and I know what is going on in the 34 market. I know several developers personally. I know what they have to gain but what about the 35 families? What about us? We live here. This is really sad that they want to takeaway one of the 36 only family oriented things that we have left to do. So that is my two cents worth. Thanks for 37 letting me speak. 38 39 Chair Garber: Thank you. Linnea Wickstrom followed by Anne Harrington. 40 41 Ms. Linnea Wickstrom, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live on Monroe Drive and am President of 42 the Monroe Park neighborhood Association. 43 44 First, in a bow to save the Bowl and for my teenage son's sake I am sorry to lose the recreational 45 opportunity of the Palo Alto Bowl. I wish maybe the Mitchell Park Community Center could 46 incorporate one? Anyway, just an idea. Page 4 1 2 I will also say that the low intensity, low traffic use of the current Bowl and Motel 6 property has 3 been very convenient for most, though not all of us, for a long time. Once the property was sold 4 we all knew that change was inevitable. The neighborhood association recognized that the City 5 needs the best possible income stream from commercial development on EI Camino and that the 6 new owner needs to make the fullest use of the acreage. Many, if not most, Monroe Park 7 residents think that upgrading from the current uses would be an improvement in both aesthetics 8 and safety. 9 10 As the project has progressed the developer has worked with the City Staff and the neighborhood 11 on central elements for NP&A. Because of anticipated traffic problems some residents do still 12 oppose the housing element accessing Monroe. However, the neighborhood's other key needs 13 have been addressed like the bike path for a safe route to school, traffic calming within the 14 neighborhood, an immediate improvement in maintenance of the property, and better fitting the 15 housing density and architectural style into the neighborhood. 16 1 7 We have some detailed concerns that we expect to be addressed. Number one on our list, as for 18 all neighborhoods undergoing development is expediting the final design, budgeting, and 19 implementation of traffic calming within our neighborhood, finalizing the bike path, a plan for 20 the safe route to school during construction. A concern about the taking of six to nine feet of 21 Monroe Drive for development sidewalk, and the need for a sidewalk to the Monroe-Monroe Y 22 intersection. Continuing improvement of the architecture of the hotel frontage. 23 24 Other issues may arise but the Monroe Park neighborhood Association is generally positive 25 about the proposed development of the Palo Alto Bowl and Motel 6 property. We feel that the 26 City Staff, the developer, and the Councils and Commissions with whom we have met have all 27 listened to our concerns and attempted to incorporate those in the thinking and design. Thank 28 you. 29 30 Chair Garber: Thank you. Anne Harrington, our last speaker. 31 32 Ms. Anne Harrington, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live on Cesano Court on the other side of the 33 proposed project. I made comments months ago whenever the last time this project appeared 34 before this Commission. At that point as now my main area of concern was the bike path and 35 how it impacts Cesano Court. 36 37 I am pleased to say that working with the developers and the City Staff a number of 38 improvements have been made that I think will make it safer both for the pedestrians and cyclists 39 using the path and the neighbors. There are still a few lingering concerns from people on Cesano 40 Court. Weare concerned about how the flow of bicycle traffic will work for the safety of 41 everybody involved on Cesano Court, and there is some concern about overflow parking from 42 the townhouses impacting Cesano Court. But we will just see how we deal with those when the 43 proj ect goes forward. 44 Page 5 1 The adjustments aside, there was a time earlier this fall when the 'not a through street' sign was 2 obstructed by tree limbs. During that time quite a few cyclists came down the street. So I 3 imagine it is going to be a popular path once it opens. 4 5 In closing, I would just like to commend the developers for working with the neighborhood and 6 hearing our concerns. 7 8 Chair Garber: Thank you. We will bring the conversation back to the Commissioners here. 9 Before we get started I have a question for the City Attorney. Can the Commission in its action, 10 if it ends up creating an approval, can that approval be conditioned? 11 12 Mr. Larkin: It can be as long as the condition is related to one of those findings for approval. 13 Actually it has to be a finding to deny. So as long as it is related to one of those findings for 14 those items then yes, it can be conditioned. 15 16 Chair Garber: Meaning that it would not meet a finding unless it was conditioned? 17 18 Mr. Larkin: Yes, the Map Act requires you to make these findings in the negative in order to 19 deny instead of making findings in the positive to approve. So it is confusing, but yes. 20 21 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioners, comments? 22 23 Mr. Curtis Williams, Planning Director: Chair Garber? 24 25 Chair Garber: Yes, Planning Director. 26 27 Mr. Williams: If I could add one. Just for the record, I think the Commission knows this we 28 appreciate the Palo Alto Bowl. I have bowled there a few times myself and I am sorry if it is 29 going to go away. I think the Commission knows that as far as the purview of the Subdivision 30 review goes that the land use that is proposed there is not part of that review. So it is not a 31 zoning change. If it were a zoning change or something like that then that would be something 32 that you could consider but not as part of the Bubdivision. 33 34 Chair Garber: Thank you for that reminder as well as the sentiment, which I suspect we all 35 share. Let's move forward. Commissioners, comments or questions? Commissioner Keller. 36 37 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So I believe at the Site and Design Review we talked about 38 the need for the sidewalk being inbound of the trees, and that was done partly but not along the 39 entire length of Monroe. I notice in the comments in Attachment A 1 part of it was rerouted but 40 not all of it. I am wondering if Staff has any comments about that. 41 42 Ms. French: Sure, yes. The part that is closest to Camino along Monroe was placed inboard 43 so there is a planter island if you will. That stretches for two-thirds of the frontage of the hotel 44 there facing Monroe. So about two-thirds of the way back along that frontage it comes out again 45 onto Monroe Drive. That is because there are protected trees along there, the oak trees, 46 specifically trees 15, 16, 18, 19,20, and further up 22, 23 bordering the property line that are on Page 6 1 City property. I don't know if the applicant has any other further comments about studying the 2 sidewalk placement. The ARB did recommend as presented. 3 4 Commissioner Keller: So I don't remember because I don't have the minutes of this item when 5 it came before us, did the Planning Commission condition it on being inboard, or did we simply 6 recommend it? Certain people recommended it but not make it a condition. 7 8 Ms. French: I think it was recommended. We can get back to you later once we get a hold of -I 9 know that the minutes were to be placed at places. 10 11 Mr. Williams: No, that was for Mings. 12 13 Ms. French: Mings, I am sorry. 14 15 Mr. Williams: We don't have those in front of us. Let me go try to track those down. My 16 recollection is that was a suggestion but it wasn't a condition of the Commission's approval or if 17 it was it was to look at or evaluate or something like that. Let me go try to find the specifics. 18 19 Ms. French: I believe as per the tonight's Staff Report page 5 it does say specifically expressed 20 an interest by recommending relocation of the sidewalk to the inside edge of the new trees 21 closest to the comer of Monroe Drive and EI Camino Real. So that statement leads me to believe 22 that that was the intent. Where you wanted to kind of get inboard of the rushing traffic at the 23 comer that was where it was the most important to put it inboard at that location, so Staff felt that 24 that meant that concern. 25 26 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 27 28 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert, did you have a specific memory here? 29 30 Commissioner Lippert: I just wanted to follow up with regard to my colleagues. My 31 recollection was that the discussion that we had was that having a public sidewalk on private 32 property was problematic with regard to liability. So at the time the attorney, I don't know if it 33 was Don or somebody else, had recommended that we not condition it that way, and that if the 34 applicant felt it was appropriate to put it on the private side that it could happen, but it wasn't 35 something that the City Attorney was recommending that we do because of the liability. 36 37 Chair Garber: Okay, well thank you. Other comments or questions, Commissioners? I am not 38 seeing any lights. Commissioner Fineberg. 39 40 Commissioner Fineberg: I have additional questions on other issues but a quick one on this. I 41 was not present at the first hearing so I certainly have no memory first-hand of what happened. 42 In preparing for the meeting I remenlber there was a question of the public street being narrowed 43 in order to accommodate a wider sidewalk. Does the current plan still include a loss in width of 44 Monroe of the public street rather than the project itself providing the adequate width for the 45 adequate sidewalk? 46 Page 7 1 Ms. French: The applicants are poised to answer that. I think some of this has to do with traffic 2 calming as well on Monroe. 3 4 Mr. Jonathan Chao, Steinberg Architects: So let me make sure I understand the question. You 5 are asking why Monroe was narrowed? 6 7 Commissioner Fineberg: Not why Monroe was narrowed but is the current drawing still 8 narrowing Monroe and basically taking City lands so that there can then be wider private lands 9 with an adequate size sidewalk and a resulting larger structure. 10 11 Mr. Chao: So the inlpetus for narrowing that part of Monroe was traffic calming like Amy 12 mentioned but the size of the parcel itself has not increased. So we are still building within the 13 limits allowed of the existing property. Does that make sense? So we have not taken additional 14 land to build more. 15 16 Commissioner Fineberg: But if the sidewalk is sitting - I guess before the sidewalk was sitting 1 7 at this edge of the street. 18 19 Mr. Chao: Yes. 20 21 Commissioner Fineberg: So now there will be on what had been public street public trees or 22 landscaping and then inboard of the landscaping is going to be a private sidewalk. 23 24 Mr. Chao: It is actually a public sidewalk. Actually the sidewalk is actually on public property. 25 So I guess are you asking then if the street had not been narrowed you would not be able to have 26 the sidewalk. Is that the question then? 27 28 Commissioner Fineberg: That is how it had been before. So is it still necessary or desirable then 29 for the street to be narrowed? 30 31 Mr. Chao: Yes most likely in order to achieve a sidewalk. The closer you get to the trees in 32 addition to the protection of the tree, which is actually very steep. Well there is a subtle grade 33 change and that would require cutting into the tree roots. 34 35 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert. 36 37 Commissioner Lippert: I have a number of comments I would like to make. First of all, I want 38 to thank the members of the public for coming here to speak this evening. It is very important 39 that we hear from members of the public. 40 41 I have to tell you I am very troubled that we are not really able to speak to the concerns of the 42 neighbors with regard to the bowling alley disappearing. This has had a number of reviews. The 43 first review that we had on the site I believe was when we were directed by the City Council to 44 look at residential properties throughout the city that were not appropriately zoned. At the time 45 both the Palo Alto Bowl and the Motel 6 had been zoned as residential and they were what is 46 considered to legally existing nonconforming uses and they could have continued in perpetuity Page 8 1 provided that they didn't add any square footage or do significant remodeling to those buildings. 2 The neighbors had the opportunity at that time to really say something about maintaining that 3 inappropriate, or shall we say LULU. Is that appropriate? That nonconforming use. At that 4 time we did make a recommendation that it be rezoned to the current zoning I believe. Then it 5 came forward to us again with this hotel development. We looked at it and at that time we 6 reviewed it and we made our recommendations. There were a number of members of the public 7 that again spoke to their concerns with regard to the bowling alley but I think at that time the 8 majority of the public were in support of what was happening here with some tweaks. Now here 9 we are doing the Map on this and our hands really are tied by the previous decisions and the 10 previous hearings that we have made. So it is unfortunate to see the Palo Alto Bowl go. It has 11 been here for as long as I can remember. I have been here for 25 or 26 years. Our purview today 12 is very limited. 13 14 So I would like to just talk a little bit about the Map if I might. The first thing I want to say is I 15 do bike through Monroe Park. I think it is a rather unique neighborhood in Palo Alto. I 16 generally cut-through and come down that way through the creek and then come across the 1 7 bridge there, which is not unlike the easement that is being proposed here. Right now I come out 18 on Monroe Street and I have to tell you it is not a controlled intersection there at alL I have 19 difficulty as a bicyclists coming across EI Camino Real and then having to skirt onto Los Altos 20 Avenue to bicycle down to Foothill Expressway. Foothill Expressway is a safer road than that 21 intersection at EI Camino ReaL So I understand the concerns of the residents, and I am really, 22 really glad to see this public easement going along the back of the property. It is going to make 23 it much easier for me now, and other people, to come along Monroe Avenue cut across the 24 easement on the back of the property onto Cesano Court and then being able to cross EI Camino 25 Real at a controlled intersection. I think that is going to be a lot safer for not only bicyclists like 26 myselfbut also kids who are going to school. As you know, Monroe Park is unique because it is 27 not part of the Palo Alto Unified School District. It is in Los AltoslMountain View School 28 District. So they are going to different schools. 29 30 The other comment I wanted to make is with regard to that little orphan parcel in the back of the 31 property. I am so glad that the property owners have deeded that to the adjacent residential 32 property owners in the back and that that is finally going to get cleaned up and become really 33 somebody's backyard. I think that is really a great improvement here as well as far as the Map 34 that we are looking at. 35 36 With regard to the rest of the Map I think that they have done a great job with regard to dealing 37 with the private streets here, the layout of the apartments. I think that the whole interchange of 38 how the hotel people will get into the site versus how the residents get in I think is going to work 39 out well. The nice thing about it, unlike most of the developments is this going to almost read as 40 being seamless. It is going to appear as though this could almost function as two different 41 projects on one parcel. It is going to have an appropriate feel to it and it is going to create a 42 buffer from EI Camino Real with the highest intensity up against El Camino Real, the second 43 most intense against the single fan1ily residence. So it is going to create a buffering or a staging 44 and minimum impact I believe on the single family residential. So I like what I see here tonight 45 and I am inclined to move to approve if there isn't any other discussion. 46 Page 9 1 Chair Garber: I just had one question. One of the comments or a series of comments from the 2 previous meeting were related to the El Camino Guidelines and I noted that the ARB has made 3 some modifications which have been accepted and incorporated by the applicant that relate to 4 doors along El Camino. Where there other things that have been incorporated that support that 5 that you are aware of? It is hard for me to tell if there are changes to this plan. 6 7 Ms. French: Yes, we are going to do a final Consent Calendar review on this. I don't remember 8 what date we are looking towards, possibly early December to present the final details per the 9 Architectural Review recommendations. There were quite a few revisions and those are actually 10 provided on Attachment A 1 that is a summary of changes made since the Planning Commission 11 saw it last. Does that answer your question? 12 13 Chair Garber: What I am hearing is that to your knowledge there were no other additional 14 changes for instance in the width of the sidewalks other than what has gone through the ARB. Is 15 that correct? I am getting a head nod from the applicant in the affirmative. 16 17 Ms. French: Yes. 18 19 Chair Garber: We have Commissioner Keller, then Fineberg, and then Martinez. 20 21 Commissioner Keller: First I agree with pretty much what Commissioner Lippert said in his 22 earlier comments. It is seems to be that there is something about a transition from El Camino 23 onto the residential portion and that is why we had retained the back part of the Palo Alto Bowl 24 parcel as being residential. If we had not rezoned it it is not clear that Palo Alto Bowl would 25 have stayed there indefinitely. It could have been replaced instead of with a hotel and some 26 housing with 100 percent housing. That is possibly what would have happened. So it is not 27 clear that the Palo Alto Bowl would have stayed in either event. In contrast when the skating 28 rink on Middlefield was being considered for being sold and developed that property was 29 purchased by raising funds and then essentially given to the City. We can't expect the owner of 30 a property not to try to make use of that property as best that they can within the allowable 31 zoning. So I think that it is in some sense if the community wanted to retain that as a use the 32 most effective thing would have been to purchase it from the original owners who sold it to the 33 current owners. That might have been an effective measure but at this point in time as 34 Commissioner Lippert points out we are several years beyond that and it is hard to make that 35 change at this point. That being said, it is unfortunate that we are losing a resource particularly 36 since there are relatively few resources in Palo Alto that teenagers and younger kids can use. 37 This is certainly a resource that is available for that. It is unfortunate that we are losing this 38 resource for the community. I think that it is not our decision to say whether a hotel should go 39 there but the applicant presumably figures that they can make money from this parcel by putting 40 a hotel there and some housing there, and the law allows them to make whatever developments 41 on their property that are within the allowable zoning. Essentially, unless there is some rule that 42 allows the Planning Commission to say no, we have gone through several steps of this process 43 where essentially at this point it is hard to do that. I do recognize that this is a resource that will 44 be lost and that people who need to go to bowling will have to go as far as Redwood City to do 45 bowling in the future, and that is unfortunate. It is unfortunate that there are other amenities that Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 we have lost but I think that we have to obey the rules of how subdivisions are approved in order to be able to consider this project. Thank you. Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Fineberg, Martinez, and then Lippert with a motion . . ,; Commissioner Fineberg: My first question is from Attachment A. It doesn't have page numbers but I counted it out and it is page 16, in the section on Building Department, item number 33. My question is why is the Building Department asking whether the units will be part of a condominium parcel map or if they wil~ be sold fee simple? Ms. French: I can guess that when this was placed in this document, the Draft Conditions of Approv~l, that this was an older condition that was prior to the submittal of the Tentative Map. I am guessing because these conditions apply to the Site and Design project and the condominium Tentative Map. These will be going to the City Council for action on both the Site and Design Review and the Tentative Map so I think this is kind of a placeholder condition about if you are going to have a map with condominiums you need to -it is a question that probably should be stricken from these conditions because it is a question that is no longer relevant. Commissioner Fineberg: The City Attorney looks like he has something. Mr. Larkin: I was just going to say that they are required to say on their map for condominium purposes because they are not required, at this stage of the process even though we have already seen the Site and Design, they are not required to tell us exactly which air space or portions of the air space are being sold off if it is a condominium map. So that is what that condition is asking, either identify which lots are being sold or say for condominium purposes. The map now is clear on that. Chair Garber: May I follow up briefly? So is it the fact that that description is missing from what is before us this evening is that an issue for the Commission? Does it say that on the Map? Mr. Larkin: It either says it on the Map or on one of the Attachments. It says it right on the face of the Map. Ms. French: It is at the bottom of the Map in the margin. Chair Garber: There we go. Thank you. Anything else? Comnlissioner Fineberg: Yes. Part of the reason I ask that also other than the specific answer has not come forward is if we rely on statements from Building Department and Public Works and other Staff departments to detem1ine the adequacy of the drawings none of us are experts at, I shouldn't say none of us because there are some architects among us, I will speak for myself. I am not an expert at determining where stOm1 drains should be or how they should be designed. So I rely on the expertise of our Staff. If there are big questions like are these condos or fee simple subdivisions then how do I know if the plans that they saw are indeed the plans that we are reviewing and have they deemed these drawings adequate? Page 11 1 Mr. Larkin: Well, the conditions are placed on the Tentative Map. They have to be satisfied that 2 the Tentative Map is complete before you get to see it. They also have to physically sign the 3 Final Map and verify that all of the conditions that were imposed on the Tentative Map are in 4 place on the Final Map. So it is the City Engineer's job to review things like grading and 5 drainage and all of those requirements. Your job is to look at the bigger picture but they have to 6 actually physically sign that all these conditions were met before the Map can be recorded. 7 8 Commissioner Fineberg: So do they do that review after we approve a Tentative Map without 9 those conditions? 10 11 Mr. Larkin: They do that before you approve a Tentative Map and then before the Council 12 approves the Final Map. The Final Map is the Map that incorporates all of the Tentative Map 13 requirements. 14 15 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. This will be my last one on this. So if the Building Department 16 didn't know whether it was a condo or fee simple. Question 34, they are not sure whether things 17 are mixed use, assembly, meeting room, dining room, offices. I understand it is going to be a 18 chunk of a building and we don't get into what is inside. But that tells me they have big picture 19 questions about use. Question 35, is they are not sure .... 20 21 Mr. Larkin: I can interrupt you really quickly. Those are the things that have to be answered to 22 their satisfaction before you get to see it. So if those weren't answered to their satisfaction then 23 you wouldn't be seeing it. These are the conditions when the application comes in the applicant 24 is given these conditions. If they were not satisfied that it was clear that it was for condominium 25 purposes, that ifit was the occupancy type, and all of those things then the application wouldn't 26 be deemed complete and it wouldn't be available for you to review. Does that simplify it? 27 28 Commissioner Fineberg: So it is Planning Department Staff that then deems that the other 29 departments have had their questions answered and it is complete? 30 31 Mr. Larkin: All of the reviewing departments have to agree that the application is complete but 32 it is Planning Department Staff that gets the comments from the other departments and then 33 deems the application complete. 34 35 Ms. French: These certainly can be because I can see that they should have some more filtering 36 and wordsmithing before it is final before the Council. Most of these from Building are usually 37 what they want to see in the Building Permit submittal. So they are a bit far ahead and beyond 38 Tentative Map. 39 40 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, thank you. 41 42 Chair Garber: Commissioner, Commissioner Lippert had a follow up on that question. 43 Commissioner Lippert. 44 45 Commissioner Lippert: Generally to answer your question on that Building Department item the 46 question is condominium. There is the California Building Code but then there is also California Page 12 1 Building Standards. California Building Standards specifically address the building of 2 condominiums. So it I believe it has to do with the Building Department is looking for if these 3 are fee simple homes or whether it is a condominium. If it is a condominium it has follow these 4 California Building Standards. So that could be the reason why they were asking that question 5 up front. Basically the work of the Building Department is ministerial. It is not a discretionary 6 review and they must meet the letter of the Building Code when they draw up their final plans. 7 8 Commissioner Fineberg: Understood. But it also procedurally if our determination is whether 9 the Map shows the things that are required to be shown if those questions are not answered then 10 the Map is incomplete. Staffhas said that Staffhas determined they are complete. So that was 11 satisfactory answer on that. 12 13 On number 44 it may be the same issue from Public Works. Number 44, "Offsite improvements 14 will be required for this project. At a minimum, there are resurfacing [of Monroe Drive], 15 removal and replacement of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks along all the project frontages." Have 16 those been answered satisfactorily then and it has been resolved or are there more changes 17 coming? 18 19 Mr. Larkin: Yes there will be more changes coming as part of the Final Map approval. Once the 20 Tentative Map is approved our office and Public Works work on drafting what is called a 21 Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the applicant where all of those improvement plans 22 are finalized. It is a fairly complicated process. The improvement plans are submitted, finalized, 23 there is an engineer's estimate of how much the improvements are going to cost. We do 24 bonding. It is a complex process and it happens before the Final Map is approved. So all of the 25 improvements are going to be part of this Map but in terms of the very specific final grading all 26 of that is part of the Final Map process, it is not part of this process. 27 28 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So here is where I am stuck then. The Tentative Map I am 29 looking Municipal Code Section Chapter 2112. It talks about Tentative Maps. It talks about 30 information to be shown on the Tentative Map. If streets and grades and all those other things 31 are supposed to be included and then it is a Staff negotiation after Tentative Map is approved 32 how do we know if the Final Map is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan then? 33 34 Mr. Larkin: First of all, we are not talking about grades like is there going to be a 40-degree 35 slope or a 20-degree slope. We are talking about millimeters and that is not going to be on the 36 Final Map and we are not going to have a Comprehensive Plan policy that gets down to that 37 level. It is engineering safety stuff. The grades, the rough grades are shown, drainage is shown 38 on the Tentative Map, but the actual getting down to the type of concrete that is used is not 39 something that is shown on the Tentative Map. 40 41 Commissioner Fineberg: My last question is getting back to your comments about why the 42 Private Streets Initiative doesn't apply. You took that one very quickly and I am not sure that I 43 understood. I am asking this as a question not just so that I learn but I think this is going to be 44 one that the public is going to have questions about why the Initiative doesn't apply. I know that 45 we don't need to ask questions to get things into the public record but having a citizenry that 46 understands the decisions we make is valuable. So could you explain again why it doesn't Page 13 1 apply? Then we have something that was left at places, Ordinance 5059, and then there is a Map 2 of this parcel attached to it. I am not sure if they are related or just got paper-clipped because 3 they were piled tonight. 4 5 Mr. Larkin: I don't know why they are paper-clipped together. To answer the first part of your 6 question there are actually two reasons, one I mentioned and one I didn't. The first is as we 7 define private streets for the purpose of this hearing this project doesn't have private streets. As 8 Curtis reminded me, I wasn't aware of the submission date of this Map but under the Map Act it 9 is different than a vested rights analysis for a zoning change. Under the Map Act the applicant is 10 required to comply with written policies in place at the time their application was deemed 11 complete. Their application was actually deemed complete prior to the adoption of this Initiative 12 so it wouldn't matter even if the Initiative did apply because their Map was actually complete 13 prior to that. So it is the written policies that were in place when their application was complete 14 that apply. 15 16 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez. 17 18 Commissioner Martinez: I guess for the record let it be known that Commissioner throws his 19 hands up in despair. I know we are not supposed to talk about land use and I won't, but land use 20 is the most important thing that we do. It has the greatest impact. 21 22 This project carries with it some significance that perhaps we can talk about as we work on the 23 Comprehensive Plan about the economic vitality of the city, about neighborhood serving uses, 24 about the future development of El Camino Real. That is where my sort of despair comes from. 25 I appreciate the great lengths that Staff went to to bring me up to speed on what we should be 26 looking at. I would like though to ask that we try to get our sort of arguments in supporting 27 things of this nature sort of not sort of, I don't know exactly how to say it. But really looking at 28 the sort of the significance of the meaning of words like mixed use rather than some technicality 29 that because they sit side-by-side on a site that signified mixed use. Where in other parts of your 30 findings it is mixed use means an interdependence. Interdependence between a hotel and 31 housing is sort of hard to see unless it is BMR housing for the maids and busboys that work in 32 the hotel. I don't see that coming down either. So I would like us to try to get back to a simple 33 parlance of mixed use means sort of compatible uses interdependent, a restaurant serving an 34 office building, a grocery store serving a neighborhood. Items like that that truly mean what 35 mixed use stands for not just horizontal or vertical but all forms of mixed use. 36 37 Having said all this, you know I don't object to this project for its own sake. If it were just on its 38 own without considering sort of what it is taking away or other hotels in the neighborhood I 39 would have great enthusiasm for it because it represents a lot of what I would like to see on El 40 Camino Real. In other words, rather than street frontage from one block to another with zero 41 setback it is going back to sort of the traditional development of El Camino Real where there is a 42 building,' a great open space whether it is parking or undeveloped landscape, to the next block 43 where there is sort of a horizontal, perpendicular development, open space. There was a rhythm 44 and we have tended to get away from that in recent years and developed these long buildings 45 from block to block right up at the street, nothing in relationship to the street, certainly not 46 supporting the walkability that we all care about. So from that perspective it is pretty good Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 precedent for the kind of massing and street frontage and relationship to EI Camino that we want to see. It is unfortunate that it also carries with it a great price that we have to pay for its development. I have one small question. I note that you said we are getting 3.9 BMRs. Why can't we round up that .9 and get an extra house? Mr. Williams: Well it is in our adopted BMR policy that essentially any fraction even at .9 can be deal with as a fee unless they wanted to do an additional unit. We would have to revisit the BMRpolicy, which has said that the fractional portion regardless of whether it is.9 or.1 pays a fee. The.1 versus .9 pays a different fee but that it can be done as an in lieu fee. 1 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. Mr. Williams: If you don't mind I would like to take just a minute to sort of commend you on your comments sort of generally as far as mixed use goes. We had a conversation today about Comprehensive Plan and some of the things that we are looking at bringing to the Conlffiission. One of them is that the Comprehensive Plan currently has these designations like Service Commercial, and it says in Service Commercial that it allows commercial, it allows mixed use, and it allows residential. Service Commercial is what the Hyatt Rickey'S site was and it turned out to be all residential. That was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because we have these categories that are so broad. We have done some work on the Zoning Ordinance to minimize that so that in a commercial zone you can only have residential if it is part of a mixed use project, but the Comprehensive Plan still has this flexibility. So one of the things you will see us bringing forward is more application of our mixed use designation in the Comprehensive Plan to replace some of these locations where it says commercial. Then I think your point is well taken as far as better defining what we want mixed use to be. Certainly, currently, this project meets our definition of mixed use which specifically says it can horizontal or vertical and doesn't get into so much the interdependency that you are talking about that would be good to maybe focus some more of the language on that. Also, I think as we indicated in the response to your questions some of the issues that you brought up as far as the frontage design and those kinds of things are very relevant to the Site and Design part and unfortunately you weren't here when that permit went through but not so much again to the subdivision component. Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Lippert you had a couple of questions but Commissioner Keller had a follow up, and then we will go to you. Then if we can we will pause and see if Commissioner Holman would like to have any questions before we get to a motion. At that point before we do the motion I will also give the applicant an opportunity, you have three minutes to speak to the public comments if you would like. Commissioner Lippert, your questions. Page 15 1 Commissioner Lippert: Actually, it is a follow up on Commissioner Martinez with regard to the 2 3.9 BMR. If the Housing Corporation wanted to buy in could they buy-in the little ten percent 3 portion and make it four units? 4 5 Mr. Williams: Only if it is a voluntary thing between them and the applicant. We don't have 6 and it is not in our policy to require the applicant to do that. So it would just be ..... 7 8 Commissioner Lippert: But we could make the Housing Corporation aware of this. 9 10 Mr. Williams: We could. 11 12 Commissioner Lippert: The only reason I am suggesting this is that.9 is going to be very hard- 13 pressed in terms of the money for them to actually tum that into, even when it is added to the 14 funds that the Palo Alto Housing Corporation collects, for the developer to build one more unit. 15 It is actually going to be substantially more value than the money that the Housing Corporation is 16 going to receive in being able to then turn that into a unit. They will be lucky if that .9 turns 17 winds up being .5 by the time they get around to it. That was my only comment or question. 18 19 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller and then Holman. 20 21 Commissioner Keller: So a few other questions. How do you actually have a condo? I assume 22 it is a single condominium association that involves a residential component and a hotel 23 component. How does that work? 24 25 Mr. Larkin: They will have to show us how that is going to work as part of their submittals prior 26 to the Final Map. They are going to have to show us, my expectation and the way I have seen it 27 work in other developments is there will be a homeowner's association for the residents. There 28 will an agreement or a set of CC&Rs for that homeowner's association, and then some sort of an 29 agreement between the homeowner's association and the hotel owners to define how the 30 relationship is going to work and who is going to pay for the maintenance of the comnl0n areas 31 and that sort of thing. That is something we will need to look at prior to Final Map approval to 32 ensure that those maintenance provisions are included and that there is adequate protection for all 33 of the property owners. 34 35 Commissioner Keller: So I am not suggesting this but is it possible for the Commission to say in 36 a thing like we want the residential to be one parcel and the hotel to be another parcel and not to 37 have a condominium involving both or is that not within our purview? 38 39 Mr. Larkin: That is outside the realm of what the Planning Commission can require at this stage. 40 I think certainly if there was a desire to avoid having a situation where commercial and interests 41 and residential interests were on the same lot in the future then something could be done in our 42 subdivision code or in our Zoning Ordinance to fix that going forward, but on this project it is 43 not possible. 44 45 Commissioner Keller: So that is not something we could have addressed at the Site and Design 46 Review or anything else? Page 16 1 2 I don't think so. I think it would have to be done through a zoning code change or a 3 Comprehensive Plan change. 4 5 Commissioner Keller: Okay. This has not gone through Site and Design at the Council, is that 6 correct? So suppose the Council decided it wished to uphold the spirit of the Private Streets 7 Initiative and require that the private streets be of whatever required widths are in the Private 8 Streets Initiative? Could it deny the Site and Design Review and ask additional changes be 9 made? How would that affect the Tentative Map? What is the interaction of that process? 10 11 Mr. Larkin: They couldn't deny the Tentative Map on that basis because as I said before they 12 are subject to the rules that were in place at the time their Map was deemed complete. So 13 because our Subdivision Ordinance didn't have a minimum street width they are not required to 14 put a minimum street width on the Tentative Map. Whether they could do something through 15 the Site and Design process to require a wider right-of-way I suppose if they could make those 16 findings then that is something that they could consider it but they would need to make those 17 findings. 18 19 Commissioner Keller: The Site and Design findings you mean. 20 21 Mr. Larkin: Right, the Site and Design findings not the Tentative Map findings. The Tentative 22 Map itself will define the common areas so it may be too late at that point. 23 24 Mr. Williams: So they could make modifications based on Site and Design findings but on the 25 fact that there was this Initiative ordinance out there. That in and of itself isn't any basis. They 26 would have to find why under Site and Design findings the existing proposal doesn't meet those 27 and then if it comes back to what the Initiative ordinance says there would have to be 28 justification for why that is the appropriate. 29 30 Commissioner Keller: So just for discussion sake let's forget about the Private Streets Initiative 31 suppose that the Council on this or another project were to deny the Site and Design approval 32 based on whatever findings it felt were appropriate and there was a Tentative Map being 33 submitted at the same time, what happens? 34 35 Mr. Larkin: It would be a difficult situation to be in and that is one of the reasons that we have 36 Site and Design precede at least at the Commission and the ARB precede the Tentative Map 37 because if we have a Tentative Map it conflicts with the Site and Design more likely than not the 38 Tentative Map is going to trump that Site and Design. 39 40 Commissioner Keller: Well, I appreciate that but what we have is a situation where the Council 41 felt that the Site and Design Review should be deferred towards the end of the process. Now 42 with it being coupled with the Tentative Map process it essentially holds the Council's hands 43 bound to not be able to make any changes at that point. So it seems that this process of Site and 44 Design and Tentative Map still needs to be fixed. The process of deferring Site and Design from 45 the Council this late in the process doesn't fix the process. 46 Page 17 1 Mr. Larkin: I missed some of what you said but I agree with what I heard at the end. I think it 2 probably doesn't necessarily fix the process. 3 4 Commissioner Keller: I am going a little far a field but I think that this might be something 5 useful for the Commission to discuss with the Council at son1e point in the future about 6 understanding the process and how to improve it. I am basically extrapolating from this that we 7 have a problem that needs to be fix and how the Council and the Commission should deal with 8 that process seems like some legislative action is appropriate. 9 10 Also, one· of the things that was mentioned by the Attorney is that the Private Street Initiative 11 basically has a definition in Section 4 for private streets. Was that written by the initiator of the 12 Initiative or was it written by the Council? Who wrote this definition of 30? 13 14 Mr. Larkin: It was written by the City Council back in the 1960s. The Initiative added a 15 sentence at the end but the bulk of that definition was the existing definition, which had never 16 been an issue before because we didn't have any specific minimum standards for private streets. 1 7 Nobody has looked at that definition in a long time. 18 19 Commissioner Keller: So that means because it was not enacted by initiative it can be amended 20 by the action of the Commission and the Council? 21 22 Mr. Larkin: Yes. 23 24 Commissioner Keller: Except for the last sentence. 25 26 Mr. Larkin: The last sentence is set in stone but the rest of it can be amended. 27 28 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I think that helps me understand exactly how everything fits 29 together. Thank you very much. 30 31 Mr. Williams: Chair Garber. 32 33 Chair Garber: Planning Director. 34 35 Mr. Williams: If I could just say. the City Attorney and I are going to have to probably have a 36 subsequent discussion but I think that if the Council finds some flaw in the Site and Design and 37 modifies the Site and Design based on the Site and Design findings then the Tentative Map is 38 going to be inconsistent with that and the Map needs to change to reflect that. The Site and 39 Design really is the first step in the process. The Map will be on the same agenda but the 40 fundamental decisions in this are what we presented to you when you saw the Site and Design. 41 You are not seeing anything here tonight really that you hadn't seen in the Site and Design part. 42 You are seeing an ownership pattern but as far as the layout of the project, the number of units, 43 and that kind of thing some of the design features have changed, but fundamentally if there were 44 problems that is really where you see the whole bigger picture of the project, and it is the same 45 thing for the Council. They will get to have that review and based on Site and Design findings if 46 they determine that it needs to change then the Map does too. The applicant just came up here Page 18 1 and basically said the same thing to me, which is what I was going to say to you. I think they 2 acknowledge that that is sort of the sequence of events and that the Map would have to be 3 modified if the Site and Design layout is modified. 4 5 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I just suggest that that kind of information would be very 6 useful to put into the CMR for the Council to consider so that they understand the full range of 7 the options they can choose. I would assume it is unlikely that they will not accept the Site and 8 Design as recommended by the Commission and based on the ARB's additional work. It is 9 helpful for them to understand what their power is and what options that they have clearly. 10 Thank you. 11 12 Mr. Williams: If I could also add,just to get back to a half hour or 45 minutes ago, whatever it 13 was that Commissioner Keller asked the question about what the Commission's action had been 14 on the Site and Design relative to the sidewalk along Monroe. The Commission's action, motion 15 by Commissioner Tuma and second by Commissioner Lippert, was to approve the Site and 16 Design with two conditions, one being to merge the four lots into one and the second being to 17 have a TDM program. There were a number of comments made which were passed onto ARB 18 as comments but they were not conditions of the approvaL 19 20 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Is there a TDM program and can you tell us what it is? 21 22 Mr. Williams: I don't know. It is not relevant to the Subdivision but we will require one as it 23 goes forward. 24 25 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. 26 27 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman. 28 29 Commissioner Holman: First off let me apologize for my being detained and arriving late. I 30 apologize for "that. 31 32 A couple of business items to begin with. I absolutely appreciate Commissioner Martinez's 33 questions prior to the meeting. As Staff will know and other Commissioners know I am most 34 interested in findings and I very much appreciate your questions and also appreciate Staffs 35 providing those responses to us prior to the meeting. 36 37 Also want to note that I also concur with Commissioner Martinez's comments about mixed use 38 and the definition of that, and how we might apply that more typically. 39 40 One other comment is a little housekeeping, Attachments Al and B as to the authorship? If 41 somebody has already inquired about this then ... okay, fine. 42 43 Then to the other questions. The easen1ent, which is identified on the Tentative Map and also on 44 page 6 of the Staff Report, I did not find reference to that condition in the Conditions of 45 ApprovaL Can Staff point us to that? On page 6 of the Staff Report it is referenced in the next Page 19 1 to last paragraph. In the middle of that paragraph it says a condition of approval for the 2 development project is contingent upon the public path easement being dedicated to the City. 3 4 Mr. Larkin: It is not a condition of approval. It is not something that we can condition approval 5 on, but it is something that the developer has offered and it is included on the map. 6 7 Commissioner Holman: Could you please explain why it can't be a condition of approval? 8 9 Mr. Larkin: In order for us, in fact the case on this issue before the Supreme Court was about a 10 path and requiring a path. There is no nexus to the project for us to require a path to be built or a 11 bike path or any sort of path to be built on the property. However, the developer has granted it 12 and it actually saves them from having to get a Variance so it is to their advantage but it can't be 13 a condition of approval. 14 15 Commissioner Holman: One last question about this. So even if the applicant agrees the City 16 still can't make it as a condition of approval? 17 18 Mr. Larkin: They can offer to dedicate and we can accept that offer to dedicate but we can't 19 condition their approval on their dedication. 20 21 Mr. Williams: If I could add to that. There is though an issue associated with the daylight plane 22 I think it is over the homes up against the path, two or three of the homes over there that would 23 require a Variance. If the dedication is not made and that does not become a public easement 24 then they would need to come back through for a Variance and the applicants are aware of that. 25 26 Commissioner Holman: A couple of questions having to do with tree preservation. There is 27 reference on page 3 of the Staff Report about the number of trees that are defined as protected 28 ordinance size trees, 16 of them. Then it says which ones they include. Then it goes into some 29 other description of what will be happening. Then later in that same paragraph it says there are 30 23 publicly owned street trees, the project includes removal of 14 of the publicly owned street 31 trees. So since one of the findings has to do with the environment and one of the findings was 32 about tree protections what happens with all of those 16 protected trees? 33 34 Ms. French: Well, looking on the approval conditions there are several conditions regarding 35 trees. 36 37 Commissioner Holman: If I might save you some time and maybe all of us. I read those and do 38 understand the conditions but I didn't see what was going to happen with the number of 39 protected trees. 40 41 Ms. French: Well, I believe this was addressed with the environmental document and the Site 42 and Design Review back when. So I don't have the answer at hand but that was addressed as 43 part of that development review. 44 45 Commissioner Holman: Right, but one of our findings is environmental and in response to the 46 necessary findings tree preservation was decided as one of the findings. Page 20 1 2 Mr. Williams: But it is not the subdivision that is creating that issue. You already made that 3 finding with the Site and Design approval and that hasn't changed. So I don't know that we have 4 -Jason is ill tonight and he knows the proj ect in more detail. Maybe the applicants can respond 5 specifically but I am just saying that was analyzed and as part of the Site and Design Review the 6 findings were made relative to both the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Site and Design 7 findings which would have included and addressed more specifically than subdivision findings 8 do the tree impacts. I apologize we are not and I don't know if the applicant's can address that 9 specifically. 10 11 Mr. Chao: More of a summary, with all of the protected trees one was proposed to be relocated 12 that is tree 42, and that goes to the comer of the bike path by Cesano Court. There are two other 13 trees that were proposed to be removed. One is at the entrance to the bike path, that is tree 24, 14 and the second one is tree 17 at the entrance to Ryan Lane. So it was determined on two site 15 visits with our arborist and the City Arborist that Tree 17 was disfigured and was not growing 16 too well because of the telephone poles overhead. So that was a good location for the street and 17 also an appropriate tree to be removed. 18 19 We also looked at Tree 24 and tried to determine if the bike path could wind between the 20 existing trees. It was determined that you actually would be damaging more than just one tree .. 21 You would be affecting the roots of Trees 23 and 25. 22 23 Commissioner Holman: So essentially there are three protected trees that will be removed? 24 25 Mr. Chao: Two, there are two. Two removed and one relocated. 26 27 Commissioner Holman: Okay, thank you for that. 28 29 Mr. Chao: Erin also reminded me that in consultation with the City Arborist Tree 17, which was 30 scheduled to be removed, we are replacing that with a feature tree at the corner of Monroe and El 31 Camino. It is actually a new tree. 32 33 Commissioner Holman:' Okay, thank you for the clarification. Then one other clarification 34 having to do with the Map. Is it just understood that, because it is not explicitly stated, that this 35 Map merges lots as well as, in other words it eliminates lot lines as well as creates the 36 condominium lots? 37 38 Ms. French: Yes. 39 40 Commissioner Holman: Appreciate the brevity. I think that's all. 41 42 Chair Garber: Would the applicant like three minutes to respond to any of the comments that 43 have been made? I will close the public meeting before you start. 44 45 Mr. Chao: Thank you very much. I appreciate all the comments and the dialogue tonight. As 46 we started this project the bowling center has been in existence since I believe 1955. When we Page 21 1 took ownership, and we continue to do so in fact I just met with them again yesterday, we have a 2 couple of other sites that maybe are not in the City of Palo Alto but have been talking with him 3 about relocating. Weare also talking about extending the lease of the bowling center. So the 4 bowling center is not closed yet. I know there have been articles in the paper that have said that 5 the bowling center is closing but it is not closed yet. There are still people bowling there. They 6 still have leagues. Unfortunately the age of the building has put it in a position where it is very 7 expensive to retro. 8 9 Also, another comment was on the BMR Agreement that Commissioner Martinez brought up 10 and also Commissioner Lippert discussed. We have already actually signed our BMR 11 Agreement with the City of Palo Alto and there are going to be four BMRs as part of our project. 12 So we did go through the calculations of the 3.9 and the .1 and didn't make any sense. It actually 13 does help the project to have four BMRs as opposed to three and paying the in lieu fee. 14 15 With that, like I said I appreciate the dialogue and we look forward to a successful project 16 moving forward. Thank you again for your support here. Thank you. 17 18 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Lippert, a motion. 19 20 MOTION 21 22 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. I make a motion that the Planning and Transportation Commission 23 recommend to the City Council approval of the Record of Land Use Action, Attachment A, and 24 proposed Tentative Map to create 26 residential units and one hotel unit on the site at 4301-4329 25 EI Camino Real. 26 27 SECOND 28 29 Commissioner Keller: Second. 30 31 Chair Garber: So moved by Commissioner Lippert and seconded by Commissioner Keller. 32 Would the maker like to speak to their motion? 33 34 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. Thank you very much for attending this evening. I appreciate 35 members of the public that came out as well as the applicant's presentation. 36 37 I would like to begin by talking about the rezoning that happened on this property many, many 38 years ago. Originally this was slated as a residential site by the City. The City Council had the 39 forethought to have us look at a variety of sites around Palo Alto and that this residential site was 40 not appropriate as a residential site. So we rezoned it appropriately for it to be a commercial site, 41 and as such looked at it in terms of the redevelopment of this site as being a viable commercial 42 site along EI Camino Real, which is what it should be. 43 44 The proposal that came forward to us with the hotel is a very appropriate proposal. I am going to 45 get into the Tentative Map but I want to talk about the proposal for just one more second here. I 46 believe this project addresses many of the flaws of the Hyatt Rickey's and the Arbor Real sites. Page 22 1 That is done through how the site is carved up. First of all, Hyatt Rickey's when we furnbled the 2 ball, shall I say, we lost a very important hotel site in this city. Today in my Rotary Club we just 3 looked at a presentation by Bohannon Development and they are building a renaissance hotel in 4 Menlo Park right off of Marsh Road on the bay side. By us not having another hotel site like this 5 we are losing number one, people staying in Palo Alto being able to come here to work. Number 6 two, we are losing a very valuable resource in terms of the transit occupancy tax. So this site 7 begins to address that. 8 9 The second thing that this site begins to address is the pedestrian connection. 'Again, when it 10 came to Wilkie Way and the pedestrian connection through the Elk's site and again through 11 Hyatt Rickey's again we dropped the balL We have these little fingers that go through the site 12 and there is no connection for pedestrians. 13 14 The third thing is that it also addresses the issue of the resident parking. Again, when we put in 15 those garages at Arbor Real and they were used for storage as opposed to people parking their 16 cars again the City had fumbled and dropped the ball. People were actually parking out on 17 Wilkie Way as opposed to on the Arbor Real site. Again, in this plan or what is being proposed 18 here is that the residents will have to keep their garages clear and use them for only one purpose, 19 which is the parking. 20 21 Then the last thing I want to say with regard to again addressing the flaws at the Hyatt Rickey's 22 site is the density. Arbor Real leans up against El Camino ReaL Time and time again members 23 of the City Council and public have complained about how this high-density housing leans on 24 Camino Real, how it leans on Charleston. Well, with a hotel with this height and this density it 25 is very appropriate to have it up close to El Camino Real. So I think with regard to what is being 26 planned here on this site this is very appropriate, and then having the residences on the backside 27 of it as a buffer to the single-family residences works out perfectly fine. 28 29 I want to address for a second Commissioner Martinez's comment regarding mixed use and 30 urging that mixed use projects, and I paraphrase your wording here, be more integrated if I 31 understand and less disjointed. The plan that was proposed here we looked at very closely in 32 terms of its intergradation and not being disj ointed, but in fact that is the success of this plan, is 33 that we have a density up near El Camino Real with the most intense use closest to El Camino 34 Real, the higher density. Then with the multifamily housing buffering it towards the single 35 family that already exists. Then what adds another level of comfort are the little pieces of 36 salvage property against the easement, which again creates another little buffering for those 37 single-family residences. So I appreciate what Commissioner Martinez said earlier and in this 38 case I think that the success of the plan that we have here in terms of a mixed use plan is in fact 39 that there are two distinct physical characteristics on this one site. 40 41 Then just in closing, I just want to make one other quick comment. I saw something very 42 interesting with regard,to tree protection. It is something that I think perhaps the City Arborist 43 might want to take a look at along with the applicant and consider. Now there are, I don't know 44 how to describe them except, it is tubular straw bale. They use it for stopping runoff on sites 45 especially erosion. I have seen these straw bales used and wrapped around tree trunks. This is 46 particularly significant when you have very little room to work in. I know the fences work really Page 23 1 great but it is really tough when you have to get in there and do some work close to a tree. So 2 perhaps it might be worthwhile taking a look at this idea of taking straw bale, this tubular straw 3 bale, and wrapping it around the tree. It is easy to remove. It is easy to work with. It allows for 4 a lot of flexibility. That is something that perhaps the City might want to experiment with a little 5 bit. I know that Council Member Elect Holman is very concerned about the preservation of and 6 survivability of these trees. 7 8 Chair Garber: The second, would you like to speak to your second? 9 10 Commissioner Keller: Yes. First I would like to ask the maker of the motion if the maker 11 incorporates into his motion making the seven findings that are in the pages 2 and 3 of the Staff 12 Report. 13 14 Commissioner Lippert: It is a negative. It is not making those findings, correct? 15 16 Commissioner Keller: In other words, the motion includes affirming the Staff s statement of 17 findings. Let me put it that way. 18 19 Commissioner Lippert: That will be fine. 20 21 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. However, I would like to make two slight corrections to 22 those findings. One is on item number 4, it says, the subdivision will be consistent with the site 23 development regulations of the RM-30 zone. This isn't in the RM-30 zone it is in the CS, RM- 24 15, and R -1 zones, and therefore that language needs to be corrected. I am not sure what the 25 calculated allowable density of 56 units comes out to be but I am assuming that you will correct 26 that to what it really should be. So that is the first correction and I am assuming that the maker 27 will agree with the appropriate correction there. 28 29 Commissioner Lippert: That is non-substantive. I will accept it. 30 31 Commissioner Keller: The second correction is a very minor one. I just want it to be clarified 32 with respect to number 5, considering Commissioner Holman's question about the 16 protected 33 trees. A specific statement should be indicated about the disposition of those 16 trees as per the 34 answer to Commissioner Holman's question. That should be made explicit in the response to 35 number 5 in terms of the finding issue for number 5. I think that would make it a lot clearer. 36 37 Commissioner Lippert: I will accept that. 38 39 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So with that housekeeping out the way I think I am going to 40 add a little bit more information to the history that the maker, Commissioner Lippert had with 41 respect to this site. 42 43 In particular when we did the rezoning from residential to Service Commercial (CS) zoning we 44 actually looked at the fact that the parcel was partly RM-30 and partly RM-15. This 45 Commission previously only rezoned the RM-30 to CS and decided to retain the RM-15 as RM- 46 15 and not rezone the whole thing as CS. We did that precisely because we wanted a buffer in Page 24 1 the back. So in some sense while I am very sympathetic with the comments of Commissioner 2 Martinez about mixed use in particular with respect to this particular development we felt that it 3 was appropriate to have residential to the rear to provide an appropriate buffer between an 4 intense CS zoning and the R-I that occurs to the rear of the property. So that is an important 5 measure here. 6 7 In addition, I believe if I remember correctly I believe the Motel 6 was already CS zoning and 8 then only the Palo Alto Bowl was RM-30 and RM-15, but I may not be correct about that. So I 9 think in some sense this entire collection of parcels is actually a combination of zoning and we 10 did modify some of that with the expectation that there would be some sort of transition to the 11 back. . 12 13 I do feel bad, as I mentioned earlier, about the loss of the Palo Alto Bowl. I think that there are 14 certainly people in the community who feel that we are losing a number of amenities of the 15 community such as the Palo Alto Bowl and other things that we have lost in the past. We have 16 to be sensitive to the legal property rights of the owners of the property and their rights to 17 develop this. I do think that we also have to be sensitive to the fact that this particular 18 neighborhood is the only neighborhood in Palo Alto that isn't in the Palo Alto Unified School 19 District. As a result of that this neighborhood tends to get somewhat neglected. It is on the other 20 side of the creek from the rest of Palo Alto in this area. It doesn't have as much care in things 21 like safe routes to schools and things like that. So I am cognizant of the issues that are in the 22 adjacent neighborhood. I do think it makes sense to think about the issues that are relevant to 23 this neighborhood such as expediting the final design, budgeting implementation of traffic 24 calming. It is worthwhile that this bike path that occurs in the back of the property is in fact part 25 of or in some sense helping with the safe routes to schools by allowing students to bike from 26 Monroe Drive to Cesano Court and then go across on Los Altos Avenue in order to be able to 27 avoid going along El Camino. I think that is an improvement for safe routes to schools. I think 28 that I appreciate the developer in terms of providing tnat bike path and finalizing that. 29 30 Want the building permit process to understand the phasing of this and which parts of the area 31 will be closed during that process. The consideration of sidewalks and I understand that the 32 neighborhood is concerned about improving the architecture hotel frontage that I assume that is 33 on El Camino. I guess that was addressed by the ARB. I am not sure how much further that will 34 be addressed. I think that on the whole this is a good project. I notice that Commissioner 35 Lippert has pointed out the zoning for the 4329 parcel is CS/RM-30 but I do not believe that is 36 correct. I believe it is CS/RM-15. So when this Map goes before the Council I would suggest 37 that that be corrected. I appreciate that for at least a little bit of time until the development 38 happens that people will be able to continue to take advantage of the Palo Alto Bowl. Thank 39 you. 40 41 Chair Garber: Commissioners, comments. I will go first. I will be supporting the motion. I am 42 in alignment with both of the comnlents made by the maker as well as the seconder. 43 44 One piece of cleanup. I nodded my head as Commissioner Holman was asking if we had 45 clarified that Attachments Al and B had been recognized as to who their authors were. I had 46 included those as notes to the Commissioners in my process and procedures memo but it had not Page 25 1 been made explicit in the proceedings this evening. So just to be clear, Attachment Al was 2 created by Staff and Attachment B was created by the applicant. 3 4 Other Commissioners? Commissioner Holman. 5 6 Commissioner Holman: It turns out I have a couple of questions, actually a clarification. Tree 7 number 17 is going to be removed and which other protected tree is going to be removed? 8 9 Mr. Chao: Tree 24. 10 11 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. So, Staff can correct me or clarify for me if this is accurate 12 or not. So trees that are removed is a security deposit required for those? Here is why I am 13 asking the question. I don't mean to keep you in the dark there. Just above Planning Arborist 14 since we are kind of approving this package here as conditions of approval and such too, just 15 above condition 12 it says the following recommended conditions will also apply to the above 16 three oak trees, 17,42, and 55 to be retained. But 17 is not being retained. Then below that it 17 talks about the security deposits. 18 19 Ms. French: I can see that condition 9 says that Tree 17 says Staff determined the tree would not 20 survive the efforts because of poor structure and condition. Therefore the tree shall be mitigated 21 with a new oak, 84-96 inch box size and location subject to approval by City Staff. It is 22 acknowledging that Tree 17 is being removed. 23 24 Commissioner Holman: I understand but if you look on the next page it indicates that number 1 7 25 is to be retained. On the next just above the number 12, the following recommended conditions, 26 and then it says 17,42, and 55, and as I read it it says that those three trees will be retained. 27 28 Ms. French: Okay, well clearly we will have to strike that and go through and do a fix it before 29 we get in the final Record of Land Use Action. We will talk to Dave Dockter. 30 31 Commissioner Holman: Okay. So my question goes to this and it may involve or may not 32 involve a friendly amendment to the maker and seconder of the motion. Under security deposits 33 I guess comfort level would be best to at this meeting list the numbers of the protected trees to be 34 covered by the security deposit just for clarity. So we can read off those numbers. Then a 35 question for Staffis security deposit duration. I wasn't supportive of this project for Site and 36 Design. Some of those issues have been addressed and thank you for the description of those 37 improvements as the project has gone through the ARB. I appreciate that. The one that is still 38 and I know ARB had issues with this too has to do with Tree 42. If you look again under 39 Planning Arborist it says that according to the shading study requested by Staff approximately 25 40 percent of the leaf area will be permanently impacted by year-round new building shade. An 41 additional leaf area shaded by shorter periods of solar access all critical to the tree's survival, and 42 then it goes on from there. So where I am going with this is is there a maximum length of time 43 that a security deposit can be held by the City? This tree has almost a four-foot diameter. If this 44 tree is going to die it is not necessarily going to do it in two years. I am not an arborist but I 45 know a little bit. I just can't imagine that a true impact on a tree of this size is going to be known 46 in two years. Page 26 1 2 Mr. Larkin: Two answers to that. The first is I think for Subdivision Improvement Agreements 3 we talk about two years from the start of construction but that is for trees that would be in a 4 different condition. That is not really a condition that -the Record of Land Use Action is what 5 is going to Council and it reflects the conditions for the Map and for Site and Design and for the 6 whole project. What is before the Commission tonight is not the Site and Design and these are 7 Site and Design conditions. So the questions are valid but I am not sure, I think you mentioned 8 nlaking amendments and putting them out in the findings and that is probably not appropriate to 9 do as part of the motion tonight. I think the questions are legitimate. 10 11 Chair Garber: However, your point is noted. For the benefit of Commissioner Holman we had 12 asked the question early on how we condition this and Don had given us some instruction. 13 Commissioner Fineberg also points out in itenl 12-c there is security deposit duration which shall 14 be a period of two years or five years if it is determined by the Director. So there is some 15 latitude being given there. 16 17 Commissioner Holman: I did note that but it is not a given. So City Attorney, is there 18 something we can do to forward our intentions to the City Council, should the other 19 Commissioners agree, about these comments? 20 21 Mr. Larkin: The opportunity to do that was with the Site and Design stage. These are really not 22 Tentative Map findings. 23 24 Mr. Williams: My suggestion would be that we just take this back to Dave Dockter and have 25 him review this and be specific in this condition about what should be two years and what should 26 be five years. I think that is what we are all going to rely on is Dave's professional judgment on 27 that. 28 29 Commissioner Holman: Okay. 30 31 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg, you had some comments? 32 33 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to go back to the discussion because it is going to affect 34 my ability to make findings on the easement in the back. If I understood it correctly the 35 easement is on a separate parcel not governed by the subdivision, and it is not something that can 36 be conditioned or required since there is no nexus. So if we are making the findings based on the 37 existing parcel do we need to exclude consideration of the easement then? I guess I am just 38 perplexed that what if it turns out that easement isn't perfected and the bicycle connections are 39 not in the back? Ifwe can't require it then how do we know the assumptions we are making are 40 going to happen? 41 42 Mr. Larkin: Well, the easement is on the map. It actually is part of ...... there are two answers 43 then. A portion of the easement is on the subject property and that can easily be dedicated. The 44 rest is what we would call offsite improvements that would be a condition of approval for the 45 Final Map. They have agreed to perform those offsite improvements. If they don't, once the 46 Tentative Map is approved then we enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement as I Page 27 1 described before with the applicant. The applicant would submit their proposal for completing 2 those improvements. If the improvements are not completed by the applicant they are required 3 to bond and the City would go ahead and complete those improvements. The easement would 4 have to be perfected and there would have to be some agreement as to how the improvements 5 would be made before Final Map approval could be obtained. 6 7 Commissioner Fineberg: So in the consideration today of making the findings can I consider 8 improvements that are maybe they will happen/maybe they won't happen on another parcel? 9 10 Mr. Larkin: Yes. Your findings are being made onthe condition that the Final Map looks 11 exactly like this Map in terms of what improvements are there. So yes, the assumption is that 12 that easement will be there, that the improvements will be made. If they are not able to make the 13 improvements or the easement isn't there then they won't get their FinaJ Map, they won't be able 14 to Record their Final Map. Their Final Map has to show these easements because approval of 15 the Final Map is conditioned on it showing what was approved on the Tentative Map. 16 17 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. That allows me to make some of the required findings. That 18 said, why can I consider offsite improvements to make findings but we can't condition or require 19 those same off site improvements? 20 21 Mr. Larkin: We can't condition it because there is no nexus to require a bike path. We don't 22 have any justification because of these additional housing units or this hotel is going to require a 23 bicycle access from Monroe Street across the back of the property. That nexus finding can't be 24 made so you can't condition approval. You certainly can condition, and again you are making 25 these findings in the negative. So you are finding that it doesn't violate or you can't find that it 26 violates the Comprehensive Plan. I don't know that the bike path would be a make or break in 27 terms of the Comprehensive Plan consistency but you consider the Map that is before you and 28 determine whether or not you can make the finding that it violates the Comprehensive Plan, or 29 violates the zoning, or is causing environmental detriment, or any of those findings. 30 31 Commissioner Fineberg: I had one more. The last issue I am still dealing with in the findings, 32 on the fourth finding of this project not being growth inducing, I am having trouble with whether 33 to word it in the negative or the double-negative or the positive, but in just people-speak I find it 34 difficult to say that this project is not growth inducing based on our Comprehensive Plan and the 35 EIR analysis that was incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, and adopted by our Council in 36 1998. That Comprehensive Plan EIR analysis said anything over about 2,450 houses would 37 cause significant negative impact and it said anything over that was growth inducing. I 38 understand we are not tiering our environmental analysis but the Comprehensive Plan itself and 39 the analysis that supported the Comprehensive Plan said don't build houses over that amount and 40 we are. If we are doing this based on what was incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and 41 adopted by Council and we have exceeded that baseline of housing then these additional housing 42 units would indeed be growth inducing. That would be for things like traffic, for schools, which 43 we are not considering tonight, and are not germane to the Map. So I can't find that finding that' 44 it is not growth inducing. 45 Page 28 1 Mr. Williams: It is obviously up to the maker of the motion but I was going to say I am not 2 really sure why we have growth inducing in there. That is not the point of that finding. It is 3 whether the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development not whether it is 4 growth inducing. So I don't think we would have any problem with just taking out those two 5 sentences. 6 7 Commissioner Lippert: Would you like to make a friendly amendment? 8 9 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to make a friendly amendment that to strike from the 10 findings number 4, the two sentences to strike the following. The proposed density of the 11 development is not considered growth inducing with respect to service and utility infrastructure 12 or with respect to access. The project will also have a less than significant impact on traffic 13 demand. 14 15 Chair Garber: Maker? 16 17 Commissioner Lippert: I have no problem accepting that language. 18 19 Chair Garber: Seconder? 20 21 Commissioner Keller: That's fine. 22 23 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg, anything else? 24 25 Commissioner Fineberg: That's it. 26 27 Chair Garber: Staff could you confirm I had gotten a question from Commissioner Holman but 28 let me start it off and if necessary she can finish it. If these various approvals that we have been 29 speaking about specifically regarding Tree number 42, were these part of the initial Site and 30 Design Review when it was initially heard by the Commission or are these new or in addition to 31 the conditions of approval? 32 33 Ms. French: I am going to ask the applicant to respond as the Project Planner is nothere tonight 34 to have those details. 35 36 Mr. Chao: Yes, the trees considered to be removed were in the initial Site and Design Review. 37 So Tree 17 and Tree 24 were always proposed to be removed. 38 39 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman. 40 41 Commissioner Holman: My question isn't which trees were proposed to be removed then and 42 which ones now. It is were these conditions of approval before the Commission? I am not 43 remembering for sure because we are saying that the time to address it was then but if they 44 weren't before us how could we have addressed thenl? We couldn't have addressed them in toto 45 because some of the information that is in here was not known at that time. So that is why I am 46 asking what really is our purview and what isn't. Page 29 1 2 Mr. Williams: There were conditions of approval before you and Dave's conditions are always 3 done in the first go around. We can go back and go upstairs and find those but I am sure that 4 those conditions, Dave's conditions. Now I agree there are some other things that have 5 transpired since then. These are pretty standard language conditions from Dave and we need to 6 have him go back and look and make sure like that 17 isn't reflected as being retained and that 7 kind of thing. We would have had these conditions before you as part of the Site and Design. 8 9 Commissioner Holman: My concern is all of the protected trees but my particular concern is 10 about Tree 55. I thought that that shade study had been done at the ARB post this meeting. 11 12 Mr. Williams: Right, that large one that is true there were changes on that. 13 14 Commissioner Holman: So we wouldn't have known the impacts on that tree specifically when 15 this was before us for Site and Design. 16 17 Mr. Williams: Right. 18 19 Ms. French: There were modifications during the Architectural Review process of those three 20 meetings. The applicant can speak to this too. Where the building was physically brought back 21 to provide more sunlight and address some of that mitigation. So the project itself, the design of 22 the building itself improved the life expectancy of that tree. I don't know if there is a comment 23 that the applicant wants to nlake to that or if you want to hear from them. 24 25 Commissioner Holman: I watched part of that meeting and do appreciate that and understand 26 that. My point was not to try to belabor this, but my point was that we didn't know because we 27 didn't have a sun shadow study of that tree when it came to us. We didn't know the impacts that 28 were identified at the ARB so we didn't know exactly what these conditions of approval should 29 have been because we didn't have full information. So if that makes any sense. 30 31 The reason I bring it up is because this Commission has struggled before sometimes with divided 32 or sequential review and sequential non-review. So that is why I bring up this issue, not to 33 belabor the item. 34 35 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, you had a comment and then let's get to a vote. 36 37 Commissioner Keller: So quickly is there a Development Agreement regarding the hotel for 38 greater than 30-day occupancy for hotel use? 39 40 Mr. Williams: No there isn't. 41 42 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I think that in some sense if the Negative Declaration had 43 been a Mitigated Negative Declaration with increased traffic then one of the traffic mitigations 44 could have been the issue of the bike path could have been a proposed mitigation, in which case 45 it would have been conditioned on that. That is just a hypothetical to throw that in the mix. 46 Page 30 1 It would be helpful when things like this come before us a number of times, I don't think we 2 want to waste a lot of paper to give us copies of the previous reports and things like that but it . 3 would be helpful if the Staff would bring a copy of all of the Staff Reports and CMRs or 4 whatever is appropriate to the developnlent and also a copy of the minutes in case questions like 5 this arise they can be addressed. That would just be helpful as a standard practice in general. 6 7 Ms. French: Thank you. It is a standard practice. My Planner is not here tonight and I 8 apologize for missing it. 9 10 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. 11 12 MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Tuma absent) 13 14 Chair Garber: Commissioners, let's vote on the motion as stated. All those in favor say aye. 15 (ayes) All those opposed? The motion passes unanimously with Commissioners Holman, 16 Martinez, Fineberg, Garber, Keller, and Lippert voting yea and Commissioner Tuma absent. 17 18 \ We will take a five-minute break and then we will start with item number two. Thank you all. 19 Page 31 Agenda Date: To: From: Department: Subject: ATTACHMENT G Architectural Review Board StaffRe ort November 5, 2009 Architectural Review Board Jason Nortz, Planner Planning and Community Environment 4301 and 4329 EI Camino Real [08PLN-00313]: Request for Site and Design Review for the demolition of 64,263 square feet of existing comnlercial development floor area and construction of 179,594 square feet of new floor area including one 4-story, 167 unit hotel and 26 three-story detached and duplex-type condominium units on a 3.62 acre site located at 4301 and 4329 EI Camino Real. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The site is zoned R-l, RM-15 and CS. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the application for Site and Design Review, based on the findings and draft conditions of approval in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A), with any conditions relating to design modifications. BACKGROUND Architectural Review Board Review The proposed new mixed use project was reviewed by the ARB on August 6,2009 and October 1, 2009, and received extensive comments summarized in Attachment B2 and as captured on video, available on the City's website. Both the August 6, 2009 and October 1, 2009 staff reports are available on the City's website. On October 1, 2009 the ARB moved to continue the project for a second time by a vote of 5 to O. In response to the ARB comments the applicant prepared revised plans specifically focusing on the landscape design and improved elevations for the hotel entry and Ryan Lane residential units. The ARB comments from the October 1, 2009 meeting addressed the following issues: • Provide more clarity on landscape plan for hotel courtyard and residential common open space area; • Improve elevations for hotel entry and residential units adjacent to Ryan Lane; • Replace wood windows with colored aluminum windows on Monroe Drive homes; • Identify material changes in plane; • Add horizontal elements along EI Camino Real elevation; • Show n1eters for residential units; • Supply material and color board. Planning and Transportation Commission Review The project was reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) on June 10,2009 to ensure compatibility with the Site and Design Review approval findings of Section lS.30(G).060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (P AMC). The PTC staff report and meeting minutes are available on the City's website. The PTC was supportive of the proposal and, by a vote of5 to 1 (Commissioner Holman opposed, Commissioner Feinberg absent), recommended the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Site and Design Review based upon the conditions of approval located in the Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). The PTC requested that the applicant provide additional information for the ARB and City Council to review. The PTC specifically expressed an interest to create a more pedestrian friendly environment along Monroe Drive by recommending relocation of the sidewalk to the inside edge of the new trees closest to the comer of Monroe Drive and EI Camino Real. The PTC also recon1mended looking at an alternative hotel entrance that fronts EI Camino Real so to achieve greater overall consistency with the South EI Camino Real Design Guidelines and the Context-Based Design Criteria of the Palo Alto Zoning Code. More detail concerning the pedestrian public path easement was also requested to ensure the public path easement provides a safe path of travel. Preliminary ARB Review The project was the subject of a preliminary Architectural Review Board (ARB) hearing on June 19, 200S. The ARB was supportive of the proposed plan but did have recommendations to improve the proposal as part of the formal application. The more specific recommendations included revising the design of the public path easement to create a more open and safe path of travel, adding design features to the backside of the hotel and increasing the privacy for the first floor hotel units along EI Camino Real. The ARB staff report for preliminary review is available on the City's website. Project Description The applicant has provided a summary of changes to the plans since the previous set, as well as changes from the original proposal, attached to this report as Attachment B3. The proposed proj ect is for a new mixed use proj ect that includes the demolition of 64,263 square feet of existing comn1ercial development floor area and construction of 179,594 square feet of new floor area including one four- story, 167-unit hotel and 26 three-story detached and duplex-type condominium units. The project also includes the creation of a public pedestrian and bicycle path easement located at the rear of the site. A complete project description is available in the August 6,2009 ARB staffreport available on the City's website. On October 20,2009 the applicant provided staff with a revised application that includes revisions to the following key areas: 4301 & 4329 El Camino Real [08PLN-00313] Page 2 • Landscape design for hotel courtyard and common open space area; • Landscape design at comer ofEl Camino Real and Monroe Drive; • Revised residential housing elevations along Ryan Lane; • Revised hotel entry elevation; • Addition of horizontal design elements along El Camino Real; • Material changes in plane to both residential development and hotel. Each key area is covered in further detail in the following Discussion section of this report. DISCUSSION A material and color board has been submitted and will be presented at the ARB meeting. Landscape Design Changes The ARB recommended that more clarity and detail be added to the landscape design for the hotel courtyard and common open space area. The hotel courtyard has been redesigned to create a more free flowing open space area around the large protected oak tree. The circular bench that surrounded the oak tree has been replaced with a wood deck walkway surrounded by colored paving. The courtyard is accentuated with raised planters consisting of a mix of a variety of plants and groundcover. The putting green has been replaced with a bocce ball court. The applicant has redesigned the common open space area to better relate to the residential development. The overall size of the common open space area has been reduced from approximately 4,000 square feet to 3,200 square feet which is still 1,000 square feet over the minimum common open space required. The eight foot concrete masonry unit (cmu) wall is still located directly adj acent to the hotel courtyard, however the shape of the wall is no longer a straight line but rather a curved wall creating a semi -circular open space area. The layout of the common open space area now includes a separate hardscape area for the barbeque pit and picnic tables and a softer, more open lawn area. The speed table that connects the residential units to the common open space area now extends the entire width of the common open space area and serves as the speed table for Ryan Lane. Another notable change along Ryan Lane is the relocation of the residential guest parking spaces. Previously, all thirteen guest parking spaces were located on the hotel side of Ryan Lane. The revised plans now show the five guest parking spaces along the residential side of Ryan Lane. The remaining eight spaces are still located along the hotel side of Ryan Lane. The primary reason for the relocation of the guest parking spaces was so that each motor court visually terminates at a landscaped area as opposed to the wall of the hotel. The locations of the street trees along Ryan Lane have also been relocated to better integrate with the guest parking spaces. The total number of street trees along Ryan Lane has increased from 22 to 27. In addition to the relocation of the street trees along Ryan Lane trees have been added along the residential walkways as well. ARB also recommended that more landscaping be added at the comer of El Camino Real and Monroe Drive. To punctuate the highly visible comer, increased soil volume using Silva Cell technology is proposed to support a colorful Persian Ironwood tree, approximately 84" box size in consultation with the City's planning arborist. The planter includes large granite boulders matched in both scale and color. A large scale drawing of this area is being prepared for the meeting. 4301 & 4329 E1 Camino Real [08PLN-00313] Page 3 EI Camino Real Hotel Changes As noted in the previous ARB report, the proposed project site is located within the Hotel Area, a corridor area, as defined by the South El Canlino Real Design Guidelines (Guidelines). The project proposal complies with many of the specific Guidelines for the Hotel area relative to site planning and design such as street frontage, parking lots, landscape and hardscape. The Guidelines indicate new buildings should front El Camino Real with entries fronting the street or clearly visible from the street providing recognizable and easily accessible entries for both pedestrians and vehicular arrivals. The ARB supported the hotel main entry location, located approximately 85 feet from El Camino Real. In response to ARB comments, the main entry elevation has been redesigned to better blend with the rest of the hotel. Previously the main entry elevation consisted of cement plaster finish that was a different color from the rest of the hotel. The revised entry elevation now has the same cement plaster finish as the rest of the hotel. The entry has been further detailed with the use of additional trespa wall cladding to better accentuate the hotel entry. The porte cochere canopy has been revised to include the use of stone columns, steel trellis beams and a metal roof. Both staff and the ARB recommended the applicant revise the hotel elevation along El Camino Real to create a more desirable pedestrian experience along El Camino Real. One specific recomnlendation was to explore the possibility of adding an entry along El Camino Real. The revised plans show the addition of three exterior doors along El Camino Real. The entries have been placed directly in front of the hotel meeting rooms. The meeting rooms have also been redesigned to include semi-private patio areas with planters and bench style seating. These new features will provide additional architectural interest as well as encourage some pedestrian activity in front of the hotel by hotel guests and conference participants, helping provide 'human scale' and soften the expanse of pavIng. Additional horizontal design elements have been incorporated along El Camino to provide more rhythm and pedestrian scale to this side of the hotel. The pop-out bays have been redesigned and a trellis, stone column and green screen feature has been added that helps accentuate the horizontality at El Camino Real. The design is continued around Monroe Drive to help provide architectural consistency to the overall design of the hotel. As previously mentioned the comer of the hotel at Monroe Drive and El Camino Real has additional landscaping that gives more prominence to this comer. Residential Component Changes The residential portion of the project will consist of26 three-story detached and duplex style for sale condominium units. Ten detached single family units and eight two-unit attached duplex type residences are proposed. The 26 units would range from 2,068 to 2,167 square feet in size, including garages. The ARB requested the applicant improve the elevations for all residential units that are adjacent to Ryan Lane. Unit subtype B1 and C1 have been created to address this issue. Unit B1 includes three detached units along Ryan Lane and unit C1 includes 2 attached duplex type residences, one of these fronts Ryan Lane the other unit faces Cesano Court. The unit floor plans have been revised so that the front doors are oriented towards Ryan Lane. The elevations for these units have also been revised so the unit's architectural character, window sizes/configurations and building masses create a stronger pedestrian and neighborhood connection with Ryan Lane and the residential common open space area. 4301 & 4329 El Camino Real [08PLN-00313] P~ge4 In addition to the changes made to those units the side elevations for all units have been revised to reflect more compatible window sizes and configurations as well as larger windows at the living, dining and kitchen areas. Exterior stairways have been added along the east elevation for each unit extending from the second floor front yard balcony to the ground. All second floor front yard balconies have also been increased in size to extend almost the entire width of the second floor. Colored aluminunl framed windows have replaced all wood framed windows. The ARB requested that the applicant provide material in plane changes to better accentuate material changes and provide better definition. Pop-outs are added at the building floor plate to emphasize material change breaks. Brick and stone cladding is located on the first and second floors and horizontal siding and cement plaster is located on the third floor pop-outs. Where in plane conditions do occur, a material transition has been provided. The site plan has slightly changed, specifically along Monroe Drive. Previously the site plan showed the three units along Monroe Drive to include units B, D and A (from east to west). The revised site plan now identifies the configuration to be units A, C, and A (from east to west). The residential transformers have been relocated away from the residential units. They are now situated adjacent to the hotel on the north side of the comnl011 open space area and also next to the hotel transformer. Each transformer is housed within a plaster faced cmu enclosure. The enclosure will be further screened by landscaping. Public Path Easement Changes The project includes the creation of a public pedestrian and bicycle path easement located at the rear of the site. Both the ARB and numerous neighbors to the property requested the applicant revise the path lighting to be similar to the lighting provided on the Wilkie Bridge. The applicant has removed the lower post style lights and replaced them with taller green pole mounted lighting. The wood fence at the end of the path along Cesano Court has also been reduced from eight feet to six feet. Further detail is shown on the light cut sheets provided as Attachment C3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the CEQA requirements. The public comment period for this document closed on June 17,2009. To date, no comments have been received on the Draft Negative Declaration. The project would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or historic resources. The uses are appropriate for the site and the development would not result in an adverse visual impact. There is nothing in the nature of the proposed development and property improvements that would have a substantial adverse effect on human beings, or other life or environmental impacts once mitigation is implemented to reduce potential impacts to the users of the new mixed use project in the area of biological resources, noise, seismicity and air quality. TIMELINE Action: Application Submitted: Application Complete: P&TC Hearing 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real [08PLN-00313] Date: 1016/2008 5128/2009 611012009 Page 5 First ARB Hearing: 8/6/2009 10/1/2009 10/20/2009 11/5/2009 Second ARB Hearing Revised Plans Submitted: Third ARB Hearing: ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment AI: Attachment B: Attachment B 1 : Attachment B2: Attachment C: Attachment C 1 : Attachment C2: Attachment C3: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Attachment H: Attachment I: Draft Record of Land Use Action ARB Findings Location Map ARB member comments from 10/1/09 ARB meeting Re-submittal Summary Sheet dated 10/20/2009* Proj ect Description Letter dated 6/03/09* Supplement to Project Description Letter dated 4/09/09* Supplemental Shade Study dated 9/4/09 Light Fixture Cut Sheets dated 10/20/09 LEED Checklist* Green Point Rated Verification Checklist* Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Zoning Compliance Table updated 9/23/09 Comprehensive Plan Table Project Plans dated 1 0/20/09 (ARB members only)* The October 1, 2009 ARB staff report and video of meeting are available for viewing on the City's website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/planning.asp and http://www.communitymediacenter.netlwatch/pacc _ webcastlpacc _ ondemand2.html respectively * Submitted by applicant COURTESY COPIES: Aaron Barger, Barry Swenson Builder, Applicant Ryan Leong, Palo Alto Bowl, LLC., Property Owner Jonathan Chao, Steinberg Architects, Designer/Architect Linnea Wickstrom, Monroe Park Neighborhood Association, President Anne Harrington, Cessano Court Resident Alex Lantsberg, Northern California Carpenters Regional Council PREPARED BY: Jason Nortz, Planner REVIEWED BY: Amy French, Manager of Current Planning 4301 & 4329 E1 Camino Real [08PLN-00313] Page 6 ATTACHMENT H ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Site and Design Review for the demolition of 64,263 square feet of existing commercial development floor area and construction of 179,594 square feet of new floor area including one 4-story, 167 unit hotel and 26 three-story detached and duplex-type condominiums and a public path easement for pedestrian and bicycle use on a 3.70 acre site located at 4301 and 4329 EI Camino Real. Zone District: RM-1 and R-1. 1. PROJECT TITLE 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real Palo Alto, California 94306 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 Jason Nortz Planner, City of Palo Alto 650-617-3137 4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS Aaron Barger 777 North First St., 5th Floor San Jose, CA 95112 5. APPLICATION NUMBER 08-PLN-00313 6. PROJECT LOCATION 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real Palo Alto Parcel Numbers: 148-09-012, 148-09-013, 148-09-016, 148-05-030 The project site is located in the southern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and east of Interstate 280. The project site is ,II. 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration bounded by State Route 82 (EI Camino Real) to the west, Monroe Drive to the north and Cessano Court to the south. 7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The General Plan designations for this site are Service Commercial and Single Family Residential, per the Palo Alto 1998 -2010 Comprehensive Plan. The majority of this site, approximately 970/0, is Service Commercial with the remaining 3% being designated as Single Family Residential. The Service Commercial land use designation allows for facilities providing citywide and regional services and relies on customers arriving by car. Typical uses encouraged in this district include auto services and dealerships, motels, appliance stores and restaurants. Within some locations, residential and mixed use projects may be appropriate in this land use category .. The proposed n1ixed use developn1ent within this section of the City is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal to provide citywide and regional services. 8. ZONING The project site consists of four parcels under the addresses of 4301 and 4329 EI Camino ReaL The 4301 EI Camino Real site (parcel # 148-09-013) is zoned CS (Service Commercial) and is regulated by the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.16. Parcel # 148-09-016 located directly behind 4301 EI Camino Real to the north is also zoned CS. Parcel # 148-05-030 located at the rear of the project site adjacent to parcel # 148-09-016 is zoned R-1(8000) (Single Family Residential) and is regulated by PAMC Chapter 18.12. 4329 EI Camino Real (parcel # 148-09- 012) is zoned CS and RM-15 (Low Density Multi-Family) and is regulated by PAMC Chapter 18.13 and Chapter 18.16. The project site is being developed as a mixed use development as is therefore subject to the development regulations established for mixed uses as required by PAMC Chapter 18.16. The specific regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and procedures established by other relevant chapters of the Zoning Code shall apply to these zone districts. Mixed use development is a permitted use in the service commercial (CS) district. 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project at 4301 and 4329 EI Camino Real is for Site and Design Review for the demolition of 64,263 square feet of existing commercial development floor area and construction of 179,594 square feet of new floor area including one 4-story, 167 unit hotel and 26 three-story detached and duplex-type townhomes. The existing site consists of 4 parcels covering an area of approximately 3.62 acres or 157,747 square feet. The project will be developed as a mixed use development. The hotel will be at the southern end of the site facing EI Camino Real. The residential portion of the project will be located directly behind the hotel on the rear half of the lot. The project includes subdivision of a single parcel of land for condominium purposes with a hotel unit and 26 for sale residential units. The applicant will apply for a tentative map in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Subdivision Map Act. 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 2 Mitigated Negative Declaration The hotel will be four-stories and consist of 167 guest rooms with a ground level reception area, meeting rooms and a dining area. The dining area is for hotel guests only and will serve catered meals only. The hotel will also include a one-story underground parking garage. The area that will comprise the hotel site area is 62,609 square feet. The hotel will be 125,034 square feet for a total FAR of2.0 which is slightly less than the maximum allowable FAR. The residential portion of the project will consist of 26 three-story detached and duplex style townhomes. There will be ten detached single family units and eight 2-unit attached duplex type residences. The 26 units range from 2,068 to 2,167 square feet in size. The residential site area is 95,138 square feet. The building areas total 54,560 square feet which is equal to the allowable ~FAR of 0.57 as determined to be the FAR calculation the residential portion of the project. In addition, the project will include the creation of a bicycle and pedestrian easement located at the rear of the site. The connection will enable movement between Monroe Drive and Cessano Court along the eastern edge of the property. The connection will provide an alternative path of travel that is safer than the existing path of travel along EI Camino Real. Vehicular access to the site will be provided using two main entries. Access to the residential portion of the site will be provided along Monroe Drive. Access for the hotel potion of the project will be provided at a right-inlright-out only driveway along EI Camino Real. Vehicular circulation will be restricted between the residential and hotel uses. This will encourage hotel guest and employees to enter and exit the site from EI Camino Real only and not to travel through the Monroe Drive Neighborhood. There will be access provided between the sites but it will be for emergency purposes only. The site is designed to provide a variety of private yards and common open space area that are available for the individual residences. The hotel will include a generous courtyard that is built around a large existing oak tree. In addition to the oak tree in the courtyard the site is designed to preserve four additional oak trees and three redwood trees. The project will incorporate a variety of sustainable design concepts that will help it achieve both LEED Silver certification for the hotel portion of the project and Green Rated Verification for the residential portion of the project. 10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The Project is located on the southeast comer at the intersection ofEI Camino Real and Monroe Drive. A bank is located northwest of the site across Monroe Drive. Northeast of the site are three single-family residences that are part of the Monroe Park neighborhood. To the east of the site is the Palo Alto Greens, 42 unit condominium unit project zoned PC-3036 in 1978 and seven single family residences along Cessano Court. A con1ll1ercial site consisting of a piano store, spa and residential contractor is located contiguous to the southeast comer of the proposed development site. West of the site, across EI Camino Real are hotel and office buildings that are located in the City of Los Altos. 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 3 Mitigated Negative Declaration The site is comprised of four parcels for a total of 3.64± acres addressed as 4301 and 4329 El Camino Real. It is presently occupied by Motel 6 on the northerly end of the site, a small commercial building with three service oriented businesses fronting El Camino Real on the Motel 6 site and the Palo Alto Bowl building that includes a restaurant on the south and two vacant lots at the northeast comer. Motel 6 and commercial business buildings occupy 29,304 square feet of built space 011 a 51,401 square foot lot. The Palo Alto Bowl building is 30,459 square feet on a 94,525± square foot lot. The remainder of the proposed site is parking area and vacant land. Vehicular access to the site for all uses is currently located on El Camino Real. There are multiple protected trees on the site including both street trees and on-site oaks. The site consists of multiple zoning designations: Service Commercial (CS); Multi-Family Residential (RM-15) and Single-Family Residential (R-1). The subject site is located in the southern end of El Camino Real and as a result is subject to the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. 11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES California Department of Transportation and Office of the County Clerk-Recor~er 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). 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 4 Mitigated Negative Declaration 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: . a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. F or effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for I potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and 1 b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included. A. AESTHETICS Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact , Would the project: Mitigation Incorporated a) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1,2,6 x b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a , public view or view corridor? 1,2,3,5,6 x I c) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within 1,2-X a state scenic highway? Map L4,6 d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan 1,2,6 x policies regarding visual resources? 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 5 Mitigated Negative Declaration I Issues and Supporting Information Sources I Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Would the project: Mitigation Incorporated e) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or 1,5,6, X nighttime views in the area? t) Substantially shadow public open space 1,5, X (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21 ? DISCUSSION: The project has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding development. The project proposes residences that· are three-stories and 31' 11" in height, intending to comply with the blended maximum height calculation of 33'6". The hotel is designed to be compatible with the South EI Camino Real Design Guidelines. The height of the hotel is 47'6" which is within the 50' maximum allowable height limit for the CS zone district. The landscape plan for the project includes extensive landscaping and common areas. The project is subject to review by the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Architectural Review Board, which will ensure an appropriate site layout and architectural design that is aesthetically pleasing and compatible with its surroundings. The redevelopment of the site may result in a negligible increase in light and glare generated from the additional lighting of the site and glazing on the building. With the City's standard conditions of approval, the light and glare impacts of the project will not be significant. The conditions of approval will require the shielding of lighting such that the light does not extend beyond the site, is directional, and that the source of light is not directly visible. The proposed project is subject to the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board review and compliance with the City of Palo Alto South EI Camino Real Design Guidelines. With the required architectural review and design guidelines, the proposed project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings, therefore no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure: None B. AGRICUL TURAL RESOlTRCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 6 Mitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and 1,2,3,5 Monitoring Program of the California X Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,2-Map L- use, or a Williamson Act contract? 9,3,5 X c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or 1,2-MapL- nature, could result in conversion of 9,3,6 X Farmland, to non-agricultural use? DISCUSSION: The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide. Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the Williamson Act. Mitigation Measures: None C. AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation X of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay 1,2,5,9 Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X substantially to an existing or projected air 1,2,5,9 quality violation indicated by the following: i. Direct and/or indirect operational 1,2,5,9 X . emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides (NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and fine particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter (PMlO); [I,2,5,9, ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) X 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 7 Mitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No c) d) e) g) Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour (as demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling, which would be performed when a) project CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service (LOS) D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F; or c) project would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more)? Result in a cumulatively considerable net 1,2,5,9 X increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors )? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels 1,9 of toxic air contaminants? X i. Probability of contracting cancer for the 1,9 Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl) X exceeds 10 in one million 11. Ground-level concentrations of non-1,9 carcinogenic T ACs would result in a hazard index greater than one (1) for the MEl Create objectionable odors affecting a 1,9 X substantial number of people? Not implement all applicable construction 1 emission control measures recommended in the X Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQ A Guidelines? DISCUSSION: The project is not expected to result in a significant impact on air quality. The project may result in temporary dust emissions due to construction activity. The City of Palo Alto uses the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) thresholds of significance for air quality impacts, as follows: Long Term Impacts: Long-term project emissions primarily stem from motor vehicles associated with the proposed project. As discussed in the Transportation/Traffic section of this Initial Study, the project will not generate additional new vehicle trips. However, the change of land use will not have an impact on the surrounding area because of the anticipated increase in the volume of traffic that is expected 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 8 Mitigated Negative Declaration within the proj ect area regardless of the proj ect being built or not. A mixed use consisting of a hotel and multi-family residences is a permitted use for the site and will not affect a substantial number of people which would be limited to other commercial uses and pedestrians in the immediate vicinity. Long-term air-quality impacts are expected to be less than significant. Sensitive receptors are defined as children, elderly, or ill people who can be more adversely affected by air quality problems. The proposed project will be located in a nlixed area consisting of both residential and commercial uses. Although sensitive receptors are in the immediate vicinity of the project, the construction impacts would be addressed as conditions of the architectural reVIew approval, resulting in a less than significant impact to sensitive receptors. The project would be subject to the following City's standard conditions of approval: ,The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of project construction to minimize dust related construction impacts: • All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily. • All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least two feet of freeboard. • All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be swept and watered daily. • Submit a plan for the recovery/recycling of demolition waste and debris before .the issuance of a demolition permit. • Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Mitigation Measures C-l: The effects of construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally elevated levels of particulate matter downwind of construction activity. Construction dust has the potential for creating a nuisance at nearby properties. This impact is considered potentially significant but normally mitigable by implementing the following control measures: During demolition of existing structures: III Water active demolition areas to control dust generation during demolition and pavement break- up. iii Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site. III Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible. III During all construction phases: III Pave, apply water 3x/daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. III Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). III Enclose, cover, water 2x!daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). III Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. III Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. III Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 9 Mitigated Negative Declaration The above measures include feasible measures for construction emissions identified by the BAAQMD for large sites. According to the District threshold of significance for construction impacts, implementation of the measures would reduce construction impacts of the project to a less than significant level. D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional 1,2-x plans, policies, or regulations, or by the MapN1,5 California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, 1,2- policies, regulations, including federally MapN1,5 x 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 any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or 1,2-x migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use MapNI, 5 of native wildlife nursery sites? d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances e) protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of 1,2,3,5, x Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance 7,8,19 (Municipal Code Section 8.1 O)? Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, 1,2,3,6, x regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 7,8,19 DISCUSSION: The project site is located in an established urban area with no riparian or tree habitat for the candidate, sensitive, or special status species in the area. No endangered, threatened, or rare animals, insects and plant species have been identified at this site. The project site is located in an established residential urban setting. The project site is located approximately 275' from Adobe Creek, which, in the project area, is a channelized, flowing creek. The project and construction of the hotel and 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 10 Mitigated Negative Declaration single-family homes would not impact the creek, in that the project site is in an established residential area and on a site that currently contains a mix of neighborhood serving commercial uses with structures, hardscape and landscaping. Drainage from the project site would be designed to minimize runoff and maximize infiltration. There would be no changes to the creek banks or habitat along the creek. These. factors would result in a less than significant impact to any possible riparian habitat at Adobe Creek. The Comprehensive Plan includes policies, programs and implementing actions to ensure the preservation of biological tree resources. The following policies and programs are relevant to the proposed Proj ect: III Policy N-14: Protect, revitalize, and expand Palo Alto's urban forest. II Policy N-15: Require new commercial, multi-unit, and single family housing projects to provide street trees and related irrigation systems. III Policy N-17: Preserve and protect heritage trees. III Program N-16: Require replacement of trees, including street trees lost to new development. .. Program N-17: Develop and implement a plan for maintenance, irrigation, and replacement of trees. til Program N-19: Achieve a 50 percent tree canopy for streets, parks, and parking Palo Alto's Regulated Trees l The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code regulates specific types of trees on public and private property for the purpose of avoiding their removal or disfigurement without first being reviewed and permitted by the City's Planning or Public Works Departments. Three categories within the status of regulated trees include protected trees (PAMC 8.10), public trees (PAMC 8.04.020) and designated trees (PAMC 18.76, when so provisioned to be saved and protected by a discretionary approval.) Palo Alto Municipal Code Tree Preservation Ordinance Chapter 8.10 of the Municipal Code (the Tree Preservation Ordinance) protects a category of Regulated Trees, on public or private property from removal or disfigurement. The Regulated Tree category includes: til Protected Trees. Includes all coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and valley oak trees 11.5 inches or greater in diameter, coast redwood trees 18 inches or greater in diameter, and heritage trees designated by the City Council according to any of the following provisions: it is an outstanding specimen of a desirable species; it is one of the largest or oldest trees in Palo Alto; or it possesses distinctive form, size, age, location, and/or historical significance. II Street Trees. Also protected are City-owned street trees (all trees growing within the street right- of-way, outside of private property) III Designated Trees. Designated trees are established by the City when a project is subject to discretionary design review process by the Architecture Review Board that under Municipal 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 11 Mitigated Negative Declaration Code Chapter 18.76.020(d)(II) includes as part of the findings of review, "whether natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project." Outstanding tree specimens contributing to the existing site, neighborhood or community, and that have a rating of "High" Suitability for Preservation as reflected in Table 3.6-1 would constitute a typical designated tree. Palo Alto Tree Preservation Guidelines For all development projects within the City of Palo Alto, discretionary or ministerial, a Tree Disclosure Statement (TDS) is part of the submittal checklist to establish and verify trees that exist on the site, trees that overhang the site originating on an adjacent property, and trees that are growing in a City easement, parkway, or publicly owned land. The TDS stipulates that a Tree Survey is required (for multiple trees), when a Tree Preservation Report is required (development within the drip line of a Regulated Tree), and who may prepare these documents. The City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual} (Tree Technical Manual) describes acceptable procedures and standards to preserve Regulated Trees, including: II The protection of trees during construction; III If allowed to be removed, the acceptable replacement strategy; III Maintenance of protected trees (such as pruning guidelines); III Format and procedures for tree reports; and III Criteria for determining whether a tree is a hazard. Site Tree Resources Impact Assessment A tree inventory and evaluation report (prepared by Arbor Resources) identified 106 trees of25 various species on the subject property. The following breakdown was ascertained by staff: III Protected trees. 16 trees are defined as protected ordinance size trees. They include #15-20, 22- 25,27, 34, 38, 42, 55 and 85. The building footprint is located on the location of protected coast live oak #42, and is proposed to be relocated on site. One coast live oak # 1 7, a public and protected tree, is proposed for removal to facilitate a new driveway curb cut onto Monroe Drive. An alternative to destruction and preservation of these two trees is dependent on the feasibility of relocating the trees to an optimum area of the site with sufficient room to allow continued growth. Two ordinance size coast redwoods (#24 and 27) are proposed to be removed. Tree #24 is also a public tree. III Coast Live Oak #55. The largest protected tree on the property, coast live oak #55, is a large mature healthy tree visible from El Camino Real, and designed to be a retained focal point of the site planning, outdoor use and enjoyment. The tree will be subject to substantial site activity and environmental changes. In particular, solar access reduction may be a foreseeable significant City of Palo Alto, City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, June 2001. Provided on line at http://www .cityofpaloalto.org/environment/urban canopy.asp 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 12 Mitigated Negative Declaration impact on the tree. The proposed 4-story hotel at 47-feet high is taller than the old oak is at 45- feet high. The tree has become dependent on the unimpeded solar access from the south and westerly exposures over the years. The tree may be in the proposed shadow of the building for a substantial periods and experience foliar stress and a spiral of decline due to limited adaptability (vigor). 111 Public trees. Of the 106 trees, 23 are defined as publicly owned street trees due to being situated within the public right-of-way along El Camino Real and Monroe Drive. They include trees #1-8 and 11-25. The Project proposes to remove the 14 publicly owned trees and represents a net loss to years of public resource investment and several more years in the future for parity with infrastructure benefits (Co2 reduction, extended asphalt life, water mgmt., etc.) currently provided by the trees. III Designated trees. No designated trees of other species have been identified by staff at this point in time. The City Tree Technical Manual (TTM) development guidelines require the appraised value for each tree to be presented with the development application for the purpose of identifying asset value, security bond incentive for protection and care and/or damage or replacement value in the event of a destroyed tree. Trees classified as protected trees have a combined value of $86,400. Trees classified as public trees have a combined value of $40,230. The tree evaluation report identifies mitigation measures to be incorporated in the plans to reduce the potential impact on protected and public trees. These include Design Guidelines, advising tree protection zone setback clearances for buildings and grading, above ground measures for walkways, structures, landscaping and flatwork. Summary The tree inventory and evaluation, inclusive of the design guidelines and preliminary protection measures submitted for the project have been deemed adequate for the assessment and scope of this environmental study, dependent upon forthcon1ing project site infom1ation, additional staff recommendations, precautions and the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential impact on protected and public tree resources to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure D-l: Prepare a Tree Preservation Report for all trees to be retained. Activity within the drip line of ordinance-regulated oak trees requires mitigation to be consistent with Policy N-7 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. An updated tree survey and tree preservation report (TPR) prepared by a certified arborist shall be submitted for review and acceptance by the City Urban Forester. For reference clarity, the tree survey shall include (list and field tag) all existing trees within the project area, including adjacent trees overhanging the site. The approved TPR shall be implemented in full, including mandatory inspections and monthly reporting to City Urban Forester. The TPR shall be based on latest plans and amended as needed to address activity or within the drip line area of any existing tree to be preserved, including incidental work (utilities trenching, street work, lighting, irrigation, etc.) that may affect the health of a preserved tree. The project shall be modified to address recommendations 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 13 Mitigated Negative Declaration identified to reduce impacts to existing ordinance-regulated trees. The TPR shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the tree preservation ordinance, PAMC 8.10.030 and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00, 4.00 and 6.30 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/urbancanopy.asp.To avoid improvements that may be detrimental to the health of regulated trees, the TPR shall review the applicant's landscape plan to ensure the new landscape is consistent with Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.45 and Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the potential construction impacts to protected and retained trees to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure D-2: Prepare a solar access study (SAS) of short and long term effects on protected oak tree #55. Study shall include a qualified expert team (horticulturalist, architect designer, consulting arborist) capable of determining effects, if any, to foliage, health, disease susceptibility and also prognosis for longevity. The SAS should provide alternative massing scenarios to increase solar access and reduce shading detriment at different thresholds of tree health/decline as provided for in the study. The SAS adequacy shall be subject to peer review as determined necessary by the City. The SAS design alternatives shall be of specific discussion at all levels of review in conjunction with project sponsor, city urban forester and director until final design is approved. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the potential impact to protected oak #55 due to solar access restriction to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure D-3: Prepare a Tree Relocation Feasibility Plan for Protected Oaks #42 and #17. Because of inherent mortality associated with the process of moving mature trees, a Tree Relocation and Maintenance Plan (TRMP) shall be prepared subject to Urban Forester's approval. The project sponsor shall submit a TRMP to determine the feasibility of moving the Protected Trees to an appropriate location on this site. Feasibility shall consider current site and tree conditions, a tree's ability to tolerate moving, relocation measures, optimum needs for the new location, aftercare, irrigation, and other long-term needs. If the relocated trees do not survive after a period of five years, the tree canopy shall be replaced with a tree of equivalent size or security deposit value. The TRMP shall be inclusive of the following minimum information: appropriate irrigation, monitoring inspections, post relocation tree maintenance and for an annual arborist report of the condition of the relocated trees. If a tree is disfigured, leaning with supports needed, in decline with a dead top or dieback of more than 25%, the tree shall be considered a total loss and replaced in kind and size. The final annual arborist report shall serve as the basis for retUTI1 of the tree security deposit. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the relocation risk potential impact of the Monroe Drive trees and redwoods #24 & 27 to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure D-4: Provide a Tree Preservation Bond/Security Guarantee. The natural tree resources on the site include significant protected trees and neighborhood screening, including two trees proposed for relocation. Prior to building permit submittal, the Tree Security Deposit for the total value of the relocated trees, as 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 14 Mitigated Negative Declaration referenced in the Tree Teclmical Manual, Section 3.26, Security Deposits, shall be posted to the City Revenue Collections in a form acceptable by the City Attorney. As a security measure, the project shall be subject to a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Palo Alto and the Applicant describing a tree retention amount, list of trees, criteria and timeline for return of security, and conditions as cited in the Record of Land Use Action for the project. The applicant and project arborist shall coordinate with the City Urban Forester to determine the amount of bonding required to guarantee the protection and/or replacement of the regulated trees on the site during construction and within five years after occupancy. The applicant shall bond for 150% of the value for the relocated trees, and 50%' of the value of the remaining trees to be protected during construction (as identified in the revised and final approved Tree Protection Report). The applicant shall provide the proposed level of bonding as listed in the Tree Value Table, with the description of each tree by number, value, and total combined value of all the trees to be retained. A return of the guarantee shall be subject to an annual followed by a final tree assessment report on all the relocated and retained trees from the project arborist as approved by the City Urban Forester, five years following final inspection for occupancy, to the satisfaction of the director. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the potential security risk to retained trees to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure D-5: Retain Monroe Drive protected screen trees and two redwoods with focused site planning. The oaks along Monroe Drive are currently growing on an established elevated fill area that cannot be lowered or easily contoured. Therefore, the project will require modification to include non-conventional site planning elements such as berm, retaining walls or other creative elements to reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. Two ordinance size coast redwoods (#24 and 27) are proposed to be removed. Because they have been reported with a relatively high retention value staff recommends contouring the bike path or other alternative study to retain the trees to reduce the removal impacts to a less than significant level. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the potential impact of the Monroe Drive trees and redwoods #24 & 27 to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure D-6: Provide optimum public tree replacement for loss of trees #1-14. 14 publicly owned trees are growing in the right-of-way along the El Camino Real and Monroe Drive frontage. As mitigation to offset the net loss for years of public resource investments and minimize the future years to parity with infrastructure benefits (Co2 reduction, extended asphalt life, water mgmt., etc.) currently provided by the trees, the new El Camino frontage should be provided maximum streetscape design and materials to include the following elements: • Consistency with the Street Trees for El Camino Project, in consultation with Canopy, Inc. • Provide adequate room for tree canopy growth and root growing volume resources. • Utilize city-approved best management practices for sustainability products, such as permeable ADA sidewalk, Silva Cell planters, engineered soil mix base, and services due to being situated within the public right-of-way along El Camino Real and Monroe Drive. 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 15 Mitigated Negative Declaration Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the loss of public trees impacts to a less than significant level. E. CUL TURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No 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 1,2- resource that is recognized by City Council MapL-7 X resolution? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource 1,2-X pursuant to 15064.5? MapL8 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique 1,2-X geologic feature? MapL8 Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2- interred outside of formal cemeteries? MapL8 X Adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or X California Register, or listed on the City's 1,2- Historic Inventory? MapL7 Eliminate important examples of major periods 1 of California history or prehistory? X DISCUSSION: The Comprehensive Plan indicates· that the site is in a moderate archaeological resource sensitivity zone. Most of the City area east of Interstate 280 is designated in this zone. Although existing and historic development has altered the native landscape, the potential exists that now-buried Native American sites could be uncovered in future planning area construction. If archaeological materials are discovered the applicant would be required to perform additional testing and produce an Archaeological Monitoring and Data recovery Plan (AMDRP) to be approved prior to the start of construction. The City's standard condition of approval will address this potentiality. Mitigation Measures: None F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 16 Mitigated Negative Declaration i i I Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially I Less Than i No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of See below loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map x issued by the State Geologist for the area 2-MapN- or based on other substantial evidence of a I 5,5 known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2-MapN- 10,5,10 x iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 2-MapN-x 5,5,10 iv) Landslides? 2-MapN- 5,5,10 x b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1,2,5,10 x c) Result in substantial siltation? 1,2,5,10 x d) ;Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is e) f) g) unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, 2-MapN-x subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 5,5,10 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or 2-MapN-x property? 5,5,10 Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not 1,5,10 available for the disposal of waste water? , x Expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the 1,4,5,10 I x use of standard engineering design and seismic I safety techniques? DISCUSSION: The entire state of California is in a seismically active area. According to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan the project site is not in an area that is subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake or in an area subject to expansive soils, surface rupture, liquefaction, or earthquake induced landslides. Based on the engineering analysis in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by TRC, there is the potential for localized liquefaction during a major earthquake in sand strata located at various depths between approximately 22 to 49 feet. Suggested mitigation measures are provided by TRC in the Geotechnical Investigation and are included as Mitigation Measure F -1. The presence of moderately 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 17 Mitigated Negative Declaration I expansive soils also exists at the site. To reduce the potential for damage to the planned structures TRC recommends slabs-on-grade that have sufficient reinforcement and be supported on a layer of non- expansive fill and that footings extend below the zone of seasonal moisture fluctuation, or post- tensioned slabs be used. The Geotechnical Investigation also recommends ongoing testing of the geotechnical aspects of the investigation during construction. Development of the proposed project would be required to conform to all requirements in the Uniform Building Code, which includes provisions to ensure that the design and construction of all buildings includes provisions to resist damage from earthquakes to the extent feasible and acceptable. Substantial or permanent changes to the site topography are not expected. Standard conditions of approval require submittal of a final grading and drainage plan for the proj ect for approval by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. The application of standard grading, drainage, and erosion control measures as a part of the approved grading and drainage plan is expected to avoid any grading-related impacts. Mitigation Measures F -1: The design of all buildings shall be designed in accordance with current earthquake resistant standards, including the 2007 CBC guidelines and design recommendations regarding the potential for localized liquefaction presented in the Geotechnical Investigation provided by TRC. None G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, X or disposal of hazardous materials? 1,5,17 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable X upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the 1,5,17 environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or X waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or 1, 5,17 proposed school? d) Construct a school on a property that is subject to hazards from hazardous materials 1,5,17 X contamination, emissions or accidental release? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant X to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a 1,2- result, would it create a significant hazard to MapN-9, the public or the environment? 5 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or X 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 18 Mitigated Negative Declaration public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in 1,2 the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the 1,2 X project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response 1,2-X plan or emergency evacuation plan? MapN-7 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk i) of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to X urbanized areas or where residences are 2-MapN-7 intermixed with wildlands? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from existing hazardous materials 1,5,18 X 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 will not involve the handling, transportation, use, disposal, or emISSIon of hazardous materials. The project site is not identified by either the California Environmental Protection Agency or the California State Water Resources Control Board as a hazardous materials site. The project is not expected to pose airport-related safety hazards. The proposed project will not interfere with either emergency response or evacuation. The project site is not located in a designated fire hazard area. The new construction and site design shall be required to comply with the City's building permit approval standards and fire equipment and fire protection coverage standards as conditions of project approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. This project will not involve the installation or removal of aboveground or underground storage tanks or sumps based on the report prepared by E2C, Inc. Mitigation Measures: None H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated I a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1,2,5 X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 19 Mitigated Negative Declaration recharge such that there would be a net deficit I in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production 2-MapN2 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 X ,been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a X manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 1,2,5 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result 1,2,5 X in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted 1,2,5 X runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,2 X g) Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 1,2-Map X N-6,5 h) Place within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect 2-MapN6 X flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, X ~ including flooding as a result of the failure of a 2-MapN6 levee or dam or being located within a 100-year N8 flood hazard area? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 2-MapN6, X N8 k) Result in stream bank instability? 1,2-X MapN6,9 DISCUSSION: Construction of the proposed buildings and related site improvements will result in a decrease in the amount of impervious surface area on the site. The site currently contains a mix of uses that includes a three-story motel, the one-story Palo Alto Bowl building, and small retail building. A generous portion of the site consists of a large asphalt concrete surface parking lot. As previously referred to in the Geology, Soils and Seismicity section of this study a large portion of this site contains expansive soils. Because of this existing condition it is recommended that the amount of surface water infiltrating these soils is restricted. This can be accomplished by: IllI Selecting landscaping the requires little or no watering, especially within 3 feet of the structures. III U sing low volume sprinkler heads, or drip irrigation systems. 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 20 Mitigated Negative Declaration • Regulating the amount of water distributed to lawn or planters areas by installing timers on sprinkler systems. II! Providing surface grades to drain rainfall or landscape watering to appropriate collection systems and away form structures, slabs-on-grade, or pavements. II Preventing water from draining toward or ponding near building foundations, slabs-on-grade, or pavements, and II! Avoiding open planting areas within 3 feet of the building perimeter. The project site is not located in an area of groundwater recharge and will not deplete the groundwater supplies. The project site is located approximately 1 mile outside of the 100-year flood hazard area and would not impede or redirect flood flows. The site is approximately 275 feet away from Adobe Creek which is located northwest of the site. The project site is not in an area that is subject to seiche, tsunami or mudflow. With the City's required conditions of approval the water impacts of the project will not be significant. During demolition, grading and construction, storm water pollution could result. Standard conditions of architectural review approval would" require the incorporation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Non-Point Source Pollution Control Program, and submittal of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) in conjunction with building permit plans to address potential water quality impacts. City development standards and standard conditions of project approval would reduce potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant. Mitigation Measure: None I. LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2 X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local X coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an 1,2,3,6,12 environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community 1,2 X conservation plan? d) Substantially adversely change the type or 1,2,6,12 intensity of existing or planned land use in the X area? e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with 1,2,3,6,12 the general character of the surrounding area, X including density and building height? 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 21 Mitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated f) Conflict with established residential, 1,2,6,12 recreational, educational, religious, or scientific X uses of an area? g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or 1,2,6 farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to X non-agricultural use? DISCUSSION: The proposed project is an allowed use that requires Site and Design Review for the demolition of 64,263 square feet of existing commercial development floor area and construction of 179,594 square feet of new floor area including one 4-story, 167 unit hotel and 26 three-story detached and duplex-type townhomes. The existing site consists of 4 parcels covering an area of approximately 3.62 acres or 157,747 square feet. The project will be developed as a mixed use development. The hotel will be at the southern end of the site facing El Camino Real. The residential portion of the project will be located directly behind the hotel on the rear half of the lot. The project site will involve the lot merger of the four existing lots into one large lot that will consist of a single condominium parcel of land with a hotel unit and 26' residential units. The applicant will apply for a tentative map in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Subdivision Map Act. The Service Commercial land use designation allows for facilities providing citywide and regional services and relies on customers arriving by car. Typical uses encouraged in this district include auto services and dealerships, motels, appliance stores and restaurants. Within some locations, residential and mixed use projects may be appropriate in this land use category. The proposed mixed use development within this section of the City is' consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal to provide citywide and regional services. The current zoning designations for the four parcels of land are Service Commercial (CS), Multi-Family Residential (RM-15), and Single Family Residential (R-1). CS is by far the greatest portion of the site at 132,524 square feet (84% of the site). The CS portion of the site extends along the entire El Camino Real frontage and approximately 95% of the Monroe Drive frontage. RM-15 accounts for 21,725 square feet (130/0) of the site. The RM-15 portion of the site extends along the eastern boundary of the lot adjacent to R-1 neighbors. The R-1 portion of the site accounts for 3,498 square feet (3%) of the site. The R-1 portion is situated in the northeastern comer of the project site and is adjacent to Monroe Drive and the neighboring R -1 properties. The project complies with the FAR allowed under the combined CS, RM-15 and R-1 parcels. The CS zone allows for aFAR of 2.0 for a hotel, and 0.6 FAR for residential area. The RM-15 and R-1 allow 0.5 FAR for the residential area. The total building area is 179,594 square feet or 1.16 FAR. The hotel will be 125,034 square feet and the residences will be 54,560 square feet. The site planning of the project is consistent with area in that the four-story hotel is located along El Camino Real and transitions to the 26 residences in the rear half of the lot that are adjacent to the neighboring R-1 properties. 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 22 Mitigated Negative Declaration In addition, the project will include the creation of a public path easement located at the rear of the site. The connection will enable movement between Monroe Drive and Cessano Court along the eastern edge of the property. The connection will provide an alternative path of travel that is safer than the existing path of travel along EI Camino Real. The easement connects on the eastern edge of the project which is the only location that is possible because of the necessity that the bicycle and pedestrian easement connect to an existing public easement that was created when the neighboring Cessano Court Planned Community was developed. The public path easement proposed by the project is only possible because of a unique set of circumstances. In 1983 and 1986 the Palo Alto Bowl acquired a large easement from each of the two R -1 neighbors at the eastern edge of the property. These easements are currently paved and fenced so that they can be used exclusively by the Palo Alto Bowl for parking. As part of the project the applicant has negotiated with the two R-1 neighbors for the creation of the public path easement. The existing easements are much larger than the proposed public path easement. The existing easement areas that are greater than the area need for the public path easement will be returned to each R -1 neighbor for their exclusive use. Were it not for the right of the Palo Alto Bowl property to acquire these easements under the 1983 and 1986 agreements, the public path easement could not be required of the project because the State Law prohibits granting rights or requiring improvements over other private property as a condition to any project approval. Because of the dedicated public path easement the applicant has treated the eastern edge of the public path easement as the property line for that portion of the public path easement that will be acquired from the two neighboring R-1 properties located along the eastern most edge of the ptoject site. The property line is being established this way for the exclusive purpose of establishing daylight plane. No portion of the public path easement is being used for the purposes of determining FAR or lot coverage. Because the city can not require the project dedicate a public path easement or land it does not currently own, the City accepts the location of the daylight plane on the eastern edge of the public path easement only along that portion of the public path easement that is adjacent to the two neighboring R-1 properties. The City will allow the daylight plane measurement to be taken from this location as a condition of approval contingent upon the public path easement being dedicated to the City. If the project is unable to dedicate to the City the public path easement, then the project will need to be revised so that the daylight plane measurement will be based on the existing property line as opposed to the proposed property line created by the public path easement. The proposed project site is located within the Hotel Area, a corridor area, as defined by the South El C,amino Real Design Guidelines (SECRDG). It is not considered a strategic site within the Hotel Area. The area is characterized by large and small-scale hotels as well as auto-oriented retail commercial uses. Although presently pedestrian activity is light the SECRDG looks toward accommodating such activity and creating an interesting gateway into the City. With that in mind the SECRDG indicate new buildings should front El Camino Real with entries fronting the street or be clearly visible from the street providing recognizable and easily accessible entries for both pedestrians and vehicular arrivals. The project proposal complies with many of the specific SECRDG for the Hotel area relative to site planning and design such as street frontage, parking lots, landscape and hardscape. The project proposes to preserve as many existing trees as possible. In particular the site plan is designed around a very large oak centrally located on the hotel parcel. In addition the project also intends to preserve four oaks trees and three redwood trees. 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 23 Mitigated Negative Declaration The site development complies with the zoning regulations and land use designation as described above. Compliance with parking regulations is addressed in Section 0 below. The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the Williamson Act. Mitigation Measures: None. J. MINERAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No a) b) Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1,2 X Result in the loss of availability of a local1y- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan 1,2 X or other land use plan? DISCUSSION: The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-l). This designation signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for other resources. There is no indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto. Mitigation Measures: None. K. NOISE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated - a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise X levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or 1,2,13 applicable standards of other agencies? I b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 24 Mitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant . Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated excessive ground borne vibrations or ground 1,2,13 X borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels 1,2,13 existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1,2,13 e) For a project located within an airport land use X plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to 1,2 excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private X airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to 1,2 excessive noise levels? g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to 1,2,13 increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an X existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB? h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in 1,2,13 an existing residential area, thereby causing the X Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? i) Cause an increase of3.0 dB or more in an 1,2,13 existing residential area where the Ldn X currently exceeds 60 dB? j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1,2,13 X development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1,2,13 X 1) than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other X rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater? Generate construction noise exceeding the 1,2,5,13 X daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors by 10 dBA or more? DISCUSSION: The project site is located in an area with an existing noise level ranging between 62-72 Ldn. This noise level is typical for single-family residential districts. Grading and construction activities will result in temporary increases in local ambient noise levels. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation, grading and construction, which will be short term in duration. Standard approval conditions would require the project to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.1 0), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-term construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in impacts that are expected to be less than significant. 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 25 Mitigated Negative Declaration Estimated future noise levels at the site will range from DNL (day-night average sound level) 75dBA at the approximate setback of the hotel along EI Camino Real to DNL 58dBA at residences in the northeastern portion of the site. Where the DNL exceeds 60dBA, the project must incorporate mitigation measures into the building design to reduce interior noise levels from exterior sources to DNL 45dBA or less, and to reduce maximum sound levels in residential units from vehicles to 50dBA in bedrooms and 55dBA in other rooms. The project shall reduce traffic noise in outdoor recreation areas to DNL 60dBA or less. To meet the indoor noise level criteria, sound-rated exterior facades will be necessary for some units. Recommendations for sound rated construction will depend on the size and type of rooms, window and exterior facades, and must be determined during the design phase. Long term noise associated with the new hotel and residential uses will be produced by a two main sources. The first source would be produced by rooftop mechanical equipment associated with the Hotel. This equipment is proposed on the rooftop of the four-story hotel. The equipment will be located approximately 250 feet from the nearest existing residence. The new onsite residential units will be located approximately 50 feet from the Hotel. To mitigate the potential noise impacts of the mechanical equipment it is recommended that the project incorporate nlitigations measures as outlined in the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance which include equipment selection, equipment location, and equipment enclosures. Details should be determined during the design phase. The other main source of long term noise will be generated from the expected increase in traffic on EI Camino Real and Monroe Drive. Traffic data provided by Fehr and Peers indicate that peak hour volumes on EI Camino Real and Monroe Drive in the project vicinity will increase between approximately 25-40 percent by the year 2015. As a result, it is estimated that future traffic noise will increase by 1-2 decibels in the next 10 years. Given the estimated increase in traffic along these roads, particularly Monroe Drive, it is possible that the estimated noise levels may increase by 3.0 dB or more in the existing residential neighborhood., thereby causing an increase in the Ldn in,the area to exceed 60dB. According to the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment chart located in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, the normally acceptable level for exterior noise generated from residential, hotel, and motel uses is between 55-60dB. The future noise level generated from the proposed project ranges between 58dBA to 75-dBA which is within the category of conditionally acceptable. The City'S standard conditions of approval will be applied to the project to ensure the construction noise and rooftop mechanical equipment noise impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance. The City will continue to work with the applicant during the design phase of the project to ensure that adequate noise reduction measures be implemented to help mitigate potential noise impacts from increased traffic along EI Camino Real and Monroe Drive. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Mitigation Measures N -1: In order to meet the indoor noise level criteria, sound rated exterior facades shall be required for those affected units. Recommendations for sound-rated construction will depend on the size and type of rooms, windows, and exterior facades, and must be determined during the design phase project review. 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 26 Mitigated Negative Declaration L. POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unl~ss Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for 1,2,5,6 X example, through extension of roads or other infTastnucture)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing c) e) housing, necessitating the constnuction of X replacement housing elsewhere? 1,5,6 Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the constnuction of replacement X housing elsewhere? 1,5,6 tantial imbalance between 1,2,6 X employed residents and jobs? Cumulatively exceed regional or local 1,2,6,18 population projections? X DISCUSSION: The project is a redevelopment of a 3.70 acre site into a mixed -use project consisting of a four-story, 167 unit hotel and 26 new three-story detached and duplex style townhomes. Based on information submitted by the applicant, it is assumed that the applicant intends to sell the 26 units as ownership condominiums. PopUlation in Palo Alto's sphere of influence in 1996, according to Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan was 58,000 people. This is projected by the City's Comprehensive Plan to increase to 62,880 by 2010. The project, by adding to the housing stock by 26 units, would cumulatively contribute to population in the area. The average household size in Palo Alto is 2.24 persons, which would mean the project could generate a total of 59 people. The projects cumulative impacts for the purposes of CEQA are also considered to be less than significant, as the impact from the project alone is not "considerable", and is di minimus, as environmental conditions would essentially be the same whether or not the project is implenlented (as per CEQA Guidelines §15355 and §15064). This incremental increase in population generated by the proposed project would not be considered a significant impact. City development standards, development fees and standard conditions of project approval reduce potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant. The project would be subject to the policies and regulations of the Below Market Rate Housing program, including the payment of in-lieu fees. Mitigation Measures: None. M. PUBLIC SERVICES 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 27 Mitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact a) Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectiyes for any of the public services: 1,2 X Fire protection? 1,2 X Police protection? 1,2 X Schools? 1,2 X Parks? 1,2 X Other public facilities? DISCUSSION: The site is presently served by the Palo Alto Fire Department. The proposed changes will not impact present Fire District service to the site or area. The project would, as a condition of approval, be required to comply with all Fire Department requirements for fire safety. Police The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. The proposed changes will not resul~ in the need for additional police officers, equipment or facilities. Schools No direct demand for Palo Alto school services would result from the project, as the proposal does not generate an increase in population for Palo Alto Schools. Residents of this neighborhood are required to attend the Los Altos School District for elementary and middle school and the Mountain View/Los Altos School District for high school. Parks Impact fees to address impacts on parks were adopted by the Palo Alto City Council in March of 2002. As a condition of subdivision and prior to receiving a building permit, the project applicant will be required to pay a one-time development impact fee for parks. The City'S park-in-lieu fee and park facility fee will be used to offset impacts on park facilities as a result of this project. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact. 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 28 Mitigated Negative Declaration Other Public Facilities Impact fees to address impacts on community centers and libraries were adopted by the Palo Alto City Council in March of 2002. Prior to receiving a building permit, the project applicant will be required to pay a one time development impact fee for community centers and libraries. The fee will be used to offset impacts on community centers and library facilities as a result of this project. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: None N. RECREATION Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or X other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the 1,5,6 facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which X might have an adverse physical effect on the 1,5,6 environment? DISCUSSION: This project is subject to payment of impact fees for parks, libraries and cotp1l1unity facilities. The project would not have any significant impact on existing parks, nor include or require construction of recreational facilities. No mitigation is required. There would not be a significant change to the demand of recreation services as a result of the proposed project. The project includes multiple common areas for recreation including both private and public open space areas. Mitigation Measures: None O. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 29 Mitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic X load and capacity of the street system (i.e., 1,5,14,20 result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the X county congestion management agency for 1,5,14, designated roads or highways? c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels X or a change in location that results in 1 substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or X dangerous intersections) or incompatible 1,6,14 uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,2,5 X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,2,5,14, X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative X transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & 1,2,5,6,14 bicycle facilities)? h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection 1,2,5,14 to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) X D and cause an increase in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more and the critical volume/capacity ratio (V /C) value to increase by 0.01 or more? i) Cause a local intersection already operating at 1,2,5,14 LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average X stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more? j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate 1,2,5,14 from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause X critical movement delay at such an intersection already operating at LOS F to increase by four seconds or more and the critical VIC value to increase by 0.01 or more? k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F 1,2,5,14 or contribute traffic in excess of 1 % of X segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F? 1) Cause any change in traffic that would 1,2,5,14,20 X increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 30 Mitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorpora ted Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more? m) Cause queuing impacts based on a 1,2,5,14 comparative analysis between the design X queue length and the available queue storage capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes at intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spillback queues on ramps. n) Impede the development or function of 1,2,5,14 planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? 0) Impede the operation of a transit system as a 1,2,5,14 X p) result of congestion? Create an operational safety hazard? 1,5,14 DISCUSSION: A Transportation Impact Analysis & Neighborhood Traffic Study provided by Fehr and Peers analyzed the potential impacts to the transportation system as a result of the redevelopment of the Palo Alto Bowl site. The existing facilities at the project site include the one-story Palo Alt Bowl building which includes a restaurant, a three-story motel, and a small retail building. The existing uses generate an estimated 1,305 daily trips, 38 AM peak hour trips, and 156 PM peak hour trips. The proposed proj ect, including the 167 unit hotel and 26 residential units, is estimated to generate 222 fewer daily trips, which includes 52 more AM peak hour trips, and 58 less PM peak hour trips. X X All signalized intersections in the analysis, with the exception of the E1 Camino Real/San Antonio Road intersection, are proj ected to operate at acceptable levels of service for both the AM and PM peak hours. All unsignalized intersections, with the exception of the intersection at El Camino Real and Monroe Drive, are expected to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. Only minimal delays will occur as a result of the project under the project scenarios compared to the cumulative no project condition scenario. The un signalized intersection at El Camino Real and Monroe Drive currently operates at LOS F during AM peak hours. The intersection is projected to continue operating at the same level of service under all scenarios. The PM peak hour period for the EL Camino Real/Monroe Drive intersection currently operates at LOS D and is projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS F by 2010 with the addition of the project. However, the same intersection is expected to decrease to LOS E by 2010 without the addition of the project. The minimal delay expected by 2010 with the project is estimated to increase by approximately 3 seconds which is a less than a significant impact. The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 1,082 daily trips, with 930 trips generated by the motel use and 152 trips generated by the townhomes (refer to Table 6 on page 22 of the Study). To estimate the number of trips from the proposed project uses that would use the local neighborhood streets, it was assumed that 25 percent of the residential traffic accessing San Antonio Road (headed to/from the east) would 'cut-through' the neighborhood -this is a 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 31 Mitigated Negative Declaration more conservative estimate than the results of the origin-destination (OD) survey. Only the traffic generated by the residential portion of the project was assumed to use the neighborhood streets, as the motel access is provided on EI Camino Real. Thus, the total number of project trips that is expected to use the neighborhood streets is approximately 8 vehicles per day (25 percent of the residential traffic headed east on San Antonio Road, or 25 percent of 17 percent of 152 trips). The TIRE Index was used to determine project impacts on neighborhood traffic. Based on TIRE thresholds, the project would have to add more than 97 daily trips to the local streets. The addition of 8 daily trips is below than the TIRE thresholds, and the project's impact is considered less-than -significant. Access/Circulation Access to the residential portion of the site will be provided along Monroe Drive only. Access to the hotel will be provided at a right-inlright-out only driveway along EI Camino Real. Vehicular circulation will be restricted between the residential and hotel uses. Only emergency access will be provided along Ryan Lane. Pedestrian access to the residential units is provided along Monroe Drive, Ryan Lane and walking paths around the site. A 10 foot wide bicycle path is proposed to connect Monroe Drive to Cessano Court along the eastern boundary of the site. The addition of the bicycle path will enhance bicycle and pedestrian circulation in the study area and will also provide a safe travel alternative along EI Camino Real. Parking Spaces The project will provide the necessary parking requirements as required by the City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance. There will be a total of 1 72 parking spaces for the hotel which exceeds the requirement for 1 space per guest room. 158 of the proposed parking spaces will be provided in a one level underground garage and the remaining 14 spaces will be provided at ground level. All 26 residential units will provide two-car garages which meets the requirement of 2 spaces per unit. There will be a total of 13 guest spaces for the residential units which exceed the requirement of 9 guest spaces. There will be 18 covered bicycle parking spaces for the hotel which meets the requirement of 1 space per 10 guest rooms. The residential units are providing 32 bicycle parking spaces (26 for residential units and 6 spaces for guests) which meets the parking requirements. Transit Service Impacts Existing bus service is provided within one-quarter mile of the project site. Commuter rail service is provided by Caltrain at the San Antonio station which is approximately three-quarters of a mile from the project site. The project is estimated to have a less than significant impact to transit service. Pedestrian and Bicycle Impacts The creation of the 10 foot wide bicycle from Monroe Drive to Cessano Court will provide a safer alternative to travel along EI Camino Real. Children in this neighborhood are required to attend the Los Altos Unified School District and therefore are required to travel along EI Camino Real to reach the crosswalk at the intersection of EI Camino Real and Los Altos Avenue. The addition of the bike path will allow the children to avoid travel along EI Camino Real and instead use the bike path to travel through a residential neighborhood and cross EI Camino Real at the signaled intersection at Los Altos Avenue. The residents of the project site will also have direct access to the bike path through gated entries. The project is estimated to have a less than significant impact to bicycle and pedestrian impacts. 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 32 Mitigated Negative Declaration The project has been reviewed by the City Fire Department and Transportation Division and does not contain design features that will substantially increase hazards or result in inadequate emergency access. The project will not result in a change to air traffic patterns. Impact Fees The property is subj ect to citywide traffic impact fees and the Charleston / Arastradero traffic impact fee. Mitigation Measures: None P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1,2 X b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant 1,2 environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of X which could cause significant environmental 1,2 effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded 1,2 X entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate X capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider'S existing 1 commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 1 X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1 X h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration 1 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 33 Mitigated Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated of a public facility due to increased use as a result of the project? X DISCUSSION: The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems, or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Standard conditions of approval require the applicant to submit calculations by a registered civil engineer to show that the on-site and off site water, sewer and fire systems are capable of serving the needs of the development and adjacent properties during peak flow demands. Trash and recycling facilities are proposed in the project to accommodate the expected waste and recycling streams that would be generated by the expected uses within the building. The project is subject to all conditions of approval provided by all applicable city departments. Mitigation Measures: None Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, X substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining 1,2-Map levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal L4,5 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 individually limited, but cumulatively X considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, 1,2,5 the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects X on human beings, either directly qr 1,5,9,10,13, indirectly? 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 34 Mitigated Negative Declaration DISCUSSION: The project would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or historic resources. The uses are appropriate for the site and the development would not result in an adverse visual impact. There is nothing in the nature of the proposed development and property improvements that would have a substantial adverse effect on human beings, or other life or environmental impacts once mitigation is implemented to reduce potential impacts to the users of the new mixed use project in the area of biological resources, noise, seismicity and air quality. Global Climate Change Impacts Global climate change is the alteration of the Earth's weather including its temperature, precipitation, and wind patterns. Global temperatures are affected by naturally occurring and anthropogenic generated atmospheric gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These gases allow sunlight into the Earth's atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from escaping into outer space, which is known as the "greenhouse" effect. The world's leading clinlate scientists have reached consensus that global climate change is underway and is very likely caused by humans. Twenty agencies at the international, national, state, and local levels are considering strategies to control emissions of gases that contribute to global warming. There is no comprehensive strategy that is being 'implemented on a global scale that addresses climate change; however, in California a multi agency "Climate Action Team", has identified a range of strategies and the Air Resources Board, under Assenlbly Bill (AB) 32, has been designated to adopt the main plan for reducing California's GHG emissions by January 1,2009, and regulations and other initiatives for reducing GHG emissions by January 1,2011. AB 32 requires achievement by 2020 ofa statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to 1990 emissions, and the adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions. By 2050, the state plans to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. While the state of California has established programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are no established standards for gauging the significance of greenhouse gas emissions. 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. The project would generate greenhouse gases primarily through electricity generation/use and generation of vehicle trips. Efforts to reduce the project's greenhouse gas emissions by reducing electricity demand and reducing vehicle trips and miles, therefore, should be implemented. The land use is changing from a commercial development to a mixed use development consisting of a hotel and a residential component. It is estimated that fewer trips daily trips will occur as a result of this change of use therefore limiting the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed project would conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan and other policies to reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled, and encourage automobile-alternative modes of transportation (e.g., public transit, walking, and bicycling), as described in detail in Section 0, Transportation of this Initial Study. 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 35 Mitigated Negative Declaration Given the overwhelming scope of global climate change, it is not anticipated that a single development project would have an individually discernable effect on global climate change (e.g., that any increase in global temperature or rise in sea level could be attributed to the emissions resulting from one single development project). Rather, it is more appropriate to conclude that the greenhouse gas emissions generated by the proposed project would combine with emissions across the state, nation, and globe to cumulatively contribute to global climate change. Declaring an impact significant or not implies some knowledge of incremental effects that is several years away, at best. To determine whether the proposed project would have a significant impact on global climate change is speculative, particularly given the fact that there are no existing numerical thresholds to determine an impact. However, 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, its location within an established urban area served by existing infrastructure (rather than a greenfield site) and the project's location in an area served by local and regional shuttle and transit systems, the proposed project would not impede the state's ability to reach the emission reduction limits/standards set forth by the State of California by Executive Order S- 3-05 and AB 32. For these reasons, this project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change associated with greenhouse gas emissions. The measures to reduce energy use have not been specifically identified. Final measures to reduce energy use and emissions would be prepared during the building permit process. The project is expected to obtain LEED Silver certification for the hotel and Green Point Rated Verification for the multi-family residential component of the project. This level of certification would ensure that specific energy efficient design features and use of lower impact building materials would be used throughout the project. Obtaining a LEED Silver certification and Green Point Rated Verification for the project would result in less than significant impacts than a building without this certification. The project includes components that will offset the project's potential minor incremental contribution to global climate change. These include: • LEED Silver Certification • Green Point Rated Verification • Location in proximity of existing public transportation network • Incorporating materials and finishes to protect indoor air quality • 75% diversion of construction and demolition debris SOURCE REFERENCES 1. Project Planner's knowledge of the site and the proposed project 2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010 (list specific policy and map references) 3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 -Zoning Ordinance 4. Required compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standards for Seismic Safety and Windload 5. Project Plans, Steinberg Architects, received April 15, 2009 6. Project Description, received April 7, 2009Arborist Report, David L. Babby, RCA, dated August 17, 2007 7. Arborist Report, David L. Babby, RCA, dated March 21,2008 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 36 Mitigated Negative Declaration 8. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Municipal Code Chapter 8.1 0.030, June 2001 9. Air Quality Impact Analysis, Donald Ballanti, Certified Consulting Meteorologist, September 2008 10. Geotechnical Investigation, TRC, April 17, 2008 11. City of Palo Alto South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, June 2002 12. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, E2C, Inc., September 8, 2008 13. Environmental Noise Assessment, Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., Septerrlber 17, 2008 14. Tran~portation Impact Analysis& Neighborhood Traffic Study, Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants, December 2008 15. LEED Registered Project Checklist: New Construction v2.2Photometric Plan, Rudd Lighting, April 14,2008 16. Build it Green, Green Point Rated Checklist: Single Family 17. Palo Alto Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Disclosure Checklist, dated October 6, 2008 18. City .of Palo Alto Department Review Comments, Planning! Affordable Housing, May 20, 2009 19. City of Palo Alto Department Review Comments, PlanninglUrban Forester, May 21, 2009 20. Memorandum to Traffic Study. Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants, May 2009. 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 37 Mitigated Negative Declaration DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in x the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project 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 ENVIRONMENT AL 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. Project Planner Director of Planning and Community Environment 4301 & 4329 EI Camino Real 08PLN-00313 Page 38 Date Date Mitigated Negative Declaration ATTACHMENT I MITIGA TION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Project Name: 4301-4329 El Camino Real (Palo Alto Bowl Site) Approved by: Signed by Director after MNDIEIR approved Environmental Impacts Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 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 8.10)? Seismic-related ground failure, including liq uefaction? Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure #1: The effects of construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally elevated levels of particulate matter downwind of construction activity. Construction dust has the potential for creating a nuisance at nearby properties. This impact is considered potentially significant but normally mitigable by implementing the following control measures: Mitigation Measure #2: Prepare a Tree Preservation Report for all trees to be retained. Mitigation Measure #3: Prepare a solar access study (SAS) of short and long term effects on protected oak tree #55. Mitigation Measure #4: Prepare a Tree Relocation Feasibility Plan for Protected Oaks #42 and #17. Mitigation Measure #5: Provide a Tree Preservation Bond/Security Guarantee. Mitigation Measure #6: Retain Monroe Drive protected screen trees and two redwoods with focused site planning. Mitigation Measure #7: Provide optimum public tree replacement for loss of trees #1-14. Mitigation Measure #8: The design of all buildings shall be designed in accordance with current earthquake resistant standards, including the 2007 CBC guidelines and design recommendations regarding the potential for localized liquefaction presented in the Geotechnical Investigation provided byTRC. Attachment 1-MMRP .doc ATTACHMENT I Application No.: 08PLN -00313 Date: Responsibility for Applicant Applicant Applicant Applicant Applicant Applicant Applicant Applicant I 11/18/2009 Timing of Compliance During both demolition and building permits; annually thereafter Prior to ARB approval Prior to ARB approval Prior to ARB approval Prior to demolition permit issuance Prior to ARB approval Prior to ARB approval Prior to building permit issuance Oversight of Implementation Director of Planning and Community Environment Director of Planning and Community Environment - Building Division Director of Planning and Community Environment 10f2 Environmental Mitigation Measures Responsibility Timing of Oversight of Impacts for Compliance Implementation Compliance ~-.;-.~.~ .J.' ._. Noise -< ~. - . -..., Result in indoor Mitigation Measure #9: In order to meet the indoor noise level criteria, sound rated exterior Applicant Prior to issuance Director of noise levels for facades shall be required for those affected units. Recommendations for sound-rated construction will of building permit Planning and residential depend on the size and type of rooms, windows, and exterior facades, and must be determined during Community development to the design phase project review. Environment exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or ~ greater? Attachment 1-MMRP.doc 20f2 PALO ALTO BOWL/MOTEL 6 SITE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT RESPONSES TO COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ' QUESTIONS NOVEMBER 18, 2009 ATTACHMENT J Question 1. Mixed Use Designation: The Tentative Map findings (on Page 2) state that liThe land use designation in the area of the Subdivision is Service Commercial which allows mixed use development ... " But is this really Mixed Use since the Subdivision Map proposes two lots with a Hotel on one and Housing on the other. So where is Mixed use on the Hotel site faCing EI Camino Real and does this affect the permitted Zoning? Staff Response: In June 2009, the PTC recommended approval of the Site and Design Review application, finding the proposed uses on the site to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning. The project is a horizontally-oriented mixed use project under our zoning ordinance. Mixed Use is defined to include vertically oriented and horizontally-oriented mixed use. The subdivision does not create two lots or parcels. The subdivision (1) merges the four underlying parcels (labeled in capital letters on map sheet TM-l) into one parcel for the mixed use project, and then (2) subdivides this parcel into 26 residential condominium units and one hotel condominium unit. The zoning and Comprehensive Plan land use designations of the site include a mix of Service Commercial, Multi-Family Residential, and Single Family Residential. Question 2. Finding No.2 lithe design of the improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with ... " It seems like the justification for this finding is a bit of a stretch. First, the Mixed use issue cited above. More importantly, what is the substance of "Promote increased compatibility, interdependence, etc ... " What is the compatibility of a hotel with residential? Staff Response: In June 2009, the PTC recommended approval of the Site and Design Review application, finding the uses and locations of the uses on the site to be compatible with the neigbboring residential uses. In April 2007, as Council rezoned 4329 EI Camino Real from RM-30 to Commercial Service (CS), they considered and rejected the less intensive Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zone. The multiple family RM -15 4esignation also was retained for the rear portion of the site adjacent to the neighboring single family uses, specifically for compatibility with and transition from the commerciallhotel portion to the residential to the rear. The rezoning was intended to encourage parcel consolidation with the adjacent motel site and potential redevelopment for retail or mixed use development. As part of their recommendation to Council on the rezoning, the PTC advocated retaining multi-family residential zoning on the rear portion of the site to provide a buffer between commercial and the single family area. The PTC also considered the hotel use to be more compatible with residential development than other commercial uses that could e developed under CS zoning. Staff Response: There was no EIR -rather, an Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration was recommended for approval with the Site and Design Review. Palo Alto Bowl was constructed in 1960, and is not listed on the City's Historic Resources Inventory. Question 6. I read the June 10th reports, but didn't see the Site Plan. Can I see a copy of the Site Plan to better understand the project before our meeting? Staff Response: The site plan recommended by the ARB is Attachment D to the report, which is provided for information purposes only, and is not the subject of this review. The site plan was recommended for approval by the PTC on June 10, 2009. The site plan that was reviewed and recommended by the PTC on June 10 will be on display at the PTC meeting and provided as a PDF via email to. the Commissioners prior to the meeting. Staffwill also provide a hard copy of the June 10 site plan at places before Wednesday nights' meeting. The plan set reviewed by the ARB on November 5, 2009 is on file at the Development Center for the public to view. Additional full size plans including the site plan, exterior elevations and hotel and residential perspectives will be provided at Wednesday night's meeting. . COMMISSIONER HOLMAN'S QITESTIONS 1) Is there precedence for blended rate FAR, etc? Please provide any existing examples in Palo Alto. Curtis, you had mentioned this has been done before but I'm not sure with what projects 2) Is the applicant requesting any zone changes consistent with the resultant FAR, lot coverage, density, etc? Lot line adjustments? No zoning change. There are four existing parcels being merged into one. Single condominium parcel of land. 3) Please provide calculations of how such calculations were achieved. E.g. How many square feet at RM-15, at R-1, etc. Calculations (Existing): CS parcels: 4301 ECR:51,400sf 4329 ECR (77% CS) :72,784sf 1st parcel behind 4301 ECR: 7,947sf RM-15: 4329 ECR(23%) :21,740sf R-1: 2nd parcel behind 4301: 4,803sf Calculations (proposed): Hotel site area: 62,609 sf (all from CS zoned parcels) Hotel FAR: 125,034sf (2.0) Residential site area: 95,138sf 69,915sf from CS ~oned parcels 21,725sf from RM-15 zoned parcel 3,498sf from R-1 zoned parcel 4) Page AO.01 of the plan set indicates that the R1 lot was allowed RM15 standards. On what basis was this determined? R-1 allowed to use RM-15 standards: I believe this was something that was decided prior to me taking over the project. 5) Attachment G makes no reference to density. Was this calculated, how was it determined, what is the resultant number? Common open space as above? Private open space as above? Density: CS:30 units/acre: total site area for CS zoned parcels is 124,185sf or 2.85 acres. This comes out to 30units x 2.85acres = 85.5 units RM-15: 15 units/acre: total site area for RM-15 zoned parcel is 21,741sf or 0.5 acres. This comes out to 15 units x 0.5acres = 7.49 units Total units allowed per zoning could be up to 92 total units. Applicant is proposing 26. 5a) When a map returns for consideration, what will the zoning be for the lots since the development standards have been blended? ? 5b) When the PTC and Council zoned the back of the PA Bowl site RM 15 it was to provide transition to the Rl neighborhood. Please compare the RM15 site and its dev stds with the proposal. RM-15 zoned portion of the PA Bowl site consists of 21,740 sf. comparison to R-1 neighboring properties: proposed height is 31'11" compared to max allowed height of 33' in R1 zone. Typical proposed home size for homes that border R-1 is 2,120sf. Average size of 3 R-1 zoned properties that border site is 2,736sf. 6) Is there a plan sheet indicating where all existing trees are located and which are to be removed? Existing trees: Sheet L-1 proposed plantings: Sheet L-2 7) Page 8 of the staff report indicates that the hotel will not have an entry on EI Camino nor does it front EI Camino, contrary to EI Camino Design Guidelines followed by liThe project proposes to utilize as many existing trees as possible. In particular ... around a very large Oak centrally located ... II Can staff please relate these statements. As it relates to the South ECR guidelines: buildings should have enreis facing ECR. This hotel entry does not directly face ECR, however, the entry is situated approximately 75' from ECR. There have been other similar, projects along ECR where entries have not directly faced ECR (Keys School on 3981 ECR). The guidelines include providing landscaping along ECR, which is why the statement about the trees is there. The applicant is proposing to plant 9 new trees along ECR. 8) Can staff also relate the prior statement with the removal of 14 of 23 publicly owned trees (from MND) and clarify how many protected and total number of trees are proposed for removal? protected trees proposed for removal: 16 street trees and 3 regulated trees (2 oak, 1 redwood). Saving 14 protected trees (transplanting 1 oak). Replacing 16 street trees with 12 new street trees and additional landscaping. 9) Can staff please indicate the satisfaction of the code and likelihood of use of the common open space at its proposed location by the hotel and separated from the residential units by a stand of trees? Applicant is better suited to answer this question 10) Attachment B appears to incorrectly indicate the zoning lot lines Attachment B correctly identifies existing lot lines 11) Which units will be the BMR units? It has not been determined which units will be BMR units. However, the City would accept three (3) of the four-bedropm units, one each from units B, C and D, as the BMR units and a prorated in-lieu fee for the remaining .9 units. The final selection of the BMR unit will be determined in the future when additional information such as unit dimensions and sizes become available 12) Has staff begun the neighborhood traffic calming study for Monroe Drive per Council direction? If so, what are the results? Would $25,000 cover the cost of the projects indicated in the staff report? Staff has not begun traffic calming for Monroe Neighborhood. It has not been determined if the $25,000 will entirely cover the identified traffic calming measures. City Transp. Dept is currently reviewing 13) Does staff concur that narrowing of Monroe Drive at EI Camino would act as a traffic calming measure? Can staff please indicate any development implications to the street narrowing including any requirements to provide sidewalks as part of projects. Forwarded to Transp. for review 14) Please indicate why Attachment G indicates tha tthe RM15 front yard setback does not apply. It should show 240' (approximately) from ECR. Approximately 50' from hotel. 15) Please clarify the Daylight Plane N/A and conformancy statements on Attachment G first and second tables. Daylight Plane for Hotel facing PC not applicable. Hotel far enough away from abutting residential zone that it is not an issue. Daylight plane for residential was listed as "N/A" because of issue with easement. 16) Please clarify the residential setback requirements set forth in Attachment G. What is considered the front and street side? Front setback for residential portion of site would face ECR, street side would face Monroe. Setback from Monroe approximately 20 ' (required to have 16') 17) PTC continues to request tentative maps be provided with site and design review. No map is included as part of the review packet. No tent.map provided by applicant for this meeting. Re tentative map: 18) Please describe the relevance of the tentative and condo maps, without which we cannot determine the site planning or conformance to code re lot sizes and setbacks, FAR, etc on resultant lots. 19) Please provide the dimensions and area of the existing path easement at the back of the project. Please provide the dimensions and area of the proposed path easement at the back of the project. COMMISSIONER KELLER'S QUESTIONS 1. Please provide the detailed calculations for the blended FAR. Shown above and on Sheet AO.Ol 2. Please include a version of Attachment B with the planning zones identified for the parcels in the project as well as those in the vicinity. Please include area of the easements retained for the pedestrian path as well as the area of the easement abandoned to the adjacent residences. Please make sure the streets are labeled, as the labels on Attachment B are unreadable. Sheet AO.01 shows existing zoning designations. Applicant can answer easement area questions. I have overall of proposed easement but not what was existing. 3. Please provide a usable version of Attachment B1. zariah will provide at places. Also, they have a usable version in their plan sets. 4. Please provide a map of the project site including footprints and heights of the proposed buildings as well as a clearly visible line indicating 150 foot radius from the R-1 zoned parcels (including any easements zoned R-1) . Don't have that information available. Applicant will have to provide. 5. Please request from the Monroe Park Neighborhood Association a statement whether the proposed pedestrian and bicycle easement would eliminate their request for a traffic light at Monroe Drive and El Camino Real. I'm sure we can do this but not before tonight's meeting. 6. Please explain whether (even though the entrance is on El Camino) hotel traffic destined for San Antonio Road and east or El Camino Re.al south would prefer to turn right on Monroe Drive and cut through the neighborhood rather than making a U-turn on El Camino Real at Dinah's Court or using Charleston. Would the hotel provide guests with maps with approved directions, with feedback by the neighborhood and city staff? Good question ... will have to get answered to night. Forwarded on to Transp. Dept. 7. Please explain whether any City policies apply to the loss of the cultural resource of Palo Alto Bowl, and what alternatives exist. Please have the applicant provide a best-guess non-binding estimate of when Palo Alto Bowl would discontinue serving the public. Applicant question. 8. Would the hotel meeting rooms be made available to the Monroe Park Neighborhood Association at no or nominal cost for occasional meetings accessed by walking or bicycling? Would the hotel business center and meeting room(s) ever be rented out for events where a majority of the attendees were not guests of the hotel, other than such neighborhood meetings (if any)? I don't believe there intent is to make hotel amenities available to the public. Are they required to do so if this is not a PC? 9. Please explain the blending height limitation. What precedence is there for such a calculation? Why should the height limitations apply separately to each parcel? 10. Please explain whether some of the hotel's parking is provid~d on the residential "pan-handle" away from Monroe Drive. Should this pan- handle be part of the hotel portion rather than the residential portion in drawing AO.01? 11. How will it be ensured that vehicles other than emergency vehicles do not cross the turf block? will it include some kind of raised median that only vehicles with high undercarriage distance (like firetrucks) can traverse? 12. Does the footprint of the hotel underground garage extend beyond the hotel portion of the parcel in drawing AO.01. COMMISSIONER FEINBERG'S QUESTIONS 1) Please discuss the impacts of hotel rooms being suites with kitchens and the likeliness of long-term stays. How will this impact TOT? Are there any density bonuses for Hotel or none are requested? What happens if it turns out that more than 20% of the guests stay for longer than 10 days? What is the average length of stay at all Homewood Suites? 2) Given some of the suites have two bedrooms with kitchens and will be used for long-term staysl will there be multiple cars per room? Has this been factored into the traffic counts and parking requirements? 3) Please discuss the rationale behind narrowing a public street for the length of one parcel only. Is traffic calming achieved by narrowing the width along only t1he proposed proj ect? If additional width is necessary \\to allow appropriate width to construct a sidewalk" (Staff Report I page 4) then does that mean that the proposed map does not reflect policies and programs that are consistent with the Comprehensive Planl unless the public street is used to accommodate the construction of the appropriate width sidewalk? 4) Please describe how pedestrians and bicycles will move on Ryan Lane. Since the hotel has rear doors I what measures will prevent hotel guests or employees from accessing the property or parking along Ryan Lane? 5) Please discuss the 0.57 blended-rate RAF. Is there precedent for blended FARs in properties with mixed-use and multiple zoning districts? How did 0.57 get established as the limit? 6) On page C4.0 of the plan set there is a page labeled \\PASCO Garbage Truck Simulation. Does the current refuse hauler use the same truck sizes as specified by PASCO? 7) Has Staff received feedback from the neighborhood (residential and commercial) and what has that been? Betten, Zariah From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Linnea Wickstrom [Ijwickstrom@comcast.net] Wednesday, November 18, 20094:41 PM Planning Commission Linnea wickstrom Palo Alto Bowl Map Hearing 11-18-09 TO: Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission FROM: Linnea Wickstrom RE: Palo Alto Bowl Map Hearing November 18, 2009 ATTACHMENT K First, -in a bow to 3Save the Bowl 2 , and for my te~nage son's sake, I am sorry to lose the recreational opportunity of the Palo Alto Bowl. And I must say that the low-intensity, low-traffic use of the Bowl/Motel 6 property has been convenient for most of us for a long time. But once the property was sold, we all knew change was inevitable. The Monroe Park Neighborhood Association (MPNA) recognized that the City needs the best possible income stream from commercial development on EI Camino and that the new owner needs to make the fullest use of the acreage. And many, if not most, Monroe Park residents think that upgrading from the current uses would be an improvement in both aesthetics and safety. As the project has progressed, the developer has worked with the City Staff and the neighborhood on central elements for MPNA. Because of antiCipated traffic problems, some residents do still oppose the housing element accessing Monroe. However, the neighborhood's other key needs have been addressed: the bike path for a Safe Route to School, traffic calming within the neighborhood, an immediate improvement in maintenance of the property, and better fitting the housing density and architectural style into the neighborhood. We have some detailed concerns that we expect to be addressed: -Expediting final design, budgeting, and implementation of traffic calming -Finalizing bike path -Plan for Safe Route to School during construction -Taking of 6 - 9 feet of Monroe Drive for development sidewalk and need for sidewalk to Monroe/Monroe intersection -Improving architecture of hotel frontage Other issues may arise but the Monroe Park Neighborhood Association is generally positive about the proposed re-development of the Palo Alto Bowl and Motel 6 property. Linnea Wickstrom X0rive Palo Alto 650.941.1143 1 President, Monroe Park Neighborhood Association 2 ~., • • • LEED for New Construction v2.2 Registered Project Checklist Attachment L ,.,~ ...... . Project Name: Palo Alto Bowl -Hotel Project Address: EI Camino Real., Palo Alto, CA Yas ? No milo Sustainable Sites ',14 Points Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Site Selection rt3~Crell1it 2 Development Density & Community Connectivity ,~'~~ICr'edit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment ~ICrel:jjt4.1 Alternative Transportation. Public Transportation Access 4.2 Alternative Transportation. Bicycle Storag~ & Changing Rooms 4.3 Alternative Transportation, Low-Emitting & Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Alternative Transportation. Parking Capacity Site Devel9pment, Protect or Restore Habitat Site Development, Maximize Open Space Stormwater Design, Quantity Control Stormwater Design, Quality Control 7.1 Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof 7.2 Heat 'Island Effect, Roof Light Pollution Reduction Required 1 1 . Yes ?'" No 1111111 Water Efficiency 5 Points ~~1~IClredit 1.1 1.2 2' ~ICreljit 3.1 rut~fllClredlt 3.2 Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation Innovative Wastewater Technologies Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction Dum Energy & Atmosphere 17 Points I Prereq 1 Prereq 2 Prereq 3 Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems Minimum Energy Performance Fundamental Refrigerant Management Required Required Required *Note for EAc1: All LEED for New Construction projects registered after June 26111• 2007 are required to achieve at least two (2) poInts under EAc1. IflIl.Utlt.!/credit 1 0 tlmlze Energy Performance . 1 to 10 10.5% New Buildings or 3.5% Existing Building Renovations 1 14% New Buildings or 7% Existing Building Renovations 2 17.5% New Buildings or 10.5% Existing Building Renovations 3 21% New Buildings or 14% EXisting Building Renovations 4 24.5% New Buildings or 17.5% Existing Building Renovations 5 28% New Buildings or 21% EXisting Bull~ing Renovations 6 31.5% New Buildings or 24.5% Existing Building Renovations 7 35% New Buildings or 28% Existing Building Renovations 8 38.5% New Buildings or 31.5% Existing Building Renovations 9 42% New Buildings or 35% EXisting Building Renovations 10 On-Sate Renewable Energy 1 to 3 §2.5% Renewable Energy 1 7.5% Renewable Energy 2 12.5% Renewable Energy 3 Enhanced Commissioning Enhanced Refrigerant Management Measurement & Verification Green Power •. ," • • • • IIElIl Materials & Resources,' 13 Points 1.2 2.2 \!;1~~ICI'edlt 3.1 G:1'-i\lCrealt 3.2 4.1 5.2 . Yee. ? No Storage & Collection of Recyclables Required Building Reuse, Maintain 75% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof 1 Building Reuse, Maintain 100% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof Building Reuse, Maintain 50% of Interior Non-Structural Elements Construction Waste Management, Divert 50% from Disposal Construction Waste Management, Divert 75% from Disposal Materials Reuse, 5% Materials Reuse, 1 0% Recycled Content, 10% (post-consumer + Y:z pre-consumer) Recycled Content, 20% (post-consumer + Y:z pre-consumer) Regional Materials, 10% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured Regional Regional Materials, 20% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured Regional Rapidly Renewable Materials Certified Wood mOD Indoor Environmental Quality 15 Points Prereq 1 ...... _..--.prereq 2 Credit 1 18J111:~""""~ Yea ? No Minimum IAQ Performance Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring Increased Ventilation Construction IAQ Management Plan, During Construction Construction IAQ Management Plan, Before Occupancy Low .. Emlttlng Materials, Adhesives & Sealants Low .. Emitting Materials, Paints & Coatings Low .. Erriltting Materials, Carpet Systems Low .. Emlttlng Materials, Composite Wood & Agrifiber Products Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control Controllability of Systems, Lighting Controllability of Systems, Thermal Comfort Thermal Comfort, Design Thermal Comfort, Verification Daylight & Views, Daylight 75% of Spaces Daylight & Views, Views for 90% of Spaces Required Required 1 1 1 l ' 111111 Innovation & Design Process 5 Points Yes ? No Innovation In Design: Green Cleaning Innovation In Design: Exemplary Performance -Heat Island, non-roof Innovation In Design: Exemplary Performance, Daylight 95% of spaces Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title LEED® Accredited Professional mmm Project Totals (pre~certification estimates) 69 Points Certified: 26-32 points, . Sliver: 33-38 points, Gold: 39-51 pOints, Platinum: 52-69 polnb • • • • GreenPoint Rated Checklist: Single Famllv I roe I:iraant'OInllClllea meawsc wacs green IBlWrus II1corponllea 1010 Ul8 nome. I roe ~ minimum l8IJIir'8menla for • g/'88rt horne ~e: Eam a Iotal 01 50 poinla or more: obtain lila following minimum paWs par calagory: Energy (30), Indoor IIJr QuaitylHealth (5), Resourcel (6), and Walar (9): and meallhe pnlr'8Cjul$Hee A.3.a (50% oonalnICIIon wasta dlven;Ion), J.1 (Excaed THle 24 by 15%), and N.l (Incorporate G/9an Poinl$ d1eddislln bkleprlnl$). The green building pnICIIoee "61ed below ant desaibed In \he New Home Constsucllon Grean BuDding GulderlR8l, available alwwwbygdjlgl'llgn 91P. BuUd II Green Is a non-profil OIlIanlzalion providing the GreenPolnI Raled program sa a public SeMca. Build II Green 8rIOO1I8II8' local govemmenla 10 leverage resourcaa \0 IWppGI\ voluntary, merlull-based programs and 8lnlteglee. 2007 •• lntlall Ttmlite ShIeld. a Separate All ElIIer1Clr~rvnte Connac6ons by Mltel or PIu~c fa.tanarllDiYIdera . I glllnledWllen o e. No 1nv1llY. Species Ualed by Cal·IPC Are Planled iii b. No Plant Specie. Wil Requ\le HedginQ J3:ESwlIllIAQ) It! c. 76" 01 P1anII he CaI~Dmia Nallves or MeallTlln8an Spedes 0( Other Appropriate Speci .. o •. AIlTurfWlHava.WlIarRoqllil1mentlealllllnO(~IDTaiFeIC\Il«·O.8","nlrldOr) o b. Turf Shell Not Be _~ed on 810pee EKaoedlng 10% 0( In Areuleal IIIan 8 Feel 'Mde o c. TurflaS33"oILar.lKaptdAroa(1oIII2poinll) d.Turfl.SIO% or Low-IIowSptlntlerl o •. PI ... Rallarllr.l SIud, al2~ On CenIirFramlng It! b. Si~ Door and Wlldoot Hoedellior Load c.U .. o •. Beamllr.l Haa"" a b.lntu'atedEnglnHted Head8fI It! c.WOOdhloiallO(WIbT ....... IotFloolll o d.Woodhlol.aIO(RDO/RaIiarl for Load D •. EngnetedorFlnger.JolnledStu4sIorVertcalApplIcaIDIII f.OriIllQdShndBoardlorSIAlIIoot O!IenIedSlrandBoardbWllandRooI o •. Dltnwionll Lumber, Sludllr.l T"U11ber: Minimum 40% o b. Dimlfllionll Lumber, Sludllr.l Tmbet: Minimum 70% c. PIDII PfOducII: ".,lmum 40% d. Panel Produc:ll: Minimum 70% •• F ..... b.W.11I c.Roolt Oncludot SIP" ICF .. Auembly) ErUrfog tho Home ffom ",. GmgI rPoinillUiomaUClUygranlld when pmfIct quailiot b "* .. '" J3: Ea ";111 IAQ) .. 11ghIIySNI .... NtllMletbe_GaIl!l.andUvingAnol 8u1ldaDellched n Attachment M ~ !~!\~,~~\~~~ I Total Points Achieved: us I ~~: ... '';'':''''\ Paga1014 e· e • o •. lMuIate IiotW8I8t Pipet fmmWalllrHa6ter IrllO!dIen o b.lMllialeAllHotWalarP'1jIH o Co 11M Engil18tllld Fallllel PipIng o d.1IM EngIMelad PilI8IIeIPipingwill! Demand Con~oIled ClrQIJaIion Loop o e.IIMSltudunldI'tLlOllbfJle wilhDemandCon~IedCkallaIlonLoop ('Poinll.tulomallcallr~nted wilen projectqualifiall for.-utII J3: ESwllh lAQ] 8. Fumaon b.WaterHeaIerl ~nledwllenprojectqualifiasfotmeas ... eJ3:ESwiIh lAO] o a.lnsIalHVACUnllandDudwo/t(wllllillCondiIIooed8pa(;e III II. Use Duct Matlie 011 AI Duct JoinIland Seams o c.ln&laIIo..dwo/t(underAllictoalliallon(ButladDucIa) o d.PllIUUrella1ancelliaDuclwalk5y1lem o o o III o o Clean All DU(;\I before 7. Don' In,"U FlrepIHn Of IIIltIIl'uled lin FlrljlllcH wHh Elllcllncy RIlI"II NOrLa .. TIIIn GO% UlIftjJC8AS .... r. Batllroomun4lO!chlns r8a&c are eu!omaliclllV ~Ied wilen pcqect qualifies lot tneaflutll J3: ES willi IAQ] •• 1nI1iII t:HERGY STAR IIaIhtoom I'ana Venlad 10 lilt o..lSId& b.AIIealbnlom f8lliAreonllmarOlHumidiltal Hood Vented 10 ilia Oullide a.1n8IsI ENERGY IITAR C4IIIing F8III& UghlKi4IIiIIlMng Areal & BedIIloma b.1n8IsI 'MIoie Houst FlII will! Variable SpeedII c·Aufl3maIlcallrConlroll4ldlnlaQ/llledSyalam Con~1ed ~ •• AnyWhole HousaVtrnllaiion Sya!am lbalMeelsASliRAE 62.2 b. inIlaII Ait+NI Hell Ex<hlnger IIIeI maell AIIHRAE 62.2 rl'llinllautornellcalygraOOldwilen pcqectquaHetfor tneaau18 J3:£lIwlIIIII\Oj '.3O%oftlectloneadlOR 1.2t.W(1D1816 poInIal b. GO% of eIacIric neadIOR 2AkW (toIal12 poiIIII) c.90% of eledJlonead OR 3.6 Page2of4 ." • • D D D D D D o D D a.CablnaIIII/iO%MinllTdlm) b.lmltlor TIIm (50% Minimum) c. Shelving (fiG" Minimum) d.OooII (fiG" MiRlITdIm) e. Sublloar & SI8~ Treadl(6O% Mlnlmum) b. Cablnalll & Coun!e!Iope (60% Minimum) c.lnle~or Trlm (50% Minimum) o 3. FfoarllllJ MH!I Section 01350 II( CAl GnItII Label Plu. Rtqulremtnta (!50% Minimum) rPGInl8 auIomallclIl1uranlild IIPtlan projecl qudlieslormeasura J3; Ell willi 1AQ) .z. e. Moo!I Energy Slat and CEElier21l1qUiramonll (mod~ eneIlII'fac!or 2.0. Waler Fac!or 6.0 or laa) ~oCaI3po1nla) b. MeeI.II EMfVI' Slat and CEE TIef 31l1qulramonll (modified tnIlIQ)'tacIIlt 2.2, WalerFacIor4J5 orlea) (Io!aI5po1n1a) o I,CluaIllrHome.forLandP_1Ion o b. ConseM ResourCM by InalIUing 0WiIy (IOIlniIa per At:nIorGraalel) o c. HomeSWI EIki~ G_rySlot';3)SI:Ilooi; 4) DayCaI9; $"j LaUlldly;8) PlIIC/I oIWOIIIlIp; tD) Bant 121 b. Dawlopmentl. ConnacIad wllIt A Oedicelild I'$leBlllan Palhwey 10 Pl8CM ofRoelllalJonaJ InlerellwlWn 114,. 121 c.8uHdotlnllall.llll.eaatTwoof .... FoIIowingTraflio-Calml"ll8n\egIea; ·lleeIgnalild8lcydl Lall8laraPrasanlon ~ • Ten-100t Vehicle Tnwellanes; • • SIr. CtosaI"III CIoMsUo Sill 11'8 Localild IMa lban 300 FeelApaIt ·StrMlI Have RllrnbltSlripo, Bulboult, RaIsed CIoeawIIlks orReIuge Island. Delran SocIIIGIIIIering 121 I. All Home frontllnlraAoee Have Vi_ from the II1IIde III OuIaIdeCal1ela o b. All Home Front IlnIraAoee Can be Seen fnIm ilia StreeIlncUor fnIm Other FtIIIII 000II D 8.NIIfomeIHaYallleettO .... ZerG-Slapllntrance 121 b. All Main Flo« Interior Doon! & Pauagewaya Hal'll Minimum 32·lnoh Clear Pas!8glilpace D c. LocaI8 811.eaat. Hafl.8alhon IhII Ground FioOfwilll BIOdIIng In Weill forGrab Bata D t.AedUCI HeaI·laIand Efl"ect'IneIalIlIQhI-eolorad, high albedo material. (aolarretiectanoe Index .. O.3)foUI 1e1lll5O%clalle'e rm-rooIlmpWVIouuulfacea til8 o t. Maett Bay-frieldy Landacepa Prugn.m Rtqunmenl C 2. Maett CaifomIa.f1tendly landeca.,.1'lOQI'IIII Requlraonelll n 3.RlInW_~Iti"ll SJaI«n(1 ~for <35Ogallonl, 2po1nla for) 35Ogallona) Page 3 014 •• • • Topogtlphy. and Dtalnage .,:.' ,. 'f'.l!.~",:9 '·'~;r'i,i'~)r'I.IIlN.fI".II!IICI .... 1oIUI1ain Sfruc:lnIPllln RoIConItoIs .;i.Oi:a!l~'WoIld(~. rllin.SUudur.)N.Leul ;2' AbcNeSoi ;{ ~ Nt WoOcI Franq 3 Feel fRNn th& Foundallon II TINIed with BotaIM (or U. Fac\ory-lm,ngnaled .. tj~"' ...... '. '~tillIl!ORWallII"NoIMldaofWood ;i!:~f.f~;;T,;;:;r~==-:-;:"::··-' ,!D .· UlIlMIIdEnglnenlHeadIfl !,.' .",' ':.:[] ... ~Woodl-JoIIIIorWIbTlUUOIIforFIooit . .' :\kY~ .. H~' '::::=;==SIlIdIfo'Vertiem~~Ucna . [] :.f.RoaIT_:l00~ 4. FSC C4IttiIIedWood ':::': " " :", •• 000enaloRalllMnlw.S!udaandTombet:l00% ;2,':':.;....,......L..,~:.:;:=.~:;::=~I00'4:::.::... _______________ +-=-+-....J._...L----l......:......L---1I-....L~L-....L~I-__ .J-----------l . ..~:.-, ~:: .~ .. [] 1. Gtr,wIIIr Pretlumblna ~ndud. wallq mad1ine al mininum) • [] .2, Gtr,wI. SyIIam Opetational (IndudeI .... hlng rnac:Nn1 al minimum) o .3. MI'i8t;t WlllllwllIt Tedmology (Cor4IrucIed Wetland. Sand FilM. Aelllbic Syllam) [] 4.~orW.I8II .. TalloI [] 5. kIaIIII Dillin WaIIr Heat-tlGOVlt)' Syllam 8.kIaIIIIWHtEIllc:llnIFbdu,.. o •. ShoMlhladl or ~TD'MIf1I 11M <2.0 GIIon, Pet Minute (GPM) Talal It!'. b:FIUCiIII,.bellwotnac1.5gpm o.flucell· 1. 11M ErwitunmentIIly Pllfetabll Mallttall lor Inletlor FlnlIhIII [] L CebineCI (eo~ minimum) [] b. lnIe~or Trim (80% minimum) o c.SheMng(8O%minmum) o d, Oocn (801(, minimum) [] [] o 1. HotnebIIlIdaI'l Mlnegemenl SIal! are Cettified Green lkIidlng PtofeIaIonaI, [] 2,Dl!aledDvrebc'IyPlln rPolntllWlmalical1y gtantId wilen project quaifiallor m ...... J3: ES willi L\Q) 3. 'lllinl-f'ulyVetlfialtion01 ImpIlIIIIfInIStionofDutabllity Plan 14. MafMillJaSclUrolld. P~DCeIlIed..ndMInuI1IdunIdWilllln. saO Milt ~oIIhIHome 'roJeot he. met ell reoomm.nd.d minimum requirement. 11\{.;/,';c.',I/!!i ('~ ;.'ufo'·.; 1"\(·'.;r.'!JlU"; (b 1~:)ifJl:i! ··Mi..:Xf01:(ln .-?O (>,--'ini.·j· Pll!!;i.;C~·(j !lnrif;" {..JlI:r'F:j'!'~.}' J), .:;:":(i .;n(i ,}!:Ji1:w~~J -Maximum 20 points pursued under Innovation Page4of4 December 14, 2009 Palo Alto Bowl Mixed-Use Development Presentation to the City Council April 2007 Re-Zoning of the Project Site P&TC and Council designated the Site for mixed-use including residential. P&TC and Council encouraged combining parcels. P&TC and Council hoped for a hotel, mixed-use project. “This rezoning would also enable parcel consolidation with the adjacent motel site and potential redevelopment of a larger site for retail or mixed use development. The Commission was particularly interested in hotel use on the expanded site and considered the site as having good potential for future hotel development that could result in significant additional tax revenue for the City.” Project Process and Evolution Extensive Collaboration with the Public and City Early dialogue with the Architectural Review Board Neighborhood Dialogue regarding the site design and bicycle- pedestrian easement Planning and Transportation Commission Hearing (5 to 1 Approval) Neighborhood Dialogue regarding the architectural design Architectural Review Board Hearings (5 to 0 Approval) Tentative Subdivision Map P&TC Hearing (6 to 0 Approval) Location and Context Site Development Goals Achieves City land use goals Compatible land use that transitions from El Camino Real to the single family residential neighborhood Efforts to retain and preserve 14 of 16 “Protected Trees” Compatible with El Camino Real Design Guidelines Proposed Site Design -+-, -- .... , ---. Hotel Perspective at the El Camino Real Entry Drive Hotel Perspective at El Camino Real and Monroe Drive Townhome Residences - Perspective at Monroe Drive Community Benefits Creation of a public Bicycle and Pedestrian Path The Project contributes funds for neighborhood traffic studies and implementing traffic calming measures ($60,000) Significant Impact Fees ($3,400,000) Recurring Annual Revenue ($1,400,000) San Francisco 98 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, California 94111 415.683.2000 San José 60 Pierce Avenue San José, California 95110 408.295.5446 Los Angeles 523 West 6th Street, Suite 245 Los Angeles, California 90014 213.629.0500 www.SteinbergArchitects.com December 8,2009 Mayor Peter Drekmeier Members Palo Alto City Council PRe P E Ft T I I: S fVi 10-, I~ A G [' f\ii E r,j T Re: December 14 Agenda: Palo Bowl Site & Design and Tentative Map. Dear Council Members: Attachment 0 The purpose of this letter is to provide a summary of the widely supported Project at 4301 and 4329 El Camino, the Palo Alto Bowl property. It is our hope that this short review will enable you to approve the Project without the need for extensive debate -particularly on the night of your last public hearing for action items for 4 weeks. For the last two hearings there have been two speakers from the neighborhood and one bowler. . Mixed-Use Success and Zoning. The Project is located at the Palo Alto bowl site consisting of3.62 acres. The Project may be the most successful zoning action initiated by the City Council for many years. On March 12, 2007 the City Council changed the zoning designation from RM-30 along El Camino to CS(H) and with RM-15 adjacent to R-l properties as an appropriate transition. It was the Council's hope that the zone change would not only avoid an entirely residential project along El Camino as occurred as the Ricky's Hyatt site, but would provide the opportunity for a mixed-use project that would incl ude a hotel. In fulfillment of the Council's hopes, the Project provides a 167":room hotel along El Camino and successfully transitions to the R-l neighbors with twenty-six single-family attached and detached homes. Four of the twenty-six homes will be made available exclusively to low and moderate income families in Palo Alto. Both the hotel and the homes comply with the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Unsurpassed Project Fees and Revenues. In addition to fulfilling Council's desired land uses, the Project provides Impact Fees totaling approximately $3,400,000 and recurring annual reven ues of over $1,400,000. Supportive Recommendations from P&TC and ARB. The Project comes to Council with Site and Design recommendations from both the P&TC (5-1) and the ARB (5-0). P&TC recommend approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map (6-0). Of course, this is an extraordinary accomplishment for redevelopment of a large parcel adjacent to an active neighborhood. ! "/ :;" Neighborhood Support. The Project Applicant has conducted no fewer than seven neighborhood meetings. As a result of neighborhood input, the Project has been changed dramatically both in its overall intensity of overall land use, and in the particular design of the buildings, especially the homes. This Project, unlike other residential projects in south Palo Alto, will not have negative school impacts because students will attend elementary and middle schools in Los Altos that both have large, unfilled student capacities. Community Benefits. The Project meets all required undertakings imposed on complex projects such as heritage tree protection, compliance with LEED and Build it Green standards, storm water management, and extensive infrastructure improvements. In addition to satisfying these requirements, the Applicant has voluntarily committed to: (i) provide traffic calming measures for the neighborhood even though there is no increased traffic nexus; and (ii) dedicate a public bicycle and pedestrian connection between Monroe to the north and Cesano Court to the south. This provides a safe and pleasant connection for neighbors, and children who cross EI Camino at the signalized· intersection (with school crossing guard) ofCesano Court and EI Camino. Bowling Alley Relocation. The Applicant has been working for over a year with the owner of the bowling alley to relocate the bowling alley to an alternate location in north Santa Clara County. In the meantime the applicant and bowling alley operator are trying to keep the bowling alley operating as long as possible. Excellent Staff Performance. The Project and its successes with P&TC and ARB would not have been possible without Staff support and creative problem solving. Any project of this size and with a mix of uses requires determinations by the Planning Staff, the City Attorney's Office, and the Utility, Public Works, Fire, and Building Departments. Curtis Williams creates an atmosphere that encourages staff members to find workable solutions for worthy projects. Staff members made several significant determinations that were instrumental to the Project's success and have resulted in a better project for the Applicant, the neighborhood, and the City of Palo Alto. Construction Schedule. It is the Applicant's goal to commence construction on the hotel in Spring 2011. The Project lender is prepared to finance development of the hotel and construction of the homes will commence as soon as the single-family market in Palo Alto has fully recovered and financing is available. Attachments: We have provided a site plan and elevations of the hotel and homes so that you can quickly familiarize yourselves with this Good Luck Project. We hope this letter will enable you to enjoy the process of approving this Project as recommended by P&TC and ARB. Sincerely yours, ,/1 ./;-'/~ .. " .. ; Jame~/E. Baer /' Cc ,Karon Barger Ryan Leong City of Palo Alto Office of the City Auditor December 14, 2009 Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California City of Palo Alto Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report FY 2009 This is the City Auditor’s eighth annual Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report for the City of Palo Alto covering the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009 (FY 2009). The report is intended to be informational. It 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 a citizen survey. Our goal is to provide the City Council, staff, and the public with an independent, impartial assessment of past performance to strengthen public accountability, improve government efficiency and effectiveness, and support future decision making. OVERALL SATISFACTION (pages 2-3 and pages 18-19) The seventh annual Citizen Survey, administered in conjunction with this report, reveals high ratings for City services. 80% rated the overall quality of City services good or excellent. During the last 5 years of the survey, 80 to 88% of respondents have rated the overall quality of City services good or excellent. When asked to rate the value of services for taxes paid to the City of Palo Alto, 58% rated the value of services as good or excellent, a rating similar to other surveyed jurisdictions. This year, 53% of respondents reported they were pleased with the overall direction of the City (compared to 63% last year). Over the last five years of the survey, ratings of satisfaction with the overall direction of the City alternate with higher and lower ratings. 58% of respondents reported having contact with a City employee in the last 12 months, and 79% rated that contact good or excellent (compared to 73% last year). In comparison to responses from other jurisdictions, Palo Alto ranks in the 98th percentile for educational opportunities, 98th percentile as a place to work, 93rd percentile as a place to live, in the 89th percentile as a place to raise children and 92nd percentile in overall quality of life. On the other hand, Palo Alto ranked in the 11th percentile for availability of affordable quality housing, 19th percentile for the variety of housing options, and 23rd percentile for availability of quality child care. This year, Palo Alto ranked in the top 5 for overall image or reputation, educational opportunities, place to work, and for the number of residents reporting that they recycled in their home, and the number of residents reporting they visited the City of Palo Alto website. This year’s survey included a “Key Driver Analysis” to identify service areas that appear to influence overall ratings of satisfaction. Based on this analysis, “Public Information” and “Street Tree Maintenance” were the two areas most strongly correlated with ratings of overall service quality. It should be noted that the survey results partly overlapped with the September 2009 California Avenue street tree cutting of 63 trees, resulting in public concern over the City’s street tree cutting processes. 72% of Palo Alto residents rated street Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 tree maintenance as good or excellent (an increase from 68% the prior year). Overall satisfaction with the City’s public information services declined 8 percentage points, from 76% rating satisfaction as good or excellent last year, to 68% this year. The City Manager indicates that this decline might also be a reaction to the lack of public outreach around the California Avenue street tree incident and is indicative of a larger issue relating to resources necessary to effectively engage and communicate with the community. OVERALL SPENDING, STAFFING, AND ACCOMPLISHMENT OF COUNCIL PRIORITIES (pages 9-20) General Fund spending increased from $118 to $140.8 million (or 19%) over the last 5 years; Palo Alto’s estimated population increased 5.0% and inflation was about 12% over the same period. In FY 2009, total Citywide authorized staffing, including temporary and hourly positions, was 1,150 full-time equivalent employees (FTE), a 3% decrease from five years ago. On a per capita basis, FY 2009 net General Fund costs of $1,597 included:  $367 for police services  $218 for community services  $212 for fire and emergency medical services  $155 for public works  $128 for administrative and strategic support services  $92 for library services  $74 for planning, building, code enforcement  $245 in operating transfers out (including $186 in transfers for capital projects)  $106 for non-departmental expenses The General Fund has invested $89.5 million in capital projects for the last 5 years. As a result, the Infrastructure Reserve decreased from $25.2 million in FY 2005 to $7.0 million in FY 2009. Capital spending last year totaled $52.0 million, including $15.8 million in the general governmental funds and $36.2 million in the enterprise funds. The City Council established three top priority areas for calendar year 2009: Environmental Protection, Civic Engagement for the Common Good, and Economic Health of the City. COMMUNITY SERVICES (pages 21-30) Spending on community services increased 11% over the last five years to $21.1 million while staffing decreased 7%. In FY 2009, volunteers donated more than 16,000 hours for open space restorative/resource management projects. Enrollment in classes was down 16% from 20,903 in FY 2005 to 17,608 in FY 2009. Online class registrations continue to increase, with 45% of registrations online last year compared to 40% five years ago. Attendance at Children’s Theater performances decreased from 19,811 to 14,786, however in 2009 the Department reformatted its programming and methods for calculating participants. In FY 2009, parks maintenance spending totaled about $4.4 million or approximately $16,940 per acre maintained. About 24% of maintenance spending was contracted out. Golf Course expenses exceeded revenue by about $326,000 in FY 2009. ii SUMMARY Residents give favorable ratings for Palo Alto’s recreation, parks, and natural environment. 87% of residents rate Palo Alto’s preservation of wildlife and native plants as good or excellent; 82% rate the preservation of natural areas such as open space as good or excellent. 80% of residents rate the quality of recreation centers/facilities as good or excellent; 85% rate the quality of recreation programs/classes as good or excellent; 85% rate the range/variety of classes good or excellent; 87% rate their neighborhood park good or excellent; and 92% rate the quality of city parks good or excellent. In comparison to other jurisdictions, Palo Alto’s survey responses ranked in the 90th percentile for recreation programs and classes, 94th percentile for quality of parks, 95th percentile for services to seniors, and 94th percentile for preservation of natural areas. FIRE (pages 31-36) The Fire Department provides Palo Alto and Stanford residents and businesses with emergency response, environmental and safety services. Fire Department expenditures of $23.4 million were 23% more than five years ago. In FY 2009, 49% of costs were covered by revenue. In FY 2009, the Department responded to an average of 21 calls per day. The average response time for fire calls was 5:37 minutes, and the average response time for medical/rescue calls was 5:37 minutes. In FY 2009, there were more than 4,500 medical/rescue incidents, and only 239 fire incidents (including 20 residential structure fires). In FY 2009, the Department performed 31% fewer fire inspections and 19% more hazardous materials inspections (including 56% of annual inspections of the 509 facilities permitted for hazardous materials) than it did five years ago. Palo Alto is the only city in Santa Clara County that provides primary ambulance services. The Department has 113 line personnel certified as emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and 36 of these are also certified paramedics. In FY 2009, the Department provided 3,331 ambulance transports, an increase of 21% from five years ago. Residents give high marks to the quality of Fire Department service: 95% of residents rated fire services good or excellent, and 91% rated ambulance/emergency medical services good or excellent. In FY 2009, the Department provided 329 fire safety, bike safety, and disaster preparedness presentations to more than 3,400 residents. 62% of survey respondents rated Palo Alto’s emergency preparedness as good or excellent and 81% felt very or somewhat safe from environmental hazards. LIBRARY (pages 37-41) In November 2008, voters approved a $76 million bond measure (Measure N) to fund improvements for the Mitchell Park, Downtown, and Main libraries and the Mitchell Park Community Center. In addition, the City allocated $4 million in infrastructure funds to renovate the College Terrace Library. As a result, four library buildings are in the initial stages of major facility improvement. Operating expenditures for Palo Alto’s five library facilities rose 22% over the last five years to $6.2 million. Total circulation increased 27% to over 1.6 million in FY 2009. More than 90% of first time checkouts were completed on the Library’s self-check machines, compared to 67% four years ago, when the measure was first tracked. Over the last 5 years, the number of reference questions declined 43%, while the number of internet sessions increased 27% and the number of online database sessions increased 183%; the total number of cardholders increased 6% to 54,878. Volunteers donated more than 5,900 hours of service to the libraries in FY 2009 –a 21% decrease from five years ago. iii Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 34% of survey respondents reported they used the library or its services more than 12 times last year, 79% rated the quality of library services good or excellent, 75% rated the quality of neighborhood branch libraries good or excellent, and 73% rated the variety of library materials as good or excellent. PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT (pages 43-48) Planning and Community Environment expenditures totaled $9.9 million in FY 2009. This was offset by revenue of $5.0 million. A total of 189 planning applications were completed in FY 2009 – 42% fewer than five years ago. The average time to complete planning applications was 10.7 weeks. 55% of surveyed residents rated the overall quality of new development in Palo Alto as good or excellent; 54% rated economic development good or excellent, and 50% rated code enforcement services good or excellent. Over the last 5 years, the number of new code enforcement cases increased 15% from 473 to 545. In FY 2009, 94% of cases were resolved within 120 days. The Department issued a total of 2,543 building permits in FY 2009, 17% less than 5 years ago. 75% of building permits were issued over the counter. For those permits that were not issued over the counter, the average for first response to plan checks was 31 days (compared to 23 days last year), and the average to issue a building permit was 63 days (compared to 80 days last year). According to the Department, 98% of building permit inspection requests were responded to within one working day. During the last 12 months, 7% of survey respondents applied for a permit at the City’s Development Center. Of these respondents, 59% rated the ease of the planning approval process as poor, 50% rated the time required to review and issue permits as poor, 49% rated the ease of overall application process as poor. Results for inspection timeliness were better with 52% rating this area as good or excellent. The Department reports it is reviewing its process to identify improvements. City Shuttle boardings decreased 19% since five years, from about 169,000 in FY 2005 to about 136,500 in FY 2009. 41% of survey respondents said they use alternative commute modes to commute, 55% consider the amount of public parking good or excellent. POLICE (pages 49-56) Police Department spending of $28.3 million was 25% more than five years ago. The Department handled more than 53,000 calls for service in FY 2009, or about 146 calls per day. Over the last 5 years, the average response times for emergency calls improved from 5:01 minutes to 4:43 minutes. During this time, the number of juvenile arrests decreased 10% from 256 to 230, and the number of total arrests increased 22% from 2,134 to 2,612. The total number of traffic collisions declined by 27% over the five year period, however the number of bicycle/pedestrian collisions increased by 11%. There were 37 alcohol related collisions, and 192 DUI arrests in FY 2009. Police Department statistics show 64 reported crimes per 1,000 residents, with 44 reported crimes per officer last year. FBI statistics show that Palo Alto has fewer violent crimes per thousand residents than many local jurisdictions. 95% of surveyed residents felt very or somewhat safe in their neighborhood during the day and 91% in Palo Alto’s downtown during the day. Feelings of safety decreased at night with 78% feeling very or somewhat safe in their neighborhood after dark and iv SUMMARY 65% feeling very or somewhat safe in downtown after dark. 84% of surveyed residents rated police services good or excellent. The Police Department reports it received 124 commendations and 14 complaints last year (three complaints were sustained). PUBLIC WORKS (pages 57-66) The Public Works Department provides services through the General Fund for streets, trees, structures and facilities, and engineering services. Operating expenditures in these areas totaled $12.9 million in FY 2009. Capital spending for these activities included $4.3 million for streets (up from $3.3 million in FY 2005), and $1.6 million for sidewalks. In FY 2009, the Department replaced or permanently repaired nearly 57,000 square feet of sidewalks, and completed 21 ADA ramps. In this year’s survey, 42% rated street repair as good or excellent, and 53% rated sidewalk maintenance as good or excellent. The Department is also responsible for refuse collection and disposal ($33.5 million in FY 2009 operating expense), storm drainage ($1.6 million in FY 2009), wastewater treatment ($16.4 million, of which 63% is reimbursed by other jurisdictions), and maintenance and replacement for the city fleet ($4.1 million). These services are provided through enterprise and internal service funds. Over the last five years tons of waste landfilled increased 12%; tons of materials recycled decreased 1%, and tons of household hazardous materials collected decreased 25%. This year, 89% of surveyed residents rated the quality of garbage collection as good or excellent (placing Palo Alto in the 83rd percentile), 90% rated recycling services good or excellent, and 86% rated the City’s composting process and pickup services good or excellent. 73% of residents rated storm drainage good or excellent. UTILITIES (pages 67-75) In FY 2009, operating expense for the electric utility totaled $112.4 million, including $82.3 million in electricity purchase costs (101% more than five years ago). The average monthly residential bill has increased 33% over the five year period. Average residential electric usage per capita decreased 5% from five years ago. By the end of FY 2009, nearly 20% of Palo Alto customers had enrolled in the voluntary Palo Alto Green energy program – supporting 100% renewable energy. 83% of surveyed residents rated electric utility services good or excellent. Operating expense for the gas utility totaled $33.4 million, including $25.1 million in gas purchases (34% more than five years ago). The average monthly residential bill has increased 87% over the five year period. Average residential natural gas usage per capita declined 14% from five years ago. The number of service disruptions increased from 31 to 46 over the five year period. 81% of surveyed residents rated gas utility services good or excellent. Operating expense for the water utility totaled $19.4 million, including $8.4 million in water purchases (26% more than five years ago). The average residential water bill has increased 27% over the five year period. Average residential water usage per capita is down 9% from five years ago. 81% of surveyed residents rate water quality as good or excellent. Operating expense for wastewater collection totaled $11 million in FY 2009. The average residential sewer bill has increased 22% over the last five years. 81% of residents rated sewer services good or excellent. There were 210 sewage overflows in 2009. v Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 vi In 1996, the City launched the fiber optic utility and built a 40.6 mile dark fiber backbone throughout the City with the goal of delivering broadband services to all premises, with customers connected via fiber optic “service connections.” New customers pay the construction fees required to connect to the fiber optic backbone. Fiber optic operating revenue totaled $3.3 million in FY 2009 and had 47 customer accounts 178 service connections. STRATEGIC AND SUPPORT SERVICES (pages 77-81) This category includes the Administrative Services and Human Resources departments, and the offices of the City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Auditor, and the City Council, and includes performance information related to these departments. By reviewing the entire report, readers will gain a better understanding of the mission and work of each of the City’s departments. The background section includes a community profile, discussion of service efforts and accomplishments reporting, and information about the preparation of this report. Chapter 1 provides a summary of overall City spending and staffing over the last five years. Chapters 2 through 9 present the mission statements, description of services, background information, workload, performance measures, and survey results for the various City services. The full results of the National Citizen SurveyTM are also attached. Additional copies of this report are available from the Auditor’s Office and are posted on the web at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/aud/service_efforts_and_accomplishments.asp. We thank the many departments and staff that contributed to this report. This report would not be possible without their support. Respectfully submitted, Lynda Flores Brouchoud City Auditor Performance Audit Intern: Rochelle Sazegari Audit staff and assistance: Edwin Young, Ian Hagerman, Lisa Wehara, and Patricia Hilaire TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND 1 Introduction 1 Community Profile 1 Scope and Methodology 4 Acknowledgements 8 CHAPTER 1 – OVERALL SPENDING, STAFFING & ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF COUNCIL PRIORITIES 9 Per Capita Spending 10 Authorized Staffing 11 Capital Spending 13 Resident Perceptions & Key Accomplishments of Council Priorities 14 Environmental Protection 15 Civic Engagement for the Common Good 18 Economic Health of the City 20 CHAPTER 2 – COMMUNITY SERVICES 21 Spending 22 Department –Wide Classes 23 Arts & Sciences Division 24 Open Space and Parks Division 26 Recreation and Golf Services Division 28 Cubberley Community Center and Human Services Division 30 CHAPTER 3 – FIRE 31 Fire Spending 32 Fire Staffing and Calls for Service 33 Fire Suppression 34 Emergency Medical Services 35 Hazardous Materials and Fire Safety 36 CHAPTER 4 – LIBRARY 37 Library Spending 38 Library Staffing 39 Library Collection and Circulation 40 Library Services 41 CHAPTER 5 – PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT 43 Spending 44 Current Planning and Code Enforcement 45 Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 Advance Planning Economic Development 46 Building Permits and Inspection 47 Transportation Planning 48 CHAPTER 6 – POLICE 49 Police Spending 50 Calls for Service 51 Crime 52 Perceptions of Safety 53 Police Staffing, Equipment, and Training 54 Traffic and Parking Control 55 Animal Services 56 CHAPTER 7 – PUBLIC WORKS 57 Streets 58 Sidewalks 59 Trees 60 City Facilities, Engineering, and Private Development 61 Storm Drains 62 Wastewater Treatment & Wastewater Environmental Compliance 63 Refuse 64 City Fleet and Equipment 65 Zero Waste <NEW> 66 CHAPTER 8 – UTILITIES 67 Electricity 68 Gas 70 Water 72 Wastewater Collection 74 Fiber Optic Utility 75 CHAPTER 9 – STRATEGIC AND SUPPORT SERVICES 77 Spending and Staffing 78 Administrative Services 79 Human Resources 80 City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Auditor 81 NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEYTM City of Palo Alto Summary Report 2009 Attachment 1 City of Palo Alto Report of Results 2009 Attachment 2 BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION This is the eighth annual report on the City of Palo Alto’s Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA). The purpose of the report is to  Provide consistent, reliable information on the performance of City services,  Broadly assess trends in government efficiency and effectiveness, and  Improve City accountability to the public. The report contains summary information on spending and staffing, workload, and performance results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009 (FY 2009). It also includes the results of a resident survey rating the quality of City services. The report provides two types of comparisons:  Five-year historical trends for fiscal years 2005 through 2009  Selected comparisons to other cities. There are many ways to look at services and performance. This report looks at services on a department-by-department basis. All City departments are included in our review. Chapter 1 provides a summary of overall spending and staffing over the last five years, as well as an overall description of the City’s accomplishments in meeting the City Council’s annual priorities. Chapters 2 through 9 present the mission statements, description of services, background information, workload, performance measures, and survey results for:  Community Services  Fire  Library  Planning and Community Environment  Police  Public Works  Utilities  Legislative and Support Services COMMUNITY PROFILE Incorporated in 1894, Palo Alto is a largely built-out community of over 64,000 residents. The city covers about 26 square miles, stretching from the edges of San Francisco Bay to the ridges of the San Francisco peninsula. Located mid-way between San Francisco and San Jose, Palo Alto is in the heart of the Silicon Valley. Stanford University, adjacent to Palo Alto and one of the top-rated institutions of higher education in the nation, has produced much of the talent that founded successful high-tech companies in Palo Alto and Silicon Valley. DEMOGRAPHICS Palo Alto is a highly educated community. According to the U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2008 American Community Survey, of residents aged 25 years and over:  78% had a bachelor’s degree or higher  48% had a graduate or professional degree. In 2009, Forbes named Palo Alto third in the top ten list of “America’s Most Educated Small Towns,” and first in California. 65% of Palo Alto’s population is in the labor force and the average travel time to work is estimated at 21 minutes. In 2008, the median household income was $126,740, while the average was $168,800. The breakdown of estimated household income consisted of: - 1 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 2 - 2008 Household Income Percent $49,999 or less 21% $50,000 to $149,999 37% $150,000 or more 42% Total 100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2008 American Community Survey According to census statistics, 68% of Palo Alto residents were white, and 25% were of Asian descent: Race-ethnicity Population Percent One race 61,555 97% White 43,230 68% Asian 15,765 25% Black or African American 1,108 2% American Indian and Alaska Native 104 0% Other 1,348 2% Two or more races 1,815 3% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 3,758 6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2008 American Community Survey Over the last three years, from 2006-2008, the median age of Palo Alto residents was 42 years. The following table shows population by age: Age Population Percent Under 5 years 3,828 6% 18 years and over 48,517 77% 65 years and over 10,300 16% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2008 American Community Survey The majority of residents own their homes, but a large number of dwellings are renter occupied: Housing occupancy Number Percent Owner occupied 15,485 58% Renter occupied 10,043 37% Vacant 1,432 5% Total 26,960 100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006-2008 American Community Survey OVERALL COMMUNITY QUALITY Residents give high ratings to Palo Alto’s quality of life. When asked to rate the overall quality of life in Palo Alto, 42% of residents said “excellent”, 50% said “good”, 7% said “fair”, and 0% said “poor.” In comparison to other jurisdictions1, Palo Alto ranked in the 98th percentile as a place to work, 92nd percentile for overall quality of life, and in the 93rd percentile as a place to live. These high ratings are consistent with prior surveys. Community quality ratings Percent rating Palo Alto good or excellent National ranking Palo Alto as a place to work 87% 98%tile Palo Alto as a place to live 90% 93%ile Overall quality of life 93% 92%ile Palo Alto as a place to raise children 91% 89%ile Neighborhood as a place to live 90% 93%ile Palo Alto as a place to retire 64% 62%ile Services to seniors 82% 95%ile Services to youth 75% 89%ile Services to low-income 59% 97%ile Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2009 (Palo Alto) Palo Alto ranked in the 91st percentile as a place to raise children, 95th percentile for services to seniors, and 89th percentile for services to youth. Ratings for services to low-income increased from 46% to 59%, placing Palo Alto in the 97th percentile among other surveyed jurisdictions. Palo Alto “as a place to retire” ranked lower, in the 62nd percentile, although still above the benchmark comparisons. 87% of residents plan to remain in Palo Alto for the next five years and 90% of residents would likely recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks. According to the National Research Center, intentions to stay and willingness to make recommendations, provide evidence that the City of Palo Alto provides services and amenities that work. 1 Based on survey results from over 500 jurisdictions collected by the National Research Center, Inc. (see Attachment 1) BACKGROUND SENSE OF COMMUNITY Residents continue to give very favorable ratings to Palo Alto’s community and reputation. 92% of residents rated Palo Alto’s overall image/reputation as good or excellent, placing Palo Alto in the 99th percentile compared to other jurisdictions asking a similar question. Most residents (71%) rated Palo Alto’s “sense of community” as good or excellent. Most residents (78%) also felt that the Palo Alto community was open and accepting towards people of diverse backgrounds. These results placed Palo Alto in the 79th and 94th percentiles, respectively, compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Community characteristics Percent rating Palo Alto good or excellent National ranking Overall image/reputation of Palo Alto 92% 99%ile Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 78% 94%ile Sense of community 71% 79%ile Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2009 (Palo Alto) The survey also asked residents to assess their involvement and interactions with neighbors. 93% of residents reported helping a friend or neighbor within the last 12 months, and 72% of residents talked or visited with their neighbors at least once a month. Community characteristics Percent participation Benchmark Comparison Provided help to a friend or neighbor within last 12 months 93% Similar Talk or visit with your immediate neighbors at least once a month 72% Similar Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2009 (Palo Alto) COMMUNITY AMENITIES In comparisons to other jurisdictions, Palo Alto residents give high ratings to educational opportunities, ranking in the 98th percentile compared to other jurisdictions. Although 51% of residents rated Palo Alto’s employment opportunities as good or excellent, a decrease from 61% the prior year, this places Palo Alto in the 91st percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. On the other hand, Palo Alto ranks in the 11th percentile when rating availability of affordable quality housing and the 23rd percentile in availability of affordable quality child care. Community amenities Percent rating Palo Alto good or excellent National ranking Educational opportunities 91% 98%ile Employment opportunities 51% 91%ile Overall quality of business and service establishments 73% 84%ile Traffic flow on major streets 46% 64%ile Availability of preventive health services 67% 86%ile Availability of affordable quality health care 63% 85%ile Availability of affordable quality child care 32% 23%ile Variety of housing options 39% 19%ile Availability of affordable quality housing 17% 11%ile Source: National Citizen SurveyTM 2009 (Palo Alto) In 2009, the rate of population growth in Palo Alto was viewed as “too fast” by 54% of survey respondents. 43% said population growth was the “right amount”. KEY DRIVER ANALYSIS The National Research Center analyzed responses from Palo Alto’s annual National Citizen SurveyTM to provide an analysis of “Key Drivers”, or areas that tend to influence how residents rate overall services. According to the report, local government core services – like fire protection- land at the top of the list when residents are asked about the most important local government services. However, Key Driver Analysis reveals service areas that influence residents’ overall ratings for quality of government services. Examining services that have the greatest likelihood of influencing residents’ opinions about overall service quality, may help government better focus its efforts. - 3 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 4 - Based on this year’s Palo Alto’s survey results, “Public Information” and “Street Tree Maintenance” were the two areas most strongly correlated with ratings of overall service quality. It should be noted that the survey results partly overlapped with the September 2009 California Avenue street tree cutting of 63 trees, resulting in a surge of public response and concern over the City’s street tree cutting processes. Although the National Research Center did not have benchmark data available for street tree maintenance overall ratings in this area appear to be favorable among most respondents. 72% of Palo Alto residents rated street tree maintenance as good or excellent (an increase from 68% the prior year), 21% as fair, and 7% as poor. Overall satisfaction with the City’s public information services declined 8 percentage points, from 76% rating satisfaction as good or excellent last year, to 68% this year. The City Manager indicates that this decline might also be a reaction to the lack of public outreach around the California Avenue street tree incident and is indicative of a larger issue relating to resources necessary to effectively engage and communicate with the community. According to the City Manager, over the past five years, staffing for public communications functions has decreased from 2 full time positions in the City Manager’s Office and 1 full time position in the Utilities Department, to 1 full time position that is now shared between the City Manager’s Office and the Utilities Department. This decrease has caused the remaining staff person to be spread thinly, thereby increasing the time necessary to advance more strategic communications initiatives like the City’s social networking strategy and consistent citywide branding and messaging. PALO ALTO CITY GOVERNMENT Palo Alto residents elect 9 members to the City Council. Council Members serve staggered 4-year terms. The Council also appoints a number of boards and commissions. Each January, the City Council appoints a new mayor and vice-mayor and then adopts priorities for the calendar year. The City Council’s top 3 priorities for 2009 included:  Environmental Protection  Civic Engagement for the Common Good  Economic Health Palo Alto is a charter city, operating under a council/manager form of government. The City Council appoints the City Manager, City Attorney, City Auditor, and City Clerk. Following is the City of Palo Alto organizational chart. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY The City Auditor’s Office prepared this report in accordance with the City Auditor’s FY 2010 Work Plan. The scope of our review covered information and results for the City’s departments for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2008 and ending June 30, 2009 (FY 2009). City Auditor City Attorney City ManagerCity Clerk CityCouncil Palo Alto Residents Utilities Department Police Department Public Works Department LibraryDepartment Planning & Community Environment FireDepartment Human ResourcesDepartment AdministrativeServicesDepartment Community ServicesDepartment BACKGROUND We conducted this work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. The City Auditor’s Office compiled, examined, and reviewed sources of departmental data in order to provide reasonable assurance that the data we compiled is accurate, however we did not conduct detailed testing of that data. Our staff reviewed the data for reasonableness, accuracy, and consistency, based on our knowledge and information from comparable sources and prior years’ reports. Our reviews are not intended to provide absolute assurance that all data elements provided by management are free from error. Rather, we intend to provide reasonable assurance that the data present a picture of the efforts and accomplishments of the City departments and programs. When possible, we have included in the report a brief explanation of internal or external factors that may have affected the performance results. However, while the report may offer insights on service results, this insight is for informational purposes and does not thoroughly analyze the causes of negative or positive performance. Some results or performance changes can be explained simply. For others, more detailed analysis by City departments or performance audits may be necessary to provide reliable explanation for results. This report can help focus research on the most significant areas of interest or concern. SERVICE EFFORTS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORTING In 1994, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued Concepts Statement No. 2, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting. The statement broadly described “why external reporting of SEA measures is essential to assist users both in assessing accountability and in making informed decisions to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of governmental operations.” According to the statement, the objective of SEA reporting is to provide more complete information about a governmental entity’s performance than can be provided by the traditional financial statements and schedules, and to assist users in assessing the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of services provided. In 2003, GASB issued a special report on Reporting Performance Information: Suggested Criteria for Effective Communication that describes sixteen criteria state and local governments can use when preparing external reports on performance information.2 Using the GASB criteria, the Association of Government Accountants (AGA) initiated a Certificate of Excellence in Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting project in 2003, in which Palo Alto was a charter participant. Our last report received the Association’s distinguished Gold Award and in 2009, the Association named Palo Alto as the first city to receive the Circle of Excellence Award for producing high quality Service Efforts and Accomplishments reports. In 2008, GASB issued Concept Statement No. 5, which amended Concept Statement No. 2 to reflect changes since the original statement was issued in 1994. During 2009, GASB has been developing “Suggested Guidelines for Voluntary Reporting of SEA Performance Information.”3 The guidelines are intended to provide a common framework for the effective external communication of SEA performance information to assist users and governments. Other organizations including the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) and International City/County Management Association (ICMA) have long been advocates of performance measurement in the public sector. For example, the ICMA Performance Measurement Program provides local government benchmarking information for a variety of public services. The City of Palo Alto has reported various performance indicators for a number of years. In particular, the City’s budget document includes “benchmark” measures.4 Benchmarks include input, output, efficiency, and effectiveness measures. This report builds on existing systems and measurement efforts. The City’s operating budget document incorporates benchmarking measures included in this Service Efforts and Accomplishments report. Similarly, where we included budget benchmarking measures in this document, they are noted with the symbol ““. This year, we also added a symbol to indicate areas in the 2 A summary of the GASB special report on reporting performance information is online at http://www.seagov.org/sea_gasb_project/criteria_summary.pdf 3 The proposed guidelines have not been finalized as of the writing of this report. Additional information is on-line http://www.gasb.org/project_pages/sea.html 4 In FY 2005, new “benchmarking” measures replaced the “impact” measures that were formerly in the budget document. The benchmarks were developed by staff and reviewed by the City Council as part of the annual budget process. - 5 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 6 - report that are related to the City Council’s Top 3 Priorities for 2009. They are noted with the symbol” .“ SELECTION OF INDICATORS We limited the number and scope of workload and performance measures in this report to items where information was available, meaningful in the context of the City’s performance, and items we thought would be of general interest to the public. This report is not intended to be a complete set of performance measures for all users. From the outset of this project, we decided to use existing data sources to the extent possible. We reviewed existing benchmarking measures from the City’s adopted budget documents5, performance measures from other jurisdictions, and benchmarking information from the ICMA6 and other professional organizations. We used audited information from the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs).7 We cited departmental mission statements and performance targets8 that are taken from the City’s annual operating budget where they are subject to public scrutiny and City Council approval as part of the annual budget process. We held numerous discussions with City staff to determine what information was available and reliable, and best summarized the services they provide. Wherever possible we have included five years of data. Generally speaking, it takes at least three data points to show a trend. Although Palo Alto’s size precludes us from significantly disaggregating data (such as into districts), where program data was available, we disaggregated the information. For example, we have disaggregated performance information about some services based on age of participant, location of service, or other relevant factors. 5 The budget is on-line at www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/asd/budget.asp. The operating budget includes additional performance information. 6 International City/County Management Association (ICMA), Comparative Performance Measurement FY 2005 Data Report. This report summarizes data from 87 jurisdictions, including several from California. 7 The CAFR is on-line at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/asd/financial_reporting.asp. 8 The operating budget may include additional performance targets for the budget benchmarking measures that are noted in this document with the symbol “ .“ Indicators that are in alignment with the City’s Climate Protection Plan9, Zero Waste Plan10 and/or sustainability goals are noted in the tables with an “S”. Consistency of information is important to us. However, we occasionally add or delete some information that was included in a previous report. Performance measures and survey information that have changed since the last report are noted in the tables as <NEW> or <REVISED>. We will continue to use City Council, public, and staff feedback to ensure that the information items we include in this report are meaningful and useful. We welcome your input. Please contact us with suggestions at city.auditor@cityofpaloalto.org. THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEYTM The National Citizen SurveyTM is a collaborative effort between the National Research Center, Inc. (NRC), and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA).11 Respondents in each jurisdiction are selected at random. Participation is encouraged with multiple mailings and self-addressed, postage-paid envelopes. Results are statistically re-weighted, if necessary, to reflect the proper demographic composition of the entire community. Surveys were mailed to a total of 1,200 Palo Alto households in August and September 2009. Completed surveys were received from 424 residents, for a response rate of 37%. Typical response rates obtained on citizen surveys range from 25% to 40%. 9 More information about the City’s plan to protect the environment and other sustainability efforts is online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment. 10 More information about the City’s Zero Waste Plan is online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pwd/recycle/zero_waste_program.asp. 11 The full report of Palo Alto’s survey results can be found in Attachments 1-2. The full text of previous survey results can be found in the appendices of our previous reports online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/aud/service_efforts_and_accomplishments.asp. BACKGROUND It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of confidence” (or margin of error). The 95% confidence level for this survey of 1,200 residents is generally no greater than plus or minus 5 percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample. The scale on which respondents are asked to record their opinions about service and community quality is “excellent”, “good”, “fair”, and “poor”. Unless stated otherwise, the survey data included in this report displays the responses only from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item – “don’t know” answers have been removed. This report contains comparisons of survey data from prior years. Differences from the prior year can be considered “statistically significant” if they are greater than six percentage points. The NRC has collected citizen survey data from more than 500 jurisdictions in the United States. Inter-jurisdictional comparisons are available when similar questions are asked in at least five other jurisdictions. When comparisons are available, results are noted as being “above” the benchmark, “below” the benchmark, or “similar to” the benchmark. NRC provided our office with additional data on the percentile ranking for comparable questions. In 2006, the ICMA and NRC announced “Voice of the People” awards for surveys conducted in the prior year. To win, a jurisdiction’s National Citizen Survey rating for service quality must be one of the top three among all eligible jurisdictions and in the top 10% of over 500 jurisdictions in the NRC database of citizen surveys. Since the beginning of the award program, Palo Alto has won: 2005 – 5 categories: Emergency medical, Fire, Garbage collection, Park, and Police services 2006 – 4 categories: Emergency medical, Fire, Garbage collection, and Recreation services 2007 – 5 categories: Emergency medical, Fire, Garbage collection, Park, and Recreation services 2008 – 1 category: Garbage collection. POPULATION Where applicable, we have used the most recent estimates of Palo Alto resident population from the California Department of Finance, as shown in the following table.12 Year Population FY 2005 61,464 FY 2006 62,108 FY 2007 62,267 FY 2008 63,098 FY 2009 64,484 Percent change over last 5 years:+5.0% We used population figures from sources other than the Department of Finance for some comparisons to other jurisdictions, but only in cases where comparative data was available only on that basis. Some departments13 serve expanded service areas. For example, the Fire Department serves Palo Alto, Stanford, and Los Altos Hills (seasonally). The Regional Water Quality Control Plant serves Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford, and East Palo Alto. INFLATION Financial data has not been adjusted for inflation. In order to account for inflation, readers should keep in mind that the San Francisco Area Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers has increased by 13% over the 5 years of financial data that is included in this report. The index increased as follows: 12 The Department of Finance periodically revises prior year estimates. Where applicable we used their revised population estimates to recalculate certain indicators in this report. 13 Additional information about the City’s departments can be found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/default.asp. - 7 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 8 - Date Index June 2005 201.2 June 2006 209.1 June 2007 216.1 June 2008 225.2 June 2009 225.7 Percent change over last 5 years:+12% ROUNDING For readability, most numbers in this report are rounded. In some cases, tables or graphs may not add to 100% or to the exact total because of rounding. In most cases the calculated “percent change over the last 5 years” is based on the percentage change in the underlying numbers, not the rounded numbers. However, where the data is expressed in percentages, the change over 5 years is the difference between the first and last year. COMPARISONS TO OTHER CITIES Where possible we included comparisons to nearby California cities. The choice of the cities that we use for our comparisons may vary depending on whether data is easily available. Regardless of which cities are included, comparisons to other cities should be used carefully. We tried to include “apples to apples” comparisons, but differences in costing methodologies and program design may account for unexplained variances between cities. For example, the California State Controller’s Office gathers and publishes comparative financial information from all California cities.14 We used this information where possible, but noted that cities provide different levels of service and categorize expenditures in different ways. 14 California State Controller, Cities Annual Report Fiscal Year 2006-07 (http://www.sco.ca.gov/Files-ARD-Local/LocRep/cities_reports_0607cities.pdf). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report could not have been prepared without the cooperation and assistance of City management and staff from every City department. Our thanks to all of them for their help. We also want to thank the City Council and community members who reviewed last year’s report and provided thoughtful comments. We would also like to acknowledge our debt to the City of Portland Auditor’s Office that pioneered local government accountability for performance through its “City of Portland Service Efforts and Accomplishments” report – now in its 19th year of publication. CHAPTER 1 – OVERALL SPENDING, STAFFING & ACCOMPLISHMENT OF COUNCIL PRIORITIES OVERALL SPENDING Palo Alto, like other cities, uses various funds to track specific activities. The General Fund tracks all general revenues and governmental functions including parks, fire, police, libraries, planning, public works, and support services. These services are supported by general City revenues and program fees. Enterprise Funds are used to account for the City’s utilities (including water, electricity, gas, wastewater collection and treatment, refuse, and storm drains) and are generally supported by charges paid by users based on the amount of service they use. The pie chart to the right shows where a General Fund dollar goes. The table below shows more detail. In FY 2009, the City’s General Fund expenditures and other uses of funds totaled nearly $141 million. This included $15.8 million in transfers to other funds (including $13.6 million for capital projects and $1.1 million for debt service). Total General Fund uses declined from $142.4 million last year to $140.8 million in FY 2009. Over the last five years, General Fund uses of funds increased 19% (some expenses were transferred to other funds), higher than inflation (12% over the same five-year period). Where does a General Fund dollar go? Source: FY 2009 expenditure data Operating Transfers Out 11% Non-Departmental 5% Public Works 9% Police 20% Planning and Community Environment 7% Library 4% Fire 17% Community Services 15% Administrative Departments 12% General Fund operating expenditures and other uses of funds (in millions) Administrative Departments1 Community Services Fire Library Planning and Community Environment Police Public Works Non- Departmental2 Operating Transfers Out3 TOTAL5 Enterprise Fund operating expenses FY 2005 $15.2 $19.1 $19.1 $5.1 $9.1 $22.5 $11.0 $8.6 $8.2 $118.04 $162.6 FY 2006 $15.3 $19.5 $20.2 $5.7 $9.2 $24.4 $11.3 $13.6 $8.0 $127.1 $183.7 FY 2007 $15.9 $20.1 $21.6 $5.9 $9.4 $25.9 $12.4 $8.5 $12.7 $132.4 $190.3 FY 2008 $17.4 $21.2 $24.0 $6.8 $9.7 $29.4 $12.9 $7.4 $13.6 $142.4 $215.8 FY 2009 $16.4 $21.1 $23.4 $6.2 $9.9 $28.3 $12.9 $6.8 $15.8 $140.8 $229.0 Change over last 5 years: +8% +11% +23% +22% +9% +26% +17% -20% +92% +19% +41% 1 Includes the City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Council, City Auditor, Administrative Services Department, and Human Resources Department. 2 Includes payments to the Palo Alto Unified School District as part of the Cubberley lease and covenant not to develop ($6.55 million in FY 2009). 3 Includes transfers from the General Fund to the Capital Projects Fund, to the Retiree Health Fund, and debt service funds. 4 Does not include FY 2005 transfer of the Infrastructure Reserve ($35.9 million) from the General Fund to the Capital Fund. 5 Expenditures shown in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports include appropriations, encumbrances, and other adjustments to the budgetary basis. - 9 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 10 - PER CAPITA SPENDING There are at least two ways to look at per capita spending: annual spending (shown below) and net cost (shown on the right). As shown below, in FY 2009, General Fund operating expenditures and other uses of funds totaled $2,184 per Palo Alto resident, including operating transfers to fund the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). However, as shown on the right, General Fund departments generate revenues or are reimbursed for some of their activities by other jurisdictions and/or the enterprise funds. As a result, we estimate the net General Fund cost per resident in FY 2009 was about $1,597. Enterprise Fund operating expenses totaled $3,552 per capita. Palo Alto’s enterprise funds include Electric, Gas, Water, Wastewater Collection, Wastewater Treatment, Refuse, Storm Drainage, Fiber Optic, and External Services. Enterprise funds generally work like a business and charge fees to cover the cost of services. Net General Fund Cost Per Resident: 2 FY 2009 Estimated per capita General Fund spending and other uses of funds2 Per capita2 Admin. Depts. Community Services Fire3 Library Planning and Community Environment Police Public Works Non- Depart- mental Operating Transfers Out TOTAL Capital outlay Enterprise Fund Operating Expenditures NET PER CAPITA SPENDING FY 2005 $247 $311 $310 $83 $148 $366 $179 $140 $134 $1,917 $346 $2,637 $1,390 FY 2006 $245 $313 $324 $91 $147 $392 $182 $219 $128 $2,040 $212 $2,943 $1,371 FY 2007 $255 $322 $345 $94 $150 $414 $199 $136 $203 $2,118 $279 $3,039 $1,518 FY 2008 $274 $335 $378 $108 $153 $464 $204 $117 $204 $2,237 $341 $3,405 $1,616 FY 2009 $254 $328 $363 $97 $153 $438 $200 $106 $245 $2,184 $245 $3,552 $1,597 Change over last 5 years: +3% +5% +17% +16% +4% +20% +12% -24% +83% +14% -29% +34% +15% 1 Net cost is defined as total program cost less the revenues/reimbursements generated by the specific activities. 2 Where applicable, prior year per capita costs have been recalculated based on revised population estimates from the California Department of Finance. 3 Not adjusted for Fire department’s expanded service area. 4 Includes $6.5 million paid to the Palo Alto Unified School District  $245 in operating transfers out (including $186 in transfers for capital projects)  $106 for non-departmental expenses4  $92 for library services  $74 for planning, building, code enforcement  $155 for public works  $128 for administrative and strategic support services  $218 for community services  $212 for fire and emergency medical services1 On a per capita basis, FY 2009 net General Fund costs1 of $1,597 included:  $367 for police services Chapter 1 - OVERALL - 11 - AUTHORIZED STAFFING City staffing is measured in full-time equivalent staff, or FTE. In FY 2009, there were a total of 1,150 authorized FTE citywide – including 727 authorized FTE in General Fund departments, and 423 authorized FTE in other funds.1 115 authorized positions were vacant as of June 30, 2009. Over the last five years, total FTE (including authorized temporary and hourly positions) has decreased.  General Fund FTE decreased by 4%, including 36 regular FTE eliminated3 and 15 regular FTE moved to other funds.3  Authorized staffing in other funds decreased by 2%, including the 15 regular FTE moved from the General Fund.4 Total Full-time Equivalent Staff (includes authorized temporary staffing) Source: City operating budgets 1 Includes authorized temporary and hourly positions and allocated departmental administration. 2 Includes the Technology Fund, Capital Fund, Special Revenue, and Internal Service Funds. 3 Net General Fund regular position changes since June 30, 2005 included 1 FTE eliminated in FY 2005, 16 FTE eliminated in FY 2006, 3 FTE added in FY 2007, 2 FTE eliminated in FY 2008, and 20 FTE eliminated in FY 2009. 4 Regular positions moved from the General Fund to other funds included 3 FTE moved to other funds in FY 2005, and 6 FTE moved to other funds in FY 2006, none in FY 2007, 2 in FY 2008, and 9 in FY 2009. Total General Fund authorized staffing (FTE1) Total other authorized staffing (FTE1) Admin. Depts. Community Services Fire Library Planning and Community Environment Police Public Works Subtotal Refuse Fund Storm Drainage Fund Wastewater Treatment Fund Electric, Gas, Water, and Wastewater Other2 Subtotal TOTAL (FTE1) FY 2005 108 158 129 56 61 173 75 759 35 10 69 241 75 430 1,189 FY 2006 98 146 126 57 53 169 69 718 35 10 69 241 78 432 1,150 FY 2007 100 148 128 57 55 168 68 725 35 10 69 243 78 435 1,160 FY 2008 108 147 128 56 54 169 71 733 35 10 69 244 78 436 1,168 FY 2009 102 146 128 57 54 170 71 727 35 10 70 235 74 423 1,150 Change over last 5 years: -6% -8% -1% +3% -11% -2% -6% -4% +1% +4% -1% -3% -2% -2% -3% Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 12 - AUTHORIZED STAFFING (cont.) As shown in the graph to the right, Palo Alto had more employees per 1,000 residents than several other local jurisdictions. However staffing comparisons between cities are problematic – no other city in California offers a full complement of utility services like Palo Alto, and Palo Alto employees provide some services to other jurisdictions that are reimbursed by those jurisdictions (e.g. fire, dispatch, water treatment, and animal control). Citywide regular authorized staffing decreased 2% over the past five years from 1,094 to 1,076 FTE. Authorized temporary and hourly staffing decreased from 96 FTE to 74 FTE citywide. Of total staffing, about 7% is temporary or hourly. While general fund salaries and wages increased from $57.3 million last year to $59.6 million in FY 2009, general fund overtime expenditures and employee benefits declined from this same period. Over the last five years, General Fund salaries and wages (not including overtime) increased 14%. Over the same period, employee benefit expenses increased 19% – from $23.7 million (45% of salaries and wages) to $28.3 million (48% of salaries and wages).3 Employees Per 1,000 Residents Source: Citiies’ Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and Operating Budgets Regular authorized staffing citywide (FTE) Authorized temporary staffing citywide (FTE) Total authorized staffing citywide (FTE) Total authorized staffing per 1,000 residents General fund salaries and wages (in millions) General fund overtime General fund employee benefits Employee benefits rate Employee costs as a percent of total general fund expenditures FY 2005 1,094 96 1,189 19.3 $52.3 $ 3.6 $ 23.7 45% 68% FY 2006 1,074 76 1,150 18.4 $53.2 $ 3.4 $ 26.4 49% 64% FY 2007 1,080 80 1,160 18.5 $53.9 $ 4.0 $ 26.1 48% 65% FY 2008 1,077 91 1,168 18.4 $57.3 $ 4.2 $ 29.8 52% 64% FY 2009 1,076 74 1,150 19.4 $59.6 $ 3.7 $ 28.3 48% 65% Change over last 5 years: -2% -23% -3% +1% +14% +2% +19% +3% -3% PALO ALTO Berkeley Santa Clara Mountain View Redwood City San Mateo Sunnyvale San Jose 20.010.00.0 16.7 15.3 8.7 8.0 7.5 7.3 7.1 6.9 1 Does not include overtime 2 “Employee benefits rate” is General Fund benefit costs as a percentage of General Fund salaries and wages, not including overtime. 3 For more information on projected salary and benefits costs see the City of Palo Alto Long Range Financial Forecast at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/asd/financial_reporting.asp Chapter 1 - OVERALL - 13 - CAPITAL SPENDING The City’s Infrastructure Reserve (IR) was created as a mechanism to accumulate funding for an Infrastructure Rehabilitation Program to repair and renovate existing City infrastructure. The City’s current infrastructure backlog totaled $153 million in FY 2009. Total identified infrastructure needs through 2028 are estimated at $302 million. The IR is partially funded by annual commitments from the City’s General and Enterprise Funds. With the implementation of GASB Statement 34 in FY 2002, the City records all capital assets in the citywide financial statements.2 Capital assets are valued at historical cost, net of accumulated depreciation. This includes buildings and structures, vehicles and equipment, roadways, and utility distribution systems. As of June 30, 2009, net general capital assets totaled $364.3 million (14% more than 5 years ago). As shown in the graph on the right, capital outlay by governmental funds1 has increased over ten years ago. The General Fund invested $89.5 million in capital projects over the last 5 years, spending down reserves set aside to fund infrastructure rehabilitation. The Infrastructure Reserve fell to $7.0 million (compared to $25.2 million 5 years ago). The enterprise funds invested $36.2 million in capital projects in FY 2009, for a total of $144.3 million over the last 5 years. As of June 30, 2009, net Enterprise Fund capital assets totaled $426.1 million. Capital Outlay – Government Funds (in millions) 1 Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports General governmental funds (in millions) Enterprise funds (in millions) Infrastructure Reserve (in thousands) Net general capital assets Capital outlay (governmental funds) Depreciation Net Enterprise Fund capital assets Capital expense Depreciation FY 2005 $25.2 $318.5 $21.3 $9.5 $346.9 $22.8 $11.7 FY 2006 $20.7 $324.8 $13.2 $12.3 $360.9 $20.3 $11.8 FY 2007 $15.8 $335.7 $17.5 $11.0 $383.8 $28.9 $12.7 FY 2008 $17.9 $351.9 $21.6 $11.2 $416.6 $36.1 $12.7 FY 2009 $7.0 $364.3 $15.8 $9.6 $426.1 $36.2 $13.6 Change over last 5 years: -72% 14% -26% +1% +23% +59% +17% 1 Includes capital expenditures in the General Fund, Capital Projects and Special Revenue funds. Does not include capital expense associated with Utility or other enterprise funds. 2 The City’s financial statements are on-line at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/asd/financial_reporting.asp. $30 $40 $20 $10 $0 FY2009 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2004 FY 2003 FY 2002 FY 2001 FY 2000 Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 14 - RESIDENT PERCEPTIONS & KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF COUNCIL PRIORITIES Each January, the City Council holds a retreat and identifies top priorities for the calendar year. The City Council established three top priority areas for 2009: 1) Environmental Protection 2) Civic Engagement for the Common Good 3) Economic Health of the City CITY REPORTS IN AREAS OF 2009 COUNCIL PRIORITIES The City has developed two primary reporting methods for City Council priorities: Operating and Capital Budgets1 After Council establishes its priorities, departments identify specific activities for implementation within the Operating and Capital Budgets. It is important to note the timing difference between the establishment of the priorities each January, and the budget cycle that occurs on a fiscal-year basis. However, the 2009 priorities contained similarities from the prior year, and allowed for some continuity in reporting and implementation plans.2 Continuous reporting of key implementation strategies through a new Palo Alto See-It website In July 2009, the City Council approved a new website called “Palo Alto See-It” to provide a framework for tracking continuous progress on the 2009 Council priorities. Creation of the Palo Alto See-It website provides an accessible and visual tool for the Council, community, and staff to identify, assess, and communicate performance in the priority areas. The website visually depicts each of the three priority areas, along with 18 key strategies and 83 actions to achieve progress in each area. The website utilizes a color-coded indicator to assess performance on each of the actions contributing to the key strategies. An example of the website showing the area of Environmental Protection is shown in the exhibit to the right. The website indicates the City met its target in 12 of the 18 identified key strategies, 3 areas are tracked for informational purposes and do not have a target. The remaining 3 key strategies - Climate Protection, Green Purchasing, and Enhancing Government through Volunteerism - showed moderate progress. Palo Alto’s See-ItTM Website to Assess Progress in Implementing the 2009 Top Three Council Priorities: Example of Environmental Protection Source: Palo Alto See-It Website (http://paloalto.visiblestrategies.com) 1 Adopted Operating Budget: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=16681 2 2008 Council Priorities were: Library Building/Public Safety Building, Environmental Protection, Civic Engagement, and Economic Health Related to 2009 Top 3 City Council Priorities Chapter 1 - OVERALL - 15 - (cont.) The 2009 National Citizen SurveyTM results and City progress in these areas indicate the following: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION In 2009, the Mayor’s State of the City address included a vision to have “Regional Cooperation for Local Self-Reliance.” The Mayor’s vision focused on a regional approach for utilizing community resources, beginning with making locally grown produce widely available, and then converting waste into renewable energy products. According to this year’s survey results, 70% of respondents rated the availability of locally grown produce as good or excellent. 99% of residents reported that they recycled paper, cans or bottles from their home, placing Palo Alto in the 99th percentile for the frequency of residents recycling in their homes. Palo Alto residents rated overall environmental sustainability efforts favorably in comparison to other surveyed jurisdictions. 84% of surveyed residents rated the overall quality of Palo Alto’s natural environment as excellent or good. 82% rated the preservation of natural areas as excellent or good, placing Palo Alto in the 94th percentile among jurisdictions with similar survey questions. Ratings for overall air quality were lower, but still above the benchmark comparison. Resident Responses on Palo Alto’s Environment: Percent Rating Areas as Good or Excellent Source: National Citizen Survey™ 2009 (Palo Alto) Citizen Survey Percent recycled paper, cans or bottles at least once in past 12 months Percent rating ease of bus travel as good or excellent Percent rating ease of rail travel as good or excellent Percent rating ease of car travel as good or excellent Percent rating ease of walking as good or excellent Percent rating ease of bicycling as good or excellent FY 2005 82% 44% 69% 61% 86% 79% FY 2006 84% 44% 60% 60% 87% 78% FY 2007 87% 37% 55% 65% 88% 84% FY 2008 99% 34% 52% 60% 86% 78% FY 2009 99% 36% 63% 65% 82% 78% Change over last 5 years: +17% -8% -6% +3% -4% -1% Preservation of wildlife/native plants <NEW> Cleanliness of Palo Alto Overall quality of the natural environment Water and energy preservation <NEW> Preservation of natural areas Air Quality Availability of locally grown produce 100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0% 87% 85% 84% 83% 82% 73% 70% Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 16 - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (cont.) The City of Palo Alto has developed a variety of programs and plans designed to protect the environment. Three of the primary program focuses are as follows:  Climate Protection Plan  Ten Year Energy Efficiency Plan  Zero Waste Operational Plan (ZWOP) to reduce waste through programs, policies, and changes in the new waste hauling contract Climate Protection Plan In December 2007, the City Council approved the Climate Protection Plan, and established emission reduction goals (from 2005 baseline levels) of:  5% of municipal emissions, by December 2009  5% of municipal and community emissions, by 2012  15% of municipal and community emissions by 2020. In order to develop a strategy to achieve the 5% reduction in municipal emissions by December 2009, staff formed a Climate Protection Team with representatives from each department. The team developed departmental and Citywide actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In April 2009, staff reported their progress to the City Council, which requested that staff continue to monitor greenhouse gas emissions on a departmental basis and enhance the transparency of the City’s greenhouse gas emissions monitoring program by posting the results online. According to City staff, greenhouse gas emissions from City operations are expected to decline from the 2005 baseline by approximately 11% in 2009.1 1 Performance data was not yet available to assess reductions against 2005 baseline emissions data. Reduction in CO2 Emissions by Source (in metric tons)1 Source: Utility Department and City Sustainability Data Chapter 1 - OVERALL - 17 - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (cont.) Ten Year Energy Efficiency Plan The City Council approved a Ten Year Energy Efficiency (EE) Plan on April 2007. This plan was developed to meet the City’s Climate Protection policy as well as to support the Long Term Energy Acquisition Plan and the Gas Utility Long Term Plan. The Ten Year EE Plan also complied with state legislation mandating that energy efficiency be the first priority in seeking utility supply and that utilities develop/update a 10-year energy efficiency plan on a three-year cycle. According to the Ten Year EE Plan, annual electric and gas savings targets are established for fiscal years 2008 through 2017. According to the Utilities Department, the City exceeded savings goals for electric, gas, and water consumption. The Utilities Department attributed some of the reductions to the new solar water heating program and an enhanced emphasis on business natural gas and process energy usage at larger facilities. The Utilities Department has also offered its customers PaloAltoGreen, a renewable energy program. Since launching the program five years ago, the Department reports that annual sales of renewable energy have consistently increased, with a customer participation rate of over 20%, the highest rate in the nation. Zero Waste Operational Plan In 2005, the City adopted a Zero Waste Strategic Plan with a goal to reach zero waste to landfills by 2021 through the development of policies and incentives. In FY 2009, the City Council approved the Plastic Bag Ordinance to eliminate single use plastic checkout bags at large grocery stores. Palo Alto was the first city in Santa Clara County to adopt such an ordinance and the Santa Clara County Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission has adopted a model for cities to consider similar ordinances. The Plastic Bag Ordinance is designed to reduce the use of plastic bags which lead to litter and wildlife impacts in natural ecosystems, including creeks, San Francisco Bay, and the ocean. The ultimate goal is for shoppers to convert to reusable bags. According to City staff, reusable bag use increased from 9% in the first quarter of 2008 to 18% in the first quarter of 2009. Savings Goals and Achievements as a Percentage of Total Utility Consumption Annual Savings Goal Annual Savings Achievement Electric Natural Gas Water 0.0% 1.0% Source: Utilities Department Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 18 - CIVIC ENGAGEMENT FOR THE COMMON GOOD Civic engagement can mean different things to different people. According to the National Research Center, “The extent to which local government provides opportunities to become informed and engaged and the extent to which residents take these opportunities is an indicator of the connection between government and the populace.” Civic Engagement for the Common Good connects civic engagement with the concept of shared social, economic, and physical assets to benefit the community. As shown in the exhibit to the right, Palo Alto residents rated a variety of civic engagement activities and opportunities. Residents rated opportunities to volunteer and participate in social events and community matters more favorably, in comparison to other surveyed jurisdictions. 83% of residents reported opportunities to volunteer as good or excellent, 79% reported opportunities to participate in social events and activities as good or excellent, and 76% reported opportunities to participate in community matters as good or excellent. Residents continued to visit the City’s website, increasing from 52% in 2005 to 75% in 2009. Ratings for the quality of State and County government services declined significantly, although ratings for the Federal government increased. These ratings may be related to the economic recession that began in December 2007 and has contributed to significant budget deficits at the State and local government levels. In 2009, the Federal Government passed an economic stimulus package called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Participation Ratings/Percent Rating Area Good or Excellent Source: 2009 National Citizen Survey™ (Palo Alto) Citizen Survey Overall quality and value of services Percent rating overall image or reputation of Palo Alto good or excellent Percent rating value of services for the City taxes they pay as good or excellent Percent rating City services good or excellent Percent rating State Government services good or excellent Percent rating County Government services good or excellent Percent rating Federal Government services good or excellent FY 2005 - 70% 88% 32% - 32% FY 2006 91% 74% 87% 38% - 32% FY 2007 93% 67% 86% 44% - 33% FY 2008 92% 64% 85% 34% 54% 33% FY 2009 92% 58% 80% 23% 42% 41% Change over last 5 years: - -12% -8% -9% - +9% Chapter 1 - OVERALL - 19 - CIVIC ENGAGEMENT FOR THE COMMON GOOD (cont.) Although Palo Alto residents rated several of the civic engagement areas favorably, the responses also show opportunities for improvement in areas of public trust. When asked to rate the job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement, 56% of residents rated this as good or excellent. Ratings for the overall direction that Palo Alto is taking declined significantly from 63% to 53%. This is consistent with the pattern of alternating hi and low ratings over the last several years. In FY 2009, to promote civic engagement, the City Council approved Palo Alto’s Open City Hall, a website forum for residents to vote and comment on upcoming City Council agenda items. In addition, the City also formed a variety of committees with resident involvement such as the Website Committee and the Compost Blue Ribbon Taskforce. Resident ratings in the areas of City employees’ knowledge, responsiveness, courtesy, and overall impression recovered from last year’s decrease. Last year’s report noted three unique occurrences during FY 2008 that may have contributed to the decrease in these areas - the recovery in the ratings for FY 2009 confirms the declines were temporary. 2009 Palo Alto Resident Survey: Job Palo Alto Does at Welcoming Citizen Involvement Source: 2009 National Citizen Survey™ (Palo Alto) Citizen Survey Public trust Public involvement Impression of contact with Palo Alto employees Percent rating overall direction of the City as good or excellent Percent rating the City's job at welcoming citizen involvement as good or excellent Percent rating the City's job at listening to citizens as good or excellent Percent who watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting on TV Percent who volunteered time to some group or activity in Palo Alto Percent having contact with a City employee in the last 12 months Good or excellent impression of knowledge Good or excellent impression of responsiveness Good or excellent impression of courtesy Overall impression good or excellent FY 2005 54% 59% 50% 29% 52% 56% 84% 77% 83% 80% FY 2006 62% 73% 59% 31% 53% 54% 83% 78% 83% 80% FY 2007 57% 68% 52% 26% 52% 57% 85% 80% 84% 79% FY 2008 63% 57% 53% 26% 51% 54% 75% 73% 78% 73% FY 2009 53% 56% 51% 28% 56% 58% 84% 78% 84% 79% Change over last 5 years: -1% -3% +1% -1% +4% +2% 0% +1% +1% -1% Good 41% Fair 32% Excellent 15% Poor 12% Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 20 - ECONOMIC HEALTH OF THE CITY In the midst of a prolonged national economic recession that began in December 2007, the City’s economic health is a critical concern. Overall General Fund revenues decreased from $149.1 million in FY 2008 to $146.1 million in FY 2009. Revenues from sales tax, transient occupancy tax, and other taxes and fines declined. Although property tax revenue and other charges for services increased, these increases were not enough to offset the decline in other revenue sources. Resident ratings appear to reflect the economic concerns. The percent of residents rating retail growth as “too slow” increased from 28% in 2008 to 34% in 2009, a rating similar to other surveyed jurisdictions. The percent of residents rating job growth as “too slow” also increased from 48% in 2008 to 65% in 2009. However, as shown on page 3 of this report, 51% of surveyed residents rated Palo Alto’s employment opportunities as good or excellent, a rating well above other surveyed jurisdictions. 46% of surveyed residents rated the City’s promotion of business growth and economic development as good or excellent, and 17% rated it as poor. Despite the recession, most surveyed residents (64%) feel the City’s fiscal condition will continue to provide valuable services. About 35% of survey respondents were paying housing costs of 30% or more of their monthly household income, defined as “housing cost stress.” This is an increase from 31% last year, but is still similar to other surveyed jurisdictions. If residents are experiencing housing cost stress, they have less disposable income to spend in other areas. Primary Sources of General Fund Revenue FY 2009 Source: FY 2009 Revenue Data Citizen Survey Economic Indicators Percent rating downtown shopping, dining and entertainment experience good or excellent <NEW> Percent rating overall shopping opportunities good or excellent Percent rating overall quality of business establishments good or excellent Percent rating economic development good or excellent Percent rating promotion of business growth & economic development good or excellent <NEW> Percent rating infrastructure investment good or excellent <NEW> Percent respondents experiencing Housing Cost Stress Percent rating job growth as too slow Percent rating retail growth as too slow FY 2005 - 75% - 55% - - - 63% 25% FY 2006 - 80% - 61% - - - 49% 26% FY 2007 - 79% - 62% - - - 38% 29% FY 2008 - 71% 77% 63% - - 31% 48% 28% FY 2009 74% 70% 73% 54% 46% 56% 35% 65% 34% Change over last 5 years: - -5% - -1% - - - 2% 9% Operating Transfers-In (12%) Other Revenue (4%) Permits and Licenses (3%) Charges to Other Funds (8%) Charges for Services (14%) Other Taxes and Fines (4%) Utility Users Tax (7%) Transient Occupancy Tax (5%) Sales Tax (14%) Encumbrance/ Reappropriation (3%) Property Tax (17%) Rental Income (9%) CHAPTER 2 - COMMUNITY SERVICES The mission of the Community Services Department (CSD) is to engage individuals and families in creating a strong and healthy community through parks, recreation, social services, arts and sciences. The Department operates under four divisions:  Arts and Sciences provides visual and performing arts, music and dance, and science programs to adults and youth while responding to increased demand for family programs such as the Junior Museum and Zoo, the Children’s Theatre, and interpretive programs.  Open Space and Parks is responsible for the conservation and maintenance of more than 4,000 acres of urban and open space parkland and provides ecology and natural history interpretive programs for youth and adults through campfires, special interest nature programs, and guided walks.  Recreation and Golf Services provides a diverse range of programs and activities for the community, and focuses on creating a culture of fitness and healthy living by encouraging individuals and families to participate in creative and fun activities.  Cubberley Community Center and Human Services hosts community artists, dance groups, children centers, Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Adult Education, Foothill College, and many non-profit groups. On its 35-acre campus, the center provides a full array of facilities including fields, tennis courts, a track, gymnasiums, an auditorium, a theatre, and classrooms which are available for public rental. The Human Services function provides assistance to people in need, including grants to non-profit organizations and entry level work experience for the homeless. What is the source of Community Services funding? Where does a Community Service dollar go? General Fund (52%) Other (Less than 1%) Source: FY 2009 revenue and expenditure data Fees (5%) Classes and Camps (10%) Golf (15%)Grants and Donations (3%) Rentals (3%) Cubberley Leases & Rentals (12%) Cubberley and Human Services Arts and Sciences (22%)(17%) Open Space and Parks (31%) Recreation and Golf Services (30%) -21- Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 SPENDING Total Community Services spending increased by approximately 11% in the last five years. The Department’s prior year reorganization resulted in an increase of 47% in Arts and Sciences expenditures for FY 2009 due to the transfer of the Science and Interpretive program expenditures into the Arts and Sciences Division. Community Services staffing decreased by 7% over the last five years from 158 to 147 full-time equivalents (FTEs). In FY 2009, temporary or hourly staffing accounted for about 34% of the Department’s total staffing. Total authorized staffing decreased 12% over the previous five years from 2.6 to 2.3 FTE per thousand residents. Palo Alto’s expenditures per capita for parks, recreation, and community centers are the second highest compared with seven other nearby cities. It should be noted that each jurisdiction offers different levels of service and budgets for those services accordingly. Palo Alto data includes expenditures related to nearly 4,000 acres of open space, municipal golf course, human services programs, Cubberley Community Center, and unique services such as the Art Center, the Children’s Theatre, and the Junior Museum and Zoo. Comparison for Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Operating Expenditures Per Capita: FY 2007 Source: California State Controller, Cities Annual Report Fiscal Year 06-07 Operating expenditures (in millions) Arts and Sciences1 Open Space and Parks Recreation and Golf Services Cubberley Community Center & Human Services Total Operating Expense Operating Expenditures Per Capita Total Revenues (in millions) 2 Total FTEs Temporary Percent of Total Who Are Temporary Authorized staffing per 1,000 population FY 2005 $3.2 $6.8 $6.1 $3.0 $19.1 $312 $8.6 158 49 31% 2.6 FY 2006 $3.2 $6.1 $6.7 $3.5 $19.5 $312 $9.0 146 48 33% 2.3 FY 2007 $3.1 $6.3 $7.0 $3.4 $19.8 $317 $9.3 148 49 33% 2.4 FY 2008 $4.4 $6.8 $6.4 $3.7 $21.2 $335 $9.8 147 49 34% 2.3 FY 2009 $4.7 $6.6 $6.4 $3.5 $21.1 $328 $10.5 147 49 34% 2.3 Change over last 5 years: +47% -3% +4% +16% +11% +5% +23% -7% 0% +3 -12% 1 Operating costs were combined to match the Department’s reorganization in FY 2008. Youth Sciences expense data could not be segregated from Recreation expenses and are excluded from Arts and Sciences costs for FY 2005 through FY 2007. 2 Revenues include rental revenue generated at the Cubberley Community Center that is passed through to the Palo Alto Unified School District per the City’s agreement with the school district. - 22 - Chapter 2 – COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT-WIDE CLASSES Through its divisions, Community Services offers classes to the public on a variety of topics including recreation and sports, arts and culture, nature and the outdoors. Classes for children include aquatics, sports, digital art, animation, music, and dance. Other classes are targeted specifically for adults, senior citizens and pre-schoolers. In FY 2009, 160 camp sessions were offered for kids. Over the last five years, the number of camps offered increased by 3% and total enrollment in camps decreased by 9%. The number of kids’ classes (excluding camps) offered increased by 14%, but enrollment in kid’s classes decreased by 12%. Enrollment in adult classes decreased by 25%; the number of classes offered for adults decreased by 4%. In FY 2009, class registrations online, increased 5% compared to five years earlier. In FY 2009, 85% of residents rated the range and variety of classes good or excellent. Palo Alto ranked in the 90th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Enrollment in Community Services Classes (Residents vs. Non-Residents) FY 2009 Source: Community Services Department Total number of classes/camps offered1 Total enrollment1 Citizen Survey Camp sessions Kids (excluding camps) Adults Pre- school Total Camps Kids (excluding camps) Adults Pre-school Total Percent of class registrations online Percent of class registrants who are non- residents Percent rating the range/variety of classes good or excellent FY 2005 156 276 362 171 965 6,601 4,862 5,676 3,764 20,903 40% 16% 84% FY 2006 153 235 294 160 842 5,906 4,604 5,485 3,628 19,623 41% 15% 86% FY 2007 145 206 318 137 806 5,843 4,376 4,936 3,278 18,433 42% 13% 82% FY 2008 151 253 327 143 874 5883 4,824 4,974 87% Residents Non-Residents 13% 3,337 19,018 43% 15% 87% FY 2009 160 315 349 161 985 6,010 4,272 4,288 3,038 17,608 45% 13% 85% Change over last 5 years: +3% +14% -4% -6% +2% -9% -12% -25% -19% -16% +5% -3% +1% 1 Data shown is in format available from Community Services registration system. Types of classes offered include arts, sports, nature and outdoors, and recreation.  Budget benchmarking measure - 23 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 ARTS AND SCIENCES DIVISION ARTS The Arts section provides a broad range of arts-related enrichment programs including the Palo Alto Art Center, Children’s Theatre, Lucie Stern Community Theatre, Art in Public Places, music and dance programs, and concerts. Community Theatre attendance at performances increased from last year, but was 7% lower than five years ago. There were 159 performances at the Community Theatre in FY 2009, 8% less than in FY 2005. The number of participants in Children’s Theater has decreased by 66% over the last five years. In 2009 the Children’s Theater reformatted its programming and methods for calculating participants, which the Department partly attributes to the decline. The Art Center had about 15,800 exhibition visitors and presented 41 concerts in FY 2009. Total attendance decreased 24% from about 76,000 in FY 2005 to about 58,000 in FY 2009. According to the Department the decline in visitors may be attributed to decreases in publicity and ability to consistently track attendance. The Department also noted the variety of exhibits appeals to different audiences and can affect attendance. Outside funding for visual arts programs was 4% less than it was in FY 2005. In FY 2009, 79% of residents rated art programs and theater as good or excellent. Enrollment in Art Classes, Camps, and Workshops: FY 2005 to FY2009 Source: Community Services Department Community Theater Children’s Theater4 Art Center Number of performances Attendance at performances Music & Dance Class Enrollees Attendance at performances Participants in performances and programs Theater class, camp and workshop registrants Exhibition visitors Concerts1 Total attendance (users) Enrollment in art classes, camps, and workshops (adults and children)2 Outside funding for visual arts programs Attendance at Project LOOK! tours and family days3 FY 2005 172 50,111 1424 22,734 1,592 581 19,307 53 76,264 3,559 $275,909 6,722 FY 2006 183 55,204 1416 22,788 1,670 597 19,448 59 73,305 4,137 $284,838 6,191 FY 2007 171 45,571 1195 23,117 1,845 472 16,191 43 70,387 3,956 $345,822 6,855 FY 2008 166 45,676 982 19,811 1,107 407 17,198 42 69,255 3,913 $398,052 6,900 FY 2009 159 46,609 964 14,786 534 334 15,830 41 58,194 3,712 $264,580 8,353 Change over last 5 years: -8% -7% -32% -35% -66% -43% -18% -23% -24% +4% -4% +24% 1 All of the concerts are part of the Community Theatre program though some are performed at the Art Center. 2 Enrollment shown here is also reflected in totals on "Classes" page. 3 Project LOOK! Offers docent-led tours of exhibitions at the Palo Alto Art Center to K-12th grade school groups. Tours are followed by a hands-on activity at the Project LOOK! Studio, including art tours to East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. 4 Volunteer hours in FY 2009 totaled 4,352 hours. - 24 - Chapter 2 – COMMUNITY SERVICES ARTS AND SCIENCES DIVISION (cont.) YOUTH SCIENCES The Arts and Sciences Division provides science programs to adults and youth while responding to increased demand for family programs. Through public and non-profit partnerships, the division will continue to work with the community to develop support and advocacy for its programs and facilities. Arts and Sciences will continue to administer and manage the Junior Museum and Zoo. Founded in 1934, the Junior Museum was the first children’s museum west of the Mississippi, and continues to be a local leader in children’s science education since its inception. Palo Alto was in the 98th percentile for educational opportunities and ranked 5th compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. The Zoo opened in 1969. The Junior Museum and Zoo provides summer camps, outreach programs, and exhibits for area children. 79% of the residents rated youth services as good or excellent, placing Palo Alto in the 89th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Junior Museum Enrollment and Outreach Participants: FY 2005 to FY 2009 Source: Community Services Department Junior Museum and Zoo Interpretive Sciences Citizen Survey Enrollment in Junior Museum classes and camps1, 2 Estimated number of outreach participants3 Number of Arastradero, Baylands, & Foothill outreach programs for school-age children Enrollment in open space interpretive classes4 Percent rating services to youth good or excellent Percent rating educational opportunities FY 2005 1,934 3,388 48 1,188 68% - FY 2006 1,832 2,414 48 1,280 70% 93% FY 2007 1,805 2,532 63 1,226 73% 94% FY 2008 2,0894 2,7224 855 2,6894 73% 93% FY 2009 2,054 3,300 1785 2,615 75% 91% Change over last 5 years: +6% -3% + 271% +120% +7% - 1 Enrollment shown here is also reflected in totals on “Classes” page. 2 Classes and camps are paid for by parents who selectively enroll their children. 3 Outreach includes interpretive programs. These are programs paid for by the schools, whether they are taught at the schools or at the Junior Museum and Zoo. The number of outreach participants decreased in FY 2006 because the City lost its grant funding for outreach to East Palo Alto schools. 4 FY 2008 increase includes 651 visitors at special request programs. 5 FY 2008 increase includes Foothills Ohlone programs and FY 2009 increase staff attributes to a contract entered into with two more schools (Hoover and Duveneck) for outreach science classes.  Budget benchmarking measure - 25 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 Foothills Park Attendance FY 2005 – FY 2009 Source: Community Services Department OPEN SPACE AND PARKS DIVISION OPEN SPACE The City has 3,744 acres1 of open space that it maintains, consisting of Foothills Park, Baylands Nature Preserve (including Byxbee Park), Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, and Esther Clark Nature Preserve. In FY 2009 this amounted to about 60 acres per 1,000 residents. Palo Alto was in the 94th percentile for open space preservation and ranked 7th compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Open space acreage per 1,000 residents decreased during the last five years from 62.0 to 60.02 acres per 1,000 residents because of an increase in population. Similarly, total urban parks and open space acreage declined from 64.1 to 62.3 acres per 1,000 residents. This was true even though the City added 13 acres to the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve with the acquisition of the Bressler property. Average open space is 535 acres per park ranger. Palo Alto ranked in the 85th percentile for the quality of the overall natural environment and in the 94th percentile for preservation of natural areas compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. This year, the survey included a new question to assess preservation of wildlife and plants. 87% of residents rated preservation of wildlife and ative plants good or excellent. n Citizen Survey Visitors at Foothills Park Volunteer hours for restorative/resource management projects2 Number of native plants in restoration projects Number of Rangers Percent rating preservation of wildlife and native plants good or excellent <NEW> Percent rating quality of overall natural environment good or excellent  Percent rating preservation of natural areas such as open space good or excellent Percent rating availability of paths or walking trails good or excellent FY 2005 121,574 15,847 12,418 - - - - FY 2006 127,457 10,738 15,516 7 - - - - FY 2007 140,437 11,380 14,023 7 - - - - FY 2008 135,001 13,572 13,893 7 - 85% 78% 74% FY 2009 135,110 16,169 11,934 7 87% 84% 82% 75% Change over last 5 years: +11 % +2% -4% - - - - - 1 Does not include the 268 acres of developed parks and land maintained by the Parks section or the Recreation and Golf Division . Neither does this include 2,200 acres of Montebello Open Space Preserve and 200 acres of Los Trancos Open Space Preserve that are operated by the Mid-Peninsula Open Space District. 2 Includes collaborative partnerships with non-profit groups. Staff attributes the increase in volunteer hours primarily to the Baylands Nature Preserve through Save the Bay (non-profit partner) activities and the use of court-referred (community service hours) volunteers.  Budget benchmarking measure - 26 - Chapter 2 – COMMUNITY SERVICES OPEN SPACE AND PARKS DIVISION (cont.) PARKS AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE Parks section maintains approximately 269 acres of land including:  Urban/neighborhood parks (157 acres or 59% of total) 1  City facilities (26 acres or 10%)  School athletic fields (43 acres or 16%)  Utility sites (11 acres or 4%)  Median strips (27 acres or 10%)  Business Districts and parking lots (5 acres or 2%). In FY 2009, maintenance spending on the above acres totaled about $4.4 million, or approximately $16,940 per acre. The City also added the Sterling Canal and Homer tunnel area to the maintenance program. These new landscaped areas increased the percentage of contracted maintenance from 22% in FY 2008 to 24% in FY 2009. The Department attributes the decline in athletic field usage primarily to closures for field maintenance and a fee structure change during FY 2009 from a flat rate to an hourly usage rate. Volunteer hours increased over the last 5 years through the Adopt-a-Park programs. 92% of residents responding to the survey rate city parks good or excellent, and 87% rate their neighborhood park good or excellent. 94% report they visited a neighborhood or City park in the last 12 months. Palo Alto parks rank in the 94th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Athletic Field Usage: FY 2005 to FY 2009 Source: Community Services Department Maintenance Expenditures (in millions) 2 Citizen Survey Parks and landscape maintenance (in millions) Athletic fields in City parks4 (in millions) Athletic fields on school district sites3, 4 (in millions) Total maintenance cost per acre Total hours of Number of permits issued for special events Volunteer hours for neighbor- hood parks athletic field usage4 Number of participants in community gardening program5 Percent rating City parks as good or excellent Percent rating their neighborhood park good or excellent FY 2005 $2.7 $0.6 $0.5 $14,572 65,748 14 60 244 91% 89% FY 2006 $2.5 $0.6 $0.6 $14,302 65,791 16 150 223 88% 87% FY 2007 $2.7 $0.6 $0.7 $15,042 70,769 22 150 231 91% 89% FY 2008 $2.9 $0.6 $0.7 $15,931 63,212 22 180 233 89% 86% FY 2009 $3.0 $0.7 $0.7 $16,940 45,762 35 212 238 92% 87% Change over last 5 years: +11% +16% +40% +16% -30% +150% +253% -2% +1% -2% 1 Does not include 3,744 acres of open space discussed on the previous page. 2 Includes budgeted operating expenditures. Does not include cost plan charges or capital costs. 3 PAUSD reimburses the City for 50 percent of maintenance costs on these school district sites. 4 Special use permits are issued for special events in parks, fun runs, tournaments, festivals, etc. 5 Community Services coordinates 3 community gardens. Decrease in number of participants resulted from closure of a 4th community garden. - 27 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 RECREATION AND GOLF SERVICES DIVISION RECREATION Recreation services produce a large number of the classes offered by the Department. Besides summer camps, Recreation services include aquatics programs, facility rentals (through which members of the community may rent meeting room and event space, the swimming pool or gym space for parties and events, field and picnic sites) and a variety of youth and teen programs. In addition to class offerings for adults, Recreation services coordinates seasonal adult sports leagues and sponsors special events each year such as the May Fete Parade and the Chili Cook-Off. Recreation services works collaboratively with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) to provide middle school athletics in conjunction with the PAUSD’s summer school program. Enrollment in dance, recreation and therapeutic classes decreased from five years ago. The lower ranking may have resulted from public review of plans for a potential new Mitchell Park Community Center building. The bond measure campaign (Measure N) heightened awareness of the constraints and inadequacies of the current facility. Lack of classroom space and dance studios were cited as particular customer needs in the campaign surveys. However, aquatics increased 19%, summer camps decreased 9%, middle school sports classes increased 12%, and private tennis lessons increased 71% over the same period. Compared to other jurisdictions, Palo Alto ranked in the 90th percentile nationally for its recreational programs and classes, but only in the 75th percentile for recreation centers and facilities compared to other jurisdictions. Trends in Enrollment for Largest Recreational Classes: FY 2005 to FY 2009 Dance Recreation Summer Camps En r o l l m e n t 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Source: Community Services Department 1 Enrollment in Recreation Classes Citizen Survey Percent rating Percent rating Dance Recreation Aquatics Middle school sports Therapeutic Private tennis lessons recreation centers/ facilities recreation programs/classes Summer Camps good or excellent good or excellent FY 2005 1,531 5,055 223 1,242 216 259 6,601 78% 87% FY 2006 1,326 5,681 199 1,247 175 234 5,906 80% 85% FY 2007 1,195 5,304 225 1,391 228 274 5,843 82% 90% FY 2008 1,129 4,712 182 1,396 203 346 5,883 77% 87% FY 2009 1,075 3,750 266 1,393 153 444 6,010 80% 85% Change over last 5 years: -30% -26% +19% +12% -29% +71% -9% +2% -2% 1 Enrollment shown here is also reflected in totals on "Classes" page. Classes and camps are paid for by parents who selectively enroll their children.  Budget benchmarking measure - 28 - Chapter 2 – COMMUNITY SERVICES RECREATION AND GOLF SERVICES DIVISION (cont.) Rounds of Golf: GOLF COURSE FY 2005 to FY 2009 The City owns and maintains the municipal golf course, and coordinates the golf shop, driving range, and restaurant operations with separate tenants. According to the Department, the number of rounds of golf has decreased 8% to 72,170 from 78,410 five years ago. The golf course reported profits in two of the last five years and losses in three of the previous years. The loss in FY 2005 was $72,031; profit in FY 2006 was $148,154; profit in FY 2007 was $43,015; loss in FY 2008 was $23,487; loss in FY 2009 was $326,010. Source: Community Services Department Golf course operating expenditures1 Golf course revenue Golf course debt service Net revenue/ (cost) Number of rounds of golf (in millions) (in millions) (in millions) (in millions) FY 2005 78,410 $2.9 $2.4 $0.6 ($0.1) FY 2006 76,000 $3.0 $2.3 $0.6 $0.1 FY 2007 76,241 $3.1 $2.5 $0.6 $0.0 FY 2008 74,630 $3.2 $2.2 $0.7 $0.0 FY 2009 72,170 $3.0 $2.4 $0.5 ($0.3) Change over 1 -8% +4% 0% -17% -200% last 5 years: 1 Includes allocated charges and overhead. - 29 - +4% Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 30 - CUBBERLEY COMMUNITY CENTER AND HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION Cubberley Community Center rents space for community meetings, seminars, social events, dances, theater performances, and athletic events. In FY 2009, rental revenue increased 17% to about $959,000 although total hours rented increased slightly from the previous year, it declined 10% to 34,874 hours from FY 2005. The Cubberley Community Center also leases former classroom space to artists and Foothill College on a long-term basis. In FY 2009, there were 37 leaseholders and lease revenue increased 9% to about $1.4 million. The Human Services section provides connections to resources for families and grants to local non-profits. Human Services grants to local non-profits totaled almost $1.1 million in FY 2009, about 16% less than in FY 2005. Compared to other surveyed jurisdictions, Palo Alto ranked in the 95th percentile for services to seniors. Residents give high ratings to senior services (82% rate services good or excellent). Residents give lower marks when rating access to affordable quality child care (only 32% good or excellent). Cubberley Community Center Use: FY 2009 Source: Community Services Department Cubberley Community Center Human Services Citizen Survey Hours rented  Hourly rental revenue (in millions) Number of lease- holders Lease revenue (in millions) Human Services’ grants to local non- profits (in millions) Percent rating access to affordable quality child care good or excellent Percent rating senior services good or excellent FY 2005 38,624 $0.8 35 $1.3 $1.3 25% 78% FY 2006 38,407 $0.9 38 $1.3 $1.3 34% 84% FY 2007 36,489 $0.8 39 $1.4 $1.2 26% 80% 81% FY 2008 32,288 $0.9 39 $1.5 $1.2 28% FY 2009 34,874 $0.9 37 $1.4 $1.1 82% 32% Change over last 5 years: -10% +17% +6% +9% -16% +7%  Budget benchmarking measure CHAPTER 3 – FIRE The mission of the Fire Department is to protect life, property and the environment from the perils of fire, hazardous materials, and other disasters through rapid emergency response, proactive code enforcement, modern fire prevention methods, and progressive public safety education for the community. The Department has four major functional areas:  Emergency response – emergency readiness and medical, fire suppression, and hazardous materials response  Environmental and safety management – fire and hazardous materials code research, development and enforcement; fire cause investigations; public education; and disaster preparedness  Training and personnel management  Records and information management The Department serves the resident population of Palo Alto and Stanford with a combined population of 77,799. Fire Department revenue in FY 2009 totaled $11.4 million (or 49% of costs), including about $7.1 million for services to Stanford and the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC), $2.1 million for paramedic services, $0.6 million in plan check fees, $0.3 million in hazardous materials permits, and $1.2 million in other revenues and reimbursements. What is the source of Fire Department funding? Where does a Fire Department dollar go? Source: FY 2009 revenue and expenditure data Records and Information 4% Training and Personnel Management 10% Environmental and Safety 10% Emergency Response 76% General Fund Paramedic fees 9% Stanford and SLAC 30% Other (Hazardous materials permits, plan check fees, etc.) 9% 52% - 31 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 FIRE SPENDING Over the last five years:  Total Fire Department spending increased from $19.1 million to $23.4 million, or 23% in the last five years.  Total expenditures per resident served increased from $254 to $301.  Revenue and reimbursements increased 28% (from $8.9 million to $11.4 million). In FY 2009, 49% of costs were covered by revenues. The chart on the right shows that Palo Alto’s net Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) expenditures per capita are in the mid range compared to several other local jurisdictions. However, the California State Controller does not include calculations for Stanford. The Department won the national Voice of the People Awards for the high ratings residents gave to fire and emergency medical services in 2005, 2006, and 2007. In the most recent citizen survey, 95% of residents rated fire services as good or excellent, and 80% rated fire prevention and education as good or excellent. Comparison Net Fire and EMS Expenditures Per Capita: FY 20072 Source: California State Controller, Cities Annual Report Fiscal Year 06 -07 Operating expenditures (in millions) Citizen Survey Emergency response Environmental and fire safety Training and personnel management Records and information TOTAL Resident population of area served1 Expenditures per resident served1 Revenue (in millions) Percent rating fire services good or excellent  Percent rating fire prevention and education good or excellent FY 2005 $14.5 $1.9 $1.8 $0.9 $19.1 74,869 $254 $8.9 94% 82% FY 2006 $15.0 $2.1 $2.1 $0.9 $20.2 75,604 $267 $9.4 95% 84% FY 2007 $16.2 $2.2 $2.2 $1.0 $21.6 75,835 $284 $9.9 98% 86% FY 2008 $17.8 $2.6 $2.5 $1.1 $24.0 76,682 $313 $9.7 96% 87% FY 2009 $17.7 $2.3 $2.4 $1.0 $23.4 77,799 $301 $11.4 95% 80% Change over ast 5 years: l +22% +23% +31% +15% +23% +4% +18% +28% +1 -2% 1 Based on number of residents in the Fire Department’s expanded service area (Palo Alto and Stanford). Prior year population revised per California Department of Finance estimates. 2 Figures are net of functional revenues and may not reconcile to total spending due to differences in the way the information was compiled. Note that cities categorize their expenditures in different ways.  Budget benchmarking measure - 32 - Chapter 3 - FIRE FIRE STAFFING AND CALLS FOR SERVICE During FY 2009, the Fire Department handled 7,549 calls for service (an average of 21 calls per day) including:  239 fire calls  4,509 medical/rescue calls  1,065 false alarms  328 service calls  165 hazardous condition calls The Palo Alto Fire Department has a total of 8 fire stations including Stanford. Average on duty staffing is 31 during the day, and 29 at night. The Department has 113 line personnel certified as emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and 36 of these are also certified paramedics. Palo Alto has more fire stations per capital than most other local jurisdictions. As shown in the chart on the right, the number of residents served per fire station is lower than many other local jurisdictions. Palo Alto and Stanford Population Served Per Fire Station: FY 2009 Source: Cities, California Department of Finance, U.S. Census Bureau Palo Alto calculation excludes Station 7 (dedicated to SLAC) and Station 8 (seasonal). Calls for service Staffing Fire Medical/ rescue False alarms Service calls Hazardous condition Other TOTAL  Average number of calls per day Total authorized staffing (FTE) Staffing per 1,000 residents served1 Average on-duty staffing Annual training hours per firefighter Overtime as a percent of regular salaries Resident population served per fire station1,2 FY 2005 224 3,633 1,300 358 211 688 6,414 18 129 1.72 31 day/29 night 312 23% 12,478 FY 2006 211 3,780 1,184 399 203 1,120 6,897 19 127 1.67 31 day/29 night 288 18% 12,601 FY 2007 221 3,951 1,276 362 199 1,227 7,236 20 128 1.68 31 day/29 night 235 21% 12,639 FY 2008 192 4,552 1,119 401 169 1,290 7,723 21 128 1.67 31 day/29 night 246 18% 12,780 FY 2009 239 4,509 1,065 328 165 1,243 7,549 21 127 1.65 31 day/29 night 223 16% 12,967 Change over ast 5 years: l +7% +24% -18% -8% -22% +81%+18% +18% -1% -4% - -29% +7% +4%   Budget benchmarking measure 1 Based on number of residents in the Fire Department’s expanded service area (Palo Alto and Stanford). 2 Calculation is based on 6 fire stations, and does not include Station 7 (dedicated to the SLAC complex) or Station 8 (Foothills Park, open seasonally). - 33 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 FIRE SUPRESSION There were 239 fire incidents and no fire deaths in FY 2009. This included 20 residential structure fires, a decrease of 66% from five years earlier and a decrease of 53% from FY 2008. Over the last five years, the number of fire incidents has increased by 7%. Average response times vary from year to year. In FY 2009, the Fire Department responded to 91% of fire emergencies within 8 minutes (the goal is 90%). The average response time for fire calls was 5:37 minutes. The response time increased by 9% from five years earlier, but decreased by 17% from FY 2008. The standard Fire Department response to a working structure fire is 18 personnel. According to the Fire Department, 63% of fires were confined to the room or area of origin. This is less than the Department’s goal of 90% and a decrease from the prior year. Number of Calls for Service by Fire Station: FY 2009 Source: Palo Alto Fire Department data Number of fire incidents Average response time for fire calls  Percent responses to fire emergencies within 8 minutes1 Percent of fires confined to the room or area of origin2 Number of residential structure fires Number of fire deaths Fire response vehicles3 FY 2005 224 5:09 minutes 91% 73% 58 0 25 FY 2006 211 5:28 minutes 91% 63% 62 1 25 FY 2007 221 5:48 minutes 87% 70% 68 2 25 FY 2008 192 6:48 minutes 79% 79% 43 0 25 FY 2009 239 5:37 minutes 91% 63% 20 0 25 Change over last 5 years: +7% +9% +1% -10% -66% - - 1 Response time is from receipt of 911-call to arrival on scene; does not include cancelled in route, not completed incidents, or mutual aid calls. 2 The Fire Department defines containment of structure fires as those incidents in which fire is suppressed and does not spread beyond the involved area upon firefighter arrival. 3 Includes ambulances, fire apparatus, hazard materials, and mutual aid vehicles. - 34 - Chapter 3 - FIRE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES The Department responded to 4,509 medical/rescue incidents in FY 2009. As shown in the chart on the right, medical/rescue calls represented 60% of the Fire Department calls for service in FY 2009. The average response time for medical/rescue calls was 5:37 minutes in FY 2009. The Department responded to:  91% of emergency medical requests for service within 8 minutes (the Department’s goal is 90%)  99% of paramedic calls for service within 12 minutes (the Department’s goal is 90%) Palo Alto is the only city in Santa Clara County that provides primary ambulance transport services. The Fire Department operates two ambulances and seven engine companies that provide Advance Life Support (ALS) capability. In FY 2009, average on-duty paramedic staffing increased to 10 during the day and 8 at night. In FY 2006, the Department implemented a Basic Life Support (BLS) transport program. Of the 3,331 EMS transports in FY 2009, 2,939 were ALS and 392 were BLS transports. 91% of survey respondents rated ambulance/emergency medical service as good or excellent. In FY 2009, the City Auditor’s Office issued an Audit of Ambulance Billing and Revenue Collections containing 17 recommendations. City staff implemented 11 of the 17 recommendations, resulting in improved contractor oversight and performance. Although FY 2009 revenue increased $100,000, the Department estimates that case receipts for ambulance billing increased $550,000, reflecting improved collections of prior years accounts. Fire Department Calls for Service: FY 2009 Source: Palo Alto Fire Department Citizen Survey Medical/ rescue incidents Average response time for medical/rescue calls1  First response to emergency medical requests for service within 8 minutes1  Ambulance response to paramedic calls for service within 12 minutes1, 2 Average on-duty paramedic staffing Number of Ambulance transports Ambulance Revenue (in millions) Percent rating ambulance/ emergency medical services good or excellent3 FY 2005 3,633 5:28 minutes 95% 98% 8 day/6 night 2,744 $1.5 95% FY 2006 3,780 5:13 minutes 94% 99% 8 day/6 night 2,296 $1.7 94% FY 2007 3,951 5:17 minutes 92% 97% 8 day/6 night 2,527 $1.9 94% FY 2008 4,552 5:24 minutes 93% 99% 10 day/6 night 3,236 $2.0 95% FY 2009 4,509 5:37 minutes 91% 99% 10 day/8 night 3,331 $2.1 91% Change over last 5 years: +24% +3% -4% +1% - +21% +46% -4% Service calls Hazardous condition 2% Other 16% 4% False alarms 14% Medical/ rescue 60% Fire 3% 1 Response time is from receipt of 911-call to arrival on scene; does not include cancelled in route, not completed incidents, or mutual aid calls. 2 Includes non-City ambulance responses. 3 Based on revised National Citizen Survey data. - 35 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 36 - HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND FIRE SAFETY In FY 2009, the Hazardous Materials Response Team (Rescue 2) responded to 17 hazardous materials incidents. Over the past five years, the number of facilities permitted for hazardous materials increased from 503 to 509 facilities. In FY 2009, the Department performed 19% more hazardous materials inspections (including 56% of annual inspections of the 509 facilities permitted for hazardous materials) and 31% less fire inspections than 5 years ago. According to the Fire Department, the hiring of additional contract fire inspectors in FY 2008 has freed hazardous materials inspectors to conduct hazardous materials inspections. According to the Department, 329 fire safety, bike safety, and disaster preparedness presentations reached a total of 3433 residents during FY 2009. The 2009 National Citizen Survey included questions related to environmental hazards and emergency preparedness. 81% of the residents responding to the survey reported they felt very or somewhat safe from environmental hazards. 62% rated emergency preparedness services as good or excellent. 2009 Palo Alto Resident Survey: Ratings for emergency preparedness services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations Source: National Citizen Survey ™ 2009 (Palo Alto) Hazardous Materials Citizen Survey Number of hazardous materials incidents2 Number of facilities permitted for hazardous materials Number of hazardous materials inspections Percent of annual hazardous materials and underground storage inspections performed  Number of fire inspections Number of plan reviews1 Fire safety, bike safety, and disaster preparedness presentations Percent of residents feeling very or somewhat safe from environmental hazards Percent rating emergency preparedness good or excellent FY 2005 19 503 241 48% 1,488 982 219 - - FY 2006 20 497 243 49% 899 983 281 - - FY 2007 9 501 268 53% 1,021 928 240 - - FY 2008 18 503 406 81% 1,277 906 242 80% 71% FY 2009 17 509 286 56% 1,028 841 329 81% 62% Change over ast 5 years: l -11% +1% +19% +8% -31% -14% +50 - - Excellent 19% Good 43% Fair 32% Poor6% 1 Does not include over-the-counter building permit reviews. 2 Hazardous materials incidents include flammable gas or liquid, chemical release, chemical release reaction or toxic condition, or chemical spill or release.  Budget benchmarking measure CHAPTER 4 – LIBRARY The mission of the Library is to enable people to explore library resources to enrich their lives with knowledge, information and enjoyment. The Department has two major activities:  Collection and Technical Services – to acquire and develop quality collections, manage databases, and provide technology that enhances the community’s access to library resources  Public Services – to provide access to library materials, information and learning opportunities through services and programs In November 2008, voters approved a $76 million bond measure (Measure N) to fund improvements for the Mitchell Park, Downtown, and Main libraries and the Mitchell Park Community Center. In addition, the City allocated $4 million in infrastructure funds to renovate the College Terrace Library. As a result, four library buildings are in the initial stages of major facility improvement. By the end of FY 2009, the College Terrace Library was preparing to close for a year-long renovation. Designs were also underway for the renovation of the Downtown Library and the new 52,000 square foot Mitchell Park Library and Community Center. In FY 2008, the Office of the City Auditor issued an audit report on the Library’s operations in advance of the November 2008 bond measure for facilities improvements. The audit included 32 recommendations for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of Library operations. By the end of FY 2009, the Library had implemented 28 recommendations with 4 in process. What is the source of Library funding? Where does a Library dollar go? Source: FY 2009 revenue and expenditure data Collection and Technical Services 31% State Revenue Less than 1% Other Revenue 1% Over the Counter Donations Less than 1% Fines and Fees 3% General Fund 95% Public Services 69% -37- Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 LIBRARY SPENDING In FY 2009, Palo Alto had five libraries:  Main (open 62 hours per week)  Mitchell Park (open 58 hours per week)  Children’s (open 48 hours per week)  Downtown (open 35 hours per week)  College Terrace (open 35 hours per week) Palo Alto has more libraries than surrounding communities and more than other communities of its size. In comparison, Redwood City has 4 libraries, Mountain View has 1, Menlo Park has 2, and Sunnyvale has 1. Palo Alto library expenditures per capita were less than those of Berkeley FY 2009, but more than those of other area cities. In FY 2009, Library spending totaled $6.2 million, a decrease of 9% since last year, and an increase of 22% over the last five years.2 79% of residents rate library services good or excellent; this places Palo Alto in the 43rd percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. 75% rate the quality of neighborhood branch libraries good or excellent. The rating changes may be related to the library bond campaign and resulting public awareness of library shortcomings. Comparison Library Expenditure Per Capita1: FY 2008 Source: California Library Statistics 2009, (Fiscal Year 07-08) Operating Expenditures (in millions) Citizen Survey Public Services Collections and Technical Services TOTAL Library expenditures per capita Percent rating quality of public library services good or excellent Percent rating quality of neighborhood branch libraries good or excellent FY 2005 $2.9 $2.2 $5.1 $83 80% 78% FY 2006 $4.0 $1.6 $5.7 $91 78% 73% FY 2007 $4.2 $1.6 $5.8 $92 81% 75% FY 2008 $4.9 $1.9 $6.82 $108 76% 71% FY 2009 $4.3 $1.9 $6.2 $97 79% 75% Change over last 5 years: +48% -13% +22% +16% -1% -3% 1 Jurisdictions offer differing levels of service and budget for those services differently. 2 The Department advises that a large portion of the budget increase from FY 2007 to FY 2008 was due in part to a public-private partnership to increase the collection and the completion of prior year deferred purchases.  Budget benchmarking measure - 38 - Chapter 4 - LIBRARY LIBRARY STAFFING Total authorized Library staffing in FY 2009 was 57 FTE, an increase of 3% from FY 2005 levels. Temporary and hourly staff accounts for approximately 24% of the Library’s total staff. In FY 2009, 13 of 57 FTE staff were temporary or hourly. Volunteers donated approximately 5,953 hours to the libraries in FY 2009. This was a 21% decrease over the last five years and was a slight decrease from FY 2009. Palo Alto libraries were open a total of 11,822 hours in FY 2009. This was a 5% increase from FY 2008 and a 5% increase from five years earlier. The standard schedule was a combined 238 hours of service per week. As shown in the graph on the right, Palo Alto libraries were open more hours than most other local jurisdictions in FY 2008. This is because the City has multiple branches. Total Hours Open Annually: FY 2008 Source: California Library Statistics 2009, (Fiscal Year 07-08) Authorized Staffing (FTE) Regular Temporary/ hourly TOTAL Number of residents per library staff FTE Volunteer hours Total hours open annually1 FTE per 1,000 hours open2 FY 2005 44 12 56 1,097 7,537 11,268 4.94 FY 2006 44 13 57 1,095 5,838 10,488 5.41 FY 2007 44 13 57 1,099 5,865 9,386 6.06 FY 2008 44 13 57 1,112 5,988 11,281 5.00 FY 2009 44 13 57 1,127 5,953 11,822 4.84 Change over last 5 years: -1% +15% +3% +3% -21% +5% -2% 1 Decrease in hours in FY 2006 and FY 2007 due to closure of Children’s Library from December 2005 to September 2007 for renovations. 2 The increase in FTE per 1,000 hours in FY 2006 and FY 2007 was primarily due to the closure of Children’s Library from December 2005 to September 2007.  Budget benchmarking measure - 39 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 LIBRARY COLLECTION AND CIRCULATION The total number of items in the Library’s collection has increased by 17,549 or approximately 7% over the last five years. The number of titles in the collection has increased by about 6%; the number of book volumes has increased by about 4%. Circulation increased 27% over the last five years. In FY 2009, non- resident circulation accounted for approximately 19% of the Library’s total circulation. This is 1% lower than it was five years ago. 90% of first time checkouts are completed on self check machines. 73% of survey respondents rate the variety of library materials as good or excellent. Of all the libraries, Mitchell Park had the highest circulation in FY 2009, with 622,334 items circulating. Main had the second highest circulation at 505,757. Children’s Library, which reopened in September 2007 after an extensive renovation, had a circulation of 321,950 in FY 2009. Circulation for College Terrace was 99,974 and Downtown was 76,104. An additional 7,836 check outs were made from the Library’s digital book service. Circulation Per Capita: FY 2008 Source: California Library Statistics 2009, (Fiscal Year 07-08) Citizen Survey Total number of titles in collection Total number of items in collection Number of book volumes Number of media items Items held per capita <REVISED> Total circulation  1 Percent non- resident circulation Circulation per capita Number of items placed on hold2 Number of first time checkouts completed on self-check machines Average number of checkouts per item Percent of first time checkouts completed on self check machines <NEW> Percent rating variety of library materials good or excellent FY 2005 164,280 264,511 236,575 27,928 4.30 1,282,888 20% 20.84 125,883 306,519 4.85 - 75% FY 2006 163,045 260,468 232,602 27,866 4.18 1,280,547 20% 20.56 181,765 456,364 4.92 67% 71% FY 2007 167,008 270,755 240,098 30,657 4.33 1,414,509 21% 22.62 208,719 902,303 5.22 88% 75% FY 2008 169,690 274,410 241,323 33,087 4.33 1,542,116 20% 24.34 200,470 1,003,516 5.62 89% 67% FY 2009 174,043 282,060 246,554 35,506 4.37 1,633,955 19% 25.34 218,073 1,078,637 5.79 90% 73% Change over last 5 years: +6% +7% +4% +27% +14% +27% -1% +22% +73% +252% +19% - -2% 1 In FY 2006 the loan period on all items except DVDs was increased from three to four weeks. 2 Starting on July 1, 2007, the Library began charging a fee for expired holds, items placed on hold which are not picked up. According to Library staff, this caused the reduction in the number of items placed on hold.  Budget benchmarking measure - 40 - Chapter 4 - LIBRARY LIBRARY SERVICES The total number of library cardholders increased 6% from 52,001 to 54,878 over the last five years, and the percent of Palo Alto residents who are cardholders increased from 59% to 62%. Total library visits increased over the same time frame. 34% of survey respondents reported they used libraries or their services more than 12 times during the last year; this places Palo Alto in the 88th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. The total number of items delivered to homebound decreased by 10%, and the total number of reference questions received by librarians decreased to 46,419, or 43% over the five-year period. However, online database sessions and internet sessions have increased by 183% and 27%, respectively, over the last five years. This reflects an ongoing shift in how the public retrieves information from libraries. Also, in May 2008, the Library implemented a power search feature on its database webpage. The new feature resulted in a significant increase in database usage in FY 2009. The number of programs offered increased from 519 to 558, or 8%; the total attendance at such programs increased by about 17%. Programs include planned events for the public that promote reading, support school readiness and education, and encourage life long learning. Many programs are sponsored by the Friends of the Palo Alto Library. Population Served Per FTE: FY 2008 Source: California Library Statistics 2009, (Fiscal Year 07-08) Citizen Survey Total number of cardholders Percent of Palo Alto residents who are cardholders Library visits Total items delivered to homebound borrowers Total number of reference questions Total number of online database sessions Number of Internet sessions Number of laptop checkouts Number of programs1 Total program attendance 1 Percent who used libraries or their services more than 12 times during the last year FY 2005 52,001 59% 873,594 2,217 80,842 39,357 113,980 1,748 519 31,141 25% FY 2006 55,909 61% 885,565 1,627 69,880 42,094 155,558 9,693 564 30,739 32% FY 2007 53,099 57% 862,081 1,582 57,255 52,020 149,280 11,725 580 30,221 33% FY 2008 53,740 62% 881,520 2,705 48,339 49,148 137,261 12,017 669 37,955 31% FY 2009 54,878 62% 875,847 2,005 46,419 111,228 145,143 12,290 558 36,582 34% Change over last 5 years +6% +3% 0%- -10% -43% +183% +27% +603% +8% +17% +9% 1 School programs were reduced due to staffing cutbacks in January 2009.  Budget benchmarking measure - 41 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 42 - This Page Intentionally Left Blank CHAPTER 5 – PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT The mission of the Planning and Community Environment Department is to provide the City Council and community with creative guidance on, and effective implementation of, land use development, planning, transportation, housing and environmental policies, plans and programs that maintain and enhance the City as a safe, vital and attractive community. The Department has three major divisions:  Planning and Transportation – To provide professional leadership in planning for Palo Alto’s future by recommending and effectively implementing land use, transportation, environmental, housing and community design policies and programs that preserve and improve Palo Alto as a vital and highly desirable place to live, work and visit.  Building – To review construction projects and improvements for compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances in a professional and efficient manner; and to ensure that all developments subject to the development review process achieve the specified quality and design. The Division also coordinates code enforcement and American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance activities.  Economic Development – To provide information and data on the local economy and business community that will assist the City Council in decision-making; indentify initiatives that will increase City revenues and economic health; and facilitate communication and working relationships within the business community. What is the source of Planning and Community Environment funding? Where does a Planning and Community Environment dollar go? Source: FY 2009 revenue and expenditure data Building Planning and Transportation Economic Development 37% 59% 4% 51% 49% Revenue and Reimbursements General Fund -43- Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 SPENDING Spending increased from about $9.1 million to $9.9 million over the last 5 years, or approximately 8.7%. The Department’s revenue varied year to year, but overall increased from $4.2 to $5 million, or 20%, over the same period. In addition, the revenue decreased from $5.8 million in FY 2008 to $5 million in FY 2009, or 14%. Authorized staffing for the Department decreased from 61 to 54 FTE, or 11% over the last five years. According to the Department, this was the result of a decrease in hourly staffing and one full-time position. The graph on the right uses California State Controller’s data to show Palo Alto’s per capita spending for Planning, Building Inspection, and Code Enforcement as compared to other jurisdictions. Data in the graph on the right and table below differ because the City of Palo Alto and the Controller's Office compile data differently. Palo Alto's expenditures per capita appear higher than those of surrounding jurisdictions, but it should be noted that different cities budget expenditures in different ways. For example, Palo Alto includes a transportation division, shuttle services and rent for the Development Center in its costs. Comparison Planning, Building Inspection and Code Enforcement Expenditures Per Capita: FY 2007 Source: California State Controller, Cities Annual Report Fiscal Year 2006- 07 Operating Expenditures (in millions) Planning and Transportation1 Building Economic Development2 TOTAL Expenditures per capita Revenue (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) FY 2005 $6.0 $3.1 - $9.1 $148 $4.2 61 FY 2006 $5.9 $3.3 $0.2 $9.4 $151 $5.6 533 FY 2007 $5.6 $3.7 $0.1 $9.4 $150 $6.6 55 FY 2008 $5.5 $3.9 $0.2 $9.6 $152 $5.8 54 FY 2009 $5.9 $3.6 $0.4 $9.9 $153 $5.0 54 Change over last 5 years: -2.6% -17% - 8.7% 3% 20% -11% 1 The Planning and Transportation Divisions merged in Spring 2006. 2 Economic Development moved from the City Manager’s Office to the Planning and Community Environment Department in FY 2007. 3 The Department reduced temporary staffing; the City also adopted a new method for calculating temporary staffing. 4 The Department also has one position in Refuse Fund and one position in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund. - 44 - Chapter 5 – PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CURRENT PLANNING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT A total of 189 planning applications were completed in FY 2009, 42% fewer than in FY 2005. The average time in weeks to complete applications decreased from 11.1 weeks in FY 2005 to 10.7 weeks in FY 2009 (a 4% decrease). The target is 10.6 weeks. The Department completed 130 Architectural Review applications, an increase of 20% from five years earlier. The Department notes that the method for counting code enforcement cases changed in FY 2008 and therefore, the number of new cases and re-inspections increased. 50% of residents surveyed rated code enforcement services good or excellent. This places Palo Alto in the 67th percentile compared to other jurisdictions. 25% consider run-down buildings, weed lots, or junk vehicles to be a major or moderate problem, a small increase from the 21% who thought so five years ago. In FY 2009, the Department implemented the City’s new Green Building Ordinance. The goal was to build a new generation of efficient buildings in Palo Alto that are environmentally responsible and healthy. The Department processed 264 permits under the new ordinance, with 27% of those having mandatory requirements and 63% voluntary. Ordinance implementation influenced $8.3M and 98,275 square feet of “green” construction. The Department reports that at least 54 LEED registered projects are in process to be certified of which 15 projects are being verified by the city. The numbers have tripled since the program’s inception. Completed Planning Applications: FY 2009 Source: Planning and Community Environment Department Code Enforcement Planning applications completed Architectural Review Board applications completed Average weeks to complete staff- level applications  Citizen Survey Percent rating quality of code enforcement good or Citizen Survey Percent who consider run down buildings, weed lots, or junk vehicles a major or moderate problem Number new cases Number of re-inspections Percent of cases resolved within 120 days of date received  FY 2005 327 108 11.1 weeks 56% 21% 473 796 91% FY 2006 390 115 13.6 weeks 61% 16% 421 667 94% FY 2007 299 100 13.4 weeks 59% 17% 369 639 76% FY 2008 257 107 12.7 weeks 59% 23% 6841 9811 93% FY 2009 189 130 10.7 weeks 50% 25% 545 1,065 94% Change over last 5 years: -42% +20% -4% -6% +4% +15% +34% +3% 1 The Department advises that the method for counting new code enforcement cases and re-inspections changed in FY 2008. Inspections or cases with multiple components that in the past were counted as a single inspection or case are now counted as multiples. This is the reason for the increase in the numbers compared to FY 2007. For this reason, FY 2009 data is not on a comparable basis to prior years’ data  Budget benchmarking measure, Related to City Council’s Top 3 Priorities for 2009 - 45 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 ADVANCE PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Based on data from the Association of Bay Area Governments, Palo Alto's jobs/housing ratio is projected to be 2.9 in 2010, higher than five nearby jurisdictions. However, this is lower than previous figures in 2008 (3.8 ratio) and 2005 (3.2 ratio). The number of residential units increased from 27,522 to 28,291 or 3% over the last five years. The average home price in 2008 was more than $1.7 million – up 31% over 2005. Only 17% of survey respondents rated the availability of affordable quality housing as good or excellent, placing Palo Alto in the 11% percentile compared to other jurisdictions. The number of business outreach contacts has dropped by 46% in the last five years. 2 47% of residents responding to the survey rated the quality of land use, planning and zoning as good or excellent. 55%rated the overall quality of new development in Palo Alto as good or excellent. 54% rated economic development services good or excellent. Jobs/Housing Ratio Projected for: Calendar Year 2010 Source: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Projections 2009 Advance Planning Economic Development Number of residential units Average price – single family home in Palo Alto1 Estimated new jobs resulting from projects approved during year Number of new housing units approved Cumulative number of below market rate (BMR) units Number of business outreach contacts Citizen Survey Percent rating economic development good or excellent Citizen Survey Percent rating quality of land use, planning, and zoning in Palo Alto as good or excellent Citizen Survey Percent rating overall quality of new development in Palo Alto as good or excellent FY 2005 27,522 $1,339,274 -197 81 322 48 55% 46% 56% FY 2006 27,767 $1,538,318 -345 371 322 362 61% 50% 62% FY 2007 27,763 $1,516,037 0 517 381 24 62% 49% 57% FY 2008 27,938 $1,872,855 +193 103 395 42 63% 47% 57% FY 2009 28,291 $1,759,870 -58 36 395 26 54% 47% 55% Change over last 5 years: +3% +31% +71% -56% +23% -46% -1% 1% -1% 1 Average home price is on a calendar year basis (e.g. FY 2009 data is for calendar year 2008). Source is http://rereport.com/index.html. 2 In FY 2006, staffing for business outreach was reduced from 2 to 1 FTE. In previous years, the number of outreach contacts was higher because Executive Staff and City Council members were also involved in business outreach.  Budget benchmarking measure - 46 - Chapter 5 – PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT BUILDING PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS Compared to five years ago, the number of building applications increased 9% to 3,496 applications in FY 2009. Building permits issued in FY 2009 were 17% lower at 2,543. During that same period, the valuation of construction for issued permits decreased from about $215 million to about $172 million, or 20%. Building permit revenue increased from $3.2 to $3.6 million, or 13%. Staff completed 17,945 inspections in FY 2009, an increase of 47% from FY 2005. According to the Department, 98% of inspection requests were responded to within one working day or within the timeframe of the customer's request. The average number of days for first response to plan checks increased to 31 days compared to 24 days in FY 2005. Compared to 5 years ago, the average number of days to issue a building permit has decreased from 94 to 63 days, excluding permits issued over the counter. This year’s survey included questions to ascertain resident satisfaction with the permit process. During the past 12 months, 7% of respondents applied for a permit from the City’s Development Center. Of these respondents, 59% rated the ease of the planning approval process as poor, 50% rated the time required to review and issue permits as poor, and 49% rated the ease of the overall application process as poor. 22% rated the overall customer service as poor and 50% rated it as fair. Results for inspection timeliness were better with 52% rating this area as good or excellent. The Department is reviewing its processes to identify service delivery improvements. Building Permit Revenues: FY 2000 through FY 2009 Source: Planning and Community Environment Department Building permit applications City’s average Cost per permit application Building permits issued  Percent of building permits issued over the counter Valuation of construction for issued permits (in millions) Building permit revenue (in millions) Average number of days for first response to plan checks1 Average number of days to issue building permits1 Number of inspections completed City’s average cost per inspection Percent of inspection requests for permitted work responded to within one working day2 FY 2005 3,219 - 3,081 69% $214.9 $3.2 24 days 94 days 12,186 - 91% FY 2006 3,296 $662 3,081 78% $276.9 $4.4 28 days 98 days 11,585 $139 94% FY 2007 3,236 $736 3,136 76% $298.7 $4.6 27 days 102 days 14,822 $127 99% FY 2008 3,253 $784 3,046 53% $358.9 $4.2 23 days 80 days 22,8203 $944 98% FY 2009 3,496 $584 2,543 75% $172.1 $3.6 31 days 63 days 17,945 $105 98% Change over last 5 years: +9% - -17% +6% -20% +13% +29% -33% +47% - +7% 1 Average number of days does not include over the counter plan checks or building permits. 2 In some cases, a customer requests a specific day or time as opposed to within one working day; this percentage indicates how often the Department met the one working day deadline or, when applicable, the customer's specific request. The Department’s target was 90%. 3 According to the Department, the increase in the number of inspections in FY 2008 is due to a change in the method for counting inspections. Under the new method, each type of inspection included in a residential inspection is now counted as an individual inspection whereas in the past the residential inspection would have counted as one. 4 The Department advises that the decrease in the City’s average cost per inspection in FY 2008 is due to the new method for counting inspections, which resulted in a higher number of inspections and therefore, a lower cost per inspection. - 47 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 48 - TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 82% of residents responding to this year’s survey rated the ease of walking as good or excellent, and 79% rated the ease of bicycle travel as good or excellent. 46% of respondents rated traffic flow on major streets as good or excellent. The City has 97 intersections with signals; 35 of the intersections have signals coordinated during commute time. The City operates a free shuttle. In FY 2009, the Department reports there were 136,511 shuttle boardings. The City and the school district encourage alternatives to driving to school by teaching age-appropriate road safety skills to students in kindergarten through 6th grade. In FY 2009, staff provided scheduling, administrative support, training and follow-up parent education materials for:  71 pedestrian safety presentations to 2,599 students in kindergarten through 2nd grade  A three lesson bicycle/traffic safety curriculum for all 793 3rd graders  A refresher bicycle/traffic safety lesson for all 880 5th graders  9 assemblies for 798 6th graders in three middle schools 2009 Palo Alto Resident Survey: Percent rating the ease of the following forms of transportation in Palo Alto as “good” or “excellent” Source: National Citizen Survey TM 2009 (Palo Alto) Citizen Survey Number of monitored intersections with an unacceptable level of service during evening peak Number of intersections with 10 or more accidents 1 City Shuttle boardings City’s cost per shuttle boarding Caltrain average weekday boardings Average number of employees participating in the City commute program Percent who rate traffic flow on major streets good or excellent2 Percent of days per week commuters used alternative commute modes3 Percent who consider the amount of public parking good or excellent FY 2005 2 of 21 11 169,048 $1.92 3,264 117 - - 56% FY 2006 2 of 21 7 175,471 $1.91 3,882 104 - - 58% FY 2007 2 of 21 13 168,710 $2.00 4,132 105 - - 65% FY 2008 3 of 21 1 178,505 $1.97 4,589 114 38% 40% 52% FY 2009 2 of 21 0 136,511 $2.61 4,863 124 46% 41% 55% Change over last 5 years: - -11 -19% +36% +49% +6% - - -1% 1 Accidents within 200 feet of intersection. 2 This question replaced “Percent who consider traffic congestion to be a major or moderate problem in Palo Alto.” Responses to that question were 58% (FY 2005), 60% (FY 2006), and 55% (FY 2007). 3 Alternative commute modes include carpooling, public transportation, walking, bicycling, and working at home.  Budget benchmarking measure CHAPTER 6 – POLICE The mission of the Police Department is to proudly serve and protect the public with respect and integrity. The Department has seven major service areas:  Field services – police response, critical incident resolution, regional assistance response, and police services for special events  Technical services – 911 dispatch services for police, fire, utilities public works and Stanford, and police information management  Investigations and crime prevention services – police investigations, property evidence, youth services, and community policing  Traffic Services – traffic enforcement, complaint resolution, and school safety  Parking services – parking enforcement, parking citations and adjudication, and abandoned vehicle abatement  Police personnel services – police hiring retention, personnel records, training, and volunteer programs  Animal services – animal control, pet recovery/adoption services, animal care, animal health and welfare, and regional animal service What is the source of Police Department funding? Where does a Police Department dollar go? 83% Revenue & Reimbursements 17% General Fund Parking Services 4% Police Personnel Selection 3% Traffic Services 7% Investigations and Crime Prevention Services 13% Technical Services 18% Animal Services 6% Field Services 49% Source: FY 2009 revenue and expenditure data -49- Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 POLICE SPENDING Total Police Department spending increased from $22.5 to $28.3 million, or 25%, in the last 5 years. This includes animal services and 911-dispatch services provided to other jurisdictions. Over the same five year period, total revenue and reimbursements increased from $4.5 to $4.8 million or 5%. A comparison of police expenditures during FY 2007 (the most recent data available from State Controller) shows Palo Alto spends more per capita than most other local jurisdictions. It should be noted that every jurisdiction has different levels of service and categorizes expenditures in different ways. For example, Cupertino contracts with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office for police services, and Sunnyvale’s Department of Public Safety provides both police and fire services. Similar to last year, 84% of residents rated police services good or excellent – placing Palo Alto in the 71st percentile compared with other surveyed jurisdictions. Comparison Police Net Expenditures Per Capita1: FY 2007 Source: California State Controller, Cities Annual Report Fiscal Year 06 -07 Operating Expenditures (in millions) Citizen Survey Field services Technical services Investigations and crime prevention Traffic services Parking services Police personnel services Animal services TOTAL Total spending per resident Total revenue Percent rating OVERALL police services good or excellent FY 2005 $9.8 $4.8 $3.2 $1.5 $1.1 $0.8 $1.4 $22.5 $366 $4.5 87% FY 2006 $10.9 $5.4 $3.1 $1.5 $1.1 $0.9 $1.5 $24.4 $393 $4.8 87% FY 2007 $11.4 $6.2 $3.2 $1.7 $1.0 $1.0 $1.5 $25.9 $414 $5.0 91% FY 2008 $13.9 $6.7 $3.4 $1.7 $0.9 $1.1 $1.7 $29.4 $464 $5.7 84% FY 2009 $13.8 $5.0 $3.7 $1.9 $1.1 $1.0 $1.7 $28.3 $438 $4.8 84% Change over last 5 years: +42% +6% +17% +20% +4% +29% +20% +25% +20% +5% -3% 1 Operating expenditures comparisons do not include animal control. Palo Alto figures include dispatch and some animal services expenditures.  Budget benchmarking measure - 50 - Chapter 6 - POLICE CALLS FOR SERVICE The Police Department handled over 53,000 calls for service during FY 2009, or about 146 calls per day. 35% of the Citizen Survey respondents reported contact with the Police Department. 72% rated the quality of their contact as good or excellent. Over the last five years:  The percent of emergency calls dispatched with 60 seconds remained the same at 94%. Emergency calls are generally “life threatening” or high danger crimes in progress.  The average response time for emergency calls improved by 18 seconds – from 5:01 minutes to 4:43 minutes (the target is 6:00 minutes). The percent of responses within 6 minutes improved from 71% to 81%. Response time is measured from receipt of the 911 call to arrival on-scene.  The average response time for urgent calls improved by 45 seconds – from 7:50 minutes to 7:05 minutes (the target is 10:00 minutes) – with 89% of responses within 10 minutes. Urgent calls are generally non-life threatening, or less dangerous property crimes that are in progress or just occurred.  The average response time for non-emergency calls was 24:07 minutes – 98% of responses within 45 minutes (the target is 45:00 minutes2). Non-emergency calls are generally routine or report-type calls that can be handled as time permits. Calls For Service: FY 2009 Source: Police Department Citizen Survey Total Police Department calls for service False alarms Percent emergency calls dispatched within 60 seconds of receipt of call Average emergency response (minutes) Average urgent response (minutes) Average non- emergency response (minutes) Percent emergency calls response within 6 minutes Percent urgent calls response within 10 minutes Percent non- emergency calls response within 45 minutes2 Percent reported having contact with the Police Dept 1 Percent rating quality of their contact good or excellent FY 2005 52,233 2,385 94% 5:01 7:50 18:15 71% 78% 96% 36% 78% FY 2006 57,017 2,419 88% 4:41 7:39 20:36 78% 78% 95% - - FY 2007 60,079 2,610 96% 5:08 7:24 19:26 73% 79% 98% 33% 81% FY 2008 58,742 2,539 96% 4:32 7:02 24:06 81% 88% 98% 34% 73% FY 2009 53,275 2,501 94% 4:43 7:05 24:07 81% 89% 98% 35% 72% Change over last 5 years: +2% +5% 0% -6% -10% +32% +10% +11% +3% -1% -6% Crime calls 17% Fire assist 9% Directed patrol 4% Service 6% Vehicle stops 21% Phone messages- Officer follow-up 5% Miscellaneous 20% False calls 6% Alarms 5% Accidents 4%Noise 3%  Budget benchmarking measure 1 Survey question not conducted in FY 2006. 2 In FY 2007 the Department changed the target from 60 minutes to 45 minutes. Numbers for FY 2005 and FY 2006 reflect the target of 60 minutes. - 51 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 CRIME The Police Department categorizes crime as Part 1 and Part 2. Compared to FY 2005 the number of reported Part 1 crimes dropped by 24% and the number of Part 2 crimes increased by 1% in FY 2009. Although Palo Alto is a relatively quiet, affluent community of about 64,000, it has a daytime population estimated at over 125,000, a regional shopping center, and a downtown with an active nightlife. Police Department statistics show 64 reported crimes per 1,000 residents, with 44 reported crimes per officer last year. FBI statistics show that Palo Alto has more property crimes per 1,000 residents, but fewer violent crimes per thousand, than most other local jurisdictions. In the most recent Citizen Survey, 11% of households reported being the victim of a crime in the last 12 months (38th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions). Of those households, 80% said they reported the crime. Palo Alto ranked in the 63rd percentile, above the benchmark, compared to other surveyed jurisdictions for reporting crimes. Violent and Property Crimes per 1,000 Residents:3 Calendar Year 2008 Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program (www.fbi.gov/ucr.htm) Citizen Survey Reported crimes Arrests Clearance rates for part 1 crimes1 Part 11 crimes reported Part 22 crimes reported6 Reported crimes per 1,000 residents6 Reported crimes per officer5,6 Percent households reported being victim of crime in last 12 months Percent households that were victim of a crime who reported the crime Juvenile arrests Total arrests4 Homicide cases cleared/ closed Rape cases cleared/ closed Robbery cases cleared/ closed Theft cases cleared/ closed FY 2005 2,466 2,214 76 50 10% 64% 256 2,134 100% 78% 46% 14% FY 2006 2,520 2,643 83 56 12% 59% 241 2,530 None reported 67% 68% 14% FY 2007 1,855 2,815 75 50 9% 61% 244 3,059 None reported 100% 42% 18% FY 2008 1,843 2,750 72 49 10% 73% 257 3,253 100% 100% 104%7 21% FY 2009 1,880 2,235 64 44 11% 80% 230 2,612 100% 60% 38% 20% Change over last 5 years: -24% +1% -16% +12% +1 +16% -10% +22% 0% -18% -8% +6% 1 Part 1 crimes include assault, burglary, homicide, rape, robbery, larceny/theft, vehicle theft, and arson. 2 Part 2 crimes include assaults or attempted assaults where a weapon is not used or where serious injuries did not occur; forgery and counterfeiting; fraud; embezzlement; buying, receiving, and possessing stolen property; vandalism; weapons offenses; prostitution and other vice crimes; sex offenses other than rape; drug offenses; gambling; offenses against family and children; drunk driving; liquor laws; drunk in public; disorderly conduct; and vagrancy. 3 Does not include arson or larceny/theft under $400. 4 Total arrests does not include drunk in public where suspects are taken to the sobering station, or traffic warrant arrests. 5 Based on authorized sworn staffing. 6 Police Department revised its calculations for Part 2 crimes and revised prior years accordingly for consistency. 7 Some robberies from the previous year were cleared in this fiscal year. - 52 - Chapter 6 - POLICE PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY When evaluating safety in the community:  82% of residents felt “very” or “somewhat safe” from violent crimes in Palo Alto, and 66% felt safe from property crime. This placed Palo Alto in the 64th percentile for violent crimes and in the 62nd percentile for property crimes compared to other surveyed jurisdictions.  In their neighborhood during the day, 95% of residents felt “very” or “somewhat safe”. After dark, 78% of residents felt “very” or “somewhat safe” in their neighborhoods. In comparison to other surveyed jurisdictions, Palo Alto ranked in the 78th percentile among other surveyed jurisdictions for ratings of neighborhood safety during the day, and in the 60th percentile among other surveyed jurisdictions for neighborhood safety after dark.  91% of residents felt “very” or “somewhat safe” in Palo Alto’s downtown during the day, and 65% felt safe after dark. The Palo Alto ratings were respectively in the 66th percentile and 56th percentile for safety downtown compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Rating how safe you feel: Percent of Surveyed Residents Feeling “Very” or “Somewhat” Safe Source: National Citizen Survey™ 2009 (Palo Alto) Citizen Survey: Percent of surveyed residents feeling very or somewhat safe Citizen Survey From violent crime From property crime In your neighborhood during the day In your neighborhood after dark In Palo Alto’s downtown area during the day In Palo Alto’s downtown area after dark Percent rating crime prevention good or excellent FY 2005 87% 76% 98% 84% 96% 69% 85% FY 2006 75% 62% 94% 79% 91% 69% 77% FY 2007 86% 75% 98% 85% 94% 74% 83% FY 2008 85% 74% 95% 78% 96% 65% 74% FY 2009 82% 66%1 95% 78% 91% 65% 73% Change over last 5 years: -5% -10% -3% -6% -5% -4% -12% 1 According to the Police Department, the decrease in the perception of safety for property crime may be attributed to outreach efforts regarding property crimes.  Budget benchmarking measure - 53 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 POLICE STAFFING, EQUIPMENT, AND TRAINING Authorized departmental staffing decreased from 173 to 170 full time equivalents (FTE) over the last five years, or 2%. The number of police officers has remained unchanged at 93. An average of 8 officers is on patrol at all times. With 2.63 sworn and civilian FTE per 1,000 residents, Palo Alto’s total staffing is higher than other local jurisdictions, but it includes full dispatch services and animal services provided to other jurisdictions. The ratio of police officers declined 4% over the last 5 years to 1.44 officers per 1,000 residents. According to the Department, training hours per officer increased 3% over the last 5 years. The Department reports it received 124 commendations and 14 complaints during FY 2009; 3 of the complaints were sustained. The City’s Wellness Program for sworn personnel has shown a dramatic shift in the general health of the participating officers. Over the course of the four-year program, participants have seen a 46% reduction in high cancer risk, a 75% reduction in high blood pressure, a 30% reduction in high stress, and an 80% reduction in smoking. Sworn and Civilian Full-Time Equivalent Positions Per 1,000 Residents: Calendar Year 2008 Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program (www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm) Authorized staffing (FTE) Authorized staffing per 1,000 residents Number of police officers Police officers per 1,000 residents Average number of officers on patrol1 Number of patrol vehicles Number of motorcycles Training hours per officer2 Overtime as a percent of regular salaries Number of citizen commendations received Number of citizen complaints filed FY 2005 173 2.82 93 1.51 8 30 10 137 12% - - FY 2006 169 2.72 93 1.49 8 30 9 153 13% 144 7 (0 sustained) FY 2007 168 2.68 93 1.49 8 30 9 142 16% 121 11 (1 sustained) FY 2008 169 2.66 93 1.47 8 30 9 135 17% 141 20 (1 sustained) FY 2009 170 2.63 93 1.44 8 30 9 141 14% 124 14 (3 sustained) Change over last 5 years: -2% -7% 0% -4% 0% 0% -10% +3% +2 - - 1 Does not include traffic motor officers 2 Does not include academy - 54 - Chapter 6 - POLICE TRAFFIC AND PARKING CONTROL Over the past five years, the total number of:  Traffic collisions decreased by 27% and the total number of bicycle/pedestrian collisions increased by 11%;  Alcohol related collisions increased by 16% and the number of DUI (driving under the influence) arrests increased by 73%. In FY 2009, police personnel made more than 14,100 traffic stops, and issued more than 5,700 traffic citations and nearly 50,000 parking citations. The percent of surveyed residents rating traffic enforcement as good or excellent decreased from 63% to 61% over the last five years. The rating places Palo Alto in the 45th percentile among other surveyed jurisdictions. The number of traffic collisions per 1,000 residents decreased 30% over the past 5 years (from 23 to 16 per 1,000 residents), and the percent of traffic collisions with injury increased 7% (from 29% to 36%) over the 5 year period. Also, in May 2009, the Department participated in Santa Clara County’s Click It or Ticket Campaign to ensure vehicle occupant safety through the use of safety belts. The Department reported that officers issued 272 seat belt violations during the campaign and achieved 86% compliance. Comparison data for calendar year 2007 shows that Palo Alto had more collisions per 1,000 residents than most other local jurisdictions. Palo Alto has a large non-resident daytime population. In addition, Palo Alto documents minor damage collisions to a much larger extent than other jurisdictions. Collisions per 1,000 Residents: Calendar Year 2007 Source: California Highway Patrol 2007 Annual Report of Fatal and Injury Motor Vehicles Traffic Collision, and California Department of Finance Citizen Survey Traffic collisions Bicycle/ pedestrian collisions Alcohol related collisions Total injury collisions Traffic collisions per 1000 residents Percent of traffic collisions with injury Number of DUI arrests Number of traffic stops Traffic citations issued Parking citations Percent rating traffic enforcement good or excellent FY 2005 1,419 97 32 407 23 29% 111 8,822 5,671 52,235 63% FY 2006 1,287 113 43 396 21 31% 247 11,827 7,687 56,502 63% FY 2007 1,257 103 31 2911 20 23% 257 15,563 6,232 57,222 71% FY 2008 1,122 84 42 324 18 29% 343 19,177 6,326 50,706 64% FY 2009 1,040 108 37 371 16 36% 192 14,152 5,766 49,996 61% Change over last 5 years: -27% +11% +16% -9% -30% +7% +73% +60% +2% -4% -2% 1 The Police Department revised previously reported number.  Budget benchmarking measure - 55 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 56 - ANIMAL SERVICES Palo Alto provides regional animal control services to the cities of Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Mountain View. The Palo Alto Police Department reports it is the only agency in Santa Clara County with an animal shelter and spay and neuter clinic. Animal Services provides pet recovery and adoption services, animal care, animal health and welfare (including spay and neuter clinics and vaccinations), and other services at the Animal Shelter on East Bayshore Road. In FY 2009, Animal Services responded to 90% of Palo Alto live animal calls within 45 minutes. The Department successfully returned to their owners 70% of dogs and 11% of cats received by the shelter during FY 2009. Also, as the primary animal resource for the community, Animal Services developed an emergency response plan to provide shelter for the animals in the event of a disaster. 78% of survey respondents rated animal control services as good or excellent, placing Palo Alto in the 97th percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. Animal Services: FY 2005 - FY 2009 Source: Police Department (in millions) Citizen Survey Animal Services expenditures Animal Services revenue Number of Palo Alto animal services calls Number of regional animal services calls Percent Palo Alto live animal calls for service response within 45 minutes Number of sheltered animals Percent dogs received by shelter returned to owner Percent cats received by shelter returned to owner Percent rating animal control services good or excellent FY 2005 $1.4 $0.9 3,0061 1,604 91% 3,514 77% 12% 79% FY 2006 $1.5 $0.9 2,861 1,944 89% 3,839 78% 9% 78% FY 2007 $1.5 $1.0 2,990 1,773 88% 3,578 82% 18% 78% FY 2008 $1.7 $1.2 3,059 1,666 91% 3,532 75% 17% 78% FY 2009 $1.7 $1.0 2,873 1,690 90% 3,422 70% 11% 78% Change over last 5 years: +20% +7% -4% +5% -1% -3% -7% -1% -1% 1 The Police Department revised previously reported number.  Budget benchmarking measure CHAPTER 7 – PUBLIC WORKS The mission of the Department of Public Works is to provide efficient, cost effective and environmentally sensitive construction, maintenance, and management of Palo Alto streets, sidewalks, parking lots, buildings and other public facilities; to provide appropriate maintenance, replacement and utility line clearing of City trees; to ensure timely support to other City departments in the area of engineering services and to provide review and inspection services to the development community in the City right of way. The Department is responsible for the following services that are provided through the General Fund:  Streets – to develop and maintain the structural integrity and ride quality of streets to maximize the effective life of the pavement and traffic control clarity of streets and to facilitate the safe and orderly flow of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians  Trees – to manage a sustainable urban forest by selecting appropriate species and providing timely maintenance and replacement of City trees as well as providing utility line clearing for front and rear easements  Structures and Grounds – to build, maintain, renovate, and operate City-owned and leased structures, parking lots, grounds, parks and open space to achieve maximum life expectancy of the facilities  Engineering – to construct, renovate, and maintain City-owned infrastructure through the City’s Capital Improvement Program; to ensure safety, comfort, and maximum life expectancy and value of City structures, facilities, and streets; to provide engineering support to City Departments and private development through the expeditious review and inspection of projects to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and conformance with approved plans and specifications The Department is responsible for the following services that are provided through enterprise and internal service funds (non-General Fund):  Refuse collection and disposal  Storm drainage  Wastewater treatment including the Regional Water Quality Control Plant  Vehicle replacement and maintenance (includes equipment) What is the source of Public Works funding? Where does a Public Works General Fund operating dollar go? Source: FY 2009 revenue and expenditure data Streets 19% Trees 17% Facility Management 46% Engineering 18% Revenue and General Fund 81% Reimbursements 19% - 57 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 STREETS The City is responsible for maintaining 463 lane miles of streets. In addition, Santa Clara County is responsible for 26 lane miles, and the State of California is responsible for maintaining 24 lane miles within Palo Alto's borders. 42% of survey respondents rate street repair good or excellent. This places Palo Alto in the 45th percentile and gives it a ranking similar to other surveyed jurisdictions. In FY 2009, 3,727 potholes were repaired, with 80% of those repairs within 15 days of notification. Costs for the annual street maintenance project fluctuate based upon the type of process used. Public Works uses three techniques (crack seal, slurry seal, and cape seal) to maintain streets. Crack, slurry, and cape seal use asphalt or other materials to fill cracks and seal street surfaces to prevent further deterioration. Public Works uses three techniques for resurfacing streets (asphalt overlay, repair and replace concrete, and reconstruction of concrete streets). Total reconstruction of concrete streets is the most costly technique and crack sealing is the least costly. The base budget for street maintenance was approximately $2.2 million in both FY 2008 and FY 2009. The Department reports that staff has actively sought and succeeded in obtaining grant funding which increased the capital project budget by approximately $1.9 million in FY 2008 and $1.0 million in FY 2009. Comparison of Resident Survey Ratings on Quality of Street Repair Good or Excellent Source: Jurisdictions with available National Citizen Survey™ results 2007 to 2009 Authorized Staffing (FTE) Citizen Survey Operating expenditures (in millions) Capital projects spending (in millions) General fund Capital projects fund Total lane miles maintained Lane miles resurfaced Percent of lane miles resurfaced Number of potholes repaired Percent of potholes repaired within 15 days of notification  Number of signs repaired or replaced  Percent rating street repair good or excellent FY 2005 $2.2 $3.3 15 2 463 20 4% 3,221 76% 1,6201 48% FY 2006 $2.1 $2.4 13 2 463 20 4% 2,311 95% 1,754 47% FY 2007 $2.0 $5.2 13 2 463 32 7% 1,188 82% 1,475 47% FY 2008 $2.5 $3.8 13 2 463 27 6% 1,977 78% 1,289 47% FY 2009 $2.4 $4.3 13 2 463 23 5% 3,727 80% 1,292 42% Change over last 5 years: +13% +28% -11% -6% 0% +15% +1% +16% +4% -20% -6% 1 Estimated.  Budget benchmarking measure data shown here may differ from budget document due to timing differences. - 58 - Chapter 7- PUBLIC WORKS SIDEWALKS In FY 2009, about 57,000 square feet of sidewalks were replaced or permanently repaired and 21 new ADA1 ramps were completed. In the past five years, this totaled more than 550,000 square feet of sidewalk replaced or permanently repaired and 230 ADA ramps completed. The Department reports that 86% of temporary repairs were completed within 15 days of initial inspection. 53% of survey respondents rate sidewalk maintenance good or excellent. This places Palo Alto in the 51st percentile and gives it a ranking similar to other surveyed jurisdictions. Historically, the City has covered all costs related to sidewalk replacement, regardless of the cause. The City’s 2007-2009 Adopted Capital Budget revised the policy. Property owners will be responsible for the cost of sidewalk replacement if the damage to the sidewalk was not caused by tree roots. Sidewalk Expenditures: FY 2000 - FY 2009 Source: Public Works Department Authorized Staffing (FTE) Citizen Survey Operating expenditures (in millions)2, 3 Capital projects spending (in millions) General Fund3 Capital projects fund Number of square feet of sidewalks Square feet of sidewalk replaced or permanently repaired4 Number ADA ramps completed1 Percent of temporary repairs completed within 15 days of initial inspection Percent rating sidewalk maintenance good or excellent FY 2005 $0.6 $1.9 4 2 6,679,200 132,430 46 76% 51% FY 2006 - $2.5 0 8 6,679,200 126,574 66 87% 52% FY 2007 - $2.5 0 7 6,679,200 94,620 70 98% 56% FY 2008 - $2.2 0 7 6,679,200 83,827 27 88% 53% FY 2009 - $1.6 0 7 6,679,200 56,909 21 86% 53% Change over last 5 years: - -15% 0% +255% 0% -57% -54% +10% +2% 1 ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requires that accessibility to buildings and facilities be provided to individuals with disabilities. 2 Excludes costs in Engineering Division. 3 In FY 2006, operating expenditures for sidewalks and associated staff were transferred to the Capital Projects Fund. 4 Includes both in-house and contracted work. - 59 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 TREES Public Works maintains all City-owned trees, including street trees, all trees in the parks, and trees in City facilities. This includes planting new trees, trimming/ pruning existing trees, removing dead/diseased trees, fertilizing and pest control, line clearing around electrical wires, 24/7 emergency response, and providing Certified Arborist advice to residents regarding care of City trees. Managers in the tree group also oversee several tree-related contracts including stump removal, electrical line clearing, and annual tree maintenance contracts. In FY 2009, City-maintained trees totaled 35,255. In FY 2009 a total of 250 trees were planted by the City and Canopy (a non-profit organization). The number of services provided (excluding trees trimmed for utility line clearing) or removed in FY 2009 was 6,618, or 39% higher than it was in FY 2005. 72% of survey respondents rated street tree maintenance good or excellent, down 10% from 82% in FY 2005, but up 4% from the prior year. 2009 Palo Alto Resident Survey: Quality Rating of Street Tree Maintenance Source: National Citizen Survey™ 2009 (Palo Alto) Citizen Survey Operating expenditures (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) (general fund) Total number of City-maintained trees1 Number of trees planted1 Number of tree related services provided2 <REVISED> Percent of urban forest pruned  Percent of total tree lines cleared  Number of tree- related electrical service disruptions  Percent rating street tree maintenance good or excellent FY 2005 $1.9 14 35,096 164 4,775 14% 26% 5 82% FY 2006 $2.2 14 34,841 263 3,4223 10% 21% 13 72% FY 2007 $2.3 14 34,556 164 3,409 10% 30% 15 67% FY 2008 $2.5 14 35,322 188 6,579 18% 27% 9 68% FY 2009 $2.2 14 35,255 250 6,618 18% 33% 5 72% Change over last 5 years: +17% 0% 0% +52% +39% +4% +7% 0% -10% Excellent (22%) Poor (7%) Fair (21%) Good (50%) 1 Includes trees planted by Canopy; data source is Department of Public Works workload statistics. 2 Excludes trees trimmed to clear power lines. 3 Estimated.  Budget benchmarking measure data shown here may differ from budget document due to timing differences. - 60 - Chapter 7- PUBLIC WORKS CITY FACILITIES, ENGINEERING AND PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT Public Works builds, renovates and maintains City-owned and leased structures, parking lots, grounds, parks and open space. The Department also provides citywide capital improvement program (CIP) support including design, engineering, contract management, and project management. The Facilities Management Division staff handled an estimated 2,547 service calls in FY 2009 related to building mechanics, carpentry, electrical, locks and painting. This figure does not include preventive maintenance or custodial service calls. Maintaining and improving infrastructure continues to be a City priority. In response to the City Auditor’s infrastructure report issued in March 2008, the City is developing a comprehensive plan for addressing the general fund infrastructure backlog estimated at $302 million in the FY 2010 and 2011 Adopted Capital Budget. Number of Private Development Permit Applications FY 2000 through FY 2009 Source: Public Works Department City Facilities Engineering Private Development City facilities operating expenditures (in millions) City facilities authorized staffing (FTE) City facilities capital expenditures (in millions) Capital projects authorized staffing (FTE) Total square feet of facilities maintained1 Maintenance cost per square foot  Custodial cost per square foot Engineering operating expenditures (in millions) Engineering authorized staffing (FTE) Number of private development permits issued2  Number of permits per FTE FY 2005 $4.5 24 $7.0 8 1,402,225 $1.38 $1.12 $1.9 14 276 92 FY 2006 $4.9 23 $6.1 8 1,402,225 $1.52 $1.18 $2.1 15 284 95 FY 2007 $5.3 23 $7.2 8 1,613,392 $1.38 $1.04 $2.3 14 215 72 FY 2008 $5.5 23 $7.4 8 1,616,171 $1.52 $1.12 $2.5 15 338 1123 FY 2009 $5.9 25 $10.5 9 1,616,171 $1.62 $1.19 $2.3 15 304 1013 Change over last 5 years: +32% +2% +51% +14% +15% +17% +6% +21% +10% +10% +10% 1 The increase in square footage was due to the addition of the following sites during FY 2007. Arastradero Gateway Facility, Stanford Playing Fields, Hoover Park Restroom, Homer Tunnel, and Log J (Cowper/Webster Garage). The increase in FY 2008 was primarily due to an addition at the Children’s Library. 2 Includes permits for: street work, encroachment, and certificate of compliance. 3 The Department advises that prior year numbers were estimates. FY 2008 and 2009 numbers are actuals.  Budget benchmarking measure data shown here may differ from budget document due to timing differences. - 61 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 STORM DRAINS The purpose of the City’s storm drain system is to provide adequate drainage, reduce the risk of flooding, and enhance water quality. Storm drain expenses are paid from the Storm Drain Enterprise Fund. The average monthly residential bill is $10.95 to operate and maintain the storm drainage system. Capital expenditures have increased over the last two years primarily due to the $7 million San Francisquito Creek storm water pump station project. The project is expected to improve drainage in the northeast section of Palo Alto. Industrial site compliance with storm water regulations has decreased as the Department conducts more inspections at restaurants, which the Department reports have lower compliance rates. The Department states inspectors are finding, addressing, and correcting situations which, if left uncorrected, could lead to storm water contamination. In FY 2009, the Department reported it cleaned and inspected 100% of catch basins and cleaned 107,233 feet of storm drain pipelines. In FY 2009, 73% of residents surveyed rated storm drainage good or excellent. Palo Alto is in the 89th percentile among other surveyed jurisdictions. 2009 Palo Alto Resident Survey: Quality Ratings of Storm Drainage Source: National Citizen Survey™ 2009 (Palo Alto) Revenues, expenses, transfers and reserves (in millions) Citizen Survey Total operating revenue Total operating expense Capital expense1 Transfer from General Fund to Storm Drain Fund Reserve balance Average monthly residential bill Authorized staffing (FTE) Feet of storm drain pipelines cleaned  Calls for assistance with storm drains2  Percent of industrial sites in compliance with storm water regulations S  Percent rating the quality of storm drainage good or excellent FY 2005 $2.5 $2.5 $0.1 $0.5 $0.6 $4.25 10 316,024 50 89% 60% FY 2006 $5.2 $2.1 $0.3 $0.5 $3.1 $10.00 10 128,643 24 83%3 60% FY 2007 $5.2 $2.0 $1.5 $0.0 $4.5 $10.20 10 287,957 4 71% 60% FY 2008 $5.5 $2.5 $3.6 $0.0 $3.3 $10.55 10 157,337 80 65% 71% FY 2009 $5.5 $1.6 $5.3 $0.0 $1.2 $10.95 10 107,223 44 66% 73% Change over last 5 years: +122% -37% +3,8423% -100% +111% +158% -4% -66% -12% -23% +13% Fair 21% Poor 6% Excellent 19% Good 54% 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. Does not include overhead. 2 Estimated 3 Environmental Compliance staff advises that the decrease since FY 2006 was due to a revised State definition of “compliance.” Staff also advises that food service facilities account for a larger share of the total inspections than in the past and they tend to have lower compliance rates.  Budget benchmarking measure data shown here may differ from budget document due to timing differences. S Sustainability indicator - 62 - Chapter 7- PUBLIC WORKS WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND WASTEWATER ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE The Wastewater Treatment Fund is an enterprise fund operated by the Public Works Department. Its purpose is two-fold: to maintain and monitor the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) and to ensure compliance with regulations protecting the San Francisco Bay and environment. Also, 63% of operating expenses are reimbursed by other jurisdictions. In addition to treating Palo Alto’s wastewater, the RWQCP treats wastewater from five other areas: Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford and East Palo Alto. Capital expenditures have increased over the last two years as Public Works constructed the $16 million recycled water pipeline project. The pipeline was completed in June 2009 and delivers recycled water to the nearby jurisdiction of Mountain View. Operating Cost per Million Gallon Processed: FY 2005 - FY 2009 Source: Public Works Department Wastewater Treatment Fund Regional Water Quality Control Plant Wastewater Environmental Compliance Total operating revenue (in millions) Total operating expense (in millions) Percent of operating expenses reimbursed by other jurisdictions Capital expense (in millions)1 Reserve balance (in millions) Authorized Staffing (FTE) Millions of gallons processed2  Operating cost per million gallons processed3  Fish toxicity test (percent survival) S Millions of gallons of recycled water Authorized staffing FTE delivered <NEW> Number of inspections performed Percent of industrial discharge tests in compliance S FY 2005 $15.9 $16.1 63% $1.5 $12.6 54 8,497 $1,892 100% 82 14 191 99% FY 2006 $18.8 $16.9 63% $2.2 $13.6 55 8,972 $1,881 100% 103 14 192 99% FY 2007 $17.0 $16.3 64% $1.8 $13.8 55 8,853 $1,838 100% 130 14 114 99% FY 2008 $22.9 $18.1 64% $10.9 $11.1 55 8,510 $2,127 100% 138 14 111 99% FY 2009 $28.4 $16.4 63% $9.2 $12.9 54 7,958 $2,056 100% 97 14 103 99% Change over last 5 years: +78% +2% 0% +503% +2% 0% -6% +9% 0% +18% -4% -46% 0% 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. Does not include overhead. 2 Includes gallons processed for all cities served by Palo Alto’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. 3 Prior year numbers have been revised due to differences in the way the information was compiled.  Budget benchmarking measure data shown here may differ from budget document due to timing differences. S Sustainability indicator - 63 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 REFUSE REFUSE The City coordinates refuse services for Palo Alto residents and businesses. This includes the collection, hauling, processing, recycling and disposal of waste materials. The City funds these activities through the Refuse Enterprise Fund. Effective July 1, 2009 the City has a new garbage and recycling contractor, GreenWaste of Palo Alto. The City coordinates refuse services for Palo Alto residents and businesses. This includes the collection, hauling, processing, recycling and disposal of waste materials. The City funds these activities through the Refuse Enterprise Fund. Effective July 1, 2009 the City has a new garbage and recycling contractor, GreenWaste of Palo Alto. Operating expenses for refuse services have increased from $23.4 to $29.1 million, or approximately 24% over the last five years. According to the Department, expenses have increased primarily due to garbage hauler contractual costs. As a result, reserve balances have declined over the last 5 years. Operating expenses for refuse services have increased from $23.4 to $29.1 million, or approximately 24% over the last five years. According to the Department, expenses have increased primarily due to garbage hauler contractual costs. As a result, reserve balances have declined over the last 5 years. Compared to FY 2005, the total tons of waste landfilled in FY 2009 was higher, although it did decrease in the intervening years. The landfill is expected to reach capacity in 2011 and close around 2012. Accounting rules require the recordings of liability for estimated landfill closure and post-closure care costs. The Refuse reserve balance decreased in FY 2009 to fund this liability and is expected to have a negative ending balance in FY 2010. The Department anticipates the rate stabilization reserve will return to a positive balance as the liability is reduced over time. Compared to FY 2005, the total tons of waste landfilled in FY 2009 was higher, although it did decrease in the intervening years. The landfill is expected to reach capacity in 2011 and close around 2012. Accounting rules require the recordings of liability for estimated landfill closure and post-closure care costs. The Refuse reserve balance decreased in FY 2009 to fund this liability and is expected to have a negative ending balance in FY 2010. The Department anticipates the rate stabilization reserve will return to a positive balance as the liability is reduced over time. Total Tons of Waste Landfilled FY 2000 – FY 2009 Source: Public Works Department Refuse Fund (in millions) Citizen Survey Operating revenue Operating expense Capital expense1 Reserve balance Authorized staffing (FTE) Total tons of waste landfilled3, S Average monthly residential bill Percent of all sweeping routes completed (residential and commercial) 2 <NEW> Percent rating garbage collection good or excellent  Percent rating City’s composting process and pickup services good or excellent <NEW> FY 2005 $23.4 $24.5 $0.3 $7.2 35 60,777 $19.80 - 92% - FY 2006 $24.8 $26.4 $0.1 $4.7 35 59,276 $21.38 88% 92% - FY 2007 $25.6 $25.1 $0.0 $5.9 35 59,938 $21.38 93% 91% - FY 2008 $28.8 $28.6 $0.0 $6.3 35 61,866 $24.16 90% 92% - FY 2009 $29.1 $33.5 $0.7 $0.8 35 68,228 $31.00 92% 89% 86% Change over last 5 years: +24% +37% +142% -89% +1% +12% +57% - -3% - 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. Does not include overhead. 2 Most streets are swept weekly; business districts are swept three times a week. 3 Does not include materials disposed of by self-haul customers, going to other landfills.  Budget benchmarking measure data shown here may differ from budget document due to timing differences. S Sustainability indicator, Related to 2009 Top 3 City Council Priorities - 64 - Chapter 7- PUBLIC WORKS CITY FLEET AND EQUIPMENT The City accounts for its fleet and equipment in the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund. The Fund provides for the maintenance and replacement of vehicles and equipment. The Department reports that the City's fleet includes 308 passenger and emergency response vehicles, 132 heavy equipment items (construction equipment such as loaders, backhoes, and motor graders), and 255 additional pieces of other equipment (turf equipment, trailers, asphalt rollers, etc.). Vehicle operations and maintenance costs totaled about $4.0 million in FY 2009. The median age of passenger vehicles has increased to 8 years. The maintenance cost per passenger vehicle increased to $2,123. The City Auditor’s Office plans to issue a report on the results of its audit of City fleet in FY 2010. Total Miles Traveled (Passenger Vehicles) FY 2001 – FY 2009 Source: Public Works Department Operating and maintenance expenditures (vehicles and equipment) Authorized staffing (FTE) Current value of fleet and equipment (in millions) Number of alternative fuel vehicles Percent of fleet fuel consumption that is alternative fuels Total miles traveled (passenger vehicles) Median mileage of passenger vehicles Median age of passenger vehicles Maintenance cost per passenger vehicle Percent of scheduled preventive maintenance performed within five business days of original schedule FY 2005 $3.0 16 $10.9 73 16% 1,731,910 38,897 6.5 $1,790 96% FY 2006 $3.2 16 $11.9 74 19% 1,674,427 41,153 6.8 $1,781 95% FY 2007 $3.3 16 $11.9 79 20% 1,849,600 41,920 6.8 $1,886 86% FY 2008 $3.7 16 $10.8 80 25% 1,650,743 42,573 7.4 $1,620 74% FY 2009 $4.1 16 $10.0 75 25% 1,615,771 44,784 8.0 $2,123 94% Change over last 5 years: +36% +2% -8% +3% +9% -7% +15% +23% +19% -2% 1 The Public Works Department defines “passenger vehicles” as automobiles and light trucks (less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight). 2 Includes all maintenance costs except for fuel and accident repairs. Includes 30 police patrol cars. S Sustainability indicator - 65 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 66 - ZERO WASTE <NEW> In 2005, the City adopted a Zero Waste Strategic Plan with a goal to reach zero waste to landfills by 2021 through the development of policies and incentives. In 2007, the City developed a Zero Waste Operational Plan to incorporate and promote practices that involve conserving resources, minimizing material consumption, reusing material through reassigning their function, maximizing recycling, and focusing on construction and demolition debris (C&D) recycling. In 2007, the State (Senate Bill 1016) changed the way communities track the success of recycling programs from diversion rates to reducing disposal rates. The City’s target is to stay below 8.0 pounds per person per day – the City’s per capita disposal rate was 5.9 pounds per day in FY 2009. During FY 2009, the City increased the amount of C&D diverted from landfills by nearly 60%. Over the last 5 years, the amount of recycled materials decreased 1% and household hazardous materials collected reduced by 25%. During FY 2009, the City Council adopted ordinances to reduce the use of two products:  Single use plastic bags at large grocery stores (effective September 2009)  Expanded polystyrene take-out containers from restaurants (to become effective April 2010) Prior to implementation, the City conducted a comprehensive outreach campaign to encourage the use of reusable bags. The Department reported an increase in the use of reusable bags at grocery stores from 9% to 19%. Palo Alto ranked in the 99th percentile among surveyed jurisdictions for recycling used paper, cans, or bottles from the home. Palo Alto ranked in the 83rd percentile for garbage collection among other surveyed jurisdictions. Total Tons of Materials Recycled FY 2000 – FY 2009 Source: Public Works Department Citizen Survey Tons of materials recycled1 S Tons of household hazardous materials collected S Tons of C & D diverted S <NEW> Percent of customers using reusable bags at grocery stores S <NEW> Per capita disposal rate S (Target is 8.0 pounds per day) <NEW> Percent rating recycling services good or excellent Percent of residents who recycled more than 12 times during the year FY 2005 50,311 324 - - - 92% 92% FY 2006 56,013 309 - - - 91% 90% FY 2007 56,837 320 - - - 93% 92% FY 2008 52,196 315 6,656 9% 6.0 90% 94% FY 2009 49,911 243 10,508 19% 5.9 90% 92% Change over last 5 years: -1% -25% - - - -2% 0% 1 Does not include materials disposed of by self-haul customers, going to other landfills. S Sustainability indicator, Related to 2009 Top 3 City Council Priorities CHAPTER 8 – UTILITIES The mission of the Utilities Department is to provide valued utility services to customers and dependable returns to the City. The Department is responsible for the following utility services:1  Electric – Founded in 1900, the electric utility purchases and delivers over 975,000 megawatt hours per year to more than 29,000 customers.  Gas – Founded in 1917, the gas utility purchases and delivers over 32 million therms to over 23,000 customers.  Water – Founded in 1896, the water system purchases and distributes more than 5 million cubic feet per year to over 19,900 customers.  Wastewater collection – Founded in 1898, the wastewater collection utility maintains more than 200 miles of sanitary sewer lines, annually transporting over 8 billion gallons of sewage and wastewater to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant.  Fiber optic services – Launched in 1996, the fiber utility offers “dark” fiber optic network service to Palo Alto businesses and institutions through 40.6 miles of “dark” fiber. Utilities Department Expenditures (by Fund) Source: 2009 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Electric Fund (63%) Fiber Optic Fund (1%) Water Fund (11%) Wastewater Collection Fund (6%)Gas Fund (19%) 1The Public Works Department (see Chapter 7) is responsible for refuse, storm drainage, and waste water treatment. - 67 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 ELECTRICITY Electric utility operating expense totaled $112.4 million in FY 2009, or 65% more than 5 years ago, including electricity purchases of $82.3 million, or 101% more than 5 years ago. Although Palo Alto’s average residential electric bill has increased by 33% over five years (from $51.98 to $69.38 per month), it is far lower than comparable Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) rates as shown in the graph on the right. In 2009, 83% of respondents to the Citizen Survey rated electric utility services good or excellent. History of Average Monthly Electric Bills: (650 kwh/month) Source: Utilities Department Revenues, expenses, and unrestricted reserves(in millions) Citizen Survey Operating revenue Operating expense Capital expense1 Equity transfers Electric Fund reserves Electricity purchases (in millions) Average purchase cost per MWH  Energy conservation/ efficiency program expense (in millions) Average monthly residential bill (650 KWH/month) Authorized staffing (FTE) Percent rating electric utility good or excellent  Percent rating street lighting good or excellent FY 2005 $88.7 $68.1 $7.3 $8.2 $148.0 $41.0 $41.25 $1.5 $51.98 117 68%2,3 63% FY 2006 $119.4 $83.1 $7.2 $8.5 $161.3 $55.6 $48.62 $1.2 $57.93 119 88% 66% FY 2007 $102.5 $89.6 $10.5 $8.7 $156.4 $62.5 $64.97 $1.3 $57.93 114 86% 61% FY 2008 $103.8 $99.0 $10.2 $9.0 $145.3 $71.1 $76.84 $1.3 $60.83 111 85% 64% FY 2009 $119.3 $112.4 $5.2 $9.3 $129.4 $82.3 $83.34 $1.7 $69.38 107 83% 64% Change over last 5 years: +34% +65% -28% +13% -13% +101% +102% +13% +33% -9% +15% +1% 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services; does not include overhead. 2 Prior to FY 2006, ratings were based on electric and gas services together. 3 In FY 2005, satisfaction with electric and gas services dropped dramatically. In our opinion, three major events may have contributed to the 20-point decline in ratings: (1) gas rates increased 15 percent and electric rates increased 11.5 percent, (2) it was revealed that several employees in the Utilities Department were disciplined due to irregularities, and (3) the City agreed to a settlement with Enron Corporation. Satisfaction rates recovered in FY 2006. MWH megawatt hours KWH kilowatt hours  Budget benchmarking measure - 68 - Chapter 8 - UTILITIES ELECTRICITY (cont.) Residential electricity consumption decreased by 1% over the last 5 years (adjusted for population growth, per capita residential electricity usage decreased by 5%), while commercial consumption increased by 5% over the same period. In fiscal year 2009, Palo Alto obtained power from several renewable resources, including 47% in the large hydro category, 19% in the qualifying renewable category, and 6.4% through voluntary subscriptions to the Palo Alto Green program. By the end of FY 2009, 19.7% of customers were enrolled in the Palo Alto Green program. Palo Alto Green is a voluntary program available to resident and business customers that offers the option of supporting 100% renewable energy from the wind at some of the lowest rates in the nation. The number of electric service interruptions and the average minutes per customer affected are highly variable from year to year. Including storm related outages, electric service interruptions over 1 minute in duration remained the same from 5 years ago, and the average minutes per customer affected decreased 3% from 5 years ago. Residential and Commercial Electric Consumption FY 2005 – FY 2009 Source: California Public Utilities Commission and Utilities Department Data Percent power content1 Number of accounts Residential MWH consumed S Commercial MWH consumed S Average residential electric usage per capita (MWH/person) S Renewable large hydro facilities S Qualifying renewables S,2 Voluntary Palo Alto Green program S Percent customers enrolled in Palo Alto Green S Electric service interruptions over 1 minute in duration Average minutes per customer affected Circuit miles under- grounded during the year FY 2005 28,556 161,440 797,132 2.62 58% 5% 2.1% 12.6% 28 65 minutes 2.0 FY 2006 28,653 161,202 804,908 2.58 61% 8% 3.2% 14.6% 39 63 minutes 1.0 FY 2007 28,684 162,405 815,721 2.59 84% 10% 4.0% 18.5% 48 48 minutes 1.0 FY 2008 29,024 162,680 814,695 2.57 53% 14% 5.0% 19.7% 41 53 minutes 1.2 FY 2009 28,527 159,899 835,784 2.48 47% 19% 6.4% 19.7% 28 63 minutes 0 Change over last 5 years: 0% -1% +5% -5% -11% +14% +4% +7% 0% -3% -100% 1 Combined CPAU and Palo Alto Green mix for the calendar year. Calendar year data is reported in the subsequent fiscal year (e.g. calendar year 2005 data is shown in FY 2006). 2 Qualifying renewable electricity include bio mass, biogas, geothermal, small hydro facilities (not large hydro), solar, and wind. In the 2009 Adopted Budget, the City Council established targets of 10% by 2010 and 20% renewable power by 2015.  Budget benchmarking measure S Sustainability indicator - 69 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 GAS Gas enterprise operating expense totaled $33.4 million in FY 2009, including $25.1 million in gas purchases (compared to $18.8 million in gas purchases 5 years ago). Capital spending of $4.5 million in FY 2009 was 14% less than five years ago. The average monthly residential gas bill increased to $110.71 last year. This was 87% more than five years ago, and is more than a comparable PG&E bill as shown on the graph on the right. In 2009, 81% of respondents to the Citizen Survey rated gas utility services good or excellent History of Average Residential Gas Bills: (30 therms summer, 80 therms winter) Source: Utilities Department data (weighted average of rate changes during year) Revenues, expenses, and unrestricted reserves (in millions) Citizen Survey Operating revenue Operating expense Capital expense1 Equity transfers Gas Fund reserves Gas purchases (in millions) Average purchase cost (per therm) Average monthly residential bill (30/100 therms per month) Authorized staffing (FTE) Percent rating gas utility good or excellent FY 2005 $31.2 $26.7 $5.3 $2.8 $12.8 $18.8 $0.58 $59.24 47 68%2,3 FY 2006 $37.0 $28.3 $3.3 $2.9 $13.2 $21.4 $0.65 $69.76 47 88% FY 2007 $42.2 $30.1 $3.6 $3.0 $16.9 $22.3 $0.69 $90.97 48 85% FY 2008 $49.0 $36.6 $4.4 $3.0 $21.8 $27.2 $0.82 $102.03 46 84% FY 2009 $47.8 $33.4 $4.5 $3.1 $26.4 $25.1 $0.78 $110.71 48 81% Change over last 5 years: +53% +25% -14% +13% +105% +34% +38% +87% +2% +13 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services; does not include overhead. 2 Prior to FY 2006, ratings were based on electric and gas services together. 3 In FY 2005, satisfaction with gas and electric services dropped dramatically. In our opinion, three major events may have contributed to the 20-point decline in ratings: (1) gas rates increased 15 percent and electric rates increased 11.5 percent, (2) it was revealed that several employees in the Utilities Department were disciplined due to irregularities, and (3) the City agreed to a settlement with Enron Corporation.  Budget benchmarking measure - 70 - Chapter 8 - UTILITIES GAS (cont.) Residents consumed 11% less natural gas in FY 2009 than 5 years ago, and businesses consumed 1% less. According to staff, gas usage is seasonal and weather dependent. During FY 2009, 207 miles of pipeline were surveyed for leaks, and 6.7 miles of gas mains were replaced. The number of service disruptions and customers affected has increased since FY 2005. In FY 2009, there were 46 service disruptions affecting 766 customers. In FY 2009, the Department responded to 95% of gas leaks within 30 minutes, and completed 95% of mainline repairs within 4 hours. Residential and Commercial Gas Consumption FY 2005 – FY 2009 Source: Utilities Department Customer accounts Residential therms consumed S Commercial/ therms consumed S Average residential natural gas usage per capita (therms/person) S Number of service disruptions Total customers affected Percent gas mainline repairs within 4 hours1 Percent response to gas leaks within 30 minutes Miles of gas main Miles of pipeline surveyed for leaks Miles of gas main replaced during year FY 2005 23,301 12,299,158 19,765,077 200 31 639 97% 98% 207 207 2.8 FY 2006 23,353 11,745,883 19,766,876 188 19 211 100% 90% 207 207 2.8 FY 2007 23,357 11,759,842 19,581,761 188 18 307 90% 95% 207 207 2.3 FY 2008 23,502 11,969,151 20,216,975 189 18 105 95% 95% 207 207 5.7 FY 2009 23,090 11,003,088 19,579,877 171 46 766 95% 95% 207 207 6.7 Change over last 5 years: -1% -11% -1% -14% +48% +20% -2% -3% 0% 0% +138% 1 Utilities Strategic Plan performance objective S Sustainability indicator  Budget benchmarking measure - 71 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 WATER The City of Palo Alto Utilities Department constructs, maintains, and operates the water delivery system2. About 85% of the water Palo Alto purchases from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) originates from high Sierra snowmelt. This water, stored in Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National Park, is of such high quality that it is exempt from federal and state filtration requirements. The other 15% of SFPUC water comes from rainfall and runoff stored in the Calaveras and San Antonio Reservoirs located in Alameda and Santa Clara counties, and supplemented by groundwater in Sunol. The SFPUC treats and filters these local water sources prior to delivery to its consumers. Over the last 5 years,  Operating expense increased 29%, including a 26% increase in the cost of water purchases.  Capital spending increased from $4.6 million to $4.9 million.  The average residential water bill increased 27% to $68.79 per month.  As shown in the graph on the right, Palo Alto’s average residential water bill has moved higher than the other jurisdictions surveyed. History of Average Residential Water Bills: (14 ccf/month) Source: Utilities Department Note: Cities may allocate costs differently and may have different levels of capital investment Revenues, expenses, and unrestricted reserves (in millions) Operating revenue Operating expense Capital expense1 Equity transfers Water Fund reserves Water purchases (millions) Average purchase cost (per CCF) Average residential water bill Authorized staffing (FTE) Total Water in CCF sold (millions) FY 2005 $21.0 $15.0 $4.6 $2.4 $22.2 $6.7 $1.17 $54.12 41 5.3 FY 2006 $20.8 $15.3 $4.7 $2.4 $19.2 $6.5 $1.13 $54.12 41 5.3 FY 2007 $23.5 $16.3 $3.9 $2.5 $21.3 $7.8 $1.32 $58.17 45 5.5 FY 2008 $26.5 $18.3 $3.4 $2.6 $26.4 $8.4 $1.41 $64.21 46 5.5 FY 2009 $27.1 $19.4 $4.9 $2.7 $26.6 $8.4 $1.46 $68.79 48 5.4 Change over last 5 years: +29% +29% +6% +13% +20% +26% +24% +27% +17% +1% 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. Does not include overhead. 2 Effective July 1, 2009, the Department executed a new 25-year Water Supply Agreement with San Francisco. CCF - hundred cubic feet  Budget benchmarking measure - 72 - Chapter 8 - UTILITIES WATER (cont.) Residential water consumption is down 4% from five years ago. On a per capita basis, residents are using 9% less water than five years ago. Commercial water consumption increased 7% from five years ago. Water consumption, like that of natural gas, is highly weather dependent. Palo Alto’s Water Utility revenues are based entirely on consumption rates plus a fixed monthly customer charge. The number of service disruptions varies from year to year. Due to a problem with the outage notification system, the total number of service disruptions was not tracked. Since July 2008, a different tracking system has been implemented. In the 2009 Citizen Survey, 81% of respondents rated water quality as good or excellent. Palo Alto was in the 93rd percentile compared to other surveyed jurisdictions. According to the Department, water quality improved due to more frequent water main flushing. Residential and Commercial Water Consumption: FY 2005 – FY 2009 Source: Utilities Department Water consumption Citizen Survey Customer accounts Residential water consumption (CCF) S Commercial water consumption (CCF) 2,S Average residential water usage per capita (CCF) S Number of service disruptions Total customers affected Percent water main repairs responded to within 1 hours <REVISED> Miles of water mains Estimated miles of water mains replaced Water quality compliance with all required Calif. Department of Health and EPA testingS Percent rating water good or excellent FY 2005 19,605 2,686,507 2,644,817 44 10 193 100%1 226 3 100% 80% FY 2006 19,645 2,647,758 2,561,145 42 11 160 100%1 219 0 100% 80% FY 2007 19,726 2,807,477 2,673,126 45 27 783 97%1 219 3 100% 79% FY 2008 19,942 2,746,980 2,779,664 43 17 374 97% 219 3 100% 87% FY 2009 19,422 2,566,962 2,828,163 40 19 230 95% 219 3 100% 81% Change over last 5 years: -1% -4% +7% -9% +90% +19% -5% -3% 0% 0% +1% 1 The 4 hour performance measure for responding to water main breaks was changed in FY 2008 to response within 1 hour will be 95% or greater. 2 Includes commercial, public, and City facilities. 3 Water monitoring system not operational during FY 2008.  Budget benchmarking measure S Sustainability indicator - 73 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 WASTEWATER COLLECTION The Department cleaned or treated 91 miles of the city’s 202 miles of sewer lines in FY 2009. There were 210 sewage overflows in calendar year 2009. The Department responded to 100% of sewage spills and line blockages within 2 hours. In the 2009 Citizen Survey, 81% of respondents rated sewer services good or excellent. This placed Palo Alto in the 89th percentile compared to other jurisdictions. Over the past 5 years,  Operating expense increased 24%.  Capital spending decreased to $2.9 million in FY 2009.  The average residential bill increased from $19.25 to $23.48, or 22%. As shown on the right, Palo Alto’s residential bill is mid-range of other cities. History of Average Wastewater Bills: FY 2005 – FY 2009 Source: Utilities Department Note: Cities may allocate costs differently and may have different levels of capital investment Revenues, expenses, and unrestricted reserves (in millions) Citizen Survey Operating revenue Operating expense Capital expense1 Wastewater Collection Fund reserves Average residential sewage bill Authorized staffing (FTE) Customer accounts Miles of sewer lines Miles of mains cleaned/ treated Estimated miles of sewer lines replaced Number of sewage overflows (calendar year)2 Percent sewage spills and line blockage responses within 2 hours  Percent rating quality of sewer services good or excellent FY 2005 $12.0 $8.9 $3.8 $13.5 $19.25 24 21,763 202 115 5 - 99% 82% FY 2006 $13.8 $10.8 $2.4 $14.5 $21.85 23 21,784 202 89 0 310 99% 83% FY 2007 $14.8 $10.0 $7.7 $12.4 $23.48 25 21,789 202 140 7 152 99% 82% FY 2008 $15.1 $11.7 $3.6 $13.8 $23.48 28 21,970 202 80 2 174 99% 81% FY 2009 $14.5 $11.0 $2.9 $14.1 $23.48 25 22,210 207 91 2 210 100% 81% Change over last 5 years: +20% +24% -25% +5% +22% +4% +2% +2% -21% -60% - +1% -1% 1 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, and contractual services. Does not include overhead. 2 In 2007, the State Water Resources Control Board changed the tracking and reporting requirements for sewer overflows. Under the new requirements, the Department must report all sewage overflows.  Budget benchmarking measure - 74 - Chapter 8 - UTILITIES FIBER OPTIC UTILITIY In 1996, a 40.6 mile dark1 fiber backbone was built throughout the City with the goal of delivering broadband services to all premises, with customers connected via fiber optic “service connections.” New customers pay the construction fees required to connect to the fiber optic backbone. Staff issued a Request For Proposals in 2006 to identity firms willing to build out the system while leveraging existing City assets. After 3 years of negotiations with a consortium of firms, the City terminated this process due to the lack of necessary funding. With the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, federal stimulus funding is being sought to achieve the City’s goal. Should the City receive no funding, an alternative plan is being developed to build out a fiber network using existing City resources. A wireless component is being considered as the City extends the fiber network. Over the past 5 years,  Operating revenue increased by 142%, and operating expense increased by 41%.  The number of service connections grew 53%. Fiber Optics Number of Service Connections: FY 2005 – FY 2009 Source: Utilities Department Revenues, expenses, and unrestricted fund balance (in millions) Operating revenue Operating expense2 Capital expense2 Fund balance2 Number of customer accounts Number of service connections Backbone fiber miles Authorized staffing (FTE) FY 2005 $1.4 $1.0 $0.3 - 39 116 - 5 FY 2006 $1.6 $0.8 $0.2 $1.0 42 139 - 5 FY 2007 $2.2 $0.7 $0.1 $2.7 49 161 40.6 3 FY 2008 $3.1 $0.4 $0.1 $5.0 41 173 40.6 0.7 FY 2009 $3.3 $1.4 $0.3 $6.4 47 178 40.6 6 Change over last 5 years: +142% +41% -26% - +21% +53% - +11% 1 Dark fiber is optical data cabling connecting facilities or accessing service providers. Customers using dark fiber provide their own electronic equipment to “light” the fiber. 2 Includes direct labor, materials, supplies, contract services, and allocated charges; does not include overhead. 3 The Fiber Utility was a sub-fund within the Electric Fund. The original fiber backbone was funded with a $2 million loan from the Electric Fund; the loan balance was reimbursed in full in FY2009. - 75 - Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 - 76 - This Page Intentionally Left Blank CHAPTER 9 – STRATEGIC AND SUPPORT SERVICES Strategic and support services include:  Administrative Services Department – provides financial support services, property management, money management, financial analysis and reporting, purchasing, and information technology services.  Human Resources – provides staff support services, including recruitment, employee and labor relations, employee development, and risk management; administers employee compensation and benefits.  City Manager – provides leadership to the organization in the implementation of City Council policies and the provision of quality services to the community. The Office also coordinates City Council relations, community and intergovernmental relations, and the City’s Sustainability initiatives.  City Attorney – provides legal representation, consultation and advice, and litigation and dispute resolution services.  City Clerk – provides public information, Council support, administers elections, preserves the legislative history of the City, and provides oversight of administrative citation hearings.  City Auditor – coordinates performance audits and reviews of City departments, programs, and services; revenue audits; and the annual external financial audit.  City Council - The City Council is the legislative and governing body of the City of Palo Alto. The City Council is composed of the Mayor and eight other Council members. What is the source of Strategic and Support Services funding? Where does a Strategic and Support Services dollar go? Source: FY 2009 revenue and expenditure data General Fund 50% Revenue and Reimbursements 50% City Clerk (7%) City Manager (12%) City Auditor (5%) City Attorney (15%) City Council (2%) Administrative Human Resources Services (16%) (43%) -77- Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 SPENDING AND STAFFING Palo Alto’s strategic, management and support expenditures (about 12%) were 3rd highest of 9 local jurisdictions. It should be noted that jurisdictions offer different levels of service and classify expenditures in different ways.  Administrative Services Department expenditures were about $7.0 million in FY 2009. The Department had a total of 94 FTE.  Human Resources Department expenditures were approximately $2.7 million in FY 2009. The Department had a total of 16 FTE.  City Manager’s Office expenditures were about $2.0 million in FY 2009. The Office had a total of 12 FTE.  City Attorney’s Office expenditures, including outside legal fees, were about $2.5 million in FY 2009. The Attorney’s Office had 12 FTE.  City Clerk’s Office expenditures were about $1.1 million in FY 2009. The Clerk’s Office had 8 FTE.  City Auditor’s Office expenditures were about $0.8 million in FY 2009. The Auditor’s Office had 4 FTE. Strategic, Management and Support Expenditures as a Percent of Total Operating Expenditures Source: State of California Cities Report Cities Annual Report FY 2006-07 Operating Expenditures (in millions) Authorized staffing (FTE) Administrative Services Human Resources City Manager City Attorney City Clerk1 City Auditor City Council Administrative Services2 Human Resources City Manager City Attorney City Clerk City Auditor FY 2005 $6.7 $2.5 $1.7 $2.6 $0.8 $0.8 $0.1 103 15 11 14 6 4 FY 2006 $6.6 $2.5 $1.6 $2.6 $1.0 $0.9 $0.1 98 15 9 12 6 4 FY 2007 $7.0 $2.6 $1.9 $2.5 $0.9 $0.9 $0.2 99 16 9 12 7 4 FY 2008 $7.3 $2.7 $2.3 $2.7 $1.3 $0.9 $0.2 101 16 12 12 7 4 FY 2009 $7.0 $2.7 $2.0 $2.5 $1.1 $0.8 $0.3 94 16 12 12 7 4 Change over last 5 years: +4% +10% +13% -5% +45% +4% +113% -8% +6% +6% -18% +19% -1% 1 In FY 2007, the City Clerk’s Office absorbed the Administrative Citation Hearings function from the Police Department. According to the Department, FY 2008 operating expenditures increased due to increases in public hearing advertising, board and commission recruitment, election costs, and ethics training. 2 Includes Administrative Services Department staff charged to other funds. -78- Chapter 9 – STRATEGIC AND SUPPORT SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES The mission of the Administrative Services Department (ASD) is to provide proactive administrative and technical support to City departments and decision makers, and to safeguard and facilitate the optimal use of City resources. ASD encompasses a variety of services that might well be separate departments in a larger city. The Department monitors the City’s cash and investments. According to the Department, the City’s rate of return was 4.42% in FY 2009. The City’s General Fund maintained its AAA rating, the highest credit rating possible, from Standard & Poor’s. In addition, Standard & Poor’s upgraded the City’s 2002 Utility Revenue bonds from AA- to AAA and granted the City’s 2009 Water Revenue Bonds a AAA rating. As shown in the chart on the right, the number of purchasing documents processed (through purchase orders and contracts) over the last 5 years is declining with the increased use of purchasing cards for smaller transaction amounts. According to staff, the increase in purchasing card transactions for lower-priced goods helps staff to focus more time on purchase orders and contracts involving higher dollar values and services. Information Technology operating and maintenance expenditures as a percent of total operating expenditures increased to 5.56% in FY 2009. According to the Department, they are in the process of updating the Information Technology Strategic Plan and are developing a Request for Proposals to solicit consulting services for this project. Decrease in Purchasing Documents Process with Increased Use of Purchasing Cards Source: Administrative Services Department Purchasing Information Cash and investments (in millions)  Rate of return on investments  General Fund reserves1 (in millions) Number of accounts payable checks issued  Percent invoices paid within 30 days  Number of purchasing documents processed  Dollar value goods and services purchased (in millions) Number computer work- stations Requests for computer help desk services resolved within 5 days IT operating and maintenance expenditures as a percent of General Fund operating expenditures2 Citizen Survey Percent who visited the City’s website3 FY 2005 $367.3 4.24% $24.5 16,813 80% 3,268 $70.2 1000 89% 4.0% FY 2006 $376.2 4.21% $26.3 15,069 80% 2,847 $61.3 1000 87% 3.9% FY 2007 $402.6 4.35% $31.0 14,802 80% 2,692 $107.5 1000 87% 3.3% FY 2008 $375.7 4.45% $31.3 14,480 83% 2,549 $117.2 1000 88% 4.9% 78% FY 2009 $353.4 4.42% $33.1 14,436 83% 2,577 $132.0 1005 87% 5.8% 75% Change over last 5 years: -4% +4% +35% -14% +3% -21% +88% +1% -2% +2% - 0 _ 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 FY 2009FY 2008FY 2007FY 2006 FY 2005FY 2004 14,000 12,00 Number of PurchasingCard Transactions Number of PurchasingDocuments Processed 1 Total unreserved/designated fund balances 2 Adjusted to exclude IT services provided to the Utilities Department 3 New survey question in FY 2008  Budget benchmarking measure -79- Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 HUMAN RESOURCES The mission of the Human Resources (HR) department is to recruit, develop and retain a diverse, well-qualified, and professional workforce that reflects the high standards of the community we serve and to provide a high level of support to City departments.1 The ratio of HR staff to total City staff is 1 to 67. The department coordinated more than 8,700 hours of employee training in FY 2009. The estimated incurred cost for workers’ compensation claims declined last year; however, it should be noted that early estimates of current claim costs often continue to grow as claims develop. In FY 2009, 1,795 calendar days were lost to work-related illness or injury. According to the department, the number of workers’ compensation claims and the number of calendar days lost to work-related illness or injury have decreased because of aggressive implementation of the City’s safety programs; coordinated management of the claims process between the City and its third party administrator; and an effective modified duty program. Worker’s Compensation Estimated Incurred Cost (in $000’s) Source: Human Resources Department Ratio HR staff to total authorized staffing (FTE) Number of new hires processed3 Percent of first year turnover4  Percent of grievances settled before arbitration Citywide training hours provided  Worker’s Compensation Estimated Incurred Cost 2 (in millions) Days lost to work- related illness or injury5 FY 2005 1 to 79 128 0% 67% 9,537 $1.8 2,836 FY 2006 1 to 75 125 3% 100% 8,052 $3.1 2,592 FY 2007 1 to 74 138 7% 100% 7,121 $1.9 1,676 FY 2008 1 to 73 157 9% 100% 9,054 $2.1 1,458 FY 2009 1 to 67 130 8% 100% 8,710 $1.3 1,795 Change over last 5 years: -15% 2% 8% 33% -9% -30% -37% 4,000 2,000 3,000 0 1,000 FY 2007FY 2008 FY 2009FY 2005 FY 2006FY 2004FY 2003FY 2001FY 2002FY 2000 1 Information about Citywide staffing levels is shown on page 11 of this report. 2 Early estimates of current claim costs grow as claims develop. Prior year estimates are revised to reflect current estimated costs for claims incurred during that fiscal year. 3 Includes transfers and internal promotions (excludes seasonal and hourly staff). 4 Numbers for budget benchmarking measure reported in the City’s FY 2010 and 2011 Adopted Operating Budget reflect estimates for FY 2009. 5 Due to a change in federal reporting requirements, the number of days lost to work-related illness or injury is now based on calendar days, not work days.  Budget benchmarking measure -80- Chapter 9 – STRATEGIC AND SUPPORT SERVICES CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY CLERK, CITY AUDITOR The mission of the City Manager’s Office is to provide leadership to the organization in the implementation of City Council policies and the provision of quality services to the community. The City Manager’s Office coordinated preparation of 373 staff reports during FY 2009. The City Manager’s Office also coordinates public information services. The mission of the City Attorney’s Office is to serve Palo Alto and its policy makers by providing legal representation of the highest quality. The current ratio of staff attorneys to regular full-time equivalent employees is 1 to 179. The mission of the City Clerk’s Office is to foster community awareness and civic involvement by providing timely and accurate records of the activities of City Policy makers. In FY 2009, the average time to finalize City Council minutes decreased from 6 to 4 weeks. The mission of the City Auditor’s Office is to promote honest, efficient, effective, and fully accountable City Government. The Office conducts performance audits, revenue audits and monitoring, and coordinates the annual external audit of the City’s financial statements. In addition to $84,762 in revenue audit recoveries, the Office identified other savings resulting in a total economic benefit of over $766,000 in FY 2009. Council Appointed Officers Source: Operating budget City Manager City Attorney City Clerk City Auditor Number of staff reports issued Citizen Survey Percent rating public information services good or excellent  Citizen Survey Percent rating opportunities to learn about City services through social networking sites good or excellent <NEW> Number of claims handled  Number of work requests processed  Ratio staff attorneys to total employees (FTE) Average time to finalize City Council minutes  Audit recommendations implemented  <NEW> Revenue audit recoveries  FY 2005 369 74% 144 1,635 1 to 170 4 weeks 28% $232,895 FY 2006 336 72% 107 2,123 1 to 172 4 weeks 54% $917,597 FY 2007 341 73% 149 2,511 1 to 193 4 weeks 5% $78,770 FY 2008 372 76% 160 2,957 1 to 195 6 weeks1 55% $149,810 FY 2009 373 68% 60% 126 3,230 1 to 179 4 weeks 45% $84,762 Change over last 5 years: +1% -6% - -13% +98% +5% - +17% -64%  Budget benchmarking measure 1 According to the Department, staffing changes contributed to the increase in average time to finalize City Council minutes in FY 2008. -81- Service Efforts and Accomplishments FY 2009 -82- This Page Intentionally Left Blank TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 28 CITY MANAGER DECEMBER 14, 2009 DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRA TIVE SERVICES CMR: 479:09 Approval of the Finance Committee Recommendation to Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) to Transfer $809,000 from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) to the Technology Fund in Fiscal Year 2010 RECOMMENDATION Staffcrecommends that the City Council: 1. Approve the attached BAO to transfer from the General Fund Budget BSR to the Technology Fund in the amount of $809,000, which represents the General Fund's Fiscal Year 2009 year end surplus. 2. Allow for the BSR to temporarily drop below the Council approved minimum) 5 percent of General Fund expenditures. BACKGROUND On December I, 2009, staff presented the Finance Committee with a preview of the 2009 Fiscal Year-end financial results for the General Fund (GF} The FY 2009 General Fund Budget included a mid-year budget savings and reduction plan of $8 million. The December 1 Finance Committee Report focused on our failure to achieve $4.8 million of targeted savings in salary and benefits during the second half of the year (of the $8 million plan) because of a staff error in accurately tracking those targeted savings. That said, the error masked the fact that the City could not have achieved those savings and would have had to make future cuts or budget reductions. The error was not discovered until after the close of the fiscal year and as staffbegan work on the year end closing in preparation for the audit. The effect of this error was a year end shortfall of$4.8 million in the General Fund. Since the City is required to have both a balanced General Fund budget and balanced budget by department at year end, staff recommended deferring the 2009 General Fund transfer to the Technology Fund, which also was $4.8 million. This action resulted in a balanced budget at year-end closing. By the time of the final closing, the net shortfall was reduced to $4.0 million due to final year-end audit adjustments that came after the deferral of transfers from the CMR:479:09 Page I of4 Technology Fund. Consequently, a positive $809,000 balance was left in the General Fund (Attachment A: CMR:434:09). As a solution to cover the shortfall and balance the Fiscal Year FY 2009 budget, staff proposed the postponement of a budgeted $4.8 million GF cost allocation transfer to the Technology Fund (TF). These adjustments are currently reflected in the FY 2009 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). DISCUSSION At the December I, 2009 Finance Committee meeting ASD staff presented a recommendation for the year-end closing to resolve the savings shortfall that led to the $4.8 million deficit. The recommendation was to forgo a $4.8 million cost allocation transfer from the General Fund to the Technology Fund for fiscal year 2009. The transfer was not made in order to cover the unrealized salary and benefit savings and to ensure that any final audit adjusting entries could be made. An alternative could have been to draw down the General Fund's Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) by $4.8 million. The primary reason for staffs recommendation to forgo the cost allocation transfer from the General Fund is to maintain a healthy BSR. It will also help with reserve levels that will factor into the upcoming issuance of debt for the Library Bonds. By making the adjustment to the budget, rather than drawing on reserves, staff was able to maintain a healthy reserve level in the BSR. This demonstrates to the rating agencies that we are able to maintain strong reserves in the face of continuing fiscal uncertainty now and in the future. The importance of this is to reaffirm the City's AAA rating, resulting in a better interest rate and savings in rate costs. The Finance Committee expressed disappointment that staff did not inform them earlier in the process, or before the finalization of the external CAFR audit, to allow for discretion in the decision to draw down the BSR or forgo the Technology Fund transfer. In addition, the Finance Committee expressed a desire to return the General Fund's FY 2009 surplus of $809,000 to the Technology Fund, adjusting the ending reserve balance to $860,000 instead of the $51,000 that would have remained. Fiscal Year 2010 Budget (Current Year) The BAO action recommended by the Finance Committee amends the current FY 201 0 budget. At the December 1 Finance Committee meeting ASD, staff recommended to replenish the $4.8 million over a four year period in increments of $1.2 million beginning this year, FY 2010. The Finance Committee made a motion to approve staffs recommendation to close out the 2009 Fiscal Year by eliminating the transfer to the Technology Fund and to recommend to the full Council a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the FY 2010 Budget to fund the Technology Fund with the $809,000 excess from FY 2009, plus any amount necessary to fund all of the technology expenditures planned for FY 2010. This motion was passed unanimously by the Finance Committee. Funding for the planned and budgeted Technology Fund CIP projects will not be disrupted since the General Fund is making its full budgeted contribution of $5.1 million in FY 2010 (current year) and therefore addresses the Finance Committee's concern to maintain the 2010 capital projects at the adopted level. Technically the $809,000 million transfer from the General Fund is not needed to ensure adequate funding in 2010. However, it can be used to replenish the Technology Fund reserve. The Council may want to consider adding funding of $416,000 CMR:479:09 Page 20f4 million with the midyear budget to reach the amount of $1.2 million to be consistent with the four-year plan to replenish the Technology Fund. The $809,000 million draw from the BSR will drop the balance to $21.2 million or 14.9 percent of the 2010 adopted budget expenditure budget. The Council BSR policy calls for a minimum of 15 percent, so staff requests Council approval to temporarily reduce the BSR below the Council approved policy. The FY 2009 fiscal closing BAO will be presented to the City Council in January 2010 and will increase the BSR by $2.6 million, resulting in a 16.7 percent reserve level and well within the Council approved guidelines of a minimum of 15 percent and maximum of 20 percent. '. The projects listed below are from the Technology Fund)s FY 2010 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). This can be found in the Capital Improvement Fund Financial Summary of the FY 2010 Adopted Capital Budget. Staff will discuss and seek approval from the Finance Committee and the Council for any adjustments to project funding or to schedule it in the future. The $5.1 million the General Fund will transfer to the Technology Fund covers operating costs plus capital costs. The budgeted CIP for 2010 is as follows: _P_r_o,,-~e_c_t _N_o_. ____ D_escription PRJ TE-02015 Citywide GIS Data PRJ TE-05000 Radio Infrastructure PRJ TE-07000 Enterprise Application Infr Upgrade PRJ TE-08002 Electronic Patient Care Report PRJ TE-l 0000 Collections Software PRJ TE-I000l Utilities Billing Improvement Total FY2010 Adopted Other Revenue Sources Tech Fund Contribution FY2010 Adopted Budget 258,632 200,000 135,000 20,000 79,800 250,000 943,432 (588,616) 354,816 During the December 1, 2009 Finance Committee meeting, the ASD director mentioned that several projects were being delayed as a result of the foregoing of the transfer to the Technology Fund. The projects mentioned included the Library RFID and Radio Infrastructure. As a clarification, none of the 2010 Technology projects were requested to be deferred. Those projects mentioned were for future years. RESOURCE IMPACT Approval of the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance will transfer $809,000 from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve to the Internal Service Fund-Technology Fund Reserve. As a result of this change) the Budget Stabilization Reserve will be reduced from $22 million to $21.2 million. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This is not a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. CMR:479:09 Page 3 of4 PREPARED BY: Director CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: CMR:434:09 Fiscal Year 2009 General Fund Discussion and Fiscal Year 2010 Financial Results as of November 20,2009 Attachment B: Budget Amendment Ordinance CMR:477:09 Page 4 of 4 TO: ATTENTION: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: ATTACHMENT A HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FINANCE COMMITTEE CITY MANAGER DECEMBER 1,2009 DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CMR: 434:09 Fiscal Year 2009 General Fund Discussion and Fiscal Year 2010 Financial Results as of November 20, 2009 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends: 1. That the Finance Committee review and provide input on the General Fund financial results for FY 2009 and preliminary results for FY 2010, including staff's proposed financial plans for each of the two fiscal years. 2. After Finance Committee review, direct staff to present this report to the full Council in January 2010. BACKGROUND Staff is providing the 2009 fiscal year-end financial results for the General Fund (GF) earlier than usual due to the severe downturn in the economy and the impacts it has caused to the City's financial position. Because of a higher than anticipated budget gap in Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, staff is presenting year-end results in this report and will provide the final audited financial statements to the Finance Committee December 15. Looking at the current fiscal year, the continuing economic downturn requires revisiting revenue and expense performance and potential options to close a higher than expected year-end budget gap. In the FY 2010 budget process, a $10 million General Fund deficit was identified. This gap was closed with a three pronged approach that relied on one-time reductions, program cuts, and reductions in employee benefits and salaries. The latter was achieved through reductions in benefits to SEIU and management employees and a postponement of a police union salary increase. Unfortunately, these reductions of approximately $10 million have proven insufficient to stem the tide of declining revenues and the City is facing an additional $5.4 million deficit. This deficit could continue to grow if revenues do not remain stable in the second half of this fiscal year. CMR:434:09 Page 1 of 13 The City· of Palo Alto is not alone in facing this disturbing situation. The cities of San Francisco and Oakland have already pared their budget several times and are likely to face additional future drops in property taxes. Jurisdictions up and down the Peninsula are facing fluid, if disruptive revenue environments in which multiple budget adjustments are needed. Moreover, the size and nature of the revenue shortfalls, such as shifts in consumer spending patterns, likely require long- term structural expense changes. An updated Long Range Financial Forecast (Attachment A) is provided to show the projected deficits the City faces in FY 2010 and beyond. DISCUSSION Fiscal Year 2009 General Fund Results The drop in key revenue sources in FY 2009 required midyear budget adjustments to OF revenues and expenditures. Early in the year, staff estimated the FY 2009 budget deficit to be $8 million and a plan was implemented to close this gap. The adjustments made to revenues at midyear were close to projections. Unfortunately, however, the adjusted expense budget underestimated expenditures at year end and resulted in a OF deficit of $4.8 million (in addition to the $8 million projection). This additional shortfall was mentioned briefly during the October 5, 2009 Council meeting, but since staff did not have the specific data reviewed by the outside auditor at that time, it has not been discussed in detail until this report. The components of the shortfall are outlined in the following table and explained below. Table 1 FY 2009 General Fund Deficit Summary ~S~a_Ia_n_'e_s __________ ~($-2~,1_0Q~,0-0~0)~--~ Overtime Police ($ 650,000) Fire $ 250,000) ($1,800,000) $4,800,000) Salaries The salary line item was over budget due to a miscalculation in the amount of expected salary savings. The adopted operating budget includes an annual factor for salary savings. These savings result from 1) an expected vacancy rate or the number of positions that are not filled at any given time throughout the fiscal year; and 2) a salary expense "cushion" resulting from salaries being budgeted at the top step compared to actual salaries that are, for many employees lower (e.g., new hires). During the midyear budget process, staff included a second round of salary savings that did not materialize. The miscalculation was not recognized in time to make additional expense adjustments. Staff has implemented monthly variance reports, as well as other controls, to avoid such occurrences in the future. CMR:434:09 Page 2 of 13 Overtime Overtime costs in the Police and Fire departments exceed the budget every year due to vacancies, disabilities, minimum staffing requirements, and staffing of Station 8 for fire protection in the summer and emergencies. In a typical year, these overages are covered by salary savings citywide or in the public safety departments. With the salary savings factor overestimated, however, the savings were not there to absorb the overtime excess. Therefore, the $900,000 in excess overtime 'for these two departments contributed to the FY 2()09 deficit. It should be noted that Stanford University reimburses 30.3 percent of all operating expenditures including overtime and the State of California provided reimbursements for Fire Strike Team activities. The $900,000 is not offset by these reimbursements. The City will receive these reimbursements in FY 2011. Benefits The City has a General Benefit Fund (GBF) from which it pays its benefit expenses such as medical and workers compensation costs. This fund, like other Internal Service Funds (e.g., Technology, Vehicle), typically carries a positive balance in the form of retained earnings which covers operations and project or capital needs. In the past, the balance in retained earnings in the General Benefits Fund helped cushion against year-end benefit expense adjustments. Specifically, workers compensation and general liability costs, which reflect yearend actuarial adjustments (based on incurred but not reported expenditures) can fluctuate considerably but are not known until year end as they are ~ased on the volume and severity of claims. In most years, the OBF and the Fund's retained earnings are sufficient to cover unexpected liabilities as well as any overages in other benefit categories such as medical premium expenses. Anticipating that retained earnings in the GBF were sufficient to cover benefit expenses in FY 2009, General Fund benefit expenses were held constant from FY 2008 to FY 2009. This practice has been implemented in past budget years in an effort to keep a reasonable balance between retained earnings balances in the GBF and what expenses are budgeted in and allocated to OF departments each year. Disappointingly, benefit expenses at the end of FY 2009 came in $1.8 million over budget due to higher than anticipated claims. Establishing an annual budget depends on a number of variables that can be difficult to predict and are subject to change. In high performing years, the City has enjoyed considerable cushion in its budget that has allowed midyear adjustments with negligible impact on the bottom line. In times of sustained economic downturn, cushions such as higher than anticipated revenues, are no longer present. Margins that are extremely tight due to falling revenues, low Internal Service Fund reserve balances, and prior expense reductions have become tighter and more difficult to maintain. Of the $4.8 million FY 2009 deficit shown in Table 1, only the $2.1 million in underestimated salary expenses could have been foreseen at midyear (midyear report was presented to the Finance Committee on March 10) and later. The remaining expenditures, on the other hand, are finalized at year-end and thus sufficient data is not available for earlier adj ustments. CMR:434:09 Page 3 of 13 Budget Balancing Plan for Fiscal Year 2009 In order to solve the $4.8 million deficit for FY 2009, staff proposes postponing a budgeted $4.8 million transfer to the Technology Fund. This will have the effect of lowering GF expense and eliminating the General Fund deficit. This one-time deferral will reduce the Technology Fund's retained earnings to $51,000 net of encumbrances and re-appropriations. The $4.8 million transfer will result in planned technology projects such as radio infrastructure improvements and library RFID implementation being delayed. In addition, technology infrastructure replacement schedules will need to be revisited and adjusted accordingly. As a consequence of this action, the Technology Fund is at an exceptionally low balance and will need to be replenished via future transfers from the GF so as to not severely impact technology operations. Currently, repayment over a four year period is being contemplated. The only other immediately available option to solve the deficit would be to draw down the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve, but since the City is experiencing extremely volatile economic conditions which have implications for FY 2010 a reserve drawdown in FY 2009 is not recommended. Fiscal Year 2010 Financial Results To Date On September 8 and October 5 (CMR: 394:09 and CMR 358:09 in Attachment B), staff informed Council of potential further deterioration in General Fund revenues and the possible need for budget adjustments in excess of the $10 million in reductions already incorporated in the Adopted FY 2010 Budget. Due to the extended recession, City revenues will fall significantly below budget in FY 2010. Since FY 2008, sales, transient occupancy, documentary, and interest income have fallen by a combined $8.2 million. In addition, permit, golf course fee, and traffic fine revenue also have dropped by $1.1 million since FY 2008 due to the economic environment. Cumulatively, this represents a $9.3 million downward swing in GF resources over two years and it has caused an additional budget deficit for FY 2010 which is estimated now at $5.4 million. Attachment C shows the performance of revenues through November 20, 2009 relative to the budget. Due to the timing of payments (e.g., sales and property taxes) and seasonal factors, these results must be viewed cautiously. Revenue Performance in FY 2010 Sales Tax Sales Tax revenue is the General Fund's third highest revenue equaling 14 percent of its resources. In recent years sales tax has become a highly volatile and fragile source of City income. Whereas FY 2008 actual revenues were $22.6 million; it now appears the City will realize $17.7 million in FY 2010. This represents a $5 million or 22 percent decline in a very short period of time. To place it in perspective, this $5 million drop equals 77% of the FY 2010 Library budget. The projected $17.7 million in sales tax revenue is $2.0 million below the FY 2010 Adopted Budget. The primary cause for the decline is economic and the secondary cause is a dramatic decrease in the amount remitted by the State in its semi-annual "triple flip" payments for FY 2010. With the exception of one economic segment (electronic equipment), all sales tax segments -autos, department stores, miscellaneous retail, furniture/appliance had dreadful results in the second quarter. In fact, all of these areas had the lowest "benchmark year" performance in this quarter compared to 8 prior "benchmark year" quarters (a benchmark year is the current quarter reporting period plus the prior 3 quarters). New auto sales fell to $1.1 million CMR:434:09 Page 4 ofl3 compared to $1.8 million in the second quarter of 2007. For the same periods, department store sales have fallen from $2.7 million to $2.2 million, while miscellaneous retail sales dropped from $1. 9 million to $1.5 million. Even the normally resilient restaurant sector has turned downward. The City'S outside sales tax consultant believes that sales taxes may fall as much as 15 percent in the upcoming third quarter compared to the prior third quarter. This would be consistent with the prior 2 quarters and would not bode well for the critical fourth quarter holiday sales season. Furthermore, on October 14, the State notified jurisdictions of lower "triple flip" payments. Whereas the State advanced the City $5.7 million in FY 2009, in FY 2010 its payment dropped to $4.3 million, a 24.6 percent reduction. While there is a solid rationale for reducing the City's "triple flip" payment given the economy and statewide sales tax receipts dropping by 20.8% in the second quarter, the State seems to have underestimated what the City will realize in sales taxes at year end by around $0.4 million. The State eventually will reconcile its payments to actual results for FY 2010, but not until the following fiscal year. In contrast, the State's "triple flip" payment to the City for FY 2009 was higher than justified by actual results. Since the State reconciles its payments to actual results in the following fiscal year, consequently the "true up" for FY 2009 will result in a $0.8 million reduction in payment for FY 2010. By adopting the "triple flip" payment system to solve its budget dilemmas, the State has further complicated sales tax projections. Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) City TOT revenues have been soft. Revenues from January through June 2009 were 29 percent below those of the prior year. In July 2009, revenues were below July 2008 by 21.3 percent. The Senior Games did have a salutary impact in that August revenues were only 8.7 percent below the previous August; but September's results resumed this sector's weak trend line being 21 percent below September 2008. Based on performance to date, a downward adjustment of around $0.2 million will be recommended at midyear. With the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) keeping interest rates low for a longer than expected period, the City'S interest income has declined. Although short-term interest rates on Treasury instruments are close to zero percent, the City is earning nearly 4 percent on its portfolio. This rate of return is a consequence of earlier, long-term investments that have not yet matured. This rate will decrease and staff believes a downward adjustment in inc,ome of $0.2 million is necessary. Property and Documentary Transfer Taxes Property taxes are tracking close to budget and are expected to be on target at year end. Despite a weak housing market, property values in Palo Alto have remained relatively stable. There are indications from the County, however, that a large number of commercial properties throughout the County are filing for reassessments which will lower future property tax receipts. No hard numbers are available at this time, but an impact on this revenue category can be expected in the next few years. Although the transfer tax has fallen from $5.4 million in FY 2008 to $3.1 million in FY 2009, receipts from July through October are only slightly lower compared to the same period of the CMR:434:09 Page 5 of 13 prior year. This may indicate that the bottom of this revenue source has been reached and will hold steady until year end. At this time, the budget of $2.8 million in FY 2010 for the transfer tax appears realistic and will likely be increased to $2.9 million at midyear. Utility Users Tax Results to date indicate the telephone tax will exceed estimates, while utility related revenues will be lower than anticipated. The net result is that this revenue source will likely be adjusted upward at midyear by around $0.2 million. Parking Violation Revenue The City has collected$OA million or 20 percent of the $2.0 million budgeted in Parking Violations to date. The number of first quarter citations issued is 29 percent lower than previous first quarter results, while, due to a decline in downtown occupancy and the slowdown of retail spending, the number of vehicles monitored has decreased 16 percent. Based on the 16 percent checked for compliance, year end Parking Violation revenue is projected to be $1.5 million, or $0.5 million short of budget. Staff will be reevaluating the cost recovery levels of the program and make recommendations to balance revenues and expenses. Permits Permit processing has declined approximately 14 percent or $0.6 million. Although the valuation of projects submitted for permit issuance is higher than the prior year, stricter lending qualifications and conservative spending practices have lengthened the time applicants require to finalize their projects. While some permit fees are collected at the beginning, most are recognized when the permit is finally issued. Projects that do not go to completion do not pay the costs of processing their permits part way. This collection system should be reevaluated to ensure that the program is covering its costs throughout the permit process. Plan Checking Fees Fees for the processing of applications have declined approximately 14 percent due to the recession. This line item is expected to be decreased at midyear by $0.3 million. Golf Course Revenue The economic environment has affected the number of golf rounds played in Palo Alto and throughout the industry. The projection for FY 2010 of 76,000 rounds at the course is being revised downward to 72,000 rounds, thus reducing revenues by an estimated $0.2 million. CSD is examining ways to keep the golf course competitive with other nearby municipal golf courses. It will be important to develop a long-term plan for the golf course (which is in need of additional maintenance and upgrades) given the significant drop in rounds and as the associated costs of running and maintaining the course continue to increase. It is important to note that the Golf Course suffered a $0.3 million loss in FY 2009. Staff will return during the fiscal year with further recommendations on how to address the golf course deficits and a long-term plan. Class Registration Fees The Community Services Department (CSD) experienced a 6 percent decline in program and camp registrations this summer, demonstrating that the recession has had an impact on class and program activity. CSD fee revenue will be adjusted downward at midyear by approximately CMR:434:09 Page 6 of 13 $0.4 million. The department is working with class producers to look at new programs and revamp old ones by using evaluation information from participants. CSD will look at new methods of marketing (including banners through the city, school flyers and e-mail blasts from Friends groups). Cost recovery levels will need to be reviewed and difficult policy decisions made regarding programs that may not be recovering their costs or are being duplicated by surrounding competition. The City is likely at a point where it will no longer be able to sustain the number of Community Services programs offered, and a prioritization of programs will be needed with input from all stakeholders. Other Revenues This revenue source includes facility rentals, special events fees, and other miscellaneous revenues. It will be decreased by approximately $0.3 million, due to an economy related decrease in demand for these services. Attachment D shows, in considerable detail, GF revisions to revenue projections for FY 2010 and FY 2011 based on the discussion above. Expense Performance in FY 2010 With the exception of overtime, regular salary expenses are in line with their budgeted levels. This is supported by the discussion below on the salary savings expected in FY 2010 due to vacanCIes. These savings represent one of the proposed steps for solving the expected year-end deficit. Overtime Expenditures Compared to Adjusted Budget General Fund Overtime Analysis: The following chart shows total overtime expenditures reaching 73 percent of the adjusted budget on a citywide basis while straight line usage would indicate 39 percent usage through November 20. The table below shows that Fire, Police, and Public Works Departments are the principal departments exceeding their budget. CMR:434:09 Page 7 of 13 Table 2: FY 2010 General Fund Overtime As of November 20 CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2010 MIDYEAR FINANCIAL REPORT AS OF NOVEMBER 20, 2009 GENERAL FUND OVERTIME (In thousands of dollars) I Adopted I Adjusted % of Categories Budget Budget Actual Adj Budget City Attorney City Auditor City Clerk 7 7 City Council City Manager 3 3 Administrative Services 45 45 12 27% Community Services 105 105 42 40% Library 58 58 22 38% Fire 1,018 1,018 1,041 102% Human Resources 4 4 Planning and Community Environment 67 67 18 27% Police 1,000 1,000 568 57% Public Works 113 113 75 66% Total Overtime 2,420 2,4201 1,7781 73% • The Fire Department has used 102 percent of its annual overtime budget through November 20, 2009. This is due to Station #8 staffing ($0.2 million) and Medic-l staffing ($0.1 million), with the remaining amount of $0.7 million resulting from backfill for minimum staffing requirements due to sick leave, vacations, and workers' compensation light duty assignments. • The Police Department's has used 57 percent of its annual overtime budget. The customary work of busy shifts, case writing, investigations, and court appearances on off days as well as an increase in the 9-1-1 dispatch center as more senior Police Dispatchers train newer employees are the cause of Police exceeding budget to date. Traffic control services at Stanford football games and other events are partially offset by reimbursements from the university and organizations. • The Public Works department has used 66 percent of its overtime budget. The department has had limited staffing in custodial and maintenance areas and has used overtime to maintain minimum service levels. The department is currently using limited hourly personnel to assist with custodial and maintenance services. Overtime costs are expected to rise further as the temporary salary budget is exhausted. This department's OT budget is small in comparison to the Fire and Police departments. CMR:434:09 Page 8 of 13 For historical and more detailed information on public safety overtime costs see Attachment E. Budget Balancing Plan for Fiscal Year 2010 Although department expense budgets, as a whole, are within their expected target range, the dramatic fall in revenues requires immediate action to achieve a balanced budget. The following table shows the revenue adjustments discussed above and the actions recommended to close the expected $5.4 million gap. These actions are explained below .. Table 3: FY 2010 Proposed Budget Balancing Plan Revenue Impacts -OOOs- Sales Taxes -2,005 Parking Violations -460 Fees/Permits -1,551 Return on Investments -238 r----otherRevenue -186 Increases in Specific Revenues 144 Total Revenue Impacts -4,296 Expense Impact -1,131 Total GF Impact -5,427 Expense Offsets -Proposed Salary savings -hiring freeze 1,500 Public Safety Building 2,700 Budget Stabilization Reserve 1,279 Repayment of the IT Loan -1,225 Non-Salary Savings 1,000 $3 Million Solution Salary and Benefit Ga p to Offset 173 Total Proposed Offsets 5,427 Net Change 0 Salary Savings Staff is now monitoring salary savings due to vacant positions on a monthly basis. The General Fund's has 622.51 Full-Time Equivalents (FTE) of which there are currently 45 vacant FTE. Should the City maintain this vacancy rate, an estimated $4.1 million in savings can be realized by year end. Of the 45 FTE, however, 10 positions are considered critical for public health and safety and operations will be filled. This will reduce the vacancy savings by approximately $1.0 million. In addition and because of overtime costs annually exceeding budget, anticipated salary CMR:434:09 Page 9 of 13 savings must be further reduced by $1.6 million. The net anticipated vacancy or salary savings at year end is anticipated to equal $1.5 million at year end. Attachment F shows these savings by department. Public Safety Building It is proposed that the remaining encumbrance for the public safety building capital project be reduced by $2.7 million. These funds were designated for completing design work and since this project has been postponed and there is no land currently identified for the building, it is recommended they be returned to the original source of funding the General Fund's Budget Stabilization Reserve. This project will then retain $0.3 million to allow for evaluation of alternative facilities. Budget Stabilization Reserve The extraordinary economic conditions, precipitous fall in revenues, and time required for implementing further expense reductions, cause staff to reluctantly recommend a one-time draw on the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) of $1.3 million. With the City's participation in the California Securitization Program (CMR 413:09), the $2.5 million property tax "loan" by the State (cited in CMR: 394:09) that would have required a draw on the Budget Stabilization Reserve has been neutralized. The City will now receive bond proceeds through the Program at the time property taxes are deducted from the State, thereby keeping the GF whole. The one-time $1.3 million drawdown will reduce the BSR to $24.6 million or 17.4 percent of budgeted expenditures. City policy requires that the BSR remain at a minimum of 15% of expenditures. If the reserve falls below this level the policy will need to be amended or an exception will need to be approved by the Council. Having a healthy level of reserves is critical for emergencies or severe economic dislocations such as the one we are enduring. Therefore, it is appropriate to use it in FY 2010. In future years, however, additional expenditure reductions or revenue enhancements will be required to avoid drawing down the BSR below required minimum levels (see Attachment A -the Long Range Financial Forecast). Additional FY 201 0 Budget Reductions and Expenses To minimize the draw on the BSR, staff will attempt this fiscal year to find $1.2 million in non- salary and other savings. Contracts, travel and training, and materials and services will be scrutinized to achieve this before year end. Staffhad hoped to find such savings in FY 2009 (to offset the $1.131 million expense impact cited in Table 3 above), but was unable to identify them. Without these reductions, an additional draw on the BSR may be needed. This will be a challenging but necessary exercise to close the anticipated gap. Because of the $4.8 million drawdown on the Technology Fund in FY 2009, it is important to replenish the Technology Fund. To do so requires a $1.2 million annual payback over four years. This payment is reflected in the Table 3 above. FY 20 I 0 and Future Fiscal Year Challenges Although staff believes that if all of the above budget solutions are implemented and revenues do not further decline, a balanced budget would result at year end, the tenuousness of the economy and uncontrollable expenses such as general liability losses and workers compensation could CMR:434:09 Page 10 of 13 further adversely impact the budget. The City has already made repeated and painful expense reductions to balance its budget beginning with the dot.com bust and earlier and there are only more painful reductions left. Meanwhile, the City faces sizeable, new expense challenges. The Long Range Financial Forecast (LRFF) presented to Council on October 5, 2009 (CMR: 394:09) has been updated based on recent revenue and expense data. The Net Operating Surplus (Deficit) line in the forecast for FY 2010 shows a deficit of $5.4 million in FY 2010. Below this line are the recommended solutions (discussed above) to solve the projected deficit. Even with the solutions proposed for FY 2010, the General Fund still shows continuing Net Operating Deficits in Fiscal Years 2011 through 2020. Compounding these deficits are additional costs and liabilities the City will face in the near future. These "below the line" liabilities and costs cause the City'S deficit to equal $5.6 million in FY 2011 and to grow considerably until 2020. These include: 1) CalPERS will increase retirement contributions from participating jurisdictions starting in FY 2012 due to significant losses in its investment portfolio. The City of Palo Alto estimated increases will rise from an additional $1.0 million in FY 2012 to $5.4 million in FY 2015. 2) The annual contribution towards the citywide employee retiree medical liability will rise by $1.4 million per year with the General Fund's share at $0.7 million 3) The new library and community center expansions and rehabilitations require approximately $1.0 million in incremental annual operating expenses beginning in FY 2013. 4) The current rate of funding from the General Fund and Infrastructure Reserve, which is around $9 million per year, is about $6 million less than what is required to fund the $302 million infrastructure backlog or liability. Moreover, the Infrastructure Reserve balance currently stands at $6.4 million and is expected to decline to $2.7 million in FY 2011. New revenues or a reallocation of expenses are necessary to fund needed infrastructure work. Offsetting these deficits, but not included in the LRFF, are the savings from certain benefit changes implemented for SEIU and management employees. These include a second tier retirement plan (2 percent at 60) for new employees and an employee contribution to medical expenses that is to take effect in FY 2011. Similarly, the City will need to seek salary and benefit savings from Fire and Police whose costs represent 39 percent of the GF's budget. It should be noted that the CalPERS Board recently adopted a plan to share excess reserves in the preferred provider organization health plan with local agencies by providing a two month "premium holiday." This results in a savings to the General Benefit Fund of approximately $0.7 million citywide in FY 2010. Given the minimal balance in the GBF, staff proposes that these savings be used to bolster the Fund's balance in preparation for any year end unanticipated liability expenses. CMR:434:09 Page II of 13 The recommendations to balance the FY 2010 budget primarily consist of one-time adjustments (e.g. draw on reserves, vacancy savings) to get us through the current fiscal year. During this time, the Council, community, and staff will need to address the long-term deficits the City faces. In addition to further contributions by employees" expense reductions will be necessary and must involve prioritizing City programs. Also, additional revenues must be explored. During the FY 2010 budgeting process, the Finance Committee discussed what has come to be known as "Tier Two" reductions (Attachment G). These reductions were placed in abeyance until such time as a clearer revenue picture emerged in FY 2010 and need now to be revisited. In addition, and because of the magnitude of the City's financial challenges, a list of near, medium, and long-term alternatives are presented to foster further discussion of how to balance the General Fund's budget (Attachment H). It is important to note that many of these options have significant policy ramifications and/or legal or other obstacles. They are being introduced at this time, however, as examples of issues to discuss and with the expectation that they will generate other related solutions. The Executive Leadership Team (ELT) has scheduled a retreat to take a comprehensive look at these initial recommendations and it is expected that this list will undergo further refinement before it is presented to the full Council. EL T will examine the best practices identified in a recent League of California Cities publication ("Municipal Fiscal-Health Contingency Planning," Western City, pp. 18-23) to plan for the difficult cost reduction process ahead and for proposals to Council. General strategies recommended include, for example: o Proposing reductions that reflect the fewest service impacts to the community o Describe service impacts and make process transparent to all involved parties o Crafting operating expenditure reductions that are real and feasible o Reductions must be ongoing and net of any related revenues, fees or grants o Maintain essential facilities, infrastructure and equipment at reasonable levels Once EL T develops a process and identifies possible reductions, staff will propose these to Council. Conclusion Critical revenues sources have declined by a total of $9.3 million since FY 2008. The recovery in these revenues is expected to take multiple years, and it is entirely possible that some revenue sources never regain the levels reached in peak years. Beginning in FY 2010 the City has taken proactive measures to begin paring back its expenses. By establishing a two-tier retirement structure and requiring employees to contribute to medical expenses (still to be negotiated with Fire and Police unions), the City has taken a major step toward addressing its unsustainable expense structure. But there is considerable work ahead. Even with the current year deficit closed, expenses will outpace revenues in each future year. The City must decide how to cut those expenses back -which programs and services are lowest priority. This is likely a multi- year process. CMR:434:09 Page 12 of 13 RESOURCE IMPACT The discussion in this report and the financial results depicted in the LRFF indicate impacts to the City's General Fund. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This is not a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ATTACHMENTS Assistant Director of Administrative Services ~ LALOPEREZ Director of Administrative Services JAMES KEENE City Manager Attachment A: Long Range Financial Forecast Attachment B: CMR:394:09 Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Update CMR:358:09 Review of Preliminary FY 2009 Revenue Analysis Attachment C: Fiscal Year 2010 General Fund Financial Report as of November 20 Attachment D: General Fund Revenue Changes for FY 2010 and 2011 Attachment E: Police and Fire Departments Public Safety Overtime Analysis for Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009, with Fiscal Year 2010 Data through November 20,2009 Attachment F: FY 2010 Salary Savings by Department Attachment G: Tier 2 Reductions Attachment H: Budget Reduction Options CMR:434:09 Page 13 of 13 CITY OF PALO ALTO LONG RANGE FINANCIAL FORECAST General Fund ($000) Attachment A /rom Other Funds I Ne;:lotialed Savings from Mgmt.iProf. Subtotal: Salaries and Benefits Contract Services Supplies & Materials General Expense Rents, leases, & Equipment Allocated Expenses Other Activities Additional Retirement Contribution Increase 1'1 Retiree Medical Cost Increase library Operaling Cost Increase Infrastructure Contribution Increase Technology Fund Repayment Public Safety Bldg. Budget Savings Non-salary RedUCtIOns to be Determined Salary & Benefit Reductions 10 be Negotiated Vacant Posilions Salary Savings Drawdown on Budget Stabilizalion Reserve FY2009 FY2010 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 Actual 20,089 $ 19,650 $ 17,645 25,445 11,030 7,111 5,440 7,796 2,008 17,246 11,483 25,752 11,250 7,000 5,633 7,857 1,900 15,352 10,643 25,778 11.417 6,850 5,274 7,857 1,662 15,235 10,PM 17,982 26,379 12,513 6,987 5,390 8,166 1,646 15,484 10,799 18,430 $ 18,983 $ 19,647 $ 20,434 $ 21,200 $ 21,941 $ 22,599 $ 23,051 $ 23,588 27,325 28,379 29,689 31,136 32,735 34,337 35,936 36,804 37,879 13,156 13,676 13,973 14,703 15,486 16,328 17,200 18,071 18,966 7,140 7,344 7,656 8,019 8,420 8,799 9,085 9,344 9,631 5,510 5,656 5,828 6,016 6,187 6,338 6,418 6,484 6,592 8,529 1,676 15,764 11,078 8,940 1,724 13,977 11,392 9,356 1,785 14,330 11,785 9,818 1,852 14,695 12,260 10,306 1,923 15,070 12,755 10,820 2,002 15,456 13,274 11,360 2,053 15,854 13,815 11,932 2,095 16,264 14,382 12,533 2,163 16,686 14,930 141,472 142,138 137.840 140,631 145,600 147.939 153,127 159,569 166,341 173,248 180,037 186,061 192,523 62,104 63,512 63,512 64,007 66,074 67,309 69,271 72,002 74,841 77,792 80,860 84,049 87,365 (3,000) 29,477 91,581 10,100 3,023 9,008 1,014 10,287 32,205 92,717 9,076 3,547 10,193 1,212 14,316 (794) (1,222) (806) 32,205 92,895 10,Q76 3,547 10,193 1,212 14,316 (1,225) 2,700 1,000 173 1.500 1,279 (1,222) (806) 32,935 94,914 9,604 3,480 9,870 1,213 14,613 (735) (1,225) 967 (1,246) (822) 34,713 98,718 9,951 3,532 10,121 1,231 14,832 (1,031) (735) (250) (1,000) (1,225) 986 (1.271) (839) 36,772 101,971 10,120 3,592 10,385 1,252 15,084 (2,774) (735) (1,000) (2,000) (1,225) 1,006 (1,310) (864) 38,715 105,813 10,373 3,682 10,681 1,283 15,462 (4,963) (735) (1,000) (2,000) 1.036 (1.362) (898) 40,769 110,511 10,684 3,793 11,002 1,322 15,925 (5,389) (735) (1,000) (2,000) 1,078 (1,416) (934) 42,943 115,433 11,005 3,906 11,330 1,362 16,403 (5,756) (735) . (1,000) (2,000) 1,121 (1,473) (972J 45,243 120,590 11,335 4,023 11,670 1,402 16,895 (6,140) (735) (1,000) (2,000) 1,166 (1,532) (1,010) 47,668 125,986 11.675 4,144 12,020 1,445 17,402 (6,542) (735) (1,000) (2,000) 1,212 (1,593) (1,051) 50,245 131,650 12,025 4,269 12,381 1,488 17,924 (6,963) (735) (1,000) (2,000) 1,261 (1,657) (1,093) 52,963 137,578 12,386 4,397 12,665 1,532 18,462 (6,963) (735) (1,000) (2,000) 1,311 --------------------------------------------------------------------------~ Subtotal· Other Activities GRAND NET SURPLUS (DEFICIT) ) In FY 2010, $2.8 million In budgeted salary savings realized. an additional $185 thousand in savings still needs to be achieved Police union (PAPOA) deferred their FY 2010 negotiated salary Increase of $0.8 million to FY 2011 Based on current 2.7% @ 55 fonnula Assumption of no salary Increase for SEIU and MgmtJProf.ln FY 2010 and FY 2011 and no salary increase for Firefighters (IAFF) in FY 2011 Attachment A CITY OF PALO ALTO LONG RANGE FINANCIAL PLAN General Fund ($000) , ' , PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN FORECAST FOR REVENUES AND EXPENSES 0<, ' " '" FY 2009 FY 2010 ABFY 2010 PB FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 % % % % % % % % % % Change % Change % Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Change % Change trom Ulher Funds (11.20%) 10.23% 7.24% (10.85%) (30.88%) (3.79%) (5.43%) 12.40% (10.04%) (4.36%) 1.32% (2.86%) 2.24% (2.26%) Salaries ~ 2.77% & Benefit Reductions to .NegOtiated (1) Salary Increase Deferral 2) Savings from SHU 2009.x1s Exhibits 1-3 (4.54%) 0.30% 7.37% (0.10%) (1.83%) (10.58%) (30.39%) (43.21%) 46.73% (9.96%) (0.01%) 115.38% (39.58%) (2.19%) (12.17%) 1.21% 1.31% 1.99% 3.51% (lo56%) (3.67%) 3.55% (3.05%) 0.25% 7.57% 0.78% (3.11%) (2.44%) 0.78% 1.91% 2.33% 9.60% 2.00% 2.20% 3.42% 4.82% 3.93% (5.38%) (10.98%) (7.32"1.) (17.23%) (0.96%) (11.66%) 1.63% (7.31%) 1.46% 2.49% 3.59% 5.14% 2.19% 2.23% 3.34% 7.38% 4.45% 3.00% 3.86% 3.95% 2.86% 2.65% 3.46% 1.87% 4.82% 1.82% 2.86% 1.81% (11.34%) 2.58% 2.83% 3.50% 4.62"k 2.17% 4.25% 3.04% 3.72% 2.91% 4.65% 3.54% 2.53% 3.45% 4.01% 4.87% 5.22% 4.74% 3.23% 4.58% 3.94% 4.94% 3.75% 2.55% 4.03% 3.75% 5:14% 5.33% 5.00% 2.84% 4.63% 3.94% 4.97% 3.83% 2.55% 4.04% 3.50%' 3.00% 4.89% 4.66% 5.44% 5.34% 4.50",(, 3.25% 2.44% 1.26% 4.42% 3.95% 4.99% 4.11% 2.56% 4.07% 3.98% 3.94% 4.99% 2.55% 2.58',(, 4.08% 2.00% 2.42% 5.06% 2.85% 1.03% 2.76% 4.29% 5.04% 2.05% 2.59% 4.10% (1.12%) (4.59%) 3.17% 3.68% 1.42% 3.51% 4.23% 4.28% 4.17% 3.89% 3.23% 11.64% 11.64% (4.86%) 2.58% 2.83% 3.46% 4.03% 4.04% 4.06% 4.08% 4.10% 0.47% (2.57%) 2.02% 3.53% 1.61% 3.51% 4.21% 4.24% 4.15% 3.92% 3.35% 2.27% 0.99% 2.06% 3.23% 1.87% 2.91% 3.94% 3.94% 3.94% 3.94% 3.94% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9.25% 9.25% 2.27% 5.40% 5.93% 5.28% 5.31% 5.33% 5.36% 5.36% 5.41% 1.24% (10.14%) 17.33% 13.15% 19.53% 39.17% 4.84% (40.56%) (12.49%) 0.38% (50.00%) 0.90% 1.43% 2.17% (0.24%) (2.70%) 17.33% (1.B9%) 13.15% (3.17%) 19.49% 0.12% 39.17% 2.07% 4.010/. 1.50% 1.50% 2.55% 1.50",(, 1.50"1. 3.29% 1.70% 1.70% 2.61% 1.70% 1.70% 3.77% 2.50% 2.50% 2.85% 2.50% 2.50% 4.44% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 4.45% 3.00% 3.00% 2.99% 3.00% 3.00% 4.47% 3.00% 3.00'k 3.00% 3.00'k 3.00'k 4.47% 3.00% a.OO'k 3.00',(, 3.00',(, 3.00'k 4.50% 3.00% 3.00',(, 3.00'k 3.00% 3.00'k 5.78% 1.25% 3.36% 2.90% 3.43% 4.03% 4.05% 4.06% 4.07% 4.09% (40.56%) 37.55% 4.04% 4.15% 4.26% (12.49%) (53.04%) (6.36%) 3.00'1. 2.97% 0.36% (0.54%) (13.99%) (19.07%) (0.40%) (50.00'k) 0.00% 4.00% 4.00'k 4.00',(, 4.38% 4.48% 2.94% 2.91% 0.68% (0.31%) 4.00'k 4.00% 4.60% 2.94% 0.15% 0.00% 4.70% 2.91% (0.10',(,) O.OO'k 4.8O'k 2.88',4, 0.31% 0.00% 1.73% 1.39% 3.15% 2.84% 3.46% 4.03% 4.04% 4.06% 4.08% 4.11% 2.33% 3.81% 3.42% 3.81% 3.47% 3.95% 5.41% 4.50% 3.00r- 3.00% 2.3O'k 3.00'k 3.00'k 4.05% 4.90% 3.00% (69.04%) 0.00% 3.81% Attachment A Budget Stabilization Reserve Beginning Balance To/(From) Reserves CAFR adjustments One-time Only Increases/(Decreases) Ending Balance % of Total Expenditures LRFP 2009.xls Exhibits 1-3 with IR CITY OF PALO ALTO LONG RANGE FINANCIAL PLAN General Fund ($000) , GENERAL FUND RESERVE SUMMARY ($000) , Adopted Projected FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 $ 26,102 $ 24,637 $ 24,637 $ 24,637 $ 19,012 $ 11,519 $ (1,369) $ (15,333) $ (29,660) $ (44,243) $ (59,272) $ (75,192) $ (93,134) 645 49 0 (5,625) (7,493) (12,887) (13,964) (14,327) (14,583) (15,029) (15,919) (17,942) (18,842) 1,581 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (3,691) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 24,637 $ 24,686 $ 24,637 $ 19,012 $ 11,519 $ (1,369) $ (15,333) $ (29,660) $ (44,243) $ (59,272) $ (75,192) $ (93,134) $(111,976) 17,5% 17.4% 17.2% 13.1% 7.7% (0.9%) (9.6%) (17.9%) (25.6%) (33.0%) (40.2%) (47.9%) (55.4%) 11/25/200910:16 AM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2009 ATTACHMENTB DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CMR: 394:09 SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Update RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council review and provide input on the FY 2010 1 st Quarter Update and structural budget issues identified in this City Manager Report (CMR). BACKGROUND As a consequence of the "Great Recession" and the decline in economically sensitive revenues such as sales and transient occupancy taxes (TOT), budget deficits were identified for FY 2009 and FY 2010. In the FY 2010 Operating Budget process, the City identified a General Fund $10 million budget gap. This projected deficit would have risen to $12 million had the City incorporated a pay raise for management and SEm employees. Hence, the budget proposal assumed zero increases for these groups. To solve the $10 million deficit, the City implemented $3.1 million in savings from department and service reductions (this included the elimination of 20.3 Full Time Equivalents based on vacancies and retirements); a $1.4 million revenue enhancement; $2.2 million in temporary reductions in transfers to the Capital Improvement and Retiree Medical Liability Funds; and $3.0 miHion in employee compensation and benefit reductions. The latter category savings was dependent on the City negotiating compensation andlor benefit concessions from management and City unions. The City is still in the process of negotiating with SEIU, discussing btmefit changes with management, and finalizing a salary deferral with the Police union (approximately $800,000). The Fire union has decided to take its contracted salary increase this fiscal year. The Management and Professional Group has already made a contribution in the variable management compensation program CVMC) totaling $657,000 for the General Fund. The City's latest proposal to SEIU is available on the City"s website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/labornegotlations In the City Manager's FY 2010 Operating Budget transmittal letter, the possible need to revisit deeper service cuts and savings strategies was discussed. These deeper service cuts were described as the "Tier 2" list (Attachment C) and they included, for example: eliminating the disaster preparedness program; eliminating the Police traffic team; and contracting out golf and parks maintenance work. Layoffs could result with these recommendations, which the City has CMR:394:09 Page 1 of7 sectors, a permanent change in consumer spending would have a substantial effect on the City's General Fund finances. Results to date for the transient occupancy and documentary transfer taxes have not changed since the September 8 report. TOT receipts from January to June in FY 2009 were -30 percent lower compared to the prior year period and July 2009 revenues were w21.3 percent under those in July 2008. As with sales tax-, if receipts do not improve, midyear adjustments of between $0.2 and $0.5 million may be needed. Documentary transfer taxes, which feIJ from $5.4 million in FY 2008 to $3.1 million in FY 2009, continue to show weakness. Revenues through September 2009 were -36 percent below the same prior year period. At this time, however, staff does not foresee adjustments to the $2.8 million to be collected in this category for FY 2010. Attachinent B shows actual revenue receipts through the middle of September in comparison to the FY 2010 Adopted Budget. As mentioned, it is too early to draw firm conclusions from this information, but in addition to the areas cited above, those that bear further scrutiny and close monitoring are parking violations, plan checking fees, and building permits. These areas had especially weak results in FY 2009 which may continue into FY 2010. Property taxes, the General.Funds· highest single revenue source, is expected to be close to budget at year end based on recent County projections. FY 20 I 0 Expenses As with revenues, it is too early in the year to detect important expense variances. With the exception of overtime in the Police and Fire departments, which typically exceed their budgets due to minimal staffing requirements, there is no discernable expense trend causing concern at this time. Ifthe City cannot achieve the $3 million in salary and benefit savings discussed above and incorporated into the FY 2010 budget, a deficit would result. "Tier 2" Items and Action Should revenues not perform as forecast or salary 01' benefit concessions. by the unions and management not be realized, the City will be forced to utilize "Tier 2" expenditure reductions. During the FY 2010 Finance Committee budget hearings, these reductions were discussed at length and they were called to the attention of the full Council at budget adoption. Again, Attachment C lists these items and provides a description of the potential cuts. These include, for example: o Eliminating the current Disaster Preparedness program o Eliminating the City's shuttle service o Contracting out parks and golf maintenance work o Eliminating Police traffic control services Tier 2 reductions will impact services to the community and will result in position reductions. Structural or Systemic Budget Issues To substantiate the position that the City faces structural budget issues, staff has modified the Long Range Financial Forecast (LRFF) presented in the FY 2010 Adopted Budget. Based on new data and known liabilities, the Net Surplus (Deficit) line in the forecast has been adjusted CMR:394:09 Page 3 of7 The current rate of funding from the General Fund and Infrastructure Reserve, which is around $9 million per year, is inadequate to meet the annual $15 million needed to offset the $302 million liability in any predictable or reliable way. The Infrastructure Reserve balance currently stands at $5.2 million and is expected to decline to $1.6 million next fiscal year. Without replenishment from General Fund surpluses over the next few years, which will not occur, the ability to sustain $9-$10 million of annual General Fund .infrastructure work is unlikely. New revenues are necessary. 5. Although one-time in nature and supposedly to be repaid in 3 years, the City faces a $2.5 million property tax takeaway· by the State to solve its budget deficit. This cut will decrease the General Fund's Budget Stabilization Reserve, impact the City's cash flow and interest earnings (the City currently earns around 4 percent on its investments and the State has proposed repaying the principal with a 2 percent interest rate), and reduce flexibility in dealing with unforeseen needs. The City, with the League of California Cities is exploring our options. Even with statutory protections against State takeaways of locall'evenues, the State can withhold revenues in fiscal emergencies and the State's record on coping with such emergencies is well-documented. Having solid and ~ubstantial reserves protects the City from the State risk. In addition to the structural issues cited above, the City faces additional threats on the revenue side. Outlined each year in the Long Range Financial Forecast, City revenues and the services they fund face an array of risks. These can include, for example, risks to sales tax and the TOT through: community opposition to new business and hotel development (e.g., the loss of Hyatt Rickey's); the potential exodus of automobile dealerships; surrounding big box stores that cause leakage of local spending and sales tax to surrounding jurisdictions; loss of sales tax to Internet sales; and, most recently, the threat of consumers spending less in retail areas such as the downtown and. Stanford Shopping Center. It is important to note that nearly 50 percent of the General Fund's roughly $20 million in annual sales tax is generated by 25 businesses. The loss of one of these enterprises can have a substantial impact on continuing services as we know them today. . Additionally, the impact of Statewide initiatives and legislation such as Proposition 13 (property tax); Proposition 218 (revenue thresholds); and required super majority (2/3) approval for General Obligation bond funding limit the City's revenue raising options. And of course, the financial markets crisis and impact on lending as well as the dysfunction of State government all impact the City. Conclusions Actual revenue and expenditure data to date do not definitively indicate new downward budget adjustments at this moment. As additional revenue and expenditure data materializes, however, further adjustments at midyear may be necessary. As indicated in a prior report (October 2007) on maintaining a Sustainable Budget (CMR: 387:07). the City may be faced with determining its long~term service priorities. It must be recognized that the City provides a wide and high level of service and dedicates sizeable annual resources in such areas as the school district ($6.6 million in FY 2009 for the Covenant Not to Develop as well as additional expenditures on field maintenance and outreach programs) and to CMR:394:09 Page 5 of7 PREPARED BY: ty Dlrector of Administrative Services DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL: u~~ijE~:::=-=---- CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~-~+--.L....----++--______ .-,;..e.~_ CMR:394:09 Page 7 of? ATTACHMENT A City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report TO: FINANCE COMMITTEE FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 2009 DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CMR: 358:09 SUBJECT: Review of Preliminary FY 2009 Revenue Analysis RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Finance Committee review and discuss preliminary General Fund revenue perfo~ance for FY 2009. . BACKGROUND As a result of the current recession and consequent decline of key General Fund revenue sources, the Finance Committee requested a late summer assessment of FY 2009 revenue perfonnance. This assessment was to include a comparison of actual revenue receipts to the FY 2009 Adjusted Budget and to prior year results. The variance analysis could lead to necessary mid year budget aQjustments and allow the City to be proactive in resolving unforeseen budget gaps. It is critical to note that the FY 2009 numbers presented in this report are unaudited and that there are potential accruals that may result in subsequent changes. Staff is not presenting a year end expense analysis at this time. Since accruals and incurred, but not reported, expenses in such areas as workers' compensation and general liability have not been fully booked and allocated to departments, staff believes an expense report is premature and could be potentially misleading. In addition, the Committee requested an earlier review of FY 2010 quarterly 'revenue and expense results. Staff anticipates presenting a full analysis in late October 2009, but offers the following insights into preJiminary trends in this report. DISCUSSION The crucial backdrop to the results jn this report is the dismal state of the economy. hi what has come to be called the "Great Recession," the City's key and economically sensitive revenue sources have declined significantly since FY 2007-08. Rising unemployment rates, tightening credit markets, deteriorating residential and commercial property markets, and diving consumer confidence have driven down public revenue streams across the country. The City of Palo Alto has not been immune from the recession. CMR:358:09 Page 1 of 5 Documentary Transfer Tax This important revenue source, which is based on the number and value of commercial and residential property sales, has moved down sharply during the recession. Rising to the mid $5 million level for the past 5 years, it retreated to $3.1 million in FY 2009. While close to the adjusted budget, this result was 42.5 percent or $2.3 million below FY 2008 results. The poor performance is a consequence of the commercial and residential markets coming to a virtual standstill. Commercial transactions decreased due to low occupancy rates and residential transactions were minimal due to sellers hoJding onto their homes' during a period of market softness. In addition, credit conditions were abysmal due to the collapsing credit markets for commercial and jumbo home loans. As with sales tax and TOT, documentary transfer tax revenue estimates for 2010 may require a midyear adjustment. Results for the month of July 2009 were nearly 40 percent under those for July 2008. Cun'ently, the adopted budget for FY ·2010 projects $2.8 million in transfer taxes, $0.3 million below actual FY 2009 revenues. With credit markets slowly returning to more normal activity, staff hopes this revenue source will rebound and obviate the need for a midyear adjustment. . Fines & Penalties This revenue category consists primarily of parking violations and library fines. Revenues are' below the FY 2009 Adjusted Budget by 16.6 percent or $0.5 million, and 4.7 percent or $0.1 mi1lion below prior year results. The negative variance is primarily due to parking violations, which came in 28 percent or $0.6 million below the adjusted budget. The combination of industrial injuries to Community Service Officers and fewer cars in violation of parking regulations have led to this drop. Should vacancies cqntinue, an adjustment to adopted budget revenues may be necessary . Permits & Licenses The downturn in the economy has heavily and negatively impacted building related fees. Permit and license fees were 16.5 percent or $0.9 million below the adjusted budget and 17.4 percent or $0.9 million below the prior year. Compared to the budget, new construction permit fees are down 13.7 percent or $0.4 million while plan check fees were down $0.1 million. In the new fiscal year, July 2009 building fee revenues are up by $0.1 million in comparison to July 2008. This may signal an upturn in this revenue category. which would preclude a midyear adjustment. Return on Investment Interest income came in higher than the adjusted budget for 2009, but was under prior year results by 6.9 percent or $0.2 million. With the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates low to stimulate the economy, the City's portfo1io yield has declined to the low 4 percent range over the past two years. It is expected that yields will continue to decline as higher yielding instruments mature and the City continues to buy securities in the 3 to 4 percent range. An adjustment at midyear may be necessary if interest rates do not trend upward. CMR:3S8:09 Page 3 of 5 PREPARED BY: ~,-S#tRON~t·.e': - Budget Manager. Administrative Se DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL: -;-:;-;-;::~~;;--r--.:::::::;:;:""--=-- Director of Administrative Services ~. CITY MANAGER APPROV AL: --__ ---:7'<:..f-L~~~-+----A---- JAMES CityM CMR:358:09 Page 5 of5 Attachment B CITY OF PALO ALTO REVENUE AND EXPENSE RESULTS THROUGH MID·SEPTEMBER COMPARED TO THE ADOPTED FY 2009 BUDGET GENERAL FUND. (In thousands of dollars) I Adopted I Adjusted Categories Budget Budget Pre Adjusted I I I %of Encumbr Encumbr Actual Budget Revenues & Other Sources Sales Tax Property Tax Transient Occupancy Tax Utility Users Tax Other Taxes and Fines Charges for Services Permits & Licenses Return on Investment Rental Income From Other Agencies Charges To Other Funds Other ...... , .......... ,.. Exeenditures & Other Uses City Attorney City Auditor City Clerk City Council City Manager Administrative Services Community Services Fire Human Resources Library Planning and Community Environment Police Public Works 19,650 25,752 7,000 11,250 5,633 20,238 5,056 1,900 13,655 92 10,643 1 2,569 999 1,512 296 2,395 6,761 21,876 25,166 2,837 6,385 9,858 29,998 13,484 925 3,343 1,143 1,524 309 2,646 6,910 22,770 25,546 2,970 6,66B 10,603 30,239 14,177 778 * Excludes encumbrances, reappropriation and Infrastructure reserve 21 667 246 17 35 33 61 5 187 203 2,839 99 495 126 164 658 385 934 ......•. ' 1,682 77 578 2,357 1,204 2,613 943 5 2,450 15 539 152 4B6 70 4B7 1,296 4,173 4,BOO 501 1,169 1,940 5,433 2,443 1953 "'." Attachment C \ City of Palo Alto Internal Budget Hearings -FY 2010 Summary Tier 2 Items General Fund DE'ltJartment " QthElrQ~tions Revenue Expense FTE FIR CSD CSD PLA POL POL POL POL PWD PWD Eliminate Disaster Preparedness Div Park Maintenance -Contract out net expense Golf Course Maint -Contract out net expense Eliminate Shuttle Traffic Team .,. School Res Officer Prg Pol Record Specialist -Front Desk Records Program ASst I -Crime Analysis Eliminate Tree Trimming Contract Contract out Tree Trimming Subtotal Additional Finance Committee 'Parking Lot" Recommendations (33,400) (100,000) (133.400) FIR Evaluate future organization of OES ConsolidationlCOordination FIR Regionalization options for Fire Services Police Regionalization options for Police Services (442.826) (122,957) (176,352) (256,000) (1.00) OccupieCl (5.00) Occupied (7.00) 7 Occupied (626.433) (4.00) Occupied (161,772) (1.00) Occupied (82,773) (1.00) Occupied (94.037) (1.00) Occupied (379.000) . (46,737) (1.00) Vacant (2,388,887) (21,.00) Police Reduce the Police Department Budget by $500,000 -Police Chief to identify reductions Police Reduce the Police Department Budget by $492,000 -Finance Committee recommended reductions Add back 0.5 Fte Volunteer Coordinator (Salary & Benefrts) Reduce the Traffic Team by one-half (instead of elimination) 1.0 FTE Police Officer (salary & benefits) 1.0 FTE Police Agent (salary & benefits) Add back revenue Reduce poSitions listed below by one-half instead of elimination School Resource Officer (0.5 FTE Pofice Agent) Crime Analyst Program (0.5 FTE Crime Analyst) Police Outreach (0.5 FTE Program Assistant I) $ 52,000 (154,000) (158.000) 50,000 (79.000) (56,000) (47,000) Planning & Community Environment -$ 256,000 Eliminate the City's shuttle service. There are not City PTE associated with this program and its termination would result in $256,000 in annual savings. Eliminating the shuttle program would reduce mobility and transportation alternatives within the City. Police Department -$ 865,015 Eliminating the Traffic Team would result in the reduction of $626,000 in expenditures and $100,000 in revenue. Included is the reduction of four PTE. The duties normally assigned to the Traffic Team would be assumed by patrol units. Eliminating the School Resource Officer (SRO) Program: During the FY 2010 budget hearings, one vacant SRO position was eliminated. The Tier 2 reduction would eliminate the remaining SRO position which is currently filled. The expenditure reduction is estimated at $162,000. Elimination of the Crime Analysis Program. This would result in the reduction of one PTE with an estimated expenditure reduction of $94,000. Elimination of Community Policing/Outreach program. This would result in the reduction of one PTE with an estimated expenditure reduction of $83,000. The Finance Committee also discussed the possibility of evaluating the future of regionalization options for the Police Department. Staff has not reviewed the costlbenefit strips to property owners. It would require a change to policy and to the Municipal Code. It would not impact Utilities line or emergency tree trimming clearing. The other alternative for the Public· Works Department is the contracting out of Tree Trimming. This would result in the elimination of 1 FfE and a net expenditure reduction of $46,000. The Public Works Department is recommending either/or for these options, not both. Attachment C CITY OF PALO ALTO FY 2010 FINANCIAL REPORT as of 11-20-09 GENERAL FUND (in thousands of dollars) Categories I Adopted I Adjusted Budget Budget I I I %of Pre Adjusted Encumbr Encumbr Actual Budget Revenues & Other Sources Sales Tax 19,650 19,650 5,510 28% Property Tax 25,752 25,752 3,140 12% Transient Occupancy Tax 7,000 7,000 1,781 25% Utility Users Tax 11,250 11,250 4,360 39% Other Taxes and Fines 5,633 5,633 2,092 37% Charges for Services 20,238 20,238 ·6,209 31% Permits & Licenses 5,056 5,056 1,455 29% Return on Investment 1,900 1,900 633 33% Rental Income 13,655 13,655 4,780 35% From Other Agencies 92 92 62 67% Charges To Other Funds 10,643 10,643 3,540 33% Other Revenues 1,605 1,605 959 Total Revenues 122,474 122,474 Operating Transfers-I n 19,664 19,664 Encumbrances and Reappropriation -6,564 Total Sources of Funds 142,138 148,702 Exeenditures & Other Uses City Attorney 2,569 3,343 8 601 970 47% City Auditor 999 1,143 229 296 46% City Clerk 1,512 1,524 16 655 44% City Council 296 309 31 107 45% City Manager 2,395 2,646 6 62 814 33% Administrative Services 6,761 6,910 156 2,267 35% Community Services 21,876 22,770 86 2,308 7,993 46% Fire 25,166 25,546 10 648 9,156 38% Human Resources 2,837 2,970 5 104 911 34% Library 6,385 6,668 48 145 2,110 35% Planning and Community Environment 9,858 10,603 158 953 3,331 42% Police 29,998 30,239 337 319 9,877 35% Public Works 13,484 14,177 104 936 4,510 39% Non-Departmental 6,925 8,778 19 772 Total Expenditures 131,061 137,624 Operating Transfers-Out 11,028 11,028 Total Uses of Funds 142,089 148,653 Net Surplus (Deficit) 49 49 Beginning Reserves 22,176 22,176 Projected Ending Reserves 22,225 22,225 * Excludes encumbrances, reappropriation and infrastructure reserve Attachment D City of Palo Alto General Fund Revenue Changes for FY 2010 and FY 2011 -Detail ($000) Detail Sales Taxes Property Taxes Transient Occupancy Tax Utility User's Tax City Utilities 8,180 7,966 (214) 9,218 Telephone 3,070 3,451 381 SUb-total-Utility User's Tax 11,250 11,417 167 Other Taxes and Fines Vehicle In-Lieu Documentary Transfer 100 Parking Violations (460) General (Fines, Forfeitures & Penalties) 1 Sub-total-Other Taxes and Fines Total Taxes and Fines Charges for Services Stanford Fire/Police Service Reimbursement 7,832 7,832 8,166 Golf Related Fees 3,153 2,919 (234) 3,153 Class Program Fees 3,087 2,727 (360) 3,087 Paramedic Fees 1,754 1,754 1,753 Plan Checking Fees 1,763 1,460 (303) 1,788 Cable Franchise 600 600 600 Other Fees 2,050 1,841 050 SUb-total-Charges for Services 20,238 19,134 20,596 Permits and Licenses Street Cut Fee 553 703 150 553 Permits 4,431 3,835 (596) 4,506 Licenses 73 73 73 Sub-total -Permits and Licenses 5,056 4,611 (446) 5;131 Charges to Other Funds Cost Plan -Admin. Support to Other Funds ?:. 8,233 8,233 Communication -Utility Reimb. for 911 Support . 512 512 Public Works Admin. Support to Ent. Funds 563 563 Other Reimbursements 1,335 1,252 SUb-total-Charges to Other Funds 10,643 10,560 Rental Income Utilities Facility Charges 10,311 10,311 10,311 Property Rental -Cubberley Tenants 1,719 1,801 82 1,719 Use of City Facilities 1,518 1,440 (78) 1,518 Other 106 81 106 Sub-total-Rental Income 13,655 13,633 (21) 13,655 From Other Agencies 92 92 92 Return on Investments (Interest Income) 1,900 1,662 (238) 1,900 Unrealized Gain/Loss on Investment Other Revenue Total Revenues (Prior to Oper. T'fers-In) Operating Transfers-In Equity & Utility Transfers Parking Districts Other SUb-total -Operating Transfers-In Total Source of Funds (225) 434 209 8,166 2,900 (253) 2,800 (287) 1,678 (75) 1,600 (188) 600 050 19, 703 4,100 73 4,876 10,462 150 1,719 1,518 106 13,805 150 92 1,646 (254) 1,502 $121922 $ Attachment E Police and Fire Departments Overtime Analysis for Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009 With Fiscal Year 2010 Data Through November 20,2009 Fiscal Year Ending June 30 2005 2006 POLICE DEPARTMENT Overtime Expense Original Budget $974,426 $981,862 Current Budget 1,028,337 1,009,705 Net Overtime Cost -see below 1,096,077 780,647 Remaining Budget ($67,740) $229,058 Overtime Net Cost Actual Expense $1,229,851 $1,405,155 Less Reimbursements Stanford Communications 30,941 30,937 Utilities Communications Reimbursement 17,404 17,402 Local Agencies (A) 32,617 34,565 Federal Grants State Grants (8) 8,135 65,835 Police Service Fees 37,188 49,185 Other 7,489 Total Reimbursements 133,774 197,924 Less Department Vacancies 375,515 426,584 Net Overtime Cost $1,096,077 $780,647 Department Vacancies (number of days) 1,642 1,733 FIRE DEPARTMENT Overtime Expense Original Budget $982,674 $959,389 Current Budget 982,674 959,389 Net Overtime Cost -see below 877,892 637,310 Remaining Budget $104,782 $322,079 Overtime Net Cost Actual Expense $1,956,529 $1,582,858 Less Reimbursements Stanford Fire Services (D) 592,828 479,606 Cal-Fire/FEMA (Strike Teams) 66,269 State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) (C) 17,203 72,254 Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) 26,782 Department of Homeland Security (E) Total Reimbursements 610,031 644,911 Less Department Vacancies 468,606 300,637 Net Overtime Cost $877,892 $637,310 Department Vacancies (number of days) 1,980 1,230 NOTES: (A) Includes Animal Services contract with Los Altos, Mountain View and Los Altos Hills. (8) State Office of Traffic Safety and ABC grants. (e) Included in the SHSGP and UASI reimbursements is a small amount of per diem reimbursement. (0) Stanford reimburses 30.3% of Fire expenditures. 2007 2008 $1,015,620 $1,036,815 1,074,399 1,071,005 1,025,718 1,096,894 $48,681 ($25,889) $1,785,657 $2,009,542 39,342 65,079 22,130 36,607 36,457 41,770 63,344 4,672 43,218 67,390 12,447 18,157 216,938 233,675 543,001 678,973 $1,025,718 $1,096,894 2,280 2,766 $1,032,674 $892,674 1,032,674 996,674 737,768 863,442 $294,906 $133,232 $1,860,757 $1,744,076 563,809 528,455 85,531 140,224 40,897 10,164 1,150 690,237 679,993 432,752 200,641 $737,768 $863,442 1,740 810 (E) Reimbursement from U.S. Department of Homeland Security for HazMat Continuing Challenge Training Conference (Sep 2009) unaudited thru 11120 2009 2010 $999,900 $999,900 1,016,900 999,900 886,568 215,550 $130,332 $784,350 $1,665,842 $567,870 42,160 17,468 23,715 9,826 37,413 13,413 10,998 53,812 48,035 15,982 184,080 88,742 595,194 263,578 $886,568 $215,550 2,402 508 $1,017,674 $1,017,674 1,353,058 1,017,674 416,610 513,685 $936,448 $503,989 $1,591,261 $1,040,777 482,152 315,355 453,619 43,000 4,342 5,800 940,113 358,355 234,538 168,737 $416,610 $513,685 780 636 11/25/2009 Attachment F FY 2010 Salary Savings by Department City Attorney 1.374 124 124 City Auditor 487 25 25 City Clerk 593 67 67 City Council 65 5 5 City Manager 1,302 151 151 Administrative Services 3.709 147 147 Community Services 8.707 276 (137) 139 Library 3.297 156 156 Fire 14,182 1.539 (679) 860 Human Resources 1.544 193 193 Planning and Community Environment 4,531 390 (37) 353 Police 16.706 1.891 (691 ) 1.200 Public Works 4,831 337 (51) 286 Non-departmental (1.313) (2,206) (2,206) Total 60,015 3,095 (1,595) 1,500 ATTACHMENT G "Tier Two" Reductions Dept. Other Options Revenue-Expense FTE Eliminate Disaster Preparedness FIR Div (33,400) (442,826) (1.00) Park Maintenance -Contract CSD out net expense (122,957) (5.00) Golf Course Maint -Contract out CSD net expense (176,352) (7.00) PLA Elim inate Shuttle (256,000) I POL Traffic Team (100,000) (626,433) (4.00) School Resource Officer i POL Program (161,772) (1.00) Program Asst I -Police Outreach POL Program (94,037) (1.00) Crime Analyst -Crime Analysis POL Program (111,353) (1.00) Eliminate Tree Trimming PWD Contract (379,000) PWD Contract out Tree Trimming (46,737) (1.00) Subtotal (133,400) . (2,417,467) (21.00) Near-Term Cost Savings Attachment H Budget Reduction Options 1. Institute a hiring freeze except for positions absolutely required for public health and safety. The City will look at reorganization around vacant positions (short- term within departments and long-term among departments), but it must be noted that significant staff reductions and efficiencies have been implemented since the "dot-com" bust 2. Freeze or cut all travel and meeting budgets unless critical to immediate public health and safety issues 3. Institute furloughs 4. Review all consultant contracts, particularly those just starting, to determine if needed 5. Defer any Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs) that are not absolutely essential 6. Close public safety building design CIP and return funds to reserves 7. Evaluate need for temporary positions including retirees who have been hired back to work 8. Review staffing levels in departments where fee, fine or permit revenue has dropped, e.g., CSD classes, parking violations, and in development center. Design flexible budgets for these areas 9. Consider instituting a 2.5% reduction for small departments and 5% for remaining departments 10. Institute full cost recovery for programs that provide unique and limited service to small populations 11. Institute full cost recovery for adult classes. Revisit the non-resident fees and examine all programs where non-residents are not paying fees for use of City facilities. 12. Use the Budget Stabilization Reserve to balance the budget along with other initiatives in 2010. The goal would be to make longer term decisions during the fiscal year 2010 timeframe. The drawdown should not take the reserve lower than 15 percent of General Fund adopted budget expenditures Medium Term 1. Institute a 5.0-7.5% equity transfer on dark fiber fund 2. Enhance and expand the Economic Develop Plan 3. Negotiate away minimum staffing levels in Fire Department 4. Have fire department use newest employees for OT work rather than most senior staff; same for police (i.e., staff according to reverse seniority) 5. Have Fire department complete an evaluation (funds have been budgeted) on need for current levels and configurations of fire service based on predominant number of calls for paramedic service 6. Institute a two-tier retirement plan for public safety personnel 7. Contracting out services such as parks and golf 8. Decrease rental subsidies at Cubberley or restart negotiations with Foothill College 9. Review all support to PAUSD to determine what the City can continue to provide 10. Review the Cubberley Lease and the Covenant Not To Develop agreement with PAUSD to determine affordability and course of action going forward. 11. Revisit all HSRAP services to non-Palo Alto institutions with new budget cycle and focus resources on needy seniors, children, and teens in trouble. 12. Revisit residents and businesses paying for cost for sidewalk work at 10% per year and cap at 50% in year 5 13. Revisit policy on property rental rates to be at or close to cost recovery as agreements come up for renewal. 14. Move all employee groups toward assuming greater share of PERs "employee" contribution and all groups contribute towards the cost of health care. 15. Consider assessment districts -parks, sidewalks, fire and/or public safety. 16. Begin GF service priority setting process with Council and community Long-Term 17. Revisit new conference hotel in Palo Alto 18. Develop LA TP site as a source of rent or sell the land to Enterprise Funds 19. Negotiate away no minimum staffing requirement for Police 20. Review all police services for efficiencies and potential reduction in least essential services 21. Contract out, with reasonable response time specifications, paramedic service to outside agencies e.g., AMR 22. Begin discussion with neighboring cities e.g., Mountain View on sharing public safety services e.g. dispatch center, SWAT, white collar units, border fire response 23. Explore and implement new revenue opportunities 24. Revisit land use policies to provide the most benefit to the community ATTACHMENT B ORDINANCE NO.XXXX ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 TO REINSTATE A $809,000 TRANSFER FROM THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET STABILIZATION RESERVE TO THE TECHNOLOGY FUND. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 15, 2009 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2010; and B. On December I, 2009, s f reported to the Finance Committee a one-time budget change to solve a $4.8 million deficit for the Fiscal Year 2009i and C. The one-time budget change deferred a $4.8 million cost allocation transfer from the General Fund to the Internal Service Fund-Technology Fund in FY 2009i and D. Pursuant to discussions with the Finance Committee, a motion was passed to approve staff's recommendation to close out the 2009 Fiscal Year by deferring the $4.8 million transfer to the Technology Fundi and E. The Finance Committee also passed a motion recommending staff submit a Budget Amendment Ordinance to Council amending the FY 2010 Technology Fund Budget in the amount of $800,000, which was the excess from FY 2009 year end close, plus any amount necessary to fund all of the Tech expenditures that had planned for FY 2010; and F. City Council authorization is needed to transfer $809,000 from the General Fund to the Internal Service Fund- Technology Fund. SECTION 2. A. The Budget Stabilization Reserve is hereby decreased by the sum of Eight Hundred Nine Thousand ($809,000). As a result of this change the Budget Stabilization Reserve will be reduced from Twenty Two Million Twenty Two Thousand Three Hundred Sixty One($22,022,361) to Twenty One Million Two Hundred Thirteen Thousand Three Hundred Sixty One ($21,213,361). B. The Internal Service-Technology Fund is hereby increased by the sum of ght Hundred Nine Thousand ($809,000). As a result this change the Internal Service-Technology Fund Reserve will be increased. from Fifty One Thousand Four Hundred ($51,400) to Eight Hundred Sixty Thousand Four Hundred ($860,400). SECTION 3. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the ty Council is required to adopt this ordinance SECTION 4. The Council of City of Palo Alto hereby finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. SECTION 5. As provided in Section 2.04.350 the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO, FORM: City Attorney APPROVED: Mayor City Manager Director Services of Administrative