Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-06-15 City Council Agenda PacketCity Council 1 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Monday, June 15, 2020 Special Meeting 5:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 11 days preceding the meeting. ****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY*** https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833 Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29- 20, issued on March 17, 2020, to prevent the spread of Covid-19, this meeting will be held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and Midpen Media Center at https://midpenmedia.org. Members of the public who wish to participate by computer or phone can find the instructions at the end of this agenda. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest calling in or connecting online 15 minutes before the item you wish to speak on. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Closed Session 5:00-6:00 PM A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his Designees Pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (Ed Shikada, Rumi Portillo, Molly Stump, Monique LeConge Ziesenhenne, Nick Raisch, Kiely Nose, Gina Roccanova) Employee Organizations: Utilities Management and Professional Association of Palo Alto (UMPAPA); Service Employees International Union, (SEIU) Local 521; Service Employees International Union, REVISED 2 June 15, 2020 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. (SEIU) Local 521, Hourly Unit; Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA); Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association (FCA) and Employee Organization: International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Local 1319; Palo Alto Police Manager’s Association (PAPMA) Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a) Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Oral Communications 6:00-6:15 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Minutes Approval 6:15-6:20 PM 1.Approval of Action Minutes for the May 11, 12, 13, and June 1, 2020 Council Meetings Consent Calendar 6:20-6:25 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 2.Approval of Contract Number C20176877 With Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers in the Amount of $789,918 for Design Services for the: 1) Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station, 2) West Bayshore Road Pump Station, and 3) Trunk Line Improvement Projects; Capital Improvement Program Projects (SD-21000, SD-20000, and SD-23000) 3.Approval and Authorization for the City Manager or Designee to Execute the Following Three Utilities Public Benefits Program Contract Amendments: 1) Amendment Number 2 to Ecology Action of Santa Cruz (C15155144A), With no Increase in Compensation and Extending the Term for one Additional Year; 2) Amendment Number 2 to Enovity, Inc. (C15155144B), With no Increase in Compensation and Extending the Term for one Additional Year; and 3) Amendment Number 2 to BASE Energy, Inc. (C15155144C), With no Increase in Compensation and Extending the Term for one Additional Year 4.Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C17165394 With Genuine Parts Company, dba Napa Auto Parts, to Increase the Contract by $781,013 to an Amount Not-to-Exceed $3,777,087, and Extend the Term Through July 21, 2021 5.Approval of Amendment Number 3 to Contract Number C18172676 With Dixon Resources to Extend the Term to June 2021 With no Additional Costs for the Downtown Parking Study Q&A Public Comment 3 June 15, 2020 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. City Manager Comments 6:25-6:35 PM Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 6:35-7:00 PM 6.PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of a Resolution Confirming the Weed Abatement Report and Ordering the Cost of Abatement to be a Special Assessment on the Respective Properties Described Therein 7:00-8:00 PM 7.Recommendation on the Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2020-2021 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding Allocation; Recommendation That the City Manager or Designee be Authorized to Execute Necessary Documents for the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 CDGB Application; and to Submit the 2020-2021 Action Plan and the 2020- 2025 Consolidated Plan to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by the Extended Deadline of August 16, 2020 8:00-8:45 PM 8.Adoption of a Resolution Updating the City’s Transportation Analysis Methodology Under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to Comply With California Senate Bill 743; and Adoption of a Local Transportation Impact Analysis Policy to Evaluate Level of Service (LOS) and Other Local Roadway Impacts 8:45-9:45 PM 9.Approval of two Lease Agreements Between Palo Alto Unified School District and the City of Palo Alto for: 1) Cubberley for 54 months, Not- to-Exceed Amount of $2,733,280 per Year, and 2) Extended Day Care Sites for 24 months, Not-to-Exceed Amount of $707,676 per Year 9:45-11:00 PM 10.Review and Provide Initial Input on Options for a Framework and Workplan to Address Systemic Racism Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. MEMO MEMO MEMO Public Comment Public Comment Presentation Presentation Presentation 4 June 15, 2020 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Standing Committee Meetings Sp. Council Appointed Officers Committee Meeting June 17, 2020 Sp. City Council Meeting June 17, 2020 Sp. City School Committee Meeting Cancelled June 18, 2020 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report Informational Report Regarding the Status of the Roth Building in Response to Council Direction on March 2, 2020 Second Quarter FY 2020 Financial Report Informational Report Regarding the November 3, 2020 General Municipal Election, Related Schedules, Fees, and Length of Candidate Statements Storm Water Management Oversight Committee Review of FY 2019 Storm Water Management Fund Expenditures and FY 2021 Storm Water Management Fund Proposed Budget Proclamation Honoring Charles Cullen Upon his Retirement Public Letters to Council Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Set 5 Set 6 5 June 15, 2020 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. Public Comment Instructions Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. A. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. B. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. C. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. E. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B-E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 15, 2020 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the May 11, 12, 13, and June 1, 2020 Council Meetings Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A: 05-11-20 DRAFT Action Minutes (PDF) • Attachment B: 05-12-20 DRAFT Action Minutes (PDF) • Attachment C: 05-13-20 DRAFT Action Minutes (PDF) • Attachment D: 06-01-20 DRAFT Action Minutes (PDF) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 5 Special Meeting May 11, 2020 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in virtual teleconference at 5:01 P.M. Participating Remotely: Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka Absent: Action Item 1. Update and Discussion of the COVID-19 Health Emergency and the City's Response. (THIS ITEM HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA) Consent Calendar Council Member Tanaka registered a no vote on Agenda Item Numbers 2, 3, and 6. Council Member Kou registered a no vote on Agenda Item Numbers 2, 3, and 6. MOTION: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member Kou, third by Council Member Cormack to pull Agenda Item Number 7A, to be heard at the end of the Agenda. MOTION: Vice Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Mayor Fine to approve Agenda Item Numbers 2-7. 2. Approval of ten (10) Five-year Contracts for On-call Geospatial Information Systems (GIS) Project Support Services on an As-needed Basis, with: 1) Critigen LLC; 2) GIS Solutions, Inc.; 3) Utility Data Contracts, Inc.; 4) Turf Image, Inc.; 5) Vestra Resources, Inc.; 6) Michael Baker International, Inc.; 7) iSpatial Techno Solutions, Inc.; 8) Geographic Information Services, Inc.; 9) Seven Tablets, Inc.; and, 10) Timmons Group, Inc., C20174611, for an Annual Collective Total Not- to-Exceed Amount of $700,000 Per Year, and a Five-year Collective Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $3,500,000, with All Work Subject to Assigned Task Order and Availability of Funds. 3. Approval of Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number C19170648 With Salas O'Brien Engineers, Inc. for Professional Design Services for the DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 5 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 05/11/2020 12kV Electrical Distribution Network Rehabilitation Project at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) to add Services, Increase Compensation by $142,939 for a new Not-to-Exceed Amount of $410,811, and Extend the Schedule for Performance Through December 31, 2022 - Capital Improvement Program Project WQ-19002. 4. Resolution 9886 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the City's Participation in the State's Clean Fuel Reward Program via the Execution of the Participating Electric Distribution Utility Joinder to the Clean Fuel Reward Program Governance Agreement. 5. Resolution 9887 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Updating Statutory Findings for Unexpended Development Impact Fees.” 6. Approval of an Exemption From Competitive Solicitation and Approval of Amendment Number 3 to Contract Number S16163031 With Triple HS Inc., dba H.T. Harvey & Associates, in the Amount of $9,799 to Provide Further Professional Services, for a new Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $63,828 for the San Francisquito Creek Pump Station Riparian Mitigation Monitoring. 7. Adoption of a Motion Continuing the Proclamation of Local Emergency Due to COVID-19. 7A. Approval of Emergency Services Order Requiring the Wearing of Face Coverings. MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEMS 4, 5, and 7: 7-0 MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEMS 2, 3, AND 6: 5-2 Kou, Tanaka no Action Items 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Recommendation to Allow Expiration of a One-year ban on Office Uses Above the Ground Floor From Participating in the City’s Downtown Parking In-lieu Program. Environmental Assessment: Exempt Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15601(b)(3). Public Hearing opened at 5:31 P.M. Public Hearing closed at 5:37 P.M. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 5 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 05/11/2020 MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Mayor Fine to decline to adopt the Ordinance extending a ban on commercial office uses above the ground floor from participating in the City’s downtown in-lieu parking program. This allows the ban to expire and restores the Municipal Code’s prior standard. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Vice Mayor DuBois to adopt the Ordinance extending a ban on commercial office uses above the ground floor from participating in the City’s downtown in-lieu parking program, and to direct the Planning and Transportation Commission to analyze. INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to change the Motion, “to adopt the Ordinance … for a period of six-months during which time the Planning and Transportation Commission would make a recommendation and return to Council.” INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to change the Substitute Motion to read, “…for a period of nine-months…”. SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Vice Mayor DuBois to adopt the Ordinance extending a ban on commercial office uses above the ground floor from participating in the City’s downtown in-lieu parking program for a period of nine-months during which time the Planning and Transportation Commission would make a recommendation and return to Council. SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 4-3 Fine, Kniss, Tanaka no 9. Staff Recommends the City Council Discuss and Direct Staff to Reduce the Number of Members on the Human Relations Commission and Public Art Commission From Seven to Five; and Reopen Recruitment for Five Member Commissions. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 5 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 05/11/2020 MOTION: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to: A. Direct Staff to reduce to the number of Human Relations Commission and Public Art Commission members from seven to five by bringing an ordinance to Council (on Consent) making those changes in the Palo Alto Municipal Code; and B. Direct Staff to reopen recruitment for the Human Relations Commission and Public Art Commission at five members each. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member XX to ask relevant commissions on their thoughts on the change of the size of the commission. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Council took a break from 6:21 P.M. and returned at 6:30 P.M. 10. Review and Discuss the Revised FY 2021 Proposed Operating and Capital Budget Overview. Council took a break from 8:07 P.M. and returned at 8:19 P.M. MOTION: Vice Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Tanaka to swap Item Number 4 (General Fund Capital Budget) from the May 13, 2020 Budget Hearing for Item Number 2 (Infrastructure and Environment) on the May 12, 2020 Budget Hearing. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “… incorporate direction provided by Staff in the May 11, 2020 Memorandum for Agenda Item Number 10.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “…and move the pension item (Agenda Item Number 5 from May 13, 2020) to May 12, 2020.” DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 5 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 05/11/2020 MOTION AS AMENDED: Vice Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Tanaka to swap Item Number 4 (General Fund Capital Budget) from the May 13, 2020 Budget Hearing for Item Number 2 (Infrastructure and Environment) on the May 12, 2020 Budget Hearing, incorporate direction provided by Staff in the May 11, 2020 Memorandum for Agenda Item Number 10, and move the pension item (Item Number 5 from May 13, 2020) to May 12, 2020. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 11. Supporting Santa Clara County COVID-19 Testing-Tracing-Isolation Program. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to support Santa Clara County efforts regarding increased testing in North Santa Clara County. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 12. (Former Agenda Item Number 7A) Approval of Emergency Services Order Requiring the Wearing of Face Coverings. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to approve the issuance of the attached Emergency Order, by the Director of Emergency Services, requiring the wearing of face coverings, subject to certain exceptions, to slow the spread of COVID-19. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:14 P.M. in memory of Carleton Hoffner Jr., who utilized his special skills in business administration and Public Works while serving on the Palo Alto Utilities Advisory Board (1991- 1994). CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 4 Special Meeting May 12, 2020 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date via virtual teleconference at 1:04 P.M. Participating Remotely: Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka Absent: Action Items 1. FY 2020/21 Budget Hearing – Council will be discussing the upcoming Fiscal Year Operating and Capital budgets, Utility Rates, and Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule amendments on May 12 and May 13, 2020. This meeting will be continued to May 13, 2020 at 1:00 P.M. A. Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Process Overview and Non-departmental Section. PARKING LOT: Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Kou, third by Council Member Cormack, to place in the parking lot an overview of Cubberley finances and impacts of both short-term and long-term tenants. MOTION: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Vice Mayor DuBois to eliminate the contingency accounts. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “…but leave a $200,000 Contingency Fund for the City Manager.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “…and maintain the HSRAP Contingency Fund.” MOTION AS AMENDED: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Vice Mayor DuBois to eliminate the contingency accounts, but leave a $200,000 Contingency Fund for the City Manager, and maintain the HSRAP Contingency Fund. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-1 Kniss no DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 4 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/12/2020 PARKING LOT: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss, third by Council Member Tanaka to place in the parking lot the Section 115 Trust Contribution. MOTION: Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to recommend tentative approval of the remaining portions in the Fiscal Year 2021 Operating/Capital Budget for the Non-Departmental Section for City Council consideration on May 26, 2020. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 B. General Fund Capital Budget a. General Capital Improvement Plan b. Cubberley Capital Improvement Plan Council took a break from 3:25 P.M. and returned at 3:35 P.M. PARKING LOT: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss, third by Vice Mayor DuBois to place in the parking lot the Public Safety Building. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member XX to defer construction of Bixby Park, Rinconada, and Fire Station 4. MOTION WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER. MOTION: Vice Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to have Staff return with an analysis of impacts to the General Fund and other funds to accomplish a deferral of $20 million, and consider allocation of $5 million to other capital projects with Council Members suggesting projects to Staff. MOTION WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER. MOTION: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to delay Fire Station 4. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER: to add to the Motion, “…for 1 year.” MOTION AS AMENDED: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to delay Fire Station 4 for one year. SECONDER WITHDREW FROM THE MOTION. MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 4 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/12/2020 MOTION: Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to recommend tentative approval, including a $7.6 million transfer of the Fiscal Year 2021 General Fund Capital Improvement Plan Budget for City Council consideration on May 26, 2020. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to amend the Motion to state, “…$5 million transfer of the Fiscal Year 2021 General Fund Capital Improvement Plan Budget...” MOTION AS AMENDED: Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to recommend tentative approval including a $5 million transfer of the Fiscal Year 2021 General Fund Capital Improvement Plan Budget for City Council consideration on May 26, 2020. MOTION AS AMENDED FAILED: 3-4 DuBois, Filseth, Kou, Tanaka no Council took a break at 4:38 P.M. and returned at 4:53 P.M. MOTION: Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to reduce the transfer from the General Fund to the Capital Improvement Fund from $7.6 million to $6 million, but reserve the difference for the Budget Stabilization Reserve or pension contributions. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Vice Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Tanaka to both decrease the transfer from the General Fund transfer to $5 million to be used in the General Fund and a decrease in the Transient Occupancy Tax transfer to $5 million with the decrease there being applied to the Pension Fund. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 3-4 Cormack, Filseth, Fine, Kniss, no MOTION PASSED: 4-3 DuBois, Kou, Tanaka no C. Public Safety Services a. Fire b. Emergency Services c. Police Council took a break at 5:19 P.M. and returned at 5:48 P.M. PARKING LOT: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Kou, third by Mayor Fine to place in the parking lot Police Department and Fire Department attrition. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 4 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/12/2020 LONG-TERM PARKING LOT: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Mayor Fine, third by Council Member Filseth to direct Staff to place in the long-term parking lot research regarding changing the delivery of services from a dominant fire-oriented model to a dominant medical-oriented model. PARKING LOT: Vice Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Tanaka, third by Council Member Kou to place in the parking lot a revisit to the CIP to pay for Parking Lot items. MOTION: Vice Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Mayor Fine to recommend tentative approval of the Fiscal Year 2021 Operating Budgets for the Public Safety Services Departments (Fire, Emergency Services, Police). MOTION PASSED: 4-3 Kniss, Kou, Tanaka no Council took a break at 8:52 P.M. and returned at 9:03 P.M. D. Community and Library Services Operating Budget a. Community Services b. Approval of the Preliminary Operating Plan and new Municipal Fees for the Junior Museum and Zoo c. Library Services 2. Discussion and Direction to Staff Regarding the Establishment of a Pension Funding Policy and Approval of Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number C15159278 to Increase Compensation by $97,675 for Additional Actuarial Consultant Services for a New Total Not-To-Exceed Amount of $230,000. (This item has been continued to May 13, 2020) Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:54 P.M. CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 8 Special Meeting May 13, 2020 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met via virtual teleconference on this date at 1:03 P.M. Participating Remotely: Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka Absent: Action Items 1. FY 2020/21 Budget Hearing – Continued From May 12, 2020 Budget Hearing– Council will Continue its Discussion of the Upcoming Fiscal Year Operating and Capital budgets, Utility Rates, and Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule. A. May 12th Budget Hearing Continuation a. Community and Library Services Operating Budget b. Approval of the Preliminary Operating Plan and new Municipal Fees for the Junior Museum and Zoo PARKING LOT: Vice Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Tanaka, third by Mayor Fine to place in the parking lot to request Staff provide budget reconciliation tables that would show changes between the Fiscal Year 2020 and current proposed Fiscal Year 2021 Revenue & Expense Summaries, by department, for the General Fund only. PARKING LOT: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Council Member Tanaka, third by Council Member Kniss, to place in the parking lot the understanding of funds for the Public Safety Building. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to direct Staff to return with a plan to fund through additional cost recovery and/or through partial funding of: Teen Services ($400,000), Art Center ($400,000), College Terrace Library ($168,000), Baylands Interpretive Center ($20,000), and to ask Staff to look at reducing 3 Full Time Equivalent new hires from the Junior Museum and Zoo. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to remove from the Motion, “…and to ask Staff to look at reducing 3 Full Time Equivalent new hires from the Junior Museum and Zoo.” DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/13/2020 SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Mayor Fine to have two main libraries for the next fiscal year, Rinconada with children’s services, and Mitchell Park, and that savings be redirected to Public Safety Services. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 2-5 DuBois, Filseth, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka no PARKING LOT: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth, third by Mayor Fine to place in the parking lot to direct Staff to return with a plan to fund through additional cost recovery and/or partial funding: Teen Services ($400,000), Art Center ($400,000), College Terrace Library ($168,000), Baylands Interpretive Center ($20,000). MOTION AS AMENDED: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to direct Staff to return with a plan to fund through additional cost recovery and/or through partial funding of: Teen Services ($400,000), Art Center ($400,000), College Terrace Library ($168,000), and Baylands Interpretive Center ($20,000). MOTION AS AMENDED WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER. INCORPORATED INTO THE PARKING LOT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “…and Children’s Theater.” PARKING LOT AS AMENDED: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth, third by Mayor Fine to place in the parking lot to direct Staff to return with a plan to fund through additional cost recovery and/or partial funding: Teen Services ($400,000), Art Center ($400,000), College Terrace Library ($168,000), Baylands Interpretive Center ($20,000), and Children’s Theater. MOTION: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to: A. Recommend tentative approval of the Fiscal Year 2021 Operating Budgets for the Community Services and Library Services Departments for City Council consideration on May 26, 2020; and B. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Operating Plan and new Municipal Fees for the Junior Museum and Zoo. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/13/2020 LONG-TERM PARKING LOT: Vice Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Fine, third by Council Member Cormack to place in the long-term parking lot to direct Staff to return with a report or agenda item on how the Junior Museum and Zoo will not be subsidized by the General Fund in the future. B. Discussion of Fiscal Year 2021 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule Amendments. MOTION: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to tentatively approve the Fiscal Year 2021 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule Amendments. LONG-TERM PARKING LOT: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack, third by Vice Mayor DuBois to place in the long- term parking lot to direct Staff to return with a discussion of potential price increases for Annual Parking Permits to the California Avenue Area parking garages and parking lots. AMENDMENT: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion to direct Staff to increase the delta 2X between resident and non-resident fees. AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF SECOND. MOTION PASSED: 6-1 Tanaka no Council took a break at 3:44 P.M. and returned at 4:01 P.M. C. Planning and Transportation Services Operating and Capital Budgets (Including Respective Special Revenue Funds) a. Planning and Development Services b. Office of Transportation PARKING LOT: Vice Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth, third by Council Member Kou to place in the parking lot to revisit funding for the Transportation Management Association (TMA). MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Mayor Fine to add the Long-Range Planning and Housing Program and related staffing back into the Proposed Budget ($273,988). MOTION PASSED: 4-3 DuBois, Filseth, Kou no DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/13/2020 MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to recommend tentative approval of the Fiscal Year 2021 Operating/Capital Budgets for the Planning & Development Services Department and Office of Transportation Department Budgets for City Council consideration on May 26, 2020. PARKING LOT: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Mayor Fine, third by Council Member Kniss to place in the parking lot the Building Inspection and Fire Inspection budget adjustments. MOTION PASSED: 6-1 Kou no Council took a break at 5:50 P.M. and returned at 6:34 P.M. D. Infrastructure and Environment a. Utilities Department- Operating and Capital i. Electric Fund ii. Fiber Optics Fund iii. Gas Fund iv. Wastewater Collection Fund v. Water Fund b. Public Works Department- Operating and Capital i. Airport Fund i. Refuse Fund ii. Stormwater Management Fund iii. Vehicle Replacement Fund iv. Wastewater Treatment Fund MOTION: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to accept Staff recommendations of a 0 percent rate increase to the Electric, Fiber Optics, Gas, Wastewater and Water rates. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to amend the Motion to only include the Wastewater Collection Fund and the Water Fund rates. MOTION AS AMENDED: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to accept Staff recommendations of a 0 percent rate increase to the Wastewater Collection Fund and Water Fund rates. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 MOTION: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Vice Mayor DuBois to recommend tentative approval of a 3 percent rate increase for one year in the Gas Fund. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/13/2020 INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to change the Motion to, “…approval of a 2 percent rate increase for one year in the Gas Fund.” MOTION AS AMENDED: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Vice Mayor DuBois to recommend tentative approval of a 2 percent rate increase for one year in the Gas Fund. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 5-2 Kniss, Tanaka no MOTION: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Tanaka to recommend tentative approval of a 0 percent rate increase for one year in the Electric Fund. MOTION PASSED: 6-1 DuBois no MOTION: Vice Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to recommend tentative approval to restore the planned 2.5 percent rate increase for one year in the Fiber Optics Fund. MOTION PASSED: 4-3 Cormack, Fine, Tanaka no MOTION: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member xx to eliminate the communications function in the Utilities Department. MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to recommend tentative approval of the Fiscal Year 2021 Operating/Capital Budget for the Infrastructure and Environment (Utilities and Public Works) for City Council consideration on May 26, 2020. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Council took a break at 8:47 P.M. and returned at 8:57 P.M. E. Internal Service Departments and Council Appointed Officers Operating Budgets a. Administrative Services b. Human Resources c. Information Technology d. City Attorney’s Office e. City Auditor’s Office f. City Clerk’s Office g. City Manager’s Office h. City Council DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/13/2020 MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to recommend tentative approval of the Fiscal Year 2021 Operating Budget for the Internal Service Departments and Council Appointed Officers Operating Budgets for City Council consideration on May 26, 2020, plus to explore ways to continue to support funding for KZSU. PARKING LOT: Vice Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss, third by Council Member Kou to place in the parking lot the full minutes. PARKING LOT: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Council Member Kou, third by Vice Mayor DuBois to place in the parking lot the full cost of the packet printing materials. AMENDMENT: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to reduce the Staff in the City Manager’s Office by two Staff members of the City Manager’s choosing. AMENDMENT FAILED: 2-5 Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Kniss no MOTION PASSED: 6-1 Tanaka no F. Discussion and Direction to Staff Regarding the Establishment of a Pension Funding Policy and Approval of Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number C15159278 to Increase Compensation by $97,675 for Additional Actuarial Consultant Services for a new Total Not-To-Exceed Amount of $230,000. (This item has been continued to a date uncertain.) G. May 11, 12, and 13th Budget Hearing Wrap-up Discussion. MOTION: Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to: A. Remove the Section 115 Trust; B. Cubberley Finances from the short-term parking lot; and C. Add $1 million in the General Capital Improvement Project Fund cuts back into the budget. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “Dedicate $1.6 million reduction in Capital Improvement Project Fund to the Section 115 Trust Fund.” (New Part D) DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 7 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/13/2020 MOTION AS AMENDED: Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to: A. Remove the Section 115 Trust from the short-term parking lot; B. Remove the Cubberley Finances from the short-term parking lot; C. Add $1 million in the General Capital Improvement Project Fund cuts back into the budget; and D. Dedicate the $1.6 million reduction in Capital Improvement Project Fund to the Section 115 Trust Fund. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED FOR MOTION PART A: 6-1 Kou no MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED FOR MOTION PART B: 6-1 Tanaka no INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to update the Motion, Part C to read, “cut an additional $1 million from the General Capital Improvement Fund and reduce the General Fund Transfer to the Capital Improvement Project Fund by a corresponding amount”. MOTION AS AMENDED: Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to: C. Cut an additional $1 million from the General Capital Improvement Fund and reduce the General Fund Transfer to the Capital Improvement Project Fund by a corresponding amount; and D. Dedicate the dedicate $1.6 million reduction in Capital Improvement Project Fund to the Section 115 Trust Fund. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED FOR MOTION PART C: 6-1 Tanaka no MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED FOR MOTION PART D: 6-1 Kou no MOTION: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to remove the College Terrace Library from the parking lot. MOTION FAILED: 3-4 Cormack, Filseth, Fine, Kniss no MOTION: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to allocate $1 million back into the budget to address the following areas: 60 percent Police Department and 40 percent Community Services Department. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 8 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 5/13/2020 MOTION PASSED: 7-0 PARKING LOT: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss, third by Council Member Tanaka to place in the parking lot the Youth Community Service Youth Connectedness Initiative of $50,000. LONG-TERM PARKING LOT: Vice Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Kou, third by Council Member Filseth to add to the long-term parking lot to direct Staff to analyze a re-balance of the Capital Fund to contribute to the Roth renovation, with the use of impact fees and up to $1 million from the General Fund, a preference for impact fees, and to refer the results to the Finance Committee. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:51 P.M. CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES   Page 1 of 4  Special Meeting June 1, 2020 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date via virtual teleconference at 5:03 P.M. Present: Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka Absent: Closed Session A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his Designees Pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (Ed Shikada, Rumi Portillo, Molly Stump, Monique LeConge Ziesenhenne, Nick Raisch, Kiely Nose, Gina Roccanova) Employee Organizations: Utilities Management and Professional Association of Palo Alto (UMPAPA); Service Employees International Union, (SEIU) Local 521; Service Employees International Union, (SEIU) Local 521, Hourly Unit; Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA); Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association (FCA) and Employee Organization: International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Local 1319; Palo Alto Police Manager’s Association (PAPMA) Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a). MOTION: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Mayor Fine to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Council went into Closed Session at 5:04 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 6:52 P.M. Mayor Fine announced no reportable action. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Mayor Fine announced Agenda Item Number 8 will be heard at a later date. Ed Shikada, City Manager, announced Council Member Questions, Comments, and Announcements will be heard after City Manager Comments. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES    Page 2 of 4  City Council Meeting  Draft Action Minutes:  06/01/2020  Minutes Approval 1. Approval of Action Minutes for the May 4 and May 18, 2020 City Council Meetings. MOTION: Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to approve the Action Minutes for the May 4 and May 18, 2020 City Council Meetings. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Consent Calendar Council Member Tanaka registered a no vote on Agenda Item Numbers 3, 5, 6, 6A. MOTION: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to approve Agenda Item Numbers 2-6B. 2. Approval of Contract Number C20178122 With Stoloski & Gonzalez, Inc. in the Amount of $2,082,178 for the Loma Verde Avenue Trunk Line Improvements Project (SD-19000), and the Storm Drainage System Replacement and Rehabilitation Project (SD-06101). 3. Approval of Utilities Enterprise Fund Contract Number C20176920 With Davey Surgery Tree Company for the 2020 Utility Line Clearance Project in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $14,486,057 for a Five-year Term. 4. Approval and Authorization for the City Manager or Designee to Execute Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) With the San Francisco Foundation and PolicyLink to Accept Placement of a Fellow Under the Partnership for the Bay's Challenge Grant Program; Authorization for the Mayor to Submit a Technical Assistance Request Letter. 5. Approval and Authorization for the City Manager or Designee to Execute a Professional Services Agreement With Magellan Advisors, LLC in a Not- to-Exceed Amount of $214,236 for Phase 1 of the Fiber Network Expansion Plan. 6. Ordinance 5497 Entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Set a 120-day Statute of Limitations for Challenges to the City’s Water Service Rates, Wastewater Collection and Disposal Rates, Refuse Rates, Storm Water DRAFT ACTION MINUTES    Page 3 of 4  City Council Meeting  Draft Action Minutes:  06/01/2020  Management Fees, and Fiber Licensing Service Rates (FIRST READING: May 18, 2020 PASSED: 6-1 Tanaka no).” 6A. Authorize the Early Retirement Incentive Program for Police Officers and Fire Fighters. 6B. Council Appointed Officers Committee Recommendation to Reject Proposals Received in Response to the Internal Auditor Services Request for Proposals (RFP). MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 3, 5, 6, 6A: 6-1 Tanaka no MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 2 and 4: 7-0 Council took a break at 8:16 P.M. and returned at 8:31 P.M. 7. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project [19PLN-00130]: Adoption and Approval of; 1) a Resolution 9889 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Adopting Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Project,” 2) a Record of Land Use Action Approving an Architectural Review Application [File 19PLN-00130] for Demolition of a Two-way Bridge on Newell Road Between Woodland Avenue in East Palo Alto and Edgewood Drive in Palo Alto and Construction of a new Bridge Along the Same Alignment That Meets Caltrans Standards for Multi- modal Access, and 3) Approval of Amendment Number 3 to Contract C12142825 With NV5, Inc. to Extend the Term for Design Services for Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project (PE- 12011). Public Hearing opened at 9:14 P.M. Public Hearing closed at 10:10 P.M. MOTION: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to: A. Adopt a Resolution certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project, making the required findings, and adopting a statement of overriding considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, all in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); DRAFT ACTION MINUTES    Page 4 of 4  City Council Meeting  Draft Action Minutes:  06/01/2020  B. Approve the Record of Land Use Action approving the proposed Architectural Review application based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval; C. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. C12142825 with NV5, Inc. to update the Schedule of Performance and extend the contract time to December 2021 to complete the design phase of the Project; and D. Approve Option B Striping AMENDMENT: Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to change the Motion Part D to state, “Approve Option A Striping.” AMENDMENT PASSED: 5-2 Kou, Tanaka no MOTION AS AMENDED: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to: A. Adopt a Resolution certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project, making the required findings, and adopting a statement of overriding considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, all in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); B. Approve the Record of Land Use Action approving the proposed Architectural Review application based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval; C. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. C12142825 with NV5, Inc. to update the Schedule of Performance and extend the contract time to December 2021 to complete the design phase of the Project; and D. Approve Option A Striping MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 8. Discussion and Direction to Staff on Housing Affordability Requirements for Projects Proposed Under the Planned Housing Zone (PHZ). THIS ITEM HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA AND WILL BE HEARD AT A LATER DATE. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:19 P.M. City of Palo Alto (ID # 10992) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/15/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of Design Contract for Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station and West Bayshore Title: Approval of Contract Number C20176877 With Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers in the Amount of $789,918 for Design Services for the Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station and West Bayshore Road Pump Station and Trunk Line Improvement Projects, Capital Improvement Program Projects (SD-21000, SD-20000, and SD-23000) From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers (Attachment A) in a not-to-exceed amount of $789,918. This engineering design services contract is for the following projects: (1) Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station (SD-21000), (2) West Bayshore Road Pump Station (SD-20000), and (3) West Bayshore Road Trunk Line Improvements (SD-23000). The contract includes $718,108 for basic services and $71,810 for additional services. Background In 2017, Palo Alto property owners approved a ballot measure to continue the storm drainage fee to implement 13 new storm drain capital improvement projects to upgrade and improve the storm drain system in Palo Alto. The Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station, West Bayshore Road Pump Station, and West Bayshore Road Trunk Line Improvements projects are three of the highest-priority storm drain projects identified in the City’s 2015 Storm Drain Master Plan. Currently, the existing pipes along East Bayshore (from Corporation Way) and West Bayshore Road cannot convey the 10-year storm runoff or discharge runoff into Adobe Creek during a large storm event. Much of the land in the watershed from the project sites is lower than the creek water level during storm events. Without the pump station, this area is unable to drain until the creek levels recede, which is typically several hours after the rainfall stops. Additionally, the hydraulic CITY OF PALO ALTO City of Palo Alto Page 2 analysis performed for the City’s 2015 Storm Drain Master Plan Update demonstrates the existing 15-inch storm drain pipeline does not have the capacity to convey the projected storm runoff generated by a 10-year storm event. The storm drain master plan recommended upgrading the pipe on West Bayshore Road from 15-inch pipeline to 36-inch pipeline and constructing a new a 15 cubic feet per second (CFS) capacity pump station. Upgrading the pipe on East Bayshore Road from 21-inch to 30-inch and installing a 25 CFS capacity pump station were also recommended. Runoff from these two pump stations will discharge into Adobe Creek through existing outfalls. The Capital Improvement Project numbers, project names, and descriptions of work for each project are provided below. Project Number Project Name Description SD-20000 West Bayshore Road Pump Station New small pump with 15 CFS capacity and associated improvements SD-21000 Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station New small pump with 25 CFS capacity and associated improvements and 700 LF of pipe upgrades SD-23000 West Bayshore Road Trunk Line Improvements 1,400 LF of pipe upgrades Discussion This contract will design and support the upgrade of the three storm drain projects along East and West Bayshore Roads. The scope of work to be performed involves a full suite of professional engineering services, including preliminary design, design development, preparation of construction bid documents (plans, specifications, and estimate of probable construction cost), bid assistance, and assistance with construction administration. Elements of the project design include selection of pumps and motors, design of new electrical controls within a small structure, and design of a new standby power generator and above-ground fuel tank. The pump stations are located primarily on East Bayshore Road and West Bayshore Road. The exact location of the pump stations will be evaluated, and a recommendation provided to staff from the selected consultant. An RFP for the project was sent to prospective consultants and posted on the City website on October 29, 2019. The following table summarizes the results of the RFP solicitation: City of Palo Alto Page 3 Summary of Solicitation Process Proposal Description/Number Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station and West Bayshore Road Pump Station and Trunk Line Improvement Project RFP # 176877 Proposed Length of Project 48 Months Number of Proposals Mailed 29 Total Working Days to Respond to Proposal 21 calendar days Number of Proposals Received 2 Company Name Location (City, State) Selected for Oral Interview BKF Engineers Redwood City, California Yes Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers Santa Clara City, California Yes Range of Proposal Amounts Submitted The cost proposals ranged from $718,108 to $718,241 An evaluation committee consisting of representatives from the Public Works Engineering Services and Public Services Divisions reviewed the proposals. The committee carefully reviewed each firm’s qualifications and submittal in response to the criteria identified in the RFP. The committee reviewed each firm’s qualifications relative to its experience in storm water pump station design, the quality of its proposed project approach, performance on past projects, the qualifications of the specific staff to be assigned to the project, and understanding of the project goals. Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers was selected as the recommended design and construction administration service consultant because of the depth and quality of their experience with the design of storm water pump stations, the exceptional qualifications of their proposed project design team, and knowledge of the City’s storm drain system. The recommended consultant also has extensive experience with the hydrology and hydraulics of Matadero and Adobe Creeks through contracts with the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Staff negotiated with the consultant to reduce the contract amount. The current contract amount of $718,108 represents a 21% reduction in fee from their original proposal. In addition, compared to the BKF Engineers proposal, the Schaaf & Wheeler proposal includes additional hours to provide a higher of level of oversight and project review. This contract is on the City’s professional services template, which permits the City to terminate without cause/for convenience by providing written notice to the contractor. In the event the I I I I I I City of Palo Alto Page 4 City finds itself facing a challenging budget situation, and it is determined that City resources need to be refocused elsewhere, the City can terminate for convenience. Other options include termination due to non-appropriation of funds or amending the contract to reduce the cost, for example, by reducing the scope of work. The contract may also be temporarily suspended by written notice of the City Manager. Timeline The design of the Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station, West Bayshore Road Pump Station, and West Bayshore Road Trunk Line Improvements projects is scheduled to be completed by April 2021. The contract also includes construction administration services for the three projects. The construction for the three projects (not included in this contract) is phased in three separate fiscal years (FY 2021 through FY 2023) based on the budget provided for these projects. Resource Impact Funding for the Fiscal Year 2020 portion of this contract is available in the Fiscal Year 2020 Stormwater Management Fund Capital Improvement Program West Bayshore Road Pump Station (SD-20000), Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station (SD-21000), and West Bayshore Road Trunk Line Improvements (SD-23000) projects. Future years funding is contingent upon Council approval through the annual budget process. The project numbers, project names, and funding breakdown for this contract are provided below. Project Number Project Name FY2020 Modified Budget FY2021 Proposed Budget Contract Funding Amounts SD-20000 West Bayshore Road Pump Station $231,000 $190,039 $370,539 SD-21000 Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station $231,000 $1,879,186 $370,539 SD-23000 West Bayshore Road Trunk Line Improvements $0 $49,840 $48,840 Totals $462,000 $2,119,065 $789,918 The contract includes a total not-to-exceed amount of $789,918, including $718,108 for basic services and $71,810 for additional services. Stakeholder Engagement In 2017, Palo Alto property owners approved a ballot measure to continue the storm drainage fee to implement 13 new storm drain projects to upgrade and improve the storm drain system in Palo Alto. The City established an oversight committee consisting of seven members to oversee the implementation of these 13 new storm drain projects. City of Palo Alto Page 5 There are primarily two functions of the oversight committee. The first is to monitor the funds expended from the Storm Water Management Fees for storm drain projects in the current fiscal year. The second function is to review proposed Storm Water Management Capital Improvements and Operating Programs to be funded from Storm Water Management fees for the coming fiscal year. The oversight committee reviews the approved 13 new storm drain projects before implementation and monitors after implementation to verify the projects have met the commitments made by the City in the ballot measure. The oversight committee meets with City staff several times each year to monitor the implementation of the approved 13 new storm drain projects. The Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station, West Bayshore Road Pump Station, and West Bayshore Road Trunk Line Improvement Projects are three of the highest-priority storm drain projects identified in the City’s 2015 Storm Drain Master Plan. The budget for these projects has been reviewed by the oversight committee members. The oversight committee will be engaged during both design and construction phase of the project for oversight monitoring. Environmental Review The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality ACT (CEQA) under Section 15301(d), 15302(c) and Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. Attachments: • Attachment A: Contract C20176877 Schaaf and Wheeler • Attachment B1: Map East Bayshore Road • Attachment B2: Map West Bayshore Road Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C20176877 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND SCHAAF & WHEELER, CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS This Agreement for Professional Services (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of the 15th day of June, 2020, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and SCHAAF & WHEELER CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS, a California corporation, located at 1171 Homestead Road, Suite 255, Santa Clara, CA 95050 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A.CITY intends to implement the Corporation System Upgrades and Pump Station and WestBayshore Road Pump Station and Trunk Line Improvement Project and desires to engage aconsultant to conduct geotechnical investigation of the Project site(s) (including without limitation site exploration, surveying and soil testing), and provide engineering services, including preliminary design, design development, preparation of construction bid documents (e.g. plans, specifications, and estimate of probable construction cost), bid assistance, and assistance withconstruction administration in connection with the Project (the “Services”), as further detailedherein. B.CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C.CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described at Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. Optional Additional Services Provision (This provision only applies if checked and only applies to agreements that also allocate a dollar amount for Additional Services under Section 4.) “Additional Services” means any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit “A”. Provided that the check box for the Additional Services Provision is selected in this Section 1, and a dollar amount is allocated for Additional Services in Section 4 (Not to Exceed Attachment A ~-------- Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 2 Compensation), Additional Services may be authorized by the CITY under this Agreement, as needed, with a Task Order assigned and approved by CITY’s Project Manager, as identified in Section 13 (Project Management). Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit “A-1”, entitled “PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER”. Each Task Order shall contain a specific scope of services, schedule of performance and compensation amount, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. To accept a Task Order, CONSULTANT shall sign the Task Order and return it to the CITY’s Project Manager within the time specified by the Project Manager, and upon approval by CITY, defined as counter-signature by the CITY Project Manager, the fully executed Task Order shall become part of this Agreement. The cumulative total compensation to CONSULTANT for all Task Orders issued under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of compensation set forth for Additional Services in Section 4 of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for Additional Services performed under an authorized Task Order, and CITY may elect to, but is not required to, authorize Additional Services be provided up to the maximum compensation amount set forth for such services in Section 4. Performance of and payment for any Additional Services are subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through May 30, 2024 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A” (also referred to herein as the “Basic Services”), and any reimbursable expenses specified in Exhibit C, entitled “COMPENSATION”, shall not exceed Seven Hundred Eighteen Thousand One Hundred and Eight Dollars ($718,108.00) as detailed in Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including any specified reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event Additional Services are authorized in accordance with Section 1 (Scope of Services), the compensation for Additional Services shall not exceed Seventy-One Thousand Eight Hundred and Ten Dollars ($71,810.00), and the total compensation under this Agreement for Basic Services, Additional Services and any specified reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Seven Hundred Eighty-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Eighteen Dollars ($789,918.00) as detailed in Exhibit C. The rate schedule, as applicable, is set out at Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES.” Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum compensation as set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. Additional Services, if any, may be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Section 1 (Scope of Services), provided that: (i) the Additional Services check box at Section 1 is Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 3 selected, and (ii) a dollar amount for Additional Services is allocated in this Section 4. If either or both of these requirements are not met, or if the dollar amount for Additional Services under this Section 4 would be exceeded, then Additional Services may only be authorized by a written amendment to this Agreement as provided for in Section 27.4 herein. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C-1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at pweinvoices@cityofpaloalto.org . The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT is solely responsible for costs, including, but not limited to, increases in the cost of Services, arising from or caused by CONSULTANT’s errors and omissions, including, but not limited to, the costs of corrections by CONSULTANT of such errors and omissions, any change order markup costs, or costs arising from delay caused by the errors and omissions or unreasonable delay in correcting the errors and omissions. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds the CITY’s Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 4 stated construction budget by ten percent (10%) or more, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CONSULTANT acknowledges and agrees that CONSULTANT and any agent or employee of CONSULTANT will act as and shall be deemed at all times to be an independent contractor and shall be wholly responsible for the manner in which CONSULTANT performs the Services requested by CITY under this Agreement. CONSULTANT and any agent or employee of CONSULTANT will not have employee status with CITY, nor be entitled to participate in any plans, arrangements, or distributions by CITY pertaining to or in connection with any retirement, health or other benefits that CITY may offer its employees. CONSULTANT will be responsible for all obligations and payments, whether imposed by federal, state or local law, including, but not limited to, FICA, income tax withholdings, workers’ compensation, unemployment compensation, insurance, and other similar responsibilities related to CONSULTANT’s performance of the Services, or any agent or employee of CONSULTANT providing same. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as creating an employment or agency relationship between CITY and CONSULTANT or any agent or employee of CONSULTANT. Any terms in this Agreement referring to direction from CITY shall be construed as providing for direction as to policy and the result of CONSULTANT’s provision of the Services only, and not as to the means by which such a result is obtained. CONSULTANT agrees to maintain and make available to CITY, upon request and during regular business hours, accurate books and accounting records demonstrating CONSULTANT’s compliance with this Section. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Option A: No Subcontractor: CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee. Option B: Subcontracts Authorized: Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: TJC and Associates, Inc. Bess Testlab, Inc. Kier + Wright ENGEO CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any • Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 5 compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Glen M. Anderson as its Project Manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of CONSULTANT’s Project Manager, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s Project Manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. CITY’s Project Manager is Rajeev Hada, Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone (650)329-2469. The CITY’s Project Manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. CITY may designate an alternate Project Manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work products, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. [Option A applies to the following design professionals pursuant to Civil Code Section 2782.8: architects; landscape architects; registered professional engineers and licensed professional land surveyors.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, including without limitation California Civil Code 2728.8, , as may be amended from time to time, CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all third party demands, claims, or Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 6 liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) to the extent that such Claims arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. In no event shall the cost to defend and/or indemnify charged to the Consultant hereunder exceed the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault, in accordance with California Civil Code section 2782.8. However, notwithstanding the previous sentence, in the event one or more defendants in any such Claim is unable to pay its share of defense costs due to bankruptcy or dissolution of the business, the Consultant shall meet and confer with other such party or parties regarding unpaid defense costs, in accordance with California Civil Code section 2782.8. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 7 notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Chief Procurement Officer during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.3, 19.4, 19.5, 20, 25, 27 and 28. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 8 To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the Project Manager: Schaaf & Wheeler, Consulting Civil Engineers 1171 Homestead Road, Suite 255 Santa Clara, CA 95050 SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, subcontractors or other persons or parties having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person due to that person’s race, skin color, gender, gender identity, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, pregnancy, genetic information or condition, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONSULTANT shall comply with the following Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 9 zero waste requirements: (a) All printed materials provided by CONSULTANT to CITY generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. (b) Goods purchased by CONSULTANT on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in accordance with CITY’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Division’s office. (c) Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, at no additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONSULTANT shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. COMPLIANCE WITH PALO ALTO MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE. CONSULTANT shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as it may be amended from time to time. In particular, for any employee otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who performs at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the City, CONSULTANT shall pay such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.030 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In addition, CONSULTANT shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.060. SECTION 25. NON-APPROPRIATION 25.1. 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 funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 26. PREVAILING WAGES AND DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS 26.1 CONSULTANT 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 (“DIR”). Copies of these rates may be obtained at the Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 10 Purchasing Division’s office of the City of Palo Alto. CONSULTANT 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. CONSULTANT shall comply with the provisions of all sections, including, but not limited to, Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, and 1813, of the Labor Code pertaining to prevailing wages. 26.2 CONSULTANT shall comply with the requirements of Exhibit “E” for any contract for public works construction, alteration, demolition, repair or maintenance. SECTION 27. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 27.1 This Agreement will be governed by California law, without regard to its conflict of law provisions. 27.2 In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 27.3 The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 27.4 This Agreement, including all exhibits, constitutes the entire and integrated agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement, and supersedes all prior agreements, negotiations, representations, statements and undertakings, either oral or written. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the authorized representatives of the parties and approved as required under Palo Alto Municipal Code. 27.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and subcontractors/subconsultants of the parties. 27.6 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement will remain in full force and effect. 27.7. All exhibits addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules (collectively, “exhibits”) referred to in this Agreement are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 27.8 In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the exhibits hereto (per Section 28) or CONSULTANT’s proposal (if any), the Agreement shall control. In the event of a conflict between the exhibits hereto and CONSULTANT’s proposal (if any), the exhibits shall control. Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 11 27.9 If, pursuant to this Agreement with CONSULTANT, CITY shares with CONSULTANT any personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 27.10 CONSULTANT understands and agrees that, in connection with this Agreement, the CONSULTANT may have access to proprietary and/or confidential information which may be owned or controlled by the CITY, the disclosure of which to third parties may be damaging to the CITY, its employees, customers or residents. CONSULTANT also understands and agrees that the disclosure of such information may violate state and/or federal law and may subject the CONSULTANT to civil liability. Consequently, CONSULTANT agrees that all information disclosed by the CITY to the CONSULTANT shall only be used for the purpose of performing CONSULTANT’s obligations to CITY under this Agreement, except to the otherwise required by law or court order. CONSULTANT shall exercise the same standard of care to protect such information as CONSULTANT uses to protect its own proprietary and/or confidential information and in no case less than a reasonable standard of care. 27.11 The provisions of all checked boxes in this Agreement shall apply to this Agreement; the provisions of any unchecked boxes shall not apply to this Agreement. 27.12 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. 27.13 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which, when executed by the authorized representatives of the parties, shall together constitute a single binding agreement. SECTION 28. EXHIBITS. Each of the following exhibits, if the check box for such exhibit is selected below, is hereby attached and incorporated into this Agreement by reference as though fully set forth herein: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF SERVICES EXHIBIT “A-1”: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS EXHIBIT “E”: DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS THIS AGREEMENT IS NOT COMPLETE UNLESS ALL SELECTED EXHIBITS ARE ATTACHED. Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 12 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 13 CONTRACT No. C20176877 SIGNATURE PAGE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager or designee APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ City Attorney or designee SCHAAF & WHEELER, CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS Officer 1 By: Name: Title: Officer 2 (Required for Corp. or LLC) By: Name: Title: Charles D. Anderson President Vice President / Treasurer Leif Coponen !JDocuSigned by: L::2A= Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 14 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES CONSULTANT shall provide planning, design, contract documents, bid support, and construction administration services to complete improvements needed to install Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station and West Bayshore Road Pump Station and Trunk Line Improvement adequately sized to discharge storm runoff from the design 10-year storm event. Work for all the tasks listed below includes project management for all the tasks as part of the scope of work for this project. Project management includes coordination of sub consultants, project coordination with CITY and coordination with agencies not tasked elsewhere. Tasks include obtaining reports and plans relevant to the City’s storm drain collection system. As part of project management for all tasks CONSULTANT shall: • Obtain information regarding underground utilities in project vicinity. • Arrange access for geotechnical borings, site surveys and other investigations. • Coordinate sub consultants and their work. • Regularly meet with CITY’s Project Manager for as needed to coordinate work items. (Bi-weekly teleconference meetings are assumed until frequency adjusted by mutual agreement.) • Prepare and submit all meeting minutes to CITY for review. • Prepare and submit monthly progress reports with all invoices. • Coordinate proposed improvements with CITY staff and other City departments. • Coordinate and meet with CITY’s Utilities staff. • Prepare submittals as defined in the schedules contained herein. • Conduct general project management and coordination. Task A: Preliminary Design Task A encompasses site mapping; preliminary engineering necessary to begin geotechnical, electrical, and structural assessments; basis of design and design development through the bid documents. CONSULTANT will use the PCSWMM (Personal Computer Storm Water Management Model) model it previously prepared under a separate contract to iteratively establish and verify design parameters. CONSULTANT shall coordinate with CITY engineering and operations staffs to understand and prioritize Operation and Maintenance (O&M) needs and desires. Preliminary Design Deliverables: • 30% Drawings: Eight (8) Full Size Drawing Sets; • 60% Drawings and Specifications: Eight (8) Sets of Technical Specification Reports and Eight (8) Full Size Drawing Sets • 90% Drawings and Specifications: Eight (8) Sets of Technical Specification Reports and Eight (8) Full Size Drawing Sets • Geotechnical Report: Five (5) Copies • Easement Documents: Plat and Legal Descriptions for coordination with owners • Updated PCSWMM model to verify flooding is alleviated • Topographic Survey 1. Geotechnical Investigations & Report CONSULTANT shall perform one geotechnical boring at each of the pump station locations and one geotechnical boring for every 500 linear feet of pipe, or portion thereof. The pump station borings will be to a depth of approximately 40 feet and the pipeline borings shall be to a depth of approximately 25 feet. CONSULTANT shall observe the borings and evaluate the quality and type of soil being encountered. Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 15 Additionally, CONSULTANT shall perform necessary laboratory testing to determine the engineering characteristics of the soils. The findings of the geotechnical explorations shall be summarized in one Geotechnical report that shall be used during the design of improvements. 1.1 File Review Prior to investigation, SUBCONSULTANT shall review select information available at the City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara Valley Water District along with information available in their files pertinent to the site conditions in the vicinity of the project. 1.2 Field Exploration Subsurface explorations will be conducted to characterize soils for design and technical specification as previously described. 1.3 Geotechnical Reconnaissance This subtask includes a reconnaissance of the sites; and the nearby site vicinities to evaluate the potential presence of geologic hazards, including fault rupture, slope instability, springs, expansive soil, and other features indicative of potential geologic hazards. 1.4 Exploratory Borings Conventional truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drilling equipment will be used. The conventional borings will extend to depths of approximately 25 to 40 feet. Soil samples will be collected from the borings for visual classification, laboratory testing, and for correlation amongst available data. 1.5 Traffic Control CONSULTANT shall provide signage and a flagman to caution on-coming cars as necessary to complete the geotechnical investigations. A traffic control plan will be prepared and submitted for review to CITY to approve. 1.6 Utility Clearance Boring locations will be marked at least five (5) working days prior to beginning explorations as required by CITY policies, and SUBCONSULTANT shall also notify the regional utility notification center – Underground Service Alert (USA) at least five (5) days in advance, so that public and private utilities can be identified and marked at the ground surface. Where practical locations will be marked in white paint, or otherwise designated as exploration locations; as requested by USA. Utility operators/owners are required to mark their utilities at the ground surface prior to the start of work. 1.7 Permits, Site Access and Disposal of Drill Spoils The explorations will be permitted and backfilled with cement grout in accordance with Santa Clara Valley Water District guidelines. Encroachment permits will be obtained from CITY for the proposed subsurface explorations. (It is assumed that there is no fee for the City permits.) Spoils generated during drilling will be placed in 55-gallon drums, moved to a secure location near each site, and analytically tested for off-site disposal. Drums will be transported to an appropriate disposal facility. 1.8 Environmental Conditions Proper health and safety precautions will be taken during site exploration to handle any environmental contamination or other specific existing conditions. This scope of services specifically excludes the assessment of environmental characteristics at the site, particularly those involving hazardous substances. If impacted materials are encountered during geotechnical exploration, work will be discontinued and a notification of condition encountered will be made. Added costs incurred because of suspected hazardous substances will be charged on a time-and-expense basis over and above the established fees for the site investigation, but only upon CITY authorization. 1.9 Laboratory Testing To evaluate the index and engineering properties of site soils, the following laboratory tests will be completed by the Consultant: Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 16 ▪ Moisture/Density, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D7263 Test Procedure ▪ Grain Size Distribution including #200 wash, ASTM D422 and D1140 ▪ Atterberg Limits, ASTM D4318 ▪ Unconfined Compressive Strength, ASTM D2166 ▪ Corrosivity suite (Resistivity, pH, and Sulfate and Chloride Concentrations) 1.10 Engineering Analysis and Report Preparation CONSULTANT shall complete analyses to develop site grading recommendations and geotechnical design parameters for trenching, backfilling, foundations, retaining structures and pavement areas. The data obtained from the field investigation and the laboratory testing program will be utilized in the engineering analyses. Following the completion of the engineering analysis, a report will be prepared with geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations. The report will include the following items: ▪ Site plan showing exploration locations ▪ Logs of exploratory borings, including depth to ground water ▪ Laboratory test results ▪ A detailed discussion of geotechnical findings and recommendations, including: • Site conditions • Subsurface conditions • Geologic hazards and seismicity including liquefaction potential • Site preparation and earthwork recommendations • Pipe bedding and backfill recommendations • Discussion of shallow ground water • Potential and mitigation of flow in pipe bedding materials • Discussion of reuse of native materials as trench backfill • Foundation type and design recommendations • Lateral earth pressures for retaining wall design • Temporary shoring design recommendations for likely anticipated support of excavation scenarios • Temporary dewatering recommendations, if needed • Recommendations for wet-well design • Flexible asphalt and rigid concrete pavement recommendations 1.11 Geotechnical Plan Review CONSULTANT’s geotechnical engineer shall review 90 percent submittal plans and specifications for conformance to their geotechnical recommendations. Recommendations for dewatering during construction will be given for inclusion in project specifications. A brief letter confirming that final completed plans meet the intent of the geotechnical recommendations will be provided. 2. Pump Station Basis of Design (Pump Stations Only) Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 17 CONSULTANT shall prepare pump station basis of design reports outlining the governing requirements, evaluating two potential locations per site, discussing design decisions and their impacts on permitting, and ultimately making recommendations for the final configuration and location of the pump station improvements. Once accepted by the CITY, the basis of design reports will be the basis for the improvements as design progresses. Location of the pump station and the wet well will be finalized during the basis of design. 3. PCSWMM Coordination CONSULTANT shall update the CITY’s PCSWMM model with the proposed pipeline and pump station improvements to verify that the improvements are alleviating the localized flooding. 4. Survey CONSULTANT shall perform topographic surveys of the project areas for use during the design process. Hard copy of the topographic survey along with digital copy of the topographic survey in AutoCAD will be submitted to the CITY. 5. Utility Mapping CONSULTANT shall also reach out to utility companies within the project vicinities to obtain utility maps. Obtained maps will be included in the AutoCAD files of the topographic survey. 6. Potholing CONSULTANT shall perform up to 8 potholes to get detailed, specific location information for high-risk utilities and/or utilities that may impact the project. Traffic control plan, signage and flagman will be provided to direct traffic during potholing. 7. 30% Drawings CONSULTANT shall prepare 30% drawings for the proposed improvements. These drawings will present the proposed improvements at the conceptual level and will allow for discussion with and buyoff from stakeholders before moving into detailed design. Task B: Final Design 1. 60% Design: The 60% design will flesh-out concepts developed in the 30% design. Large equipment and structure shapes will be determined. Details may be generic in nature, needing further refinement. Specifications for large equipment as well as standard specifications will be prepared. 2. 90% Design: The 90% design will address comments from the CITY’s review of the 60% design while expanding, clarifying and expanding the level of completion of the documents. The drawings will be nearly final, with only small changes expected beyond this point. The specifications will be similarly complete. 3. Final Design: The Final design will address comments from the CITY’s review of the 90% design while moving the documents to the completion level. The only changes expected beyond this point are editorial in nature. 4. Easement Documents: Once the pump station locations have been determined, Kier & Wright will prepare Plat and Legal Descriptions for the proposed easements. Task B Final Design Deliverables*: • Eight (8) Sets of Technical Specification and (Eight) 8 Full Size Drawing Sets, One (1) Half Size Drawing Set • Engineer’s Cost Estimate • Categorical Exemption Letter: One (1) Copy • Geotechnical Report: Five (5) Copies • Updated City Storm System Network Programming in PC SWMM software Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 18 • Geotechnical Letter Confirming that the Final Completed Plans meet the Recommendations of the Geotechnical Report: One (1) Copy • Base Mapping: Four (4) Full Size Drawing Plans *Deliverables Include Digital Files for all Submittals Task C: Cost Estimates CONSULTANT shall prepare detailed cost estimates for each submittal level. The estimates will be consistent with the level of the submittal and will include appropriate contingencies. Estimates will be based on recent bid results obtained by CONSULTANT, quoted estimates from equipment suppliers, and industry accepted cost estimating literature. Task D: Meetings CONSULTANT shall attend six (6) in-person meetings and six (6) phone-conference meetings, aside from the bi weekly teleconference meetings described in Task A. CONSULTANT shall prepare minutes of the meetings and provide to the CITY in PDF format. Task E: Work Product Submittals This task includes the work and materials necessary to prepare and submit each of the work product deliverables. Schedules of work product submittals are listed below for the different project elements. Plan sets and other documents will be furnished in conformance with the Schedule of Submittals. PS&E (Plans, Specifications and Estimates) Submittal Schedule Submittal Type / Plan Sheet Prelim. 60% 90% Final Basis of Design Report ● Geotechnical Investigation Report (Includes Final Letter From Geotechnical Engineer) ● ● Plat & Legal Descriptions ● Cost Estimate ● ● ● ● Updated Storm System Network in PCSWMM ● ● Cover Sheet, Project Location Map and Index ● ● ● Notes, Abbreviations, and Legend ● ● ● General Site Plan (topographic boundary survey) ● ● ● ● Site Utility Plan ● ● ● ● Demolition Plans ● ● ● Site Grading and Drainage Plan ● ● ● Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ● ● Pump Station Improvements ● ● ● ● Outfall Improvements (Only If Required) ● ● ● ● Foundation Plans and Details ● ● Mechanical Details ● ● ● Structural Details ● ● Miscellaneous Details ● ● Electrical Symbols, Abbreviations and Notes ● ● ● Electrical Site Plan ● ● ● ● Power Plan ● ● ● Lighting and Receptacle Plan (If Required) ● ● Conduit Schedule ● ● MSB-MCC (Main Switch Board – Motor Control Center) Single Line Diagram and Elevation ● ● ● Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 19 Submittal Type / Plan Sheet Prelim. 60% 90% Final Control Schematic Diagrams ● ● Program Logic Controller (PLC) Connection Diagrams ● ● SCADA System Integration ● ● Electrical Details ● ● CEQA Document (Categorical Exemption) ● Regulatory Permits Only if Applicable ● Task F: Construction Documents This task includes necessary labor and materials to finalize the construction documents based on CITY comments to the Final Design as well as any revisions necessary to obtain the building permit. CONSULTANT shall prepare one set of drawings, specifications and cost estimate that can be adapted to three (3) separate bid sets. The separate bid sets shall correspond to the three Project components. Plan preparation will follow the schedules provided above using the standard 24” x 36” City of Palo Alto title block. AutoCAD layer conventions, symbols and line types will be in conformance with CITY standards. Special and Technical Provisions will be written in CSI format and generally include: • Division 1 through 16 (CITY to provide Division 0) • Bid Schedule • Regulatory requirements (if applicable) including permit conditions • Seasonal constraints only if applicable (special species avoidance and outfall work) • Project scheduling requirements and order of work • Submittal requirements and submittals list • Operation and Maintenance manual requirements • Warranties • Operator training • Protection of existing improvements Task G: Regulatory and City Permits CONSULTANT shall assist CITY in obtaining necessary permits for the construction of the Project. It is assumed that the only permits required will be encroachment permits for potholing in the street and for gathering soil sample data and building permits for the construction of the pump stations and associated electrical and fiber cabinets or vaults. A permit is not anticipated from Valley Water, but CONSULTANT shall confirm that the proposed pump station discharges do not impact the water surface elevation within Adobe Creek. Task H: Construction Administration Services CONSULTANT shall provide construction administration services for each component of the Project as detailed below. CONSULTANT shall prepare record drawings for each Project components, based on contractor markups, issue letters of clarification and addenda as required, review bids with CITY. Furthermore, CONSULTANT shall review and respond to RFIs, review submittals, and attend pre-bid meetings, pre-construction meetings, construction/field meetings and necessary conference call meetings with the contractor. For scoping purposes, the following quantities are assumed per project component: 1. RFIs: Twenty (20) and maintain dispensation log 2. Submittals: Sixty (60) and maintain dispensation log 3. Resubmittals: Thirty (30) and maintain dispensation log 4. Construction/Field Meetings: Six (6) Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 20 Construction administration services also include programming of the Program Logic Controller (PLC) at the pump stations and the System Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system and incorporate the pump stations into the City overall SCADA system. CONSULTANT shall test the programming of the PLC and the City SCADA system to the satisfaction of the City. CONSULTANT shall prepare punch list and project close out documents. 1. PLC and Operator Interface Terminal (OIT) Programming Programming and configuration work will be performed on the hardware that is provided by the Contractor and Process Control Systems Integrator (PCSI) selected for the pump stations improvement project. Programs will be fully annotated and documented. 2. SCADA Programming Development CONSULTANT shall revise the existing system for monitoring and control of the storm water pump stations. New work shall be limited to where new database points and alarms are required due to the additional information available from the new pump station control programs. New data shall be added to the existing displays or associated pop-up displays. Software configuration shall include: • Configuration of SCADA servers for communications from the new PLCs for the information required for this project. • Modifications of existing graphic displays to show new process data and control points. • Configuration of historical data collection and trending for important process values. • Configuration of alarm monitoring for new alarm points. 3. Local Operator Interface Terminal Configuration CONSULTANT shall configure OIT for local monitoring and control of the pump stations. OIT graphics will use the same graphic standards and layout that have been developed for the displays. 4. Witnessed Factory Testing CONSULTANT shall download and install the PLC and OIT programs prior to the factory testing. During factory test procedure, CONSULTANT programmers shall verify memory mapping, scaling and functional operation of the software. 5. Operational Readiness Testing (ORT) and Functional Acceptance Testing CONSULTANT shall provide on-site support during Operational Readiness Testing. During the ORT, CONSULTANT shall verify point to point testing between field devices and the SCADA system, and confirm correct analog scaling and alarms for each analog point. Once the ORT is complete, CONSULTANT shall perform Functional Acceptance Testing (FAT) of all software functions in the PLC and OIT programs. 6. Bench Testing CONSULTANT shall download and install the PLC and OIT programs for the new hardware that is provided by the contractor and perform Bench Testing prior to installation at the project site. Bench Testing will include verification of Input/Output (I/O) mapping, analog scaling, and simulated functional testing. Bench Testing will be performed at Consultant offices and the City staff may witness this testing, if desired. 7. Installation, Testing, and Commissioning Support CONSULTANT shall provide on-site support for City staff during installation and testing of the new PLC systems. Testing will include verification of all I/O points from field devices to the existing SCADA server, and functional testing of the new PLC and OIT programs and configuration. We anticipate testing to take two 8-hour days for storm water pump stations. 8. Documentation Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 21 In addition to the actual program source files and configuration files, the primary documentation for the project software will be the detailed Control Descriptions and I/O list developed. These documents will be maintained in the current status throughout the construction and testing phases of the project, and form the basis of the Operations Manual to be turned over to city staff at the end of the project. 9. Warranty Period Support At the completion of the construction phase, CONSULTANT shall warranty the PLC and OIT applications, developed by CONSULTANT staff, against errors or bugs for a period of 12 months. Warranty Period Support does not include regular software maintenance, program backups, software upgrades, or third- party application failures. Pursuant to this Agreement, construction administration services will be provided for the Project components as follows: H-1: Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station. Work as described above and associated with the new pump station and trunk line upgrades located within East Bayshore Road, between Corporation Way and Adobe Creek. H-2: West Bayshore Road Pump Station. Work as described above and associated with the new pump station located in West Bayshore Road and connection to trunk line improvements described under H-3. H-3: West Bayshore Road Trunk Line Improvement. Work as described above and associated with trunk line improvements and connections to the pump station work described under H-2. Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 22 EXHIBIT A-1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER Consultant shall perform the Services detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 are incorporated into this Task Order by this reference. The Consultant shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described below. CONTRACT NO. OR PURCHASE ORDER REQUISITION NO. (AS APPLICABLE) 1A. MASTER AGREEMENT NO. (MAY BE SAME AS CONTRACT / P.O. NO. ABOVE): 1B. TASK ORDER NO.: 1C. TASK ORDER ISSUE DATE 2. CONSULTANT NAME: 3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: COMPLETION: 4 TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $__________________ BALANCE REMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT $_______________ 5. BUDGET CODE_______________ COST CENTER________________ COST ELEMENT______________ WBS/CIP__________ PHASE__________ 6. CITY PROJECT MANAGER’S NAME & DEPARTMENT:___________________________________ 7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES (Attachment A) MUST INCLUDE: ▪ SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED ▪ SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE ▪ COMPENSATION AMOUNT AND RATE SCHEDULE (as applicable) ▪ DELIVERABLES, as applicable ▪ REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, if any (with “not to exceed” amount) 8. ATTACHMENTS: A: Task Order Scope of Services B (if any): ____________________________ I hereby authorize the performance of the work described in this Task Order. APPROVED: CITY OF PALO ALTO BY:____________________________________ Name __________________________________ Title___________________________________ Date ___________________________________ I hereby acknowledge receipt and acceptance of this Task Order and warrant that I have authority to sign on behalf of Consultant. APPROVED: COMPANY NAME: ______________________ BY:____________________________________ Name __________________________________ Title___________________________________ Date ___________________________________ Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 23 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. The order for Construction Administration Services, Task H-1, H-2 and H-3 may be changed at City’s discretion. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the Notice To Proceed (“NTP”). Task/Milestones Completion Date(s) A. Preliminary Design August 3, 2020 B. Final Design February 5, 2021 C. Cost Estimate February 5, 2021 D. Meetings April 19, 2021 E. Work Product Submittal February 5, 2021 F. Construction Documents February 26, 2021 G. Regulatory & City Permits April 19, 2021 H. Construction Administration Services H-1 Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station May 30, 2022 H-2 West Bayshore Road Pump Station Improvement May 30, 2023 H-3 West Bayshore Trunk Line Improvement May 30, 2024 Pr o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s Re v . A p r i l 2 7 , 2 0 1 8 24 IO 0 ~!. TukNH'lt iOuni~on t., t"Jth IPJ.(lt(Hi0f1, NoticeToProcl'ed Oda~ Tue-4/21/20 Tut!4/2l/11J . l .. G~•oted'n'IICal AOd.JyS n.oe-4/21/20 Mon tnvcstic;,:ioM 6/lS/20 .. Basis of Oesiin ;and 20 dilyi. Tue-4/21/20 Mon ModetUpd:Jtes 5/1.8/20 .. Fidd Survtyirc .tnt1 60 !bys Tut-5/Sf20 Mon lFS+lDd.w1, vtiity RMearch 7/27/20 .. Potholing lOcbys Tu.S/2G/20 'Mon6/8/20 l,.4SS•l5days .. ~p.Jre30% 40cbv, Tue 5/5flD Mien .C.SS,2FF,3FF ""'""""' 6/1.9/20 .. OtvRel!Wwof-30\!i lOd.lys r .... 6/30/20 Mon OOC.~tsaindBOO 7/U/20 .. Pfei:,.Jrc6<J% 50d.lys Tut!6/30(20 MonfJ/7/20 6 Do<- .. Cit.yRaewt'wof-60"6 lOcbys Tuc9/8/20 Mon 8 II l °"'""""u 9/21/20 ,, .. Prepare9<$ 30cbvs Ti.lie 9/15/20 Mon 9FS•Sibys. ""'""""" 10/26/20 11! ""' Cit.yRewe!wot90a.6 lOcbys Tuo Mon 10 OOC~ts 10/27/20 ll/9/20 "I .. PrepareFl!'Ui 20d.lys Tue Mon 11 ""'-" 11/10/20 12/1/20 .. City Re-..l!w of Ami 10 days Tue-12/8/20 Men l2 ""'-12/21/20 .. Prt-P,!lrf" Ccl'IS#utbOn 10 Chys Tue Mon 13.1.SFF "°'""""u l2/29/20 l/ll/21 15,lil .. Pertrwtting 601ilys TUI! L0/20/2'-Mon 1/11/2.l lOFS.S ibvs "1 .. 8idM'odCon$tn1ction 200d.lvi T~J/9/21 Mon 14FS+,40dJy$ ~P rojectl 12113/21 ----< 17 • 8idand Comtruction 200 ~ Tue-2/2.2/22 Mon l4fS.290di1~ SUf)p()ft -Pro_«.tl ll/lS/22 CityoiPaloAho P.agP1 Corporation Wll'f Systf!ffl Upgndn. and ?uTp Stat•~ West 8.)y.sto,e Pump Str.K>fl .-td l nsnlline ffp,o,.1!fflents Schaaf {;fa Wheeler CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 25 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for the Services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth in the budget schedule below. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, and the total compensation for Additional Services do not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task A $183,419.74 (Preliminary Design) Task B $199,219.97 (Final Design) Task C $17,889.76 (Cost Estimate) Task D $26,624.07 (Meetings) Task E $26,810.13 (Work Product Submittals) Task F $19,044.84 (Construction Documents) Task G $21,064.33 (Regulatory and City Permits) Task H (Construction Administration Services) H-1 Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station $105,799.13 H-2 West Bayshore Road Pump Station $105,799.13 H-3 West Bayshore Road Trunk line Improvement $ 12,436.90 Sub Total Basic Services $ 718,108.00 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 26 Reimbursable Expenses $0.00 (not applicable) Total Basic Services and Reimbursable Expense (if any) $718,108.00 Additional Services (per Section1) (Not to Exceed) $71,810.00 Maximum Total Compensation $789,918.00 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: $0.00 (not applicable). Pr o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s Re v . A p r i l 2 7 , 2 0 1 8 27 EX H I B I T “ C -1” SC H E D U L E OF R A T E S Revised Fee Proposal for the City of Palo Schaaf & Whttler ~ C Alto Pump Stations and Trunkline ~ il. -~ ~ ~ ~ C ,:I! 1: a i ~ • a C 0. Projects (SD-20000, SD-21000, & SD-! 1 ~ ... !! 8 , i . C 3 u . , u 0 .,, 23000) . 1 ~ .5 "' .!i u .:: ii E , i "f .. ~ , .i! ~ -"' .la e. :: ~ ~ .. l: Schaa' & Whoo! er /;: ! ~ .. .c ~ .i!~ .§ $ !! • a C ~ :;: ~ "3 e ~ ;§ _Q -a j -~ .. .: 3 u 1 .. ~ g ~ 2 ·= ~ "f i! E February 18, 2020 i l ~ .,, ~ ~ .. ~ J 0 E ~ ] ~ l~ ! ~ ~ '= ~ Rate: $235.00 $225.00 S16.l.34 $131.93 $113.08 : , .., 5& .~ w '" '""" J Combined Pump Stations. lndivldual Construction Support A !Preliminary Design 20 92 68 52 78 $52,187.72 $30,820.54 $45,338.00 529,825.00 $18,999.34 S6,249.14 $183,419.74 1 Geotechnic.al Investigation & Report 12 $2,700,0C $765,28 $45,338,00 $2,305,16 $51,108,44 2 Pump Station Basis of Design 4 32 32 32 16 $19,397.92 $10,653.10 $532.6! $30,583.68 3 PC SWMM Coordination 8 8 16 S6,293.44 >ll.Ul S6,293.44 4 Survey 16 S3,600.oc $23,825.00 51,191.2! 528,616.25 S Utility Mapping 4 S900.00 56,000.00 $300.0C 57,200.00 6 Potholing (8 Potholes Total} 4 2 51,126.U 518,999.34 5949.9 521,075.46 7 30% Drawings 8 16 20 20 60 S18,170.2C $19,402.16 $970,l 538,542,47 B !Final Design 20 96 32 148 180 571,406.92 $112,226.71 $9,500.00 $6,086.3< $199,219.97 l l60%~sign 4 32 48 80 $23,519.04 $52,530.25 52,62651 S78,675.8!l 2j90~ Design 8 32 60 60 S23,78!l.6C 537,375.22 51,868.7! $63,024.58 31Final Oes.ign 8 16 32 40 40 520,507.28 522,321.24 51,116.0E $43,944.58 41Easement Documents 16 53,600.0C 59,500.00 5475.0C 513,575.00 Cost Estimates 18 44 $11,236.96 $6,336.00 $316.8( $17,889.76 D Meetings 40 24 24 $16,086.48 $10,035.8() $501.7! $26,624.07 E Work Product Submltttal.s 8 8 32 $6,725.28 $19,128.43 $956.42 $26,810.13 Construction Documents 4 8 12 12 20 $8,544.8' $10,000.00 $500.0C $19,044.84 G Regulatory and City Permits 4 30 24 24 $11,680.44 $8,937.04 $446.8! $21,064.33 11City Building Permit 30 16 56,709.48 $8,937.04 $446.Bi $16,093.37 21Valley Water Permit/Coordination 4 24 8 S4,970.'lt $0.0C S4,970.96 O@sign Subtotal 44 266 218 260 334 S177,868.64 S197,484.52 S45,338.00 S39,325.00 SlS,999.34 Sl5,057.34 S494,072.84 H•I Construction Administration Services -S0-20000 (lnc1uaes Programming & Field Testing) 16 60 8() 8 $24,859.44 $75,035.42 $2,050.00 $3,854.27 $105,799.13 H-2 Construction Administration services -S0-21000 (Includes Programming & Field Testing) 16 60 80 8 $24,859.4' $75,035.42 $2,050.()( $3,854.27 $105,799.13 H-3 Construction Administration Services -S0-23000 16 16 24 8 $10,284.4' $2,050.()( $10250 $12,436.90 Total Including Construction Administration 44 314 354 444 358 S237,871.92 S347 ,555.36 S51,488.oo S39,325.oo S18,999.34 S22,868.3! S718,108.oo Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 28 *See FY2017 Overhead and Burden Self-Audit for full accounting Schaaf & Wheeler Fully Loaded Hourly Rate by Classification 2019 Overhead Labor Classification Hourly Salary Multiplier Principal Project Manager $74.82 185.6% Senior Project Manager $71.63 185.6% Senior Engineer $60.00 185.6% Associate Engineer $52.00 185.6% Assistant Engineer $42.00 185.6% Junior Engineer $38.00 185.6% Designer $36.00 185.6% Technician $35.00 185.6% Indirect% of Direct Labor Calculations* Indirect Labor Percentage Calculations Employee & Fringe Benefits (1) Vacation, Sick, Holiday Benefit Insurance Payroll Tax PST Contribution Workers Comp General Overhead Expense (2) Corporate Insurance Depreciation Interest and Fees General Administration Legal and Accounting Meals and Entertainment Miscellaneous Office Expenses Professional Dues and Training Rent and Maintenance Supplies (including Hardware and Software) Taxes and Licenses Travel Utilities 38.7% 11.So/c 8.1% 7.4% 11.0o/c 0.7% 146.8% 3.2% 0.l o/c 0.4o/c 99.7% 1.3% 0.0o/c 0.6o/c 2.9% 1.1% 15.9% 8.6% 6.S o/c 2.1% 4.3% Professional Fee % (Profit) 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% Fully Loaded Hourly Rate $235.00 $225.00 $188.47 $163.34 $131.93 $119.36 $113.08 $109.94 Total Indirect Cost (l)+ (2) 185.6o/c <--Indirect Cost used for Multiplier Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 29 BESS TESTLAB, INC. Hayward (Corporate) I Fresno I Los Angeles IT. (408) 988-0101 I F. (408) 988--0103 Utility Locating -Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) -Electromagnetic Pipe Locators Structural Concrete Scanning -Potholing Vacuum Excavation -CCTV Pipe Inspection Mobile LiDAR Scanning-3D Scanning -3D Utility Mapping -www.besstestlab.com Attachment -Standard Fee Schedule 2019 Project Coordination and Processing Hourly Rate • Project Management ................•..........................................•..................................... $145.00 • Project Coordination __________________________________________________________________________________________________ $125.00 • Licensed Professional (Civil/ Surveyor/ Geophysicist)_ _____________________________________________________ $155.00 • LiDAR / UAV / Geophysical Data Processing and Extraction .............................................. $125.00 CAD Technician···········································-··············································-············$ 95.00 • Reports/ Sketches/ Clerical. ....................................................................................................... $ 85.00 Utility Location • 1-Person Utility Designation w/ GPR & EM Pipe Locator .......................................................................... $175.00 • 2-Person Utility Designation w/ Multi Antenna GPR .......................................................................................... $310.00 Potholing and Vacuum Excavation • 2-Person Utility Potholing w/ air vacuum truck••u••·· .. ·······••u• .. ····· .. ·· ................................................ $285.00 • 1-Person Utility Potholing w/ hydro vacuum truck ............. -......................................................................................... $275.00 • 2-Person Utility Potholing w/ hydro vacuum truck ......... ·-····· ................................................... S360.00 2-Person Key Hole & Surface Restoration w/ equipment ................................................... $270.00 Traffic Control 1-Person Traffic Control w/ arrow truck ·························································-············$145.00 • 2-Person Traffic Control w/ arrow truck ..................................................................................... $230.00 • 1-Person Flagger / TC Helper ...... -........................................... _ ...................................... $110.00 GPR Concrete Scanning and Coring • 1-Person GPR Concrete Scanning w/ equipment .......................................................... 0 ...................... $187.50 • 1-Person Saw Cutting & Coring w/ equipment ...................................................................... $145.00 CCTV Camera -Video Inspection • 2-Person CCTV Pipe Inspection w/ Main Line Crawler Unit ............................................................... $295.00 • 2-Person CCTV Pipe Inspection w/ Lateral Line Push Unit .................................................. $270.00 2-Person Hydro Flushing w/ hydro vacuum truck··············································-··············$325.00 Surveying and Mapping • 1-Person Survey Crew -GPS /Robotic/ 3D Scanner ......................................................... $175.00 • 2-Person Survey Crew -GPS /Robotic/ 3D Scanner .................................................................................. $250.00 • 2-Person Survey Crew -Mobile LiDAR Scanner .................................................................................................................. $325.00 • 2-Person Survey Crew -UAV Data Collection ....................................................... _ .. ___ .. __ ..... $245.00 Geophysical Survey • 1-Person Geophysical Data Collection -GPR, EM, Seismic ................................................................................ $175.00 • 2-Person Geophysical Data Collection -GPR, EM, Seismic ................................................................................... $250.00 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 30 TJC and Associates, Inc. Fully Loaded Hourly Rate by Classification Labor Classification Hourly Salary Overhead Professional Fully Loaded Multiplier Fee 0/o (Profit) Hourly Rate Vice-President (El0) $88.15 1.88 10% $279.24 Principal (E9) $83.58 1.88 10% $264.78 Associate (ES) $76.71 1.88 10% $243.02 Project Manager ( E7) $74.26 1.88 10% $235.26 Senior Engineer (E6) $58.95 1.88 10% $186.75 Mid-Level Engineer (ES) $58.07 1.88 10% $183.95 Engineer (E4) $53.45 1.88 10% $169.33 Designer (E2) $42.50 1.88 10% $134.65 CAD Operator (CS) $38.66 1.88 10% $122.47 Administrative (A6) $32.70 1.88 10% $103.59 Junior Administrative (A3) $23.07 1.88 10% $73.09 Indirect Labor Percentage Calculations Employee & Fringe Benefits ( 1) 74.6% Indirect Payroll 44.7% Holiday/Vacation/Sick 11.5% Payroll Tax 7.3% Workers Comp 0.7% Benefit Insurance 6.4% 40 l(k) Match 3.9% General Overhead Expense (2) 25.5% Professional Development 1.0% Rent 9.8% Office Supplies 1.3% G&A Expenses 1.3% Legal & Accounting 1.0% Professional Services 2.6% Telephone/Internet 1.1% Auto/Travel 0.5% Liability Insurance 2.9% Business Taxes, Licenses 0.7% IT Supplies/Services 3.3% Total Indirect Cost (1)+ (2) 100.0% <--Indirect Cost used for Multiplier Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 31 ~~ KIER+WRIGHT Hourly Rate Schedule Principal $ 253.00 I Hour Pr ind pal Engineer $ 230.00 I Hour Senior Engineer $ 200.00 I Hour Project Engineer $ 186.00 / Hour Engineer II $ 155.00 / Hour Engineer I $ 129.00 / Hour Senior Surveyor $ 207 .00 / Hour Project Surveyor $ 184.00 / Hour Survey Coordinator $ 177 .00 / Hour Surveyor II $ 149.00 / Hour Surveyor I $ 127 .00 / Hour Engineering Tech I I $ 168.00 / Hour Engineering Tech I $ 151.00 / Hour Senior Draftsman $ 129.00 / Hour Draftsman II $ 107 .00 / Hour Draftsman I $ 97. 00 I Hour Survey Tech $ 99. 00 I Hour 1-Man Survey Cr ew $ 180.00 / Hour 2-Man Survey Crew $ 292.00 / Hour 3-Man Survey Crew $ 370.00 I Hour Testimony (Trial or Deposition) $ 494.00 I Hour Project Coordinator $ 106.00 I Hour Engineering Coordinator $ 92. 00 / Hour Engineering / Survey Intern $ 53.00 I Hour Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 32 ENG EO GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL WATER RESOURCES CONSTRUCTION SERVICES -Expect Excellence---------------------- PREFERRED CLIENT FEE SCHEDULE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Effective March 2019 President Principal Engineer/Geologist/Seismologist Associate Engineer/Geologist/Seismologist Senior Engineer/Geologist/Seismologist Project Engineer/Geologist/Seismologist Environmental Scientist Staff Engineer/Geologist/Seismologist ... Assistant Engineer Construction Services Manager Senior Field Representative II Senior Field Representative I Field Representative ... Environmental Technician Senior Laboratory Technician Laboratory Technician Senior CAD Specialist CAD Specialist GIS Analyst Network Administrator Project Assistant ........... $380.00 per hour ........... $290.00 per hour ........... $245.00 per hour ........... $215.00 per hour ........... $195. 00 per hour ........... $180.00 per hour ..... $17 4.00 per hour . .......... $140.00 per hour ........... $170.00 per hour* ........... $150.00 per hour*/** ........... $135.00 per hour*/** ........... $125.00 per hour*/** . ............................... $130.00 per hour*/** ........... $155. 00 per hour ........... $140.00 per hour ........... $145.00 per hour ........... $135. 00 per hour ................................ $150.00 per hour ........... $195.00 per hour ........... $118.00 per hour Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 33 EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE AT THE FOLLOWING URL: https://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal.cfm?CompanyID=25569. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 34 INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. VENDORS ARE REQUIRED TO FILE THEIR EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE AND ANY OTHER RELATED NOTICES WITH THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AT THE FOLLOWING URL: HTTPS://WWW.PLANETBIDS.COM/PORTAL/PORTAL.CFM?COMPANYID=25569 OR HTTP://WWW.CITYOFPALOALTO.ORG/GOV/DEPTS/ASD/PLANET_BIDS_HOW_TO.ASP Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 35 EXHIBIT “E” DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS This Exhibit shall apply only to a contract for public works construction, alteration, demolition, repair or maintenance work, CITY will not accept a bid proposal from or enter into this Agreement with CONSULTANT without proof that CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) to perform public work, subject to limited exceptions. City requires CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of SB 854. CITY provides notice to CONSULTANT of the requirements of California Labor Code section 1771.1(a), which reads: “A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.” CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors that CONSULTANT is required to post all job site notices prescribed by law or regulation and CONSULTANT is subject to SB 854-compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. CITY requires CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of Labor Code section 1776, including: Keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by, respectively, CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors, in connection with the Project. The payroll records shall be verified as true and correct and shall be certified and made available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors, respectively. At the request of CITY, acting by its project manager, CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors shall make the certified payroll records available for inspection or furnished upon request to the project manager within ten (10) days of receipt of CITY’s request. CITY requests CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors to submit the certified payroll records to the project manager at the end of each week during the Project. If the certified payroll records are not produced to the project manager within the 10-day period, then CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors shall be subject to a penalty of one hundred • Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2018 36 dollars ($100.00) per calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker, and CITY shall withhold the sum total of penalties from the progress payment(s) then due and payable to CONSULTANT. Inform the project manager of the location of CONSULTANT’s and its listed subcontractors’ payroll records (street address, city and county) at the commencement of the Project, and also provide notice to the project manager within five (5) business days of any change of location of those payroll records. Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: 496655DBED5E4BE287C6D449061AC3E4 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: Contract C20176877 Schaaf and Wheeler.pdf Source Envelope: Document Pages: 36 Signatures: 2 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Saira Cardoza AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Disabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 saira.cardoza@cityofpaloalto.org IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Record Tracking Status: Original 6/2/2020 3:23:26 PM Holder: Saira Cardoza saira.cardoza@cityofpaloalto.org Location: DocuSign Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Palo Alto Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Charles D. Anderson canderson@swsv.com President Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 73.162.111.30 Sent: 6/2/2020 3:29:00 PM Viewed: 6/3/2020 1:19:13 PM Signed: 6/3/2020 1:19:53 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Leif Coponen lcoponen@swsv.com Vice President / Treasurer Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 98.234.222.201 Sent: 6/3/2020 1:19:57 PM Viewed: 6/4/2020 11:33:28 AM Signed: 6/4/2020 11:34:17 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Loretta Olmos Loretta.Olmos@CityofPaloAlto.org Administrative Associate City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 6/2/2020 3:28:59 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign GDocuSigned by: L.,.;j~ 79942A09DF334F6 COPIED Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Michel Jeremias Michel.Jeremias@CityofPaloAlto.org Senior Engineer City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 6/2/2020 3:29:00 PM Viewed: 6/4/2020 11:05:46 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Witness Events Signature Timestamp Notary Events Signature Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 6/3/2020 1:19:57 PM Certified Delivered Security Checked 6/4/2020 11:33:28 AM Signing Complete Security Checked 6/4/2020 11:34:17 AM Completed Security Checked 6/4/2020 11:34:17 AM Payment Events Status Timestamps COPIED 11 9 8 3784 3776 00 0 1 3750 3780 3788 1020 10 0 5 10 0 3 3803 3801 3921 10 1 5 02 3 3941 10 1 0 1020 10 2 9 1121 1 1 3 5 1 1 2 9 11 3 7 2 10 5 4 10 5 6 10 5 8 10 4 7 10 4 9 39773975 11 3 1 11 3 3 3961 10 0 1 37 1 7 - 37 3 1 37 0 1 - 37 1 5 1113 11 0 1 11211123112511271129 1130 112811261124 1122 37 5 1 37 4 9 37 4 7 37 4 5 37 4 3 37 4 1 37 0 2 37 0 4 37 0 6 37 0 8 37 1 0 37 1 2 37 1 4 37 2 0 37 2 2 37 2 4 37 2 6 37 2 8 37 3 0 37 3 2 37 1 9 37 2 1 37 2 3 37 2 5 37 2 7 37 2 9 37 3 1 37 5 8 37 6 0 37 6 2 37 6 4 37 6 6 37 6 8 37 7 0 37 5 7 37 5 9 37 6 1 37 6 3 37 6 5 37 6 7 37 6 9 11 3 6 11 3 8 11 4 0 11 4 2 11 4 4 11 3 5 11 3 7 11 3 9 11 4 1 11 4 3 110411061108 11101112 11141116 1103110511071109 111111131115 3969 3971 3997 3995 1007 1119 3775 1102 37 1 7 37 5 6 37 5 5 11 3 4 11 3 31120 1119 37 1 8 11 5 2 37 0 0 37 3 9 1101 1261 1221 1151 11 5 7 3905 1237 Adobe Creek Substation Flood Ponds Parking B a r ro n C r e e k E A S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D F A B I A N W A Y CORP O R A T I O N W A Y E A S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y FA B I A N W A Y SA N A N T O N I O R O A D B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y W E S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y EL COU R T E A S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y EAST MEADOW DRIVE FEATHER LN KLAMATH LN PA L O M A D R TR I N I T Y L N STAN I S L A U S L N T U O L U M N E L N IN ININ ININ IN ININ ININ SD SDSD SDSD SD SD SD SDSD SD SD SD SD SD OF OF OF OFOF OF OF OF OF OF OFOF OF OF IN-047-3-62 IN - 0 4 7 - 3 - 6 1 IN - 0 4 7 - 3 - 5 8 IN-047-3-56IN-047-3-54 OF - 0 4 7 - 1 - 0 4 OF - 0 4 7 - 1 - 1 7 OF-047-3-63 OF-047-3-60OF-047-3-59 OF - 0 4 7 - 3 - 5 5 OF-047-3-57 OF-040-2-01 OF-039-6-09 36." 51 . " 36."24."24." 33."33 . " 33 . " 15 . " 24." 18 . " 1 5 . " 21. " 15." 12." 12 . " 15 . " 2 1 . " 15." 21 . " 12." 22 . " 12 . " 24." 36. " 18." 18." 12." 21 . " 12." 21 . " 12." 12." 1 2 . " 12." 12 . " 12." 12." 12." 15 . " 2 1 . " 12." 24 . " CB-046-5-98 CB-047-3-16 CB-046-5-95 CB-046-5-08 CB-047-1-02 CB-047-1-10 CB-047-1-11 CB-046-5-94 CB-046-5-93 CB-047-1-93 CB-047-1-14 CB-047-1-13 CB-047-1-92 CB-047-3-02 CB-047-1-21 CB-047-1-18 CB-047-3-01CB-047-1-94 CB-047-1-15 CB-047-1-91 CB-040-2-90 CB-039-6-03 CB-039-6-04 CB-039-6-92 CB-039-6-12 MH - 0 4 7 - 1 - 0 7 MH-046-5-13 MH-04 7 - 1 - 2 6 MH-047-1-01 MH-047-3-03 MH-047-3-90 MH-047-1-20MH-047-1-03 MH-047-1-23 MH-047-1-22 MH-040-2-02 MH-040-2-03 ADOBE CREEKPUMP STATION SD-210 10 3 00 2 7 WE 00 LL LF of 21- Inch Pipe Up 1 grade to 30-Inch 1 SD 007 -21000Location of Corporation 10 5 Way Pump Station This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend CORRUGATED METAL PIPE Owned by SCVWD SCVWD Easement Scvwdeasement abc Scvwdeasements20040413 abc Corporation Way Pump Station 0'210' AT T A C H M E N T B 1 CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P ORAT E D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1 894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Altorhada, 2019-08-27 14:22:34 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) Attachment B1 3776 10 0 0 10 0 7 3750 3780 1020 10 4 0 1036 1015 108 5 1069 10 5 1 10 4 1 1035 1025 3512 3520 3600 3530 10 0 5 10 0 3 3803 3500 3510 3801 10 3 2 3921 10 1 5 10 2 3 3941 10 1 0 1020 10 2 9 1121 1 1 3 5 1 1 2 9 11 3 7 10 5 2 10 5 4 10 5 6 10 5 8 10 4 7 10 4 9 3975 11 3 1 11 3 3 3961 10 0 1 11 0 1 11211123112511271129 1130 1128 11261124 1122 37 5 1 37 4 9 37 4 7 37 4 5 37 4 3 37 4 1 37 5 8 37 6 0 37 6 2 37 6 4 37 6 6 37 6 8 37 5 7 37 5 9 37 6 1 37 6 3 37 6 5 37 6 7 37 6 9 11 3 6 11 3 8 11 4 0 11 4 2 11 4 4 11 3 5 11 3 7 11 3 9 11 4 1 11 4 3 11161113 1115 3969 3997 3633 1119 37 5 6 37 5 5 11 3 4 11 3 31120 1119 37 3 9 1261 1221 11 5 7 3905 1237 Adobe Creek Substation Fl o o d P o n d s P a r k i n g B a r ro n C r e e k E A S T M E A D O W C I R C L E E A S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D F A B I A N W A Y CORP O R A T I O N W A Y E A S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y E A S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y W E S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D B A Y S H O R E F R E E W Y W E S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A ELW E L L C O U R T E A S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y KLAMATH LN PA L O M A D R TR I N I T Y L N STAN I S L A U S L N T U O L U M N E L N SD SD SD SDSD SD SD SD SD SD OF OF O F W T - 0 3 9 - 5 - 5 6 OF-039-5-04 OF-040-2-01 OF-039-6-09 15." 15." 12." 12." 15." 1 5 . " 1 5 . " 12." 15 . " 12." 8.0' x 7 . 0 ' B o x 24." 18." 12 . " 15 . " 1 2 . " 24. " 21. " 15." 12 . " 21 . " 21 . " 12." 22 . " 12 . " 12." 21 . " 12." 21 . " 12." 12." 12 . " 12." 12. " 12." 12." 15 . " 21 . " 12." 2 4 . " CB-039-6-10 CB-039-6-90 CB-039-6-11 CB-039-6-91 CB-046-5-04 CB-046-5-91 CB-046-5-02 CB-046-5-90 CB-039-5-03 CB-039-5-05 CB-039-6-51 CB-039-6-02 CB-047-1-02 CB-046-5-94 CB-047-1-93 CB-047-1-14 CB-047-1-13 CB-047-1-92 CB-047-1-21 CB-047-1-18CB-047-1-94 CB-047-1-15 CB-047-1-91 CB-040-2-90 CB-039-6-03 CB-039-6-04 CB-039-6-92 CB-039-6-12 MH-046-5-03 MH-047-1-01 MH-047-3-90 MH-047-1-20MH-047-1-03 MH-047-1-23 MH-047-1-22 MH-040-2-02 MH-040-2-03 FLAP GATES ADOBE CREEKPUMP STATION SD-23000 1400 LF of 15-Inch PipeUpgrade to 30-Inch SD-20000L A oca Y tion of West BayshoreRoad Pump Station This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend CORRUGATED METAL PIPE Owned by SCVWD SCVWD Easement abc Sketch Pump Station Location 0'219' AT T A C H M E N T B 2 CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P ORAT E D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1 894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Altorhada, 2019-08-27 14:05:50 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) Attachment B2 City of Palo Alto (ID # 11146) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/15/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Utilities Large Commercial Energy Efficiency: Three Contract Amendments Title: Approval and Authorization for the City Manager or Designee to Execute the Following Three Utilities Public Benefits Program Contract Amendments: 1) Amendment Number 2 to Ecology Action of Santa Cruz (C15155144A), With No Increase in Compensation and Extending the Term for One Additional Year; 2) Amendment Number 2 to Enovity, Inc. (C15155144B), With No Increase in Compensation and Extending the Term for One Additional Year; and 3) Amendment Number 2 to BASE Energy, Inc. (C15155144C), With No Increase in Compensation and Extending the Term for One Additional Year From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the following three third-party energy efficiency (EE) Utilities Public Benefits Program Contract Amendments (Attachments A, B, and C), extending the contract terms through June 30, 2021 with no increase in compensation: (1) Amendment Two to Ecology Action of Santa Cruz, Contract C15155144A (Commercial Industrial Energy Efficiency Program), to extend the term of the contract through June 30, 2021 to allow Ecology Action of Santa Cruz to administer the Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Program (“CIEEP”), which provides building EE performance optimization services to large commercial and industrial customers. (2) Amendment Two to Enovity, Inc., Contract C15155144B (Commercial Industrial Energy Efficiency Program), to extend the term of the contract through June 30, 2021 to allow Enovity, Inc. to administer the Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Program (“CIEEP”), which provides building EE performance optimization services to large commercial and industrial customers. (3) Amendment Two to BASE Energy, Inc., Contract C15155144C (Commercial Industrial Energy Efficiency Program), to extend the term of the contract through June 30, 2021 to allow BASE Energy, Inc. to administer the Commercial and Industrial Energy City of Palo Alto Page 2 Efficiency Program (“CIEEP”), which provides building EE performance optimization services to large commercial and industrial customers. Executive Summary City Council (Council) has adopted several policies that support increased goals for energy and water efficiency efforts as well as sustainability goals for the City of Palo Alto (City). In order to achieve these aggressive EE goals, the City has contracted with third-party EE service providers since 2006 to provide a suite of EE programs for large commercial customers. More than 80% of the City’s energy savings goals are expected to be achieved through the large commercial and industrial EE programs. The three contracts in effect are scheduled to expire June 30, 2020. Staff recommends approval of three contract amendments extending the terms with existing providers by one year to ensure that energy efficiency related services continue for commercial customers while the City’s competitive solicitation process for these ongoing services is underway. With a term extension, these three providers will be able to continue to support the completion of in-progress projects, maintain customer access to City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) programs and services, and provide additional energy savings and continued customer engagement. Table 1 is a summary of the three proposed contract amendments. No increase in contract amount is proposed, and the total budget of $2,775,000 is shared among the three contracts over the full term of the contracts. Annual payments to all three contractors are capped at $925,000. Table 1: Summary of Proposed Large Commercial and Industrial EE Program Contract Amendments Contract Not to Exceed Budget over Contract term Proposed End of Term (one-year extension) Proposed Increase to Contract Limit Ecology Action of Santa Cruz C15155144A Pooled $2,775,000 June 30, 2021 $0 Enovity, Inc. C15155144B Pooled $2,775,000 June 30, 2021 $0 Base Energy, Inc. C15155144C Pooled $2,775,000 June 30, 2021 $0 Background City of Palo Alto Page 3 Council has adopted a number of policies which support funding programs that maximize the deployment of cost-effective, reliable and feasible EE. Council last adopted the City’s ten-year efficiency goals for electric (Staff Report #7718) and gas (Staff Report #7862) in 2017 for the period between 2018 and 2027. The cumulative savings targets based on these goals are 5.7% of the City’s projected electric usage and 5.1% of the City’s projected gas usage. In order to achieve these aggressive EE goals, the City has contracted with third-party EE service providers since 2006 to expand the suite of EE programs for its large commercial customers. During FY 2017, third-party EE service providers delivered close to 82% of the electric savings and over 97% of the gas savings; the remaining savings were achieved through City of Palo Alto staff-administered programs. Funding for electric efficiency programs is primarily from the mandated Public Benefits (PB) Charge, which is 2.85% of the customer retail rate. The majority of PB funding is spent on cost- effective efficiency programs; however, some is used for research and development projects, low-income efficiency programs or to purchase renewable energy. Gas efficiency programs are funded from the gas utility’s revenue, at about 1% of the gas revenue as approved by Council (Staff Report #8343). Council also adopted the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) (Staff Report #7304) in November 2016. This framework serves as a roadmap for achieving Palo Alto’s 80% by 2030 greenhouse gas reduction goal and for developing the Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP) (Staff Report #8487). All three contracts and the programs they support are in line with the City’s goals set forth in the SIP. Discussion The City relies on partnerships with third party contractors to deliver energy efficiency programs. Such targeted third-party programs have played an important role in meeting mandated state and local energy efficiency goals and objectives. The contract terms with third- party EE service providers are typically three years. The program is popular with customers, since the contractors often provide turnkey service and require minimal effort to participate. These contract amendments will allow energy savings to continue to accrue without interruption to customers and will continue efforts by the City to meet its aggressive energy efficiency savings and sustainability goals while the competitive selection process for new providers is underway. The large commercial programs target CPAU Key Account customers in the government, institutional and private sectors within the City. Key Account customers are typically customers with utility bills that exceed $1 million per year and include customers that have special power needs for their facilities. Buildings within this customer segment typically have more complex energy systems, with a dedicated staff managing the facilities and related energy issues. CPAU maintains regular communication with these customers through an assigned Key Account Representative who acts as a single point of contact for all issues including utility services, garbage and recycling services, emergency preparedness, street maintenance and billing issues. City of Palo Alto Page 4 The three consultants encourage Key Account customers to optimize building energy performance through implementation of building infrastructure improvements, EE equipment upgrades, and retro commissioning of building energy systems. Table 2 is a summary of the energy saving achieved over the past four years. Table 2: Actual Energy Savings from Large Commercial Customer EE Programs Resource Savings FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 Electricity (kWh) 4,167,805 2,202,884 5,358,693 2,393,911 Gas (therms) 132,172 115,013 145,640 59,289 Table 3 shows the total compensation paid to each of the three contractors for implementing the large commercial customer EE programs, and Table 4 shows the total cost of the program including rebates paid to the customers. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Table 3: Annual and Cumulative Compensation to Contractors Resource Annual Contract Compensation ($) Contract Compensation To Date FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 Electric 513,486 231,042 529,609 371,081 $1,645,218 Gas 81,723 46,250 126,244 61,276 $315,493 Total $1,960,711 Table 4: Annual and Cumulative Large Commercial Customer EE Program Cost Resource Annual Total Program Cost (S) Total Program Cost To Date FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 Electric 1,091,000 636,330 1,406.013 800,398 $3,933,741 Gas 243,000 286,263 566,349 234,449 $1,330,061 Total $5,263,802 Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the attached amendments extending the contract term through June 30, 2021 for the following three contracts: (1) Ecology Action of Santa Cruz C15155144A (2) Enovity, Inc. C15155144B (3) BASE Energy, Inc. C15155144C There is no change to the not-to-exceed amount of $2,775,000 across all three agreements over the full Term of the agreements, with an aggregate not-to-exceed amount of $925,000 per fiscal year. Resource Impact The funds to support these contract amendments are available within the Utilities electric and natural gas Public Benefits funds, subject to the approval of the FY2021 budget. Commercial energy efficiency is among the most cost-effective of the City’s energy efficiency programs. Commercial kWh savings typically cost between $0.05/kWh to $0.07/kWh, while avoiding approximately $0.09/kWh to $0.10/kWh in energy supply costs, resulting in a substantial net savings for the utility and its customers. Policy Implications The proposed contracts support the Council-approved Gas Utility Long-term Plan, the Ten-year EE Portfolio Plan, the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan, the Utilities Strategic Plan, and City of Palo Alto Page 6 Comprehensive Plan Goal N-9. Implementation of EE programs also support greenhouse gas reduction goals identified in Palo Alto’s Climate Protection Plan and in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). This contract is on the City’s professional services template, which permits the City to terminate without cause/for convenience by providing written notice to the contractor. In the event the City finds itself facing a challenging budget situation, and it is determined that City resources need to be refocused elsewhere, the City can terminate for convenience. Other options include termination due to non-appropriation of funds or amending the contract to reduce the cost, for example, by reducing the scope of work. Community Engagement Community engagement occurred through the process of adopting the policies above. Environmental Review Approval of the three contract amendments proposed in this staff report does not meet the definition of a project pursuant to Section 21065 of the California Public Resources Code, thus no environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required and the work performed by consultants and staff in connection with these programs is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Attachments: • Attachment A: Amendment #2 C15155144A - Ecology Action • Attachment B: Amendment #2 C15155144B - Enovity • Attachment C: Amendment #2 C15155144c - BASE Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 1 of 3 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. C15155144A BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND ECOLOGY ACTION OF SANTA CRUZ This Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No. C15155144A (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of ________________, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and ECOLOGY ACTION SANTA CRUZ, a California corporation, located at 877 Cedar Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (“CONSULTANT”). CITY and CONSULTANT are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment. R E C I T A L S A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the provision of energy efficiency services to CITY’s large commercial, industrial and institutional customers, as detailed therein. B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract in order to extend the term by one year, from the contract end date of June 30, 2020 through June 30, 2021, with no change to the maximum compensation payable under the Contract for continuation of services per Exhibit “A” Scope of Services. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree: SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment: a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean Contract No. C15155144A between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated June 1, 2015, as amended by: Amendment No.1, dated June 26, 2018 b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract. SECTION 2. Section 2. “TERM” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 30, 2021 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.” Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 2 of 3 SECTION 3. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference. (SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.) Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 3 of 3 SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney or designee ECOLOGY ACTION OF SANTA CRUZ Officer 1 By: Name: Title: Officer 2 By: Name: Title: Executive Director Jim Murphy Chuck Tremper Vice President Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: 4C9D9D1CEC384E0B9FF07DC12863EB99 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: Amendment #2 C15155144A - legal reviewed.pdf Source Envelope: Document Pages: 3 Signatures: 2 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Terry Loo AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Disabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 Terry.Loo@CityofPaloAlto.org IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Record Tracking Status: Original 4/16/2020 9:16:14 AM Holder: Terry Loo Terry.Loo@CityofPaloAlto.org Location: DocuSign Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Palo Alto Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Jim Murphy jmurphy@ecoact.org Executive Director Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 71.198.219.85 Sent: 4/16/2020 9:20:11 AM Resent: 4/17/2020 8:45:44 AM Resent: 4/20/2020 7:49:49 AM Viewed: 4/16/2020 12:21:49 PM Signed: 4/20/2020 11:25:13 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Chuck Tremper ctremper@ecoact.org Vice President Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 67.169.188.195 Sent: 4/20/2020 11:25:16 AM Viewed: 4/20/2020 11:28:06 AM Signed: 4/20/2020 11:28:29 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Tabatha Boatwright tabatha.boatwright@cityofpaloalto.org Administrative Associate III City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 4/20/2020 11:28:31 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Josh Wallace josh.wallace@cityofpaloalto.org Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 4/20/2020 11:28:31 AM Viewed: 4/20/2020 11:32:48 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Witness Events Signature Timestamp Notary Events Signature Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 4/20/2020 11:28:31 AM Certified Delivered Security Checked 4/20/2020 11:28:31 AM Signing Complete Security Checked 4/20/2020 11:28:31 AM Completed Security Checked 4/20/2020 11:28:31 AM Payment Events Status Timestamps Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 1 of 3 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. C15155144B BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND ENOVITY, INC. This Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No. C15155144B (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of ________________, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and ENOVITY, INC., a California corporation, located at 100 Montgomery Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94104 (“CONSULTANT”). CITY and CONSULTANT are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment. R E C I T A L S A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the provision of energy efficiency services to CITY’s large commercial, industrial and institutional customers, as detailed therein. B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract in order to extend the term by one year, from the contract end date of June 30, 2020 through June 30, 2021, with no change to the maximum compensation payable under the Contract for continuation of services per Exhibit “A” Scope of Services. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree: SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment: a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean Contract No. C15155144B between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated June 1, 2015, as amended by: Amendment No.1, dated June 25, 2018 b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract. SECTION 2. Section 2. “TERM” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 30, 2021 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.” Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 2 of 3 SECTION 3. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference. (SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.) Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 3 of 3 SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney or designee ENOVITY, INC. Officer 1 By: Name: Title: Officer 2 By: Name: Title: Senior Director Joy Ulickey, Sr. Director Assistant Treasurer Brian Sullivan Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: 823F47105FAB49AF98631A8AFAF228DB Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: Amendment #2 C15155144B - legal reviewed.pdf Source Envelope: Document Pages: 3 Signatures: 2 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Terry Loo AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Disabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 Terry.Loo@CityofPaloAlto.org IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Record Tracking Status: Original 4/16/2020 9:21:48 AM Holder: Terry Loo Terry.Loo@CityofPaloAlto.org Location: DocuSign Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Palo Alto Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Joy Ulickey, Sr. Director julickey@enovity.com Senior Director Enovity, Inc. Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 104.129.192.191 Sent: 5/1/2020 6:53:43 AM Viewed: 5/1/2020 7:05:58 AM Signed: 5/1/2020 7:07:20 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Brian Sullivan brian.sullivan@veolia.com Assistant Treasurer Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 104.129.196.74 Sent: 5/1/2020 7:07:22 AM Viewed: 5/1/2020 8:33:17 AM Signed: 5/1/2020 4:37:54 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Jeff Guild jguild@enovity.com Director Enovity Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 4/30/2020 4:01:10 PM Viewed: 4/30/2020 4:22:47 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Jonathan Soper JSoper@enovity.com Principal Enovity, Inc Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 4/16/2020 9:42:44 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Timothy Chin tchin@enovity.com Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 5/1/2020 6:53:44 AM Viewed: 5/1/2020 7:12:36 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Tabatha Boatwright tabatha.boatwright@cityofpaloalto.org Administrative Associate III City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 5/1/2020 4:37:56 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Josh Wallace josh.wallace@cityofpaloalto.org Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 5/1/2020 4:37:56 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Witness Events Signature Timestamp Notary Events Signature Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 5/1/2020 4:37:56 PM Certified Delivered Security Checked 5/1/2020 4:37:56 PM Signing Complete Security Checked 5/1/2020 4:37:56 PM Completed Security Checked 5/1/2020 4:37:56 PM Payment Events Status Timestamps Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 1 of 3 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. C15155144C BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND BASE ENERGY, INC. This Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No. C15155144C (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of ________________, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and BASE ENERGY, INC., a California corporation, located at 5 Third Street, Suite 630, San Francisco, CA 94103 (“CONSULTANT”). CITY and CONSULTANT are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment. R E C I T A L S A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the provision of energy efficiency services to CITY’s large commercial, industrial and institutional customers, as detailed therein. B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract in order to extend the term by one year, from the contract end date of June 30, 2020 through June 30, 2021, with no change to the maximum compensation payable under the Contract for continuation of services per Exhibit “A” Scope of Services. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree: SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment: a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean Contract No. C15155144C between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated June 1, 2015, as amended by: Amendment No.1, dated June 26, 2018 b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract. SECTION 2. Section 2. “TERM” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 30, 2021 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.” Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 2 of 3 SECTION 3. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference. (SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.) Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 3 of 3 SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney or designee BASE ENERGY, INC. Officer 1 By: Name: Title: Officer 2 By: Name: Title: Ahmad R. Ganji Principal Sandra Chow Secretary Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: B1BD704EB55C4684AA9ACD6BC35398C0 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: Amendment #2 C15155144c - legal reviewed.pdf Source Envelope: Document Pages: 3 Signatures: 2 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Terry Loo AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Disabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 Terry.Loo@CityofPaloAlto.org IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Record Tracking Status: Original 4/16/2020 9:26:09 AM Holder: Terry Loo Terry.Loo@CityofPaloAlto.org Location: DocuSign Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Palo Alto Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Ahmad R. Ganji arg@baseco.com Principal Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 98.210.60.230 Sent: 4/16/2020 9:28:59 AM Resent: 4/17/2020 8:46:02 AM Resent: 4/20/2020 7:49:31 AM Viewed: 4/20/2020 3:57:21 PM Signed: 4/20/2020 3:57:41 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Sandra Chow schow@baseco.com BASE Energy, Inc. Principal BASE Energy, Inc (Ahmad Ganji) Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 98.210.60.230 Sent: 4/20/2020 3:57:43 PM Viewed: 4/20/2020 4:41:58 PM Signed: 4/20/2020 4:42:16 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Tabatha Boatwright tabatha.boatwright@cityofpaloalto.org Administrative Associate III City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 4/20/2020 4:42:17 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Josh Wallace josh.wallace@cityofpaloalto.org Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 4/20/2020 4:42:18 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Witness Events Signature Timestamp Notary Events Signature Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 4/20/2020 4:42:18 PM Certified Delivered Security Checked 4/20/2020 4:42:18 PM Signing Complete Security Checked 4/20/2020 4:42:18 PM Completed Security Checked 4/20/2020 4:42:18 PM Payment Events Status Timestamps City of Palo Alto (ID # 11263) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/15/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Amendment No. Two to Multi-Year Contract With Genuine Parts Company Title: Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C17165394 with Genuine Parts Company, dba Napa Auto Parts, to Increase the Contract by $781,013 to an Amount Not-to-Exceed $3,777,087, and Extend the Term Through July 21, 2021 From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute contract Amendment No. 2 (Attachment A) to Contract No. C17165394 with Genuine Parts Company (“NAPA”) to increase the compensation by $781,013 for continued services and the further purchase of parts and related supplies for vehicle and equipment maintenance and repairs, and to extend the term through July 21, 2021. The revised total contract amount is not to exceed $3,777,087. Background In August 2016, fleet staff contracted its parts operations to NAPA as a three-year pilot after approval from the Fleet Review Committee (FRC), approval from the Finance Committee on May 12, 2016 (CMR#6887),and final approval from Council on August 15, 2016 (CMR #7027). The pilot ended on July 21, 2019 and was renewed with a one-year extension on August 12, 2019 (CMR #10512), based on analysis by staff indicating that the pilot with NAPA had been successful and benefited the City in overall cost savings.The first contract amendment extended the City’s contract through July 21,2020, which at the time aligned with NAPA’s contract term with Sourcewell. This second amendment to the contract will extend the term through July 21, 2021 and add funding accordingly. Discussion On November 20, 2019, NAPA extended its existing contract with Sourcewell, an approved cooperative purchasing group, for an additional year (Attachment B) with an expiration date of July 21, 2021. Since NAPA only extended for a one-year period, staff recommends keeping alignment with the Sourcewell contract and returning to Council next year with a City of Palo Alto Page 2 recommendation for a new three-year contract to continue an on-site parts management program. This will allow for continued on-site fleet parts and inventory services, including contract personnel to procure and manage the auto parts/supplies inventory. The funding increase for this contract extension, compared to the previous contract year ending July 21, 2020, is $33,919 (4.5 percent)higher. This increase was already included in past budget projections to allow an increase in parts purchases, which is necessary to complete repairs to aging vehicles within the fleet. This increase does not reflect any change to the terms of the contract such as an increase to the percentage of markup on parts. This contract is on the City’s general services agreement template, which permits the City to terminate without cause/for convenience by providing written notice to the contractor. In the event the City finds itself facing a challenging budget situation, and it is determined that City resources need to be refocused elsewhere, the City can terminate for convenience. Other options include termination due to non-appropriation of funds or amending the contract to reduce the cost, for example, by reducing the scope of work. Bid Process The City’s Municipal code, PAMC section 2.30.360 (j) identifies the process that allows the use of intergovernmental cooperative purchasing agreements. Bids for this extension were obtained through the approved cooperative group, Sourcewell, and a proposal was received April 2, 2020 from NAPA (Attachment C). Resource Impact Pending the City Council’s adoption of the Fiscal Year 2021 Operating Budget, scheduled for June 22, 2020, funding for this amendment will be appropriated in the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund.As an internal service fund, these costs are funded by revenue collected from vehicle operation and maintenance allocations charged to departments. Stakeholder Engagement Stakeholder engagement is not required for this contract amendment. Policy Implications This recommendation does not present any changes to existing City policies. Environmental Review Approval of this contract does not constitute a project and is exempt from the requirements of California Environmental Protection Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3). Attachments: ·Attachment A-Amendment No.2 ·Attachment B-Amendment Napa/Sourcewell ·Attachment C-Palo Alto Performa 1yr-Customer with total Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 1 of 3 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. C17165394 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND GENUINE PARTS COMPANY (d/b/a NAPA AUTO PARTS) This Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No. C17165394 (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of June 15, 2020, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and GENUINE PARTS COMPANY, a Georgia corporation (d/b/a NAPA AUTO PARTS) (“NAPA” or “CONTRACTOR”), located at 2999 Circle 75 Parkway, Atlanta, Georgia, Telephone Number: 303-799-1965. CITY and CONTRACTOR are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment. R E C I T A L S A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the provision of an on-site parts operation at City’s municipal service, as detailed therein; and B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract to extend the term for the provision of services under the Contract through July 21, 2021, and, accordingly, to increase the not to exceed maximum compensation by Seven Hundred Eighty One Thousand Thirteen Dollars ($781,013) to a new total not to exceed amount of Three Million Seven Hundred Seventy Seven Thousand Eighty Seven Dollars ($3,777,078), as detailed in this Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree: SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment: a.Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean Contract No. C17165394 between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated August 15, 2016, as amended by: Amendment No. 1, dated August 22, 2019. b.Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract. SECTION 2. Section 3, “TERM,” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: “The term of this Agreement is from August 22, 2016 through July 21, 2021, inclusive, subject to the provisions of Sections R and W of the General Terms and Conditions.” SECTION 3. Section 5, “COMPENSATION FOR ORIGINAL TERM,” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: Attachment A Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 2 of 3 “CITY shall pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept as not-to-exceed compensation for full performance of the Service and reimbursable expenses, if any: The total maximum lump sum compensation of dollars ($ ); OR The sum of dollars ($ ) per hour, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of dollars ($ ); OR A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth at Exhibit C, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of Three Million Seven Hundred Seventy-Seven Thousand Eighty Seven Dollars ($3,777,087). CONTRACTOR agrees that it can perform the Services for an amount not to exceed the total maximum compensation set forth above. Any hours worked or services performed by CONTRACTOR for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth above for performance of the Services shall be at no cost to CITY. SECTION 5. Legal Effect. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. SECTION 6. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are hereby fully incorporated herein by this reference. (SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.) Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 3 of 3 SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney or designee GENUINE PARTS COMPANY dba NAPA AUTO PARTS Officer 1 By: Name: Title: Officer 2 (Required for Corp. or LLC) By: Name: Title: Page 1 of 2 AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT #061015-GPC This Amendment is by and between Sourcewell and Genuine Parts Company/NAPA Integrated Business Solutions (IBS) (Vendor). Sourcewell and Vendor will be collectively known hereinafter as “Parties.” Vendor was awarded a Sourcewell Contract for Fleet-Related Maintenance Equipment, Supplies, Services, and Inventory Management Solutions effective July 21, 2015, through July 21, 2019, relating to the provision of services by Vendor and to Sourcewell and its Members. The parties agreed on May 30, 2018, to a “Letter of Agreement to Extend the Contract” for the 5th year renewal extension that will terminate on July 21, 2020. However, the parties agree to a 6th year extension in order to satisfy the validated needs and requests of Sourcewell Members , which would expire the contract on July 21, 2021. The parties agree that certain terms within the Agreement will be updated and amended and only to the extent as hereunder provided. In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements described in this Amendment, the parties agree as follows: 1.This Amendment is effective upon the date of the last signature below and has the effect of extending the Agreement through July 21, 2021. This Agreement will not be extended for any additional time. Vendor understands that Sourcewell will no longer market this Agreement. 2.Effective June 6, 2018, NJPA changed its name to Sourcewell. All references in these documents to NJPA should be read as being replaced with “Sourcewell.” 3.The Agreement and any previous amendments are incorporated into this Amendment by reference. (Balance of this page intentionally left blank.) DocuSign Envelope ID: 25CC184D-4C41-43EA-BAED-7ED9D9EDD9DD Attachment B Page 2 of 2 Except as amended by this Amendment, the Agreement remains in full force and effect. Sourcewell Genuine Parts Company/ NAPA Integrated Business Solutions (IBS) By: By: Authorized Signature Authorized Signature Jeremy Schwartz Jett Kuntz Name – Printed Name – Printed Title: Director of Operations & Procurement/CPO Title: Vice President Date: Date: APPROVED: By: Authorized Signature Chad Coauette Name – Printed Title: Executive Director/CEO Date: DocuSign Envelope ID: 25CC184D-4C41-43EA-BAED-7ED9D9EDD9DD            Palo Alto Performa 1 YR % To Target Year One Escalation Sales 5% Parts Purchases 49,615 100.00%595,374 29,769 Cost of Goods 44,653 90.00%535,837 26,792 Markup on Parts 4,961 10.00%59,537 2,977 GROSS PROFIT 4,961 10.00%59,537 2,977 Accounting Fees 491 0.99%5,894 295 PAYROLL: Manager/Counter Salaries 7,700 15.52%95,172 4,759 Delivery Driver Salaries 0 0.00%- - Pension 268 0.54%3,215 161 Insurance 1,000 2.02%12,000 1,230 Workers Comp Insurance 915 1.84%10,980 1,125 FICA/SECA/FUI/SUI 796 1.60%9,552 979 Total IBS Payroll 10,679 21.52%130,919 8,254 Miscellaneous Expenses Delivery Truck Insurance - 0.00%- - Delivery Maintenance/Gas - 0.00%- - Truck Payment - 0.00%- - Shelving/Cage Depreciation - 0.00%- - Freight & Postage 200 0.40%2,400 120 General Liability Insurance 100 0.20%1,200 60 Interest - 0.00%- - Light, Heat, Water - 0.00%- - Rent - 0.00%- - Stationary, Shipping Supplies 150 0.30%1,800 90 Stock Loss - 0.00%- - Store Expenses 60 0.12%720 36 Personal Property Taxes - 0.00%- - Telephone - 0.00%- - Inventory Computer 530 1.07%6,360 318 Training 14 0.03%168 8 TOTAL MISC. EXP.1,054 2.12%12,648 632 - - TOTAL EXPENSES 12,224 24.64%146,689 9,181 MGMT FEE 12,224 24.64%146,689 9,181 Current Year AVGProjected Expenses NAPA Monthly Parts and Operational Projections City of Palo Alto (ID # 11303) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/15/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Transportation and Traffic Summary Title: Approve Contract Amendment for Dixon Resources to Extend Term Title: Approval of Amendment Number 3 to Contract Number C18172676 With Dixon Resources to Extend the Term to June 2021 With no Additional Costs for Downtown Parking Study From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council adopt Amendment number three to Contract Number C18172676 with Dixon Resources to Extend the Term to June 2021 with No Additional Costs. Background: In 2016 and 2017, Dixon Resources prepared detailed plans to implement paid parking after an extensive internal and public process. This was considered by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) but did not move beyond PTC discussions at that time. The original contract is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65672. On May 13, 2019, the City Council accepted a report about the Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program from the Municipal Resource Group (MRG). The report contained 35 recommendations for the City to consider. Recommendation #2 stated that the City should do the following: Recommendation 2: Conduct Downtown Parking Operational Study – A contract (amendment) should be approved that provides the information and specific steps needed to move the City forward from a parking program built around a rigid system of pre-paid permits to a program built around the dynamic monitoring of usage and the City of Palo Alto Page 2 application of pricing. It would also provide a roadmap to build community support for this effort. This contract is expected to be presented to the City Council in FY 2018-19. Based on MRG’s guidance, the Office of Transportation needed to fill two senior positions before executing tasks to improve the City’s parking programs. Shortly after, the Chief Transportation Official position was filled early Summer 2019 and a new Parking Manager was hired in Spring 2020. The prolonged recruitment process led to significant deliverable delays on Dixon’s scope of work. This current report brings forward a contract amendment to advance the recommendations outlined in the agreement. Discussion: Through this contract amendment, the Downtown Parking Action Plan (“Action Plan”) is intended to outline the recommended short, mid, and long-term implementation steps to establish an effective and efficient parking program in Palo Alto. This will be an easy to follow, step-by-step guide for the City. The recommendations will take into consideration stakeholder feedback, budget and costs, past data analysis, industry best practices, and the City’s overall goals and objectives. Each recommendation will be organized by phase into the plan with a list of detailed implementation steps. Any required follow up actions will also be highlighted in the Action Plan. The recommendations will address the current, upcoming and long-term challenges and needs of Palo Alto. Many of the recommendations will have an immediate impact on parking management and will establish the basis for future improvements. The contract amendment aligns with the RPP parking recommendations from the MRG report. Resource Impact: City Council approved funding for this contract as part of the FY 2019 Adopted Budget on June 18, 2018 and no additional funds are needed. Services will be provided to various parking districts in Palo Alto; therefore, the costs are proportionally split between the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund, California Avenue Parking Permit Fund, and Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Funds. The amendment will extend the terms of the contract without changes to the contract scope or contract amount. Environmental Review: The proposed actions are not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: Attachment A: C18172676 Dixon contract Amendment 3 (PDF) Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 1 of 5 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO CONTRACT NO. C18172676 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED This Amendment No. 3 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No. C18172676 (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of ________________, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED, a California corporation, located at 3639 Midway Drive, Suite B345, San Diego, California 92110 (“CONSULRANT”). CITY and CONSULTANT are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment. R E C I T A L S A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the provision of support services for the Office of Transportation, as detailed therein. B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract in order to extend the term by twelve months, from the original contract end date of June 30, 2020 through June 30, 2021, for the continued provision of services described in Exhibit A to the Contract, with no change to the maximum compensation payable under the Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree: SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment: a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean Contract No. C18172676 between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated July 1, 2018, as amended by: Amendment No.1, dated March 25, 2019 Amendment No.2, dated October 28, 2019 b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract. SECTION 2. Section 2. “TERM” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 30, 2021, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 or Section 25 of this Agreement.” Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 2 of 5 SECTION 3. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended or added, as indicated below, to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which is/are hereby incorporated in full into this Amendment and into the Contract by this reference: a. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION”, AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS. SECTION 4. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 5. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference. (SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.) Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 3 of 5 SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney or designee DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED By: Name: Title: Attachments: EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION, AMENDED President Julianne Dixon Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 4 of 5 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services, additional services, and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed the amount(s) stated in Section 4 of this Agreement. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services and Additional Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this/these amount(s). Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth in this Agreement shall be at no cost to the CITY. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: None All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expenses, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 5 of 5 Budget Breakdown – Total Contract Compensation Contract Year Dates Funds Encumbered Funds Spent Funds Remaining 1 7/1/2018 to 6/30/2019 $285,126.00 $84,983.02 $200,142.98 2 to date 7/1/2019 to 4/28/2020 $0.00 $19,180.45 $180,962.53 3 4/29/20 to 6/30/2021 No additional funds TBD TBD Total $285,126.00 $194,163.47 $180,962.53 Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: CF4456E5BF1F47A3AAD9CA3EED26A1D1 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: Amendment #3 C18172676 - legal reviewed.pdf Source Envelope: Document Pages: 5 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Terry Loo AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Disabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 Terry.Loo@CityofPaloAlto.org IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Record Tracking Status: Original 5/7/2020 11:52:39 AM Holder: Terry Loo Terry.Loo@CityofPaloAlto.org Location: DocuSign Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Palo Alto Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Julianne Dixon julie@dixonresourcesunlimited.com President Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Signature Adoption: Drawn on Device Using IP Address: 72.197.172.39 Sent: 5/7/2020 11:54:34 AM Viewed: 5/7/2020 11:59:53 AM Signed: 5/7/2020 12:00:58 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Mark Hur mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.org Parking Operations Lead Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 5/7/2020 12:01:00 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Elizabeth Egli elizabeth.egli@cityofpaloalto.org Managment Analyst City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 5/7/2020 12:01:01 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Sarah Wilson Sarah.Wilson@CityofPaloAlto.org City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 5/7/2020 12:01:02 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Witness Events Signature Timestamp Notary Events Signature Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 5/7/2020 12:01:02 PM Certified Delivered Security Checked 5/7/2020 12:01:02 PM Signing Complete Security Checked 5/7/2020 12:01:02 PM Completed Security Checked 5/7/2020 12:01:02 PM Payment Events Status Timestamps City of Palo Alto (ID # 10747) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/15/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution Confirming Weed Abatement & Assessment Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of a Resolution Confirming the Weed Abatement Report and Ordering the Cost of Abatement to be a Special Assessment on the Respective Properties Described Therein From: City Manager Lead Department: Fire RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council (1) hold a public hearing to hear and consider objections from affected property owners of proposed assessments related to completed weed abatement work, and (2) adopt the attached resolution confirming the report and ordering abatement costs to be a special assessment on the properties specified in the report. BACKGROUND The Weed Abatement Division of Santa Clara County Agriculture and Environmental Management administers the contract for weed abatement within the City of Palo Alto, in accordance with an agreement established on April 18, 1977, between the City and County. On November 18, 2019, in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 8.08, the City Council declared weeds to be a nuisance and ordered that the nuisance be abated. A public hearing was held on January 13, 2020, to consider objections to the proposed destruction or removal of the weeds. No objections were noted. Once the above steps had been taken, the County Weed Abatement Division instructed its contractor to abate weeds on City and private properties within Palo Alto. That work has now been completed. Property owners were notified the third week in December 2019 that weeds were to be abated by April 30th, 2020, either by the owners or by the County. If the property owners chose to have the County abate the weeds, the abatement charges would be levied against the respective properties as an assessment by the County Assessor. The County has since informed the property owners of the costs for destroying and removing the weeds. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The City Clerk has published the required notice of this hearing in the Palo Alto Weekly. The cost report by the County Weed Abatement Division has been posted on the City Hall Plaza bulletin board for ten (10) days prior to this hearing. DISCUSSION Property owners may object to the charges for weed abatement being levied against their properties. The charge consists of the contractor’s cost plus 150 percent administrative charges, in accordance with Palo Alto’s contract with Santa Clara County (CMR #7527, December 12, 2016). A representative from the County Weed Abatement Division will be present at the public hearing with the records of weed abatement that have taken place. Should there be any modifications in the proposed assessments as a result of the hearing; changes in the assessment spread will be made as necessary. After any recalculations are completed, and Council adopts the attached resolution confirming the abatements and ordering those costs to be imposed as liens on the abated properties, the assessments will be submitted to the County Assessor for entry on the October tax roll upon which general City taxes are to be collected. RESOURCE IMPACT There is no direct fiscal impact of this action to the City. The assessments identified on Attachment “A” of the resolution, totaling $59,842.60, will be imposed as liens on the properties listed and will not be borne by the City. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This procedure is consistent with existing City policies. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The entire weed abatement program is coordinated by the Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture and Environmental Management. Coordination includes contracts, inspections, nuisance reports/lists and fees. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The Santa Clara County Counsel has determined the Weed Abatement Program to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308. Attachments: • Attachment A: Resolution Confirming Weed Abatement Attachment A NOT YET ADOPTED Resolution No. Resolution Confirming Weed Abatement Report and Ordering Cost of Abatement to be a Special Assessment on the Respective Properties Described Therein R E C I T A L S A. The Council of the City of Palo Alto has heretofore declared weeds growing on certain properties within the City to be a public nuisance by Resolution No. 9869, dated November 18, 2019. B. The Council on January 13, 2020, did adopt Resolution No. 9875, thereby ordering the weed nuisance abated. C. Subsequent to the giving of said notice, the Fire Chief, through his Administrator, the Weed Abatement Division of Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture and Environmental Management, has caused to be abated the weeds on the herein described properties. D. The Fire Chief, through his Administrator, the Weed Abatement Division of Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture and Environmental Management, has filed his report and assessment list for weed abatement as provided by law and a hearing has been duly set and noticed, for objections to said report and assessment list and for confirmation. E. The Council has duly considered the report and assessment list and any objections thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The report and assessment list is in all respects complete and correct and is hereby confirmed. The amounts of the cost for abating the nuisance are confirmed and those remaining unpaid, as shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein, shall constitute special assessments against the respective parcels of land and are a lien on the property for the amount of the respective assessment. SECTION 2. All written or oral protests or objections to said report and assessment list are overruled or denied. SECTION 3. The unpaid assessments shown on Exhibit “A” shall be entered upon the 2020‐2021 tax roll against the parcels of land and shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as general City taxes, be subject to the same interest and penalties, and be subject to the same procedure and sale in case of delinquency. All laws and ordinances applicable to the levy, collection, and enforcement of City taxes are hereby made applicable to this special assessment. 20200606 ay fire misc\weed abatement 1 SECTION 4. Santa Clara County has determined the weed abatement program to be categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Assistant City Attorney City Manager Fire Chief Director of Administrative Services 2 ExhibitA1 2020 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM ASSESSMENT REPORT CITY OF PALO ALTO TAX ROLL Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS AMT TRA 1605 Edgewood 003-12-002 Miao, Nina Yanti 931 Clara Dr PALO ALTO 94303-4002 $2,545.40 6006 2 1576 Hamilton 003-24-010 1576 Hamilton Avenue Lie 0 Po Box 1179 PALO ALTO 94304 $101.00 6006 3 136 Lois 003-38-044 Hobson Eleanor M Trustee Po Box 60452 PALO ALTO 94306 $101.00 6001 4 170 Iris 003-41-008 Xia, Fan And Zhou, Yuan 170 Iris Wy PALO ALTO 94303-3036 $1,763.00 6006 5 782 Greer 003-41-065 Deng, Jingjing And Jiang, Lijun 782 Greer Ln PALO ALTO 94303-3022 $IO 1.00 6006 6 999 Embarcadero 003-41-068 Ge, Ruifang And Wang, Peiyu 999 Embarcadero Rd PALO ALTO 94303-3050 $IO 1.00 6006 7 1938 Channing 003-42-039 Haley, Philip H Trustee & Et Al 506 Eisenhower St DAVIS 95616 $IO 1.00 6006 8 1031 Embarcadero 003-42-060 Omegacloud Corporation IO 181 Adriana Av CUPERTINO 95014-1125 $IO 1.00 6006 9 2385 St Francis 003-48-021 Zadik, Yair And Linda 2385 St Francis Dr PALO ALTO 94303-3136 $1,719.80 6006 10 2075 Louis 003-50-021 Keller, Jeffrey R 2075 Louis Rd PALO ALTO 94303-3452 $IO 1.00 6006 11 946 El Cajon 003-52-057 Pillsbury, Albert F And Helen B 707 Elm St Apt 221 SAN CARLOS 94070-8005 $101.00 6006 12 260 Byron 120-02-030 Liveright, Michael 260 Byron St PALO ALTO 94301-1307 $1,763.00 6006 13 655 Embarcadero 120-08-023 LS & Co Partnership 555 Byron St Unit I 05 PALO ALTO 94301-1303 $101.00 6001 14 733 Ramona 120-27-063 Koda, Ross K Trustee 0 PO Box 156 SOUTH DOS PALOS 93665 $1,868.60 6006 15 135 Melville 124-15-028 Poppy, James C And Sylvester, Mary 135 Melville Av PALO ALTO 94301-3541 $IO 1.00 6006 16 3419 Cork Oak 127-48-023 Sunny Venture Lie 530 Showers Dr 7-229 MOUNTAIN VIEW 94040 $101.00 6006 17 464 Colorado 132-08-115 Chuang, Suhchu 142 Park Av PALO ALTO 94306-1107 $101.00 6006 18 3533 Ramona 132-22-097 Tang, Dexter Chihung Trustee & Et 3533 Ramona St PALO ALTO 94306-3549 $101.00 6006 Report Date: 5/27/2020 (List Sorted by APN) Page 1 ExhibitA1 2020 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM ASSESSMENT REPORT CITY OF PALO ALTO TAX ROLL Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS AMT TRA 19 3541 Bryant 132-23-033 Kaposhilin, Nicholas Trustee 936 California Av N PALO ALTO 94303-3405 $803.00 6006 20 76 Roosevelt 132-23-059 Liu, Jenkuei Trustee & Et Al 4039 Scripps Av PALO ALTO 94306-4535 $101.00 6006 21 149 El Dorado 132-25-022 Quan, Steven Y And Lillian M Trustee 3143 Greer Rd PALO ALTO 94303-4027 $101.00 6006 22 2876 Emerson 132-26-006 Hsu, Yen-fen 2876 Emerson St PALO ALTO 94306-2350 $101.00 6006 23 2886 Emerson 132-26-007 Wang, Diana 0 Po Box 6020 I PALO ALTO 94306-0201 $101.00 6006 24 22 Roosevelt 132-29-067 Chiou, Ren-kang And Teng, Hsiu-22 Roosevelt Cl PALO ALTO 94306-4216 $101.00 6006 25 18 Roosevelt 132-29-069 Bernstein, Amir D Trustee 18 Roosevelt Cl PALO ALTO 94306 $1,739.00 6006 26 Lambert 132-33-060 Linda Allen 1700 Space Park Dr. SANTA CLARA 95054 $101.00 6006 27 Lambert 132-33-061 Linda Allen 1700 Space Park Dr. SANTA CLARA 95054 $2,094.20 6006 28 Lambert 132-33-062 Linda Allen 1700 Space Park Dr. SANTA CLARA 95054 $2,233.40 6006 29 Lambert 132-33-063 Linda Allen 1700 Space Park Dr. SANTACLARA 95054 $2,027.00 6006 30 220 Matadero 132-34-025 Ajloun Enterprises Lie 186 Camelia Dr DALY CITY 94015 $1,715.00 6006 31 280 Matadero 132-34-031 Rose Rock Property Management Lie 19066 Austin Wy SARATOGA 95070-6405 $101.00 6006 32 290 Matadero 132-34-032 Ruehl, Karl K And Sigrid T Trustee 2391 Gabriel Av MOUNTAIN VIEW 94040-1415 $101.00 6006 33 3605 Park 132-34-050 Enabling Strategies Limited, A 3605 Park Boulevard Palo Alto 94306 $101.00 6006 34 3561 Park 132-34-052 Mahal, Jaswinder 180 Park Sharon Dr SAN JOSE 95136-2535 $1,719.80 6006 35 210 Wilton 132-35-012 Chase Wilton Lie 3024 Ross Rd PALO ALTO 94303-4102 $101.00 6006 36 443 Wilton 132-35-027 Atashband, Bahram 443 Wilton Av PALO ALTO 94306-2859 $101.00 6006 Report Date: 5/27/2020 (List Sorted by APN) Page 2 ExhibitA1 2020 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM ASSESSMENT REPORT CITY OF PALO ALTO TAX ROLL Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS AMT TRA 37 215 Wilton 132-35-042 Godshall, Kelvin V Et Al 215 Wilton Av PALO ALTO 94306-2855 $101.00 6006 38 3705 El Camino Real 132-35-045 Wilton Court Ii Lie 2595 Bayshore Rd E Suite 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006 39 2755 El Camino Real 132-36-084 Whpv Alta Locale Lie 530 Emerson St Ste 150 PALO ALTO 94301 $101.00 6006 40 434 Fernando 132-39-025 Woodrich Lie 696 Towle Wy Apt 33 PALO ALTO 94306-2538 $101.00 6006 41 421 Fernando 132-39-037 Williger, Edward M 0 P O Box 20089 STANFORD 94309-0089 $101.00 6006 42 415 Fernando 132-39-038 Brown, Jonathan S And Miriam M 415 Fernando Av PALO ALTO 94306-2820 $101.00 6006 43 3550 Orinda 132-40-001 Rodriguez, Agustin E Trustee & Et Al 3550 Orinda St PALO ALTO 94306-2842 $101.00 6006 44 4032 Park 132-43-025 Zhu, Li And Wan, Fanny Trustee 33345 7th St UNION CITY 94587 $101.00 6006 45 613 Stanford 137-01-059 Baumann, John R 613 Stanford Av PALO ALTO 94306-1412 $101.00 6006 46 2321 Wellesley 137-02-024 Culpepper, Benjamin J 335 Panoramic Wy BERKELEY 94704 $2,003.00 6006 47 2195 Columbia 137-06-036 Edelman, Andrea Trustee 2195 Columbia St PALO ALTO 94306-1233 $101.00 6006 48 3700 El Camino Real 137-11-078 Kss Investment Lie 1380 Miravalle Av LOS ALTOS 94024-5744 $1,811.00 6006 49 3793 La Donna 137-12-016 Mehta, Bijal And Pallavi Trustee 3793 La Donna Av PALO ALTO 94306-3151 $1,811.00 6006 50 721 Barron 137-13-042 Ashworth, Darren And Imane 705 Barron Av PALO ALTO 94306-3108 $101.00 6006 51 3890 La Donna 137-13-059 Sanders, David R And Dejesus-rueff, 3890 La Donna Av PALO ALTO 94306-3156 $101.00 6006 52 4146 El Camino Real 137-24-034 Juan, Su Chen And Chung-chiung 6 Atherton Oaks Ln ATHERTON 94027 $2,295.80 6006 53 4170 Alta Mesa 137-25-113 Wu, Mike C And Tsai-feng Trustee 4170 Alta Mesa Av PALO ALTO 94306-3930 $101.00 6006 54 Maybell 137-25-134 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006 Report Date: 5/27/2020 (List Sorted by APN) Page 3 ExhibitA1 2020 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM ASSESSMENT REPORT CITY OF PALO ALTO TAX ROLL Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS AMT TRA 55 Maybell 137-25-135 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006 56 Maybell 137-25-136 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006 57 Maybell 137-25-137 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006 58 Maybell 137-25-138 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $IO 1.00 6006 59 Maybell 137-25-139 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006 60 Maybell 137-25-140 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006 61 Maybell 137-25-141 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006 62 Maybell 137-25-142 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $IO 1.00 6006 63 Maybell 137-25-143 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006 64 Maybell 137-25-144 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006 65 Maybell 137-25-145 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006 66 Maybell 137-25-146 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006 67 Maybell 137-25-147 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006 68 Maybell 137-25-148 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006 69 Maybell 137-25-149 Golden Gate Homes Lie 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 200 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006 70 4158 Arnaranta 137-26-027 Edmonds, Brian W And Parsa, 4158 Arnaranta Av PALO ALTO 94306-3905 $101.00 6006 71 4170 Coulombe 137-26-112 Tana, Chin in Trustee & Et Al 4170 Coulombe Dr PALO ALTO 94306-380 I $101.00 6006 72 4130 Donald 137-27-086 Hsi, Hsing-hui 4130 Donald Dr PALO ALTO 94306-3822 $101.00 6006 Report Date: 5/27/2020 (List Sorted by APN) Page 4 ExhibitA1 2020 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM ASSESSMENT REPORT CITY OF PALO ALTO TAX ROLL Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS AMT TRA 73 3460 Hillview 142-16-059 Leland Stanford Jr Univ The Bd IO I California Av Ste 1800 SAN FRANCISCO 94111 $1,691.00 6006 74 1050 Arastradero 142-16-060 Leland Stanford Jr Univ Bd I 050 Arastradero Rd Palo Alto 94304 $1,907.00 6006 75 3495 Deer Creek 142-16-062 Leland Stanford Jr Univ Board 150 Portola Rd PORTOLA VALLEY 94025 $2,867.00 6006 76 3500 Deer Creek 142-16-066 Leland Stanford Jr University Board 3500 Deer Creek Rd PALO ALTO 94304 $2,867.00 6006 77 1000 Page Mill 142-20-091 Leland Stanford Jr University Board 965 Page Mill Rd PALO ALTO 94304 $101.00 6006 78 144 Monroe 148-06-001 Palo Alto Ca 14 Lie 2316 Wahsatch Av N #631 COLORADO SPRINGS 80907 $101.00 6006 79 4388 Silva 148-12-028 Yin 4761 EastusDr. San Jose 95129-3216 $1,715.00 6006 80 633 Arastradero 167-06-016 Stone, Virginia A And Bradley K 3516 Bajamont Wy CARMICHAEL 95608 $1,715.00 6006 81 639 Arastradero 167-06-063 Firm Ground Real Estate 0 Po Box 51871 PALO ALTO 94303 $101.00 6006 82 4179 Oak Hill 175-01-025 Bachrach, Virginia R Trustee 12 Starr Wy MOUNTAIN VIEW 94040 $3,299.00 6006 83 4169 Oak Hill 175-01-026 Bachrach, Virginia R Trustee 12 Starr Wy MOUNTAIN VIEW 94040 $3,347.00 6006 84 849 Mesa 175-01-037 Tit Lie 0 Po Box 1667 PALO ALTO 94302 $1,671.80 6006 85 4158 Oakhill 175-01-051 Karnath, Swati P Trustee 4158 Oakhill Av PALO ALTO 94306-3720 $101.00 6006 86 4243 Manuela 175-02-053 Weakland, Alan Trustee & Et Al 515 Flower St S Floor 25 LOS ANGELES 90071 $101.00 6006 87 4103 Old Trace 175-20-078 Smithwick, Alton D And Ursula L 0 Po Box 60065 PALO ALTO 94306 $2,487.80 6006 88 Old Adobe 175-20-092 Grove, Eva K Trustee 171 Main St 278 LOS ALTOS 94022 $101.00 6006 89 931 Laurel Glen 182-54-012 Sheth, Beerud Trustee & Et Al 931 Laurel Glen Dr PALO ALTO 94304-1323 $101.00 6006 TOTAL $59,842.60 Report Date: 5/27/2020 (List Sorted by APN) Page 5 City of Palo Alto (ID # 11048) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/15/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Draft 2020-2021 CDBG Consolidated Plan and Draft 2020- 2021 Action Plan Title: Recommendation on Proposed Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding Allocation; Recommendation that the City Manager or Designee be Authorized to Execute Necessary Documents for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 CDGB Application and to Submit 2020- 2021 Action Plan and 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan to HUD by the Extended Deadline of August 16, 2020. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Recommendation Staff and the Finance Committee recommend the City Council: 1. Adopt the attached funding resolution (Attachment E) allocating Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding as recommended in the draft 2020-2021 Action Plan (Attachment A) and as described in this report; 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 CDBG application and Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Action Plan for CDBG funds and any other necessary documents concerning the application, and to otherwise bind the City with respect to the applications and commitment of funds; 3. Authorize staff to submit the 2020-2021 Action Plan (Attachment B) to HUD by the extended deadline of August 16, 2020; and 4. Authorize staff to submit the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan (Attachment B) to HUD by the extended deadline of August 16, 2020. Executive Summary The City of Palo Alto receives funds annually from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as an entitlement city under the Community Development Block Grant City of Palo Alto Page 2 (CDBG) program. CDBG provides localities with grants to devise and implement approaches to improve the physical, economic, and social conditions in their communities. In addition to the annual entitlement allocation, the City received $294,909 from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act, H.R. 748). This report and attachments present the proposed allocations and uses of CDBG funds for the 2020-2021 fiscal year as well as the Consolidated Plan that will guide CDBG allocations from 2020-2025. The Council is being asked to review the draft 2020-25 Consolidated Plan and draft 2020-21 Action Plan and recommend funding allocations. The City plans to submit its Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan no later than the August 16, 2020 deadline. Background The CDBG program is authorized under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. As an entitlement city under the CDBG program, the City of Palo Alto receives funds annually on a formula grant basis. HUD regulations require all CDBG funded activities meet one of the three national objectives: • Benefit low-and very-low-income persons; • Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or • Meet other community development needs having particular urgency or posing a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community. Palo Alto’s program is directed towards housing-related work. Specifically, local CDBG funds are allocated to expanding and maintaining existing affordable housing supply; promoting housing opportunities and choices; and providing supportive services for targeted low-income groups including unhoused persons, persons with disabilities, the elderly, and others. Consolidated Plan & Annual Action Plan HUD requires preparation of a five-year strategic plan of action, referred to as a Consolidated Plan (ConPlan). The ConPlan must address priority housing and community development needs and to set goals. The CDBG program is currently guided by the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan adopted by Council on May 4, 2015, and a new five-year plan is required. HUD also requires submittal of an Annual Action Plan. The Annual Action Plan must identify the specific projects to be funded to implement strategies identified in the Consolidated Plan. Planning and Development Services staff coordinated with the County of Santa Clara and other entitlement cities to select a consulting firm to prepare these plans. Staff presented the draft 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan and draft 2020-21 Action Plan (Attachment B) to the Finance Committee on May 5, 2020. Both plans became available for a public review period beginning May 8, 2020 through June 8, 2020. This constitutes the required 30-day public review period. Once adopted the Consolidated Plan will be effective July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2025. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Public Hearings & Citizen Participation The typical required public hearing processes were adjusted to accommodate for the declared National Emergency and accompanying Shelter in Place (SIP) Orders issued by various governors and counties. The CARES Act allows the City to submit its Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan no later than August 16, 2020. Prior to submission, the City must hold 2 public hearings: one hearing, followed by a 30-day circulation and public comment period, followed by a second public hearing. The Finance Committee meeting on May 5, 2020 served as the first public hearing. In prior years, the Human Relations Commission (HRC) and an HRC sub-committee also provided recommendations to City Council. This year, the HRC subcommittee conducted a hearing to make recommendations. However, the HRC was unable to conduct a hearing to consider these recommendations, due to the Shelter in Place order. The subcommittee’s recommendations did not include the CARES Act funding, allocated after the HRC subcommittee meeting. Staff and the HRC subcommittee’s CDBG funding recommendations, outlined in Report ID#111481, were received during the Finance Committee public hearing on May 5, 2020. After taking public comments, the Finance Committee voted 3-0 to recommend to Council adoption of the recommendations, as recorded in the Finance Committee meeting minutes.2 Discussion The programs funded by Palo Alto’s CDBG grants had a successful year of serving the most vulnerable in the Palo Alto community. The majority of those served belonged to what HUD terms special needs populations: homeless, frail elderly, domestic violence victims, and severely disabled persons. The agencies proposed to use the CDBG grants to serve 1077 very low- and low-income residents in Fiscal Year 2019-2020. As of December 31, 2019, the agencies had provided services to 693 persons. Out of the 693 served, 680 persons received assistance, such as complaints resolution in the Palo Alto Residential Care Facilities, basic needs day services at Opportunity Services Center, housing search education and information on domestic violence, case management services to secure affordable housing for persons with disabilities, and support counseling services. Additionally, 10 persons received assistance to secure permanent employment through Downtown Streets Team program. The program funded rehabilitation of MayView Community Health Center. The goal of the project is to develop a clinic environment that is both safe and functional for patients and staff. Recommended Allocation for FY 2020-21 1 Finance Committee Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=57876.17&BlobID=76463 2 Action Minutes from Finance Committee Meeting: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=44656.38&BlobID=76997 City of Palo Alto Page 4 The City of Palo Alto has a total of $1,145,480 to allocate for Fiscal Year 2020-21. This includes $501,355 announced as the City’s CDBG entitlement on February 25, 2020; an additional $294,909 awarded to respond to COVID-19; $213,167 from prior year resources and $136,049 in estimated program income. The recommended FY20-21 allocations, which represent year two of a two-year funding cycle, continue to address housing and the needs of housing-insecure individuals and households. This year, additional funding made available via the CARES Act is proposed to be allocated to support rent relief, food, and COVID-19 testing in the Palo Alto community. Though the City is permitted to use $58,982 from the CARES Act allocation for administration, the proposed allocation does not include additional administration funds; all money is being used to support the needs of the community. A detailed description of CARES Act funding follows. Detailed descriptions of funding recommendations and agencies are provided in Attachments A and C. Responding to COVID-19 Pandemic The United States Congress passed The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act, H.R. 748), also known as Stimulus, on March 27, 2020. The Act expedites the use of CDBG funds to prevent and respond to COVID-19. Through the CARES Act, the City received an additional $294,909 in CDBG funds to be used specifically for responding to COVID-19 (further detail in Attachment C).3 Once the CARES allocation was confirmed, staff began extensive outreach to public service agencies who sought CDBG funds for the upcoming year’s allocations. Staff reached out to ascertain whether: (1) adjustments to the regular FY 20-21 funding requests are desired as agencies are responding to COVID-19 impacts and (2) additional funding is required for assistance in prevention, preparation, and response to COVID-19. Funding was requested for three uses: rent relief programs, COVID-19 testing, and food distribution services. Life Moves, Silicon Valley Independent Living Center, and the YWCA requested funding to provide rent relief assistance to Palo Alto residents; specifically, relief assistance for lower- income households, elderly, domestic violence victims, veterans and severely disabled 3 The CARES Act also provided flexibility from some CDBG requirements: (1) Eliminates the 15% cap on the amount of funds a grantee can spend on the public services category only if the agencies are providing assistance related to COVID-19 otherwise the cap remains. This cap was removed because public services agencies are providing services to the population most directly impacted by COVID-19. (2) Removes the requirement to hold in-person public hearings in order to comply with national and local social gathering requirements. (3) Allows grantees to be reimbursed for COVID-19 response activities regardless of the date the costs were incurred. City of Palo Alto Page 5 persons.4 Rent relief would help low-income families (80% Area Media Income and below) who have suffered documented income loss due to COVID-19. On April 6, 2020, the City Council directed staff to agendize a discussion on rental assistance.5 Allocation of CDBG funds to rent relief is a great opportunity to dedicate funds to this purpose. Staff will continue to research and consider additional rent relief programs for consideration by the full City Council. The MayView clinic requested additional funding to provide 1,800 MayView patients access to COVID-19 testing. Downtown Streets Team expressed interest in splitting their original funding request of $336,400 for two programs. They requested $236,000 for the job training program, which will provide job readiness training. The training is for homeless and/or extremely low‐income individuals, including those who had previous employment terminate due to COVID-19. The remaining $100,000 will be allocated to the Downtown Food Closet program. Based on the available funding, proposed programs and finance committee recommendations staff have prepared funding recommendations for Fiscal Year 2020-21 (Attachment A). Draft 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Per HUD requirements, the City is required to prepare a Consolidated Plan every five years. The draft Consolidated Plan for 2020-2025 is provided as Attachment B. The five specific goals outlined in the draft plan are fully described in Attachment D. The Consolidated Plan is designed to help entitlement grantees assess affordable housing and community development needs. Public participation plays a central role in the development of the Consolidated Plan. In May 2019, the Consortium of Santa Clara County and Cities launched an in-depth, collaborative regional effort consulting with community stakeholders to identify housing and community development needs. This is a comprehensive outreach process. The process goals are to enhance coordination and discuss new approaches to working with social service providers that utilize funding for eligible activities, projects, and programs. Comments received through this outreach effort, combined with Palo Alto’s specifically identified needs, informed the five-year strategic plan. Rental Assistance 4 The potential criteria to be eligible for the rental assistance per HUD regulations are (1) Documented loss of income due to COVID-19 (2) Low-income households defined as having a gross annual income below 80% of the area median income (3) Assistance cannot be provided to households if another source of financial assistance is available to pay that cost (4) One Household cannot be provided more than 3 months of Rental Assistance Allowance (5) Palo Alto resident. 5 Action Minutes from City Council Meeting: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=46893.61&BlobID=76304 City of Palo Alto Page 6 On April 6, 2020, the City Council requested staff agendize a discussion on rental assistance for low income housing and return to Council.6 Providing rental assistance to low-income households and/or the owners and operators of affordable housing can be achieved through direct rental assistance and/or policies to limit the loss of housing for low-income families. The proposal supported by the Annual Action Plan provides direct assistance to households who need rental assistance. These households earn 80% or less of the Area Median Income. Should the City choose, additional funds could be appropriated for this purpose. In addition to City actions, significant efforts have been undertaken to raise money through donations to provide relief to families throughout Santa Clara County. Efforts include Silicon Valley Strong, a philanthropic campaign lead by the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. Destination: Home and Sacred Hearts Community Service are administering a COVID-19 Financial Assistance Program. Collectively, these efforts have raised millions of dollars. Unfortunately, these resources have not kept pace with the demand for rental assistance and other assistance. The Palo Alto City Council, in addition to other governments, has instituted an eviction moratorium to help limit increase in homelessness due to loss of income due to COVID-19. This moratorium, passed on April 6, 2020, lasts until the local state of emergency ends and provides tenants 120 days to repay any back rent. In addition to this policy, Council could direct the City Manager to prepare guidelines for the repayment plans. These guidelines would help tenants and landlords work together to repay any back rent in a manner that limits the loss of housing while ensuring tenants honor agreements made with their landlords. It should be noted that current staff capacity is insufficient to complete this work in a timely manner. The Council could also explore instituting a rent freeze during the COVID-19 emergency. This would prevent increases during this time that would compound low income tenants’ inability to pay rent during the COVID-19 pandemic and will increase the scale of any back rent due at the conclusion of the state of emergency. The State Legislature has discussed policy proposals to provide rental relief. At the time of this report writing, it is not known which—if any—policy proposals may become legislation passed into law by Governor Newsom. It is possible, though, that a statewide policy or program will provide relief at a greater scale than local policies and relief programs. The Council could direct its lobbyist to monitor the progress of these bills during the legislative session. Timeline The funding recommendation made by the City Council will be incorporated into the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan and Fiscal Year 2020-21 Annual Action Plan. Subsequently, the adopted 6 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=46893.61&BlobID=76304 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Consolidated Plan 2020-2025 and Annual Action Plan 2020-21 will be submitted to HUD by June 29th, 2020. Resource Impact Several measures were taken to minimize any General Fund impact for the administration of the CDBG Program. These include streamlining the program to reduce staffing needs, and revised monitoring guidelines to improve program efficiency. The total funding to cover the cost of administering the City’s CDBG program in Fiscal Year 2019-20 is approximately $90,000. This administrative funding covers the cost of 0.48 FTE hourly Staff Specialist and consultant costs for CDBG administration. Policy Implications All applications recommended for funding in Fiscal Year 2020-2021 are consistent with the priorities established in the City’s draft 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan. Moreover, they are consistent with the housing programs and policies in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Environmental Review For purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), budgeting by itself is not a project. Prior to commitment or release of funds for each of the proposed projects, staff will carry out the required environmental reviews or assessments and certify that the review procedures under CEQA, HUD and NEPA regulations have been satisfied for each project. Attachments: Attachment A: FY 2020-21 CDBG Funding Recommendations Attachment B: Draft 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan and Draft 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan Attachment C: CDBG Funding Categories and Available Funds Attachment D: Draft 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Goals Attachment E: Fiscal Year 2020-21 CDBG Funding Resolution ALLOCATION AMOUNT SOURCES FOR CDBG ORIGINAL ENTITLEMENT: CDBG ENTITLEMENT $501,355 PRIOR YEAR RESOURCES $213,167 ESTIMATED PROGRAM INCOME $136,049 TOTAL $850,571 USES: AGENCY - PROGRAM NAME FY 2020 FUNDING REQUEST FINANCE COMMITTTEE RECOMMENDATION CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Palo Alto Housing - SRO Resident Support $50,697 $29,931 Catholic Charities - Ombudsman $10,000 $9,345 LifeMoves - Opportunity Center $46,575 $29,932 YWCA - Domestic Violence Services $10,000 $5,000 SVILC - Housing and Emergency Services $28,826 $11,232 Public Service Total $146,098 $85,440 Not to Exceed $85,440 Project Sentinel - Fair Housing Services $33,698 $37,480 City of Palo Alto - CDBG Administration $90,000 $90,000 Planning & Administration Total $123,698 $127,480 Not to Exceed $127,480 Downtown Streets - Workforce Development $336,400 $236,000 Economic Development Total $336,400 $236,000 Habitat for Humanity - Minor Home Repair $100,000 $0 Palo Alto Housing - Alma Place $149,950 $149,950 Rehab Total $ 249,950 $ 149,950 GRAND TOTAL $856,146 $598,870 ATTACHMENT A: FY2020-21 CDBG FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS 1 ALLOCATION AMOUNT SOURCES FOR CDBG CORONOVIRUS (CV) GRANT CDBG CORONAVIRUS (CV) GRANT $294,909 REMAINING CDBG FY2020-21 ENTITLEMENT GRANT $251,701 TOTAL $546,610 USES: AGENCY - PROGRAM NAME FY 2020 FUNDING REQUEST FINANCE COMMITTTEE RECOMMENDATION CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION LifeMoves - Opportunity Center $294,000 $294,000 YWCA - Domestic Violence Services $10,000 $10,000 SVILC - Housing and Emergency Services $75,000 $75,000 Rent Relief Total $379,000 $379,000 Downtown Streets – Food Closet Program $100,000 $100,000 Food Assistance Total $100,000 $100,000 May View Community Health $75,000 $ 67,610 COVID Testing & PPE Total $ 75,000 $ 67,610 GRAND TOTAL $554,000 $546,610 ATTACHMENT A: FY2020-21 CDBG FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS 2 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................4 ES-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b) ......................................................................... 4 The Process........................................................................................................................................8 PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.200(b) ............................................................................. 8 PR-10 Consultation - 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l) ................................................................................. 10 PR-15 Citizen Participation ...................................................................................................................... 23 Needs Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 32 NA-05 Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 32 NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.205 (a,b,c) .................................................................... 35 NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2) ........................................ 43 NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2) ............................ 46 NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens – 91.205 (b)(2) .................................. 51 NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.205(b)(2) ..................................................... 52 NA-35 Public Housing – 91.205(b) .......................................................................................................... 55 NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment – 91.205(c).................................................................................... 58 NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment - 91.205 (b,d) ............................................................ 63 NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs – 91.215 (f) ....................................................... 66 Housing Market Analysis .................................................................................................................. 68 MA-05 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 68 MA-10 Number of Housing Units ............................................................................................................ 68 MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housings ................................................................................ 68 MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing ......................................................................... 68 MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing ........................................................................................................ 68 MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services ................................................................................................. 68 MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services .......................................................................................... 69 MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing ................................................................................................... 69 MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets .......................................................................... 69 MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion ....................................................................................... 69 MA-60 Broadband Needs ........................................................................................................................ 69 MA-65 Hazard Mitigation ........................................................................................................................ 69 MA-10 Number of Housing Units – 91.210(a)&(b)(2) ............................................................................. 70 MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing - 91.210(a) ............................................................... 72 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing – 91.210(a)...................................................... 74 MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing – 91.210(b) .................................................................................... 77 MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services – 91.210(c) .............................................................................. 79 MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services – 91.210(d) ....................................................................... 82 MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.210(e) ................................................................................ 84 MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets – 91.215 (f) ...................................................... 85 MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion ....................................................................................... 90 MA-60 Broadband Needs of Housing Occupied by Low- and Moderate-Income Households - 91.210(a)(4), 91.310(a)(2) .................................................................................... 92 MA-65 Hazard Mitigation - 91.210(a)(5), 91.310(a)(3) ........................................................................... 93 Strategic Plan ................................................................................................................................... 94 SP-05 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 94 Strategic Plan Overview .......................................................................................................................... 94 SP-10 Geographic Priorities – 91.215 (a)(1) ............................................................................................ 94 SP-25 Priority Needs - 91.215(a)(2)......................................................................................................... 95 SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions – 91.215 (b) ................................................................................ 99 SP-35 Anticipated Resources - 91.215(a)(4), 91.220(c)(1,2) ................................................................. 100 SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure – 91.215(k) ............................................................................... 103 SP-45 Goals Summary – 91.215(a)(4) ................................................................................................... 106 SP-50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement – 91.215(c) ......................................................... 108 SP-55 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.215(h) ................................................................................. 109 SP-60 Homelessness Strategy – 91.215(d) ............................................................................................ 111 SP-65 Lead based paint Hazards – 91.215(i) ......................................................................................... 113 SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy – 91.215(j) ............................................................................................... 114 SP-80 Monitoring – 91.230 ................................................................................................................... 115 Appendix: Community Engagement Summary ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Executive Summary ES-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b) Introduction The City of Palo Alto (City) is an entitlement City that receives Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban and Development (HUD). HUD requires the City to create a five-year Consolidated Plan to direct and allocate CDBG funds. This 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan (ConPlan) is built on a community-oriented participatory process and will function as an application for federal funds under HUD’s CDBG program. The ConPlan will also outline specific goals and priority needs where CDBG funds will be allocated over the next five years. Additionally, this ConPlan contains the 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan, which serves as an allocation of funds to specific projects and activities for the first fiscal year of the ConPlan. Each year after this ConPlan is released, a new Annual Action Plan will be released to outline specific actions for which CDBG funds will be used to uphold the development of the goals described by this ConPlan. Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan Time Frame The 2020-2025 ConPlan covers the time frame from July 1, 2020, to June 30, 2025, a period of five program years. The Annual Action Plan covers the time frame from July 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021. Summary of the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan Needs Assessment Overview The goal of the Needs Assessment section is to assess the City of Palo Alto’s affordable housing, social service, and community development characteristics in order to lay out data-driven, community-based investment decisions to direct the following sections and the ConPlan’s primary goals. The intention of this is to facilitate the most sustainable and comprehensive future for the City’s housing, community, environmental, infrastructural, and economic progression. Through data collection, outreach, and analysis presented in this ConPlan, a clear outline of the priority needs within the City is formed, along with the projects and facilities to enhance the City’s development over the next five years. The needs assessment identified a significant need for affordable housing units for low-income households, persons with special needs, and those experiencing homelessness. It also identified housing problems faced by the community, such as cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard facilities, of which low-income racial and ethnic minority households disproportionately experience. Evaluation of past performance The City is responsible for ensuring compliance with all rules and regulations associated with the CDBG entitlement grant program. The City’s Annual Action Plans and CAPERs have provided many details about the goals, projects and programs completed by the City over the past five years. A review of past CAPERs reveals a strong record of performance in the use of CDBG funds. Palo Alto has been strategic about leveraging federal dollars and identifying partnerships in the community to maximize their use. For instance, during the 2015-2020 ConPlan period, 244 affordable rental units were rehabilitated, 130 jobs were created or retained, and nearly 2,600 households were assisted through public service activities for low- and moderate-income housing. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Summary of citizen participation process and consultation process Community engagement feedback was a result of a collaborative, county-wide public outreach effort guided by the County of Santa Clara Community Engagement Plan. Robust community engagement was achieved through engaging a diverse group of stakeholders to identify priorities, concerns, and values. The feedback provided through the community engagement process supported the development of this ConPlan, including the development of housing and community development needs, priorities, goals, and strategies for allocating funds. For the purposes of this ConPlan, the stakeholders include all existing residents, business owners, and regional and local interest groups. Targeted outreach was provided to youth, seniors, racial and ethnic minorities, residents, property owners, and business owners across the County. Leveraging existing stakeholder contacts, recognizing underrepresented stakeholders, and identifying new stakeholders was integral to the process of reaching the greater Santa Clara County community and ensuring a broad depth of participation. Opportunities for community outreach were tailored to stakeholder groups (residents and property owners, business owners, community groups, and public agencies and officials) to allow efficient and effective engagement, including offering digital (e.g., online survey) and in-person formats (e.g., community meetings). In-person meetings, ranging from focus groups to regional public meetings, were held at a variety of locations and times to increase opportunities for participation. The County and participating cities announced the various community engagement opportunities through a social media campaign strategy and schedule, including announcements, project updates and educational content for Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram posts. Announcements for the online survey and public comment period were also promoted over email, where key stakeholder contacts were leveraged as liaisons to access larger stakeholder groups. The County and participating cities worked directly with stakeholder contacts to set up focus groups and interviews. The County of Santa Clara Community Engagement Plan identifies the following opportunities for participation and comment, all of which were offered throughout Santa Clara County through the ConPlan Process:  Regional Community Engagement Public Meetings: Regional walk-in meetings held at four different locations across the County (Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Palo Alto, and San Jose). Interactive engagement stations created opportunities to share personal stories, suggest ideas for strengthening neighborhoods and prioritize community needs, and review ConPlan data and maps.  City-hosted Community Meetings: Similar in format to the regional meetings, these meetings were hosted by some cities to receive feedback specific to the City. The City of Palo Alto did not hold a community meeting.  Stakeholder Focus Groups: Focus groups with six to ten attendees from target populations, including persons with disabilities, racial and ethnic minorities, seniors, low-income families, and other targeted populations as discovered through preliminary data research.  Pop-Up Events: Structured for short interactions, the pop-up events usually take the form of a booth set up at an event to allow access with a specific stakeholder group. Feedback provided at pop-up events is typically collected through interactive exercises (dot votes, etc.) or verbal responses to big picture questions.  City Council and Board of Supervisor Meetings: Announcements of workshops were added to the ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN agenda of regularly scheduled public meetings and hearings, including City Council or Board of Supervisors meetings.  Online Feedback Collection (Survey): To broadly access a large number of stakeholders and residents that are geographically distributed, an online survey was prepared to efficiently obtain feedback from a large number of people for this ConPlan. The survey was announced through City media outlets and was additionally disseminated through key community liaisons or stakeholders with access to resident and community groups, business owners, interest groups, etc. A detailed summary of community engagement, including participation, methods, and feedback, can be found in sections PR-10 (Consultations) and PR-15 (Citizen Participation) of this ConPlan. Summary of public comments The regional community engagement public meetings and city-hosted meeting yielded many public comments that identified priorities for residents of the County. High priorities identified during the meetings included, and in no particular order:  Transportation and accessibility;  Housing rehabilitation and maintenance;  Services for elderly residents and mental health;  Workforce development;  Sustainable affordable housing solutions;  Affordable housing; and  Provision of more emergency assistance including transitional housing. The most pressing housing and housing-related problems identified during these meetings included:  Housing affordability;  Diversity of housing types;  Lack of support for transitioning homeless populations;  Private sector funding for service programs;  Affordable housing zoning;  Amenities for concentrated areas of affordability;  Lack of monitored portable bathroom sites for unsheltered homeless; and  Subsidized auto repair and medical services, which would free up income for housing expenses. The community engagement survey echoed public comments as the addition of affordable housing, workforce development, and improved community services were also identified as the County’s greatest needs. Additionally, healthy homes (e.g., free of lead and mold) and supportive rental housing for homeless individuals were identified as some of the most pressing housing needs. Stakeholders also concurred with public comments and were able to provide solutions to the housing needs identified, which included increased communication efforts, reductions in the complexity of intake systems, and creating programs to service residents. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them The City did not receive any public comments that were not accepted. The City attempted to incorporate feedback received from outreach efforts throughout the ConPlan. Summary The City of Palo Alto has worked hard in providing affordable housing and community services to its low- income, special needs, and homeless residents over the past five years. The City, in conjunction with the County, has performed extensive community outreach and data analysis to determine the current needs of the City, and through the 2020-2025 ConPlan will continue to provide additional affordable housing opportunities and public services to its residents. This includes the provision of homeless services, improved public facilities, and fair housing outreach and enforcement. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN The Process PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.200(b) Describe agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source The City of Palo Alto (City) Department of Planning and Development Services is the agency responsible for preparing the ConPlan and administering the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, as shown in Table 1. Agency Role Name Department/Agency CDBG Administrator Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Development Services Table 1 – Responsible Agencies Narrative Lead and Responsible Agency The City is the Lead and Responsible Agency for the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) entitlement programs in Palo Alto. The Department of Planning and Development Services is responsible for administering the City’s CDBG program. The City joined the HOME Consortium in 2015 and receives federal HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) funds through the County. Entitlement jurisdictions receive entitlement funding (i.e., non-competitive, formula funds) from HUD. HUD requires the City to submit a five-year ConPlan and Annual Action Plan to HUD listing priorities and strategies for the use of its federal funds. The ConPlan helps local jurisdictions to assess their affordable housing and community development needs and market conditions to meet the housing and community development needs of its populations. As a part of the ConPlan process for 2020-2025, the City has collaborated with the County of Santa Clara (County) as the Urban County representing the Cities of Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga; the Cities of Cupertino, Gilroy, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, San José, and Santa Clara; and the Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) to identify and prioritize housing and community development needs across the region, and to develop strategies to meet those needs. Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information Erum Maqbool, CDBG Staff Specialist City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: (650) 329-2660 Fax: (650) 329-2154 Email: erum.maqbool@cityofpaloalto.org ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Website: https://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/long_range_planning/community_development_block_grant/ default.asp ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN PR-10 Consultation - 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l) Introduction The ConPlan outreach effort is a regional collaborative effort between the County of Santa Clara and seven entitlement jurisdiction Cities. The County hired consultants Michael Baker International, in partnership with Circlepoint, to assist them in their community engagement efforts. Community engagement is key for helping the County and Cities to identify needs, priorities, goals, strategies, and activities for future housing and community development activities over the period of the five-year regional plan. Engagement activities included a community survey, public outreach, stakeholder consultations (or meetings), focus groups, and pop-up events. As a part of the stakeholder consultation process, the City consulted with a variety of stakeholders, including City departments, human service agencies, local and regional community-based organizations, housing providers and advocates, and the local housing authority. Social service providers were also consulted including those that provide services to seniors, persons with disabilities, homeless persons, and other lower-income individuals and at-risk populations. Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(I)). During the development of its Consolidated and Annual Plans and as a general practice, the City coordinated with a variety of housing, public and mental health agencies, and service providers to discuss community needs. These discussions provided an opportunity for these entities to network and learn more about one another’s services and programs. Moreover, their collective feedback was especially valuable in gathering information and shaping priorities for this Plan as it relates to special needs populations, general health, and mental health services in the City and Santa Clara County. In addition, the City participates in the County’s quarterly CDBG Coordinator’s Group meetings, in which entitlement jurisdictions throughout the region gather to discuss proposed use of federal funds for the upcoming year. The City also participates in the County’s Regional Housing Working Group, which is a forum for entitlement and non-entitlement jurisdictions to develop coordinated responses to regional housing challenges. The City is represented on the Continuum of Care (CoC) by its Human Services Manager. The CoC is a broad group of stakeholders dedicated to ending and preventing homelessness in Santa Clara County. The key CoC responsibilities are ensuring community-wide implementation of efforts to end homelessness, as well as ensuring programmatic and systemic effectiveness. The City coordinates with the City’s human services funding efforts to comprehensively address its community needs. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness The Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing is the administrator of the regional CoC. The City continuously coordinates with the Santa Clara County CoC to end and prevent homelessness in the County. City staff attends monthly meetings. The Santa Clara County CoC is a group comprising stakeholders throughout the County, including governmental agencies, homeless service and shelter providers, homeless population, housing advocates, affordable housing developers, and various private parties, including businesses and foundations. The City’s representation on the CoC Board is its Human Services Manager. Members of the CoC meet monthly to plan CoC programs, identify gaps in homeless services, establish funding priorities, and pursue a systematic approach to addressing homelessness. City staff, as well as staff of other cities, meet and consult with the County’s CoC staff during the quarterly countywide “CDBG Coordinators Group” meetings, and communicate more frequently via email and/or phone on joint efforts. The CoC is governed by the CoC Board, which takes a systems-change approach to preventing and ending homelessness. This same CoC Board is comprised of the same individuals who serve on the Destination: Home (Destination Home) Leadership Board. Destination Home is a public-private partnership that is committed to collective impact strategies to end chronic homelessness. Destination Home is the governing body for the CoC and is responsible for implementing by-laws and operational protocols of the CoC. Regional efforts of the CoC include the development of The Community Plan to End Homelessness, which identifies strategies to address the needs of people experiencing homelessness in the County, including chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth. The plan also addresses the needs of persons at risk of homelessness. The CoC is now in the process of updating a new plan for the next five years and the City plans to participate in these efforts. Also, during the development of this ConPlan, the City consulted both the CoC and County Office of Supportive Housing for their expertise and experience for identifying community needs. Service providers and organizations that provide services to homeless populations and persons at risk of homelessness were also contacted by the City to attend the Consolidated and Annual Action Plan engagement meetings. This includes Abode Services which administers tenant-based rental assistance; Destination Home, the policy group that works on homeless prevention and strategies to end homelessness; and Life Moves, a shelter and homeless provider in San José and Palo Alto. Destination Home was consulted via a phone interview to obtain feedback on homeless and at-risk population needs. Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the administration of HMIS The City is not an ESG entitlement jurisdiction and therefore does not receive ESG funds. However, the City does administer federal grant programs that provide assistance to homeless and low-income families in Santa Clara County. The City also helps fund and conduct the Point in Time (PIT) count, the biennial regional collaborative effort to count and survey people experiencing homelessness. The latest count and survey were conducted in January 2019. The data from the 2019 County of Santa Clara PIT count (2019 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County PIT) is used to plan, fund, and implement actions for reducing chronic homelessness and circumstances that bring about homelessness. The Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Services takes the role of Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) administration. The County, and its consultant Bitfocus, work jointly to operate and oversee HMIS. Both software and HMIS system administration are now provided by Bitfocus. Funding for HMIS in Santa Clara County comes from HUD, the County of Santa Clara, and the City of San José. The County’s HMIS is used by many City service providers across the region to record information and report outcomes. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdictions consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities 1 Agency/Group/Organization Boys & Girls Club Agency/Group/Organization Type Children and Youth Services What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agencies attended the Santa Clara focus group meeting on 11/7/19. The agency’s top priority is improved coordination of youth and education programs. 2 Agency/Group/Organization Healthier Kids Foundation Agency/Group/Organization Type Children and Youth Services What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agencies attended the Santa Clara focus group meeting on 11/7/19. The agency identified that the lack of financial support efforts is the most pressing housing problem. 3 Agency/Group/Organization Bill Wilson Center Agency/Group/Organization Type Children and Youth Services Family services What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agencies attended the Santa Clara focus group meeting on 11/7/19. Agency also attended community ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN meetings on 11/4/19 at Morgan Hill and 11/20/19 at Roosevelt. The agency identified mental health services for low-income communities as a high priority. 4 Agency/Group/Organization Community Services Agency Agency/Group/Organization Type Senior Services Community / Family Services and Organizations Cultural Organizations What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended stakeholder consultation conference call meeting on 11/15/19. The agency identified a need for diverse types of affordable housing and improved transportation. 5 Agency/Group/Organization San José Conservation Corps Charter Agency/Group/Organization Type Education Services What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended the Gilroy focus group meeting on 11/18/19. The agency provided insight into solutions for homelessness, such as transitional housing, zoning changes, and tiny homes. 6 Agency/Group/Organization CommUniverCity San José Agency/Group/Organization Type Education Services What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended stakeholder consultation conference call meeting on 11/25/19. Agency attended regional forum meeting in San José on 11/20/19. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN The agency identified children’s education and care as a priority need. 7 Agency/Group/Organization Health Trust Agency/Group/Organization Type Health Services, HIVAIDs Services, disabled services What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended stakeholder consultation meeting on 11/21/19. The agency identified flexibility in funding mechanisms as a need in order to make affordable housing more attractive to developers. 8 Agency/Group/Organization Rebuilding Together (Silicon Valley) Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended stakeholder consultation conference call meeting on 11/21/19 The agency identified funding for home rehabilitations as a high priority over the next five years. 9 Agency/Group/Organization Servant Partners Agency/Group/Organization Type Neighborhood Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Attended community meeting on 11/13/19 at Hillview library. The City will continue to consider Servant Partners as a resource in addressing the City’s needs. 10 Agency/Group/Organization Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA) Agency/Group/Organization Type Fair Housing and Legal What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended Palo Alto public engagement meeting on 11/17/19 and also San José public engagement meeting on 11/19/19. Also attended regional forum meeting on 11/4/19 at Morgan Hill and 11/7/19 at Palo Alto. The City will continue to consider SALA as a resource in addressing seniors’ needs. 11 Agency/Group/Organization HomeFirst Agency/Group/Organization Type Homeless Services What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended regional forum meeting at Morgan Hill on 11/4/19. The City will continue to consider HomeFirst as a resource in addressing homeless needs. 12 Agency/Group/Organization Rebuilding Together Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended San José regional forum meeting on 11/20/19. The City will continue to consider Rebuilding Together as a resource in addressing rehabilitation needs. 13 Agency/Group/Organization Heart of the Valley Agency/Group/Organization Type Senior Services What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency was consulted through interview questions covering a range of issues such as community needs, areas in need of neighborhood revitalization, housing needs, low- mod income vulnerabilities, CDBG and HOME funding priorities. Agency provided emailed feedback. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN 14 Agency/Group/Organization Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing Agency/Group/Organization Type County government and Continuum of Care What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended regional forum meeting at Morgan Hill on 11/4/19. The City will continue to consider the Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing as a resource in addressing homeless needs. 15 Agency/Group/Organization Santa Clara County, Department of Planning Agency/Group/Organization Type County Government What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended regional forum meeting at Morgan Hill on 11/4/19. The City will continue to consider the Santa Clara County Department of Planning as a partner in addressing the needs of the County. 16 Agency/Group/Organization City of Sunnyvale Agency/Group/Organization Type Local Government What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended regional forum meeting at Palo Alto Hill on 11/7/19 and provided emailed feedback. The City will continue to consider the City of Sunnyvale as a partner in addressing the needs of the County. 17 Agency/Group/Organization City of Mountain View Agency/Group/Organization Type Local Government What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended regional forum meeting at Palo Alto Hill on 11/7/19. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN The City will continue to consider the City of Mountain View as a partner in addressing the needs of the County. 18 Agency/Group/Organization City of Santa Clara Agency/Group/Organization Type Local Government What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended regional forum meeting and provided emailed feedback. The City will continue to consider the City of Santa Clara as a partner in addressing the needs of the County. 19 Agency/Group/Organization City of Gilroy, Recreation Department Agency/Group/Organization Type Local Government What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency was consulted and provided emailed feedback. The agency provided feedback into problems faced by the residents of the City of Gilroy. 20 Agency/Group/Organization City of San José Agency/Group/Organization Type Local Government What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City of San José was contacted for consultation. The City will continue to consider the City of San José as a partner in addressing the needs of the County. 21 Agency/Group/Organization City of Cupertino Agency/Group/Organization Type Local Government What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? The City of Cupertino was contacted for consultation. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN The City will continue to consider the City of Cupertino as a partner in addressing the needs of the County. 22 Agency/Group/Organization City of Morgan Hill Agency/Group/Organization Type Local Government What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended regional forum meeting at Morgan Hill on 11/4/19. The City will continue to consider the City of Morgan Hill as a partner in addressing the needs of the County. 23 Agency/Group/Organization Vista Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired Agency/Group/Organization Type Disabled What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended stakeholder consultation on via audio meeting on 12/9/19. The agency identified accessibility to city services and clearer grant application measures as priority needs. 24 Agency/Group/Organization Destination: Home Agency/Group/Organization Type Homeless Services (strategic initiatives) What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended stakeholder consultation on via telephone meeting on 11/11/19. The agency identified that building more housing for the extremely low- income population and homelessness prevention is a priority need. 25 Agency/Group/Organization Community Solutions Agency/Group/Organization Type Domestic Violence ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended the AFH and ConPlan joint meeting on 12/11/19 at the Gilroy Council Chambers. The City will continue to consider Community Solutions as a resource in addressing the needs of the City. 26 Agency/Group/Organization St Mary’s Parish Agency/Group/Organization Type Neighborhood Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency attended the AFH and ConPlan joint meeting on 12/11/19 at the Gilroy Council Chambers. The City will continue to consider St. Mary’s Parish as a resource in addressing the needs of the City. 27 Agency/Group/Organization Housing Authority Committee- Gilroy Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency co-hosted the AFH and ConPlan joint meeting on 12/11/19 at the Gilroy Council Chambers. The City will continue to consider the Housing Authority Committee of Gilroy as a partner in addressing the needs of the County. 28 Agency/Group/Organization Community and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee Agency/Group/Organization Type Community Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by Consultation? Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan How was the Agency/Group/ Organization consulted and what are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation or areas for improved coordination? Agency co-hosted the AFH and ConPlan joint meeting on 12/11/18 at the Gilroy Council Chambers. The City will continue to consider the Community and Neighborhood ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Table 2 – Agencies, groups, organizations who participated through the regional forums, community meetings, and consultation meetings Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting Not applicable. No agency types were intentionally left out of the consultation process. Over 20 agency types were contacted during the consultation process. Revitalization Committee as a partner in addressing the needs of the County. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Continuum of Care (Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County 2015-2020) Regional Continuum of Care Council Identifies housing inventory count to facilitate the provision of housing services to those experiencing homelessness. City of Palo Alto Housing Element (2015-2023) City of Palo Alto Identifies barriers to affordable housing, such as land-use controls, inefficiencies of the development review process, and strategies to alleviate such barriers. 2012-2014 Comprehensive HIV Prevention & Care Santa Clara County HIV Planning Council for Prevention and Care Identifies need for HIV prevention and care. Regional Housing Need Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area Association of Bay Area Governments Analyzes total regional housing needs, i.e., determine number of units needed to be built per income category. Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County Destination: Home Creates a community-wide road map that identifies specific homeless populations in the County and strategies to address the needs of these populations. Palo Alto’s Infrastructure: Catching Up, Keeping Up, and Moving Ahead City of Palo Alto Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Plan Analyzes the state of the City’s infrastructure and plans for its needs into the future. City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (2030) City of Palo Alto Plans for land uses and housing throughout the City. SCCHA Moving to Work Annual Plan Santa Clara County Housing Authority Addresses housing authority updates and strategies pertaining to public housing and vouchers. Table 3 – Other local / regional / federal planning efforts Describe cooperation and coordination with other public entities, including the State and any adjacent units of general local government, in the implementation of the Consolidated Plan (91.215(l)) The collaborative implementation of this ConPlan over the course of the next five years begins with the coordinated efforts of multiple public agencies working together to gather feedback and information for both regional and local community needs and priorities. Once needs and priorities are identified, they are then incorporated into County and City level consolidated plans forming both regional and local strategies for addressing those needs and priorities. The entitlement grantee jurisdictions involved in the collaborative outreach efforts are as follows: City of Cupertino, City of Gilroy, City of Mountain View, City ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN of Palo Alto, City of San José, City of Santa Clara, and City of Sunnyvale. Several other government stakeholder agencies were contacted and assisted the City in its efforts to gather feedback. Furthermore, community outreach to local leaders, stakeholders, and residents is a critical first step in implementing this Plan’s desired community changes. By successfully establishing relationships and trust among the government, those providing services or community improvements, and the beneficiaries of these services or improvements, the City and community can move towards a joint vision for what and how to make community improvements. The City along with County and six other entitlement jurisdictions developed a robust community engagement process that involved an online and paper community survey, stakeholder consultations, focus groups, and pop-up events. The agencies, groups, and organizations who participated are listed in Table 2. Other local/regional/federal planning efforts can be found in Table 3. In addition, the City attends the Santa Clara County quarterly informational sharing meeting on the CDBG program implementation including best practices, new developments, and local and federal legislative changes. A HUD representative is also usually in attendance and provides brief federal grants management technical information. Narrative (optional): The City along with the other entitlement jurisdictions and County participated in a joint regional effort to conduct consultations and public outreach. City and County staff, with assistance from consultants, worked to involve housing, social service, and other agencies in the community engagement process including direct solicitation for these agencies to participate in the community survey, stakeholder meetings, and focus groups. Stakeholder participants were asked questions and provided feedback on priorities, issues and solutions in relation to CDBG and HOME eligible activities including housing, neighborhood revitalization, and low to moderate-income household issues. They were asked about their top priorities, neighborhood revitalization, housing problems and their solutions, local organization support, families vulnerable to crisis, broadband internet issues, and how the jurisdiction should spend CDBG and HOME funding. Appendix Community Engagement Summary contains a sample of the consultation questions. The responses were very helpful for the needs assessment and strategic plan, especially for topics pertaining to housing needs, homeless needs assessment, non-homeless special needs and services, and community development needs as some data is not available from the census or HUD. For a more extensive list of agencies and other public entities consulted during the ConPlan process, please see Table 2. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN PR-15 Citizen Participation Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting Outreach is essential to the City’s ability to create an accurate and effective plan, and to allocate resources appropriately. First, the City attempted to reach as many residents as possible within the CDBG target areas and within specific demographics, such as low-income families, disabled persons, seniors, female- headed households, and parents/guardians of children. Receiving feedback directly from local residents who may potentially receive assistance from grant funds is crucial for the CDBG program’s effectiveness. Second, the City reached out to practitioners, agencies, leaders, organizations, and companies who may have the specialized knowledge, experience, resources, and capacity to discuss needs, opportunities, solutions, investments, and how community improvements can be made. Third, the City encouraged all residents to weigh in on community needs and opportunities for improvements through citizen participation opportunities. The City offered several opportunities and various methods for participation and public comment throughout the development of the ConPlan. The following is a summary of the efforts made to broaden citizen participation through the ConPlan process. Table 4, Citizen Participation Outreach, provides additional detail on the types of outreach conducted and where applicable a summary of the comments received. Regional Needs Survey This community survey was noticed in the Daily Post on October 24, 2019 and Mercury News newspaper on October 29, 2019. The online and paper survey was made available to the public between October 29, 2019, and December 20, 2019. The online survey was provided in three other languages besides English: Spanish, Vietnamese, and Chinese. The data from this survey was useful to obtain community feedback on local data, housing needs, and community needs. A copy of the survey, along with the final results, can be found at the end of the document under Appendix Community Engagement Summary. Pop-Up Events Pop-up events are temporary events held in public areas. Pop-up events are useful to help provide the public with general information and awareness of the ConPlan process and engage community members with the community survey. Short dialogue and feedback were also obtained from members of the public. Four pop-up/tabling events were held throughout the County. Three were held in the following farmer’s market locations: Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto. One was held at the Sunnyvale Community Center. Residents were polled on what is most needed in their community. The dates, times, and locations are listed in more detail in Table 4. Flyers announcing community engagement meeting dates and locations were distributed. Regional Forums Four regional forums were held in different cities in Santa Clara County. Flyers were posted beforehand to inform the public of the meetings. It was also advertised in the local Mercury News newspaper. In order to maximize the attendance and allow more people to attend, they were offered at different locations and times of the day. One meeting was held during the day and the rest were held in the evening and all were accessible by public transit. They were held in the Cities of Morgan Hill, Palo Alto, Cupertino, and ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN San José. The City of Palo Alto also held a separate public meeting, which was advertised in the Palo Alto Daily. Additional information on the locations, and results are listed in more detail in Table 4. Additionally, Appendix Community Engagement Summary has a flyer of the public meetings listed. A total of 37 people attended these forums. Those in attendance included local residents, service providers, and members of the business community. The notes and feedback were helpful in identifying priorities, creating a dialogue with the attendees, and gaining input from stakeholders and the public. Focus Groups Two focus groups were held with social service agencies to identify the most pressing community problem, priorities for their clients, and problem areas around the County. These meetings were held in Santa Clara and Gilroy. A total of seven agencies participated. Results of their feedback are provided in more details in the Appendix Community Engagement Summary. Joint Community Meetings on Consolidated Plan Process and Assessment of Fair Housing Two community meetings that sought input on the ConPlan and an Assessment of Fair Housing were held. One was held at San José Hillview Library and the other at Gilroy Council Chambers. They were both held in the evening and accessible by public transit. Additional information on the results are listed in more detail in Table 4. Stakeholder Consultations A combination of in-person meetings, one-on-one phone conversations, and emails were held as consultations with a variety of service providers to obtain feedback. The feedback was especially helpful in identifying gaps in services, trends in the local community, and needs relating to specific services and populations. The list of agencies who provided feedback is included in Table 2. A sample list of questions that that were asked during the stakeholder interviews can be found in Appendix Community Engagement Summary. Public Hearings and 30-Day Public Review Period of Draft Consolidated Plan On March 4, May 5, and June 15, 2020, the Human Relations Commission – Sub Committee, City Council Finance Committee, and City Council will hold public hearings to review and approve the final plan. The City posted notice of the public hearings and draft ConPlan on February 19, 2020 and April 25, 2020 in the Daily Post. The 30-day public review period began on May 8, 2020, and ended on June 8, 2020. Citizen Participation Process Impact on Goal Setting Comments and feedback obtained from the citizen participation process is very useful in goal setting and strategic planning as it relates to the ConPlan. For example, comments received from stakeholders helped provide feedback for the Needs Assessment within the ConPlan especially in sections concerning special needs populations and non-housing community development. The results from the survey and comments provided by the public also helped identify high areas of concern among the community especially as it relates to local data, housing, public services and community development needs. The feedback was especially helpful in assessing the priority needs and goal setting for the Strategic Plan section of the ConPlan. The responses obtained from community engagement was also helpful in providing more insight into barriers to affordable housing, priority needs, and areas needing the most neighborhood revitalization. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Citizen Participation Outreach ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Sort Order Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of response/attendance Summary of comments received Summary of comments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) 1 Regional Forums Non-targeted/ Broad community residents, service providers, business owners or housing professionals. A total of 37 people attended four forums held on the following dates: 11/4/19, 11/7/19, 11/12/19, and 11/20/19. Participants of the regional forums identified the County’s top priorities over the next five years, including: transit accessibility, housing maintenance, and services for senior citizens. They also identified the most common housing problems, including housing affordability and homelessness. For additional details see Appendix Community Engagement Summary. All comments were accepted. https://www.sccgov. org/sites/osh/Housi ngandCommunityDe velopment/UrbanCo untyProgram/Pages/ 2020_2025_Urbanco -conplan.aspx 2 Survey Broad community outreach to members of the public and interested stakeholders. A total of 1,950 Regional Needs Surveys were collected during the open period. The online survey was available in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Chinese. The survey results identified that the creation of affordable housing, jobs, and community services were the County’s greatest needs. Results also identified increased housing affordability, housing for special needs individuals, and healthy homes as the most pressing housing needs. All comments were accepted. https://www.sccgov. org/sites/osh/Housi ngandCommunityDe velopment/UrbanCo untyProgram/Pages/ 2020_2025_Urbanco -conplan.aspx ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Sort Order Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of response/attendance Summary of comments received Summary of comments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) 3 Focus Groups Service providers, business owners or housing professionals. A total of 7 people attended two meetings held on the following dates: 11/07/19 and 11/18/19. Participants identified the most pressing community problems to be lack of: housing types, transitional housing, zoning regulations friendly to affordable housing, mental health services, career development training for youth, and gentrification. They also identified the high cost of housing, lack of coordination between resource agencies, and unclear fair housing rules as a concern. Participants stated that the following areas should be targeted for improvement: Downtown Gilroy, El Camino Real, Morgan Hills, Transit hubs all around the County. All comments were accepted. See Appendix Community Engagement Summary 4 Community Meetings (joint Consolidated Plan and Affirmative Fair Housing) Non-targeted/ Broad community residents, service providers, business owners or housing professionals. A total of 53 people attended the two joint meetings. They were held on these dates: 11/13/19 and 12/11/19. See Appendix Community Engagement Summary All comments were accepted. https://www.cityofp aloalto.org/gov/dept s/pln/long_range_pl anning/community_ development_block _grant/default.asp ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Sort Order Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of response/attendance Summary of comments received Summary of comments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) 5 Pop-Up Events Non-targeted/ Broad community Four pop-up events were held on these dates: 10/19/2019, 10/26/2019, 11/3/2019, and 11/21/2019. A total of 108 flyers were distributed. A total of 220 attendees were approached for feedback. A total of 3 surveys were completed at the event. See Appendix Community Engagement Summary All comments were accepted. https://www.sccgov. org/sites/osh/Housi ngandCommunityDe velopment/UrbanCo untyProgram/Pages/ home.aspx 6 Website Broad Santa Clara County residents, and workers with computer and internet access Announcements posted to the websites of the entitlement jurisdictions to promote regional survey links (English and Spanish) and regional/ community forums. Not applicable. Not applicable. https://www.cityofp aloalto.org/gov/dept s/pln/long_range_pl anning/community_ development_block _grant/default.asp ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Sort Order Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of response/attendance Summary of comments received Summary of comments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) 7 Local Advertisement (Print Media) Non-targeted/ Broad community; Minority Population CDBG target area recipients Notice of Public meetings and survey availability was posted in: the Palo Alto Daily on 10/24/19, 02/19/2020, 04/25/2020 and the Bay Area News Group and Mercury News on 10/29/19 Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. 8 Social Media Broad Santa Clara County community with computer access Announcements posted to Facebook and Twitter accounts of entitlement jurisdictions and community partners. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. 9 Printed Flyers Non-targeted/ Broad community; Minority Population CDBG target area recipients Over 1,225 print flyers were printed and distributed at community hubs across the County. Not applicable. Not applicable. See Appendix Community Engagement Summary ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Sort Order Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of response/attendance Summary of comments received Summary of comments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) 10 Stakeholder Interviews Non-targeted/ Broad community residents, service providers, business owners or housing professionals. 21 stakeholder interviews were conducted. Stakeholders prioritized the following needs: provide more affordable housing; vital services and homeless prevention; assist families and individuals in transition; increase family income; assist special needs populations; emergency relief for vulnerable populations; improve aging community facilities and public infrastructure; and fair housing. All comments were accepted. See Appendix Community Engagement Summary 11 Public Review Period Non targeted/broad community The Draft 2020-25 ConPlan and Draft FY2020-21 Annual Action is circulated for public comments from May 8th, 2020 through June 8th, 2020. To be updated after the public comment period concludes. To be updated after the public comment period concludes. To be updated after the public comment period concludes. N/A 12 Public Hearing(s) Non- targeted/broad community The Human Relations Commission - Selection Committee met on March 4, 2020 to discuss the FY 20/21 funding allocations. Representative from seven agencies requesting CDBG funds for FY 20/21 was present. N/A N/A N/A ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Sort Order Mode of Outreach Target of Outreach Summary of response/attendance Summary of comments received Summary of comments not accepted and reasons URL (If applicable) 13 Public Hearing(s) Non- targeted/broad community The Finance Committee held a virtual public hearing on May 5, 2020 to discuss and review the draft 2020-25 ConPlan, draft 2020-21 Annual Action Plan and FY 20/21 funding allocations. Representative from three agencies requesting CDBG funds for FY 20/21 was present. None Received N/A https://www.cityofp aloalto.org/gov/age ndas/finance/defaul t.asp 14 Public Hearing(s) Non- targeted/broad community The City Council will hold a public hearing on June 15, 2020 to adopt the 2020-25 ConPlan, 2020- 21 Annual Action Plan. Representative from x agencies requesting CDBG funds for FY 20/21 was present.. To be updated after the meeting N/A Table 4 – Citizen Participation Outreach ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Needs Assessment NA-05 Overview Needs Assessment Overview This Needs Assessment will look at housing- and income-related data to assess the City’s needs pertaining to affordable housing, special needs housing, community development, and homelessness. Below is a summary of key points. Unless otherwise specified, data pertains to the City of Palo Alto. NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment  3,835 households (14.7 percent) experience at least one housing problem.  Seventeen percent of households (4,583) pay more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs.  Fifty-seven percent (3,135) of low- to moderate-income (LMI) renter households are cost. burdened while 42 percent (1,403) of LMI owner households are cost burdened. NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems Groups disproportionately affected by housing problems include:  Black and Hispanic households in 0%-30% Area Median Income (AMI);  Black and Hispanic households in 30%-50% AMI;  Black households in 50%-80% AMI; and  Black, Hispanic, and Asian households in 80%-100% AMI. NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems The groups disproportionately affected by severe housing problems include:  Black and Hispanic households in 0%-30% AMI;  Black and Hispanic households in 30%-50% AMI;  Black households in 50%-80% AMI; and  Black and Asian households in 80% to 100% AMI. NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens  Seventeen percent of households are cost burdened.  Fifteen percent are severely cost burdened.  Hispanic households are disproportionately cost burdened (23 percent).  Black and Hispanic households are disproportionately severely cost burdened (27 and 28 percent respectively).  American Indians and Alaskan Natives are largely disproportionately cost burdened (71 percent) and disproportionally severely cost burdened (29 percent). ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN NA-35 Public Housing  The most immediate need of Housing Choice Voucher holders are units that accept vouchers.  The need for accessible affordable housing is high as the median household income in the State, for persons with a disability is $26,000 lower than the general population. NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment  There are an estimated 313 persons experiencing homelessness in the City of Palo Alto and 9,706 persons countywide.  The 2019 County PIT) count identified 269 homeless families with 921 members in Santa Clara County. Twenty-four percent of families are unsheltered.  The 2019 County PIT count identified 653 homeless veterans, of which 68 percent were unsheltered. NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment  Twenty-one percent of City residents (14,415 residents) are 62 years of age or older.  Eight and one-half percent of Palo Alto residents have a disability. Of those 65 years and older, 26.1 percent have a disability.  Female-headed households comprise 9.9 percent of households with children.  Approximately 3,361 people in the County are living with HIV. NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs  The top priority public facility needs are mental health care facilities, homeless facilities, and child care centers.  The top priority public improvements needs are slowing traffic speeds and cleaning of contaminated sites. Definitions The following are definitions of housing problems and family type that will be further analyzed in the sections below. Housing Problem(s) or Condition(s): Substandard Housing - Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities. This includes households without hot and cold piped water, a flush toilet and a bathtub or shower; or kitchen facilities that lack a sink with piped water, a range or stove, or a refrigerator. Overcrowded - Households having complete kitchens and bathrooms but housing more than 1.01 to 1.5 persons per room excluding bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half-rooms. Severely Overcrowded - Households having complete kitchens and bathrooms but housing more than 1.51 persons per room excluding bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half-rooms. Housing Cost Burden - This is represented by the fraction of a household’s total gross income spent on housing costs. For renters, housing costs include rent paid by the tenant plus utilities. For owners, housing costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance, and utilities. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN - A household is considered to be cost burdened if the household is spending more than 30 percent of its monthly income on housing costs. - A household is considered severely cost burdened if the household is spending more than 50 percent of its monthly income on housing costs. Family Type(s): Small Related - The number of family households with two to four related members. Large Related - The number of family households with five or more related members. Elderly - A household whose head, spouse, or sole member is a person who is at least 62 years of age. Income: HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI) - This is the median family income calculated by HUD for each jurisdiction, in order to determine Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and income limits for HUD programs.  Low- to Moderate-Income (LMI) - HUD classifies LMI individuals and households as those whose incomes are at or below 80 percent of the area median family income (AMI) or HAMFI generally.  Extremely low-income - Households earning 0 percent to 30 percent of the AMI/HAMFI  Very low-income - Households earning 31 percent to 50 percent of the AMI/HAMFI  Low-income - Households earning 51 percent to 80 percent of the AMI/HAMFI. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.205 (a,b,c) Summary of Housing Needs Demographics Base Year: 2009 Most Recent Year: 2015 % Change Population 64,403 66,480 3% Households 23,154 26,085 13% Median Income $119,483.00 $136,519.00 14% Table 5 – Housing Needs Assessment Demographics Data Source: 2005-2009 ACS (Base Year), 2011-2015 ACS (Most Recent Year) Number of Households Table 0-30% HAMFI >30-50% HAMFI >50-80% HAMFI >80- 100% HAMFI >100% HAMFI Total Households 3,045 1,945 2,115 1,660 17,320 Small Family Households 945 455 605 615 9,220 Large Family Households 10 155 95 80 1,290 Household contains at least one person 62-74 years of age 610 405 540 330 3,220 Household contains at least one person age 75 or older 960 510 420 295 1,770 Households with one or more children 6 years old or younger 105 204 215 258 1,870 Table 6 - Total Households Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS Housing Needs Summary Tables Housing Problems (Households with one of the listed needs) Renter Owner 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Substandard Housing - Lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities 140 45 45 20 250 55 4 0 10 69 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Renter Owner 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total Severely Overcrowded - With >1.51 people per room (and complete kitchen and plumbing) 30 10 60 20 120 0 0 0 10 10 Overcrowded - With 1.01-1.5 people per room (and none of the above problems) 95 110 40 65 310 0 0 0 4 4 Housing cost burden greater than 50% of income (and none of the above problems) 995 600 230 155 1,980 515 195 200 185 1,095 Housing cost burden greater than 30% of income (and none of the above problems) 275 230 455 400 1,360 165 165 105 75 510 Zero/negative Income (and none of the above problems) 260 0 0 0 260 60 0 0 0 60 Table 7 – Housing Problems Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS Housing Problems 2 (Households with one or more Severe Housing Problems: Lacks kitchen or complete plumbing, severe overcrowding, severe cost burden) ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Renter Owner 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total 0- 30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Having 1 or more of four housing problems 1,260 760 375 255 2,650 575 200 200 210 1,185 Having none of four housing problems 570 445 830 705 2,550 320 535 710 490 2,055 Household has negative income, but none of the other housing problems 260 0 0 0 260 60 0 0 0 60 Table 8 – Housing Problems 2 Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS Cost Burden > 30% Renter Owner 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI Total 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI Total NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Small Related 585 240 295 1,120 210 65 155 430 Large Related 10 90 65 165 0 10 0 10 Elderly 545 270 175 990 394 195 95 684 Other 300 295 265 860 134 90 55 279 Total need by income 1,440 895 800 3,135 738 360 305 1,403 Table 9 – Cost Burden > 30% Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS Cost Burden > 50% Renter Owner 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI Total 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI Total NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Small Related 505 100 130 735 180 45 115 340 Large Related 10 90 15 115 0 10 0 10 Elderly 305 215 80 600 265 70 50 385 Other 285 240 25 550 130 70 35 235 Total need by income 1,105 645 250 2,000 575 195 200 970 Table 10 – Cost Burden > 50% Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Crowding (More than one person per room) Renter Owner 0- 30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total 0- 30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI >80- 100% AMI Total NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Single family households 125 110 100 85 420 0 0 0 14 14 Multiple, unrelated family households 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other, non-family households 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 Total need by income 125 120 100 85 430 0 0 0 14 14 Table 11 – Crowding Information – ½ Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS Renter Owner 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI Total 0-30% AMI >30- 50% AMI >50- 80% AMI Total Households with Children Present Table 12 – Crowding Information – 2/2 Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS Describe the number and type of single person households in need of housing assistance. Elderly households are more likely to experience a disability and be on a fixed income. The 2011-2015 ACS reveals that in 2015 there were 26,085 households in the City, of those households 9,060 (34 percent) have at least one person 62 or older. Of the elderly households in the City, more than one-third are earning at or below 80% of AMI: including 17 percent extremely low-income, 10 percent very low-income, and 6 percent low-income. According to the Housing Authority, waitlists for senior-dedicated housing tend to be long, which puts elderly at risk of living in substandard housing and experiencing high housing cost burden. There is a need for additional affordable housing for the elderly and frail elderly population of the City. Over the last ten years, from 2009 to 2019, the number of unsheltered homeless persons has increased by 45 percent across the County, increasing the need for housing assistance. According to the county-level 2019 PIT count, approximately 313 persons are experiencing homelessness within the City on any given night; however, homeless providers estimate that this number could be larger due to the difficulty in counting non-sheltered. counted 9,706 homeless individuals (total sheltered and unsheltered) in the County, which included 2,470 chronically homeless individuals, 653 homeless veterans, and 1,456 transition age youth.1 The 2019 County PIT count counted 313 individuals within the City, specifically, 1 Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing. 2019 Santa Clara County Point in Time Count & Survey. https://www.sccgov.org/sites/osh/ContinuumofCare/ReportsandPublications/Documents/2015%20Santa%20Clara ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN although no data is available on the specific demographics of these individuals. Homeless individuals have a need for low or no barrier housing as some individuals have zero income, a criminal background, and pets when coming in off the streets. In addition to the cost of housing, homeless households have a need for supportive services, which may differ by household including job and employment training, life-skills classes, rental/utility assistance, housing counseling, childcare, transportation, mental health services, medical services, and more. Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance who are disabled or victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. According to the ACS 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates, there are at least 4,557 Palo Alto residents living with a disability (hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, or independent living difficulty). Elderly individuals make up the most significant portion of Santa Clara’s disabled population, with 52.9 percent of persons living with disabilities age 65 years and older. Living with disabilities can pose additional hardship for housing choice, especially for affordable housing options. This population may be living on a fixed income, need a housing unit that is ADA accessible and/or offer enough space for medical equipment and possibly a live-in aid, near transportation, grocery stores, mainstream services, and supportive services. When the many needs of a disabled household are taken in to consideration, household choice is often not an option and families must take any available housing unit, regardless of whether it is near their support system. Stakeholder subject matter experts who engaged in the community outreach interviews see a need for a variety of options of housing (size and income levels) for the disabled and elderly and would like to see CDBG funds used over the next five years to seek out available housing that would be appropriate for this population. Domestic Violence During stakeholder interviews, it was reported that the County has seen an increase in the number of victims of domestic violence and there is a need for additional services. The City does not have the exact count of people facing domestic violence within the City. However, the 2019 County PIT count identified 6 percent of homeless individuals within the County, as currently experiencing domestic/partner violence or abuse. The CoC partners with local victim service providers to train staff on trauma-informed, victim centered, best practices on safety and planning protocols for serving survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, human trafficking, sexual assault, and stalking, and Violence Against Women Act requirements. Survivors of domestic violence may have the need to be outside of the City or jurisdiction, in an undisclosed location, or must move one or more times in order to stay in a safe housing situation. What are the most common housing problems? The most common housing problems in the City is cost burden as 17 percent of households (4,583) pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. Overall, 3,834 households (14.7 percent) %20County%20Homeless%20Census%20and%20Survey/2019%20SCC%20Homeless%20Census%20and%20Survey %20Report.pdf ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN experience at least one housing problem. About 4.5 percent experience severe cost burden and 2 percent experience overcrowding. Are any populations/household types more affected than others by these problems? Fifty-seven percent (3,135) of LMI renter households are cost burdened while 42 percent (1,403) of LMI owner households are cost burdened. Approximately 8 percent (430) of LMI renter households in the City are overcrowded while 0.4 percent (14) of owner households are overcrowded. Therefore, LMI renter households are also more likely to be cost burdened and overcrowded. Describe the characteristics and needs of Low-income individuals and families with children (especially extremely low-income) who are currently housed but are at imminent risk of either residing in shelters or becoming unsheltered 91.205(c)/91.305(c)). Also discuss the needs of formerly homeless families and individuals who are receiving rapid re-housing assistance and are nearing the termination of that assistance Low-income individuals, families with children who are at imminent-risk of homelessness, and households that are eligible for rapid re-housing (RRH) have similar characteristics and can be discussed together. In all cases, the primary focus is helping the household solve their immediate crisis, in order to stay housed, or find and secure housing. Subject matter experts believe these populations can be successful without long-term supportive services. RRH rapidly connects families and individuals experiencing homelessness to permanent housing through a tailored package of assistance that may include the use of time-limited financial assistance and targeted supportive services.2 The three components are: a. housing identification, b. rent and move-in assistance, and c. RRH case management and supportive services. Providing financial assistance and services for a shorter period, allows for flexibility and a far less costly program over all. The 2019 PIT count found that the primary cause of first-time homelessness was job loss and when asked what may have prevented homelessness the answer was rent or mortgage assistance, and then employment assistance. The CoC’s RRH programs offer housing-focused case management from program entry. RRH is a Housing First program with a goal of helping households obtain permanent housing as quickly as possible, with “just enough” financial assistance to help the household become stable. Housing may be in an apartment, shared housing/room rental, subsidized housing, or living with friends or family members. RRH programs meet clients where they are, prioritizing employment, building sustainable support systems and encouraging case management, even after rental assistance is complete. The CoC connects clients with a landlord incentive program, which connects homeless individuals with landlords/homeowners; affordable housing; and mainstream services, such as welfare agencies, victim service providers, and nutritional assistance; and employment services to increase participant income. As households near the end of the RRH program, providers work with clients on housing stability. This is done through identifying challenges, continued case management, planning for crises, and potentially additional help to ensure stability. 2 https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/3891/rapid-re-housing-brief/ ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN If a jurisdiction provides estimates of the at-risk population(s), it should also include a description of the operational definition of the at-risk group and the methodology used to generate the estimates: The HUD definition of imminent risk of homelessness is someone who will lose their primary nighttime residence in 14 days provided that no subsequent residence has been identified and the person/family lacks the resources or support networks needed to obtain other permanent housing. The County of Santa Clara CoC reviewed local data and national trends regarding imminent risk of homelessness to identify risk factors that are used along with the Prevention VI-SPDAT, to assess household’s eligibility for the County’s Homelessness Prevention System (HPS). Ongoing PIT count data show eviction, lack of employment, low or know income as primary causes of homelessness. As discussed above, housing costs are also an issue; 57 percent of renter LMI households in the City are cost burdened, while 42 percent of LMI owner households are cost burdened. Nationally, people living in poverty who struggle to afford necessities are at the greatest risk of homelessness, which include: severe cost burden and living doubled up. “In 2017, 6.7 million households spent more than 50 percent of their income on rent. They were experiencing a “severe cost burden … 4.4 million people in poor households were “doubled up”, which means they were living with family and friends.” (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2019)3 The CoC also cites national research indicating additional factors including low or no income, mental illness, abuse, and criminal justice involvement. Based on the data listed eligibility criteria was created for HPS: low income; self-report of imminent risk of homelessness OR unsafe housing situation; AND a Prevention VI-SPDAT score of 8 or greater. The Prevention VI-SPDAT scores income and financial health, history of homelessness, eviction risk, abuse and/or trafficking, interaction with emergency services including criminal justice, and acuity of mental and physical needs. HPS includes 13 agencies that offer financial assistance and case management targeted to client’s needs. Case Management services may include working with a Housing Specialist to retain housing or relocation. The County Office of Supportive Housing is the HPS Program Manager. Other partner agencies include: five local victim service providers to assist families fleeing unsafe housing; the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley for eviction prevention services and training HPS staff on referrals to eviction; CalWorks and SSVF provide financial assistance, case management, connections to benefits and job training; the Bill Wilson Center works with school district homeless liaisons and also trains school staff on identifying at risk families to refer to HPS. The County and the City of San José allocated $10 million in new State funding over two years to fund the HPS program, which allows for an annual capacity of 900 households, County-wide. HPS tracks data and outcomes in order continually evaluate system outcomes. HPS has had successful outcomes; in the first two years of the program, 92 percent of participants remained housed one year after assistance. 3 National Alliance to End Homelessness (2019) State of Homelessness https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness- in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-report/ ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Specify particular housing characteristics that have been linked with instability and an increased risk of homelessness Severe cost burden can lead to instability and an increased risk of homelessness. Forty-two percent of respondents to the 2019 Homeless Survey4 indicated that rent or mortgage assistance could have helped prevent them from becoming homeless and further, 66 percent of respondents cite “Can’t Afford Rent” as an obstacle to obtaining permanent housing. Discussion Overall, there is a significant need for housing for homeless individuals, those with special needs, and households experiencing housing problems, such as overcrowding and cost burden. 4 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and & Survey 2019. https://www.sccgov.org/sites/osh/ContinuumofCare/ReportsandPublications/Documents/2015%20Santa%20Clara %20County%20Homeless%20Census%20and%20Survey/2019%20SCC%20Homeless%20Census%20and%20Survey %20Report.pdf ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2) Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole. Introduction As per HUD definitions, disproportionate housing needs is defined as “significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area” (24 CFR § 5.152). Specifically, a disproportionately greater need exists when the members of a racial/ethnic group at a given income level experience housing problems at a greater rate (10 percentage points or more) than the jurisdiction as a whole at that income level. Housing problems are: lacks complete kitchen facilities; lacks complete plumbing facilities; more than one person per room; or cost burden greater than 30 percent. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN 0%-30% of Area Median Income Housing Problems Has one or more of four housing problems Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Jurisdiction as a whole 2,275 455 320 White 1,240 270 130 Black / African American 45 0 0 Asian 550 175 145 American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 320 0 15 Table 13 - Disproportionally Greater Need 0 - 30% AMI Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4.Cost Burden greater than 30% 30%-50% of Area Median Income Housing Problems Has one or more of four housing problems Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Jurisdiction as a whole 1,355 585 0 White 715 435 0 Black / African American 45 0 0 Asian 305 95 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 4 0 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 265 55 0 Table 14 - Disproportionally Greater Need 30 - 50% AMI Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4.Cost Burden greater than 30% ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN 50%-80% of Area Median Income Housing Problems Has one or more of four housing problems Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Jurisdiction as a whole 1,140 980 0 White 865 740 0 Black / African American 65 10 0 Asian 175 160 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 20 45 0 Table 15 - Disproportionally Greater Need 50 - 80% AMI Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4. Cost Burden greater than 30% 80%-100% of Area Median Income Housing Problems Has one or more of four housing problems Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Jurisdiction as a whole 940 715 0 White 560 480 0 Black / African American 40 20 0 Asian 245 120 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0 Pacific Islander 0 30 0 Hispanic 70 40 0 Table 16 - Disproportionally Greater Need 80 - 100% AMI Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS *The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4.Cost Burden greater than 30% Discussion Seventy-five percent of households with 0%-30% AMI experience at least one housing problem.  One hundred percent of Black households with 0%-30% AMI experience at least one housing problem.  Seventy-five percent of White households with 0%-30% AMI experience at least one housing problem. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN  Sixty-three percent of Asian households with 0%-30% AMI experience at least one housing problem  Ninety-five percent of Hispanic households with 0%-30% AMI experience at least one housing problem. Sixty-nine percent of households with 30%-50% AMI experience at least one housing problem.  One hundred percent of Black households with 30%-50% AMI experience at least one housing problem.  Sixty-two percent of White households with 30%-50% AMI experience at least one housing problem.  Seventy-six percent of Asian households with 30%-50% AMI experience at least one housing problem  Eighty-two percent of Hispanic households with 30%-50% AMI experience at least one housing problem. Fifty-three percent of households with 50%-80% AMI experience at least one housing problem.  Eighty-six percent of Black households with 50%-80% AMI experience at least one housing problem.  Fifty-three percent of White households with 50%-80% AMI experience at least one housing problem.  Fifty-two percent of Asian households with 50%-80% AMI experience at least one housing problem  Thirty percent of Hispanic households with 50%-80% AMI experience at least one housing problem. Fifty-six percent of households with 80%-100% AMI experience at least one housing problem.  Sixty-six percent of Black households with 80%-100% AMI experience at least one housing problem.  Fifty-three percent of White households with 80%-100% AMI experience at least one housing problem.  Sixty-seven percent of Asian households with 80%-100% AMI experience at least one housing problem  Sixty-three percent of Hispanic households with 80%-100% AMI experience at least one housing problem. The groups disproportionately affected by housing problems include:  Black and Hispanic households in 0%-30% AMI;  Black and Hispanic households in 30%-50% AMI; and  Black households in 50%-80% AMI. In summary, Black and Hispanic households are disproportionately affected by housing problems within the City. Overall, 93 percent of Black LMI households and 84 percent of Hispanic LMI households are affected by housing problems. NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2) Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole. Introduction As per HUD definitions, disproportionate housing needs is defined as “significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN the proportion of members of any other relevant groups or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area” (24 CFR § 5.152) A household is considered severely overcrowded when there are more than 1.5 persons per room and severely cost burdened when paying more than 50 percent of household income toward housing costs. For renters, housing costs include rent paid by the tenant plus utilities. For owners, housing costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance, and utilities. 0%-30% of Area Median Income Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more of four housing problems Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Jurisdiction as a whole 1,835 890 320 White 1,055 460 130 Black / African American 45 0 0 Asian 360 370 145 American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 265 60 15 Table 17 – Severe Housing Problems 0 - 30% AMI Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4.Cost Burden over 50% 30%-50% of Area Median Income Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more of four housing problems Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Jurisdiction as a whole 960 980 0 White 495 655 0 Black / African American 40 4 0 Asian 230 170 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 4 0 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 195 125 0 Table 18 – Severe Housing Problems 30 - 50% AMI Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS *The four severe housing problems are: ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4.Cost Burden over 50% 50%-80% of Area Median Income Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more of four housing problems Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Jurisdiction as a whole 575 1,540 0 White 420 1,185 0 Black / African American 40 35 0 Asian 105 225 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 Hispanic 0 65 0 Table 19 – Severe Housing Problems 50 - 80% AMI Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4.Cost Burden over 50% 80%-100% of Area Median Income Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more of four housing problems Has none of the four housing problems Household has no/negative income, but none of the other housing problems Jurisdiction as a whole 465 1,195 0 White 195 845 0 Black / African American 25 35 0 Asian 195 170 0 American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0 Pacific Islander 0 30 0 Hispanic 25 85 0 Table 20 – Severe Housing Problems 80 - 100% AMI Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS *The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4.Cost Burden over 50% Discussion Sixty percent of households with 0%-30% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN  One hundred percent of Black households with 0%-30% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem  Sixty-four percent of White households with 0%-30% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem  Forty-one percent of Asian households with 0%-30% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem  Seventy-seven percent of Hispanic households with 0%-30% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem Forty-nine percent of households with 30%-50% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem  Ninety percent of Black households with 30%-50% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem  Forty-three percent of White households with 30%-50% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem  Fifty-seven percent of Asian households with 30%-50% AMI experience at one severe housing problem  Sixty percent of Hispanic households with 30%-50% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem Twenty-seven percent of households with 50%-80% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem  Fifty-three percent of Black households with 50%-80% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem  Twenty-six percent of White households with 50%-80% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem  Thirty-one percent of Asian households with 50%-80% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem  Zero percent of Hispanic households with 50%-80% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem Twenty-eight percent of households with 80%-100% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem  Forty-one percent of Black households with 80%-100% AMI experience at one severe housing problem  Eighteen percent of White households with 80%-100% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem  Fifty-three percent of Asian households with 80%-100% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem  Twenty-two percent of Hispanic households with 80%-100% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem The groups disproportionately affected by severe housing problems include:  Black and Hispanic households in 0%-30% AMI;  Black and Hispanic households in 30%-50% AMI; and  Black households in 50%-80% AMI. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN In summary, Black and Hispanic households are disproportionately affected by severe housing problems. Overall, 76 percent of Black LMI households and 63 percent of Hispanic LMI households are affected by at least one severe housing problem. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens – 91.205 (b)(2) Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole. Introduction As per HUD definitions, disproportionate housing needs is defined as “significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area” (24 CFR § 5.152) A household is considered cost burdened if they pay more than 30 percent of their household income toward housing costs. Housing Cost Burden Housing Cost Burden <=30% 30-50% >50% No / negative income (not computed) Jurisdiction as a whole 17,540 4,375 3,825 355 White 11,740 2,685 2,245 140 Black / African American 235 70 115 0 Asian 4,450 1,205 920 175 American Indian, Alaska Native 0 10 4 0 Pacific Islander 65 0 0 0 Hispanic 700 330 400 15 Table 21 – Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens AMI Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS Discussion As a whole, 17 percent of households are cost burdened and 15 percent are severely cost burdened. Hispanic households are disproportionately cost burdened (23 percent) and Black and Hispanic households are disproportionately severely cost burdened (27 and 28 percent respectively). American Indians and Alaskan Natives are largely disproportionately cost burdened (71 percent) and disproportionally severely cost burdened (29 percent). Overall, there is a high rate of cost burden within the City; however, Black, Hispanic, and American Indian and Alaskan Native households are much more likely to be cost burdened when compared to white and Asian households. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.205(b)(2) Are there any Income categories in which a racial or ethnic group has disproportionately greater need than the needs of that income category as a whole? Tables 13 through 21 show CHAS data from 2011-2015, provided by HUD, which compare households of extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income within racial/ethnic groups in the City, compared to extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households in the City as a whole. In addition to income, the tables compare housing problems, severe housing problems, cost burden, and severe cost burden. A disproportionately greater need exists when the members of a specific racial/ ethnic group at a given income level experience housing problems or cost burden at a greater ratio (at least 10 percentage points or more) than at that income level in the jurisdiction as a whole. Black and Hispanic households are disproportionately affected by housing problems within the City. Overall, 93 percent of Black LMI households and 84 percent of Hispanic LMI households are affected by housing problems. Black and Hispanic households are disproportionately affected by severe housing problems. Overall, 76 percent of Black LMI households and 63 percent of Hispanic LMI households are affected by at least one severe housing problem. Hispanic households are disproportionately cost burdened (23 percent) compared to 17 percent of the jurisdiction as whole and Black and Hispanic households are disproportionately severely cost burdened (27 and 28 percent respectively) compared to 15 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. American Indians and Alaskan Natives are largely disproportionately cost burdened (71 percent) compared to 15 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole, and disproportionally severely cost burdened (29 percent) compared to the 17 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. Overall, there is a high rate of cost burden within the City; however, Black, Hispanic, and American Indian and Alaskan Native households are much more likely to be cost burdened when compared to White and Asian households. If they have needs not identified above, what are those needs? Stakeholder interviews identified the need for an increase in funding for first-time home buyer programs and down payment assistance for LMI households in the City. By continuing existing programs and increasing funding to others, the City may be able to help with recent decrease in homeownership. Additional services include reviewing and filling the gaps that exist in mortgage affordability after upfront costs fulfilled, and creating incentives for property owners to sell to a buyer from a pre-established list of low- and moderate-income families. Additionally, community stakeholders are increasingly concerned with the decrease in homeownership across all racial/ethnic groups that has occurred since the housing boom of the mid-2000s. However, certain racial/ethnic groups have been far less likely to become homeowners compared to the jurisdiction as a whole. In 2015, 27 percent of Black/African American applicants and 19 percent of Hispanic applicants were denied mortgages, compared to about 11 percent of White and Asian applicants, according to data ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN from the federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.5 Lenders cite different reasons for denials, but reasons for denial appear to be common across racial/ethnic group. Among Black/African American applicants, poor credit history was cited, and among Whites, Hispanics, and Asians, denials were based on too high of a debt to income ratio. Community stakeholders would like to see financial literacy classes available for families to help them resolve some of their debt issues, in order to make them more attractive loan candidates. In addition to denial rates, racial/ethnic groups tend to have less of a down payment, thereby qualifying for a higher loan rate which causes a more expensive monthly payment. Black/African American and Hispanic households reported putting down 10 percent or less, versus Whites and Asians. Also, when households are approved for loans, racial/ethnic groups are more likely to pay a higher interest rate. In 2015, less than 66 percent of Black/African American and Hispanic loan holders had mortgage rates below 5 percent, compared to 73 percent of White applicants and 83 percent of Asian applicants. Conversely, a larger percentage of Black/African American (23 percent) and Hispanic (18 percent) loan holders were paying 6 percent mortgage rates (a higher rate), compared to White (13 percent) and Asian (6 percent) loan holders. Are any of those racial or ethnic groups located in specific areas or neighborhoods in your community? Minority concentration is defined as census tracts where the percentage of individuals of a particular racial or ethnic minority group is at least 20 percentage points higher than the citywide average. Minority refers to all ethnic groups other than non-Hispanic white. The City of Palo Alto’s population is 61.2 percent White, 1.2 percent Black/African/American, 31.3 percent Asian, and 7.3 percent Hispanic. As seen in Map 1 below, Census Tract 5093.4 qualifies as a minority concentration with a 35.2 percent Hispanic population. 5 https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/10/blacks-and-hispanics-face-extra-challenges-in-getting- home-loans/ ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Map 1 – Areas of Minority Concentration ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN NA-35 Public Housing – 91.205(b) Introduction The following tables displays the number of housing vouchers in use within the County and the demographics of those receiving vouchers. Totals in Use Program Type Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project -based Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled * # of units vouchers in use 0 48 20 10,212 692 9,267 212 0 36 Table 22 - Public Housing by Program Type *includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center) Characteristics of Residents Program Type Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project -based Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Average Annual Income 0 20,067 16,342 15,882 13,333 16,112 14,199 0 Average length of stay 0 7 5 8 1 9 0 0 Average Household size 0 2 2 2 1 2 1 0 # Homeless at admission 0 0 1 15 4 4 0 0 # of Elderly Program Participants (>62) 0 10 4 3,859 502 3,315 24 0 # of Disabled Families 0 10 6 1,784 69 1,610 85 0 # of Families requesting accessibility features 0 48 20 10,212 692 9,267 212 0 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Program Type Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project -based Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program # of HIV/AIDS program participants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of DV victims 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 23 – Characteristics of Public Housing Residents by Program Type Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center) Race of Residents Program Type Race Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project -based Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled * White 0 33 11 4,885 332 4,420 117 0 14 Black/African American 0 3 3 1,358 46 1,223 80 0 7 Asian 0 11 5 3,698 303 3,375 5 0 14 American Indian/Alaska Native 0 1 1 145 7 134 3 0 1 Pacific Islander 0 0 0 95 4 84 7 0 0 Other 0 0 0 31 0 31 0 0 0 *includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Table 24 – Race of Public Housing Residents by Program Type Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center) ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Ethnicity of Residents Program Type Ethnicity Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project -based Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled * Hispanic 0 20 8 3,217 133 3,038 38 0 7 Not Hispanic 0 28 12 6,964 559 6,198 174 0 29 *includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Table 25 – Ethnicity of Public Housing Residents by Program Type Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center) Section 504 Needs Assessment: Describe the needs of public housing tenants and applicants on the waiting list for accessible units: Households in California with at least one member living with a disability have median household income of $56,600, approximately $26,000 less than the median household income of all households at $82,000.6 Given this, the need for accessible affordable units would be high. Most immediate needs of residents of Public Housing and Housing Choice voucher holders The most immediate need of housing choice holders is the lack of available housing units that accept vouchers. In an effort to attract new Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) owners, SCCHA is re-proposing a landlord initiative activity begun in 2017 to include new HCV program owners who may otherwise be discouraged by the additional administrative burden associated with the HCV program. New owners who rent their unit to an HCV participant will receive a bonus payment. The SCCHA hopes those incentives attract new owners to the HCV program and increase the number of rental units available for Section 8 families. How do these needs compare to the housing needs of the population at large? Although Housing Choice Vouchers are available to low-income households, the HCV program is unable to accommodate all low-income households. As discussed in MA-15, there is a gap of 1,350 units for households earning between 0 and 30 percent AMI. Moderate- and above moderate-income categories are more able to secure affordable housing in the City. Discussion Please see discussion above. 6 Cornell University. Disability Statistics. http://www.disabilitystatistics.org/reports/acs.cfm ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment – 91.205(c) Introduction The County of Santa Clara CoC performed the biannual PIT count. The PIT count is a count of sheltered and unsheltered people experiencing homelessness on a single night in January. The most recent count took place on January 29-30, 2019. HUD requires that CoCs conduct a count, every other year, of unsheltered people experiencing homelessness, which is defined as sleeping in a place not meant for human habitation, such as a car, park, or abandoned building. The CoC must also conduct an annual count of people experiencing homelessness who are sheltered in an emergency shelter, transitional housing, or a safe haven on a single night. The majority of the information available regarding the homeless population in the City is sourced from the 2019 County PIT count. Below, the demographics of homeless persons in the County and City of Palo Alto are addressed. Homeless Needs Assessment In the 2019 County PIT count, the County identified a total of 9,706 homeless individuals. Of these individuals, 1,784 are sheltered and 7,922 are unsheltered; see Table 28. It is estimated that 2,470 are chronically homeless, with 85 percent unsheltered; 653 are veterans, with 68 percent unsheltered; and 268 are unaccompanied youth, with 95 percent unsheltered. It is also estimated that about 2 percent of homeless individuals are living with HIV. Population Estimate the # of persons experiencing homelessness on a given night Estimate the # experiencing homelessnes s each year Estimate the # becomin g homeles s each year Estimate the # exiting homelessnes s each year Estimate the # of days persons experience homelessnes s Sheltere d Unsheltere d Persons in Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) 700 221 921 *See discussion of available data in narrative below * * Persons in Households with Only Children N/A N/A N/A * * * Persons in Households 1,532 6,977 8,509 * * * ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Population Estimate the # of persons experiencing homelessness on a given night Estimate the # experiencing homelessnes s each year Estimate the # becomin g homeles s each year Estimate the # exiting homelessnes s each year Estimate the # of days persons experience homelessnes s Sheltere d Unsheltere d with Only Adults Chronically Homeless Individuals 371 2,099 2,470 * * * Chronically Homeless Families N/A N/A N/A * * * Veterans 209 444 653 * * * Unaccompanie d Youth 14 254 268 * * * Persons with HIV 29 165 194 * * * Table 27 – Extent of Homelessness Data Source: Santa Clara County 2019 Point in Time Count and Survey Report, County-wide numbers If data is not available for the categories "number of persons becoming and exiting homelessness each year," and "number of days that persons experience homelessness," describe these categories for each homeless population type (including chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth): The following estimates were obtained using data from the 2017 and 2019 Santa Clara County Point-in-Time Count (Homeless Census & Survey). Estimate the # Becoming Homeless Each Year An average of 1,420 persons in households with only adults become homeless in the County each year. From 2017 to 2019, the number of adult homeless individuals increased from 5,670 to 8,509. An average of 74 persons with HIV become homeless in the County each year. From 2017 to 2019, the homeless persons with HIV stayed around 2 percent of the homeless population; however, the homeless population as a whole increased from 7,394 to 9,706 persons. An average of 187 homeless persons become chronically homeless persons in the County each year. From 2017 to 2019, the chronically homeless count increased from 2,097 to 2,470 persons. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Overall, 36 percent or approximately one-third of those surveyed indicated that their current episode of homelessness was their first incidence of homelessness. Estimate the # Exiting Homelessness Each Year An average of 77 persons in households with adults and children exit homelessness in the County each year. From 2017 to 2019, the number of homeless individuals in families decreased from 1,075 to 921. An average of 187 unaccompanied youth become homeless in the County each year. From 2017 to 2019, the number of unaccompanied youth decreased from 649 to 268. An average of 4 veterans exit homelessness in the County each year. From 2017 to 2019, the number of homeless veterans decreased from 660 to 653. Approximately two-thirds of those surveyed said they had experienced homelessness previously and that this was not their first incidence of homelessness. Moreover, 35 percent experienced homelessness for the first time between the ages of 0 to 24. Estimate the # of Days Persons Experience Homelessness During the 2019 County PIT count, 1,335 homeless persons were asked about the length of their current episode of homelessness. Overall, only a small percentage (6 percent) had been homeless 30 days or less, while most (94 percent) had experienced homelessness for more than a month, and of those, 67 percent had experienced homelessness for one year or more. 2 percent reported they had been homeless seven days or less 4 percent reported they had been homeless 8-30 days 6 percent reported they had been homeless 1-3 months 12 percent reported they had been homeless 4-6 months 9 percent reported they had been homeless 7-11 months 67 percent reported they had been homeless one year or more There is no data available on chronically homeless families. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Nature and Extent of Homelessness: (Optional) Jurisdiction Unsheltered Sheltered Total ’17-’19 % Change 2017 2019 2017 2019 2017 2019 Total Incorporated 5,259 7,652 1,775 1,594 7,034 9,246 31% City of Campbell 94 74 0 0 94 74 -21% City of Cupertino 127 159 0 0 127 159 25% City of Gilroy 295 345 427 359 722 704 -2% City of Los Altos 6 76 0 0 6 76 * City of Los Altos Hills 0 2 0 0 0 2 * Town of Los Gatos 52 16 0 0 52 16 * City of Milpitas 66 125 0 0 66 125 89% City of Monte Sereno 0 0 0 0 0 0 * City of Morgan Hill 388 114 0 0 388 114 -71% City of Mountain View 411 574 5 32 416 606 46% City of Palo Alto 256 299 20 14 276 313 13% City of San José 3,231 5,117 1,119 980 4,350 6,097 41% City of Santa Clara 199 264 73 62 272 326 20% City of Saratoga 12 10 0 0 12 10 * City of Sunnyvale 122 477 131 147 253 624 147% Total Unincorporated 189 270 113 89 302 359 19% Confidential Locations NA NA 58 101 58 101 74% Total 5,448 7,922 1,946 1,784 7,394 9,706 31% Table 28 – Nature and Extent of Homelessness Data Source: County of Santa Clara Continuum of Care There are an estimated 313 persons experiencing homelessness in the City of Palo Alto and 9,706 county- wide. Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance for families with children and the families of veterans. The 2019 County PIT count identified 269 homeless families with 921 members in Santa Clara County. Twenty-four percent of families are unsheltered. The count also identified 653 homeless veterans, of which 68 percent were unsheltered. Describe the Nature and Extent of Homelessness by Racial and Ethnic Group. Minority groups make up the largest percent of homeless surveyed (48%). According to the 2019 County PIT count, the County’s homeless population is 44 percent White, 24 percent multi-race or other, 19 percent Black or African American, 3 percent Asian, and 2 percent Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. Black or African American people make up approximately 3 percent of Alameda County, but are 19 percent of the homeless population. Describe the Nature and Extent of Unsheltered and Sheltered Homelessness. There are approximately 299 unsheltered homeless individuals living within the City and 14 sheltered homeless individuals. In comparison, there are 7,922 unsheltered homeless individuals in the County and 1,784 sheltered homeless individuals. Overall, four percent of homeless individuals in Palo Alto are sheltered while in the County 18 percent are sheltered. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN According to the 2019 County PIT count, 76 percent of families are sheltered. Chronically homeless individuals, veterans, and unaccompanied youth are primarily unsheltered (85 percent, 68 percent, and 95 percent respectively). Discussion As discussed above, there are approximately 9,700 homeless individuals residing within the County; however, as identified in MA-30, there are not enough emergency shelter, transitional, rapid rehousing, or permanent supportive housing beds to accommodate them. The CoC’s service capacities have increased within the previous five years; however, there is still a severe need for beds and additional supportive services. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment - 91.205 (b,d) Introduction The following section describes the special needs of the following populations:  Elderly households (defined as 62 and older)  Persons with mental, physical, and/or developmental disabilities  Large households  Female-headed households  Persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families Describe the characteristics of special needs populations in your community: Elderly households Many seniors live on fixed incomes, making housing affordability a key issue. Access to properly sized units, transit, and healthcare are also important concerns of elderly households. Elderly households may also require residential care from time to time. Twenty-one percent of City residents (14,415 residents) are 62 years of age or older.7 Persons with mental, physical, and/or developmental disabilities Persons with disabilities may require special housing accommodations, such as wheelchair accessibility and other modifications to live independently. Access to transit is also a high priority for this population. 7 ACS 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN As outlined in the table below, 8.5 percent of Palo Alto residents have a disability. Of those 65 years and older, 26.1 percent have a disability. Disability Type Number Percent Population 18 to 64 Years 38,920 100% With a Hearing Difficulty 384 1.0% With a Vision Difficulty 271 0.7% With a Cognitive Disability 587 1.5% With an Ambulatory Disability 360 0.9% With a Self-Care Disability 211 0.5% With an Independent Living Disability 358 0.9% Total with a Disability (18 to 64 Years Old) 1,154 6.7% Population 65 Years and Over 12,103 100% With a Hearing Difficulty 1,323 10.9% With a Vision Difficulty 518 4.3% With a Cognitive Disability 772 6.4% With an Ambulatory Disability 2,017 16.7% With a Self-Care Disability 786 6.5% With an Independent Living Disability 1,562 12.9% Total with a Disability (65+ Years Old) 3,161 26.1% Total Population 4,315 8.5% Table 30 – Disability Data Source: ACS 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates; Data Source Comment: Totals may not add up to 100% due to individuals having multiple disabilities Large households Large households may live in overcrowded conditions. Large households, defined as households with 5 or more persons, comprise 8.3 percent of all households within the City. Number of People Per Household Number Percent 1 Person 6,564 25.8% 2 Persons 8,082 31.7 3 Persons 4,291 16.8 4 Persons 4,370 17.1% 5 or More Persons 2,132 8.3% Total Households 25,439 100% Table 31 – Household Size Data Source: ACS 2017 1-Year Estimate Female-headed households Female-headed households may have special needs related to accessing child-care and other supportive services as well as an increased risk of poverty.8 Female-headed households comprise 9.9 percent of households with children. 8 Household Composition and Poverty among Female-Headed Households with Children: Differences by Race and Residence. Anastasia R. Snyder. https://doi.org/10.1526/003601106781262007 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Households Number Percent Female-Head of Household 1,560 9.9% Total Households (of households with children under 18 years) 15,655 100% Table 32 – Female-headed Households Data Source: ACS 2017 1-Year Estimate What are the housing and supportive service needs of these populations and how are these needs determined? Elderly, disabled, large, and female-headed households are a significant portion of the City’s population and they have special housing needs that require diverse types of affordable housing. Stakeholder interviews identified the need for housing among these populations within the County. Discuss the size and characteristics of the population with HIV/AIDS and their families within the Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Area: Those living with HIV and their families require stable and affordable housing in order to consistently access medical care and avoid hospitalizations. On the county level, there are approximately 3,361 people living with HIV (PLWH).9 86 percent of PLWH are male, 13 percent are female, and 1 percent are transgender. 34 percent of PLWH are White, 40 percent are Latinx, 11 percent are African American, and 12 percent are Asian or Pacific Islander. Fifty- two percent of newly reported cases in 2017 were of individuals between 20 and 34 years of age. Only 15.9 percent of PLWH are within the same age range.10 The most common transmission mode related to new HIV diagnoses is male-to-male sexual contact. Those with late HIV diagnoses, defined as having an AIDS diagnosis within three months of an HIV diagnosis, are typically older (44 percent 40 years or older), female (36 percent), and African American (38 percent). The most common transmission modes related to late HIV diagnoses are other/unknown and intravenous drug use.11 Discussion: People living with HIV/AIDs require affordable housing in order to maintain consistent access to medical care, adhere to medical plans, and avoid hospitalizations and they require affordable housing that will suit their needs, which includes proximity to health care centers . 9 HIV Epidemiology Annual Report County of Sana Clara 2017https://www.sccgov.org/sites/phd/hi/hd/Documents/hiv-report-2017.pdf 10 California HIV Surveillance Survey 2017 https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DOA/CDPH%20Document%20Library/California%20HIV%20Surveillance% 20Report%20-%202017.pdf 11 HIV Epidemiology Annual Report County of Sana Clara 2017 https://www.sccgov.org/sites/phd/hi/hd/Documents/hiv-report-2017.pdf ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs – 91.215 (f) Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Facilities: On the County level, the community engagement process identified the following public facility needs:  Transit service expansion to LMI areas to connect LMI households to employment opportunities;  Increased accessibility modifications for seniors and those living with disabilities to safely travel in the community;  Traffic safety improvements to avoid pedestrian safety issues and child endangerment on certain corridors;  Centralized facilities for libraries and community center equipped with technology to increase technical literacy of seniors; and  Improved cellular services in LMI areas. Furthermore, from the community engagement survey, 65 percent of respondents residing in the City answered that mental health care facilities were a high priority public facility need, 43 percent answered that both homeless facilities and child care centers were high priority needs, and 41 percent answered that facilities for children who are abused, abandoned, and/or neglected was a high priority need. The City’s Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission published its final report on Palo Alto’s infrastructure needs in December 2011. The report identified that public safety facilities were a high priority for the City, including police, fire, and other emergency service buildings. How were these needs determined? The needs were consulted through extensive community engagement efforts including a survey, stakeholder interviews, community forums, and pop-up events. The survey and pop-up events sought to solicit feedback from County and City residents, while stakeholder interviews and community forums focused on community development practitioners and experts. The survey was made available in four languages and online. In total 1,950 survey responses were received and approximately 21 stakeholder organizations participated in the process. An additional 352 residents participated in community engagement workshops and pop-up events. Lastly, City staff provided feedback on preliminary needs as well. Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Improvements: On the County level, the community engagement process identified several target areas for neighborhood revitalization efforts, including specific neighborhoods or corridors in San José, Gilroy, and Morgan Hill as well as areas throughout the county, such as old shopping centers and VTA/Caltrain corridors. From the community engagement survey, 38 percent of respondents residing in the City answered that slowing traffic speed was a high priority public improvement need and 35 percent answered that cleanup of contaminated sites was a high priority need. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN How were these needs determined? See the description of community engagement above. Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Services: Through the community meetings, several public service needs were identified. They included the provision of first-time homebuyer loans, housing assistance for transitional aged youth, financial literacy, and job training. Subsidies for homelessness prevention programs, housing rehabilitation, and services for senior citizens were also identified as needs. Through stakeholder interview meetings, many public service needs were identified including increasing affordable housing options, funding for home rehabilitation, and expanding voucher programs to be more flexible. The increased provision of homelessness services was also very important, including increased hiring of homelessness navigators, creation of nutrition services, and development of wrap around services. The creation of an anti-homeless strategy was also suggested. Disaster planning was suggested in order to assist LMI households, including rapid rehousing emergency programs, rehabilitation and rebuilding programs, and provision of basic necessities after disaster. Additionally, from the community engagement survey, 47 percent of respondents living within the City answered that both emergency housing assistance to prevent homelessness and homeless services were a high priority public service need, 60 percent of respondents answered that mental health services was a high priority need, and 44 percent of respondents answered that both youth services and transportation services were a high priority need. Furthermore, the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan identified the following needs for City residents:  Child care services;  After-school, evening, and weekend youth programs;  Senior services; and  Increased access to recreational programs for those with disabilities. How were these needs determined? See the description of community engagement above. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Housing Market Analysis MA-05 Overview Housing Market Analysis Overview: An overview of the City’s housing market is as follows: MA-10 Number of Housing Units  Fifty-six percent of the City’s housing stock is single family, detached.  Twenty-nine affordable rental housing projects owned by Palo Alto Housing are located within the City and provide approximately 670 affordable units for LMI families, individuals, seniors, and those with disabilities. MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housings  The City’s median home value has risen from $1 million to $1.5 million between 2009 and 2015, a 56 percent increase.  Median contract rents have risen from $1,575 to $2,069 between 2009 and 2015, a 31 percent increase.  A gap of 1,350 affordable units exists for renter households earning between 0% and 30% AMI.  The HUD Fair Market Rent and the area median rent are comparable and have risen since the last ConPlan period. MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing  5,223 households with lead-based paint hazards are potentially occupied by LMI families.  Thirty-four percent of households have at least one selected condition (Lack of complete plumbing, lack of kitchen facilities, more than one person per room, or housing burden greater than 30 percent). MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing  County-wide, 10,635 housing vouchers are in use.  SCCHA operates as a Moving to Work agency and has adopted approximately 39 activities aimed at increasing cost effectiveness in housing program operations. MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services  The City contains 111 beds for single males and females and households with children.  The City contains 6 bed for single males and females.  Several mainstream services operate in the County that complement services to homeless persons, including: Valley Homeless Healthcare Program, expedited CalFresh benefits, County Social and Behavioral Health, and the County’s Reentry Resource Center. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services  The City of Palo Alto offers Residential Care Facilities to assist elderly residents as well as locally funded very-low income and homeless services. MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing The City has identified the following barriers in their 2015-2023 Housing Element Update:  Land use controls  Height limits  Parking requirements  Development review processes MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets  The residents of Palo Alto are highly educated, with 85 percent of the labor force having a bachelor’s degree or higher  The City has two main workforce development programs: The Workforce Development Program operated by Downtown Streets Inc. and the North Valley Job Training Consortium MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion  There is one Hispanic minority population within in the City  There is one census tract that qualifies as LMI; however, the portion of the census tract that is within the City does not contain residential uses MA-60 Broadband Needs  Private assistance programs exist that offer internet service to low-income households for a reduced cost  Increased competition among internet service providers would likely decrease costs and increase access to the internet MA-65 Hazard Mitigation  Climate change will increase the average temperature of the globe, which will manifest in heat waves and natural disasters  Low-income households are especially vulnerable during natural disasters if they do not have the means to evacuate or find replacement shelter ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN MA-10 Number of Housing Units – 91.210(a)&(b)(2) Introduction The majority of the City’s housing stock is single-family detached (56 percent). Sixty-two percent is single- family detached and attached. The remaining housing stock are multi-family units (37 percent) with 31 percent being in complexes 5 units or larger. All residential properties by number of units Property Type Number % 1-unit detached structure 15,565 56% 1-unit, attached structure 1,735 6% 2-4 units 1,685 6% 5-19 units 3,240 12% 20 or more units 5,225 19% Mobile Home, boat, RV, van, etc. 105 0% Total 27,555 100% Table 33 – Residential Properties by Unit Number Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS Unit Size by Tenure Owners Renters Number % Number % No bedroom 40 0% 920 8% 1 bedroom 535 4% 3,705 32% 2 bedrooms 1,770 12% 4,205 36% 3 or more bedrooms 12,010 84% 2,895 25% Total 14,355 100% 11,725 101% Table 34 – Unit Size by Tenure Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS Describe the number and targeting (income level/type of family served) of units assisted with federal, state, and local programs. Twenty-nine affordable rental housing projects owned by Palo Alto Housing are located within the City and provide approximately 670 affordable units for LMI families, individuals, seniors, and those with disabilities. SCCHA’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program serves those between 0%-30% AMI and 30%-50% AMI. Provide an assessment of units expected to be lost from the affordable housing inventory for any reason, such as expiration of Section 8 contracts. Affordable housing subject to expiring subsidy contracts or use restrictions would be at risk of conversion to market rate housing. According to the City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element, 334 units could potentially convert in the next ConPlan period (2020-2025). ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Does the availability of housing units meet the needs of the population? As discussed in MA-15, there is a 1,350-unit gap for renter households between 0% and 30% AMI. Additionally, as identified during the community engagement process, there is a severe need for affordable housing for extremely low and low-income households. Describe the need for specific types of housing: As discussed in the Needs Assessment, those in need of affordable housing include: people at-risk of homelessness, homeless individuals, seniors, people living with HIV/AIDS, people with disabilities, female- headed households, and large households. As identified during community engagement, there is a need for various types of affordable housing options near employment and transit centers as well as temporary housing for homeless persons. Discussion There is a significant need for affordable housing units within the City and especially for people with special needs, including the elderly, disabled, large households, victims of domestic violence, and people living with HIV/AIDS. Several past CDBG and HOME funded projects have addressed these needs, such as Catholic Charities and Support Network for Battered Women (YWCA). The City would continue these or similar programs to continue addressing the affordable housing needs of the City. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing - 91.210(a) Introduction The San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area is one of the most expensive in the nation. A gap of 1,350 units exists for households making 0%-30% AMI and housing costs continue to increase. Cost of Housing Base Year: 2009 Most Recent Year: 2015 % Change Median Home Value 1,000,001 1,564,600 56% Median Contract Rent 1,575 2,069 31% Table 35 – Cost of Housing Data Source: 2005-2009 ACS (Base Year), 2011-2015 ACS (Most Recent Year) Rent Paid Number % Less than $500 1,100 9.4% $500-999 760 6.5% $1,000-1,499 1,475 12.6% $1,500-1,999 2,455 20.9% $2,000 or more 5,940 50.6% Total 11,730 100.0% Table 36 - Rent Paid Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS Housing Affordability % Units affordable to Households earning Renter Owner 30% HAMFI 740 No Data 50% HAMFI 1,350 155 80% HAMFI 2,500 264 100% HAMFI No Data 387 Total 4,590 806 Table 37 – Housing Affordability Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS Monthly Rent Monthly Rent ($) Efficiency (no bedroom) 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Fair Market Rent $2,103 $2,458 $2,970 $3,943 $4,525 High HOME Rent $1,611 $1,728 $2,074 $2,389 $2,645 Low HOME Rent $1,281 $1,372 $1,646 $1,902 $2,122 Table 38 – Monthly Rent Data Source: HUD FMR and HOME Rents ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Household Income Range # Renter Households Affordable Units Gap 30% HAMFI 2,090 740 -1,350 50% HAMFI 1,205 1,350 145 80% HAMFI 1,205 2,500 1,295 Total 4,500 5,396 896 Table 39 – Household Income Range Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS Is there sufficient housing for households at all income levels? There is a gap of 1,350 affordable units for renter households earning 0%-30% AMI. Those earning between 30-50% AMI and 50%-80% AMI generally have a surplus of units they may afford. How is affordability of housing likely to change considering changes to home values and/or rents? The City’s median home value has risen from $1 million to $1.5 million between 2009 and 2015, a 56 percent increase. Median contract rents have also risen from $1,575 to $2,069, a 31 percent increase. Income is not raising at the same rate and if this trend continues, more people will be either unable to buy or rent a home or become cost burdened. In an effort to combat the California Housing Crisis, rent gouging, and to slow the increase of rent in all areas of California; on October 8, 2019, the California Governor signed in to law AB-1482 Tenant Protection Act of 2019. AB-1482 added California Civil Code: §1947.12 (a) (1) Subject to division (b) an owner of residential real property shall not, over the course of any 12-month period, increase the gross rental rate for a dwelling or a unit more than 5 percent plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 10 percent, whichever is lower, of the lowest gross rental rate charged for that dwelling or unit at any time during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the increase. How do HOME rents / Fair Market Rent compare to Area Median Rent? How might this impact your strategy to produce or preserve affordable housing? The Fair Market Rent and the area median rent are comparable and have risen since the last ConPlan period to keep up with rising contract rent costs. This allows Section 8 Voucher holders to rent properly sized units. Discussion Area median rents and home prices have risen significantly in the last ten years; however, median income has not risen in proportion. However, HOME rents and Fair Market Rents have risen to accommodate increased prices, indicating that Housing Choice Voucher Holders would be able to rent an appropriate unit within the City. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing – 91.210(a) Introduction This section analyses the number of housing units that may have a specific housing condition or be potentially affected by lead-based paint hazards. Definitions HUD defines “condition” as: 1. Lack of complete plumbing; 2. Lack of kitchen facilities; 3. More than one person per room; and 4. Housing cost burden greater than 30 percent. A substandard residential building, as defined by the City, is any residential building in which any of the following conditions exist to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety or welfare of the public or the occupants thereof:  Structural unsoundness, including: a. Weakened or deteriorated footings. b. Footings of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety. c. Defective or deteriorated flooring or floor supports. d. Flooring or floor supports of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety. e. Members of walls, partitions, or other vertical supports that split, lean, list, or buckle due to defective material or deterioration. Condition of Units Condition of Units Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Number % Number % With one selected Condition 3,940 27% 4,375 37% With two selected Conditions 45 0% 495 4% With three selected Conditions 45 0% 0 0% With four selected Conditions 0 0% 0 0% No selected Conditions 10,330 72% 6,860 58% Total 14,360 99% 11,730 99% Table 40 - Condition of Units Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS Year Unit Built Year Unit Built Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Number % Number % 2000 or later 1,595 11% 1,280 11% 1980-1999 1,590 11% 2,280 19% 1950-1979 7,095 49% 6,320 54% Before 1950 4,080 28% 1,850 16% ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Year Unit Built Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Number % Number % Total 14,360 99% 11,730 100% Table 41 – Year Unit Built Data Source: 2011-2015 CHAS Risk of Lead-Based Paint Hazard Risk of Lead-Based Paint Hazard Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Number % Number % Total Number of Units Built Before 1980 11,175 78% 8,170 70% Housing Units build before 1980 with children present 1,004 7% 500 4% Table 42 – Risk of Lead-Based Paint Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS (Total Units) 2011-2015 CHAS (Units with Children present) Vacant Units Suitable for Rehabilitation Not Suitable for Rehabilitation Total Vacant Units 1,339 0 1,339 Abandoned Vacant Units 0 0 0 REO Properties 1 0 1 Abandoned REO Properties 0 0 0 Table 43 – Vacant Units Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS Need for Owner and Rental Rehabilitation The City’s 1988-1991 Housing Assistance Plan estimated that 3 percent of the City’s owner-occupied units were substandard. City staff estimates that this percentage has not changed.12 Using this proportion, there are an estimated 99 LMI owner-occupied units that are in need of rehabilitation. The City does not identify a significant need for rental rehabilitation and continues to work with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation to rehabilitate existing affordable units.13 Estimated Number of Housing Units Occupied by Low or Moderate Income Families with LBP Hazards Seventy-four percent of homes (19,345) were built before 1980. Homes built before 1980 may contain walls previously or currently painted with lead-based paint. Twenty-seven percent (7,105) of households are LMI. Using this proportion, 5,223 LBP households are potentially occupied by LMI families. Discussion As discussed above, there are approximately 5,223 LMI households that could live in housing with LBP hazards. Community engagement efforts identified that having a healthy home (e.g., free of mold and 12 City of Palo Alto 2015-2023 Housing Element. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/long_range_planning/housing_programs_and_policies/housing_ele ment_2015___2023.asp 13 Ibid. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN LBP) is a top priority for County residents. Furthermore, housing rehabilitation was a top priority identified by participants of the regional community meetings. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing – 91.210(b) Introduction The table below displays the total number of public housing units and housing vouchers available through SCCHA. SCCHA does not operate public housing units in the City of Palo Alto. Approximately 10,635 vouchers are used in the County; however, data is not available on the number of vouchers used within the City. Totals Number of Units Program Type Certificate Mod- Rehab Public Housing Vouchers Total Project -based Tenant -based Special Purpose Voucher Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Family Unification Program Disabled * # of units vouchers available 0 48 20 10,635 815 9,820 1,964 0 465 # of accessible units - - - - - - - - - *includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Table 44 – Total Number of Units by Program Type Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center) Describe the supply of public housing developments: There is no public housing in the City of Palo Alto. Describe the number and physical condition of public housing units in the jurisdiction, including those that are participating in an approved Public Housing Agency Plan: There is no public housing in the City of Palo Alto. Public Housing Condition Public Housing Development Average Inspection Score - - Table 45 - Public Housing Condition (Data Unavailable) Describe the restoration and revitalization needs of public housing units in the jurisdiction: There is no public housing in the City of Palo Alto. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Describe the public housing agency's strategy for improving the living environment of low- and moderate-income families residing in public housing: As a Moving to Work agency, SCCHA has adopted 39 activities aimed to increase cost effectiveness in housing program operations, promote participants’ self-sufficiency, and expand participants’ housing choices.14 Examples include:  Expediting the initial income verification process;  Combining the waiting lists for the County of Santa Clara and the City of San José;  Excluding asset income from income calculations for families with assets under $50,000;  Allocating project-based vouchers to SCCHA-owned projects without competition;  Minimum two-year occupancy in project-based units;  Creating affordable housing acquisition and development fund;  Creating affordable housing preservation fund for SCCHA and affiliate-owned properties; and  Increasing tenant contribution to 35 percent of gross income or $50, whichever is higher. Discussion SCCHA continues to adopt activities that increase cost effectiveness in housing programs and expand participants’ housing choices. Community engagement identified that increasing the stock of high-quality affordable housing is a top priority. 14 Moving to Work (MTW) 2020 Proposed Annual Plan – Brief Summary. Santa Clara County Housing Authority. https://www.scchousingauthority.org/assets/1/6/MTW_FY2020_Plan_Summary_(English)_02_07_2019.pdf ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services – 91.210(c) Introduction Life Moves provides housing services to those experiencing homelessness in the City. Housing opportunities for homeless households and families include Emergency Shelter and Permanent Supportive Housing. Facilities and Housing Targeted to Homeless Households Emergency Shelter Beds Transitional Housing Beds Permanent Supportive Housing Beds Year-Round Beds (Current & New) Voucher / Seasonal / Overflow Beds Current & New Current & New Under Development Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) 0 0 0 17 - Households with Only Adults 20 0 0 100 - Chronically Homeless Households 0 0 0 6* - Veterans 0 0 0 0 - Unaccompanied Youth 0 0 0 0 - Table 46 - Facilities and Housing Targeted to Homeless Households *Duplication of Permanent Supportive Housing Beds for Households with Only Adults Data Source: Santa Clara County Continuum of Care 2017 Housing Inventory Count Describe mainstream services, such as health, mental health, and employment services to the extent those services are used to complement services targeted to homeless persons Mainstream services are public benefits that all households may be eligible for, regardless of whether they are homeless. The most challenging part is connecting homeless persons to mainstream services, in order to complement the housing and services offered through federally funded programs. Each year, housing providers are offered a 12-hour mainstream services training, hosted by the CoC, as well as local benefit offices, advocates and legal services partners to address eligibility, the application process and best practices. Mainstream services that compliment services targeted to homeless persons include:  The Valley Homeless Healthcare Program (VHHP) is part of the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center and provides medical services to homeless individuals, including primary care and urgent care. VHHP also manages a Medical Respite program for homeless individuals discharged from hospitals as well as a Backpack Homeless Health Care Program for those in encampments. 15  The County’s Social Services Agency has expedited the review process of homeless households’ 15 Valley Homeless Healthcare Program (VHHP). Santa Clara Valley Medical Center. https://www.scvmc.org/clinics- and-locations/Valley-Homeless-Health-Program/Pages/overview.aspx ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN CalFresh applications so that they may receive benefits within three days.  The County’s Behavioral Health Services Department (BHS) has multiple programs to connect homeless individuals with housing or shelter assistance. BHS also treats those going through behavioral health crises.  The County’s Reentry Resource Center (RRC) provides services to those who have been previously incarcerated and to individuals who are homeless upon release. Services include referrals to drug treatment, housing assistance, food assistance, counseling, and other benefits.  The County’s Office of Supportive Housing’s (OSH) mission is to increase the supply of housing and supportive housing that is affordable and available to extremely low income and /or special needs households. OSH supports the County mission of promoting a healthy, safe, and prosperous community by ending and preventing homelessness. Additional mainstream services include:  Non-Employment Income – Social Security/Social Security Disability, General Assistance/Cash Aid, CALWORKS, Veterans Benefits, Tribal TANF, CAPI.  Food Related Assistance - CalFresh/SNAP, WIC  Legal Services - Bay Area Legal Aid/Law Foundation of Silicon Valley  Medical - Medicaid/Medicare/Covered California/Valley Homeless Healthcare Program (VHHP)  Employment Training Opportunities – Living Wage Employment Initiative - The area CoC provides a “Living Wage Employment Initiative”, which is a program that engages previously homeless program participants in job training, holds jobs fairs, and connects them with living-wage employment leading to careers in high growth industries.[1];  Transportation – CalWorks o Childcare - Early Childhood Providers; CalWorks List and describe services and facilities that meet the needs of homeless persons, particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth. If the services and facilities are listed on screen SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure or screen MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services, describe how these facilities and services specifically address the needs of these populations. Twenty-six beds for single males and females and 111 beds for single males and females and households with children are located within the City of Palo Alto.16 In comparison, the County as a whole contains 3,255 beds for households without children and 3,601 beds for households with children. [1] FY2019 CoC Application 16 Housing Inventory Count Reports. Count of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing. https://www.sccgov.org/sites/osh/ContinuumofCare/ReportsandPublications/Pages/Housing-Inventory-Count- HIC-Reports.aspx ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN The following table describes organizations that provide beds to homeless individuals within the City: Organization Name Project Name Target Population Total Beds LifeMoves (formerly InnVision Shelter Network) LifeMoves-OSC-CWG HUD SMF 6 LifeMoves (formerly InnVision Shelter Network) LifeMoves-OSC-CWG Non-HUD SMF+HC 111 LifeMoves (formerly InnVision Shelter Network) LifeMoves-OSC-ES-Hotel de Zink SMF 15 LifeMoves (formerly InnVision Shelter Network) LifeMoves-OSC-ES-Hotel de Zink SMF 5 Table 47 – Homeless Beds ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services – 91.210(d) Introduction The City of Palo Alto offers residential care facilities to assist elderly residents as well as locally funded very-low income and homeless services. Including the elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental), persons with alcohol or other drug addictions, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, public housing residents and any other categories the jurisdiction may specify, and describe their supportive housing needs Elderly households Elderly households have a range of housing needs, including the retrofitting of existing housing for aging in place, downsizing to increase access to health care and transit, and residential care, such as assisted living. During stakeholder interviews, it was identified that seniors need additional nutrition programs and food delivery assistance as well as more accessible units at grade front or on the first floor of buildings. Persons with mental, physical, and/or developmental disabilities Persons with a disability may require affordable housing near transit services, wheelchair accessible units, and/or assistance with living independently. Stakeholders identified that more affordable housing for persons with disabilities is needed. Large households Large households may be overcrowded, and therefore require larger sized affordable units. Female-headed households Female-headed households may require access to affordable child-care and other services. HIV/AIDS Those living with HIV or AIDS may require longer term services in order to ensure adherence to their medical plans. Describe programs for ensuring that persons returning from mental and physical health institutions receive appropriate supportive housing Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE) are non-medical facilities that provide a level of care that includes assistance with activities of daily living, such as bathing and grooming. These facilities serve persons 60 and older and those 60 and under certain circumstances. The City has 1,875 RCFE beds available for elderly persons. 17 17 Facility Search. California Department of Social Services. https://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/community- care-licensing/facility-search-welcome ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Part of the City’s local funds go toward funding public services to address the supportive housing needs of very low-income and homeless individuals. For example, Momentum for Mental Health provides emergency on-call services to assist local mentally ill homeless persons. VHHP also manages a Medical Respite program for homeless individuals discharged from hospitals Specify the activities that the jurisdiction plans to undertake during the next year to address the housing and supportive services needs identified in accordance with 91.215(e) with respect to persons who are not homeless but have other special needs. Link to one-year goals. 91.315(e) In FY 2020-2021, the City will allocate funding towards housing and supportive services identified for non- homeless persons with special needs, including:  Catholic Charities - Assists in problem resolution and advocates for the rights of residents of long-term care facilities in Palo Alto. The majority of the clients assisted are low-income, frail, elderly, and chronically ill. This program assists these vulnerable, dependent, and socially isolated residents receive the care and placement to which they are entitled.  Support Network for Battered Women, a Division of YWCA - Provides a bilingual domestic violence hotline, an emergency shelter, crisis counseling, legal assistance, court accompaniment, individual and group therapy, support groups, children’s therapy groups, preventative education, safety planning and community referrals for individuals and families experiencing domestic violence. For entitlement/consortia grantees: Specify the activities that the jurisdiction plans to undertake during the next year to address the housing and supportive services needs identified in accordance with 91.215(e) with respect to persons who are not homeless but have other special needs. Link to one-year goals. (91.220(2)) Please see above. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.210(e) Negative Effects of Public Policies on Affordable Housing and Residential Investment The City has identified multiple constraints to the affordable housing and residential investment in its 2015-2023 Housing Element Update, including:  Land use controls limit the allowed density of affordable housing production;  Height limits constrain a developer’s ability to achieve maximum allowable densities; and  Parking requirements limit infill development and multifamily housing from achieving maximum allowable density.  Development review process can be lengthy, unclear, layered, redundant, and costly for housing developers, creating uncertainty and increased financial risk. Generally, the City faces the same affordable housing barriers as the rest of the Bay Area, including:  High cost of development constraining the development of affordable housing units in favor of higher- end units;  Lack of developable land prevents housing development and increases the price of land; and  Local opposition prevents affordable housing from being built in high-resource areas. Additionally, the County’s Assessment of Fair Housing identified the following contributing factors to fair housing issues, including affordable housing, through analysis of data and community engagement feedback:  Displacement of residents due to economic pressures  Land use and zoning laws  Source of income discrimination  Community opposition  Availability of affordable units in a range of sizes  Availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation  Lack of access to opportunity due to high housing costs  Lack of affordable, accessible housing in a range of unit sizes  Lack of affordable housing for individuals who need supportive services  Lack of assistance for housing accessibility modifications  Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations  Location and type of affordable housing  Loss of affordable housing  Private discrimination ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets – 91.215 (f) Introduction The City of Palo Alto is a highly educated city with a large professional, scientific, and management sector and residents are well equipped to fill positions. Several workforce training opportunities exist to train the workforce without immediately applicable skills. Economic Development Market Analysis Business Activity Business by Sector Number of Workers Number of Jobs Share of Workers % Share of Jobs % Jobs less workers % Agriculture, Mining, Oil & Gas Extraction 195 16 1 0 -1 Arts, Entertainment, Accommodations 2,103 7,223 8 7 -1 Construction 657 779 2 1 -2 Education and Health Care Services 5,087 36,427 18 34 16 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 1,555 4,132 6 4 -2 Information 3,535 10,134 13 10 -3 Manufacturing 2,955 6,584 11 6 -4 Other Services 805 2,518 3 2 -1 Professional, Scientific, Management Services 6,747 25,488 24 24 0 Public Administration 0 0 0 0 0 Retail Trade 1,554 6,119 6 6 0 Transportation and Warehousing 282 466 1 0 -1 Wholesale Trade 950 3,233 3 3 0 Total 26,425 103,119 -- -- -- Table 48 - Business Activity Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS (Workers), 2015 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (Jobs) Labor Force Labor Force Population Total Total Population in the Civilian Labor Force 33,685 Civilian Employed Population 16 years and over 32,000 Unemployment Rate 4.96 Unemployment Rate for Ages 16-24 9.17 Unemployment Rate for Ages 25-65 3.69 Table 49 - Labor Force Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Occupations by Sector Number of People Management, business and financial 17,650 Farming, fisheries and forestry occupations 630 Service 1,400 Sales and office 3,815 Construction, extraction, maintenance and repair 474 Production, transportation and material moving 450 Table 50 – Occupations by Sector Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS Travel Time Travel Time Number Percentage < 30 Minutes 20,825 72% 30-59 Minutes 6,355 22% 60 or More Minutes 1,695 6% Total 28,875 100% Table 51 – Travel Time Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS Education Educational Attainment by Employment Status (Population 16 and Older) Educational Attainment In Labor Force Civilian Employed Unemployed Not in Labor Force Less than high school graduate 495 50 175 High school graduate (includes equivalency) 730 35 450 Some college or Associate degree 2,525 245 1,115 Bachelor’s degree or higher 23,660 980 5,040 Table 52 – Educational Attainment by Employment Status Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS Educational Attainment by Age Age 18–24 yrs. 25–34 yrs. 35–44 yrs. 45–65 yrs. 65+ yrs. Less than 9th grade 4 95 85 205 325 9th to 12th grade, no diploma 395 115 55 155 210 High school graduate, GED, or alternative 635 260 255 700 1,265 Some college, no degree 1,515 550 495 1,450 1,315 Associate degree 115 265 325 790 535 Bachelor's degree 1,180 3,045 2,445 4,695 3,115 Graduate or professional degree 225 3,940 5,940 9,620 4,770 Table 53 - Educational Attainment by Age Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Educational Attainment – Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Educational Attainment Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Less than high school graduate 20,231 High school graduate (includes equivalency) 24,302 Some college or Associate degree 40,284 Bachelor's degree 80,132 Graduate or professional degree 247,441 Table 54 – Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months Data Source: 2011-2015 ACS Based on the Business Activity table above, what are the major employment sectors within your jurisdiction? The largest business sector in the City is Professional, Scientific, and Management Services (24 percent of jobs), the second is Education and Health Care Services (18 percent of jobs), the third is Information (13 percent of jobs), and the fourth is Manufacturing (11 percent of jobs). Describe the workforce and infrastructure needs of the business community: The largest employment sector within the City is for professional, scientific, and management services jobs. Employers would likely need workers with bachelor’s degree or higher to fill those positions. A community’s infrastructure is important for the growth and development of businesses, including ongoing maintenance and expansion. To meet growing needs, the City’s General Plan identifies areas of potential development for residents, commercial, mixed use, industrial, quasi-public spaces, and transportation resources. Describe any major changes that may have an economic impact, such as planned local or regional public or private sector investments or initiatives that have affected or may affect job and business growth opportunities during the planning period. Describe any needs for workforce development, business support or infrastructure these changes may create. The City’s population has increased since the 1990s due to increased conglomeration of the Silicon Valley tech industry. This growth, with the availability of industrial and commercial sites, will continue into the future. This will likely increase the number of jobs and business growth opportunities, which may further reduce the availability of housing and displace existing residents. Therefore, to accommodate new growth, the City of Palo Alto will likely need to build more market-rate and affordable housing. How do the skills and education of the current workforce correspond to employment opportunities in the jurisdiction? The residents of Palo Alto are highly educated, with 85 percent of the labor force having a bachelor’s degree or higher. As discussed above, a majority of jobs within the City are professional, scientific, management, education, health care, or information related. Overall, the City’s workforce is able to adequately fill these positions. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Describe any current workforce training initiatives, including those supported by Workforce Investment Boards, community colleges and other organizations. Describe how these efforts will support the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan. The Workforce Development Program, operated by Downtown Streets Inc., and funded in part by CDBG funds, provides a transition from unemployment and homelessness to regular employment and housing through case management, job training, mentoring, housing, and transportation assistance. 18 The North Valley Job Training Consortium (NOVA), a local workforce development board, is a nonprofit, federally funded employment and training agency that provides customer-focused workforce development services to San Mateo County and parts of Santa Clara County, including the City of Palo Alto.19 NOVA provides:  Digital literacy training  Career pathway support for youth  Navigation tools for the job market  Skill building to match market demand  Labor market information Does your jurisdiction participate in a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)? No. If so, what economic development initiatives are you undertaking that may be coordinated with the Consolidated Plan? If not, describe other local/regional plans or initiatives that impact economic growth. In January 2013, the City Council adopted an Economic Development Policy that sets out principles for attracting, retaining, and encourage the growth of businesses that are aligned with Palo Alto values.20 This includes businesses that provide revenue to the City through sales, transient occupancy, and property taxes as well as innovative companies and enterprises that focus on technology. The guiding principles of the policy include:  “Key City staff resources should focus on attracting and retaining businesses aligned with Palo Alto values while providing needed revenue to the City.  Sustainability and economic development can be complimentary, mutually reinforcing, and value generating. Sustainability and Economic Development go hand-in-hand in Palo Alto.  Innovation and creativity are essential components of the city’s “brand” and fostering business that reflect that spirit maintains Palo Alto’s attractiveness and appeal.  At the same time, Palo Alto’s economy is sustained through a diverse mix of existing and emerging industries and services.  Local-serving businesses are an integral part of the character and livability of Palo Alto. 18 City of Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2020 Draft One-Year Action Plan. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=52182.32&BlobID=69993 19 About NOVA. NOVA. https://novaworks.org/about/novaworks/overview 20 City of Palo Alto Economic Development Policy. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43563 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN  Small businesses and emerging start-ups have an important role in the creation of jobs and economic growth.  Collaborative efforts are essential to fostering innovation with an economic impact, especially with creative economic engines like Stanford University and Stanford Medical Center and Lucille Packard Children’s Hospital.” Discussion The City is highly educated with a large professional scientific job sector. The City has adopted an economic development policy that provides guiding principles for the growth of the City. Additionally, job training opportunities exist for those without immediately applicable skills. Furthermore, community engagement identified that creating more jobs for low-income residents was one of the County’s greatest needs and that job training was the top economic development needs. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis Discussion Are there areas where households with multiple housing problems are concentrated? (include a definition of "concentration") As discussed below, there is one Asian racial concentration within the City; however, as discussed in sections NA-15 to NA-30, Asian residents are not disproportionately affected by housing problems. . Are there any areas in the jurisdiction where racial or ethnic minorities or low-income families are concentrated? (include a definition of "concentration") A minority concentration is defined as a census tract where the percentage of individuals of racial or ethnic minority groups is at least 20 percent higher than the city average. An LMI concentration is defined as a census tract in which the median household income is less than or equal to 80 percent of the State-wide median family income, in which the median family income is less than or equal to 80 percent of the metropolitan area’s median family income, or, in which the federal poverty rate is 20 percent or greater. As discussed in NA-30, there is a Hispanic ethnic minority concentration in Census Tract 5093.04. As displayed in the map below, there is an LMI concentration located in the most northern portion of the City. What are the characteristics of the market in these areas/neighborhoods? There are no residential uses within the LMI census tract. According to the ACS 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates, the median household income of the minority concentration census tract is $122,679. The median household income of Hispanic households is significantly less at $80,599. Are there any community assets in these areas/neighborhoods? The City’s portion of the LMI census tract contains the Palo Alto Golf Course, the Palo Alto Airport, the Palo Alto Wastewater Treatment Plant, the International School of the Peninsula, Palo Alto Animal Services, an FBI field office, a Honda and Audi dealership, the Stanford University Department of Ophthalmology, several industrial and commercial buildings, and a large natural area. The City’s portion of the minority concentration census tract contains commercial buildings, a Toyota dealership, Gideon Hausner Jewish Day School, and a single multi-family apartment complex. Are there other strategic opportunities in any of these areas? Not applicable. The City has not established specific target areas to focus the investment of CDBG funds. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Map 2 – Areas of Low- and Moderate-Income Concentration ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN MA-60 Broadband Needs of Housing Occupied by Low- and Moderate-Income Households - 91.210(a)(4), 91.310(a)(2) Describe the need for broadband wiring and connections for households, including low- and moderate-income households and neighborhoods. According to the California Interactive Broadband Map, most of the City is served by fixed-service broadband and most unserved areas are nonresidential.21 However, stakeholders identified a need for internet access and technological training for LMI families and the elderly. Describe the need for increased competition by having more than one broadband Internet service provider serve the jurisdiction. Comcast (Xfinity) and AT&T are the primary fixed-service internet service providers (ISPs) operating in the City. As of February 19, 2020, Comcast offers broadband and fiber internet ranging from 25 to 2000 Mbps for $29.99 to $299.95 per month and AT&T offers DSL and fiber internet ranging from 25 to 1000 Mbps for $50 to $70 per month. For households that are recipients of the National School Lunch Program, Housing Assistance, CalFresh, Medicaid, Social Security Income (SSI), or other social assistance programs, Comcast offers broadband internet access (up to 15 Mbps) for $9.95 per month with no equipment rental fees. AT&T also provides low-cost internet access (768 Kbps to 10 Mbps) for $5 to $10 per month for recipients of CalFresh or SSI. LMI households who are participants of these programs would be able to access the internet at a low cost. LMI households who are not participants of these specific programs or cannot afford the reduced price would have difficulties in accessing the internet. Increased competition among these ISPs would likely result in reduced costs, increased speeds, and/or better quality of customer service and infrastructure within the market area. It is likely that more households would be able to afford internet access as a result. 21 California Interactive Broadband Map. Accessed February 26, 2020. http://www.broadbandmap.ca.gov/ ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN MA-65 Hazard Mitigation - 91.210(a)(5), 91.310(a)(3) Describe the jurisdiction’s increased natural hazard risks associated with climate change. Climate change is a phenomenon where greenhouse gases (GHGs) produced by natural and man-made sources trap heat in the atmosphere, causing an increase in the global average air and ocean temperatures and the melting of snow and ice, which consequently causes sea level rise. Depending on the level of emissions, by 2100, the average temperature of the San Francisco Bay Area is projected to rise between 3 and 5 degrees Fahrenheit. Increased temperatures could manifest as heat waves, which would lead to increased incidents of heat stress and heat stroke and exacerbate existing health conditions. Furthermore, the lack of moisture in the air, when compounded by long-term drought, may also increase the risk of wildfires, resulting in more deaths, destroyed property, and increased air pollution. Climate change may also cause increased occurrences of extreme weather events, such as storms and flooding. This would increase fatal and nonfatal injuries, ruin housing, and may result in permanent displacement. Describe the vulnerability to these risks of housing occupied by low- and moderate-income households based on an analysis of data, findings, and methods. LMI households and those with special needs without the means to evacuate would be more vulnerable during natural disasters caused by climate change. It would be difficult for households to acquire transportation and housing accommodations during an emergency. Additionally, housing destroyed by natural disasters would be difficult to replace in the already constrained housing market. Furthermore, households without adequate air conditioning systems would be at increased risk of heat stress and heat stroke. Community engagement efforts identified the need for flood and emergency preparedness as well as a rapid emergency grant program for LMI households. Stakeholders identified the need for a housing rehabilitation program for properties experiencing damage from frequent disasters. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Strategic Plan SP-05 Overview Strategic Plan Overview The Strategic Plan identifies the five-year goals that the City of Palo Alto expects to achieve during the 2020–2025 ConPlan Cycle. These goals are aligned with HUD’s objectives and outcomes and are achieved through the Annual Action Plan, which divides up the five-year goals into annual targets. The City has identified five high-need categories through the Needs Analysis, Market Analysis, and Community Outreach portions of the ConPlan. The Strategic Plan then identifies goals that are aligned to address most of those needs. Not every need identified in the ConPlan can be met and sufficiently addressed in the next five years. Some of the needs are not feasible, some require much more funding than the City currently receives, and some are simply too large to be addressed in just five years. The Strategic Plan includes goals to address affordable housing, homelessness, fair housing, economic development, and community services and public improvements. SP-10 Geographic Priorities – 91.215 (a)(1) Geographic Area General Allocation Priorities 1 Area Name No Local Target Area Other Target Area Description: N/A HUD Approval Data: N/A % of Low/Mod: N/A Revital Type: N/A Other Revital Type: N/A Identify the neighborhood boundaries for this target area. N/A Include specific housing and commercial characteristics of this target area. N/A How did your consultation and citizen participation process help you to identify this neighborhood as a target area? N/A Identify the needs in this target area. N/A What are the opportunities for improvement in this target area? N/A Are there barriers to improvement in this target area? N/A Table 55 - Geographic Priority Areas General Allocation Priorities The City allocates CDBG funds to benefit LMI households and does not have target areas. Instead, the City focuses its services and capital improvements across the City as a whole. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN SP-25 Priority Needs - 91.215(a)(2) Priority Needs 1 Priority Need Name Affordable Housing Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Low Moderate Large Families Families with Children Chronic Homelessness Individuals Mentally Ill Chronic Substance Abuse Veterans Persons with HIV/AIDS Unaccompanied Youth Elderly Frail Elderly Persons with Mental Disabilities Persons with Physical Disabilities Persons with Developmental Disabilities Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions Persons with HIV/AIDS and their Families Victims of Domestic Violence Geographic Areas Affected Associated Goals Affordable Housing Description Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special needs households Basis for Relative Priority As discussed in the Needs Assessment, there is a 1,350-unit gap of affordable housing units for households earning between 0%-30% AMI. Additionally, community engagement efforts identified a high need for affordable housing. 2 Priority Need Name Homelessness Priority Level High Population Chronic Homeless Individuals Families with Children Mentally Ill ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Chronic Substance Abuse Veterans Persons with HIV/AIDS Victims of Domestic Violence Geographic Areas Affected Associated Goals Homelessness Description Support activities to prevent and end homelessness. Basis for Relative Priority As discussed in the Needs Assessment, 313 persons are experiencing homelessness in the City of Palo Alto and 9,706 persons county-wide. 3 Priority Need Name Community Services and Public Improvements Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Low Moderate Middle Large Families Families with Children Elderly Frail Persons with Mental Disabilities Persons with Physical Disabilities Persons with Developmental Disabilities Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions Persons with HIV/AIDS and their Families Victims of Domestic Violence Non-housing Community Development Geographic Areas Affected Associated Goals Community Services and Public Improvements Description Support provision of essential human services, particularly for special needs populations, and maintain/expand community facilities and infrastructure. Basis for Relative Priority As identified during community engagement efforts, LMI and special needs households are in need of supportive services and public improvements. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN 4 Priority Need Name Fair Housing Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Low Moderate Large Families Families with Children Public Housing Residents Chronically Homelessness Individuals Mentally Ill Chronic Substance Abuse Veterans Persons with HIV/AIDS Unaccompanied Youth Elderly Frail Elderly Persons with Mental Disabilities Persons with Physical Disabilities Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions Persons with HIV/AIDS and their Families Victims of Domestic Violence Geographic Areas Affected Associated Goals Fair Housing Description Promote fair housing choice. Basis for Relative Priority Housing discrimination continues to occur within the City as identified by Project Sentinel. 5 Priority Need Name Economic Development Priority Level High Population Extremely Low Low Moderate Large Families Families with Children Chronic Homelessness Individuals Mentally Ill Chronic Substance Abuse ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Veterans Persons with HIV/AIDS Unaccompanied Youth Elderly Frail Elderly Persons with Mental Disabilities Persons with Physical Disabilities Persons with Alcohol or Other Addictions Persons with HIV/AIDS and their Families Victims of Domestic Violence Geographic Areas Affected Associated Goals Economic Development Description Support economic development activities that promote employment growth and help lower income people secure and maintain jobs Basis for Relative Priority As identified through community engagement efforts, economic development is a high priority to residents of Palo Alto. Table 55 – Priority Needs Summary ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Narrative (Optional) SP-30 Influence of Market Conditions – 91.215 (b) Influence of Market Conditions Affordable Housing Type Market Characteristics that will influence the use of funds available for housing type Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) As discussed in the Needs Assessment, 17 percent of households (4,583) pay more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs. TBRA for Non- Homeless Special Needs As discussed in the Needs Assessment, special needs population require affordable housing to meet the needs of disabilities, low households incomes, rising healthcare costs, and children. New Unit Production As discussed in the Market Assessment, there is a gap of 1,350 housing units for those earning less than 30% AMI. With a lack of developable land, acquisition is an important tool for providing affordable housing to this population. Rehabilitation As discussed in the Market Assessment, there are an estimated 99 LMI owner- occupied units that are in need of rehabilitation. Acquisition, including preservation With a lack of vacant land, acquisition and preservation is an important tool for providing affordable units to LMI households. Table 56 – Influence of Market Conditions ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN SP-35 Anticipated Resources - 91.215(a)(4), 91.220(c)(1,2) Introduction The following section discusses the anticipated resources available during the next five years for community development activities. Anticipated Resources Program Source of Funds Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount Available Remainder of ConPlan $ Narrative Description Annual Allocation: $ Allocation From CARES Act – CDBG CV $ Program Income: $ Prior Year Resources: $ Total: $ CDBG Public- Federal Acquisition Admin and Planning Economic Development Housing Public Improvements Public Services 501,355 294,909 136,049 213,167 1,145,480 2,000,000 CDBG funds will be used for the creation and preservation of affordable rental units, improvements in low-income neighborhoods, and public services that benefit low-income and special needs households. Table 57 - Anticipated Resources Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied Entitlement Funds Leverage means to combine funding sources, such as local, state, or other federal financial resources, with HUD funding (e.g. CDBG and HOME) in order to increase project efficiencies and benefit from economies of scale. The City continually seeks to leverage local funding sources to more efficiently utilize federal grant funding. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Other State and Federal Grant Programs Additional federal programs that fund community development and affordable housing activities include:  Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program;  Section 202;  Section 811; and  Affordable Housing Program (AHP) through the Federal Home Loan Bank. These programs would not be provided to the City but rather to the Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) and affordable housing developers. The State of California has recently passed approximately 20 bills with the intent of increasing or preserving affordable housing with the State. According to the Governor’s State of the State address, bills that help increase housing production, both market-rate and affordable, will be a priority in 2020.22 The City will continue to track and look for opportunities to leverage State resources for the City. County and Local Housing and Community Development Sources HOME funds can be used to fund eligible affordable housing projects for acquisition, construction and rehabilitation. The City joined the Santa Clara County HOME Consortium in 2015 and does not receive federal HOME funds on an entitlement basis from HUD. The HOME Consortia consists of the cities of Cupertino, Gilroy, Palo Alto, and the Urban County. Developers of affordable housing projects are eligible to competitively apply through an annual request for proposal process directly to the County for HOME funds to help subsidize affordable housing projects in Palo Alto. If the City receives HOME dollars from this process, the City is required to provide a 25 percent match, which will be provided from the City’s Affordable Housing Fund. Certain non-profit organizations known as Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs) may also apply for funding from the State Department of Housing and Community Development for housing projects located within Palo Alto. Other local resources that support housing and community development programs include: • Palo Alto Commercial Housing Fund, which is for the development of workforce units and paid by mitigation fees on commercial and industrial projects; and • Palo Alto Residential Housing Fund, which is for the development of below market rate (BMR) housing units and paid by miscellaneous funding sources. The City will continue to seek opportunities for projects that meet local bond requirements in order to bring additional resources to help the City’s affordable housing shortage. If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan The City has no surplus public land. However, in 2019, the Governor Newsome signed Executive Order N- 06-19 that ordered the California Department of General Services (DGS) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to identify and prioritize excess state-owned property and 22 Governor Newsom Delivers State of the State Address. Accessed March 4, 2020. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2019/02/12/state-of-the-state-address/ ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN aggressively pursue sustainable, innovative, cost-effective housing projects. There is no excess state property in the City of Palo Alto. Discussion HUD allocations are critical to overcoming barriers; however, they are not sufficient to address all the needs of LMI households. Therefore, the City will continue to leverage other funding sources to provide services to populations in need. Currently, the City is not eligible to receive direct funding under the HOME Investment Partnership Act, Emergency Solutions Grant, or Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN SP-40 Institutional Delivery Structure – 91.215(k) Explain the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carry out its ConPlan including private industry, nonprofit organizations, and public institutions. Responsible Entity Responsible Entity Type Role Geographic Area Served City of Palo Alto Government Economic Development Homelessness Non- homeless special needs Ownership Planning Public Housing Rental neighborhood improvements public facilities Jurisdiction City of Palo Alto – City Council Government Planning Jurisdiction County of Santa Clara – Office of Supportive Housing Continuum of Care Homelessness Region Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara PHA Affordable Housing – rental Affordable Housing – ownership Public Housing Region Table 58 - Institutional Delivery Structure Assess of Strengths and Gaps in the Institutional Delivery System Implementation of CDBG funds is carried out by the City of Palo Alto’s Department of Planning and Development Services. Nonprofit agencies coordinate human and social services through the Human Services Resource Allocation Program (HSRAP). CDBG and HSRAP work together to provide a more coordinated approach to addressing the City’s human service needs. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Availability of services targeted to homeless persons and persons with HIV and mainstream services Homelessness Prevention Services Available in the Community Targeted to Homeless Targeted to People with HIV Homelessness Prevention Services Counseling/Advocacy X Legal Assistance X X Mortgage Assistance X Rental Assistance X X Utilities Assistance X Street Outreach Services Law Enforcement X X Mobile Clinics X X Other Street Outreach Services X X Supportive Services Alcohol & Drug Abuse X Child Care X Education X Employment and Employment Training X Healthcare X X HIV/AIDS Life Skills X X Mental Health Counseling X Transportation X Other Other Table 59 - Homeless Prevention Services Summary Describe how the service delivery system including, but not limited to, the services listed above meet the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) The City participates in the Santa Clara County CoC, which has the primary responsibilities of coordinating efforts to prevent and end homelessness. Describe the strengths and gaps of the service delivery system for special needs population and persons experiencing homelessness, including, but not limited to, the services listed above The CoC had adopted the Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County (2015-2020) (The Plan), which creates a community-wide road map to ending homelessness. The Plan was created through a series of community summits related to specific homeless populations in the County. The Plan identifies strategies to address the needs of homeless persons in the County, including chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth. The Plan aims to implement the following three steps: ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN 1. “Disrupt Systems: Develop disruptive strategies and innovative prototypes that transform the systems related to housing homeless people; 2. Build the Solution: Secure the right amount of funding needed to provide housing and services to those who are homeless and those at risk of homelessness; and 3. Serve the Person: Adopt an approach that recognizes the need for client-centered strategies with different responses for different levels of need and different groups, targeting resources the specific individual or household.” Provide a summary of the strategy for overcoming gaps in the institutional structure and service delivery system for carrying out a strategy to address priority needs The City holds regular quarterly meetings between entitlement jurisdictions and coordinates on project management for projects funded by multiple jurisdictions. This will contribute to overcoming gaps in the institutional delivery structures. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN SP-45 Goals Summary – 91.215(a)(4) Goals Summary Information Sort Order Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographi c Area Needs Addressed Funding Estimates Goal Outcome Indicator 1 Affordable Housing 2020 2025 Affordable Housing Affordable Housing CDBG: $1,300,000 Rental Units Rehabilitated – 107 units Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated – 40 units 2 Homelessness 2020 2025 Homeless Homelessness CDBG: $400,000 Public Service Activities for Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit – 800 persons 3 Community Services and Public Improvements 2020 2025 Non-Homeless Special Needs Non-Housing Community Development Community Services and Public Improvements CDBG: $225,000 Public Service Activities Other Than Low/Moderate-Income Housing Benefit – 1,500 persons 4 Fair Housing 2020 2025 Non-Housing Community Development Fair Housing CDBG: $280,000 Public Service Activities Other Than Low/Moderate-Income Housing Benefit – 75 persons 5 Economic Development 2020 2025 Non-Housing Community Development Economic Development CDBG: $1,700,000 Jobs Created or Retained – 150 jobs Table 60 – Goals Summary ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Goal Descriptions 1 Goal Name Affordable Housing Goal Description Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low-income and special needs households. This includes funding home repair programs. 2 Goal Name Homelessness Goal Description Support activities to prevent and end homelessness, such as funding affordable housing opportunities, resource centers for homeless individuals, and support for tenants of single-room occupancy units. 3 Goal Name Community Services and Public Improvements Goal Description Provide community services and public improvements to benefit low-income and special needs households. This includes assisting those with disabilities to transition from unstable housing to permanent housing, supporting residents of long-term care facilities, and supporting individuals experiencing domestic violence. 4 Goal Name Fair Housing Goal Description Promote fair housing choice by funding fair housing organizations to provide fair housing services, such as education, tenant-landlord mediation, and testing. 5 Goal Name Economic Development Goal Description Support economic development activities that promote employment growth and help lower-income people secure and maintain jobs. This includes funding nonprofits working toward developing the skills of low-income and homeless individuals. Table 61 – Goal Descriptions Estimate the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.315(b)(2) The City estimates that CDBG and HOME funds will provide affordable housing to approximately 150 households over the ConPlan period. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN SP-50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement – 91.215(c) Need to Increase the Number of Accessible Units (if Required by a Section 504 Voluntary Compliance Agreement) According to the ACS 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates, persons living with a disability in Alameda County have a median income of $27,174, approximately $16,000 less than the median income of the general population. Given this, the need for accessible affordable units would be high. Activities to Increase Resident Involvements SCCHA incorporates residents’ input into the decision-making process though the involvement of tenant commissioners and board members. SCCHA has also created a Resident Counsel comprised of 5 residents from HUD-funded programs, which evaluates the effectiveness of SCCHA’s rental assistance programs. SCCHA also operates a Family Self Sufficiency Program designed so residents can be involved in the development of self-sufficiency goals, job training, and other services. Is the public housing agency designated as troubled under 24 CFR part 902? No. Plan to remove the ‘troubled’ designation Not applicable. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN SP-55 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.215(h) Barriers to Affordable Housing Generally, the City faces the same affordable housing barriers as the rest of the Bay Area, including:  High cost of development constraining the development of affordable housing units in favor of higher- end units;  Lack of developable land prevents housing development and increases the price of land; and  Local opposition prevents affordable housing from being built in high-resource areas. Specifically, the City has identified multiple constraints to the affordable housing and residential investment in its 2015-2023 Housing Element Update. They include:  Land use controls limit the allowed density of affordable housing production;  Height limits constrain a developer’s ability to achieve maximum allowable densities;  Parking requirements limit infill development and multifamily housing from achieving maximum allowable density.  The development review process can be lengthy, unclear, layered, redundant, and costly for housing developers, creating uncertainty and increased financial risk. Additionally, the County’s Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice identified the following contributing factors to fair housing issues, including affordable housing, through analysis of data and community engagement feedback:  Displacement of residents due to economic pressures  Land use and zoning laws  Source of income discrimination  Community opposition  Availability of affordable units in a range of sizes  Availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation  Lack of access to opportunity due to high housing costs  Lack of affordable, accessible housing in a range of unit sizes  Lack of affordable housing for individuals who need supportive services  Lack of assistance for housing accessibility modifications  Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations  Location and type of affordable housing  Loss of affordable housing  Private discrimination Stakeholders echoed these barriers and further identified that private companies that can contribute to the construction of affordable housing are not always approached. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Survey results also identified discrimination as a barrier to acquiring affordable housing. Respondents expressed that they were discriminated against on the basis of sex, familial status, or other reasons. Strategy to Remove or Ameliorate the Barriers to Affordable Housing The City has identified strategies to remove or ameliorate barriers to affordable housing in their 2015- 2023 Housing Element, including:  Modifying development standards for second units;  Providing incentives to developers, such as reduced fees and flexible development standards;  Encouraging higher density residential zoning;  Increasing mixed use development;  Creating zoning incentives; and  Promoting redevelopment. According to the 2018 Annual Progress Report for Housing Element Implementation, the City has completed all strategies, except for providing incentives to developers, which is underway. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN SP-60 Homelessness Strategy – 91.215(d) Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs The Palo Alto Downtown Streets team reaches out to homeless persons living in of Palo Alto. The Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing also surveys homeless individuals every two years. Addressing the emergency and transitional housing needs of homeless persons Peninsula Healthcare Connection provides integrated primary and mental healthcare and intensive case management for homeless individuals or those at risk of becoming homeless in Santa Clara County. New Directions is a community-based case management program for chronically homeless individuals with complex medical and psychosocial needs that aims to decrease the number of emergency room visits and hospital admissions. Community partners include Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Family Health Plan, Valley Homeless Healthcare Program, El Camino Hospital, Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing, and Downtown Streets Team. Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again. It is recommended that chronically homeless individuals receive intensive case management aimed to assist them in finding housing, resources, and receiving services to stay in housing. Case management is person based rather than shelter based and with the goal of rapid re-housing. The five-year goals of the Community Plan to End Homelessness includes creating approximately 5,500 housing opportunities for chronically homeless individuals, homeless veterans, and homeless children, youth, and families as well as access to the services that help keep them in housing. Additionally, part of the City’s local funds goes toward funding public services to address the supportive housing needs of very low-income and homeless individuals. Help low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low- income individuals and families who are likely to become homeless after being discharged from a publicly funded institution or system of care, or who are receiving assistance from public and private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education or youth needs Services for those discharged from a publicly funded institutions include:  The Valley Homeless Healthcare Program (VHHP) is part of the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center and provides medical services to homeless individuals, including primary care and urgent care. VHHP also manages a Medical Respite program for homeless individuals discharged from hospitals as well as a ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Backpack Homeless Health Care Program for those in encampments. 23  The County’s Social Services Agency has expedited the review process of homeless households’ CalFresh applications so that they may receive benefits within three days.  The County’s Behavioral Health Services Department (BHS) has multiple programs to connect homeless individuals with housing or shelter assistance. BHS also treats those going through behavioral health crises.  The County’s Reentry Resource Center (RRC) provides services to those who have been previously incarcerated and to individuals who are homeless upon release. Services include referrals to drug treatment, housing assistance, food assistance, counseling, and other benefits.  The County’s Office of Supportive Housing’s (OSH) mission is to increase the supply of housing and supportive housing that is affordable and available to extremely low income and /or special needs households. OSH supports the County mission of promoting a healthy, safe, and prosperous community by ending and preventing homelessness. 23 Valley Homeless Healthcare Program (VHHP). Santa Clara Valley Medical Center. https://www.scvmc.org/clinics- and-locations/Valley-Homeless-Health-Program/Pages/overview.aspx ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN SP-65 Lead based paint Hazards – 91.215(i) Actions to address LBP hazards and increase access to housing without LBP hazards City staff provides information about lead based paint (LBP) hazards to property owners, developers, and nonprofit organization who are rehabilitating older housing units. Additionally, any rehabilitation funded by the City is required to be inspected for LBP hazards. The City also provides abatement services with City funding. How are the actions listed above related to the extent of lead poisoning and hazards? As discussed in the Needs Assessment, 74 percent of homes (19,345) were built before 1980. Homes built before 1980 may contain walls previously or currently painted with lead-based paint. Twenty-seven percent (7,105) of households are LMI. Using this proportion, 5,223 LBP households are potentially occupied by LMI families. How are the actions listed above integrated into housing policies and procedures? The City requires that contractors are trained and certified in an effort to decrease the risk of potential use of LBP in new units. All development and rehabilitation projects must be evaluated according to HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule 24 CFR Part 35. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN SP-70 Anti-Poverty Strategy – 91.215(j) Jurisdiction Goals, Programs and Policies for reducing the number of Poverty-Level Families The City's anti-poverty strategy is heavily reliant on regional cooperation, including support from nonprofit service providers and partner agencies. As housing is usually the highest single expense facing impoverished families, the City will continue to explore avenues to build new and rehabilitate existing affordable housing. The City is always looking for opportunities to partner and leverage programs and service providers to build service capacity and improve the depth of available resources. How are the Jurisdiction poverty reducing goals, programs, and policies coordinated with this affordable housing plan Housing cost burden and severe housing cost burden were identified as the most common housing problems facing impoverished households in the city. New and rehabilitated affordable housing with regulatory agreements and rents affordable to LMI households are vital in addressing the problem of poverty. The City provides CDBG and HSRAP funding to nonprofits that provide services to low-income, homeless, or at-risk individuals living in the community. Additionally, the City’s Workforce Development Program, administered by Downtown Streets, Inc., provides a transition from unemployment and homelessness to regular employment and housing through case management, job training, mentoring, housing, and transportation assistance. The City also partners with NOVA, a local nonprofit agency that provides job seekers with resume and job search assistance, assessment, and referrals to specialized training and educational programs. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN SP-80 Monitoring – 91.230 Describe the standards and procedures that the jurisdiction will use to monitor activities carried out in furtherance of the plan and will use to ensure long-term compliance with requirements of the programs involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning requirements The City has developed a monitoring system to ensure that the activities and programs funded with CDBG or other HUD funds are managed in accordance with the federal monitoring requirements of 24 CFR 570.501(V) and 24 CFR 85.40 and all other applicable laws, regulations, policies, and sound management and accounting practices. The objectives of monitoring are:  To ensure that subrecipients are carrying out their program/project as described;  To ensure that subrecipients are implementing the program/project in a timely manner;  To ensure that subrecipients are assessing costs to the program/project which are eligible under CDBG regulations and the contract;  To ensure that subrecipients are conforming with other applicable laws, regulations, and terms of the agreement;  To ensure that the program/project is operating in a manner that minimizes the opportunity for fraud, waste, and mismanagement;  To ensure that subrecipients have the capacity to carry out the approved project/program; and  To ensure that subrecipients are carrying out their program/project as described. The City implements a CDBG Monitoring Responsibilities and Plan that provides an internal control mechanism to review performance over a period of time. Subrecipients that are in noncompliance will be notified and provided with technical assistance towards compliance. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Expected Resources AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c)(1,2) Introduction The following section discusses the expected resources available during the program year for community development activities. Anticipated Resources Program Source of Funds Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount Available Remainder of ConPlan $ Narrative Description Annual Allocation: $ Allocation From CARES Act – CDBG CV $ Program Income: $ Prior Year Resources: $ Total: $ CDBG Public- Federal Acquisition Admin and Planning Economic Development Fair Housing Housing Public Improvements Public Services 501,355 294,909 136,049 213,167 850,571 2,000,000 CDBG funds will be used for the creation and preservation of affordable rental units, improvements in low- income neighborhoods, and public services that benefit low-income and special needs households. Table 1 - Expected Resources – Priority Table Narrative If the City is to receive additional funds to assist with the preparation, prevention or response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City will allocate these funds to activities already funded with the CDBG-CV funds or the City’s activities under the current fiscal year. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied Entitlement Funds Leverage means to combine funding sources, such as local, state, or other federal financial resources, with HUD funding (e.g. CDBG and HOME) in order to increase project efficiencies and benefit from economies of scale. The City continually seeks to leverage local funding sources to more efficiently utilize federal grant funding. Other State and Federal Grant Programs Additional federal programs that fund community development and affordable housing activities include: • Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program; • Section 202; • Section 811; and • Affordable Housing Program (AHP) through the Federal Home Loan Bank. These programs would not be provided to the City but rather to the Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) and affordable housing developers. The State of California has recently passed approximately 20 bills with the intent of increasing or preserving affordable housing with the State. According to the Governor’s State of the State address, bills that help increase housing production, both market-rate and affordable, will be a priority in 2020.1 The City will continue to track and look for opportunities to leverage State resources for the City. County and Local Housing and Community Development Sources HOME funds can be used to fund eligible affordable housing projects for acquisition, construction and rehabilitation. The City joined the Santa Clara County HOME Consortium in 2015 and does not receive federal HOME funds on an entitlement basis from HUD. The HOME Consortia consists of the cities of Cupertino, Gilroy, Palo Alto, and the Urban County. Developers of affordable housing projects are eligible to competitively apply through an annual request for proposal process directly to the County for HOME funds to help subsidize affordable housing projects in Palo Alto. If the City receives HOME dollars from this process, the City is required to provide a 25 percent match, which will be provided from the City’s Affordable Housing Fund. Certain non-profit organizations known as Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs) may also apply for funding from the State Department of Housing and Community Development for housing projects located within Palo Alto. Other local resources that support housing and community development programs include: 1 Governor Newsom Delivers State of the State Address. Accessed March 4, 2020. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2019/02/12/state-of-the-state-address/ ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN • Palo Alto Commercial Housing Fund, which is for the development of workforce units and paid by mitigation fees on commercial and industrial projects; and • Palo Alto Residential Housing Fund, which is for the development of below market rate (BMR) housing units and paid by miscellaneous funding sources. The City will continue to seek opportunities for projects that meet local bond requirements in order to bring additional resources to help the City’s affordable housing shortage. If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan The City has no surplus public land. However, in 2019, the Governor Newsome signed Executive Order N- 06-19 that ordered the California Department of General Services (DGS) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to identify and prioritize excess state-owned property and aggressively pursue sustainable, innovative, cost-effective housing projects. There is no excess state property in the City of Palo Alto. Discussion HUD allocations are critical to overcoming barriers; however, they are not sufficient to address all the needs of LMI households. Therefore, the City will continue to leverage other funding sources to provide services to populations in need. Currently, the City is not eligible to receive direct funding under the HOME Investment Partnership Act, Emergency Solutions Grant, or Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Annual Goals and Objectives AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives Goals Summary Information Sort Order Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Estimates Goal Outcome Indicator 1 Affordable Housing 2020 2025 Affordable Housing Affordable Housing CDBG: $1,300,000 Rental Units Rehabilitated – 107 units Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated – 40 units 2 Homelessness 2020 2025 Homeless Homelessnes s CDBG: $400,000 Public Service Activities for Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit – 800 persons 3 Community Services and Public Improvements 2020 2025 Non-Homeless Special Needs Non-Housing Community Development Community Services and Public Improvement s CDBG: $225,000 Public Service Activities Other Than Low/Moderate-Income Housing Benefit – 1,500 persons 4 Fair Housing 2020 2025 Non-Housing Community Development Fair Housing CDBG: $280,000 Public Service Activities Other Than Low/Moderate-Income Housing Benefit – 75 persons 5 Economic Development 2020 2025 Non-Housing Community Development Economic Development CDBG: $1,700,000 Jobs Created or Retained – 150 jobs Table 2 – Goals Summary Goal Descriptions 1 Goal Name Affordable Housing Goal Description Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low-income and special needs households. This includes funding home repair programs. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN 2 Goal Name Homelessness Goal Description Support activities to prevent and end homelessness, such as funding affordable housing opportunities, resource centers for homeless individuals, and support for tenants of single-room occupancy units. 3 Goal Name Community Services and Public Improvements Goal Description Provide community services and public improvements to benefit low-income and special needs households. This includes assisting those with disabilities to transition from unstable housing to permanent housing, supporting residents of long-term care facilities, and supporting individuals experiencing domestic violence. 4 Goal Name Fair Housing Goal Description Promote fair housing choice by funding fair housing organizations to provide fair housing services, such as education, tenant-landlord mediation, and testing. 5 Goal Name Economic Development Goal Description Support economic development activities that promote employment growth and help lower-income people secure and maintain jobs. This includes funding nonprofits working toward developing the skills of low-income and homeless individuals. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d) Introduction The projects listed below are intended to meet the City’s priority goals identified in AP-20 above. Projects # Project Name 1 Catholic Charities 2 Life Moves - Opportunity Services Center 3 PAHC Management & Services Corporation 4 Silicon Valley Independent Living Center – Case Management 5 YWCA of Silicon Valley 6 Project Sentinel 7 City of Palo Alto - Planning and Administration 8 Downtown Streets Inc. – Employment Training 9 Alma Place 10 Life Moves – Rental Assistance 11 Silicon Valley Independent Living Center – Rental Assistance 12 YWCA of Silicon Valley – Rental Assistance 13 Downtown Streets Inc. – Food Closet 14 May View Community Health – COVID Testing Table 3 – Project Information Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs The City's ConPlan update coincides with the development of the first year Action Plan and the biennial RFP process. The City awards CDBG funding to nonprofit agencies to provide public services and housing for low-income and special needs households. The City operates on a two-year grant funding cycle for CDBG grants. HUD requires that 70 percent of all CDBG funds be spent on activities that would benefit low- to moderate income (LMI) households, which are those making 0-80% of AMI. The City allocates its CDBG funds to projects and programs that will primarily benefit 0-50% AMI households, the homeless, and special needs populations. The allocation of funds is made based on the needs identified in the ConPlan. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AP-38 Project Summary Project Summary Information 1 Project Name Catholic Charities Target Area Palo Alto Residential Care Facilities Goals Supported Community Services and Public Improvements Needs Addressed Community Services and Public Improvements Funding CDBG: $9,345 Description Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 260 persons will be assisted. Location Description Long-term care and skilled nursing facilities throughout the City. Planned Activities Catholic Charities assists in problem resolution and advocates for the rights of residents of long-term care facilities in Palo Alto. The majority of the clients assisted are low-income, frail, elderly, and chronically ill. This program assists these vulnerable, dependent, and socially isolated residents receive the care and placement to which they are entitled. 2 Project Name Life Moves - Opportunity Services Center Target Area Goals Supported Homelessness Needs Addressed Homelessness Funding CDBG: $29,932 Description Opportunity Services Center Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 36 persons will be assisted. Location Description 33 Encina Way, Palo Alto, CA 94301 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Planned Activities Life Moves provides basic necessities for persons who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. The Opportunity Services Center is a comprehensive, one- stop, multi-service, day drop-in center that provides critical services for homeless Palo Alto residents. Specifically, the facility provides showers, laundry, clothing, snacks, case management, and shelter/housing referral services. 3 Project Name PAHC Management & Services Corporation Target Area Goals Supported Homelessness Needs Addressed Homelessness Funding CDBG: $29,931 Description SRO Resident Support Program Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 131 persons will be assisted. Location Description 439 Emerson Street and 735 Alma Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Planned Activities Palo Alto Housing Corporation will provide counseling and supportive case management services for low- income residents of single-room occupancy facilities to help them maintain housing stability. Activities include financial counseling, health maintenance, information and referral, problem solving, employment assistance, crisis intervention and case management. 4 Project Name Silicon Valley Independent Living Center Target Area Goals Supported Community Services and Public Improvements Needs Addressed Community Services and Public Improvements Funding CDBG: $11,232 Description Housing and Emergency Housing Services Target Date 6/30/2021 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 24 persons will be assisted. Location Description Citywide. Planned Activities Silicon Valley Independent Living Center assists individuals with disabilities and their families to transition from homelessness, health care facilities, unstable or temporary housing to permanent affordable, accessible, integrated housing by providing emergency assistance, security deposits, rent, information, and referral, and other basic essentials. 5 Project Name YWCA of Silicon Valley Target Area Goals Supported Community Services and Public Improvements Needs Addressed Community Services and Public Improvements Funding CDBG: $5,000 Description Domestic Violence Services Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 15 persons will be assisted. Location Description Citywide. Planned Activities Support Network for Battered Women, a Division of YWCA, provides a bilingual domestic violence hotline, an emergency shelter, crisis counseling, legal assistance, court accompaniment, individual and group therapy, support groups, children’s therapy groups, preventative education, safety planning and community referrals for individuals and families experiencing domestic violence. 6 Project Name Project Sentinel Target Area Goals Supported Fair Housing ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Needs Addressed Fair Housing Funding CDBG: $37,480 Description Fair Housing Services Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 15 persons will be assisted. Location Description Citywide. Planned Activities Project Sentinel will provide community education and outreach regarding fair housing law and practices, investigation, counseling and legal referral for victims of housing discrimination, and analyses for City staff and officials regarding fair housing practices. California and federal fair housing laws ensure specific protected classes the right to be treated in terms of their individual merits and qualifications in seeking housing. Unfortunately, some people are not aware of the law or their rights. 7 Project Name Planning and Administration Target Area Goals Supported Affordable Housing Homelessness Community Services and Public Improvements Fair Housing Economic Development Needs Addressed Affordable Housing Homelessness Community Services and Public Improvements Fair Housing Economic Development Funding CDBG: $90,000 Description Planning and Administration Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities The City will provide general administrative support to the CDBG program. Location Description Citywide. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Planned Activities Administer the administrative costs for the overall management, coordination, and evaluation of the CDBG program, and the project delivery costs associated with bringing projects to completion. 8 Project Name Downtown Streets Inc. Target Area Goals Supported Economic Development Needs Addressed Economic Development Funding CDBG: $236,000 Description Workforce Development Program Target Date 6/30/2021 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 21 jobs will be created for very low-income and low- income individuals. Location Description Citywide. Planned Activities The Workforce Development Program will provide a transition from unemployment and homelessness to regular employment and housing through case management, job training, mentoring, housing, and transportation assistance. Downtown Streets Team will screen and prepare applicants and will use their community connections to provide training and job opportunities. 9 Project Name Alma Place Target Area Goals Supported Affordable Housing Needs Addressed Affordable Housing Homelessness Funding CDBG: $149,950 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Description Funds are requested for replacement of stair treads in two three-story stairwells and common area flooring. Project activities include: • Eliminating safety hazards in common area flooring and stairwells. • Enhancing the interior condition of the property. • Enhancing the aesthetics of the property. Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 107 individuals will be assisted. Location Description 735 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 10 Project Name Life Moves Target Area Goals Supported Homelessness Needs Addressed Homelessness Funding CDBG CV: $294,000 Description Funds are requested to assist low, very low, and extremely low income persons (per HUD definitions) by providing financial assistance to cover rent. Households will receive direct financial assistance to pay for rent. Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 45 unduplicated households OR 135 duplicated households Location Description Citywide 11 Project Name Silicon Valley Independent Living Center Target Area Goals Supported Homelessness Needs Addressed Homelessness Funding CDBG CV: $75,000 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Description Funds are requested to address the short-term needs of City of Palo Alto residents at risk of being displaced by rent increases, utility payments, emergency situations, and other market forces due to Covid-19. The target population of the proposed project are the residents with disabilities, veterans and older adults, aged 55 and over. Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 60 households Location Description Citywide 12 Project Name Downtown Streets Inc. - Downtown Food Closet Target Area Goals Supported Homelessness Community Services and Public Improvements Needs Addressed Homelessness Community Services and Public Improvements Funding CDBG CV: $100,000 Description Funds are requested to provide groceries and meals to those experiencing food insecurity. Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 300 individuals every month will be provided hot meals. 24 households will receive Pre-packed groceries arranged by Food Closet Volunteers and delivered to doorsteps to meet the need and limit contact. Location Description Citywide 13 Project Name YWCA of Silicon Valley Target Area Goals Supported Homelessness ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Needs Addressed Homelessness Funding CDBG CV: $10,000 Description Funds are requested to address the short-term needs of City of Palo Alto residents at risk of being displaced by rent increases, utility payments, emergency situations, and other market forces due to Covid-19. The target population of the proposed project are individuals and families experiencing domestic violence. Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 4 households Location Description Citywide 14 Project Name May View Community Health Target Area Goals Supported Community Services and Public Improvements Needs Addressed Community Services and Public Improvements Funding CDBG CV: $67,610 Description Funds are requested for testing sites and PPE equipment. Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 400 Palo Alto residents. Location Description Citywide ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f) Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low-income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed The City allocates CDBG funds to benefit low-moderate income (LMI) households and does not have target areas. Instead, the City focuses its services and capital improvements across the City as a whole. Geographic Distribution Target Area Percentage of Funds N/A N/A Table 4 - Geographic Distribution Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically Not applicable. Discussion Please see discussion above. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Affordable Housing AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g) Introduction The Palo Alto ConPlan has identified affordable housing as the primary objective for the expenditure of CDBG funds. The City will continue to allocate the maximum funding available to activities and projects that meet this objective. While CDBG entitlement dollars are limited, the City does anticipate expending a significant portion of its CDBG funds on the preservation and rehabilitation of affordable housing. A detailed discussion of how HUD entitlements will be used to support affordable housing needs within the City is provided in AP-38, with the number of households to be assisted itemized by project One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported Homeless 0 Non-Homeless 0 Special-Needs 107 Total 107 Table 5 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through Rental Assistance 0 The Production of New Units 0 Rehab of Existing Units 107 Acquisition of Existing Units 0 Total 107 Table 6 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type Discussion Please see discussion above. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h) Introduction This section identifies actions planned over the next year to address the needs of public housing residents in the City. Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing All public housing operated by SCCHA is located in the City of Santa Clara and none are located in the City of Palo Alto. Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership SCCHA incorporates residents’ input into the decision-making process though the involvement of tenant commissioners and board members. SCCHA has also created a Resident Counsel comprising five residents from HUD-funded programs, which evaluates the effectiveness of SCCHA’s rental assistance programs. SCCHA also operates a Family Self Sufficiency Program designed so residents can be involved in the development of self-sufficiency goals, job training, and other services. If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be provided or other assistance Not applicable. SCCHA is not designated as a troubled public housing agency. Discussion SCCHA does not operate public housing in the City of Palo Alto; however, the City continues to solicit input of residents of other housing programs through the Consolidated Plan process. AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i) Introduction The following section outlines actions to be taken by the City in cooperation with other local agencies. Describe the jurisdictions one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness including The City will fund multiple activities for FY 2020-2021 to reduce and end homelessness, including: • Life Moves will provide basic necessities to 36 homeless persons or persons at risk of homelessness in the City. Life Moves’ facility provides showers, laundry, clothing, snacks, case management, and shelter/housing referral services. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN • Palo Alto Housing Corporation will provide counseling and supportive case management services to 131 low-income residents of single-room occupancy facilities to help them maintain housing stability. • Downtown Streets, Inc. will provide 21 homeless persons with jobs, transitioning them from unemployment and homelessness to regular employment and housing through case management, job training, mentoring, housing, and transportation assistance. Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs The Palo Alto Downtown Streets team reaches out to homeless persons living in Palo Alto. The Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing also surveys homeless individuals every two years. Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons Peninsula Healthcare Connection provides integrated primary and mental healthcare and intensive case management for homeless individuals or those at risk of becoming homeless in Santa Clara County. New Directions is a community-based case management program for chronically homeless individuals with complex medical and psychosocial needs that aims to decrease the number of emergency room visits and hospital admissions. Community partners include Good Samaritan Hospital, Santa Clara Family Health Plan, Valley Homeless Healthcare Program, El Camino Hospital, Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing, and Downtown Streets Team. Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again It is recommended that chronically homeless individuals receive intensive case management aimed at assisting them in finding housing, resources, and receiving services to stay in housing. Case management is person-based rather than shelter-based, with the goal of rapid re-housing. The five-year goals of the Community Plan to End Homelessness includes creating approximately 5,500 housing opportunities for chronically homeless individuals, homeless veterans, and homeless children, youth, and families as well as access to the services that help keep them in housing. Additionally, part of the City’s local funds goes toward funding public services to address the supportive housing needs of very low-income and homeless individuals. Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs Services for those discharged from publicly funded institutions include: • The Valley Homeless Healthcare Program (VHHP) is part of the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center and provides medical services to homeless individuals, including primary care and urgent care. VHHP also manages a Medical Respite program for homeless individuals discharged from hospitals as well as a Backpack Homeless Health Care Program for those in encampments.2 • The County’s Social Services Agency has expedited the review process of homeless households’ CalFresh applications so that they may receive benefits within three days. • The County’s Behavioral Health Services Department (BHS) has multiple programs to connect homeless individuals with housing or shelter assistance. BHS also treats those going through behavioral health crises. • The County’s Reentry Resource Center provides services to those who have been previously incarcerated and to individuals who are homeless upon release. Services include referrals to drug treatment, housing assistance, food assistance, counseling, and other benefits. • The County Office of Supportive Housing’s mission is to increase the supply of housing and supportive housing that is affordable and available to extremely low income and /or special needs households. The office supports the County mission of promoting a healthy, safe, and prosperous community by ending and preventing homelessness. Discussion Please see discussions above. 2 Valley Homeless Healthcare Program (VHHP). Santa Clara Valley Medical Center. Accessed March 3, 2020. https://www.scvmc.org/clinics-and-locations/Valley-Homeless-Health-Program/Pages/overview.aspx ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AP-75 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.220(j) Introduction Generally, the City faces the same affordable housing barriers as the rest of the Bay Area, including: • High cost of development constraining the development of affordable housing units in favor of higher-end units; • Lack of developable land preventing housing development and increasing the price of land; and • Local opposition preventing affordable housing from being built in high-resource areas. Specifically, the City has identified multiple constraints to affordable housing and residential investment in its 2015-2023 Housing Element update. They include: • Land use controls limit the allowed density of affordable housing production; • Height limits constrain a developer’s ability to achieve maximum allowable densities; • Parking requirements limit infill development and multifamily housing from achieving maximum allowable density; and • The development review process can be lengthy, unclear, layered, redundant, and costly for housing developers, creating uncertainty and increased financial risk. Additionally, the County’s Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice identified the following contributing factors to fair housing issues, including affordable housing, through analysis of data and community engagement feedback: • Displacement of residents due to economic pressures • Land use and zoning laws • Source of income discrimination • Community opposition • Availability of affordable units in a range of sizes • Availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation • Lack of access to opportunity due to high housing costs • Lack of affordable, accessible housing in a range of unit sizes • Lack of affordable housing for individuals who need supportive services • Lack of assistance for housing accessibility modifications • Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations • Location and type of affordable housing • Loss of affordable housing • Private discrimination ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Actions it planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment The City has identified strategies to remove or ameliorate barriers to affordable housing in its 2015-2023 Housing Element, including: • Modifying development standards for second units; • Providing incentives to developers, such as reduced fees and flexible development standards; • Encouraging higher density residential zoning; • Increasing mixed use development; • Creating zoning incentives; and • Promoting redevelopment. According to the 2018 Annual Progress Report for Housing Element Implementation, the City has completed all strategies, except for providing incentives to developers, which is underway. Discussion The City will fund projects that will aim to reduce barriers to affordable housing, including: • Alma Place - Provides funds to address health, safety, and accessibility concerns to Alma Place It is a 107 unit affordable housing community which is home to extremely low and very low income individuals. Over 50% of the residents are between the ages of 50 and 85 years old. • Project Sentinel - Provides community education and outreach regarding fair housing law and practices, investigation, counseling and legal referral for victims of housing discrimination, and analyses for City staff and officials regarding fair housing practices. California and federal fair housing laws ensure specific protected classes the right to be treated in terms of their individual merits and qualifications in seeking housing. Unfortunately, some people are not aware of the law or their rights. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k) Introduction Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs The diminishing amount of funds continues to be the most significant obstacle to addressing the needs of underserved populations. Specifically, the annual CDBG allocation has decreased by approximately $200,000 since 2010. To address this, the City supplements its CDBG funding with other resources and funds, such as the following. • The City’s Human Service Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) provides $500,000 from the General Fund in support of human services. The HSRAP funds, in conjunction with the CDBG public service funds, are distributed to local nonprofit agencies. • The Palo Alto Commercial Housing Fund is used primarily to increase the number of new affordable housing units for Palo Alto’s work force. It is funded with mitigation fees required from developers of commercial and industrial projects. • The Palo Alto Residential Housing Fund is funded with mitigation fees provided under Palo Alto’s BMR housing program from residential developers and money from other miscellaneous sources, such as proceeds from the sale or lease of City property. The Residential Housing Fund is used to assist new housing development or the acquisition, rehabilitation or the preservation of existing housing for affordable housing. • The City’s Below Market Rate Emergency Fund was authorized in 2002 to provide funding on an ongoing basis to BMR owners for special assessment loans and for rehabilitation and preservation of the City’s stock of BMR ownership units. • HOME Program funds are available on an annual competitive basis through the State of California HOME program and the County’s HOME Consortium. • SCCHA administers the federal Section 8 program countywide. The program provides rental subsidies and develops affordable housing for low-income households, senior, and persons with disabilities living in the County. Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing The City will foster and maintain affordable housing by continuing the following programs and ordinances: • The Below Market Rate Emergency Fund, described above. • The Palo Alto Commercial Housing Fund, described above. • The Density Bonus Ordinance was adopted by the City Council in January 2014. The density bonus regulations allow for unit bonuses of 20 to 35 percent, depending on the amount and type of affordable housing provided. • The City’s participation in the County's HOME Consortium will allow developers of affordable housing projects to competitively apply, through an annual RFP process, directly to the County for HOME funds to help subsidize affordable housing projects in Palo Alto, including acquisition, construction and rehabilitation. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards The City’s housing and CDBG staff provides information and referrals to property owners, developers, and nonprofit organizations rehabilitating older housing about lead-based paint (LBP) hazards. Any house to be rehabilitated with City financial assistance is required to be inspected for the existence of LBP and LBP hazards. The City will provide financial assistance for the abatement of LBP hazards in units rehabilitated with City funding. The City also requires that contractors are trained and certified in an effort to decrease the risk of potential use of LBP in new units. All development and rehabilitation projects must be evaluated according to HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule 24 CFR Part 35.[1] Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families The City, in its continuing effort to reduce poverty, will prioritize funding agencies that provide direct assistance to the homeless and those in danger of becoming homeless. In FY 2020-2021, these programs will include the following: • Life Moves provides basic necessities for persons who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. The Opportunity Services Center is a comprehensive, one-stop, multi-service, day drop-in center that provides critical services for homeless Palo Alto residents. Specifically, the facility provides showers, laundry, clothing, snacks, case management, and shelter/housing referral services. • Palo Alto Housing Corporation will provide counseling and supportive case management services for low-income residents of single-room occupancy facilities to help them maintain housing stability. Activities include financial counseling, health maintenance, information and referral, problem solving, employment assistance, crisis intervention, and case management. • Downtown Streets Team works to reduce homelessness through a “work first” model. Downtown Streets Team uses its community connections to provide training and job opportunities to homeless people, specifically in the downtown area. The Downtown Streets Team has initiatives in Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, San Jose, and San Rafael. Actions planned to develop institutional structure The City of Palo Alto operates within the larger geographical area of Santa Clara County and participates in a number of efforts to coordinate housing and services. The City will continue to work with the County, other cities, and the Continuum of Care to provide a comprehensive institutional structure. Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies The City benefits from a strong jurisdiction and region-wide network of housing and community development partners, such as the County and the Continuum of Care. To improve intergovernmental and private sector cooperation, the City will continue to participate with other local jurisdictions and developers in sharing information and resources. In addition to the actions listed above, the City will continue to coordinate with the City’s human services funding efforts to comprehensively address community needs. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Discussion Please see discussions above. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Program Specific Requirements AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l)(1,2,4) Introduction The following provides additional information about the CDBG program income and program requirements. Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(1) Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects Table. The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in projects to be carried out. 1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed $136,049 2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan N/A 3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements N/A 4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan. N/A 5. The amount of income from float-funded activities N/A Total Program Income $136,049 Other CDBG Requirements 1. The amount of urgent need activities N/A Appendix - Alternate/Local Data Sources ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN 3536 Concours Street, Suite 100, Ontario, CA 91764 JN 167844 Outreach Results County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary Administrative Draft ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 2 Summary Introduction The County of Santa Clara and each of its Cities helped create an engagement program that included four types of activities including: stakeholder interviews, community meetings, pop-up events, and a community needs survey. The engagement program began in its planning processes in October and was completed at the end of December. The following summarizes of the highlights of the engagement program. The table below lays out all engagement events including their dates, locations and attendance. Overall, it is estimated that these engagement efforts reached about 2,367 citizens. Events Table Event Date Location Attendance Community Needs Survey Community Needs Survey October 25, 2019 – December 26, 2019 Online/Paper Responses: 1,950 Regional Public Forums Morgan Hill Public Meeting November 4, 2019 Morgan Hill Council Chambers 8 Palo Alto Public Meeting November 7, 2019 Palo Alto City Hall Community Meeting Room 9 Cupertino Public Meeting November 12, 2019 City of Cupertino Community Hall 14 San Jose Public Meeting November 20, 2019 Roosevelt Community Center 20 Focus Groups Santa Clara Focus Group Meetings November 7, 2019 1500 Warburton Ave (Circlepoint) 5 Gilroy Focus Group Meetings November 18, 2019 Gilroy Library, Community Room 2 San Jose Focus Group Meetings 1 November 21, 2019 San Jose City Hall, 6th Floor 0 San Jose Focus Group Meetings 2 December 10, 2019 San Jose City Hall, 12th Floor, Room 1254 0 Pop-Up Events Pop-Up Event 1 October 19, 2019 Santa Clara Farmers Market Flyers Distributed: 20 Attendees Approached: 68+ Pop-Up Event 2 October 26, 2019 Sunnyvale Farmers Market Flyers Distributed: 16 Attendees Approached: 40+ Pop-Up Event 3 November 3, 2019 Palo Alto Farmers Market Flyers Distributed: 62 Attendees Approached: 100+ Pop-Up Event 4 November 21, 2019 Sunnyvale Community Center Flyers Distributed: 10 Attendees Approached: 12 Surveys Completed: 3 Stakeholder Interviews Destination: Home November 11, 2019 Phone Call 1 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 3 Bridge Housing November 11, 2019 Phone Call 1 Housing Choices Coalition for Persons with Developmental Disabilities November 11, 2019 6203 San Ignacio Ave, Suite 108, San Jose, Ca 1 Loaves and Fishes November 12, 2019 Phone Call 1 Santa Clara Family Health Plan November 12, 2019 Phone Call 1 Silicon Valley FACES November 13, 2019 Phone Call 1 LifeMoves November 13, 2019 Menlo Park 3 Grid Alternatives November 13, 2019 Phone Call 1 Eden Housing November 13, 2019 Phone Call 1 Asian Americans for Community Involvement November 13, 2019 Conference Call 4 Heart of the Valley November 14, 2019 E-mail 1 Charities Housing Development Corporation November 14, 2019 1 Community Services Agency November 15, 2019 Phone Call 1 WeHOPE November 21, 2019 Phone Call 1 Rebuilding Together (Silicon Valley) November 21, 2019 Phone Call 1 Health Trust November 21, 2019 Health Trust Headquarters 3 City of Gilroy, Recreation Department November 25, 2019 E-mail 1 CommUniverCity San Jose November 25, 2019 Phone Call 1 Downtown Streets Team November 26, 2019 Phone Call 1 Vista Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired December 9, 2019 Phone Call 1 Silicon Valley Leadership Group January 3, 2020 Phone Call 1 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 4 Regional Public Forums – Location of Meeting Four regional public forums were held throughout Santa Clara County in the Cities of Morgan Hill, San José, Palo Alto, and Cupertino. The Regional Meetings were held on/at: x November 4, 2019 @ Morgan Hill City Hall, California x November 7, 2019 @ Palo Alto City Hall, California x November 12, 2019 @ Cupertino Community Hall, California x November 20, 2019 @ Roosevelt Community Center, San José, California A brief overview of the planning process for the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and the 2020- 2025 Consolidated Plan was provided and a listening session with live polling was conducted. The following questions were asked: Question 1. What should the County’s top priorities be over the next 5 years? Question 2. Where are any neighborhood revitalization target areas? Question 3. What do you feel are the most common or pressing housing problems in the County? Question 4. What are the ways to overcome these problems? Question 5. How do you feel local organizations/service providers can better support your priorities? Question 6. In what ways are LMI families vulnerable to crisis situations, such as natural disasters? Question 7. Do you feel there is an issue with broadband access and technical literacy? If not, what support is missing? Question 8. How do you feel the County should spend their annual CDBG allocation? (Eligible projects are: community and social services, economic development assistance; improvements to public infrastructure and facilities; affordable housing; homelessness; and housing rehabilitation). The major themes and outcomes from regional public forums were: 1. What should the County’s top priorities be over the next 5 years? x Enhance transit systems and rider accessibility x Housing maintenance and rehabilitation x Increase services for senior citizens and mental health (consumers) x Provide needed workforce development x Continue to fund and create sustainable housing solutions x Increase affordable housing x Provide more assistance for emergency assistance including transitional housing x Provide more services for special needs populations: particularly single-income families, seniors, and homeless youth x Continue to work with and improve homeless prevention programs, shelters, education and job/housing placement 2. Where are any neighborhood revitalization target areas? (priority order) A. San José x Downtown San José x South San José x Central San José ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 5 x San José-Monterey Road Corridor, (poverty and lack of planning) x East San José (high gang activity) o Little Saigon, Alum Rock, Foothills o Coyote Creek x Alviso x Monterey Rd. x District 8 x 17th & Santa Clara St. x Mayfair x Rengstorff Park x Southwest Expressway x Tully Rd. x Wooster area x Roosevelt Park B. Gilroy-(high gang activity) x East Gilroy and Glenview neighborhoods. 3. Morgan Hill (Boundary area between Morgan Hill and Gilroy) 4. El Camino Real ( 5. Other areas mentioned by the general public: x BART/VTA/ and Caltrain corridors x Mayfair (San José) x East Milpitas at Route 680 area x Stevens Creek x Older shopping areas and vacant lots throughout the County 3. What do you feel are the most common or pressing housing problem in the County? x Affordability, particularly for the extremely low income; starter homes are too expensive x Not enough affordable housing x Diversity of housing types are not available x Support for transitioning homeless (i.e, financial, medical and social) x Housing suitability for diverse population x Private sector funding for city or service programs x Affordable housing zoning x Amenities for concentrated areas of affordability x Tech companies in cities have driven the cost of housing up x Monitored portable bathroom sites x Subsidized auto repair and medical services 4. What are the ways to overcome these problems? x First-time homebuyer loans x Housing and employment assistance for foster youth who age out of system x Family financial literacy x Streamline planning, permitting and development processes x Job training for young farmers (i.e, education and support for new agricultural technologies) x Subsidies or prevention programs for families at risk of displacement x Community planning that supports sustainable density development. (i.e, TODs, incentives and infrastructure for affordable transportation, bicycles and pedestrians) ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 6 x Regulatory requirements for housing diversity or alternative housing x Increase the 15% cap for social services x Mobile home parks are being bought out and unit rent prices go up. x Create a resource navigation center for individuals or social services to use and update 5. How do you feel local organizations/service providers can better support your priorities? x County, city and service organizations can collaborate and leverage more funding (e.g., City of Mountain View Safe Parking, Move Mountain View and Lots of Love are working together) 6. In what ways are LMI families vulnerable to crisis situations, such as natural disasters? x Lack of emergency funds for family emergencies, job loss, homelessness, single income families, and extremely low income households x Emergency preparedness in the home and for a community-sized crisis x Efficient communication 7. Do you feel there is an issue with broadband access and technical literacy? x Mountain View and Morgan Hill have issues with cell service x Centralized facilities are needed for libraries and community centers x Rapid technology updates make it difficult for communities and/or families to keep up x Technology is needed at senior centers x Affordable collaborative internet service for qualified areas 8. How do you feel the County should spend their annual CDBG allocation? (Eligible CDBG projects are: community and social services, economic development assistance; improvements to public infrastructure and facilities; affordable housing; homelessness; housing rehabilitation). x Affordable housing particularly near employment centers x Transit service expansion and bus service for seniors and homeless x Housing rehabilitation – special needs populations x Community and social services x Economic development assistance x Improvements to public infrastructure and facilities x Homelessness – improve interim housing and services options x Recreation and open spaces x Home buyer programs x Mental health services Stakeholder Interview Meetings Throughout the County twenty-one stakeholder interviews were held, typically at their places of business. The same eight questions (shown on page 2) were asked of each of the stakeholders. The following provides a collective summary of the overarching themes associated with the eight questions mentioned on page two of this Community Engagement Summary. The following entities were interviewed: - Asian Americans for Community Involvement - The Health Trust - Bridge Housing - Heart of the Valley - Charities Housing - Housing Choices Coalition - Community Services Agency - LifeMoves - CommUniverCity San José - Loaves and Fishes Family Kitchen - Destination: Home - Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley - Downtown Streets Team - Santa Clara Family Health Plan - Eden Housing - Silicon Valley FACES ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 7 - City of Gilroy Recreation Department - Silicon Valley Leadership Group - Grid Alternatives - Vista Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired - WeHOPE - Santa Clara County CoC Issue Needs Affordable Housing The market for housing is bigger than what is available -Increase affordable housing options and alternatives (varieties are needed in size and income levels, particularly for extremely-low and low- income, homeless, disabled, singles, large families, and elderly residents) in the County. There is legislation requiring more affordable housing, but there is no timetable. -Increase funds to build or rehab homes, old nursing/care units, and mobile home parks (particularly near places of employment and transit routes). Commuter numbers are high. There are 120,000 units proposed near transit in the Bay Area. -Create grant or loan programs for property maintenance. -Create land acquisition funding programs that purchase land dedicated to new housing. Work with Cities to target specific lands. -Create housing plans that fund and implement housing for working families or “Middle Housing.” -Revitalize mobile home parks, particularly in District 7 (in San José). -Expand voucher programs to include motels, group homes, and other temporary housing. Homeownership is rapidly declining -Increase and continue area-wide first-time home buyers programs. -Increase subsidies for down payment. -Review and fill the gaps that exist in mortgage affordability after upfront costs fulfilled. -Provide assistance for housing needs when move-in occurs. -Create incentives for property owners to sell pre-established lists of LMI families. High cost of land and construction forces higher unit prices -Incentivize developers through subsidies to integrate affordable units. (Unit prices are based on economy, the better the economy the higher rent prices). -Seek out more County distributed Housing Choice Vouchers. The issue of market rate dependent housing and affordable housing are separate issues -Create affordable housing solutions that do not involve cutting back on market rate housing development. We do not involve private companies who care -Approach private companies that employ below median income residents to assist in financing affordable housing development. Affordable housing projects take too much time -Create solutions to reduce the time it takes to build affordable housing. Many granting agencies do not want to see a “built” project prior to funding. Takes to long to satisfy public policy. Many plans require variances which can be a lengthy process. -Develop regional action to allocate land, target needs, and implement. There is a lack of neighborhood planning and amenities -Create or revitalize neighborhoods with new housing and needed amenities including parks, lighting, and good infrastructure. -Review proposals in the region that support neighborhood sustainability (e.g., District 1-Project HOPE – cultivates leadership and support from SJSU for 1-2 years to improve community involvement, cleanliness and crime reporting). -Improve and create flexible zoning particularly in San José. -Advocate that Cities update ordinances to include flexible, dense and inclusionary residential and mixed-use zoning. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 8 -Create consistent land use policies for inclusionary housing. Morgan Hill has an inclusionary housing ordinance. Annual rents and housing values are not affordable but continue to rise -Create local policies and advocacy for rent and housing value stabilization. -Increase funding for rental subsidy programs. -Create model policies/programs that promote more affordable housing (Review District 3 Community Leadership Council’s) (including Hindley and High Neighborhoods) Developers do not get involved in local planning -Engage housing developers and the business community when developing Specific/Master Plans and Housing Element background studies and recommendations. Vital Services & Homelessness Prevention Lack of services for homeless residents -Provide appropriate training for intake staff (navigators) that includes a variety of individual needs. -increase communication on needs, gaps and accomplishments. -Create nutrition programs, cooking instruction and food delivery assistance where homeless exist. Lack of an anti-homeless strategy (Homeless Prevention) -Create an inclusive homeless strategy, particularly for special needs populations. ƒ Support is needed for other at-risk homeless due to high cost of living (i.e., college students, former homeless, those who cannot live alone, and those with a criminal history). ƒ Provide safe parking areas for unsheltered homeless populations having vehicles and RVs (Palo Alto and Mountain View prohibits RVs). ƒ Develop a comprehensive wrap-around services program for a variety of social service organizations to use. ƒ Increase the number of shelters and shelter space in the County particularly cold weather shelter, emergency shelters and safe parking areas. ƒ Greater communication and integration of social service entities. -Implement the CoC’s Community Plan to End Homelessness. Establishing goals and strategies that address the root cause of homelessness, housing affordability and barriers to new housing development. Build more housing for extremely low income households. There are not enough social service entities to handle homelessness issues -Increase and or franchise reputable service entities to serve other locations. Complex system for housing and homeless people -Reduce complexity and streamline intake systems for homeless needing housing. There is a high turn-over rate in service provider staff -Increase wages and professional development for County and outside agency service providers and staff. County services are strained and communication with other services is low. -The County should study the feasibility of outsourcing some of its services to existing social service agencies. Collaborating with other service entities may solve capacity problems. CoC has limited communications -The CoC can become more effective if they could increase communication on needs, gaps and accomplishments. Individuals do not know what services are available -Update County resource guides and websites that point to the right agency. The resources could be listed by “need” and provide contact and address and emails. Service agencies could adopt response policies for service linkage. (It was reported there are sometimes 10 days that will go by without a response.) Lack of food in certain areas of the County -Prepare a list of the probable food desert areas and collaborate with service entities that can provide routine nutrition and food delivery service. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 9 -Create and or expand food storage spaces. -Work with local grocers to create secondary outlets in designated food deserts. -Provide food subsidies to individuals with chronic health issues particularly those at-risk (e.g., drug/alcohol/chronic health conditions, and those under 60 where other organizations cannot provide services. Increase Family Income Keeping up with the cost of living -Increase earning capacity of the LMI County residents. -Stabilize rent costs. -Create rainy-day funds for LMI households (most LMI families are at-risk for homelessness). Families & Individuals in Transition Families in transition are struggling -Create County-driven transitional housing programs and services. ƒ Services and assistance are needed for women with young children Lack of transitional housing, permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing units -Increase transitional housing. -Increase rapid rehousing units and services. Family displacement -Create programs that serve residents that can no longer afford to remain in their homes. (This is due to rising housing bills (rents or property taxes), or when residents are forced out due to causes such as eminent domain, lease non-renewals, and or mandatory evictions to make way for new development.) -East San José area, in particular, is experiencing displacement. -County and its Cities should create displacement policies when new (re)development is occurring. Special Needs or Target Populations Increased number of individuals with mental/behavior health issues -Increase funding for more trained counseling and referral personnel. -Create life skills training in larger residential buildings where there is more demand. -Research the feasibility of provide more mental health recovery centers. Housing elements do not improve conditions for special needs/target populations -Realign Housing Elements, General Plans and Specific Plans to include to a larger degree the needs and goal for the underserved. Increased numbers of victims of domestic violence -Increased services for victims of domestic violence. Lack of services for new immigrants -Increase housing and services for newly immigrated families. Services that help families with credit establishment and rental history for housing placement. Unemployed special needs populations -Increase workforce training and employment assistance Language barriers -Reduce communication barriers for housing and services. -Increase ESL classes. Lack of elderly (aging) services -Funding assistance is needed for senior care and housing. Such programs require more oversight. -Provide traveling classes that engage seniors in technology. -Create nutrition programs and food delivery assistance to homebound seniors. -Create policies that new housing units be accessible. Promote handicap accessibility with all new units by providing elevators, at-grade front entrances or first floor bedrooms, kitchens and bathrooms. Increasing at-risk youth -Provide separate emergency shelter space. Create safe spaces to foster and provide oversight, particularly children of domestic violence. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 10 -Provide technology resources to youth that are homeless or whose families are LMI. -School district communication improvements for parents to provide homework and tutoring assistance. Neighborhoods are not accessible -Increase visitable homes and places in neighborhoods (e.g., wheelchair ramps bathrooms, curbing, sidewalks, handrails). Emergency/Natural Disaster Effect Vulnerable Populations Vulnerable populations are most impacted by power outages -Create policies on being electric dependent (e.g., San José may switch to all electric water heating). Residents and older buildings are never ready for disasters -Promote flooding and emergency preparedness classes, making sure communication gaps are covered. -Create a rapid emergency grant program that funds or insures from the government for vulnerable LMI residents (e.g., flooding, fire, etc.). -Create programs to rehab properties that experience frequent damage from disasters. -Create programs that fund LMI homeowners rebuilding projects. Lack of emergency providers and low response times -Create more County-driven emergency management employment opportunities and positions. Low access to services during a disaster -Emergency providers should discuss the LMI issues and service needs to better determine needs. -Services should include replacement of household basic needs (e.g., food and water replacement). Mobile home park households are particularly at risk. -Provide interpreters when needed for services provided, particularly Vietnamese. -Identify where vulnerabilities in the community or neighborhood exist, so they can be assisted first. Lack of emergency housing and solutions for displaced families -Engage in post-disaster planning particularly for family displacement housing and food and health needs. -Create places to park vehicles owned by displaced families. Broadband quality if low in certain areas of the County -Public – Private partnership are encouraged to bridge the digital divide. Work with cellular providers to improve services in LMI areas. -Continue to overcome the digital divide. Fund projects that increase digital inclusion and reduce cost to access. -Build new affordable housing units with reduced cost WiFi. -Provide technical support regarding WiFi safety for LMI families, particularly the elderly. -Fund computer hardware and software upgrades in schools. Employment and Workforce Development Shelters lack full services for employment needs -Increase employment and workforce training for shelter counselors and staff. Getting to transit routes and affording rides is difficult -Improve ride-share programs, particularly transit payment systems. Lack of technology resources for LMI households -Guide unemployed persons to places having direct access and public computer resources. Fair Housing Landlords do not respond to poor housing conditions and tenants needs Increase education for tenant rights. LMI residents are not engaged Create engagement activities and programs that help craft specific solutions, particularly with Vietnamese communities. Individuals with disabilities looking for housing have difficulty -Increase local advocacy for planning for disabilities. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 11 Target Areas Neighborhood revitalization A. San José - Downtown San José - South San José - Central San José - San José-Monterey Road Corridor, (poverty and lack of planning) - East San José (high gang activity) o Little Saigon, Alum Rock, Foothills o Coyote Creek - Alviso - Monterey Rd - District 8 - 17th & Santa Clara St - Mayfair - Rengstorff Park - Southwest Expressway - Tully Road - Wooster area - Roosevelt Park B. Gilroy (high gang activity) - East Gilroy and Glenview neighborhoods. C. Morgan Hill (Boundary area between Morgan Hill and Gilroy) D. El Camino Real Others mentioned by the general public: - BART/VTA/ and Caltrain corridors - East Milpitas, Route 680 area - Stevens Creek, off Route 85, near Mountain View - Cupertino - Milpitas - Story and Keene - Eastridge - Old Oakland Road (near mobile home park) - Riverbend (near mobile home park) - San Martin - Older shopping areas and vacant lots throughout the County Safety improvements -McKinley; north of the McLaughlin Road ramps. Homeless encampments have caused some pedestrian safety issues. -Washington: 1st and Oak Streets. Crime, child endangerment, constant trespassing and police issues. - Jackson, between 10th and 11th, Grant Elementary has a traffic safety issues for students and pedestrians. -Coyote Creek encampments and Scott & Keys low-income residents. Future CDBG Expenditures More affordable housing -Invest in new housing and housing rehab programs and projects that increase the number of affordable units. -Actively support and show advocacy for current and future local development proposals for affordable housing. -Support efforts to create conversions of larger dwellings to multiple units. -Create short-term housing while housing rehab or while new housing projects are being built. Poor housing conditions -Complete more housing rehabs. -Reduce the number of vacant homes and properties. Social Services/Homelessness Funding Priorities include: -Homelessness prevention programs. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 12 -Funding for staffing salaries. -Wellness programs. -Build more shelters and expand existing shelter capacity. -Seek out available housing and provide services particularly for elderly and disabled. Transportation -Transit improvements to connect LMI areas to employment centers. Community facilities -Revitalize older city infrastructure, particularly accessibility for seniors and disabled individuals. Economic development -Fund private business needs for expansion or employee hire. -Fund routine job fares in various regions of the County. Other Notes Notes: Difficult County and or City CDBG Application process -Decrease the paper work associated with grant application preparation. It is often felt the process is not worth it. -Increase funding for social services. -Reduce the number of awarded applicant and give larger amounts to grantees to make a difference. San José – Tax proposal https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-officials-propose-new-property- tax-for-affordable-housing/ Focus Group Meetings There were two focus groups held on November 7, 2019, and November 18, 2019. There were a total of 7 attendees. Each of the attendees were from social service entities: x Boys and Girls Clubs of Silicon Valley x Healthier Kids Foundation x Live Oak Adult Day Services x San José Conservation Corps Charter Agency Priorities: o Address the lack of housing stock and housing diversity and options o Increase alternatives for special needs residents, particularly those with disabilities o Improve transit and incentives to take transit o Improve health and safety, particularly mental health options for low income families o Workforce development, particularly for young adults o Address lack of housing through strong outreach programs – local and regional o County driven affordable housing projects Target areas: o Downtown Gilroy (1st to 10th Streets on Monterey Blvd.) and east of railroad tracks o El Camino Real o Morgan Hill o Transit hubs all around the County Most common/pressing problems: o Cost of housing. Morgan Hill Schools are closing due to low enrollment o Lack of variety of housing types and lack of land o Lack of financial support networks o Lack of transitional housing (e.g., tiny homes, accessory housing) o Lack of zoning regulations that are affordable housing friendly o Lack of funding for social services, particularly mental health and professional development (after high school) ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 13 o Gentrification has pushed affordable housing outside the cities o Fair housing rules for discrimination seem to be unclear, particularly with individuals with criminal records, bankruptcy, or disabilities o Lack of coordination between resource organizations How can we overcome these problems: o Create housing bond programs o Restructure federal funds policies, particularly with service or partner organization pulling funds together for a common project; too strict of spending caps with special needs populations o Create services that provide financial assistance when a catastrophic family event occurs (e.g., layoff, illness) o Grant writing assistance at the local level. o Create measurements that prioritize affordable housing Regional Community Needs Survey Santa Clara County initiated a Community Needs Survey on October 25, 2019 to December 26, 2019. The survey received 1,950 responses. The survey was available to complete online or by hand; it was distributed and made available in English, Spanish, Vietnamese and Chinese. The following summary highlights some survey responses. A detailed survey summary was prepared (See Appendix). Introduction Questions Where do you live? What language do you speak? City # % English Spanish Vietnamese Chinese Campbell 21 1.1% 21 0 0 0 Cupertino 17 0.9% 16 1 0 0 Gilroy 511 26.2% 283 224 2 2 Los Altos 31 1.6% 29 0 0 2 Los Altos Hills 4 0.2% 4 0 0 0 Los Gatos 10 0.5% 10 0 0 0 Monte Sereno 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 Milpitas 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 Morgan Hill 55 2.8% 40 14 0 1 Mountain View 238 12.2% 206 22 0 10 Palo Alto 53 2.7% 51 1 0 1 San Jose 650 33.3% 630 17 2 1 City of Santa Clara 82 4.2% 80 0 0 2 Saratoga 10 0.5% 10 0 0 0 Sunnyvale 87 4.5% 81 6 0 0 Unincorporated Santa Clara County 16 0.8% 15 0 0 1 Don’t Know 3 0.2% 3 0 0 0 Skipped Which City Question 162 8.3% 152 6 1 3 Total (Paper and Online) 1,950 100.0% 1,631 291 5 23 Note: We received one response from a Milpitas resident but note that Milpitas is not participating in the preparation of the 2020- 2025 Consolidated Plan. Milpitas’ Consolidated Plan covers a different 5-year period. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 14 The three following figures display the percent of surveys taken by each language, as well as the number of online and paper survey respondents per specified City, and a map showing responses per City. The most common language was English (84%) and the two most common cities were San Jose (650 responses) and Gilroy (511). 84% 15% 0%1% Percent of Surveys Taken by Language English Spanish Vietnamese Chinese ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 15 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Campbell Cupertino Gilroy Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Monte Sereno Milpitas Morgan Hill Mountain View Palo Alto San Jose City of Santa Clara Saratoga Sunnyvale Unincorporated Santa Clara County Don’t Know Skipped Which City Question Total (Paper and Online) Where Do You Live? ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 16 Survey data also shows that most respondents work within the County. The most common workplaces within the County were the cities of San Jose and Gilroy. Furthermore, most respondents represented residents of the County, however, some were CBOs, Public Agencies, Business Owners and Other. Needs What are the County’s greatest needs? (Percent of respondents to rank each need as “High”) 1. Create additional affordable housing available to low income residents 2. Create more jobs available to low-income residents 3. Improve non-profit community services What are our most pressing housing needs? (Percent of respondents to rank each need as “High”) 1. Increase affordable rental housing inventory 2. Housing for special needs individuals (i.e. seniors, persons w/disabilities) 3. Healthy homes (free of mold, lead, etc) 4. Permanent supportive rental housing for the homeless (case management and supportive services) What economic development assistance is needed? (Percent of respondents to rank each need as “High”) 1. Job training for people who are homeless 2. Financial assistance for business expansion and job creation 3. Storefront improvements in low-income neighborhoods What public facility improvements are needed most? (Percent of respondents to rank each need as “High”) 1. Mental health care facilities 2. Facilities for abused/abandoned/neglected children 3. Educational and healthcare and childcare facilities What public services are needed the most? (Percent of respondents to rank each need as “High”) 1. Mental health 2. Abused/abandoned/neglected children 3. Homeless prevention 4. Emergency housing assistance for homeless 5. Neighborhood cleanups What are the greatest infrastructure and neighborhood improvement needs? (Percent of respondents to rank each need as “High”) 1. Clean up of contaminated sites 2. Street improvements 3. Lighting improvements 4. Water/sewer improvements Fair Housing Discrimination x Experienced housing discrimination - 72% No; 19% Yes; Don’t Know 9%. x Where discrimination happened - 50% Apartment complexes; 12% Single family neighborhood x How were you discriminated – 35% Race; 10% Familial status; 10% Source of income x By whom – 67% Landlord; 9% City/County staff; 6% Real Estate Agent; 6% Mortgage Lender Broadband Service ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 17 x Broadband internet problems? 33% Yes; 30% No; 23% Do not know. Common problems include: slow and expensive; spotty WiFi in the County, and there is limited competition. x Do low-and moderate income areas have adequate broadband access? 48% Don’t know; 31% No; 20% Yes. Access to Opportunities (Improvements Needed) x Jobs that pay a living wage x Frequency of public transportation Pop-Up Engagement Activities The engagement program included attending several pop-up events to inform residents of the planning process for the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan and to let them know public meetings were scheduled and the Regional Needs Survey was available. Four pop-up events were held at/on: ¾ Farmers Market, City of Santa Clara, California, October 19, 2019 ¾ Farmers Market, City of Sunnyvale, California October 26, 2019 ¾ Farmers Market, City of Palo Alto, California, November 3, 2019 ¾ Community Center, City of Sunnyvale, California, November 21, 2019 Over 220 residents were polled and were asked, “What is most needed in your community?” x A regional forum on housing x Affordable housing x Development built close to public transportation x Mixed use development along El Camino Real x Work to expand public transit route options x Property maintenance is a problem x Create viable alternative temporary housing options for homeless (e.g., tiny homes) x Control rising rent costs Regional Meetings Notification An informational flyer was prepared for the various regional meetings. The flyer was distributed through City and County websites, email, handouts at area events, and at community centers and libraries. The flyer was prepared in four languages: English, Chinese, Spanish and Vietnamese. See flyers that follow. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 22 APPENDIX Santa Clara County Community Needs Survey October 25, 2019 to December 26, 2019 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 18 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 19 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 20 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 21 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 23 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 24 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 25 Paper Surveys English Spanish Vietnamese Chinese Campbell 4 0 0 0 Cupertino 0 0 0 0 Gilroy 127 224 1 2 Los Altos 3 0 0 0 Los Altos Hills 0 0 0 0 Los Gatos 0 0 0 0 Monte Sereno 0 0 0 0 Morgan Hill 11 14 0 0 Mountain View 6 8 0 0 Palo Alto 2 1 0 0 San Jose 112 16 0 0 City of Santa Clara 18 0 0 2 Saratoga 1 0 0 0 Sunnyvale 1 2 0 0 Unincorporated Santa Clara County 0 0 0 0 Don't Know 0 0 0 0 Total Paper Only 285 265 1 4 Online Surveys English Spanish Vietnamese Chinese Campbell 17 0 0 0 Cupertino 16 1 0 0 Gilroy 156 0 1 0 Los Altos 26 0 0 2 Los Altos Hills 4 0 0 0 Los Gatos 10 0 0 0 Milpitas 0 0 0 0 Monte Sereno 0 0 0 0 Morgan Hill 29 0 0 1 Mountain View 200 14 0 10 Palo Alto 49 0 0 1 San Jose 518 1 2 1 City of Santa Clara 62 0 0 0 Saratoga 9 0 0 0 Sunnyvale 80 4 0 0 Unincorporated Santa Clara County 15 0 0 1 Don’t Know 3 0 0 0 Answered 1194 20 3 16 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 26 Skipped “Lives in” Question 152 6 1 3 Total Online Only 1346 26 4 19 TOTAL ONLINE AND PAPER English Spanish Vietnamese Chinese 1631 291 5 23 TOTAL SURVEYS/ALL LANGUAGES 1950 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 27 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 28 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 29 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 30 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 31 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 32 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 33 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 34 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 35 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 36 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 37 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 38 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 39 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 40 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 41 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 42 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 43 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 44 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 45 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 46 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 47 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 48 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 49 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 50 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 51 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 52 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 53 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 54 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 55 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 56 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 57 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 58 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 59 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 60 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 61 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 62 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 63 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 64 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 65 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 66 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN County of Santa Clara 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan Community Engagement Summary 67 COUNTY STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONS 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan 1.What are the County’s top priorities over the next 5 years? 2. Where are any neighborhood revitalization target areas? 3. What do you feel are the most common or pressing housing problems in the County? 4. What are the ways to overcome these problems? 5. How do you feel local organizations/service providers can better support your priorities? 6. In what ways are low- and moderate-income families vulnerable to crisis situations such as natural disasters? 7. Do you feel there is an issue with broadband access and technical literacy? If not, what support is missing? 8. How do you feel the County should spend their annual CDBG allocation? CDBG funds may be used for: a. Eligible projects are: Community and social services, Economic development assistance; Improvements to public infrastructure and facilities; Affordable housing; Homelessness; Housing rehabilitation. ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN APPENDIX A: PUBLIC COMMENTS ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No. FBN659598 The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: (1)INFINITI OF SAN JOSE,(2)SAN JOSE INFINITI, 2198 Tully Rd. San Jose, CA 95122, Santa Clara County. The business is owned by: a corporation. The name and residence address of the owner(s)/regis- trant(s) is: Capitol Infiniti USA, Inc. 3910 Stevens Creek Blvd. San Jose, CA 95129 The registrant/owner began transacting busi- ness under the fictitious business name(s) listed above on: 08/24/2019 This filing is refile (Change(s) in facts from previous filing) Previous file # FBN658170 I declare that all infor- mation in this state- ment is true and cor- rect. (A registrant who declares as true infor- mation which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) /s/ Pedram Amin, Capitol Infiniti, USA, Inc. President Article/Registration #C4321840. Above enti- ty formed in the State of California. This state- ment was filed with the Co. Clerk-Recorder of Santa Clara Co. on 10/10/2019. Regina Alcomendras, County Clerk Recorder By: /s/ Vee Reed, Deputy File No.: FBN659598 SJMN#6413790 Oct. 22,29, Nov.5,12,2019 FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No. FBN660026 The following person(s) is (are) doing business as:GATE OF HEAVEN CEMETERY,22555 Cristo Rey Drive, Los Altos, CA 94024 Santa Clara Coun- ty. The business is owned by: a corpora- tion. The name and res- idence address of the owner(s)/registrant(s) is: San Jose Catholic Cemeteries, 1150 N. First St., Suite 100, San Jose, CA 95112. The registrant/owner began transacting busi- ness under the fictitious business name(s) listed above on: 07/01/2019 This filing is a first filing I declare that all infor- mation in this state- ment is true and cor- rect. (A registrant who declares as true infor- mation which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) /s/ San Jose Catholic Cemeteries, Brian Mooney, CFO Article/Registration #4282784. Above entity formed in the State of California. This state- ment was filed with the Co. Clerk-Recorder of Santa Clara Co. on 10/24/2019. Regina Alcomendras, County Clerk Recorder By: /s/ Nina Khamphilath Deputy File No.: FBN660026 SJMN # 6417945 Oct. 29, 2019, Nov. 5, 12, 19, 2019 FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No. FBN659372 The following person(s) is (are) doing business as:PRE UNIVERSITY PERCUSSION GROUP, 1591 Carmel Drive, San Jose, CA 95125 Santa Clara County. The business is owned by: a married couple. The name and resi- dence address of the owner(s) /registrant(s) gis: Galen Lemmon, 1591Carmel Drive, San Jose,CA 95125; NoraLemmon, 1591 CarmelDrive, San Jose, CA95125.The registrant/ownerbegan transacting busi-ness under the fictitiousbusiness name(s) listedabove on: 10/02/2019This filing is a first filingI declare that all infor-mation in this state-ment is true and cor-rect. (A registrant whodeclares as true infor-mation which he or sheknows to be false isguilty of a crime.)/s/ Galen LemmonThis statement wasfiled with the Co. Clerk-Recorder of Santa ClaraCo. on 10/02/2019Regina Alcomendras,County Clerk RecorderBy: /s/ Vee ReedDeputyFile No: FBN659372SJMN # 6407437Oct. 8, 15, 22, 29, 2019 FICTITIOUS BUSINESSNAME STATEMENTFile No. FBN659252 The following person(s)is (are) doing businessas:TRANSPARENTBOOKKEEPING & TAXSERVICES,641 KirklandDrive Apt. 1, Sunnyvale,CA 94087 Santa ClaraCounty.The business is ownedby: an individual. Thename and residence ad-dress of the owner(s)/registrant(s) is: GloryRiggins, 641 KirklandDrive, Apt. 1, Sunnyvale,CA 94087.The registrant/ownerbegan transacting busi-ness under the fictitiousbusiness name(s) listedabove on: NAThis filing is a first filingI declare that all infor-mation in this state-ment is true and cor-rect. (A registrant whodeclares as true infor-mation which he or sheknows to be false isguilty of a crime.)/s/ Glory RigginsThis statement wasfiled with the Co. Clerk-Recorder of Santa ClaraCo. on 09/30/2019Regina Alcomendras,County Clerk RecorderBy: /s/ Vee ReedDeputyFile No.: FBN659252SJMN # 6408512Oct. 8, 15, 22, 29, 2019 FICTITIOUS BUSINESSNAME STATEMENTFILE NO. 282762The following person(s)is (are) doing businessas: (1) LAWRENCE FINEARTS (2) LAWRENCEFINE ART SERVICES,231Michelle Court, SouthSan Francisco, CA 94080San Mateo CountyRegistered Owners(s):Art Care International,231 Michelle Court,South San Francisco, CA94080. State of Incorpo-ration /Organization:California.This business is con-ducted by a Corpora-tion. The registrantcommenced to transactbusiness under the ficti-tious business name ornames on March 1, 2005Richard A. Drossler,PresidentTHIS STATEMENT WASFILED WITH MARKCHURCH, ASSESSOR-COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER, SAN MATEOCOUNTY ON Oct. 08,2019SMCT AD #6417423Oct. 29, 2019Nov. 5, 12, 19, 2019 FICTITIOUS BUSINESSNAME STATEMENTFILE NO. 282711The following person(s)is doing business as:JEWEL TIME,1150 El Ca-mino Real #5506, SanBruno, CA 94066 SanMateo County. MailingAddress: 46895 ShaleCommon, Fremont, CA94539. Usman Bhatti,46895 Shale Common,Fremont, CA 94539. Thisbusiness is conductedby an Individual. Theregistrant commencedto transact business un-der the fictitious busi-ness name or names on09/08/11./s/ Usman BhattiTHIS STATEMENT WASFILED WITH MARK CHURCH, ASSESSOR-COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER, SAN MATEOCOUNTY ON Oct. 02,2019.SMCT AD #6408695Oct. 8, 15, 22, 29, 2019 FICTITIOUS BUSINESSNAME STATEMENTFILE NO. 282548The following person(s)is doing business as:PRIMAL REFRESH,512Alameda de las Pulgas,Belmont, CA 94002 SanMateo County. MeghanVidal, 512 Alameda delas Pulgas, Belmont, CA94002. This business isconducted by an Indi-vidual. The registrantcommenced to transactbusiness under the ficti-tious business name ornames on August 13,2019./s/ Meghan VidalTHIS STATEMENT WASFILED WITH MARKCHURCH, ASSESSOR-COUNTY CLERK-RECORDER, SAN MATEOCOUNTY ON Sept. 17,2019SMCT AD #6407472Oct. 8, 15, 22, 29, 2019 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’SSALE T.S. No.: 18-1125Loan No.:******8513APN: 676-18-079NOTE: THERE ISA SUMMARY OF THEINFORMATION IN THISDOCUMENTATTACHED.YOU ARE INDEFAULT UNDER ADEED OF TRUST DATED8/15/2006. UNLESSYOU TAKE ACTION TOPROTECT YOUR PROP-ERTY, IT MAY BE SOLDAT A PUBLIC SALE. IFYOU NEED AN EXPLAN-ATION OF THE NATUREOF THE PROCEEDINGAGAINST YOU, YOUSHOULD CONTACT ALAWYER.A public auc-tion sale to the high-est bidder for cash,cashier’s check drawnon a state or nationalbank, check drawn bya state or federalcredit union, or acheck drawn by astate or federal sav-ings and loan associa-tion, or savings asso-ciation, or savingsbank specified in Sec-tion 5102 of the Finan-cial Code and author-ized to do business inthis state will be heldby the duly appointedtrustee as shown be-low, of all right, title,and interest conveyedto and now held bythe trustee in thehereinafter describedproperty under andpursuant to a Deed ofTrust described be-low. The sale will bemade, but withoutcovenant or warranty,expressed or implied,regarding title, pos-session, or encum-brances, to pay the re-maining principal sumof the note(s) securedby the Deed of Trust,with interest and latecharges thereon, asprovided in thenote(s), advances, un-der the terms of theDeed of Trust, interestthereon, fees, chargesand expenses of theTrustee for the totalamount (at the time ofthe initial publicationof the Notice of Sale)reasonably estimatedto be set forth below.The amount may begreater on the day ofsale.Trustor: JOSE A.CERVANTES, A MAR-RIED MAN, AS HISSOLE AND SEPARATEPROPERTYDuly Ap-pointed Trustee:PRESTIGE DEFAULTSERVICESRecorded8/21/2006 as Instru-ment No. 19067776 inbook , page of Offi-cial Records in the of-fice of the Recorder ofSanta Clara County,California,Date ofSale: 11/13/2019 at10:00 AMPlace ofSale:At the GatedNorth Market Streetentrance of the Supe-rior Courthouse, 191 N.First Street, San Jose,CA 95113Amount ofunpaid balance andother charges:$176,742.84Street Ad-dress or other com-mon designation of re- gal property:2667 TOYLANESAN JOSE Cali-fornia 95121The un-dersigned Trustee dis-claims any liability forany incorrectness ofthe street address orother common desig-nation, if any, shownabove. If no street ad-dress or other com-mon designation isshown, directions tothe location of theproperty may be ob-tained by sending awritten request to thebeneficiary within 10days of the date offirst publication ofthis Notice of Sale.NO-TICE TO POTENTIALBIDDERS: If you areconsidering biddingon this property lien,you should under-stand that there arerisks involved in bid-ding at a trustee auc-tion. You will be bid-ding on a lien, not onthe property itself.Placing the highestbid at a trustee auc-tion does not auto-matically entitle youto free and clear own-ership of the property.You should also beaware that the lien be-ing auctioned off maybe a junior lien. If youare the highest bidderat the auction, you areor may be responsiblefor paying off all lienssenior to the lien be-ing auctioned off, be-fore you can receiveclear title to the prop-erty. You are encour-aged to investigatethe existence, priority,and size of outstand-ing liens that may ex-ist on this property bycontacting the countyrecorder’s office or atitle insurance compa-ny, either of whichmay charge you a feefor this information. Ifyou consult either ofthese resources, youshould be aware thatthe same lender mayhold more than onemortgage or deed oftrust on the property.All checks payable toPrestige Default Serv-ices.NOTICE TO PROP-ERTY OWNER: The saledate shown on thisnotice of sale may bepostponed one ormore times by themortgagee, beneficia-ry, trustee, or a court,pursuant to Section2924g of the CaliforniaCivil Code. The law re-quires that informa-tion about trustee salepostponements bemade available to youand to the public, as acourtesy to those notpresent at the sale. Ifyou wish to learnwhether your saledate has been post-poned, and, if applica-ble, the rescheduledtime and date for thesale of this property,you may call (714) 730-2727 or visit this Inter-net Web site https://www.servicelinkasap.com/default.aspx, us-ing the file number as-signed to this case 18-1125. Informationabout postponementsthat are very short induration or that occurclose in time to thescheduled sale maynot immediately bereflected in the tele-phone information oron the Internet Website. The best way toverify postponementinformation is to at-tend the scheduledsale.Date:10/10/2019PRESTIGEDEFAULTSERVICES1920 OldTustin Ave.Santa Ana,California 92705SaleLine: (714) 730-2727Michelle R.Ghidotti-Gonsalves,PresidentA-470772710/22/2019,10/29/2019, 11/05/2019SJMN#641106410/22/19, 10/29/19,11/5/19 ALL ABOUT AIRHEATING &AIR CONDITIONINGInstall/Service All Brands˜Furnaces˜Air Conditioners˜Wall Heaters˜Duct Repair/ReplaceLicense # 902777510-538-2247866-568-2247We will price matchSEE OUR DISPLAY AD GOSAL HEATING AND AIR COND.Lic#992494We Install & Service˜Furnaces/ac units˜ Heat pumps˜ Wall Furnaces˜ Floor Furnace˜ Duct WorkSenior DiscountsAll major credit cards510-501-5715 CREATIVE ALTERATIONSÇ SEWING ÇÇALTERATIONS Ç ÇDRY CLEANING Ç 1048 Brown Ave. Lafayette Mon-Fri 10am-6pm Saturday 10am-3pm 925-284-5636 BEN THERE REMODELING SM ADDITIONS, baths,kit/Flrs/Windows/DoorsPlumbing & DryrotSheetrock, Texture,Paint, Decks, Tile Install.Free Est. Lic.#769480 Serving South Bay408-687-2280 BATHROOMREMODELINGEXPERTS Free EstimatesSenior/Military Disc.5 Star Yelp! ReviewsADA CompliantLic.#1033643925-665-4200www.americangradeconstruction.com KEVCOTub & TileRefinishingDon’t Replace Your Old Bath Tub..REGLAZE IT! $425.00Standard white tubLimited time offerShower Pans. Sinks.Tiles. Fiberglass.Counter. Color changeFree Est. 925-755-2772Toll Free 1-877-TUBTILELic#723774/Bonded AFFORDABLE CONCRETESTAMPED CONCRETE €DRIVEWAYS€ PATIOS€ BRICK€WALLS€PAVERS€STONE ALL MASONRY WORKRETAINING WALLSFOUNDATIONS#927810. FREE EST.408-509-2395 DECORATIVE CONCRETE WORK,Driveways, Patios,Stamped Concrete, Pavers,and all Masonry WorkWalls, Foundations!Lic. #787540 408-230-5320 ECO GREENCONCRETEFoundations New &Repair, Sidewalks,Patios/Driveways,Stamped ConcreteRetaining WallsLic.#1030814 Fully Insured30 years Experience707-480-8048 SOUTH PACIFIC CONCRETE & LANDSCAPING ALL CONCRETE!Driveways, Patios,Stamp Concrete,Pavers, Brick work,Stone, MasonryWork, Retaining &Block Walls, Drain-age, Hardscaping!Lic # 941776: 510-990-7911 or 714-618-0449 JASONWESTLEYHALL PMA Decks, Fences,Handyman work,and Gate RepairsExcel. Refs. FREE EST 925-594-2344 Bond#RH-20180702-8FDL-4C00-9388- ÇFALL RATESÇ ONE DAY SERVICE! Quality workman-ship!! Popcornremoval! Painting& general repairs.Drywall-repair, walltexturing, waterdamage specialist,plastering. EST.1972! Lic#299573 800-334-4920 NEW REDWOOD FENCINGÇSPRING SPECIALÇ REPAIR/REPLACE SMALL JOBS OK! 25 YRS. EXP!SENIOR/MILITARY DISCOUNT Lic. # 519337408-591-1111 REDWOOD FENCES & RETAINING WALLS ˜ Good Neighbor Style˜ Dog-Ear Style˜ Deer FencingQUALITY WORKFREE EST. Lic#667491925-938-9836Proudly ServingContra Costa County WOOD FLOORING EXPERTS ÈHARDWOODÈREFINISHÈWATER DAMAGEÈREPAIRSÈMAINTENENCEÈRESTAININGLic. # 898719Insured & Bonded FREE ESTIMATES 408-712-3532 GARDEN DESIGN SOD & SPRINKLER INSTALL & REPAIRLAWN AERATIONCLEAN UP/HAULINGAVAILABLE 7 DAYS16 YRS EXP,GOOD RATESCALL TODAYFOR A QUICK RESPONSE #871769 408-763-9053 #1 FULL SERVICEYARD CARESPRINKLER REPAIRS AND HAULING MONTHLY SERVICE AVAILEAST BAY ONLY!#1032757925-381-5842 LATINI LAWN & LANDSCAPEGARDEN & PROJECT SERVICES Sod, Artificial Lawn,Sprnklrs, Planting,Pavers, Concrete, Fence,Maint., Mow + Edge,Cleanups, Aeration! ÇFREE ESTIMATESÇSINCE 1985Lic.# C27-768215(408)593-4652(650)386-5584 GUTTER MAN All types of RainGutters & SeamlessRain Gutters &Down Spouts. Screens & GutterCleaning. Low Rates!Free Est. Lic.#712328 510-703-7923 24/7 HAULING 4 LESS!!925-361-2760NO JUNK LEFT BEHIND! Household, Yard,General Clean-upBEST PRICEGUARANTEED!!! CHEAP HAULING& LIGHT MOVINGin San MateoGarage DebrisYard clean up,yard demolition,call for free estCall for Robbie @ 650-583-67007 days a week.www.sanmateojunkremoval.com DAD & SON’S HAULING SAME DAY SERVICE! 7 DAYS PER WEEK408-849-3134We Do All Loading/LaborBusiness, Homes,Garages,YardsHoarders clean outsShed/Deck/JacuzziREMOVALS! HECTOR’S HAULING GARAGE & YARD CLEAN-UP!! Any Junk, Tree TrimFREE ESTIMATES408-929-0480 INDEPENDENT HAULERS €Since 1988 € •Debris Remvl Svc.•Furn/Appl Remvl.•Lic/Fully Insured 10% off with Ad!•A+ BBB Rating! FREE ESTIMATES 650-341-7482 SAM’S LOW COST HAULING INC.Cutting & YardCleaning• 10%discount Sr. CitFree Estimate#941749, bond/ins510-382-1665 For Immediate Srvc Call: 510-967-8913 CARPENTRY CROWN MOLD LAMINATE FLOORS DOORS 408-892-2691 unlic AMAZON’SLANDSCAPING‚25 YEARS EXP‚Sod, sprinklers,walls, Concrete, irrigation,Tree specialist inremoving, care& planting, heavey equipment Free Est.#769711.925-382-6110 AKIRALANDSCAPE SPECIALIZINGIN TREE CUTTINGArtificial turf, newlawn, cleanup, sprin-kler sys., retainingwalls, patios, etc.510-813-4247510-536-1418 26yrs Exp. #1017840. FLORES RENOVATIONPROPERTIES, LLC. Roof RepairsHandyman+ElectricalCarpentry, Flooring,Drywall/Paint unlic408-722-0514 A1 FULLER’S PAINTING ˜ Painting˜ Decorating˜Home Improvement$300 off int/extany complete jobU FREE ESTTLic#576127/Bonda1fullerspainting@gmail.com510-543-3001 LINSY PAINTING & DECORATING Affordable Quality!35 Yrs Experience!!• Free Estimates!• Low Prices!• Interior & Exterior• Resid & Comml• Bonded & InsuredState Lic#502995 510-237-6872 PAINTING by VERNICK The Neatness Extremist Owner only on jobs!"Call & hire theneatest painter whowill transform yourhomes’ interior intothe beauty that youwill be happy with’’38 years experienceState Lic.#342598510-522-4808 ‚OVER 40 YEARS EXP‚ Exterior StuccoInterior Plastering˜Additions & Patching˜ Color Coats/drywall˜ Lathing/Texturing˜Foundation Work˜Cosmetic Foam TrimNeat, Dependable,ReasonableFATHER-SON BUSINESS925-899-4627 unlic ABC PLUMBING Sewer, Gas, WaterSr, Military discLic’d, Bonded.InsFree Est. #966355408-444-2065 100% ABLE TO DO All Types of Roofing & PatchingSeamless Rain Gutters and DownSpouts, Cleaning.FREE EST. Lic#712328 K-1 PRO GENERAL ROOFING & GUTTER CO. 510-703-7923 MR. DOCTOR LEAK Shake, Tile, Hot Tar,PPO, Metal andShingle Roofs.We will Repair anyleaks on any roof. FREE ESTIMATESUnlic. Call Hector 408-876-9803 Legal Notice Legal Notice Legal Notice Legal Notice Air Conditioning and Heating Alterations,Sewing and Tailoring Bath and KitchenRemodeling Bath Remodeling Bathtub andTile Refinishing Cement andConcrete Cement and Concrete Decks, Fencesand Gazebos Drywall andSheetrock Fencing FloorInstallation and Service Garden and LandscapeDesign GardeningServices Gutters Hauling andCleanup Home Improvement LandscapeDesign LandscapeServices Landscape Services Painting Plastering Plumbing Roofing Your Guide to Home Repair and Other Service Professionals NOTICE TO ALL READERS:California law requires that contractors taking jobs that total $500 or more (labor and/or materials) be licensed by the Contractors State License Board State law also requires that contractors include their license numbers on all advertising. Check your contractor’s status at www.cslb.ca.gov or 800-321-CSLB (2752) Unlicensed persons taking jobs that total less than $500 must state in their advertisements that they are not licensed by the Contractors State License Board. TO PLACE YOUR AD, CALL TOLL FREE: 1-800-595-9595, MON-FRI 8AM-5PM. At Your Service Legal Advertising and Public Notices San Jose Mercury News • Legals@MercuryNews.com San Mateo County Times •Legals@MercuryNews.com Call Hans at 510-953-8909 SUNSHINE KITCHEN & BATH WE DO REMODELS Kitchen, Bath, Tile, Laminated Flooring, Countertops, Electrical, Fireplaces, Windows, Doors, Plumbing & Painting. FREE ESTIMATES Lic. # 1037615 Runa2x2with1x1forNewSpecialRate! Buy2monthsona1x1andgetthe3rdmonthfree! Askaboutourspecialratesfordisplayads! Weofferthefollowingsizes:2x2,4x4,4x8and8x4! This popular feature publishes daily inThe Mercury News & East BayTimes print and online on our newspaper websites. To offer your services, please call ADVERTISEYOUR BUSINESS IN ATYOUR SERVICE 1-800-733-3933 Option #1 (Mon-Fri 8am-5pm) Celebrations! ...with an announcement on the “Celebrations” page in our Sunday Local Section. Forinformation,call 1-800-733-3933 R e c y c l i n g i s l i k e e x e r c i s e – i t m a k e s t h e e n v i r o n m e n t h e a l t h i e r . R e m e m b e r t o r e c y c l e t o d a y ’ s n e w s p a p e r . Lo o k i n g f o r t h e b e s t c o v e r a g e i n t h e l e a g u e ? Ca m I n m a n · D i e t e r K u r t e n b a c h · J e r r y M c D o n a l d Ca t c h t h e m i n y o u r i n b o x b y s u b s c r i b i n g t o Ra i d e r s H Q & 4 9 e r s H Q Vi s i t me r c u r y n e w s . c o m / r a i d e r s - h q me r c u r y n e w s . c o m / 4 9 e r s - h q B8 BAY AREA NEWS GROUP 111 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2019 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN 46 Daily Post Thursday, October 24, 2019 SUDOKU Diffi cultEasy Puzzles on page 45 Amy Knows Palo Alto 2[^[X_6XUVKXZ_9VKIOGROYZ 6GRU'RZU8KGRZUXUL:NK?KGX าے׼䑣+1.650.468.4834 Amy@AmySung.com AmySung.com DRE 01436684 Amy Sung ൯ࡈλ࢕dርࡈλᄆ 2020 - 2025 CONSOLIDATED PLAN NOTICE OF REGIONAL FORUMS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM Please join the County and Cities of Santa Clara for a series of Regional Forums to help identify housing and community LPSURYHPHQWQHHGVRYHUWKHQH[WÀYH\HDUV WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT TO YOU? The County and Cities of Santa Clara receive federal funds to invest in LPSURYLQJORFDOFRPPXQLWLHV+RZVKRXOGWKHVHIXQGVEHVSHQW"<RXULQSXW ZLOOKHOS&LW\DQG&RXQW\OHDGHUVSULRULWL]HVSHQGLQJIRULPSRUWDQWVHUYLFHVDQG FRPPXQLW\LPSURYHPHQWV HOW CAN YOU PARTICIPATE? &RPHWRRQHRIRXULQWHUDFWLYH5HJLRQDO)RUXPV 7DNHRXUVKRUWRQOLQHVXUYH\ (QJOLVKKWWSVZZZVXUYH\PRQNH\FRPU6&&B5(*,21$/6859(< (VSDxROKWWSVHVVXUYH\PRQNH\FRPU6&&B5(*,21$/6859(<B(63$12/ REGIONAL FORUMS The City of Morgan HillZLOOKROGDRegional Meeting on November 4, 2019 IURPSP²SPLQ&RXQFLO&KDPEHUV3HDN$YHQXH0RUJDQ +LOO&$ The City of Palo AltoZLOOKROGDRegional Meeting on November 7, 2019 IURPSPSPLQ&LW\+DOO&RPPXQLW\0HHWLQJ5RRP+DPLOWRQ $YHQXH3DOR$OWR&$ The City of CupertinoZLOOKROGDRegional Meeting on November 12, 2019 IURPSP²SPLQ&RPPXQLW\+DOO7RUUH$YH&XSHUWLQR &$ The City of San Jose ZLOOKROGDRegional Meeting on November 20, 2019 IURPSP²SPLQ&LW\RI6DQ-RVH5RRVHYHOW&RPPXQLW\&HQWHU (6DQWD&ODUD6W6DQ-RVH&$ :HZLOOSURYLGHUHDVRQDEOHDFFRPPRGDWLRQVWRLQFOXGHDOOSDUWLFLSDQWV:H QHHGDWOHDVWWKUHH  EXVLQHVVGD\VWRDFFRPPRGDWHUHTXHVWVIRUODQJXDJH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQWUDQVODWLRQDQGRUGLVDELOLW\UHODWHGDVVLVWDQFH3OHDVHFRQWDFW 6DQWD&ODUD&RXQW\·V2IÀFHRI6XSSRUWLYH+RXVLQJDWGLDQDFDVWLOOR#KKV VFFJRYRUJRU  IRUDVVLVWDQFH Located at the crossroads of Highways 84 and 35 (Skyline) (650)851-0303 - Open Early till Late! Only a 10 minute drive up the hill in Woodside. Experience Alice’s New Dinner Menu from Executive Chef Carlos Olvera Alice’s Restaurant Serving breakfast, lunch & dinner 7 DAYS A WEEK Rigatoni Al Vodka Pork Sausage and Tomato Cream Sauce Only homemade fresh pasta is used Weinstein hit with racketeering claim “Scream” actress Rose McGowan fi led a federal lawsuit yesterday alleg- ing that Harvey Weinstein and two of his former attorneys engaged in rack- eteering to silence her and derail her career before she accused him of rape. The suit fi led in Los Angeles names as defendants Weinstein, attorneys David Boies and Lisa Bloom and their law fi rms, and Black Cube, an Israeli intelligence fi rm hired by Weinstein. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants conspired to defraud, smear and marginalize McGowan as she was preparing to name Weinstein during the run-up to the explosion of the #MeToo movement late in 2017. “Harvey Weinstein was able to per- petrate and cover up decades of vio- lence and control over women because he had a sophisticated team working on his behalf to systematically silence and discredit his victims,” McGowan, 46, said in a statement. “My life was upended by their actions, and I refuse to be intimidated any longer.” DESCHANEL DIVORCING: Film producer Jacob Pechenik has fi led for divorce from “New Girl” star Zooey Deschanel, who is already dating “Property Brothers” star Jonathan Scott, the New York Post reported. Pechenik, 47, and Deschanel, 39, have been married for four years and share a 2-year-old boy and 4-year-old girl. Peche- nik fi led the petition on Tuesday in Los Angeles. They announced last month that they were separating, saying they were “better off as friends, business partners and co-parents.” RIPA’S SON BROKE: Kelly Ripa, who makes $20 million a year as a talk show host, said her 22-year-old son is struggling to make ends meet after moving out of her multimillion-dollar town home in New York City. The 49-year-old “Live With Kelly and Ryan” host and husband Mark Consuelos, 48, are not helping son Michael with his fi nances as he lives in Brooklyn and studies art at New York University. “He hates paying his own rent, and he is chronically poor,” she told Jimmy Kimmel. “I don’t think he ever really experienced … ‘extreme poverty’ like now.” She said he has so little money that he was looking forward to the $20 that his grandparents send him every Halloween. MCGOWAN RIPA DESCHANELPECHENIK CELEBRITY FILE ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Wednesday, February 19, 2020 Daily Post 11 NEWS AN UNWAVERING COMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE IN SERVICE SHELLY POTVIN (650) 303-7501 shelly@serenogroup.com • shellypotvin.com DRE# 01236885 Celebrating 21 years of making dreams happen for my buyers and sellers... while doing what I love. WWW.SERENOGROUP.COM PALO ALTO // LOS ALTOS // LOS GATOS // SANTA CRUZ // APTOS NORTHPOINT LOS GATOS // SARATOGA // WILLOW GLEN 824 Cowan Rd, BURLINGAME www.newenglandlobster.net EATERY (650) 443-1559 MARKET (650) 443-1543 EATERY OPEN: Everyday 11am - 10pm MARKET OPEN: Everyday 9am - 10pmSFO Mil l b r a e A v e Bayshore H w y Rollins Rd Cow a n R d X 101 Lobster Meat Picked Fresh Daily So Fresh It Should Be Slapped! NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD AND 38%/,&+($5,1*6213$/2$/72·6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM This is to notify the general public and other interested parties that a 30-day SXEOLFUHYLHZSHULRGIRUWKH3DOR$OWR·VGUDIW&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW%ORFN*UDQW &RQVROLGDWHG3ODQ$QQXDO$FWLRQ3ODQZLOOEHJLQRQ0DUFK DQGHQGRQ$SULO7KHGUDIW&RQVROLGDWHG3ODQLGHQWLÀHVORFDO FRPPXQLW\GHYHORSPHQWQHHGVDQGVHWVIRUWKDVWUDWHJ\WRDGGUHVVWKRVHQHHGV 7KHGUDIW$QQXDO$FWLRQ3ODQGHVFULEHVWKHDFWLYLWLHVWKH&LW\SODQVWRIXQGXQGHU WKH&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW%ORFN*UDQW &'%* 3URJUDP7KHVH DFWLYLWLHVDUHLQWHQGHGWRPHHW3DOR$OWR·VDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJDQGFRPPXQLW\ GHYHORSPHQWREMHFWLYHVGHVFULEHGLQWKHGUDIW&RQVROLGDWHG3ODQIRUWKHSHULRG  &RSLHVRIWKHGUDIWSODQVZLOOEHDYDLODEOHRQ0DUFKDWWKH'HSDUWPHQWRI 3ODQQLQJ 'HYHORSPHQW6HUYLFHV+DPLOWRQ$YHQXHWK)ORRU3DOR$OWR&$ RQWKH&LW\·VZHEVLWHDWKWWSVZZZFLW\RISDORDOWRRUJJRYGHSWVSOQORQJB UDQJHBSODQQLQJFRPPXQLW\BGHYHORSPHQWBEORFNBJUDQWGHIDXOWDVS 2UE\FDOOLQJ(UXP0DTERRO&'%*6WDII6SHFLDOLVWDW,QWHUHVWHG SDUWLHVDUHHQFRXUDJHGWRVXEPLWZULWWHQFRPPHQWVRQWKHSURSRVHGGUDIW &RQVROLGDWHG3ODQDQG$QQXDO$FWLRQ3ODQGXULQJWKHSXEOLFUHYLHZSHULRG RUWRFRPPHQWDWWKHSXEOLFKHDULQJVDQGPHHWLQJVGHVFULEHGEHORZ PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MEETINGS The City of Palo Alto Human Relations Commission Selection Committee will hold a Public Meeting on March 4, 2020 to review CDBG funding applications submitted for Fiscal Year 2020-2021. 7KH6HOHFWLRQ&RPPLWWHHPHPEHUVZLOO FROOHFWLYHO\UHYLHZGLVFXVVDQGPDNHDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQIRUHDFKDSSOLFDWLRQ7KH 3XEOLF0HHWLQJZLOOEHKHOGIURPDPWRDPLQWKH&RPPXQLW\0HHWLQJ 5RRPVW)ORRU+DPLOWRQ$YHQXH3DOR$OWR&DOLIRUQLD The City of Palo Alto Human Relations Commission (HRC) will hold a Public Hearing on March 12, 2020 to review the proposed CDBG funding allocations recommended by the Selection Committee.7KH+5&ZLOOPDNH UHFRPPHQGDWLRQVWRWKH&LW\RI3DOR$OWR)LQDQFH&RPPLWWHH7KH3XEOLF+HDULQJ ZLOOEHKHOGDWSPRUDVVRRQDVSRVVLEOHWKHUHDIWHULQWKH&RPPXQLW\ 0HHWLQJ5RRPVW)ORRU+DPLOWRQ$YHQXH3DOR$OWR&DOLIRUQLD Upcoming Public Hearings for the CDBG program at meetings of the City of Palo Alto Finance Committee and the Palo Alto City Council will be announced soon. 3HUVRQVZLWKGLVDELOLWLHVZKRUHTXLUHDX[LOLDU\DLGVRUVHUYLFHVLQXVLQJ&LW\IDFLOLWLHV VHUYLFHVRUSURJUDPVRUZKRZRXOGOLNHLQIRUPDWLRQRQWKH&LW\·VFRPSOLDQFH ZLWKWKH$PHULFDQVZLWK'LVDELOLWLHV$FW $'$ RIPD\FRQWDFW ADA Coordinator, City of Palo Alto, 650-329-2550 (Voice) ada@cityofpaloalto.org Bloomberg spent $400M on ad blitz By spending more than $400 million of his own money on ads and largely bypassing his opponents by skipping the early primary states, Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg has rocketed to double-digit support in enough national polls to qualify for to- night’s Nevada debate. But as Bloomberg’s support has ris- en, so has the criticism from his Demo- cratic foes as well as the broader scruti- ny of his past comments and record as New York City mayor. As he faces his rivals onstage for the fi rst time, they’ve made it clear that they’re eager to take him on. Warren takes a shot at him Yesterday, Massachusetts Sen. Eliz- abeth Warren offered a preview of one line of attack the billionaire can expect face to face. “It’s a shame Mike Bloomberg can buy his way into the debate,” she tweet- ed, “but at least now primary voters curious about how each candidate will take on Donald Trump can get a live demonstration of how we each take on an egomaniac billionaire.” It will be the fi rst time he’s debat- ed in over a decade. And it’s the fi rst time in this campaign that Bloomberg will have to answer before a national audience for past racial and sexist com- ments. Mark Green, the former New York City public advocate who ran against Bloomberg for mayor in 2001, says that could be tough. “His insulting, wise-guyish com- ments on race and women and justice will not be easy to parry if the moder- ator or rival frames the questions cor- rectly,” he said. A new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll yesterday showed Bloomberg with 19% support nationally in the Demo- cratic nominating contest. Who else is debating? The former New York City mayor, who launched his presidential campaign in November, will appear in Las Vegas alongside former Vice President Joe Biden, Sens. Warren, Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar and former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Fel- low billionaire and philanthropist Tom Steyer is still hoping to qualify. While Bloomberg is appearing on the debate stage in Nevada, he still is not participating in Saturday’s state caucus. He’s skipping the fi rst four vot- ing states — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — in favor of focusing on the multitude of states that vote March 3, Super Tuesday. To propel him into tonight’s debate ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN 22 Daily Post Saturday, April 25, 2020 SUDOKU DifficultEasy Puzzles on page 21 PROFESSIONAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT - single-family homes - condos & town homes - multi-family residential - retail, office and industrial properties Have a property? LET’S DISCUSS Family-owned and operated since 1987, Davis & Co. Realtors makes it our mission to preserve and enhance the value of your property, maximize your income, and minimize your expenses. www.daviscorealtors.com JOSH DAVIS (650) 338-4230 josh@daviscorealtors.com BRE# 01965341 Optimize Rental Income We Handle Repairs Reduce Vacancies Rent Your Property Faster Let our experts get the most out of your properties earning potential. = SALES & PROPERTY MANAGEMENT = R-10923 FREE BRAKE INSPECTION 15 %From Partsand Labor Must present coupon at write up. Limit one coupon per visit per customer. Not valid with any other coupon service offers. Plus tax and hazardous waste disposal fees where applicable. For Honda vehicles only. Valid only at Anderson Honda. Expires 7/31/2011. If You Need Any Brake Work, Take Off... Make Your Appointment at www.AndersonDirect.com 1766 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.843.6041 EXIT EMBARCADERO ROAD EAST 101 Optional EndorsementMarc Quality123 Satisfaction WayApt. 345Anytown, USA 12345-6789 321419999 PRSRT STDU.S. PoStagePaid MaiLed FRoM ZiP Code 32114 Permit No. 647 Oil & Filter Change Includes Multi-Point Vehicle Inspection.Must present coupon at write up. Limit one coupon per visit per customer. Not valid with any other coupon service offers. Plus tax and hazardous waste disposal fees where applicable. For Hon-da vehicles only. Some models slightly higher. Synthetic oil higher. Valid only at Anderson Honda. Expires 04-30-20. Up to 5 quarts. Some models slightly higher. For 2008 and older models. $3295 Reg. $42.95 POS T SALES: (650) 856-6000 SERVICE: (650) 843-6041 ANDERSON HONDA 1766 Embarcadero Road l Palo Alto, Ca 94303 (650) 843-6041 l www.AndersonHonda.com PARTS & SERVICE HOURS: Monday - Friday l 7:30am-6:00pm Saturday l 8:00am-5:00pm ANDERSON CASH Save on your next service at Anderson Honda’s Service Department Service of $39.99 to $50.00 $15 off Service of $50.01 to $99.99 $30 off Service of $100.01 to $169.99 $50 offService of $250.00 or more For service on Honda models only. Only valid at Anderson Honda. Does not apply with any other coupons or discount. Coupon must be presented at time of write-up. Prices are based on services before taxes. Offer Expires 04-30-20. $POS T POS T POS T POS T Excludes Hybrid & S2000 Honda “If you want to save a lot of money, that’s our business!” $10 off NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD AND PUBLIC HEARINGON THE CITY OF PALO ALTOCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM This is to notify the general public and other interested parties that a 30-day public review period of the Draft 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan and the Draft Annual Action Plan for the allocation of Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, will begin on May 8, 2020 and end on June 8, 2020. The Draft Consolidated Plan is a five-year plan which describes community needs, resources, priorities, and proposed activities to be undertaken under certain HUD programs, including CDBG. The Draft Annual Action Plan describes the specific activities the City may fund under the 2020-2021 CDBG Program. Collectively the activities in the Annual Action Plan are intended to meet Palo Alto’s affordable housing and community development objectives described in the Draft 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan. Copies of the Draft 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan and the Draft Annual Action Plan will be available beginning May 8, 2020 on the City’s website: https://cityofpaloalto. org/gov/depts/pln/long_range_planning/community_development_block_grant/default. asp, and by contacting Erum Maqbool, CDBG Staff Specialist , at (650) 329-2660 or Erum.Maqbool@CityofPaloAlto.org. Interested parties may submit written comments on the Draft Consolidated Plan and the Draft Annual Action Plan during the public review period, as well as comment at the public hearings and meetings described below. Written comments can be emailed to Erum Maqbool, CDBG Staff Specialist, at Erum.Maqbool@ CityofPaloAlto.org PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING The City of Palo Alto Finance Committee will hold a Public Hearing on May 5, 2020 to review the Draft 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan and the proposed Fiscal Year 2020-2021 CDBG funding allocations identified in the Draft Annual Action Plan. Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, issued on March 17, 2020, to prevent the spread of COVID-19, this meeting will be held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. The meeting will be broadcast on Midpen Media Center at https://midpenmedia.org. The agenda and reports will be accessible online by meeting date via this webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/ finance/default.asp. Members of the public who wish to participate by computer or phone can find the instructions at the end of this agenda. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/ filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=60067.06&BlobID=76351 The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations to access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn more about the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), please contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at 650.329.2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@ cityofpaloalto.org. Legal Notices We can handle all your Legal publishing needs Contact Brandon Heinrichs at (650) 328-7700 or email: bheinrichs@padailypost.com CELEBRITY FILEPlayer depicted in ‘Bull Durham’ dies Steve Dalkowski, a hard-throwing, wild left-hander whose minor league career inspired the creation of Nuke LaLoosh, played by Tim Robbins in the movie “Bull Durham,” has died. He was 80.Dalkowski, who died Sunday in New Britain, Conn., in part from COVID-19, never reached the major leagues but he spawned legends that estimated he could throw the ball 110 mph to 125 mph.“Fastest I ever saw,” then-retired Ted Williams said af-ter facing Dalkowski during batting practice at spring training in 1963, according to a first-person story by “Bull Durham” director and writer Ron Shelton.Clyde King, the future big league manager and executive who worked with Dalkowski in the Orioles system, wrote in his 1999 autobiography “A King’s Legacy” that Dalkowski had the best fastball among the thousands of pitchers he saw. But Dalkowski’s location was lack-ing. He averaged 17.6 strikeouts and 18.7 walks per nine innings at Class D Kingsport in 1957, throwing 39 wild pitches in 62 innings as he went 1-8. That Aug. 31, he struck out 24 and walked 17 or 18 in an 8-4 loss to Bluefield, hitting four and throwing six wild pitches. At Class C Stockton in 1960, he struck out 262 and walked 262 in 170 innings. DALKOWSKI LALOOSH ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN CITY OF PALO ALTO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto will hold a Public Hearing at the Council Meeting on Monday, June 15, 2020 at 5:00 p.m., or as near thereafter as possible, via Virtual Teleconference to adopt: the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan, the Annual Action Plan and the associated proposed Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding allocations. A 30-day public review period of the Draft 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan and the Draft Annual Action Plan for the allocation of Fiscal Year 2020-2021 CDBG funds, began on May 8, 2020 and ends on June 8, 2020. The Draft Consolidated Plan is a five-year plan which describes community needs, resources, priorities, and proposed activities to be undertaken under certain HUD programs, including CDBG. The Draft Annual Action Plan describes the specific activities the City may fund under the 2020-2021 CDBG Program. Collectively the activities in the Annual Action Plan are intended to meet Palo Alto’s affordable housing and community development objectives described in the Draft 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan. The electronic copy of the Draft 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan and the Draft Annual Action Plan is available on the City’s website at https://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/long_range_planning/community_development_b lock_grant/default.asp. Written comments can be emailed to Erum Maqbool, CDBG Staff Specialist, at Erum.Maqbool@CityofPaloAlto.org. BETH D. MINOR City Clerk PUBLISH ON: May XX, 2020 ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN APPENDIX B: APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FORMS SF424 & SF424-D ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN APPENDIX C: CERTIFICATIONSATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN APPENDIX D: PUBLIC COMMENTSATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN ATTACHMENT B: DRAFT 2020-25 CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND DRAFT 2020-21 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN Program Categories: 1- Public Services 2- Planning and Administration (20% Cap) 3- Economic Development 4- Housing 5- Public Facilities. Fiscal Year 2020-21 Funds Available for Allocation On February 25, 2020, HUD notified the City of its Fiscal Year 2020-21 CDBG Entitlement amount of $501,355. The total amount available for allocation in Fiscal Year 2020-2021 is outlined in Table 1. Table 1 - Total Amount Available for Allocation in Fiscal Year 2020-21 Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Entitlement Grant $501,355 Reallocated Funds from Previous Years: CDBG Admin FY 2018-19 $ 2,006.46 Catholic Charities FY 2018-19 $ 421.54 YWCA - FY 2018-19 $ 601.99 Project Sentinel FY2018-19 $ 159.76 DTS - FY 2018-19 $ 9,387.65 Minor Home Repair Program FY2017-18 $ 145,529.00 Minor Home Repair Program FY2018-19 $ 47,735.55 Unprogrammed Excess PI FY 2017-18 $ 7,324.86 $213,167 Estimated Program Income from Palo Alto Housing Corporation that is generated from loan repayments and rental income in excess of expenses on specific properties acquired/rehabilitated with CDBG funds $136,049 TOTAL AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION $ 850,571 The United States Congress passed The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (H.R. 748), also known as Stimulus 3 on March 27, 2020. On April 3, 2020, HUD notified the City of its CARES Supplemental Funding. The total amount allocated to the City is outlined in Table 2. Table 2 – FY 2020-21 CDBG CARES Supplemental Funding Fiscal Year 2020-2021 CDBG CARES Grant $294,909 HUD may provide additional funding in future via a new formula to be developed by HUD (prioritizing risk of transmission of coronavirus, number of coronavirus cases compared to the national average, and economic and housing market disruption resulting from coronavirus). Allocations will be made on a rolling basis. ATTACHMENT C: FUNDING CATEGORIES & AVAILABLE FUNDS 1 Spending Caps: Historically, federal regulations limit the amount that can be spent on two of the five categories: Planning and Administration and Public Services. However, the CARES act eliminates the 15% cap placed on the amount of funds a grantee can spend on the public services category only if the services are assisting COVID-19 impacted population, otherwise it remains. The 20% spending cap placed on the Planning and Administration category also remains. Of the $850,571 of CDBG funds available, the total amount proposed to be used for public services and the calculations for funding limitations that is placed on this category is outlined in Table 3. This money is planned for use to support Catholic Charities, Palo Alto Housing, YWCA – for counseling and therapy, Silicon Valley Independent Living Center – for housing assistance to adults with disabilities and LifeMoves - for basic needs day services and case management. Table 3: Maximum Available for Public Services (Entitlement Grant) Fiscal Year 2020-2021 CDBG Entitlement Grant: $501,355 Actual Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Program Income: $68,245 Total $569,600 PUBLIC SERVICE CAP (15% OF $569,600) $ 85,440 The allocation for administrative activities is proposed to be at the maximum spending cap in Fiscal Year 2020-21. No more than 20 percent of the City’s entitlement grant and estimated program income for the following year can be spent on Planning and Administration. For Fiscal Year 2020-21, funds available to allocate for this category are $127,480. This money is planned for use to support the fair housing services program administer by Project Sentinel along with the cost of administering the City’s CDBG program. Summary of the calculation for funding limitations that is placed on the Planning and Administration funding category is outlined in Table 4. Table 4 - Maximum Available for Planning and Administration (Entitlement Grant) Fiscal Year 2020-2021 CDBG Entitlement Grant $501,355 Estimated Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Program Income $136,049 Total $637,404 PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION CAP (20% OF $637,404) $ 127,480 The difference between the funding caps ($ 85,440 + $127,480) and the amount proposed to be allocated ($850,571) during Fiscal Year 2020-2021 yields the amount that can used to fund projects ($637,651) within the other three funding categories: economic development, housing rehabilitation, and public facilities as well as to respond to the COVID-19 emergency. ATTACHMENT C: FUNDING CATEGORIES & AVAILABLE FUNDS 2 HUD allows 20% of the supplemental funding to be allocated to cover administrative costs ($58,981). However, the staff is recommending to allocate the full $294,909 towards activities providing COVID-19 assistance. This money is planned to use for providing rental relief assistance, food aid and COVID-19 testing, the activities mentioned are all eligible costs under CDBG. Table 5 - Maximum Available for Planning and Administration (CDBG CARES Supplemental Funding) COVID-19 Relief Funding $294,909 PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION CAP (20% OF $294,909) $ 58,981 ATTACHMENT C: FUNDING CATEGORIES & AVAILABLE FUNDS 3 ATTACHMENT D – 2020-2025 DRAFT CONSOLIDATED PLAN GOALS 2020-2025 DRAFT CONSOLIDATED PLAN GOALS Goal No. 1: Affordable Housing • Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special needs households. • Goal Outcome Indicator: Rental Units Rehabilitated – 107 units Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated – 40 units Goal No. 2: Homelessness • Support activities to end homelessness. • Goal Outcome Indicator: Public Service Activities for Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 800 persons Goal No. 3: Community Services and Public Improvements • Support activities that provide community services and public improvements to benefit low- income and special needs households. • Goal Outcome Indicator: Public Service Activities Other Than Low/Mod Income Housing Benefit – 1,500 persons Goal No. 4: Fair Housing • Promote fair housing choice. • Goal Outcome Indicator: Public Service Activities Other Than Low/Mod-Income Housing Benefit – 75 persons Goal No. 5: Economic Development • Expand economic opportunities for low-income households. • Goal Outcome Indicator: Jobs Created or Retained – 150 jobs ATTACHMENT E: FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 CDBG RESOLUTION Resolution No. XXXX Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving The Use of Community Development Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 A.On June 15, 2020, the Palo Alto City Council approved and adopted a document entitled “Consolidated Plan” which identified and established the Palo Alto housing and non-housing community development needs, objectives and priorities for the period July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2025. B.The Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Action Plan, the annual funding update to the Consolidated Plan, was subjected to public review and commentary during the period from May 8, 2020 through June 8, 2020. C.The potential uses of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds were evaluated in light of the needs and objectives identified in the Consolidated Plan and reflected in the recommendations and comments of the Human Relations Commission Sub Committee, Finance Committee and other interested citizens. D.Under the CDBG program, the highest priority is given to activities which will benefit persons with low and moderate incomes. E.The City Council and the Finance Committee of the City Council have held publicly noticed public hearings on the proposed uses of the CDBG funds for Fiscal Year 2020-2021. F.CDBG funds allocated to the City for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 are proposed to implement the programs described in this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The uses of CDBG funds for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 are hereby approved and authorized for the following programs: Name of Program Amount 1.Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County – Long Term Care Ombudsman Program. Advocate for the rights of seniors and disabled residents in long term care facilities. $ 9,345 2.LifeMoves – Opportunity Services Center. Provide comprehensive, one-stop, multi-service day drop-in center for critical homeless services. $ 29,932 3.Palo Alto Housing Corporation – SRO Resident Support. Provide in-house SRO Service Coordinator for support counseling, employment assistance and crisis intervention. $ 29,931 Page 1 ATTACHMENT E: FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 CDBG RESOLUTION 4.Silicon Valley Independent Living Center – Housing and Emergency Services. Assist low-income individuals and families in search for affordable, accessible housing. $ 11,232 5.YWCA of Silicon Valley – Domestic Violence Services. Provide crisis intervention, emergency shelter, comprehensive case management, counseling/ therapy, children’s play therapy and legal services $ 5,000 6.Project Sentinel – Fair Housing Services. Provide fair housing services including complaint investigation, counseling, advocacy and community education $ 37,480 7.City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment – CDBG Program Administration. $ 90,000 8.Downtown Streets – Workforce Development Program. Provide comprehensive support services for homeless/ unemployed to secure employment. $236,000 9.Palo Alto Housing – Rehabilitation of Alma Place. Replacement of stair treads in two three-story stairwells & common area flooring. $ 149,950 10. LifeMoves – Rent Relief Assistance. Funds are requested to assist low, very low, and extremely low income persons (per HUD definitions) by providing financial assistance to cover rent. Households will receive direct financial assistance to pay for rent. $294,000 11.Silicon Valley Independent Living Center – Rent Relief Assistance. Funds are requested to address the short- term needs of City of Palo Alto residents at risk of being displaced by rent increases, utility payments, emergency situations, and other market forces due to Covid-19. The target population of the proposed project are the residents with disabilities, veterans and older adults, aged 55 and over. $ 75,000 12.YWCA of Silicon Valley – Rent Relief Assistance. Funds are requested to address the short-term needs of City of Palo Alto residents at risk of being displaced by rent increases, utility payments, emergency situations, and other market forces due to Covid-19. The target population of the proposed project are individuals and families experiencing domestic violence. $ 10,000 Page 2 ATTACHMENT E: FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 CDBG RESOLUTION 13.Downtown Streets – Downtown Food Closet. Hot meals provision and delivery of Pre-packed groceries arranged by Food Closet Volunteers and delivered to doorsteps to meet the need and limit contact. $100,000 14.May View Community Health – COVID-19 Testing.$ 67,610 TOTAL $1,145,480 SECTION 2. The total amount set forth under Section 1 of this resolution represents the proposed allocation of $501,355, in CDBG funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for Fiscal Year 2020-2021, $136,049 in anticipated program income for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 from Palo Alto Housing Corporation, $213,167 in prior year resources (CDBG Admin $2,006.46, Catholic Charities $421.54, YWCA $601.99, Project Sentinel $159.76, Downtown Streets Team $9,387.65, Habitat for Humanity $193,264.55 and $7,324.86 in FY 2018-19 excess program income) and a total of $294,909 CDBG CV (Coronavirus) funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for Fiscal Year 2020-2021. SECTION 3. The City staff is hereby authorized to submit the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 annual Action Plan, update and appropriate application forms to HUD for the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 CDBG funds, and such money shall be spent as set forth in this resolution. The Mayor, City Manager and any other designated City staff or officials are hereby authorized to execute such application forms and any other necessary documents to secure these funds. The City Manager or designee is authorized to sign all necessary grant agreements with the program providers set forth in Section 1. SECTION 4. The funding amounts set forth in Section 1 of this resolution are based on final allocation amounts from the Federal Fiscal Year 2020-21 HUD appropriations; City Staff is authorized to make adjustments increasing or decreasing the funding amounts set forth herein as consistent with the adopted Citizen Participation Plan. SECTION 5. The City Council hereby finds that the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 CDBG program authorized under Section 1 of this resolution is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, the Council further authorizes and directs City staff to prepare certifications that may be required, under CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for each project under the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 CDBG program prior to the release of funds for any such project. // // // // // Page 3 ATTACHMENT E: FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 CDBG RESOLUTION INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Sr. Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Director of Administrative Services CDBG Coordinator Page 4 1 of 1 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: ED SHIKADA, CITY MANAGER DATE: JUNE 15, 2020 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7 – Recommendation on the Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2020-2021 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding Allocation; Recommendation That the City Manager or Designee be Authorized to Execute Necessary Documents for the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 CDGB Application; and to Submit the 2020-2021 Action Plan and the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by the Extended Deadline of August 16, 2020 Staff circulated the Draft ConPlan 2020-25 and Draft Annual Action Plan 2020-21 for public comments May 8 - June 8, 2020. Staff received comments from one local nonprofit during this time. The comments, submitted by LifeMoves, are attached (Attachment A). Below is the summary of the comments provided by LifeMoves: • Instead of the single word “LifeMoves” the name is spelled as “Life Moves” in the draft ConPlan. • LifeMoves provides services to all Santa Clara County residents, not just those from Palo Alto and San Jose as written in the Draft ConPlan. • LifeMoves is one of the agencies that provides HPS (Homelessness Prevention System) services in Santa Clara County, the draft does not speak of LifeMoves. The agency suggested to include reference to LifeMoves. • The number of shelter beds available is not correct. LifeMoves suggested to revise it to reflect the correct numbers. • LifeMoves services that CDBG funds support, should be revised to substitute the word “households” or “individuals” for the term “families.” _______________________ _______________________ Jonathan Lait Ed Shikada Director City Manager Planning & Development Services 7 1 Comments on the Draft Report: City of Palo Alto CDBG 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan 1.Our name is misspelled in ten places throughout the Draft Report (spelled as “Life Moves” instead of the single word “LifeMoves”). Pages where this occurs: 11, 19, 121 (2 places), 122, 123, 127, 132 (2 places), 138. 2.Page 11, 7th paragraph: LifeMoves provides a broad range of services to all Santa Clara County residents, not just those from Palo Alto and San Jose. Within Santa Clara County, we have facilities in Palo Alto, Mountain View and San Jose. Thus, we would propose to revise the language highlighted below: Service providers and organizations that provide services to homeless populations and persons at risk of homelessness were also contacted by the City to attend the Consolidated and Annual Action Plan engagement meetings. This includes Abode Services which administers tenant-based rental assistance; Destination Home, the policy group that works on homeless prevention and strategies to end homelessness; and Life Moves, a shelter and homeless provider in San José and Palo Alto. Destination Home was consulted via a phone interview to obtain feedback on homeless and at-risk population needs. In place of this description of LifeMoves, we propose the following revision: “and LifeMoves, a provider of shelter and supportive services to individuals and families experiencing or at risk of homelessness throughout Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties.” 3.Page 41, 4th paragraph: LifeMoves is one of the agencies that provides HPS services in Santa Clara County, so the draft could be revised to include reference to LifeMoves in this paragraph. See our proposed underlined addition below (typo also highlighted below): HPS includes 13 agencies that offer financial assistance and case management targeted to client’s needs. Case Management services may include working with a Housing Specialist to retain housing or relocation. The County Office of Supportive Housing is the HPS Program Manager. Other partner agencies include: five local victim service providers to assist families fleeing unsafe housing; the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley for eviction prevention services and training HPS staff on referrals to eviction; CalWorks [note: should be: “CalWORKS”] and SSVF provide financial assistance, case management, connections to benefits and job training; the Bill Wilson Center works with school district homeless liaisons and also trains school staff on identifying at risk families to refer to HPS; and LifeMoves provides financial assistance and case management. Attachment A 2 4.Page 68: Information in the bottom section under heading “MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services” is not correct, and it is repeated in the charts on page 79 and 81 (errors explained below). LifeMoves only offers 20 shelter beds in the City of Palo Alto, and no other shelter beds or housing units. 5.Page 79, chart and information at the top of the page: LifeMoves only offers 20 emergency shelter beds in the City of Palo Alto, as part of our “Hotel de Zink” program. We do not operate any permanent supportive housing (PSH) sites or other shelter beds within the City of Palo Alto. Moreover, because the 20 beds we do offer are part of a rotating faith-based program (overnight accommodations are provided in one of 12 churches each month of the year), the City may wish to include a note on this chart, indicating that the 20 shelter beds offered by LifeMoves are not provided at a fixed site or location. 6.Page 81, chart (Table 47): As noted above, LifeMoves only offers 20 shelter beds within the City of Palo Alto (bottom two rows of this chart could be combined to total these 20 beds). We do not manage or operate the 117 units referenced in the first two rows of this table. Some of the PSH units referenced in this chart may now be operated by Abode Services in conjunction with the “Community Working Group” (CWG), but the Abode website reference to the units located at 33 Encina Avenue (in the floors above the LifeMoves Opportunity Services Center) indicates there are only 88 units at that location (see, description at: https://www.abodeservices.org/opportunity-center). 7.Page 122. Item #2 in this chart describes the LifeMoves services that CDBG funds support, but the description in row seven of the left-hand column should be revised to substitute the word “households” or “individuals” for the term “families.” The LifeMoves CDBG grant provides for services to individuals or “households,” not families. This is reflected in the grant metrics, where we have committed to provide services to 36 individuals. Note: We think this change should probably be made to all of the row-7 items in this section. Under HUD and CDBG terminology, a “household” can be, for example, either a single individual, or a family of ten, so a “household” is not always a family. Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: 24CA24E833E8471586DB06D326E6819A Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: At Place Memo for Action Item No. 7 for June 15 Council Source Envelope: Document Pages: 3 Signatures: 2 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Madina Klicheva AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Disabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 Madina.Klicheva@CityofPaloAlto.org IP Address: 24.7.54.36 Record Tracking Status: Original 6/11/2020 9:04:06 AM Holder: Madina Klicheva Madina.Klicheva@CityofPaloAlto.org Location: DocuSign Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Palo Alto Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Jonathan Lait Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org Interim Director Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Uploaded Signature Image Using IP Address: 99.88.42.180 Sent: 6/11/2020 9:05:27 AM Viewed: 6/11/2020 10:14:23 AM Signed: 6/11/2020 10:14:51 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Ed Shikada Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org Ed Shikada, City Manager City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 73.223.182.51 Sent: 6/11/2020 10:14:52 AM Viewed: 6/11/2020 11:27:41 AM Signed: 6/11/2020 11:28:08 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Witness Events Signature Timestamp Notary Events Signature Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 6/11/2020 10:14:52 AM Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Certified Delivered Security Checked 6/11/2020 11:27:41 AM Signing Complete Security Checked 6/11/2020 11:28:08 AM Completed Security Checked 6/11/2020 11:28:08 AM Payment Events Status Timestamps City of Palo Alto (ID # 11256) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/15/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Senate Bill 743 Implementation Title: Adoption of a Resolution Updating the City’s Transportation Analysis Methodology Under CEQA to Comply with California Senate Bill 743 and Adoption of a Local Transportation Impact Analysis Policy to Evaluate Level of Service and Other Local Roadway Impacts From: City Manager Lead Department: Transportation Department Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) designating Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the metric for conducting transportation analyses pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), establishing CEQA thresholds of significance related to VMT, and identifying screening criteria to limit review for projects presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact based on substantial evidence, and 2. Adopt a Local Transportation Impact Analysis Policy (Attachment B) establishing standards for conducting local-level transportation analyses, including Level of Service (LOS) consistent with Comprehensive Plan Program T2.3.1, and addressing identified deficiencies. Summary Based on revisions in State law to implement Senate Bill (SB) 743, public agencies in California are mandated to use vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the metric for CEQA transportation analyses starting July 1, 2020. The City must establish new thresholds of significance for transportation analyses by this date. In addition, the State has mandated that level of service (LOS) may no longer be used as a threshold of significance for performing CEQA transportation analyses. However, LOS may still be used to evaluate the consistency of a proposed project with a local plan or policy. At the Council study session on May 18, 2020, Transportation staff and the City’s consultant, Fehr and Peers, presented materials on the legislative change which included: goals and requirements of the new CEQA statute, technical advice for compliance from OPR, and the City of Palo Alto Page 2 City’s proposed approach to VMT implementation. Staff requested Council discussion on the likely staff recommendation that initial screening criteria and thresholds of significance should parallel the OPR technical advisory document, which can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/OPR-Technical-Advisory. VMT impacts above the adopted thresholds of significance would be considered to be significant environmental impacts under CEQA. Lead agencies are required to identify feasible mitigation measures to avoid or substantially reduce those impacts. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs are a critical component to achieve VMT reduction targets, thus potentially aid in reducing a project’s significant environmental impacts. Staff will bring forward a TDM Ordinance with draft mitigation policies and a menu of mitigation measures in alignment with the new CEQA methodology for Council consideration. While implementation of VMT analysis to replace LOS is required under CEQA, it did not change transportation analyses using LOS as a metric outside of CEQA. As such, the City will retain LOS standards adopted through the Local Transportation Impacts Policy in Attachment B to analyze potential local transportation impacts of projects in Palo Alto. Adoption of the VMT thresholds of significance under CEQA and the Policy is the first in a series of critical actions related to transportation in the coming year. Staff is currently preparing the 2020 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) Update and will return to Council later this year for adoption of that plan. Palo Alto’s goals for greenhouse gas reductions are more aggressive than state goals (as outlined in the adopted S/CAP Framework). Therefore, Council may choose to realign VMT thresholds of significance following completion of the S/CAP Update to better meet reductions targets. Background Pursuant to California Senate Bill (SB) adoptions in 2013 and 2018 (SB 743 and SB 375), the focus of CEQA transportation analyses shifted to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, creation of multimodal transportation networks, and promotion of a mix of land uses that reduces the need to drive. SB 743 required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare amendments to the CEQA guidelines with respect to transportation analyses to use an alternative metric that better balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to GHG emission reduction targets per SB 375. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the State’s current GHG reduction targets at the March 22, 2018 Board Hearing. Subsequently in late 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted OPR’s recommended updates to the CEQA Guidelines. The updated Guidelines became effective on December 28, 2018, which require agencies to use vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the metric for CEQA transportation analyses by July 1, 2020. City of Palo Alto Page 3 The Staff report for the Council study session on May 18, 2020 provides additional background and can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/SB-743-Study-Session. Discussion Consistent with discussions at the Council study session on May 18, 2020, staff recommends that Council adopt the thresholds of significance for VMT that align with the State’s recommendations and the screening criteria for projects that may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact as set forth in the proposed Resolution in Attachment A. Consistent with Comprehensive Plan Program T-2.3.1, staff also recommends Council adoption of the Local Transportation Impacts Analysis Policy in Attachment B. The Policy establishes standards for local-level analysis outside of CEQA, including LOS and Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE). Screening Criteria The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) recommends agencies use screening criteria to identify projects known to reduce VMT or be low VMT generators, and that are thus expected to have a less than significant VMT impact and would exempt such projects from quantitative VMT analyses. The use of screening criteria streamlines project analysis for projects that are already presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT, based on substantial evidence. Comprehensive Plan policies encourage housing development, to protect local-serving retail, and to reduce traffic on the roadway network. Therefore, staff recommends adopting screening criteria so these types of projects that are aligned with City policies do not have to procure costly and redundant transportation analyses that will show they are low-VMT generators under CEQA. If a project meets the screening criteria, a quantitative VMT analysis would not be required; however, the CEQA analysis would still include a qualitative discussion of VMT, discussing the site and its location characteristics. If there was substantial evidence showing that the presumption did not apply for a particular project, a quantitative analysis would be completed. If Council approves the policy in Attachment B, these projects may still be required to analyze their consistency with LOS standards established in the policy. If the project is found to exceed LOS standards established in the policy, conditions of approval may be required for a project to address consistency with the policy. Because of the City’s land uses and job-housing imbalance, instead of recommending OPR’s suggested screening criteria, staff is recommending the following screening criteria based on the City’s development policies. The table below presents a comparison between OPR’s suggested screening criteria and staff recommended screening criteria for Palo Alto. Table 1: Recommended Screening Criteria Land Use/Project Type OPR’s Suggested Screening Criteria Staff Recommended Screening Criteria City of Palo Alto Page 4 Small Developments Projects that generate fewer than 110 trips per day. This may equate to non-residential projects of 10,000 sq. ft., or less and residential projects of 20 units or less. Recommend OPR Criteria Projects in Low-VMT Areas Residential and office projects located in low-VMT areas1 that have similar features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility) as existing developments in these areas. Recommend OPR Criteria Projects in Proximity to Major Transit Stops Projects that are located within a half mile of an existing or planned high-quality transit corridor or major transit stations, and meet the following additional criteria: (1) is high density (minimum floor area ratio of 0.75), (2) does not exceed parking requirements, (3) is consistent with Plan Bay Area 2040 (http://2040.planbayarea.org/), and (4) does not replace affordable units with smaller numbers of moderate- or above moderate-income units. Recommend OPR Criteria Affordable Housing 100% affordable housing projects in infill locations. Recommend OPR Criteria Local-Serving Retail Retail projects of 50,000 sq. ft. or less. Retail projects of 10,000 sq. ft. or less.2 Transportation Projects Roadway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian projects that do not lead to a measurable increase in vehicle travel. Recommend OPR Criteria 1 Residential projects located in areas where baseline VMT is 15% below the existing county average per resident, and office projects located in areas where baseline VMT is 15% below the existing regional average per employee could be considered to be in low-VMT areas and presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. 2 OPR indicates that local-serving retail up to 50,000 sq.ft. may be presumed to create less-than-significant VMT impact. Local-serving retails and lots in Palo Alto are typically smaller. Thus, staff is recommending 10,000 sq.ft. as the City’s local-serving retail screening criteria, which also constitutes a small project that would be screened out under CEQA. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Source: OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, December 2018, and Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030 Thresholds of Significance Individual land use projects that are not screened out will require quantitative VMT analyses, and their VMT must be below pre-determined thresholds to be considered as having a less than significant impact. OPR’s technical advisory document recommends thresholds that vary by project and land use type. The recommended OPR thresholds are based on substantial evidence that aligns CEQA transportation analysis to meet statewide targets for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions. When applying the thresholds, a project’s VMT is compared to a baseline VMT value that is typically either a citywide, countywide, or regional. In the case of the City of Palo Alto, the “county” would be Santa Clara County and the “region” would be the nine-county Bay Area. The baseline thresholds are chosen to be the most environmentally protective and are consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan 2030. State requirements mandate the use of VMT as the metric for CEQA transportation analyses starting July 1, 2020. Therefore, staff recommends that Council adopt the Resolution in Attachment A, which establishes thresholds of significance for VMT that are consistent with OPR’s recommendations. These proposed thresholds are outlined in Table 2 below as well as in Attachment A. Substantial evidence to support the establishment of these thresholds is included in Attachment C. Table 2: Recommended VMT Thresholds of Significance by Project Type 1. Residential Projects – A proposed project exceeding a level of 15% below existing (baseline) County home-based VMT per resident may indicate a significant transportation impact. 2. Office Projects – A proposed project exceeding a level of 15% below existing (baseline) regional home-based work VMT per employee may indicate a significant transportation impact. 3. Retail Projects – A proposed project that results in a net increase in total (boundary) VMT may indicate a significant transportation impact. 4. Mixed-Use Projects – Each component of a proposed mixed-use project should be evaluated independently and apply thresholds of significance for each project type separately (i.e., residential, office, and retail). 5. Other Project Types – The City will either develop an ad hoc (i.e., project-specific) VMT threshold for a unique land use type or apply the most applicable of the above thresholds depending on project characteristics. 6. Redevelopment Projects – Where a proposed project replaces existing VMT-generating land uses, if the replacement leads to a net overall decrease in VMT, the project may cause a less than significant transportation impact. If the redevelopment project leads to a net overall increase in VMT, it may cause a significant transportation impact if proposed new residential, office, or retail land uses would individually exceed their respective thresholds. City of Palo Alto Page 6 The City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) Framework has GHG emission reduction goals that are more aggressive than statewide goals. Therefore, Council may consider refining these thresholds in the future to reflect GHG emissions reductions goals in the S/CAP Update, once it has been adopted. Policy Establishing Local Transportation Standards Consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy T-2.3 and Program T-2.3.1, staff recommends that Council adopt the Policy in Attachment B. This Policy would: 1. Establish standards for local-level analysis of transportation effects separately from CEQA; 2. Require that reviews of development projects continue to analyze LOS and traffic infusion on residential environment (TIRE); and 3. Require disclosure of a development project’s LOS and TIRE effects to enable imposition of conditions of approval addressing effects associated with exceedance of LOS standards or traffic infusion on residential environments. Level of Service The City of Palo Alto currently uses level of service (LOS) as the primary method for analyzing potential CEQA transportation impacts for development projects. While agencies may no longer use LOS for CEQA analysis, the City intends to retain LOS as a metric for analyzing local development projects in conformance with Policy T-2.3 and Program T-2.3.1. Furthermore, Program T-2.3.1 shows the City’s aspiration to explore standards for using multimodal level of service (MMLOS). MMLOS evaluates transportation services of roadways from various user perspectives such as transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Currently, MMLOS is not widely used since built environments differ greatly, and the perspectives of road users are highly subjective. Thus, there is a need for more consistency to establish a credible basis for measuring the effects of multimodal impacts. As such, staff is not recommending at this time to implement a MMLOS standard. More background information on LOS can be found in the Staff Report to Council in September 2016 (CMR #6763; https://tinyurl.com/LOS-Study-Session-2016). The City will continue to follow methods and metrics for analyzing LOS like those set forth in VTA’s Congestion Management Program (CMP) Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines (https://tinyurl.com/VTA-TIA-Guidelines). The CMP LOS standard is E, and submission of a full TIA report is required for all development projects with CMP intersections that are projected to generate 100 or more net new weekday (AM or PM peak hour) or weekend peak hour trips. A list of CMP intersections within Palo Alto is available in Attachment B. While the CMP LOS standard is E, the City’s proposed LOS standard at signalized intersections is D, and submission of a Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) report is required for all development projects that are projected to generate 50 or more net new weekday peak hour City of Palo Alto Page 7 trips (AM or PM peak hour). Additionally, the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) analysis is necessary for all development projects expecting to add 10 or more peak hour vehicles per any direction to a local residential street. The full proposed policy establishing standards for local-level analysis is available in Attachment B. Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) Most Palo Alto streets are bordered by residential uses, and it is the City’s priority to preserve local neighborhood characteristics as described in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The TIRE analysis is used to estimate residential perception of traffic impacts based on anticipated average daily traffic volume growth. The objective of this analysis is to determine if implementation of a project would cause a substantial change in the character of these streets, and to address potential noticeable effects through traffic management strategies. The TIRE analysis methodology assigns a numerical value to “residents’ perception of traffic effects on activities such as walking, bicycling, and maneuvering out of a driveway on local residential streets.” The TIRE index scale ranges from 0 to 5. A TIRE index of 3 and above is perceived as functioning primarily as a traffic-dominant street and exhibiting an impaired residential environment. Therefore, streets with a TIRE index below 3 are better suited for residential activities. Any projected change in the TIRE index of 0.1 or less is considered to have no noticeable effects. A change of 0.1 would be barely noticeable, and a change of 0.2 or greater would be noticeable. A more detailed explanation of the TIRE methodology and TIRE index can be found in the Policy in Attachment B. Transportation Demand Management and Mitigation Measures For a project analyzed under CEQA that yields transportation impacts greater than the City’s adopted thresholds defined in the section above, the project is said to result in significant VMT impact and must identify mitigation measures to avoid or substantially reduce these effects. The City has discretion in selecting VMT mitigation measures. The most common strategies for mitigating VMT impacts include: 1. Change the project land use mix or density, 2. Reduce proposed vehicle parking supply levels, 3. Implement on-site or off-site capital improvements for transit, bicycle, or pedestrian travel, and/or 4. Implement trip reduction programs usually as a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. TDM programs can include several components such as telecommuting, transit subsidies, shuttles, carpool matching, parking cash-out programs, and unbundled parking.3 3 Unbundling parking creates a separation of leasing or purchasing parking spaces from the lease or purchase of the residential or commercial use. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Correspondingly, a local development project not analyzed under CEQA would be required to include remediation measures to substantially reduce potential local transportation effects. Processes and thresholds for evaluating potential local transportation effects are recommended in the proposed policy in Attachment B. As currently mandated in the City’s Municipal Code and further defined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan Program T-1.2.3, a project is subjected to a specific percentage reduction in peak hour vehicle trips using TDM programs if a project: 1. Generates 50 or more net new peak hour trips, or 2. Claims a reduction in net new trips due to proximity to public transit, or 3. Requests a parking reduction. After adoption of changes in the City’s processes to comply with SB 743 and transportation analysis methodology for local development projects, staff will return to Council with a TDM Ordinance. The ordinance will include a menu of mitigation measures designed to effectively reduce VMT impacts for CEQA projects. Additionally, it will incorporate a monitoring structure to ensure TDM plans for local development projects are compliant with City plans and policies. Per Comprehensive Plan Program T.1.2.3, the TDM Ordinance will also require new projects citywide to reduce the number of peak hour vehicle trips by 20% to 45% depending on the location in the City. Policy Implications The City’s Comprehensive Plan 2030, adopted in December 2017, already acknowledged and incorporated the regulatory changes mandated by SB 743. While the Comprehensive Plan noted that VMT would be used as the metric for analyzing potential transportation impacts under CEQA, the Plan directed adoption of LOS standards to analyze the potential for local-level project consistency. This item supports the following Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and programs: GOAL T-1: Create a sustainable transportation system, complemented by a mix of land uses, that emphasizes walking, bicycling, use of public transportation and other methods to reduce GHG emissions and the use of single-occupancy motor vehicles. Policy T-1.3: Reduce GHG and pollutant emissions associated with transportation by reducing VMT and per-mile emissions through increasing transit options, supporting biking and walking, and the use of zero-emission vehicle technologies to meet City and State goals for GHG reductions by 2030. GOAL T-2: Decrease delay, congestion and VMT with a priority on our worst intersections and our peak commute times, including school traffic. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Policy T-2.3: Use motor vehicle LOS at signalized intersections to evaluate the potential impact of proposed projects, including contributions to cumulative congestion. Use signal warrants and other metrics to evaluate impacts at unsignalized intersections. Program T2.3.1: When adopting new CEQA significance thresholds for VMT for compliance with SB 743 (2013), adopt standards for vehicular LOS analysis for use in evaluating the consistency of a proposed project with the Comprehensive Plan, and also explore desired standards for MMLOS, which includes motor vehicle LOS, at signalized intersections. GOAL T-3: Maintain an efficient roadway network for all users. Policy T-3.3: Avoid major increases in single-occupant vehicle capacity when constructing or modifying roadways unless needed to remedy severe congestion or critical neighborhood traffic problems. Where capacity is increased, balance the needs of motor vehicles with pedestrians and bicyclists. Policy L-1.9: Participate in regional strategies to address the interaction of jobs, housing balance and transportation issues. Policy L-2.3: As a key component of a diverse, inclusive community, allow and encourage a mix of housing types and sizes, integrated into neighborhoods and designed for greater affordability, particularly smaller housing types, such as studios, co-housing, cottages, clustered housing, accessory dwelling units and senior housing. Policy L-2.4: Use a variety of strategies to stimulate housing, near retail, employment, and transit, in a way that connects to and enhances existing neighborhoods. Program L2.4.7: Explore mechanisms for increasing multi-family housing density near multimodal transit centers. Policy L-2.5: Support the creation of affordable housing units for middle to lower income level earners, such as City and school district employees, as feasible. Policy L-4.2: Preserve ground-floor retail, limit the displacement of existing retail from neighborhood centers and explore opportunities to expand retail. Policy L-4.5: Support local-serving retail, recognizing that it provides opportunities for local employment, reduced commute times, stronger community connections and neighborhood orientation. Program L4.5.1: Revise zoning and other regulations as needed to encourage the preservation of space to accommodate small businesses, start-ups and other services. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Resource Impact This work to develop VMT methodology, thresholds, and mitigation measures to implement SB 743 is funded through the current S/CAP consultant contract with AECOM (Fehr & Peers is a subconsultant to AECOM). Implementation of SB 743 and new CEQA Guidelines would involve the use of the VTA VMT Estimation Tool and staff training. Along with other jurisdictions in Santa Clara County, the City paid additional Congestion Management Program (CMP) dues to VTA in Fiscal Year 2020 (FY20). The dues supported development of the estimation tool. Training costs would be absorbed by the Office of Transportation and Planning and Development Services Department. The cost of performing VMT and other environmental analysis under CEQA for private development projects would be billed to applicants in accordance with the City’s standard application review cost recovery process. Timeline Staff will return to Council with a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance and mitigation measures in the fall. Following the S/CAP Update adoption, staff will return to Council for direction on whether to adjust CEQA thresholds of significance to align with S/CAP policies. Environmental Review The adoption of a Level of Service (LOS) policy, new transportation screening criteria and reduction thresholds of significance under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 does not require environmental review. This activity is not a project pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(3) and 15378. The establishment and implementation of a VMT threshold is a state-mandated requirement under SB 743 and Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines. Attachments: • Attachment A: Resolution Adopting VMT CEQA Transportation Threshold of Significance • Attachment B: City of Palo Alto Local Transportation Impact Analysis Policy • Attachment C: SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto White Paper * NOT YET ADOPTED * 1 2020060301 Resolution No. ___ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Thresholds of Significance for Transportation Impacts in Compliance with SB 743 R E C I T A L S A. Senate Bill (SB) 743, signed into law in 2013 by Governor Edmund G. Brown, directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop updated criteria for measuring transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) using alternative metrics that promote a reduction in greenhouse gases, the development of multimodal transportation, and a diversity of land uses, all towards achieving the State’s climate action goals. B. OPR prepared proposed updates to the CEQA Guidelines and a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts using vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the metric to evaluate the transportation impacts of a project under CEQA. OPR’s CEQA Guidelines update was approved by the California Natural Resources Agency in November 2018 and the Governor’s Office of Administrative Law on December 28, 2018. C. Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines, added as part of the 2018 update, identifies VMT as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts under CEQA, and states that a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact. Lead agencies are required to begin using the VMT metric by July 1, 2020. D. The mandate on lead agencies in Section 15064.3 requires the City to update its CEQA transportation thresholds of significance. E. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(b) allows lead agencies to adopt thresholds of significance for the lead agency’s general use in its environmental review process. F. On May 18, 2020, the Council held a study session to review the State requirements for the evaluation of projects for transportation impacts and to review the recommendations of staff and the City’s consultant Fehr & Peers regarding the revised CEQA thresholds. The Council discussed potential thresholds, screening criteria, and other matters related to the transition to use of the VMT metric for CEQA purposes, as well as the anticipated use of level of service (LOS) analysis for local transportation analysis separate from CEQA. G. On June 15, 2020, the Council held a further public hearing on the proposed VMT thresholds of significance. H. Notice of the project and public hearings was posted on the City’s website for both Council meetings. Evidence, both oral and written, was presented at the public hearings. * NOT YET ADOPTED * 2 2020060301 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The Council finds and determines, based upon staff and consultant reports and research as well as testimony in the record, that the revised CEQA thresholds of significance under consideration are consistent with State requirements as to how transportation impacts should be evaluated for purposes of CEQA review of projects. The revised thresholds are based upon the VMT metric that is specifically required in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. Additionally, the City is setting the new CEQA thresholds at a level and in a manner consistent with and based upon review of OPR guidance. SECTION 2. The adoption of new CEQA thresholds of significance for transportation impacts is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the new CEQA thresholds of significance for transportation impacts are consistent with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and Transportation Element goals and policies as follows: i. GOAL T-1: Create a sustainable transportation system, complemented by a mix of land uses, that emphasizes walking, bicycling, use of public transportation and other methods to reduce GHG emissions and the use of single-occupancy motor vehicles. ii. Policy T-1.3: Reduce GHG and pollutant emissions associated with transportation by reducing VMT and per-mile emissions through increasing transit options, supporting biking and walking, and the use of zero-emission vehicle technologies to meet City and State goals for GHG reductions by 2030. iii. GOAL T-2: Decrease delay, congestion and VMT with a priority on our worst intersections and our peak commute times, including school traffic. iv. Policy T-2.3: Use motor vehicle LOS at signalized intersections to evaluate the potential impact of proposed projects, including contributions to cumulative congestion. Use signal warrants and other metrics to evaluate impacts at unsignalized intersections. v. Program T2.3.1: When adopting new CEQA significance thresholds for VMT for compliance with SB 743 (2013), adopt standards for vehicular LOS analysis for use in evaluating the consistency of a proposed project with the Comprehensive Plan, and also explore desired standards for MMLOS, which includes motor vehicle LOS, at signalized intersections. vi. GOAL T-3: Maintain an efficient roadway network for all users. * NOT YET ADOPTED * 3 2020060301 vii. Policy T-3.3: Avoid major increases in single-occupant vehicle capacity when constructing or modifying roadways unless needed to remedy severe congestion or critical neighborhood traffic problems. Where capacity is increased, balance the needs of motor vehicles with pedestrians and bicyclists. viii. Policy L-1.9: Participate in regional strategies to address the interaction of jobs, housing balance and transportation issues. ix. Policy L-2.3: As a key component of a diverse, inclusive community, allow and encourage a mix of housing types and sizes, integrated into neighborhoods and designed for greater affordability, particularly smaller housing types, such as studios, co-housing, cottages, clustered housing, accessory dwelling units and senior housing. x. Policy L-2.4: Use a variety of strategies to stimulate housing, near retail, employment, and transit, in a way that connects to and enhances existing neighborhoods. xi. Program L2.4.7: Explore mechanisms for increasing multi-family housing density near multimodal transit centers. xii. Policy L-2.5: Support the creation of affordable housing units for middle to lower income level earners, such as City and school district employees, as feasible. xiii. Policy L-4.2: Preserve ground-floor retail, limit the displacement of existing retail from neighborhood centers and explore opportunities to expand retail. xiv. Policy L-4.5: Support local-serving retail, recognizing that it provides opportunities for local employment, reduced commute times, stronger community connections and neighborhood orientation. xv. Program L4.5.1: Revise zoning and other regulations as needed to encourage the preservation of space to accommodate small businesses, start-ups and other services. SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing, the Council hereby adopts the revised CEQA Thresholds of Significance for Transportation Impacts and Screening Criteria for the City of Palo Alto, attached hereto as Exhibit A. // // // * NOT YET ADOPTED * 4 2020060301 SECTION 4. This project is categorically exempt in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Actions by a Regulatory Agency for Protection of the Environment). The revised CEQA thresholds comply with a State mandate (SB 743) and will be used in a regulatory process that involves procedures for the protection of the environment. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Chief Transportation Official * NOT YET ADOPTED * 5 2020060301 EXHIBIT A City of Palo Alto California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Thresholds of Significance for Transportation Impacts Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, the City of Palo Alto has adopted the thresholds of significance set forth in Table 1 to guide in determining when a project will have a significant transportation impact. Table 1: VMT Thresholds of Significance by Project Type Land Use/Project Type Threshold of Significance Residential Projects A proposed project exceeding a level of 15% below existing (baseline) County home-based VMT per resident may indicate a significant transportation impact. Office Projects A proposed project exceeding a level of 15% below existing (baseline) regional home-based work VMT per employee may indicate a significant transportation impact. Retail Projects A proposed project that results in a net increase in total (boundary) VMT may indicate a significant transportation impact. Mixed-Use Projects Each component of a proposed mixed-use project should be evaluated independently and apply thresholds of significance for each project type separately (i.e., residential, office, and retail). Other Project Types The City will either develop an ad hoc (i.e., project-specific) VMT threshold for a unique land use type or apply the most applicable of the above thresholds depending on project characteristics. Redevelopment Projects Where a proposed project replaces existing VMT-generating land uses, if the replacement leads to a net overall decrease in VMT, the project may cause a less than significant transportation impact. If the redevelopment project leads to a net overall increase in VMT, it may cause a significant transportation impact if proposed new residential, office, or retail land uses would individually exceed their respective thresholds. Certain projects may qualify for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) screening based on the criteria presented in Table 2. Projects screened from requiring a VMT analysis would not have an impact under State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 // // // // // * NOT YET ADOPTED * 6 2020060301 Table 2: Screening Criteria Land Use/Project Type Screening Criteria Small Developments Projects that generate fewer than 110 trips per day. This may equate to non-residential projects of 10,000 sq. ft., or less and residential projects of 20 units or less. Projects in Low-VMT Areas Residential and office projects located in low-VMT areas1 that have similar features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility) as existing developments in these areas. Projects in Proximity to Major Transit Stops Projects that are located within a half mile of an existing or planned high-quality transit corridor or major transit stations, and meet the following additional criteria: (1) is high density (minimum floor area ratio of 0.75), (2) does not exceed parking requirements, (3) is consistent with Plan Bay Area 2040 (http://2040.planbayarea.org/), and (4) does not replace affordable units with smaller numbers of moderate- or above moderate-income units. Affordable Housing 100% affordable housing projects in infill locations. Local-Serving Retail Retail projects of 10,000 sq. ft. or less.1 Transportation Projects Roadway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian projects that do not lead to a measurable increase in vehicle travel. 1 Residential projects located in areas where baseline VMT is 15% below the existing county average per resident, and office projects located in areas where baseline VMT is 15% below the existing regional average per employee could be considered to be in low-VMT areas and presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. 1 2020052801 CITY OF PALO ALTO LOCAL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS POLICY Senate Bill (SB) 743, adopted in 2013, required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare amendments to the CEQA Guidelines with respect to the analysis of potential transportation effects to provide an alternative metric to traffic congestion and delay at intersections (often referred to as Level of Service (LOS)). After five years of analysis and outreach, in December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency approved OPR’s proposed amendments to the CEQA Guidelines requiring agencies to use vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by a project as the metric for transportation impact analyses under CEQA effective July 1, 2020. Under SB 743 and the revised CEQA Guidelines, LOS may no longer be used to determine whether a project may have a significant environmental impact to transportation and traffic under CEQA. While statewide implementation of VMT analysis to replace LOS analysis is required under CEQA, SB 743 did not require changes to transportation analyses outside of CEQA, including the evaluation of regionally significant intersections under the Congestion Management Program (CMP) under a separate state law. Nor did SB 743 affect the discretion of public agencies to assess impacts on local streets and intersections for compliance with adopted plans and policies. As such, in conformance with Policy T-2.3 and Program T-2.3.1 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan 2030,1 LOS standards are adopted through this policy to analyze potential local transportation impacts of projects in Palo Alto. I. Purpose The purpose of this Policy is to ensure consistency in reviewing and identifying transportation effects of proposed development projects for local intersections and facilities and to determine standards for necessary remediation measures. 1 Comprehensive Plan Policy T-2.3: Use motor vehicle LOS at signalized intersections to evaluate the potential impact of proposed projects, including contributions to cumulative congestion. Use signal warrants and other metrics to evaluate impacts at unsignalized intersections. Program T-2.3.1: When adopting new CEQA significance thresholds for VMT for compliance with SB 743 (2013), adopt standards for vehicular LOS analysis for use in evaluating the consistency of a proposed project with the Comprehensive Plan, and also explore desired standards for MMLOS, which includes motor vehicle LOS, at signalized intersections. Policy T-2.4: Consistent with the principles of Complete Streets adopted by the City, work to achieve and maintain acceptable levels of service for transit vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians and automobiles on roads in Palo Alto, while maintaining the ability to customize to the Palo Alto context. Policy T-3.3: Avoid major increases in single-occupant vehicle capacity when constructing or modifying roadways unless needed to remedy severe congestion or critical neighborhood traffic problems. Where capacity is increased, balance the needs of motor vehicles with those of pedestrians and bicyclists 2 2020052801 II. Level of Service (LOS) Analysis LOS is the measurement of delay at intersections used to determine whether a project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and this Policy LOS is based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology where a letter grade is assigned to an intersection operation based on the amount of delay motorists experience in traveling through the intersection. Table 1 below shows the comparison in LOS depending on whether the intersection is signalized or not. Table 1: Level of Service Delay – Signalized vs. Non-Signalized Intersections Level of Service Grade Description Signalized Average Delay (Sec) Unsignalized Average Delay (Sec) A Signal Progression is extremely favorable. Little or no traffic delay. 10.0 or less 10.0 or less B Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. Short traffic delays. 10.1 to 20.0 10.1 to 15.0 C Higher delays may result from fair signal progression. Average traffic delays. 20.1 to 35.0 15.1 to 25.0 D Congestion becomes noticeable. Long traffic delays. 35.1 to 55.0 25.1 to 35.0 E Considered the limit of acceptable delay. 55.1 to 80.0 35.1 to 50.0 F Level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. Extreme traffic delays. Greater than 80.0 Greater than 50.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2010 III. Standards for Determining Transportation Analysis 1. Within the CMP System Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) reports vary in scope depending on the use of the report and size of the project. Under the purview of the California Congestion Management Program (CMP) Statute, Palo Alto must follow the methodologies presented in the VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for intersections within the CMP system, to evaluate transportation effects and submit a full TIA report of all development projects that are expected to generate 100 or more net new weekday (AM or PM peak hour) or weekend peak hour trips, including both inbound and outbound trips. 3 2020052801 CMP intersections within Palo Alto are listed below. A map of all CMP intersections can be found in Attachment A. i. Middlefield Rd./Oregon Exp. ii. Middlefield Rd./San Antonio Rd. iii. El Camino Real/University Ave./Palm Dr. iv. El Camino Real/ Sand Hill Rd./Palo Alto Ave. v. El Camino Real/Embarcadero Rd. vi. El Camino Real/Page Mill Rd. vii. El Camino Real/Arastradero Rd./Charleston Rd. viii. Foothill Exp./Junipero Serra Blvd./Page Mill Rd. ix. Foothill Exp./Arastradero Rd. x. San Antonio Rd./Charleston Rd. 2. Outside the CMP System The City requires a Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) report for any project that is expected to generate 50 or more net new weekday (AM or PM peak hour) trips, including both inbound and outbound trips, prior to any reductions assumed for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures. The City may also require a LTA if in its reasonable judgement a project will potentially cause a deficiency in the operation of local intersections. A LTA report must include the following: i. Project description; ii. Existing conditions; iii. Site access and circulation; iv. Vehicle trip generation (weekday AM and PM peak); v. Vehicle trip distribution; and vi. Remediation measures (if proposed) Depending on the size and layout of the project, additional elements listed below may be required by the City to include in the LTA report. i. Traffic Infusion on Residential Environments (TIRE) Analysis is an analysis of new potential traffic disturbances along a local residential streets created by a project as described in the Attachment B. When a proposed development project is expected to add 10 or more peak hour vehicles per any direction to a local residential street that is not on a project’s direct route to collector or arterial streets, the project is required to submit a TIRE analysis. ii. Queuing Analysis that identifies queues spilling beyond their current storage bays. Improvements may include lengthening storage bays to meet projected demand or roadway capacity improvements to add additional turn pockets at 4 2020052801 an intersection. The City typically takes the lead in identifying potential capacity improvements to help facilities site design. iii. Transit Analysis for projects located along a key transit route, such as El Camino Real, a focused analysis in partnership with the VTA or other transit operators is provided to determine if off-site improvement of a project should consider additional parking stop improvements such as shelters or bus duck- outs. iv. Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation Study is an analysis of how the site operations may affect bicycle and pedestrian operations. Where appropriate, if a project is located along a major bicycle route in the City’s Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan, the project may be required to help implement a portion of the recommended facility. Additional improvements may include limiting driveway curb-cuts to minimize conflicts with pedestrians or provision of enhanced crosswalk facilities. v. Parking Analysis is a study to determine location, use, and adequacy of the proposed parking facility. Projects should include a parking analysis under the following conditions: a. Change in the facilities’ existing design or supply; or b. Change in the existing parking management; or c. Propose parking less than that required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.52 (https://tinyurl.com/PA-Municipal-Code); or d. Use of parking adjustments by the Director as defined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.52 (https://tinyurl.com/PA-Municipal-Code). When a proposed project requests a parking reduction or exception as allowed under the Municipal Code, a robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan is typically required independent of the LTA. For projects in a Parking Assessment District, required payment of assessments to the District will be noted in the LTA report and included in the project’s conditions of approval. A project will provide an analysis of one or more of the above elements if the project is expected to substantially affect the identified local facilities, even if the anticipated number of new vehicle trips would not require a LOS analysis. 5 2020052801 IV. Local Transportation Impacts – Standards for Determining Transportation Consistency 1. Level of Service Standard The City of Palo Alto’s Level of Service (LOS) standard is D, which is more conservative than the CMP LOS standard of E. If the LTA shows that a development project is anticipated to cause a transportation facility (intersection or roadway) to degrade below LOS D to LOS E or F, then the project will be deemed inconsistent with this Policy. For a transportation facility determined to have been at LOS E or F under existing and background conditions without the project, a project is said to have significant local impact if the LTA shows that the project will cause LOS to deteriorate by the following amounts: i. Addition of project traffic increases the average delay for critical movements by four or more seconds; or ii. Addition of project traffic increases the critical Volume/Capacity (V/C) value by 0.01 or more; or iii. Affects a freeway segment or ramp to operate at LOS F or project traffic increases freeway capacity by one or more percent. 2. Selection of Study Intersections or Roadways An intersection should be included in the LTA if it meets any one of the following conditions: i. Proposed development project is expected to add 10 or more peak hour vehicles per any lane to any intersection movement; or ii. The intersection is adjacent to the project; or iii. Based on engineering judgement, City staff determines that the intersection should be included in the analysis. Additionally, a roadway segment should be included in the LTA with a TIRE analysis if a proposed development project is expected to add 10 or more peak hour vehicles per any direction to a local residential street. More details on the TIRE analysis are available in Attachment B. 6 2020052801 3. CMP Intersection Standard A CMP intersection must adhere to the standards set by the Congestion Management Agency2 (currently LOS E), as set forth in the VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. The City’s standard of LOS D would apply for determining local level impacts.. Any transportation impact triggered by VTA’s standard for CMP intersections would need to be addressed following guidelines established by VTA. More information regarding mitigation measures and Multimodal Improvement Plans (MIP) are available in the VTA Guidelines for TIAs and Deficiency Plans. 4. Auto Level of Service Analysis at Unsignalized Intersections For all-way stop control, the LOS is based on the average delay. For 1- or 2-way stop control, the LOS should be based on the critical approach movement. The above standards for determining transportation consistency remain appropriate only if traffic volumes satisfy the peak hour traffic signal warrant. Meeting a peak hour traffic signal warrant does not automatically make a traffic signal an appropriate remediation measure. 5. Other Transportation Impacts Depending on the size and layout of the project, a LTA may require analysis to evaluate other project-related effects on the transportation system. The following is a list of elements that are considered to have project-related local impacts: i. Result in noticeable traffic effects on local residential streets defined as an increase of 0.1 or more using the TIRE methodology. ii. Impede the development or function of existing or planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities. iii. Increase demand for pedestrian or bicycle facilities that cannot be met by existing or planned facilities. iv. Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of increased traffic congestion. v. Create demand for transit services that cannot be met by current or planned services. vi. Create the potential demand for cut-through traffic or redistribution of traffic to use local residential streets, based on the TIRE methodology described above. vii. Create an operational safety hazard. viii. Result in inadequate emergency access. 2 The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Santa Clara County. 7 2020052801 V. Remediation Measures All Local Transportation Impacts under Section VI of this Policy must be addressed through the project’s adoption or use of appropriate local remediation measures, including funding their associated costs. The LTA must include proposed remediation measures and identify any potential impacts of such measures. Remediation measures shall reduce the project-related local impacts to a level without the proposed project, and should not themselves create potentially significant CEQA impacts. These remediation measures will be incorporated in the project conditions of approval and not as part of the CEQA analysis. The following is a list of potential remediation methods in priority order: 1. Projects and programs that reduce a project’s vehicle trip generation, including, but not limited to Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs, capital improvements to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facility enhancements within an influential project area.3 The following is a non-exhaustive list of potential remediation methods: i. Provide new or upgrade existing access to, from, and through the project for pedestrians and bicyclists. ii. Provide improvements to transit facilities or services. iii. Implement TDM programs such as flexible at-place working hours, telecommuting, carpools, shuttles, transit passes, parking cash-out, among others. 2. Multimodal operational or facility improvements including intersection operational efficiency treatments. Proposed improvements or treatments with geometric changes to an intersection are limited to features that would not likely lead to substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel. 3. If project impacts cannot be remediated through methods 1 and 2 above, a fair share of the cost for multimodal network remediation shall be contributed to the City’s transportation improvement funds. While the remediation measures in method 1, above, should be proposed within an influential project area, methods 2 and 3 may apply outside the area. However, these proposed improvements should substantially contribute to the City’s Comprehensive Plan goals in expanding the City’s multimodal transportation system. By implementing or funding these types of improvements, the project would therefore be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and this Policy. 3 Area of influence of a project is defined as up to half-mile for pedestrian facilities and up to three miles for bicycle facilities, or bicycle facilities that provide a connection to the local or regional bicycle network. 8 2020052801 Unacceptable Measures In addition, remediation measures that will result in a physical reduction in the capacity and/or deterioration in the quality of any existing or planned transportation facilities are unacceptable. The following is a list of remediation methods that would be considered generally unacceptable without special justification, but are not limited to: 1. Roadway widening not directly related to site access and circulation, or specific conditions that reduce local impacts as a result of the project. 2. Negatively affecting a sidewalk or reducing the width of a sidewalk without substantial improvement to the overall pedestrian circulation. 3. Maintaining an existing sidewalk in the immediate vicinity that is below the current city standard. 4. Negatively affecting existing bicycle infrastructure or reducing the length of a bicycle infrastructure. 5. Maintaining existing bicycle infrastructure that is below the current city standard. 6. Eliminating a bus stop without adequate replacement or improvement to the system. 7. Encouraging neighborhood cut-through traffic (intrusion effects along local residential streets). VI. Authority to Adopt Guidelines The Chief Transportation Official is authorized to adopt guidelines to implement this Policy. 9 2020052801 ATTACHMENT A CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM INTERSECTIONS Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Congestion Management Program Document 2017 10 2020052801 ATTACHMENT B CITY OF PALO ALTO – TRAFFIC INFUSION ON RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTS (TIRE) ANALYSIS Excessive vehicular speed and traffic volume on residential streets pose a major threat to quality of life. Most Palo Alto streets are bordered by residential uses, and it is the City’s priority to preserve local neighborhood characteristics. Additionally, the City has designated some streets as residential arterials to recognize that they carry large traffic volumes of through-traffic but also have residential uses on both sides of the streets. The objective of this analysis is to address the desires of residents of these streets who prefer slower vehicular speeds and to determine if implementation of a project would cause a substantial change in the character of these streets. The City of Palo Alto uses the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environments (TIRE) methodology to estimate residential perception of traffic effects based on anticipated average daily traffic growth. Although not required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or pursuant to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) guidelines, this methodology intends to determine new potential traffic disturbances – cut-through traffic (intrusion effects) and direct traffic (infusion effects) – along local residential streets due to a proposed development project. For projects on a local residential street, new traffic disturbances along that specific street will likely be unavoidable. Thus, the potential infusion effects generated along a specific local residential street of which a project is proposed will be used only for informational purposes. A map of Palo Alto’s local residential streets can be found in Map 1 in this attachment. The City aims to reduce potential adverse intrusion effects along local residential streets. Significant amount of vehicle intrusion on these streets may need to be addressed through traffic management strategies. Traffic Infusion on Residential Environments (TIRE) Index The TIRE methodology assigns a numerical value to “residents’ perception of traffic effects on activities such as walking, bicycling, and maneuvering out of a driveway on local residential streets.” The TIRE index scale ranges from 0 to 5 depending on daily traffic volume. An index of 0 represents the least traffic disturbances and 5 the greatest, and thereby, the poorest residential environment. Streets with a TIRE index of 3 and above are considered to function primarily as a traffic street and exhibit an impaired residential environment. Therefore, streets with a TIRE index below 3 are better suited for residential activities. Any projected change in the TIRE index of 0.1 or less is considered to have no noticeable effects. A change of 0.1 would be barely noticeable, and a change of 0.2 or greater would be noticeable. The TIRE Index can be found in Table 1 in this attachment. 11 2020052801 I. Standards for Determining Analysis A proposed development project expecting to add 10 or more peak hour vehicles per any direction to a local residential street. II. Selection and Data Collection of Roadway Segments Roadway segments should be included in the LTA if a proposed development project is expected to add 10 or more peak hour vehicles per any direction to a local residential street. Data collected under the TIRE methodology must be supported by 24-hour weekday traffic counts. For projects on a local residential street including both single- or multi-family, as defined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan 2030, the TIRE analysis must include the following: 1. Direct routes to the project; 2. Immediate connections to a project’s direct collector or arterial streets; and 3. Based on engineering judgement, City staff determines what roadway segments should be included in the analysis. A Palo Alto land use map can be found in Map 2 in this attachment. III. Standards for Determining Noticeable Effect Projected change in the TIRE index of 0.1 or more under existing and background conditions, is considered to cause noticeable effects on the character of local residential streets. These traffic effects may need to be addressed through traffic management strategies. 12 2020052801 Table 1: Traffic Infusion on Residential Environments (TIRE) Index TIRE Index Existing Daily Traffic Volume Volume to Cause +0.1 Change in TIRE Index Volume to Cause +0.2 Change in TIRE Index Volume Description 1.5 29-35 6 15 Low 1.6 36-44 8 20 1.7 45-56 10 25 1.8 57-70 13 32 1.9 71-89 17 41 2.0 90-110 22 52 Moderate 2.1 111-140 29 65 2.2 141-180 40 80 2.3 181-220 52 100 2.4 221-280 65 125 2.5 281-350 79 160 2.6 351-450 94 205 2.7 451-560 114 260 2.8 561-710 140 330 2.9 711-890 170 415 3.0 891-1,100 220 520 High 3.1 1,101-1,400 290 650 3.2 1,401-1 ,800 380 800 3.3 1,801-2,200 500 1,000 3.4 2,201-2,800 650 1,300 3.5 2,801-3,500 825 1,700 3.6 3,501-4,500 1,025 2,200 3.7 4,501-5,600 1,250 2,800 3.8 5,601-7,100 1,500 3,500 3.9 7,101-8,900 1,800 4,300 4.0 8,901-11,000 2,300 5,300 Very High 4.1 11,001-14,000 3,000 6,500 4.2 14,001-18,000 4,000 8,000 4.3 18,001-22,000 5,200 10,000 4.4 22,001-28,000 6,600 13,000 4.5 28,001-35,000 8,200 17,000 4.6 35,001-45,000 10,000 22,000 4.7 45,001-56,000 12,200 28,000 4.8 56,001-71,000 14,800 35,000 4.9 71,001-89,000 18,000 43,000 Source: Goodrich Traffic Group 13 2020052801 Map 1 City of Palo Alto Local Residential Streets Source: City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030 14 2020052801 Map 2: City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030 Land Use Designations Source: City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030 SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto Prepared for: City of Palo Alto June 1, 2020 SF20-1094 SB 743 Implementation Decisions Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ i Background ..................................................................................................................................................................................... i VMT Metrics ................................................................................................................................................................................... ii VMT Measured and Expressed in Multiple Ways .................................................................................................... ii Total VMT and Partial VMT ............................................................................................................................................. iv Project Generated VMT and Project’s Effect on VMT ........................................................................................... iv VMT Calculation Methods ........................................................................................................................................................ v VMT Impact Significance Thresholds .................................................................................................................................. vi VMT Mitigation Actions .......................................................................................................................................................... viii Implementation Actions ........................................................................................................................................................... ix Use of Vehicle Level of Service for Non-CEQA Analysis .............................................................................................. ix Other Core CEQA Tenets Remain Unchanged. ................................................................................................................ x Taking the Next Steps ................................................................................................................................................................ x Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 Approach ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Outline .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Background ............................................................................................................ 6 Use of CEQA Prior to SB 743 ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Overview of Senate Bill 743 and Legal Framework ........................................................................................................ 6 State of SB 743 Implementation ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Summary of Regional Transportation Policies ................................................................................................................. 9 Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program ...................................................................................... 9 Local Framework and Summary of Existing Policies ....................................................................................................10 Comprehensive Plan 2030 ..............................................................................................................................................10 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Framework ..............................................................................................12 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan ............................................................................................................13 Santa Clara Countywide VMT Estimation Tool ......................................................................................................13 VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines....................................................................................................14 VMT Metrics ......................................................................................................... 15 Recommendations in OPR Technical Advisory ..............................................................................................................15 What Form of VMT Metrics Could be Used? ..................................................................................................................16 VMT Metric Options: Total VMT and Partial VMT ................................................................................................16 VMT Metric Options: Project-Generated VMT and Project’s Effect on VMT ..............................................17 VMT Metrics for Other Resource Areas .............................................................................................................................22 Summary of VMT Metric Options ........................................................................................................................................22 VMT Calculation Methods .................................................................................. 26 What Methods are Available to use in Estimating and Forecasting VMT? .........................................................26 Model Selection for Calculating VMT ................................................................................................................................26 Travel Forecasting Models .............................................................................................................................................27 Non-Model Spreadsheets and Sketch Planning Tools .......................................................................................29 VMT Impact Significance Thresholds ................................................................ 34 Context for Setting VMT Impact Thresholds ...................................................................................................................37 Is the use of VMT Impact Screening Desired? ................................................................................................................38 Projects Located Near Frequent and High Capacity Transit .............................................................................38 Projects Located in Low-VMT Generating Area .....................................................................................................38 Local-Serving Retail Projects .........................................................................................................................................38 Specific Transportation Projects ..................................................................................................................................39 Projects with No Net VMT Increase............................................................................................................................39 Affordable Housing Projects .........................................................................................................................................39 Small Projects ......................................................................................................................................................................39 What is the VMT Impact Significance Threshold for Land Use Projects and Land Use Plans Under Baseline Conditions? .................................................................................................................................................................41 Set a Threshold Based on State Goals .......................................................................................................................42 Set a Threshold Consistent with an Existing Comprehensive Plan ................................................................44 Additional Considerations for Land Use Plans .......................................................................................................44 What is the VMT Impact Significance Threshold for Land Use Projects and Land Use Plans Under Cumulative Conditions? ...........................................................................................................................................................48 Cumulative VMT Threshold Options ..........................................................................................................................49 What is the VMT Impact Significance Threshold for Transportation Projects Under Baseline Conditions? ...................................................................................................................................................................................51 VMT Mitigation Actions ..................................................................................... 53 Existing Programs ......................................................................................................................................................................53 What VMT Reduction Mitigation Strategies are Feasible? ........................................................................................54 Transportation Demand Management (TDM)........................................................................................................56 Site Design ............................................................................................................................................................................56 Location Efficiency, Regional Policies, and Regional Infrastructure ..............................................................57 New VMT Mitigation Concepts ............................................................................................................................................58 SB 743 Implementation Decisions VMT Cap ................................................................................................................................................................................59 VMT Based Impact Fee Program .................................................................................................................................59 VMT Mitigation Exchange ..............................................................................................................................................59 VMT Mitigation Banks ......................................................................................................................................................59 Summary of Mitigation Action Options ............................................................................................................................60 Implementation Actions for City of Palo Alto .................................................. 62 VMT Significance Thresholds ................................................................................................................................................62 VMT Screening Thresholds ............................................................................................................................................63 Numeric VMT Thresholds for Land Use Projects...................................................................................................65 Next Steps.............................................................................................................................................................................67 Appendices Appendix A: Summary Matrix of Decisions, Options, and Recommendations Appendix B: VMT Threshold Examples Appendix C: Comparison of Available Travel Forecasting Models Appendix D: Additional VMT Thresholds Background and Options Discussion Appendix E: Small Project Guidance Appendix F: VMT Characteristics in Palo Alto Appendix G: Comparison of CAPCOA Strategies Versus Research Since 2010 Appendix H: VMT Mitigation Through Banks and Exchanges: Understanding New Mitigation Approaches SB 743 Implementation Decisions List of Figures Figure 1: Measuring Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) .............................................................................................................. 19 Figure 2: Measuring Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in Palo Alto with City Streets and City Limits ................... 20 Figure 2: Transportation-Related GHG Reduction Measures........................................................................................... 55 List of Tables Table ES-1: Summary of Common VMT Metrics ..................................................................................................................... iii Table 1: Summary of Common VMT Metrics ......................................................................................................................... 23 Table 2: Overview of Sketch Planning Tools ........................................................................................................................... 32 Table 3: Summary of Transportation Related CAPCOA Measures ................................................................................. 55 SB 743 Implementation Decisions i Executive Summary On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into law and started a process intended to fundamentally change transportation impact analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, the legislation directed the State of California’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which oversees CEQA compliance, to consider different metrics for identifying transportation impacts and make corresponding revisions to the CEQA Guidelines. The goal of this legislation and the pursuant change in metrics was to reform transportation impact analysis such that it was more in line with other statewide goals pertaining to infill development, reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG), and promotion of public transit and active transportation. As a result of changes to the CEQA Guidelines, there are several changes in general transportation impact analysis metrics, methods, and thresholds. The purpose of this white paper is to help the City of Palo Alto (“City”) meet the new requirements of CEQA under SB 743 by providing curated SB 743 implementation information that includes substantial evidence to support decisions for VMT metrics, VMT calculation methods, VMT impact thresholds, and VMT mitigation actions for use by the City. As a lead agency, the City will need to make several policy decisions to implement these changes and this report provides detailed technical information concerning each change area. The Summary of Decisions, Options, and Recommendations, presented as Appendix A, provides an overview of this white paper’s contents and corresponding decisions. Background VMT will replace vehicle delay as an indicator of environmental impacts. At its core, SB 743 removes the use of vehicle level of service (LOS) as an indicator of environmental impacts under CEQA. LOS is a traditional measure of vehicle delay, or the additional driving time encountered by drivers during congested time periods. Instead of measuring vehicle delay, OPR recommends considering a project’s effect on total vehicle miles traveled (VMT). VMT can briefly be described as the product of a project’s vehicle trip generation and the average length of those trips. For instance, if a project generates 100 daily vehicle trips, each with an average length of five miles, that project generates 500 daily VMT. VMT is related to many of the externalities created by vehicle travel. In gasoline or diesel-powered vehicles, VMT is directly related to total GHG production and other tailpipe emissions. VMT also serves as an indicator of total regional congestion by measuring how much traffic a project is generating on a macroscopic scale. However, VMT does not accurately predict changes such as increased delay at intersections near a project, or how traffic will affect roadways immediately surrounding a project, in the same way traditional traffic ii analysis would. It is more focused on how efficiently designed and located a land use project might be; whether the project is located near a wide variety of jobs, housing, or retail uses; and whether alternative modes of transportation are available. As a lead agency, the City of Palo Alto must make several key policy decisions to comply with SB 743. Because reporting the VMT associated with a given project or plan requires a different method than traditional traffic analysis, the City will need to set clear guidelines and expectations for how a VMT analysis should be conducted. With the CEQA Guidelines expectations for an environmental impact analysis in mind, this white paper discusses seven questions, grouped by the specific decisions about VMT metrics, VMT calculation methods, VMT significance thresholds, and VMT mitigation actions.1 We highlight options and limitations for each question from a technical transportation planning and engineering perspective, with a particular emphasis on addressing the CEQA Guidelines expectations for an environmental impact analysis. 1. VMT Metrics: What form of VMT metrics could be used? 2. VMT Calculation Methods: What methods are available to use in estimating and forecasting VMT? 3. VMT Impact Significance Thresholds: Is the use of VMT impact screening desired? What is the VMT impact significance threshold for land use projects and land use plans under baseline conditions? What is the VMT impact significance threshold for land use projects under cumulative conditions? What is the VMT impact significance threshold for transportation projects under baseline conditions? 4. VMT Mitigation Actions: What VMT reduction mitigation strategies are feasible? Each of these questions is discussed in greater detail in its own section of this white paper. Those sections are summarized below. VMT Metrics VMT Measured and Expressed in Multiple Ways The first decision facing each jurisdiction is which VMT metric to use to express a project’s transportation effects. VMT metrics fall into two general categories: absolute VMT and per capita VMT. Per capita VMT is also referred to as an efficiency metric, as it does not vary directly with project size. Based on our example above, if a project generates 100 daily trips at an average of five miles per trip, the absolute project generated VMT is 500 vehicle miles per day. If that project is a small office employing 25 people, the per capita VMT is 20 VMT per employee (a per capita or VMT efficiency metric). Table ES-1 summarizes the common VMT metrics available. 1 Typical CEQA practice focuses on environmental effects that occur on a typical weekday, so all references to VMT in this white paper are intended to mean VMT that occurs on a typical weekday. SB 743 Implementation Decisions iii Table ES-1: Summary of Common VMT Metrics VMT Metric1, Definition Recommended by OPR2 VMT Used for Other CEQA Sections? Total Project Generated VMT Daily VMT of all vehicle trips, vehicle types, and trip purposes for all project land uses, presented as a total project generated VMT. Yes, for land use plans, and discussed in Appendix 1 of the OPR Technical Advisory. Yes Total Project Generated VMT per Service Population3. 4 (aka Total Project Generated VMT Rate) Daily VMT of all vehicle trips, vehicle types, and trip purposes for all project land uses, divided by the sum of residents plus employees. No, although may be helpful for mixed-use projects and comparing land use scenarios, particularly when using a travel forecasting model. Yes Partial Home-Based VMT per Resident5(aka Home-Based VMT Rate) VMT generated by light-duty vehicles for all trips that begin or end at a residential land use, divided by residents. Yes, for residential projects on page 5 and Appendix 1 of OPR Technical Advisory. No Partial Home-Based Work VMT per Employee5 (aka Home-Based Work VMT Rate) VMT by light-duty vehicles only for work trips (that is, trips that have one end at a workplace and one end at a residence), divided by number of employees. Yes, for office projects on page 6 and Appendix 1 of OPR Technical Advisory. No Project’s Effect on VMT within the Boundary of a Specific Area (aka Boundary VMT) VMT that occurs within a selected geographic boundary (e.g., City, County, or region) by any type of vehicle. This captures all on-road vehicle travel on a roadway network for any purpose and includes local trips as well as trips that pass through the area without stopping. Yes, for retail projects and transportation projects on pages 5, 6 and 23 and Appendix 1 of the OPR Technical Advisory. Yes Notes: 1. Each VMT metric is an option for baseline and/or cumulative impact analysis. 2. With the exception of Total Project Generated VMT per Service Population, each VMT metric listed in this table are described in the OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018). See pages 5, 6 and 23, and Appendix 1 of the OPR Technical Advisory. 3. Total project generated VMT is derived from this VMT rate. 4. The project generated VMT accounting is similar to an origin-destination accounting used for many Climate Action Plans. 5. A partial VMT estimate. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020. iv Total VMT and Partial VMT Total VMT metrics include all types of VMT captured by a travel forecasting model, regardless of the type of vehicle or the trip’s purpose. In practice, this means the metric includes visitor trips, medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, public transit buses, and other types of vehicle miles that might not be captured in the most common partial VMT metrics. Partial VMT refers to the use of only particular trip purposes and/or vehicle types for assessing a project’s impacts. The efficiency metrics recommended by OPR for use in analyzing office and residential projects are partial VMT metrics, because they include only light- duty passenger vehicles and only trips for a specific purpose or made by a specific population. The benefits of partial VMT metrics are as follows: They allow for sketch-level analysis using findings from a prior model run; they are easier to understand and visualize; and for single land uses that are similar to existing development patterns, they are likely reflective of the same impact patterns as would be present with analysis of total VMT. Understanding where built environment conditions lead to VMT-efficient residential and workplace activity is substantial evidence that could help support conclusions that adding similar land uses to those areas would create similar outcomes. For projects that may be subject to further scrutiny, only reporting a portion of VMT from select trip purposes and limiting the VMT to light-duty vehicles could be considered an incomplete analysis of VMT. Project Generated VMT and Project’s Effect on VMT VMT metrics also differentiate between project generated VMT and a project’s effect on VMT. Project generated VMT is similar to current transportation impact analysis practice of using daily trip generation: to estimate the daily project generated VMT, the daily trips are multiplied by the distance traveled by each daily vehicle trip. The project’s effect on VMT instead evaluates the change in total on-road vehicle travel within a geographic area boundary before and after the project is built (referred to as boundary VMT in this white paper). An often-cited example of how a project can affect VMT is the addition of a grocery store in a food desert. Residents of a neighborhood without a grocery store have to travel a great distance to an existing grocery store. Adding the grocery store to that neighborhood will shorten many of the grocery shopping trips and reduce the VMT to/from the neighborhood. While the new store itself will “generate” many daily trips, in that there will be many cars coming in and out of the store’s driveway, it will generally attract those trips away from other grocery stores located farther away. If the boundary VMT in the area served by all the local grocery stores were to be assessed, it is likely that the total amount of driving in that area will have decreased rather than increased. Key Take-Aways In deciding what form of VMT metric to use, each jurisdiction should consider the following options: 1. Total Project Generated VMT 2. Total Project Generated VMT per Service Population2 2 Service population includes residential population plus employment and may include students or visitors; it is intended to include all independent variables used in estimating trips. SB 743 Implementation Decisions v 3. Household Generated VMT per Resident (requires an activity/tour-based travel forecasting model) 4. Home-Based VMT per Resident (a partial VMT estimate) 5. Home-Based Work VMT per Employee (a partial VMT estimate) 6. Project’s Effect on VMT within the Boundary of a Specific Area (Boundary VMT) Metrics such as home-based VMT per resident and home-based work VMT per employee represent partial VMT (i.e., some vehicle types and trip purposes are excluded from the calculation). This may be acceptable for screening purposes, but not for a complete VMT impact analysis. When selecting VMT metric(s), it is useful to keep in mind that the expectation of CEQA is to disclose the potential effects of a project on the environment and the practical consideration of using the same (or different) VMT metrics for the various topic sections of an environmental analysis – transportation, air quality, greenhouse gases, and energy consumption. VMT Calculation Methods VMT Calculation Using Several Methods The most common method of calculating the VMT metrics listed in Table ES-1 is through a travel forecasting model. A travel forecasting model uses specialized software and is designed to reflect the interactions between different land use and roadway elements in a large area. The two travel models most commonly used to assess projects in Santa Clara County are the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)-City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) Bi-County Model (“VTA Travel Model”) and Travel Model One (“MTC Travel Model”), which is maintained by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and used for large-scale regional planning efforts. There is also a statewide model developed by Caltrans, though the level of analysis is at such a large scale that it is typically used to evaluate interregional travel and freight movements rather than localized land use changes. In some cases where a travel model is not available or not appropriate, VMT can be estimated using sketch models or spreadsheet tools. VMT may also be estimated directly by multiplying the number of trips by an average trip length. Trips can be estimated using the results of local trip generation surveys or trip generation rate data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Trip lengths can be extracted from models or from standardized averages or travel pattern data from the regional or sub- regional planning organization. Using trip length averages does not consider changes to the roadway network or to traffic congestion, or the project’s potential effects on overall travel patterns. These non- model “accounting methods” could also be paired with a travel model and used between major model updates or to estimate project generated VMT for small projects that would “get lost in a model.” Key Take-Aways Practically speaking, the use of a travel model is preferable for projects large enough to be accurately represented in that model. In areas under the City of Palo Alto’s jurisdiction, use of the VTA travel model is vi most appropriate for this analysis. Appendix B summarizes the activity-based (also called tour-based) Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) travel forecasting model and the trip-based VTA-C/CAG Bi-County travel forecasting model (“VTA travel forecasting model”), including their analytical strengths and weaknesses. Some limitations of these methods include the following: • Statewide and regional models have limited sensitivity and accuracy for local scale applications off the shelf. • Regional and local models often truncate trips at model boundaries. • Sketch and spreadsheet tools do not capture the full “project effect on VMT.” For smaller projects, use of a non-model “accounting method” may be more appropriate due to their scale and ease of use. The City may wish to set guidance as to which types of projects will generally be required to perform VMT analysis using a travel forecasting model, and which can be performed using non-model “accounting methods” (if any). The forthcoming Santa Clara Countywide VMT Estimation Tool under development by VTA is one example of a non-model “accounting method” that could be used for baseline VMT screening of small- to medium-sized office, industrial and residential land use projects. VMT Impact Significance Thresholds The City has discretion to decide what constitutes a significant impact to the environment. SB 743 changes the focus of transportation impact analysis in CEQA from measuring impacts to drivers, to measuring the impact of driving. A lead agency has discretion to set its significance threshold for VMT impacts, provided that the basis for that threshold is grounded in substantial evidence. With regard to establishing thresholds for VMT, lead agencies have at least four options: 1. Use Screening Criteria. The concept of project screening is that some projects have characteristics that readily lead to the conclusion that they would not cause a VMT impact, and therefore could be screened out of doing a detailed VMT analysis. Some types of screening criteria include transit proximity, low-VMT area, local-serving retail, transportation projects that do not add capacity, and projects with no net VMT increase. 2. Rely on the OPR Technical Advisory suggestion to set thresholds consistent with state goals for air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG), and energy conservation. The OPR Technical Advisory contains suggested VMT thresholds. The basic suggested threshold is that each project achieves a VMT level that is at least 15% below baseline conditions. In the case of a jurisdiction, its “region” would most likely be the nine-county Bay Area. 3. Use a threshold adopted or recommended by another public agency consistent with lead agency air quality, GHG reduction, and energy conservation goals. The CEQA Guidelines offer the option for an agency to use a threshold that is adopted or recommended by another agency, as long as that decision is supported by substantial evidence. Other state SB 743 Implementation Decisions vii agencies, such as Caltrans and the California Air Resources Board (CARB), have technical expertise that is relevant to this topic. Recent CARB publications have identified that new land use projects could contribute to these statewide goals by achieving total project generated VMT levels of at least 14.3% below the existing baseline (the CARB report does not specify whether this “baseline” is the regional average or some other baseline). For light-duty vehicles only, CARB cites a 16.8% reduction below baseline (2018) average VMT. However, the CARB analysis assumes that all of the regions in the state will meet the GHG reduction targets set in their Regional Transportation Plans and Sustainable Communities Strategies (RTP/SCS); thus far, indications are that not all regions are meeting those targets, and vehicular travel in California (at least prior to the COVID-19 pandemic) has been increasing rather than decreasing over the past several years. Further, the CARB analysis does not account for any future increases in the use of Transportation Network Companies (such as Uber and Lyft) or commercial delivery services, nor does it envision the potential for development of autonomous vehicles or any other emerging transportation innovations. Therefore, there is growing evidence that the VMT reduction values from the CARB publication may not be enough to actually meet the State’s GHG goals. Should current VMT generation trends persist, the threshold may need to increase to 25% below baseline (2018) average of jurisdiction (all vehicles). Caltrans has released draft guidance endorsing the VMT thresholds published in the OPR Technical Advisory. Caltrans does acknowledge that each lead agency has the discretion to set its own significance thresholds, and they will be reviewing the evidence presented by any agency that uses a threshold that differs from those in the Technical Advisory. Separately, Caltrans has released draft Interim Guidance on “Determining CEQA Significance for GHG Emissions for Projects on the State Highway System” that recommends that any increase in GHG emissions would constitute a significant impact. This has been referred to as the “Net Zero VMT Threshold.” While Caltrans has thus far signaled that it would apply this threshold only to transportation projects, it does raise a question about whether Caltrans will suggest that a “net zero VMT” threshold should also be applied to land use projects and plans. 4. Develop City-specific VMT thresholds consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan. Agencies may decide to set their own thresholds, which must be supported by substantial evidence and should support the three objectives laid out in SB 743: 1) reducing GHG emissions, 2) encouraging infill development, and 3) promoting active transportation. The process of setting thresholds should consider the policies and standards set in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/ Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS), and should consider how much priority a jurisdiction wants to place on the statewide GHG reduction goals. A targeted study could determine what level of VMT in a jurisdiction would be consistent with the VMT forecasts presented in Plan Bay Area and would represent a jurisdiction’s “fair share” of the State’s GHG reduction goals. Another option for setting a local threshold is to consider what level of VMT reduction is feasible to achieve in the local context. viii Key Take-Aways While it is difficult for a lead agency to determine what level of VMT change is unacceptable when viewed solely through a transportation lens, there are several possible options, depending upon if the City chooses to set a threshold based on local or state policies. Options include the following: 1. Set thresholds based on state goals. a. Rely on the OPR Technical Advisory suggestion to set thresholds consistent with state goals for air quality, greenhouse gas and energy conservation. i. OPR 15% below baseline average of a city or region (light-duty vehicles only) b. Use a threshold adopted or recommended by another public agency consistent with lead agency air quality, GHG reduction, and energy conservation goals. i. CARB 14.3% below the City’s baseline (2018) average (all vehicles, presuming that MPOs meet SB 375 targets) ii. CARB 16.8% below the City’s baseline (2018) average (light-duty vehicles only, presuming that MPOs meet SB 375 targets) iii. CARB: 25% below the City’s baseline (2018) average (all vehicles, presuming that MPOs do not meet SB 375 targets). iv. Net zero VMT (pending Caltrans-recommended threshold) 2. Set City-specific threshold consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan. a. Set City-specific VMT threshold based on substantial evidence. b. Set thresholds based on baseline VMT performance. VMT Mitigation Actions The nature of transportation impact mitigation under CEQA will likely change. Mitigating a LOS impact typically involves making changes to the physical transportation system in order to accommodate additional vehicles and reduce delays. These mitigations may involve actions such as installing traffic signals, adding turn lanes, widening roads, or contributing to the construction of HOV/Express Lanes, among other options. The identification of necessary mitigations resulting from project impacts has historically led to project sponsors identifying and funding these changes to the transportation system (i.e., paying a “fair share” contribution toward funding a new traffic signal or widening an existing roadway). The use of VMT as a metric focuses on the total amount of driving, rather than the driving experience. Four possible mitigation approaches are described in the VMT Mitigation Actions chapter: • VMT Cap • VMT Based Impact Fee Program • VMT Mitigation Bank SB 743 Implementation Decisions ix • VMT Mitigation Exchange A VMT Cap can be developed and administered on a project-by-project basis, while the remaining three options (VMT Based Impact Fee Program, VMT Mitigation Bank, and VMT Mitigation Exchange) are program approaches to impact mitigation. The concept of a ‘program’ approach to impact mitigation is commonly used in a variety of technical subjects, including transportation, air quality, greenhouse gases, and habitat. Transportation impact fee programs have been used to help mitigate cumulative vehicle level of service (LOS) impacts. What is new is developing a fee program based on VMT impacts and alternative programs – VMT Mitigation Bank and VMT Mitigation Exchange. Absent these new program-level mitigation approaches, rural and suburban lead agencies will have limited feasible mitigation options for project sites. Implementation Actions The City will need to take administrative action to prepare for changes to CEQA analysis. The options in this white paper are intended to assist the City with developing a contextual implementation approach. This will likely require public input from elected or appointed policy-makers to balance community values with CEQA requirements. The City may decide to set a VMT threshold that is consistent with its Comprehensive Plan VMT growth budget or could select the screening approach described in the OPR Technical Advisory. Each agency has the discretion and responsibility to develop its own VMT methods for various project types, and sizes. Use of Vehicle Level of Service for Non-CEQA Analysis The City has options to continue studying a project’s effects on vehicle delay. Communities place a high value on the information about traffic and transportation presented during a project’s review process. Historically, much of the transportation analysis associated with new development or proposed land use plans has occurred under the umbrella of CEQA. However, with this new process, many of these guidelines and analyses will instead occur during development review as part of the City’s overall entitlements and project review process. The City may decide to maintain a level of service standard and may continue to administer programs to collect impact fees that can be used for roadway improvements. However, these will no longer be subject to CEQA-level review and litigation. Instead, this analysis and any related agreements would need to be performed and presented during entitlements or development review. Any fees assessed to help ease the effects of a given project would be required to conform to State requirements for impact fees and present an appropriate study that identifies nexus between the impact and the fee assessed. x Other Core CEQA Tenets Remain Unchanged. While this report focuses on the adoption of VMT as a metric for assessing transportation impacts, many other facets of CEQA practice remain unchanged. Transportation impact sections must still discuss other impact categories such as hazards, effects on pedestrians and cyclists, and site circulation concerns. In addition, the City will continue to have the opportunity to comment on EIRs prepared for consideration by other lead agencies if those EIRs may affect the City. One particular consistency to note is that the option to “tier” CEQA analysis will remain. The tiering process consists of streamlining topics studied for a project if that project was assessed under a previous EIR. A classic example of this is the development of a single parcel that is consistent with a previously analyzed Specific Plan. The project need only analyze those items which were not previously analyzed. This practice will also apply to VMT analysis, provided the EIR from which the project tiers also studied VMT. In the near term, this may result in tiered projects requiring supplemental VMT analysis; however, in the future, projects that are consistent with a cleared Comprehensive Plan or Specific Plan may not be required to undergo the full VMT analysis process. Taking the Next Steps As a lead agency, the immediate next steps for the City of Palo Alto are to develop its VMT thresholds and provide staff and applicants with guidance pertaining to each of the questions posed above. This white paper provides an initial assessment of the City’s options and includes draft recommendations in Chapter 7; however, the decision on how to answer each implementation question must ultimately be made by the City. The Summary of Decisions, Options, and Recommendations, presented as Appendix A, provides an abbreviated overview of this report’s contents and corresponding action items and decision points. The implementation of SB 743 is just beginning for many lead agencies. Current CEQA practices have developed over several decades, incorporating a large body of case law and periodic updates to the CEQA Guidelines. Because SB 743 implementation is brand new, there is not yet any case law to guide our understanding or interpretation. This white paper represents our current understanding of the options, limitations, and considerations, informed by our research into SB 743 and knowledge of past CEQA practice; this understanding will evolve over time as more agencies apply SB 743 concepts to their own CEQA procedures. SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 1 Introduction This white paper provides a summary of key information relevant to how Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) will be implemented in the City of Palo Alto (“City”). It begins with an introduction on the background and purpose of SB 743, and then provides a summary of policy actions required of the City, along with discussion of process guidance from state agencies. The City’s SB 743 implementation will provide guidance on and set VMT methods to disclose potential transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SB 743 removes the use of automobile delay or traffic congestion for determining transportation impacts in environmental review. Instead, the latest CEQA Guidelines now specify that Vehicle Miles Traveled, or VMT3, is the appropriate metric to evaluate transportation impacts. To comply with these new rules, the City will need to define policies and practices regarding the evaluation of transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act, including guidance on how VMT should be calculated and presented in environmental documents. In short, SB 743 changes the focus of transportation impact analysis in CEQA from measuring impacts to drivers, to measuring the impact of driving. Under CEQA, lead agencies must decide what constitutes a significant environmental impact. The CEQA Guidelines encourage the use of thresholds of significance; they can be quantitative or qualitative performance standards by which the agency can measure the amount of impact the project causes and thereby determine if the project’s impacts are significant. In fact, the new CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4) (cited below) establishes that the lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate VMT methods for transportation impact analysis. Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household, or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section. 3 VMT refers to “Vehicle Miles Traveled,” a metric that accounts for the number of vehicle trips generated as well as the length or distance of those trips. VMT is an accessibility performance metric that evaluates the changes in land use patterns, regional transportation systems, and other built environment characteristics, which is different from what the mobility performance metric vehicle level of service measures – vehicle mobility. The white paper will use the terms project generated VMT and project’s effect on VMT using boundary VMT metrics for specific geographic areas. Project generated VMT is the sum of the “VMT from” and “VMT to,” and within a project site. Project’s effect on VMT uses geographic boundary VMT to evaluate the change in VMT on all roadways without and with the project within a specific geographic area. 2 The expectations for environmental impact analysis highlighted within the CEQA Guidelines are listed below. • § 15003 (f) = fullest possible protection of the environment… • § 15003 (i) = adequacy, completeness, and good-faith effort at full disclosure… • § 15125 (c) = EIR must demonstrate that the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project were adequately investigated… • § 15144 = an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose… • § 15151 = sufficient analysis to allow a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences… With the CEQA Guidelines expectations for an environmental impact analysis in mind, this white paper discusses seven questions, grouped by the specific decisions about VMT metrics, VMT calculation methods, VMT significance thresholds, and VMT mitigation actions.4 We highlight options and limitations for each question from a technical transportation planning and engineering perspective with a particular emphasis on addressing the CEQA Guidelines expectations for an environmental impact analysis. For simplicity, a Decisions, Options, Considerations, and Recommendations matrix accompanies this white paper as Appendix A and summarizes the seven questions mentioned above. Approach The purpose of this white paper is to help the City meet the new requirements of CEQA under SB 743 by providing curated SB 743 implementation information that includes substantial evidence to support decisions for VMT metrics, VMT calculation methods, VMT impact thresholds, and VMT mitigation actions for use by the City. Because VMT is also used as an input for air quality, greenhouse gases, and energy consumption impact analyses in CEQA, the white paper will also discuss how VMT significance thresholds affect other aspects of the CEQA process. For each of the seven questions, there are three separate categories of projects that are subject to CEQA review and for which VMT evaluation will be needed. The City will need to address how each of these three project categories will be evaluated, and consider all three project types when responding to policy questions: • Land Use Projects: typically development projects on a single parcel or multiple adjacent parcels • Land Use Plans: such as a Comprehensive Plan update and future Coordinated Area Plans • Transportation Projects: infrastructure changes such as building or removing roads, bicycle facilities, and transit facilities 4 Typical CEQA practice focuses on environmental effects that occur on a typical weekday, so all references to VMT in this white paper are intended to mean VMT that occurs on a typical weekday. SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 3 The implementation of SB 743 is just beginning for many lead agencies. Current CEQA practices have developed over several decades, incorporating a large body of case law and periodic updates to the CEQA Guidelines. Because SB 743 implementation is brand new, there is not yet any case law to guide our understanding or interpretation. This white paper represents our current understanding of the options, limitations, and considerations, informed by our research into SB 743 and knowledge of past CEQA practice; this understanding will evolve over time as more agencies apply SB 743 concepts to their own CEQA procedures. Outline This report includes a background discussion about SB 743 and then transitions to the five sections: Background, VMT Metrics, VMT Calculation Methods, VMT Significance Thresholds, and VMT Mitigation Actions. The white paper is outlined below. • Chapter 2: Background. A background discussion of transportation analysis before and after SB 743 implementation to provide context for the decisions in the following sections. This section will also include a summary of relevant local land use and transportation polices planning documents, including Plan Bay Area 2040 and the Comprehensive Plan. • Chapter 3: VMT Metrics. As a lead agency, the City has the discretion to choose the most appropriate methods to evaluate a project’s VMT, including how the results of that method are expressed. Generally, VMT is expressed in several ways: total project generated VMT, project generated rates (total project generated VMT per service population or partial project generated VMT per resident/per employee), in total (all VMT associated with a project or plan), or as the net “effect” a project will have on VMT (listed as project’s effect on VMT). This section will describe the benefits and shortcomings of each metric. ◦ Question 1: What form of VMT metrics could be used?5 ▪ Total project generated VMT ▪ Project generated VMT rates ▫ Total project generated VMT per service population ▫ Partial project generated VMT per resident (or per employee) ▪ Project’s effect on VMT (within a selected geographic boundary) • Chapter 4: VMT Calculation Methods. VMT forecasts are generated using various forms of models that range from simple spreadsheets (off-model) based on historic traffic growth trends to complex computer models that account for numerous factors that influence travel demand. In some cases, VMT can be estimated using sketch models or spreadsheet tools. VMT can also be estimated directly by multiplying the number of trips by an average trip length. Given the availability of two travel forecasting modes, the white paper will provide each agency with a 5 Each VMT metric will be defined in the white paper. 4 review of Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) travel forecasting models for VMT calculations in Santa Clara County, including analytical strengths and weaknesses of each option. ◦ Question 2: What methods are available to use in estimating and forecasting VMT? ▪ Select a non-model “accounting method” or a travel forecasting model for estimating and forecasting VMT at a regional, county, and/or local geographic area. • Chapter 5: VMT Impact Significance Thresholds. Each lead agency has discretion to choose its threshold of significance for identifying a VMT impact. The intent of a VMT threshold is to identify whether a project has substantial environmental impacts due to traffic (such as noise, air, pollution, and safety concerns), and whether a project balances the needs of congestion management with statewide goals, such as the promotion of infill development. This chapter will also discuss the opportunity for “screening” projects in low VMT or transit priority areas. This chapter will describe possible thresholds and summarize the supporting evidence for each. ◦ Question 3: Is the use of VMT impact screening desired? ▪ Projects located near frequent and high capacity transit ▪ Projects located in low-VMT generating area ▪ Local-serving retail projects ▪ Specific transportation projects ▪ Projects with no net VMT increase ▪ Small projects ◦ Question 4: What is the VMT impact significance threshold for land use projects and land use plans under baseline conditions? ▪ Set a threshold consistent with state goals for air quality, greenhouse gas, and energy conservation. ▪ Set a threshold consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) ◦ Question 5: What is the VMT impact significance threshold for land use projects under cumulative conditions? ▪ Fair share of regional VMT allocation ▪ Cumulative VMT thresholds similar to baseline VMT thresholds ▪ Long-term air quality and greenhouse gas expectations ◦ Question 6: What is the VMT impact significance threshold for transportation projects under baseline conditions? ▪ Consider transportation project screening criteria and Caltrans’ pending VMT threshold. SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 5 • Chapter 6: VMT Mitigation Actions. The City will also need to determine if projects will be able to mitigate significant VMT impacts, and whether those measures can reduce the severity of a potential VMT impact. This chapter will include a review of how other jurisdictions have incorporated transportation demand management into their VMT mitigation measures for VMT impacts, and a discussion of the potential risks and uncertainties related to VMT mitigation measures. This white paper will also discuss program-based VMT mitigation approaches which may be more effective than project-site only strategies and provide a way for development contributions to be pooled to pay for VMT reduction strategies that would not be feasible for individual projects to implement. ◦ Question 7: What VMT reduction mitigation strategies are feasible? ▪ Possible options include a VMT cap, VMT fee, VMT bank, and VMT exchange. • Chapter 7: Implementation Actions for City of Palo Alto. This chapter describes recommendations for initial VMT significance thresholds to be applied by the City of Palo Alto as of July 1, 2020. These recommendations are generally consistent with State guidance. Following the ongoing Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) Update, the City of Palo Alto will have the opportunity to review and adjust the CEQA VMT thresholds to align with the City’s S/CAP goals or policies. At the end or within Chapters 3 through 6, the decision options, limitations and considerations are summarized, which matches the decisions matrix (Appendix A). Also included in these summaries are two draft threshold recommendations for Near-Term and Far-Term SB 743 implementation in Palo Alto: • Option 1 Near-Term: Rely on the OPR Technical Advisory thresholds • Option 2 Far-Term: Set thresholds consistent with the 2020 S/CAP or Comprehensive Plan future year VMT projections 6 Background Use of CEQA Prior to SB 743 CEQA was enacted in 1970 with the goal of providing a mechanism for disclosing to the public the environmental impacts of proposed actions. Before taking a discretionary action, lead agencies (such as a town, city, unincorporated county, parks district, or other agency) must determine if that action is subject to CEQA and, if it is, conduct a review of the effects of that action on the physical environment. The State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) prepares and maintains guidelines to help agencies implement CEQA. Under CEQA, lead agencies must determine whether a proposed project has the potential to cause significant environmental impacts. This determination must be based, to the extent possible, on factual data and scientific methods of analysis. The project’s effect on transportation is one of the areas that must be analyzed. For many years, jurisdictions in Santa Clara County have generally used vehicle Level of Service (LOS) as the primary measure to evaluate a project’s effect and determine transportation impacts. LOS is a qualitative description of vehicular traffic flow based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined from LOS A, which reflects free-flow conditions where there is very little interaction between vehicles, to LOS F, where vehicle demand exceeds capacity and high levels of vehicle delay result. LOS E represents “at-capacity” operations. When traffic volumes exceed the capacity at an intersection, vehicles may wait through multiple signal cycles before traveling through the intersection; these operations are designated as LOS F. The calculation of vehicle LOS is done through the application of specialized software and is based on traffic counts, observations of vehicle interactions, and data about traffic signal operations (at those intersections that are signalized). Mitigating a LOS impact typically involves making changes to the physical transportation system in order to accommodate additional vehicles and reduce delays. These mitigations may involve actions such as installing traffic signals, adding turn lanes, widening roads, or contributing to the construction of HOV/Express Lanes, among other options. The identification of necessary mitigations resulting from project impacts has historically led to project sponsors identifying and funding these changes to the transportation system (e.g., paying a “fair share” contribution toward funding a new traffic signal or widening an existing roadway). Overview of Senate Bill 743 and Legal Framework On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into law and started a process intended to fundamentally change transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. Specifically, the legislation directed the State of California’s OPR to look at different metrics for identifying transportation SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 7 impacts and make corresponding revisions to the CEQA Guidelines. The initial bill includes two legislative intent statements (emphasis and bullets added): • New methodologies under the California Environmental Quality Act are needed for evaluating transportation impacts that are better able to promote the state’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic-related air pollution, promoting the development of a multimodal transportation system, and providing clean, efficient access to destinations. • More appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. These statements are important because they provide direction to OPR and to lead agencies. For OPR, the direction is largely about what the new metrics should achieve. For lead agencies, the direction is about expected changes in transportation analysis (and related technical areas) and what factors to consider for significance thresholds. To implement this intent, SB 743 contains amendments to current congestion management law that allow cities and counties to opt out of the LOS standards that would otherwise apply. SB 743 does not prevent a lead agency from continuing to analyze delay or LOS as part of other plans (e.g., the comprehensive plan), fee programs, or ongoing network monitoring. However, these metrics will no longer constitute the basis for CEQA impacts. Lead agencies can still use vehicle LOS outside of the CEQA process if they determine it is an important part of their transportation analysis process. The most common applications will likely occur for jurisdictions wanting to use vehicle LOS to plan roadways in their Comprehensive Plans or determine nexus relationships for their impact fee programs. Jurisdictions can also continue to condition projects to build transportation improvements through the entitlement process in a variety of ways. Following several years of draft proposals and related public comments, OPR settled upon VMT as the preferred metric for assessing passenger vehicle-related impacts and issued revised CEQA Guidelines in December 2018, along with a Technical Advisory On Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018; referred to in this document as the Technical Advisory) to assist practitioners in implementing the CEQA Guidelines revisions. Under the revised CEQA Guidelines, vehicle level of service (LOS)6 is no longer to be used as a determinant of significant environmental impacts, and analysis of a project’s impacts will now be based on assessment of VMT. Lead agencies have until July 2020 to 6 LOS refers to “Level of Service,” a metric that assigns a letter grade to network performance. The typical application in towns and cities is to measure the average amount of delay experienced by vehicle drivers at an intersection during the most congested time of day and assign a report card range from LOS A (fewer than 10 seconds of delay) to LOS F (more than 80 seconds of delay). Vehicle level of service is used to measure vehicle mobility. 8 implement the new VMT methods, after which all transportation analysis performed under CEQA must be consistent with the revised CEQA Guidelines. The OPR Technical Advisory guidance is not a recipe for SB 743 implementation. Lead agencies must still make their own specific decisions about metrics, methods, thresholds, and mitigation. Further, the OPR guidance is primarily tied to statewide goals for greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, and does not attempt to balance or resolve potential conflicts between state and lead agency goals, such as those expressed in local agency general plans and/or climate action plans. The CEQA Guidelines and the associated OPR Technical Advisory are largely consistent with the legislative direction noted above. Specifically, the use of VMT as a metric focuses on the total amount of driving, rather than the driving experience. This new view presents an impact filter intended to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. VMT can help identify how projects (land development and infrastructure) influence accessibility (i.e., access to places and people), noise, and emissions; thus, its selection as a metric is aligned with the objectives of SB 743. While final implementation steps for SB 743 have not yet been completed by most lead agencies, enough information is available to inform lead agencies about how to prepare for the upcoming transition to VMT. Based on the background context outlined above, the remainder of this document provides information about key decisions the City will need to make regarding VMT metrics, calculation methods, impact thresholds, and impact mitigation. State of SB 743 Implementation As Appendix B summarizes, the California lead agencies that have adopted VMT thresholds as of approximately January 2020 are as follows: • City/County of San Francisco • City of Oakland • City of Elk Grove • City of Los Angeles • City of San Jose • City of Woodland • CSU System: All 23 Campuses • San Bernardino County Most early adopters were larger jurisdictions such as the City/County of San Francisco, City of Oakland, City of Los Angeles, and City of San Jose. These jurisdictions implemented screening thresholds by partial VMT or total VMT. Of these jurisdictions, only the City/County of San Francisco chose not to maintain LOS as an analysis requirement. Also included in Appendix B is a sample of VMT threshold options currently under consideration by Santa Barbara County, City of South San Francisco, City of San Bruno, and Nevada SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 9 County. As will be discussed in the following chapters, there are many possible VMT thresholds, but two prevailing threshold options are most prevalent: 1) a project-by-project baseline conditions VMT screening by land use (similar to or identical to the OPR Technical Advisory), or 2) a jurisdiction-specific VMT threshold based on long-term expectations for air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, once a threshold is selected, a jurisdiction may choose to complete VMT impact analysis as part of its Comprehensive Plan EIR and make specific use of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 to streamline project specific CEQA analysis. Summary of Regional Transportation Policies In the Bay Area, the regional Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) is Plan Bay Area, developed and managed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and updated roughly every five years. All metropolitan regions in California are required to prepare a sustainable communities strategy under Senate Bill (SB) 375; these strategies are intended to provide an integrated plan for housing, land use, and transportation that will meet the GHG reduction targets set by the California Air Resource Board. In short, Plan Bay Area serves as the bridge between statewide GHG reduction targets and local land use and transportation decisions. Plan Bay Area includes a number of policy and land use strategies to meet these statewide goals. Generally, it focuses on supporting growth in designated Priority Development Areas (PDAs), which include many areas near transit, in dense urban or suburban centers, or that have otherwise been designated as having high potential for growth by local jurisdictions. In doing so, the plan is intended to indicate how the region can accommodate expected population growth, job growth, and transportation demands into the future. In many ways, Plan Bay Area can be seen as the “budget” for how regional growth can occur without resulting in GHG and VMT generation above what our goals aim to achieve. Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program The Congestion Management Agency (CMA) legislation requires establishment of a congestion management program (CMP) in urbanized counties. The legislation requires “a program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions made by local jurisdictions on regional transportation systems” and, a “uniform methodology” for analyzing level of service. VTA is the CMA and maintains the CMP for Santa Clara County. SB 743 amends CMP law to reinstate the ability of cities and counties to designate “Infill Opportunity Zones” where the CMP LOS standard would not apply. These areas may be established in Transit Priority Areas or high-quality transit corridors with 15-minute or better service frequencies. A previous provision in CMP law allowing the establishment of Infill Opportunity Zones expired in 2009. Outside of designated Infill Opportunity Zones, the SB 743 does not alter the use of LOS to evaluate and monitor traffic operations on the CMP roadway network. Should a project or other action from a local agency result in a CMP facility exceeding the designated LOS standard, CMP legislation requires local agencies prepare a “Deficiency plan” that improve systemwide traffic level of service and contribute to 10 significant improvements in air quality. Jurisdictions with CMP facilities exceeding the LOS standard and do not have Congestion Management Agency (CMA) approved deficiency plans risk losing new Proposition 111 gas tax revenues. Since 2013, VTA retitled “Deficiency Plans” as “Multimodal Improvement Plans” (MIP) which expand emphasis on multimodal networks to reduce auto travel demand on the CMP network. Traffic growth projections from the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan 2030, was found to result in LOS exceeding CMP standards at the El Camino Real / San Antonio Road intersection. However, the City is currently participating in the City of Mountain View’s MIP which addresses this intersection and was accepted by the VTA Board of Directors in 2018. Caltrans Guidance Caltrans has released draft guidance endorsing the VMT thresholds published in the OPR Technical Advisory. Caltrans does acknowledge that each lead agency has the discretion to set its own significance thresholds, and they will be reviewing the evidence presented by any agency that uses a threshold that differs from those in the Technical Advisory. Separately, Caltrans has released draft Interim Guidance on “Determining CEQA Significance for GHG Emissions for Projects on the State Highway System” that recommends that any increase in GHG emissions would constitute a significant impact. This has been referred to as the “Net Zero VMT Threshold.” While Caltrans has thus far signaled that it would apply this threshold only to transportation projects, it does raise a question about whether Caltrans will suggest that a “net zero VMT” threshold should also be applied to land use projects and plans. Local Framework and Summary of Existing Policies The City of Palo Alto has several planning and policy documents that outline the City’s approach to transportation, land use, environmental sustainability and inform the policy decisions necessary to implement SB 743. Chief among them is the Comprehensive Plan 2030, which, as the City’s “constitution for future development” is the coordinating policy document for two key supporting plans related to VMT policy decisions: the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Framework (S/CAP) and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Comprehensive Plan 2030 Adopted in 2017, the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan 2030 goals, policies, and programs emphasize environmentally sustainable forms of transportation and land use planning. The Comprehensive Plan’s Transportation Element includes three policy topic areas and corresponding goals associated with VMT: Sustainable Transportation, Traffic Delay and Congestion, and Streets. The following highlights goals, polices, and programs within each of these topic areas related to VMT and SB 743 implementation. SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 11 Sustainable Transportation • Goal T-1: Create a sustainable transportation system, complimented by a mix of land uses, that emphasizes walking, bicycling, use of public transportation and other methods to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the use of single occupancy motor vehicles. • Program T1.2.3: Formalize TDM requirements by ordinance and require new developments above a certain size threshold to prepare and implement a TDM plan to meet specific performance standards. Require regular monitoring/reporting and provide for enforcement with meaningful penalties for non-compliance. • Policy T-1.3: Reduce GHG and pollutant emissions associated with transportation by reducing VMT and per-mile emissions through increasing transit options, supporting biking and walking, and the use of zero-emission vehicle technologies to meet City and State goals for GHG reductions by 2030 Goal T-1 establishes the linkage between transportation, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions and the City’s intent to promote decisions that reduce GHG emissions. Policy T-1.3 defines VMT as a potential metric for evaluating progress toward achieving Goal T-1, and further defines 2030 City and State GHG reduction targets as key indicator of success. As discussed in the following section, the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Framework (S/CAP) includes 2030 GHG reduction targets and could be used to inform the city’s future VMT thresholds of significance. Program T1.2.3 relates to establishing a performance-based transportation demand management (TDM) program and standards for new development that is based on vehicle trip reduction targets. The trip reduction target and monitoring requirements could align with potential mitigation strategies for projects that are found to result in VMT impacts. While the Transportation Element leads with an emphasis on reducing GHG travel related to transportation, traffic delay and congestion remains a key issue of City concern and is addressed within the Traffic Delay and Congestion topic area. Traffic Delay and Congestion • Goal T-2: Decrease delay, congestion and VMT with a priority on our worst intersections and our peak commute times, including school traffic. • Policy T-2.3: Use motor vehicle LOS at signalized intersections to evaluate the potential impact of proposed projects, including contributions to cumulative congestion. Use signal warrants and other metrics to evaluate impacts at unsignalized intersections. • Program T2.3.1: When adopting new CEQA significance thresholds for VMT compliance with SB 743 (2013), adopt standards for vehicular LOS analysis for use in evaluating the consistency of a proposed project with the Comprehensive Plan, and also explore desired standard for multimodal level of service (MMLOS), which includes motor vehicle LOS, at signalized intersections. Policy T-2.3 continues the use of motor vehicle LOS as a measure of traffic congestion, driver delay, and to evaluate the effects of a project on the transportation network. Program T2.3.1 provides guidance for implementing SB 743 in parallel with LOS standards to continue evaluate the vehicle mobility effects on 12 projects. Notably, specific LOS standards, targets, or goals are not defined in this, nor any other section of the Comprehensive Plan. Streets • Goal T-3: Maintain an efficient roadway network for all users. • Policy T-3.3 Avoid major increases in single-occupant vehicle capacity when constructing or modifying roadways unless needed to remedy sever congestion or critical neighborhood traffic problems. Where capacity is increased, balance the needs of motor vehicles with pedestrians and bicyclists. The Streets topic area concerns multimodal roadway design parameters, policies, and guidance. Policy T- 3.3 mirrors the SB 743 legislative intent which seeks to balance congestion management with the need to develop multimodal transportation networks. At a local scale, minor isolated intersection vehicle capacity and operations enhancements are unlikely to lead to VMT impacts, but the City’s policy closely aligns with local, and regional planning practices that support the State’s transportation policy intent. Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Framework Adopted in 2016, the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Framework (S/CAP) contains strategies for accelerating Palo Alto’s GHG emission reductions from 36% below 1990 levels to 80% below 1990 levels by 2030, which is 20 years ahead of the State of California target. The name of this strategy is “80x30.” The S/CAP framework notes that road transportation represents 61% of Palo Alto’s baseline carbon footprint and identifies the following transportation strategies to reduce GHG emissions: • Expand Bicycle Infrastructure • Expand Transit Options • Grow Ridersharing services and mobility apps • Provide Universal Transit Passes • Implement Parking Pricing • Develop Zero-Impact Mixed-Use Housing • Electrify Palo Alto-Based Vehicles • Electrify Inbound Vehicles The two electric-vehicle based strategies were estimated to achieve approximately 45% of the emissions reductions from all eight mobility strategies. To align VMT thresholds with S/CAP targets, careful documentation and understanding of the VMT metric and vehicle fleet GHG emissions is necessary because the VMT metric used in a CAP may influence the VMT threshold metric and how clean the vehicle fleet is assumed influences how much a VMT reduction is needed. An update to the S/CAP is currently underway, and the City could consider aligning VMT thresholds with S/CAP targets. SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 13 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Adopted in July 2012, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) is the City’s consolidated bicycle and pedestrian transportation policy and project planning document. The BPTP identifies two key objectives related to reducing transportation GHG emissions and promoting non-auto modes: • Objective 1: Double the rate of bicycling for both local and total work commutes by 2020 (to 15% and 5%, respectively) • Objective 2: Convert discretionary vehicle trips into walking and bicycling trips in order to reduce city transportation-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% by 2020. Santa Clara Countywide VMT Estimation Tool The Santa Clara Countywide VMT Estimation Tool (SCC VMT Estimation Tool) will screen projects that are exempt from further VMT analysis using project generated VMT thresholds and transportation priority areas, estimate the project generated VMT rate, and estimate VMT reductions for land use projects in Santa Clara County. The types of land use projects addressed include residential, office, and industrial land uses, those land uses in combination with each other, and those land uses with or without local serving retail space. The SCC VMT Estimation Tool will be modular such that VTA, along with cities in Santa Clara County and the County of Santa Clara, can include specific VMT screening criteria or model data within the Tool. The Tool will be scalable such that it can be used for a range of project sizes and location within any jurisdiction in Santa Clara County. The SCC VMT Estimation tool evaluates the VMT for proposed land use projects by determining whether the project is located within a low VMT generating area, estimating the project generated VMT, and evaluating the project generated VMT after potential reduction measures have been applied. The travel forecasting data that the SCC VMT Estimation Tool uses is static, meaning that any data in this tool does not affect the data used from the source travel forecasting model. The SCC VMT Estimation Tool consists of three separate modules: • VMT Screening – The location of the project is used to determine if the project site is within a low VMT generating area, including low VMT generating traffic analysis zones (TAZ) or parcels and transit priority areas (TPA). • Project Generated VMT – A combination of the project’s location and project details is used to estimate VMT generated from the project, which is expressed as a VMT rate (i.e., VMT per population generating the VMT). This process can use the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)’s parcel-level VMT data or TAZ level VMT generation rates to estimate the project’s VMT. • VMT Reductions – A series of VMT mitigation measures are applied to potentially reduce the project generated VMT. The project VMT is compared to the applicable VMT threshold to determine whether it falls below the threshold at the start, or whether it is reduced below the 14 threshold after applying additional VMT reduction measures. The VMT threshold used in this module is calculated in the VMT Screening module. VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines As a member agency of the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program (CMP), the City of Palo Alto follows the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Congestion Management Program Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (2014) when conducting a transportation impact analysis for a land use or transportation project that affects congestion management program intersections or freeway segments. For consistency, City staff has also used these guidelines alongside city criteria for local transportation impact analysis. The VTA Guidelines are established to provide a clear and consistent technical approach for projects that could have transportation effects (adverse and beneficial) on the transportation system and services, and the resulting reports provide essential information for decision- makers and the public when evaluating individual development and transportation infrastructure projects. SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 15 VMT Metrics The CEQA Guidelines state that each lead agency can identify the metrics and methods used to evaluate environmental effects, so a jurisdiction can choose from a variety of VMT metrics. Typical CEQA practice focuses on environmental effects that occur on a typical weekday, so all references to VMT in the remainder of this white paper are intended to mean VMT that occurs on a typical weekday. Weekday VMT can be broken down into components related to trips for specific purposes (for example, commute trips or shopping trips). Total VMT will tend to scale with the level of activity in a location; that is, the more people who live or work in a particular zone, the higher the total VMT associated with that zone. Many jurisdictions find it useful to express VMT as an efficiency metric (e.g., VMT per person or VMT per employee). This form of the metric is unrelated to the level of activity in a particular location and more about how efficiently the people at that location travel. A project that contributes to a more efficient use of the transportation system would reduce the total VMT per person as compared to a no-project scenario. One example of an efficiency metric is home-based VMT per resident, which looks at how much vehicle travel residents in one place generate, compared to a regional average. Recommendations in OPR Technical Advisory The OPR Technical Advisory recommends the use of efficiency metrics for presentation in CEQA analysis, particularly the following: • Residential Land Use: Home-based (light-duty vehicle) VMT per capita (resident), or household generated VMT per capita (resident). • Office Land Use: Home-based work (light-duty vehicle) VMT per employee, total employee VMT per employee, or work tour VMT per employee. OPR recommends a total VMT metric for retail uses, particularly the following: • Retail Land Use: Total VMT (all vehicles) within an area affected by a project. As the OPR examples show, the VMT metric specification can include all or a portion of all trip purposes, populations, and vehicle types. The OPR recommendations illustrate two VMT metric option concepts: 1. Total VMT (used in the OPR metric for the retail land use), as compared to partial VMT (used in the OPR metrics for office and residential land uses). 2. Project-Generated VMT (used in the OPR metrics for office and residential land uses), as compared to project’s effect on VMT (used in the OPR metric for the retail land use). 16 What Form of VMT Metrics Could be Used? VMT can be expressed in a variety of forms, depending on specific objectives of the analysis. Examples of these forms include as follows:7 • Total Project Generated VMT: VMT including all vehicle trips, vehicle types, and trip purposes. This can be expressed as total project generated VMT or total project generated VMT per service population (residents plus employees). • Partial Home-Based VMT: VMT generated by light-duty vehicles for all trips that begin or end at a residential land use. This is used in describing the VMT effects of residential land uses and is often expressed as home-based VMT per resident. • Partial Home-Based Work VMT: VMT generated by light-duty vehicles only for commute trips (that is, trips that have one end at a workplace and one end at a residence). This is used in describing the VMT effects of workplaces and is often expressed as home-based work VMT per employee. • Total Boundary VMT: VMT that occurs within a selected geographic boundary (e.g., city, county or region) by any type of vehicle. This captures all on-road travel occurring on a roadway network for any purpose and includes local trips as well as trips that pass through the area without stopping. VMT Metric Options: Total VMT and Partial VMT Total VMT metrics include all types of VMT captured by a travel forecasting model, regardless of the type of vehicle or the trip’s purpose. In practice, this means the metric includes visitor trips, medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, public transit buses, and other types of vehicle miles that might not be captured in the most common partial VMT metrics. To the extent that SB 743 is designed to promote infill development, and there is substantial evidence that building projects in one area will have similar VMT effects to existing conditions in that area, a total VMT analysis may not be necessary, or total VMT may be estimated using simpler approaches than a unique travel demand forecasting model run (methodology options are discussed in Chapter 4). However, for projects that are large, complex, controversial, or represent a unique land use for the study area, a total VMT metric will likely be the most appropriate way to assess project effects. In addition, total VMT metrics derived from a transportation forecasting model are necessary to measure a project’s effect on VMT, or how the project changes the total VMT in a given geographic area. This Total Boundary VMT is discussed further in a later section, Project’s Effect on VMT. 7 The definitions in this white paper describe VMT metrics that can be extracted from a trip-based travel forecasting model such as the VTA travel forecasting model. A tour-based travel forecasting model like the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) model estimates different VMT metrics (e.g., household generated VMT per capita, total VMT per employee, or work tour VMT per employee). SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 17 Total VMT is also useful for consistency with other EIR sections, namely greenhouse gases, air quality, and energy consumption. Each of these sections uses total VMT as an input for its analysis, although they may consider VMT on an annual rather than daily basis. Partial VMT refers to the use of only particular trip purposes and/or vehicle types for assessing a project’s impacts. The efficiency metrics recommended by OPR for use in analyzing office and residential projects are partial VMT metrics, because they include only light-duty passenger vehicles and only trips for a specific purpose or made by a specific population. The benefits of these partial VMT metrics include the following: they allow for sketch-level analysis using findings from a prior model run; they are easier to understand and visualize; and for single land uses that are similar to existing development patterns, they are likely reflective of the same impact patterns as would be present with analysis of total VMT. Understanding where built environment conditions lead to VMT-efficient residential and workplace activity is substantial evidence that could help support conclusions that adding similar land uses to those areas would create similar outcomes. This can be considered analogous to collecting vehicle counts at a nearby existing project and developing custom local rates. For projects that may be subject to further scrutiny, only reporting a portion of VMT from select trip purposes and limiting the VMT to light-duty vehicles could be considered an incomplete analysis of VMT. Project applicants may also have concerns with the separation of land uses because it may produce VMT forecasts that dilute the benefits of their projects. For example, mixed-use projects help reduce VMT by shortening vehicle trip lengths or reducing vehicle trips because of the convenience of walking, bicycling, or using transit between project destinations. To quantify these effects with models used in current practice requires analyzing the project as a whole. VMT Metric Options: Project-Generated VMT and Project’s Effect on VMT There are several different VMT metrics that must be included in a complete VMT analysis. One of them, “project’s effect on VMT,” requires use of a travel forecasting model to evaluate potential areawide VMT changes caused by the project. • Project-Generated VMT: The sum of the VMT from, to, and within a project site. • Project’s Effect on VMT (within a selected geographic boundary): An evaluation of the change in total on-road vehicle travel within a geographic area boundary, between without and with project conditions.8 The boundary for a project’s analysis should be selected based on project characteristics such as size and location. The analysis would typically be done at a citywide, countywide, or regional scale. The project-generated VMT and project’s effect on VMT (using boundary VMT) accounting methods are presented in Figure 1 as a generic representation of the VMT metrics. Figure 2 shows the same metrics 8 An often-cited example of how a project can affect VMT is the addition of a grocery store in a food desert. Residents of a neighborhood without a grocery store have to travel a great distance to an existing grocery store. Adding the grocery store to that neighborhood will shorten many of the grocery shopping trips and reduce the VMT to/from the neighborhood. 18 based on the City of Cupertino city limits and street system. Both of these metrics are needed for a comprehensive view of a project’s VMT effects. As discussed in the OPR Technical Advisory, “. . . new retail development redistributes shopping trips rather than creating new trips,”9 estimating the total change in VMT (i.e., the difference in total VMT in the area affected with and without the project) is the best way to analyze a retail project’s transportation impact.” 9 Lovejoy, et al. (2013) Measuring the impacts of local land-use policies on vehicle miles traveled: The case of the first big-box store in Davis, California, The Journal of Transport and Land Use. Measuring Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Figure 1 Project Limits/Jurisdiction Limits Notes: External to External (XX) trips are excluded from this VMT metric. Adjustments to project generated VMT made to include the full length of trips that leave the jurisdiction to capture inter-jurisdiction travel. 1 2 3 Project Generated VMT External to Internal (XI) VMT Internal to External (IX) VMT 2x Internal to Internal (2xII) VMT1 2 3 External to External (XX) VMT4 4 Project Effect on VMT (Boundary VMT) Notes: Boundary VMT is all the VMT on the streets within the Project Limits / Jurisdiction Limits. External to Internal (XI) VMT Internal to External (IX) VMT Internal to Internal VMT1 2 3 External to External (XX) VMT4 Project Limits/Jurisdiction Limits 3 1 2 4 W:\San Francisco N Drive\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1094_PaloAlto_2020_SCAP_SB743\Graphics\GIS\MXD\SF20_1094_VMT\SF20_1094_VMT.aprx 0HDVXULQJ9HKLFOH0LOHV7UDYHOHG 907 LQ3DOR$OWR ZLWK&LW\6WUHHWVDQG&LW\/LPLWV )LJXUH ,HKDR ,HKDR W:\San Francisco N Drive\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1094_PaloAlto_2020_SCAP_SB743\Graphics\AI\SF20_1094_Fig02_PaloAlto_VMT_0519.ai Measuring Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in Palo Alto with City Streets and City Limits Figure 2 Project Generated VMT Project Effect on VMT (Boundary VMT) Legend: = Palo Alto City Limits = Sphere of Influence = 2 x Internal to Internal (2 x II) VMT = External to Internal (XI) VMT = Internal to External (IX) VMT = External to External (XX) VMT 2 3 1 4 Legend: = Palo Alto City Limits = Sphere of Influence = Internal to Internal (II) VMT = External to Internal (XI) VMT = Internal to External (IX) VMT = External to External (XX) VMT = Streets included in boundary VMT calculation 1 2 3 4 Notes: External to External (XX) trips are excluded from this VMT metric. Adjustments to project generated VMT made to include the full length of trips that leave the Palo Alto to capture inter-city travel. Notes: Boundary VMT is all the VMT within the Palo Alto (city limits). 3 22 4 3 1 1 4 101 101 WoodsideRd dR oinotnA naS Univ ersity A ve Emba r c ade r o Rd Alm a St AlpineRd B a ysh o re R d JuniperoSerraBlv d Ala m e d a de Las Pulgas Mid d l e f i e l d R d Sand Hill Rd Page Mill Rd El Ca m i n o Real 82 85 280 Foo t h i l l E x p y Centr a l E x p y 101 101 WoodsideRd dR oinotnA naS Univ ersity A ve Emba r c ade r o Rd Alm a St AlpineRd B a ysh o re R d JuniperoSerraBlv d Foo t h i l l E x p y Centr a l E x p y Ala m e d a de Las Pulgas Sand Hill Rd Page Mill Rd El Ca m i n o Real 82 85 280 Mid d l e f i e l d R d SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 21 Project-generated VMT is calculated by summing the “VMT from” and “VMT to” the project site (or a larger area when the project is a plan such as a Specific Plan or General Plan). These calculations are usually performed using outputs from a travel forecasting model. Most travel forecasting models will output information on the project generated VMT associated with the land use in a given transportation analysis zone (TAZ); that total is typically as follows: 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐺𝐺𝑃𝑃𝐺𝐺𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐺𝐺𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐺𝐺 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉=𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 𝐹𝐹𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹+𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 𝑉𝑉𝑃𝑃=(𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼+𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼)+(𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼+𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼)=2 ∗𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼+𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼+𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 • Internal-Internal (II): The full length of all trips made entirely within the project area is counted. • Internal-External (IX): The full length of all trips with an origin within the project area and destination outside of the area is counted. • External-Internal (XI): The full length of all trips with an origin outside of the project area and destination within the area is counted. There are two additional adjustments that should be made to reach a total project generated VMT. First, because most VMT calculation methods multiply the number of trip ends by the trip length, the internal- internal VMT in the project area is double counted; convention generally divides the internal-internal VMT by two to compensate for this. Second, an adjustment to the project generated VMT should be made to include the full length of trips that leave the travel forecasting model area to fully capture interregional travel (an example may be a trip from the Bay Area to Sacramento; Sacramento is not included in any of the Bay Area travel models). The total can be further broken down into components related to trips for specific purposes (for example, commute trips or shopping trips). When describing VMT metrics in impact analysis, lead agencies should report project changes in absolute terms and consider whether an “efficiency form” of the metric, such as total project generated VMT per service population (i.e., population plus employment), is meaningful for impact analysis.10 Since emissions and energy impact analysis require absolute amounts of VMT as an input, total weekday VMT in absolute terms is the minimum requirement. The efficiency form of the metric is a VMT generation rate similar to a vehicle trip rate. In addition, since total VMT will increase or fluctuate with population and employment growth, changes in economic activity, and expansion of new vehicle travel choices (i.e., Uber, Lyft, autonomous vehicles, etc.), expressing VMT measurement in an efficiency metric form allows for more direct comparisons to baseline conditions when it comes to land use projects, and land use plans. Project’s effect on VMT is estimated within a selected geographic boundary (e.g., city, county, or region) and captures all VMT on the roadway network, including both local trips and longer-distance travel that 10 Many jurisdictions find it useful to express VMT as an efficiency metric (e.g., VMT per person or VMT per employee). This form of the metric is unrelated to the level of activity in a particular location and more about how efficiently the people at that location travel. A project that contributes to a more efficient use of the transportation system would reduce the total VMT per person as compared to a no-project scenario. A commonly used efficiency metric is “total VMT per service population,” in which the denominator called “service population” includes all of the variables that generate vehicle trips in the travel forecasting models that estimate VMT; in most instances this will include residents plus employees, and may also include other categories of people such as visitors or students if those categories are used in the trip generation estimates in the travel forecasting model. 22 does not have an origin or destination within the area. It is often referred to as boundary VMT. It is a more complete evaluation of the potential effects of the project because it captures the combined effect of new VMT, shifting of existing VMT to/from other neighborhoods, and/or shifts in existing VMT to alternate travel routes or modes. The absolute change in VMT between a without project and with project condition can be compared directly if the land use totals are equal between scenarios. If the land use totals are different, the VMT should be divided by the service population (typically residents plus employees but may include other VMT generators like students and visitors) to distinguish the effects of population and/or employment growth from the effects of changes in personal travel behavior. The land use changes for small projects in a jurisdiction are relatively small compared to the total residential population and employment of the city, and the typical project is unlikely to have widespread regional VMT effects. Therefore, if using a travel model to estimate a smaller project’s effect on VMT, the selected geographic region should be either a jurisdiction or a smaller study area. However, the selected area should remain large enough to capture the VMT changes associated with the project. Additional considerations for smaller projects are discussed further in the VMT Calculation Methods chapter (Chapter 4). VMT Metrics for Other Resource Areas As referenced earlier in this discussion of VMT metrics, a common practice for greenhouse gases, air quality, and energy consumption impact analysis is to use the following VMT, produced using a local or regional travel forecasting models: • Project generated VMT: Total project generated VMT with adjustments for trips that travel outside the model area and disaggregated by speed bin.11 (This VMT metric may vary based on a local jurisdictions Comprehensive Plan, Climate Action Plan, and regional air district requirements.) • Project’s effect on VMT within a select geography: Boundary VMT on all roadways within a geographic area disaggregated by speed bin. Emissions vary by speed bin; disaggregating VMT by speed bin allows different emissions factors to be applied at different speeds, which allows for the preparation of a more refined emissions analysis. Summary of VMT Metric Options The following summary table (Table 1) clarifies the VMT metric, definition, VMT accounting specification, and potential use as an input for other CEQA sections, including greenhouse gases, air quality, and energy consumption impact analysis. With the exception of Total Project Generated VMT per service population, each VMT metric listed in this table are described in the Technical Advisory: On Evaluating Transportation 11 Total VMT by speed bin is the VMT on the roadway for a given speed range (typically a five-mile-an-hour increment of speed from 0 to ~80 miles per hour). Emissions rates of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases, and energy consumption vary based on vehicle speed. Thus, segmenting VMT by speed bin provides a more precise estimate of these emissions. SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 23 Impacts in CEQA (December 2018); see pages 5, 6 and 23, and Appendix 1 of the Technical Advisory. It is suggested that each of these VMT metrics be included so that all forms of VMT needed for screening and complete analysis are available (including boundary VMT by speed bin for air quality, GHG, and energy impact analysis). Table 1: Summary of Common VMT Metrics VMT Metric1 Definition Location of VMT Accounting Specification in this White Paper Recommended by OPR VMT used for other CEQA Sections? Total Project Generated VMT Daily VMT of all vehicle trips, vehicle types, and trip purposes for all project land uses, presented as a total project generated VMT. Project Generated VMT Accounting on page 17 Yes, for land use plans, and discussed in Appendix 1 of the OPR Technical Advisory. Yes Total Project Generated VMT per Service Population2. 3 (aka Total Project Generated VMT Rate) Daily VMT of all vehicle trips, vehicle types, and trip purposes for all project land uses, divided by the sum of residents plus employees. Project Generated VMT Accounting on page 16 using Total VMT per Service Population. No, although may be helpful for mixed-use projects and comparing land use scenarios, particularly when using a travel forecasting model. Yes Partial Home-Based VMT per Resident4 (aka Home-Based VMT Rate) VMT generated by light-duty vehicles for all trips that begin or end at a residential land use, divided by residents. Project Generated VMT Accounting on page 17 using Home-Based VMT per Resident. Yes, for residential projects on page 5 and Appendix 1 of OPR Technical Advisory. No Partial Home-Based Work VMT per Employee4 (aka Home-Based Work VMT Rate) VMT by light-duty vehicles only for work trips (that is, trips that have one end at a workplace and one end at a residence), divided by number of employees. Project Generated VMT Accounting on page 16 using Home-Based Work VMT per Employee. Yes, for office projects on page 6 and Appendix 1 of OPR Technical Advisory. No 24 Table 1: Summary of Common VMT Metrics VMT Metric1 Definition Location of VMT Accounting Specification in this White Paper Recommended by OPR VMT used for other CEQA Sections? Project’s Effect on VMT within the Boundary of a Specific Area (aka Boundary VMT; Total VMT) VMT that occurs within a selected geographic boundary (e.g., City, County, or region) by any type of vehicle. This captures all on-road vehicle travel on a roadway network for any purpose, and includes local trips as well as trips that pass through the area without stopping. Boundary VMT on page 21 Yes, for retail projects and transportation projects on pages 5, 6 and 23 and Appendix 1 of the OPR Technical Advisory. Yes Notes: 1. Each VMT metric is an option for baseline and/or cumulative impact analysis. 2. Total project generated VMT is derived from this VMT rate. 3. The project generated VMT accounting is similar to an origin-destination accounting used for many Climate Action Plans. 4. A partial VMT estimate. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020. SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 25 OPTIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND CONSIDERATIONS: VMT METRICS COMMON OPTIONS •Total Project Generated VMT •Total Project Generated VMT per Service Population** •Household Generated VMT per Resident (requires an activity/tour-based travel forecasting model) •Home-Based VMT per Resident (a partial VMT estimate) •Home-Based Work VMT per Employee (a partial VMT estimate) •Project’s Effect on VMT using Boundary VMT for a specific area COMMON LIMITATIONS Metrics other than total VMT and total VMT per service population typically only represent partial VMT (i.e., some vehicle types and trip purposes are excluded in the models used to estimate VMT). This may be acceptable for screening purposes but not for a complete VMT impact analysis. Project generated VMT metrics cannot capture how a project changes behavior of non-project residents or employees. CONSIDERATIONS The expectations of a CEQA impact analysis to strive to provide a complete picture of the effects of a project on the environment are highlighted within the CEQA Guidelines. For lead agencies, VMT metrics and method should consider current practice for air quality, greenhouse gases, and energy consumption impact analysis. In general, VMT is used as an input for these other analyses, and current practice is to produce VMT estimates and forecasts that comply with CEQA Guidelines expectations. ** Service population includes population plus employment and may include students or visitors; it is intended to include all independent variables used in estimating trips. OPTION 1 NEAR-TERM: RELY ON THE OPR TECHNICAL ADVISORY THRESHOLDS Include the following so that all forms of VMT needed for screening and complete VMT analysis are available: •Total Project Generated VMT •Total Project Generated VMT per Service Population •Home-Based VMT per Resident •Home-Based work VMT per Employee •Boundary VMT for an appropriate area affected by the Project (needed for air quality, GHG, and energy analysis) OPTION 2 FAR-TERM: SET THRESHOLDS CONSISTENT WITH THE 2020 S/CAP OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE YEAR VMT PROJECTIONS Include the following so that forms of VMT needed for a complete VMT analysis are available: •Total Project Generated VMT •Total Project Generated VMT per Service Population •Boundary VMT for an appropriate area affected by the Project (needed for air quality, GHG, and energy analysis) 26 VMT Calculation Methods What Methods are Available to use in Estimating and Forecasting VMT? VMT forecasts are generated using various forms of travel forecasting models that range from simple spreadsheets based on historic travel trends to complex computer models that account for numerous factors influencing travel demand. Possible travel forecasting models/tools include the following: • Travel Forecasting Models: A travel forecasting model is a computer model used to estimate travel behavior for a specific horizon year based on land use and transportation network supply inputs. VMT is one output of a travel forecasting model run. The Caltrans Statewide Travel Forecasting Model, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Regional Travel Forecasting Model, and Santa Clara County/San Mateo County (VTA-C/CAG) Bi-County Travel Forecasting Model are all examples of travel forecasting models. • Non-Model “Accounting Methods:” In some cases where a travel model is not available or not appropriate, VMT can be estimated using sketch models or spreadsheet tools. VMT can also be estimated directly by multiplying the number of trips by an average trip length. Trips can be estimated using the results of local trip generation surveys or trip generation rate data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Trip lengths can be extracted from models or from standardized averages or travel pattern data from the regional or sub-regional planning organization. Using trip length averages does not consider changes to the roadway network or traffic congestion, or the project’s potential effects on overall travel patterns. These non-model “accounting methods” could also be paired with a travel model and used between major model updates or to estimate project generated VMT for small projects that would “get lost” in a model. The forthcoming Santa Clara Countywide VMT Estimation Tool is an example of a VMT screening tool that uses outputs from a travel forecasting model and conducts off-model VMT reduction calculations to test potential transportation demand management strategies to reduce VMT. Model Selection for Calculating VMT An ideal tool for an SB 743 VMT analysis is a travel forecasting model that has been appropriately calibrated and validated for local project size and scale and has trip length data that accounts for trips that extend beyond the model boundary. Many travel forecasting models also account for travel patterns due to congestion, public transit, and non-motorized transit (walking and biking). SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 27 Travel Forecasting Models The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 765, Analytical Travel Forecasting Approaches for Project-Level Planning and Design, Transportation Research Board (TRB) (2014) is a detailed resource with many applicable sections. A few highlights related to forecasting expectations for models are listed below: • A travel forecasting model should be sensitive to the policies and projects that the model is expected to help evaluate. • Project-level travel forecasts should be validated following the guidelines of the Travel Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual, Second Edition, from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). • The model should be recalibrated frequently to ensure that validation standards are continuously met. If used as the primary basis for calculating VMT, selection of an appropriate travel forecasting model is an important step. It is important for consistency because the model used to develop VMT thresholds should also be used to evaluate a project’s direct and cumulative VMT impacts. The OPR Technical Advisory emphasizes this point (Technical Advisory: On Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, page 6). “It is critical, however, that the agency be consistent in its VMT measurement approach throughout the analysis to maintain an “apples-to-apples” comparison. For example, if the agency uses a home- based VMT for the threshold, it should also be use home-based VMT for calculating project VMT and VMT reduction due to mitigation measures.” The VTA travel forecasting model includes a more detailed representation of the transportation network and land use patterns in Santa Clara County, and is the model that has traditionally been used for most project-specific applications in Santa Clara County. A comparison of available travel forecasting models is shown in Appendix C. Using a travel forecasting model has some advantages over other methods, such as using sketch models or spreadsheet tools, because a travel model is better able to account for both project generated VMT and the project’s effect on total area-wide VMT. A spreadsheet tool cannot evaluate project’s effect on VMT. Both project generated and the project’s effect on total VMT (as noted earlier) are important in a CEQA analysis. In addition, travel forecasting models can help identify the effects of transportation projects on VMT: for instance, would adding an additional vehicle lane induce new VMT, or cause people to drive who otherwise wouldn’t have? A travel forecasting model should have a base year and a future year, which are needed to evaluate project and cumulative impacts. As noted above, lead agencies have discretion to choose their analysis methods. However, if they prefer to establish thresholds that rely on regional averages of baseline VMT, then the travel forecasting model must cover a large enough area. The OPR Technical Advisory cites the importance of not truncating trip lengths based on travel forecasting model or political boundaries: 28 Considerations for All Projects. Lead agencies should not truncate any VMT analysis because of jurisdictional or other boundaries, for example, by failing to count the portion of a trip that falls outside the jurisdiction or by discounting the VMT from a trip that crosses a jurisdictional boundary. CEQA requires environmental analyses to reflect a “good faith effort at full disclosure.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15151.) Thus, where methodologies exist that can estimate the full extent of vehicle travel from a project, the lead agency should apply them to do so. Where those VMT effects will grow over time, analyses should consider both a project’s short-term and long-term effects on VMT. (Quote from page 6 of the Technical Advisory: On Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, December 2018). Most regional travel forecasting models used by metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) have sufficient geographic coverage to produce these estimates, although they typically truncate trip lengths at the model boundary (usually meaning that inter-regional VMT is not fully captured without adjustments in the VMT forecasts). This can be an important limitation for cities or counties at the edge of the travel forecasting model boundary. In addition to concerns around truncating trips, most models cannot analyze transportation effects at the parcel or project level because the most disaggregate level of land use in a travel model is the transportation analysis zone.12 These TAZ boundaries are not artificial and substantial effort is usually applied when designing a TAZ system. While a project may be one or several parcels, the finest level a VMT analysis should be conducted on (absent supporting substantial evidence of statistical validity) is the TAZ. As such, it does present a limitation for analysis of smaller areas at the sub-TAZ level. The response to this type of limitation is to modify the model to add detail and split TAZs. Should an analyst identify noise or anomalies in the VMT results, further testing and investigation is needed to diagnose and understand the cause and prepare an appropriate solution. The solution may result in minor refinements to the TAZ structure (as noted above), update land use or transportation network inputs, or more comprehensive improvements to ensure the travel model is sufficiently accurate and sensitive to the local-scale applications. The TAZ size also influences the types of streets vehicle traffic is typically assigned to. For a regional forecasting model, an arterial or minor arterial is the lowest street level that traffic is assigned to; for a sub-regional/local travel forecasting model, it is typically a collector or possibly local streets. As such, for most travel forecasting model uses, VMT on smaller streets is not calculated. Lead agencies should be aware that regional models ‘off the shelf’ are often not sufficiently accurate or sensitive to local-scale applications such as individual land use project analysis. Calibration and validation of the model within the project study area are typically needed, including refinements and modifications to better represent the project and its effects. 12 As defined by NCHRP Report 716, Travel Demand Forecasting: Parameters and Techniques, TRB, 2012, “TAZ boundaries are usually major roadways, jurisdictional borders, and geographic boundaries and are defined by homogeneous land uses to the extent possible.” SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 29 The OPR Technical Advisory states that sketch-level models may be used for project VMT analysis if the trip lengths are replaced with those from the local or regional model that was used to establish the lead agency’s VMT thresholds. To be fully consistent, the trip generation estimates of the sketch model would also have to be replaced. Unfortunately, most travel forecasting models do not use typical project land uses as trip generation inputs, making this substitution difficult. Non-Model Spreadsheets and Sketch Planning Tools Sketch planning tools are generally designed for project-scale applications to estimate VMT or to evaluate VMT reduction strategies associated with transportation demand management (TDM). Given their project- scale focus, a major limitation for all these tools is that they are not capable of producing region-wide or city-wide average VMT metrics for purposes of threshold setting. In addition, they may not be able to account for land use that is substantially different from existing land uses. The OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA contains the following specification for models and methods (page 5 of OPR Technical Advisory). Models and methodologies used to calculate thresholds, estimate project VMT, and estimate VMT reduction due to mitigation should be comparable. For example: • A tour-based assessment of project VMT should be compared to a tour-based threshold, or a trip-based assessment to a trip-based VMT threshold. • Where a travel demand model is used to determine thresholds, the same model should also be used to provide trip lengths as part of assessing project VMT. • Where only trip-based estimates of VMT reduction from mitigation are available, a trip-based threshold should be used, and project VMT should be assessed in a trip-based manner. If travel forecast model outputs from the VTA-C/CAG Bi-County travel forecasting model (“VTA travel model”) are used to identify the VMT baseline value that sets the threshold for significance determination, then the VTA travel model (or its inputs/outputs) would need to be used for project analysis to determine project generated VMT. As a result, current sketch tools “off-the-shelf” would not be appropriate to estimate project generated VMT for SB 743 purposes. The sketch models would require modification, such as using VMT generation rate outputs from the local or regional travel forecasting model used to set thresholds. A potential off-the-shelf application for some of these tools is to test VMT reduction strategies. Even for this type of application, care must be taken by the analyst to understand what VMT reduction strategies may have already been captured in the VTA travel model to avoid double counting. This review evaluated eleven sketch model tools using the following criteria. We also incorporated information from reviews conducted through academic research by UC Davis and UC Berkeley. 1. Defensibility – How defensible is the use of this tool in terms of the accuracy of its outputs and frequency of use by other agencies. 30 2. Sensitivity – How sensitive is to the tool to the specific land use contexts and TDM strategies (e.g., does the tool allow the user to import details related to the context surrounding the project site and the proposed TDM mitigation measures). 3. Utility – How easy is the tool to use to evaluate VMT and TDM strategies. The eleven sketch model tools reviewed are listed below. • CalEEMod – is a statewide computer model designed to estimate emissions of criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) associated with land use projects. This model also provides VMT estimates that are a part of the emissions modeling process.13 • Sketch 7 – is a spreadsheet tool that estimates percent reductions to VMT based on the 7 Ds (i.e., density, diversity, distance, design, destination, demographics, and development scale). • VMT Impact Tool/Salon – is a spreadsheet tool created by Deborah Salon at UC Davis for the California Air Resources Board that quantifies how much VMT will change in response to changes in land use and transportation system variables at a policy level. • GreenTRIP Connect – is an online tool for residential projects that allows users to evaluate the VMT and GHG emissions of their project and to test a limited set of built-in TDM strategies. • MXD/MXD+ – is a mixed-use development trip generation tool developed for U.S. EPA that adjusts ITE daily trip generation estimates to reflect built environment effects. MXD+ incorporates the ITE mixed-use trip generation method to produce a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation estimates for mixed use projects. To estimate VMT, the trip generation results from MXD/MXD+ must be multiplied by trip lengths from observed data or regional/local travel forecasting models. • UrbanFootprint (UF) – is a scenario planning tools that produces VMT estimates relying on the MXD trip generation methodology. Trip lengths are calculated within the model but do not reflect network-based routing. • Envision Tomorrow – is a scenario planning tool that produces VMT estimates. • California Smart-Growth Trip Generation Adjustment Tool – is a spreadsheet tool that provides the number of trips generated by land use projects implementing smart growth principles. • TRIMMS – is a visual basic application spreadsheet model that estimates mode share and VMT changes brought about by a number of TDM strategies. • VMT+ – is a web-based application that estimates VMT and emissions using ITE trip rates and user-defined trip and land use inputs. • TDM+ – is a spreadsheet tool that estimates the percent reduction in VMT due to the implementation of one or many different TDM strategies identified in the Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, CAPCOA, 2010. 13 CalEEMod uses ITE trip generation rates, but does not currently have a license to use ITE trip generation rates, which could affect the usefulness of this sketch tool. SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 31 Table 2 provides a summary of the tool review. Each of the sketch models reviewed, except for the CA Smart Growth Tool and MXD/MXD+, provide direct estimates of project generated VMT or calculates the percent change in VMT. None of the models are capable of producing city-wide or region-wide VMT estimates for threshold setting, fully evaluating the project’s effect on VMT, or evaluating cumulative VMT impacts. Only CalEEMod, GreenTRIP Connect, TRIMMS, and TDM+ evaluate the impacts of TDM strategies for VMT mitigation. In addition to the tools shown in Table 2, VTA is currently in the process of developing a web application that will screen and estimate project generated VMT and VMT reductions for land use projects in Santa Clara County. The types of land use projects would include residential, office, and industrial land uses, those land uses in combination with each other, and those land uses with or without ancillary retail space. The Santa Clara Countywide VMT Evaluation Tool will be modular, such that VTA, along with the cities and towns in Santa Clara County can include their specific VMT screening requirements or VMT data within the Santa Clara Countywide VMT Evaluation Tool. The web application will be scalable such that it can be used for a range of project sizes and locations within any jurisdiction in Santa Clara County. This web application will include the partial home-based VMT per resident and partial home-based work VMT per employee, and has the potential to include total VMT per service population, boundary VMT, and a project’s effect on VMT screening. 32 Table 2: Overview of Sketch Planning Tools Sketch Tool Output Technical & Legal Defensibility Parameter Sensitivity Administrative Utility Comments User Experience: Benefits (UC Davis1) User Experience: Drawbacks (UC Davis1) Conclusions (UC Berkeley2) Conclusion CalEEMod VMT ++ Widespread use, used by SCAQMD + Many parameters, but limited context, transit as mitigation, no internalization, TDM reduction needs work ++ Relatively easy to use, but no flexibility Trinity Consultants product, may not be able to make changes. CalEEMod uses ITE trip generation rates, but does not currently have a license to use ITE trip generation rates. Many, customizable inputs; program interface reduces back-end error Many, customizable inputs; defaults and land use categories may misrepresent project and/or context area Easier data demands; difficult to determine location attributes, especially to avoid double counting; documentation did not provide enough guidance on method selection Not recommended Sketch 7 % Change in VMT + HH VMT + No internalization, no TDM reduction, no trip purpose + Produces % change in VMT, generic place types Straightforward inputs & interface; system-level outputs; outputs include walk, bike, and transit trips Spreadsheet interface can become “buggy”, break; regional TAZ data used to calibrate tool may be difficult to obtain [Not reviewed] Not recommended VMT Impact Tool/Salon % Change in VMT + HH VMT + No internalization, no TDM reduction, no trip purpose + Produces % change in VMT Scenario testing for census tract level & above; not project-level [Not reviewed] [Not reviewed] [Not reviewed] Not recommended GreenTRIP Connect VMT; Change in VMT + Recent + Affordable housing, TDM credit for 4 strategies ++ Good user interface, but residential/affordable only Would need to work with TransForm Simple user interface; straightforward outputs Measures only residential travel, even in mixed-use projects [Not reviewed] Candidate for TDM impacts; great interface, would need to integrate more land uses and strategies; rural results may not be valid UrbanFootprint VMT +++ Used by SCAG for RTP/SCS ++ Many parameters, no TDM reduction, mixed-used is not by land use + Open source, overly complex for this use Primarily scenario planning; need to check with Calthorpe re editing open source code [Not reviewed] [Not reviewed] [Not reviewed] Not recommended Envision Tomorrow VMT + Added parameters diluted research ++ Many parameters, no TDM reduction + Open source, complex spreadsheet tool Primarily scenario planning; owned by Fregonese [Not reviewed] [Not reviewed] [Not reviewed] Not recommended CA Smart Growth Tool Trips ++ + No trip purpose, no TDM reduction + Does not generate VMT Few, intuitive inputs with direction of where to find them Calculates trips one land use at a time, and in limited context areas; calculates trips, not VMT [Not reviewed] Not recommended TRIMMS VMT ++ Used by SJCOG ++ TDM reduction + Only does TDM reduction for employees (not LU) Has a few elements that do not exist in CAPCOA; integrate into another tool? [Not reviewed] [Not reviewed] [Not reviewed] Not recommended MXD+ Trips; VMT +++ ++ Many parameters, no TDM reduction ++ Simple inputs categories; straightforward outputs Important input data may be difficult to find High data input demands; obtaining data required GIS capability3 Not recommended VMT+ VMT + Surpassed by MXD+ + Limited parameters ++ Easily used [Not reviewed] [Not reviewed] [Not reviewed] Not recommended TDM+ % Change in VMT +++ CAPCOA-based ++ ++ May want to add more TDM measures Only does TDM reductions; needs to be coupled with VMT estimator [Not reviewed] [Not reviewed] [Not reviewed] Best option for TDM impacts; no rural option Sources: Fehr & Peers, 2019; UC Davis, 2017; UC Berkeley, 2018. Notes: 1Amy Lee, Kevin Fang, and Susan Handy; “Evaluation of Sketch-Level Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Quantification Tools,” National Center for Sustainable Transportation, August 2017. 2Elisa Barbour, Dan Chatman, Sarah Doggett, Stella Yip, and Manuel Santana; “SB 743 implementation: Challenges and Opportunities [Draft Final],” June 5, 2018. 3Analysis based on earlier, public spreadsheet tool; more advanced proprietary versions available. SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 33 OPTIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND CONSIDERATIONS: VMT CALCULATION METHODS COMMON OPTIONS 1.Caltrans Statewide Travel Demand Model 2.Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Regional Travel Forecasting Model 3.VTA-C/CAG Bi-County Travel Forecasting Model 4.Non-model “accounting methods,” such as sketch planning tool or spreadsheet** COMMON LIMITATIONS 1.Statewide and regional models have limited sensitivity and accuracy for local scale applications off the shelf. 2.Regional and local models often truncate trips at model boundaries. 3.Sketch and spreadsheet tools do not capture the ‘project effect on VMT.’ CONSIDERATIONS Selection of an appropriate travel forecasting approach is an important step because the tool used to develop VMT thresholds must also be used to evaluate a project’s direct and cumulative VMT impacts. Regional or local models should be calibrated and validated for local project-scale sensitivity/accuracy (including appending trip length data for trips with external trip ends) before using these models to analyze both project generated VMT and project effect on VMT. **Sketch planning tool or spreadsheet method has limitations if using a citywide or regional average for a threshold. OPTION 1 NEAR-TERM: RELY ON THE OPR TECHNICAL ADVISORY THRESHOLDS Use the Santa Clara Countywide VMT Evaluation Tool for baseline VMT screening. And most likely the VTA-C/CAG Bi-County Travel Forecasting Model, Local City of Palo Alto Travel Forecasting Model, or Non-model “Accounting Methods” such as sketch planning tool or spreadsheet for more complete VMT analysis. OPTION 2 FAR-TERM: SET THRESHOLDS CONSISTENT WITH THE 2020 S/CAP OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE YEAR VMT PROJECTIONS Most likely the VTA-C/CAG Bi-County Travel Forecasting Model, or the Local City of Palo Alto Travel Forecasting Model. 34 VMT Impact Significance Thresholds Because SB 743 introduces a new mandatory metric for use in CEQA analysis, lead agencies will need to determine what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable levels of VMT. This process is generally referred to as establishing significance thresholds, and is governed by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7, which states the following: 15064.7. THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE. (a) Each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects. A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative, or performance level of an environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant. (b) Thresholds of significance to be adopted for general use as part of the lead agency’s environmental review process must be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation, and developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial evidence. (c) When adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence. In more general terms, this indicates that agencies are encouraged to formally adopt thresholds of significance for VMT, and that they have leeway to consider a wide variety of opinions from public agencies and experts. Ultimately, agencies have discretion to determine a threshold of significance, either on a case-by-case basis or through a more formal adoption process, provided that they can present substantial evidence that the threshold is set at a level that would normally be considered to have a significant environmental impact. For projects that are not able to meet the established threshold, the VMT impact would be considered significant and unavoidable, preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required, and approval of the project would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. With regard to establishing thresholds for VMT, lead agencies have at least four options: 1) Use Screening Criteria. The concept of project screening is that some projects have characteristics that readily lead to the conclusion that they would not cause a VMT impact, and therefore could be screened out of doing a detailed VMT analysis. The CEQA Guidelines state that projects within ½ mile of a major SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 35 transit stop or a stop along a high-quality transit corridor (i.e., with at least 15-minute headways during peak hours) should be presumed to have no impact on VMT. In addition, the OPR Technical Advisory presents a method for “map-based” screening, where projects located in low-VMT areas may require only a qualitative discussion of their VMT effects, provided they comply with best practices for infill development. The areas that would qualify as “low-VMT” areas would depend on how a jurisdiction defines its VMT metrics and thresholds. One method for conducting project screening is to develop a GIS-based mapping tool that shows the locations of the transit priority areas and the low-VMT areas, and allows the analyst to plot the project location to see if it meets the screening criteria. Land use projects may also be screened out of further analysis if they are very small or can be demonstrated to primarily attract trips that would otherwise travel longer distance. Further, certain transportation projects, such as installation of bicycle/pedestrian/transit infrastructure, or projects designed to address a localized operational issue, can be presumed not to contribute to increased VMT. 2) Rely on the OPR Technical Advisory suggestion to set thresholds consistent with State of California goals for air quality, greenhouse gas, and energy conservation. The OPR Technical Advisory contains suggested VMT thresholds. The basic suggested threshold is that each project achieves a VMT level that is at least 15% below baseline conditions. In the case of the City of Palo Alto, the “region” would be the nine-county Bay Area. 3) Use a threshold adopted or recommended by another public agency consistent with lead agency air quality, GHG reduction, and energy conservation goals. The CEQA Guidelines offer the option for an agency to use a threshold that is adopted or recommended by another agency, as long as that decision is supported by substantial evidence. Other state agencies, such as Caltrans and the California Air Resources Board (CARB), have technical expertise that is relevant to this topic. CARB has produced several reports and studies that speak to the level of VMT reduction, in conjunction with many other measures, that would lead to the achievement of California’s GHG goals. Recent CARB publications have identified that new land use projects could contribute to these statewide goals by achieving total project generated VMT levels of at least 14.3% below the existing baseline (the CARB report does not specify whether this “baseline” is the regional average or some other baseline). For light-duty vehicles only, CARB cites a 16.8% reduction below baseline (2018) average VMT. However, the CARB analysis assumes that all of the regions in the state will meet the GHG reduction targets set in their Regional Transportation Plans and Sustainable Communities Strategies (RTP/SCS); thus far, indications are that not all regions are meeting those targets, and vehicular travel in California (at least prior to the COVID-19 pandemic) has been increasing rather than decreasing over the past several years. Further, the CARB analysis does not 36 account for any future increases in the use of Transportation Network Companies (such as Uber and Lyft) or commercial delivery services, nor does it envision the potential for development of autonomous vehicles or any other emerging transportation innovations. Therefore, there is evidence that the VMT reduction values from the CARB publication may not be enough to actually meet the State’s GHG goals. Should current VMT generation trends persist, the threshold may need to increase to 25% below baseline (2018) average of jurisdiction (all vehicles). Caltrans has released draft guidance endorsing the VMT thresholds published in the OPR Technical Advisory. Caltrans does acknowledge that each lead agency has the discretion to set its own significance thresholds, and they will be reviewing the evidence presented by any agency that uses a threshold that differs from those in the Technical Advisory. Separately, Caltrans has released draft Interim Guidance on “Determining CEQA Significance for GHG Emissions for Projects on the State Highway System” that recommends that any increase in GHG emissions would constitute a significant impact. This has been referred to as the “Net Zero VMT Threshold.” While Caltrans has thus far signaled that it would apply this threshold only to transportation projects, it does raise a question about whether Caltrans will suggest that a “net zero VMT” threshold should also be applied to land use projects and plans. 4) Develop jurisdiction specific VMT threshold consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan. Agencies may decide to set their own thresholds, which should be supported by substantial evidence and should support the three objectives laid out in SB 743: 1) reducing GHG emissions, 2) encouraging infill development, and 3) promoting active transportation. The process of setting thresholds should consider the policies and standards set in the RTP/SCS and how much priority a jurisdiction wants to place on the statewide GHG reduction goals. A targeted study could determine what level of VMT in a jurisdiction would be consistent with the VMT forecasts presented in Plan Bay Area and would represent a jurisdiction’s “fair share” of the State’s GHG reduction goals. Another option for setting a local threshold is to consider what level of VMT reduction is feasible to achieve in the local context. Analysis tools are available to estimate the amount of VMT reduction that can be achieved from different types of mitigation strategies deployed in different settings. Applying these tools to the range of settings that exists in a jurisdiction would yield an estimate of the amount of VMT mitigation that could feasibly be achieved, and that figure could then be incorporated into a VMT threshold. Setting a threshold based on the feasibility of mitigation may not be fully supported by past CEQA practices. The City of Palo Alto is currently updating the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) adopted in 2016. The 2016 Plan includes a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (i.e., 80 x 30 goal). The purpose of the 2020 S/CAP is to determine the Goals and Key Actions needed to meet the community’s sustainability goals, including the goal of SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 37 reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The outcome of the 2020 S/CAP update process is the best framework for developing a jurisdiction specific VMT threshold based on Palo Alto GHG reduction goals and strategies. The City of Palo Alto may decide on a revised set of VMT thresholds based on the outcome of the 2020 S/CAP process. Establishing CEQA thresholds for VMT requires complying with the statutory language added by SB 743, as well as guidance contained in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064, 15064.3, and 15064.7. The excerpts in Appendix D highlight the amendments to the two CEQA Guidelines sections that were certified by the California Natural Resources Agency and the Office of Administrative Law at the end of 2018. In addition, a jurisdiction must determine significance thresholds for each of the three project types: land use projects, land use plans, and transportation projects. Context for Setting VMT Impact Thresholds California law14 states that the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts must promote: (1) reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; (2) development of multimodal transportation networks; and (3) a diversity of land uses. Determining an appropriate VMT significance threshold may ultimately depend on whether the courts treat VMT more like air pollution and less like level of service (LOS). If VMT causes adverse effects to human health similar to air pollution, then the threshold should be tied to substantial evidence (i.e., scientific studies) that relate VMT to human health (or human welfare or safety). If this effect varies by area type, then different thresholds may be appropriate. Currently (May 2020), the limited scientific evidence related to VMT changes and their potential for causing adverse effects on humans is the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan. This analysis did not differentiate by area type so a change in rural VMT has no different effect on humans than a change in urban VMT. The VMT would still generate the same amount of GHG emissions (and air pollutant emissions plus other indirect adverse effects) that would still have the same contribution to climate change. On the other hand, if VMT is treated more like LOS, then lead agencies would have a similar level of discretion to establish thresholds based on context (i.e., sensitivity to the amount of vehicle travel). Past practice allowed lead agencies to set LOS thresholds based largely on the local community’s sensitivity to travel delay. This is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064: “…An ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. For example, an activity which may not be significant in an urban area may be significant in a rural area.” Rural areas that were more sensitive were allowed to establish LOS thresholds that equated to lower levels of delay. 14 Section 21099 of California Public Resources Code codifies the required changes to the guidelines implementing CEQA as mandated in Senate Bill 743. Section 21099 includes a requirement that the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts must “promote the reduction of greenhouse emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses”. 38 Using this analogy, a lead agency could set VMT thresholds based on a community’s sensitivity to the amount of vehicle travel or its associated effects. Is the use of VMT Impact Screening Desired? There are several instances where CEQA statute allows for projects to be “screened” out of more detailed analysis. The screening process refers to a relatively quick assessment of the project based on screening criteria discussed below; if the project passes the screening assessment, it can be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. Screening may be based on project location, project characteristics, or a combination of both. Lead agencies are responsible for deciding if projects may screen themselves from further analysis, determining which screening criteria they want to use for which project types, and where to set a screening “threshold.” Projects Located Near Frequent and High Capacity Transit CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3(b) explicitly states that projects within ½ mile of a high-quality transit corridor or major transit station should be presumed to have no impact on VMT. A major transit station is a rail or ferry terminal, or a location where two high-frequency bus lines intersect. A major transit corridor is defined as a corridor with high-frequency bus service in the peak hour. The City of Palo Alto has some discretion whether to define these areas as ½-mile walksheds or ‘as the crow flies.’ Applying a ½ mile walkshed method would be consistent with the concept of screening land uses on parcels that have good access to transit and is a more conservative and defensible approach. Projects Located in Low-VMT Generating Area In addition, the OPR Technical Advisory presents a method for “map-based” screening, where projects located in low-VMT areas may require only a qualitative discussion provided they comply with planning best practices for infill development. A low VMT area is generally defined as one where the VMT per capita under existing conditions (based on a model run) is below the impact threshold adopted by the lead agency. The rationale behind screening based on location in a low-VMT area is that future residents, employees, and visitors are likely to have similar travel patterns to current populations in the study area. Therefore, if a project includes elements that are substantially different from existing development patterns, additional analysis may be necessary even if the area has a low level of VMT generation under existing conditions. Local-Serving Retail Projects Local-serving retail is unlikely to have a substantial influence on local VMT. Smaller retail uses such as grocery stores, dry cleaners, pharmacies, and convenience stores tend to attract visitors from nearby neighborhoods. As an example, consider the effect of a new grocery store in an area without one. Residents of a neighborhood without a grocery store have to travel a great distance to an existing grocery store. Adding the grocery store to that neighborhood will shorten many of the existing grocery shopping trips and reduce the VMT to/from the neighborhood, while it is unlikely to attract visitors who are already SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 39 near an existing grocery store. The OPR Technical Advisory indicates that screening for local-serving retail may be applied for uses up to 50,000 square feet. Specific Transportation Projects Some transportation projects are highly unlikely to create VMT impacts and can be presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT. These include projects that reduce the number of lanes on a roadway (“road diets”), bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects, traffic calming projects, minor signal timing adjustments, and other roadway projects that are not intended to add vehicle capacity or reduce vehicle delay. Projects with No Net VMT Increase Some projects may be reasonably expected to have no net effect on VMT. These would include like-for- like land use replacement projects, development of a site with a less-intensive land use than the existing land use, or any other project that is not expected to cause a change in travel behavior to or from the project site. Affordable Housing Projects The OPR Technical Advisory (pages 14-15) indicates that 100 percent affordable housing projects in infill locations may be screened from further analysis based on evidence that affordable housing both generates less VMT per capita than market-rate housing, and may help improve jobs-housing balance. The City of Palo Alto may apply its own screening criteria for residential projects (or residential portions of mixed-use projects) containing a particular amount of affordable housing based on evidence such as project location (i.e., proximity to jobs, shopping, services, and schools), project characteristics (i.e., parking supply), project trip reduction measures, access to transit and active transportation facilities, etc. Small Projects A jurisdiction may continue to issue guidance regarding when a full transportation impact analysis is necessary by, for instance, allowing the screening of small projects from VMT analysis, or requiring only qualitative VMT assessment for small projects. Screening based on small projects may wish to use the criteria cited in the OPR Technical Advisory (page 12) to screen projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day. Based on research for small project triggers15, this may equate to nonresidential (e.g., office) projects of 10,000 square feet or less and residential projects of 20 units or less. 15 Refer to technical memorandum on small project triggers in Appendix E. 40 OPTIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND CONSIDERATIONS: S CREENING COMMON OPTIONS Projects that reduce VMT or are located within transit priority areas (TPAs) should be presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT. Additional screening options identified in the OPR Technical Advisory for: 1.Map based screening for residential and office projects 2.Local-Serving Retail Projects 3.Transportation projects that do not add vehicle capacity 4.Projects that would not result in a net increase of VMT 5.Affordable housing projects 6.Small projects COMMON LIMITATIONS Screening does not provide information about the actual VMT changes associated with the project. CONSIDERATIONS Screening is most appropriate if consistent with applicable general plan and supported by substantial evidence. OPTION 1 NEAR-TERM: RELY ON THE OPR TECHNICAL ADVISORY THRESHOLDS Rely on screening if consistent with applicable comprehensive plan and supported by substantial evidence demonstrating cumulative VMT is declining. For project-by-project VMT analysis with VMT screening, most projects will likely not screen out, which will require a more complete VMT analysis. Apply screening for the following project types: •Small Developments •Projects in Low-VMT Areas •Projects in Proximity to Major Transit Stops •Affordable Housing •Local-Serving Retail Projects less than 10,000 square feet •Transportation Projects that do not add vehicle capacity The Santa Clara Countywide VMT Estimation Tool will be applied for screening as follows: •Low VMT generation map-based screening of residential, office, and industrial land uses, those land uses in combination with each other, and those land uses with or without local serving retail space. •A transit priority areas (TPAs)/major transit stops and high-quality transit corridor (HQTC) screen. OPTION 2 FAR-TERM: SET THRESHOLDS CONSISTENT WITH THE 2020 S/CAP OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE YEAR VMT PROJECTIONS Screening VMT is not used for this approach. SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 41 What is the VMT Impact Significance Threshold for Land Use Projects and Land Use Plans Under Baseline Conditions? Specific VMT thresholds for residential, office (work-related), and retail land uses from the OPR Technical Advisory are summarized below. • Residential projects: A proposed project exceeding a level of 15% below existing (baseline) VMT per capita may indicate a significant transportation impact. Existing VMT per capita may be measured as regional VMT per capita, a citywide VMT per capita, or as geographic sub-area VMT per capita. • Office projects: A proposed project exceeding a level of 15% below existing (baseline) regional VMT per employee may indicate a significant transportation impact. • Retail projects: A net increase in total (boundary) VMT may indicate a significant transportation impact. • Mixed-use projects: Lead agencies can evaluate each component of a mixed-use project independently and apply the significance threshold for each project type included (e.g., residential and retail). Alternatively, a lead agency may consider only the project’s dominant use. In the analysis of each use, a project should take credit for internal capture. • Other non-residential project types: OPR recommends using the quantified thresholds above, thus a proposed project exceeding a level of 15% below existing regional VMT per employee for the proposed non-residential project type or resulting in a net increase in total (boundary) VMT may be considered significant. Lead agencies, using more location-specific information, may develop their own more specific thresholds, which may include other land use types. • Redevelopment projects: Where a project replaces existing VMT-generating land uses, if the replacement leads to a net overall decrease in VMT, the project would lead to a less-than- significant transportation impact. If the project leads to a net overall increase in VMT, then the thresholds described above should apply. As shown above, OPR does not make consistent recommendations for employment land use projects. In some cases, OPR recommends a 15% reduction in per capita VMT, in some cases no increase in boundary VMT, and in some cases OPR leaves threshold selection to jurisdiction discretion. The OPR Technical Advisory suggests that a VMT per capita of 15 % below existing development may be an appropriate threshold for a significant impact. The 15% reductions specified in the Technical Advisory are based on light-duty vehicle project generated VMT (i.e., passenger cars and light trucks). This presumption was included in the CARB modeling of MPO regional transportation plan/sustainable communities strategies (RTP/SCSs). The CARB Scoping Plan and Mobile Source Strategy identifies that a 14.3% reduction in total VMT per capita or a 16.8% reduction in light-duty vehicle VMT per capita from 2018 baseline levels is necessary to meet state GHG reduction goals by 2050. These reduction values are 42 based on a fair share estimate of new development’s responsibility for VMT reduction and presume that all California residents in the year 2050 will be performing at the reduced VMT levels. If existing residents (meaning those present in 2018) do not change their travel behavior and the full reduction in VMT had to be allocated only to new growth, then the reduction goal for new developments would be much higher. Further, if VMT per capita trends continue to increase as noted in the 2018 Progress Report California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, California Air Resources Board, November 2018, then these reduction percentage values will have to increase. This number is discussed further in Appendix D. OPR’s guidance also recommends measuring VMT in absolute terms, which measures the total VMT in an area with and without the project. This approach is consistent with traditional CEQA analyses which measures impacts in comparison to existing conditions and with OPR’s CEQA Guidelines amendments and OPR Technical Advisory, which state that (1) “Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3(b)(1).) (2) “Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3(b)(2).) (3) “Where development decreases VMT, lead agencies should consider the impact to be less than significant,” (OPR Technical Advisory, p. 16.), (4) “Where a project replaces existing VMT-generating land uses, if the replacement leads to a net overall decrease in VMT, the project would lead to a less-than-significant transportation impact.” (OPR Technical Advisory, p. 17.) It should be noted that the recommendation above for mixed-use projects to focus the VMT analysis on the ”dominant use” may present new challenges. The term ”dominant use” is not defined in the CEQA statute or CEQA Guidelines. As such, there are many ways to define it, which could simply create more legal arguments for challenging projects. A jurisdiction has several possible thresholds to consider. One of the options is based on State goals pertaining to air quality, GHG reduction, and energy conservation, while another option would be based on an existing City Comprehensive Plan. Background on VMT thresholds and additional discussion of potential options are presented in Appendix D. A jurisdiction must determine whether it wishes to analyze VMT impacts based on guidance from statewide agencies or its Comprehensive Plan. If a jurisdiction opts to use statewide guidance, it must determine which agency’s threshold to use, and its standards for determining “significant evidence” for setting a threshold at that level. The primary consideration in determining what constitutes significant evidence revolves around which goals a jurisdiction focuses on (GHG emissions, promoting infill development, or promoting active transportation) and how trends in VMT are projected forward to meet those goals. The VTA used its travel model to prepare baseline (2015) and cumulative (2040) VMT estimates for the home-based VMT per resident and home-based work VMT per employee (see Appendix F). Set a Threshold Based on State Goals This option sets a threshold consistent with a lead agency’s air quality, GHG reduction, and energy conservation goals, presuming they are aligned with (or even exceed) State of California goals. Debate still SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 43 exists about whether State goals as expressed in State plans, Governor executive orders, etc., constitute environmental thresholds. Nevertheless, OPR, CARB, and Caltrans have articulated quantitative estimates for VMT/GHG reduction needed to achieve State GHG reduction goals. Given the CARB regulatory responsibility related to emissions and the Caltrans owner/operator responsibility for the state highway system, their published guidance for VMT impact analysis should be recognized and at least discussed in transportation impact analysis. Including this information will help inform decision makers and the public how the State of California and these specific agencies view VMT effects of projects. One benefit of relying on state agencies for a threshold recommendation is a CEQA Guidelines provision in Section 15064.7(c) that indicates “a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts.” At the time of this document, there are actually four published percent reduction targets, and a possible Caltrans-recommended threshold: • OPR: 15% below baseline average for a city or region (light-duty vehicles only).16 • CARB: 14.3% below baseline (2018) average of jurisdiction (all vehicles, presuming that MPOs meet SB 375 targets). • CARB: 16.8% below baseline (2018) average of jurisdiction (light-duty vehicles only, presuming that MPOs meet SB 375 targets). • CARB: 25% below baseline (2018) average of jurisdiction (all vehicles, presuming that MPOs do not meet SB 375 targets). • Net zero VMT (the threshold that Caltrans has indicated they are likely to recommend for transportation projects that affect the state highway system17). The OPR Technical Advisory makes specific VMT threshold recommendations for analyzing the impact of project generated VMT on baseline conditions but also recommends that VMT analysis consider a project’s long-term effects on VMT. The OPR Technical Advisory states (p. 6): [W]here methodologies exist that can estimate the full extent of vehicle travel from a project, the lead agency should apply them to do so. Where those VMT effects will grow over time, analyses should consider both a project’s short-term and long-term effects on VMT. Another factor for consideration is whether the project is consistent with the applicable RTP/SCS. Although OPR recommends that such consistency not be the sole basis for impact analysis (p. 22), it can be considered in conjunction with other factors especially whether a project would jeopardize the RTP’s 16 The OPR and CARB thresholds do not consider the long-term influence of transportation network companies, internet shopping, new mobility options, or autonomous vehicles. 17 Caltrans is developing a threshold recommendation for land use projects for intergovernmental review (IGR) purposes. Local jurisdictions should consider whether a Caltrans or (CARB) threshold constitutes a state threshold that must be applied in addition to their local threshold preference similar to past practices for LOS impact analysis of the state highway system. 44 air quality conformity, which is tied directly to VMT. These recommendations raise key questions for lead agencies, as addressed in the next section. Set a Threshold Consistent with an Existing Comprehensive Plan This option relies on the VMT growth “budget” established in the comprehensive plan and associated EIR. A Comprehensive Plan establishes how much growth is anticipated in the jurisdiction, where that growth will occur and in what forms, and the transportation network modifications necessary to support that growth. VMT is a composite metric that results from this combination of Comprehensive Plan land use and transportation decisions. Therefore, each adopted Comprehensive Plan in California effectively already has a VMT growth budget implied within that plan that the adopting agency has accepted. This could be a starting point for threshold expectations and can be quantified using the VTA travel model. The incremental difference between base year and future year VMT generated by the jurisdiction in these models represents currently accepted VMT levels. The VMT can be expressed in absolute terms or as an efficiency metric, such as total VMT per service population to create a VMT impact threshold tied exclusively to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Projects can be evaluated using the appropriate travel forecasting model to determine whether they cause an increase in the incremental total VMT growth for the jurisdiction or would generate VMT at a higher rate than anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan for the relevant traffic analysis zone(s). The main limitation of this approach is if a jurisdiction’s adopted Plan was developed prior to State of California approval of a variety of new laws related to climate change and GHG reduction. As such, the Comprehensive Plan may not be consistent with State expectations for emissions and VMT reductions and all the other local community objectives. The update of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan was adopted in November 2017 and includes updated land use and transportation policies supportive of state goals to reduce GHG emissions, active transportation, and in-fill development. The forthcoming S/CAP update will inform of the most current VMT trends and possibly lead to an update of the city’s VMT thresholds consistent with the Comprehensive Plan future year VMT projections. Additional Considerations for Land Use Plans Rather than analyzing VMT for each proposed land use project individually, a jurisdiction may choose to complete VMT impact analysis as part of its Comprehensive Plan EIR and make specific use of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (See Appendix D for additional discussion). Setting a threshold for the Comprehensive Plan itself and analyzing VMT impacts in the Comprehensive Plan EIR could exempt projects consistent with the Comprehensive Plan from further VMT impact analysis. The City of Palo Alto may adopt a threshold that is based on substantial evidence18, use it in its Comprehensive Plan EIR, 18 CEQA Guidelines, § 15384 defines “substantial evidence” as: SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 45 determine if VMT impacts are significant, mitigate to the extent feasible, and adopt a statement of overriding consideration if determined to be appropriate. The lead agency can then tier off the Comprehensive Plan EIR for projects consistent with the Comprehensive Plan without doing additional VMT impact analysis. This could occur after adoption of the 2020 S/CAP. (a) “Substantial evidence” as used in these guidelines means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Whether a fair argument can be made that the project may have a significant effect on the environment is to be determined by examining the whole record before the lead agency. Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment does not constitute substantial evidence. (b) Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. 46 OPTIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND CONSIDERATIONS: BASELINE VMT THRESHOLDS •Lead agency discretion consistent with comprehensive plan and expectations for ‘project scale’ VMT reductions not accounted for in Comprehensive Plan EIR and supported by substantial evidence. •OPR 15 % below baseline average for a city or region (light-duty vehicles only, based on initial assessment of feasibility and requirements to meet statewide GHG goals).** This could potentially also be applied to below a baseline average for a place type. •CARB 14.3% below baseline (2018) average of jurisdiction (all vehicles, presuming that MPOs meet SB 375 targets). This could potentially also be applied to below a baseline average for a place type. •CARB 16.8 % below baseline (2018) average of jurisdiction (light-duty vehicles only, presuming that MPOs meet SB 375 targets). This could potentially also be applied to below a baseline average for a place type. •ARB 25 % below baseline (2018) average of jurisdiction (all vehicles, presuming that MPOs do not meet SB 375 targets). This could potentially also be applied to below a baseline average for a place type. •Pending Caltrans-recommended threshold (net zero VMT) COMMON LIMITATIONS Difficult for lead agencies to determine what level of VMT change is unacceptable when viewed solely through a transportation lens. Uncertainty of VMT trends contributes to difficulty in setting thresholds. Connecting a VMT reduction expectation to baseline helps to reduce uncertainty associated with future conditions. OPTION 1NEAR-TERM: RELY ON THE OPR TECHNICAL ADVISORY THRESHOLDS Specific VMT thresholds for residential, office (work-related), and retail land uses from the OPR Technical Advisory are summarized below. •Residential projects: A proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing (baseline) County home-based VMT per resident may indicate a significant transportation impact. •Office projects: A proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing (baseline) regional home-based work VMT per employee may indicate a significant transportation impact. •Retail projects: A net increase in total (boundary) VMT may indicate a significant transportation impact. •Mixed-use projects: Lead agencies can evaluate each component of a mixed-use project independently and apply the significance threshold for each project type included (e.g., residential and retail). Alternatively, a lead agency may consider only the project’s dominant use. In the analysis of each use, a project should take credit for internal capture. •Other non-residential project types: OPR recommends using the quantified thresholds above, thus a proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing regional VMT per employee for the proposed non-residential project type or resulting in a net increase in total VMT may be considered significant. Lead agencies, using more location-specific information, may develop their own more specific thresholds, which may include other land use types. •Redevelopment projects: Where a project replaces existing VMT-generating land uses, if the replacement leads to a net overall decrease in VMT, the project would cause a less-than-significant transportation impact. If the project leads to a net overall increase in VMT, it may cause a significant transportation impact if SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 47 CONSIDERATIONS Since VMT is already used in air quality, GHG, and energy impact analysis, lead agencies should review thresholds for those sections to help inform new thresholds exclusively for transportation purposes. Lead agencies should carefully consider how they value state goals for VMT/GHG reduction in light of other Comprehensive Plan and community objectives. Translating State of California goals into VMT thresholds should consider substantial evidence such as California Air Resources Board 2017 Scoping Plan - Identified VMT Reductions and Relationships to State Climate Goals, January 2019, CARB. Absent development of a specific VMT threshold, lead agencies may rely on those of other state agencies. The ARB thresholds are supported by substantial evidence related to state air quality and GHG goals, but do not consider recent VMT trends or the potential influence of emerging mobility options such as autonomous vehicles (AVs). **The OPR and CARB thresholds do not consider the long-term influence of transportation network companies, internet shopping, new mobility options, or autonomous vehicles. proposed new residential, office or retail land uses would individually exceed their respective thresholds.. •Area Plans: A comprehensive plan, area plan, or community plan may have a significant impact on transportation if the proposed new land uses would individually exceed their respective thresholds or cause the total project generated VMT per service population to exceed 15 percent below the baseline VMT per service population. Baseline total project generated VMT per service population may be measured as regional VMT per service population, a citywide VMT per service population, or as geographic sub-area VMT per service population. OPTION 2 FAR-TERM: SET THRESHOLDS CONSISTENT WITH THE 2020S/CAP GOALS OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE YEAR VMT PROJECTIONS Set baseline VMT threshold based on long-term Comprehensive Plan expectations for air quality and GHG emissions. The analysis to determine these thresholds would be completed if the City Council selects this option. Example baseline thresholds are as follows. •Land Use Projects o Project Impact: A significant impact would occur if the VMT rate for the project would exceed a level of X% below the applicable baseline VMT rate. o Project Effect: A significant impact would occur if the project increases total (boundary) regional VMT compared to baseline conditions. •Land Use Plans: o Project Impact: A significant impact would occur if the VMT rate for the plan area would exceed a level of X% below the applicable baseline VMT rate. 48 What is the VMT Impact Significance Threshold for Land Use Projects and Land Use Plans Under Cumulative Conditions? An impact under CEQA begins with a change to the existing environment, and therefore Existing (or Baseline) Conditions and Existing with Project Conditions must be evaluated. Because VMT will fluctuate with population and employment growth, changes in economic activity, and changes in travel modes including the expansion of new vehicle travel choices (i.e., the emergence of transportation network companies such as Uber and Lyft, autonomous vehicles, etc.), an impact analysis must also take into account the cumulative effects of the proposed project, these changes, and all other projects. Therefore, evaluations of Cumulative Conditions and Cumulative with Project Conditions are needed to identify potential cumulative impacts. Pages 5 and 6 of the OPR Technical Advisory recommend considering a project’s short-term, long-term, and cumulative effects on VMT. The first reference is on page 5, related to retail projects, while the references on page 6 are for all projects (see excerpts below with most relevant portions underlined). Retail Projects. Generally, lead agencies should analyze the effects of a retail project by assessing the change in total VMT11 because retail projects typically re-route travel from other retail destinations. A retail project might lead to increases or decreases in VMT, depending on previously existing retail travel patterns. (Quote from page 5 of the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, December 2018; footnote 11 in this quote is a reference to see Appendix 1 of the OPR Technical Advisory, which discusses evaluation of Total VMT – OPR is referring to boundary VMT.). Considerations for All Projects. Lead agencies should not truncate any VMT analysis because of jurisdictional or other boundaries, for example, by failing to count the portion of a trip that falls outside the jurisdiction or by discounting the VMT from a trip that crosses a jurisdictional boundary. CEQA requires environmental analyses to reflect a “good faith effort at full disclosure.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15151.) Thus, where methodologies exist that can estimate the full extent of vehicle travel from a project, the lead agency should apply them to do so. Where those VMT effects will grow over time, analyses should consider both a project’s short-term and long-term effects on VMT. (Quote from page 6 of the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, December 2018). Cumulative Impacts. A project’s cumulative impacts are based on an assessment of whether the “incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b)(2); see CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (h)(1).) (Quote from page 6 of the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, December 2018). SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 49 The inclusion of project’s effect for retail has raised the question about whether it would also be appropriate for other land uses. A complete analysis that considers the project’s effect on VMT is important because land use projects can influence the routing of existing trips and the VMT generation of surrounding land uses. Combined with the expectations established in the CEQA Guidelines and CEQA case law, ignoring the project’s effect on VMT may not fully disclose the potential effects on the environment. Cumulative VMT Threshold Options As noted earlier, a Cumulative VMT threshold should be able to evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of a project on VMT and consider uncertainty of VMT trends, such as transportation network companies (TNCs), new mobility options, and autonomous vehicles (AVs). Below is a brief summary of three possible cumulative VMT threshold options: • Fair Share of Regional VMT Allocation: Use the VTA travel model to analyze the project’s effect on VMT based on RTP/SCS consistency (projects should not increase the total project generated regional VMT forecast used to support the RTP/SCS air quality conformity and SB 375 GHG targets). • Cumulative VMT Thresholds is the Same as Baseline VMT Threshold: Use the baseline VMT threshold (used for a Project Conditions evaluation of the project) if the baseline VMT efficiency metric is trending downward under Cumulative Conditions. • Long-Term Air-Quality and GHG Expectations: Establish a VMT reduction threshold for Cumulative Conditions consistent with long-term air pollution and GHG reduction expectations. All three of these options require knowledge of the forecasting tools available to test the project’s effect on land use supply and VMT. Overall, the evaluation of the project’s effect on land use and VMT should use the most appropriate forecasting model and consider all substantial evidence including the California Air Resources Board 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions and Relationships to State Climate Goals, CARB and current research on the long-term effects of transportation network companies (TNCs), new mobility options, and autonomous vehicles (AVs). Any cumulative VMT forecasting should acknowledge that land use projects and plans typically do not influence regional land use control totals and that modeling scenarios should carefully consider the land use allocation between scenarios and/or the VMT metric used to establish the cumulative VMT threshold. 50 OPTIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND CONSIDERATIONS: CUMULATIVE VMT THRESHOLDS COMMON OPTIONS For analysis of cumulative VMT effects, a jurisdiction can choose from the following options: 1.Use a regional model to analyze the project’s effect on VMT based on RTP/SCS consistency (projects should not increase the total regional VMT (either total project generated or boundary VMT) forecast used to support the RTP/SCS air quality conformity and SB 375 GHG targets). 2.A lead agency can use the project analysis above if based on an efficiency metric form of VMT and evidence exists to demonstrate that cumulative trends in VMT rates are declining. 3.Establish a VMT reduction threshold for cumulative conditions consistent with long-term air pollution and GHG reduction expectations. COMMON LIMITATIONS Uncertainty of VMT trends makes a cumulative impact finding less certain. Ability for a lead agency to identify the project’s effect on land supply and corresponding VMT. Land use projects change land supply and the allocation of future population and employment growth. As such cumulative analysis should maintain the same control totals of regional population and employment growth. Requires knowledge of the forecasting tools available to test the project’s effect on land supply and VMT. CONSIDERATIONS Analyze the project’s effect on land supply and VMT using an appropriate valid model. For impact findings, consider all available substantial evidence including 2018 Progress Report, California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, November 2018, CARB and current research on the long-term effects of transportation network companies (TNCs), new mobility options, and autonomous vehicles (AVs). Specific research examples include Fehr & Peers AV effect model testing. OPTION 1 NEAR-TERM: RELY ON THE OPR TECHNICAL ADVISORY THRESHOLDS OPR does not present cumulative thresholds. Analyze the project’s effect on land supply and VMT using an appropriately valid travel model. For impact findings, consider all available substantial evidence including California Air Resources Board 2017 Scoping Plan Identified VMT Reductions and Relationships to State Climate Goals, January 2019, and current research on the long-term effects of transportation network companies (TNCs), new mobility options, and autonomous vehicles (AVs). The following are suggested cumulative thresholds. •Land Use Projects: o Project Effect: A significant impact would occur if the project increases total regional VMT compared to cumulative no project conditions. •Land Use Plans: o Project Effect: A significant impact would occur if growth in the plan area increases total VMT in the study area compared to cumulative no project conditions. •Transportation Projects: A significant impact would occur if the project cause a net increase in total regional VMT compared to cumulative no project conditions. ALL LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS: A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WOULD OCCUR IF THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY S TRATEGY PLAN (PLAN BAY AREA).OPTION 2 FAR-TERM: SET THRESHOLDS CONSISTENT WITH THE 2020 S/CAP OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE YEAR VMT PROJECTIONS Use the same cumulative thresholds as Option 1. SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 51 What is the VMT Impact Significance Threshold for Transportation Projects Under Baseline Conditions? Transportation projects have the potential to change travel patterns and may lead to additional vehicle travel on the roadway network, also referenced as induced vehicle travel (OPR Technical Advisory, pp. 19- 23, and Appendix 2). This is particularly true for roadway capacity expansion projects. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(2), lead agencies have the discretion to select their own metrics for all modes. Lead agencies can consider retaining current practices, such as using LOS thresholds as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, but should evaluate whether use of LOS to evaluate roadway capacity expansion projects still complies with the new CEQA Guidelines expectations in Sections 15064.3, 15064, and 15064.7. Lead agencies that do not choose to use VMT to measure the impacts of transportation projects will still need to analyze VMT as an input to air quality, GHG, and energy impact analysis. For transportation projects that increase roadway capacity, the VMT estimates and forecasts will also need to include induced travel effects that lead agencies may not have included in past practice. However, not all roadway projects will lead to induced travel. Project types that would likely lead to a measurable and substantial increase in vehicle travel generally include addition of through lanes on existing or new highways, including general purpose lanes, HOV lanes, peak period lanes, auxiliary lanes, or lanes through grade-separated interchanges. OPR’s Technical Advisory provides an extensive list of projects which are unlikely to lead to induced travel, including addition of roadway capacity on local or collector streets provided the project also substantially improves multimodal conditions. (OPR Technical Advisory, pp. 20-21) Appendix 2 to OPR’s Technical Advisory provides specific guidance on calculating induced vehicle travel. Assuming VMT is used as the metric, transit (except for on-demand transit) and active transportation projects may be considered to have less than significant impact. 52 OPTIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND CONSIDERATIONS: BASELINE TRANSPORTATION THRESHOLDS COMMON OPTIONS Lead agencies have discretion to choose their own metrics and thresholds for transportation project impact analysis. If VMT is selected, OPR recommends treating projects that reduce or have no impact on VMT to be presumed to have a less than significant impact. COMMON LIMITATIONS Continued use of LOS to evaluate roadway capacity expansion projects is uncertain because of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(2) and 15064.7(d)(2). Transit, especially on-demand transit service, can generate new VMT, which should be considered as part of impact conclusions. CONSIDERATIONS Consult CEQA legal advice about whether lead agency discretion allows continued use of LOS and whether VMT is required. VMT is required as an input to air quality, GHG, and energy impact analysis and should include induced vehicle travel effects. OPTION 1 NEAR-TERM: RELY ON THE OPR TECHNICAL ADVISORY THRESHOLDS BASELINE TRANSPORTATION THRESHOLD •Baseline Transportation Threshold: A significant impact would occur if a project causes a net increase in total regional VMT compared to baseline conditions or opening year no project conditions. •Cumulative Transportation Threshold: A significant impact would occur if the project causes a net increase in total regional VMT compared to cumulative no project conditions. OPTION 2 FAR-TERM: SET THRESHOLDS CONSISTENT WITH THE 2020 S/CAP OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE YEAR VMT PROJECTIONS •Use the same cumulative thresholds as Option 1. SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 53 VMT Mitigation Actions Lead agencies making the transition to VMT are realizing the challenges of trying to mitigate VMT on a project-by-project basis. Much of this difficulty arises from the regional nature of VMT impacts, as well as the complexity of underlying factors influencing VMT generation. Existing Programs For large area plans such as general plans and specific plans, mitigation will typically focus on physical design elements related to the ultimate built environment, such as the density and mix of land uses as well as the availability and quality of the transportation network related to transit, walking, and bicycling. For individual development projects, the primary methods of mitigating a VMT impact are to either: 1. change the project in a way that reduces VMT; or 2. implement a program designed to reduce VMT, such as a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. The available research indicates that the effectiveness of TDM measures varies substantially depending on the context in which they are applied. TDM is most effective in urban areas where urban character (land use and built environment) and land use mix are most supportive of vehicle trip reduction. TDM programs are less effective in rural and suburban areas where the built environment and transportation network are more dispersed and where modes are typically limited to personal vehicles. The current standard for calculating VMT reduction efficacy from TDM strategies is the California Air Pollution Control Officer Association (CAPCOA) 2010 report, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (CAPCOA report). This resource evaluates the literature behind a number of TDM program elements, and provides methods for calculating a VMT reduction associated with each. There are several limitations in the available VMT reduction data for suburban and rural application that are worth noting here: • Suburban areas, such as Palo Alto, have only moderate TDM options available for non-office land uses. Overall, CAPCOA indicates that projects in suburban areas may be able to achieve up to a 15% reduction in daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT)19. However, achieving this level of reduction requires that the project either meet certain land use diversity and/or densities 19 Comprehensive Plan Program T1.2.3 requires projects in various areas of Palo Alto to achieve a 20 to 45 percent trip reduction through TDM programs. The trip reduction goal applies to peak hour trips. A common TDM strategy used to achieve this peak hour trip reduction goal involves adopting flexible schedules where employees travel outside peak commute hours. While flextime and related strategies accomplish the goal of reducing peak hour travel and congestion levels during the heaviest travel periods, they have a much smaller or negligible effect on reducing daily vehicle trips that are accounted for in daily VMT values. 54 or adopt parking pricing, parking supply limits, or transit expansions—all of which may have a high financial or political cost. • Effectiveness of VMT reduction may diminish with each additional TDM strategy implemented. Each of the CAPCOA TDM strategies can be combined with others to increase the effectiveness of VMT mitigation; however, the interaction between the various strategies is complex and sometimes counterintuitive. Generally, with each additional measure implemented, a VMT reduction is achieved, but the incremental benefit of VMT reduction may diminish. • TDM program effectiveness is highly dependent on individual tenants. For office or retail TDM programs, the level of commitment by individual tenants determines the level of success. For most projects, the tenants will be unknown at the time of environmental review, and tenants can change frequently over the life of the building; this makes it more difficult to forecast TDM reductions. • TDM program implementation requires ongoing monitoring. If used as a mitigation measure, TDM programs will require ongoing monitoring for compliance. This may require additional staff time on the part of the lead agency. In addition, there are several possible ways to monitor TDM effectiveness, ranging from vehicle counts to travel surveys, and results from different monitoring methods may not be directly comparable. Due to the above considerations, it may be prudent to indicate that TDM programs may be used as project mitigation, but that they cannot on their own reduce a transportation impact to a less-than- significant level, unless stringent monitoring requirements are adopted as part of the mitigation. What VMT Reduction Mitigation Strategies are Feasible? The effectiveness of different TDM strategies varies widely based on local context, scale of intervention, and availability of non-automotive transportation. TDM strategies are most effective when implemented in a policy environment that encourages land use location efficiency and infrastructure investments that support transit, walking, and bicycling. Measures that more typically come to mind when considering TDM, such as building-specific subsidy and marketing programs for transit or other non-drive-alone modes, or installation of bicycle racks, tend to be less effective than community-wide strategies and investments. Furthermore, programs tied to individual projects or buildings may vary in efficacy based solely on the final building tenants. Figure 2 presents a conceptual illustration of the relative importance of scale. SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 55 Figure 3: Transportation-Related GHG Reduction Measures Of the 50 transportation measures presented in the CAPCOA report, 41 are applicable at building and site level (see Appendix G for more information). Building and site-based strategies are typically more easily included as mitigations for individual projects, as the project sponsor has a greater amount of control over the specific implementation and outcomes. The remaining nine CAPCOA strategies are functions of, or depend on, site location and/or actions by local and regional agencies or funders. Table 4 summarizes the strategies according to the scope of implementation and the agents who would implement them. Table 3: Summary of Transportation Related CAPCOA Measures Scope Agents CAPCOA Strategies Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Employer, Property Manager 26 total from five CAPCOA strategy groups: • 3 from 3.2 Site Enhancements group • 3 from 3.3 Parking Pricing Availability group • 15 from 3.4 Commute Trip Reduction group • 2 from 3.5 Transit Access group • 3 from 3.7 Vehicle Operations group Site Design Owner, Architect 15 total from three strategy groups: • 6 from 3.1 Land Use group • 6 from 3.2 Site Enhancements group • 1 from 3.3 Parking group • 2 from 3.6 Road Access group Location Efficiency, Regional Policies, and Regional Infrastructure Developer, Regional and Local Agencies 6 total from 3.1 Land Use group Note: Disruptive trends, including but not limited to, transportation network companies (TNCs), autonomous vehicles (AVs), internet shopping, and microtransit may affect the future effectiveness of these strategies. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Site Design Location Efficiency, Regional Policies, and Regional Infrastructure 56 Of these strategies, we have identified 15 that would be appropriate and potentially effective in Palo Alto. The following list of strategies were identified for more detailed review based on how land use context and potential land use changes in Palo Alto could influence each strategy’s effectiveness. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 1. Employ marketing and encouragement strategies to promote non-drive-alone travel: This strategy encompasses the aspects of typical TDM programs that rely on providing information and incentives to individuals interested in changing their commute patterns. Examples include providing transit schedules or trip planning assistance, hosting promotional events such as a bike to work day, or leading contests or challenges for changing travel behavior. This process is usually undertaken by employers, but some jurisdictions form public agencies or private associations that can facilitate promotions between multiple different employers. 2. Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules: This strategy relies on effective internet access and speeds to individual project sites/buildings to provide the opportunity for telecommuting. The effectiveness of the strategy depends on the ultimate building tenants and this should be a factor in considering the potential VMT reduction. Based on recent experiences during the 2020 COVID-19 Shelter-in-Place order, there may be near-term increases in the number of businesses with the necessary infrastructure to allow telecommuting. 3. Provide ride-sharing programs: This strategy focuses on encouraging carpooling and vanpooling by project site/building tenants and has similar limitations to strategy (2) above. 4. Require employer-based shuttle or transit service: This strategy involves working with individual employers or building managers to offer shuttle services. For large employers with corporate campuses, this may include running private shuttles to and from neighborhoods where employees live. For smaller employers, or buildings with multiple employer tenants, it may involve a shuttle connecting to regional transit, such as a Caltrain station, funded through an organization such as a Transportation Management Association (TMA). Site Design 5. Provide pedestrian network improvements: This strategy focuses on creating a pedestrian network within new projects and connecting to nearby destinations. Projects in Palo Alto tend to be smaller, so the emphasis of this strategy would likely be the construction of network improvements that connect the project site directly to nearby destinations. Alternatively, implementation could occur through an impact fee program or benefit/assessment district based on regional or local plans. 6. Provide traffic calming measures and low-stress bicycle network improvements: This strategy combines the CAPCOA research focused on traffic calming with new research on providing a low-stress bicycle network. Traffic calming creates networks with low vehicle speeds and volumes that are more conducive to walking and bicycling. Building a low-stress bicycle network produces a similar outcome. Implementation options are similar to strategy (5) above. One potential change in this strategy over time is that e-bikes (and e-scooters) SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 57 could extend the effective range of travel on the bicycle network, which could enhance the effectiveness of this strategy. 7. Implement car-sharing program: This strategy reduces the need to own a vehicle or reduces the number of vehicles owned by a household by making it convenient to access a shared vehicle for those trips where vehicle use is essential. Examples include programs such as ZipCar, Car2Go, and Gig. 8. Limit parking supply: When combined with companion TDM measures, reduced parking supply discourages driving by limiting easy and convenient parking options. Implementation of this strategy may involve adjustments to parking requirements, allowing developers to use shared parking strategies, and potential other changes to the existing parking requirement adjustments present in City code. 9. Unbundle parking costs: Unbundling separates parking costs from property cost, for instance by not including a parking space in a residential unit’s rent, or by requiring employers to lease each parking space separately from the building owner. This strategy ensures that the user understands that the cost of driving includes parking and can encourage people to use an alternative mode to save money. 10. Implement on-street market pricing for parking: This strategy focuses on implementing a pricing strategy for parking by pricing all on-street parking in central business districts, employment centers, and retail centers. Priced parking would encourage “park once” behavior and may also result in area-wide mode shifts. Location Efficiency, Regional Policies, and Regional Infrastructure 11. Increase density of land uses: This strategy focuses on increasing density of land uses, where allowed by the General Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance, to reduce distances people travel and provide more travel mode options. This strategy also provides a foundation for many other strategies. For example, densification makes it more efficient to operate increased transit services. 12. Increase diversity of land uses: This strategy focuses on inclusion of mixed uses within projects or in consideration of the surrounding area to minimize vehicle travel in terms of both the number of trips and the length of those trips. 13. Increase transit accessibility: This strategy focuses on encouraging the use of transit by locating a project with high density near transit. A project with a residential/commercial center designed around a transit hub is referred to as a transit-oriented development (TOD). 14. Integrate affordable and below market rate (BMR) housing: This strategy provides greater opportunities for lower-income families to live closer to job centers, which makes transit a more feasible commute mode, and also reduces the distance between workplaces and homes. 15. Increase transit service frequency and speed: This strategy focuses on improving transit service convenience and travel time competitiveness with driving. This could include changes to local Caltrain, VTA or SamTrans service, implementation of public shuttles, or other demand-responsive services. A demand-responsive service could be provided as subsidized trips by contracting to private TNCs or taxi companies. Alternatively, a public transit operator could provide the subsidized service but would need to improve on traditional cost effectiveness. Note that implementation of this strategy would require regional or local agency implementation, 58 substantial changes to current transit practices, and would not likely be applicable for individual development projects. The 15 strategies listed above are those that may be most appropriate for the greatest range of projects in Palo Alto, based on the existing land use context and vision set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. However, in suburban environments, CAPCOA indicates that the maximum reasonable VMT reduction from all TDM measures combined will likely not exceed 15%. This research does not necessarily reflect the nature of employer shuttle and TDM programs in 21st Century Silicon Valley; however, it does present a general assessment of total VMT reduction potential for most development projects. New VMT Mitigation Concepts Today many jurisdictions connect land development projects to transportation network improvements using a transportation fee and a Congestion Management Program (CMP). The transportation impact fee program collects a fair-share fee payment from new development to contribute to the cost of a capital improvement program (CIP) consisting of long-term transportation projects that facilitate vehicle travel as the residential population and employment population increases. The CMP is designed to monitor traffic congestion and transit performance while implementing strategies that manage traffic congestion and its impacts on air quality. Many jurisdictions with a transportation impact fee program include some TDM requirements for projects deemed to affect the CMP network; those projects must prepare a TDM plan meeting certain specifications to help reduce the number of vehicle trips. A jurisdiction’s transportation impact fee and CMP would not qualify as VMT impact mitigation programs if both programs are largely focused on vehicle capacity expansion or congestion management objectives. The current focus of many such programs is to expand roadway capacity to address vehicle LOS deficiencies. This strategy may have the result of inducing new vehicle travel that, in the long run, would diminish congestion relief benefits and generate new VMT and emissions. Refer to the following websites for more research information and technical details. • https://ncst.ucdavis.edu/events/webinar-new-web-tool-calculate-induced-travel • https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/hwycapacity/highway_capacity_brief.pdf • https://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/abs/10.3141/2653-02 Four possible mitigation approaches that do not focus on vehicle capacity improvements are described in the following sections: • VMT Cap • VMT Based Impact Fee Program • VMT Mitigation Bank • VMT Mitigation Exchange A VMT Cap can be developed and administered on a project-by-project basis, while the remaining three options (VMT Based Impact Fee Program, VMT Mitigation Bank, and VMT Mitigation Exchange) are SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 59 broader programmatic approaches to impact mitigation. The concept of a ‘programmatic’ approach to impact mitigation is commonly used in a variety of technical subjects including transportation, air quality, greenhouse gases, and habitat. Absent new program-level VMT mitigation approaches, suburban lead agencies such as Palo Alto will have limited feasible mitigation options for project sites. Without feasible mitigation, significant VMT impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Under these circumstances, a project must prepare an environmental impact report (EIR), thus adding time and cost to environmental review compared to an initial study/negative declaration. Program-based approaches may be able to overcome the limitation of project-site only mitigation, such as monitoring difficulties or inability for an individual site to fully mitigate a VMT impact acting alone. Additional details about VMT fees, VMT banks, and VMT exchanges, including implementation flow charts, are provided in Appendix G. VMT Cap A VMT cap is a project-specific limit on total project-generated VMT. Often a VMT cap is linked to the jurisdiction’s citywide air quality, GHG reduction, and energy conservation goals. VMT estimates are not directly observed – they must be estimated using big data sources, a travel survey, zip code data of residents, employees, customers, or visitors, and/or a travel model. Like a vehicle trip cap, VMT caps often require a project applicant to implement a TDM program with monitoring and reporting standards. A VMT cap may also include specific consequences or penalties if the project fails to comply. VMT Based Impact Fee Program Although establishing any impact fee program is time consuming, it is a common and well-understood process governed by the Mitigation Fee Act. Using a VMT reduction goal linked to the agency’s SB 743 thresholds to establish the nexus would result in a capital improvement program (CIP) consisting mostly of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects. These types of fee programs are recognized as an acceptable form of CEQA mitigation if they can demonstrate that the CIP projects will be fully funded and implemented. VMT Mitigation Exchange A VMT Mitigation Exchange concept relies on a developer agreeing to implement a predetermined VMT- reducing project or proposing a new one, which could be located elsewhere in the community or possibly outside the community. The Exchange needs to have a facilitating entity that can match the VMT generator (the development project) with a VMT-reducing project or action. The facilitating entity could be the lead agency or another entity that has the ability to provide the match and to ensure through substantial evidence that the VMT reduction is valid. A key unknown with this approach is the time period for the VMT reduction. For example, how many years of VMT reduction would be required to declare a VMT impact less than significant? VMT Mitigation Banks A VMT Mitigation Bank attempts to create a monetary value for VMT reduction, such that a developer could purchase VMT reduction credits. The money exchanged for credits could be applied to local, 60 regional, or state level VMT reduction projects or actions. Like all VMT mitigation, substantial evidence would be necessary to demonstrate that the projects covered by the Bank would achieve expected VMT reductions and some form of monitoring may be required. This is more complicated than a VMT Mitigation Exchange and would require more time and effort to set up and implement. The verification of how much VMT reduction is associated with each dollar or credit would be one of the more difficult parts of the program. Summary of Mitigation Action Options Overall, CAPCOA indicates that projects in suburban areas may be able to achieve up to a 15% reduction in VMT. However, achieving this level of reduction requires that the project implement many individual project-level strategies (such as TDM and site design strategies) and be sited in an efficient, transit- adjacent location. In addition, project-level TDM strategies are often implemented by individual building tenants (i.e., employers), so their use requires ongoing monitoring and adjusting to account for changes in tenants and their travel behavior. Due to these project-specific implementation barriers, ad-hoc project-by-project mitigation is less effective for reducing VMT compared with larger scale program-based approaches, such as an impact fee program that funds transit expansion, or land use and zoning changes at a citywide level. The emergence of these new mitigation concepts presents opportunities to reduce VMT at a townwide/citywide or regional scale, though the measured effects of these programs (and their ability to reach desired long- term land use outcomes) are largely unknown. SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 61 OPTIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND CONSIDERATIONS: VMT MITIGATION ACTIONS COMMON OPTIONS Menu of built environment and transportation demand management (TDM) mitigation strategies contained in Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Strategies, CAPCOA, 2010. COMMON LIMITATIONS Built environment strategies require modifying the project, which may create inconsistencies with the project description and financial feasibility. TDM strategies are often building-tenant-dependent, so their use requires ongoing monitoring and adjusting to account for changes in build tenants and their travel behavior. Ad-hoc project-by-project mitigation is less effective for reducing VMT than larger scale program-based approaches, such as an impact fee program. CONSIDERATIONS Develop a VMT mitigation program using any of the following approaches: •Impact fee program based on a VMT reduction nexus. •In-lieu fee program for VMT reducing actions. •VMT mitigation bank or exchange program. •TDM ordinance applying to all employers. 62 Implementation Actions for City of Palo Alto As stated at the start of this document, the purpose of this white paper is to help the City of Palo Alto meet the new requirements of CEQA under SB 743 by providing curated SB 743 implementation information that includes substantial evidence to support decisions for VMT impact thresholds, metrics, VMT calculation methods, and VMT mitigation actions. SB 743 takes full effect on July 1, 2020; after that time, all transportation impact analysis for CEQA must rely on VMT. CEQA Statute Section 21099(b)(2) states that upon certification of the 2018 CEQA Guidelines, LOS shall not be considered as a metric for measuring significant impact on the environment under CEQA. CEQA transportation studies should continue to evaluate the effect of a project on transit, pedestrian, and bicycle service or facilities as well as safety. This chapter describes recommendations for initial VMT significance thresholds to be applied by the City of Palo Alto as of July 1, 2020. These recommendations are generally consistent with State guidance. Following the ongoing Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) Update, the City of Palo Alto will have the opportunity to review and adjust the CEQA VMT thresholds to align with the City’s S/CAP goals or policies. The Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is also preparing a forthcoming Santa Clara Countywide VMT Estimation Tool. This VMT tool can be used by Palo Alto staff to conduct a baseline VMT screening for land use projects that are exempt from further VMT analysis using project generated VMT thresholds and transportation priority areas. VMT Significance Thresholds The following recommendations for initial VMT significance thresholds to be applied by the City of Palo Alto as of July 1, 2020 are based largely on guidance provided by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). The following excerpt from the OPR Technical Advisory provides the overarching recommendation for VMT significance thresholds (Quote from page 10 of the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, December 2018). Based on OPR’s extensive review of the applicable research, and in light of an assessment by the California Air Resources Board quantifying the need for VMT reduction in order to meet the State’s long-term climate goals, OPR recommends that a per capita or per employee VMT that is fifteen percent below that of existing development may be a reasonable threshold. SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 63 VMT Screening Thresholds OPR recommends a series of baseline VMT screening thresholds to identify when a project should be expected to cause a less-than-significant impact without the need for a more complete VMT analysis. The City of Palo Alto would need to confirm that Cumulative VMT trends are not increasing over time to use this baseline VMT screening approach. This is similar to the process used by the City of Palo Alto and most agencies to determine when a detailed Level of Service (LOS) study should be conducted for a project. The VMT screening process is for project types known to be low VMT generators or cause a reduction in VMT. The City of Palo Alto will screen projects that are deemed to be low VMT generators or reduce VMT based on criteria described in more detail below, with a qualitative discussion in the CEQA document. This screening approach enables project streamlining by eliminating the need to prepare a quantitative VMT analysis for low VMT-generating projects that meet the baseline VMT screening criteria. This is most appropriate for projects that are consistent with long-term air quality and greenhouse gas expectations and/or those that would reduce VMT based on their characteristics. As with all CEQA screening, an impact presumption of less-than-significant would be based on substantial evidence for the project. Based on a review of project characteristics and related evidence, the City of Palo Alto may screen out VMT impacts for small projects, residential and office projects located in low-VMT areas, projects located in proximity to a major transit stop, affordable housing developments, local-serving retail projects, and transportation projects that would not result in an increase to vehicle capacity. Since land use plans affect a larger area and serve as the basis for environmental analysis of future projects, all land use plans (including the Comprehensive Plan, Precise Plans, and Specific Plans) would conduct a quantitative VMT analysis and not utilize screening. Screening for Small Projects The City of Palo Alto may choose to screen projects that generate less than 836 VMT per day. Based on research for small project triggers, this would equate to non-residential (e.g., office) projects of 10,000 square feet or less and multi-family residential projects of 20 units or less. Screening for Projects Located in Low-VMT Areas The City of Palo Alto may choose to screen residential and office projects located in low-VMT areas20 that incorporate similar features to the nearby developments (i.e., density, mix of uses, and transit accessibility) on the basis that the project will exhibit similarly low VMT. 20 Residential projects that locate in areas 15% below existing regional home-based VMT per resident average (similar to county average), and office projects that locate in areas 15% below existing regional home-based work VMT per employee average (similar to county average) could presume to be low-VMT areas. These areas will be identified through a map-based screening using the Santa Clara Countywide VMT Estimation Tool developed by the Santa Clara County VTA. 64 Screening for Projects in Proximity to a Major Transit Stop The City of Palo Alto may choose to screen projects that are located within a half mile of an existing major transit stop21 or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor22. Projects would not be screened, however, if project-specific or location-specific information indicates that the project will still generate significant levels of VMT. The presumption that a project would cause a less- than-significant impact might not be appropriate if a project: • Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75 • Includes more parking than required by the City of Palo Alto • Is inconsistent with the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy, as determined by the City of Palo Alto with input from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) • Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units Proximity to transit is explicitly listed in the CEQA Guidelines as a reason to presume a project has no significant impacts based on VMT. In Palo Alto, this includes the existing Caltrain stations (Downtown Palo Alto, California Avenue, and San Antonio stations) and at stops for bus routes with headways of 15 minutes or less (e.g., current high frequency bus routes are located along El Camino Real). Screening for Affordable Housing The City of Palo Alto may choose to screen residential projects containing a particular amount of affordable housing (based on local circumstances and substantial evidence as determined by the City) on the basis that affordable housing generates less VMT than market-rate housing. Affordable housing located within infill locations generally improves jobs-housing balance and may thus result in shorter commutes for low-income workers. Screening for Local-Serving Retail The City of Palo Alto would screen local-serving retail projects of less than 10,000 square feet, on the basis that they attract trips that would otherwise travel longer distances. The screening for local-serving retail also alignments with the small project screening described above. Regional-serving retail projects would not be screened out and would require a more complete VMT analysis. 21 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 (“‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”). 22 Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 (“For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.”). SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 65 Screening for Transportation Projects The City of Palo Alto would screen transit projects, bicycle and pedestrian projects, and roadway operational improvement projects that do not result in a measurable or substantial increase in vehicle travel. Numeric VMT Thresholds for Land Use Projects The following VMT thresholds vary by project and land use type. The thresholds are based on applying one of the following VMT metrics. • Total Project Generated VMT • Partial Home-Based VMT per Resident • Partial Home-Based Work VMT per Employee • Project’s Effect on Total VMT within a selected geographic boundary The description of thresholds below includes a discussion of the relative substantial evidence available. Regardless of the specific threshold the City selects, Palo Alto will still need to consider other substantial evidence related to VMT impacts when analyzing specific projects and making determinations of VMT impact significance. Thresholds – Land Use Projects and Plans The OPR baseline VMT screening threshold generally requires office and residential land use projects to achieve a VMT reduction of 15 percent below the city or regional (e.g., Bay Area or Santa Clara County) baseline average. Palo Alto is supportive of the State’s goal to reduce GHG emissions and has several Comprehensive Plan goals and policies that strive to reduce GHG emissions and air quality impacts, reduce single-occupancy vehicle use, and encourage multi-modal transportation. In order to align the City with current state VMT reduction targets by July 1, 2020, the City will apply an initial set of VMT thresholds that are consistent with OPR’s recommendations. For individual land use projects that are not screened out and require a quantitative VMT assessment, this would mean the following: • Residential projects – A proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing (baseline) County home-based VMT per resident may indicate a significant transportation impact. • Office projects – A proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing (baseline) regional home-based work VMT per employee may indicate a significant transportation impact. • Retail projects – A net increase in total (boundary) VMT may indicate a significant transportation impact. 66 • Mixed-use projects – The City will evaluate each component of a mixed-use project independently, and apply the above residential, office, or retail thresholds. • Other project types – The City will either develop an Ad Hoc (i.e., project-specific) VMT threshold for a unique land use type or apply the most applicable of the above thresholds depending on project characteristics. • Redevelopment projects – Where a project replaces existing VMT-generating land uses, if the replacement leads to a net overall decrease in VMT, the project may cause a less than significant VMT impact. If the redevelopment project leads to a net overall increase in VMT, it may cause a significant VMT impact proposed new residential, office or retail land uses would individually exceed their respective thresholds. • Land Use Plans – A comprehensive plan, area plan, or community plan may have a significant impact on transportation if the proposed new land uses would individually exceed their respective thresholds or cause the total project generated VMT per service population to exceed 15 percent below the baseline VMT per service population. Baseline total project generated VMT per service population may be measured as regional VMT per service population, a citywide VMT per service population, or as geographic sub-area VMT per service population. When applying the above thresholds for residential or office uses, a project’s VMT is compared to a threshold based on the lower Countywide or regionwide baseline VMT value. Based on the baseline VMT data, the City of Palo Alto will compare home-based VMT per resident values for residential uses to a threshold based on the countywide averages for Santa Clara County. While for home-based work VMT per employee values for office uses a threshold will be based on the regionwide baseline VMT averages. The City of Palo Alto will be using the VTA travel model to conduct CEQA VMT assessments for larger projects that require a quantitative evaluation. The VTA travel model will be used both to identify the countywide and regionwide baseline VMT data used to establish the VMT threshold for office and residential uses as well as to estimate the project generated VMT rates for a quantitative VMT project assessment. The baseline VMT represents existing conditions and changes over time. The 15 percent reductions specified in the Technical Advisory for residential or office uses are based on light-duty vehicle project generated VMT (i.e., passenger cars and light-duty trucks). These thresholds could be refined later, following adoption of the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP). Refinements, if desired, would reflect more aggressive GHG reduction targets identified by the City in comparison to state targets. Thresholds – Transportation Projects OPR and Caltrans recommend that a net increase in total VMT may indicate a significant impact for transportation projects. A net decrease or no change in VMT would be evidence of a less than significant VMT impact. SB 743 Implementation Decisions for Palo Alto 67 • Transportation projects – A net increase in total VMT would indicate a significant transportation impact. Projects that reduce or have no impact on VMT include most active transportation projects, road diets, and minor operational changes to local roadways. However, capacity increases (i.e., lane additions) on arterial roadways or roadways that carry regional traffic have the potential to induce new vehicle traffic, and therefore new VMT. As an example, adding an additional lane on an arterial street that reduces delay, may make driving even more competitive than walking, and shift some trips from walking to driving. A no net new VMT threshold is recommended by Caltrans for assessment of impacts to Caltrans facilities23 based on interim guidance published in 2018. As a threshold, it is also reflective of whether a project simply improves operations for existing users (decreasing delay with no change in VMT) or if it also results induces demand for driving. Next Steps The following is a series of steps the City of Palo Alto may undertake to implement SB 743 and related programs. • Adopt a CEQA Analysis Approach: The City Council would adopt, by resolution, VMT thresholds to be used for land use projects, land use plans, and transportation projects as recommended above. • Update Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines: Based on City Council action on VMT thresholds, City staff would update transportation impact analysis guidelines that specify the process by which impacts due to new developments are identified. These guidelines should include specific performance measures and thresholds for the identification of impacts and mitigation measures in accordance with the new VMT analysis approach and Comprehensive Plan objectives. • TDM Ordinance Update: To provide guidance and articulate expectations, the City’s TDM program would be updated including incorporating requirements of SB 1339.24 The purpose of a TDM program is to reduce vehicle trips and provide transportation options to achieve the City’s vision to improve the environment and quality of life for residents and employees. • 2020 S/CAP: Based on GHG reduction goals and strategies identified for the 2020 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) Update, review and determine whether to adjust the CEQA VMT thresholds to align with the updated S/CAP. 23 California Department of Transportation, Environmental Management Office, Division of Environmental Analysis, Interim Guidance: Determining CEQA Significance for GHG Emissions for Projects on the State Highway System, June 2018. 24 Senate Bill No. 1339 Commute benefit policies. (2011-2012) 68 • Programmatic VMT Mitigation Options: To provide programmatic options for projects to mitigate VMT impacts, consider implementation of VMT-based transportation impact fee program and/or local VMT Mitigation Exchange. As available, consider future VMT Mitigation Banks as mitigation options for projects. • Comprehensive Plan and EIR Update: Rather than analyzing VMT for each proposed land use project individually, the City of Palo Alto may choose to utilize VMT analysis performed during the development of a Comprehensive Plan Update and EIR as the basis for determination of impact of proposed projects. Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines includes a potential exemption for consideration by lead agencies, particularly for addressing potential cumulative VMT impacts. Analyzing VMT impacts in a Comprehensive Plan EIR could help projects qualify for this exemption. • VMT as Measure of Congestion: VMT may be used as a proxy or alternative to LOS, particularly to provide an indication of congestion over the city’s transportation network. This would be accomplished by isolating VMT that occurs during peak periods or on congested roadways (i.e., congested VMT). Congested VMT is commonly measured by accumulating VMT on roadway links with volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios greater than 1.0 while peak period VMT tends to isolate the portion of daily VMT occurring during the morning and evening commute periods (e.g., 6-9 AM and 4-7 PM). Efforts to reduce peak period or congested VMT can have the co-benefit of reducing travel delays presuming the level of improvement does not induce new vehicle travel. Appendix A: Summary Matrix of Decisions, Options, and Recommendations SB743 Appendix A: City of Palo Alto SB743 Implementation: Summary of Decisions, Options, and Recommendations A-1 Lead Agency Decisions Common Options Common Limitations Considerations City of Palo Alto Recommendations What form of VMT metrics could be used? 1. Total Project Generated VMT 2. Total Project Generated VMT per Service Population1 3. Household generated VMT per Resident (requires an activity/tour-based travel forecasting model) 4. Home-Based VMT per Resident (a partial VMT estimate) 5. Home-Based Work VMT per Employee (a partial VMT estimate) 6. Project’s Effect on VMT using Boundary VMT for a specific area Metrics other than total project generated VMT and total project generated VMT per service population typically only represent partial VMT (i.e., some vehicle types and trip purposes are excluded in the models used to estimate VMT). This may be acceptable for screening purposes but not for a complete VMT impact analysis. Project-generated VMT metrics cannot capture how a project changes behavior of non-project residents or employees. The expectations of a CEQA impact analysis to strive to provide a complete picture of the effects of a project on the environment are highlighted within the CEQA Guidelines. For lead agencies, VMT metrics and method should consider current practice for air quality, greenhouse gases, and energy consumption impact analysis. In general, VMT is used as an input for these other analyses and current practice is to produce VMT estimates and forecasts that comply with CEQA Guidelines expectations. Option 1 Near-Term: Rely on the OPR Technical Advisory Thresholds Include the following so that all forms of VMT needed for screening and complete VMT analysis are available. 1. Total Project Generated VMT 2. Total Project Generated VMT per Service Population 3. Home-based VMT per Resident 4. Home-based work VMT per Employee 5. Boundary VMT for an appropriate area affected by the Project (needed for air quality, GHG, and energy analysis) Option 2 Far-Term: Set Thresholds Consistent with the 2020 S/CAP or Comprehensive Plan Future Year VMT Projections Include the following so that all forms of VMT needed for screening and complete VMT analysis are available. 1. Total Project Generated VMT 2. Total Project Generated VMT per Service Population 3. Boundary VMT for an appropriate area affected by the Project (needed for air quality, GHG, and energy analysis) What methods are available to use in estimating and forecasting VMT? 1. Caltrans Statewide Travel Demand Model 2. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Regional Travel Forecasting Model 3. VTA-C/CAG Bi-County Travel Forecasting Model 4. Non-model “Accounting Methods” such as sketch planning tool or spreadsheet2 Statewide and regional models have limited sensitivity and accuracy for local scale applications off the shelf. Regional and local models often truncate trips at model boundaries. Sketch and spreadsheet tools do not capture the ‘project effect on VMT’. Selection of an appropriate travel forecasting approach is an important step because the tool used to develop VMT thresholds must also be used to evaluate a project’s direct and cumulative VMT impacts. Regional or local models should be calibrated and validated for local project-scale sensitivity/accuracy (including appending trip length data for trips with external trip ends) before using these models to analyze both ‘project generated VMT’ and ‘project effect on VMT’. Option 1 Near-Term: Rely on the OPR Technical Advisory Thresholds Use the Santa Clara Countywide VMT Evaluation Tool for baseline VMT screening. And most likely the VTA-C/CAG Bi-County Travel Forecasting Model, Local City of Palo Alto Travel Forecasting Model, or Non-model “Accounting Methods” such as sketch planning tool or spreadsheet for more complete VMT analysis. Option 2 Far-Term: Set Thresholds Consistent with the 2020 S/CAP or Comprehensive Plan Future Year VMT Projections Most likely the VTA-C/CAG Bi-County Travel Forecasting Model, or the Local City of Palo Alto Travel Forecasting Model. 1 Service population includes population plus employment and may include students or visitors; it is intended to include all independent variables used in estimating trips. 2 Sketch planning tool or spreadsheet method has limitations if using a citywide or regional average for a threshold. SB743 Appendix A: City of Palo Alto SB743 Implementation: Summary of Decisions, Options, and Recommendations A-2 Lead Agency Decisions Common Options Common Limitations Considerations City of Palo Alto Recommendations Is use of VMT impact screening desired?3 Projects that reduce VMT or are located within transit priority areas (TPAs) should be presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT. Additional screening options identified in the OPR Technical Advisory for: 1. Map based screening for residential and office projects 2. Local-Serving Retail Projects 3. Transportation projects that do not add vehicle capacity 4. Projects that would not result in a net increase of VMT 5. Affordable housing projects 5. Small projects Screening does not provide information about the actual VMT changes associated with the project. Screening most appropriate if consistent with applicable general plan and supported by substantial evidence. Option 1 Near-Term: Rely on the OPR Technical Advisory Thresholds Rely on screening if consistent with applicable comprehensive plan and supported by substantial evidence demonstrating cumulative VMT is declining. For project-by-project VMT analysis with VMT screening, most projects will likely not screen out, which will require a more complete VMT analysis. Apply screening for the following project types: • Small Developments • Projects in Low-VMT Areas • Projects in Proximity to Major Transit Stops • Affordable Housing • Local-Serving Retail Projects less than 10,000 square feet • Transportation Projects that do not add vehicle capacity The Santa Clara Countywide VMT Estimation Tool will be applied for screening as follows: • Low VMT generation map-based screening of residential, office, and industrial land uses, those land uses in combination with each other, and those land uses with or without local serving retail space. • A transit priority areas (TPAs)/major transit stops and high-quality transit corridor (HQTC) screen. Option 2 Far-Term: Set Thresholds Consistent with the 2020 S/CAP or Comprehensive Plan Future Year VMT Projections Screening VMT is not used for this approach. 3 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 states that projects that would reduce VMT or are located in a TPA should be presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT. The OPR Technical Advisory contains other potential screening options. SB743 Appendix A: City of Palo Alto SB743 Implementation: Summary of Decisions, Options, and Recommendations A-3 Lead Agency Decisions Common Options Common Limitations Considerations City of Palo Alto Recommendations What is the VMT impact significance threshold for land use projects under baseline conditions? 1. Lead agency discretion consistent with general plan and expectations for ‘project scale’ VMT reductions not accounted for in general plan EIR and supported by substantial evidence. 2. OPR 15% below baseline average a city or region (light-duty vehicles only)4 3. CARB 14.3% below baseline (2018) average of jurisdiction (all vehicles) 4. CARB 16.8% below baseline (2018) average of jurisdiction (light-duty vehicles only) 5. Pending Caltrans-recommended threshold (net zero VMT)5 Difficult for lead agencies to determine what level of VMT change is unacceptable when viewed solely through a transportation lens. Uncertainty of VMT trends contributes to difficulty in setting thresholds. Connecting a VMT reduction expectation to baseline helps to reduce uncertainty associated with future conditions. Since VMT is already used in air quality, GHG, and energy impact analysis, lead agencies should review thresholds for those sections to help inform new thresholds exclusively for transportation purposes. Lead agencies should carefully consider how they value state goals for VMT/GHG reduction in light of other general plan and community objectives. Translating state goals into VMT thresholds should consider substantial evidence such as California Air Resources Board 2017 Scoping Plan - Identified VMT Reductions and Relationships to State Climate Goals, January 2019, CARB. Absent development of a specific VMT threshold, lead agencies may rely on those of other state agencies. The CARB thresholds are supported by substantial evidence related to state air quality and GHG goals, but do not consider recent VMT trends or the potential influence of emerging mobility options such as autonomous vehicles (AVs). Option 1 Near-Term: Rely on the OPR Technical Advisory Thresholds • Residential projects: A proposed project exceeding 15 percent below existing (baseline) County home-based VMT per resident may indicate a significant transportation impact. • Office projects: A proposed project exceeding a 15 percent below existing (baseline) regional home-based work VMT per employee may indicate a significant transportation impact. • Retail projects: A net increase in total (boundary) VMT may indicate a significant transportation impact. • Mixed-use projects: Lead agencies can evaluate each component of a mixed-use project independently and apply the significance threshold for each project type included (e.g., residential and retail). Alternatively, a lead agency may consider only the project’s dominant use. In the analysis of each use, a project should take credit for internal capture. • Other non-residential project types: OPR recommends using the quantified thresholds above, thus a proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing regional VMT per employee for the proposed non-residential project type or resulting in a net increase in total VMT may be considered significant. Lead agencies, using more location-specific information, may develop their own more specific thresholds, which may include other land use types. • Redevelopment projects: Where a proposed project replaces existing VMT-generating land uses, if the replacement leads to a net overall decrease in VMT, the project would cause a less than significant transportation impact. If the redevelopment project leads to a net overall increase in VMT, it may cause a significant transportation impact if proposed new residential, office or retail land uses would individually exceed their respective thresholds. • Area Plans: A comprehensive plan, area plan, or community plan may have a significant impact on transportation if the proposed new land uses would individually exceed their respective thresholds or cause the total project generated VMT per service population to exceed 15 percent below the baseline VMT per service population. Baseline total project generated VMT per service population may be measured as regional VMT per service population, a citywide VMT per service population, or as geographic sub-area VMT per service population. Option 2 Far-Term: Set Thresholds Consistent with the 2020 S/CAP or Comprehensive Plan Future Year VMT Projections Set baseline VMT threshold based on long-term Comprehensive Plan expectations for air quality and GHG emissions. The analysis to determine these thresholds would be completed if the City Council selects this option. An example threshold: X% below baseline VMT per capita average of City, County or region (all vehicles, and trip purposes) Example baseline thresholds are as follows. • Land Use Projects: o Project Impact: A significant impact would occur if the VMT rate for the project would exceed a level of X% below the applicable baseline VMT rate. o Project Effect: A significant impact would occur if the project increases total (boundary) regional VMT compared to baseline conditions. • Land Use Plans: o Project Impact: A significant impact would occur if the VMT rate for the plan area would exceed a level of X% below the applicable baseline VMT rate. 4 The OPR and CARB thresholds do not consider the long-term influence of TNCs, internet shopping, new mobility options, or autonomous vehicles. 5 Caltrans has released draft Interim Guidance on “Determining CEQA Significance for GHG Emissions for Projects on the State Highway System” that recommends that any increase in GHG emissions would constitute a significant impact. This has been referred to as the “Net Zero VMT threshold”. Caltrans has thus far signaled that this threshold would be applied only to transportation projects. SB743 Appendix A: City of Palo Alto SB743 Implementation: Summary of Decisions, Options, and Recommendations A-4 Lead Agency Decisions Common Options Common Limitations Considerations City of Palo Alto Recommendations What is the VMT impact significance threshold for land use projects under cumulative conditions? 1. Use a regional model to analyze the ‘project’s effect on VMT’ based on RTP/SCS consistency (projects should not increase the total regional VMT (either project generated or boundary VMT) forecast used to support the RTP/SCS air quality conformity and SB 375 GHG targets). 2. A lead agency can use the project analysis above if based on an efficiency metric form of VMT and evidence exists to demonstrate that cumulative trends in VMT rates are declining. 3. Establish a VMT reduction threshold for cumulative conditions consistent with long-term air pollution and GHG reduction expectations. Uncertainty of VMT trends makes a cumulative impact finding less certain. Ability for a lead agency to identify the project’s effect on land supply and corresponding VMT. Land use projects change land supply and the allocation of future population and employment growth. As such cumulative analysis should maintain the same control totals of regional population and employment growth. Requires knowledge of the forecasting tools available to test the project’s effect on land supply and VMT. Analyze the project’s effect on land supply and VMT using an appropriate valid model. For impact findings, consider all available substantial evidence including 2018 Progress Report, California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, November 2018, CARB and current research on the long-term effects of transportation network companies (TNCs), new mobility options, and autonomous vehicles (AVs). Specific research examples include Fehr & Peers AV effect model testing. Option 1 Near-Term: Rely on the OPR Technical Advisory Thresholds OPR does not present cumulative thresholds. Analyze the project’s effect on land supply and VMT using an appropriately valid travel model. For impact findings, consider all available substantial evidence including California Air Resources Board 2017 Scoping Plan Identified VMT Reductions and Relationships to State Climate Goals, January 2019, and current research on the long-term effects of transportation network companies (TNCs), new mobility options, and autonomous vehicles (AVs). The following are suggested cumulative thresholds. • Land Use Projects: o Project Effect: A significant impact would occur if the project increases total regional VMT compared to cumulative no project conditions. o Transportation Projects: A significant impact would occur if the project cause a net increase in total regional VMT compared to cumulative no project conditions. • Land Use Plans: o Project Effect: A significant impact would occur if growth in the plan area increases total VMT in the study area compared to cumulative no project conditions. o Transportation Projects: A significant impact would occur if the project cause a net increase in total regional VMT compared to cumulative no project conditions. o All land use and transportation projects: A significant impact would occur if the project is inconsistent with the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy Plan (Plan Bay Area). Option 2 Far-Term: Set Thresholds Consistent with the 2020 S/CAP or Comprehensive Plan Future Year VMT Projections Use the same cumulative thresholds as Option 1. What is the VMT impact significant threshold for transportation projects under baseline conditions? Lead agencies have discretion to choose their own metrics and thresholds for transportation project impact analysis. If VMT is selected, OPR recommends treating projects that reduce, or have no impact on, VMT to be presumed to have a less than significant impact. Continued use of LOS is uncertain because of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(2) and 15064.7(d)(2). Transit, especially on-demand transit service, can generate new VMT, which should be considered as part of impact conclusions. Consult CEQA legal advice about whether lead agency discretion allows continued use of LOS and whether VMT is required. VMT is required as an input to air quality, GHG, and energy impact analysis and should include induced vehicle travel effects. Option 1 Near-Term: Rely on the OPR Technical Advisory Thresholds • Baseline Transportation Threshold: A significant impact would occur if a project causes a net increase in total regional VMT compared to baseline conditions or opening year no project conditions. • Cumulative Transportation Threshold: A significant impact would occur if the project causes a net increase in total regional VMT compared to cumulative no project conditions. Option 2 Far-Term: Set Thresholds Consistent with the 2020 S/CAP or Comprehensive Plan Future Year VMT Projections Use the same cumulative thresholds as Option 1. SB743 Appendix A: City of Palo Alto SB743 Implementation: Summary of Decisions, Options, and Recommendations A-5 Lead Agency Decisions Common Options Common Limitations Considerations City of Palo Alto Recommendations What VMT reduction mitigation strategies are feasible? Menu of built environment and transportation demand management (TDM) mitigation strategies contained in Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Strategies, CAPCOA, 2010. Built environment strategies require modifying the project, which may create inconsistencies with the project description and financial feasibility. TDM strategies are often building tenant dependent so their use requires on-going monitoring and adjusting to account for changes in build tenants and their travel behavior. Ad-hoc project-by-project mitigation is less effective for reducing VMT than larger scale program-based approaches such as an impact fee program. Develop a VMT mitigation program using any of the following approaches. 1. Impact fee program based on a VMT reduction nexus. 2. In-lieu fee program for VMT reducing actions. 3. VMT mitigation bank or exchange program. 4. TDM ordinance applying to all employers. VMT Impact Mitigation Strategies Apply relevant mitigation strategies from one of the following four VMT mitigation categories in near-term. • Change the project land use mix or density • Reduce proposed vehicle parking supply levels • Implement on-site or off-site capital improvements for transit, bicycle, or pedestrian travel • Implement trip reduction programs as described in a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program Adopt Updated TDM Ordinance. In long-term, consider other available new options such as VMT Mitigation Bank or Exchange. Appendix B: VMT Threshold Examples SB743 Appendix B Adopted VMT Thresholds Jurisdiction Threshold LOS Maintained? City/County of San Francisco Residential: 15% below regional VMT per capita Office: 15% below regional VMT per employee Retail: 15% below regional VMT per retail employee Mixed-Use: Evaluate each land use independently No City of Oakland Residential: 15% below regional VMT per capita Office: 15% below regional VMT per employee Retail: 15% below regional VMT per retail employee Yes City of Elk Grove All Land Use Types: 15% below city’s 2015 baseline VMT of similar land uses Yes City of Los Angeles Project VMT should be 15% below the existing average VMT in the relevant Planning Area. Existing VMT threshold ranges from 6.0 to 9.4 VMT per capita, and from 7.6 to 15.0 VMT threshold per employee, depending on the Planning Area. Yes City of San Jose Residential: More stringent of: 1) 15% below citywide VMT per resident or 2) 15% below regional VMT per resident General Employment: 15% below existing regional VMT per employee Industrial Employment Uses: No higher than existing regional VMT per employee Retail Uses: Net increase in the total regional VMT Mixed-Use: Each land use component to be analyzed independently Yes City of Woodland 10% reduction in VMT per capita or VMT per service population compared to the General Plan 2035 VMT performance, or a 10% reduction compared to similar land uses Yes CSU System: All 23 Campuses 15% below regionwide average VMT No San Bernardino County 4% below existing average VMT per service population in unincorporated county (based on maximum achievable TDM reduction) Yes SB743 Appendix B Sample of VMT Threshold Options Currently Under Consideration Jurisdiction Potential Threshold Santa Barbara County Option 1: Daily VMT is no higher than the baseline regional average VMT Option 2: Daily VMT is at least 16.8% below baseline conditions (refers to CARB target) City of South San Francisco 15% below regional VMT per capita City of San Bruno 14.3% below existing VMT per service population (based on CARB assessment) Nevada County Option 1: Total weekday VMT per service population is less than or equal to the baseline subarea average Option 2: Consistent with the jurisdiction’s general plan and the Nevada County Regional Transportation Plan Appendix C: Comparison of Available Travel Forecasting Models 332 Pine Street | 4th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com Appendix C – Travel Model Comparison Date: May 29, 2020 To: Joanna Chan and Sylvia Star-Lack, City of Palo Alto From: Bob Grandy, Daniel Rubins and Teresa Whinery, Fehr & Peers Subject: Comparison of Available Travel Forecasting Models for the City of Palo Alto SF20-1094 Comparison of Available Travel Demand Models for the City of Palo Alto There are two types of travel forecasting models: activity-based (also called tour-based) models, such as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Travel Model One (“MTC travel model”), and trip-based models, such as the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)- City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) Bi-County Model (“VTA travel model”). Either type of model can be used to develop VMT forecasts.1 The Technical Advisory: On Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, December 2018) specifies that the VMT evaluation should ideally capture the full length of the trips being analyzed and should not truncate those trips at jurisdictional or model boundaries. Both models named above cover the entire nine-county Bay Area region; the VTA model also includes additional travel data pertaining to trips between the Bay Area and the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) region. The MTC travel model is produced largely to comply with federal and state laws related to preparing regional transportation plans (RTPs), air quality conformity, and greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis for sustainable communities strategies 1 Also considered was the Caltrans Statewide Travel Demand Model; however, the Caltrans travel forecasting model is meant for statewide analysis and does not have enough detail in the travel forecasting model to be applied in the City of Palo Alto. Appendix C- Travel Model Comparison Page 2 of 5 (SCS). The MTC travel model is an activity-based (or tour-based) model, meaning it can track VMT separately for different categories of people (residents, workers, students). Our investigations and applications of the MTC travel model have revealed the use of input parameters that are not reasonably foreseeable, such as land use growth allocations inconsistent with local general plans, substantial increases in telecommuting or other TDM strategies, and implementation of travel pricing. The VTA travel model includes a more detailed representation of the Santa Clara County transportation network and land use patterns, and is the model that has traditionally been used for most project-specific applications in Santa Clara County jurisdictions. The VTA travel model is a trip-based model, which means it is difficult to measure the VMT generated by residents and workers if those trips are not either home-based or home-based work. Additional detail is summarized below for the MTC and VTA travel models based on Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) 2017 land use projections (Plan Bay Area 2040 land use projections) and future regional transportation infrastructure consistent with Plan Bay Area 2040 (July 2017). Once a model is selected, the travel forecasting model should be checked to confirm that it is regularly calibrated and validated, that it is reasonably sensitive to future changes that can affect VMT, and whether it has any geographic limitations (such as truncating trips at a jurisdictional boundary) that would need to be compensated for when using it to produce VMT forecasts. Travel Analysis Zones Land use and socioeconomic data are represented in models by Travel Analysis Zones, or TAZs. A comparison of various TAZ elements between the MTC and VTA travel models is provided in Table 1. In summary, the VTA travel model TAZ system has a higher resolution than the MTC travel model, in addition to more precise alignment with freeways, as well as city/town and natural boundaries. The MTC travel model TAZ system is less refined within Palo Alto, which could result in a higher percentage of internalized trips and a more incomplete accounting of VMT generated by projects in the City of Palo Alto. Appendix C- Travel Model Comparison Page 3 of 5 Table 1: Travel Analysis Zones (TAZ) Network Comparison Criteria MTC Travel Model VTA Travel Model Model Coverage Nine-county Bay Area. Nine-county Bay Area, AMBAG (3 counties), and portions of Central Valley. Palo Alto Coarse TAZ system, roughly matching Census Tract geography. Smaller TAZ system than the MTC travel model, allowing for more land use detail in San Mateo County and Santa Clara County. Alignment Boundaries are generally aligned with natural and freeway boundaries, but does not match boundaries for all communities due to larger size of zones. Boundaries are more precisely aligned to natural and manmade boundaries (e.g. city boundaries, freeways, main thoroughfares, etc.). Land Use Input Type Model utilizes separate year-specific land use input files for each scenario that include year- specific socio-economic data. Model utilizes separate year-specific land use input files for each scenario that include year- specific socio-economic data. Summary The MTC travel model TAZ system is less refined within Santa Clara County and significantly less refined within the unincorporated portions of the county, which could result in a higher percentage of internalized trips and a more incomplete accounting of localized VMT generated by projects in Palo Alto and Santa Clara County. The VTA travel model TAZ system has a higher resolution, as well as more precise alignment with freeways and city/natural boundaries; may result in more complete VMT estimates. Source: MTC and VTA travel models, Fehr & Peers, 2020. Highway Network The highway networks between the MTC and VTA travel models were compared, as summarized in Table 2. Based on our review, the VTA travel model network is more detailed than the MTC travel model network, although both have a very coarse level of roadway representation for local roads in areas west of I-280. Appendix C- Travel Model Comparison Page 4 of 5 Table 2: Highway Network Comparison Criteria MTC Travel Model VTA Travel Model Level of Detail Low-Medium: Network only includes major collectors and above streets. Medium-High: Network includes some local streets and minor collectors and above streets. Network west of I-280 includes Centroid Connectors Collectors and residential streets are generally represented by centroid connectors. Residential streets are generally represented by centroid connectors. Attributes Link: List of attributes include distance, number of lanes, improvement years, area type, facility type, free flow speed, travel time, capacity, etc. Speed/Capacity: Uses speed/capacity look-up table (limited capacity to modify link speed/capacity). Node: Nodes do not have detailed attributes. Link: Similar to MTC travel model. Speed/Capacity: Similar to MTC travel model. Node: Similar to MTC travel model. Network Type Model utilizes separate year-specific highway network input files for each scenario. Similar to MTC travel model Non-Auto Modes Non-motorized skims and transit accessibility. Non-motorized skims and transit accessibility. Summary The network has a reasonable amount of detail but not a sufficient amount to accurately measure VMT in unincorporated areas, particularly west of I-280. Regional roadways and major arterial. More detailed roadway networks in both San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. The network has more detail than the MTC travel model and the ability to estimate VMT to the minor arterial/collector level. Source: MTC and VTA travel models, Fehr & Peers, 2020. Model Methods Table 3 provides a comparison of various model parameters, including run time, software requirement, and ease of use. In summary, the VTA travel model can be run in 8-12 hours on most computers by most consultants; because it is a trip-based model, it is difficult to measure VMT generated by residents and workers that is not home-based or work-based. The MTC travel model takes a minimum of 24 hours and can only be run on a server-based computer by a small handful of consultants; it is an activity-based model and can measure VMT generated by residents and workers separately, inclusive of all daily travel activity. Appendix C- Travel Model Comparison Page 5 of 5 Table 3: Model Process Comparison Criteria MTC Travel Model VTA Travel Model Runtime Base year model runtime of roughly 24 hours on a server-based computer with 32 computing cores and 128 GB of RAM. Base year model runtime of roughly 8 to 12 hours on virtually any desktop machine. Type 4-step model Activity-based model: socio-economic-based trip generation at the person-level that maintains a linkage of trips throughout the day to ensure modal consistency, making it capable of measuring VMT generated by residents and workers separately, as well as a total measure of VMT generation. 4-step model Trip-based model: socio-economic-based trip generation that gets generalized and aggregated into unlinked trips at the TAZ- level, making it difficult to measure VMT generated by residents and workers separately but fully capable of providing a total measure of VMT generation. Model Software Platform Citilabs – Cube/Voyager Citilabs – Cube/Voyager Other Required Software Java R Python Windows Server None Use Few consultants and no municipal agencies will have access to a server-based multi-core platform and the Java expertise required to run the model, limiting the pool of potential users of the model. There is not a few to use the MTC travel model, but specialized software and knowledge is needed to run it properly. VTA staff has access to edit the model, and VTA member agencies use the model based on the terms of a model use agreement (a fee is charged to member agencies to acquire the travel model). Non-member agencies, consultants, and developers have limited access to the travel model. Base Year 2015 2015 Forecast Years 2020 2030 2035 2040 2025 (an intermediate scenario) 2040 Summary The MTC travel model can only be run on a server-based computer by a small handful of consultants and is capable of measuring VMT generated by residents and workers separately. The VTA travel model can be run in 8 to 12 hours on virtually any desktop machine by most agency staff or consultants; a trip-based model type makes it difficult to measure VMT generated by residents and workers that is not home-based or work-based. Source: MTC and VTA travel models, Fehr & Peers, 2020. Appendix D: Additional VMT Thresholds Background and Options Discussion 332 Pine Street | 4th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com Appendix D – VMT Thresholds Date: May 29, 2020 To: Joanna Chan and Sylvia Star-Lack, City of Palo Alto From: Bob Grandy, Daniel Rubins and Teresa Whinery, Fehr & Peers Subject: Additional Background on VMT Thresholds SF20-1094 The purpose of this memorandum is to provide additional background on CEQA thresholds to comply with new California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements under Senate Bill (SB) 743. The options are focused on land use plans and land use projects, which will be required to be analyzed using VMT as of July 1, 2020. For transportation projects, the City of Palo Alto has the discretion to select its own VMT metrics and thresholds, and no change to current practice may be necessary; however, lead agencies should carefully review the latest CEQA Guidelines changes related to Sections 15064, 15064.3, and 15064.7. Changes to these sections affect the selection of significance thresholds and may influence future CEQA expectations, even for transportation projects. VMT Thresholds Background on CEQA Thresholds Establishing CEQA thresholds for VMT requires complying with the statutory language added by SB 743, as well as guidance contained in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064, 15064.3, and 15064.7. The excerpts below highlight the amendments to the two CEQA Guidelines Sections that were certified by the California Natural Resources Agency and the Office of Administrative Law at the end of 2018. Appendix D – VMT Thresholds Page 2 of 19 Source: Final Adopted Text for the 2018 Amendments and Additions to the State CEQA Guidelines. California Natural Resources Agency (p. 8), https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/2018_CEQA_FINAL_TEXT_122818.pdf Appendix D – VMT Thresholds Page 3 of 19 Source: Final Adopted Text for the 2018 Amendments and Additions to the State CEQA Guidelines. California Natural Resources Agency (p. 11-13), https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/2018_CEQA_FINAL_TEXT_122818.pdf. Appendix D – VMT Thresholds Page 4 of 19 Source: Final Adopted Text for the 2018 Amendments and Additions to the State CEQA Guidelines. California Natural Resources Agency (p. 14-15), https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/2018_CEQA_FINAL_TEXT_122818.pdf. Appendix D – VMT Thresholds Page 5 of 19 As noted in the CEQA sections above, lead agencies have the discretion to select thresholds on a case-by-case basis or develop and publish thresholds for general use. The remainder of this memo focuses on guidance related to adopting thresholds for general use. When developing and adopting new thresholds, the CEQA Guidelines are clear that thresholds must be supported by substantial evidence. For SB 743, the specific metric of focus is the change a project will cause in VMT, which is an indirect measure of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. Since VMT is already used in the analysis of air quality, energy, and GHG impacts as part of CEQA compliance, the challenge for lead agencies is to answer the question, “What type or amount of change in VMT constitutes a significant impact for transportation purposes?” CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b)(1) allows lead agencies the discretion to select their own thresholds and allow for differences in thresholds based on context such as urban versus rural areas. OPR VMT Threshold Recommendations for Land Use Projects SB 743 includes the following legislative intent statements, which were used to help guide OPR’s VMT threshold recommendations. • New methodologies under the California Environmental Quality Act are needed for evaluating transportation impacts that are better able to promote the state’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic-related air pollution, promoting the development of a multimodal transportation system, and providing clean, efficient access to destinations. • More appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. To support these legislative intent statements, threshold recommendations are found in Section 15064.3 of the 2018 CEQA Guidelines amendments and the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) (December 2018). Specific excerpts and threshold highlights are provided below. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 (b) Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts. (1) Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. Appendix D – VMT Thresholds Page 6 of 19 (2) Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (page 10) Based on OPR’s extensive review of the applicable research, and in light of an assessment by the California Air Resources Board quantifying the need for VMT reduction in order to meet the State’s long-term climate goals, OPR recommends that a per capita or per employee VMT that is fifteen percent below that of existing development may be a reasonable threshold. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA – Rural Projects Outside of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) (page 19) In rural areas of non-MPO counties (i.e., areas not near established or incorporated cities or towns), fewer options may be available for reducing VMT, and significance thresholds may be best determined on a case-by-case basis. Note, however, that clustered small towns and small town main streets may have substantial VMT benefits compared to isolated rural development, similar to the transit oriented development described above. The recognition that rural areas are different is consistent with the flexibility provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b)(1). In these areas, VMT per resident or per employee tends to be higher than in urban areas due to longer distances between origins and destinations and limited travel mode choices. These (and the other) threshold recommendations in the Technical Advisory are intended to help achieve the State of California’s GHG reduction goals and targets considered in development of OPR’s Technical Advisory, as follows; • Assembly Bill 32 (2006) requires statewide greenhouse gas reductions to 1990 levels by 2020 and continued reductions beyond 2020. • Senate Bill 32 (2016) requires at least a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. • Pursuant to Senate Bill 375 (2008), the California Air Resources Board establishes greenhouse gas reduction targets for MPOs to achieve based on land use patterns and transportation systems specified in Regional Transportation Plans and Sustainable Community Strategies. At the time the Technical Advisory was released, target reductions Appendix D – VMT Thresholds Page 7 of 19 by 2035 for the largest MPOs ranged from 13% to 16%. The current targets for these MPOs are 19%. • Executive Order B-30-15 (2015) sets a GHG emissions reduction target of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. • Executive Order S-3-05 (2005) sets a GHG emissions reduction target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. • Executive Order B-16-12 (2012) specifies a GHG emissions reduction target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 specifically for transportation. • Senate Bill 391 requires the California Transportation Plan to support 80% reduction in GHGs below 1990 levels by 2050. • The California Air Resources Board Mobile Source Strategy (2016) describes California’s strategy for containing air pollutant emissions from vehicles and quantifies VMT growth compatible with achieving state targets. • The California Air Resources Board’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target describes California’s strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and quantifies VMT growth compatible with achieving state targets. • The Caltrans Strategic Management Plan (2015) calls for a 15% reduction in VMT per capita compared to 2010 levels by 2020. • Executive Order B-55-18 (2018) established an additional statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. Lead agencies should note that the OPR-recommended VMT thresholds are focused upon GHG reduction goals. As OPR’s Technical Advisory (p. 8) explains: The VMT metric can support the three statutory goals: “the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” (Public Resources Code, § 21099, subdivision (b)(1), emphasis added.) However, in order for it to promote and support all three, lead agencies should select a significance threshold that aligns with state law on all three. State law concerning the development of multimodal transportation networks and diversity of land uses requires planning for and prioritizing increases in complete streets and infill development, but does not mandate a particular depth of implementation that could translate into a particular threshold of significance. Meanwhile, the State has clear quantitative targets for GHG emissions reduction set forth in law and based on scientific consensus, and the depth of VMT reduction needed to achieve those targets has been quantified. Tying VMT thresholds to GHG reduction also supports the two other statutory goals. Therefore, to ensure adequate analysis of transportation impacts, OPR recommends using quantitative VMT thresholds linked to GHG reduction targets when methods exist to do so. Appendix D – VMT Thresholds Page 8 of 19 While this is one of the SB 743 legislative intent objectives, a less clear connection is made to the other legislative intent objectives to encourage infill development and promote active transportation. SB 743 [Section 21099(b)(1)] also makes it explicit that criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts shall promote “…the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal networks, and a diversity of land uses.” If GHG impacts are already being adequately addressed in another CEQA section, then more evidence may be desired about VMT threshold relationships to the other criteria. In particular, how should lead agencies balancing the accommodation of housing needs that contribute to land use diversity but also contribute to VMT increases? Given the status of housing supply shortages and affordability in California, this is not a small issue. The use of VMT as a new impact metric will likely trigger more significant impacts in suburban and rural areas that have the highest VMT generation rates and limited or costly mitigation options. Adding more impact mitigation costs to suburban and rural housing projects may be counter to land use diversity and adequate/affordable housing goals. Another important distinction within the Technical Advisory is how projects within different land use contexts are treated. The general expectation that a 15% reduction below that of existing development may be reasonable is proposed for projects within urban areas of metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). For rural areas outside MPOs, the Technical Advisory explains that VMT mitigation options are limited so thresholds may need to be set on a case-by-case basis. This rationale may not provide the best evidence for threshold setting. The intent of threshold setting is to determine what change in VMT would constitute a significant impact considering the expectations set forth in the SB 743 statute language and the associated CEQA Guidelines. While land use context is a valid consideration when setting thresholds, so are these expectations. The Technical Advisory also makes specific VMT threshold recommendations for analyzing the impact of project generated VMT on baseline conditions, but also recommends that VMT analysis consider a project’s long-term effects on VMT and whether the project is consistent with the Plan Bay Area (the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS)). These recommendations raise key questions for lead agencies, as addressed in the next section. Lead Agency Discretion in Setting VMT Thresholds Prior to SB 743 implementation, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 allowed lead agencies the discretion to select their own transportation impact metrics, although substantial evidence was required to support their decisions. For transportation impact metrics, SB 743 deleted vehicle delay as a metric, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 provided that VMT is generally the most appropriate metric for land use projects. As to thresholds, additional questions have arisen as listed below. • Question 1: Do lead agencies have discretion to set a different VMT threshold than recommended by OPR? Appendix D – VMT Thresholds Page 9 of 19 • Question 2: Do lead agencies need to establish VMT thresholds for cumulative impacts? • Question 3: Do lead agencies need to use the same VMT methodology for setting thresholds and for conducting project VMT forecasts? The answers to the first two questions require a legal perspective, and were informed by a memorandum prepared by Remy Moose Manley (RMM) as part of the WRCOG SB 743 Implementation Pathway project, whose opinion is summarized below. The full opinion is available as part of the WRCOG documentation at http://www.fehrandpeers.com/wrcog-sb743/ and a summary of the RMM selected findings is presented below. Question 1: Do lead agencies have discretion to set a different VMT threshold than recommended by OPR? Setting a threshold lower than the 15% reduction recommended by OPR in their Technical Advisory is likely legally defensible, so long as the threshold is supported by substantial evidence. The substantial evidence is critical in the threshold setting process and should explain why the OPR-recommended threshold is not appropriate for the lead agency or project, and why another threshold was selected. This evidence will be the basis for supporting the recommended threshold, and should carefully consider the definition of substantial evidence contained Section 15384 of the CEQA Guidelines. This answer considers the fact that the 15% reduction is not included in the statute or the updated CEQA Guidelines; rather it is only included in OPR’s Technical Advisory. However, it is unknown how much weight future courts may give OPR’s Technical Advisory, since this is where OPR complies with Section 21099(b)(1) to develop recommendations for significance criteria. The revisions to the CEQA Guidelines only include statements about what land use project types and locations may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. Additional evidence allowing for a lower threshold (i.e., less than 15%) is also found in the discussion above about the recognition of land use context influencing VMT performance. Question 2: Do lead agencies need to establish VMT thresholds for cumulative impacts? In addition to direct impact analysis, lead agencies should address VMT impacts in the cumulative context. The CEQA Guidelines (and the case law) are clear that consideration of cumulative impacts is important to CEQA compliance. That said, a separate quantitative threshold may not be required if the threshold applied for project-specific impacts is cumulative in nature. VMT thresholds based on an efficiency form of the metric, such as VMT per capita, can address both project and cumulative impacts in a similar manner that some air districts do for criteria pollutants and GHGs. Appendix D – VMT Thresholds Page 10 of 19 As explained in OPR’s Technical Advisory, when using an absolute VMT metric, i.e., total VMT (as recommended below for retail and transportation projects), analyzing the combined impacts for a cumulative impacts analysis may be appropriate. A project that falls below an efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with long-term environmental goals and relevant plans would have no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact. Accordingly, a finding of a less-than-significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact, and vice versa. (OPR Technical Advisory, p. 6.) A key consideration for cumulative scenarios is whether the rate of VMT generation gets better or worse in the long-term. If the rate is trending down over time, then the project level analysis may suffice. However, the trend direction must be supported with substantial evidence. This creates a potential issue for VMT because per capita VMT rates in California have been increasing, a trend inconsistent with RTP/SCS projections showing declines. The chart below from the 2018 Progress Report California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, California Air Resources Board, November 2018 charts recent VMT per capita trends. This evidence could be used to justify the need for separate cumulative analysis to verify a project’s long-term cumulative effects. Figure 1: California VMT Trends Source: 2018 Progress Report California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, California Air Resources Board, 2018 Appendix D – VMT Thresholds Page 11 of 19 For some projects, measuring project-generated VMT will only tell part of the impact story, especially if they exceed a project threshold based on VMT per capita or a similar efficiency metric. Measuring the “project’s effect on VMT” may be necessary to fully explain the project’s impact, especially under cumulative conditions. This occurs because of the nature of discretionary land use decisions. Cities and counties influence land supply through changes to general plan land use designations and zoning for parcels. These changes rarely, if ever, influence the long- term amounts of regional population and employment growth. Viewed through this lens, a full disclosure of VMT effects requires capturing how a project may influence the VMT generated by the project and nearby land uses. Also, some mitigation strategies that improve walking, bicycling, or transit to/from the project site can also reduce VMT from neighboring land uses (for example, installing a bike-share station on the project site would influence the riding behavior of project residents and those living and working nearby). Question 3: Do lead agencies need to use the same VMT methodology for setting thresholds and for conducting project VMT forecasts? Lead agencies need to use consistent methods when forecasting VMT for threshold setting and project analysis to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison for identifying potential impacts. The project team has confirmed through case study comparisons1 that failure to comply with this approach, as recommended by the Technical Advisory, can lead to erroneous impact conclusions. This is an important finding, since the Technical Advisory also accepts that VMT analysis can be performed using sketch planning tools. Off-the-shelf sketch planning tools for VMT analysis do not contain trip generation rates or trip lengths consistent with local and regional travel forecasting models. These models are the most likely source for citywide and region-wide VMT estimates used in setting thresholds because sketch planning tools cannot produce these aggregate-level VMT metrics. The Technical Advisory partially recognizes this issue by recommending that sketch planning tools use consistent trip lengths as the models used to 1 The table below shows the results of using different VMT methods. The parenthetical numbers under city and region are the threshold values (15% below the baseline values in front of the parenthetical values). If the travel demand model was used to set the italicized threshold values in the first row and the model was also used for the project analysis, then no impact would occur. If the project analysis instead used Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates and California Household Travel Survey (CHTS) trip lengths, then the project’s 11.26 estimate would be higher than the model threshold values for both the city and region, resulting in a significant impact. Using thresholds derived from the ITE+CHTS data would have reversed this impact finding, demonstrating that consistent method is essential for avoiding erroneous impact conclusions. VMT Method Existing Home-Based VMT per Capita City Region Project Travel demand model 9.86 (8.38) 11.97 (10.17) 5.46 ITE + CHTS 23.90 (20.32) 25.67 (21.82) 11.26 Appendix D – VMT Thresholds Page 12 of 19 produce thresholds, but it does not include a similar recommendation for trip generation rates. Input variables, trip lengths, and trip generation rates need to be consistent with the travel forecasting model to produce accurate project impact analysis results. Options for the City of Palo Alto So how should lead agencies approach VMT threshold setting given their discretion? Since an impact under CEQA begins with a change to the existing environment, a starting level for potential thresholds would be the baseline (i.e., existing condition) VMT, VMT per capita, VMT per employee, or VMT per service population. Since VMT would normally be expected to increase or fluctuate with population and employment growth, changes in economic activity, and expansion of new vehicle travel choices (i.e., Uber, Lyft, autonomous vehicles, etc.), expressing VMT measurement in an efficiency metric form allows for more direct comparisons to baseline conditions for land use projects, land use plans, and transportation projects. Establishing a threshold such as baseline VMT per service population would be essentially setting an expectation that future land uses will perform like existing land uses. If VMT performance expectations start with baseline conditions, lead agencies can establish reductions from baseline levels, thereby lowering future VMT generation. How much of a reduction may depend on the values placed on vehicle use and its associated effects on mobility, economic activity, and environmental consequences. Working toward higher reductions in VMT becomes possible as the land use context changes to urban areas with higher densities and high- quality transit systems. While OPR has developed specific VMT impact threshold recommendations for project-related impacts, current practice has not sufficiently evolved where a clear line can be drawn between “acceptable” and “unacceptable” levels of VMT change for the sole purpose of determining a significant transportation impact. Until SB 743, VMT changes were viewed through an environmental lens that focused on the relationship of VMT to fuel consumption and emissions. For transportation purposes, VMT has traditionally been used to evaluate whether land use or transportation decisions resulted in greater dependency on vehicle travel. Determining whether a portion of someone’s daily vehicle travel is unacceptable or would constitute a significant transportation impact is generally not clear to lead agencies. Another consideration in threshold setting is how to address cumulative VMT impacts and whether addressing them in the General Plan EIR is advantageous for streamlining the review of subsequent land use and transportation projects, given CEQA relief available through SB 375 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. This section of the Guidelines relieves a project of additional environmental review if the environmental impact was adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR and the project is consistent with the General Plan (see below). Appendix D – VMT Thresholds Page 13 of 19 15183. PROJECTS CONSISTENT WITH A COMMUNITY PLAN OR ZONING (a) CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies. The use of Section 15183 also addresses cumulative impacts as acknowledged in Section 15130(e). 15130. DISCUSSION OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (e) If a cumulative impact was adequately addressed in a prior EIR for a community plan, zoning action, or general plan, and the project is consistent with that plan or action, then an EIR for such a project should not further analyze that cumulative impact, as provided in Section 15183(j). For the City of Palo Alto, addressing transportation VMT impacts in the City Comprehensive Plan EIR could be useful in understanding how VMT reduction should be balanced against other community values when it comes to setting new VMT impact thresholds for SB 743. Given this information, the City of Palo Alto has at least four options for setting VMT thresholds. • Option 1: Rely on the OPR Technical Advisory suggestion to set thresholds consistent with State of California goals for air quality, greenhouse gas, and energy conservation. • Option 2: Use a threshold adopted or recommended by another public agency consistent with lead agency air quality, GHG reduction, and energy conservation goals • Option 3: Set jurisdiction-specific VMT thresholds based on substantial evidence • Option 4: Set thresholds based on baseline VMT performance Each of these options is discussed below. Option 1: Rely on the OPR Technical Advisory suggestion to set thresholds consistent with State of California goals for air quality, greenhouse gas, and energy conservation. The first option is to simply rely on the threshold recommendations contained in the OPR Technical Advisory. As noted above, the general expectation is that land use projects should be measured against VMT per capita or VMT per worker threshold of 15% below that of baseline conditions (i.e., existing development). Specific VMT thresholds for residential, office (work- related), and retail land uses are summarized below. Appendix D – VMT Thresholds Page 14 of 19 • Residential projects – A proposed project exceeding a level of 15% below existing (baseline) VMT per capita may indicate a significant transportation impact. Existing VMT per capita may be measured as regional VMT per capita, a citywide VMT per capita, or as geographic sub-area VMT per capita. • Office projects – A proposed project exceeding a level of 15% below existing (baseline) regional VMT per employee may indicate a significant transportation impact. • Retail projects – A net increase in total (boundary) VMT may indicate a significant transportation impact. • Mixed-use projects – Lead agencies can evaluate each component of a mixed-use project independently and apply the significance threshold for each project type included (e.g., residential and retail). Alternatively, a lead agency may consider only the project’s dominant use. In the analysis of each use, a project should take credit for internal capture. • Other non-residential project types – OPR recommends using the quantified thresholds above, thus a proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing regional VMT per employee for the proposed non-residential project type or resulting in a net increase in total (boundary) VMT may be considered significant. Lead agencies, using more location-specific information, may develop their own more specific thresholds, which may include other land use types. • Redevelopment projects – Where a project replaces existing VMT-generating land uses, if the replacement leads to a net overall decrease in VMT, the project would lead to a less- than-significant transportation impact. If the project leads to a net overall increase in VMT, then the thresholds described above should apply. For land use plans (i.e., a general plan, policy area plan, or specific area plan), a significant impact would occur if the respective thresholds above were exceeded in aggregate. This means that new population and employment growth combined with the planned transportation network would need to generate future VMT per capita or VMT per worker that is less than 85% of the baseline value to be considered less than significant. Land use project and land use plans would also need to be consistent with the jurisdiction General Plan. A potential limitation of the OPR recommendations is that the substantial evidence used to justify the thresholds is largely based on the State of California air quality and GHG goals. Three issues arise from this reliance: 1. The OPR-recommended threshold does not establish a level of VMT reduction that would result in California meeting its air quality and GHG goals according to the California Air Resources Board 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Appendix D – VMT Thresholds Page 15 of 19 Climate Goals (2019). This may create confusion with air quality and GHG impact analysis in environmental documents, which should already address the influence of VMT. 2. The OPR-recommended thresholds do not directly reflect expectations related to the other SB 743 objectives related to statewide goals to promote public health through active transportation, infill development, multimodal networks, and a diversity of land uses. Recommending a reduction below baseline levels is consistent with these objectives, but the numerical value has not been tied to specific statewide values for each objective or goal. 3. State of California expectations for air quality and GHG may not align with local/lead agency expectations. Using State expectations for a local lead agency threshold may create inconsistencies with local city or county general plans. Option 2: Use a threshold adopted or recommended by another public agency consistent with lead agency air quality, GHG reduction, and energy conservation goals This option sets a threshold consistent with local air quality, GHG reduction, and energy conservation goals. This approach requires that local air quality and GHG reduction goals in general plans, climate action plans, or GHG reduction plans comply with the legislation and associated plans described earlier. • 2000 levels by 2010 • 1990 levels by 2020 • 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 SB 32 expanded on these goals and added the expectation that the state should reach 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, followed by SB 391 requirements for the California Transportation Plan to support 80% reduction in GHGs below 1990 levels by 2050. With respect to the land use and transportation sectors, SB 375 tasked CARB with setting specific GHG reduction goals through the RTP/SCSs prepared by MPOs. The CARB Scoping Plan and Mobile Source Strategy provide analysis related to how the state can achieve the legislative and executive goals, while the Caltrans Strategic Management Plan and Smart Mobility Framework provide supportive guidance and metrics. An important recognition of the CARB Scoping Plan and Mobile Source Strategy is that the initial SB 375 targets were not aggressive enough. The CARB 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals document provides updated information on VMT reductions needed to meet the State’s GHG emission reduction targets by 2050. This document identifies two specific thresholds to meet these targets, a 14.3% reduction in total project generated VMT per capita, and a 16.8% reduction in light-duty vehicle project generated VMT per capita. While this evidence is tied largely to the State of California’s emission reduction goals, the proposed project Appendix D – VMT Thresholds Page 16 of 19 generated VMT reductions associated with this approach to thresholds would be supportive of multimodal networks, infill development, and greater land use diversity. Figure 2: Statewide Total VMT/Capita Source: 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals, CARB (p. 10) https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-01/2017_sp_vmt_reductions_jan19.pdf Figure 3: Statewide Light-Duty VMT/Capita Source: 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals, CARB (p. 11) https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-01/2017_sp_vmt_reductions_jan19.pdf Appendix D – VMT Thresholds Page 17 of 19 One benefit of relying on CARB or other state agencies for a threshold recommendation is the CEQA Guidelines provision in Section 15064.7(c) highlighted below. Source: Final Adopted Text for the 2018 Amendments and Additions to the State CEQA Guidelines. California Natural Resources Agency (p. 14) http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/ CARB meets the criteria of being a public agency and having noted expertise in the areas of VMT and emissions analysis. Further, the recommended threshold values above were developed in specific consideration of SB 743 requirements. One other agency threshold to consider is Caltrans. The Local Development-Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR) Branch at Caltrans (https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-planning/office- of-smart-mobility-climate-change/local-development-intergovernmental-review) has a responsibility to reduce potential adverse impacts of local development on the state transportation system. As part of its responsibilities, each district branch performs reviews of CEQA environmental documents for local land use projects. These reviews include providing expectations for transportation impact analysis, such as metrics and thresholds. When Caltrans reviews CEQA documents, they may function as a reviewing agency or a responsible agency. In a responsible agency role, Caltrans has approval authority over some component of the project, such as an encroachment permit for access to the state highway system. Comments from Caltrans should be adequately addressed, and special attention should Appendix D – VMT Thresholds Page 18 of 19 be paid to those comments when Caltrans serves as a responsible agency because an adequate response may be required to obtain its required approval. Caltrans recently released a draft update to its Transportation Impact Study Guide (https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/sb- 743/2020-02-26-transmittal-and-draft-vmt-focused-tisg.pdf). Key points from this draft include the following: • Caltrans recommends use of OPR’s recommended thresholds for land use projects. • Caltrans supports CEQA streamlining for land use projects in transit priority areas and areas with existing low VMT, as described in OPR’s Technical Advisory. • Caltrans recommends following the guidance on methods of VMT assessment found in OPR’s Technical Advisory. • Caltrans comments on a CEQA document may note methodological deviations from those methods and may recommend that significance determinations and mitigation be aligned with State of California GHG reduction goals as articulated in that guidance, ARB’s Scoping Plan, and related documentation. • In rural areas, Caltrans may comment requesting VMT-reducing strategies for the rural area be included programmatically, including at the General Plan level, for example. Caltrans will also recommend establishment of programs or methods to reduce VMT and support appropriate bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure, services, or incentives. With Caltrans endorsement of the recommended OPR thresholds, a state VMT threshold has been established for impacts to the state highway system. If a lead agency chooses a different threshold, they may have to complete more than one impact analysis. Option 3: Set jurisdiction-specific VMT threshold based on substantial evidence VMT is a composite metric that is created as an output of combining a community’s long-term population and growth projections with its long-term transportation network (i.e., the General Plan). Other variables are also in play related to travel behavior, but land use changes and transportation network modifications are the items largely influenced or controlled by cities and counties. As such, each jurisdiction already has a VMT growth budget. This is the amount of VMT that is forecast to be generated from the jurisdiction’s General Plan and the jurisdiction’s buildout scenario assumptions combined with other travel behavior inputs for the region as captured in the travel forecasting model. This VMT growth has already been planned for and determined to be “acceptable” by the jurisdiction. Regional and state agencies also use the General Plan growth as part of their plans and environmental impact analysis. This level of VMT could serve as the basis of a VMT threshold expressed as a VMT growth budget or as a VMT efficiency metric based on the future year VMT per capita, VMT per employee, or VMT per service population. The measurement of VMT could occur at the geographic subarea level. Appendix D – VMT Thresholds Page 19 of 19 Potential limitations of this approach relate to the lack of a “baseline plus project” analysis and travel forecasting model sensitivity. If a General Plan includes policies or implementation programs designed to reduce VMT through transportation demand management (TDM) strategies, the current local and regional models did not include these effects. Further, current local and regional models do not capture major disruptive trend effects such as TNCs, AVs, and internet shopping. Including baseline and baseline plus project analysis could help capture some of these effects to the extent they are already influencing travel behavior. Option 4: Set thresholds based on baseline VMT performance As noted above, an impact under CEQA begins with a change to the existing or baseline environment. There are a range of approaches to using this starting point for VMT impact analysis. At one end of the spectrum is “total daily VMT” generated under baseline conditions. Setting this value as the threshold for a jurisdiction basically creates a budget where any increase would be a significant impact. Alternatively, the baseline VMT per capita, VMT per employee, or VMT per service population could be used to establish an efficiency metric basis for impact evaluation. Using this form of VMT would mean that future land use projects would be expected to perform no worse than existing land use projects, and only projects that cause an increase in the rate of VMT generation would cause significant impacts. Since VMT will increase or fluctuate with population and employment growth, changes in economic activity, and expansion of new vehicle travel choices (i.e., Uber, Lyft, autonomous vehicles, etc.), expressing VMT measurement in an efficiency metric form allows for more direct comparisons to baseline conditions for land use projects, land use plans, and transportation projects. Under this option, a separate quantitative VMT threshold may not be set for cumulative conditions unless VMT trends are increasing over time. At a minimum, a qualitative assessment of RTP and General Plan consistency may still be included, depending on whether that analysis is already being conducted for the purposes of GHG impact analysis. In general, projects should avoid jeopardizing the air quality conformity and GHG reduction performance of other relevant plans. Appendix E: Small Project Guidance SMALL PROJECT SCREENING FOR SB743 The following document provides substantial evidence to support the screening on ‘small’ projects for SB 743 purposes. The OPR Technical Advisory relies on a trip trigger based on CEQA exemptions. Two potential limitations of this trigger have been identified. First, the trigger is not tied to a VMT estimate. Second, the trigger does not consider residential land uses. To strengthen the evidence, we used specific CEQA exemptions related to residential projects and 2012 California Household Travel Survey (CHTS) household VMT estimates to develop the following modification to the OPR approach. The CEQA exemption sections are provided below (yellow highlight added). 15303. NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. The numbers of structures described in this section are the maximum allowable on any legal parcel. Examples of this exemption include, but are not limited to: APPENDIX E (a) One single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single- family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. (b) A duplex or similar multi-family residential structure, totaling no more than four dwelling units. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to apartments, duplexes and similar structures designed for not more than six dwelling units. (c) A store, motel, office, restaurant or similar structure not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, and not exceeding 2500 square feet in floor area. In urbanized areas, the exemption also applies to up to four such commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites zoned for such use if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive. Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21084, Public Resources Code. 15315. MINOR LAND DIVISIONS Class 15 consists of the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent. Note: Authority cited: Sections Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21084, Public Resources Code. Based on the 2012 CHTS, here are a range of VMT estimates for 2, 4, and 6 units based on the CA and SACOG average VMT generation per household. CA Average – 41.6 VMT per household - 2 units = 83.2 VMT per day - 4 units = 166.4 VMT per day - 6 units = 249.6 VMT per day (urban areas only) SACOG Average – 42.9 VMT per household - 2 units = 85.8 VMT per day - 4 units = 171.6 VMT per day - 6 units = 257.4 VMT per day (urban areas only) Another option is to rely on the maximum level of development allowed by CEQA exemptions and convert that value to a ‘dwelling unit equivalent’ measure similar to impact fee programs. OPR estimated that non-residential uses could generate 110-124 daily trips based on a maximum project exemption size of 10,000 square feet (KSF). Using the lower end of the range and CHTS trip lengths produces a VMT equivalent for 10 KSF for CA and SACOG of 836 and 869, respectively. This equates to about 20 residential households. Appendix F: VMT Characteristics in Palo Alto SB743 Appendix F VMT Characteristics in Palo Alto VMT Metric 2015 Baseline – Average VMT Value City of Palo Alto Santa Clara County 9-Bay Area Counties Home-Based VMT per Resident (for residential uses) 9.48 13.33 13.95 Home-Based Work VMT per Employee (for office uses) 16.71 16.64 15.33 Source: Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 2020. VMT Metric 2040 Cumulative – Average VMT Value City of Palo Alto Santa Clara County 9-Bay Area Counties Home-Based VMT per Resident (for residential uses) 9.51 12.69 13.96 Home-Based Work VMT per Employee (for office uses) 17.66 17.16 16.03 Source: Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 2020. Appendix G: Comparison of CAPCOA Strategies Versus Research Since 2010 New information Change in VMT reduction compared to CAPCOA Literature or Evidence Cited Land Use/Location 3.1.1 LUT-1 Increase Density 0.8% - 30% VMT reduction due to increase in density Adequate Increasing residential density is associated with lower VMT per capita. Increased residential density in areas with high jobs access may have a greater VMT change than increases in regions with lower jobs access. The range of reductions is based on a range of elasticities from -0.04 to -0.22. The low end of the reductions represents a -0.04 elasticity of demand in response to a 10% increase in residential units or employment density and a -0.22 elasticity in response to 50% increase to residential/employment density. 0.4% -10.75% Primary sources: Boarnet, M. and Handy, S. (2014). Impacts of Residential Density on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Policy Brief and Technical Background Document. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved from: https://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm Secondary source: Stevens, M. (2017). Does Compact Development Make People Drive Less? Journal of the American Planning Association, 83(1), 7-18. Land Use/Location 3.1.9 LUT-9 Improve Design of Development 3.0% - 21.3% reduction in VMT due to increasing intersection density vs. typical ITE suburban development Adequate No update to CAPCOA literature; advise applying CAPCOA measure only to large developments with significant internal street structure. Same N/A Land Use/Location 3.1.4 LUT-4 Increase Destination Accessibility 6.7%-20% VMT reduction due to decrease in distance to major job center or downtown Adequate Reduction in VMT due to increased regional accessibility (jobs gravity). Locating new development in areas with good access to destinations reduces VMT by reducing trip lengths and making walking, biking, and transit trips more feasible. Destination accessibility is measured in terms of the number of jobs (or other attractions) reachable within a given travel time, which tends to be highest at central locations and lowest at peripheral ones. 0.5%-12% Primary sources: Handy, S. et al. (2014). Impacts of Network Connectivity on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Policy Brief and Technical Background Document. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved from: https://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm Handy, S. et al. (2013). Impacts of Regional Accessibility on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Policy Brief and Technical Background Document. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved from: https://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm Secondary source: Holtzclaw, et al. (2002.) Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and Socioeconomic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Use – Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 25, pp. 1–27. TDM STRATEGY EVALUATION Comparison of CAPCOA Strategies Versus New Research Since 2010 New Information Since CAPCOA Was Published in 2010 CAPCOA Category CAPCOA # CAPCOA Strategy CAPCOA Reduction Strength of Substantial Evidence for CEQA Impact Analysis? APPENDIX G New information Change in VMT reduction compared to CAPCOA Literature or Evidence Cited TDM STRATEGY EVALUATION - DRAFT V 1.0 Comparison of CAPCOA Strategies Versus New Research Since 2010 New Information Since CAPCOA Was Published in 2010 CAPCOA Category CAPCOA # CAPCOA Strategy CAPCOA Reduction Strength of Substantial Evidence for CEQA Impact Analysis? Land Use/ Location 3.1.3 LUT-3 Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments 9%-30% VMT reduction due to mixing land uses within a single development Adequate 1] VMT reduction due to mix of land uses within a single development. Mixing land uses within a single development can decrease VMT (and resulting GHG emissions), since building users do not need to drive to meet all of their needs. 2] Reduction in VMT due to regional change in entropy index of diversity. Providing a mix of land uses within a single neighborhood can decrease VMT (and resulting GHG emissions), since trips between land use types are shorter and may be accommodated by non-auto modes of transport. For example when residential areas are in the same neighborhood as retail and office buildings, a resident does not need to travel outside of the neighborhood to meet his/her trip needs. At the regional level, reductions in VMT are measured in response to changes in the entropy index of land use diversity. 1] 0%-12% 2] 0.3%-4% 1] Ewing, R. and Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the Built Environment - A Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association,76(3),265-294. Cited in California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. (2010).Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. Retrieved from: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf Frank, L., Greenwald, M., Kavage, S. and Devlin, A. (2011). An Assessment of Urban Form and Pedestrian and Transit Improvements as an Integrated GHG Reduction Strategy. WSDOT Research Report WA-RD 765.1. Washington State Department of Transportation. Retrieved from: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/765.1.pdf Nasri, A. and Zhang, L. (2012). Impact of Metropolitan-Level Built Environment on Travel Behavior. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2323(1), 75-79. Sadek, A. et al. (2011). Reducing VMT through Smart Land-Use Design. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. Retrieved from: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical- services/trans-r-and-d-repository/C-08-29%20Final%20Report_December%202011%20%282%29.pdf Spears, S.et al. (2014). Impacts of Land-Use Mix on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions- Policy Brief and Technical Background Document. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved from: https://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm 2] Zhang, Wengia et al. "Short- and Long-Term Effects of Land Use on Reducing Personal Vehicle Miles of Travel." New information Change in VMT reduction compared to CAPCOA Literature or Evidence Cited TDM STRATEGY EVALUATION - DRAFT V 1.0 Comparison of CAPCOA Strategies Versus New Research Since 2010 New Information Since CAPCOA Was Published in 2010 CAPCOA Category CAPCOA # CAPCOA Strategy CAPCOA Reduction Strength of Substantial Evidence for CEQA Impact Analysis? Land Use/ Location 3.1.5 LUT-5 Increase Transit Accessibility 0.5%-24.6% reduce in VMT due to locating a project near high-quality transit Adequate 1] VMT reduction when transit station is provided within 1/2 mile of development (compared to VMT for sites located outside 1/2 mile radius of transit). Locating high density development within 1/2 mile of transit will facilitate the use of transit by people traveling to or from the Project site. The use of transit results in a mode shift and therefore reduced VMT. 2] Reduction in vehicle trips due to implementing TOD. A project with a residential/commercial center designed around a rail or bus station, is called a transit-oriented development (TOD). The project description should include, at a minimum, the following design features: • A transit station/stop with high-quality, high-frequency bus service located within a 5-10 minute walk (or roughly ¼ mile from stop to edge of development), and/or • A rail station located within a 20 minute walk (or roughly ½ mile from station to edge of development) • Fast, frequent, and reliable transit service connecting to a high percentage of regional destinations • Neighborhood designed for walking and cycling 1] 0%-5.8% 2] 0%-7.3% 1] Lund, H. et al. (2004). Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California. Oakland, CA: Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and Caltrans. Tal, G. et al. (2013). Policy Brief on the Impacts of Transit Access (Distance to Transit) Based on a Review of the Empirical Literature. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved from: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/transitaccess/transit_access_brief120313.pdf 2] Zamir, K. R. et al. (2014). Effects of Transit-Oriented Development on Trip Generation, Distribution, and Mode Share in Washington, D.C., and Baltimore, Maryland. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2413, 45–53. DOI: 10.3141/2413-05 Land Use/ Location 3.1.6 LUT-6 Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing 0.04%-1.20% reduction in VMT for making up to 30% of housing units BMR Weak - Should only be used where supported by local data on affordable housing trip generation. Observed trip generation indicates substantial local and regional variation in trip making behavior at affordable housing sites. Recommend use of ITE rates or local data for senior housing. N/A “Draft Memorandum: Infill and Complete Streets Study, Task 2.1: Local Trip Generation Study.” Measuring the Miles: Developing new metrics for vehicle travel in LA. City of Los Angeles, April 19, 2017. Neighborhood Site Enhancements 3.2.1 SDT-1 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements 0%-2% reduction in VMT for creating a connected pedestrian network within the development and connecting to nearby destinations Adequate VMT reduction due to provision of complete pedestrian networks. Only applies if located in an area that may be prone to having a less robust sidewalk network. 0.5%-5.7% Handy, S. et al. (2014). Impacts of Pedestrian Strategies on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Policy Brief and Technical Background Document. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved from: https://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm New information Change in VMT reduction compared to CAPCOA Literature or Evidence Cited TDM STRATEGY EVALUATION - DRAFT V 1.0 Comparison of CAPCOA Strategies Versus New Research Since 2010 New Information Since CAPCOA Was Published in 2010 CAPCOA Category CAPCOA # CAPCOA Strategy CAPCOA Reduction Strength of Substantial Evidence for CEQA Impact Analysis? Neighborhood Site Enhancements 3.2.2 SDT-2 Provide Traffic Calming Measures 0.25%-1% VMT reduction due to traffic calming on streets within and around the development Adequate Reduction in VMT due to expansion of bike networks in urban areas. Strategy only applies to bicycle facilities that provide a dedicated lane for bicyclists or a completely separated right-of-way for bicycles and pedestrians. Project-level definition: Enhance bicycle network citywide (or at similar scale), such that a building entrance or bicycle parking is within 200 yards walking or bicycling distance from a bicycle network that connects to at least one of the following: at least 10 diverse uses; a school or employment center, if the project total floor area is 50% or more residential; or a bus rapid transit stop, light or heavy rail station, commuter rail station, or ferry terminal. All destinations must be 3-mile bicycling distance from project site. Include educational campaigns to encourage bicycling. 0%-1.7% Zahabi, S. et al. (2016). Exploring the link between the neighborhood typologies, bicycle infrastructure and commuting cycling over time and the potential impact on commuter GHG emissions. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 47, 89-103. Neighborhood Site Enhancements 3.2.3 SDT-3 Implement an NEV Network 0.5%-12.7% VMT reduction for GHG- emitting vehicles, depending on level of local NEV penetration Weak - not recommended without supplemental data. Limited evidence and highly limited applicability. Use with supplemental data only. N/A City of Lincoln, MHM Engineers & Surveyors, Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Transportation Program Final Report, Issued 04/05/05, and City of Lincoln, A Report to the California Legislature as required by Assembly Bill 2353, Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Transportation Plan Evaluation, January 1, 2008. Cited in: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. (2010). Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. Retrieved from: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA- Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf Neighborhood Site Enhancements 3.4.9 TRT-9 Implement Car-Sharing Program 0.4% - 0.7% VMT reduction due to lower vehicle ownership rates and general shift to non-driving modes Adequate Vehicle trip reduction due to car-sharing programs; reduction assumes 1%-5% penetration rate. Implementing car-sharing programs allows people to have on-demand access to a shared fleet of vehicles on an as-needed basis, as a supplement to trips made by non-SOV modes. Transit station-based programs focus on providing the “last-mile” solution and link transit with commuters’ final destinations. Residential-based programs work to substitute entire household based trips. Employer-based programs provide a means for business/day trips for alternative mode commuters and provide a guaranteed ride home option. The reduction shown here assumes a 1%-5% penetration rate. 0.3%-1.6% Lovejoy, K. et al. (2013). Impacts of Carsharing on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Policy Brief and Technical Background Document. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved from: https://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm Need to verify with more recent UCD research. New information Change in VMT reduction compared to CAPCOA Literature or Evidence Cited TDM STRATEGY EVALUATION - DRAFT V 1.0 Comparison of CAPCOA Strategies Versus New Research Since 2010 New Information Since CAPCOA Was Published in 2010 CAPCOA Category CAPCOA # CAPCOA Strategy CAPCOA Reduction Strength of Substantial Evidence for CEQA Impact Analysis? Parking Pricing 3.3.1 PDT-1 Limit Parking Supply 5%-12.5% VMT reduction in response to reduced parking supply vs. ITE parking generation rate Weak - not recommended. Fehr & Peers has developed new estimates for residential land use only that may be used. CAPCOA reduction range derived from estimate of reduced vehicle ownership, not supported by observed trip or VMT reductions. Evidence is available for mode shift due to presence/absence of parking in high-transit urban areas; additional investigation ongoing Higher Fehr & Peers estimated a linear regression formula based on observed data from multiple locations. Resulting equation produces maximum VMT reductions for residential land use only of 30% in suburban locations and 50% in urban locations based on parking supply percentage reductions. Parking Pricing 3.3.2 PDT-2 Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost 2.6% -13% VMT reduction due to decreased vehicle ownership rates Adequate - conditional on the agency not requiring parking minimums and pricing/managing on-street parking (i.e., residential parking permit districts, etc.). Reduction in VMT, primarily for residential uses, based on range of elasticities for vehicle ownership in response to increased residential parking fees. Does not account for self-selection. Only applies if the city does not require parking minimums and if on-street parking is priced and managed (i.e., residential parking permit districts). 2%-12% Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2009). Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability. Retrieved March 2010 from: http://www.vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf. Parking Pricing 3.3.3 PDT-3 Implement Market Price Public Parking 2.8%-5.5% VMT reduction due to "park once" behavior and disincentive to driving Adequate Implement a pricing strategy for parking by pricing all central business district/employment center/retail center on-street parking. It will be priced to encourage park once" behavior. The benefit of this measure above that of paid parking at the project only is that it deters parking spillover from project supplied parking to other public parking nearby, which undermine the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) benefits of project pricing. It may also generate sufficient area-wide mode shifts to justify increased transit service to the area. VMT reduction applies to VMT from visitor/customer trips only. Reductions higher than top end of range from CAPCOA report apply only in conditions with highly constrained on-street parking supply and lack of comparably-priced off-street parking. 2.8%-14.5% Clinch, J.P. and Kelly, J.A. (2003). Temporal Variance Of Revealed Preference On-Street Parking Price Elasticity. Dublin: Department of Environmental Studies, University College Dublin. Retrieved from: http://www.ucd.ie/gpep/research/workingpapers/2004/04-02.pdf. Cited in Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2017). Transportation Elasticities: How Prices and Other Factors Affect Travel Behavior. Retrieved from: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm11.htm Hensher, D. and King, J. (2001). Parking Demand and Responsiveness to Supply, Price and Location in Sydney Central Business District. Transportation Research A. 35(3), 177-196. Millard-Ball, A. et al. (2013). Is the curb 80% full or 20% empty? Assessing the impacts of San Francisco's parking pricing experiment. Transportation Research Part A. 63(2014), 76-92. Shoup, D. (2011). The High Cost of Free Parking. APA Planners Press. p. 290. Cited in Pierce, G. and Shoup, D. (2013). Getting the Prices Right. Journal of the American Planning Association. 79(1), 67-81. Transit System 3.5.3 TST-3 Expand Transit Network 0.1-8.2% VMT reduction in response to increase in transit network coverage Adequate Reduction in vehicle trips due to increased transit service hours or coverage. Low end of reduction is typical of project-level implementation (payment of impact fees and/or localized improvements). 0.1%-10.5% Handy, S. et al. (2013). Impacts of Transit Service Strategies on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Policy Brief and Technical Background Document. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved from: https://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm New information Change in VMT reduction compared to CAPCOA Literature or Evidence Cited TDM STRATEGY EVALUATION - DRAFT V 1.0 Comparison of CAPCOA Strategies Versus New Research Since 2010 New Information Since CAPCOA Was Published in 2010 CAPCOA Category CAPCOA # CAPCOA Strategy CAPCOA Reduction Strength of Substantial Evidence for CEQA Impact Analysis? Transit System 3.5.4 TST-4 Increase Transit Service Frequency/Speed 0.02%-2.5% VMT reduction due to reduced headways and increased speed and reliability Adequate Reduction in vehicle trips due to increased transit frequency/decreased headway. Low end of reduction is typical of project-level implementation (payment of impact fees and/or localized improvements). 0.3%-6.3% Handy, S. et al. (2013). Impacts of Transit Service Strategies on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Policy Brief and Technical Background Document. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved from: https://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm Transit System 3.5.1 TST-1 Provide a Bus Rapid Transit System 0.02%-3.2% VMT reduction by converting standard bus system to BRT system Adequate No new information identified. Same N/A Commute Trip Reduction 3.4.1 TRT-1 Implement CTR Program - Voluntary 1.0%-6.2% commute VMT reduction due to employer-based mode shift program Adequate - Effectiveness is building/tenant specific. Do not use with "TRT-2 Implement CTR Program - Required Implementation/Monitoring" or with CAPCOA strategies TRT-3.4.3 through TRT-3.4.9. Reduction in vehicle trips in response to employer-led TDM programs. The CTR program should include all of the following to apply the effectiveness reported by the literature: • Carpooling encouragement • Ride-matching assistance • Preferential carpool parking • Flexible work schedules for carpools • Half time transportation coordinator • Vanpool assistance • Bicycle end-trip facilities (parking, showers and lockers) 1.0%-6.0% Boarnet, M. et al. (2014). Impacts of Employer-Based Trip Reduction Programs and Vanpools on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Policy Brief and Technical Background Document. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved from: https://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm Commute Trip Reduction 3.4.2 TRT-2 Implement CTR Program - Required Implementation/Monitoring 4.2%-21.0% commute VMT reduction due to employer-based mode shift program with required monitoring and reporting Adequate - Effectiveness is building/tenant specific. Do not use with "TRT-1 Implement CTR Program - Voluntary" or with CAPCOA strategies TRT-3.4.3 through TRT-3.4.9. Limited evidence available. Anecdotal evidence shows high investment produces high VMT/vehicle trip reductions at employment sites with monitoring requirements and specific targets. Same Nelson/Nygaard (2008). South San Francisco Mode Share and Parking Report for Genentech, Inc.(p. 8) Cited in: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. (2010). Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. Retrieved from: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA- Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf Commute Trip Reduction 3.4.4 TRT-4 Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program 0.3%-20% commute VMT reduction due to transit subsidy of up to $6/day Adequate - Effectiveness is building/tenant specific. Do not use with "TRT-1 Implement CTR Program - Voluntary" or "TRT-2 Implement CTR Program - Required Implementation/Monitoring." 1] Reduction in vehicle trips in response to reduced cost of transit use, assuming that 10-50% of new bus trips replace vehicle trips; 2] Reduction in commute trip VMT due to employee benefits that include transit 3] Reduction in all vehicle trips due to reduced transit fares system-wide, assuming 25% of new transit trips would have been vehicle trips. 1] 0.3%-14% 2] 0-16% 3] 0.1% to 6.9% 1] Victoria Transport Policy Institute. (2017). Understanding Transport Demands and Elasticities. Online TDM Encyclopedia. Retrieved from: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm11.htm 2] Carolina, P. et al. (2016). Do Employee Commuter Benefits Increase Transit Ridership? Evidence rom the NY-NJ Region. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, 96th Annual Meeting. 3] Handy, S. et al. (2013). Impacts of Transit Service Strategies on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Policy Brief and Technical Background Document. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved from: https://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm Commute Trip Reduction 3.4.15 TRT-15 Employee Parking Cash-Out 0.6%-7.7% commute VMT reduction due to implementing employee parking cash- out Weak - Effectiveness is building/tenant specific. Research data is over 10 years old (1997). Shoup case studies indicate a reduction in commute vehicle trips due to implementing cash-out without implementing other trip-reduction strategies. 3%-7.7% Shoup, D. (1997). Evaluating the Effects of Cashing Out Employer-Paid Parking: Eight Case Studies. Transport Policy. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved from: https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/93-308a.pdf. This citation was listed as an alternative literature in CAPCOA. New information Change in VMT reduction compared to CAPCOA Literature or Evidence Cited TDM STRATEGY EVALUATION - DRAFT V 1.0 Comparison of CAPCOA Strategies Versus New Research Since 2010 New Information Since CAPCOA Was Published in 2010 CAPCOA Category CAPCOA # CAPCOA Strategy CAPCOA Reduction Strength of Substantial Evidence for CEQA Impact Analysis? Commute Trip Reduction 3.4.14 TRT-14 Price Workplace Parking 0.1%-19.7% commute VMT reduction due to mode shift Adequate - Effectiveness is building/tenant specific. Reduction in commute vehicle trips due to priced workplace parking; effectiveness depends on availability of alternative modes. Workplace parking pricing may include: explicitly charging for parking, implementing above market rate pricing, validating parking only for invited guests, not providing employee parking and transportation allowances, and educating employees about available alternatives. 0.5%-14% Primary sources: Concas, S. and Nayak, N. (2012), A Meta-Analysis of Parking Price Elasticity. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, 2012 Annual Meeting. Dale, S. et al. (2016). Evaluating the Impact of a Workplace Parking Levy on Local Traffic Congestion: The Case of Nottingham UK. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, 96th Annual Meeting. Secondary sources: Victoria Transport Policy Institute. (2017). Understanding Transport Demands and Elasticities. Online TDM Encyclopedia. Retrieved from: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm11.htm Spears, S. et al. (2014). Impacts of Parking Pricing on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Policy Brief and Technical Background Document. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved from: https://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm Commute Trip Reduction 3.4.6 TRT-6 Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules 0.07%-5.5% commute VMT reduction due to reduced commute trips Adequate - Effectiveness is building/tenant specific. Do not use with "TRT-1 Implement CTR Program - Voluntary" or "TRT-2 Implement CTR Program - Required Implementation/Monitoring." VMT reduction due to adoption of telecommuting. Alternative work schedules could take the form of staggered starting times, flexible schedules, or compressed work weeks. 0.2%-4.5% Handy, S. et al. (2013). Policy Brief on the Impacts of Telecommuting Based on a Review of the Empirical Literature. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved from: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/telecommuting/telecommuting_brief120313.pdf Commute Trip Reduction 3.4.7 1] TRT-7 Implement CTR Marketing 2] Launch Targeted Behavioral Interventions 0.8%-4.0% commute VMT reduction due to employer marketing of alternatives Adequate - Effectiveness is building/tenant specific. Do not use with "TRT-1 Implement CTR Program - Voluntary" or "TRT-2 Implement CTR Program - Required Implementation/Monitoring." 1] Vehicle trips reduction due to CTR marketing; 2] Reduction in VMT from institutional trips due to targeted behavioral intervention programs 1] 0.9% to 26% 2] 1%-6% 1] Pratt, Dick. Personal communication regarding the Draft of TCRP 95 Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes – Chapter 19 Employer and Institutional TDM Strategies. Transit Cooperative Research Program. Cited in California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. (2010).Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. Retrieved from: http://www.capcoa.org/wp- content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf Dill, J. and Mohr, C. (2010). Long-Term Evaluation of Individualized Marketing Programs for Travel Demand Management. Portland, OR: Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC). Retrieved from: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/usp_fac 2] Brown, A. and Ralph, K. (2017.) "The Right Time and Place to Change Travel Behavior: An Experimental Study." Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, 2017 Annual Meeting. Retrieved from: https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1437253 Commute Trip Reduction 3.4.11 TRT-11 Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle 0.3%-13.4% commute VMT reduction due to employer-sponsored vanpool and/or shuttle service Adequate - Effectiveness is building/tenant specific. 1] Reduction in commute vehicle trips due to implementing employer-sponsored vanpool and shuttle programs; 2] Reduction in commute vehicle trips due to vanpool incentive programs; 3] Reduction in commute vehicle trips due to employer shuttle programs 1] 0.5%-5.0% 2] 0.3%-7.4% 3] 1.4%-6.8% 1] Concas, Sisinnio, Winters, Philip, Wambalaba, Francis, (2005). Fare Pricing Elasticity, Subsidies, and Demand for Vanpool Services. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1924, pp 215-223. 2] Victoria Transport Policy Institute. (2015). Ridesharing: Carpooling and Vanpooling. Online TDM Encyclopedia. Retrieved from: http://vtpi.org/tdm/tdm34.htm 3] ICF. (2014). GHG Impacts for Commuter Shuttles Pilot Program. New information Change in VMT reduction compared to CAPCOA Literature or Evidence Cited TDM STRATEGY EVALUATION - DRAFT V 1.0 Comparison of CAPCOA Strategies Versus New Research Since 2010 New Information Since CAPCOA Was Published in 2010 CAPCOA Category CAPCOA # CAPCOA Strategy CAPCOA Reduction Strength of Substantial Evidence for CEQA Impact Analysis? Commute Trip Reduction 3.4.3 TRT-3 Provide Ride-Sharing Programs 1%-15% commute VMT reduction due to employer ride share coordination and facilities Adequate - Effectiveness is building/tenant specific. Do not use with "TRT-1 Implement CTR Program - Voluntary" or "TRT-2 Implement CTR Program - Required Implementation/Monitoring." Commute vehicle trips reduction due to employer ride- sharing programs. Promote ride-sharing programs through a multi-faceted approach such as: • Designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles • Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles • Providing an app or website for coordinating rides 2.5%-8.3% Victoria Transport Policy Institute. (2015). Ridesharing: Carpooling and Vanpooling. Online TDM Encyclopedia. Retrieved from: http://vtpi.org/tdm/tdm34.htm Commute Trip Reduction 3.4.10 TRT-10 Implement a School Pool Program 7.2%-15.8% reduction in school VMT due to school pool implementation Adequate - School VMT only. Limited new evidence available, not conclusive Same Transportation Demand Management Institute of the Association for Commuter Transportation. TDM Case Studies and Commuter Testimonials. Prepared for the US EPA. 1997. (p. 10, 36-38) WayToGo 2015 Annual Report. Accessed on March 12, 2017 from http://www.waytogo.org/sites/default/files/attachments/waytogo-annual-report-2015.pdf Commute Trip Reduction 3.4.13 TRT-13 Implement School Bus Program 38%-63% reduction in school VMT due to school bus service implementation Adequate - School VMT only. VMT reduction for school trips based on data beyond a single school district. School district boundaries are also a factor to consider. VMT reduction does not appear to be a factor that was considered in a select review of CA boundaries. VMT reductions apply to school trip VMT only. 5%-30% Wilson, E., et al. (2007). The implications of school choice on travel behavior and environmental emissions. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 12(2007), 506-518. Not Applicable - not a CAPCOA strategy Not Applicable - not a CAPCOA strategy Not Applicable - not a CAPCOA strategy Not Applicable - not a CAPCOA strategy Not Applicable - not a CAPCOA strategy Bikeshare car trip substitution rate of 7-19% based on data from Washington DC, and Minneapolis/St. Paul. Annual VMT reduction of 151,000 and 57,000, respectively. Includes VMT for rebalancing and maintenance. VMT reduction of 0.023 miles per day per bikeshare member estimated for Bay Area bikeshare, utilizing Minneapolis/St. Paul data from study above. 57,000-151,000 annual VMT reduction, based on two large US cities. VMT reduction of 0.023 miles per day per member, based on one large US city estimate. Fishman, E., Washington, S., & Haworth, N. (2014). Bike share’s impact on car use: Evidence from the United States, Great Britain, and Australia. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 31, 13-20. TDM Methodology: Impact of Carsharing Membership, Transit Passes, Bikesharing Membership, Unbundled Parking, and Parking Supply Reductions on Driving. Center for Neighborhood Technology, Peter Haas and Cindy Copp, with TransForm staff, May 5, 2016. Appendix H: VMT Mitigation Through Banks and Exchanges: Understanding New Mitigation Approaches VMT Mitigation Through Fees, Banks, & Exchanges APRIL 2020 | FINAL UNDERSTANDING NEW MITIGATION APPROACHES A WHITE PAPER PREPARED BY APPENDIX H P a g e | 1 VMT MITIGATION THROUGH FEES, BANKS, AND EXCHANGES Understanding New Mitigation Approaches BACKGROUND On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into law and started a process intended to fundamentally change transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. These changes include elimination of auto delay, level of service (LOS), and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts. Instead, transportation impacts will be determined based on changes to vehicle miles of travel (VMT). This change essentially shifts the focus of analysis from impacts to drivers through higher delays to the impact of driving itself. Lead agencies making the transition to VMT are realizing the challenges of using the new metric especially when it comes to mitigating significant VMT impacts. Reducing VMT from land use projects and land use plans has traditionally been accomplished through transportation demand management (TDM) strategies. These strategies include modifying a project’s land use characteristics (i.e., density) and incorporating vehicle trip reduction programs at the site to change travel behavior of tenants and visitors. TDM is most effective in urban areas where the site is accessible by multiple travel modes (i.e., walking, bicycling, transit, and vehicle) offering similar travel times and convenience. Conversely, TDM strategies are less effective in lower density suburban and rural areas where modes are limited to personal vehicles. In both areas though, a program-based approach to mitigation can be more effective than project-site strategies. Programs can pool development mitigation contributions to pay for larger and more effective VMT reduction strategies that are not be feasible for individual projects. This paper outlines and compares multiple program types and then explains the implementation steps and key governance issues. PROGRAM CONCEPTS The concept of a ‘program’ approach to impact mitigation is not new and has been used for a variety of technical subjects including transportation, air quality, greenhouse gases, and habitat. Transportation impact fee programs have been used to help mitigate cumulative level of service (LOS) impacts. What is new are how to use impact fee programs for VMT impacts and alternative programs called mitigation exchanges and banks. Absent new program-level mitigation options, suburban and rural lead agencies will have limited feasible mitigation options for project sites. P a g e | 2 Without feasible mitigation, significant VMT impacts would be significant and unavoidable (SAU). Under these circumstances a project must prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) adding extra time and cost to environmental review compared to a negative declaration (ND). Program-based approaches may be able to overcome the limitation of project-site only mitigation. Three specific concepts as described below have been identified for the purposes of this white paper.  VMT-based Transportation Impact Fee program (VMT-TIF) – The first program concept is a traditional impact fee program in compliance with the mitigation fee act. The nexus for the fee program would be a VMT reduction goal consistent with the CEQA threshold established by a lead agency for SB 743 purposes. The City of LA is the first in California to complete a nexus study for this type of program. The main difference from a fee program based on a metric such as vehicle level of service (LOS) is that the VMT reduction nexus results in a capital improvement program (CIP) consisting largely of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects. These types of fee programs are time consuming to develop, monitor, and maintain but are recognized as an acceptable form of CEQA mitigation if they can demonstrate that the CIP projects will be fully funded and implemented.  VMT Mitigation Exchange – In simple terms, the exchange concept relies on a developer agreeing to implement a predetermined VMT reducing project or proposing a new one. The project may be located in the vicinity of the project or elsewhere in the community, and possibly outside the community. The exchange needs to have a facilitating entity that can match the VMT generator (the development project) with a VMT reducing project or action. The facilitating entity could be the lead agency or another entity that has the ability to provide the match and to ensure through substantial evidence that the VMT reduction is valid. A key unknown with this approach is the time period for VMT reduction. For example, how many years of VMT reduction are required to declare a VMT impact less than significant?  VMT Mitigation Bank – A mitigation bank attempts to create a monetary value for VMT reduction such that a developer could purchase VMT reduction credits. The money exchanged for credits could be applied to local, regional, or state level VMT reduction projects or actions. Like all VMT mitigation, substantial evidence would be necessary that the projects covered by the bank would achieve expected VMT reductions and some form of monitoring may be required. This is more complicated than a simple exchange and would require more time and effort to set up and implement. The verification of how much VMT reduction is associated with each dollar or credit would be one of the more difficult parts of the program. P a g e | 3 With both exchanges and banks, another important test is that the VMT reduction would not have occurred otherwise such that mitigation program creates ‘additionality’. This means that additional VMT reduction will occur above and beyond what would have occurred without the program. A commonly accepted definition of ‘additionality’ has not yet been developed. One possible test of additionality is that the mitigation project is not included in the regional transportation plan (RTP). The RTP is a financially constrained plan so projects not included in the plan would not likely have been implemented within the typical cumulative timeframe. For any program to qualify as a CEQA mitigation program, the discretionary action to adopt the program may require CEQA review. This conclusion is based on the California Native Plant Society v. County of El Dorado where the court found that payment of fee does not presumptively establish full mitigation of a discretionary project. A separate CEQA review of the program is necessary to satisfy the ‘duty to mitigate’ imposed by CEQA. Decision makers should also realize that absent a VMT reduction program, developers would likely be limited to only project site mitigation. While this may be less effective, it also lowers their mitigation costs because the available and feasible mitigation would be more limited. More details about exchanges and banks are explained in the framework document shown above and available at the cited web link. This white paper expands on the framework to accomplish two objectives. The first objective is to compare the pros and cons of exchanges and banks to a traditional impact fee program. Since impact fee programs have already been established as feasible CEQA mitigation, they serve as a benchmark against which to compare other program concepts. The second objective is to outline the implementation steps associated with creating an exchange or bank to help identify key implementation questions or issues that could affect their feasibility. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/research/clee/research/clim ate/transportation/vehicle-miles-traveled/ P a g e | 4 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT (Pros/Cons) Table 1 below outlines the pros and cons of approach VMT mitigation through an impact fee program, exchange, or bank. This assessment is intended to highlight some of the key differences between each program concept. Table 1 – VMT Mitigation Program Type Comparison Program Type Pros Cons Impact Fee Program • Common and accepted practice • Accepted for CEQA mitigation • Adds certainty to development costs • Allows for regional scale mitigation projects • Increases potential VMT reduction compared to project site mitigation only • Time consuming and expensive to develop and maintain • Requires strong nexus • Increases mitigation costs for developers because it increases feasible mitigation options • Limited to jurisdictional boundary unless a regional authority is created • Uncertainty about feasibility and strength of nexus relationship between VMT and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit projects (especially in suburban/rural jurisdictions) Mitigation Exchange • Limited complexity • Reduced nexus obligation • Expands mitigation to include costs for programs, operations, and maintenance • Allows for regional scale mitigation projects • Allows for mitigation projects to be in other jurisdictions • Increases potential VMT reduction compared to project site mitigation only • Requires ‘additionality’ • Potential for mismatch between mitigation need and mitigation projects • Increases mitigation costs for developers because it increases feasible mitigation options • Unknown timeframe for mitigation life • Effectiveness depends on scale of the program Mitigation Bank • Adds certainty to development costs • Allows for regional scale projects • Allows for mitigation projects to be in other jurisdictions • Allows regional or state transfers • Requires ‘additionality’ • Time consuming and expensive to develop and maintain • Requires strong nexus • Political difficulty distributing mitigation dollars/projects P a g e | 5 Table 1 – VMT Mitigation Program Type Comparison Program Type Pros Cons • Expands mitigation options to include costs for programs, operations, and maintenance • Increases potential VMT reduction compared to project site mitigation only • Increases mitigation costs for developers because it increases feasible mitigation options • Unknown timeframe for mitigation life • Effectiveness depends on scale of the program To better understand potential program differences, Table 2 contains a comparison of the VMT mitigation projects or actions that each program type could fund or implement. The information for an impact fee program is more certain than for exchanges or banks. Fee programs have been used in practice for decades and have been vetted through court decisions. While banks and exchanges do exist for other environmental mitigation purposes such as wetlands preservation and habitat conservation, these applications have largely focused on protecting fixed land amounts versus reducing a metric that fluctuates over time and may vary in value depending on economic conditions. Table 2 –VMT Mitigation Projects and Actions Comparison Program Structure Project Types that Reduce VMT Impact Fee Program • Pedestrian network expansion • Bicycle/Scooter network expansion (includes bike/scooter share stations) • Transit vehicles or facilities associated with service expansion • Roadway gap closures that reduce trip lengths (bridges) Mitigation Exchange • All impact fee program project types • Private or institutional projects that reduce VMT • Transit service improvements and transit pass subsidies Mitigation Bank • All impact fee program project types • All mitigation exchange project types • VMT reduction strategies associated with travel behavior changes P a g e | 6 IMPLEMENTATION STEPS This section addresses the second objective noted above to outline the implementation steps associated with creating an exchange or bank to help identify key implementation questions or issues that could affect their feasibility. The starting point for these steps begins with identifying the potential statutory or legal requirements that could govern or influence program creation. These are highlighted in Table 3 and build on the research previously done by U.C. Berkeley in the document referenced above. Since specific statutes do not exist specific to VMT exchanges and banks, U.C. Berkeley used a proxy based on conservation programs established under the California Fish & Game code. This is a reasonable proxy given that the intent behind VMT exchanges and banks is a form of conservation. Instead of habitat, VMT exchanges and banks are trying to conserve vehicle trip making and the VMT generated through this activity. VMT mitigation banks or exchanges do not appear to require new legislative authority but as noted in the U.C. Berkeley document, having state-wide templates for their development could help establish clear standards and expectations for program designs. Table 3 – Potential VMT Mitigation Exchange/Bank Legal Requirements Program Type/Legal Requirements Statutory Reference Transportation Impact Fee Program 1. Mitigation Fee Act – Intended to create a program that allows individual development projects to pay for all or portion of the cost to implement public facilities necessary to support the project. Public facilities are generally limited to capital projects. The nexus study for the program must demonstrate how there is a reasonable relationship between the following.  How there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.  How there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.  How there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. The fees may not be applied to existing deficiencies or the maintenance and operation of an improvement. As such, clear standards should exist about the physical and operational performance expectations for each model of travel included in the program. • California Government Code §66000-66001 P a g e | 7 Table 3 – Potential VMT Mitigation Exchange/Bank Legal Requirements Program Type/Legal Requirements Statutory Reference 2. Constitutional – Court decisions have placed limits on what level of mitigation can be expected of land use development projects. The limits largely require a nexus between the mitigation and a legitimate government interest plus a rough proportionality between the mitigation and the adverse impact caused by the project. • Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) • Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994) 3. CEQA – For mitigation to be imposed, a significant impact must occur. Impacts stem from changes to the baseline environment caused by the project. The significance of those impacts is determined by the lead agencies choice of thresholds. This limits mitigation to increment of VMT change that occurs above the threshold. • CEQA Statute (CA Public Resources Code 21000-21189) • CEQA Guidelines (CA Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387) VMT Mitigation Exchange or Bank 1. An explanation of the VMT mitigation purpose of and need for the bank or exchange. • Fish & Game Code §1852(c)(1) 2. The geographic area covered by the bank or exchange and rationale for the selection of the area, together with a description of the existing transportation and development dynamics that provide relevant context for the development of the bank or exchange. • §1852(c)(2) 3. The public transit and VMT reduction opportunities currently located within the bank or exchange area. • §1852(c)(3) 4. Important residential and commercial communities and transportation resources within the bank or exchange area, and an explanation of the criteria, data, and methods used to identify those important communities and resources. • §1852(c)(4) 5. A summary of historic, current, and projected future transportation stressors and pressures in the bank or exchange area, including economic, population growth and development trends. • §1852(c)(5-6) 6. Provisions ensuring that the bank or exchange will comply with all applicable state and local legal and other requirements and does not preempt the authority of local agencies to implement infrastructure and urban development in local general plans. • §1852(c)(7) 7. VMT mitigation goals and measurable objectives for regional transportation resources and important mitigation elements identified in the plan that address or respond to the identified stressors and pressures on transportation within the bank or exchange area. • §1852(c)(8) P a g e | 8 Table 3 – Potential VMT Mitigation Exchange/Bank Legal Requirements Program Type/Legal Requirements Statutory Reference 8. VMT mitigation projects, including a description of specific projects that, if implemented, could achieve the mitigation goals and objectives, and a description of how the mitigation projects were prioritized and selected in relation to the mitigation goals and objectives. • §1852(c)(9) 9. Provisions ensuring that the bank or exchange plan is consistent with and complements any local, regional or federal transportation or congestion management plan that overlaps with the bank or exchange area, a summary of any such plans, and an explanation of such consistency. • §1852(c)(10-11) Sources: Implementing SB 743 An Analysis of Vehicles Miles Traveled Banking and Exchange Frameworks, October 2018, Institute of Transportation Studies, U.C. Berkeley. 2019 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute & Guidelines, Association of Environmental Professionals, 2019. http://leginfo.ca.gov/ http://ccr.oal.ca.gov/ A review of these potential legal requirements suggests that the creation of an exchange or a bank may not be less rigorous than that of a conventional transportation impact fee program. These legal requirements combined with the need to demonstrate additionality and provide verification could create implementation costs beyond those of a conventional transportation impact fee program. To explore this issue further, annotated flow charts were developed for each program concept. These flow charts are presented on the following pages and allow a reviewer to quickly surmise the differences and similarities associated with creating, operating, and maintaining these programs. Considerations Procedural Flowchart Step 1 Determine Scale/Scope Step 2 Determine Sponsor Step 3 Formally Establish Bank & Review Team Step 4 Determine & Prioritize Mitigation Options There are a few organizational components to consider when creating a mitigation Bank. These elements include: *Administrative - The Bank must perform several administrative functions such as collecting fees, managing information, answering questions, and other business operations. *Technical - There is a significant amount of technical work needed to initially and continually prove the mitigation options reduce VMT and that the reductions would not have occurred without the programs. The Bank also needs to show the fees it receives are related and proportional to new development. *Accounting - The Bank requires a thorough accounting system to track collected fees and to ensure fees are being handled according to CEQA and other legal guidelines. This includes payments for implementing VMT reduction projects. Agencies should consider their ability to perform these roles when deciding whether the Bank should be run internally or by a third party. Implementation Step 5 Administer Bank The entity creating the Bank must legally formalize its creation. If the intent is for the Bank to be used by multiple agencies, this may require a joint powers authority or equivalent. A review team should be used to verify the effectiveness of mitigation options based on substantial evidence. This team could be internal to the entity creating the bank or an independent third party. Potential third party entities that could function as a review team include public agencies such as those listed below. *Caltrans - local office *ARB *CalEPA The Bank Sponsor creates a list of mitigation options. The Review Team evaluates the list to ensure it complies with relevant requirements. The Sponsor should consider the following elements when prioritizing options: *Equity *Timeliness of Implementation *Cost Mitigation options can include: *Infrastructure projects *Programs/incentives (Unlike infrastructure projects, programs/incentives are ongoing activities. Because programs/incentives must be continually maintained to be effective, agencies should consider if developers must pay for them indefinitely. Allowing a third party to maintain the Bank can: Decrease an agency's administrative costs Decrease agency control Decrease burden on agency staff Maintaining the Bank in-house could: Increase agency control Potentially generate revenue Program Scale Develop Review Team Complete Legal Formation of Bank Determine & Select Mitigation Options Administer Bank and Complete Mitigation Agreements with Lead AgenciesThe public agency or entity sponsoring a Bank may not always be the lead agency on a project. In this situation the Sponsor should develop an agreement with the lead agency that allows the Bank's mitigation options to be considered an acceptable mitigation measure for the EIR. Banks must continue to prove that their mitigation options reduce VMT and that the reduction would not have occurred without the projects/programs. CEQA review of the Exchange creation may be required to be considered as a formal mitigation program. Decision Analytical process or procedural outcome Mitigating VMT Impacts Under SB 743 There are advantages and disadvantages to creating a Bank with a larger scale/scope. However, multiple agencies must be willing to accept the Bank's mitigation options for a state or regional Bank to be feasible. Larger regions can: *Decrease costs associated with running the Bank *Decrease local authority over mitigation options *Increase efficiency and effectiveness of the program VMT Bank STATE LOCA L REGIONAL PUBLIC PRIVATE Step 1 Determine Scale/Scope Program Scale Step 2 Determine Sponsor Step 3 Determine & Propose Mitigation Options Step 4 Develop Review Team The organizational components of a mitigation Exchange will depend on the type of sponsor (public or private) mitigation options, and matching process between mitigation options and projects. If the sponsor is a public agency, they will develop a list of options developers can choose from to mitigate the VMT generated by their development. If the developer wants to propose their own mitigation Exchange, they must get it approved by the sponsor and lead agency. The Exchange should have a Review Team to verify mitigation effectiveness and additionality based on substantial evidence. The team could consist of third-party representatives. The team reviews the mitigation list and verifies that the options reduce VMT and that the reductions would not have occurred without the project, program, or incentive. Because Exchanges can include programs/incentives as mitigation options, the Review Team must continually evaluate them to ensure the options are still effective and determine to what degree they reduce VMT. Determine Mitigation Options Develop Review Team Allowing a third party to maintain the Exchange can: Decrease an agency's administrative costs Decrease agency control Decrease burden on agency staff Maintaining the Exchange internally could: Increase the agency's control over the program Potentially generate revenue To create a regional program requires all participating agencies to adopt the program. Programs with larger scopes can: *Decrease administrative costs *Decrease local authority *Increase efficiency and effectiveness of the program Verify Effectiveness of Mitigation Options Develop Approved Process for Sponsor and Lead Agency Administer Exchange and Complete Mitigation Agreements with Lead AgenciesStep 5 Administer Exchange The public agency/entity sponsoring an Exchange may not always be the lead agency on a project. In this situation the Sponsor should develop an agreement with the lead agency that allows the Exchange's mitigation options to be considered an acceptable mitigation measure for the EIR. Exchanges must continue to prove that their mitigation options reduce VMT and that the reduction would not have occurred without the projects/programs. CEQA review of the Exchange creation may be required to be considered as a formal mitigation program. Mitigating VMT Impacts Under SB 743 VMT Exchange PUBLIC PRIVATE Considerations Procedural FlowchartImplementation Decision Analytical process or procedural outcome REGION A L LOCAL Program Scale Step 1 Determine Scale/Scope Step 2 Determine Nexus (VMT) An agency must determine its VMT reduction goal before it can show the relationship between new development and that goal. Step 3 Determine & Propose Mitigation Options The CIP develops a list of capital improvement projects necessary to reduce VMT consistent with its desired goal. The agency should prioritize the projects so they are constructed in a logical order. The prioritization process should consider: *Equity *Timeliness *Cost *Modal Preference (Walking/Biking/Transit) *Stakeholder/Community Input Step 4 Prepare & Approve Nexus Study Agencies must demonstrate that the projects in the fee program contribute to VMT reduction. The agency must also show that the fees are related and proportional to new development. Fees should take into account the delay in the time when fees are collected and when they are used. Determine Mitigation Options for CIP Prepare Nexus Study To create a regional program requires all participating agencies to adopt the program. Programs with larger scopes: *Decrease administrative costs *Decrease local authority *Increase efficiency and effectiveness of the program Determine Infill & TPA Incentives California Code 66005 allows for lower automobile trip generation rates for housing developments that meet certain characteristics. The agency should determine how to modify the fee for these developments. Identify CIP Priorities Complete CEQA Review Step 6 Complete CEQA Review for the Program California courts have ruled that in order for a fee program to serve as acceptable CEQA mitigation, the program itself must first be reviewed in an EIR. Mitigating VMT Impacts Under SB 743 VMT Impact Fee Determine Nexus (VMT) Approaches Step 5 Prepare & Adopt Fee Ordinance For a fee to be regularly imposed, it must be adopted as an ordinance. The ordinance must include: *Reason for the fee *The relationship between the fee and new development *Methodology used in developing the fee *Projects to be included in the CIP Prepare & Adopt Fee Ordinance Step 7 Administer the Program For Regional Impact Fee Programs ensure that participating agencies have adopted the program such that payment of fees is considered a feasible mitigation measure. Perform Cost Updates Agencies should perform minor cost updates annually. Adjustments should take into consideration inflation as well as other information such as the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index. The agency should also publish annual reports that include the balance of the fund and how it has been used. Monitor Fee Use (5-Year Check) Fees collected by the fee program can only be used for projects included in the CIP. Additionally, fees that are not spent or committed five years after being received must be refunded. Agencies must monitor collected fees to ensure they are being spent appropriately and in a timely manner. Update Modeling & Analysis as Needed An agency administering a fee program must update both the program's land use assumptions and CIP at least every five years. Administer the Fee Program Considerations Procedural FlowchartImplementation Decision Analytical process or procedural outcome LOCAL REGIONA L P a g e | 12 PROGRAM EXAMPLES To help explain the different program types, it may be useful to consider some examples. The existing programs below range from an existing VMT-based impact fee program to programs that could be evolved into VMT mitigation banks or exchanges. City of Los Angeles Westside Mobility Plan Transportation Impact Fee Program (https://planning.lacity.org/eir/CoastalTrans/deir/pdfs/tiafeestudy.pdf) The City of Los Angeles developed the first impact fee program that relies on a VMT reduction nexus. The westside previously relied on LOS-based impact fee programs but as the area matured and new laws like SB 743 emerged, the City chose to shift their nexus. This shift changed the nature of the CIP from largely roadway capacity expansion projects to more transit, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure projects. A key benefit of this approach as noted above is that once the fee program is in place, administration of the program is limited to construction cost updates and complying with state reviews to ensure that funding is being appropriately used to construct and implement the CIP projects. No further verification of CIP effectiveness is required. WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program (http://www.wrcog.cog.ca.us/174/TUMF) Western Riverside County has the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program, implemented in 2003. While this program is tied to a vehicle LOS nexus, the foundation and structure of the program could be used to create a new VMT impact fee program similar to the Los Angeles example. The following summary describes the foundational elements of the TUMF and provides information about how to evolve the program for VMT impact mitigation purposes. The TUMF funds critical county-wide transportation infrastructure to accommodate the traffic created by new population growth and commercial development throughout western Riverside County. It is a vital funding source that complements Federal, State, and local funding funds for improvements to roadways, interchanges, and transit facilities. The fee is uniformly assessed on new residential and non-residential development throughout the WRCOG region. Each of WRCOG’s member jurisdictions and the March Joint Powers Authority (JPA) participate in the program. WRCOG serves as the Program Administrator and has three main responsibilities. First, WRCOG leads the development of regular AB 1600 compliant Nexus Studies. These Studies identify needed the transportation facilities to be funded by the fee, identify future growth projections, and set the resulting P a g e | 13 fee, which is then adopted by WRCOG’s Executive Committee. The transportation projects included in the Nexus Study are identified through a collaborative process in which jurisdictions submit projects for consideration, which are then subject to an analysis process to verify that they meet applicable criteria. These two-step process ensures that the projects included in the Nexus Study reflect both local input and regional need. A similar process could be used to create a VMT reduction nexus and to select VMT reducing projects for either a separate VMT impact fee program or a modified TUMF that includes projects to achieve LOS and VMT reduction goals. WRCOG’s second responsibility is the collection and calculation of fees. WRCOG has developed a set of consistent fee calculation tools, which ensure that TUMF is calculated on a consistent basis for all projects, regardless of their location. Because there is a regional Nexus Study and a consistent fee calculation approach, WRCOG ensures that all projects of the same type pay the same fee, regardless of their location. In 2019, WRCOG completed work on an online fee payment system which expedites fee payments from project applicants. The final responsibility of WRCOG is distributing funds collected from each agency and using those monies to fund transportation projects. Project identification and prioritization is led by the local agencies who meet to decide how much funding to provide to each project. Local agencies are grouped into geographic sub areas known as TUMF Zones. Each TUMF Zone is allocated a budget of anticipated revenues, which are then distributed through a consensus-based approach. WRCOG then provides reimbursements to each agency as work occurs. WRCOG’s facilitates this process and also reviews invoices to ensure that funds in a manner which is consistent with program requirements. Miles (https://www.sacrt.com/apps/miles-get-rewarded-for-your-commute-travel/) The City of Sacramento, Sacramento Regional Transit, and Sacramento State partnered with Miles, a new app that will rewards users with redeemable miles for their commute and travel. The redeemable miles can be exchanged for exclusive experiences, products and services with vendors including Ray-Ban, Illy, Audible, and Rockport. Miles app users automatically earn miles for daily travel and receive bonus miles for green trips (walk, bike, carpool or transit). Sacramento residents are also eligible to complete special challenges to earn additional rewards. While this program was not set up as an VMT mitigation exchange or bank, it could evolve into one. The purpose of rewarding green trips and the special challenges is to influence user behavior to reduce vehicle trips and VMT. With some additional accounting of user travel behavior before and after using the app, enough substantial evidence could be created to provide the VMT reduction verification described above and noted in the flow charts. The program already has administrative functions developed and P a g e | 14 established relationships between the partner agencies. Some of the unknowns at this time are listed below.  cost of the program on a per user basis  amount of VMT reduction that is achieved for a typical user  how a developer could contribute to the program to sponsor additional users  stability or permanency of VMT reductions dependent on ‘challenges’ In addition to the Miles program, other similar vendors exist such as Luum (https://luumbenefits.com/) and Metropia (https://www.metropia.com/). These types of app-based vendors could evolve to offer exchange or bank type mitigation options if they can comply with the various requirements outlined in the implementation steps and identified in the U.C. Berkeley white paper cited above. Metro Transit Pass Subsidy Metro is the Los Angeles County mobility provider. One of the programs they currently offer is a transit pass subsidy with a couple of unique elements that may qualify it as a VMT mitigation exchange. Metro offers student and employee transit passes under their U-pass and E-pass programs. These are transit passes for students and employees in LA County that are unique because instead of a physical transit pass card, the pass comes in the form of an RFID chip with an antenna that sticks to an existing student or employee identification badge. This type of chip allows the transit agency to charge for trips when they are made, which is more cost-effective for schools and employers. The registration form for obtaining the pass includes a survey about current travel behavior and data such as the distance between home and school or work for the applicant. By tracking how individual travel behavior changes from this baseline condition over time, LA Metro can produce aggregate statistics about the effect on transit ridership and VMT. The second unique component of the program is that Metro allows anyone to 'sponsor' these passes for a particular school or employer. As such, they are entertaining the concept of using the program as an SB 743 VMT mitigation exchange. Developers could purchase U- or E-passes and could use the Metro performance data to estimate the VMT reduction per pass. LA Metro is working with LA DOT and SCAG on a pilot concept this year to formalize the program. As part of this white paper development, we asked Metro if developers/agencies outside Los Angeles County could participate. The reason for this request is that VMT mitigation dollars spent on Metro transit passes may be more effective than the same dollars spent in other communities. Whether local communities would be willing to allow mitigation dollars across borders will likely depend on a variety of factors but knowing that it is feasible on the Metro end is an important first feasibility question. Metro replied that their work has not progressed sufficiently to answer this question yet. P a g e | 15 Expanded Public Agency Telecommute Bank With increased telecommuting during the COVID-19 shelter-in-place order, public agencies may decide to permanently expand their telecommuting offerings to employees. When making that decision, these agencies could ‘bank’ the commute VMT savings from each employee into a mitigation program. The agency would then have the option to allocate the VMT savings to individual development or transportation projects. The allocation process could be gifted, auctioned, or offered at a fixed price. WRCOG could function as an umbrella facilitator for this type of program with responsibility for collecting and organizing the VMT savings into a single ‘bank’ and then disposing of the savings to individual projects as mitigation subject to all the program expectations outlined above. IMPLEMENTATION RISKS As explained above, VMT exchanges or banks come with unique requirements such as the ‘additionality’ test and ongoing verification that make them more challenging to implement than a conventional transportation impact fee program. However, exchanges and banks offer the ability to include program- type strategies directed at changing travel behavior that are not available in a conventional impact fee program. Given these tradeoffs, we assessed whether other risks could influence the choice of program. One risk that stood out was related to current legal challenges to the use of carbon offsets that are based on similar concepts. In a recent legal case, the Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, and Cleveland National Forest Foundation, Climate Action Campaign, Endangered Habitats League, Environmental Center of San Diego, and Preserve Wild Santee challenged the County of San Diego over the use of carbon offsets to achieve GHG reduction goals in the County’s climate action plan. The court petition is available at the link below.  https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/urban/pdfs/San-Diego-CAP-Petition-for-Writ-of- Mandate.pdf The California Attorney General’s (AG’s) office has also weighed in on this court case. According to a November 11, 2019 Los Angeles Times article, “California says San Diego County could undermine state’s greenhouse gas plan”, the AG’s office filed an amicus brief. The article reported the following about the AG’s brief. In a strongly worded amicus brief recently submitted to the 4th District Court of Appeal in San Diego, Becerra argued that the county’s offset strategy would “perpetuate current sprawling development patterns, which will impede the ability of the region and state to reach their long-term climate objectives.” “Without significant [vehicle miles traveled] reductions across the state, California simply will not be able to achieve its [greenhouse gas] reduction targets,” the 33-page document said. P a g e | 16 The state does not appear to support reducing GHG emissions from land use development without those reductions coming from fundamental local land use and transportation network changes. The risk is that lower density suburban and rural parts of the state would continue their sprawling patterns leading to more VMT and emissions. If the state maintains this position, it could also be used to argue against the creation of VMT mitigation exchanges and banks that attempt to offset VMT increases. To minimize this risk, the mitigation options offered by exchanges and banks could be applied only after project site mitigation has been exhausted and should attempt to offer additional mitigation within the same area or community. GOVERNANCE Governance for a VMT mitigation program is another important part of assessing program feasibility for a particular agency. The definition of governance for the purposes of this assessment includes the following three components. 1. Who makes program decisions? 2. How are decisions made? 3. Who is accountable for decisions? These questions are answered below based on WRCOG serving as the specific agency that would implement and operate the VMT mitigation program. Since the answers will vary depending on the exact type of mitigation program, WRCOG was asked about specific program types of most interest. In response, three program options were identified.  Modified TUMF – This option involves a modification to the existing TUMF where a new VMT reduction nexus is added. This change would allow the creation of two separate capital improvement programs (CIP) with their own separate fee schedules. A roadway capacity CIP would be retained for the LOS nexus component of the program and a new VMT mitigation CIP would be created. Some of the existing projects in the TUMF CIP are VMT reducing such as transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects. These would be moved to the new VMT mitigation CIP presuming they are consistent with the new VMT reduction nexus requirement. If changes are limited to this new accounting and nexus approach, impact fees would remain relatively stable. This option also allows for new VMT reducing projects to be added to the VMT mitigation CIP. The more projects that are added, the greater the potential VMT reduction, but also the greater the impact fees. Under this option, the TUMF would continue to serve a mitigation program for land use development projects. No mitigation would be available through the program for transportation infrastructure projects that generate new VMT. P a g e | 17  New VMT Impact Fee Program – This option involves creating a new VMT impact fee program focused solely on achieving VMT reduction through the CIP projects. The CIP would largely consist of active transportation and transit projects where sufficient evidence exists to demonstrate a VMT reduction nexus. The program would also be targeted exclusively for land use development project mitigation.  New VMT Mitigation Exchange – This option is the most flexible in terms of offering VMT mitigation for both land use and transportation infrastructure projects. The program would identify VMT reduction projects that could be either fully funded or directly implemented by land use project applicants or transportation project sponsors. The type of project could include capital projects similar to those mentioned above for the impact fee programs plus TDM strategies or activities that reduce VMT. TDM often involves information development and dissemination and actions that change travel behavior. Since these do not qualify as capital projects, they are typically excluded from impact fee programs. As long as these strategies or activities have a clear nexus to VMT reduction, they would qualify for the VMT mitigation exchange project list. By covering VMT mitigation for transportation projects (i.e. roadway capacity projects causing induced vehicle travel impacts), more agencies could participate in the program and more VMT reduction could be delivered. These options do not include a mitigation bank. As explained above, banks are more complex and require more effort to create, operate, and maintain without current evidence showing that the higher investment would necessarily produce greater VMT reduction than an impact fee program or exchange. Who makes program decisions? The simple answer to this question is that WRCOG makes the decisions, but that is not precise enough to fully understand what individuals or groups of individuals are authorized to make different types of decisions. WRCOG was formed through a joint powers agreement (JPA) is composed of all 18 incorporated Cities, Riverside County, Eastern and Western Municipal Water Districts, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, and the Riverside County Superintendent of Education. The main decision-making body of WRCOG is the Executive Committee which is comprised of elected officials from each of WRCOG's member agencies and meets monthly to discuss policy issues and consider recommendations from WRCOG's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), primarily comprised of the region’s City Managers. How are decisions made? Any decision related to the implementation of any option identified above would ultimately be made by the Executive Committee after discussions, input, and voting has occurred at the various policy committees. On-going operation of the program would occur at the Executive Director, Transportation & Planning Director, and Public Works Committee (PWC) levels. Decisions and informational items are first brought to the Public Works and or Planning Directors Committee (PDC). Recommendations are then brought forth to the TAC. Following this would be the Administration & Finance Committee (AFC) who P a g e | 18 provide budget and finance overview, which is comprised of a smaller group of elected officials who are also members of the Executive Committee. The final decision recommendations are lastly brought to the Executive Committee who make the final determination. Once a program is established, WRCOG staff would oversee the program with input from WRCOG’s member agencies, primarily through WRCOG’s existing committee structure. Who is accountable for decisions? The WRCOG organization described above is transparent with an emphasis on a streamlined approach to decision-making. For day-to-day decision making, responsibility and accountability lies with the Executive Director and the Transportation & Planning Director. Major decisions are reserved for the Executive Committee since it has sole authority to adopt and amend by-laws for the administration and management of the JPA. The table below summarizes the governance expectations above. Type of Program Who Makes Program Decisions? How Are Decisions Made? Who is Accountable? Modified TUMF Program Creation of the program - WRCOG Executive Committee Operation of the program - WRCOG Executive Committee, Executive Director, Transportation & Planning Director, AFC, TAC, and PWC Decisions can originate from questions at any level of the agency, member agency, or the public. These are then resolved at the PWC, PDC, TAC, AFC or Transportation & Planning Director level for day-to-day operations and the Executive Committee for more significant decisions. Executive Director and Transportation & Planning Director for day-to-day operations and the Executive Committee for more significant decisions. New VMT Impact Fee Program New VMT Mitigation Exchange Advancing Implementation Advancing one of the three options above would begin with a formal proposal by WRCOG staff at the PWC where informative discussions, presentations, and options would be explored. With the recommendation of the PWC it would then advance to the other policy committees in the following order.  TAC  AFC  Executive Committee P a g e | 19 Prior to implementing any new Program, WRCOG would need to develop a concrete proposal for recommendation. Given WRCOG’s experience, this proposal should address each item below.  The exact structure to be implemented (bank, exchange, or fee).  The relationship between this program and other WRCOG programs.  Program governance, which would likely be modeled after existing WRCOG programs like TUMF.  Supporting documentation related to this proposal such as any quantification methods related to VMT reductions and other applicable items. WRCOG Staff conducted a survey of its member agencies late in 2019 and early in 2020 to gauge their interest in either a VMT mitigation fee or exchange. The survey results are provided below. Based on the survey responses, it appears that a majority of our local agencies prefer a fee-based approach, though there is support for an exchange as well. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 VMT - TIF (Independent/separate program from TUMF) VMT-TIF ( Part of TUMF Program ) Mitigation Exchange NU M B E R O F R E S P O N S E S What type of VMT mitigation approach would you like to consider further? P a g e | 20 Based on that positive feedback, there appears to be merit in advancing a mitigation program. The next steps would generally focus on increased socialization of this concept and conceptual program development. Specific tasks WRCOG should undertake would include but not be limited to the following items.  Convening a meeting with the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to discuss this concept in greater detail.  Identify at least two options for either a fee-based approach and an exchange, which would include an evaluation of their use for mitigating development and infrastructure projects.  A review of the latest guidance from OPR and Caltrans regarding VMT impacts and the applicability of this type of program or programs to address any issues they have raised as SB 743 is implemented.  Coordination with the upcoming TUMF Nexus Study update to ensure that the Nexus Study scope of work provides the necessary information for this type of program. APRIL 2020 | FINAL A WHITE PAPER PREPARED BY 1 of 1 TO:  HONORABLE COUNCIL MEMBERS    FROM:  PHILIP KAMHI, CHIEF TRANSPORTATION OFFICIAL     DATE:  CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 15, 2020   SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 8 ‐ Adoption of a Resolution Updating the City’s  Transportation Analysis Methodology Under CEQA to Comply with California  Senate Bill 743 and Adoption of a Local Transportation Impact Analysis Policy to  Evaluate Level of Service and Other Local Roadway Impacts    Attached is an updated version of the City of Palo Alto Local Transportation Impact Analysis  (LTA) Policy. Two section headings were changed for clarity and one item in the LTA report  elements list was added to confirm that LOS analysis is required for all qualifying facilities.    Changes are as follows for clarification purposes:  • P.2 title change from Within the CMP System to Regional CMP Analysis  • P.3 title change from Outside the CMP System to Local Analysis  • P.3 additional sentence, bullet vi. LOS analysis for selected study intersections           _______________________     _________________________    Philip Kamhi       Ed Shikada  Chief Transportation Official     City Manager        8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 334CDB72-C437-4EDF-9670-65567F31E596 1 2020052801 CITY OF PALO ALTO LOCAL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS POLICY Senate Bill (SB) 743, adopted in 2013, required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare amendments to the CEQA Guidelines with respect to the analysis of potential transportation effects to provide an alternative metric to traffic congestion and delay at intersections (often referred to as Level of Service (LOS)). After five years of analysis and outreach, in December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency approved OPR’s proposed amendments to the CEQA Guidelines requiring agencies to use vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by a project as the metric for transportation impact analyses under CEQA effective July 1, 2020. Under SB 743 and the revised CEQA Guidelines, LOS may no longer be used to determine whether a project may have a significant environmental impact to transportation and traffic under CEQA. While statewide implementation of VMT analysis to replace LOS analysis is required under CEQA, SB 743 did not require changes to transportation analyses outside of CEQA, including the evaluation of regionally significant intersections under the Congestion Management Program (CMP) under a separate state law. Nor did SB 743 affect the discretion of public agencies to assess impacts on local streets and intersections for compliance with adopted plans and policies. As such, in conformance with Policy T-2.3 and Program T-2.3.1 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan 2030,1 LOS standards are adopted through this policy to analyze potential local transportation impacts of projects in Palo Alto. I. Purpose The purpose of this Policy is to ensure consistency in reviewing and identifying transportation effects of proposed development projects for local intersections and facilities and to determine standards for necessary remediation measures. 1 Comprehensive Plan Policy T-2.3: Use motor vehicle LOS at signalized intersections to evaluate the potential impact of proposed projects, including contributions to cumulative congestion. Use signal warrants and other metrics to evaluate impacts at unsignalized intersections. Program T-2.3.1: When adopting new CEQA significance thresholds for VMT for compliance with SB 743 (2013), adopt standards for vehicular LOS analysis for use in evaluating the consistency of a proposed project with the Comprehensive Plan, and also explore desired standards for MMLOS, which includes motor vehicle LOS, at signalized intersections. Policy T-2.4: Consistent with the principles of Complete Streets adopted by the City, work to achieve and maintain acceptable levels of service for transit vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians and automobiles on roads in Palo Alto, while maintaining the ability to customize to the Palo Alto context. Policy T-3.3: Avoid major increases in single-occupant vehicle capacity when constructing or modifying roadways unless needed to remedy severe congestion or critical neighborhood traffic problems. Where capacity is increased, balance the needs of motor vehicles with those of pedestrians and bicyclists 2 2020052801 II. Level of Service (LOS) Analysis LOS is the measurement of delay at intersections used to determine whether a project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and this Policy LOS is based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology where a letter grade is assigned to an intersection operation based on the amount of delay motorists experience in traveling through the intersection. Table 1 below shows the comparison in LOS depending on whether the intersection is signalized or not. Table 1: Level of Service Delay – Signalized vs. Non-Signalized Intersections Level of Service Grade Description Signalized Average Delay (Sec) Unsignalized Average Delay (Sec) A Signal Progression is extremely favorable. Little or no traffic delay. 10.0 or less 10.0 or less B Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. Short traffic delays. 10.1 to 20.0 10.1 to 15.0 C Higher delays may result from fair signal progression. Average traffic delays. 20.1 to 35.0 15.1 to 25.0 D Congestion becomes noticeable. Long traffic delays. 35.1 to 55.0 25.1 to 35.0 E Considered the limit of acceptable delay. 55.1 to 80.0 35.1 to 50.0 F Level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. Extreme traffic delays. Greater than 80.0 Greater than 50.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2010 III. Standards for Determining Transportation Analysis 1. Within the CMP System Regional CMP Analysis Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) reports vary in scope depending on the use of the report and size of the project. Under the purview of the California Congestion Management Program (CMP) Statute, Palo Alto must follow the methodologies presented in the VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for intersections within the CMP system, to evaluate transportation effects and submit a full TIA report of all development projects that are expected to generate 100 or more net new weekday (AM or PM peak hour) or weekend peak hour trips, including both inbound and outbound trips. 3 2020052801 CMP intersections within Palo Alto are listed below. A map of all CMP intersections can be found in Attachment A. i. Middlefield Rd./Oregon Exp. ii. Middlefield Rd./San Antonio Rd. iii. El Camino Real/University Ave./Palm Dr. iv. El Camino Real/ Sand Hill Rd./Palo Alto Ave. v. El Camino Real/Embarcadero Rd. vi. El Camino Real/Page Mill Rd. vii. El Camino Real/Arastradero Rd./Charleston Rd. viii. Foothill Exp./Junipero Serra Blvd./Page Mill Rd. ix. Foothill Exp./Arastradero Rd. x. San Antonio Rd./Charleston Rd. 2. Outside the CMP System Local Analysis The City requires a Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) report for any project that is expected to generate 50 or more net new weekday (AM or PM peak hour) trips, including both inbound and outbound trips, prior to any reductions assumed for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures. The City may also require a LTA if in its reasonable judgement a project will potentially cause a deficiency in the operation of local intersections. A LTA report must include the following: i. Project description; ii. Existing conditions; iii. Site access and circulation; iv. Vehicle trip generation (weekday AM and PM peak); v. Vehicle trip distribution; v.vi. LOS analysis for selected study intersections; and vi.vii. Remediation measures (if proposed) Depending on the size and layout of the project, additional elements listed below may be required by the City to include in the LTA report. i. Traffic Infusion on Residential Environments (TIRE) Analysis is an analysis of new potential traffic disturbances along a local residential streets created by a project as described in the Attachment B. When a proposed development project is expected to add 10 or more peak hour vehicles per any direction to a local residential street that is not on a project’s direct route to collector or arterial streets, the project is required to submit a TIRE analysis. ii. Queuing Analysis that identifies queues spilling beyond their current storage bays. Improvements may include lengthening storage bays to meet projected 4 2020052801 demand or roadway capacity improvements to add additional turn pockets at an intersection. The City typically takes the lead in identifying potential capacity improvements to help facilities site design. iii. Transit Analysis for projects located along a key transit route, such as El Camino Real, a focused analysis in partnership with the VTA or other transit operators is provided to determine if off-site improvement of a project should consider additional parking stop improvements such as shelters or bus duck- outs. iv. Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation Study is an analysis of how the site operations may affect bicycle and pedestrian operations. Where appropriate, if a project is located along a major bicycle route in the City’s Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan, the project may be required to help implement a portion of the recommended facility. Additional improvements may include limiting driveway curb-cuts to minimize conflicts with pedestrians or provision of enhanced crosswalk facilities. v. Parking Analysis is a study to determine location, use, and adequacy of the proposed parking facility. Projects should include a parking analysis under the following conditions: a. Change in the facilities’ existing design or supply; or b. Change in the existing parking management; or c. Propose parking less than that required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.52 (https://tinyurl.com/PA-Municipal-Code); or d. Use of parking adjustments by the Director as defined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.52 (https://tinyurl.com/PA-Municipal-Code). When a proposed project requests a parking reduction or exception as allowed under the Municipal Code, a robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan is typically required independent of the LTA. For projects in a Parking Assessment District, required payment of assessments to the District will be noted in the LTA report and included in the project’s conditions of approval. A project will provide an analysis of one or more of the above elements if the project is expected to substantially affect the identified local facilities, even if the anticipated number of new vehicle trips would not require a LOS analysis. 5 2020052801 IV. Local Transportation Impacts – Standards for Determining Transportation Consistency 1. Level of Service Standard The City of Palo Alto’s Level of Service (LOS) standard is D, which is more conservative than the CMP LOS standard of E. If the LTA shows that a development project is anticipated to cause a transportation facility (intersection or roadway) to degrade below LOS D to LOS E or F, then the project will be deemed inconsistent with this Policy. For a transportation facility determined to have been at LOS E or F under existing and background conditions without the project, a project is said to have significant local impact if the LTA shows that the project will cause LOS to deteriorate by the following amounts: i. Addition of project traffic increases the average delay for critical movements by four or more seconds; or ii. Addition of project traffic increases the critical Volume/Capacity (V/C) value by 0.01 or more; or iii. Affects a freeway segment or ramp to operate at LOS F or project traffic increases freeway capacity by one or more percent. 2. Selection of Study Intersections or Roadways An intersection should be included in the LTA if it meets any one of the following conditions: i. Proposed development project is expected to add 10 or more peak hour vehicles per any lane to any intersection movement; or ii. The intersection is adjacent to the project; or iii. Based on engineering judgement, City staff determines that the intersection should be included in the analysis. Additionally, a roadway segment should be included in the LTA with a TIRE analysis if a proposed development project is expected to add 10 or more peak hour vehicles per any direction to a local residential street. More details on the TIRE analysis are available in Attachment B. 6 2020052801 3. CMP Intersection Standard A CMP intersection must adhere to the standards set by the Congestion Management Agency2 (currently LOS E), as set forth in the VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. The City’s standard of LOS D would apply for determining local level impacts.. Any transportation impact triggered by VTA’s standard for CMP intersections would need to be addressed following guidelines established by VTA. More information regarding mitigation measures and Multimodal Improvement Plans (MIP) are available in the VTA Guidelines for TIAs and Deficiency Plans. 4. Auto Level of Service Analysis at Unsignalized Intersections For all-way stop control, the LOS is based on the average delay. For 1- or 2-way stop control, the LOS should be based on the critical approach movement. The above standards for determining transportation consistency remain appropriate only if traffic volumes satisfy the peak hour traffic signal warrant. Meeting a peak hour traffic signal warrant does not automatically make a traffic signal an appropriate remediation measure. 5. Other Transportation Impacts Depending on the size and layout of the project, a LTA may require analysis to evaluate other project-related effects on the transportation system. The following is a list of elements that are considered to have project-related local impacts: i. Result in noticeable traffic effects on local residential streets defined as an increase of 0.1 or more using the TIRE methodology. ii. Impede the development or function of existing or planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities. iii. Increase demand for pedestrian or bicycle facilities that cannot be met by existing or planned facilities. iv. Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of increased traffic congestion. v. Create demand for transit services that cannot be met by current or planned services. vi. Create the potential demand for cut-through traffic or redistribution of traffic to use local residential streets, based on the TIRE methodology described above. vii. Create an operational safety hazard. viii. Result in inadequate emergency access. 2 The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Santa Clara County. 7 2020052801 V. Remediation Measures All Local Transportation Impacts under Section VI of this Policy must be addressed through the project’s adoption or use of appropriate local remediation measures, including funding their associated costs. The LTA must include proposed remediation measures and identify any potential impacts of such measures. Remediation measures shall reduce the project-related local impacts to a level without the proposed project, and should not themselves create potentially significant CEQA impacts. These remediation measures will be incorporated in the project conditions of approval and not as part of the CEQA analysis. The following is a list of potential remediation methods in priority order: 1. Projects and programs that reduce a project’s vehicle trip generation, including, but not limited to Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs, capital improvements to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facility enhancements within an influential project area.3 The following is a non-exhaustive list of potential remediation methods: i. Provide new or upgrade existing access to, from, and through the project for pedestrians and bicyclists. ii. Provide improvements to transit facilities or services. iii. Implement TDM programs such as flexible at-place working hours, telecommuting, carpools, shuttles, transit passes, parking cash-out, among others. 2. Multimodal operational or facility improvements including intersection operational efficiency treatments. Proposed improvements or treatments with geometric changes to an intersection are limited to features that would not likely lead to substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel. 3. If project impacts cannot be remediated through methods 1 and 2 above, a fair share of the cost for multimodal network remediation shall be contributed to the City’s transportation improvement funds. While the remediation measures in method 1, above, should be proposed within an influential project area, methods 2 and 3 may apply outside the area. However, these proposed improvements should substantially contribute to the City’s Comprehensive Plan goals in expanding the City’s multimodal transportation system. By implementing or funding these types of improvements, the project would therefore be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and this Policy. 3 Area of influence of a project is defined as up to half-mile for pedestrian facilities and up to three miles for bicycle facilities, or bicycle facilities that provide a connection to the local or regional bicycle network. 8 2020052801 Unacceptable Measures In addition, remediation measures that will result in a physical reduction in the capacity and/or deterioration in the quality of any existing or planned transportation facilities are unacceptable. The following is a list of remediation methods that would be considered generally unacceptable without special justification, but are not limited to: 1. Roadway widening not directly related to site access and circulation, or specific conditions that reduce local impacts as a result of the project. 2. Negatively affecting a sidewalk or reducing the width of a sidewalk without substantial improvement to the overall pedestrian circulation. 3. Maintaining an existing sidewalk in the immediate vicinity that is below the current city standard. 4. Negatively affecting existing bicycle infrastructure or reducing the length of a bicycle infrastructure. 5. Maintaining existing bicycle infrastructure that is below the current city standard. 6. Eliminating a bus stop without adequate replacement or improvement to the system. 7. Encouraging neighborhood cut-through traffic (intrusion effects along local residential streets). VI. Authority to Adopt Guidelines The Chief Transportation Official is authorized to adopt guidelines to implement this Policy. 9 2020052801 ATTACHMENT A CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM INTERSECTIONS Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Congestion Management Program Document 2017 10 2020052801 ATTACHMENT B CITY OF PALO ALTO – TRAFFIC INFUSION ON RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTS (TIRE) ANALYSIS Excessive vehicular speed and traffic volume on residential streets pose a major threat to quality of life. Most Palo Alto streets are bordered by residential uses, and it is the City’s priority to preserve local neighborhood characteristics. Additionally, the City has designated some streets as residential arterials to recognize that they carry large traffic volumes of through-traffic but also have residential uses on both sides of the streets. The objective of this analysis is to address the desires of residents of these streets who prefer slower vehicular speeds and to determine if implementation of a project would cause a substantial change in the character of these streets. The City of Palo Alto uses the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environments (TIRE) methodology to estimate residential perception of traffic effects based on anticipated average daily traffic growth. Although not required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or pursuant to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) guidelines, this methodology intends to determine new potential traffic disturbances – cut-through traffic (intrusion effects) and direct traffic (infusion effects) – along local residential streets due to a proposed development project. For projects on a local residential street, new traffic disturbances along that specific street will likely be unavoidable. Thus, the potential infusion effects generated along a specific local residential street of which a project is proposed will be used only for informational purposes. A map of Palo Alto’s local residential streets can be found in Map 1 in this attachment. The City aims to reduce potential adverse intrusion effects along local residential streets. Significant amount of vehicle intrusion on these streets may need to be addressed through traffic management strategies. Traffic Infusion on Residential Environments (TIRE) Index The TIRE methodology assigns a numerical value to “residents’ perception of traffic effects on activities such as walking, bicycling, and maneuvering out of a driveway on local residential streets.” The TIRE index scale ranges from 0 to 5 depending on daily traffic volume. An index of 0 represents the least traffic disturbances and 5 the greatest, and thereby, the poorest residential environment. Streets with a TIRE index of 3 and above are considered to function primarily as a traffic street and exhibit an impaired residential environment. Therefore, streets with a TIRE index below 3 are better suited for residential activities. Any projected change in the TIRE index of 0.1 or less is considered to have no noticeable effects. A change of 0.1 would be barely noticeable, and a change of 0.2 or greater would be noticeable. The TIRE Index can be found in Table 1 in this attachment. 11 2020052801 I. Standards for Determining Analysis A proposed development project expecting to add 10 or more peak hour vehicles per any direction to a local residential street. II. Selection and Data Collection of Roadway Segments Roadway segments should be included in the LTA if a proposed development project is expected to add 10 or more peak hour vehicles per any direction to a local residential street. Data collected under the TIRE methodology must be supported by 24-hour weekday traffic counts. For projects on a local residential street including both single- or multi-family, as defined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan 2030, the TIRE analysis must include the following: 1. Direct routes to the project; 2. Immediate connections to a project’s direct collector or arterial streets; and 3. Based on engineering judgement, City staff determines what roadway segments should be included in the analysis. A Palo Alto land use map can be found in Map 2 in this attachment. III. Standards for Determining Noticeable Effect Projected change in the TIRE index of 0.1 or more under existing and background conditions, is considered to cause noticeable effects on the character of local residential streets. These traffic effects may need to be addressed through traffic management strategies. 12 2020052801 Table 1: Traffic Infusion on Residential Environments (TIRE) Index TIRE Index Existing Daily Traffic Volume Volume to Cause +0.1 Change in TIRE Index Volume to Cause +0.2 Change in TIRE Index Volume Description 1.5 29-35 6 15 Low 1.6 36-44 8 20 1.7 45-56 10 25 1.8 57-70 13 32 1.9 71-89 17 41 2.0 90-110 22 52 Moderate 2.1 111-140 29 65 2.2 141-180 40 80 2.3 181-220 52 100 2.4 221-280 65 125 2.5 281-350 79 160 2.6 351-450 94 205 2.7 451-560 114 260 2.8 561-710 140 330 2.9 711-890 170 415 3.0 891-1,100 220 520 High 3.1 1,101-1,400 290 650 3.2 1,401-1 ,800 380 800 3.3 1,801-2,200 500 1,000 3.4 2,201-2,800 650 1,300 3.5 2,801-3,500 825 1,700 3.6 3,501-4,500 1,025 2,200 3.7 4,501-5,600 1,250 2,800 3.8 5,601-7,100 1,500 3,500 3.9 7,101-8,900 1,800 4,300 4.0 8,901-11,000 2,300 5,300 Very High 4.1 11,001-14,000 3,000 6,500 4.2 14,001-18,000 4,000 8,000 4.3 18,001-22,000 5,200 10,000 4.4 22,001-28,000 6,600 13,000 4.5 28,001-35,000 8,200 17,000 4.6 35,001-45,000 10,000 22,000 4.7 45,001-56,000 12,200 28,000 4.8 56,001-71,000 14,800 35,000 4.9 71,001-89,000 18,000 43,000 Source: Goodrich Traffic Group 13 2020052801 Map 1 City of Palo Alto Local Residential Streets Source: City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030 14 2020052801 Map 2: City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030 Land Use Designations Source: City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030 City of Palo Alto (ID # 11386) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/15/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Cubberley and Extended Day Care Lease Agreements Title: Approval of Two Lease Agreements between Palo Alto Unified School District and City of Palo Alto for (1) Cubberley for 54 months, not-to-exceed $2,733,280 per year, and (2) Extended Day Care Sites for 24 months, not-to- exceed $707,676 per year. From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommended Motion Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to execute the Lease Agreements contained in Attachments A and B between Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and the City of Palo Alto (City) for the Cubberley and Extended Day Care premises. The Cubberley lease is for a 54-month term ending December 31, 2024, at an annual rent of between $2,500,000 and $2,733,280, depending on the amount of space occupied. The Extended Day Care lease is for a 24-month term ending June 30, 2022 at an annual rent of $707,676. Executive Summary The City currently leases approximately 27 acres from PAUSD at Cubberley and offers various services and resources through those facilities including short term and long- term rentals, fields, gyms, and theater, as well as an auditorium. The City also leases elementary school sites from PAUSD to sublease to providers of afterschool care. The City’s tenancy at these properties has been on a month-to-month basis since January 1, 2020. Due to the negative impacts to the City’s budget from the events surrounding COVID-19 and the request by PAUSD to retain portions of Cubberley, a new lease for Cubberley has been negotiated to reduce the City’s use of the premises and the corresponding cost, while a new lease for the Extended Day Care sites has been created to extend the existing terms through the 2021-2022 school year. Background The Cubberley Community Center currently occupies a 35-acre site: the City owns 8 acres in the northeast corner of the site; the remaining 27 acres are owned by PAUSD and leased to the City. The City’s acreage contains campus classroom space, art and City of Palo Alto Page 2 dance studios, some parking, City administrative offices, a portable building used by Friends of the Palo Alto Library (FOPAL), and the tennis courts. The 27-acre area owned by PAUSD contains the playing fields, all-weather track, dance studio, weight room, gymnasiums and pavilion, multi-purpose auditorium and theater with music rooms, three wings of classrooms, a portable building used by FOPAL, and most of the parking areas. Originally opened as a high school in the 1950s, Cubberley was closed due to decreasing enrollment in 1979. At that time, PAUSD was experiencing substantial budget pressures due to a variety of circumstances starting in the late 1970s and early 80s, including Passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 and declining PAUSD enrollment and revenue during the post–Baby Boom era. In response to that stressed financial situation, the PAUSD closed several schools and sold some existing school sites in order to help sustain its educational programs at the level the community expected. This included the closure of Cubberley in 1979. On September 1, 1989, the City and the PAUSD entered into a lease agreement. Under the lease agreement, the City provided PAUSD with annual revenue in exchange for the City receiving: 1) a lease on the former 35-acre Cubberley High School site to be used for community theater, sport and art groups; 2) a Covenant Not to Develop five neighborhood elementary school sites (Jordan, Jane Lathrop Stanford, Ohlone, Garland and Greendell); and 3) an agreement that PAUSD provide space for extended day care at each of eleven remaining elementary school sites. There are now twelve sites as detailed below, because Hoover School was added in 1998. On December 10, 2001, the City and PAUSD entered into a property exchange agreement whereby the City received 7.97 acres of the Cubberley site. The original lease Agreement was for 15 years, beginning January 1, 1990 and ending on December 31, 2004. Since 1989, City staff and PAUSD have entered into several lease amendments and other agreements regarding the site needs. The City exercised its first option to extend the lease for an additional ten years through December 31, 2014 and its second option to extend the lease through December 31, 2019. PAUSD consented to the City’s request to continue its tenancy on a month-to-month basis beginning on January 1, 2020. Council tentatively approved the new amount for the Cubberley lease recommended in this memorandum as part of the FY 2021 proposed budget hearings in May. Council is scheduled to adopt the FY 2021 budget on June 22. Additional information including financials and tenants were provided to the City Council during the budget hearings and can be found here: http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/76655. Discussion Staff has negotiated two separate new lease agreements with PAUSD for Cubberley and the Extended Day Care Sites. The basic terms are listed below. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Cubberley Extended Day Care Premises: Approximately 65,046 rentable square feet of building area consisting of the theater, pavilion, Gym A, Gym B, Rooms G5 and G8, maintenance room, JMZ (Junior Museum and Zoo), and S Building, along with roughly 15.94 acres of outdoor recreational area in the fields. City has the right to reduce the premises by surrendering the JMZ and/or S Building back to PAUSD upon 30 days written notice. (The City will no longer lease the I-Building, A and B wings, the M- Rooms, and several rooms in the G-Wing. The areas vacated comprise approximately 39,554 square feet.) Sites (no change): 1. Addison 2. Duvenec 3. El Carmelo 4. Escondido 5. Hays 6. Hoover 7. Barron Park 8. Ohlone 9. Palo Verde 10. Juana Briones 11. Fairmeadow 12. Nixon 1. Term: July 1, 2020 to December 31, 2024 In the event Council does not appropriate funds for payment of rent, the lease shall terminate upon 120-day written notice. July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021 In the event Council does not appropriate funds for payment of rent, the lease shall terminate upon 90-day written notice. Monthly Base Rent: $208,333 per month for use of the theater, pavilion, Gym A, Gym B, Rooms G5 and G8, maintenance room, and fields $13,790 per month for use of the JMZ (Junior Museum and Zoo) $5,650 per month for use of the S Building (reduction from $5,429,838 annually) $58,973 (no change) City of Palo Alto Page 4 Operating Expenses City maintains and repairs property, subject to reimbursement by PAUSD for their share. City pays for utilities throughout the site. City reimburses PAUSD for its share of property taxes and 75% for any non-use payment. (no change, except for partial reimbursement) City is responsible for minor maintenance and utilities. (no change) Timeline PAUSD’s Board approved the Cubberley lease at its May 26, 2020 meeting and the Extended Day Care lease at its June 9, 2020 meeting. Staff issued termination notices to affected tenants at Cubberley, effective June 29, 2020. The new leases will commence on July 1, 2020. Council is scheduled to adopt the FY 2021 budget, which includes the new Cubberley lease, on June 22, 2020. Resource Impact Currently, the City pays a base rent to PAUSD for the use of the 27 acres of Cubberley facilities of $5.4 million. The City covers the operations and maintenance costs of approximately $2.6 million annually including the utilities for the facility. In addition, the City earns both short-term and long-term rental receipts of $1.6 million annually. Ultimately resulting in a net cost to the City of $6.4 million. Under this new agreement, the base rent for the new Cubberley lease will be reduced from $452,487 per month ($5,429,844/yr.) to $227,773 ($2,733,276/yr.). The base rent for the new Extended Day Care lease will remain at $58,973 per month ($707,676/yr.). The operating and maintenance costs are expected to continue at current levels noted above however, the City will now be reimbursed by PAUSD for a portion of their share. Lastly, as a result of the reduced area, it is expected that both short-term rental revenues and long-term lease revenues will reduce however, the estimated amounts are currently unknown at this time. Staff continues to work to find new space for displaced tenants. The FY 2021 Proposed budget assumes a net savings of $2.5 million in net cost to the City, this will be monitored closely to ensure these terms and impacts mange within this estimate. Although not a term in this revised lease agreement, the City expects to continue contributing $1,864,248 annually into the Cubberley Property Infrastructure Fund. Policy Implications Amending the Lease Agreement at Cubberley Community Center is consistent with policies and programs in the Comprehensive Plan promoting City-PAUSD collaboration City of Palo Alto Page 5 and the effective provision of community services. Stakeholder Engagement The City and PAUSD collaborated on development of new agreements containing these terms. City staff have delivered termination notices and are proactively seeking potential alternative spaces to relocate those tenants and renters affected at Cubberley. Environmental Review This does not constitute a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: • Attachment A: Cubberley Lease • Attachment B: Extended Day Care Lease LEASE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AS LANDLORD and CITY OF PALO ALTO, A CALIFORNIA CHARTERED MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AS TENANT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1. DEMISE. ...............................................................................................................................6 2. PREMISES. ............................................................................................................................6 2.1 Premises ...................................................................................................................6 2.2 Possession ................................................................................................................6 2.3 Termination of Original Lease .................................................................................6 3. TERM ...................................................................................................................................7 4. RENT. ...................................................................................................................................7 4.1 Base Rent .................................................................................................................7 4.2 Additional Rent ........................................................................................................7 5. TAXES. .................................................................................................................................7 5.1 Reserved ...................................................................................................................7 5.2 Taxes ........................................................................................................................7 5.3 Nonuse Payments .....................................................................................................8 6. UTILITIES .............................................................................................................................8 7. ALTERATIONS. .....................................................................................................................8 7.1 Tenant Alterations ....................................................................................................8 7.2 Liens .........................................................................................................................8 8. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF PREMISES. ........................................................................9 8.1 Maintenance and Repair by Tenant .........................................................................9 8.2 Maintenance and Repair by Landlord ......................................................................9 9. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROVISIONS.....................................................................9 9.1 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................9 9.2 Environmental Indemnity ......................................................................................10 10. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. .......................................................................................10 11. INDEMNITY AND WAIVER OF CLAIMS. .............................................................................10 11.1 Tenant Indemnification ..........................................................................................10 11.2 Landlord Indemnification ......................................................................................11 11.3 Survival/No Impairment ........................................................................................11 12. INSURANCE. .......................................................................................................................11 12.1 Tenant’s Insurance .................................................................................................11 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) PAGE 12.2 Certificates of Insurance ........................................................................................11 13. DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION. .............................................................................................12 13.1 Repair Obligations .................................................................................................12 13.2 Abatement of Rent .................................................................................................12 14. CONDEMNATION. ...............................................................................................................12 15. DEFAULT. ...........................................................................................................................12 15.1 Events of Default ...................................................................................................12 15.2 Remedies ................................................................................................................13 15.3 No Waiver ..............................................................................................................13 15.4 Landlord’s Breach ..................................................................................................13 16. SURRENDER OF PREMISES. ................................................................................................13 17. HOLDING OVER. ................................................................................................................14 18. NOTICE. .............................................................................................................................14 19. EARLY TERMINATION BY TENANT. ..................................................................................14 19.1 Debt Limitation ......................................................................................................14 19.2 Gann Limit .............................................................................................................14 19.3 Restriction on Taxing Power .................................................................................14 20. RESERVED ..........................................................................................................................15 21. RESERVED ..........................................................................................................................15 22. MISCELLANEOUS. ..............................................................................................................15 22.1 Governing Law ......................................................................................................15 22.2 Severability ............................................................................................................15 22.3 Attorneys’ Fees ......................................................................................................15 22.4 Force Majeure ........................................................................................................15 22.5 Brokers ...................................................................................................................15 22.6 Access by Landlord................................................................................................15 22.7 Waiver of Right to Jury Trial .................................................................................16 22.8 Article and Section Titles.......................................................................................16 22.9 Quiet Possession ....................................................................................................16 22.10 Asbestos Notification for Commercial Property Constructed Before 1979 ..........16 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) PAGE 22.11 Lead Warning Statement........................................................................................16 22.12 Certified Access Specialist Disclosure ..................................................................16 22.13 Time of the Essence ...............................................................................................17 22.14 Entire Agreement ...................................................................................................17 22.15 Counterparts ...........................................................................................................17 INDEX OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A Property B Premises C Space Used by City D Space Used by PAUSD 3 LEASE AGREEMENT BASIC LEASE INFORMATION Lease Date: Dated as of [Insert date in DocuSign] for reference purposes only Landlord: Palo Alto Unified School District Landlord’s Address: Palo Alto Unified School District 25 Churchill Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 Attn: Superintendent of Schools Tenant: City of Palo Alto Tenant’s Address: City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Manager, Real Property Property: The 27.48-acre Cubberley School consisting of approximately 15.94 acres of outdoor recreational area and an additional 11.54 acres of land improved with walkways, a parking lot, and 104,600 square feet of buildings, as depicted in Exhibit A (“Property”). Usable Area: Approximately 807,486 square feet of area consisting of 15.94 acres (694,346 square feet) of outdoor recreational area and 104,600 square feet of buildings (“Usable Area”). Premises: A portion of the Usable Area consisting of the theater, pavilion, Gym A, Gym B, Rooms G5 and G8, JMZ (Junior Museum and Zoo), S Building, fields, and all other areas marked as Leased by City in Exhibit B, containing approximately 65,046 rentable square feet of building area and 15.94 acres of outdoor recreational area, located in the City of Palo Alto and more particularly described and depicted in Exhibit B (“Premises”). It is understood that such acreage and square footage figures are only approximate and have not been precisely determined. Length of Term: 54 months Commencement Date: July 1, 2020 Expiration Date: December 31, 2024 Extension Option: None 4 Monthly Base Rent: $208,333.33 per month for use of the theater, pavilion, Gym A, Gym B, Rooms G5 and G8, and fields $13,790.00 per month for use of the JMZ (Junior Museum and Zoo) $5,650.00 per month for use of the S Building Tenant’s Share: 58.81%, as reasonably adjusted for changes in the physical size of the Premises, Usable Area, or the Property occurring thereafter (“Tenant’s Share”) See breakdown of calculation in Exhibit C. Landlord’s Share: 41.19%, as reasonably adjusted for changes in the physical size of the Premises, Usable Area, or the Property occurring thereafter (“Landlord’s Share”) See breakdown of calculation in Exhibit D. Security Deposit: $0 Permitted Use: Any use permitted by law Brokers: None 5 LEASE AGREEMENT THIS LEASE AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (“Landlord” or “District”) and CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“Tenant” or “City”). The Basic Lease Information, the Exhibits and this Lease Agreement are and shall be construed as a single instrument and are referred to herein as the “Lease”. 1. DEMISE. In consideration for the rents and all other charges and payments payable by Tenant, and for the agreements, terms and conditions to be performed by Tenant in this Lease, Landlord does hereby lease to Tenant and Tenant does hereby hire and take from Landlord, the Premises described below, upon the agreements, terms and conditions of this Lease for the Term hereinafter stated. 2. PREMISES. 2.1 Premises. The Premises demised by this Lease are as specified in the Basic Lease Information. The Premises have the address and contain the square footage specified in the Basic Lease Information; provided, however, that any statement of square footage set forth in this Lease is an approximation which Landlord and Tenant agree is reasonable and no economic terms based thereon shall be subject to revision whether or not the actual square footage is more or less. Tenant shall have the right to reduce the Premises by surrendering the JMZ and/or S Building back to Landlord upon 30 days written notice. City intends to surrender the JMZ Building to Landlord after completion of a new museum building (that is not located on the Property) and moving to that new building. The portion of the Property including, but not limited to, parking, walkways, restrooms, and other portions of the Property which are non-exclusive are collectively referred to herein as the “Common Areas”. Tenant shall have the non-exclusive right during the Term to use the Common Areas along with others having the right to use the Common Areas. 2.2 Possession. Tenant accepts the Premises in its current condition and configuration without any representations or warranties by Landlord, and subject to all matters of record and all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. Tenant acknowledges that it is currently in possession and has been in possession of the Property under that certain Lease and Covenant Not to Develop, dated September 1, 1989, as amended by that certain Amendment No. 1, dated July 21, 1998, and as further amended by that certain Amendment No. 2, dated August 13, 2002, and , and as further amended by that certain Amendment No. 3, dated as of January 1, 2015 (collectively the “Original Lease”). 2.3 Termination of Original Lease. As of the Lease Commencement Date identified in the Basic Lease Information above, the Original Lease shall be deemed terminated and, except for such obligations which expressly survive termination, the parties shall have no further rights or obligations thereunder. Tenant’s right of continued occupancy of the Premises shall thereafter be solely pursuant to the terms of this Lease. 6 3. TERM. The term of this Lease (“Term”) shall be for the period specified in the Basic Lease Information, commencing on the Commencement Date (“Commencement Date”). This Lease shall terminate at midnight on December 31, 2024 (“Expiration Date”), unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided. 4. Rent. 4.1 Base Rent. (a) Generally. From and after the Commencement Date, Tenant shall pay to Landlord, in advance of the first day of each calendar month, without any setoff or deduction and without further notice or demand, the monthly installments of rent specified in the Basic Lease Information (“Base Rent”). If the Commencement Date should be on a date other than the first day of a calendar month, the Monthly Base Rent installment paid for any fractional month during the Term shall be prorated based upon a thirty (30) day calendar month. If Tenant exercises its right to reduce the Premises, Base Rent shall be reduced by $13,790.00 per month if the JMZ Building is surrendered and $5,650.00 per month if the S Building is surrendered. 4.2 Additional Rent. As used in this Lease, the term “Additional Rent” shall mean all sums of money, other than Base Rent, that are due and payable by Tenant under the terms of this Lease. The term “Rent,” as used herein, shall mean all Base Rent, Additional Rent and all other amounts payable hereunder from Tenant to Landlord. Unless otherwise specified herein, all items of Rent other than Base Rent shall be due and payable by Tenant on or before the date that is thirty (30) days after billing by Landlord. 5. TAXES. 5.1 Reserved. 5.2 Taxes. Tenant shall reimburse to Landlord as Additional Rent Tenant’s Share of all Taxes as herein defined within thirty (30) days after receipt of an invoice and proof of payment from Landlord. Payments for any fractional period shall be prorated. For purposes of this Section 5.2, the term “Taxes” shall mean all taxes, assessments, fees, impositions, assessments and charges levied (if at all) upon or with respect to the Premises, personal property of Landlord used in the operation of the Premises or Landlord’s interest in the Premises. Taxes shall include, without limitation and whether now existing or hereafter enacted or imposed, all general real property taxes, all general and special bonds and assessments, all charges, fees and levies for or with respect to transit, housing, police, fire, flood control, infrastructure, or other governmental or quasi-governmental services or purported benefits to or burdens attributable to the Premises, that are now or hereafter levied or assessed against Landlord or the Premises by the United States of America, the State of California, the City of Palo Alto, or any other political or public entity, and shall also include any other tax, fee or other excise, however described, that may now or hereafter be levied or assessed as a substitute for, or as an addition to, in whole or in part, any other Taxes, whether or not now customary or in the contemplation of the parties on the date of this Lease. Taxes shall not include any increase as the result of any transfer of Premises. Tenant shall pay any taxes levied or assessed against personal property or trade fixtures placed by Tenant in or about the Premises during the Term. The interest created by this Lease may at 7 some time be subject to property taxation under the laws of the State of California. If property taxes are imposed, the party in whom the possessory interest is vested may be subject to the payment of the taxes levied on such interest. This notice is included in this Lease pursuant to the requirements of section 107.6 (a) of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California. 5.3 Nonuse Payments. In the event any nonuse payments or taxes are levied against the Premises, or any portion thereof, in accordance with any section of the California Education Code, Landlord shall initially be responsible for the payment of any such non-use payments or taxes. Landlord may invoice Tenant for 75% of the non-use payment or taxes paid. Said invoice to Tenant shall be accompanied by proof of payment by Landlord. Tenant shall thereafter reimburse the paying party within thirty (30) days after receipt of said invoice and proof of payment. 6. UTILITIES. Tenant shall contract directly with the providers of, and shall pay all charges for water, sewer, storm water, gas, electricity, and refuse collection to be furnished to the Property, together with all related installation or connection charges or deposits (“Utilities”). If any such Utilities are not separately metered or billed to Tenant for the Premises but rather are billed to and paid by Landlord, Tenant shall reimburse Landlord, as Additional Rent, its pro rata share of the cost of such services, within thirty (30) days after receipt of Landlord’s proof of payment of the same. If any Utilities are not separately metered, Landlord shall have right to determine Tenant’s consumption by either submetering, survey, or other methods designed to measure consumption with reasonable accuracy. 7. ALTERATIONS. 7.1 Tenant Alterations. Tenant may make any alterations, improvements, additions or structural changes, exclusive of any maintenance or repair obligations of Tenant under Section 8.1 (each an “Alteration”) of whatever nature it deems necessary for its free use and enjoyment of the Premises without Landlord approval. The foregoing notwithstanding, for any Alterations for which the estimated cost will exceed Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00), Tenant shall be required to provide Landlord with written notice thereof not less than thirty (30) days prior to commencing work. Said notice shall include plans and specifications depicting the Alterations and, upon completion, Tenant shall furnish Landlord with a set of “as built” plans for the Alterations. Any Alterations shall be at Tenant’s sole cost and expense, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing by Landlord. Alternations shall be made in compliance with all applicable laws. In the event any such Alterations are subject to the Field Act, Ed. Code, §§39140-39159, 39210-39232, 81130-81147, it shall be the sole responsibility of Tenant to obtain such permits or approvals from the Department of General Services as may be required for any such Alterations. Landlord agrees to reasonably cooperate with Tenant in securing any such approvals. 7.2 Liens. Tenant shall pay when due all claims for labor or materials furnished Tenant for use in the Premises. Tenant shall not permit any mechanic liens, stop notices, or any other liens against the Premises, or any of Tenant’s interests under this Lease for any labor or materials furnished to Tenant in connection with work performed on or about the Premises by or at the direction of Tenant. Tenant shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend Landlord from any liens and encumbrances arising out of any work performed or materials furnished by or at the 8 direction of Tenant. In the event that Tenant does not, within ninety (90) days following the imposition of any such lien or stop notice, cause such lien or stop notice to be released of record by payment or posting of a proper bond, or otherwise Landlord shall have, in addition to all other remedies provided herein or by law, the right, but not the obligation, to cause the same to be released by such means as it may deem proper, including payment of the claim giving rise to such lien. All such sums paid by Landlord and expenses reasonably incurred in connection therewith, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, shall be payable to Landlord by Tenant within thirty (30) days of Tenant’s receipt of an invoice from Landlord, which invoice shall document all such sums paid. 8. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF PREMISES. 8.1 Maintenance and Repair by Tenant. Tenant shall maintain the Property in substantially the same condition as of the Commencement Date of this Lease Term, subject to Landlord reimbursement at the following rates: Landlord’s reimbursement rate for Common Areas will be at the rate of Landlord’s share, as detailed in Basic Lease Information. Areas of the Property that are not the Premises or Common Areas will be at the rate of 100%. Landlord shall reimburse Tenant within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice from Tenant. Tenant’s repair and maintenance obligations include, without limitation, repairs to: all interior and exterior work and Common Areas on the Property, and all janitorial, pest control, plumbing, fire sprinkler, sewage, heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, roof repair and replacement, electrical and lighting facilities, irrigation systems, fences, landscaping, litter collection and removal. Tenant shall further, at its own costs and expense, repair or restore any damage or injury to all or any part of the Property caused by Tenant or Tenant’s agents, employees, invitees, licensees, visitors or contractors, including but not limited to repairs or replacements necessitated by (i) the construction or installation of Alterations to the Premises by or on behalf of Tenant; (ii) the moving of any property into or out of the Premises; or Tenant’s use and occupancy of the Premises. In the event that any law, regulation or mandate requires the expenditure in excess of $250,000 to bring the Property into compliance the parties shall negotiate in good faith a cost sharing agreement as between Landlord and Tenant for any amount in excess of $250,000. If no agreement is reached after ninety (90) days from the commencement of negotiations, the parties agree to resolve the matter through the option available in Section 22.7 of this Lease. 8.2 Maintenance and Repair by Landlord. Landlord shall, at its own cost and expense, perform maintenance or repair of the Property when necessitated by the negligence or willful misconduct of Landlord, and with respect to the remediation of any Hazardous Materials (as defined herein below) that existed on, about or under the Property as of the commencement of the term under the Original Lease. 9. Environmental Protection Provisions. 9.1 Hazardous Materials. “Hazardous Materials” shall mean any material, substance or waste that is or has the characteristic of being hazardous, toxic, explosive, radioactive or corrosive, including, without limitation, petroleum, solvents, lead, acids, pesticides, paints, PCBs, asbestos, materials commonly known to cause cancer or reproductive harm and those materials, substances and/or wastes, including wastes which are or later become regulated by any local governmental authority, the state in which the Premises are located or the 9 United States Government, including, but not limited to, substances defined as “hazardous substances,” “hazardous materials,” “toxic substances” or “hazardous wastes” in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §9601, et seq.; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. §1801, et seq.; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; all environmental laws of the state where the Premises are located, and any other environmental law, regulation or ordinance now existing or hereinafter enacted. “Hazardous Materials Laws” shall mean all present and future federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, prudent industry practices, requirements of governmental entities and manufacturer’s instructions relating to industrial hygiene, environmental protection or the use, analysis, generation, manufacture, storage, presence, disposal or transportation of any Hazardous Materials, including without limitation the laws, regulations and ordinances referred to in the preceding sentence. 9.2 Environmental Indemnity. Tenant shall indemnify and hold Landlord harmless from any and all costs, claims, judgments, including Landlord’s reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs, relating to the storage, placement or use of Hazardous Materials by Tenant on or about the Premises. Tenant shall reimburse Landlord for (i) all costs of cleaning up or other alterations to the Premises necessitated by Tenant’s use, storage or disposal of Hazardous Materials at the Premises; and (ii) any diminution in the fair market value of the Premises caused by Tenant’s use, storage or disposal of Hazardous Materials in the Premises. Landlord shall indemnify and hold Tenant harmless from any and all costs, claims, judgments, losses, demands, causes of action, proceedings or hearings, including Tenant’s reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs, relating to the storage, placement or use of Hazardous Materials or underground tanks existing on or about the Premises placed there by Landlord or which existed before the commencement of this Lease Term. The obligations of Tenant and Landlord under this Section 9.2 shall survive the expiration of the Lease Term. 10. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Tenant may at any time, and from time to time, sublease all or any portion of the Premises without first obtaining the consent of Landlord. Landlord acknowledges that as of the Lease Date identified in the Basic Lease Information, there are various subleases entered into by Tenant under the Original Lease. Unless explicitly agreed to in writing by Landlord, no assignment or subleasing of all or any portion of the Premises shall release or discharge Tenant of or from any of its obligations hereunder. 11. INDEMNITY AND WAIVER OF CLAIMS. 11.1 Tenant Indemnification. Tenant shall indemnify, defend and hold Landlord harmless against and from all liabilities, obligations, damages, penalties, claims, actions, costs, charges, judgment and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements) (collectively referred to as “Losses”), arising from (a) the use of, or any activity done, permitted or suffered in or about the Premises by Tenant, (b) any activity done, permitted or suffered by Tenant or Tenant’s agents, contractors, invitees or licensees in or about the Premises, (c) any act, neglect, fault, willful misconduct of Tenant or Tenant’s agents, or (d) from any breach or default in the terms of this Lease by Tenant or Tenant’s agents, except to the extent such claims arise out of or relate to the actions or omissions of Landlord. If any action or proceeding is brought 10 against Landlord by reason of any such claim, upon notice from Landlord, Tenant shall defend the same at Tenant’s expense. 11.2 Landlord Indemnification. Landlord shall indemnify, defend and hold Tenant and Tenant-related parties harmless against and from all Losses arising from any use of, or any activity done, permitted or suffered by Landlord or Landlord’s agents, contractors, invitees or licensees in or about the Premises. If any action or proceeding is brought against Tenant by reason of any such claim, upon notice from Tenant, Landlord shall defend the same at Landlord’s expense by counsel. 11.3 Survival/No Impairment. The obligations of Tenant and Landlord under this Article 11 shall survive any termination or expiration of this Lease. The foregoing indemnity obligations shall not relieve any insurance carrier of its obligations under any policies carried by either party, to the extent that such policies cover the peril or exposure that result in the claims that are subject to the foregoing indemnity. 12. INSURANCE. 12.1 Tenant’s Insurance. (a) Damage Liability. Tenant shall maintain in full force throughout the Term, commercial general liability insurance providing coverage on an occurrence form basis with limits of not less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) each occurrence for bodily injury and property damage combined, covering bodily injury and property damage liability. Said insurance obligations may be satisfied by Tenant’s insurance policy or policies, Tenant’s self-insurance, or Tenant’s participation in a pooling program with applicable coverage, or any combination thereof. (b) Personal Property Insurance. Tenant shall maintain in full force and effect on the improvements located on the Premises and its personal property, furniture, furnishings, trade fixtures and equipment from time to time located in, on or upon the Premises in an amount not less than one hundred percent (100%) of their full replacement value from time to time during the Term, providing protection against all perils, included within the standard form of “all-risk” (i.e., “Special Cause of Loss”) fire and casualty insurance policy. Landlord shall have no interest in the insurance upon Tenant’s property or Alterations and will sign all documents reasonably necessary in connection with the settlement of any claims or loss by Tenant. Said insurance obligations may be satisfied by Tenant’s insurance policy or policies, Tenant’s self- insurance, or Tenant’s participation in a pooling program with applicable coverage, or any combination thereof. 12.2 Certificates of Insurance. Upon execution of this Lease by Tenant, and not less than thirty (30) days prior to expiration of any policy thereafter, Tenant shall furnish to Landlord a certificate of insurance reflecting that the insurance required by this Article is in force, accompanied by an endorsement(s) showing the required additional insureds satisfactory to Landlord in substance and form, or other reasonable evidence of compliance with this Article 12. 11 13. DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION. 13.1 Repair Obligations. In the event of damage or destruction to the improvements on the Premises from any cause other than the negligence of Landlord, Tenant shall, at its sole cost and expense, whether or not any such casualty is covered by insurance, either promptly repair or rebuild the same so as to make said damaged improvements as nearly similar to in character and quality as the improvements existed immediately prior to such casualty. Alternatively, in the event of damage or destruction materially interferes with Tenant’s use and enjoyment of the Premises, Tenant my terminate this Lease by the giving of not less than thirty (30) days written notice to Landlord, and assigning to Landlord all insurance proceeds for the repair or replacement of the Premises. 13.2 Abatement of Rent. In the event of damage or destruction to the Premises not caused by the negligence of Tenant or any subtenant, the Rent payable by Tenant for the period required for the repair, remediation or restoration of such damage shall be abated in proportion to the degree to which Tenant’s use of the Premises is impaired, and such abatement shall be Tenant’s sole remedy for such impairment of use. All other obligations of Tenant hereunder shall be performed by Tenant. 14. CONDEMNATION. If the whole or if any material part of the Premises is taken or condemned for any public or quasi-public use under either state or federal law, by eminent domain or purchase in lieu thereof (a “Taking”), and (a) such Taking renders the Premises unsuitable, in Tenant’s reasonable opinion, for the purposes for which they were leased; or (b) the Premises cannot be repaired, restored or replaced at reasonable expense to an economically profitable unit, then Tenant may, at its option, terminate this Lease as of the date possession vests in the condemning party. If twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the Premises is taken and if the Premises remaining after such Taking would be untenantable (in Tenant’s reasonable opinion) for the conduct of Tenant’s business operations, Tenant shall have the right to terminate this Lease as of the date possession vests in the condemning party. The termination shall be effective as of the effective date of any order granting possession to, or vesting legal title in, the condemning authority. If this Lease is not terminated, Base Rent shall be appropriately adjusted to account for any reduction in the square footage of the Premises. Landlord shall be entitled to any and all compensation, damages, income, rent, awards or any interest thereon which may be paid or made in connection with any such Taking, and Tenant shall be entitled to receive a pro-rata portion of any award for the value of Tenant’s fixture, equipment and personal property (specifically excluding components of the Premises which under this Lease or by law are or at the expiration of the Term will become the property of Landlord, including, without limitation, fixtures and Alterations). 15. DEFAULT. 15.1 Events of Default. The occurrence of any of the following shall constitute a “Default” by Tenant: 12 (a) Tenant fails to make any payment of Rent when due, if payment in full is not received by Landlord within twenty five (25) days after written notice that it is past due. (b) Tenant fails to perform or comply with any provision of this Lease and does not fully cure such failure within ninety (90) days after notice to Tenant or, if such failure cannot be cured within such ninety (90) day period, Tenant fails within such period to commence, and thereafter diligently proceed with, all actions necessary to cure such failure as soon as reasonably possible. 15.2 Remedies. Upon the occurrence of any Default under this Lease, whether enumerated in Section 15.1 or not, Landlord shall have the option to pursue any remedy provided by law, including: (a) Terminate this Lease and Tenant’s right to possession of the Premises; (b) Employ the remedy described in California Civil Code § 1951.4 (Landlord may continue this Lease in effect after Tenant’s breach and abandonment and recover Rent as it becomes due, if Tenant has the right to sublet or assign, subject only to reasonable limitations); or (c) Notwithstanding Landlord’s exercise of the remedy described in California Civil Code § 1951.4 in respect of an event or events of Default, at such time thereafter as Landlord may elect in writing, to terminate this Lease and Tenant’s right to possession of the Premises and recover an award of damages as provided above. 15.3 No Waiver. The subsequent acceptance of Rent hereunder by Landlord shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach by Tenant of any term, covenant or condition of this Lease, other than the failure of Tenant to pay the particular Rent so accepted, regardless of Landlord’s knowledge of such preceding breach at the time of acceptance of such Rent. No waiver by Landlord of any breach hereof shall be effective unless such waiver is in writing and signed by Landlord. 15.4 Landlord’s Breach. If Landlord fails to perform any obligations, covenants, agreements or provisions contained herein to be observed or performed by Landlord for a period of twenty-five (25) days after written notice thereof from Tenant, the Landlord shall be deemed to be in default hereunder, and Tenant may take whatever action, at law or at equity, may appear necessary or desirable to enforce the observance or performance of such obligations, covenants, agreements or provisions including termination of this Lease. 16. SURRENDER OF PREMISES. At the termination of this Lease or Tenant’s right of possession, Tenant shall remove Tenant’s property including any furniture, fixtures, equipment installed by or for the benefit of Tenant from the Premises, and quit and surrender the Premises to Landlord in substantially the same condition as of the Commencement Date of this Lease Term, ordinary wear and tear and damage which Landlord is obligated to repair hereunder excepted. Landlord may, by notice to Tenant not less than ninety (90) nor more than One Hundred Eighty (180) days prior to the Expiration Date require Tenant, at Tenant’s expense, remove any Alterations and repair any 13 damage caused by such removal. If Tenant fails to remove any of Tenant’s property, or to restore the Premises to the required condition, Landlord, at Tenant’s sole cost and expense, shall be entitled (but not obligated) to remove and store Tenant’s property and/or perform such restoration of the Premises. Landlord shall not be responsible for the value, preservation or safekeeping of Tenant’s property. Tenant shall pay Landlord, upon demand, the expenses and storage charges incurred. If Tenant fails to remove Tenant’s property from the Premises or storage, within sixty (60) days after notice, Landlord may deem all or any part of Tenant’s property to be abandoned and, at Landlord’s option, title to Tenant’s property shall vest in Landlord or Landlord may dispose of Tenant’s property in any manner Landlord deems appropriate. 17. HOLDING OVER. If Tenant fails to surrender all or any part of the Premises at the termination of this Lease, occupancy of the Premises after termination shall be that of a month to month tenancy. Tenant’s occupancy shall be subject to all the terms and provisions of this Lease and Tenant shall pay an amount (on a pro-rata per month basis) equal to the amount of the Base Rent due for the period immediately preceding the holdover. 18. NOTICE. All notices shall be in writing and delivered by hand or sent by registered, express, or certified mail, with return receipt requested or with delivery confirmation requested from the U.S. postal service, or sent by overnight or same day courier service at the party’s respective Notice Address(es) set forth in the Basic Lease Information (“Notice Address”). Each notice shall be deemed to have been received on the earlier to occur of actual delivery or the date on which delivery is refused, or, if Tenant has vacated the Premises or any other Notice Address of Tenant without providing a new Notice Address, three (3) days after notice is deposited in the U.S. mail or with a courier service in the manner described above. Either party may, at any time, change its Notice Address (other than to a post office box address) by giving the other party written notice of the new address. 19. EARLY TERMINATION BY TENANT. 19.1 Debt Limitation. In the event the Palo Alto City Council does not appropriate funds for payment of the Rent due under this Lease in any year, this Lease shall terminate upon 120-day written notice thereof. 19.2 Gann Limit. Tenant may terminate this Lease in any fiscal year in which Tenant is not authorized by the Palo Alto Electorate to exceed the expenditure limitation imposed by the California Constitution in any other State or Federal legislative act, commencing with the fiscal year 2020-2021. In that event, Tenant may terminate this Lease upon the giving of six (6) months written notice which must be given within thirty (30) days of an unsuccessful election seeking such authorization. 19.3 Restriction on Taxing Power. If State or Federal law is enacted, an initiative measure passed or a court decision rendered which reduces the City’s general fund revenue or restricts the City’s authority to collect or levy general fund taxes which the City has the right to 14 collect or levy as of the Commencement Date of this Lease, the City may terminate this Lease in whole or in part as hereinafter set forth, by giving six (6) months prior written notice to Landlord after such law, measure or decision becomes effective; provided, however, there shall be no right of termination unless the effect of such law, measure or decision is to reduce the City’s general fund revenue or taxing authority by one million, five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000.00) from the previous fiscal year. 20. RESERVED. 21. Reserved. 22. MISCELLANEOUS. 22.1 Governing Law. This Lease shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the Laws of the State of California and Landlord and Tenant hereby irrevocably consent to the jurisdiction and proper venue of such state. 22.2 Severability. If any section, term or provision of this Lease is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, all other sections, terms or severable provisions of this Lease shall not be affected thereby, but shall remain in full force and effect. 22.3 Attorneys’ Fees. In the event of an action, suit, arbitration or proceeding brought by Landlord or Tenant to enforce any of the other’s covenants and agreements in this Lease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the non-prevailing party any costs, expenses (including out of pocket costs and expenses) and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with such action, suit or proceeding. 22.4 Force Majeure. Whenever a period of time is prescribed for the taking of an action by Landlord or Tenant (other than the payment of Rent), the period of time for the performance of such action shall be extended by the number of days that the performance is actually delayed due to strikes, acts of God, shortages of labor or materials, war, terrorist acts, pandemics, civil disturbances, extreme weather and other causes beyond the reasonable control of the performing party (“Force Majeure”). 22.5 Brokers. Landlord and Tenant each represents and warrants to the other that neither it nor its officers or agents nor anyone acting on its behalf has dealt with any real estate broker in the negotiating or making of this Lease. Each party agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other from any claim or claims, and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred by the indemnified party in conjunction with any such claim or claims of any broker or brokers to a commission in connection with this Lease as a result of the actions of the indemnifying party. 22.6 Access by Landlord. In addition to access provided by this Lease, Landlord shall be allowed access to the Premises at all reasonable times throughout the term of this Lease, for any reasonable purpose upon prior written notice to Tenant. Landlord shall give Tenant a minimum of one (1) business day’s prior notice of an intention to enter the Premises, unless the entry is reasonably required on an emergency basis for safety, environmental, operations or security purposes. 15 22.7 Waiver of Right to Jury Trial. Landlord and Tenant agree to make good faith efforts to resolve any dispute. If dispute cannot be resolved, Landlord and Tenant may assert their respective rights to a trial by jury of any contract or tort claim, counter claim, cross-complaint, or cause of action in any action, proceeding, or hearing brought by either party against the other on any matter arising out of or in any way connected with this Lease, the relationship of Landlord and Tenant, or Tenant’s use or occupancy of the Premises, including without limitation any claim of injury or damage or the enforcement of any remedy under any current or future law, statute, regulation, code, or ordinance. 22.8 Article and Section Titles. The Article and Section titles used herein are not to be consider a substantive part of this Lease, but merely descriptive aids to identify the paragraph to which they referred. Use of the masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter, and vice versa. 22.9 Quiet Possession. Landlord covenants and agrees with Tenant that, upon Tenant’s payment of Rent and observing and performing all of the terms, covenants, conditions, provisions and agreements of this Lease on Tenant’s part to be observed or performed, Tenant shall have the quiet possession of the Premises throughout the Term. 22.10 Asbestos Notification for Commercial Property Constructed Before 1979. Tenant acknowledges that Landlord has advised Tenant that, because of their age, certain improvements may contain asbestos-containing materials (“ACMs”). If Tenant undertakes any Alterations as may be permitted herein, Tenant shall undertake the Alterations in a manner that avoids disturbing ACMs present in the Premises. If ACMs are likely to be disturbed in the course of such work, Tenant shall encapsulate or remove the ACMs in accordance with an approved asbestos-removal plan and otherwise in accordance with all applicable Environmental Laws, including giving all notices required by California Health & Safety Code Sections 25915-25919.7. In the event that money becomes available from the State of California for the cleanup or abatement of asbestos, Landlord shall use good faith efforts to obtain a share of such funds to be applied to any asbestos remediation work at the Premises. Any such money thus obtained by Landlord shall be assigned by Landlord to Tenant for the purpose of asbestos abatement. 22.11 Lead Warning Statement. Tenant acknowledges that Landlord has advised Tenant that buildings built before 1978 may contain lead-based paints (“LBP”). Lead from paint, paint chips and dust can pose health hazards if not managed properly. 22.12 Certified Access Specialist Disclosure. In accordance with Civil Code Section 1938, Landlord hereby discloses that the Premises have not undergone inspection by a Certified Access Specialist for purposes of determining whether the property has or does not meet all applicable construction related accessibility standards pursuant to Civil Code Section 55.53. A Certified Access Specialist (CASp) can inspect the subject premises and determine whether the subject premises comply with all of the applicable construction-related accessibility standards under state law. Although state law does not require a CASp inspection of the subject premises, the commercial property owner or lessor may not prohibit the lessee or tenant from obtaining a CASp inspection of the subject premises for the occupancy or potential occupancy of the lessee or tenant, if requested by the lessee or tenant. The parties shall mutually agree on the arrangements for the time and manner of the CASp inspection, the payment of the fee for the 16 CASp inspection, and the cost of making any repairs necessary to correct violations of construction-related accessibility standards within the Premises. The forgoing notwithstanding, the parties agree that Tenant shall be solely responsible for the payment of all fees for the CASp inspection and for any repairs it deems necessary to correct violations of construction-related accessibility standards within the Premises as a result of the CASp inspection. 22.13 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Lease and each and all of its provisions. 22.14 Entire Agreement. This Lease contains all of the agreements of the parties hereto with respect to any matter covered or mentioned in this Lease, and no prior agreements or understandings pertaining to any such matter shall be effective for any purpose. No provision of this Lease may be amended or added except by an agreement in writing signed by the parties hereto or their respective successors-in-interest. 22.15 Counterparts. This Lease may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which, together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. 17 Landlord and Tenant have executed this Lease as of the day and year first above written. LANDLORD: Palo Alto Unified School District By: _____________________________ Name: _____________________________ Title: _____________________________ Date: _____________________________ TENANT: City of Palo Alto By: _____________________________ Name: _____________________________ Title: _____________________________ Date: _____________________________ Approved as to Form By: _____________________________ ATTEST __________________________________ Approved as to Form By: _____________________________ City Attorney Date: _____________________________ 18 EXHIBIT A PROPERTY OUTLINED IN RED FOPAL Tennis Courts Soccer/Football/Rugby Field Running Track FOPAL P K7 K6 K5 K4 K3 K2 1J1K J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 L1 H6 H5FH F V U M4 M2 D1 D2A2D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 B2 B3 B4 B5 C5 C4 C3 C2 B6 B7 C6 C7 H2 H1 3H 4H L3 L4 6L5L MIDDLEFIELD ROAD Theatre Pavilion G4 G6 GymAGymB M7 2 M1 M3 1J J3 J4 J5 J2I T1 T2* S Cubberley Community Center 4000 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Tel. 650.329.2418 Fax 650.856.8756 www.cityofpaloalto.org cubberley@cityofpaloalto.org Map Legend Office Hours: Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:30pm Accessible Parking Restrooms School JMZ E G7 Softball 3 Softball 4 Softball 2 Softball 1 Soccer 1Soccer 2 North G8 ( EXHIBIT B PREMISES PAUSD space used by City Indoor area*  (including addl  spaces)65,046            Room G5 1,656              Room G8 490                 Gym A 5,500              Gym B 7,200              Theater only 7,800              N + Pavilion 17,500            S 5,700              Auditorium (JMZ) 13,200            Maintenance* 2,000              Boiler Room**‐                  FOPAL* (near track) 4,000              Total City Use 65,046            58.81% *Estimated sq ft, confirmation pending  **Boiler room included in Common Areas EXHIBIT C SPACE USED BY CITY (IN SQ. FT.) PAUSD space used by PAUSD Indoor area 45,554                 A 5,300                   B 5,300                   G4, G6, G7 13,354                 I (two levels) 13,000                 M2, M3, M4 5,000                   Q 3,600                   Total PAUSD Use 45,554                 41.19% EXHIBIT D SPACE USED BY PAUSD (IN SQ. FT.) DRAFT 1 LEASE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (LANDLORD) AND THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (TENANT) FOR EXTENDED DAY CARE SPACES This Lease ("Lease") dated _______________, for reference purposes only, is made and entered into by and between the Palo Alto Unified School District (''District") and the City of Palo Alto ("City"), a municipal corporation. 1.0 DEFINITIONS AND PREVIOUS AGREEMENTS 1.1 Definitions 1.1.1 City. The term "City" means the City of Palo Alto, a charter city and municipal corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of California. 1.1.2 District. The term "District" means the, Palo Alto Unified School District, a unified school district organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of California. 1.1.3 District Purposes. The term “District purposes” means that District’s using a Site for any District purpose, including but not limited to classrooms, administrative offices, and training centers for District personnel, but not for the purpose, either direct or indirect, of selling the Site or any other District school site or leasing that Site or any other District school site for non-district uses. 1.1.4 Reserved 1.1.5 Reserved 1.1.6 Reserved 1.1.7 Reserved 1.1.8 Reserved 1.1.9 Reserved 1.1.10 Reserved 1.1.11 Reserved 1.1.12 Reserved DRAFT 2 1.1.13 Extended Day Care. Extended Day Care means 1) childcare services provided during the school year to grade school students for the periods a) 6:30 am and the scheduled start of school and b) the earliest scheduled end of school and·6:30 pm Monday through Friday. 2) childcare services provided on non-school days from 6:30 am to 6:30 pm Monday through Friday, or as City deems appropriate. 1.1.14 Extended Day Care Spaces. Extended Day Care Spaces means those spaces identified in Exhibit A where Extended Day Care is intended to occur as detailed in this Lease. 1.2 Reserved 1.2.1 Reserved 1.2.2 Reserved 2.0 PAYMENT 2.1 Reserved 2.2 Reserved 2.3 Payment for Extended Day Care Spaces. As consideration for use of the Extended Day Care Spaces, City shall pay monthly to District the rent and utilities amounts listed in Exhibit A. All payments to District by City shall be payable monthly commencing on July 1, 2020. 2.4 Covenant to Budget and Appropriate. Subject to Section 6.5.1(a), City covenants to take such action as may be necessary to include Lease payments due hereunder in its annual budget and annually to appropriate an amount necessary to make such Lease payments. 2.5 Manner of Payment. District shall annually invoice the City for the monthly payments to be made to the District during the following year provided, however; the failure of the District to provide City with such invoice shall not relieve the City of its responsibility to make full and appropriate payments to District. Payment shall be payable in lawful money of the United States to the order of the District at 25 Churchill Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306, Attention: Business Manager, or such other place as the City and the District shall mutually agree. City's obligation to make payments for any partial month shall be prorated on the basis of a thirty (30) day month. 2.6 Late Payment Charge. If any installment of payment or any other sum due from City is not received by District within fifteen (15) days after the due date, City shall pay to District an additional sum equal to a half percent (1/2%) of the amount overdue for each month the payment is delinquent. 2.7 Reserved 2.7.1 Reserved 2.7.2 Reserved DRAFT 3 2.7.3 Reserved 2.7.4 Reserved 2.7.5 Reserved 3.0 Cubberley Lease - Reserved 3.1 Reserved 3.1.1 Reserved 3.1.1 – 3.1.6 3.2 Reserved 3.2.1 Reserved 3.3 Toxic Materials 3.3.1 ''Toxic Materials" for the purposes of this Lease are defined as any hazardous, toxic, or radioactive materials, including, but not limited to those materials identified in Sections 66680 and 66685 of Title 22 of the California Administrative Code, Division 4, Chapter 30, as amended from time to time. 3.3.2 Reserved 3.3.3 In the event of an emergency, City may act without District approval to cure or eliminate any dangerous condition which may give rise to a claim against the City. An emergency shall be defined as an unforeseen combination of circumstances or resulting state that calls for immediate action. 3.3.4 Reserved 3.3.5 Reserved 3.3.6 In the event that money has become available from the State of California for the cleanup of asbestos, District shall attempt in good faith to obtain a share of such funds to be applied to necessary cleanup work at the Extended Day Care Spaces. 3.4 Reserved 3.4.1 Reserved 3.4.2 Reserved 3.4.3 Reserved 3.4.4 Reserved 3.5 Reserved 3.5.1 Reserved 3.5.2 Reserved DRAFT 4 3.5.3 Reserved 3.5.4 Reserved 3.6 Reserved 3.7 Reserved 3.7.1 Reserved 3.7.2 Reserved 3.7.3 Reserved 3.8 Reserved 3.8.1 Reserved 3.8.2 Reserved 3.9 Reserved 3.9.1 Reserved 3.9.2 Reserved 3.10 Reserved 3.11 Reserved 3.11.1 Reserved 3.11.2 Reserved 3.12 Reserved 3.12.1 Reserved 3.12.2 Reserved 3.12.3 Reserved 3.12.4 Reserved 3.13 Reserved 3.14 Reserved 3.14.1 Reserved 3.14.2 Reserved 4.0 Reserved 4.1 Reserved 4.2 Reserved 5.0 EXTENDED DAY CARE SPACES 5.1 Space Provided 5.1.1 During the term of this agreement, District agrees to provide and City agrees to accept twelve (12) spaces at various elementary school sites to be used for the purpose of providing City-operated extended day child care services. Said sites are listed on Exhibit A. Additional child care spaces may be added in the event District opens additional elementary school sites. 5.1.2 District may, with the agreement of City, consolidate two child care spaces at one site. In no event shall more than three such consolidations occur. DRAFT 5 It is understood the District shall bear the cost of transporting students in the event of such consolidation of spaces and City shall still compensate District for each and every space pursuant to Sections 2.3 and 5.1.1. 5.1.3 District may, with the agreement of City, substitute a portable for conventional classroom space. 5.1.4 In the event City and District cannot agree on the issue of consolidation contained in Section 5.1.2 or on the issue of substitution contained in Section 5.1.3 the matter shall be resolved by a three member arbitration panel. City and District shall each promptly appoint their representative to the panel and the two representatives shall select the third panel member. The decision of the panel shall be final and binding on both parties. 5.1.5 The space provided shall include appropriate access to designated rest rooms and other ancillary facilities such as playground equipment where appropriate, and shall be available to City 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 5.1.6 The space provided shall meet appropriate State standards for at least twenty-five students and shall have all utility connections in place except for telephone. Specifically, the rooms shall have shelving and closets in place, however no furniture, toys or other equipment shall be provided by District. 5.1.7 Portables and conventional classroom space provided shall also conform to State standards for toxic materials as defined in Section 3.3.1. District shall be responsible for compliance with the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act and any other State or Federal regulations, existing or subsequently enacted, relating to asbestos conditions for the extended day care space provided. 5.2 City Responsibilities 5.2.1 If City determines, at its sole discretion, to operate an extended day child care program in the spaces provided by District, it shall be the sole responsibility of the City to provide such services in the District designated spaces to persons desiring such services. The hours for such services shall be as set forth in Section 1.1.13. 5.2.2 City shall bear cost of utilities to the space including telephone. Unless separate meters are provided, the cost shall be prorated on a square footage basis (square footage of City space to total square footage of buildings on entire Site). 5.2.3 City shall, at City's own expense, provide for minor maintenance to the space including but not necessarily limited to: electrical (ex. ballasts and switches), plumbing fixtures (ex. leaky faucets and pipes), wall and floor coverings and windows. 5.2.4 City shall, at City's own expense, provide for custodial services. DRAFT 6 5.2.5 City shall be responsible for security of the leased space at all times and security of the rest rooms outside the customary hours of school operation. Security shall mean locking all windows and doors and turning off lights. 5.3 District Responsibilities 5.3.1 District shall maintain fire and extended coverage insurance on the structures housing the child care programs with limits of full replacement value. In the event of damage or destruction to the premises, District shall promptly restore the premises to their pre- existing condition. 5.3.2 District, at District's own expense, shall be responsible for major maintenance to the child care premises including roof, sewer and electrical hook-ups, heating, and air-conditioning and removal of toxic material where applicable. 5.4 Delay in Delivery of Possession If the District, for any reason whatsoever, cannot deliver possession of twelve spaces to City on the commencement date, this agreement shall not be void or voidable, nor shall District be liable to City for any loss or damage resulting therefrom. In such event, City shall be relieved of its obligation to pay for a child care space in the amount equivalent to the unit value of each space not delivered. The unit value of one child care space is as listed in Exhibit A. 5.5 Hold Harmless 5.5.1 District shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all costs, claims, judgments, losses, demands, causes of action, proceedings or hearings, including City's attorneys' fees and court costs, relating to the storage, placement or use of Toxic Materials on or about the space or spaces for extended day care, whether or not the parties are aware of the existence of or any such use of Toxic Materials. District shall pro rata reduce rent and reimburse City for all costs of clean-up required by law or other alterations to the spaces necessitated by District's use, storage or disposal of Toxic Materials. If not required by law to so clean up a space or spaces, City shall have the right to terminate the Lease as to the specific space or spaces upon thirty (30) days notice and the Lease payment shall be adjusted accordingly. The obligations of District under this Section 5.5.1 shall survive the expiration of the Lease term. "Toxic Materials" shall have the same meaning as in Section 3.3.1 of this Lease. 5.5.2 City shall indemnify and hold District harmless from any and all costs, claims, judgments, including District's attorneys' fees and court costs, relating to the storage, placement or use of Toxic Materials by City on or about the space or spaces for extended day care. City shall reimburse District for (i) all costs of cleanup or other alterations to the space or spaces for extended day care necessitated by City's use, storage, or disposal of Toxic Materials; and (ii) any diminution in the fair market value of the space or spaces for extended day care caused by City's use, storage, or disposal of Toxic Materials. The obligations of City under this Section 5.5.2 shall survive the expiration of the Lease term. DRAFT 7 5.5.3 City shall indemnify, defend and hold District harmless from any liability or expense on account of suits, verdicts, judgments, costs or claims of any nature or kind arising out of, or in any way connected with. City's and any sublessees', or assignees' operations on, possession, use, management, improvement, alteration or control of the Extended Day Care Spaces except for any claims or liability, or portions thereof, arising from the sole negligence of District, its officers, employees or agents, and except for the liability borne by District as set forth in Section 5.5.1. 5.5.4 In addition to the liability borne by District as set forth in Section 5.5.1, District shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any liability or expense on account of suits, verdicts, judgments, costs or claims of any nature or kind arising out of, or in any way connected with, District's and/or any sublessees' or assignees' other than City, operations on, possession, use, management, improvement, alteration or control of the Extended Day Care Spaces except for any claims or liability, or portions thereof, arising from the sole negligence of City, its officers, employees, agents, sublessees or assignees. 5.6 Assignment and Sublease The City, with the written consent of the District, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, may at any time and from time to time pledge, assign, or otherwise transfer this Lease or any interest of the City herein. City without the consent of the District may at any time and from time to time sublease the Extended Day Care Spaces or any improvements thereon any part thereof. The City shall at all times remain liable for the performance of the covenants and conditions on its part to be performed hereunder notwithstanding any such assigning, transferring or subletting which may be made. Any sublease, assignment or transfer shall be coterminous in every aspect with this lease. Any transfer, assignment or encumbrance of this Lease or the Extended Day Care Spaces, in whole or in part, which is contrary to or not provided for in this Section 5.6 is void. 6.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS 6.1 Term 6.1.1 The term of this Lease shall commence on July 1, 2020 (the “Commencement Date”) and end on June 30, 2021 (the “Expiration Date”), unless sooner terminated or extended pursuant to the provisions hereof. 6.1.2 Reserved 6.1.3 Reserved 6.1.4 Reserved 6.2 Breach 6.2.1 If the City shall fail to pay any payment payable hereunder when the same becomes due and payable, or the City shall fail to keep or perform any other material term covenant Commented [ST1]: This language is copied from section 3.11 but updated to say “Extended Day Care Spaces” instead of “Leased site” (which refers to Cubberley). DRAFT 8 or condition contained herein to be kept or performed by the City for a period of 25 days after written notice thereof from the District, the City shall be deemed to be in default hereunder and the District, in addition to all other rights and remedies it may have at law, shall have the option to do any of the following: (a) To terminate this Lease in the manner hereinafter provided on account of default by the City, notwithstanding any re-entry or re-letting of the Extended Day Care space as hereinafter provided for in subparagraph (b) hereof, and to re-enter the Extended Day Care space and remove all persons in possession thereof and all personal property whatsoever situated upon the Extended Day Care space. In the event of such termination, the City agrees to surrender immediately possession of the Extended Day Care space, without hindrance, and to pay the District all damages recoverable by law that the District may incur by reason of default by the City. (b) Without terminating this lease, (i) to collect each installment of payment as it becomes due and enforce any other material term, covenant or condition contained herein to be kept or performed by the City which failure to keep or perform by the City would have a material adverse effect on the interests of the District under this Lease or (ii) to exercise any and all rights of entry and re-entry upon the Extended Day Care space. In the event the District does not elect to terminate this lease in the manner provided for in subparagraph (a) hereof, the City shall remain liable and agrees to keep or perform all terms, covenants and conditions herein contained to be kept or performed by the City and, if the Extended Day Care space is not re-let, to pay the full amount of the payment to the end of the term of this Lease or, in the event that the Extended Day Care space is re-let, to pay any deficiency in payment that results therefrom; and further agrees to make said payment and/or payment deficiency punctually at the same time and in the same manner as hereinabove provided, and if the District receives payments therefrom in any payment period in excess of the payment provided for in Section 2.0 hereof for such period, the District shall pay such excess (after expenses incurred in connection with such re-letting) to the City on the last day of said payment period. Should the District elect to re-enter as herein provided, the City hereby irrevocably appoints the District as the agent and attorney-in-fact of the City to re-let Extended Day Care space, or any part thereof, from time to time, either in the District’s name or otherwise, upon such terms and conditions and for such use and period as the District may deed advisable and remove all persons in possession thereof and all personal property whatsoever situated upon the Extended Day Care space. The City agrees that the terms of this Lease constitute full and sufficient notice of the right of the District to re-let the Extended Day Care space in the event of such re-entry without effecting a surrender of this Lease, and further agrees that no acts of the District in effecting such re-letting shall constitute a surrender or termination of this Lease irrespective of the use of the term for which such re-letting is made or the terms and conditions of such re-letting, or otherwise, but that, on the contrary, in the event of such default by the City, the right to terminate this Lease shall vest in the District to be effected in the sole and exclusive manner provided for in subparagraph (a) hereof. Each and all of the remedies given to the District hereunder or by any law now existing or hereafter enacted are cumulative, and the exercise of any one right or remedy shall not impair the right of the District to any or all other remedies. DRAFT 9 6.2.2 In the event that City shall default in the performance of any of the agreements, conditions, covenants or terms herein contained, which event of default remains uncured after notice given as herein provided, District may immediately, or at any time thereafter, perform the same for the account of the City, and any amount paid, or any expense or liability incurred, but the District in the performance of the same shall be repaid to the District, in addition to base payments by the City within 30 days after demand hereunder together with interest from the date, the cost of expenses incurred at an amount equal to the lesser of 12 percent per annum or the maximum lawful rate of interest then in effect under the laws of the State of California; and the District shall have the right to enter (by force or otherwise) the Extended Day Care space for the purpose of correcting or remedying such default and to remain therein until the same shall have been corrected or remedied. No performance by the District of any of the obligations on City’s part to be performed hereunder shall be, or be deemed to be, a waiver of the City’s default in or failure to perform the same, nor shall the performance thereof by District release of relieve City from any obligations on its part to the performed under this Lease. 6.2.3 If the District shall fail to keep or perform any obligation, covenant, agreement or provision contained herein to be observed or performed by the District for a period of 25 days after written notice thereof from the City, the District shall be deemed to be in default hereunder, and the City may take whatever action, at law or in equity, may appear necessary or desirable to enforce the observance or performance of any such obligation, covenant, agreement or provision including termination of this Lease. 6.2.4 In the event of a breach, or threatened breach, by either party of any of the agreements, conditions, covenants, or terms herein, the other party shall have the right of injunction to restrain the same, and the right to invoke any remedy allowed by law, or inequity, as if specific remedies, indemnity or reimbursements were not herein provided for. All rights and remedies herein given to either party shall be cumulative to each other and to any other legal or equitable remedy or right which the party might otherwise have in the event of any breach by the other party. 6.3 Surrender and Title to Property 6.3.1 On the last day of the term of this Lease, or any sooner termination, City shall surrender the Extended Day Care space to the district, in reasonably the same condition as City received the Extended Day Care space, ordinary wear and tear and any permitted approved and lawful changes, alterations, additions and improvements thereto excepted, except as otherwise required by Section 3.5.2. City, upon the expiration or sooner termination of this Lease, shall repair any damage to the Extended Day Care space occasioned by the removal of City’s fixtures, furnishings, equipment and other personal property. All of City’s property which is removable pursuant to the provisions on this Lease shall be removed by City on or before the last day of the term of the earlier termination of this Lease, and all property not so removed shall be deemed abandoned by City, and District shall have the right either to require City to remove said property from the land or dispose of the property pursuant to Section 6.5.3 as set forth below. DRAFT 10 6.3.2 Title to the Extended Day Care space shall remain the District during the term of this Lease. All improvements placed upon the Extended Day Care space by City at City’s expense shall be and remain the property of City for and during the term of this Lease. Upon expiration or sooner termination of this Lease, such improvements shall belong to and become the property of District, free from any rights, claims and liens of City or a person, agency, political subdivision, firm or corporation claiming under City, without any compensation therefore from District to City or to any other person, agency, political subdivision, firm or corporation, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties at the time the improvement is made. At the expiration or sooner termination of this Lease, such improvements shall be surrendered to District, excepting that movable furniture, personal property and trade fixtures may be removed by City at or before the expiration or sooner termination of this Lease, provided, however, that the removal of any of the property so excepted will not structurally injure the improvements or necessitate any changes or alterations in the improvements or render the improvements or any part thereof unfit for use and occupancy. City shall pay the cost of restoration of, or repairing any damage to, the Extended Day Care space arising from the removal of the property so excepted. 6.4 Naylor Bill Allocations. Nothing in this lease shall be deemed to expand, diminish, waive or otherwise limit the applicability of the Naylor Bill to applicable portions of the Extended Day Care Spaces, if any, including the obligation of the City to maintain the property, for recreational open space purposes and the right of the District to re-acquire said property pursuant to Education Code Section 39398 or its successor legislation. In the event the provisions of the Naylor Bill terminate, the applicability of “Naylor” to portions of the applicable spaces, if any, ceases. 6.5 Termination. In addition to the rights of termination for breach found in Section 6.2, this Lease may be terminated as set forth in Sections 6.5.1 and 6.5.2. 6.5.1 City Termination (a) Debt Limitation. In the event the Council of the City does not appropriate funds for payment of the payments due under this Lease in any year, this Lease shall terminate upon 90 days written notice. (b) Gann Limit. The City may terminate this Lease in any fiscal year in which the City is not authorized by the Palo Alto electorate to exceed the expenditure limitation imposed by the California Constitution and any other State or Federal legislative act. In that event, the City may terminate this Lease upon six (6) months written notice which must be given within 30 days of an unsuccessful election seeking such authorization. (c) Restriction on Taxing Power. If State or Federal law is enacted, an initiative measure passed or a court decision rendered which reduces the City’s general fund revenue or restricts the City’s authority to collect or levy general fund taxes which the City has the right to collect or levy as of the Commencement Date of this lease, the City may terminate this Lease, in whole or in part as hereafter set forth, by giving six (6) months written notice to District, after such law, measure or decision becomes effective; provided, however, there shall be no right DRAFT 11 of termination unless the effect of such law, measure or decision is to reduce the City’s general fund revenue or taxing authority by $1,500,000 in comparison with the previous fiscal year. The amount set forth in this Section shall be adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index on the commencement anniversary date of the Lease in the manner set forth in Section 2.7 hereof. 6.5.2 District Termination. The District may terminate this Lease in part on the following conditions: (a) Reserved. (b) Reserved. (c) Reduction in Payment. If the District partially terminates this lease with regard to an Extended Day Care Space under Section 6.5.3, the Payment Due under this lease shall be reduced according to the proportion of payment allocated to such space as set forth in Exhibit A. 6.5.3 Surrender Upon Termination. Upon occurrence of any termination event, this Lease will terminate, or partially terminate as set forth herein, and all City’s rights, title and interest in the Extended Day Care Spaces shall terminate. City shall surrender and vacate the said spaces in reasonably the same condition as City received them, reasonable wear and tear excepted,. District shall have the right to re-enter and take possession of said spaces and remove all persons therefrom and remove City’s property and place that property in storage in a public warehouse, or store the same elsewhere, all at the expense of City, or sell the same as provided by law for the purpose of recovering any money due and unpaid hereunder by City to District, including District’s storage costs. Upon termination of this Lease, District shall have the right to recover from City all damages caused by any breach hereof by City, together with any payment due hereunder and unpaid, including all reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs which may be incurred in recovering possession of said spaces and in collecting such damages or such payments. 6.5.4 Future Development. Upon the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease, the District shall be free to sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of the spaces which are the subject of this Lease. However, it is understood by the parties that (a) the District shall have all the same rights and obligations with respect to the development of the spaces as any other developer, and (b) the City shall have the same rights and responsibilities as it would normally have in reviewing and considering any development project that would come before it. 6.5.5 Inconsistencies with Other Agreements. If any provision regarding termination set forth in Section 6.5 hereof is inconsistent with any provision regarding termination set forth in any other agreement between City and District regarding spaces subject to this Lease, the provision in this Lease shall prevail. 6.6 Notices. Any demand or notice which either party shall be required, or may desire, to make upon or give to the other, shall be in writing and shall be delivered personally upon DRAFT 12 the other, or sent by prepaid registered or certified mail addressed to the respective parties as follows: DISTRICT: Palo Alto Unified School District 25 Churchill Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 Attention: Superintendent of Schools CITY: City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attention: Manager, Real Property Notice sent by registered or certified mail in accordance with this Section shall be deemed delivered 72 hours from the date of mailing. 6.7 Attorneys’ Fees. If any action or proceeding at law in equity, or an arbitration proceeding, shall be brought to enforce or interpret any of the terms, covenants or conditions of this Lease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party its reasonable attorneys’ fees. “Prevailing party” within the meaning of this paragraph shall include, without limitation, a party who brings an action against the other after the other is in breach or default, if such an action is dismissed upon the other’s payment of the sums allegedly due for performance of the covenants allegedly breached, or if the party commencing such action or proceeding obtains substantially the relief sought by it in such action, whether or not such action proceeds to a final judgment or determination. 6.8 Holding Over. This Lease shall terminate without further notice at the expiration of the Lease term. Any holding over on the Extended Day Care Spaces after expiration of the Lease term, with the express written consent of District, shall be construed to be a tenancy from month to month, at a monthly rental of the last applicable base payment, and shall otherwise by on the terms and conditions herein specified. 6.9 Validity and Severability. If for any reason any portion of this Lease shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void, voidable, or unenforceable by the District or by the City, or if for any reason it is held by such a court that any of the covenants and conditions of the City or District hereunder, including the covenant to make payments hereunder, is unenforceable for the full term hereof, then and in such event, this Lease is and shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year under which the rentals are to be paid by the City annually in consideration of the right of the City to possess, occupy and use the Extended Day Care space, and all other terms, provision and conditions of this Lease, except to the extent that such terms, provisions and conditions are contrary to or inconsistent with such holding, shall remain in full force and effect. 6.10 Waiver. The waiver by either party hereto of any breach by the other party of any agreement, covenant or condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of DRAFT 13 the same or any other agreement, covenant or condition hereof. The receipt by District of any payments with knowledge of any default on the part of City in the observance or performance of any of the provisions of this Lease shall not be deemed to be a waiver of the provisions of this Lease. 6.11 Successors and Assigns. This lease shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the District, the City and their respective successors and assigns, subject to the provisions of Section 5.6. 6.12 Agreement Represents Complete Agreement. This Lease represents the entire contract between the parties and supersedes and cancels any and all previous leases, negotiations, arrangements, representations, agreements and understandings between the District and the City concerning the Sites and matters covered hereby. 6.13 Law Governing. This lease shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 6.14 Changes in State Law. In the event that changes in state law occur whereby the district is not permitted, in whole or in part, to retain payments due it from any source, other than the City, because of provisions of this lease, District shall promptly notify City, and District and City agree to renegotiate terms of this Lease. Such negotiations shall be directed to assuring that payments due under this Lease will not directly or indirectly replace, or stand in lieu of, payments due District from any other source. 6.15 Amendment. No amendment to this Lease shall be made except in writing and executed by both the District and the City. 6.16 Reserved. In witness whereof, the District and the City have caused this Lease to be executed by their respective officers as of the day and year first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF PALO ALTO, Lessee: ______________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Lessor DRAFT 14 ______________________________ ______________________________ City Attorney or Designee President, Board of Education APPROVED: APPROVED: ______________________________ ______________________________ City Manager Superintendent of Schools ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A – Extended Day Care Spaces and Monthly Rent and Utilities Amounts DRAFT 15 Exhibit A Extended Day Care Spaces and Monthly Rent and Utilities Amounts CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6/15/2020 [X] Placed Before Meeting [ ] Received at Meeting MEMORANDUM To: CITY COUNCIL Agenda Date: 6/15/2020 ID # 11386 Subject: Cubberley and Extended Day Care Lease Agreements Attached to this memorandum is a copy of the Cubberley lease that has been signed by the Landlord and the final version of the Extended Day Care Lease with Exhibit A that has been approved by the Landlord and replaces the draft version that was inserted as Attachment B in City Manager Report ID # 11386, Item # 9, on the June 15, 2020 City Council Agenda, Cubberley and Extended Day Care Lease Agreements. The Expiration Date in the final version of the Extended Day Care Lease is June 30, 2022 instead of June 30, 2021. Therefore, the portion of the “Discussion” Section of the memorandum discussing Term should read: “July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021 2022” The City will work with the Landlord to revise the lease, as the Q Building is incorrectly included in Exhibit D as space used by the Landlord. The Q Building is the modular building that is used by FOPAL and is part of the City’s leased premises as outlined in Exhibit B of the lease. Staff will return to Council at a later date with an amendment to correct the error. DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER: DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 LEASE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AS LANDLORD and CITY OF PALO ALTO, A CALIFORNIA CHARTERED MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AS TENANT DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.DEMISE. ...............................................................................................................................6 2. PREMISES. ............................................................................................................................6 2.1 Premises ...................................................................................................................6 2.2 Possession ................................................................................................................6 2.3 Termination of Original Lease .................................................................................6 3. TERM ...................................................................................................................................7 4. RENT. ...................................................................................................................................7 4.1 Base Rent .................................................................................................................7 4.2 Additional Rent ........................................................................................................7 5. TAXES. .................................................................................................................................7 5.1 Reserved ...................................................................................................................7 5.2 Taxes ........................................................................................................................7 5.3 Nonuse Payments .....................................................................................................8 6. UTILITIES .............................................................................................................................8 7. ALTERATIONS. .....................................................................................................................8 7.1 Tenant Alterations ....................................................................................................8 7.2 Liens .........................................................................................................................8 8. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF PREMISES. ........................................................................9 8.1 Maintenance and Repair by Tenant .........................................................................9 8.2 Maintenance and Repair by Landlord ......................................................................9 9. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROVISIONS.....................................................................9 9.1 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................9 9.2 Environmental Indemnity ......................................................................................10 10. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. .......................................................................................10 11. INDEMNITY AND WAIVER OF CLAIMS. .............................................................................10 11.1 Tenant Indemnification ..........................................................................................10 11.2 Landlord Indemnification ......................................................................................11 11.3 Survival/No Impairment ........................................................................................11 12. INSURANCE. .......................................................................................................................11 12.1 Tenant’s Insurance .................................................................................................11 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) PAGE 12.2 Certificates of Insurance ........................................................................................11 13. DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION. .............................................................................................12 13.1 Repair Obligations .................................................................................................12 13.2 Abatement of Rent .................................................................................................12 14. CONDEMNATION. ...............................................................................................................12 15. DEFAULT. ...........................................................................................................................12 15.1 Events of Default ...................................................................................................12 15.2 Remedies ................................................................................................................13 15.3 No Waiver ..............................................................................................................13 15.4 Landlord’s Breach ..................................................................................................13 16. SURRENDER OF PREMISES. ................................................................................................13 17. HOLDING OVER. ................................................................................................................14 18. NOTICE. .............................................................................................................................14 19. EARLY TERMINATION BY TENANT. ..................................................................................14 19.1 Debt Limitation ......................................................................................................14 19.2 Gann Limit .............................................................................................................14 19.3 Restriction on Taxing Power .................................................................................14 20. RESERVED ..........................................................................................................................15 21. RESERVED ..........................................................................................................................15 22. MISCELLANEOUS. ..............................................................................................................15 22.1 Governing Law ......................................................................................................15 22.2 Severability ............................................................................................................15 22.3 Attorneys’ Fees ......................................................................................................15 22.4 Force Majeure ........................................................................................................15 22.5 Brokers ...................................................................................................................15 22.6 Access by Landlord................................................................................................15 22.7 Waiver of Right to Jury Trial .................................................................................16 22.8 Article and Section Titles.......................................................................................16 22.9 Quiet Possession ....................................................................................................16 22.10 Asbestos Notification for Commercial Property Constructed Before 1979 ..........16 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) PAGE 22.11 Lead Warning Statement........................................................................................16 22.12 Certified Access Specialist Disclosure ..................................................................16 22.13 Time of the Essence ...............................................................................................17 22.14 Entire Agreement ...................................................................................................17 22.15 Counterparts ...........................................................................................................17 INDEX OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A Property B Premises C Space Used by City D Space Used by PAUSD 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 LEASE AGREEMENT BASIC LEASE INFORMATION Lease Date: Dated as of [Insert date in DocuSign] for reference purposes only Landlord: Palo Alto Unified School District Landlord’s Address: Palo Alto Unified School District 25 Churchill Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 Attn: Superintendent of Schools Tenant: City of Palo Alto Tenant’s Address: City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Manager, Real Property Property: The 27.48-acre Cubberley School consisting of approximately 15.94 acres of outdoor recreational area and an additional 11.54 acres of land improved with walkways, a parking lot, and 104,600 square feet of buildings, as depicted in Exhibit A (“Property”). Usable Area: Approximately 807,486 square feet of area consisting of 15.94 acres (694,346 square feet) of outdoor recreational area and 104,600 square feet of buildings (“Usable Area”). Premises: A portion of the Usable Area consisting of the theater, pavilion, Gym A, Gym B, Rooms G5 and G8, JMZ (Junior Museum and Zoo), S Building, fields, and all other areas marked as Leased by City in Exhibit B, containing approximately 65,046 rentable square feet of building area and 15.94 acres of outdoor recreational area, located in the City of Palo Alto and more particularly described and depicted in Exhibit B (“Premises”). It is understood that such acreage and square footage figures are only approximate and have not been precisely determined. Length of Term: 54 months Commencement Date: July 1, 2020 Expiration Date: December 31, 2024 Extension Option: None 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 Monthly Base Rent: $208,333.33 per month for use of the theater, pavilion, Gym A, Gym B, Rooms G5 and G8, and fields $13,790.00 per month for use of the JMZ (Junior Museum and Zoo) $5,650.00 per month for use of the S Building Tenant’s Share: 58.81%, as reasonably adjusted for changes in the physical size of the Premises, Usable Area, or the Property occurring thereafter (“Tenant’s Share”) See breakdown of calculation in Exhibit C. Landlord’s Share: 41.19%, as reasonably adjusted for changes in the physical size of the Premises, Usable Area, or the Property occurring thereafter (“Landlord’s Share”) See breakdown of calculation in Exhibit D. Security Deposit: $0 Permitted Use: Any use permitted by law Brokers: None 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 LEASE AGREEMENT THIS LEASE AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (“Landlord” or “District”) and CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“Tenant” or “City”). The Basic Lease Information, the Exhibits and this Lease Agreement are and shall be construed as a single instrument and are referred to herein as the “Lease”. 1. DEMISE. In consideration for the rents and all other charges and payments payable by Tenant, and for the agreements, terms and conditions to be performed by Tenant in this Lease, Landlord does hereby lease to Tenant and Tenant does hereby hire and take from Landlord, the Premises described below, upon the agreements, terms and conditions of this Lease for the Term hereinafter stated. 2. PREMISES. 2.1 Premises. The Premises demised by this Lease are as specified in the Basic Lease Information. The Premises have the address and contain the square footage specified in the Basic Lease Information; provided, however, that any statement of square footage set forth in this Lease is an approximation which Landlord and Tenant agree is reasonable and no economic terms based thereon shall be subject to revision whether or not the actual square footage is more or less. Tenant shall have the right to reduce the Premises by surrendering the JMZ and/or S Building back to Landlord upon 30 days written notice. City intends to surrender the JMZ Building to Landlord after completion of a new museum building (that is not located on the Property) and moving to that new building. The portion of the Property including, but not limited to, parking, walkways, restrooms, and other portions of the Property which are non-exclusive are collectively referred to herein as the “Common Areas”. Tenant shall have the non-exclusive right during the Term to use the Common Areas along with others having the right to use the Common Areas. 2.2 Possession. Tenant accepts the Premises in its current condition and configuration without any representations or warranties by Landlord, and subject to all matters of record and all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. Tenant acknowledges that it is currently in possession and has been in possession of the Property under that certain Lease and Covenant Not to Develop, dated September 1, 1989, as amended by that certain Amendment No. 1, dated July 21, 1998, and as further amended by that certain Amendment No. 2, dated August 13, 2002, and , and as further amended by that certain Amendment No. 3, dated as of January 1, 2015 (collectively the “Original Lease”). 2.3 Termination of Original Lease. As of the Lease Commencement Date identified in the Basic Lease Information above, the Original Lease shall be deemed terminated and, except for such obligations which expressly survive termination, the parties shall have no further rights or obligations thereunder. Tenant’s right of continued occupancy of the Premises shall thereafter be solely pursuant to the terms of this Lease. 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 3. TERM. The term of this Lease (“Term”) shall be for the period specified in the Basic Lease Information, commencing on the Commencement Date (“Commencement Date”). This Lease shall terminate at midnight on December 31, 2024 (“Expiration Date”), unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided. 4. Rent. 4.1 Base Rent. (a) Generally. From and after the Commencement Date, Tenant shall pay to Landlord, in advance of the first day of each calendar month, without any setoff or deduction and without further notice or demand, the monthly installments of rent specified in the Basic Lease Information (“Base Rent”). If the Commencement Date should be on a date other than the first day of a calendar month, the Monthly Base Rent installment paid for any fractional month during the Term shall be prorated based upon a thirty (30) day calendar month. If Tenant exercises its right to reduce the Premises, Base Rent shall be reduced by $13,790.00 per month if the JMZ Building is surrendered and $5,650.00 per month if the S Building is surrendered. 4.2 Additional Rent. As used in this Lease, the term “Additional Rent” shall mean all sums of money, other than Base Rent, that are due and payable by Tenant under the terms of this Lease. The term “Rent,” as used herein, shall mean all Base Rent, Additional Rent and all other amounts payable hereunder from Tenant to Landlord. Unless otherwise specified herein, all items of Rent other than Base Rent shall be due and payable by Tenant on or before the date that is thirty (30) days after billing by Landlord. 5. TAXES. 5.1 Reserved. 5.2 Taxes. Tenant shall reimburse to Landlord as Additional Rent Tenant’s Share of all Taxes as herein defined within thirty (30) days after receipt of an invoice and proof of payment from Landlord. Payments for any fractional period shall be prorated. For purposes of this Section 5.2, the term “Taxes” shall mean all taxes, assessments, fees, impositions, assessments and charges levied (if at all) upon or with respect to the Premises, personal property of Landlord used in the operation of the Premises or Landlord’s interest in the Premises. Taxes shall include, without limitation and whether now existing or hereafter enacted or imposed, all general real property taxes, all general and special bonds and assessments, all charges, fees and levies for or with respect to transit, housing, police, fire, flood control, infrastructure, or other governmental or quasi-governmental services or purported benefits to or burdens attributable to the Premises, that are now or hereafter levied or assessed against Landlord or the Premises by the United States of America, the State of California, the City of Palo Alto, or any other political or public entity, and shall also include any other tax, fee or other excise, however described, that may now or hereafter be levied or assessed as a substitute for, or as an addition to, in whole or in part, any other Taxes, whether or not now customary or in the contemplation of the parties on the date of this Lease. Taxes shall not include any increase as the result of any transfer of Premises. Tenant shall pay any taxes levied or assessed against personal property or trade fixtures placed by Tenant in or about the Premises during the Term. The interest created by this Lease may at 7 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 some time be subject to property taxation under the laws of the State of California. If property taxes are imposed, the party in whom the possessory interest is vested may be subject to the payment of the taxes levied on such interest. This notice is included in this Lease pursuant to the requirements of section 107.6 (a) of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California. 5.3 Nonuse Payments. In the event any nonuse payments or taxes are levied against the Premises, or any portion thereof, in accordance with any section of the California Education Code, Landlord shall initially be responsible for the payment of any such non-use payments or taxes. Landlord may invoice Tenant for 75% of the non-use payment or taxes paid. Said invoice to Tenant shall be accompanied by proof of payment by Landlord. Tenant shall thereafter reimburse the paying party within thirty (30) days after receipt of said invoice and proof of payment. 6. UTILITIES. Tenant shall contract directly with the providers of, and shall pay all charges for water, sewer, storm water, gas, electricity, and refuse collection to be furnished to the Property, together with all related installation or connection charges or deposits (“Utilities”). If any such Utilities are not separately metered or billed to Tenant for the Premises but rather are billed to and paid by Landlord, Tenant shall reimburse Landlord, as Additional Rent, its pro rata share of the cost of such services, within thirty (30) days after receipt of Landlord’s proof of payment of the same. If any Utilities are not separately metered, Landlord shall have right to determine Tenant’s consumption by either submetering, survey, or other methods designed to measure consumption with reasonable accuracy. 7. ALTERATIONS. 7.1 Tenant Alterations. Tenant may make any alterations, improvements, additions or structural changes, exclusive of any maintenance or repair obligations of Tenant under Section 8.1 (each an “Alteration”) of whatever nature it deems necessary for its free use and enjoyment of the Premises without Landlord approval. The foregoing notwithstanding, for any Alterations for which the estimated cost will exceed Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00), Tenant shall be required to provide Landlord with written notice thereof not less than thirty (30) days prior to commencing work. Said notice shall include plans and specifications depicting the Alterations and, upon completion, Tenant shall furnish Landlord with a set of “as built” plans for the Alterations. Any Alterations shall be at Tenant’s sole cost and expense, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing by Landlord. Alternations shall be made in compliance with all applicable laws. In the event any such Alterations are subject to the Field Act, Ed. Code, §§39140-39159, 39210-39232, 81130-81147, it shall be the sole responsibility of Tenant to obtain such permits or approvals from the Department of General Services as may be required for any such Alterations. Landlord agrees to reasonably cooperate with Tenant in securing any such approvals. 7.2 Liens. Tenant shall pay when due all claims for labor or materials furnished Tenant for use in the Premises. Tenant shall not permit any mechanic liens, stop notices, or any other liens against the Premises, or any of Tenant’s interests under this Lease for any labor or materials furnished to Tenant in connection with work performed on or about the Premises by or at the direction of Tenant. Tenant shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend Landlord from any liens and encumbrances arising out of any work performed or materials furnished by or at the 8 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 direction of Tenant. In the event that Tenant does not, within ninety (90) days following the imposition of any such lien or stop notice, cause such lien or stop notice to be released of record by payment or posting of a proper bond, or otherwise Landlord shall have, in addition to all other remedies provided herein or by law, the right, but not the obligation, to cause the same to be released by such means as it may deem proper, including payment of the claim giving rise to such lien. All such sums paid by Landlord and expenses reasonably incurred in connection therewith, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, shall be payable to Landlord by Tenant within thirty (30) days of Tenant’s receipt of an invoice from Landlord, which invoice shall document all such sums paid. 8. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF PREMISES. 8.1 Maintenance and Repair by Tenant. Tenant shall maintain the Property in substantially the same condition as of the Commencement Date of this Lease Term, subject to Landlord reimbursement at the following rates: Landlord’s reimbursement rate for Common Areas will be at the rate of Landlord’s share, as detailed in Basic Lease Information. Areas of the Property that are not the Premises or Common Areas will be at the rate of 100%. Landlord shall reimburse Tenant within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice from Tenant. Tenant’s repair and maintenance obligations include, without limitation, repairs to: all interior and exterior work and Common Areas on the Property, and all janitorial, pest control, plumbing, fire sprinkler, sewage, heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, roof repair and replacement, electrical and lighting facilities, irrigation systems, fences, landscaping, litter collection and removal. Tenant shall further, at its own costs and expense, repair or restore any damage or injury to all or any part of the Property caused by Tenant or Tenant’s agents, employees, invitees, licensees, visitors or contractors, including but not limited to repairs or replacements necessitated by (i) the construction or installation of Alterations to the Premises by or on behalf of Tenant; (ii) the moving of any property into or out of the Premises; or Tenant’s use and occupancy of the Premises. In the event that any law, regulation or mandate requires the expenditure in excess of $250,000 to bring the Property into compliance the parties shall negotiate in good faith a cost sharing agreement as between Landlord and Tenant for any amount in excess of $250,000. If no agreement is reached after ninety (90) days from the commencement of negotiations, the parties agree to resolve the matter through the option available in Section 22.7 of this Lease. 8.2 Maintenance and Repair by Landlord. Landlord shall, at its own cost and expense, perform maintenance or repair of the Property when necessitated by the negligence or willful misconduct of Landlord, and with respect to the remediation of any Hazardous Materials (as defined herein below) that existed on, about or under the Property as of the commencement of the term under the Original Lease. 9. Environmental Protection Provisions. 9.1 Hazardous Materials. “Hazardous Materials” shall mean any material, substance or waste that is or has the characteristic of being hazardous, toxic, explosive, radioactive or corrosive, including, without limitation, petroleum, solvents, lead, acids, pesticides, paints, PCBs, asbestos, materials commonly known to cause cancer or reproductive harm and those materials, substances and/or wastes, including wastes which are or later become regulated by any local governmental authority, the state in which the Premises are located or the 9 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 United States Government, including, but not limited to, substances defined as “hazardous substances,” “hazardous materials,” “toxic substances” or “hazardous wastes” in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §9601, et seq.; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. §1801, et seq.; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; all environmental laws of the state where the Premises are located, and any other environmental law, regulation or ordinance now existing or hereinafter enacted. “Hazardous Materials Laws” shall mean all present and future federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, prudent industry practices, requirements of governmental entities and manufacturer’s instructions relating to industrial hygiene, environmental protection or the use, analysis, generation, manufacture, storage, presence, disposal or transportation of any Hazardous Materials, including without limitation the laws, regulations and ordinances referred to in the preceding sentence. 9.2 Environmental Indemnity. Tenant shall indemnify and hold Landlord harmless from any and all costs, claims, judgments, including Landlord’s reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs, relating to the storage, placement or use of Hazardous Materials by Tenant on or about the Premises. Tenant shall reimburse Landlord for (i) all costs of cleaning up or other alterations to the Premises necessitated by Tenant’s use, storage or disposal of Hazardous Materials at the Premises; and (ii) any diminution in the fair market value of the Premises caused by Tenant’s use, storage or disposal of Hazardous Materials in the Premises. Landlord shall indemnify and hold Tenant harmless from any and all costs, claims, judgments, losses, demands, causes of action, proceedings or hearings, including Tenant’s reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs, relating to the storage, placement or use of Hazardous Materials or underground tanks existing on or about the Premises placed there by Landlord or which existed before the commencement of this Lease Term. The obligations of Tenant and Landlord under this Section 9.2 shall survive the expiration of the Lease Term. 10. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Tenant may at any time, and from time to time, sublease all or any portion of the Premises without first obtaining the consent of Landlord. Landlord acknowledges that as of the Lease Date identified in the Basic Lease Information, there are various subleases entered into by Tenant under the Original Lease. Unless explicitly agreed to in writing by Landlord, no assignment or subleasing of all or any portion of the Premises shall release or discharge Tenant of or from any of its obligations hereunder. 11. INDEMNITY AND WAIVER OF CLAIMS. 11.1 Tenant Indemnification. Tenant shall indemnify, defend and hold Landlord harmless against and from all liabilities, obligations, damages, penalties, claims, actions, costs, charges, judgment and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements) (collectively referred to as “Losses”), arising from (a) the use of, or any activity done, permitted or suffered in or about the Premises by Tenant, (b) any activity done, permitted or suffered by Tenant or Tenant’s agents, contractors, invitees or licensees in or about the Premises, (c) any act, neglect, fault, willful misconduct of Tenant or Tenant’s agents, or (d) from any breach or default in the terms of this Lease by Tenant or Tenant’s agents, except to the extent such claims arise out of or relate to the actions or omissions of Landlord. If any action or proceeding is brought 10 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 against Landlord by reason of any such claim, upon notice from Landlord, Tenant shall defend the same at Tenant’s expense. 11.2 Landlord Indemnification. Landlord shall indemnify, defend and hold Tenant and Tenant-related parties harmless against and from all Losses arising from any use of, or any activity done, permitted or suffered by Landlord or Landlord’s agents, contractors, invitees or licensees in or about the Premises. If any action or proceeding is brought against Tenant by reason of any such claim, upon notice from Tenant, Landlord shall defend the same at Landlord’s expense by counsel. 11.3 Survival/No Impairment. The obligations of Tenant and Landlord under this Article 11 shall survive any termination or expiration of this Lease. The foregoing indemnity obligations shall not relieve any insurance carrier of its obligations under any policies carried by either party, to the extent that such policies cover the peril or exposure that result in the claims that are subject to the foregoing indemnity. 12. INSURANCE. 12.1 Tenant’s Insurance. (a) Damage Liability. Tenant shall maintain in full force throughout the Term, commercial general liability insurance providing coverage on an occurrence form basis with limits of not less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) each occurrence for bodily injury and property damage combined, covering bodily injury and property damage liability. Said insurance obligations may be satisfied by Tenant’s insurance policy or policies, Tenant’s self-insurance, or Tenant’s participation in a pooling program with applicable coverage, or any combination thereof. (b) Personal Property Insurance. Tenant shall maintain in full force and effect on the improvements located on the Premises and its personal property, furniture, furnishings, trade fixtures and equipment from time to time located in, on or upon the Premises in an amount not less than one hundred percent (100%) of their full replacement value from time to time during the Term, providing protection against all perils, included within the standard form of “all-risk” (i.e., “Special Cause of Loss”) fire and casualty insurance policy. Landlord shall have no interest in the insurance upon Tenant’s property or Alterations and will sign all documents reasonably necessary in connection with the settlement of any claims or loss by Tenant. Said insurance obligations may be satisfied by Tenant’s insurance policy or policies, Tenant’s self- insurance, or Tenant’s participation in a pooling program with applicable coverage, or any combination thereof. 12.2 Certificates of Insurance. Upon execution of this Lease by Tenant, and not less than thirty (30) days prior to expiration of any policy thereafter, Tenant shall furnish to Landlord a certificate of insurance reflecting that the insurance required by this Article is in force, accompanied by an endorsement(s) showing the required additional insureds satisfactory to Landlord in substance and form, or other reasonable evidence of compliance with this Article 12. 11 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 13. DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION. 13.1 Repair Obligations. In the event of damage or destruction to the improvements on the Premises from any cause other than the negligence of Landlord, Tenant shall, at its sole cost and expense, whether or not any such casualty is covered by insurance, either promptly repair or rebuild the same so as to make said damaged improvements as nearly similar to in character and quality as the improvements existed immediately prior to such casualty. Alternatively, in the event of damage or destruction materially interferes with Tenant’s use and enjoyment of the Premises, Tenant my terminate this Lease by the giving of not less than thirty (30) days written notice to Landlord, and assigning to Landlord all insurance proceeds for the repair or replacement of the Premises. 13.2 Abatement of Rent. In the event of damage or destruction to the Premises not caused by the negligence of Tenant or any subtenant, the Rent payable by Tenant for the period required for the repair, remediation or restoration of such damage shall be abated in proportion to the degree to which Tenant’s use of the Premises is impaired, and such abatement shall be Tenant’s sole remedy for such impairment of use. All other obligations of Tenant hereunder shall be performed by Tenant. 14. CONDEMNATION. If the whole or if any material part of the Premises is taken or condemned for any public or quasi-public use under either state or federal law, by eminent domain or purchase in lieu thereof (a “Taking”), and (a) such Taking renders the Premises unsuitable, in Tenant’s reasonable opinion, for the purposes for which they were leased; or (b) the Premises cannot be repaired, restored or replaced at reasonable expense to an economically profitable unit, then Tenant may, at its option, terminate this Lease as of the date possession vests in the condemning party. If twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the Premises is taken and if the Premises remaining after such Taking would be untenantable (in Tenant’s reasonable opinion) for the conduct of Tenant’s business operations, Tenant shall have the right to terminate this Lease as of the date possession vests in the condemning party. The termination shall be effective as of the effective date of any order granting possession to, or vesting legal title in, the condemning authority. If this Lease is not terminated, Base Rent shall be appropriately adjusted to account for any reduction in the square footage of the Premises. Landlord shall be entitled to any and all compensation, damages, income, rent, awards or any interest thereon which may be paid or made in connection with any such Taking, and Tenant shall be entitled to receive a pro-rata portion of any award for the value of Tenant’s fixture, equipment and personal property (specifically excluding components of the Premises which under this Lease or by law are or at the expiration of the Term will become the property of Landlord, including, without limitation, fixtures and Alterations). 15. DEFAULT. 15.1 Events of Default. The occurrence of any of the following shall constitute a “Default” by Tenant: 12 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 (a) Tenant fails to make any payment of Rent when due, if payment in full is not received by Landlord within twenty five (25) days after written notice that it is past due. (b) Tenant fails to perform or comply with any provision of this Lease and does not fully cure such failure within ninety (90) days after notice to Tenant or, if such failure cannot be cured within such ninety (90) day period, Tenant fails within such period to commence, and thereafter diligently proceed with, all actions necessary to cure such failure as soon as reasonably possible. 15.2 Remedies. Upon the occurrence of any Default under this Lease, whether enumerated in Section 15.1 or not, Landlord shall have the option to pursue any remedy provided by law, including: (a) Terminate this Lease and Tenant’s right to possession of the Premises; (b) Employ the remedy described in California Civil Code § 1951.4 (Landlord may continue this Lease in effect after Tenant’s breach and abandonment and recover Rent as it becomes due, if Tenant has the right to sublet or assign, subject only to reasonable limitations); or (c) Notwithstanding Landlord’s exercise of the remedy described in California Civil Code § 1951.4 in respect of an event or events of Default, at such time thereafter as Landlord may elect in writing, to terminate this Lease and Tenant’s right to possession of the Premises and recover an award of damages as provided above. 15.3 No Waiver. The subsequent acceptance of Rent hereunder by Landlord shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach by Tenant of any term, covenant or condition of this Lease, other than the failure of Tenant to pay the particular Rent so accepted, regardless of Landlord’s knowledge of such preceding breach at the time of acceptance of such Rent. No waiver by Landlord of any breach hereof shall be effective unless such waiver is in writing and signed by Landlord. 15.4 Landlord’s Breach. If Landlord fails to perform any obligations, covenants, agreements or provisions contained herein to be observed or performed by Landlord for a period of twenty-five (25) days after written notice thereof from Tenant, the Landlord shall be deemed to be in default hereunder, and Tenant may take whatever action, at law or at equity, may appear necessary or desirable to enforce the observance or performance of such obligations, covenants, agreements or provisions including termination of this Lease. 16. SURRENDER OF PREMISES. At the termination of this Lease or Tenant’s right of possession, Tenant shall remove Tenant’s property including any furniture, fixtures, equipment installed by or for the benefit of Tenant from the Premises, and quit and surrender the Premises to Landlord in substantially the same condition as of the Commencement Date of this Lease Term, ordinary wear and tear and damage which Landlord is obligated to repair hereunder excepted. Landlord may, by notice to Tenant not less than ninety (90) nor more than One Hundred Eighty (180) days prior to the Expiration Date require Tenant, at Tenant’s expense, remove any Alterations and repair any 13 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 damage caused by such removal. If Tenant fails to remove any of Tenant’s property, or to restore the Premises to the required condition, Landlord, at Tenant’s sole cost and expense, shall be entitled (but not obligated) to remove and store Tenant’s property and/or perform such restoration of the Premises. Landlord shall not be responsible for the value, preservation or safekeeping of Tenant’s property. Tenant shall pay Landlord, upon demand, the expenses and storage charges incurred. If Tenant fails to remove Tenant’s property from the Premises or storage, within sixty (60) days after notice, Landlord may deem all or any part of Tenant’s property to be abandoned and, at Landlord’s option, title to Tenant’s property shall vest in Landlord or Landlord may dispose of Tenant’s property in any manner Landlord deems appropriate. 17. HOLDING OVER. If Tenant fails to surrender all or any part of the Premises at the termination of this Lease, occupancy of the Premises after termination shall be that of a month to month tenancy. Tenant’s occupancy shall be subject to all the terms and provisions of this Lease and Tenant shall pay an amount (on a pro-rata per month basis) equal to the amount of the Base Rent due for the period immediately preceding the holdover. 18. NOTICE. All notices shall be in writing and delivered by hand or sent by registered, express, or certified mail, with return receipt requested or with delivery confirmation requested from the U.S. postal service, or sent by overnight or same day courier service at the party’s respective Notice Address(es) set forth in the Basic Lease Information (“Notice Address”). Each notice shall be deemed to have been received on the earlier to occur of actual delivery or the date on which delivery is refused, or, if Tenant has vacated the Premises or any other Notice Address of Tenant without providing a new Notice Address, three (3) days after notice is deposited in the U.S. mail or with a courier service in the manner described above. Either party may, at any time, change its Notice Address (other than to a post office box address) by giving the other party written notice of the new address. 19. EARLY TERMINATION BY TENANT. 19.1 Debt Limitation. In the event the Palo Alto City Council does not appropriate funds for payment of the Rent due under this Lease in any year, this Lease shall terminate upon 120-day written notice thereof. 19.2 Gann Limit. Tenant may terminate this Lease in any fiscal year in which Tenant is not authorized by the Palo Alto Electorate to exceed the expenditure limitation imposed by the California Constitution in any other State or Federal legislative act, commencing with the fiscal year 2020-2021. In that event, Tenant may terminate this Lease upon the giving of six (6) months written notice which must be given within thirty (30) days of an unsuccessful election seeking such authorization. 19.3 Restriction on Taxing Power. If State or Federal law is enacted, an initiative measure passed or a court decision rendered which reduces the City’s general fund revenue or restricts the City’s authority to collect or levy general fund taxes which the City has the right to 14 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 collect or levy as of the Commencement Date of this Lease, the City may terminate this Lease in whole or in part as hereinafter set forth, by giving six (6) months prior written notice to Landlord after such law, measure or decision becomes effective; provided, however, there shall be no right of termination unless the effect of such law, measure or decision is to reduce the City’s general fund revenue or taxing authority by one million, five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000.00) from the previous fiscal year. 20. RESERVED. 21. Reserved. 22. MISCELLANEOUS. 22.1 Governing Law. This Lease shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the Laws of the State of California and Landlord and Tenant hereby irrevocably consent to the jurisdiction and proper venue of such state. 22.2 Severability. If any section, term or provision of this Lease is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, all other sections, terms or severable provisions of this Lease shall not be affected thereby, but shall remain in full force and effect. 22.3 Attorneys’ Fees. In the event of an action, suit, arbitration or proceeding brought by Landlord or Tenant to enforce any of the other’s covenants and agreements in this Lease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the non-prevailing party any costs, expenses (including out of pocket costs and expenses) and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with such action, suit or proceeding. 22.4 Force Majeure. Whenever a period of time is prescribed for the taking of an action by Landlord or Tenant (other than the payment of Rent), the period of time for the performance of such action shall be extended by the number of days that the performance is actually delayed due to strikes, acts of God, shortages of labor or materials, war, terrorist acts, pandemics, civil disturbances, extreme weather and other causes beyond the reasonable control of the performing party (“Force Majeure”). 22.5 Brokers. Landlord and Tenant each represents and warrants to the other that neither it nor its officers or agents nor anyone acting on its behalf has dealt with any real estate broker in the negotiating or making of this Lease. Each party agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other from any claim or claims, and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred by the indemnified party in conjunction with any such claim or claims of any broker or brokers to a commission in connection with this Lease as a result of the actions of the indemnifying party. 22.6 Access by Landlord. In addition to access provided by this Lease, Landlord shall be allowed access to the Premises at all reasonable times throughout the term of this Lease, for any reasonable purpose upon prior written notice to Tenant. Landlord shall give Tenant a minimum of one (1) business day’s prior notice of an intention to enter the Premises, unless the entry is reasonably required on an emergency basis for safety, environmental, operations or security purposes. 15 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 22.7 Waiver of Right to Jury Trial. Landlord and Tenant agree to make good faith efforts to resolve any dispute. If dispute cannot be resolved, Landlord and Tenant may assert their respective rights to a trial by jury of any contract or tort claim, counter claim, cross-complaint, or cause of action in any action, proceeding, or hearing brought by either party against the other on any matter arising out of or in any way connected with this Lease, the relationship of Landlord and Tenant, or Tenant’s use or occupancy of the Premises, including without limitation any claim of injury or damage or the enforcement of any remedy under any current or future law, statute, regulation, code, or ordinance. 22.8 Article and Section Titles. The Article and Section titles used herein are not to be consider a substantive part of this Lease, but merely descriptive aids to identify the paragraph to which they referred. Use of the masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter, and vice versa. 22.9 Quiet Possession. Landlord covenants and agrees with Tenant that, upon Tenant’s payment of Rent and observing and performing all of the terms, covenants, conditions, provisions and agreements of this Lease on Tenant’s part to be observed or performed, Tenant shall have the quiet possession of the Premises throughout the Term. 22.10 Asbestos Notification for Commercial Property Constructed Before 1979. Tenant acknowledges that Landlord has advised Tenant that, because of their age, certain improvements may contain asbestos-containing materials (“ACMs”). If Tenant undertakes any Alterations as may be permitted herein, Tenant shall undertake the Alterations in a manner that avoids disturbing ACMs present in the Premises. If ACMs are likely to be disturbed in the course of such work, Tenant shall encapsulate or remove the ACMs in accordance with an approved asbestos-removal plan and otherwise in accordance with all applicable Environmental Laws, including giving all notices required by California Health & Safety Code Sections 25915-25919.7. In the event that money becomes available from the State of California for the cleanup or abatement of asbestos, Landlord shall use good faith efforts to obtain a share of such funds to be applied to any asbestos remediation work at the Premises. Any such money thus obtained by Landlord shall be assigned by Landlord to Tenant for the purpose of asbestos abatement. 22.11 Lead Warning Statement. Tenant acknowledges that Landlord has advised Tenant that buildings built before 1978 may contain lead-based paints (“LBP”). Lead from paint, paint chips and dust can pose health hazards if not managed properly. 22.12 Certified Access Specialist Disclosure. In accordance with Civil Code Section 1938, Landlord hereby discloses that the Premises have not undergone inspection by a Certified Access Specialist for purposes of determining whether the property has or does not meet all applicable construction related accessibility standards pursuant to Civil Code Section 55.53. A Certified Access Specialist (CASp) can inspect the subject premises and determine whether the subject premises comply with all of the applicable construction-related accessibility standards under state law. Although state law does not require a CASp inspection of the subject premises, the commercial property owner or lessor may not prohibit the lessee or tenant from obtaining a CASp inspection of the subject premises for the occupancy or potential occupancy of the lessee or tenant, if requested by the lessee or tenant. The parties shall mutually agree on the arrangements for the time and manner of the CASp inspection, the payment of the fee for the 16 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 CASp inspection, and the cost of making any repairs necessary to correct violations of construction-related accessibility standards within the Premises. The forgoing notwithstanding, the parties agree that Tenant shall be solely responsible for the payment of all fees for the CASp inspection and for any repairs it deems necessary to correct violations of construction-related accessibility standards within the Premises as a result of the CASp inspection. 22.13 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Lease and each and all of its provisions. 22.14 Entire Agreement. This Lease contains all of the agreements of the parties hereto with respect to any matter covered or mentioned in this Lease, and no prior agreements or understandings pertaining to any such matter shall be effective for any purpose. No provision of this Lease may be amended or added except by an agreement in writing signed by the parties hereto or their respective successors-in-interest. 22.15 Counterparts. This Lease may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which, together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. 17 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 EXHIBIT A PROPERTY OUTLINED IN RED DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 FOPAL Tennis Courts Soccer/Football/Rugby Field Running Track FOPAL P K7 K6 K5 K4 K3 K2 1J1K J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 L1 H6 H5FH F V U M4 M2 D1 D2A2D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 B2 B3 B4 B5 C5 C4 C3 C2 B6 B7 C6 C7 H2 H1 3H 4H L3 L4 6L5L MIDDLEFIELD ROAD Theatre Pavilion G4 G6 GymAGymB M7 2 M1 M3 1J J3 J4 J5 J2I T1 T2* S Cubberley Community Center 4000 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Tel. 650.329.2418 Fax 650.856.8756 www.cityofpaloalto.org cubberley@cityofpaloalto.org Map Legend Office Hours: Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:30pm Accessible Parking Restrooms School JMZ E G7 Softball 3 Softball 4 Softball 2 Softball 1 Soccer 1Soccer 2 North G8 ( EXHIBIT B PREMISES DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 PAUSD space used by City Indoor area*  (including addl  spaces)65,046            Room G5 1,656              Room G8 490                 Gym A 5,500              Gym B 7,200              Theater only 7,800              N + Pavilion 17,500            S 5,700              Auditorium (JMZ) 13,200            Maintenance* 2,000              Boiler Room**‐                  FOPAL* (near track) 4,000              Total City Use 65,046            58.81% *Estimated sq ft, confirmation pending  **Boiler room included in Common Areas EXHIBIT C SPACE USED BY CITY (IN SQ. FT.) DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 PAUSD space used by PAUSD Indoor area 45,554                 A 5,300                   B 5,300                   G4, G6, G7 13,354                 I (two levels) 13,000                 M2, M3, M4 5,000                   Q 3,600                   Total PAUSD Use 45,554                 41.19% EXHIBIT D SPACE USED BY PAUSD (IN SQ. FT.) DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 1 LEASE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (LANDLORD) AND THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (TENANT) FOR EXTENDED DAY CARE SPACES This Lease ("Lease") dated _______________, for reference purposes only, is made and entered into by and between the Palo Alto Unified School District (''District") and the City of Palo Alto ("City"), a municipal corporation. 1.0 DEFINITIONS AND PREVIOUS AGREEMENTS 1.1 Definitions 1.1.1 City. The term "City" means the City of Palo Alto, a charter city and municipal corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of California. 1.1.2 District. The term "District" means the Palo Alto Unified School District, a unified school district organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of California. 1.1.3 District Purposes. The term “District purposes” means that District’s using a Site for any District purpose, including but not limited to classrooms, administrative offices, and training centers for District personnel, but not for the purpose, either direct or indirect, of selling the Site or any other District school site or leasing that Site or any other District school site for non-district uses. 1.1.4 Reserved 1.1.5 Reserved 1.1.6 Reserved 1.1.7 Reserved 1.1.8 Reserved 1.1.9 Reserved 1.1.10 Reserved 1.1.11 Reserved 1.1.12 Reserved DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 2 1.1.13 Extended Day Care. Extended Day Care means 1) childcare services provided during the school year to grade school students for the periods a) 6:30 am and the scheduled start of school and b) the earliest scheduled end of school and·6:30 pm Monday through Friday 2) childcare services provided on non-school days from 6:30 am to 6:30 pm Monday through Friday, or as City deems appropriate. 1.1.14 Extended Day Care Spaces. Extended Day Care Spaces means those spaces identified in Exhibit A where Extended Day Care is intended to occur as detailed in this Lease. 1.2 Reserved 1.2.1 Reserved 1.2.2 Reserved 2.0 PAYMENT 2.1 Reserved 2.2 Reserved 2.3 Payment for Extended Day Care Spaces. As consideration for use of the Extended Day Care Spaces, City shall pay monthly to District the rent and utilities amounts listed in Exhibit A. All payments to District by City shall be made in twelve (12) equal installments payable monthly, by the last day of the month, commencing on July 1, 2020. 2.4 Covenant to Budget and Appropriate. Subject to Section 6.5.1(a), City covenants to take such action as may be necessary to include Lease payments due hereunder in its annual budget and annually to appropriate an amount necessary to make such Lease payments. 2.5 Manner of Payment. Payment shall be payable in lawful money of the United States to the order of the District at 25 Churchill Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306, Attention: Chief Business Officer, or such other place as the City and the District shall mutually agree. City's obligation to make payments for any partial month shall be prorated on the basis of a thirty (30) day month. 2.6 Late Payment Charge. If any installment of payment or any other sum due from City is not received by District within fifteen (15) days after the due date, City shall pay to District an additional sum equal to a half percent (1/2%) of the amount overdue for each month the payment is delinquent. 2.7 Reserved 2.7.1 Reserved 2.7.2 Reserved 2.7.3 Reserved DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 3 2.7.4 Reserved 2.7.5 Reserved 3.0 Cubberley Lease - Reserved 3.1 Reserved 3.1.1 Reserved 3.1.1 – 3.1.6 3.2 Reserved 3.2.1 Reserved 3.3 Toxic Materials 3.3.1 ''Toxic Materials" for the purposes of this Lease are defined as any hazardous, toxic, or radioactive materials, including, but not limited to those materials identified in Sections 66680 and 66685 of Title 22 of the California Administrative Code, Division 4, Chapter 30, as amended from time to time. 3.3.2 Reserved 3.3.3 In the event of an emergency, City may act without District approval to cure or eliminate any dangerous condition which may give rise to a claim against the City. An emergency shall be defined as an unforeseen combination of circumstances or resulting state that calls for immediate action. 3.3.4 Reserved 3.3.5 Reserved 3.3.6 In the event that money has become available from the State of California for the cleanup of asbestos, District shall attempt in good faith to obtain a share of such funds to be applied to necessary cleanup work at the Extended Day Care Spaces. 3.4 Reserved 3.4.1 Reserved 3.4.2 Reserved 3.4.3 Reserved 3.4.4 Reserved 3.5 Reserved 3.5.1 Reserved 3.5.2 Reserved 3.5.3 Reserved DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 4 3.5.4 Reserved 3.6 Reserved 3.7 Reserved 3.7.1 Reserved 3.7.2 Reserved 3.7.3 Reserved 3.8 Reserved 3.8.1 Reserved 3.8.2 Reserved 3.9 Reserved 3.9.1 Reserved 3.9.2 Reserved 3.10 Reserved 3.11 Reserved 3.11.1 Reserved 3.11.2 Reserved 3.12 Reserved 3.12.1 Reserved 3.12.2 Reserved 3.12.3 Reserved 3.12.4 Reserved 3.13 Reserved 3.14 Reserved 3.14.1 Reserved 3.14.2 Reserved 4.0 Reserved 4.1 Reserved 4.2 Reserved 5.0 EXTENDED DAY CARE SPACES 5.1 Space Provided 5.1.1 During the term of this agreement, District agrees to provide and City agrees to accept twelve (12) spaces at various elementary school sites to be used for the purpose of providing City-operated extended day child care services. Said sites are listed on Exhibit A. Additional child care spaces may be added in the event District opens additional elementary school sites. 5.1.2 District may, with the agreement of City, consolidate two child care spaces at one site. In no event shall more than three such consolidations occur. It is understood the District shall bear the cost of transporting students in the event of such consolidation of spaces and City shall still compensate District for each and every space pursuant to Sections 2.3 and 5.1.1. DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 5 5.1.3 District may, with the agreement of City, substitute a portable for conventional classroom space. 5.1.4 In the event City and District cannot agree on the issue of consolidation contained in Section 5.1.2 or on the issue of substitution contained in Section 5.1.3 the matter shall be resolved by a three member arbitration panel. City and District shall each promptly appoint their representative to the panel and the two representatives shall select the third panel member. The decision of the panel shall be final and binding on both parties. 5.1.5 The space provided shall include appropriate access to designated rest rooms and other ancillary facilities such as playground equipment where appropriate, and shall be available to City 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 5.1.6 The space provided shall meet appropriate State standards for at least twenty-five students and shall have all utility connections in place except for telephone. Specifically, the rooms shall have shelving and closets in place, however no furniture, toys or other equipment shall be provided by District. 5.1.7 Portables and conventional classroom space provided shall also conform to State standards for toxic materials as defined in Section 3.3.1. District shall be responsible for compliance with the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act and any other State or Federal regulations, existing or subsequently enacted, relating to asbestos conditions for the extended day care space provided. 5.2 City Responsibilities 5.2.1 If City determines, at its sole discretion, to operate an extended day child care program in the spaces provided by District, it shall be the sole responsibility of the City to provide such services in the District designated spaces to persons desiring such services. The hours for such services shall be as set forth in Section 1.1.13. 5.2.2 City shall bear cost of utilities to the space including telephone. Unless separate meters are provided, the cost shall be prorated on a square footage basis (square footage of City space to total square footage of buildings on entire Site). 5.2.3 City shall, at City's own expense, provide for minor maintenance to the space including but not necessarily limited to: electrical (ex. ballasts and switches), plumbing fixtures (ex. leaky faucets and pipes), wall and floor coverings and windows. 5.2.4 City shall, at City's own expense, provide for custodial services. 5.2.5 City shall be responsible for security of the leased space at all times and security of the rest rooms outside the customary hours of school operation. Security shall mean locking all windows and doors and turning off lights. DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 6 5.3 District Responsibilities 5.3.1 District shall maintain fire and extended coverage insurance on the structures housing the child care programs with limits of full replacement value. In the event of damage or destruction to the premises, District shall promptly restore the premises to their pre-existing condition. 5.3.2 District, at District's own expense, shall be responsible for major maintenance to the child care premises including roof, sewer and electrical hook-ups, heating, and air-conditioning and removal of toxic material where applicable. 5.4 Delay in Delivery of Possession If the District, for any reason whatsoever, cannot deliver possession of twelve spaces to City on the commencement date, this agreement shall not be void or voidable, nor shall District be liable to City for any loss or damage resulting therefrom. In such event, City shall be relieved of its obligation to pay for a child care space in the amount equivalent to the unit value of each space not delivered. The unit value of one child care space is as listed in Exhibit A. 5.5 Hold Harmless 5.5.1 District shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all costs, claims, judgments, losses, demands, causes of action, proceedings or hearings, including City's attorneys' fees and court costs, relating to the storage, placement or use of Toxic Materials by District on or about the space or spaces for extended day care, whether or not the parties are aware of the existence of or any such use of Toxic Materials. District shall pro rata reduce rent and/or reimburse City for all costs of clean-up required by law or other alterations to the spaces necessitated by District's use, storage or disposal of Toxic Materials. If not required by law to so clean up a space or spaces, City shall have the right to terminate the Lease as to the specific space or spaces upon thirty (30) days’ notice and the Lease payment shall be adjusted accordingly. The obligations of District under this Section 5.5.1 shall survive the expiration of the Lease term. "Toxic Materials" shall have the same meaning as in Section 3.3.1 of this Lease. 5.5.2 City shall indemnify and hold District harmless from any and all costs, claims, judgments, losses, demands, causes of action, proceedings or hearings, including District's attorneys' fees and court costs, relating to the storage, placement or use of Toxic Materials by City on or about the space or spaces for extended day care, whether or not the parties are aware of the existence of or any such use of Toxic Materials. City shall reimburse District for (i) all costs of cleanup or other alterations to the space or spaces for extended day care necessitated by City's use, storage, or disposal of Toxic Materials; and (ii) any diminution in the fair market value of the space or spaces for extended day care caused by City's use, storage, or disposal of Toxic Materials. The obligations of City under this Section 5.5.2 shall survive the expiration of the Lease term. 5.5.3 City shall indemnify, defend and hold District harmless from any liability or expense on account of suits, verdicts, judgments, costs or claims of any nature or kind arising out of, or in any way connected with City's and any sublessees', or assignees' operations on, DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 7 possession, use, management, improvement, alteration or control of the Extended Day Care Spaces except for any claims or liability, or portions thereof, arising from the sole negligence of District, its officers, employees or agents, and except for the liability borne by District as set forth in Section 5.5.1. 5.5.4 In addition to the liability borne by District as set forth in Section 5.5.1, District shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any liability or expense on account of suits, verdicts, judgments, costs or claims of any nature or kind arising out of, or in any way connected with, District's and/or any sublessees' or assignees' other than City, operations on, possession, use, management, improvement, alteration or control of the Extended Day Care Spaces except for any claims or liability, or portions thereof, arising from the sole negligence of City, its officers, employees, agents, sublessees or assignees. 5.6 Assignment and Sublease The City, with the written consent of the District may at any time and from time to time pledge, assign, or otherwise transfer this Lease or any interest of the City herein. City with the written consent of the District may at any time and from time to time sublease the Extended Day Care Spaces or any improvements thereon any part thereof. District hereby consents to allow City to sublease Extended Day Care Spaces to Palo Alto Community Child Care and Kids Choice. The City shall at all times remain liable for the performance of the covenants and conditions on its part to be performed hereunder notwithstanding any such assigning, transferring or subletting which may be made. Any sublease, assignment or transfer shall be coterminous in every aspect with this lease. Any transfer, assignment or encumbrance of this Lease or the Extended Day Care Spaces, in whole or in part, which is contrary to or not provided for in this Section 5.6 is void. 6.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS 6.1 Term 6.1.1 The term of this Lease shall commence on July 1, 2020 (the “Commencement Date”) and end on June 30, 2022 (the “Expiration Date”), unless sooner terminated or extended pursuant to the provisions hereof. 6.1.2 Reserved 6.1.3 Reserved 6.1.4 Reserved 6.2 Breach 6.2.1 If the City shall fail to pay any payment payable hereunder when the same becomes due and payable, or the City shall fail to keep or perform any other material term covenant or condition contained herein to be kept or performed by the City for a period of 25 days after written notice thereof from the District, the City shall be deemed to be in default hereunder and DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 8 the District, in addition to all other rights and remedies it may have at law, shall have the option to do any of the following: (a) To terminate this Lease in the manner hereinafter provided on account of default by the City, notwithstanding any re-entry or re-letting of the Extended Day Care space as hereinafter provided for in subparagraph (b) hereof, and to re-enter the Extended Day Care space and remove all persons in possession thereof and all personal property whatsoever situated upon the Extended Day Care space. In the event of such termination, the City agrees to surrender immediately possession of the Extended Day Care space, without hindrance, and to pay the District all damages recoverable by law that the District may incur by reason of default by the City. (b) Without terminating this lease, (i) to collect each installment of payment as it becomes due and enforce any other material term, covenant or condition contained herein to be kept or performed by the City which failure to keep or perform by the City would have a material adverse effect on the interests of the District under this Lease or (ii) to exercise any and all rights of entry and re-entry upon the Extended Day Care space. In the event the District does not elect to terminate this lease in the manner provided for in subparagraph (a) hereof, the City shall remain liable and agrees to keep or perform all terms, covenants and conditions herein contained to be kept or performed by the City and, if the Extended Day Care space is not re-let, to pay the full amount of the payment to the end of the term of this Lease or, in the event that the Extended Day Care space is re-let, to pay any deficiency in payment that results therefrom; and further agrees to make said payment and/or payment deficiency punctually at the same time and in the same manner as hereinabove provided, and if the District receives payments therefrom in any payment period in excess of the payment provided for in Section 2.0 hereof for such period, the District shall pay such excess (after expenses incurred in connection with such re-letting) to the City on the last day of said payment period. Should the District elect to re-enter as herein provided, the City hereby irrevocably appoints the District as the agent and attorney-in-fact of the City to re-let Extended Day Care space, or any part thereof, from time to time, either in the District’s name or otherwise, upon such terms and conditions and for such use and period as the District may deed advisable and remove all persons in possession thereof and all personal property whatsoever situated upon the Extended Day Care space. The City agrees that the terms of this Lease constitute full and sufficient notice of the right of the District to re-let the Extended Day Care space in the event of such re-entry without effecting a surrender of this Lease, and further agrees that no acts of the District in effecting such re-letting shall constitute a surrender or termination of this Lease irrespective of the use of the term for which such re-letting is made or the terms and conditions of such re-letting, or otherwise, but that, on the contrary, in the event of such default by the City, the right to terminate this Lease shall vest in the District to be effected in the sole and exclusive manner provided for in subparagraph (a) hereof. Each and all of the remedies given to the District hereunder or by any law now existing or hereafter enacted are cumulative, and the exercise of any one right or remedy shall not impair the right of the District to any or all other remedies. 6.2.2 In the event that City shall default in the performance of any of the agreements, conditions, covenants or terms herein contained, which event of default remains DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 9 uncured after notice given as herein provided, District may immediately, or at any time thereafter, perform the same for the account of the City, and any amount paid, or any expense or liability incurred, but the District in the performance of the same shall be repaid to the District, in addition to base payments by the City within 30 days after demand hereunder together with interest from the date, the cost of expenses incurred at an amount equal to the lesser of 12 percent per annum or the maximum lawful rate of interest then in effect under the laws of the State of California; and the District shall have the right to enter (by force or otherwise) the Extended Day Care space for the purpose of correcting or remedying such default and to remain therein until the same shall have been corrected or remedied. No performance by the District of any of the obligations on City’s part to be performed hereunder shall be, or be deemed to be, a waiver of the City’s default in or failure to perform the same, nor shall the performance thereof by District release of relieve City from any obligations on its part to the performed under this Lease. 6.2.3 If the District shall fail to keep or perform any obligation, covenant, agreement or provision contained herein to be observed or performed by the District for a period of 25 days after written notice thereof from the City, the District shall be deemed to be in default hereunder, and the City may take whatever action, at law or in equity, may appear necessary or desirable to enforce the observance or performance of any such obligation, covenant, agreement or provision including termination of this Lease. 6.2.4 In the event of a breach, or threatened breach, by either party of any of the agreements, conditions, covenants, or terms herein, the other party shall have the right of injunction to restrain the same, and the right to invoke any remedy allowed by law, or inequity, as if specific remedies, indemnity or reimbursements were not herein provided for. All rights and remedies herein given to either party shall be cumulative to each other and to any other legal or equitable remedy or right which the party might otherwise have in the event of any breach by the other party. 6.3 Surrender and Title to Property 6.3.1 On the last day of the term of this Lease, or any sooner termination, City shall surrender the Extended Day Care space to the district, in reasonably the same condition as City received the Extended Day Care space, ordinary wear and tear and any permitted approved and lawful changes, alterations, additions and improvements thereto excepted, except as otherwise required by Section 3.5.2. City, upon the expiration or sooner termination of this Lease, shall repair any damage to the Extended Day Care space occasioned by the removal of City’s fixtures, furnishings, equipment and other personal property. All of City’s property which is removable pursuant to the provisions on this Lease shall be removed by City on or before the last day of the term of the earlier termination of this Lease, and all property not so removed shall be deemed abandoned by City, and District shall have the right either to require City to remove said property from the land or dispose of the property pursuant to Section 6.5.3 as set forth below. 6.3.2 Title to the Extended Day Care space shall remain the District during the term of this Lease. All improvements placed upon the Extended Day Care space by City at City’s DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 10 expense shall be and remain the property of City for and during the term of this Lease. Upon expiration or sooner termination of this Lease, such improvements shall belong to and become the property of District, free from any rights, claims and liens of City or a person, agency, political subdivision, firm or corporation claiming under City, without any compensation therefore from District to City or to any other person, agency, political subdivision, firm or corporation, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties at the time the improvement is made. At the expiration or sooner termination of this Lease, such improvements shall be surrendered to District, excepting that movable furniture, personal property and trade fixtures may be removed by City at or before the expiration or sooner termination of this Lease, provided, however, that the removal of any of the property so excepted will not structurally injure the improvements or necessitate any changes or alterations in the improvements or render the improvements or any part thereof unfit for use and occupancy. City shall pay the cost of restoration of, or repairing any damage to, the Extended Day Care space arising from the removal of the property so excepted. 6.4 Naylor Bill Allocations. Nothing in this lease shall be deemed to expand, diminish, waive or otherwise limit the applicability of the Naylor Bill to applicable portions of the Extended Day Care Spaces, if any, including the obligation of the City to maintain the property, for recreational open space purposes and the right of the District to re-acquire said property pursuant to Education Code Section 39398 or its successor legislation. In the event the provisions of the Naylor Bill terminate, the applicability of “Naylor” to portions of the applicable spaces, if any, ceases. 6.5 Termination. In addition to the rights of termination for breach found in Section 6.2, this Lease may be terminated as set forth in Sections 6.5.1 and 6.5.2. 6.5.1 City Termination (a) Debt Limitation. In the event the Council of the City does not appropriate funds for payment of the payments due under this Lease in any year, this Lease shall terminate upon 90 days written notice. (b) Gann Limit. The City may terminate this Lease in any fiscal year in which the City is not authorized by the Palo Alto electorate to exceed the expenditure limitation imposed by the California Constitution and any other State or Federal legislative act. In that event, the City may terminate this Lease upon six (6) months written notice which must be given within 30 days of an unsuccessful election seeking such authorization. (c) Restriction on Taxing Power. If State or Federal law is enacted, an initiative measure passed or a court decision rendered which reduces the City’s general fund revenue or restricts the City’s authority to collect or levy general fund taxes which the City has the right to collect or levy as of the Commencement Date of this lease, the City may terminate this Lease, in whole or in part as hereafter set forth, by giving six (6) months written notice to District, after such law, measure or decision becomes effective; provided, however, there shall be no right of termination unless the effect of such law, measure or decision is to reduce the City’s general fund revenue or taxing authority by $1,500,000 in comparison with the previous fiscal year. DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 11 The amount set forth in this Section shall be adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index on the commencement anniversary date of the Lease in the manner set forth in Section 2.7 hereof. 6.5.2 District Termination. The District may terminate this Lease in part on the following conditions: (a) Reserved. (b) Reserved. (c) Reduction in Payment. If the District partially terminates this lease with regard to an Extended Day Care Space under Section 6.5.3, the Payment Due under this lease shall be reduced according to the proportion of payment allocated to such space as set forth in Exhibit A. 6.5.3 Surrender Upon Termination. Upon occurrence of any termination event, this Lease will terminate, or partially terminate as set forth herein, and all City’s rights, title and interest in the Extended Day Care Spaces shall terminate. City shall surrender and vacate the said spaces in reasonably the same condition as City received them, reasonable wear and tear excepted,. District shall have the right to re-enter and take possession of said spaces and remove all persons therefrom and remove City’s property and place that property in storage in a public warehouse, or store the same elsewhere, all at the expense of City, or sell the same as provided by law for the purpose of recovering any money due and unpaid hereunder by City to District, including District’s storage costs. Upon termination of this Lease, District shall have the right to recover from City all damages caused by any breach hereof by City, together with any payment due hereunder and unpaid, including all reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs which may be incurred in recovering possession of said spaces and in collecting such damages or such payments. 6.5.4 Future Development. Upon the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease, the District shall be free to sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of the spaces which are the subject of this Lease. However, it is understood by the parties that (a) the District shall have all the same rights and obligations with respect to the development of the spaces as any other developer, and (b) the City shall have the same rights and responsibilities as it would normally have in reviewing and considering any development project that would come before it. 6.5.5 Inconsistencies with Other Agreements. If any provision regarding termination set forth in Section 6.5 hereof is inconsistent with any provision regarding termination set forth in any other agreement between City and District regarding spaces subject to this Lease, the provision in this Lease shall prevail. 6.6 Notices. Any demand or notice which either party shall be required, or may desire, to make upon or give to the other, shall be in writing and shall be delivered personally upon the other, or sent by prepaid registered or certified mail addressed to the respective parties as follows: DISTRICT: Palo Alto Unified School District DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 12 25 Churchill Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 Attention: Superintendent of Schools CITY: City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attention: Manager, Real Property Notice sent by registered or certified mail in accordance with this Section shall be deemed delivered 72 hours from the date of mailing. 6.7 Attorneys’ Fees. If any action or proceeding at law in equity, or an arbitration proceeding, shall be brought to enforce or interpret any of the terms, covenants or conditions of this Lease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party its reasonable attorneys’ fees. “Prevailing party” within the meaning of this paragraph shall include, without limitation, a party who brings an action against the other after the other is in breach or default, if such an action is dismissed upon the other’s payment of the sums allegedly due for performance of the covenants allegedly breached, or if the party commencing such action or proceeding obtains substantially the relief sought by it in such action, whether or not such action proceeds to a final judgment or determination. 6.8 Holding Over. This Lease shall terminate without further notice at the expiration of the Lease term. Any holding over on the Extended Day Care Spaces after expiration of the Lease term, with the express written consent of District, shall be construed to be a tenancy from month to month, at a monthly rental of the last applicable base payment, and shall otherwise by on the terms and conditions herein specified. 6.9 Validity and Severability. If for any reason any portion of this Lease shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void, voidable, or unenforceable by the District or by the City, or if for any reason it is held by such a court that any of the covenants and conditions of the City or District hereunder, including the covenant to make payments hereunder, is unenforceable for the full term hereof, then and in such event, this Lease is and shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year under which the rentals are to be paid by the City annually in consideration of the right of the City to possess, occupy and use the Extended Day Care space, and all other terms, provision and conditions of this Lease, except to the extent that such terms, provisions and conditions are contrary to or inconsistent with such holding, shall remain in full force and effect. 6.10 Waiver. The waiver by either party hereto of any breach by the other party of any agreement, covenant or condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other agreement, covenant or condition hereof. The receipt by District of any payments with knowledge of any default on the part of City in the observance or performance of any of the provisions of this Lease shall not be deemed to be a waiver of the provisions of this Lease. DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 13 6.11 Successors and Assigns. This lease shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the District, the City and their respective successors and assigns, subject to the provisions of Section 5.6. 6.12 Agreement Represents Complete Agreement. This Lease represents the entire contract between the parties and supersedes and cancels any and all previous leases, negotiations, arrangements, representations, agreements and understandings between the District and the City concerning the Sites and matters covered hereby. 6.13 Law Governing. This lease shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 6.14 Changes in State Law. In the event that changes in state law occur whereby the district is not permitted, in whole or in part, to retain payments due it from any source, other than the City, because of provisions of this lease, District shall promptly notify City, and District and City agree to renegotiate terms of this Lease. Such negotiations shall be directed to assuring that payments due under this Lease will not directly or indirectly replace, or stand in lieu of, payments due District from any other source. 6.15 Amendment. No amendment to this Lease shall be made except in writing and executed by both the District and the City. 6.16 Reserved. In witness whereof, the District and the City have caused this Lease to be executed by their respective officers as of the day and year first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF PALO ALTO, Lessee: ______________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Lessor ______________________________ ______________________________ City Attorney or Designee President, Board of Education DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 14 APPROVED: APPROVED: ______________________________ ______________________________ City Manager Superintendent of Schools ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A – Extended Day Care Spaces and Monthly Rent and Utilities Amounts DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 15 Exhibit A Extended Day Care Spaces and Monthly Rent and Utilities Amounts DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 Exhibit A Space Name Trailer # or ID RENT RENT SQ. FT.Utilities Rate UTILITIES UTILITIES (per month)(annual) (per sq. ft.)(per month)(annual) Addison AKC1 4,914.42$    58,973.00$    960 0.24$            230.40$      2,764.80$     Duvenec DCK28 4,914.42$    58,973.00$    1920 0.24$            460.80$      5,529.60$     El Carmelo 1/2 Daycare 4,914.42$    58,973.00$    1320 0.24$            316.80$      3,801.60$     Escondido Kids Club 4,914.42$    58,973.00$    1440 0.24$            345.60$      4,147.20$     Hays 1/2 Kids Club 4,914.42$    58,973.00$    1440 0.24$            345.60$      4,147.20$     Hoover Childcare 4,914.42$    58,973.00$    1440 0.24$            345.60$      4,147.20$     Barron Park Unmarked space 4,914.42$    58,973.00$    1440 0.24$            345.60$      4,147.20$     Ohlone 24 4,914.42$    58,973.00$    960 0.24$            230.40$      2,764.80$     Palo Verde Kids Club 4,914.42$    58,973.00$    960 0.24$            230.40$      2,764.80$     Juana Briones PACCC 4,914.42$    58,973.00$    1920 0.24$            460.80$      5,529.60$     Fairmeadow BBKC3 4,914.42$    58,973.00$    1440 0.24$            345.60$      4,147.20$     Nixon 4,914.42$    58,973.00$    1440 0.24$            345.60$      4,147.20$     Total: 58,973.00$  707,676.00$  4,003.20$  48,038.40$   Extended Day Care Spaces and Monthly Rent and Utilities Amounts DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 DocuSign Envelope ID: D290FC0B-E8BB-4287-8517-CE7A0FCB8BC6 Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: D290FC0BE8BB42878517CE7A0FCB8BC6 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: Cubberley Lease At Place 061520_ko.docx, Cubberley Lease Signed.pdf, 20200609E... Source Envelope: Document Pages: 52 Signatures: 2 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Sunny Tong AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 Sunny.Tong@CityofPaloAlto.org IP Address: 73.223.135.207 Record Tracking Status: Original 6/15/2020 10:30:54 AM Holder: Sunny Tong Sunny.Tong@CityofPaloAlto.org Location: DocuSign Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Palo Alto Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Kiely Nose kiely.nose@cityofpaloalto.org Director, Administrative Services/CFO City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Uploaded Signature Image Using IP Address: 73.93.166.59 Sent: 6/15/2020 10:34:03 AM Viewed: 6/15/2020 10:45:15 AM Signed: 6/15/2020 10:45:47 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Ed Shikada ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org Ed Shikada, City Manager City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Sent: 6/15/2020 10:45:52 AM Viewed: 6/15/2020 11:19:47 AM Signed: 6/15/2020 11:50:34 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Witness Events Signature Timestamp Notary Events Signature Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 6/15/2020 10:45:52 AM Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Certified Delivered Security Checked 6/15/2020 11:19:47 AM Signing Complete Security Checked 6/15/2020 11:50:34 AM Completed Security Checked 6/15/2020 11:50:34 AM Payment Events Status Timestamps City of Palo Alto (ID # 11441) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/15/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Review initial options for a framework to address systemic racism Title: Review and Provide Input on Options for an Initial Framework and Workplan to Address Systemic Racism From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council discuss and provide direction to staff on a proposed initial framework and workplan to address police use of force and citywide issues related to race and equity. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Our society is presently in a nationwide awakening to the tragic impacts of systemic racism. In response Palo Alto, like communities across the country, is reviewing policing practices and making changes to use of force policies to reduce the potential for violence. At the same time, we recognize that tackling institutional racism to achieve racial equity requires much more, including engaging the community in ongoing, thoughtful dialogue and leadership. Recognizing that Black lives matter provides a foundation for acting on our individual and collective responsibilities for human rights. Effectively tackling these difficult issues requires immediate action on policing practices, as well as establishing a framework through which deeper and citywide issues of systemic racism can be surfaced and addressed. The initial framework and options presented in this report are intended to enable urgent action while valuing diverse voices in the decision-making process now and into the future recognizing that we cannot solve this alone. BACKGROUND Through the City Council’s adoption of its Resolution on June 8, 2020, the City of Palo Alto affirms that Black lives matter and is committed to addressing systemic racism and bias, and honoring the lives of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and many others. These events served as catalysts for leaders at every level of government to see the need for action to confront systemic racism and bias. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The City Council unanimously adopted June 8 resolution expresses “its support and proclamation that Black lives matter and commits our local government to do everything within our powers to review our police and public safety practices with the community and then implement measures that reflect no tolerance for police violence, prejudice, discrimination, and harm.” The full resolution can be found online here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77100. After passing the resolution, the City Council also unanimously voted to direct staff to: a. Return with a framework to review, report on, and improve our police policies and practices focused on accountability and eliminating any potential incidents of racism or discrimination; b. Report on possible improvements to police hiring practices; and c. Begin a diversity and inclusion initiative throughout the City In addition, on Monday, June 1, a call for inclusion and a message of hope was issued by City Manager Ed Shikada, Chief of Police Robert Jonsen, Reverend Kaloma Smith (City of Palo Alto Human Relations Commission Chair and Pastor of the University AME Zion Church of Palo Alto), and Pastor Paul Bains (Palo Alto Police Chaplin and Senior Pastor of Saint Samuel Church in East Palo Alto) and presented at the City Council meeting. This message condemned the actions of the police involved in George Floyd’s murder and recognized that we have a significant opportunity to affect real and lasting change through discourse as a community. The full message can be found here: http://cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4909. These steps provide evidence of the City of Palo Alto’s commitment to using this tragic moment in history as a call to action: to review existing practices, policies, and procedures, to engage stakeholders in important conversations, to report the outcomes of this engagement, and to reform where needed by implementing changes to address racial inequity. DISCUSSION The City Council’s direction highlights the need to act quickly on the important and urgent issues identified regarding policing policies and practices, while simultaneously taking the time and effort to look more broadly and deeply at the City as both an organization and a regional presence with communitywide impact, to address systemic inequity beyond policing. This requires setting forth an approach to this work that recognizes this as not a singular one-off effort, but rather a series of immediate actions combined with incremental steps forward on an intentional while reflective journey. This work will need to involve organizational partners representing a wide range of constituencies, as well as individual voices that are not a part of established channels of communication. The City Council has communicated its commitment to this as a key priority. Recognizing the magnitude and complexity of work required, a key decision point for the City Council at this point is how best to ensure this work proceeds with urgency yet thoughtful evaluation and engagement with stakeholders while ensuring transparency and accountability. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Transparency and Accountability in the Work Ahead To accomplish the work required while including thoughtful consideration and broad community participation, staff recommends the City Council retain the primary and ongoing responsibility to lead the conversation on race and equity. In so doing, the City Council would commit to regular, publicly noticed reviews of progress in each of the following areas: • Police use of force • Community engagement and understanding • City organizational policies and decision-making • Community services and programs Recognizing that in some areas the City of Palo Alto has already invested years of effort and is a recognized leader among agencies, the City Council’s ongoing commitment will ensure that the issues can be acted upon quickly where needed and ensure the public can easily track progress. Initially, staff envisions providing an update for City Council discussion every 60 days for much of the upcoming year. Regular reporting would reinforce the City Council’s ongoing engagement and attention to the issues involved, which can ensure public awareness of follow- up actions including those that do not require City Council action. As some actions may fall within the City Manager’s purview to implement changes, reporting progress to the City Council ensures transparency and clarity in communication. In addition to regular progress reviews by the full City Council, the work required would be facilitated by City Council engagement with a variety of stakeholders including existing commissions as well as potentially formalizing liaisons between the City Council and interests such as the faith-based community and others specific to the issues of race and equity. A City Council ad hoc committee could be considered for this role. Alternatively, the City Council could refer each of these issues to an appropriate committee, board, or commission. The commission would then evaluate and develop recommendations on the issue(s) for a report back to the City Council. In the case of police use of force, the existing commission most closely aligned to this topic is the Human Relations Commission. To support such a referral, staff would propose a workplan that includes orienting the commission to current police practices and that the City Council provide clear direction to the commission on the scope and timeframe for its work. If commission referrals are of Council interest, the commissions leading work in different areas, could provide regular updates to the City Council to ensure the community more broadly can remain aware of progress. Initial Proposed Framework Staff assembled an initial framework with suggested elements and dimensions to guide next steps. Some of this work, such as responding to each of the “8 Can’t Wait”1 campaign or Police 1 https://8cantwait.org/ City of Palo Alto Page 4 Use of Force Project2 points, have already been addressed or can be addressed immediately with relatively discrete follow-up actions. Other work, such as identifying and reducing bias in hiring throughout the City, must be addressed through analysis of work already done, goal setting, and monitoring progress into the future. Finally, elements such as applying a racial equity lens to policy decisions, will require foundational discussion, awareness training, and organizational development for staff, the City Council, and community stakeholders. A proposed initial framework is provided in Attachment A. This initial framework is meant to be a starting point for City Council discussions with the broader community. It should be considered a living document, recognizing that each next step in this work will inform and affect the steps that follow. The work involved is certain to raise sensitivities by challenging long-held practices and principles, such that the pace and sequence of the work ahead must be flexible while persistent in the City’s resolve to address urgent issues while ensuring progress toward addressing systemic racism wherever identified. The proposed framework has been informed by, and reflects, the principles articulated by the local and regional Government Alliance on Race And Equity (GARE). GARE is a strategic affiliate of the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) that specifically focuses on advancing equity and inclusion in local government as well as helping local governments develop and implement equity and inclusion strategies. GARE’s Resource Guide for Advancing Racial Equity and Transforming Government3 as well as the Racial Equity Toolkit4 were each especially instructive in the development of this initial framework. As part of the work ahead, the City will evaluate and explore other leading national and state organizations focused on racial equity and capture other resources that might help inform the City’s framework. As an initial guide, a list of helpful online resources can be found in Attachment B. This is accomplished through four stages across a variety of elements. The four stages are 1) review, 2) engage, 3) report, and 4) take immediate or near-term action, which may take the form of framing recommendations for future improvements. While there is an undeniable urgency to confronting systemic and institutional racism, it will require a sustained effort to affect lasting change: Review: Existing polices, procedures, documentation, and practices in the organization, as well as emerging best practices from other jurisdictions and advisory groups, will be examined to identify areas of improvement and focus in the review stage. Engage: In the engage stage, various stakeholders will be convened to discuss those potential improvements and to offer additional feedback and options. Report: The report stage will synthesize the earlier two stages and include recommendations for immediate and near-term actions to a Council Ad Hoc Committee or City Council. 2 http://useofforceproject.org/#project 3 https://www.racialequityalliance.org/resources/advancing-racial-equity-and-transforming-government-a- resource-guide-to-put-ideas-into-action/ 4 https://www.racialequityalliance.org/resources/racial-equity-toolkit-opportunity-operationalize-equity/ City of Palo Alto Page 5 Take Action: The fourth stage will be the implementation and ongoing evaluation of those improvements. The work of progressing towards a more equitable community will not be achieved when the framework is complete. The City must continue to diligently evaluate whether it is reaching the outcomes it hoped to achieve and evolve its framework accordingly. This last stage acknowledges that the outcomes of the work should be the focus, not just the efforts put in. Potential Convening of an 8 Can’t Wait Citizens’ Advisory Group (8CAG) and Immediate Recommended Review The direction from the City Council on June 8 to look at the Police Department’s policies and practices represents a necessary element of addressing inequities in Palo Alto. The initial framework draft provides some thought on expanding concepts that could have urgent and lasting change within the community and is meant to provide something for the City Council to consider as a springboard for the work ahead. As indicated in the initial framework, staff recommends convening an “8 Can’t Wait Citizens’ Advisory Group” (“8CAG”) to quickly review, solicit community input, and develop recommendations to address the eight specific police use of force issues identified in the Obama Foundation Mayor’s Pledge and 8 Can’t Wait campaigns. While Police Department staff has completed an initial comparison as seen in Attachment C and follow up actions that address all eight issues, an independent review including public input will help ensure the City addresses these issues comprehensively with the level of clarity consistent with Palo Alto community expectations. As envisioned, the 8CAG would be made up of members of the Police Chief’s Community Advisory Group (CAG), supplemented by liaisons from the Human Relations Commission (HRC), members of a City Council Ad Hoc committee, and other stakeholders directed by the City Council. The current members of the Police Chief’s Community Advisory Group are identified in Attachment D. The 8CAG would convene meetings in public according to Brown Act rules, on a regular schedule over the next 60 days and return to the City Council in August with their findings and recommendations. Finally, City staff and City Council do not have all the answers needed to address this critically important adaptive challenge. The City, as both an institution and a community, will need to engage, communicate, and collaborate in order to recognize longstanding inequities and make progress against systemic racism so that future generations need not experience the pain and anguish that persists today. ATTACHMENTS: • ATTACHMENT A: Initial Racial Equity Framework and Action Plan • ATTACHMENT B: Initial Racial Equity Online Resources • ATTACHMENT C: Preliminary Comparison of Palo Alto Police Department Policies with the Obama Foundation Mayor’s Pledge and #8CantWait Campaigns City of Palo Alto Page 6 • ATTACHMENT D: Existing Police Chief’s Community Advisory Group Composition Attachments: • ATTACHMENT A-INITIAL RACIAL EQUITY FRAMEWORK • ATTACHMENT B-RACIAL EQUITY ONLINE RESOURCES • ATTACHMENT D-EXISTING CHIEF ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS • ATTACHMENT C-USE OF FORCE POLICIES PRELIMINARY COMPARISON ATTACHMENT A INITIAL RACIAL EQUITY FRAMEWORK INTRODUCTION Taking on institutional racism to achieve racial equity requires ongoing, thoughtful dialogue and leadership. Recognizing that black lives matter provides a foundation for acting on our individual and collective responsibilities for human rights. Effectively tackling these difficult issues requires both immediate action while valuing diverse voices in the decision- making process now and into the future recognizing that we cannot solve this alone. Several elements were identified to urgently review and engage on including taking immediate steps to review police and public safety standards including police use of force issues. Only by coming together can we create change and address existing barriers. This framework is a starting point for further discussion in addressing racial equity within our community. PURPOSE STATEMENT Commit to achieving racial equity in all aspects of our work to address institutional racism and implicit bias, through: • Acting with urgency through thoughtful dialogue and action • Working in unity with community partners and the broader community • Acknowledging that this work is more about our community together than it is about each of us as individuals • Developing an action plan through data, results, and outcomes FRAMEWORK OVERVIEW The proposed framework is a foundation for next steps in achieving racial equity throughout the City. Overall, our recommended elements could come back to Council at different times so that work could continue to evolve without waiting for all items to come together in one report. The framework would follow the general steps of review, engage, report, and take immediate or near-term action. FRAMEWORK KEY ELEMENTS AND ACTION PLAN The following framework and action plan provide clear steps forward as we progress towards racial equity. The elements are focused on general topics areas and are intended to guide work underway, while exploring other steps and approaches. Examples listed are for City Council consideration and further refinement and input. The items listed are intended to provide some focus on immediate actions the City could take, while evaluating and reviewing other areas for further consideration. The first two elements are central approaches overall and are connected through each of the issue-specific elements. ELEMENTS 1. Police Accountability and Use of Force: Conduct an immediate review, through independent community discussion and recommendations for change in response to the “8 Can’t Wait” campaign. Report these recommendations to the City Council for consideration within the context of existing accountability systems such as the City’s Independent Police Auditor reviews. 2. Community Engagement and Communications: Support thoughtful dialogue by facilitating a series of community conversations throughout this process. Communicate throughout the framework implementation phases of review, engage, report, and action. 3. City Organizational Policies and Decision-Making: Focus on racial equity through thoughtful review of City practices and procedures such as budget and finance, employee conduct, ethics, hiring and promotion practices, training, and other policies and standards. 4. Community Services and Programs: There are several services offered by the City of Palo Alto and policies and practices that both directly and indirectly impact the community. Thoughtfully reviewing these services and polices through a lens of racial equity will help make progress towards addressing the racial inequities that may be inadvertently perpetuated by them in their current form. Examples are: o Human Services: Further work focused on the vulnerable community members including the unhoused and individuals in crisis, as well as other important family support services. o Community Services: Review resident and non-resident fees and programs as well as access to City facilities, spaces, and resources. o Housing/Community Environment: Continue to advance the City Council’s priority on housing with a lens towards achieving racial equity by focusing on affordable housing and multifamily housing development. ACTION PLAN Police Accountability and Use of Force Review police and public safety police practices, including police use of force policies through an 8 Can’t Wait Community Advisory Group (8CAG); it is proposed that the 8CAG be comprised of members of the Chief’s Advisory Group (CAG) plus liaisons from the Human Relations Commission (HRC), members of a City Council Ad Hoc committee, and other stakeholders directed by the City Council. Options for Consideration • Review police use of force practices and systems and raise the bar where needed. • Provide a comparison of the national initiatives like 8 Can’t Wait, Police Use of Force Project, and other benchmarks focused on review of police use of force polices. • Respond to the City Council with a report and recommendations by August 2020. In addition to an immediate and time-limited review by the 8CAG, a parallel review with reporting to the City Council would address the following issues: • Review other policing data, procedures and accountability practices, including police hiring practices with a specific focus on best practices to be implemented in Palo Alto. • Review training standards with a focus on implicit bias, crisis intervention, and cultural diversity training. Community Engagement and Communications Engage the community and inform about all elements of the initial framework and action plan. Options for Consideration • Facilitated/guided conversations addressing bias and racism • Listening to City employees, commissions, and the community at large, building on the “Being Different Together” work previously done by the HRC. • Engage strategic partners, thought leaders and community connectors from Stanford University, Palo Alto Unified School District, Human Relations Commission, Chief’s Community Advisory Group Chairperson, religious leadership, and East Palo Alto on different elements of this work, as needed. • Explore developing a series of listening sessions and other engagement opportunities such as virtual conversations through the implementation of the initial framework elements and leverage other existing networks to listen and engage. Other Community Facing Services and Policies Options for Consideration • Human Services: Review human services programs to help de-escalate incidents involving vulnerable members of our community including the City’s unhoused community members and those in crisis. These items could be discussed with the Human Relations Commission and other committees, as appropriate. • Community Services: Explore changes to the City’s community services fees and City practices governing access to facilities, spaces, and resources that could improve racial equity. This includes options like piloting a Foothills Park policy that would allow some access to the park by nonresidents, currently scheduled for discussion with the City Council on June 23, 2020. The referral coming forward for Council consideration on June 23 represents work completed by the Parks and Recreation Commission over several months that was delayed due to the public health emergency. • Housing/Community Environment: Review housing policies and priorities with a focus on racial equity. Options for consideration could include Council feedback on ways to further expedite and streamline the Accessory Dwelling Unit approval process and other elements of the housing work plan priorities. It could also include monitoring and tracking several proposed bills at a state level that seek to address housing and racial equity and engaging the City Council to inform opportunities to advocate for those bills. City Organizational Policies and Decision-Making Review and implement action plan findings through citywide focus on employee conduct, ethics hiring practices, training, and other policies and standards. Options for Consideration • Review and reset standards of conduct and accountability citywide, including but not limited to the Police Department. Specific areas to consider include conducting Citywide implicit bias training and updating the City’s Ethics Policy. • Review the City’s budget and finance practices with a focus on racial equity. This would include exploring additional support for community services and human services programs, including emphasis on supporting vulnerable community members. • Review and reset hiring and promotional practices and further explore concepts such as creating a “blind” job application review that blocks sources of bias, including name, address, college and establishing a certification program for hiring managers within departments. • Review other City policies through a racial equity lens and amend where needed. • Based on findings from the action plan, adjust resources to align with what is needed and explore other opportunities such as a half-time position in Human Resources to serve as “Inclusion Officer” to address equal access to jobs and potentially partnering with other agencies and groups on a non-police response resource to act as a coordinator on social services issues (longer-term). • Further the efforts of the framework and implement change through the unified commitment of the City’s Executive Leadership Team. • Existing Committees could explore opportunities focused on racial equity as a way to begin thoughtful dialogue and share stories and experience with for change and change- making. Addressing each of the issue areas described above will require engagement with a variety of stakeholders. Staff anticipates refining this framework, identifying issues to be addressed with specific descriptions and venues for review and policy actions. ATTACHMENT B RACIAL EQUITY ONLINE RESOURCES This list represents initial efforts to compile resources, publications, and emerging thoughts about potential options to promote racial equity in local government. Additional resources will continue to be explored and added on an ongoing basis as this important work continues. Government Alliance on Race And Equity (GARE) • GARE’s Resource Guide for Advancing Racial Equity and Transforming Government https://www.racialequityalliance.org/resources/advancing-racial-equity-and- transforming-government-a-resource-guide-to-put-ideas-into-action/ • Racial Equity Toolkit https://www.racialequityalliance.org/resources/racial-equity- toolkit-opportunity-operationalize-equity/ • Other Tools and Resources https://www.racialequityalliance.org/tools-resources/ Race Forward • Publications: https://www.raceforward.org/research The Othering and Belonging Institute • Publications https://belonging.berkeley.edu/news-and- resources?news_resource_category=11 Center for Social Inclusion • Publications: https://www.centerforsocialinclusion.org/tools-resources/ ATTACHMENT D Chief’s Advisory Group Members and Neighborhoods Name Area Neighborhood Cathie Foster 1 Community Center Evan Reade 1 Crescent Park John Guislin 1 Crescent Park Hamilton Hitchings 1 Duveneck/St. Francis Vycelka Gatto 1 Duveneck/St. Francis Andrew Mackenzie 1 Duveneck/St. Francis Dana Wong 1 Triple El Jake Olsen 2 Midtown 1 David Gobuty 2 Midtown 3 Eric Newman 2 Midtown 3 Carl Darling 2 Midtown 5 Jonathan Keeling 3 Cubberley Albert Dorsky 3 Adobe Meadow Paul Koo 3 Adobe Meadow Carol Turner 3 Greenmeadow Yvonne Boxerman 4 Barron Park 1 Joe Landers 4 Barron Park 1 Laura Porter 4 Barron Park 2 Ann Pianetta 4 Barron Park 3 Jennifer Zimmerman 4 Charleston Meadows Susannah Hursh 5 College Terrace Peter Shambora 5 Southgate Sophie Tsang 5 Southgate Pat Markevitch 6 Downtown North Alan Bennett 6 Old Palo Alto Jay Boyarsky 6 Old Palo Alto Kathleen Jason-Moreau 6 Old Palo Alto George Richard 6 Sand Hill Corridor Michelle Robell 6 University South Michael Blum 6 University South ATTACHMENT C Use of Force Policies Preliminary Comparison With The Obama Foundation’s Mayor’s Pledge / #8CantWait Initiative The Obama Foundation Mayor’s Pledge campaign has called attention to the Police Use of Force Project list of 8 concerning law enforcement use of force policies. These same policies are also the subject of the 8 Can’t Wait campaign. INTRODUCTION Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD) has conducted a preliminary comparison of existing policies and training to the eight principles. Below is a summary of Palo Alto’s current status. The Department looks forward to reviewing these policies in detail with the community and ensuring that the Department continues to maintain a leadership position among law enforcement agencies across our nation. PRELIMINARY COMPARSION Police Use of Force Project Policy Concern #1: Failing to require officers to de- escalate situations, where possible, through communication, maintaining distance, slowing things down, and otherwise eliminating the need to use force. Palo Alto Police Initial Review: PAPD incorporates these concepts and other de-escalation techniques into its use of force policy and requires that, prior to using force, officers consider other reasonable and feasible options and their possible effectiveness (PAPD Policy Manual §300, et seq.). Police Use of Force Project Policy Concern #2: Prohibiting officers from using maneuvers that cut off oxygen or blood flow, including chokeholds or carotid restraints, which often result in unnecessary death or serious injury. Palo Alto Police Initial Review: PAPD specifically trains its officers not to use “chokeholds.” On June 9, 2020, the Department changed its policy to prohibit the use of the carotid control hold as well (PAPD Policy Manual §300.3.4). Use of Force Policies Preliminary Comparison With The Obama Foundation’s Mayor’s Pledge / #8CantWait Initiative Police Use of Force Project Policy Concern #3: Failing to require officers to intervene and stop excessive or unnecessary force used by other officers and report these incidents immediately to a supervisor. Palo Alto Police Initial Review: PAPD policy requires that officers intercede to prevent the use of unreasonable force by another officer. An officer who observes another employee use force that clearly exceeds the degree of force permitted by law is also required to promptly report those observations to a supervisor (PAPD Policy Manual §300.2.1) Police Use of Force Project Policy Concern #4: Failing to restrict officers from shooting at moving vehicles, which is regarded as a particularly dangerous and ineffective tactic. Palo Alto Police Initial Review: PAPD policy restricts officers from shooting at a moving vehicle except as a last resort to protect human life (PAPD Policy Manual §300.4.1). Police Use of Force Project Policy Concern #5: Failing to limit the types of force and/or weapons that can be used to respond to specific types of resistance and specific characteristics such as age, size, or disability. Palo Alto Police Initial Review: PAPD policy restricts the application of all types of force to specific types of resistance (PAPD Policy Manual §300, et seq.). For certain types of weapons (e.g., TASER), policy includes special considerations for characteristics such as age, size, or disability (PAPD Policy Manual §309.5.2). Police Use of Force Project Policy Concern #6: Failing to require officers to exhaust all other reasonable means before resorting to deadly force. Palo Alto Police Initial Review: PAPD policy incorporates California State law that restricts all officers from using deadly force except when necessary in defense of human life. All officers are required to use all available resources and techniques other than deadly force, if reasonably safe and feasible. (PAPD Policy Manual §300.4 and California Penal Code §835a). Use of Force Policies Preliminary Comparison With The Obama Foundation’s Mayor’s Pledge / #8CantWait Initiative Police Use of Force Project Policy Concern #7: Failing to require officers to give a verbal warning, when possible, before using serious force such as shooting, tasing, or pepper spraying someone. Palo Alto Police Initial Review: PAPD policy requires officers to provide a verbal warning, when possible, prior to the use of deadly force, a TASER, or tear gas (PAPD Policy Manual §300.4, §308.9.2, and §309.4). Police Use of Force Project Policy Concern #8: Failing to require officers to report each time they use force or threaten to use force (e.g., pointing a gun at a person). Palo Alto Police Initial Review: PAPD policy requires officers to promptly, completely and accurately document any use of force (PAPD Policy Manual §300.5). Policy also requires officers to document any time they point a TASER or firearm at a person (PAPD Policy Manual §309.6 and §344.2.2). City of Palo Alto (ID # 11287) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 6/15/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Informational Report Regarding the Roth Building Title: Informational Report Regarding the Status of the Roth Building in Response to Council Direction on March 2, 2020 From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation No Council action is required. This is an update on the status of staff work regarding the City Council direction on next steps regarding the Roth Building provided on March 2, 2020. Background On March 2 (CMR 10276) the City Council reviewed the status of the Roth Building and fundraising by the Palo Alto History Museum (PAHM). Council approved the following motion: A. Move forward with options for an RFP, including potential rezoning of the site; B. Additionally, include a possible shared space arrangement; C. Return to City Council by Monday, May 4, 2020 with a status report; and D. Refer to the Finance Committee discussion of the possibility that the City fund the build-out. Discussion On March 2 the City Council discussed the status of the Roth Building project. The following provides updates on Council’s motion. A. Move forward with options for an RFP, including potential rezoning of the site Work on the Request for Proposal (RFP) has been postponed as City staff have been reassigned to the COVID-19 response for the current public health emergency. Staff expects to return to the City Council in the fall of 2020 with options for an RFP for City Council review. Staff also continues to monitor the current environment and whether it is an ideal situation for soliciting interest in the Roth building project through a request for proposal process and will continue to report out to the City Council on any changes as necessary. Based on informal conversations with members of the building community the COVID-19 emergency has impacted interest in starting new development projects for some. City of Palo Alto Page 2 B. Additionally, include a possible shared space arrangement Staff has met with the PAHM and discussed ideas for sharing space. In addition, the Community Services Department is reviewing possible shared space concepts with some community programs that might be an appropriate fit with the museum. As part of the RFP options to be brought forward to the City Council in the fall of 2020, staff will bring possible options for shared space as part of that update. C. Return to City Council by Monday, May 4, 2020 with a status report This report is intended to serve as the status update to the City Council and has been delayed along with staff work on this project as a result of the prioritization of the COVID-19 emergency response. D. Refer to the Finance Committee discussion of the possibility that the City fund the build-out During the FY 2021 budget discussions, the Roth building rehabilitation project was identified as an unfunded project. Although the City Council did not allocate funding for this project as part of the FY 2021 proposed capital budget deliberations, the Council directed staff to return to the Finance Committee to discuss funding options in the new fiscal year. PAHM has provided funding proposals to the Council and staff including significant use of alternative funding sources such as impact fees as well as review of a more phased approach to construction work. These discussions are ongoing, as recently as the week of May 26, as is and staff’s evaluation of the viability of the funding proposals. Funding options including the ability to use these restricted funds and potential phasing are expected to be part of the Finance Committee review of a potential City funded build out. Staff expects to bring this item to the Finance Committee prior to the return of the RFP options for City Council review. Additional Updates The City was awarded two grants for the Roth Building improvements have been awarded two grants in April 2020 from the Santa Clara County Historic Resources Grant Program for the restoration of the original clay tile roof ($200,000) and the protection and restoration of the Arnautoff Frescoes ($105,000). The roof grant is the second grant awarded for construction costs associated with roof replacement and repair for a total of $300,000 for these costs. Below are the three grants currently awarded to the City with PAHM as of the date of this information report transmittal - Santa Clara County Historic Resources Grant Program 2018 award for roof replacement of $100,000; - Santa Clara County Historic Resources Grant Program 2019 award for roof replacement of $200,000; and - Santa Clara County Historic Resources Grant Program 2019 award for frescoes of $105,000. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Stakeholder Engagement Staff continues to meet with representatives of PAHM including their construction contractor to discuss the current status of the project, shared space options, phasing of the construction project, and any additional potential next steps. In addition, staff continues to discuss funding feasibility, legal restrictions, zoning options, as well as construction details with necessary partner departments including but not limited to Public Works, Community Services, the City Attorney’s Office, and Planning & Development Services departments. Resource Impact This report does not include financial impacts, however, next steps of this project may result in determination of future funding implications related to the Roth Building. Environmental Review This informational report is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). City of Palo Alto (ID # 11292) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 6/15/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Second Quarter Financial Report FY2020 Title: Second Quarter FY 2020 Financial Report From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services This is an information only report and no Council action is required. Background The purpose of this report is to provide the Council information on the financial condition of the City’s General Fund and Enterprise Funds as of the end of the second (2nd) quarter of fiscal year (FY) 2020. This report was deferred from Finance Committee agenda to make room for other priorities and therefore is being transmitted as an information item. These revenue and expense trends were already factored into and informed the FY 2020 Mid-Year Budget Review adjustments CMR #10959 as approved by the City Council on March 2, 2020. Discussion This report summarizes the actual financial activity of the General and Enterprise Funds for the six-month period July 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019 and compares those amounts to the FY 2020 Adjusted Budget as well as to the report for the same period in FY 2019. Attachment A provides a breakdown of revenues by source and expenses by function, with separate columns for the Adopted Budget and the Adjusted Budget. The Adjusted Budget column includes prior year commitments that were carried forward into this fiscal year and Council approved budget amendments to the FY 2020 Adopted Budget through December 31. Encumbrances and actual expenses for the six-month period are also reported. General Fund revenues (excluding operating transfers and cost plan charges) for the 2nd quarter FY 2020 total $83.2 million, which is 3.9 percent higher than the same period in FY 2019 and comprises 39.4 percent of the current year Adjusted Budget. General Fund expenses for 2nd quarter are 2.8 percent higher than the prior year, however, they are tracking at 45.3 percent of Adjusted Budget which is almost equal from the same quarter last year. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Following is a detailed discussion of the most significant revenue and expense items. Revenue Highlights for 2nd Quarter FY 2020 Following is a table which highlights the City’s major revenue sources for the 2nd quarter, compared to the same quarter of the prior year. The first two quarters’ revenue is expressed as a percentage of the Adjusted Budget for each year. % change FY 2020 %FY 2019 % Property Tax 5.9%48,634$ 33.8%$46,232 33.6% Sales Tax -5.3%34,346 32.7%31,746 37.4% Charges for Services 9.8%30,267 40.5%28,419 39.2% Transient Occupancy Tax 7.2%29,309 37.3%25,390 40.2% Utility User Tax 8.8%17,581 46.9%16,092 47.1% Permits and Licenses -24.2%8,667 34.0%8,545 45.5% Documentary Transfer Tax 31.8%8,369 54.2%8,034 42.9% All Other Revenue Sources 1.1%34,076 48.6%32,875 49.8% Total Revenue 3.9%$211,249 39.4%$197,333 40.6%$83,160 $80,026 2,947 3,888 4,539 3,444 16,562 16,374 12,247 11,150 10,944 10,209 8,246 7,580 16,436$ $15,518 11,239 11,863 2nd Quarter Actuals Adjusted Budget FY 2020 FY 2019 City of Palo Alto General Fund Revenue FY 2020 2nd Quarter (000's) Property tax revenue – at the close of 2nd quarter was $16.4 million, an increase of 5.9 percent over the same period in prior year. Property tax is received from the County of Santa Clara during the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters of the year, and receipts at 33.8 percent of full-year budget is typical for this line item through December 31. The past five-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for this revenue has been 6.4 percent due to higher assessed values because of continued robust commercial and residential real estate markets. FY 2019 actual property tax revenue was $47.3 million which included unusual receipts of $2.7 million for excess Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF)1 distributions from the County of Santa Clara. Though ERAF receipt has steadily grown the last five years, it’s not considered a permanent local revenue source. In addition, there is a dispute on the distribution City of Palo Alto Page 3 of excess ERAF funds between the State of California and the County, therefore depending on the resolution of this, there may be implications on ERAF receipts. The FY 2020 budgeted amount is $48.6 million, 2.75 percent higher than the prior year’s actual revenue. Since the adoption of the FY 2020 budget, the County of Santa Clara has revised the property tax forecast upwards by $1.9 million which is reflected in the mid-year budget adjustment. The $1.9 million increase is mostly attributable to higher than expected excess ERAF estimated at $3.8 million. Sales tax revenue – as of the 2nd quarter is down by $624,000 or 5.3 percent, from the same period last year. Due to the timing delay in sales tax collection by the State and remittance to the City, this only represents five month’s sales tax activity. The decline is not an indication of retail activity but state actions resulting in receipt timings. In fiscal year 2018 the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) was established and introduced new technology and collection process which had issues resulting to delays of distribution in sales tax. This resulted in fiscal year 2018 being economically lower by $0.7 million and Fiscal Year 2019 being higher by the same amount. CDTFA also made allocation timing changes so the 5.3 percent year over year decrease for five-month receipts isn’t indicative of economic performance for the remainder of FY 2020. Sales tax remains healthy and $1.7 million mid-year upward budget adjustment has been made. As in prior years, there is continued erosion of brick and mortar receipts caused by steady growth in on-line retail sales. However, increased receipts from the county pool, which include a growing number of on-line retailers collecting sales and use tax, has been offsetting these losses. Transient occupancy tax (TOT) – reached $10.9 million through the end of the 2nd quarter, an increase of $735,000 or 7.2 percent from prior year. Due to the timing delay in receipts, this represents a little over 4 months of TOT receipts. The increase is solely attributable to the 1.5 percent TOT rate increase that began in April 2019. Effective April 1, 2019, the TOT rate increased from 14 percent to 15.5 percent. The 3.5 percent increase (1.5 percent on January 1, 2015 and 2.0 percent on April 1, 2019) from all hotels, plus the 12 percent base from new hotels, was dedicated to the Infrastructure Plan by City Council. The base TOT decreased starting with FY 2019, 4th quarter. Overall, the base has declined by 4.5 percent in FY 2020. Due to this trend, which is consistent with local regional trends, a downward mid-year budget adjustment was approved to bring down TOT revenue by $2.8 million. The below table contains average room rates and occupancy percentage for northern California regions in October 2019 as well as the City of Palo Alto’s October data. For the first four months (July to October) of FY 2020, daily average room rates increased by 1.3 percent from $285.48 per day to $289.11 per day while the occupancy rate declined by 3.5 percent from 84.3 percent City of Palo Alto Page 4 to 80.8 percent. This is in line with a similar trend reported in October for local northern California regions. Month of October Avg. Daily Room Rate Occupancy Percentage 2019 ($) 2018 ($) Chg. 2019 2018 Chg. San Francisco 325.73 340.68 -4.4%91.5% 86.3% 5.9% San Francisco Airport 217.91 231.50 -5.9%89.1% 91.6% -2.7% San Jose/Peninsula 240.87 247.18 -2.6%81.4% 87.4% -6.8% Oakland/East Bay 182.73 188.10 -2.9%81.9% 83.6% -2.0% Monterey/Carmel 339.52 333.27 1.9% 82.3% 80.0% 3.0% Central Valley 109.85 107.54 2.1% 76.9% 76.5% 0.5% Sacramento 151.89 150.81 0.7% 85.2% 82.1% 3.8% Marin County 207.31 205.53 0.9% 74.6% 86.7% -13.9% Napa County 316.07 313.22 0.9% 81.7% 80.3% 1.7% Sonoma County 215.97 217.28 -0.6%80.6% 84.5% -4.6% Other Northern California 118.20 112.62 5.0% 74.9% 76.0% -1.5% Overall Average 227.09 231.03 -1.7%83.7% 84.1% -0.5% City of Palo Alto (October only) 289.11 285.49 1.3% 80.8% 84.3% -4.1% Source: CBRE Hotels October 2019 report, Trends in the Hotel Industry except for Palo Alto Utility user tax revenue for the six months ended December 31, 2019 totals $8.2 million, an increase of $666,000, or 8.8 percent, from the prior year. Both the utility commodity rate increases (e.g. electric, gas and water) and the telephone UUT is contributing to this growth. Documentary transfer tax cash receipts totals $4.5 million, or 54.2 percent of the FY 2020 budgeted amount, and are $1.1 million higher than prior year receipts for the same period. Though cash receipts are up due to higher average sales price, the number of property sales is down by 7.1 percent. This revenue source is volatile since it is highly dependent on sales volume and the mix of commercial and residential sales. For example, in FY 2018, receipts were boosted due to large commercial sales resulting in total annual receipts of $9.2 million while FY 2019 had fewer and smaller commercial sales resulting in annual receipts of only $6.9 million. Charges for services reached $12.2 million through the end of the second quarter, an increase of $1.1 million or 9.8 percent in prior year. This increase is mainly due to the following items: •Zoning and plan check fees for the 2nd quarter have increased by $605,000 from same period prior year due to higher volume of activity. •Paramedic service fees have increased $348,000 over the same period last year due to an increased number of trips billed and increased average amount billed per account. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Permits and licenses revenue for 2nd quarter is down $941,000 primarily due to a decrease in new construction permit revenue. This revenue category will be adjusted at year-end to defer a portion of revenue to FY2021 that are in progress and to recognize revenue for those permits issued in prior years that are completed at June 30, 2020. Expense Highlights for 2nd Quarter FY 2020 Following is a table which highlights the City’s expenses by function for the 2nd quarter, compared to 2nd quarter of the prior year. Each quarter’s expense is expressed as a percentage of the Adjusted Budget for each year. FY 2020 FY 2019 % change FY 2020 %FY 2019 % inc (dec) Police 22,142$ 21,211$ 4.4% 44,806$ 49.4% 42,336$ 50.1% Fire 18,195 16,345 11.3% 35,105 51.8% 33,950 48.1% Community Services 15,067 14,058 7.2% 32,191 46.8% 30,314 46.4% Public Works 8,168 8,081 1.1% 19,797 41.3% 18,440 43.8% Planning and Development Services 8,916 9,601 -7.1%21,767 41.0% 23,511 40.8% Library 4,995 4,691 6.5% 10,532 47.4% 9,786 47.9% Administrative Services 3,993 3,831 4.2%8,989 44.4% 7,860 48.7% All Other Departments 10,947 10,714 2.2% 30,652 35.7% 30,490 35.1% Total Expenses 92,423$ 88,532$ 2.8%203,839$ 45.3%196,687$ 45.0% City of Palo Alto General Fund Expenses FY 2020 2nd Quarter (000's) 2nd Quarter Actuals Adjusted Budget Total expenses for the 2nd quarter of the fiscal year are up 2.8 percent from the same quarter last year and 45.3 percent of full year budgeted amounts which is almost equal from the same quarter last year. Overall, expenses are expected to run higher than FY 2019 with the FY 2020 Adjusted budget of $203.8 million. In FY 2020, the Office of Transportation was established which previously was a division of the Planning and Community Environment Department. The Development Services Department was combined with the Planning and Community Environment Department to form the Planning and Development Services Department. This reorganization is reflected in the FY 2020 figures by reporting the Office of Transportation under “all other departments” and combining the two prior departments of Development Services and Planning. This is causing much of the year over year variances in that department. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Police and Fire comprises 43.6 percent of the total General Fund expenditures for the 2nd quarter, which is comparable to the prior year. Following is a table which highlights Police and Fire salaries and overtime expenditures for the 2nd quarter. Police and Fire Salaries and Overtime Expense FY 2020 2nd Quarter YTD (000's) FY 2020 FY 2019 % change FY 2020 %FY 2019 % Inc (Dec) Police - Salaries 9,007$ 8,919$ 1.0%19,484$ 46.2%18,991$ 47.0% Police - Overtime 1,504 1,388 8.4%1,842 81.7%1,813 76.6% Total Police 10,511 10,307 2.0%21,326 49.3%20,804 49.5% Fire - Salaries 7,196 6,498 10.7%14,131 50.9%14,356 45.3% Fire - Overtime 1,339 1,784 -24.9%1,673 80.0%2,094 85.2% Total Fire 8,535 8,282 3.1%15,804 54.0%16,450 50.3% Total Public Safety Salaries & Overtime 19,046$ 18,589$ 2.5%37,130$ 51.3%37,254$ 49.9% 2nd Quarter YTD Actuals Adjusted Budget Police overtime is 8.4 percent higher from prior year due to major incidents that occurred in the first two quarters, the President of the United States (POTUS) visit and backfill for the workers’ compensation paid leave which is higher during the same period in FY2019. On a combined basis, salaries and overtime are at 49.3 percent of budget through the 2nd quarter of the fiscal year. The Department’s overtime analysis is included in Attachment B. Fire overtime is 24.9 percent lower than FY 2019 primarily due to fewer vacancies this year than the same period in prior year. Fire is expected to generate overtime savings during the year due to a new deployment model, but this change has not been implemented in the 2nd quarter. On a combined basis, salaries and overtime are 54 percent of the budget through the 2nd quarter of the fiscal year. The Department’s overtime analysis is included in Attachment B. The Police and Fire salaries increases are due to new labor contracts and an increased number of filled positions when compared to mainly this period in FY 2019. City of Palo Alto Page 7 General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) Balance As reported to the Finance Committee on November 19, the General Fund ended with a Budget Stabilization Reserve of $54.8 million for Fiscal Year 2019. The chart below outlines the recommended uses approved by the City Council as part of the mid-year budget adjustments that brought the BSR to $44.4 million, which is above the City Council target of 18.5 percent of budgeted expenses. As discussed publicly this Spring, it is expected that as a result of the COVID-19 financial implications the BSR will be impacted in FY 2020. More information will be provided at a later time in June. Year-End Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) Summary (000’s) General Fund BSR Balance, June 30 2019 54,811 Uses of the FY 2019 Surplus FY 2020 Approved Adjustments to the BSR Balance FY 2020 Adopted Budget 1,292 FY 2020 City Manager Reports Budget Amendments (450) Recommended Budget Amendments Reserve for proceeds from the sale of 335 Webster (2,900) Additional funding for General Liability & Workers Compensation Reserves (1,400) Transfer to the General Capital Improvement Fund (471) (3,500) Transfer to the General Benefits Fund: 115 Pension Trust Fund Contribution (3,500) Current Projected FY 2020 BSR Level (June 30, 2019) $44,352 Enterprise Funds Following is a summary of change in net position for each of the Enterprise Funds for the six months ended December 31, 2019, including a comparison of results from the same period last year. City of Palo Alto Page 8 City of Palo Alto Enterprise Funds Change in Net Position FY 2020 2nd Quarter Increase FY 2020 FY 2019 (Decrease)% Change Water 9,361$ 8,763$ 598$ 7% Electric 14,799 10,340 4,459 43% Fiber Optic 767 968 (201)-21% Gas 1,612 1,657 (45)-3% Wastewater collection 1,234 1,324 (90)-7% Wastewater treatment 4,330 11,466 (7,136)-62% Refuse 2,418 4,769 (2,351)-49% Storm Drainage 1,303 1,149 154 13% Airport 193 472 (279)-59% Total Change in Net Position 36,017$ 40,908$ (4,891)$ -12% 2nd Qtr Actuls (000's) Water Fund increased $0.6 million from prior year due to a 4 percent increase effective July 1, 2019 and a combination of an increase in connection and capacity fee revenue and a decrease in operating transfers. In FY 2019, there was a transfer of $0.3 million for phase 1 of the Smart Grid project. Electric Fund increased $4.5 million from prior year due to an increase in operating revenues as a result of a 9 percent increase effective July 1, 2019. In addition, the Electric Fund sold large volumes of surplus energy on the spot market in FY 2019 due to above average hydroelectric generation. Fiber Optic Fund decreased $0.2 million from prior year mainly due to lower revenues and increase in operating expenses. Wastewater Treatment Fund decreased $7.0 million from prior year mainly due to a decrease in the State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan drawdown for the Dewatering and Loadout Project that was completed in December 2019. Refuse Fund decreased $2.4 million from prior year due to a decrease in GreenWaste costs and vehicle replacement costs compared to FY 2019. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Storm Drainage Fund increased $0.2 million from prior year due to a 4.5 percent rate increase and decrease in operating transfers out to Capital Projects Fund for the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor project. Airport Fund decreased $0.2 million from prior year as a result of higher operating costs and other operating transfers out of the General Fund. Stakeholder Engagement This report has been prepared by the Accounting Division and reviewed by partner departments, the Treasury team and the Office of Management and Budget for certain sections. Resource Impact This is an Informational Report, so no actions or adjustments are needed at this time. Environmental Review This is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: • Attachment A: General Fund Second Quarter Financial Report FY 2020 • Attachment B. Public Safety Overtime Analysis for Q2 FY 2018- 2020 CITY OF PALO ALTOGENERAL FUND FIRST QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORTFISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2020 (in thousands) BUDGET ACTUALS (as of 12/31/2019) Adopted Adjusted Pre % of AdjCategoriesBudgetBudgetEncumbrEncumbrActualBudget* Revenues & Other Sources Sales Tax 34,346 34,346 - - 11,239 33%Property Tax 48,634 48,634 - - 16,436 34% Transient Occupancy Tax 29,309 29,309 - - 10,944 37%Documentary Transfer Tax 8,369 8,369 - - 4,539 54% Utility Users Tax 17,581 17,581 - - 8,246 47% Motor Vehicle Tax, Penalties & Fines 2,032 2,032 - - 658 32%Charges for Services 30,127 30,267 - - 12,247 40% Permits & Licenses 8,667 8,667 - - 2,947 34%Return on Investment 1,388 1,388 - - 758 55% Rental Income 16,326 16,326 - - 8,361 51% From Other Agencies 2,756 2,835 - - 688 24%Charges To Other Funds 10,908 10,908 - - 5,727 53% Other Revenues 587 587 - - 370 63%Total Revenues 211,030 211,249 - - 83,160 39% Operating Transfers-In 20,999 20,999 - - 10,500 50% Encumbrances and Reappropriation 6,469 - - - - Contribution from Budget Stabilization Reserve 0 0 - - - - Total Sources of Funds 232,029 238,717 - - 93,660 40% Expenditures & Other Uses City Attorney 3,387 3,867 22 224 1,708 51% City Auditor 1,235 1,336 40 446 36% City Clerk 1,346 1,441 60 522 40% City Council 498 540 27 151 33% City Manager 4,546 5,219 160 443 1,929 49% Administrative Services 8,519 8,989 48 380 3,993 49% Community Services 30,913 32,191 249 4,532 15,067 62% Fire 34,864 35,105 105 528 18,195 54% Human Resources 3,902 4,055 - 109 1,845 48% Library 10,314 10,532 25 426 4,995 52% Office of Emergency Services 1,728 1,845 22 162 585 42% Office of Transporation 2,312 3,021 48 700 25% Planning and Development Services 20,356 21,767 70 3,578 8,916 58% Police 44,666 44,806 4 690 22,142 51% Public Works 19,142 19,797 460 3,266 8,168 60% Non-Departmental 9,024 9,328 31 3,061 33% Total Expenditures 196,752 203,839 1,165 14,544 92,423 53% Operating Transfers-Out 5,023 5,023 - - 2,509 50% Transfer to Infrastructure 28,962 28,962 - - 14,481 50%Total Use of Funds 230,737 237,824 1,165 14,544 109,413 53% Net Change to BSR 1,292 893 (15,753) ATTACHMENT A Attachment B Q2 2018 2019 2020 POLICE DEPARTMENT Overtime Expense Adopted Budget $1,700,000 $1,776,500 $1,842,231 Modified Budget 1,700,000 1,812,931 1,842,231 Net Overtime Cost - see below 347,677 185,811 413,439 Variance to Budget 1,352,323 1,627,120 1,428,792 Overtime Net Cost Actual Expense $2,286,527 $2,604,366 $1,504,048 Less Reimbursements California OES/FEMA (Strike Teams)- 36,431 - Stanford Communications 75,275 91,001 61,037 Utilities Communications Reimbursement 38,227 46,158 30,022 Local Agencies (A)11,431 12,172 5,132 Police Service Fees 73,600 125,025 39,437 Total Reimbursements 198,533 310,787 135,628 Less Department Vacancies 1,740,318 2,107,768 954,981 Net Overtime Cost $347,677 $185,811 $413,439 Department Vacancies (number of days)5,777 7,538 3,336 Workers' Compensation Cases 8 24 13 Department Disabilities (number of days)219 217 273 FIRE DEPARTMENT Overtime Expense Adopted Budget $1,396,436 $1,911,761 $1,672,872 Modified Budget (B)1,571,436 2,093,761 2,086,872 Net Overtime Cost - see below 2,675,517 2,403,254 1,219,924 Variance to Budget (1,104,081) ($309,493)$866,948 Overtime Net Cost Actual Expense $3,839,426 $3,047,510 $1,339,240 Less Reimbursements California OES/FEMA (Strike Teams) (B)489,062 182,000 114,000 Total Reimbursements 489,062 182,000 114,000 Less Department Vacancies 674,847 462,256 5,316 Net Overtime Cost $2,675,517 $2,403,254 $1,219,924 Department Vacancies (number of days)5,293 1,229 12 Workers' Compensation Cases 4 26 7 Department Disabilities (number of days)732 343 31 NOTES: (A)Includes Animal Control Services contract with Los Altos and Los Altos Hills. (B)FY 2020 includes overtime adjustments recommended as part of the FY 2020 Mid-Year review for an overall increase in the overtime expense budget and confirmed Strike Team reimbursements in the Fire Department. Public Safety Departments Overtime Analysis for Fiscal Years 2018 through 2020 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 15, 2020 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Informational Report Regarding the November 3, 2020 General Municipal Election, Related Schedules, Fees, and Length of Candidate Statements This is an informational report. The City Clerk is required to bring a report regarding specific deadlines for the November 3, 2020 election, fees and length of candidates' statements. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Filing Fee Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.40.030, filing of nomination petitions, "Any person otherwise qualified may be a candidate for an elective office at any election, regular or special, by filing with the clerk, within the time prescribed in the Elections Code of California, a petition signed by at least twenty-five qualified and registered voters. Any duly established candidacy filing fee shall be waived for each candidate who files a petition signed by at least four qualified or registered voters for each dollar of such filing fee." Palo Alto charges a fee of $25 for filing nomination papers. If a candidate wishes to waive the filing fee, the nomination petition would require 100 qualified registered voters' signatures. 2. Charges for Candidates' Statements California Elections Code Section 13307 provides that before the General Municipal Election nomination period opens, the City Council shall determine whether a charge is to be levied for printing and mailing candidates' statements in the sample ballot. The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters has indicated that for this November General Municipal Election, the cost for a candidates' statement of 200 words is estimated to be $2,100. California Elections Code Section 13307 also permits the City Council to increase the number of words allowed in a candidate's statement from 200 to 400. The estimated cost for the candidate statement would then increase to $3,048. Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT As in past practice, unless a Council Member agendizes any of these items by June 22, 2020, the City Clerk's Office will charge no fee for candidates' statements of up to 200 words for the 2020 General Municipal Election and the City will absorb the cost. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT None. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A: Amended Abbreviated Primary General Election - November 3 2020 - rev. 04-08-20 (PDF) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 3 AMENDED ABBREVIATED PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION CALENDAR November 3, 2020 County of Santa Clara This calendar may not contain all candidate or district filing requirements. The Office of the Registrar of Voters is not open for filings on Saturday, Sunday or holidays. 1Refer to California Elections Code §§9190, 9295, 9380, 9509, 13313, and 13314 for details of public examination periods and writ of mandate. 2The period covered by any statement begins on the day after the closing date of the last statement filed, OR January 1st, if no previous statement has been filed. 3Date falls on a weekend or public holiday; deadlines move forward to the next business day. Revised 4/8/2020 DATES ACTIVITIES / DOCUMENTS July 1, 2020 (E-125) DUE DATE FOR RESOLUTIONS FOR GOVERNING BOARD ELECTIONS Last date for jurisdictions to submit resolutions for a governing board election. The ROV encourages jurisdictions to provide resolutions as early as possible. July 13, 2020 (E-113) NOMINATION PERIOD OPENS First day candidates may pick up nomination documents at the Office of the Registrar of Voters. July 28, 2020 (E-98) DUE DATE FOR RUN-OFF CANDIDATES TO REQUEST CHANGE TO BALLOT DESIGNATION Last day Run-Off candidates may request in writing a different ballot designation than that used at the primary election (For state offices, request should be made to both the Secretary of State, and the county elections official). July 31, 2020 (E-95) F.P.P.C. SEMI-ANNUAL STATEMENT DUE Deadline for semi-annual financial disclosure report Form 460 covering the period 1/1/20 to 6/30/20 or the day after the closing date of the last statement filed before 6/30/20. August 5, 2020-November 3, 2020 (E-90 to E) CONTRIBUTION / INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES Sums of $1,000 or more to/from a single source must be reported within 24 hours. The Independent Expenditure report is required only for committees (not candidate controlled) that make independent expenditures totaling $1,000 or more to support or oppose a single ballot measure or a single candidate. August 7, 2020 (E-88) 1NOMINATION PERIOD CLOSES Deadline to file (in the Office of the Registrar of Voters only) all required nomination documents. DUE DATE FOR RUNOFF CANDIDATES TO FILE THEIR STATEMENTS Deadline for runoff candidates to file their candidate statements to appear in the November 2020 County Voter Information Guide (CVIG). 1DUE DATE FOR MEASURE RESOLUTIONS AND TAX RATE STATEMENTS Deadline for jurisdictions to submit resolution calling for a measure election, and if applicable, tax rate statements. DUE DATE FOR PROPONENTS TO WITHDRAW AN INITIATIVE Deadline for proponents to withdraw an initiative that qualified for the ballot. AMENDED ABBREVIATED PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION CALENDAR November 3, 2020 County of Santa Clara This calendar may not contain all candidate or district filing requirements. The Office of the Registrar of Voters is not open for filings on Saturday, Sunday or holidays. 1Refer to California Elections Code §§9190, 9295, 9380, 9509, 13313, and 13314 for details of public examination periods and writ of mandate. 2The period covered by any statement begins on the day after the closing date of the last statement filed, OR January 1st, if no previous statement has been filed. 3Date falls on a weekend or public holiday; deadlines move forward to the next business day. Revised 4/8/2020 DATES ACTIVITIES / DOCUMENTS August 8, 2020- August 17, 2020 (E-87 to E-78) 1EXAMINATION PERIOD FOR ALL BALLOT DESIGNATIONS AND CANDIDATE STATEMENTS FOR THOSE CONTESTS NOT IN EXTENSION 10-calendar day public examination period immediately following the filing deadline of candidate statements when the statements and ballot designations may be reviewed for potential legal action. During this 10-calendar day examination period, any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held, or any candidate may take legal action to challenge the contents of the statement or the ballot designations. August 8, 2019– August 12, 2019 (E-87 to E-83) 1EXTENSION PERIOD If the incumbent fails to file a Declaration of Candidacy by August 7, 2020 for his or her office, there will be a five calendar-day extension during which any candidate, other than the incumbent, may file for said office. August 11, 2020 (E-84) 1DUE DATE FOR ARGUMENTS Deadline set by the Registrar of Voters for submitting arguments in favor of and against a measure. August 12, 2020– August 21, 2019 (E-83 to E-74) 1EXAMINATION PERIOD FOR ALL ARGUMENTS FILED The elections official shall make the arguments available for public examination for a period of 10-calendar days immediately following the filing deadline for submission of those documents. August 12, 2020 (E–83) LAST DAY TO REMOVE A LOCAL MEASURE FROM THE BALLOT Deadline to remove a local measure from the ballot. August 13, 2020– August 24, 2020 (E-82 to E-71) 1,3EXAMINATION PERIOD FOR ALL BALLOT DESIGNATIONS AND CANDIDATE STATEMENTS FOR THOSE CONTESTS IN EXTENSION 10-calendar day public examination period immediately following the filing deadline of candidate statements when the statements and ballot designations may be reviewed for potential legal action. During this 10-calendar day examination period, any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held, or any candidate may take legal action to challenge the contents of the statement or ballot designations. August 13, 2020 (E-82) RANDOMIZED ALPHABET DRAWING This day the Secretary of State and the local elections official will conduct a drawing of letters of the alphabet to determine the order in which candidates appear on the ballot. AMENDED ABBREVIATED PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION CALENDAR November 3, 2020 County of Santa Clara This calendar may not contain all candidate or district filing requirements. The Office of the Registrar of Voters is not open for filings on Saturday, Sunday or holidays. 1Refer to California Elections Code §§9190, 9295, 9380, 9509, 13313, and 13314 for details of public examination periods and writ of mandate. 2The period covered by any statement begins on the day after the closing date of the last statement filed, OR January 1st, if no previous statement has been filed. 3Date falls on a weekend or public holiday; deadlines move forward to the next business day. Revised 4/8/2020 DATES ACTIVITIES / DOCUMENTS August 18, 2020 (E-77) 1DUE DATE FOR REBUTTALS AND IMPARTIAL ANALYSES Deadline set by the Registrar of Voters for submitting rebuttals to arguments in favor of and against a measure and impartial analyses. August 19, 2020– August 28, 2020 (E-76 to E-67) 1EXAMINATION PERIOD FOR ALL REBUTTALS AND IMPARTIAL ANALYSES FILED The elections official shall make the rebuttal arguments available for public examination for a period of 10-calendar days immediately following the filing deadline for submission of those documents. August 28, 2019 (E-67) 1FINAL PRINTING DEADLINE Any petition for writ of mandate, including any appeals, should be resolved by this date so the Registrar of Voters can meet necessary election deadlines. 3September 8, 2020– October 20, 2020 (E-58 to E-14) WRITE-IN CANDIDACY OPENS AND CLOSES Time for write-in candidates to obtain and file write-in nomination documents in the Office of the Registrar of Voters for all contests. September 24, 2020 (E-40) F.P.P.C. 1ST PRE-ELECTION STATEMENT DUE Deadline for financial disclosure report Form 460 covering the period of 7/1/20 – 9/19/20. October 5, 2020 (E-29) FIRST DAY FOR MAILING OF VOTE BY MAIL BALLOTS First day of mailing of Vote by Mail ballots. October 5, 2020– November 2, 2020 (E-29 to E-1) EARLY VOTING PERIOD AT THE ROV OFFICE Early voting is available at the Registrar of Voters Office during normal business hours, Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., beginning 29 days before the election. October 20, 2020 (E-14) LAST DAY TO REGISTER TO VOTE FOR NOVEMBER ELECTION Deadline to register to be eligible to vote in the November 3, 2020 Election. October 22, 2020 (E-12) F.P.P.C. 2ND PRE-ELECTION STATEMENT DUE Deadline for financial disclosure report Form 460 covering the period of 29/20/20 – 10/17/20. October 24, 2020– November 2, 2020 (E-10 to E-1) VOTE CENTERS OPEN 10 DAYS BEFORE ELECTION DAY Vote Centers are open to all registered voters in Santa Clara County. Any voter can go to any Vote Center location throughout the County. Hours vary by location – please see listing on our website at sccvote.com. AMENDED ABBREVIATED PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION CALENDAR November 3, 2020 County of Santa Clara This calendar may not contain all candidate or district filing requirements. The Office of the Registrar of Voters is not open for filings on Saturday, Sunday or holidays. 1Refer to California Elections Code §§9190, 9295, 9380, 9509, 13313, and 13314 for details of public examination periods and writ of mandate. 2The period covered by any statement begins on the day after the closing date of the last statement filed, OR January 1st, if no previous statement has been filed. 3Date falls on a weekend or public holiday; deadlines move forward to the next business day. Revised 4/8/2020 DATES ACTIVITIES / DOCUMENTS October 27, 2020 (E-7) LAST DAY TO REQUEST VOTE BY MAIL BALLOT TO BE MAIL Deadline at 5:00 p.m. to submit a request for a Vote by Mail ballot to be mailed to voter. November 3, 2020 (E) ELECTION DAY All Vote Centers and ROV Office are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. for voting. November 25, 2020 (E+22) LAST DAY ELECTIONS OFFICIAL TO NOTIFY VOTER OF VERIFICATION OF SIGNATURE In the case of a voter whose signatures do not match, the elections official is required to notify the voter, at least 8 days before the certification of the election, of an opportunity to verify the voter’s signature. December 1, 2020 (E+28) CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENTIAL VOTES CAST TO SOS Last day for ROV to send to the Secretary of State one complete copy of the returns for all persons voted for at the presidential primary for delegates to the national conventions. December 1, 2020 (E+28) SIGNATURE VERIFICATION DATE Last day to turn in unsigned ballot or signature verification statements. December 3, 2020 (E+30) OFFICIAL CANVASS OF VOTE Registrar of Voters to certify election results by December 3, 2020. February 1, 2021 (E+90) F.P.P.C. SEMI-ANNUAL STATEMENT DUE Deadline for all committees to file a Form 460 covering the period 10/18/20 to 12/31/20 unless the committee filed termination Forms 410 and 460 before December 31, 2020. City of Palo Alto (ID # 11349) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 6/15/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Storm Water Management Oversight Committee 2020 Memo Title: Storm Water Management Oversight Committee Review of FY 2019 Storm Water Management Fund Expenditures and FY 2021 Storm Water Management Fund Proposed Budget From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation This is an informational report only and no Council action is required. Background The Council-appointed Storm Water Management Oversight Committee (Committee) meets at least annually to review the yearend expenditures of the Storm Water Management Fund in the previous fiscal year and the proposed operating and capital budgets of the Storm Water Management Fund for the next fiscal year, to ensure their consistency with the ballot measure approved by property owners in 2017. The Committee prepares a report for each item documenting its findings and submits the report to the City Council each year. Discussion Attachment A is the memo submitted by the Committee presenting the findings from their review of the Fiscal Year 2019 Storm Water Management Fund Expenditures. Attachment B is the memo submitted by the Committee presenting the findings from their review of the Fiscal Year 2021 Storm Water Management Fund Proposed Budget. The committee found the Fiscal Year 2019 expenditures and the Fiscal Year 2021 proposed budget are consistent with the provisions of the 2017 ballot measure. Stakeholder Engagement The Storm Water Management Fund Fiscal Year 2019 expenditures and Fiscal Year 2021 proposed budget were publicly discussed at Storm Water Management Oversight Committee meetings on February 13, 2020 and May 13, 2020, respectively. During the May 13, 2020 meeting, the Committee approved the memos attached to this report. This information is also available to the public on the Stormwater section of the City’s website. Attachments: City of Palo Alto Page 2 ·Attachment A -2020 Committee Memo on the Review of the Fiscal Year 2019 Storm Water Management Fund Expenditures ·Attachment B -2020 Committee Memo on the Review of the Fiscal Year 2021 Storm Water Management Fund Proposed Budget Storm Water Management Oversight Committee MEMORANDUM Date: May 13, 2020 To: Honorable Finance Committee of the Palo Alto City Council From: Members of the Storm Drain Oversight Committee Subject: Review of Fiscal Year 2019 Storm Drainage Fund Expenditures As directed by the City Council, the Committee met to discuss the Fiscal Year 2019 Storm Drainage (Stormwater Management) Fund expenditures on Thursday, February 13, 2020. Prior to the meeting, Public Works staff provided informational materials about the approved 2017 ballot measure and the Fiscal Year 2019 expenditures for the Committee’s review. During the meeting, staff presented information and answered questions from the Committee members. We reviewed the expenditures for Fiscal Year 2019 during that meeting and compared it with the provisions of the Storm Water Management Fee approved by Palo Alto property owners in 2017. We find that the attached spreadsheet describing the expenditures for Fiscal Year 2019 fairly summarizes the use of the revenue generated by the Storm Water Management Fee and that the expenditures are compatible with the provisions of the ballot measure. The Committee observed that the available funds for innovative green infrastructure were not fully expended. The Committee continues to encourage staff to adjust and promote the innovative programs to achieve the City’s goals for innovative green infrastructure. Attachment: Stormwater Management Program – Fiscal Year 2019 Actual Expenditures Attachment A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Fiscal Year 2019 Actual Expenditures (Amounts in 1000s, as of February 2020) Actual Expenses Adopted Budget Carry Forward Budget FY2019 Budget (incl. Carry Forward)Actual Expenses Year 1 Year 2 from Year 2 Year 2 2018 2019 FY 2018 2019 2019 Revenue Collected 7,123 7,379 0 7,379 7,249 Fee Revenue 6,912 7,128 0 7,128 7,195 Interest Earnings 154 130 0 130 2 Development Fees & Violation Fines 57 120 0 120 53 Base Components 4,840 5,194 53 5,247 3,037 Base Program (Incl. Water Quality, Flood Control)2,555 2,645 39 2,684 1,428 Storm Drainage Maintenance 1,338 1,599 14 1,613 1,350 Debt Service for Past Capital Project 947 949 0 949 259 Project & Infrastructure 5,324 4,299 2,097 6,396 2,079 Capital Improvements Program 4,398 2,200 1,001 3,201 1,058 Loma Verde Ave Trunk Line Improvements (#1/ SD-19000)0 2,200 0 2,200 45 Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station (SD-13003)4,359 0 1,001 1,001 1,013 Channing Ave / Lincoln (SD-11101)39 0000 Recurring System Repair (SD-06101)400 1,412 1,048 2,460 462 Capital Program Engineering Support 158 182 0 182 182 Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI)366 380 49 429 376 GSI - CIP Design/Construction 330 330 330 330 GSI - Consulting Services 36 50 49 99 46 GSI - Other unassigned tasks 0 0 0 0 Innovative Project 2 125 0 125 1 Innovative Project - GSI consulting Services 0 100 0 100 0 Innovative Project - Rebates 2 25 0 25 1 Total Expenses 10,164 9,493 2,150 11,643 5,116 2/10/2020 Storm Water Management Oversight Committee MEMORANDUM Date: May 13, 2020 To: Honorable Finance Committee of the Palo Alto City Council From: Members of the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee Subject: Review of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2021 Storm Drainage Fund Budget As directed by the City Council, the Committee met to discuss the Fiscal Year 2021 proposed Storm Drainage (Stormwater Management) Fund budget on Wednesday, May 13, 2020. Prior to the meeting, Public Works staff provided informational materials about the approved 2017 ballot measure and the proposed budget for the Committee’s review. During the meeting, staff presented information and answered questions from the Committee members. We have reviewed the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2021 and compared it with the provisions of the Storm Water Management Fee approved by Palo Alto property owners in 2017. We find that the attached spreadsheet describing the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2021 fairly describes the relationship between the budget and the ballot measure. Staff and the Committee concur that funding generated by the Storm Water Management Fee will be applied solely to fund the capital improvement projects, green stormwater infrastructure projects, innovative stormwater projects, enhanced maintenance of storm drain system, and storm water quality protection programs specified for implementation in the ballot measure in Fiscal Year 2021. Because funds available for innovative projects are not being utilized fully, the Committee supports efforts by staff to continue to identify and promote new projects that meet the goals associated with the ballot measure as soon as possible. Consistent with the application of these funds solely for the purposes discussed above, we encourage the City to find modes of implementation of these expenditures that address the employment impacts and other social needs related to the COVID-19 crisis. Attachment: Fiscal Year 2021 Proposed Budget Attachment B STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Fiscal Year 2021 Proposed Budget (Amounts in 1000s, as of May 2020) Adopted Budget Adopted Budget Adopted Budget Projection Proposed Budget Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 3 Year 4 2018 2019 2020 2020 2021 Revenue Collected 7,178 7,379 7,796 8,075 7,909 Fee Revenue 6,927 7,128 7,449 7,919 7,635 Interest Earnings 130 130 226 98 153 Development Fees & Violation Fines 121 120 121 58 121 Total Revenue 7,178 7,379 7,796 8,075 7,909 Base Components 5,209 5,194 5,003 5,044 5,470 Base Program (Incl. Water Quality, Flood Control)2,776 2,645 2,547 2,474 2,786 Storm Drainage Maintenance 1,486 1,599 1,507 1,621 1,735 Debt Service for Past Capital Project 947 949 949 949 949 Project & Infrastructure 1,063 3,299 3,566 3,845 2,510 Capital Improvements Program 0 2,200 2,502 2,533 1,866 Loma Verde Ave Trunk Line Improvements (#1/ SD-19000)2,200 2,090 2,073 Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station (SD-13003)14 Channing Ave / Lincoln (SD-11101) West Bayshore Road Pump Station (#4/ SD-20000)206 242 167 Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station (#2/ SD-21000)206 204 1,655 East Meadow Drive System Upgrades (#7/ SD-22000) West Bayshore Road Trunk Line Improvements (#3/ SD-23000)44 Louis Road System Upgrades (#11/ SD-24000) Recurring System Repair (SD-06101)400 412 424 754 0 Capital Program Engineering Support 158 182 135 164 139 Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI)380 380 380 333 380 GSI - CIP Design/Construction 330 330 340 0 250 GSI - Consulting Services 85 50 40 333 130 GSI - Other unassigned tasks 15 0 Innovative Project 125 125 125 61 125 Innovative Project - GSI Consulting Services & Outreach 0 100 100 58 100 Innovative Project - Rebates 125 25 25 3 25 Total Expenses 6,272 8,493 8,569 8,889 7,980 Net Impact 907 (1,114)(773)(814)(71) 5/7/2020 City of Palo Alto (ID # 11394) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 6/15/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Retirement Proclamation for Charles Cullen Title: Proclamation Honoring Charles Cullen upon his Retirement From: City Manager Lead Department: Police Proclamation Honoring Charles Cullen upon his Retirement Attachments: • Attachment A: Honoring Charles Cullen Retirement ______________________________ Adrian Fine Mayor Proclamation HONORING CHARLES CULLEN UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto Police Department hired Charles Cullen as a Public Safety Dispatcher on April 14, 1997; promoted him to Chief Public Safety Dispatcher in 1998; promoted him to Communications Manager in 2000; and promoted him to Deputy Director of Police Technical Services in 2008, where he has served ever since as a valued member of the executive command staff of the Police Department; and WHEREAS, as the Deputy Director of Police Technical Services, Director Cullen has had management oversight of the 9-1-1 dispatch center, the records unit, crime analysis, code enforcement, and technical support for the Police Department for more than a decade, supporting various City departments to include Fire, Public Works, Utilities, and Community Services, as well as specialized work groups like Animal Control; and WHEREAS, Director Cullen has been an outstanding project manager during the entirety of his 23-year career, overseeing countless critical public safety initiatives, many of which went on behind the scenes and largely unobserved by the public, but all of which bolstered the ability of public safety personnel to quickly and safety respond to emergencies and protect our residents and visitors; and WHEREAS, Director Cullen has been heavily involved at a state and national level for 9-1-1 policy and initiatives, being appointed by California Governor Jerry Brown in 2013 to the California State 9-1-1 Advisory Board, serving terms as the Past President of the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) and the Western Region Director of NENA, serving as the chairperson of the APCO Homeland Security Committee; and WHEREAS, Director Cullen, a native Palo Altan, has been a loyal advocate for his employees and co-workers known for always keeping their well-being at the center of his decision-making processes, who has always addressed matters in a rational and compassionate way, who has always advocated for professional staff within the Police Department, and who has always been willing to jump in and assist on any project or initiative. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Adrian Fine, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto on behalf of the entire City Council do hereby recognize Deputy Director of Police Technical Services Charles Cullen upon his retirement after 23 years of full-time employment with the City of Palo Alto. PRESENTED: June 15, 2020