Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2019-06-03 City Council Agenda Packet
City 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 3, 2019 Special Meeting Council Chambers 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. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. Public comment may be addressed to the full City Council via email at City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org. 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. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. 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 Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1.CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY- EXISTING LITIGATION Subject: Gustavo Alvarez v. City of Palo Alto, et al. United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 5:19-cv-02328-NC Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) Study Session 6:00-7:00 PM 2.Safe Routes to School Annual Update REVISED 2 June 3, 2019 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 7:00-7:10 PM Oral Communications 7:10-7:25 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 7:25-7:30 PM 3.Approval of Action Minutes for the May 13, 2019 Council Meeting Consent Calendar 7:30-7:35 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 4.Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C16161210 With Shah Kawasaki Architects, Inc., in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $117,564 to Provide Continued Construction Administration and LEED Certification Services for the Fire Station 3 Replacement Project (PE-15003), for a new Total Not-To-Exceed Amount of $814,242 5.Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute a Fiber Optic Lease Agreement With Equinix LLC., for a Term Not-to-Exceed Five Years and a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $625,465 6.Authorization for the City Manager to Sign a Memorandum of Understanding for a $200,000 Grant of Funds With the State Homeland Security Grant Program via Santa Clara County for a Solar Generator to Support the Mobile Emergency Operations Center (MEOC) 7.Adoption of a Park Improvement Ordinance for Pickleball Courts at Mitchell Park 8.Preliminary Approval of the Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) 2019-2020 Annual Report; Adoption of a Resolution Declaring an Intention to Levy an Assessment Against Businesses Within the BID for Fiscal Year 2020; and Setting a Time and Place for a Public Hearing to be Held by the City Council on the Levy of the Proposed Assessment 9.QUASI-JUDICIAL.1210 Newell Road [18PLN-00289]: Recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission to Uphold the Director's Tentative Decision to Deny a Variance Request to Allow for an Exception From the Standard Corner Lot Fence Height Regulations for a Fence of Approximately 7' 5" in the Front Yard, 8' in the Rear Yard, and 7' 5" in the Street Yard, and no Reduced Height in the Sight Triangle for the Newell Road/Community Lane Intersection. Environmental Assessment: In Accordance With Guideline Section MEMO Q&A Q&A Q&A 3 June 3, 2019 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. 15270, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Does not Apply to Projects That a Public Agency Disapproves. Zoning District: R-1 (Single-Family) 10.Policy and Services Committee Recommends the Council Accept the 2019-2020 Sustainability Work Plan 11.Adoption of a Resolution Amending Objective Standards for Wireless Communications Facilities on Wood Utility Poles in the Public Rights of Way to Correct an Administrative Error 12.SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 (Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Require Management of PCBs During Building Demolition in Compliance With the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (FIRST READING: May 20, 2019 PASSED 7-0) 13.SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to set a 120 Day Statute of Limitations for Challenges to the City’s Gas Rates (FIRST READING: May 20, 2019 PASSED 7-0) Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:35-9:00 PM 14.Discussion and Direction Regarding the Cubberley Master Plan, Including a Request for Proposal for Development of the Cubberley Business Plan and Level of Housing for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review 9:00-9:20 PM 15.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2321 Wellesley Street [18PLN-00178]: Request for a Zone Change From R-1 to RMD (NP) and Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Construct a Two- family Residence. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of CEQA per Section 15303. Zoning District: R-1 (Single- family Residential) 9:20-9:45 PM 16.Authorize and Approve $1 Million From the Residential Housing In-lieu Fund and $9 Million From the Commercial Housing Fund for a Total of $10 Million for the Development and Construction of the 100 Percent Affordable Housing Project at 3705 El Camino Real; and Approve Budget Amendments in the Residential Housing In-lieu Fund and the Commercial Housing Fund MEMO MEMO 4 June 3, 2019 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. State/Federal Legislation Update/Action 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. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Subject: 2555 Park BlvdAuthority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) and (e)(3) (One Potential Case, as Defendant) Closed SessionPublic Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 17. 9:45-10:45 PM 5 June 3, 2019 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 Finance Committee Meeting Cancellation June 4, 2019 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report Utilities Department 2019 Water Gas and Wastewater Utility Standards Public Letters to Council Set 1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 10127) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 6/3/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Transportation and Traffic Summary Title: Safe Routes to School Annual Update Title: Safe Routes to School Annual Update From: City Manager Lead Department: Transportation Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council receive this annual update for the Safe Routes to School Partnership and comment on the City/School Traffic Safety Committee’s adopted Five-Year Work Plan. Executive Summary This report provides the outcomes of the second year of the Five-year Plan for the Safe Routes to School Partnership. Key activities included pilot youth engagement programs for secondary students, promotion of a free bike registry, development of new education materials, and production of a video public service announcement funded by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The Partnership continues to deliver high active transportation mode share for school commutes, with 46 percent of the high school student population choosing to bike (which is an increase from last year). Overall, the proportion of PAUSD students commuting by any alternative mode reached 68 percent. The report presents Year 3 activities as adopted by the Partnership, including development of a parent survey, implementation of secondary school programming, and continued promotion of the free bike registry to aid in stolen bicycle recovery. Background The local Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Partnership between the City, the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), and the Palo Alto Council of PTAs (PTAC) works to reduce risk to students en route to and from school and encourages more families to choose alternatives to driving solo more often. In May 2017, the Palo Alto SRTS Partnership adopted a Five-Year City of Palo Alto Page 2 Work Plan. Years 1 and 2 have been completed. This report documents the progress of the Partnership for the 2018-19 school year and presents proposed Year 3 activities recently adopted by the Partnership. For 60 years, the City, PAUSD, and the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) have maintained a safety-focused youth transportation collaboration in Palo Alto, meeting monthly as the City/School Traffic Safety Committee (CSTSC). In 2006, this collaboration adopted a National Consensus Statement relying on a ‘5-E’ (Encouragement, Education, Engineering, Enforcement, and Evaluation) injury prevention framework to support safe, healthy, and active school commutes. In 2016, the Partnership adopted a sixth ‘E’ for Equity to align with national standards and to ensure that the SRTS Partnership provides additional resources to support the needs of under-resourced or under-represented student populations. Each year, the SRTS Partnership brings forward an annual report to the City Council and the City School Liaison Committee. The update went to the City School Liaison Committee on May 16 this year. The 2017-18 annual report was presented to City Council on August 27, 2018. Link to the report is: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=66394. It was presented later than usual due to staff turnover. The 2018-19 report below summarizes the work done within the past year and the work planned for the coming year. SRTS staff hope to further extend this report update to the full PAUSD Board in the future. Discussion While the Five-Year Work Plan objectives remain somewhat fixed from year-to-year, the strategies to achieve the goals change each year, based on priorities set by program partners. The priorities are also subject to change based on budgetary constraints or staff capacity. Activities 2018-19 school year highlights are listed below: ● An updated Five-Year Work Plan outlining Year 3 strategies (See Attachment A) ● A three (3) percent increase in active transportation mode-share (measured by travel tallies) ● A five (5) percent increase in biking across the District (measured by bike counts) ● Three (3) middle and high school youth engagement and transportation safety pilot programs ● Provision of 156 in-class compulsory educational trainings for PAUSD students ● Sustained rates of active transportation despite ongoing street and campus construction City of Palo Alto Page 3 This year, the SRTS Partnership broadened its education and outreach offerings with more than 11 new and enhanced youth-focused programs, pilots, and materials. These initiatives were undertaken in recognition of the limited educational offerings at the high school level and as part of Work Plan Year 2 directives. In addition, as youth continue to bike in record numbers, and the community continues to be interested in Palo Alto’s transportation infrastructure best supporting the daily commute habits of so many young cyclists. Some example initiatives are: ● East Palo Alto to Palo Alto Student-Generated Walk and Roll Map: Achievement Via Individual Determination (AVID): Students at Greene Middle School are in the process of completing a Walk and Roll map to support the safe passage of students interested in or needing to commute to PAUSD schools via human powered walking or wheeled transportation. Safe Routes staff applaud community partners from the City of East Palo Alto, Stanford Health, and PAUSD’s faculty and Family Engagement Specialists for their enthusiastic support of this project. ● Intergenerational Transportation Safety Summit: Due to ongoing concerns from pedestrian users of the California Avenue undercrossing who have expressed safety concerns when bicyclists pass them in the tunnel, the City is exploring a revised community meeting format that better integrates the needs of all stakeholders, including youth. The intent is to help create a community-led process to improve compliance with existing municipal code regulations by providing a safe space for everyone to better understand one another as shared users of a narrow tunnel space. ● Getting to High School Pilot: This year the SRTS team continued moving in a more positive reinforcement-based interactive and engaging style of presentation and away from passive presentations. Lunchtime pop-up bike fairs were held at each middle school to help generate enthusiasm and interest for bike safety. The City partnered with an expert on Middle School Bike Safety education to deliver this curriculum and received widespread feedback that this new approach was well- received by students and facility alike. Some of the activities included a stunt rider performance, bike blender smoothies, bike spin art, Walk and Roll high school map route planning, bike safety hip hop, and fortune cookies with bike safety messages. The fortunes emphasized wearing helmets, avoiding earbuds and phone use, stopping at stop signs, intersection safety, riding on the proper side of the street, staying out of the door zone, locking bikes properly, and registering with Bike Index. ● Bike Index: In response to community concerns about thefts occurring in the bike cages after-hours, the City Transportation Office, the Palo Alto Police Department and the PTA collaborated to support the creation of a local bike registry to help with City of Palo Alto Page 4 bicycle recovery. ● Infrastructure Education: The SRTS Partnership collaborates on educational materials when new infrastructure affects school commutes. Attachment B presents a selection of new education resources generated this year. Video PSAs: History and Join the Movement With funding from the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the Safe Routes to School team produced a second public service announcement video “Safe Routes to School: A History Lesson” about the history and benefits of student active transportation in Palo Alto, to complement last year’s “Join the Movement” video, which showcases the value of the Safe Routes to School program to families and the community and invites continued parent engagement. The newest video chronicles biking in the community since the 1800’s as well as the long-standing support for independent student travel to school. VTA support was essential to the making of the videos, intended to inspire the development of additional robust Safe Routes programs in Santa Clara County. The “Safe Routes: A History Lesson” video can be found here: https://youtu.be/XB2yYuW-tKk. The “Join the Movement” video can be found here: https://youtu.be/Sd1BvYETDmc. A comprehensive table of 2018-19 SRTS activities organized by the Six Es is provided in Table 1 below. Table 1: Safe Routes to School Program Activities, 2018-2019 Activity Partners (in order of leadership) Description Outcomes Encouragement Bike Palo Alto! Helmet Fitting Palo Alto Green Teams, CPA SRTS, LPCH Coordinated a bicycle safety education table and offered customized helmet fittings • Ten 15-minute presentations • Est. 50 participants Bike to Work Day Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, CPA SRTS, community volunteers Coordinated four volunteer-run Energizer Stations and assisted with developing promotional materials targeted to residents and City staff • All-time high of 2,422 cyclists counted at stations Fall & Spring Walk and Roll to School Events PTA, PAUSD, CPA SRTS Events to encourage families to try walking, biking, carpooling, or transit • Est. 34 events • Est. 200 volunteers City of Palo Alto Page 5 Activity Partners (in order of leadership) Description Outcomes Middle & High School Back to School Events PTA, PAUSD, CPA SRTS, PAPD, Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) Commute planning, Bike Index registration, bike checkups, and helmet fitting • Five 2-3-hour events Safe Routes PTA TSR Volunteer Orientation PTA, CPA SRTS 2.5-hour training for incoming Safe Routes to School Transportation Safety Representatives • 16 participants New Principal Orientations CPA SRTS, PAUSD SRTS information session for new principals • Hoover Parent Outreach Discussions CPA SRTS, PTA Met with PTA Safe Routes Champions and others to address on- or off-campus circulation concerns and encourage mode shift • Greendell • Palo Verde • Ohlone • JLS • Paly • Gunn • Addison • Fletcher • Hoover • Escondido Video PSAs CPA SRTS Video public service messages funded by VTA • Palo Alto Safe Routes to School History Intergenerational Transportation Safety CPA SRTS, PAUSD Pilot outreach meeting with non- traditional format for users of the California Ave tunnel Participants: • 5 students • 5 older adults Education K-2 Pedestrian Safety Safe Moves, CPA SRTS Pedestrian safety assemblies for all PAUSD K-2nd graders • 58 45-minute presentations • 2,261 students Walk Smart Pedestrian Safety Field Trip Walk Smart, CPA SRTS, PAUSD On-street walking field trip class for Addison second graders • Four 45-minute classes Bicycle Life Skills Curriculum CPA, SRTS, PAUSD, PAPD, PTA, Stanford, PAMF, Bicycle Outfitter Three-lesson bicycle safety trainings for all PAUSD 3rd graders • Approx. 4.5 hours of bike safety education per student • 36 presentations • 824 students City of Palo Alto Page 6 Activity Partners (in order of leadership) Description Outcomes Fifth Grade Bicycle Safety Refresher CPA SRTS, PAUSD Bicycle safety assembly for all 5th graders entering middle school • Twelve 40-60-minute presentations • 886 students Sixth Grade Back to School Bicycle Safety Orientation PAUSD, CPA SRTS Bicycle safety assembly for all 6th graders • 14 one-hour presentations • 886 students Middle School Bike Skills Wheelkids Bicycle Club, CPA SRTS On-bike safety education for middle school students and parents (opt-in program) • 9 classes with 212 participants Eighth Grade Getting to High School Event CPA SRTS, PTA, PAUSD Bike safety and high school commute planning information for all 8th graders • Three 2-hour presentations • 1,031 students Bike Rodeo Captain Training CPA, PTA Prepared Bike Rodeo Captains for Bike Rodeo event coordination at their school • 2 trainings • 11 schools trained Walk & Roll Map Updates CPA SRTS, Palo Alto Library 2019 Walk and Roll Map Updates for Addison, Greene, Hoover, and Fletcher • Posted on SRTS website Educational Materials for New Infrastructure CPA SRTS, Transportation Staff Developed educational materials including pedestrian hybrid beacon safety posters, driver safety tips, Bike Index bike theft safety tips, and a flyer for PAMF Pediatrics • See Attachment B for example posters and flyers Engineering 2012 Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan Projects Transportation staff, Public Works staff Improvements identified by the community to enhance walking and bicycling • Ongoing design feedback • CSTSC input Neighborhood Traffic Safety & Bicycle Boulevard Program Transportation and Public Works staff Bicycle Boulevard projects that prioritize improvements for school children, pedestrians, and people on bicycles • Ongoing design feedback • CSTSC input • Education/outreach assistance Complete Streets Projects Public Works staff with Transportation staff input Roadway maintenance projects that consider all road users, including people on foot or on bicycles • Ongoing design feedback • CSTSC input • Education/ outreach assistance City of Palo Alto Page 7 Activity Partners (in order of leadership) Description Outcomes Safe Routes to School Projects Transportation and Public Works staff Projects on school routes arising from VERBS grant analysis and from PAUSD or PTA requests • Ongoing design feedback • CSTSC input • Education/outreach assistance Palo Alto 311 Service Requests CPA SRTS Requests for improvements on school routes submitted by the community • 57 completed since July 2018 Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) Support CPA SRTS Monthly reports of SRTS activities and collision data given to advisory committee • Reports at monthly PABAC meetings Other City and PAUSD Projects Varies Collaborations or other actions promoting student safety and active transportation led by Safe Routes partners or youth • Cubberley Co-Design • Hoover Campus Circulation • Lower Bol Park/Gunn Path Lighting • Skateboard Towers • Bike Parking Surveillance Cameras Enforcement Crossing Guards PAPD Crossing guards for elementary and middle school students at qualifying intersections • 31 crossing guards (29 permanent, 2 floating) Juvenile Diversion Program PAPD, Traffic Safe Communities Network of Santa Clara County “Traffic School” for youth with on-bike citations • 3 classes totaling 66 students Monthly Collision Reporting PAPD Bicycle and pedestrian collision data shared monthly at CSTSC meeting • 24 collisions involving minors • 74 citations of minors (mostly helmet violations) Traffic Law Enforcement PAPD Enforcement of traffic laws for both drivers and bicyclists • Reinstatement of Traffic Team Evaluation City of Palo Alto Page 8 Activity Partners (in order of leadership) Description Outcomes Classroom Commute Tallies CPA SRTS, PAUSD Increased response rate of online collection of commute mode tallies for ES PAUSD students • See Table 4 Ongoing Program Evaluation CPA SRTS Post-program surveys of teachers, administrators, and volunteers • 47 evaluations Parked Bicycle Counts PTA, CPA SRTS Counts of parked bicycles at all PAUSD schools • See Table 3 Equity Bike, Helmet, & Bike Light Giveaways CPA SRTS, PAUSD, PTA, Palo Alto Bicycles, Gunn ReCycle Donations by SRTS partners for distribution to students in need of equipment • 200 bike lights to PAPD • 15 bicycles with helmets Bike Repair Bay Area Bike Mobile, VeloFix, PTA, CPA SRTS Free school-based bicycle repair clinics that engage students in hands-on bike repair • 8 Schools • Approx. 300 Bikes repaired Materials Translation Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Spare the Air Youth Staff, CPA SRTS Translation of educational, map, and evaluation materials into Spanish and Mandarin • 17 documents translated • 150 Mandarin flyers shared at Chinese New Year Festival Greene Middle School Achieve Via Individual Determination (AVID) Programming CPA SRTS, PAUSD, Alta, LPCH, Stanford Children’s Health Middle school classroom activities and bicycle repair workshop at request of Greene Teacher • 18 students Chinese New Year Festival CPA SRTS, PTA SRTS information table with translated materials and native speakers • Third annual appearance • 100 interactions Great Race For Saving Water CPA SRTS SRTS information table with translated materials • 30 interactions Source: Office of Transportation, May 2019 Program Evaluation As shown in Table 2, the 2018-19 core education programs touched approximately 5,888 students, or roughly 49% of total PAUSD enrollment. To further increase program reach, the 2018-19 secondary school pilot programs will be evaluated for inclusion into the core programs for the 2019-20 school year. City staff also included this information as one of the workload measures for the newly created Office of Transportation through the Fiscal Year 2020 proposed budget. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Table 2: Safe Routes to School Core Education Program Reach Program Number of Lessons/ Assemblies Number of PAUSD Students Taught K-2 Pedestrian Safety 62 2,261 Third Grade Bicycle Life Skills Curriculum 36 824 Fifth Grade Bicycle Refresher 12 886 Sixth Grade Back to School Bicycle Safety Orientation 14 886 Eighth Grade Getting to High School Event 3 1031 Total for Core Education Programs 127 5,888 Source: Office of Transportation, May 2019 In addition to post-program surveys of teachers, administrators, and volunteers, the Partnership collects data to estimate levels of school commute alternative mode use. Tables 3 and 4 present yearly alternative mode share/shift calculated by using classroom travel tallies and bike rack counts each fall. Bike rack counts are administered by PTA volunteers calculating the number of parked bikes at their school. Attachment C contains more detailed SRTS data. Table 3: 2018 Parked Bicycle Counts at PAUSD Schools School Type 2018 Parked Bikes % Biking Percentage point change Elementary 732 15% -1 Middle 1,422 50% 0 High 1,867 46% +6 * Total 4,021 37% +5 Source: Office of Transportation, May 2019 Classroom travel tallies are administered by teachers through a show of student hands. In 2016- 17, new online data gathering methods for the classroom travel tally helped expand the program’s capacity to conduct travel tallies at the secondary level. The City has a goal of reaching a mean district response rate of 70%. The mean tally response rate was 49 percent in 2016-17, 65 percent in 2017-18, and 60 percent in 2018-19. Table 4 shows the travel mode percentages aggregated by school type for the current school year. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Table 4: 2018-19 PAUSD Classroom Tally of Mode to School Walk Scooter Skate (%) Bike (%) Carpool (%) Transit (%) Drive (%) Resp. Rate (%) Alt. Transp. Mode (%) Alt. Mode Shift Change (%) Elem. 24 15 4 5 51 82 48 +1 Middle 13 58 2 5 22 69 78 +1 High 7 54 7 9 24 30 77 +7 Average 15 42 4 6 32 60 68 +3 Source: Office of Transportation, May 2019 Data Interpretation Weather variations, date of data collection, absenteeism, classroom tally participation rates, school-based special events, volunteer-based calculation errors, and whether bicycles are left in the rack or removed during the school day impact the validity of these results. Importantly, the small mode shift changes across all school levels are well within the norm of data fluctuations and suggest sustained levels of alternative mode use at a rate that is more than twice the national average. Evaluation results show that active transportation mode share is holding steady or increasing at all school levels compared to last year, and secondary school alternative transportation numbers (77-78%) approach the active transportation numbers in parts of the Netherlands, as reported by a European Union report on Walking and Cycling Transport modes. Travel tally data was substantiated by parked bike counts which show similar patterns to the travel tally counts. Staff found that the greater the sample size, the more the tally data accurately reflected bike count information, even if bike count data may be affected by various factors like weather on the day of the count or special events. A key concern this year was securing classroom participation, particularly at some, but not all the high and middle schools. The lack of a sufficient sample size made it difficult to verify the validity of some of the secondary school information. Moving forward and into this summer, staff will continue to work with PAUSD partners to increase participation in this 4- question travel tally and to help with dissemination of a parent survey to determine parent attitudes and behaviors about walking and biking to school. Even with increases in campus and street construction, both the Classroom Tally and Bike Count data suggested an overall 3 percent increase in alternative transportation mode share from the previous year. High active transportation mode share has many health and quality of life benefits. For the school district, high alternative mode share also allows for City of Palo Alto Page 11 more efficient use of scarce land resources for school facilities rather than for automobile circulation and storage. In addition, planning adequately for the large flows of students who use alternative modes improves their safety as those facilities can be right-sized to their needs. SRTS staff recognize that bond measure campus construction is an opportunity for each school community to re-think how to get to school. In many cases, alternative mode use increases after a period of construction because of impacted automobile access and, often, improved alternative mode access. Campus construction could be viewed as an impetus to support families in changing their school travel habits. While the overall results and trends are positive, staff will continue to monitor the high use of the family car, particularly at the Elementary School level where carpooling appears to be an underused travel mode. Safe Routes staff understand that sustained efforts around carpooling require an additional volunteer at each school so as not to overload current Transportation Safety Representatives. Part of reducing the use of the family car also involves changing the culture of school commute travel at PAUSD Choice programs. PAUSD data shows that most families live within a walkable or bike-able distance of each Choice campus. Staff are working with school administrators to change the misperceptions about the residential distribution of Choice families and to support increased uptake of active modes. In addition, staff are seeing an interest in micro-mobility devices amongst youth. All secondary schools will soon have skateboard towers to secure parking of this equipment, thanks to PTA and PAUSD collaboration. As these modes emerge, staff will research best practices and add appropriate curriculum and messaging. Parents may also explore micro- mobility as the City is currently working to develop bike- and scooter-share guidelines as part of a citywide pilot program. Staff will evaluate how these programs fit alongside the other modes available to the parent community. Moving forward, staff also hope to develop a methodology to overlay mode share numbers with valid injury reporting data. The current process for monitoring injuries includes the Palo Alto Police sharing relevant data from all youth-involved bicycle or pedestrian traffic collisions as a part of the monthly City/School Traffic Safety Committee meetings. Following each report, there is discussion about what can be done to prevent such collisions from an engineering or education standpoint, and adjustments are made as necessary. As the Office of Transportation takes its new form, there may be a future opportunity for staff to enhance collision analysis functions for all ages and across all modes. In implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, the SRTS Partnership will seek to: • Sustain alternative mode share numbers, and City of Palo Alto Page 12 • Provide bicycle, pedestrian and driver safety education to accommodate the buildout of infrastructure appropriate for such high levels of alternative transportation. Adopted SRTS Objectives, 2019-2022 The 2019 Five-Year Work Plan that was finalized at the April 18, 2019, City School Traffic Safety Committee (CSTSC) meeting will serve as a roadmap for the program’s development. The goal of the plan is to grow and strengthen community-wide support through the SRTS Six E's model for safe, active, healthy, and sustainable school commutes. The seven (7) objectives of the Five-Year Plan are listed below. To accommodate partner feedback, Objective 7 was added to the plan this year to reflect the Partnership’s commitment to reach as many students as possible. The Safe Routes to School Partnership will advance these objectives through various strategies while providing core programming and assisting with other outreach and engagement efforts as needed, including Connecting Palo Alto grade separation, the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project, and the Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevard Project. The detailed work plan is presented in Attachment A. 1. Adopt and institutionalize key SRTS practices and policies across the Partnership and gather best practices from elsewhere 2. Provide, continue, and enhance school and community-based SRTS education programs, materials, and communications 3. Expand and enhance SRTS events, encouragement programs, and materials to communicate the value of SRTS to parents, students, and the community 4. Gather data to assess and improve SRTS program outcomes 5. Engineer routes to school to develop a safer and more efficient network for families choosing active transportation 6. Increase awareness and engagement between City Departments and the community to advance awareness of the SRTS mission, goals, and strategies 7. Commit to an equitable distribution of SRTS resources to encourage broad SRTS community participation Key activities for Year 3 include the development of a localized parent survey to identify challenges to more active transportation, the initiation of two new site assessments with associated Walk and Roll map updates, and a new PAPD traffic enforcement strategy to support students who walk and bike to school. Policy Implications City of Palo Alto Page 13 The Safe Routes to School program aligns with the 2019 Council priorities of Climate Change and Transportation and Traffic as well as with the adopted Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, and the Comprehensive Plan. This program is consistent with key transportation goals in the City’s Comprehensive Plan 2030, including creating a sustainable transportation system, reducing congestion, and providing a safe environment for all road users. Specific policies and programs include: ● Policy T-1.16: Promote personal transportation vehicles as an alternative to cars (e.g. bicycles, skateboards, roller blades) to get to work, school, shopping, recreational facilities and transit stops. ● Program T-1.16.4: Participate in local and regional encouragement events such as Palo Alto Walk and Rolls, Bike to Work Day, and Bike Palo Alto! that encourage a culture of bicycling and walking as alternative to single-occupant vehicle trips. ● Policy T1.19: Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking. ● Program T1.19.2: Prioritize investment for enhanced pedestrian access and bicycle use within Palo Alto and to/from surrounding communities, including by incorporating improvements from related city plans, for example the 2012 Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan and the Parks, Trails & Open Space master Plan, as amended, into the Capital Improvements Program. ● Policy T-2.7: Work with the PAUSD to resolve traffic congestion issues associated with student drop-off and pick-up. Address pedestrian and bicycle access, circulation and related issues such as coordinating bell schedules on City rights-of-way adjacent to schools and on PAUSD property. ● Program T6.1.1: Follow the principles of the Safe Routes to Schools program to implement traffic safety measures that focus on safe routes to work, shopping, downtown, community services, parks, and schools including all designated school commute corridors. ● Program T6.1.2: Develop, distribute, and aggressively promote maps and apps showing safe routes to work, shopping, community services, parks and schools within Palo Alto in collaboration with stakeholders, including PAUSD, major employers, TMA's, local businesses and community organizations. ● Policy T-6.2: Pursue the goal of zero severe injuries and roadway fatalities on Palo Alto city streets. ● Policy T-6.4: Continue the Safe Routes to School partnership with PAUSD and the Palo Alto Council of PTAs. ● Policy T-6.5: Support PAUSD adoption of standard Safe Routes to School policies and regulations that address the five E's of education, encouragement, enforcement, engineering and evaluation. ● Program T6.6.2: Continue to provide educational programs for children and adults, in partnership with community-based educational organizations, to promote safe City of Palo Alto Page 14 walking and the safe use of bicycles, including the City-sponsored bicycle education programs in the public schools and the bicycle traffic school program for juveniles. ● Program T6.6.3: Work with PAUSD and employers to promote roadway safety for all users, including motorized alternatives to cars and bikes such as mopeds and e- bikes, through educational programs for children and adults. Timeline The Safe Routes to School Partnership supports an ongoing, year-round program which includes both engineering and programmatic elements. A timeline of recently completed and upcoming infrastructure projects that reduce risk to students is included in Table 5. The Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevard Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects have been put on hold pending an upcoming evaluation of project planning and construction. These projects are noted as NTSBB1 and NTSBB2 in the table. Table 5: SRTS Infrastructure Project Timeline Project Name School Routes to be Improved Status Churchill Avenue Enhanced Bikeway, Phase 0 Palo Alto HS Completed April 2016 Cowper Street at Coleridge Avenue High-visibility Crosswalks Walter Hays Completed April 2016 Georgia Ave High-visibility Crosswalk & Curb Extension Fletcher MS Gunn HS Completed Summer 2016 Los Robles Avenue Bikeway Enhancements Briones Fletcher MS Gunn HS Completed Summer 2016 Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard Early Implementation (Stanford Avenue to Cambridge Avenue) Greene MS Palo Alto HS Completed Summer 2016 Middlefield Road and North California Avenue Complete Street Project Greene MS Palo Alto HS Completed Fall 2016 Garland Drive Sharrows Greene MS Completed Winter 2017 Overcrossing/Undercrossing Improvements Greene MS Palo Alto HS Completed August 2017 Arastradero Road at Donald Drive Spot Safety Improvements Fletcher MS Completed September 2017 Cowper Street at Coleridge Avenue Traffic Circle Trial Walter Hays Completed September 2017 Colorado Avenue at Sandra Place Spot Safety Improvements Ohlone Completed July 2018 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Project Name School Routes to be Improved Status Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard El Carmelo Ohlone Palo Verde Greene MS Gunn HS Palo Alto HS Completed Summer 2018 Channing Avenue and St Francis Drive Enhanced Bikeway Duveneck Completed Summer 2018 Pedestrian-Actuated Rapid Flashing Beacon at Palo Alto HS Driveway/Churchill Avenue Palo Alto HS Completed Fall 2018 Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue Bicycle Boulevard El Carmelo Ohlone Palo Verde Completed Fall 2018 Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project Phase 1 and 2 Barron Park Briones Hoover Fairmeadow JLS MS Fletcher MS Gunn HS Under Construction Louis Road-Montrose Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Fairmeadow JLS MS Gunn HS Paused, Part of NTSBB1 Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Upgrade (Menlo Park City Limits to East Meadow Road) Addison El Carmelo JLS MS Greene MS Palo Alto HS Paused, Part of NTSBB1 Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension (East Meadow Drive to San Antonio Road) Fairmeadow Hoover JLS MS Gunn HS Paused, Part of NTSBB2 Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Briones Fletcher MS Gunn HS Paused, Part of NTSBB2 Park Boulevard-Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard Barron Park Briones Fletcher MS Gunn HS Paused, Part of NTSBB2 City of Palo Alto Page 16 Project Name School Routes to be Improved Status Stanford Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Barron Park Briones Fletcher MS Gunn Paused, Part of NTSBB2 Churchill Avenue Enhanced Bikeway, Phase 1 Palo Alto HS Summer 2020 Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project Phase 3 Barron Park Briones Hoover Fairmeadow JLS MS Fletcher MS Gunn HS Summer 2020 Churchill Avenue Highway-Railroad Crossing Safety Improvement Project Palo Alto HS Fall 2020 South Palo Alto Bikeways Project: East Meadow Drive, Fabian Way, and Waverley Path Fairmeadow Hoover Palo Verde JLS MS Gunn HS Summer 2021 El Camino Real Pedestrian Safety and Streetscape Project Greene MS Palo Alto HS Mayfield Playing Field Users Summer 2021 Embarcadero Road at El Camino Real Improvements Palo Alto HS Summer 2021 Source: Office of Transportation, May 2019 Resource Impacts The City’s Safe Routes to School team currently consists of one full-time and one part-time Coordinator Transportation System Management (Coordinator) positions for a total of 1.5 FTE (full time equivalent) which is supported by a part-time Management Specialist position. The FY 2020 Proposed Operating Budget includes conversion of the part-time Coordinator into one full-time Coordinator position, offset by the elimination of the Management Specialist position, to achieve efficiencies in recruitment, management, continuity, and training. Safe Routes to School infrastructure projects are financed through a variety of means, including the Safe Routes to School capital project (PL-00026), the street maintenance program, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation capital project City of Palo Alto Page 17 (PL-04010), and through several grant programs. The capital projects allows for strategic investments in school route safety infrastructure, such as crosswalks, pedestrian flashing beacons, improved signage, and street markings. The FY 2020 Proposed Capital Budget includes $104,000 for the Safe Routes to School capital project (PL-00026) and the five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) proposes funding through Fiscal Year 2024, for a five-year total of $1.83 million. This total includes a $919,000 grant from the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for the South Palo Alto Bikeways project. The FY 2020 Operating and Capital Proposed Budgets are subject to adoption by the City Council, which is currently scheduled for June 17. It should be noted, the City Council only adopts the budget for the first year of the five-year CIP, and the remaining four years are to be used for forecasting and planning purposes. Environmental Review This agenda item is for City Council review and input and is not a “project” requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: Attachment A: 2018 SRTS Five-Year Work Plan (PDF) Attachment B: Sample Education Resources (PDF) Attachment C: 1985-2018 Secondary School Bicycle Count Graphs (PDF) Attachments: Attachment A_ SRTS 5 Year Plan Year 3 Final (PDF) Attachment B_ Selected Education Materials (PDF) Attachment C_ 2018 Bike Count Graphs (PDF) Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5 Objective 6 Objective 7 Adopt and institutionalize key SRTS practices and policies across the Partnership and gather best practices from elsewhere Provide, continue and enhance school and community-based SRTS education programs, materials and communications Expand and enhance SRTS events and encouragement programs and materials to communicate the value of SRTS to parents, students and the community Gather data to assess and improve SRTS program outcomes Engineer routes to school to develop a more safe and efficient network for families choosing active transportation Increase awareness & engagement between City Departments and the community to advance awareness of the SRTS mission, goals & strategies Commit to an equitable distribution of SRTS resources to encourage broad SRTS community participation Work toward PAUSD SRTS policy adoption Build out two Stanford service learning education, evaluation & enforcement projects Expand Youth for Environmental Sustainability Conf. Participation Develop SRTS Public Service Announcements Increase Spanish and Mandarin materials Develop SRTS educational posters Participate in countywide SRTS data pilot Integrate Statewide Traffic System (SWITRS) data into SRTS Pilot online travel tally Complete two site assessments and update Walk and Roll Maps Update City Comprehensive Plan policies This goal was not developed ON HOLD: Develop a PAUSD SRTS policy to sustain ongoing commitment from PAUSD Explore optional and compulsory SRTS high school education programs Develop a communications plan outline Develop a public list of carpooling resources Develop a PAUSD parent survey to evaluate participant demographics and identify challenges to more active transportation ON HOLD: Complete two site assessments with updated Walk and Roll Maps for Palo Verde and Gunn H.S. Create an enforcement strategy to reflect changing staffing levels by shifting traffic enforcement role to patrol officers Conduct a bike repair class with student input (COMPLETED AND ALSO IN PROCESS) Promote safer routes for East Palo Alto PAUSD student bicyclists (IN PROCESS Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5 Objective 6 Objective 7 Develop school report cards summarizing travel mode split, SR2S activities undertaken, and the level of green travel status Implement optional and compulsory SRTS high education programs Develop fact-based and consistent Safe Routes to School messages that can be used on social media Administer a PAUSD parent survey to evaluate participant demographics and identify challenges to more active transportation Complete two site assessments with updated Walk and Roll Maps for Palo Verde and Gunn H.S. Work with PAPD/City to promote the Bike Index Registry as a means of preventing bike theft and create a workflow at PAPD to include Bike Index checks on all recovered bikes Work with PAUSD Family Engagement Specialists to develop an Equity Action Plan to expand on the need to support underrepresented and under-resourced communities. 2019 PALO ALTO SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL CITY/PTA/PAUSD PARTNERSHIP FIVE-YEAR WORK PLAN (YEARS 1-3) LONG-TERM OBJECTIVES: (CONTINGENT ON SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL FUNDING AND CAPACITY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE AS DEMAND DICTATES). YEAR 1 STRATEGIES FOR MEETING LONG TERM OBJECTIVES: 7/1/17-6/30/18 YEAR 2 STRATEGIES FOR MEETING LONG TERM OBJECTIVES: 7/1/18-6/30/19 YEAR 3 STRATEGIES FOR MEETING LONG TERM OBJECTIVES: 7/1/19-6/30/20 2019 PALO ALTO SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL CITY/PTA/PAUSD PARTNERSHIP FIVE-YEAR WORK PLAN (YEARS 1-3)* ONGOING STRATEGIES Objective 1: Adopt and institutionalize key SRTS practices and policies across the Partnership and gather best practices from elsewhere Support SRTS Champions/Teams at each school site PTA inspires action and educates potential leaders about public process, governance and SRTS Advocacy Support increased uniform patrol presence to encourage and enforce compliance with existing laws Maintain the City School Traffic Safety Committee as a forum to further the Safe Routes Partnership’s mission, goals and strategies Improve communication of the policy and policy dissemination Objective 2: Provide, expand and enhance school and community-based SRTS education programs and materials Cultivate a community of parents and others to build a network of skilled leaders for education and advocacy Support active transportation events during the year by setting up information tables, assisting families with route planning and responding to infrastructure concerns Maintain K-2 in-class educational offerings and optimize the program to match student capabilities, support educational best practices and incorporate infrastructure updates Maintain 3rd grade Bicycle Life Skills Curriculum in-class and optimize program to match student capabilities, support educational best practices and incorporate infrastructure updates Maintain 5th grade in-class educational offerings and optimize the program to match student capabilities, support educational best practices and incorporate infrastructure updates Maintain 6th grade in-class educational offerings and optimize programs to match student capabilities, support educational best practices and incorporate infrastructure updates Maintain 8th grade offerings and optimize programs to match student capabilities, support educational best practices and incorporate infrastructure updates Align parent messages with student educational programming Grow Youth for Environmental Sustainability Conference participation Build out bus/shuttle resources and assist with schedules Objective 3: Expand and enhance SRTS encouragement programs and materials to communicate the value of the SRTS program to parents and across the community Support Spring Walk & Roll Week Support Fall Walk & Roll Week Support Bike to Work Day Support Bike Palo Alto (SPECIFY?) Communicate program activities and successes to the broader community Use Walk and Roll Maps and “Safety Tips for Peds/Bikes/Drivers” as part of messaging Employ purposeful incentives to support SRTS participation Communicate the value of bicycling, walking, transit and sharing rides Enhance website functionality and user experience. Support parent education, including Back to School Nights, spring information nights for rising 5th, 6th and 7th graders and providing SRTS information in Back to School packets. Objective 4 Gather data to assess and improve SRTS program outcomes Incorporate traffic and engineering data into mode split and modal share assessments Explain the purpose of data collection to PAUSD administrators and share the data in a way that encourages and does not compare schools Conduct yearly online travel tallies for PAUSD grades K-12 Conduct yearly bike counts Manage local and administrative data requests Objective 5: Engineer routes to school to develop a more safe and efficient network for families choosing active transportation Assist with bicycle infrastructure design review to inform the planning process Design and provide materials and education about new infrastructure improvements Advocate as a Partnership for the rapid implementation of bike network, bike boulevards and arterial projects (EDITS?) Respond to Palo Alto 311 requests Conduct community site visits Provide crossing guard management, including assessing needs, developing contracts and replying to public feedback Objective 6: Deepen SRTS awareness and engagement across City Departments and among community representatives to advance and institutionalize awareness of the SRTS mission, goals and strategies Support the build-out of the City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Provide students and families with transit system information and offer guidance on proposed transit changes Model walking, biking, carpool and transit through daily transportation decisions Assist with plans to develop a more efficient roadway network for families choosing active transportation. Collaborate with local agencies, including public works, utilities, law enforcement and district officials to support motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists Update SRTS Onboarding Manual Promote awareness of Traffic Safety Control guidelinesand Headsup tool Objective 7: Commit to an equitable distribution of SRTS resources to encourage broad SRTS community participation Develop Spanish and Chinese language materials Promote a “no-guilt approach” to encourage participation via all transportation modes Support free services, such as bike repair, helmet and bike light distribution and compulsory education to ensure that under- resourced students can access important safety resources in a way that does not stigmatize them Ensure ongoing awareness regarding the geographic distribution of SRTS staff time and resources among Palo Alto regions and across neighborhoods Support off-site free or low-cost alternative commute transportation services that are targeted to at-risk families Attachment B Selected Safe Routes Education Materials Developed in 2018-19 Safe Routes to School Tips Exercise makes families healthier! Your doctor has suggested walking and biking to school as a healthy way for your child to integrate exercise into their day. Safe Biking ●Be safe: Wear your helmet and buckle it every time. To best protect your brain, your helmet must fit properly: snug, level, and low. ●Be predictable: Ride with the flow of traffic. Obey all stop signs and traffic signals. Ride in a straight line, outside the “door zone.” Signal your turns. ●Be alert: Look ahead for hazards. Watch for drivers turning or coming out of driveways. Avoid texting and phone calls while biking. ●Be courteous: Pedestrians have the right of way on sidewalks and shared paths. Ride slowly, keep to the right, and pass on the left. Give an audible warning when you pass. ●Be visible: Use a bright headlight and taillight at night. Safe Walking ●Be safe: Don’t assume drivers see you. Make eye contact before crossing intersections. If there is no sidewalk, walk on the side of the street facing traffic as far from motor vehicles as possible. ●Be predictable: Cross at crosswalks and corners. ●Be alert: Look for cars coming from all directions (including behind you) before entering the street. Safe Driving in School Zones ●Be safe: Slow down and use extra caution in school zones and along commute routes. Obey crossing guards and “No Right Turn on Red” signs. Yield to pedestrians. ●Be predictable: Signal your turns. Avoid making U-turns and other unsafe maneuvers. Never double-park or block access ramps. Follow school drop-off and pick-up guidelines. ●Be alert: Avoid texting, phone calls, and other distractions while driving. For more information, maps, and educational resources, or to volunteer to get your school walking and biking, contact the programs in your city on the back of this flyer. Bo om Bracket (Most serial numbers can be found here.) How to Prevent Most Bike Theft Lock It Every Time You Leave It • Cable locks can be cut quickly. Buy a high-quality U-lock and practice using it • If possible, lock through the frame and wheel. If not, lock through the frame. • Lock to a secure bike rack, not a fence which could be cut easily. • Lock it even if you’re leaving it in a bike cage that will be locked during the day. Never Leave It Overnight • Even a locked bike is at risk of being stolen when left in a public space vernight. Register It with Bike Index • Find your serial number (usually stamped into the metal of the bo om bracket on the underside of the bike) and take a picture of your bike. • Register it online for free with BikeIndex.org and join the City of Palo Alto group. • If it ever goes missing, log in to your account and mark it stolen. Most bike thefts are crimes of opportunity. Unlocked (or poorly locked) bikes are easy targets. For added security (high schools, Caltrain): • U-lock through frame and back wheel. • Cable lock through U-lock and front wheel. CityofPaloAlto.org/SafeRoutes Locking skewers can replace quick releases on wheels. They are particularly useful at racks where you can only lock the wheel. Կආ໔େ෦తࣗߦं䫖 㑌࣍։ࣗߦं࣌ཁ • ߯ើ༰қᏗɻߪങߴ࣭త6ܕฒ࿅श༻ɻ • Մೳ࣌ሡंՍंྠಉ࣌ॅɻՌෆߦɼἥաंՍॅɻ • ࡏ҆શతࣗߦंՍ্ɼࣕඇ༰қᏗతᅴཝɻ • ଈ䓟ࣗߦंཹࡏ্తं୨ɼཁɻ هཹࣗߦंࡏ֎ա • Ռࣗߦंཹࡏެڞॴաɼଈ্తࣗߦंՄೳඃᓘɻ Bike Indexొه • ፙ౸ࣗߦंతংྻᥒ ௨ৗҹࡏࣗߦंఈ෦ԼػՍۚሱ্ ɼฒഥுࣗߦंతরยɻ • ࡏ#JLF*OEFYPSH্໔අొهɼฒՃೖ$JUZPG1BMP"MUPᅶᱪɻ • ᤈᆶࣗߦंࣦɼొೖ䓟త䵷㖽ฒḼ໌ቮࣦɻ େ෦ࣗߦं䫖ੋݟػߦࣄɻະ্ʢ҃ະ࿚ʣతࣗߦंੋ໌ᰖతඪ ध⃧ਐ҆શ ߴதߍԂɼCaltrainʣɿ • UܕἥաᐽՍฒޙंྠಉ࣌ॅɻ • ߯ើἥա6ܕલंྠॅɻ CityofPaloAlto.org/SafeRoutes ఆ۲ -PDLJOH4LFXFST ՄҎऔंྠ্తշԷɻሏࡏೳॅंྠతఀंՍ্ಛผ༗༻ɻ ԼػՍʢେ෦తংᥒ။ҹࡏṜཫɻʣ Cómo prevenir la mayoríade los robos de bicicletas Póngale candado cada vez que lo deje • Los candados de cables pueden ser cortados rápidamente. Compre un candado en U de alta calidad y practique su uso • Si es posible, pase el candado a través del cuadro y la rueda. Si no, pase el candado a través del cuadro. • Asegúrela a una aparcabicicletas segura, no a una cerca que pueda cortarse fácilmente. • Póngale candado aún cuando la deje en una jaula de bicicletas que estará bajo llave durante el día. Nunca la deje durante toda la noche • Hasta una bicicleta con candado corre el riesgo de ser robada cuando se deje en un espacio público durante toda la noche. Regístrela con el Bike Index (Índice de Bicicletas) • Encuentre su número de serie (normalmente estampado en el metal de la caja de pedalier en la parte inferior de la bicicleta) y tome una foto de su bicicleta. • Regístrela en línea gratis en Bi eIndex.org y únase al grupo City of Palo Alto. • Si alguna vez desaparezca, inicie sesión en su cuenta y márquela como robada. La mayoría de los robos de bicicletas son crímenes de oportunidad. Las bicicletas sin candado (o con candado poco fiable) son blancos fáciles. Para mayor seguridad (escuelas preparatorias o high schools, Caltrain): • Póngale un candado en U a través del marco y la rueda trasera. • Pase un candado de cable a por el candado en U y la rueda delantera. CityofPaloAlto.org/SafeRoutes Los ejes de bloqueo (locking skewers) pueden sustituir a las palancas de apertura rápida en las ruedas. Son particularmente útiles en los aparcabicicletas, donde sólo se puede asegurar la rueda. Caja de pedalier(Aquí se encuentran la mayoría de los números de serie.) High School Top Ten Bike Safety Tips 1. Earbuds & Cell Phones: California Vehicle Code says bicyclists may only use one earbud and may not hold a phone while riding. (The same applies to drivers.) 2. Helmets: By law, bicyclists under 18 must wear a helmet. A properly worn helmet reduces the chance of head injury from a crash by nearly 70%. Make sure to get the right fit -- low on your forehead, level, and snug with the straps buckled. Helmets hanging from handlebars prevent zero injuries. 3. Ride in the Same Direction as raffic Flow: Riding with the flow of traffic puts you where drivers are expecting ou and are more likely to see you (especially at intersections). rong- way riding is the cause of many collisions. 5. Stay Out of the Door Zone: Ride in a predictable straight line about five feet to the left of par ed cars. Weaving in and out of parked cars makes you less visible to drivers. “Sharrows” on the road show where a bicyclist should ride to be outside of the door zone. 6. Be Careful when Making Turns: Use hand signals to let others know your intent. For left turns, check over your left shoulder or vehicles and move into the travel lane when clear (shown by the red line) or do a two-stage turn (shown by the black line). If neither of these options eels comfortable, be a pedestrian and walk your bike in the crosswalk. Never turn left f om the bike lane. 4. Stop at Stop Signs and Be Alert at All Intersections Stop at stop signs and red lights -- it’s the law. Watch for drivers turning left or rig t in front of you. Be alert at all intersections, ven when you don’t have a stop sign. 7. Pack Riding: Be courteous -- spread out and don’t block the travel lane. Ride with no more than one person next to you. Be responsible for your own safety -- just because it was clear for the riders in front of you to go through an intersection doesn’t mean i ’s clear for you. 8. Sidewalks, Paths, Tunnels & Overpasses: Riding on sidewalks, especially wrong-way, is legal but discouraged due to safety risks, and riding on sidewalks in the Cal Ave and Downtown Business Districts is prohibited. However, bicycles are allowed in either direction on all multi-use ths, and bicyclists are encouraged to ride on the recently constructed two-way multi-use p ths on the south side of Arastradero near Fletcher and Gunn and on Louis and Amarillo near Ohlone. In tunnels and on overpasses, bicyclists should walk their bikes if others are present. Be courteous to pedestrians -- they have the right of way. 9. Lights, Locks, Bike Registration Be prepared for night, evening, and rainy weather riding. By law you need a white front headlight and a red rear reflector (although a red rear light is recommended). Use a U-Lock to lock your bike every time ou leave it. If possible, lock through the frame and wheel. If not, lock through the frame. Register your bike online with BikeIndex.org. 10. Have Fun: Riding with friends is a great way to start and end your school day! For more information, please visit CityofPaloAlto.org/SafeRoutes or contact SafeRoutes@CityofPaloAlto.org. RIDE YOUR BIKE HAVE FUN and 檿Ḕ⌨⤎凑堳庱⭰⅏㎷䤡 犇倚⡅⑳㈲㩆Ɲˣ⊇ⷅ庱异㲼⅟ˤ奶⮁槵庱ạ⏑僤ὦ䔏ᷧ暢倚⡅Əḍ᷻✏槵庱㘩䥨㭉㈲㋨ 曢婘˛Ƌ⏳㨊恐䔏㖣榼槂俬˛ƌ 犈栔䚻Ɲ㠠㓁㲼⽲奶⮁Ə犇犎㭙Ọᷲ䙫槵庱ạ⾬柯ὐ㈛栔䚻˛㭊䢡ὐ㈛栔䚻⏖ ✏庱䥴Ḕ⯮栔惏⎾䙫㩆䍮昴ἵ凚犍犆˛䢡ῄ㭊䢡䙫ὐ㈛㖠ă∴栴ᷲ㖠Ə ῄ㋨㰛⹚Əḍ᷻㉊⥤⸝⬷˛㎂✏庱㉱ᷱ䙫栔䚻䄈⊐㖣昙㭉⮚˛ 犉凮庱㴨柭⏸槵堳Ɲ暏吾庱㴨槵堳Ə㛪孺榼槂俬㳏ヶ∗わƏṆ㛛⮠㗺䛲∗わƋⰋ⅝㘖 ✏⌨⬾巖⏊ƌ˛⎴⏸槵堳㘖娘⤁庱䥴䙫⎆⛇˛ 犋恇曉庱敧⌧Ɲ㲦吾⏖柷㸓䙫䛛䷁堳槂Ə凮⁃杇䙫庱异ⷍ⁛ῄ㋨䳫犋勘Ⱑ 巄曉˛✏⁃杇䙫㱤庱Ḕ敺䩦堳Ə㛪ὦ榼槂俬ᷴ⮠㗺䛲∗わ˛怺巖ᷱ䙫 ˥⅘䔏庱怺䮔栔㨀姿˦㎷慹槵庱ạᷴ奨✏庱敧⌧ⅎ槵堳˛ 犌弰⼵㘩奨⯶⾪Ɲ䔏㈲⋉孺∌ạ䟌怺わ䙫ヶ⛽˛ⷍ弰㘩Ə弰栔⾅傐內㖠⏸㪉㟌ⷍ⁛⽳ 㖠㘖␍㛰庱异Əḍ✏䄈庱异㘩槵⅌堳庱怺Ƌ䔏䳬䷁塏䤡ƌㇽ怙堳⅐㮜弰⼵Ƌ䔏溸䷁ 塏䤡ƌ˛⥩㞃㱡⮁ᷴ恟㒮ỌᷱỢἼ⣠䨕ƏṆ⏖Ọ✏堳ạ䩦嵱怺ᷱ㎏庱㭌堳˛⇮⋦⾅凑 堳庱怺䛛㎌ⷍ弰˛ 犊✏⁃庱㨀婳嘼⁃ᷲƏḍ✏㈧㛰ẋ⎰巖⏊ῄ㋨孍ゼƝ✏⁃庱㨀婳⑳䳬䆯嘼⁃ᷲăă怀㘖㲼⽲˛㳏 ヶ✏わ∴㖠ⷍ弰ㇽ⏚弰䙫庱异˛✏㈧㛰ẋ⎰巖⏊ῄ㋨孍ゼƏ⋬㋓✏㱹㛰⁃庱㨀婳䙫巖⏊˛ 犍⛿晱槵堳Ɲ奨㛰䦕屳ăă⇭㕊槵庱Əᷴ奨㒲ἶ堳庱怺˛㛧⤁⅐ạḍ㍹槵庱˛⯴わ凑ⷘ 䙫⭰⅏岇岓ăăわ∴㖠䙫槵⣒⏖Ọ⭰⅏态怵⌨⬾巖⏊Əḍᷴヶ吾わṆ⏖Ọ⭰⅏态怵˛ 犎ạ堳怺˚⯶巖˚暎怺⑳⤐㨲Ɲ✏ạ堳怺ᷱ槵堳Ə⍚ὦ㘖忭堳Ṇ㘖⏯㲼䙫ƏἭ䔘㖣 㛰⭰⅏梏暑Əᷴ滺⋜怀㨊⁁˛䥨㭉✏&DO$YH⑳ⷩḔ⾪┭㥔⌧䙫ạ堳怺ᷱ槵庱˛䄝俳 Ə✏㈧㛰⤁䔏忻怺巖ᷱƏℨ娘凑堳庱㜄ỢἼᷧῲ㖠⏸槵堳ƏἭ滺⋜凑堳庱槵⣒✏㛧 徸⻡䙫⤁䔏忻曀⏸怺巖堳槂Ə婙怺巖ἴ㖣Fletcher⑳Gunn昫徸䙫Arastradero⌾⁛Ọ ⎱Ohlone昫徸䙫Louis⑳Amarillo˛✏暎怺⑳⤐㨲ᷱƏ⥩㞃㛰⅝ẽạ✏⠛Ə凑堳庱槵⣒ ㆰ婙㎏庱㭌堳˛⯴堳ạ奨㛰䦕屳ăăẽῸ㛰巖㫱˛ 犏庱䆯˚庱捽˚凑堳庱䙢姿Ɲ⁁⥤⤃敺˚⁴㙁⑳曏⤐槵庱䙫㹽₀˛㠠㓁㲼⽲奶⮁ Əわ⾬柯⭰壄ᷧῲ䙤剙䙫∴⤎䆯⑳ᷧῲ䳬剙⽳⎴ℰ䈮ƋἭ㘖⻡字ὦ䔏䳬剙Ⱕ䆯ƌ ˛㮶㬈曉敲凑堳庱㘩Ə䔏8⽉捽捽⥤˛⥩㞃⏖僤Ə䩦怵庱㠭㞝⑳庱弑怙堳捽⮁˛ ⥩㞃ᷴ僤Ə媲䩦怵庱㠭㞝捽⮁˛✏bikeindex.org䶙ᷱ娢ⅱわ䙫凑堳庱˛ 犇犆䎐⽾檿凯Ɲ⑳㛲⎲ᷧ嵞槵庱㘖ᷱᷲ⭟䙫⥤㖠㲼Ƅ ⥩曧㛛⤁岮姱Ə媲㿶妤CityofPaloAlto.org/SafeRoutesㇽ偖乒SafeRoutes@CityofPaloAlto.org˛ RIDE YOUR BIKE HAVE FUN and Los diez mejores consejos de seguridad para la bicicleta en preparatoria (high school) 1. Audifonos y teléfonos celulares: El Código de Vehículos de California declara que los ciclistas sólo deben usar un audifono y no deben sostener un teléfono mientras circulan. (Lo mismo se aplica a los conductores.) 2. Cascos: Por ley, los ciclistas menores de 18 años deben usar un casco. Un casco bien puesto reduce la posibilidad de sufrir una lesión en la cabeza de un choque en casi un 70%. Asegúrate de conseguir la medida apropiada; bajo en la frente, nivelado, y bien ajustado con las correas abrochadas. Los cascos que cuelgan del manubrio evitan cero lesiones. 3. Circula en la misma dirección que el flujo de tráfico: Circular con el flujo de tráfico te coloca donde los conductores esperan que estés, y es más probable que te vean (especialmente en las intersecciones). Circular en el senƟdo contrario ocasiona muchas colisiones. 5. Permanece fuera de la zona de puertas (”door zone”): Circula en una línea recta predecible a unos cinco pies del lado izquierdo de los autos estacionados. Zigzaguear para rodear los autos estacionados te hace menos visible para los conductores. Las marcas de bicicleta con flecha en la calle muestran dónde un ciclista debe circular para mantenerse fuera de la zona de puertas. 6. Ten cuidado al dar vuelta: Haz señales con la mano para que los demás conozcan tu intención. Para dar vuelta a la izquierda, mira atrás de tu hombro izquierdo para ver si hay vehículos y muévete al carril de tránsito cuando esté despejado (mostrado por la línea roja) o dá una vuelta de dos etapas (mostrada por la línea negra). Si ninguna de estas opciones te resulta cómoda, ve como peatón y camina con tu bicicleta por el cruce peatonal. Nunca des vuelta a la izquierda desde el carril de bicicletas. 4. Deténte en las señales de Alto (STOP) y está alerta en todas las intersecciones: Deténte en las señales de alto (Stop) y en los semáforos en rojo; es la ley. Está atento a los conductores que dan vuelta a la izquierda o a la derecha delantĞĚĞƟ͘ Ɛtá alerta en todas las intersecciones, incluso cuando no tengas una señal de alto (Stop). 7. Cómo circular en manada: Sean corteses; sepárense y no bloqueen el carril de tránsito. Circulen con no más de una persona a su lado. Sean responsables por su propia seguridad; sólo porque estuvo despejado para los conductores que están enfrente de ustedes al cruzar por una intersección no significa que esté despejado para ustedes. 8. Aceras, caminos, túneles y pasos a desnivel: Circular en las aceras, especialmente en el senƟdo contrario, es legal, pero no se recomienda debido a los riesgos de seguridad, y está prohibido circular por las aceras de los distritos de negocios de Cal Ave y del Centro. Sin embargo, las bicicle-tas sí estĄŶƉĞƌŵŝƟĚĂƐĞŶĐƵĂůƋƵŝĞƌĚŝƌección en todos los camiŶŽƐĚĞƵƐŽŵƷůƟƉůĞ͕LJƐĞĂŶŝŵĂĂlos ciclistas a circular por los cĂŵŝŶŽƐĚĞƵƐŽŵƷůƟƉůĞĚĞĚŽƐƐĞŶƟĚŽƐƌecién construidos en el lado sur de Arastradero cerca de Fletcher y Gunn y en las calles Louis y Amarillo cerca de Ohlone. En los túneles y en los pasos a desnivel, los ciclistas deben caminar con sus bicicletas si hay otras personas presentes. Sé cortés con los peatŽŶĞƐ͖ĞůůŽƐƟĞŶĞŶĞůderecho de paso. 9. Luces, candados, registro de bicicletas: Prepárate para circular en la noche, en el atardecer y en el clima lluvioso. Por ley necesitas una luz delantera blanca y un reflector trasero rojo (aun- que se recomienda una luz trasera rŽũĂͿ͘hƟůŝnja un candado en U para asegurar tu bicicleta cada vez que la dejes. Si es posible, pasa el candado a través del cuadro y la rueda. Si no, pasa el candado a través del cuadro. Registra tu bicicleta en línea con BikeIndex.org. 10. Diviértete: ¡Andar en bici con amigos es una gran manera de empezar y terminar tu día escolar! Para más información, por favor visita CityofPaloAlto.org/SafeRoutes o comunícate con SafeRoutes@CityofPaloAlto.org. Anda en tu bici diviértete y spr 1985 fall 1985 1991 1993 1997 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Greene 581 420 370 273 275 290 333 358 364 361 443 495 527 546 624 736 610 633 627 581 629 594 JLS 298 537 290 320 290 191 241 185 200 271 280 319 351 463 456 490 512 533 584 581 651 617 576 Fletcher 150 151 190 167 210 184 199 236 253 263 275 279 276 254 252 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 PAUSD MIDDLE SCHOOL BIKE COUNTS, 1985-2018 Greene JLS Fletcher spr 1985 fall 1985 1991 1993 1997 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Greene 74%61%41%25%26%29%37%41%41%40%49%53%55%56%61%72%60%57%55%50%56%56% JLS 46%49%33%33%27%16%23%20%25%34%32%37%38%48%45%49%51%53%53%52%54%51%51% Fletcher 26%24%29%25%32%28%31%36%37%37%38%37%39%37%38% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% PAUSD MIDDLE SCHOOL BIKE COUNTS (%), 1985-2018 Greene JLS Fletcher 1985 1993 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Gunn 284 180 230 166 240 252 308 447 478 600 633 671 679 750 836 811 830 838 830 912 Paly 553 300 220 160 160 200 234 289 273 377 433 520 582 741 787 758 805 837 845 869 786 955 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 PAUSD HIGH SCHOOL BIKE COUNTS, 1985 -2018 Gunn Paly 1985 1993 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Gunn 20%11%14%10%14%15%18%24%25%31%33%36%36%41%45%43%44%44%42%46% Paly 33%25%15%11%11%12%14%17%16%22%26%30%32%40%42%39%42%43%43%44%38%46% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% PAUSD HIGH SCHOOL BIKE COUNTS (%), 1985-2018 Gunn Paly CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 3, 2019 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the May 13, 2019 Council Meeting Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: 05-13-19 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 5 Special Meeting May 13, 2019 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:08 P.M. Present: Cormack, DuBois, Filseth; Fine arrived at 5:11 P.M.; Kniss, Kou, Tanaka Absent: Special Orders of the Day 1. Proclamation Honoring Affordable Housing Week. Mayor Filseth read the proclamation into the record. Study Session 2. Presentation and Discussion With the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) Staff Regarding the 2040 Caltrain Business Plan. NO ACTION TAKEN Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. Consent Calendar Council Member Kou registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 5. Council Member DuBois registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 5. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-7. 3. Acceptance of the City of Palo Alto Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan in Compliance With the San Francisco Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit. 4. Resolution 9831 Entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Extending the City Manager’s Authority to Execute Transactions Under Master Renewable Energy Certificate Purchase and Sale DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 5 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 05/13/2019 Agreements With Pre-qualified Suppliers in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $5,000,000 per Year During Calendar Years 2019-2024; and Repealing Resolution Number 9379.” 5. Ordinance 5464 Entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Amend Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Allow for Minor Increases in Height and Floor Area to Provide Access to Rooftop Decks on Existing Structures in the Commercial Downtown (Community) CD-C Subdistrict. Environmental Assessment: Exempt per Sections 15301 and 15305 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Zone District: CD-C(GF)(P). (FIRST READING: February 25, 2019 PASSED: 5-2 Dubois, Kou no).” 6. Ordinance 5465 Entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.42.110 (Wireless Communication Facilities) of Chapter 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to Update the Code to Reflect Recently Adopted Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Regulations. This Ordinance is Exempt From Environmental Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15305 (FIRST READING: April 15, 2019 PASSED: 6-0 Tanaka Absent).” 7. Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C19172281 With Municipal Resource Group (MRG) to Increase the Not-to-Exceed Compensation by $50,000 (for a new Not-to-Exceed Amount of $200,000) to Provide Continued Transportation Support Services for the Office of Transportation. MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 2-4, 6-7: 7-0 MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 5: 5-2 Dubois, Kou no Action Items 8. Acceptance of the City of Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Study Report and Direction to Staff on Workplans, Outreach, Stakeholder Process, and Prioritization of Programs, Including Proposed RPP Programs for Old Palo Alto and Green Acres. MOTION: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Fine to: A. Accept the City of Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Review Report by the City’s consultant, Municipal Resource DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 5 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 05/13/2019 Group (MRG), and direct Staff to return to City Council with a workplan to address the items in the report; B. Use the Planning and Transportation Commission as the preferred forum for resident and business community engagement in evaluating the recommendations of the MRG report; C. Direct Staff to continue the proposed RPP district outreach and stakeholder process for Old Palo Alto and Green Acres, in accordance with the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommended prioritization; and D. Confirm that modifications to existing RPP districts (e.g., number of permits, etc.) will be put on hold until potential overall program changes are considered. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to consider as part of the workplan the impacts of residential zoning changes, evaluate a resident-only permit program, and consider allocation mechanisms for business permits. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to remove from the Motion “direct Staff to consider as part of the workplan the impacts of residential zoning changes, evaluate a resident-only permit program…” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to amend the Motion Part A to state “including consideration of allocation mechanisms for business permits.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to amend the Motion Part D to change the word “considered” to “decided.” MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Fine to: A. Accept the City of Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Review Report by the City’s consultant, Municipal Resource Group (MRG), and direct Staff to return to City Council with a workplan to address the items in the report, including consideration of allocation mechanisms for business permits. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 5 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 05/13/2019 B. Use the Planning and Transportation Commission as the preferred forum for resident and business community engagement in evaluating the recommendations of the MRG report; C. Direct Staff to continue the proposed RPP district outreach and stakeholder process for Old Palo Alto and Green Acres, in accordance with the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommended prioritization; and D. Confirm that modifications to existing RPP districts (e.g., number of permits, etc.) will be put on hold until potential overall program changes are decided. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 9. Connecting Palo Alto Grade Separation Planning: Revision of Alternatives for Further Study and Direction to Staff Regarding Evaluation Criteria Weights. Mayor Filseth advised he will not participate in this Agenda Item because he lives within 500 feet of the Caltrain right of way. He left the meeting at 9:04 P.M. Council Member Kniss advised she will not participate in this Agenda Item because she has a real property interest within 500 feet of Caltrain right of way. She left the meeting at 9:04 P.M. Council took a break at 9:04 P.M. and returned at 9:14 P.M. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Fine to: A. Make public the cost estimates and technical assumptions for the city- wide tunnel; B. Refine the description of the city-wide alternative that will continue to be studied and considered to “Tunnel from Channing Avenue and the southern City limit;” and C. Reaffirm consideration of both options for South Palo Alto tunnel. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 Filseth, Kniss recused MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to remove the city-wide tunnel alternative, or the “Tunnel from Channing Avenue and the southern City limit.” DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 5 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 05/13/2019 MOTION PASSED: 4-1 Filseth, Kniss recused, Tanaka no State/Federal Legislation Update/Action None. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements None. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 P.M. City of Palo Alto (ID # 10193) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/3/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Fire Station 3 Design Contract Amendment No.2 Title: Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract Number C16161210 With Shah Kawasaki Architects, Inc., in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $117,564 to Provide Continued Construction Administration and LEED Certification Services for the Fire Station 3 Replacement Project (PE-15003), for a new Total Not-To-Exceed Amount of $814,242 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 to Contract No. C16161210 with Shah Kawasaki Architects, Inc., (Attachment A) to increase compensation by a not-to-exceed amount of $117,564 to provide continued construction administration and LEED certification services for the Fire Station No. 3 Replacement Project (CIP PE-15003). The added amount includes $98,244 for basic services and $10,000 for additional services. The revised total contract amount is not to exceed $814,242, including $740,983 for basic services and $73,259 for additional services. Background The Fire Station No. 3 Replacement Project is part of the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan. The project will provide a new facility built to meet essential services standards. The new fire station is being built at the existing location of Fire Station No. 3 at 799 Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto. On December 14, 2015, Council approved a contract with Shah Kawasaki Architects, Inc. (SKA) to provide architectural design services for the Fire Station No. 3 Replacement Project, which included construction administration and LEED certification services during construction, with a contract end date of September 10, 2018 (Staff Report ID#6299). Council awarded a construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Strawn Construction, Inc. (Staff Report ID#8561) on November 27, 2017. Construction on the Fire Station No. 3 Project began in January 2018 with an anticipated completion date in early 2019. CITY OF PALO ALTO City of Palo Alto Page 2 On October 18, 2018, Council approved Amendment No. 1 to extend SKA’s construction administration services contract (Staff Report ID#9511) for an additional 154 days from September 11, 2018 to February 11, 2019 and LEED certification services to 95 days to May 17, 2019 in order to meet Strawn’s anticipated construction completion date of early 2019. The amendment increased the SKA contract budget by $97,626 for a total revised contract amount not to exceed $696,678. The need for Amendment No. 1 was primarily due to the additional time that occurred during the design review process prior to the start of construction. Discussion Construction on the Fire Station No 3 Project was contracted for completion by January 8, 2019, with minor change orders extending the completion date to January 20, 2019. The contractor is behind schedule, and has been notified of the City’s right to assess liquidated damages under the contract in the amount of $1,500 per day, intended to cover all costs associated with delay, including costs such as added construction administration costs. Currently, completion is expected this summer. As of mid-April 2019, the fire station interior work is in progress, and the connectors for the exterior cladding are being mounted. The building elevator is being provided in May and installed by Pacific Access Elevator (a local Palo Alto company). SKA Contract Amendment No. 2 is necessary to provide the additional funding needed for the extended construction administration services resulting from the delay in completing the project. Timeline Construction of the Fire Station No. 3 Project is now expected to complete in summer 2019. Resource Impact Funding for this contract amendment is currently available in the Fire Station No. 3 Replacement Capital Improvement Project (PE-15003). The additional amount for these extended construction administration services may be offset by the assessment of liquidated damages. Policy Implications The proposed action is consistent with City policy. Environmental Review This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15302 of the CEQA Guidelines as “Replacement or Reconstruction of Existing Structures” and no further Environmental review is necessary. A notice of CEQA exemption was filed in early March 2017. Attachments: Attachment A: Contract C16161210 Amendment No. 2 1 Revision July 20, 2016 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. C16161210 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND SHAH KAWASAKI ARCHITECTS, INC. This Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”) to contract no.C16161210 is entered into June 3, 2019, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and SHAH KAWASAKI ARCHITECTS, INC., a California corporation, located at 570 10th Street, Suite 201, Oakland, CA 94607 (“CONSULTANT”). CITY and CONSULTANT are referred to herein collectively as the “Parties”. R E C I T A L S A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into December 14, 2015 between the parties for the provision of professional services in connection with the new construction of Fire Station No.3 located at Embarcadero and Newell (Project). B. The Contract was amended by Amendment No.1 to extend the term of the Contract through December 31, 2020, to add continued construction administration services and to increase the total not- to- exceed amount of compensation by an amount not to exceed Ninety Seven Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Six Dollars ($97,626), from Five Hundred Ninety Nine Thousand Fifty Two Dollars ($599,052.00), to a new total not-to- exceed amount of Six Hundred Ninety Six Thousand Seventy Eight Dollars ($696,678.00). C. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract to amend Exhibit “B” (“Schedule of Performance”) to add continued construction administrative services; and to increase the total not- to- exceed amount of compensation by an amount not to exceed One Hundred Seventeen thousand Five Hundred Sixty Four ($117,564.00), from Six Hundred Ninety Six Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Eight Dollars ($696,678.00) to a new total not- to-exceed amount of Eight Hundred Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred Forty Two Dollars ($814,242.00). 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. C16161210 between CONSULTANT and CITY, as amended by: Amendment No.1, dated September 10, 2018 DocuSign Envelope ID: A79FFA69-76B0-4E77-B720-6E9449D81D84 2 Revision July 20, 2016 b. Other Terms. Terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract. SECTION 2. Section 4, “NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION,” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: “The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Seven hundred forty thousand nine hundred eight three Dollars ($740,983). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Eight Hundred Fourteen Two Hundred forty Two Dollars ($814,242.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out at Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit “A”.” SECTION 3. The following exhibits to the Contract are hereby deleted and replaced in the entirety, as indicated below, to read as set forth in the attachments to this Amendment, all of which are hereby incorporated into this Amendment as though fully set forth herein, and into the Contract as though fully set forth therein, respectively, by this reference. a. Exhibit “B” entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, Amendment 1” of the Contract is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety to read as provided in the attached Exhibit “B”, entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT No. 2”. b. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT No.1” of the Contract is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety to read as provided in the attached Exhibit “C”, entitled “COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT No. 2”. SECTION 4. Legal Effect. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, all of the terms and conditions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. DocuSign Envelope ID: A79FFA69-76B0-4E77-B720-6E9449D81D84 3 Revision July 20, 2016 SECTION 5. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are hereby fully incorporated herein by this reference. 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 (Contract over $85k) APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney or designee (Contract over $25k) SHAH KAWASAKI ARCHITECTS, INC. Officer 1 By: Name: Title: Officer 2 (Required for Corp. or LLC) By: Name: Title: Attachments: Exhibit “B” entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT No. 2” (AMENDED-REPLACES PREVIOUS) Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT No. 2”- (AMENDED-REPLACES PREVIOUS) DocuSign Envelope ID: A79FFA69-76B0-4E77-B720-6E9449D81D84 President Alan Kawasaki Secretary Philip Luo ~DocuSigned by: L::;D~= loDocuSigned by: L ~~~53~F4C5 4 Revision July 20, 2016 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT NO. 2 (AMENDED- REPLACES PREVIOUS) CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days 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. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed (NTP). Milestones Completion No. of Days from NTP 1. Task 1, Schematic Design 91 days 2. Task 2, Design Development 182 days 3. Task 3, Construction Documents 365 days 4. Task 4, Construction Administration 1,318 days 5. Task 5, LEED Certification 1,443 days DocuSign Envelope ID: A79FFA69-76B0-4E77-B720-6E9449D81D84 5 Revision July 20, 2016 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION, AMENDMENT NO. 2 (AMENDED- REPLACES PREVIOUS) The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional 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 hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth 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 1 $89,785.00 (Schematic Design) Task 2 $115,010.00 (Design Development) Task 3 $181,609.00 (Construction Document) Task 4 $327,123.00 (Construction Administration) Task 5 (LEED Silver Certification) Included in Task 4 amount Sub-total Basic Services $713,527.00 DocuSign Envelope ID: A79FFA69-76B0-4E77-B720-6E9449D81D84 6 Revision July 20, 2016 Reimbursable Expenses $27,456.00 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $740,983.00 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $73,259.00 Maximum Total Compensation $814,242.00 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: A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $1,320.00 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 expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be DocuSign Envelope ID: A79FFA69-76B0-4E77-B720-6E9449D81D84 7 Revision July 20, 2016 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 Work required because the following conditions are not satisfied or are exceeded shall be considered as additional services: 1. Geotechnical Report is not received from City prior to commencement of structural engineering services 2. Geotechnical Report recommends special (not spread footings) foundations systems such as mat, piers or piles. 3. Survey including topographic, boundary and utilities is not received from City prior to commencement of civil engineering. 4. Design services to incorporate Public Art is an additional service. 5. CEQA documents other than negative declaration is an additional service. 6. Alert System design is an additional service 7. IT/Telecommunications Equipment design including routers, servers, PBX is an additional service 8. Cell tower and equipment design other than coordination is an additional service 9. As-Built documentation is an additional service DocuSign Envelope ID: A79FFA69-76B0-4E77-B720-6E9449D81D84 City of Palo Alto (ID # 10203) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/3/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: SV8 Equinix Lease Agreement Title: Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute a Fiber Optic Lease Agreement with Equinix LLC for a Term Not-to-Exceed Five Years and a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $625,465 From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: Approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute a Fiber Optic Lease Agreement, included here as Attachment A, with Equinix LLC (“Equinix”) for a Term Not-to-Exceed Five Years and a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $625,465 for the City of Palo Alto Fiber Optic Utility to lease fiber optic access and termination services at the Palo Alto Internet Exchange (“PAIX”). Background The City of Palo Alto established a Fiber Optic Utility in 1996 following the design and construction of a dark fiber optic backbone system throughout the city. Operated by the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department (CPAU), the Fiber Optic Utility licenses backbone connections to local businesses and telecommunications resellers requiring access to advanced broadband telecommunications service. There is a highly competitive Palo Alto commercial fiber optic marketplace served by multiple telecommunication companies and Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Many of these entities control independently owned overhead and/or underground fiber optic systems. These systems are also accessed by third-party ISP-service resellers using leased capacity on the fiber optic networks. For CPAU dark fiber optic licensees to access the telecommunications services provided by commercial fiber optic vendors or ISPs of their choice, the licensee, or their third-party provider, must install privately-owned electronic equipment to “light” their leased dark fiber optic cable for on-site data use, building-to-building (campus) communications, or to access internet service outside of Palo Alto. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Those CPAU fiber optic licensees wishing access to the internet outside of Palo Alto must have their CPAU fiber optic service connected to the data center (SV8) currently owned by Equinix LLC and located in Palo Alto. This neutral data center, designated as Equinix SV8, is independent of any one ISP or telecommunications carrier affiliation, and serves as an internet exchange point (IXP) providing the physical infrastructure through which over 70 ISPs and content delivery networks (CDNs) exchange internet traffic between their networks. Originally constructed by the Digital Equipment Corporation in 1996 as one of the first IXPs in the world, it was (and still locally) called the “Palo Alto Internet eXchange (PAIX).” The City has been leasing fiber optic access and termination services at PAIX since the inception of the fiber network. Discussion In 2014, CPAU contracted with Equinix LLC for a term not-to-exceed five years, at a cost not-to- exceed of $500,000, to lease four “cabinets” (vertical racks sited next to each other, each capable of holding multiple termination/switching boxes in stacked configurations). The total cost included funds for potential Service Orders that might be required for expanded CPAU fiber optic ductwork (“innerducts”) and cable configuration changes within PAIX during the term of the contract. For the new five-year term (FY2020-FY2024) covered by this contract with Equinix LLC, the Fiber Optic Utility will continue to lease the original “base” four cabinets, plus three innerducts installed under the previous contract. This contract will also fund the lease cost for one additional cabinet which will increase CPAU’s fiber optic termination/switching capacity within PAIX by 20 percent. This additional capacity will provide sufficient PAIX resources for all projected CPAU customer growth scenarios within the term of the proposed contract. This agreement is exempt from the City’s solicitation requirements under the “sole source” exception in PAMC Section 2.30.360 (d): Because of its geographical location, PAIX is the only economically and physically viable co-location internet facility or data center available to CPAU and its fiber optic licensees. The nearest alternative IXP data center site is in the City of Santa Clara. Connection to the Santa Clara site from Palo Alto would require miles of multiple underground conduits through several municipal jurisdictions. Such construction would be prohibitively expensive, be significantly less secure than the current Palo Alto location (greater risk due to construction and contractor dig-ins in other jurisdictions, requiring Palo Alto to contract with remotely-sited, third-party repair fiber repair companies), and limit fiber optic utility connectivity to customer sites back in Palo Alto. Resource Impact Funding for this contract is included in the FY 2020 Fiber Optic Fund operating budget with subsequent years subject to Council’s approval of each fiscal year’s budget. Policy Implications This recommendation does not represent a change to current City policies. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Environmental Review Approval of this agreement does not meet the definition of a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to the California Public Resources Code Section 21065, because it is not an activity that will cause a direct physical change in the environment. Attachments: • Attachment A - Signed Lease Agreement • Attachment B - Exemption Form Competitive Solicitation_011519 Attachment A Account Name Account Number Agreement Product Description Cabinet -2.4KVA-2 post relay Rack Cabinet -2.4KVA-2 post relay Rack Cabinet-2.4KVA-2 post relay Rack Cabinet-2.4KVA-2 post relay Rack Cabinet-2.4KVA-2 post relay Rack Total ($/month ) lnnerduct lnnerduct lnnerduct Total ($/month ) Montly cost Annual cost * 5% Annual CPI included in cost MCR = Monthly Recurring Cost 5 -Yr Lease for Cabinets and lnnerducts at E'quinix-SV8 City of Palo Alto Initial Term 60 months 110002 00036759.0 Serial# Quantity MRC MRC FY 19-20 FY 20-21 0705-1-73624858 1 1,126 1,182 0708-10767970 1 1,155 1,212 0704-1-73624839 1 1,126 1,182 0707-1-73624877 1 1,126 1,182 0404-21024209 1 1,072 1,125 $5,604 $5,884 14689530 1 1,276 1,340 14689531 1 1,276 1,340 14689529 1 1,276 1,340 $3,829 $4,020 I $9,4331 $9,9041 I $113, 1931 $118,8531 MRC MRC MRC Total FY 21-22 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 Cost 1,241 1,303 1,368 6,221 1,273 1,337 1,404 6,381 1,241 1,303 1,368 6,221 1,241 1,303 1,368 6,221 1,181 1,241 1,303 5,921 $6,178 $6,487 $6,812 $30,965 1,407 1,477 1,551 7,052 1,407 1,477 1,551 7,052 1,407 1,477 1,551 7,052 $4,221 $4,432 $4,654 $21,157 $10,4001 $10,9201 $11,466 $52,122 $124,7961 $131,0351 $137,587 $625,465 EQUINIX ORDER : CITY OF PALO AL TO : 110002 : 1-186074182635 :2 Currency Order Valld Untll Account Name Account Number Order Number Version# Agreement# : 00036759 0 lnltlal Term (Months) Renewal Period (Months) Non-ranewalnotlce(Days) IBX: sv8 Address: 529 Brvant Street, Palo Alto, United States, 94301 Section C: Produc:tlElemen ca-- Product Codll Procluc:t o.crtpllon Qty UoM SPCOOOOS Secure Cabinet With Circuit Based 1 Each Power CA800001 Cabinet-2.4 kVA • 2 Post Rack (Relay Rack) 1 Each CAB00001 Cabinet• 2.4 kVA • 2 Post Rack (Relay Rack) 1 Each CAG00001 Cage-5 Cabinets • PEC Cap-11.52 PEC 1152 PEC CAB00001 Cabll'Htl-2.4 kVA • 2 Post Rack {Relay Rack) 1 Each CAB00001 Camel-2.4 kVA • 2 Post Rack (Relay Rack) 1 Each CAB00001 Cabinet-2.3 kVA • 2 Post Rack (Relay Rack) 1 Each Section Total IBX: SVB Address: 529 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, United States, 94301 SectlonD:-Servlcea Qty UoM Product Cade Product CC00001 Cross Connect 1 Each CC00001 Network Cable Connectton-Songla-Mode 1 Each Fiber • Z-side IBX-SVB CC00001 Cross Connect 1 Each CC00001 Network Cable Connacbon-Single-Mode 1 Each Fiber • Z-sode IBX-SVB EXT00006 lnnerduct 1 Each EXT00002 lnnenluc1 Element 1 Each EXT00006 lnnerduct 1 Each EXTD0002 lnnerduct Element 1 Each EXT00006 lnnerduct 1 Each EXT00002 lnnerduct Element 1 Each :USD : 11-Jun-2019 60 12 90 Action Update Update Update . Updale PREPARED BY: OavtdAmoo1 damooi@equinlx.com 14082091000 Total Serial# a.... NRC 1_1514349 $0.00 0705-1-73624858 - 070&-10767970 - BBOSS-10678681 - 0704-1-73624839 - Updale 0707-1-73624Bn - Upda1a 0404-21024209 . $0.00 Serial# Unit Prlclna NRC MRC 1_1531345602 . "414057067 . 1_1531338843 . "413324101 . 14689530. . 146119530 . 14689531. . 14689531 . 14689529. . 14689529 - Equinlx Order Numbar:1-186074182635(V2) •• EOU I NIX 111111111111111111111& PREPARED FOR: Raveen Maan raveen.maan@cityofpaloalto.org 6503292494 eun.nt Price Amanded Price Err.c:llve 0.. MRC MRC $5,898.87 $5,603.93 01.Jul-2019 $1,185.12 $1,125.86 01-Jul-2019 $1,215.51 $1,154.73 01-Jul-2019 so.co so.co 01-Jul-2019 $1,185.12 $1,125.86 01-Jul-2019 $1,185.12 $1,125.86 01-Jul-2019 $1,128.00 $1,071.60 01-Jul-2019 $5,898.87 $5,603.93 Total Charaas Effective 0.. NRC MRC . $0.00 $0.00 01.Jul-2019 . . $0.00 01-Jul-2019 . $0.00 $0.00 01.Jul-2019 . . SO.OD 01-Jul-2019 . $0.00 $1,276.29 01.Jul-2019 . . SO.OD 01-Jul-2019 . $0.00 $1,276.29 01.Jul-2019 . . $0.00 01-Jul-2019 . $0.00 $1,276.29 01.Jul-2019 . . $0.00 01-Jul-2019 Page of 5 UU)JU. EQU I NIX EQUINIX ORDER ~111111111111111111010 IBX: SVB Address: 529 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, United States, 94301 8ec:tlon D: ServfcN· . Qty UoM S.rlalt Unit PrlClna ' . .To1111,c,-l!ffNtlve. Dall Product Code ,Product DNc-NRC .. MRC NRC MRC PS00004 Configurable Accessories 1 Each 1_1511117304 . . $0.00 $0.00 01.Jul-2019 CC00001 Patch Panel 1 Each CP:0705.122350 . . $0.00 . 01-Jul-2019 CC00001 Patch Panel 1 Each CP:0705:112869 . . $0.00 . 01-Jul-2019 CC00001 Patch Panel 1 Each CP:0705: 112870 . . $0.00 . 01-Jul-2019 PS00004 Configurable Accessorles 1 Each 1_1511117303 . . $0.00 $0.00 01.Jul-2019 CC00001 Patch Panel 1 Each CP:0704:137358 . . $0.00 . 01-Jul-2019 CC00001 Patch Panel 1 Each CP:0704:122349 . . $0.00 . 01-.lul-2019 PS00004 Configurable Accessories 1 Each 1_1511117305 . . $0.00 $0.00 01.Jul-2019 CC00001 Patch Panel 1 Each CP:0707:112871 . . $000 . 01-Jul-2019 , CC00001 Patch Panel 1 Each CP:0707:122351 . . $000 . 01.Jul-2019 CC00001 Patch Panel 1 Each CP:0707:122350 . . $000 . 01-Jul-2019 CC00001 Patch Panel 1 Each CP:0707.110503 . . $000 . 01-Jul-2019 PS00004 Configurable Accessories 1 Each 1_1511117306 . . $0.00 $0.00 01.Jul-2019 CC00001 Patch Panel 1 Each VP:0708:191979 . . $000 . 01-Jul-2019 CC00001 Patch Panel 1 Each VP:0708:191155 . . $0.00 . 01-Jul-2019 CC00001 Patch Panel 1 Each VP:0708:191978 . . $0.00 . 01.Jul-2019 Sec1lon Total . $3,828.87 Section Total NRC MRC Section C: I Product/Element Changes $0.00 $5,603.93 Section D: I Continuing Services $0.00 $3,828.87 GrandTotal -- Monthly recurring charge: I $9,432.80 Non-recurring charge: I $0.00 NOTES TO CUSTOMER Equinix Order Number:1-186074182635(V2) Page 2 of s •• EOUINIX EQUINIX ORDER IIIHIIIIIIIIIIIII IIWllffl TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. INTRODUCTION This Replacement Order 1s governed by and incorporated by reference into the applicable Master Country Agreement or other similar agreement between the Parties ("Agreement"). Capitalized terms used but not defined 1n th,s Replacement Order shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement or shall refer to the values listed at the top of this Ordar. This Replacement Order replaces and supersedes the Ordar(s) referenced above (including any Online or Phone Orders related to or incorporated by reference into such Order(s)) and will, as applicable, add !hose new Products deta~ed in Section A, tenninate the Products detailed in Section B and amend the Products detailed in Section C as further detailed above from the Effective Date stated in the relevant Section. Unless otherwise stated by this Replacement Ordar, the Products in the Order(s) detailed in Section D remain(s) unchanged. 2. DEFINITIONS 'Effective Date' as used m this Order shall be: -For Section A: Product Additions, the date stated above on which the addition to the Licensed Space and Services takes effect or, 1f no such date Is stated above, then the date the Licensed Space is provided or the Services are delivered; -For Section B: Product Deletions, the date stated above on which the termination of the Licensed Space and Services takes effect; -For Section C: Product Changes, the date stated above on which the change to the Licensed Space and Services takes effect; or, if no such date Is stated above, then the date the Licensed Space is provided or the Services are delivered of this Replacement Order. 'Products' as used in this Order may also be referred to as Licensed Space and Services. PRODUCT TERMS Additlonal terms and conditions applicable to the Products fisted above can be found at the following URL: http://www.equinix.com/resources/product-documents and are incorporated by reference mto this Order. 3. INITIAL TERM & RENEWAL PERIOD The Initial Tenn will commence on the Effective Date and will remain in effect for the lnihal Tenn. After the Initial Term, the tam, will automatically renew for the Renewal Penod unless either Party terminates the Order by providing written Non-renewal notice prior to the end of the then-current term to the other Party In which event this Order will terminate at the end of the then-current tenn. 4. POWER LIMITATIONS The maximum amount of electncal power that Customer may draw is stated above as Draw Cap or Qty/UoM in kVA or kW ("Draw Cap"). Customer may not draw more power than the Draw Cap. If Qistomer exceeds the Draw Cap, Equinlx will notify Customer and Customer must reduce power draw to be equal to or less than the Draw Cap within 72 hours (or as otherwise agreed) or Equinix may, in Its sole discretion, either charge Customer for the power overage at a maximum of twice the MRC/kVA rate for Licensed Space and power Services above, or suspend Custome~s power Services to return to Draw Cap compliance. 5. PRICE AND PRICE INCREASE Equinix Order Number:1-186074182635(V2) Page 3 of 5 UIJIJU. EOUINIX EQUINIX ORDER 1111rn11111m1111111m Customer will pay the Fees for the Licensed Space and Services from the Effective Date. Notwithstanding anything m this Order to the contrary, all Fees for those Products in the Price Increase Terms may be subject to the Pnce Increase with effect from the date stated in the Pnce Increase Terms and every twelve (12) months thereafter, except where a change in Equ1nlx's direct electncal supply costs exceeds the Price Increase value listed below then Equinix may change the Fees for power Services by such increased cost. First Price Increase Applicable After I 12 months All Products Price Increase % I 5% 1-ew,&r All Products Price Increase % 5% GLOSSARY -. ---Onllr ._,..._ u---. ---~ - IBX I ProductF""""" I Order Rifaratica # I New Order Rafarenc:a # SV8 I Space & Power I 105706 I 1-186074182635 SV8 I Interconnection I 105706, 139567 I 1-186074182635 Equinix Order Number:1-186074182635(V2) Page 4 of 5 • EOUINIX EQUINIX ORDER ~11111111111111111!0 CITY OF PALO ALTO Equinix LLC, on behalf of itself and its U.S. Affiliates Signature: BIiiing Contact Name: Raveen Maan Equlnlx Local Entity Address Signature: BIiiing Address One Lagoon Drive, 4th Floor ~Mv·1t, PO BOX 10250 Ii~ Redwood City CA Name: United States PALO AL TO CA United States 94303-0862 Title: Phone Number: 6503292494 94065 Name: Matthew M Monaco Date: Email Address: raveen.maan@cityofpaloalto.org Title: Senior Director, Asset Management Date: 04-Apr-2019 Equinix Order Number:1-186074182635(V2) Page 5 of 5 Purchasing & Contracts Administration Document Version: 03 Type: Exemption Form Appendix E - REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM COMPETITIVE SOLICITATION Materials Purchase $10K to $250K Stock Item(s) General or Professional Services $50K to $85K NOTE: Exemptions exceeding the maximum limits indicated above require ‘Staff Report’ Council approval. To request exemption from competitive solicitation under PAMC 2.30.360 Please select from one of the following: (d)No other source has been determined;(d)Only one of the sources available can meet requirements; (b2) There is an impracticality to solicit;(e)Standardization is appropriate. To: Ext: Procurement Representative Email From: Ext: Dept.: Department Requestor Email Request for the purchase of: Requested Supplier/Vendor: Vendor Email: Vendor Contact: Vendor Phone Number: Purchase Requisition (PR) Number: Cost Estimate - Annual: Expected length of contract: Cost in Total: What additional procurement, if any, is expected at the conclusion of this recommended exemption: None RFP RFQ/ITB PCard Other: What other contracts have been in place with the vendor in the past 12 months: Contract: Term: Amount: Purpose: Department Justification for exemption from non-competitive solicitation: Justification must include the following: 1.A very brief description of the unique need that necessitates an exemption from competitive solicitation.2.A detailed statement describing actions taken by department to determine need for selected PAMC2.30.360 exemption type. 3.Supporting documentation for exemption, i.e. letter from vendor, report, research, test data, scope of work, etc. ________________________________________ Page 1 _________________________________________ The text box below is a scrollable field. Attachment B Purchasing & Contracts Administration Document Version: 03 Type: Exemption Form Request for Exemption continued - Approvals Page Approvals Routing Instructions: 1.Save completed form to assigned shared workspace, i.e. U:Drive, or SharePoint. 2.Then upload to "DocuSign" for signature routing to the Approver Levels listed below. 3.The procurement representative will ensure successful process completion. EXEMPTION APPROVALS: Submitter Signature Department Requestor Approver Level 1 Signature Requesting Department Head Approver Level 2 Signature Purchasing Representative Approver Level 3 Signature Adrian Brown Chief Procurement Official Approver Level 4 Signature Kiely NoseASD Director or Designee Approver Level 5 Signature Ed Shikada, City Manager or Designee _____________________________________ Page 2 _____________________________________ City of Palo Alto (ID # 10306) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/3/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: State Homeland Security Grant for Solar Generator Title: Authorization for the the City Manager to Sign a Memorandum of Understanding for a $200,000 Grant of Funds With the State Homeland Security Grant Program via Santa Clara County for a Solar Generator to Support the Mobile Emergency Operations Center (MEOC) From: City Manager Lead Department: Office of Emergency Services Recommended Motion Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to sign the enclosed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on behalf of the City of Palo Alto for a grant of funds made by the County of Santa Clara for the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP). Discussion The County of Santa Clara's Office of Emergency Management (OEM) administers SHSGP for authorized training and equipment and requires awardees sign the MOU to receive reimbursement. The City's Office of Emergency Services (OES) has been awarded $200,000 from this program to support the procurement of a solar generator to support the Mobile Emergency Operations Center (MEOC) and other critical systems and facilities. The performance period for this grant requires acquisition to be completed no later than May 31, 2020. There is no matching funding requirement for this grant. Resource Impact SHSGP grant funding and a corresponding expense appropriation in the amount of $200,000 has been included in the OES department budget as part of the FY 2020 Proposed Operating Budget, subject to Council approval, to fund the purchase of a solar generator. The City intends to use the competitive solicitation process for this project. Per the SHSGP requirements, the selected vendor will be validated by the County of Santa Clara OEM to verify they are not debarred from such grants. The Office of Emergency Services (OES) will submit a Fleet Review Form to address ongoing operations and maintenance costs, depending on the type of product and any bundled services that might be included in the selected solution. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Policy Implications This project aligns with City policies. Further, this project supports two City Council 2019 Priorities: Climate Change/Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Fiscal Sustainability: this has much lower operations and maintenance (O&M) costs vs. fossil fuel generators Environmental Review The recommendation in this report does not constitute a project requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: ATTACHMENT A - Agreement with County of Santa Clara Exhibit A - FY 2018 SHSGP Project Funding Exhibit B - FY 2018 HSGP Grant Assurances Exhibit C - Quarterly Performance and Reporting Requirements Exhibit C-1 - Report Template 2018 SHSGP MOU City of Palo Alto 1 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AND THE CITY OF PALO ALTO GRANTING PROGRAM FUNDS FOR THE 2018 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS THIS AGREEMENT is made effective September 1, 2018, by and between the County of Santa Clara (“County”) and the City of Palo Alto (“Palo Alto”) for the allocation and distribution of 2018 State Homeland Security Grant Program funds. RECITALS WHEREAS, the 2018 State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP, CFDA #97.067) supports the implementation of State Homeland Security Strategies to address the identified planning, organization, equipment, training and exercise needs for acts of terrorism and other catastrophic events, and management and administration of the grant. In addition, SHSGP supports the implementation of the National Preparedness Guidelines, the National Incident Management System (NIMS), and the National Response Network (NRF); WHEREAS, the State of California (“State”) has designated the County as the Operational Area for purposes of distributing SHSGP funds to the cities, special districts and other entities within the County. An Anti-Terrorism Approval Body (County Approval Authority), comprised of one County Public Health Officer, County Fire Chief, Municipal Fire Chief, County Sheriff, and Chief of Police, has been appointed for the purpose of approving the distribution of SHSGP funds at the Operational Area level; WHEREAS, on September 1, 2018 the California Office of Emergency Services (“Cal OES”) awarded the County 2018 SHSGP funds in the amount of $2,016,023. The allocation of the SHSGP funds will be determined by the County Approval Authority in accordance with the grant guidelines. NOW, THEREFORE, the County and Palo Alto agree as follows: THE AGREEMENT Article I. Definitions 1.Specific Terms (a)“Burdened Labor Rate” shall mean the labor rate including benefits, taxes and other deductions from an employee’s paycheck. This rate does not include vacation benefits. (b)“Palo Alto” shall mean the City of Palo Alto, its officers, board members, employees, and agents. (c)“County” shall mean the County of Santa Clara, its officers, board members, employees, and agents. ATTACHMENT A 2018 SHSGP MOU City of Palo Alto 2 (d) “SHSGP funds” or “SHSGP funding” shall mean the funding Palo Alto receives under this Agreement. (e) “Federal Program Guidance” shall mean guidance documents issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including the SHSGP Program Funding Opportunity Announcement, for Fiscal Year 2018. (f) “Grant Certifications and Assurances” shall mean the FY18 SHSGP Agreement Articles, Assurances, Certifications, Terms, and Conditions (g) “Highly Compensated Individual” shall mean an individual whose income is $300,000 or more per year. (h) “Prime Recipient” shall refer to County. (i) “State Guidance” shall mean the California Supplement to the Federal Program Funding Opportunity Announcement, issued by Cal OES for Fiscal Year 2018. (j) “Sub-Recipient” shall refer to Palo Alto. 2. References to This Agreement Any reference to this Agreement shall include: (a) the Agreement; (b) all exhibits, appendices, schedules, and attachments to this Agreement; (c) all statutes, ordinances, regulations, rules, or other documents incorporated by reference into this Agreement; (d) all amendments, modifications, or supplements to this Agreement. Article II. Payment 1. Payment Eligibility Unless otherwise approved in advance by the County Office of Emergency Management (OEM) Grants Administrator (hereinafter “grants administrator”), only an actual cash disbursement by Palo Alto for a claimed expense shall be eligible for reimbursement by the County as approved and specified in Exhibit A, SHSGP Project Funding, which is attached and hereby incorporated into this Agreement. 2. Amount of Payment The County will provide Palo Alto, unless otherwise specified, with the equipment, supplies, and/or other resources as set forth in Exhibit A, SHSGP Project Funding. Specifications for such equipment shall be provided by Palo Alto’s requesting agency to the County for the appropriate procurement process. Palo Alto’s requesting agency will be notified when the procurement process is complete for final approval of equipment prior to the order being placed. If, through previous agreement with the County, Palo Alto is to procure its own equipment, performance milestone dates will apply (refer to Article IV, Section 3(b)). 2018 SHSGP MOU City of Palo Alto 3 The County may reallocate SHSGP funds as specified in Article II, section 4 of this Agreement. County does not guarantee a minimum payment to Palo Alto. Funds in the amount of $173,473 have been set aside for the training and exercise programs from the SHSGP grant to be allocated during the term of this Agreement. OEM will allocate training and exercise funds to agencies as determined by the Training/Exercise Advisory Group. Authorized personnel budgets are allowable within the County OEM, Central Fire, and County Emergency Medical Services. The personnel budget for these departments will reflect the expenditure authority. Reimbursement for actual cash disbursements will be requested through the County OEM. Based on the preference of the Department/Agency, reimbursement requests may be requested on a monthly or quarterly basis. For County Departments, reimbursements will be made via inter-county transfer. For all others, a County warrant will be issued. 3. Maximum Amount Payable Subject to the availability of funds and the priorities established by the County Approval Authority, the maximum amount of SHSGP funds payable by the County to Palo Alto under this Agreement must not exceed $200,000, as allocated by the County Approval Authority. 4. Reallocation of SHSGP Grant Funds For the purpose of maximizing the resources available for preparedness for acts of terrorism and other catastrophic events within the Operational Area, Palo Alto agrees that the County Approval Authority may reallocate funds under this Agreement to Palo Alto or to another applicant if the County determines that Palo Alto is unable to utilize the amount allocated under this Agreement. The County may base its determination on factors that include, but are not limited to the following: delivery timelines, fund expenditure capabilities, and timeliness of expenditure. The County will notify Palo Alto in writing of any determination to reallocate funds, by issuing a “Notice of Reallocation.” SHSGP funds will be put forth to the County Approval Authority for reallocation. Palo Alto agrees that the County has the authority to increase or decrease the maximum amount payable under this Agreement as specified in the Notice of Reallocation document without liability and the County has the authority to amend Exhibit A, “SHSGP Project Funding,” accordingly. Upon issuance, the Notice of Reallocation will automatically become part of this Agreement. Article III. Requests for Reimbursement and Reimbursements 1. Required Documentation for Reimbursement The SHSGP is a reimbursement grant under which Cal OES disburses reimbursement funds to County, and County disburses reimbursement funds to Palo Alto. No cash advances are permitted under the SHSGP program. (a) Requests for Equipment 2018 SHSGP MOU City of Palo Alto 4 The following documentation is required for all reimbursement requests for equipment: • Quote or solicitation documents • Summary of pricing and chosen vendor • Documentation that vendor is not on the excluded parties list (https://www.epls.gov/) (a print-out of the search result page will suffice) • Purchase order and/or contract • Receiving documentation/packing slip • Invoice • Proof of payment All equipment must be approved by the County Approval Authority and must be authorized per the web-based Authorized Equipment List on the Responder Knowledge Base, which is sponsored by Grants & Training and the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism at https://www.rkb.us/. (Contact the Grant Manager for a current Authorized Equipment List.) (b) Subcontracts If Palo Alto awards subcontracts totaling $25,000 or more, it must report on any such subcontracts and on Highly Compensated Individuals on the Financial Disclosure Form, Exhibit D, within 30 days of the award. The following information must be included in Palo Alto’s report on any sub-award exceeding $25,000: • Name of entity receiving award; • Amount of award; • Funding agency; • Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program number; • Award title (descriptive of the purpose of the funding action); • Location of the receiving entity and primary location of performance including city, state, and federal Congressional district; • Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) DUNS Number of the receiving entity, and of its parent if applicable; and • Total compensation and names of receiving entity’s five most highly compensated executives if: o In the preceding fiscal year, the subcontractor received 80 percent or more, and $25,000,000 or more, of its gross annual revenue from federal procurement contracts or subcontracts or from federal financial assistance subject to the Transparency Act, as defined at 2 C.F.R. § 170.230; and o The public does not have access to information about the compensation of the executives through periodic reports filed under section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78m(a), 78o(d), or under section 6104 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. o Palo Alto must report subcontractor executive compensation by the end of the month following the month in which it makes the sub-award. For example, if the sub-award is obligated in any date in April 2018, Palo Alto must report any 2018 SHSGP MOU City of Palo Alto 5 required compensation information by May 31, 2018. Classified information that, in the interest of national security, requires protection against unauthorized disclosure (i.e., information deemed Top Secret, Secret, or Confidential under Executive Order 12958) is exempt from the Prime and Sub-Recipient reporting requirements, as are contracts with individuals. (c) Sole Source Contracts Sole source contracts of $250,000 or more are not allowable under the SHSGP program unless first approved by Cal OES. Palo Alto must obtain sole source request documentation and submit it to the Grants Manager of County’s OEM. Upon Palo Alto’s completion and submission of the required sole source documentation, County’s Grants Manager shall forward all sole source documents to the appropriate Cal OES contact for review and approval. Only after Cal OES approval is given can a sole source procurement be completed and expenditures reimbursed using SHSGP allocated funds. Sole source requests below the $250,000 threshold must follow Palo Alto’s own procurement policies. (d) Other Requests The following documentation is required for all reimbursement requests for contractors: • Quote or solicitation documents • Executive summary of how contractor was chosen • Documentation that vendor is not on the excluded parties list (https://www.sam.gov/) (a print-out of the search result page will suffice) • Purchase order and/or contract • Invoice showing deliverables and milestones completed • Proof of payment • Financial Disclosure Form (Exhibit D) if awarded contract exceeds $25,000 The following documentation is required for reimbursement of Salaries: • Functional timesheet • Description of scope of job which includes Homeland Security-related functions • Burdened Labor Rate • Payroll reports showing amount paid for each pay period being claimed The following documentation is required for reimbursement for Training activities: • Class syllabus • Class sign-in sheet • Instructor/consultant contract documents • Instructor’s invoice • Proof of payment 2. Submission of Requests for Reimbursement 2018 SHSGP MOU City of Palo Alto 6 (a) Palo Alto shall submit reimbursement requests to County’s OEM on a quarterly basis. Unless pre-approved by County’s OEM Director or designee, all reimbursement requests shall be due fifteen calendar days after the end of the quarter, with the exception of the final expenditure and/or invoice, as indicated below. Any expenditure during the final period identified in the chart below shall be made by April 15, 2021, and any related invoice shall be submitted by April 30, 2021, unless otherwise pre-approved by County’s OEM Director or designee, in order to meet 2018 SHSGP deadlines. (b) During the term of this Agreement, County is not obligated to honor any request for reimbursement that is submitted after April 30, 2021. Article IV. Use of Funds 1. Master Grant Obligations (a) Palo Alto shall comply with the SHSGP Federal Program Guidance, the State Guidance, and the Grant Certifications and Assurances, attached as Exhibit B. Palo Alto shall require any sub-grantee, contractor, or other entity receiving SHSGP funds through or from Palo Alto to execute a copy of the Grant Certifications and Assurances, and shall be responsible for ensuring that sub-grantee, contractor, or other entity complies with the Grant Certifications and Assurances. (b) Palo Alto shall comply with all other applicable statutes, regulations, executive orders, requirements, policies, guides, guidelines, information bulletins, Cal OES grant management memos, and instructions; the terms and conditions of the grant award; and any other conditions imposed by Cal OES or by this Agreement, provided that if any provisions of this Agreement conflict with any State requirements, the State requirements will control. Palo Alto shall ensure that any sub-grantee, contractor, or other entity receiving SHSGP funds through or from Palo Alto complies with all applicable statutes, regulations, executive orders, requirements, policies, guides, guidelines, information bulletins, Cal OES grant management memos, and instructions; the terms and conditions of the grant award; and any other conditions imposed by Cal OES or by this Agreement. (c) Palo Alto shall establish and maintain administrative, programmatic and fiscal management records in accordance with federal and state requirements, and: i. Maintain financial management systems that support grant activities in accordance with federal and state requirements, including but not limited to requirements in 44 Code of Federal Regulations (“C.F.R.”) Part 13.20, and the Office of Justice Programs Financial and Administrative Guide for Grants, Part II, Chapter 3. ii. The County shall provide and affix equipment tracking numbers for all equipment purchased through its procurement process. Using the County-issued tracking number, Palo Alto shall maintain an equipment tracking ledger that tracks the equipment within Palo Alto and complies with federal and state requirements, including but not limited to requirements in 44 C.F.R., Parts 13.32 and 13.33, and the Office of Justice Programs Financial and Administrative Guide for Grants, Part III, 2018 SHSGP MOU City of Palo Alto 7 Chapter 6. (d) By executing this Agreement, Palo Alto certifies that it is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise ineligible to receive SHSGP funds. In addition, Palo Alto shall ensure and independently verify that any sub-grantee, contractor, or other entity receiving SHSGP funds through or from Palo Alto complies with federal and state requirements, including but not limited to requirements in 44 C.F.R., Parts 13.32 and 13.33, and the Office of Justice Programs Financial and Administrative Guide for Grants, Part III, Chapter 6, and is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from participation in the SHSGP program. Palo Alto shall maintain documentary proof of this verification in its files. 2. Scope of Services (a) If Palo Alto has been allocated funding for a project, Exhibit A, “SHSGP Project Funding,” will serve as the basis for the project. A further detailed description may be necessary and will be requested by the County if needed to be incorporated by reference herein. If future funding is allocated, Palo Alto shall provide a detailed description of the approved project to be attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. (b) Palo Alto shall use the funds granted under this Agreement in a manner consistent with: i. The applications submitted by the County to the State for the grant under this Agreement; ii. The grant guidelines issued by the State for the grant under this Agreement; and iii. The notifications issued by the State of the approval of the grant under this Agreement (c) The documents described in Exhibit B of this Agreement (collectively the “State Grant Requirements”) are on file with the County and the granting agencies of the State, and are hereby incorporated into this Agreement. Palo Alto hereby acknowledges that it has received a copy of the State Grant Requirements. (d) Palo Alto shall use the funds granted under this Agreement only for the purpose of implementing applicable initiatives under the 2018 SHSGP program, as indicated in Exhibit A, “SHSGP Project Funding”. Palo Alto shall not use the funds granted under this Agreement for any other purpose. Incumbents filling positions funded by the 2018 SHSGP program shall work at a location inside of the Santa Clara County Operational Area, and the work of grant-funded personnel must be solely focused on threats to the Santa Clara County Operational Area. County will not disburse funds to or otherwise pay Palo Alto for services that do not address a terrorism nexus, or for materials, equipment, or supplies provided by Palo Alto that are beyond the scope of the services, materials, equipment, or supplies agreed upon in this Agreement or a lawfully executed written amendment. 3. Performance and Reporting Requirements (a) Performance reports indicating the status of outstanding projects are due to the County Grants Administrator on a quarterly basis as follows: 2018 SHSGP MOU City of Palo Alto 8 (b) The following dates represent the Grant Performance Period for the SHSGP program: • Performance Period 1 (September 1, 2018 – December 31, 2018) – due by January 15, 2019 • Performance Period 2 (January 1, 2019 – March 31, 2019) – due by April 15, 2019 • Performance Period 3 (April 1, 2019 – June 30, 2019) – due by July 15, 2019 • Performance Period 4 (July 1, 2019 – September 30, 2019) – due by October 15, 2019 • Performance Period 5 (October 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019) – due by January 15, 2020 • Performance Period 6 (January 1, 2020 – March 31, 2020) – due by April 15, 2020 • Performance Period 7 (April 1, 2020 – June 30, 2020) – due by July 15, 2020 • Performance Period 8 (July 1, 2020 – September 30, 2020) – due by October 15, 2020 • Performance Period 9 (October 1, 2020 – December 31, 2020) – due by January 15, 2021 • Performance Period 10 (January 1, 2021 – March 31, 2021) – due by April 30, 2021 (c) The County will provide Palo Alto with a report template (Exhibit C, “Performance Report”), and Palo Alto will utilize the template to complete the performance submittal to the County. (d) Payments made by the County to Palo Alto are conditioned upon the timely receipt of applicable, accurate and complete reports, including supporting document, to be submitted by Palo Alto. (e) Palo Alto will notify the County representative identified in Article VII, Section I, within 15 days, when Palo Alto has completed all performance obligations for these grants. (f) Palo Alto will provide single audit reports to the County by July 31st of each fiscal year. Article V. Term and Termination 1. Term of Agreement This Agreement is effective from September 1, 2018 through May 31, 2021. 2. Availability of Funds (a) The parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement is dependent upon the availability of county, regional, State and/or federal funding. (b) Budgetary Contingency: This Agreement is contingent upon the appropriation of sufficient funding by County for the products and services covered by this Agreement. If funding is 2018 SHSGP MOU City of Palo Alto 9 reduced or eliminated by County for the products or services covered by this Agreement, County has the option to either terminate this Agreement with no liability occurring to County or to offer an amendment to this Agreement indicating the reduced amount. (c) The obligations of County to make payments in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement may be delayed, reduced or terminated as a result of any delay, reduction, or change in allocation or allotment in funding to County from federal, State or other regional funding sources. 4. Termination (a) Termination for Convenience. County shall have the option, in its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement at any time without cause upon written notice to Palo Alto. The written notice shall specify the date on which termination shall become effective, which shall be no less than seven (7) days from the date of the notice. (b) Termination for Cause. Either party may terminate this Agreement for cause upon written notice to the other party. The written notice shall specify the date on which termination shall become effective, which shall be no less than thirty (30) days from the date of the notice. Termination for cause includes, but is not limited to, a material breach of this Agreement, a violation of any applicable laws, or failure to comply with applicable SHSGP guidelines. (c) Opportunity to Cure. In the event of termination for material breach of this Agreement, the non-breaching party shall give written notice of the breach to the breaching party, specifying the breach/cause. The breaching party shall not be deemed in default and the non-breaching party shall not institute proceedings or exercise any remedies against the breaching party unless the breach has not been cured, corrected or remedied within thirty (30) days after the breaching party’s receipt of the notice of breach, or within such longer period as may be reasonably required to cure, correct or remedy the breach, provided the breaching party has commenced its cure, correction or remedy within the thirty (30) day period and diligently and continuously pursues that cure, correction or remedy. (d) If this Agreement is terminated, Palo Alto shall return SHSGP funding in accordance with SHSGP program guidelines. Article VI. Indemnification and Liabilities 1. Indemnification by Palo Alto In lieu of and notwithstanding the pro rata risk allocation that might otherwise be imposed between the parties under Government Code section 895.6, County and Palo Alto agree instead that under Government Code section 895.4, Palo Alto shall fully indemnify and hold County, its officers, board members, employees, and agents, harmless from any claim, expense or cost, damage or liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code section 810.8) occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of Palo Alto, its officers, board members, employees or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to Palo Alto under 2018 SHSGP MOU City of Palo Alto 10 this Agreement. This indemnity shall include, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees, consultants and experts and related costs, and County’s cost of investigating any claim. 2. Duty to Defend Palo Alto acknowledges and agrees that its obligation to defend County under Article V.1: (a) is an immediate obligation, independent of its other obligations under this Agreement; and (b) applies to any claim, expense, cost, damage, or liability falling within the scope of Article V.1, regardless of whether the allegations made in connection with that claim, expense, cost, damage, or liability may be groundless, false, or fraudulent. County shall provide Palo Alto with prompt notice of any claim, expense, cost, damage, or liability under Article V.1 and Palo Alto shall have the right to defend, settle, or compromise that claim, expense, cost, damage, or liability, provided, however, that County shall have the right to retain its own counsel at Palo Alto’s expense if representation of County by counsel retained by Palo Alto would result in a conflict of interest, and that Palo Alto shall obtain County’s prior written consent to settle or compromise if Palo Alto contends that County shares in any liability. County’s failure to notify Palo Alto promptly of any claim, expense, cost, damage, or liability shall not relieve Palo Alto of liability to County under Article V.1 unless that failure materially impairs Palo Alto’s ability to defend against the claim, expense, cost, damage, or liability. 3. Limitation on Liability County, its officers, board members, employees, and agents shall not be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of Palo Alto, its officers, board members, employees, or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to Palo Alto under this Agreement. County’s obligations under this Agreement shall be limited to the aggregate amount of SHSGP funds actually disbursed. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement or any other document or communication between County and Palo Alto relating to this Agreement, in no event shall County be liable for any damages arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the SHSGP funds, Palo Alto’s Spend Plan, or any activities performed in connection with this Agreement. Article VII. Miscellaneous 1. Notice All notices required by this Agreement shall be deemed given when provided in writing and delivered personally or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the other party at the address set forth below or at such other address as the party may designate in writing: To Palo Alto: Kenneth Dueker, Director, Palo Alto Office of Emergency Services 2018 SHSGP MOU City of Palo Alto 11 City of Palo Alto 275 Forest Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 To County: Michelle Sandoval Grant and Administrative Services Manager County of Santa Clara Office of Emergency Management 55 W. Younger Ave., Suite 450 San Jose, CA 95110 2. Compliance with all Laws, Including Nondiscrimination, Equal Opportunity, and Wage Theft Prevention (a) Compliance with All Laws. Palo Alto shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, rules, and policies (collectively, “Laws”), including but not limited to the non- discrimination, equal opportunity, and wage and hour Laws referenced in the paragraphs below. (b) Compliance with Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity Laws: Palo Alto shall comply with all applicable Laws concerning nondiscrimination and equal opportunity in employment and contracting, including but not limited to the following: Santa Clara County’s policies for contractors on nondiscrimination and equal opportunity; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Sections 503 and 504); the Equal Pay Act of 1963; California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code § 12900 et seq.); California Labor Code sections 1101, 1102, and 1197.5; and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. In addition to the foregoing, Palo Alto shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee, or applicant for employment because of age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, political belief, organizational affiliation, or marital status in the recruitment, selection for training (including but not limited to apprenticeship), hiring, employment, assignment, promotion, layoff, rates of pay or other forms of compensation. Nor shall Palo Alto discriminate in the provision of services provided under this contract because of age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, political beliefs, organizational affiliations, or marital status. (c) Compliance with Wage and Hour Laws: Palo Alto shall comply with all applicable wage and hour Laws, which may include but are not limited to, the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and, if applicable, any local minimum wage, prevailing wage, or living wage Laws. (d) Definitions: For purposes of this Subsection H, the following definitions shall apply. A “Final Judgment” shall mean a judgment, decision, determination, or order (a) which is issued by a court of law, an investigatory government agency authorized by law to enforce an applicable Law, an arbiter, or arbitration panel and (b) for which all appeals have been exhausted or the time period to appeal has expired. For pay equity Laws, relevant investigatory government 2018 SHSGP MOU City of Palo Alto 12 agencies include the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Violation of a pay equity Law shall mean unlawful discrimination in compensation on the basis of an individual’s sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, race, color, ethnicity, or national origin under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, California Fair Employment and Housing Act, or California Labor Code section 1197.5, as applicable. For wage and hour Laws, relevant investigatory government agencies include the federal Department of Labor, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and the Palo Alto’s Office of Equality Assurance. (e) Prior Judgments, Decisions or Orders against Contractor: By signing this Agreement, Palo Alto affirms that it has disclosed any final judgments that (A) were issued in the five years prior to executing this Agreement by a court, an investigatory government agency, arbiter, or arbitration panel and (B) found that Palo Alto violated an applicable wage and hour law or pay equity law. Palo Alto further affirms that it has satisfied and complied with – or has reached Agreement with the County regarding the manner in which it will satisfy – any such final judgments. (f) Violations of Wage and Hour Laws or Pay Equity Laws During Term of Contract: If at any time during the term of this Agreement, Palo Alto receives a Final Judgment rendered against it for violation of an applicable wage and hour Law or pay equity Law, then Palo Alto shall promptly satisfy and comply with any such Final Judgment. Palo Alto shall inform the Office of the County Executive-Office of Countywide Contracting Management (OCCM) of any relevant Final Judgment against it within 30 days of the Final Judgment becoming final or of learning of the Final Judgment, whichever is later. Palo Alto shall also provide any documentary evidence of compliance with the Final Judgment within 5 days of satisfying the Final Judgment. Any notice required by this paragraph shall be addressed to the Office of the County Executive-OCCM at 70 W. Hedding Street, East Wing, 11th Floor, San José, CA 95110. Notice provisions in this paragraph are separate from any other notice provisions in this Agreement and, accordingly, only notice provided to the Office of the County Executive-OCCM satisfies the notice requirements in this paragraph. (g) Access to Records Concerning Compliance with Pay Equity Laws: In addition to and notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement concerning access to Palo Alto’s records, Palo Alto shall permit the County and/or its authorized representatives to audit and review records related to compliance with applicable pay equity Laws. Upon the County’s request, Palo Alto shall provide the County with access to any and all facilities and records, including but not limited to financial and employee records that are related to the purpose of this Section, except where prohibited by federal or state laws, regulations or rules. County’s access to such records and facilities shall be permitted at any time during Palo Alto’s normal business hours upon no less than 10 business days’ advance notice. (h) Pay Equity Notification: Palo Alto shall (1) at least once in the first year of this Agreement and annually thereafter, provide each of its employees working in California and each person applying to Palo Alto for a job in California (collectively, “Employees and Job Applicants”) with an electronic or paper copy of all applicable pay equity Laws or (2) throughout the term of this Agreement, continuously post an electronic copy of all applicable pay equity Laws in conspicuous places accessible to all of Palo Alto’s Employees and Job Applicants. 2018 SHSGP MOU City of Palo Alto 13 (i) Material Breach: Failure to comply with any part of this Section shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. In the event of such a breach, the County may, in its discretion, exercise any or all remedies available under this Agreement and at law. County may, among other things, take any or all of the following actions: 1. Suspend or terminate any or all parts of this Agreement. 2. Withhold payment to Palo Alto until full satisfaction of a Final Judgment concerning violation of an applicable wage and hour Law or pay equity Law. 3. Offer Palo Alto an opportunity to cure the breach. (j) Subcontractors: Palo Alto shall impose all of the requirements set forth in this Section on any subcontractors permitted to perform work under this Agreement. This includes ensuring that any subcontractor receiving a Final Judgment for violation of an applicable Law promptly satisfies and complies with such Final Judgment. 3. County No-Smoking Policy Palo Alto and its employees, agents and subcontractors shall comply with County’s No Smoking Policy, as set forth in the Board of Supervisors Policy Manual section 3.47 (as amended from time to time), which prohibits smoking: (1) at the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center Campus and all County- owned and operated health facilities, (2) within 30 feet surrounding County-owned buildings and leased buildings where County is the sole occupant, and (3) in all County vehicles. 4. Food and Beverage Standards Except in the event of an emergency or medical necessity, the following nutritional standards shall apply to any foods and/or beverages purchased by Palo Alto with County funds for County-sponsored meetings or events. If food is to be provided, healthier food options shall be offered. “Healthier food options” include (1) fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat and low-calorie foods; (2) minimally processed foods without added sugar and with low sodium; (3) foods prepared using healthy cooking techniques; and (4) foods with less than 0.5 grams of trans-fat per serving. Whenever possible, Palo Alto shall (1) offer seasonal and local produce; (2) serve fruit instead of sugary, high-calorie desserts; (3) attempt to accommodate special dietary and cultural needs; and (4) post nutritional information and/or a list of ingredients for items served. If meals are to be provided, a vegetarian option shall be provided, and Palo Alto should consider providing a vegan option. If pre-packaged snack foods are provided, the items shall contain: (1) no more than 35% of calories from fat, unless the snack food items consist solely of nuts or seeds; (2) no more than 10% of calories from saturated fat; (3) zero trans-fat; (4) no more than 35% of total weight from sugar and caloric sweeteners, except for fruits and vegetables with no added sweeteners or fats; and (5) no more than 360 mg of sodium per serving. If beverages are to be provided, beverages that meet the County’s nutritional criteria are: (1) water with no caloric sweeteners; (2) unsweetened coffee or tea, for which sugar and sugar substitutes may be provided as condiments; (3) unsweetened, unflavored nonfat or 1% low-fat dairy milk; (4) plant- derived milk (e.g., soy milk, rice milk, and almond milk) with no more than 130 calories per 8-ounce serving; (5) 100% fruit or vegetable juice (limited to a maximum of 8 ounces per container); and (6) 2018 SHSGP MOU City of Palo Alto 14 other low-calorie beverages (including tea and/or diet soda) that do not exceed 40 calories per 8-ounce serving. Sugar-sweetened beverages shall not be provided. 5. Governing Law This Agreement has been executed and delivered in, and shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of California. 6. Assignment The parties may not assign this Agreement or the rights and obligations hereunder without the specific written consent of the other. 7. Entire Agreement This document represents the entire Agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. All prior negotiations and written and/or oral agreements between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement are merged into this Agreement. 8. Amendments This Agreement may only be amended by an instrument signed by the parties. 9. Counterparts; Contract Execution This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Unless otherwise prohibited by law or County policy, the parties agree that an electronic copy of a signed Agreement, or an electronically signed Agreement, has the same force and legal effect as a contract executed with an original ink signature. The term “electronic copy of a signed contract” refers to a transmission by facsimile, electronic mail, or other electronic means of a copy of an original signed contract in a portable document format. The term “electronically signed contract” means a contract that is executed by applying an electronic signature using technology approved by the County. 10. Severability If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void, invalid or unenforceable, the same shall either be reformed to comply with applicable law or stricken if not so conformable, so as not to affect the validity or enforceability of this Agreement. 11. Waiver No delay or failure to require performance of any provision of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of that provision as to that or any other instance. Any waiver granted by a party must be in writing, and shall apply to the specific instance expressly stated. 2018 SHSGP MOU City of Palo Alto 15 12. Conflict of Interest In accepting this Agreement, Palo Alto covenants that is presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of services under this Agreement. Palo Alto is responsible for assuring compliance of its subcontractors, if any, with the requirements of this provision. 13. Certified Resolution of Signature Authority Upon request of County, Palo Alto shall deliver to County a copy of the resolution(s) authorizing execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement, certified as true, accurate and complete by the appropriate authorized representative of Palo Alto. Signed: COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CITY OF PALO ALTO By__________________________ ________ By_________________________ ______ Garry Herceg Date Ed Shikada Date Deputy County Executive City Manager Approved as to Form and Legality: Approved as to Form and Legality: ____________________________ ____________________________ Kavita Narayan Date Molly Stump Date Lead Deputy County Counsel City Attorney Enclosures Exhibit A 2018 SHSGP Project Funding Exhibit B Grant Assurances Exhibit C Quarterly Reporting Requirements and Report Template FY2018 SHSGP Allocation 10/18/2017 Grant Program Funding Staffing Costs Training Exercise Planning Equipment TOTAL Balance SHSGP 2,011,669.00$ -$ -$ -$ 2,011,669.00$ Grant Cap 50% maximum Personnel Costs 1,005,834.00$ -$ -$ 1,005,834.00$ Grant Minimum Requirement 25% minimum SHSGP/LE**502,917.00$ 62,205.00$ $62,205.00 -$440,712.00 M&A 100,130.00$ T/E Coordinator 160,000.00$ EMS CMTF 182,000.00$ Fire CMTF 227,494.00$ Total Staffing Costs 669,624.00$ Training Sub- Total -$ Exercise Sub- Total -$ Total Planning -$ Equipment Sub-Total -$ LE Staffing Personnel Costs Personnel Costs -$ LE Equipment -$ -$ Staffing Costs Training Costs Exercise Costs Planning Activities Equipment Costs 4/22/2019 EXHIBIT A FY18 State Homeland Security Grant Program Approved Projects Li n e I t e m # Discipline Agency Funding Category Project Description Allocated Amount 1 Staffing/ M&A Office of Emergency Services Michelle Sandoval, SHSGP Program Manager M/A/ Planning Staffing - 1/2 time salary cost for Management & Administration of Homeland Security Grant Program (Grants Program Manager)$100,130.00 2 Staffing Office of Emergency Services Michelle Sandoval, SHSGP Program Manager M/A/ Planning Staffing - 1.0 FTE SHSGP Training and Exercise/Equipment Coordinator $160,000.00 3 Staffing/ EMS EMS Michael Cabano, All Hazards Program Manager Planning Staffing - 1.0 All Hazards Program Manager (EMS/Public Health)$182,000.00 4 EMS EMS Michael Cabano, All Hazards Program Manager Equipment (300) EMS Scott Air-Purifying Respirator Cartridge Project $21,500.00 5 EMS EMS Michael Cabano, All Hazards Program Manager Equipment Ballistic Protection for Medical- Health Responders - 100 Sets $77,000.00 6 Staffing/ Fire Santa Clara County Fire Douglas Young, Battalion Chief Planning Staffing - 1.0 All Hazards Coordinator (FIRE)$227,494.00 7 Fire Santa Clara County Fire Douglas Young, Battalion Chief Equipment USAR Trailer Equipment Cache (update)$219,092.00 2 FY18 State Homeland Security Grant Program Approved Projects Li n e I t e m # Discipline Agency Funding Category Project Description Allocated Amount 8 Fire San Jose Fire Joe Crivello, Battalion Chief/USAR Program Mgr Equipment Personal Watercraft, Trailer, and Associated Equipment $89,400.00 9 Law Sheriff's Office Dustin Davis, Mutual Aid Coordinator, Sergeant Equipment Special Teams Communications Ear Pro Hearing Protection (34)$39,236.00 10 Law Sheriff's Office Dustin Davis, Mutual Aid Coordinator, Sergeant Equipment EOD 10 Bomb Suits (2)$88,139.00 11 Law Sheriff's Office Dustin Davis, Mutual Aid Coordinator, Sergeant Equipment Transit Explosive Detection Canines (2)$62,205.00 12 Law San Jose Police Department Scott Johnson, Lieutenant Equipment SJPD Vehicle Incursion Barrier (6)$270,000.00 13 Law San Jose Police Department Steve Guggiana, Sergeant Air Support Unit Equipment SJPD Air Support Unit Night Vision Goggle Equipment (6)$92,000.00 14 Law Palo Alto OES/Police Department Kenneth Dueker, Director Equipment Solar Generator Trailer $200,000.00 15 All Santa Clara County OES Karla Espartero/Michelle Sandoval Training Operational Area Training $187,827.00 $2,016,023.00 3 FY18 Homeland Security Grant Program Training Exercise Requests Agency/Contact Info Funding Category Requested Amount Ongoing/New Project Identified in Multi-Year Training and Exercise Plan Santa Clara County Training Training 215,410.00$ New Yes Santa Clara County Exercise Exercise 83,313.00$ New Yes 298,723.00$ 4/22/2019 FY18 Homeland Security Grant Program Staffing Requests Li n e I t e m # Discipline Agency/Contact Info Funding Category Project Description Requested Amount Ongoing/New Project Regional/Mutual Aid Deployable Identified in Bay Area Regional CBRNE Assessment Plan Priority Comments 1 Staffing/ M&A Office of Emergency Services Michelle Sandoval (408) 808-7811 michelle.sandoval@oes.sccgov.org M/A/ Planning 1/2 time salary cost for Management & Administration of Homeland Security Grant Program 100,130.00$ Ongoing yes 5% of grant award for Grant Management and Administration 2 Staffing/ Training Office of Emergency Services Michelle Sandoval (408) 808-7811 michelle.sandoval@oes.sccgov.org Planning 1.0 FTE to administer Training and Exercise Program and other Grant Management 160,000.00$ Ongoing yes 3 Staffing/ EMS EMS Michael Cabano, CMTF Coordinator (408) 794-0625 michael.cabano@ems.sccgov.org Planning CMTF Position for EMS 182,000.00$ Ongoing yes 6 Staffing/ Fire Santa Clara County Fire Douglas Young, Battalion Chief (408) 378-4010 doug.young@sccfd.org Planning CMTF Position for Fire 227,494.00$ Ongoing yes Total Personnel Cap $1,005,834 669,624.00$ 4/22/2019 FY18 Homeland Security Grant Program Emergency Management Requests Li n e I t e m # Dis c i p l i n e Agency/Contact Info Funding Category Project Description Requested Amount Ongoing/ New Project Regional/Mutual Aid Deployable Priority Within Discipline Comments 1 Staffing/ M&A g y Michelle Sandoval (408) 808-7811 michelle.sandoval@oes.sccgov. org M/A/ Planning y cost for Management & Administration of Homeland 100,130.00$ Ongoing yes 2 Staffing/ Training Office of Emergency Services Michelle Sandoval (408) 808-7811 michelle.sandoval@oes.sccgov. org Planning 1.0 FTE to administer Training and Exercise Program and other Grant Management 160,000.00$ Ongoing yes 260,130.00$ FY18 Homeland Security Grant Program Fire Requests Li n e I t e m # Di s c i p l i n e Agency/Contact Info Funding Category Project Description Requested Amount Ongoing/ New Project Regional/Mutual Aid Deployable Priority Within Discipline Comments 6 FIRE Santa Clara County Fire Douglas Young, Battalion Chief (408) 378-4010 doug.young@sccfd.org Planning Staffing - 1.0 All Hazards Coordinator (FIRE)227,494.00$ ongoing yes 7 FIRE Santa Clara County Fire Douglas Young, Battalion Chief (408) 378-4010 doug.young@sccfd.org Equipment USAR Trailer Equipment Cache (update)219,092.00$ new yes Scalable Options: $169,625 or $154,624 8 FIRE Santa Clara County Fire Douglas Young, Battalion Chief (408) 378-4010 doug.young@sccfd.org Equipment Personal Radiation Detectors (10)12,000.00$ new yes 9 FIRE Santa Clara County Fire Douglas Young, Battalion Chief (408) 378-4010 doug.young@sccfd.org Equipment MX 908 Mass Spectrometer Detector 88,000.00$ new yes 10 FIRE San Jose Fire Thomas Lass Firefighter (408) 794-6929 thomas.lass@sanjoseca.gov Equipment Merlin Compressed Air Foam Decontamination Device and Solution (2)25,000.00$ new yes 11 FIRE San Jose Fire Joe Crivello, Battalion Chief/USAR Program Mgr (408) 277-8801 joseph.crivello@sanjoseca.gov Equipment Personal Watercraft, Trailer and Associated Equipment 74,400.00$ new yes 12 FIRE Santa Clara County Fire Douglas Young, Battalion Chief (408) 378-4010 doug.young@sccfd.org Equipment MX 908 Mass Spectrometer Detector - for Sunnyvale DPS 88,000.00$ new yes Project Request Total 733,986.00$ FY18 Homeland Security Grant Program EMS/Public Health Requests Li n e I t e m # Di s c i p l i n e Agency/Contact Info Funding Category Project Description Requested Amount Ongoing/ New Project Regional/ Mutual Aid Deployabl e Priority Within Discipline Comments 3 EMS EMS Michael Cabano, All Hazards Program Manager (408) 794-0625 michael.cabano@ems.sccgov.org Planning Staffing - 1.0 All Hazards Program Manager (EMS/Public Health)182,000.00$ Ongoing Yes Counts toward Personnel Cap 4 EMS EMS Michael Cabano, All Hazards Program Manager (408) 794-0625 michael.cabano@ems.sccgov.org Equipment EMS Scott Air-Purifying Respirator Cartridge Project (300)21,500.00$ New Yes 5 EMS EMS Michael Cabano, All Hazards Program Manager (408) 794-0625 michael.cabano@ems.sccgov.org Equipment Ballistic Protection for Medical- Health Responders - 100 Sets 77,000.00$ Ongoing Yes 6 PH PH Michael Cabano, All Hazards Program Manager (408) 794-0625 michael.cabano@ems.sccgov.org Equipment MiSeq-Next Generation Sequencing Lab Machine -$ New Yes Cancelled Project Request Total 280,500.00$ FY18 Homeland Security Grant Program Law Requests Li n e I t e m # Dis c i p l i n e Agency/Contact Info Funding Category Project Description Requested Amount Ongoing/ New Project Regional/Mutual Aid Deployable Priority Within Discipline Comments 13 Law Sheriff's Office Dustin Davis, Mutual Aid Coordinator, Sergeant (408) 808-4770 dustin.davis@sheriff.sccgov.org Equipment BERLA iVe (vehicle system forensic tool)15,000.00$ New Yes 14 Law Sheriff's Office Dustin Davis, Mutual Aid Coordinator, Sergeant (408) 808-4770 dustin.davis@sheriff.sccgov.org Equipment Special Teams Communications Ear Pro Hearing Protection (34)39,236.00$ New Yes 15 Law Sheriff's Office Dustin Davis, Mutual Aid Coordinator, Sergeant (408) 808-4770 dustin.davis@sheriff.sccgov.org Equipment EOD 10 Bomb Suits (2)88,139.00$ New Yes 16 Law Sheriff s Office Dustin Davis, Mutual Aid Coordinator, Sergeant (408) 808-4770 dustin.davis@sheriff.sccgov.org Equipment Bomb Squad Equipment Transport 84,199.00$ New Yes 17 Law Sheriff's Office Dustin Davis, Mutual Aid Coordinator, Sergeant (408) 808-4770 dustin.davis@sheriff.sccgov.org Equipment Transit Explosive Detection K9s (2)62,205.00$ New Yes 18 Law San Jose Police Department Scott Johnson, Lieutenant (408) 391-0144 3289@sanjoseca.gov Equipment SJPD Vehicle Incursion Barrier (6)270,000.00$ New Yes 19 Law San Jose Police Department Steve Guggiana, Sergeant Air Support Unit (408) 993-8682 steven.guggiana@sanjoseca.gov Equipment SJPD Air Support Unit Medevac (Patient Transport) Equipment 71,765.00$ New Yes 20 Law San Jose Police Department Steve Guggiana, Sergeant Air Support Unit (408) 993-8682 steven.guggiana@sanjoseca.gov Equipment SJPD Air Support Unit Night Vision Goggle Equipment (6)138,000.00$ New Yes FY18 Homeland Security Grant Program Law Requests 21 Law San Jose Police Department Michael Wentling, Sergeant Bomb Squad (408) 277-4122 3044@sanjoseca.gov Equipment SJPD Preventative Radiation Nuclear Detection (PRND) Neutron Measurement (13)50,000.00$ New Yes 22 Law San Jose Police Department Michael Wentling, Sergeant Bomb Squad (408) 277-4122 3044@sanjoseca.gov Equipment SJPD Heavy Duty Re,mote Opening and Rescue Tool 40,000.00$ New Yes 23 Law San Jose Police Department Steve Guggiana, Sergeant Air Support Unit (408) 993-8682 steven.guggiana@sanjoseca.gov Equipment SJPD Air Support Unit Rescue Hoist 285,000.00$ New Yes 24 Law San Jose Police Department Michael Wentling, Sergeant Bomb Squad (408) 277-4122 3044@sanjoseca.gov Equipment SJPD Specialized Vehicle 450,000.00$ New Yes 25 Law San Jose Police Department Christopher Sciba, Sergeant (408) 690-9741 christopher.sciba@sanjoseca.gov Equipment MERGE Rappel and Breaching Training Tower 546,245.00$ New Yes 26 Law San Jose Police Department Jeff Profio, Lieutenant MERGE/K9/Bomb Squad (408) 839-4275 jeff.profio@sanjoseca.gov Equipment SJPD Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (4)10,000.00$ New Yes Surveillance Technology; Aviation Reqest approval 27 Law Palo Alto OES/Police Department Kenneth Dueker, Director (650) 329-2419 oes@cityofpaloalto.org Equipment Solar Generator Trailer 200,000.00$ New Yes 28 Law Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office/SVRIA Heather Plamondon for Wesley Chong (408) 615-5571 hplamondon@svria.org Equipment SVRIA Coplink College Connection(s)144,800.00$ New Yes Project Request Total 2,494,589.00$ Page 1 of 11 Initials_____ Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) – 2018 Grant Assurances Standard Assurances For All Cal OES Federal Grant Programs As the duly authorized representative of the Applicant, I hereby certify that the Applicant has the legal authority to apply for federal assistance and the institutional, managerial and financial capability (including funds sufficient to pay any non-federal share of project cost) to ensure proper planning, management, and completion of the project described in this application, within prescribed timelines. I further acknowledge that the Applicant is responsible for reviewing and adhering to all requirements within the: (a)Applicable Federal Regulations (see below); (b)Federal Program Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO); (c)California Supplement to the NOFO; and (d)Federal and State Grant Program Guidelines. Federal Regulations Government cost principles, uniform administrative requirements, and audit requirements for federal grant programs are set forth in Title 2, Part 200 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Updates are issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/. Significant state and federal grant award requirements (some of which appear in the documents listed above) are set forth below. The Applicant hereby agrees to comply with the following: 1.Proof of Authority The Applicant will obtain written authorization from the city council, governing board, or authorized body in support of this project. This written authorization must specify that the Applicant and the city council, governing board, or authorized body agree: (a)To provide all matching funds required for the grant project and that any cash match will be appropriated as required; (b)Any liability arising out of the performance of this agreement shall be the responsibility of the Applicant and the city council, governing board, or authorized body; (c)Grant funds shall not be used to supplant expenditures controlled by the city council, governing board, or authorized body, and (d)The official executing this agreement is, in fact, authorized to do so. This Proof of Authority must be maintained on file and readily available upon request. EXHIBIT B Page 2 of 11 Initials_____ Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) – 2018 Grant Assurances 2. Period of Performance The Applicant will initiate work after approval of the award and complete all work within the period of performance specified in the grant. 3. Lobbying and Political Activities As required by Section 1352, Title 31 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), for persons entering into a contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement from an agency or requests or receives from an agency a commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan, the Applicant certifies that: (a) No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of an agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. (b) If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying”, in accordance with its instructions. (c) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. The Applicant will also comply with provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1508 and §§ 7324-7328) which limit the political activities of employees whose principal employment activities are funded in whole or in part with federal funds. Finally, the Applicant agrees that federal funds will not be used, directly or indirectly, to support the enactment, repeal, modification or adoption of any law, regulation or policy without the express written approval from the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) or the federal awarding agency. 4. Debarment and Suspension As required by Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, and 2 C.F.R. § 200.213 and codified in 2 C.F.R. Part 180, Debarment and Suspension, the Applicant will provide protection against waste, fraud, and abuse by debarring or suspending those persons deemed irresponsible in their dealings with the federal government. The Applicant certifies that it and its principals, subgrantees, recipients or subrecipients: Page 3 of 11 Initials_____ Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) – 2018 Grant Assurances (a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any federal department or agency; (b) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of federal or state antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; (c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (federal, state, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (2)(b) of this certification; and (d) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application had one or more public transaction (federal, state, or local) terminated for cause or default. Where the Applicant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, he or she shall attach an explanation to this application. 5. Non-Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity The Applicant will comply with all federal statutes relating to non-discrimination. These include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law (P.L.) 88-352 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et. seq.) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin and requires that recipients of federal financial assistance take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) to their programs and services; (b) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, (20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1683, and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded educational program or activity; (c) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 U.S.C. § 794), which prohibits discrimination against those with disabilities or access and functional needs; (d) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and requires buildings and structures be accessible to those with disabilities and access and functional needs (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213); (e) Age Discrimination Act of 1975, (42 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6107), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age; (f) Public Health Service Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. §§ 290 dd—2), relating to confidentiality of patient records regarding substance abuse treatment; (g) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.), relating to nondiscrimination in the sale, rental or financing of housing as implemented by the Department of Housing and Urban Development at 24 C.F.R. Part 100. The prohibition on disability discrimination includes the requirement that new multifamily housing with four or more dwelling units—i.e., the public and common use areas and individual apartment units (all units in buildings with elevators and ground-floor units in buildings without elevators)— be designed and constructed with certain accessible features (See 24 C.F.R. § 100.201); Page 4 of 11 Initials_____ Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) – 2018 Grant Assurances (h) Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do over $10,000 in Government business in one year from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identification or national origin; (i) Executive Order 11375, which bans discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identification, or national origin in hiring and employment in both the United States federal workforce and on the part of government contractors; (j) California Public Contract Code § 10295.3, which prohibits discrimination based on domestic partnerships and those in same sex marriages; (k) DHS policy to ensure the equal treatment of faith-based organizations, under which all applicants and recipients must comply with equal treatment policies and requirements contained in 6 C.F.R. Part 19; (l) Any other nondiscrimination provisions in the specific statute(s) under which application for federal assistance is being made; and (m) The requirements of any other nondiscrimination statute(s) which may apply to the application. In addition to the items listed in (a) through (m), the Applicant will comply with California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). FEHA prohibits harassment and discrimination in employment because of ancestry, familial status, race, color, religious creed (including religious dress and grooming practices), sex (which includes pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding and medical conditions related to pregnancy, childbirth or breastfeeding), gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, mental and physical disability, genetic information, medical condition, age, pregnancy, denial of medical and family care leave, or pregnancy disability leave (California Government Code §§12940, 12945, 12945.2), military and veteran status, and/or retaliation for protesting illegal discrimination related to one of these categories, or for reporting patient abuse in tax supported institutions. 6. Drug-Free Workplace As required by the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.), the Applicant certifies that it will maintain a drug-free workplace and a drug-free awareness program as outlined in the Act. 7. Environmental Standards The Applicant will comply with state and federal environmental standards, which may be prescribed pursuant to the following, as applicable: (a) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000- 21177), to include coordination with the city or county planning agency; (b) CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, §§ 15000- 15387); (c) Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), which establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters; (d) Federal Clean Air Act of 1955 (42 U.S.C. § 7401) which regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources; Page 5 of 11 Initials_____ Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) – 2018 Grant Assurances (e) Institution of environmental quality control measures under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (P.L. 91-190); the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA; and Executive Order 12898 which focuses on the environmental and human health effects of federal actions on minority and low-income populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities; (f) Evaluation of flood hazards in floodplains in accordance with Executive Order 11988; (g) Executive Order 11514 which sets forth national environmental standards; (h) Executive Order 11738 instituted to assure that each federal agency empowered to enter into contracts for the procurement of goods, materials, or services and each federal agency empowered to extend federal assistance by way of grant, loan, or contract shall undertake such procurement and assistance activities in a manner that will result in effective enforcement of the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Executive Order 11990 which requires preservation of wetlands; (i) The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, (P.L. 93-523); (j) The Endangered Species Act of 1973, (P.L. 93-205); (k) Assurance of project consistency with the approved state management program developed under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. §§1451 et seq.); (l) Conformity of Federal Actions to State (Clear Air) Implementation Plans under Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act of 1955, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§7401 et seq.); (m) Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. § 1271 et seq.) related to protecting components or potential components of the national wild and scenic rivers system. The Applicant shall not be: 1) in violation of any order or resolution promulgated by the State Air Resources Board or an air pollution district; 2) subject to a cease and desist order pursuant to § 13301 of the California Water Code for violation of waste discharge requirements or discharge prohibitions; or 3) determined to be in violation of federal law relating to air or water pollution. 8. Audits For subrecipients expending $750,000 or more in federal grant funds annually, the Applicant will cause to be performed the required financial and compliance audits in accordance with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 200, Subpart F Audit Requirements. 9. Access to Records In accordance with 2 C.F.R. § 200.336, the Applicant will give the awarding agency, the Comptroller General of the United States and, if appropriate, the state, through any authorized representative, access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the award. The Applicant will require any subrecipients, contractors, successors, transferees and assignees to acknowledge and agree to comply with this provision. Page 6 of 11 Initials_____ Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) – 2018 Grant Assurances 10. Conflict of Interest The Applicant will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their positions for a purpose that constitutes or presents the appearance of personal or organizational conflict of interest, or personal gain. 11. Financial Management False Claims for Payment The Applicant will comply with 31 U.S.C §§ 3729-3733 which sets forth that no subgrantee, recipient, or subrecipient shall submit a false claim for payment, reimbursement or advance. 12. Reporting - Accountability The Applicant agrees to comply with applicable provisions of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) (P.L. 109-282), specifically (a) the reporting of subawards obligating $25,000 or more in federal funds and (b) executive compensation data for first-tier subawards. This includes the provisions of FFATA, which includes requirements for executive compensation, and also requirements implementing the Act for the non-federal entity at 2 C.F.R. Part 25 Financial Assistance Use of Universal Identifier and Central Contractor Registration and 2 C.F.R. Part 170 Reporting Subaward and Executive Compensation Information. 13. Whistleblower Protections The Applicant also must comply with statutory requirements for whistleblower protections at 10 U.S.C. § 2409, 41 U.S.C. § 4712, and 10 U.S.C. § 2324, 41 U.S.C. § 4304 and § 4310. 14. Human Trafficking The Applicant will comply with the requirements of Section 106(g) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, as amended (22 U.S.C. § 7104) which prohibits grant award recipients or a subrecipient from: (1) engaging in trafficking in persons during the period of time that the award is in effect; (2) procuring a commercial sex act during the period of time that the award is in effect; or (3) using forced labor in the performance of the award or subawards under the award. 15. Labor Standards The Applicant will comply with the following federal labor standards: (a) The Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. §§ 276a to 276a-7), as applicable, and the Copeland Act (40 U.S.C. § 3145 and 18 U.S.C. § 874) and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. §§ 327-333), regarding labor standards for federally-assisted construction contracts or subcontracts, and (b) The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. § 201 et al.) as they apply to employees of institutes of higher learning (IHE), hospitals and other non-profit organizations. Page 7 of 11 Initials_____ Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) – 2018 Grant Assurances 16. Worker’s Compensation The Applicant must comply with provisions which require every employer to be insured to protect workers who may be injured on the job at all times during the performance of the work of this Agreement, as per the workers compensation laws set forth in California Labor Code §§ 3700 et seq. 17. Property-Related If applicable to the type of project funded by this federal award, the Applicant will: (a) Comply with the requirements of Titles II and III of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646) which provide for fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced or whose property is acquired as a result of federal or federally-assisted programs. These requirements apply to all interests in real property acquired for project purposes regardless of federal participation in purchase; (b) Comply with flood insurance purchase requirements of Section 102(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234) which requires subrecipients in a special flood hazard area to participate in the program and to purchase flood insurance if the total cost of insurable construction and acquisition is $10,000 or more; (c) Assist the awarding agency in assuring compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 470), Executive Order 11593 (identification and protection of historic properties), and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. §469a-1 et seq.); and (d) Comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. § 4831 and 24 CFR Part 35) which prohibits the use of lead-based paint in construction or rehabilitation of residence structures. 18. Certifications Applicable Only to Federally-Funded Construction Projects For all construction projects, the Applicant will: (a) Not dispose of, modify the use of, or change the terms of the real property title or other interest in the site and facilities without permission and instructions from the awarding agency. Will record the federal awarding agency directives and will include a covenant in the title of real property acquired in whole or in part with federal assistance funds to assure nondiscrimination during the useful life of the project; (b) Comply with the requirements of the awarding agency with regard to the drafting, review and approval of construction plans and specifications; and (c) Provide and maintain competent and adequate engineering supervision at the construction site to ensure that the complete work conforms with the approved plans and specifications and will furnish progressive reports and such other information as may be required by the assistance awarding agency or State. Page 8 of 11 Initials_____ Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) – 2018 Grant Assurances 19. Use of Cellular Device While Driving is Prohibited Applicants are required to comply with California Vehicle Code sections 23123 and 23123.5. These laws prohibit driving motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication. Drivers are also prohibited from the use of a wireless telephone without hands-free listening and talking, unless to make an emergency call to 911, law enforcement, or similar services. 20. California Public Records Act and Freedom of Information Act The Applicant acknowledges that all information submitted in the course of applying for funding under this program, or provided in the course of an entity’s grant management activities that are under Federal control, is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the California Public Records Act, California Government Code section 6250 et seq. The Applicant should consider these laws and consult its own State and local laws and regulations regarding the release of information when reporting sensitive matters in the grant application, needs assessment, and strategic planning process. HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM - PROGRAM SPECIFIC ASSURANCES / CERTIFICATIONS 21. Reporting Accusations and Findings of Discrimination If during the past three years the recipient has been accused of discrimination on any basis the recipient must provide a list of all such proceedings, pending or completed, including outcome and copies of settlement agreements to the DHS Financial Assistance Office and the DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) by e-mail at CRCL@hq.dhs.gov or by mail at U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Building 410, Mail Stop #0190, Washington, D.C. 20528. In the courts or administrative agencies make a finding of discrimination on grounds of race, color, national origin (including LEP), sex, age, disability, religion, or familial status against the recipient, or the recipients settle a case or matter alleging such discrimination, recipients must forward a copy of the complaint and findings to the DHS Financial Assistance Office and the CRCL by e-mail or mail at the addresses listed above. The United States has the right to seek judicial enforcement of these obligations. 22. Acknowledgment of Federal Funding from DHS All recipients must acknowledge their use of federal funding when issuing statements, press releases, requests for proposals, bid invitations, and other documents describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part with federal funds. 23. Activities Conducted Abroad All recipients must ensure that project activities carried on outside the United States are coordinated as necessary with appropriate government authorities and that appropriate licenses, permits, or approvals are obtained. Page 9 of 11 Initials_____ Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) – 2018 Grant Assurances 24. Best Practices for Collection and Use of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) DHS defines personally identifiable information (PII) as any information that permits the identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred, including any information that is linked or linkable to that individual. All recipients who collect PII are required to have a publically-available privacy policy that describes standards on the usage and maintenance of PII they collect. Recipients may also find the DHS Privacy Impact Assessments: Privacy Guidance and Privacy template a useful resource respectively. 25. Copyright All recipients must affix the applicable copyright notices of 17 U.S.C. §§ 401 or 402 and an acknowledgement of U.S. Government sponsorship (including the award number) to any work first produced under federal financial assistance awards. 26. Duplication of Benefits Any cost allocable to a particular federal financial assistance award provided for in 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Subpart E may not be charged to other federal financial assistance awards to overcome fund deficiencies, to avoid restrictions imposed by federal statutes, regulations, or federal financial assistance award terms and conditions, or for other reasons. However, these prohibitions would not preclude recipients from shifting costs that are allowable under two or more awards in accordance with existing federal statutes, regulations, or the federal financial assistance award terms and conditions. 27. Energy Policy and Conservation Act All recipients must comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 6201 which contain policies relating to energy efficiency that are defined in the state energy conservation plan issued in compliance with this Act. 28. Federal Debt Status All recipients are required to be non-delinquent in their repayment of any federal debt. Examples of relevant debt include delinquent payroll and other taxes, audit disallowances, and benefit overpayments. See OMB Circular A-129. 29. Fly America Act of 1974 All recipients must comply with Preference for U.S. Flag Air Carriers: (air carriers holding certificates under 49 U.S.C. § 41102) for international air transportation of people and property to the extent that such service is available, in accordance with the International Air Transportation Fair Competitive Practices Act of 1974 (49 U.S.C. § 40118) and the interpretative guidelines issued by the Comptroller General of the United States in the March 31, 1981, amendment to Comptroller General Decision B-138942. 30. Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990 In accordance with Section 6 of the Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990, all Applicants must ensure that all conference, meeting, convention, or training space funded in whole or in part with federal funds complies with the fire prevention and control guidelines of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 2225a. Page 10 of 11 Initials_____ Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) – 2018 Grant Assurances 31. Non-supplanting Requirement All recipients who receive federal financial assistance awards made under programs that prohibit supplanting by law must ensure that federal funds do not replace (supplant) funds that have been budgeted for the same purpose through non-federal sources. 32. Patents and Intellectual Property Rights Unless otherwise provided by law, recipients are subject to the Bayh-Dole Act, Pub. L. No. 96-517, as amended, and codified in 35 U.S.C. § 200 et seq. All recipients are subject to the specific requirements governing the development, reporting, and disposition of rights to inventions and patents resulting from financial assistance awards located at 37 C.F.R. Part 401 and the standard patent rights clause located at 37 C.F.R. § 401.14. 33. SAFECOM All recipients who receive federal financial assistance awards made under programs that provide emergency communication equipment and its related activities must comply with the SAFECOM Guidance for Emergency Communication Grants, including provisions on technical standards that ensure and enhance interoperable communications. 34. Terrorist Financing All recipients must comply with Executive Order 13224 and U.S. law that prohibit transactions with, and the provisions of resources and support to, individuals and organizations associated with terrorism. Recipients are legally responsible to ensure compliance with the Order and laws. 35. Reporting of Matters Related to Recipient Integrity and Performance If the total value of the recipient’s currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all federal assistance offices exceeds $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of this federal financial assistance award, you must comply with the requirements set forth in the government-wide Award Term and Condition for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters located at 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix XII, the full text of which is incorporated here by reference in the award terms and conditions. 36. USA Patriot Act of 2001 All recipients must comply with requirements of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act), which amends 18 U.S.C. §§ 175–175c. 37. Use of DHS Seal, Logo, and Flags All recipients must obtain permission from their DHS Financial Assistance Office, prior to using the DHS seal(s), logos, crests or reproductions of flags or likenesses of DHS agency officials, including use of the United States Coast Guard seal, logo, crests or reproductions of flags or likenesses of Coast Guard officials. Page 11 of 11 Initials_____ Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) – 2018 Grant Assurances IMPORTANT The purpose of the assurance is to obtain federal and state financial assistance, including any and all federal and state grants, loans, reimbursement, contracts, etc. The Applicant recognizes and agrees that state financial assistance will be extended based on the representations made in this assurance. This assurance is binding on the Applicant, its successors, transferees, assignees, etc. Failure to comply with any of the above assurances may result in suspension, termination, or reduction of grant funds. All appropriate documentation, as outlined above, must be maintained on file by the Applicant and available for Cal OES or public scrutiny upon request. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in suspension of payments under the grant or termination of the grant or both and the subrecipient may be ineligible for award of any future grants if the Cal OES determines that any of the following has occurred: (1) the recipient has made false certification, or (2) violates the certification by failing to carry out the requirements as noted above. All of the language contained within this document must be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers. All recipients are bound by the Department of Homeland Security Standard Terms and Conditions 2018, Version 8 .1, hereby incorporated by reference, which can be found at: https://www.dhs.gov/publication/fy15-dhs-standard- terms-and-conditions. The undersigned represents that he/she is authorized to enter into this agreement for and on behalf of the Applicant. Subrecipient: Signature of Authorized Agent: Printed Name of Authorized Agent: Title: Date: EXHIBIT C Quarterly Performance and Reporting Requirements Quarterly performance reports indicating the status of FY 2018 State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) projects are due to the County Grants Administrator, Michelle Sandoval. The following dates represent the Grant Performance Period for the SHSGP program: •Performance Period 1 (September 1, 2018 – December 31, 2018) – quarterly performance report due January 15, 2019 •Performance Period 2 (January 1, 2019 – March 31, 2019) – quarterly performance period report due April 15, 2019 •Performance Period 3 (April 1, 2019 – June 30, 2019) – quarterly performance period report due July 15, 2019 •Performance Period 4 (July 1, 2019 – September 30, 2019) – quarterly performance period report due October 15, 2019 •Performance Period 5 (October 1, 2019 – December 30, 2019) – quarterly performance period report due January 15, 2020 •Performance Period 6 (January 1, 2020 – March 31, 2020) – quarterly performance period report due April 15, 2020 •Performance Period 7 (January 1, 2020 – March 31, 2020) – quarterly performance period report due April 15, 2020 •Performance Period 8 (April 1, 2020 – June 30, 2020) – quarterly performance period report due July 15, 2020 •Performance Period 9 (July 15, 2020 – September 30, 2020) – quarterly performance period report due October 15, 2020 •Performance Period 10 (October 1, 2020 – December 30, 2020) – quarterly performance period report due January 15, 2021 •Performance Period 11 (January 1, 2021 – March 31, 2021) – quarterly performance period report due April 30, 2021 Performance Report FISCAL YEAR 2018 Homeland Security Grant Program Reporting Sub-recipient: __________________________________________________ Performance Period: from _________________ to ____________________ (see Agreement with County for Performance Period Report due date) Mailing Instructions: Please complete the performance report and return it by the appropriate due date as indicated: (see Agreement with County for Performance Period Report due dates) Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Services Attention: Michelle Sandoval 55 West Younger Ave, Suite 450 San Jose CA, 95110 Questions regarding the completion of this performance report should be directed to Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Services (408) 808-7811. Questions can also be sent via email to michelle.sandoval@oes.sccgov.org. Reports can be faxed to (408)294-4689, with a hard copy of the report mailed to the above address. Part I –Sub-recipient Contact Information Authorized person who is responsible for completing this form: Name_______________________________________________________________________ Title ________________________________________________________________________ Mailing Address_____________________________________________________________________ Phone_____________________________________Fax______________________________ E-mail _____________________________________________ EXHIBIT C-1 Part II – Project Activities Directions: Complete the following items to reflect activities completed on your project during this reporting period. 1. Project Title: ______________________________________________________ 2. Please explain the actions/processes being taken and estimated completion date. Part III –Signature of Preparer I certify that I have prepared this report with the most timely and accurate information available. Signature: ____________________________________ Date: _________________________ Printed Name: _________________________________ Title: _________________________ City of Palo Alto (ID # 10311) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/3/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Mitchell Park Court Park Improvement Ordinance Title: Adoption of a Park Improvement Ordinance for Pickleball Courts at Mitchell Park From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommended Staff recommends that City Council adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance (Attachment A) for pickleball courts at Mitchell Park. Background The City of Palo Alto (City) has seen an increase in the number of pickleball players and requests for pickleball space. The Palo Alto Pickleball Club (formally Silicon Valley Pickleball Club) has been very active in Palo Alto. The club began using Mitchell Park Tennis Courts 5, 6, 7 on a first- come first-serve basis, which was not supported by the City’s court policy. Staff saw an increase in pickleball play and felt it was important to address the growing demand for pickleball space. On August 28, 2018, staff presented recommended changes to the Court Use Policy to the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC). These changes would allow pickleball players to use Mitchell Park Courts 5,6,7 on a first come- first serve basis as well as providing dedicated times in evenings and weekends. These policy recommendations were supported by the PRC and approved by City Council on October 15, 2018. Both staff reports can be found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=47888.16&BlobID=66491htt ps://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=59206.86&BlobID=67123 Discussion The policy change legitimized the use of courts by pickleball players and provided dedicated times for pickleball play. However, the policy change still does not provide enough designated space to meet demand. When the pickleball community uses Mitchell Park courts 5, 6, 7 they must put together nets that they have purchased, set them up and take them down. With the continued growth of pickleball, staff feels it is important to provide additional, dedicated pickleball space for the Palo Alto community to use. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The Community Services Department and a PRC Ad Hoc Committee began looking into available space to provide designated pickleball courts. Given the extensive pickleball play on Mitchell Park Tennis Courts 5, 6, 7, staff proposed converting those courts to permanent pickleball courts. The proposal was met with resistance from the tennis community, specifically around the idea of losing lit courts and preferring a method that kept the courts available for joint use. As a result, staff and the PRC Ad Hoc Committee continued to explore other options for dedicated pickleball courts. The proposal below is a design that minimizes the loss of lighted tennis courts, provides enough dedicated pickleball space to handle evening play and keeps the use of joint space to provide expansion for high demand times. The proposal includes the following changes to Mitchell Park courts 5,6, and 7: • Area outside of Mitchell Park court 5 becomes 2 newly constructed pickleball courts • Mitchell Park tennis court 5 is converted to 4 designated pickleball courts • Mitchell Park Tennis Courts 6 and 7 remain multi-use courts with times designated for pickleball and tennis. Pickleball would be given priority 8:00am-2:30pm seven days a week. Tennis would be given priority 3:00 pm-10pm seven days a week. If courts are not in use, anyone can use the court but must vacate the space if the priority sport arrives and needs the space. City of Palo Alto Page 3 This plan would result in: • Eight designated pickleball courts, including two that were recently converted paddleball courts. Four of the courts are lighted. • Four designated lighted tennis courts • Two multi-use lighted courts (two tennis courts, or seven pickleball courts) Public Outreach On February 19, 2019, staff held a public meeting to discuss the proposal to the users of the Mitchell Park courts. There were approximately 60 people in attendance; most of the users were pickleball players with a smaller contingent of tennis players. A summary of feedback received at the meeting is below. Pickleball feedback: • Would like a seating area included in design • Addition of water fountain would benefit all court users • Likes the mix of dedicated hours for multi-use courts, split seems fair City of Palo Alto Page 4 • Tree leaves on courts are an ongoing issue Tennis feedback: • Keep all courts multi-use so courts are not left unused • Lighted tennis courts are crucial for tennis • A lot of young youth play tennis and need a place to play • Tennis courts are not available on weekend mornings at Mitchell. • Grouping tennis courts together is also important to the tennis community On April 23, 2019 the Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously to recommend that City Council adopt the Park Improvement Ordinance for pickleball courts at Mitchell Park. Approximately 45 members of the public attended the meeting and expressed their support for the proposed plan. The Park Improvement Ordinance includes the following: 1. Remove four trees, and follow City Arborist’s replanting recommendation; 2. Install two new pickleball courts and perimeter fencing in passive grass area adjacent to existing tennis courts; 3. Install concrete walkway along exterior of the two new pickleball courts; 4. Convert one (existing) tennis court into four dedicated pickleball courts; 5. Stripe the two (existing) tennis courts for tennis and pickleball use to allow for shared use; and 6. Install one drinking fountain adjacent to the tennis/pickleball courts. Timeline Planning Department Permit—May 2019 City Council contract approval—July 2019 Anticipated start of construction—August 2019 Anticipated completion of project—October 2019 Resource Impacts Funding for this project comes from existing capital improvement project PG-06001 Tennis and Basketball Court Resurfacing CIP PG-06001. The engineers estimate for the Mitchell Park pickleball court addition and tennis court resurfacing project is $452,000. Policy Implications The proposed Park Improvement Ordinance is consistent with the recommendations in the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (Program 1.A.5). City of Palo Alto Page 5 Environmental Review This Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Regulation 15303 for New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Attachments: • Attachment A: Mitchell Park Pickleball Park Improvement Ordinance NOT YET ADOPTED 1 ORDINANCE NO. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Pickleball Courts at Mitchell Park The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that: (a) Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and section 22.08.005 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code require that, before any substantial building, construction, reconstruction or development is commenced or approved, upon or with respect to any land held by the City for park purposes, the Council shall first cause to be prepared and by ordinance approve and adopt a plan therefor. (b) Mitchell Park (the “Park”) is dedicated to park purposes. (See Municipal Code section 22.08.200) (c) The City intends to authorize construction of two new pickleball courts, converting one (existing) tennis court to four dedicated pickleball courts, and striping two (existing) tennis courts for tennis and pickleball use at the Park. (d) The plan of improvements shall comprise as follows: (1) Remove four trees, and follow City Arborist’s replanting recommendation; (2) Install two new pickleball courts and perimeter fencing in passive grass area adjacent to existing tennis courts; (3) Install concrete walkway along exterior of the two new pickleball courts; (4) Convert one (existing) tennis court into four dedicated pickleball courts; (5) Stripe the two (existing) tennis courts for tennis and pickleball use to allow for shared use; and (6) Install one drinking fountain adjacent to the tennis/pickleball courts. (e) Exhibit A depicts the expected implementation of the plan of improvements. (f) The plan of improvements described above is consistent with park, playground, recreation, and conservation purposes. (g) The City Council desires to approve the plan of improvements described above. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves the plan of improvements in the Park described in this Ordinance. NOT YET ADOPTED 2 SECTION 3. The City Council finds that this ordinance falls under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemptions found in Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15303 (New Construction of Small Facilities or Structures). SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Deputy City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Community Services ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services ±8 ' ±6.8' ±8 ' ±6.3' ±6'±6'±6' ±8 ' ±1 5 . 6 ' ±16.9'±8.5'±8' ±7' ±7' ±7.5' ±8 ' ±8 '±8 '±8 ' ±17' ±0.9' ±7'±8' ±1 6 ' ±6' ±6' ±8 ' ±1 6 ' ±8 ' ±8 ' ±8 ' ±1 5 . 8 ' ±1 5 . 9 ' ±1 6 ' ±8 ' ±8 ' ±5.5' ±25.6' ±8' ±13' 20' 10' 10' 22'7'15' KEY NOTES 1 PICKLEBALL STRIPING - BLENDED USTA STANDARD BLUE 25% WHITE 1 NOTE: DISTANCES SHOWN IN DETAIL 1 ARE APPROXIMATE. DISTANCES ARE SHOWN TO CENTER OF 2" STRIPE. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY PRIOR TO ANY DEMOLITION. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM LAYOUT OF NEW COURTS WITH THE CITY PRIOR TO STRIPING. NOTE: DISTANCES SHOWN ARE FOR QUICK REFERENCE ONLY. SEE SHEETS 15 & 16 FOR STRIPING NOTES AND DETAILS.10'20' SCALE: 1"=20' 40'0' 2 78' TENNIS COURT, SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY 3 STANDARD PICKLEBALL COURT PER DETAIL 1 THIS SHEET, AND SHEETS 15 & 16 2 2 4 4 4 4 3244 Brookside Road Suite 100 Stockton,California 95219 209-943-2021 Fax: 209-942-0214 www.siegfriedeng.com CIVIL ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 10' SETBACK LINE 3 3 EXISTING WALL AT CREEK, TYP. 4 PROPOSED PICKLE BALL STRIPING 4 4 4 3 3 5 EXTEND EXISTING CONCRETE PATHWAY TO NORTHWEST, TERMINATE AT EXISTING 10' DG PATHWAY. CONTRACTOR TO DETERMINE WITH CITY IF RETAINING CURB REQUIRED AGAINST HILLSIDE. 6 FUTURE CONCRETE PAD (BLEACHERS) - 4" (3000 PSI) CONCRETE OVER 4" CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE (CITY REQUEST)7 INSTALL NEW ASPHALT CONCRETE TENNIS COURTS, COURTS SHALL BE 2" ASPHALT CONCRETE (3/8" MAX. AGGREGATE SIZE ON FINAL LIFT) OVER 8" CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE. 8 6 9 MODIFY EXISTING FENCE TO ACCOMMODATE STORAGE OF ROLLING NETS WITH ACCESS GATES INSIDE COURTS. COORDINATE EXACT SIZE AND LOCATION WITH CITY. REMOVE EXISTING TREE 5 5 5 5 10 PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING DRAIN INLET, POTENTIAL TIE IN LOCATION OF NEW COURT DRAINAGE SYSTEM 11 INSTALL NEW LOW LEVEL FENCE AS SHOWN (MATCH EXISTING), COORDINATE WITH CITY FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND LENGTHS 12 INSTALL NEW HIGH LEVEL FENCE (MATCH EXISTING), COORDINATE WITH CITY FOR EXACT LOCATION OF GATES AND OPENINGS 9 8 10 10 10 10 10 13 MODIFY EXISTING HIGH FENCE INTO LOW FENCE, COORDINATE WITH CITY FOR EXACT LOCATIONS OF OPENINGS. 11 11 11 11 14 INSTALL NEW DYNAMITE CRAPE MYRTLE - 24" BOX, SINGLE TRUNK TREE (TYPICAL OF 4); INSTALL WOOD CHIPS FOR GROUND COVER 15 INSTALL NEW ARBUSTUS MARINA - 24" BOX, SINGLE TRUNK TREE (TYPICAL OF 1); INSTALL WOOD CHIPS FOR GROUND COVER 13 13 14 14 15 EX I S T I N G C R E E K 16 REMOVE PORTION OF EXISTING WALKWAY, NEW SURFACING TO MATCH EXISTING FENCE 16 LA N D S C A P E A R E A EX I S T I N G P A T H EXISTING PATH EXISTING SIDEWALKNEW SIDEWALK 17 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF NEW DRINKING FOUNTAIN, COORDINATE EXACT LOCATION WITH CITY 17 City of Palo Alto (ID # 10314) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/3/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District Title: Preliminary Approval of the Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) 2019-2020 Annual Report; Adoption of a Resolution Declaring an Intention to Levy an Assessment Against Businesses Within the BID for Fiscal Year 2020 and Setting a Time and Place for a Public Hearing to be Held by the City Council on the Levy of the Proposed Assessment From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that City Council: 1. Preliminarily approve of the Business Improvement District (BID) Advisory Board’s 2020 Annual Report for the BID (Attachment A) and; 2. Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Levy Assessments in the Palo Alto Downtown Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2020 (Attachment B), setting a date and time for the public hearing on the levy of the proposed assessments for June 24, 2019, at 5:00 PM, or thereafter, in the City Council Chambers. Executive Summary This City Council action (a) preliminarily approves the BID Advisory Board’s annual report, and (b) sets a time and place for a public hearing to receive a presentation by the Palo Alto Downtown Business and Professional Association (PADBPA), the entity with which the City contracts to provide services to businesses in the Downtown, and consider any objections to the assessments. PADBPA addresses issues facing downtown businesses such as cleanliness, safety, and attractiveness. PADBPA also assists with communication about the City’s capital improvement projects such as Upgrade Downtown, mobility projects, and other City policy matters affecting downtown businesses. Assessments for BID businesses are based on the size, type and location of the business. Assessments range from $50 for individually owned professional businesses to $500 annually for financial institutions. PADBPA holds monthly open meetings governed by the Brown Act which any business or individual can attend. Background The Palo Alto City Council established the BID in 2004 pursuant to the California Parking and City of Palo Alto Page 2 Business Improvement Area Law to maintain economic vitality and physical maintenance of the Palo Alto Downtown business district. The Council appointed PADBPA, a non-profit corporation, as the Advisory Board for the BID. PADBPA, acting through its independent Board of Directors, advises the Council on the method and basis for levy of assessments in the BID and the expenditure of revenues derived from the assessments. Pursuant to BID law, PADBPA must annually submit to the Council a report that proposes a budget for the upcoming Fiscal Year (FY) for the BID. The report must: 1) propose any boundary changes in the BID; 2) list the improvements and activities to be provided in the Fiscal Year; 3) estimate the cost to provide the improvements and activities; 4) set forth the method and basis for levy of assessments; 5) identify surplus or deficit revenues carried over from the prior Fiscal Year; and 6) identify amounts of contributions from sources other than assessments. Each year the Council: 1) reviews the report and preliminarily approves it as proposed or with modifications; 2) adopts a resolution of intention to levy the assessments for the upcoming Fiscal Year; and 3) sets a date and time for the public hearing on the levy of assessments in the BID. Absent a majority protest at the public hearing proposed for June 24, 2019, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Council may adopt a resolution confirming the report for FY 2020 as filed or as modified by the Council. The adoption of the resolution constitutes the levying of the BID assessments for FY 2020. The proposed BID budget for FY 2020 was reviewed and approved by PADBPA at their May 8, 2019 meeting. As required by BID law, the report has been filed with the City Clerk and contains a list of the improvements, activities, and associated costs proposed in the BID for FY 2020. Discussion Over the past fifteen years, PADBPA, supported by the BID Fund and working in collaboration with the City, has achieved several significant accomplishments that have contributed to a vibrant downtown. The Annual Report documents these achievements. Looking forward and considering the future of downtown, the City and PADBPA recognize that the economic landscape has shifted significantly. The built environment, population demographics, traffic patterns, and shopping habits are a few of the changes that significantly impact downtown businesses of all types. The City, PADBPA, and the downtown business community must thoughtfully consider how to achieve the stated goals of the BID in this new environment. As the Annual Report states, PADBPA intends to use the coming year to assess operating models and determine which model is the most sustainable. This assessment, performed in collaboration with the City, will consider the goals of the both organization and the City, the obligations of the BID Fund, and ultimately determine the operating model that can best achieve those goals. The attached PADBPA Annual Report provides a summary of activities from FY 2019 and presents the budget and proposed activities for FY 2020. Aligning revenues and expenses City of Palo Alto Page 3 remains a critical component of a sustainable operating model. PADBPA proposes a fiscally conservative FY 2020 budget that aligns revenues and expenses. The proposed budget projects revenue and expenses of $87,500. Since FY 2015, the revenues generated from the BID assessment, which is administered by the City, have not kept pace with the expenses of operating PADBPA’s programs. The BID Fund’s balance has slowly decreased. The BID Fund has run an operating deficit since FY 2015; this manner of operating is not sustainable on an ongoing basis. The City will continue to monitor FY 2019 expenses and appropriate adjustments will be brought forward as part of the FY 2019 CAFR and Year-End process. The proposed budget for FY 2020 reflects a more moderate expense budget in order to appropriately align revenues and expenses in the fund. The City is confident that through streamlined assessments and a conservative budget, the BID Fund will balance its budget in FY 2020. To streamline the BID assessment process and create less confusion, the BID assessment collection has been combined with the Business Registry Certificate (BRC) payment. The firm Avenu (formerly MuniServices, LLC) is the third party vendor contracted to provide collection services. Avenu began conducting the combined collection in late April 2019. In past years, the BID assessment collection began in March and concluded by the close of the fiscal year. This year, however, due to the later date of the FY 2019 collection, the City has received a limited number of payments to date. City staff and Avenu anticipate increased revenue due to the combined and streamlined collection process. In FY 2020, the City plans to identify means and methods to further enhance collection of the assessment in order to increase revenues. Resource Impact The BID is set up as a separate fund within the City’s accounting system and does not impact the general fund. Per the contract with PADBPA, the City acts as the collection agent for BID revenues and reimburses PADBPA’s expenses after receipt and verification of invoices. Upon approval of the Annual Report, the City designates funds for reimbursement according to the approved budget. Revenues are collected throughout the fiscal year to offset BID expenses. Additional resources include staff time from the City Manager’s Office and Development Services Department to provide oversight to the BID, administer the contract with Avenu, liaise with stakeholders, and prepare the annual reauthorization. Through the FY 2020 budget process, City Council will consider a proposal to move BID assessment collection from the Development Services Department to the Administrative Services Department. Attachments: • Attachment A - PAD Annual report 2019-20 • Attachment B - Resolution Declaring Intention to Levy Downtown BID Assessment for FY20 • Attachment C - Exhibit A - BID Map City of Palo Alto Page 4 • Attachment D - Exhibit B - BID Fee Schedule Attachment A – PAD Annual Report 2019-2020 2 Introduction This report from the Advisory Board of the Palo Alto Downtown Business & Professional Association (“PADB&PA”) was prepared for City Council to review for the annual reauthorization of the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District (“BID”) pursuant to Section 36533 of the Parking and Business Improvement Law of 1989 (Section 36500 and following of the California Streets and Highways code) (the “Law”). This report is for the proposed fiscal year for the BID commencing July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2020. (“Fiscal Year 2019-20”). As required by the Law, this report contains the following information: I. Any proposed changes in BID boundaries and benefit zones within the BID; II. The improvements and activities to be provided for Fiscal Year 2019-20; III. An estimate of the cost of providing the improvements and the activities for Fiscal Year 2019- 20; IV. The method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each business owner to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her business for Fiscal Year 2019-20. V. The amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from a previous fiscal year. VI. The amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied pursuant to the Law. Submitted by Brad Ehikian, Chair of the Advisory Board (“Advisory Board”) of the Palo Alto Downtown Business & Professional Association (“PADB&PA”). The Advisory Board approved this report on May 8, 2019. Received on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Palo Alto on May 8, 2019. The Immediate Future Upon the departure of the Executive Director in June of 2018, the Palo Alto Business and Professional Association Board of Directors developed several forward-looking scenarios, which are described below in no particular order: 1. Replace the existing full time Executive Director position with another full-time Executive Director 2. Replace the existing full-time Executive Director position with a part-time Executive Director 3. Form a partnership with the City of Palo Alto, in which the City would provide some administrative support and the PADBPA board would provide guidance of downtown programs and improvements 4. Form a partnership with the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce in which the Chamber would provide administrative support and the PADB&PA board would provide leadership and funding for downtown improvements and programs 5. Do not have paid staff, use assessments to fund projects in the downtown that would support retail businesses PADB&PA proposes to use the next year to thoroughly assess these options in order to determine which model is the most sustainable. This assessment will include identifying the goals of the BID and PADB&PA, understanding the revenue generation and expenses of each 3 model, the impact of each model on achieving the stated goals, and the feasibility of each model in the local context. During the coming months it is the board’s intention to pursue and engage in a consultative approach to determine the most appropriate course of action. At the same time, we will continue identifying and executing programs, special projects, and partners that can enhance the downtown experience. Historical Perspective PADB&PA’s takes great pride in the programs and services that it has contributed since inception. Several are listed here: • Creation of the Downtown Streets Team (PADB&PA started the effort in 2005) with continued support through 2019 • Display of American Flags during national holidays ( began in 2012) and continues to present. • Holiday Tree Lighting (this program was brought back in 2011 after a long hiatus.) • “Art” benches and replacement of the over twenty year old utilitarian benches (these programs were initiated with both Public Works and Public Arts in 2015.) • Free summer concerts (began in 2013) and continued through 2018 • Increase the frequency of steam-cleaning sidewalks, replacement of trashcans and increase in patrols of the parking garages (all programs initiated by PAd in conjunction with Public Works, PAPD, Downtown Streets Team and the Parking Assessment District.) • Streetlight banner program branding and promoting downtown as a great destination (began in 2012) and continues to present • Collaborated on “No smoking” ordinance and “no amplified music” ordinance (both initiated in 2014) • Lytton Plaza umbrellas and new foliage (partnership with the PAd, City and the Friends of Lytton Plaza, beginning in 2014) and continues to present. • University Avenue Tunnels repainting. ( initiated and completed in 2013) • Additional partnerships between the City of Palo Alto and the business community for communications about encroachment permit enforcement, downtown infrastructure improvement impacts, Residential Permit Parking issues, TMA, World Music Day and other street closure events. PADB&PA’s contribution illustrates the ongoing benefit of an organization dedicated to enhancing the quality of life for residents and patrons of Downtown Palo Alto. Further accomplishments for Fiscal Year 2019 are listed below in the Annual Report. 4 Section I: BID boundaries and Benefit Zones There have been no changes in the BID boundaries or benefit zones within the BID and no changes are proposed. The current boundaries are depicted on the map below. The area of the BID is referred to as “Downtown.” 934-944 927 932 233 281 933-937 943 327 1001 942 469 475 744 459 832 801 APT 1-5 427-453 920 912 362 370 900 838 846 471 459 835-855460 815 840836 834 845 400 803 928930 931933 835-837 831-833 451453 802800 810-816 818-820 828-830 817-819 823-825 567-569 559563 536 526 1001 1011- 540 483 904 912 468 918 926 537 965-971505-507 519-521 939-945 931-935 923-925518-520 539541543 515-517 809811 420 1001 1011 1010 376 370 980960 990 34 354 326 426 4 1000 448 944 471 483948952 959947925 915 933935 425-443 451449 463-465 936-940 458 460 440 428426 527-533 543 551 510520 558-560 903 825 837 581 575940934 813-823 501-509 511-519 521-529 531-539 541-547 556 596 904 926 561-567 569 845 580 574 566 991- 997 136 610 116-122 150 535529525 542516140 102 116124 163 145 566556 167 528 643635 635 645- 685 660-666 620 180 164 158156 624628 632636640 644 617621 151-165 171-195 203 642640636 200 151 115 125 135 514 101 440 444 436432 427 425 117119 630616 208 228220 240-248 575 530-534 536540 552 177 156 201209215 225 595 229231 611-623 180 508500 625-631 170172-174 542544 538- 542 552548546 541- 547 230-238 734 723 721 702-730220-244 744 701 731 755757 771 200 160 728-732 762- 776740-746 250 275 270 255741 265 724 730 651 221-225 227 668 707 205 201203451449 209219 221 233235450460470442444 400 420 430 411 425 429 185 165 181 412 250 420 245 171-169 441-445 435- 439 346344 333335 342 344 431 460 450 235530 220 220 B 222 240 514278 274270 250 545 540 251485255 271 281 300310 301 581 259-267 533535537 261 267 518-526 532-536 520-526 530-536 271 281 252 270 240-248 202- 216 228226 234238 244242 210-216 228-234 223-229 209215 247-259 240 232230 311-317 251 344326340 337339 323317 400 420 332330 314 353 355 367 305 347 265272-278 418 319 321-341 328 330 300- 310 431401 366 436 426 #1-7 369 335 319 390 301 315 375 307-311 325330 332 1&2330 1-3 324 326316 318 373- 377 416- 424 361 338 340 560 345 321325 315 529 285 555 650636 628 1-12 628 A-E 385 365 375380 345 664 325650-654 661635300 690 675 555541-549533 535- 539 318-324 326 352 425 439-441 435429425 415-419 405403453 461 383460 502 510 526 520 540 499 467 459 439 425 555 400 436-452 456 379 370-374376 380-382 384-396 550-552 364 360 431 440-444 423 499 475 421-423 431-433 432428 460-476 450 635 446 430 400 745 720706 385744734 724-730 720712704 360 351 315737 332 300 653 -681 683685 512 501619 609605 518 482486496 610 630 455 400 651-687 543-545 532534 542544 550 552 554556 558560562564 635-6 643-6 470 313 334 333 325326 342 303301 229 336 308 310312 316 318 311 331 315 319 317 321 335 228220 356-360 347-367 351357 369-379360 258- 296 350 210204 302-316 379310 320 328 332 340 437 412 311 A-B 404 313 325 327 333 407401385 411 452 378-390 360 - 1A - 1C360 - 2A - 2C360 - 3A - 3C360 - 4A - 4C360 - 5A - 5C360 - 6A 344-348 418420 482 328 456 321 325 330204218 236 240 250- 252 477 475 467 457 453249235 225221 201 60 275505-509 239- 243209-213 210-214 513-519 460 474472228- 230 535 558 201 1612 20 209 215 223 231 521 80 239-245 530-540 544-554 212- 216 218-222 333 335-337 351 457451 465463 489-499360 530 480 420 430 480 463 451443437411405 419405401 441 480-498 347 351 355 359 525 430 473 332-342 425415 400 570568 556 550 543 327321315305 343 515 525 551 555 328 309-311 518-528 536-540 552-554 558-562 573 A-E 591-599 557-571 330-332 318-320 406-418 417 542548568 524 550 500-528 578 564 550 546 540 530 531-535 541 505 525 537 555 565 571530 619-6 520 440-446 579 567 523610 600 555 581 420-438 437 566 224 228 A-F 244 579 575 565 559 251 355 A-J 335329604 576 566 345-347 243245 25725920921922723502 505 610-616 727 678 676 674672 642 636-638 567 555 711 701705 725 525 759 730718 734 738-740 760 746-750 701 721-7 600 827 835 899 850 530 609 759 7517537737-62611 601 600 1013 10041000 1006 1001 623 137 145 700 780 790 744 111700 753100 825805 33 51 75 63 841 44675 49 41 711 799 703 100 101 139654 625 160 1001 1005 1009 1010 1004 930 975945929931 948 181 940 960 145900 955 999875 853 925 81 855 901-907 909 87 98 917 921 925 735 849 707 847 842828 820248 230-232 212 825 829833 839 800 812818 882 165831 801 815 809801 841 791153 718 774 761 795745 201 209 834836 845 895 926 190 934 942 948 203 209 219 225 929200 240 904 910 926 270 935 904 909 909A 217 222 148 171 421 130 312 318 324 317 301 186 192 323 329 151 325 329 334 131129 355301 235 258 212 163 115 291247 210 201207 64 202 235 251249 252 247 244 250 177220 261 251-257 205245231225213205 70 2 206 234240 183 251 270 241-247 215-237 210- 216 219 235 62 202 245 5452 50 203 215 221 313-317318 220-224 238 542-550 531-539 532 759 223-239 905 911-917907 188190 251-293 202 206 208 210 212 216220 1008 275 539 201 400 27 168 865857 302 324 340 795 848 918 903 903A 408412 440 483A - F 435 751 735 745 532 210 727 733 335 328 330 345 214 350 800 806 441441A 230302306308312316 301 303 305307309 325 251 807 821 829 801 818-824 420 424 430 832A 832 842A 842 852A 852 862A 862 872A 872 351A 351 355A 355 359A 359 363A 363 367A 367 425 911 943 951 918 936 940 944 271 253 241 301 319 919A 919 935 949 928 936 940-946 353 264 367 361 310 1005 1010 423425413 - 419 457-467 469-471473-481 454 729 A-D 733-743 734-740 724-732 936 824-828 920 949 943941 715 95 445 324 328 545 590 425447 827 565585595 904 315 507 561 706 536 200 100 280-290 150 158164 276 516 698 161 159 157777 132 127 180 528 120 247 372 524 548550 538 152 345 336 515 658 227 27 29 539 115 135 321 558 #200-202 558 #C & D 965 140 350 808 915 461 435433 945 1012 421 727 A-C 218 255 206 739 260 840 650 642 351 451 551 375 530 643 415 12 700 802 99 89 87 901 560564568572576580584588592594 906908 910 912914 916 918920 922924 548 423 668 901 305 -313 423 405 352354 611 320322 346 323 471 484 528 426 264 430 1001 508 756 - 760 940 930 544546 515 7 7457 549 211213 151 160 257 433-457 482 330 349 401 539 440 691 755 67 312 202 651 443445 447 716 218 398 998 262 335 218 640-646506 327 469 303 401 403 254 401 91 40 101 819 301 725 595 705 541 Quarry Road Homer Avenue Lane 8 West Medical Foundation Way Lane 7 West Lane 7 East Encina Avenue El Camino Real Urban Lane Wells Avenue Forest Avenue High Street Emerson Street Channing Avenue Alma Street El Camino Real Mitchell Lane Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue Lane 15 E High Street Alma Street Bryant Street Lane 6 E Lane 11 W Lane 21 High Street Gilman Street Hamilton Avenue University Avenue Bryant Court Lane 30 Florence Street Kipling Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Everett Avenue Waverley Street Cowper Street Webster Street Everett Court Lytton Avenue Lane A West L L La Addison Avenue Forest Avenue Downing Lane Homer Avenue La Lane 39 Lane 56 Hamilton Avenue Webster Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant Street Ramona Street Addison Avenue Scott Street Webster Street Cowper Street Addison Avenue Channing Avenue Ramona Street Paulsen Ln Lane 15 E Lane 20 W Lane 20 E University Avenue CalTrain ROW Emerson Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant Street Ramona Street Palo Road ay Pear Lane Lane 12 W Lane 5 E Everett Avenue Homer Avenue Emerson Street talm D riv e Alma Street Lytton Avenue This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Zone A (Ground Floor) - Zone B (Upper Floors) abc Zone B 0'500' Downtown Palo AltoBusiness ImprovementDistrictArea Map CITY O F PALO A LTO IN COR PORAT E D CALIFOR NI A P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2012 City of Palo Altorrivera, 2012-04-30 16:57:54CPA BID (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\rrivera.mdb) EXHIBIT A 5 Section II: Improvements & Activities Downtown Palo Alto is a far different place than it was when the organization was founded in 2004. Downtown is a dynamic, entrepreneurial neighborhood that boasts clean and safe walkable streets, a well balanced confluence of small, medium and large businesses and an almost even balance of independently owned retail and restaurants operating along side national chains. It is a globally recognized mecca for innovating the social and the technical. However, we are currently noticing difficulty in attracting retail businesses. We have heard from several sources that retail spaces are not filling due to lack of parking, the tenant improvement process and higher than anticipated rent. Restaurants are also suffering due to the increased number of restaurants at the Stanford Shopping Center competing for our business. Several restaurants have closed while others have reduced hours. Despite these challenges, PADBPA operate a number of programs and activities in the past year. 2018-19 Programs that help the public good as well as members: • Spearheaded the effort on the systematic replacement of downtown benches to both enhance the esthetics of downtown and inhibit loitering. A combination of a more utilitarian bench design along with a small variety of artful benches have been installed, this in partnership with City of Palo Alto Public Works Division and the Public Arts Commission. Funding to keep and maintin these benches has been secured through a partnership with the Arts Commission and the Public Utilities Department. This project is complete. • Worked with a variety of city staff to help communicate and mitigate the impacts of downtown construction related to the Upgrade Downtwon Utilities project. • Initiated a plan to partner with Zero Waste to enhance the cleanliness of the alleyways throughout downtown. • Designed and managed the downtown lamppost banner program which provided Holiday, Spring and Summer banners along University, Lytton and Hamilton as well as site specific banners for Bryant, Emerson, Waverly and Ramona as well as Lyton Plaza. Downtown now has compiled a library of banner designs that can be used in years to come. This brand building program continues to promote downtown as the special place it is. No new banner designs are planned for 2019-20. • Initiated, developed, managed and promoted the 6 week long Summer concert series, “Music On the Plaza” including the development and design of social media, web and print efforts as well as raising the $20K in sponsorships needed to execute the series. We have moved the series to Lytton Plaza and closed a small section of Emerson to accommodate staging in order to accommodate partipants. This move resulted in larger crowds and even larger crowds are anticipated this year. Continuing the series in 2019- 20 is under consideration but not likely given the absence of leadership. • Partnered with the Friends of Lytton Plaza and the City of Palo Alto to maintin umbrellas, foliage, public art and banners to the plaza to enliven and soften the hardscape of the plaza. Further efforts will continue in 2019-20. • Initiated a comprehensive review of all newsrack conditions. Provided City Engineering staff with this report. Met with other municipalities to compare those city’s newsrack ordninaces in order to make recommendations regarding how to refine our current ordinance. 6 Looking ahead to Fiscal Year 2019-2020 As previously stated, PADBPA and the City will work together to identify and implement a sustainable operating model for both PADBPA and the BID Fund. While the strategic planning is underway, PADBPA will continue programs and activities that benefit the businesses within the BID boundaries. These programs and activities include: • Improvement and maintenance of public spaces, including public plazas, streets, and sidewalks; • Acquisition, construction, installation or maintenance of any tangible property with an estimated useful life of five years or more; • Marketing activities, including the downtown banner program and consideration of events; • Activities and programs that benefit the member businesses. 7 Section III. Budget for 2019-20 The total funds available for activities for this fiscal year are estimated to be $87,500. The budget for providing the activities is set forth as follows: BID 2019/20 Budget INCOME Total Non-Assessment Sources Assessments $112,500 Allowance for Uncollectible Assessments ($25,000) Other Revenue $0 $0 TOTAL INCOME $87,500 EXPENSES Operating Expenses Staff Salaries Executive Director Salary - Part Time $35,000 Payroll taxes and expense $3,500 Office Supplies & Expenses $150 Internet/Website/ Phone Maintenance $1,000 Reauthorization Advertising $2,690 Audit-Tax Returns $6,500 Legal $1,000 $1,000 Insurance - Liability $2,300 Nominating $1,500 Contingencies $500 Subtotal -- Operating Expenses $54,140 $1,000 Programs, Marketing and Events Banners $1,000 Location Specific Banners $0 Outreach & Communication $0 Downtown Streets Team $3,000 District Opportunity Reserve $29,360 Subtotal --Programs, Marketing & Events $33,360 $1,000 Total Expenses $87,500 8 Section IV: Method and Basis of Levying the Assessment Cost Benefit Analysis / Bid Assessments The method and basis of levying the assessment is provided in sufficient detail to allow each business owner to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her business for Fiscal Year 2018-19 and is not changed from the FY 2019-20 assessment. There have been no changes made to the Cost-Benefit Analysis or to the BID Assessments since they were approved by City Council on February 2, 2004. Any change to the assessment would require a formal vote of all businesses in the district. We are confident that our reasonable apporach to this subject is thoughtful and well valued. The method of calculation used to determine the cost and benefit to each business located in the BID is described below. The BID assessments are based on three criteria: the type of business, the location of the business and the size of the business. It has been consistently demonstrated that the typical BID program places a higher priority on activities such as commercial marketing. As a result, the retail and restaurant establishments in the BID are assessed more than service and professional businesses in the district. While service-oriented businesses benefit from a BID less than retailers and restaurateurs, they benefit more than professional businesses such as medical, dental, architectural, consultant and legal offices with their minimal advertising and promotion needs. For these reasons, various business types are assessed according to the benefit that they receive from the BID, as follows: ➢ Retail and Restaurant 100% of base amount ➢ Service 75% of base amount ➢ Professional 50% of base amount Exceptions to this rule include financial institutions that are traditionally charged a flat rate regardless of location or size and lodging businesses that are typically charged by total rooms. The location of a business also determines the degree of benefit that accrues to that business. Centrally located businesses tend to benefit more, as do businesses located on the ground floor. For this reason, A and B benefit zones have been identified for the BID. In Palo Alto, Zone A benefit businesses are assessed 100% of the base benefit assessment while Zone B businesses are assessed 75%. A third criterion is used in the BID to determine benefit. This criterion, the size of the business, takes into consideration the number of full time employees employed by the business. Please refer to Attachment 1 for a more complete understanding of the application of these three variables to establish BID benefit. Attachment 2 is the BID assessment for each business located within the BID boundaries. Applying the criteria identified in Attachment 1, a summary of the assessment that applies to each business by size, type and location is outlined. In addition to the Cost-Benefit Analysis, the assessments include the following criteria: 9 ➢ An exemption for “single person professional businesses” that have 25% or fewer full time equivalent (“FTE”), including the business owner. This covers employees who work less than 10 hours a week (based on a 40 hour work week; an FTE equals approximately 2000 hours annually) ➢ An assessment specifically for “single person businesses” that have 26% FTE to 1 FTE in the professional business category of the BID (An FTE equals approximately 2000 hours annually) ➢ The tiering of other professional businesses by size based (according to benefit) on the “single person business” criteria This outline provides information by which a business can determine its annual assessment based on objective criteria. Except where otherwise defined, all terms shall have the meanings identified below: Definitions of Business Types in the Downtown Business Improvement District Retailers and Restaurants: Businesses that buy or resell goods such as clothing stores, shoe stores, office supplies as well as businesses that sell prepared food and drink. Service Businesses: Businesses that sell services such as beauty or barber shops, repair shops, most automotive businesses, dry cleaners, art and dance studios, printing firms, film processing companies, travel agencies, entertainment businesses such as theatres, etc. Hotel and Lodging: These include businesses that have as their main business the lodging of customers. This is restricted to residential businesses that provide lodging services to customers for less than 30 days. Professional Businesses: Businesses that require advanced and/or specialized licenses or academic degrees such as architects, engineers, attorneys, chiropractors, dentists, doctors, accountants, optometrists, realtors, insurance brokers, venture capital firms, consultants, advertising and marketing professionals and mortgage brokers and similar professions. Financial Institutions: Includes banking, savings and loan institutions and credit unions. Additional clarification on business definitions will be defined according to Section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Advisory Board recommends that the following businesses be exempt from the BID assessment: ➢ New businesses established in the BID area following the annual assessment for the year in which they locate in the BID area ➢ Non-profit organizations ➢ Newspapers ➢ “Single person professional businesses” that have 25% or less FTE, including the business owner 10 Section V: Revenue Deficit The Assessment calculated shall be paid to the City no later 30 days after receipt of the invoice with the amount of the annual assessment sent by the City. A second notice will be mailed as a reminder to businesses that have not remitted payment by that date. Late payment will be subject to a 10% late fee. Expected expenses for the remainder of FY 19-20 are as follows: Operating Expenses Staff Salaries Executive Director Salary - Part Time $35,000 Payroll taxes and expense $3,500 Office Supplies & Expenses $150 Internet/Website/ Phone Maintenance $1,000 Reauthorization Advertising $2,690 Audit-Tax Returns $6,500 Legal $1,000 Insurance - Liability $2,300 Nominating $1,500 Contingencies $500 Subtotal -- Operating Expenses $54,140 Programs, Marketing and Events Banners $1,000 Location Specific Banners $0 Outreach & Communication $0 Downtown Streets Team $3,000 District Opportunity Reserve $29,360 Subtotal --Programs, Marketing & Events $33,360 Total Expenses $87,500 Section VI: Non-assessment Income: It is estimated that $1,000.00 will be raised in fundraising, and sponsor support. Additionally, we anticipate in kind contribution towards expenses for fiscal year 2019-20. Projected Additional/In-kind Income for Fiscal Year 2019-20 Legal (donation) $1,000 Banners $0 Summer Concert Series $ Events $0 Total $1,000 11 Section VI: PADB&PA Board of Directors by Business Type Retailers and Restaurants Georgie Gleim, Gleim the Jeweler Jill Bibo, McRoskey Mattress Rob George, Lemonade Jeff Selzer, Palo Alto Bicycles Nancy Coupal, Coupa Cafe Hospitality Barbara Gross, Palo Alto Hotel Council Stephanie Wansek, Cardinal Hotel Financial Institutions Ali Agah, Boston Private Bank & Trust Company Katie Seedman, Presidio Private Bank and Trust Professional Organizations Brad Ehikian, Premier Properties Patty McGuigan, Cornish & Carey Commercial Non Profit Organizations [vacant], Downtown Street Team COMMUNITY PARTNERS Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Judy Kleinberg, President & CEO Downtown Streets Team Eileen Richardson, Executive Director City Of Palo Alto Greg Tanaka, Palo Alto City Council Liaison Michelle Flaherty, Deputy City Manager, City Manager’s Office Rachael Tanner, Assistant to the City Manager, City Manager’s Office ATTACHMENT 1 A General Statement Regarding Cost-Benefit Analysis For BID Businesses Using The Traditional Three Criteria Formula Criteria 1) Type of Business: Statement Concerning Cost-Benefit Formula For BID Businesses Regarding Type Of Business: In a review of 200 California Business Improvement Districts, it is consistently demonstrated that the typical BID Program places a higher priority on Commercial Marketing Programs than on Civic Beautification and Commercial Recruitment Programs. With that trend in mind, retail and restaurant businesses, with their emphasis on, and need for, commercial marketing, are traditionally assessed more than less marketing-sensitive service-oriented or professional-oriented businesses. However, while service-oriented businesses benefit from a BID less than retailers and restaurateurs, they benefit more, (from commercial marketing programs), than professional businesses such as medical, dental and legal offices with their minimal advertising and promotion needs. Therefore, set forth below, is an example of how various business types might be considered regarding the computation of the annual benefit assessment. • Retail and Restaurant: 100% of base amount • Service: 75% of base amount • Professional: 50% of base amount Exceptions to this rule include financial institutions that are traditionally charged a flat rate regardless of location or size and lodging businesses that are typically charged by total rooms. Lodging businesses are assessed based on the total number of rooms because it is a more equitable manner of determining size. Many lodging businesses have many part time employees, but revenues are based on the room occupancies of the hotel, not the goods sold or serviced provided by employees. Criteria 2) Location of Business: Statement Concerning Cost-Benefit Formula For BID Businesses Regarding Location of Business: It has also been consistently demonstrated that the more centrally located businesses tend to benefit from BID activities and services to a greater degree than businesses located toward the periphery of the proposed BID boundaries. Events and activities tend to originate in the central core of the Downtown area and spread benefit to the outer areas with diminishing energy and impact, much like the ripple effect of a stone tossed into a body of calm water. Furthermore, ground floor businesses tend to benefit to a greater degree than businesses located in upper floors. Therefore, in some cases, a new BID's annual benefit assessment formula also takes these street level criteria into account. As mentioned above, special events, fairs, festivals and other activities tend to take place within, or along, the Main Street core rather than in the areas at the periphery of the Downtown core. Additionally, BID- sponsored seasonal decorations, public art projects, street banners and street furniture tend to be located within the immediate core area. Therefore, businesses located within the most central area of the proposed BID are considered to be within "Zone A" which should be considered the primary benefit zone. There is typically a "secondary zone" or "Zone B" within most proposed BID areas. This area receives less benefit than Zone A and should be assessed accordingly. An example of how different zones might be treated regarding the computation of the annual benefit assessment is as follows. • Zone A: 100% of base benefit assessment • Zone B: 75% of base benefit assessment In the case of Downtown Palo Alto, it is recommended that all Zone A upper floor businesses, as well as any other businesses located at the periphery of the proposed BID, be considered as Zone B businesses. Please refer to the map in Attachment I. Criteria 3) Size of Business: Statement Concerning Cost-Benefit Formula For BID Businesses Regarding Size of Business: In approximately 50% of newly established BIDs, a third assessment criterion is used. This criterion involves the size of each individual business that is based upon the businesses’ total number of full-time employees. Full-time employees are those working a total of 2,000 hours per year. Part-time employees are grouped into full-time job positions, i.e., two half-time employees total one full-time. Fractions are rounded down to the nearest whole number with no less than one person as a minimum for business. An example of how various business sizes might be treated regarding the computation of the annual benefit assessment is as follows: Retail/Restaurants Service Businesses Small 50% of base amount Under 6 FTE* Under 4 FTE Medium 75% of base amount 6 to under 11 FTE 4 to under 7 FTE Large 100% of base amount 11 or more FTE 7 or more FTE * FTE = full time employees Additionally, an exemption was established for “single person professional businesses” that have 25% or less FTE, including the business owner. This covers employees who work less 10 hours a week (based on a 40 hour work week) Since “single person businesses” that have 26% FTE to 1 FTE in the professional business category of the BID benefit the very least from the assessment, their assessments have been tiered by size based (according to benefit) on the new “single person business” criteria. ATTACHMENT 2 Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District Annual BID Assessments ZONE A ZONE B (75% of Zone A amount) Restaurants & Retailers Under 6 FTE (50% of base amount) $225 $170 6 to under 11 FTE (75% of base amount) $340 $260 11 or more FTE (100% of base amount) $450 $340 Service Businesses Under 4 FTE (50% of base amount) $170 $130 4 to under 7 FTE (75% of base amount) $260 $200 Over 7 FTE (100% of base amount) $340 $260 Professional Businesses 25% or fewer FTE, including owner (0% of base amount) Exempt Exempt 26% FTE to under 1 FTE (25% of base amount) $60 $50 2 to 4 FTE (50% of base amount) $110 $90 5 to 9 FTE (75% of base amount) $170 $130 10+ FTE (100% of base amount) $225 $170 Lodging Businesses Up to 20 rooms (50% of base amount) $225 $170 21 to 40 rooms (75% of base amount) $340 $260 41+ rooms (100% of base amount) $450 $340 Financial Institutions $500 $500 Note 1: For retail, restaurant, service, and professional businesses, size will be determined by number of employees either full-time or equivalent (FTE) made up of multiples of part-time employees. A full FTE equals approximately 2000 hours annually. Lodging facilities will be charged by number of rooms available and financial institutions will be charged a flat fee. Note 2: Second floor (and higher) businesses located within Zone A will be assessed the same as similar street-level businesses located within Zone B. Note 3: Assessment amounts are rounded to the nearest ten dollars. The minimum assessment will be $50.00. 2019051401 1 Not Yet Adopted Resolution No. ______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Its Intention to Levy an Assessment Against Businesses Within the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2020; and Setting a Time and Place for a Public Hearing on the Proposed Assessment on June 24, 2019 at 5:00 PM or Thereafter, in the Council Chambers R E C I T A L S The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby DECLARES as follows: SECTION 1. The Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (the "Law"), California Streets and Highways Code Sections 36500 et seq., authorizes the City Council to levy an assessment against businesses within a parking and business improvement area which is in addition to any assessments, fees, charges, or taxes imposed in the City. SECTION 2. Pursuant to the Law, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4819 establishing the Downtown Palo Alto Business Improvement District (the "District") in the City of Palo Alto. SECTION 3. The City Council, by Resolution No. 8416, appointed the Board of Directors of the Palo Alto Downtown Business & Professional Association, a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation, to serve as the Advisory Board for the District (the "Advisory Board"). SECTION 4. In accordance with Section 36533 of the law, the Advisory Board prepared and filed with the City Clerk a report entitled "Palo Alto Downtown Business and Professional Association Annual Report 2019-20" regarding the District (the "Report”). The City Council hereby preliminarily approves the Report. SECTION 5. The boundaries of the District are within the City limits of the City of Palo Alto (the "City") and encompass the greater downtown area of the City, generally extending from El Camino Real to the East, Webster Street to the West, Lytton Avenue to the North and Addison Avenue to the South (east of Emerson Street, the boundaries extend only to Forest Avenue to the South). Reference is hereby made to the map of the District attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference for a complete description of the boundaries of the District. SECTION 6. The City Council hereby declares its intention, in addition to any assessments, fees, charges or taxes imposed by the City, to levy and collect an assessment against businesses within the District for fiscal year 2020 (July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020). Such assessment is not proposed to increase from the assessment levied and collected 2019051401 2 for the prior fiscal year. The method and basis of levying the assessment is set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 7. The types of improvements to be funded by the levy of an assessment against businesses within the District are the acquisition, construction, installation or maintenance of any tangible property with an estimated useful life of five years or more. The types of activities to be funded by the levy of an assessment against businesses within the District are marketing activities which benefit businesses in the area and which take place on or in public places within the District; improvement and maintenance of public spaces; and activities which benefit businesses located and operating in the District. SECTION 8. New businesses established in the District after the beginning of any fiscal year shall be exempt from the levy of the assessment for that fiscal year. In addition, non-profit organizations, newspapers and professional "single-person businesses," defined as those businesses which have 25% or less full time equivalent employees, including the business owner, shall be exempt from the assessment. SECTION 9. The City Council hereby fixes the time and place for a public hearing on the proposed levy of an assessment against businesses within the District for fiscal year 2020 as follows: TIME: 5:00 p.m. or soon thereafter DATE: June 24, 2019 PLACE: City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 At the public hearing, the testimony of all interested persons regarding the levy of an assessment against businesses within the District for fiscal year 2020 shall be heard. A protest may be made orally or in writing by any interested person. Any protest pertaining to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceedings must be in writing and shall clearly set forth the irregularity or defect to which the objection is made. Every written protest must be filed with the City Clerk at or before the time fixed for the public hearing. The City Council may waive any irregularity in the form or content of any written protest and at the public hearing may correct minor defects in the proceedings. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. 2019051401 3 Each written protest must contain a description of the business in which the person subscribing the protest is interested sufficient to identify the business and, if a person subscribing is not shown on the official records of the City as the owner of the business, the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person subscribing is the owner of the business. A written protest which does not comply with the requirements set forth in this paragraph will not be counted in determining a majority protest (as defined below). If, at the conclusion of the public hearing, written protests are received from the owners of businesses in the District which will pay 50 percent or more of the assessments proposed to be levied and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than 50 percent (i.e., there is a majority protest), no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment, as contained in this resolution of intention, shall be taken for a period of one year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the City Council. If the majority protest is only against the furnishing of a specified type or types of improvement or activity within the District, those types of improvements or activities shall be eliminated. SECTION 10. For a full and detailed description of the improvements and activities to be provided for fiscal year 2020, the boundaries of the District and the proposed assessments to be levied against the businesses within the District for fiscal year 2020, reference is hereby made to the Report of the Advisory Board. The Report is on file with the City Clerk and open to public inspection. SECTION 11. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide notice of the public hearing in accordance with law. // // // // // // // // 2019051401 4 SECTION 12. The Council finds that the adoption of this Resolution does not meet the definition of a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services 934 - 9 4 4 927 932 233 281 933 - 9 3 7 943 327 1001 94 2 469 475 74 4 459 832 801 A P T 1 - 5 427-453 920 912 362 370 900 838 846 471 459 835 - 8 5 5 460 81 5 840 836 834 845 400 803 928930 931 933 835 - 8 3 7 831 - 8 3 3 451453 802800 81 0 - 8 1 6 81 8 - 8 2 0 82 8 - 8 3 0 817 - 8 1 9 82 3 - 8 2 5 567-569 559563 536 526 100 1 101 1 - 540 483 904 912 468 918 926 537 965-971505-507 519-521 939-945 931-935 923-925 518-520 539541543 515-517 809 811 420 1001 1011 1010 376 370 980960 990 34 354 326 426 4 1000 448 944 471 483948952 959947925 915 933 935 425-443 451449 463-465 936-940 458 460 440 428426 527-533 543 551 510520 558-560 903 825 837 581 575 940934 813-823 501-509 511-519 521-529 531-539 541-547 556 596 904 926 561-567 569 845 580 574 566 991- 997 136 610 116-122 150 535529 525 542516140 102 116 124 163 145 566 556 167 528 643635 635 645- 685 660- 666 620 180 164 158156 624628 632 636 640 644 617 621 151-165 171-195 203 642640 636 200 151 115 125 135 514 101 440 444 436432 427 425 117119 630616 208 228220 240-248 575 530- 534 536 540 552 177 156 201 209215 225 595 229231 611-623 180 508500 625-631 170 172-174 542544 538- 542 552 548 546 541- 547 230-238 734 723 721 702- 730220-244 744 701 731 755757 771 200 160 728-732 762- 776740-746 250 275 270 255741 265 724 730 651 221-225 227 668 707 205 201203 451449 209 219 221 233 235450 460 470 442 444 400 420 430 411 425 429 185 165 181 412 250 420 245 171-169 441- 445 435- 439 346344 333335 342 344 431 460 450 235530 220 220 B 222 240 514278 274270 250 545 540 251485255 271 281 300 310 301 581 259-267 533535537 261 267 518-526 532- 536 520-526 530-536 271 281 252 270 240-248 202- 216 228226 234238 244 242 210- 216 228- 234 223- 229 209215 247-259 240 232230 311-317 251 344 326 340 337339 323317 400 420 332330 314 353 355 367 305 347 265272-278 418 319 321- 341 328 330 300- 310 431401 366 436 426 #1-7 369 335 319 390 301 315 375 307- 311 325330 332 1&2330 1-3 324 326316 318 373- 377 416- 424 361 338 340 560 345 321325 315 529 285 555 650636 628 1-12 628 A-E 385 365 375380 345 664 325650-654 661635300 690 675 555541-549533 535- 539 318-324 326 352 425 439-441 435429 425 415-419 405403453 461 383460 502 510 526 520 540 499 467 459 439 425 555 400 436-452 456 379 370-374 376 380-382 384-396 550-552 364 360 431 440-444 423 499 475 421-423 431-433 432428 460-476 450 635 446 430 400 745 720706 385744 734 724-730 720 712 704 360 351 315737 332 300 653 -681 683 685 512 501619 609605 518 482486 496 610 630 455 400 651-687 543-545 532534 542544 550 552 554556 558560562564 635-6 643-6 470 313 334 333 325326 342 303301 229 336 308 310 312 316 318 311 331 315 319 317 321 335 228220 356-360 347-367 351357 369-379360 258- 296 350 210 204 302- 316 379310 320 328 332 340 437 412 311 A-B 404 313 325 327 333 407 401385 411 452 378-390 360 - 1A - 1C360 - 2A - 2C360 - 3A - 3C360 - 4A - 4C360 - 5A - 5C360 - 6A 344-348 418420 482 328 456 321 325 330204 218 236 240 250- 252 477 475 467 457 453249235225221 201 60 275 505-509 239- 243 209- 213 210- 214 513-519 460 474472228- 230 535 558 201 16 12 20 209 215 223 231 521 80 239-245 530-540 544-554 212- 216 218-222 333 335- 337 351 457451 465463 489-499360 530 480 420 430 480 463 451443437411 405 419405401 441 480-498 347 351 355 359 525 430 473 332- 342 425415 400 570568 556 550 543 327321315305 343 515 525 551 555 328 309-311 518-528 536-540 552-554 558-562 573 A-E 591-599 557-571 330-332 318-320 406-418 417 542 548568 524 550 500-528 578 564 550 546 540 530 531-535 541 505 525 537 555 565 571 530 619-6 520 440-446 579 567 523610 600 555 581 420-438 437 566 224 228 A-F 244 579 575 565 559 251 355 A-J 335329 604 576 566 345-347 243245 25725920921922723502 505 610-616 727 678 676 674672 642 636-638 567 555 711 701705 725 525 759 730 718 734 738-740 760 746-750 701 721-7 600 827 835 899 850 530 609 759 751753 7 737-62611 601 600 1013 10041000 1006 1001 623 137 145 700 780 790 744 111700 753100 825805 33 51 75 63 841 44 675 49 41 711 799 703 100 101 139654 625 160 1001 1005 1009 1010 1004 930 975 945929931 948 181 940 960 145900 955 999875 853 925 81 855 901-907 909 87 98 917 921 925 735 849 707 847 842828 820248 230-232 212 825 829 833 839 800 812 818 882 165831 801 815 809801 841 791153 718 774 761 795745 201 209 834836 845 895 926 190 934 942 948 203 209 219 225 929200 240 904 910 926 270 935 904 909 909A 217 222 148 171 421 130 312 318 324 317 301 186 192 323 329 151 325 329 334 131 129 355301 235 258 212 163 115 291247 210 201 207 64 202 235 251 249 252 247 244250 177220 261 251-257 205245 231225213205 70 2 206 234240 183 251 270 241-247 215- 237 210- 216 219 235 62 202 245 54 52 50 203 215 221 313-317318 220- 224 238 542-550 531-539 532 759 223-239 905 911-917907 188 190 251- 293 202 206 208 210 212 216 220 1008 275 539 201 400 27 168 865857 302 324 340 795 848 918 903 903A 408 412 440 483A - F 435 751 735 745 532 210 727 733 335 328 330 345 214 350 800 806 441 441A 230302 306 308 312 316 301 303 305 307 309 325 251 807 821 829 801 818-824 420 424 430 832A 832 842A 842 852A 852 862A 862 872A 872 351A 351 355A 355 359A 359 363A 363 367A 367 425 911 943 951 918 936 940 944 271 253 241 301 319 919A 919 935 949 928 936 940-946 353 264 367 361 310 1005 1010 423425413 - 419 457-467 469-471473-481 454 729 A-D 733-743 734-740 724-732 936 824-828 920 949 943941 715 95 445 324 328 545 590 425447 827 565 585 595 904 315 507 561 706 536 200 100 280-290 150 158164 276 516 698 161 159 157777 132 127 180 528 120 247 372 524 548550 538 152 345 336 515 658 227 27 29 539 115 135 321 558 #200-202 558 #C & D 965 140 350 808 915 461 435433 945 1012 421 727 A-C 218 255 206 739 260 840 650 642 351 451 551 375 530 643 415 12 700 802 99 89 87 901 560564568572576580584588592594 906 908 910 912 914 916 918920 922 924 548 423 668 901 305 -313 423 405 352354 611 320322 346 323 471 484 528 426 264 430 1001 508 756 - 760 940 930 544546 515 7 745 7 549 211 213 151 160 257 433-457 482 330 349 401 539 440 691 755 67 312 202 651 443 445 447 716 218 398 998 262 335 218 640-646506 327 469 303 401 403 254 401 91 40 101 819 301 725 595 705 541 Quarry Road Homer Avenue Lane 8 West Medical Foundation Way Lane 7 West Lane 7 East Encina Avenue El Camino Real Urban Lane Wells Avenue Forest Avenue High Street Emerson Street Ch a n n i n g A v e n u e Alma Street El Camino Real Mitchell Lane Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue Lane 15 E High Street Alma Street Bryant Street Lane 6 E Lane 11 W Lane 21 High Street Gilman Street Hamilton Avenue University Avenue Bryant Court Lane 30 Florence Street Kipling Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Everett Avenue Waverley Street Cowper Street Webster Street Everett Court Lytton Avenue Lane A West L L La Addison Avenue Forest Avenue Downing Lane Homer Avenue La Lane 39 Lane 56 Hamilton Avenue Webster Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant Street Ramona Street Addison Avenue Scott Street Webster Street Cowper Street Addison Avenue Channing Avenue Ramona Street Paulsen Ln Lane 15 E Lane 20 W Lane 20 E University Avenue CalTrain ROW Emerson Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant Street Ramona Street Palo Road ay Pear Lane Lane 12 W Lane 5 E Everett Avenue Homer Avenue Emerson Street tal m D r iv e Alma Street Lytton Avenue This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Zone A (Ground Floor) - Zone B (Upper Floors) abc Zone B 0'500' Downtown Palo AltoBusiness ImprovementDistrictArea Map CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE 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 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2012 City of Palo Alto rrivera, 2012-04-30 16:57:54CPA BID (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\rrivera.mdb) 934 - 9 4 4 927 932 233 281 933 - 9 3 7 943 327 1001 94 2 469 475 74 4 459 832 801 A P T 1 - 5 427-453 920 912 362 370 900 838 846 471 459 835 - 8 5 5 460 81 5 840 836 834 845 400 803 928930 931 933 835 - 8 3 7 831 - 8 3 3 451453 802800 81 0 - 8 1 6 81 8 - 8 2 0 82 8 - 8 3 0 817 - 8 1 9 82 3 - 8 2 5 567-569 559563 536 526 100 1 101 1 - 540 483 904 912 468 918 926 537 965-971505-507 519-521 939-945 931-935 923-925 518-520 539541543 515-517 809 811 420 1001 1011 1010 376 370 980960 990 34 354 326 426 4 1000 448 944 471 483948952 959947925 915 933 935 425-443 451449 463-465 936-940 458 460 440 428426 527-533 543 551 510520 558-560 903 825 837 581 575 940934 813-823 501-509 511-519 521-529 531-539 541-547 556 596 904 926 561-567 569 845 580 574 566 991- 997 136 610 116-122 150 535529 525 542516140 102 116 124 163 145 566 556 167 528 643635 635 645- 685 660- 666 620 180 164 158156 624628 632 636 640 644 617 621 151-165 171-195 203 642640 636 200 151 115 125 135 514 101 440 444 436432 427 425 117119 630616 208 228220 240-248 575 530- 534 536 540 552 177 156 201 209215 225 595 229231 611-623 180 508500 625-631 170 172-174 542544 538- 542 552 548 546 541- 547 230-238 734 723 721 702- 730220-244 744 701 731 755757 771 200 160 728-732 762- 776740-746 250 275 270 255 741 265 724 730 651 221-225 227 668 707 205 201203 451449 209 219 221 233 235450 460 470 442 444 400 420 430 411 425 429 185 165 181 412 250 420 245 171-169 441- 445 435- 439 346344 333 335 342 344 431 460 450 235530 220 220 B 222 240 514278 274270 250 545 540 251485255 271 281 300 310 301 581 259-267 533535537 261 267 518-526 532- 536 520-526 530-536 271 281 252 270 240-248 202- 216 228226 234238 244 242 210- 216 228- 234 223- 229 209215 247-259 240 232230 311-317 251 344 326 340 337339 323317 400 420 332330 314 353 355 367 305 347 265272-278 418 319 321- 341 328 330 300- 310 431401 366 436 426 #1-7 369 335 319 390 301 315 375 307- 311 325330 332 1&2330 1-3 324 326316 318 373- 377 416- 424 361 338 340 560 345 321325 315 529 285 555 650636 628 1-12 628 A-E 385 365 375380 345 664 325650-654 661635300 690 675 555541-549533 535- 539 318-324 326 352 425 439-441 435429425 415-419 405403453 461 383460 502 510 526 520 540 499 467 459 439 425 555 400 436-452 456 379 370-374 376 380-382 384-396 550-552 364 360 431 440-444 423 499 475 421-423 431-433 432428 460-476 450 635 446 430 400 745 720706 385744 734 724-730 720 712 704 360 351 315737 332 300 653 -681 683 685 512 501619 609605 518 482486 496 610 630 455 400 651-687 543-545 532534 542544 550 552 554556 558560562564 635-6 643-6 470 313 334 333 325326 342 303301 229 336 308 310 312 316 318 311 331 315 319 317 321 335 228220 356-360 347-367 351357 369-379360 258- 296 350 210 204 302- 316 379310 320 328 332 340 437 412 311 A-B 404 313 325 327 333 407 401385 411 452 378-390 360 - 1A - 1C360 - 2A - 2C360 - 3A - 3C360 - 4A - 4C360 - 5A - 5C360 - 6A 344-348 418420 482 328 456 321 325 330204 218 236 240 250- 252 477 475 467 457 453249235225221 201 60 275 505-509 239- 243 209- 213 210- 214 513-519 460 474472228- 230 535 558 201 16 12 20 209 215 223 231 521 80 239-245 530-540 544-554 212- 216 218-222 333 335- 337 351 457451 465463 489-499360 530 480 420 430 480 463 451443437411 405 419405401 441 480-498 347 351 355 359 525 430 473 332- 342 425415 400 570568 556 550 543 327321315305 343 515 525 551 555 328 309-311 518-528 536-540 552-554 558-562 573 A-E 591-599 557-571 330-332 318-320 406-418 417 542 548568 524 550 500-528 578 564 550 546 540 530 531-535 541 505 525 537 555 565 571 530 619-6 520 440-446 579 567 523610 600 555 581 420-438 437 566 224 228 A-F 244 579 575 565 559 251 355 A-J 335329 604 576 566 345-347 243245 25725920921922723502 505 610-616 727 678 676 674672 642 636-638 567 555 711 701705 725 525 759 730 718 734 738-740 760 746-750 701 721-7 600 827 835 899 850 530 609 759 751753 7 737-62611 601 600 1013 10041000 1006 1001 623 137 145 700 780 790 744 111700 753100 825805 33 51 75 63 841 44 675 49 41 711 799 703 100 101 139654 625 160 1001 1005 1009 1010 1004 930 975 945929931 948 181 940 960 145900 955 999875 853 925 81 855 901-907 909 87 98 917 921 925 735 849 707 847 842828 820248 230-232 212 825 829 833 839 800 812 818 882 165831 801 815 809801 841 791153 718 774 761 795745 201 209 834836 845 895 926 190 934 942 948 203 209 219 225 929200 240 904 910 926 270 935 904 909 909A 217 222 148 171 421 130 312 318 324 317 301 186 192 323 329 151 325 329 334 131 129 355301 235 258 212 163 115 291247 210 201 207 64 202 235 251 249 252 247 244250 177220 261 251-257 205245 231225213205 70 2 206 234240 183 251 270 241-247 215- 237 210- 216 219 235 62 202 245 54 52 50 203 215 221 313-317318 220- 224 238 542-550 531-539 532 759 223-239 905 911-917907 188 190 251- 293 202 206 208 210 212 216 220 1008 275 539 201 400 27 168 865857 302 324 340 795 848 918 903 903A 408 412 440 483A - F 435 751 735 745 532 210 727 733 335 328 330 345 214 350 800 806 441 441A 230302 306 308 312 316 301 303 305 307 309 325 251 807 821 829 801 818-824 420 424 430 832A 832 842A 842 852A 852 862A 862 872A 872 351A 351 355A 355 359A 359 363A 363 367A 367 425 911 943 951 918 936 940 944 271 253 241 301 319 919A 919 935 949 928 936 940-946 353 264 367 361 310 1005 1010 423425413 - 419 457-467 469-471473-481 454 729 A-D 733-743 734-740 724-732 936 824-828 920 949 943941 715 95 445 324 328 545 590 425447 827 565 585 595 904 315 507 561 706 536 200 100 280-290 150 158164 276 516 698 161 159 157777 132 127 180 528 120 247 372 524 548550 538 152 345 336 515 658 227 27 29 539 115 135 321 558 #200-202 558 #C & D 965 140 350 808 915 461 435433 945 1012 421 727 A-C 218 255 206 739 260 840 650 642 351 451 551 375 530 643 415 12 700 802 99 89 87 901 560564568572576580584588592594 906 908 910 912 914 916 918920 922 924 548 423 668 901 305 -313 423 405 352354 611 320322 346 323 471 484 528 426 264 430 1001 508 756 - 760 940 930 544546 515 7 745 7 549 211 213 151 160 257 433-457 482 330 349 401 539 440 691 755 67 312 202 651 443 445 447 716 218 398 998 262 335 218 640-646506 327 469 303 401 403 254 401 91 40 101 819 301 725 595 705 541 Quarry Road Homer Avenue Lane 8 West Medical Foundation Way Lane 7 West Lane 7 East Encina Avenue El Camino Real Urban Lane Wells Avenue Forest Avenue High Street Emerson Street Ch a n n i n g A v e n u e Alma Street El Camino Real Mitchell Lane Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue Lane 15 E High Street Alma Street Bryant Street Lane 6 E Lane 11 W Lane 21 High Street Gilman Street Hamilton Avenue University Avenue Bryant Court Lane 30 Florence Street Kipling Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Everett Avenue Waverley Street Cowper Street Webster Street Everett Court Lytton Avenue Lane A West L L La Addison Avenue Forest Avenue Downing Lane Homer Avenue La Lane 39 Lane 56 Hamilton Avenue Webster Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant Street Ramona Street Addison Avenue Scott Street Webster Street Cowper Street Addison Avenue Channing Avenue Ramona Street Paulsen Ln Lane 15 E Lane 20 W Lane 20 E University Avenue CalTrain ROW Emerson Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant Street Ramona Street Palo Road ay Pear Lane Lane 12 W Lane 5 E Everett Avenue Homer Avenue Emerson Street tal m D r iv e Alma Street Lytton Avenue This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Zone A (Ground Floor) - Zone B (Upper Floors) abc Zone B 0' 500' Downtown Palo AltoBusiness ImprovementDistrictArea Map CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE 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 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2012 City of Palo Alto rrivera, 2012-04-30 16:57:54CPA BID (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\rrivera.mdb) City of Palo Alto (ID # 10338) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/3/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 1210 Newell Road: Fence Variance Hearing Request Title: QUASI JUDICIAL. 1210 Newell Road [18PLN-00289]: Recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission to Uphold the Director's Tentative Decision to Deny a Variance Request to Allow for an Exception From the Standard Corner Lot Fence Height Regulations for a Fence of Approximately: 7' 5" in the Front Yard, 8' in the Rear Yard, and 7' 5" in the Street Yard, and no Reduced Height in the Sight Triangle for the Newell Road/Community Lane Intersection. Environmental Assessment: In accordance with Guideline Section 15270, CEQA Does not Apply to Projects That a Public Agency Disapproves. Zoning District: R-1 (Single-Family) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation: 1. Adopt the attached Record of Land Use Action per the recommendation of the Planning and Transportation Commission, upholding the Director’s denial of a Fence Variance application. Executive Summary: The property owner submitted avariance application after the City received a Code Enforcement complaint and initiated an investigation regarding the heights of the fences located on the subject property of 1210 Newell Road. The variance was submitted in an attempt to maintain all of the noncomplying fence heights on the property. On January 15, 2019, the Director of Planning and Community Environment determined that the required findings per Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.76.030(c) could not be made and thereforetentatively denied the variance request. The property owner submitted a timely hearing request and the application was heard before the Planning and Transportation Commission, which voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend Council deny the variance in accordance with the Director’s decision, based on the project’s inability to meet the required City of Palo Alto Page 2 findings for approval. Background: The applicant submitted the fence variance application after a Code Enforcement investigation found the fence(s) on the subject property to be in violation of the City’s fence code standards found within PAMC Chapter 16.24 (bit.ly/PAFenceCode). Code Enforcement staff investigated the site upon receiving a complaint. Photos from the initial Code Enforcement investigation can be viewed on Attachment I of this report. Code Enforcement notified the property owner that the fences would need to be brought into conformance with the City fence regulations. The owner chose to submit a variance application requesting to exceed the fence height limit to keep the constructed fence(s). Discussion: The applicant has requested a Variance to exceed the allowed fence height for a standard corner lot, as set forth in the PAMC Chapter 16.24. As shown in the table below, all existing fences are above the allowed height limit. The request also seeks to maintain the existing fence heights at the Newell Road/Community Lane Intersection, which does not comply with the Sight Triangle requirements of PAMC Section 16.24.040. COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 16.24 FENCES Location Allowed Height Proposed Height Front Yard 4 feet, or 6 feet, if 16 feet from front property line ~7 feet 5 inches, more than 16 feet the property line Rear Yard 7 feet ~7 feet 6 inches (fence), 8 feet 3 inches (gate) Interior Side Yard 7 feet ~6 feet* Street Side Yard (Standard Corner Lots) 4 feet, or 6 feet, if 16 feet from street side property line ~7 feet 5 inches at the property line *Follow up site visit was conducted on June 15, 2019 with the property owner. The interior fence height was measured to be approximentialy six feet tall. Variances are available to adjust the requirements of Chapter 16.24 (Fences) except as specified in PAMC Section 16.24.090 (Variances). PAMC Section 16.24.090 states that “no variance may be granted to the requirements contained in Sections 16.24.040 or 16.24.070,” which deal with Fences at Intersections and Prohibited Fences (such as barbed wire fences), respectively. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.030 (c) sets forth the findings to approve or deny a variance application. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the City of Palo Alto Page 3 project. Failure to make any one finding requires project denial. Special circumstances that are expressly excluded from consideration are: the personal circumstances of the property owner, and any changes in the size or shape of the subject property made by the property owner or his predecessors in interest while the property was subject to the same zoning designation. According to the Variance Section of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, neither the Director nor the City Council on appeal, shall grant a variance, unless it is found that: (1) Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. Special circumstances that are expressly excluded from consideration are: (A) The personal circumstances of the property owner, and (B) Any changes in the size or shape of the subject property made by the property owner or his predecessors in interest while the property was subject to the same zoning designation. (2) The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property, and (3) The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning), and (4) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The submitted variance request was not found to meet the required findings in order to grant approval as detailed in Tentative Denial Letter (Attachment H) and the Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B). Additionally, the Variance seeks to waive the required vision triangle regulation (PAMC Section 16.24.040). This regulation is intended to help avoid collision hazards for vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists. The vision triangle regulation would necessitate a reduction in the fence height within that triangle to a maximum height of three feet. Furthermore, PAMC 16.24.090 “Variances” specifically states that no variance may be granted for the vision triangle regulation. The Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the applicant’s request for a fence variance on April 10, 2019. The minutes for this hearing are contained in Attachment F. The Planning and Transportation Commission, after hearing the item, voted unanimously (7 to 0) to recommend Council deny the application in accordance with the Director’s decision for this variance request, based on the project’s inability to meet the required findings for approval. City of Palo Alto Page 4 The property owners’ legal counsel submitted a response after the PTC hearing to City Staff on May 8, 2019, which is can be found within Attachment G of this report. This response asserts that no variance is required, that lattices should not considered part of a “fence,” that the City incorrectly measured the existing fence heights, and that Community Lane is not subject to the vision triange requirement. Planning staff in consultation with the City Attorney’s Office has reviewed these assertions and determined that they are without merit. First, even if the City erroneously approved non- complying fences in a final building inspection, it is well established that such an error does not prevent the City from later enforcing its laws. Second, the City’s long-standing interpretation of its fence code has included permanently attached fixtures such as lattices. The alternative interpretation suggested by the applicant would create a significant loophole that is contrary to the code’s regulation of a “fence, wall, or other structure in the nature of a fence.” Third, Staff conducted a site visit on May 15, 2019, with the property owner present to verify the fence measurements. All but one of the fence measurements were found to be consistent with the previous measurements stated by Staff. The interior lot line fence was measured to be approximately six feet in height. This was confirmed by staff during the site visit after the property owner granted access to the the interior yard. Finally, Community Lane is a right of way that is used for vehicular traffic and that creates an intersection subject to 16.24.040. The PAMC contains numerous definitions of “street,” including a definition in PAMC 1.04.050 that is generally applicable unless a different meaning is specifically defined or required by context. Policy Implications: The recommendation in this report does not have any significant policy implications. The Council’s decision to affirm action this on consent would be consistent with the independent review and recommendaiton by both planning director and the Planning and Transportation Commission. If pulled from consent, the Council would be scheduling this matter for a public hearing. Neither action has any significant policy implication. Timeline: A Code Enforcement investigation was started in June of 2018 after a complaint was submitted to the City. The property owner was contacted by a Code Enforcement Officer and a timeline to bring the violation into compliance by August of 2018 was required with the option for a Variance to be submitted. A Variance application was submitted by the property owner in August of 2018 to the Planning Department to maintain all of the existing fence heights on the property. The Variance application was tentatively denied on January 15, 2019. The property owner submitted a timely request for hearing on January 30, 2019. The Planning and Transportation Commission heard this item on April 10, 2019, after the property owner requested the 45-day hearing requirement be waived to allow additional time to prepare for City of Palo Alto Page 5 the hearing. The property owner also requested additional time to prepare for the Council Hearing. Environmental Review: The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. In accordance with Guideline Section 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects for which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOCX) Attachment C: Zoning and Fence Height Comparison Table (DOCX) Attachment D: Request for Hearing (PDF) Attachment E: April 10, 2019 PTC Staff Report w/o Attachments (PDF) Attachment F: Excerpt Minutes for April 10, 2019 PTC Hearing (DOC) Attachment G: Applicant Response to PTC Hearing (PDF) Attachment H: Director's Tentative Denial (PDF) Attachment I: Code Enforcement Violation Photos (PDF) Attachment J: Public Comments (PDF) Attachment K: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 2 2Christy Fong 1Rebecca Atkinson 00 3-46-0 06 00 3-45-0 74 00 3-45-0 84 00 3-45-0 83 00 3-45-0 50 00 3-45-0 40 00 3-45-0 29 00 3-47-0 20 Hopkins Electric_Substation Rinconada Library Art Center Rinconada Well 800 . 0 ' 211. 5 ' 34 . 1 ' 351.8' 20 9 . 9 ' 1494.6' 45 3 . 3 ' 544.2' 3 7 0 . 8 ' 560.5' 241. 2 ' 150.0' 47 . 0 ' 150.0' 47 . 0 ' 65.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 65.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 75.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 25.0' 47 . 0 ' 50.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 200.0' 19 0 . 0 ' 210.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 10.0' 90 . 0 ' 80.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 80.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 90.0' 90 . 0 ' 90.0' 90 . 0 ' 100.0' 40 . 0 ' 100.0' 40 . 0 ' 50.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 100.0' 40 . 0 ' 100.0' 40 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 60.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 60.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 60.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 60.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 60.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 60.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 60.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 60.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 55.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 70.0' 95 . 0 ' 23.6' 75.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 75.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 52.5' 14 7 . 0 ' 52.5' 14 7 . 0 ' 52.5' 14 7 . 0 ' 52.5' 14 7 . 0 ' 70.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 70.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 60.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 60.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 40.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 40.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 90.0' 81 . 5 ' 90.0' 81 . 5 ' 90.0'65.5' 90.0' 65.5'50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 52.4' 14 7 . 0 ' 52.4' 14 7 . 0 ' 47.6' 14 7 . 0 ' 47.6' 14 7 . 0 ' 80.0' 47 . 0 ' 80.0' 47 . 0 ' 80.0' 66 . 0 ' 80.0' 66 . 0 ' 80.0'81.0' 80.0' 81.0'80.0'10 0 . 0 ' 80.0' 100 . 0 '50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 102.2'60.0' 100.2' 60.0' 70.2' 22 . 3 ' 62 . 8 ' 23.6' 55.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 60.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 60.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 100.0'60.0' 100.0'60.0' 70.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 55.0' 23 . 6 ' 85 . 0 ' 105.1'60.4' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 107 . 8 ' 45.0' 23 . 6 ' 62 . 7 ' 22 . 3 ' 79 9 1210 1249 14 3 0 14 2 0 14 1 0 14 0 2 1259 14 0 5 1200 1258 1272 13 3 5 13 3 6 14 3 5 14 2 5 14 1 7 14 0 1 14 0 9 13 9 5 13 6 5 13 9 0 1120 1442 14 3 6 14 3 0 1424 14 0 8 14 1 413501330 13 3 0 A 15 0 9 15 1 1 1150 15 2 0 15 1 4 15 1 0 1185 1125 298 1213 1313 1280 77 7 13 4 0 1280 PI N E S T R E E T PARKINSON AVENUE WALNUT DRIVE HOPKINS AVENUE NE W E L L R O A D COMMUNITY LANE COMMUNITY LANE This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'86' 1210 Newell Road CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R AT E D C ALIFOR NI A 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 Alto sgutier, 2019-02-20 16:10:22Parcel Report with zoningdistricts (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Su b j e c t S i t e PF R-1 APPROVAL NO. 2019-_____ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE DENIAL FOR 1210 NEWELL ROAD: FENCE VARIANCE [FILE NO. 18PLN-00289] On ______, 2019, the City Council concurred with the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendation to uphold the Director’s denial of the applicant’s request for approval of a Variance to allow an existing fence, located at 1210 Newell Road, to be granted increased fence heights and to be exempted from the sight triangle requirements for fences located at intersections, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. BACKGROUND. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On August 27, 2018, the property owner submitted a Variance application for an existing fence that after Code Enforcement actions were started at the subject property. B. The requested fence height Variance is for an existing fence which does not adhere to the regulations within PAMC Section 16.24.020 “Height and Location Regulations”. The existing fence also does not adhere to the sight triangle height regulations pursuant to PAMC Section 16.24.040 “Fences at intersections”. C. Following staff review, the Director of Planning considered and tentatively denied the Variance application on January 15, 2019. D. Following a timely request for hearing received on January 28, 2019, the applicant requested additional time to engage with legal counsel and prepare materials for the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) hearing and submitted a statement to waive the 45 day timeline for a public hearing pursuant to PAMC 18.77. On April 10, 2019 the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and recommended to uphold the Director’s denial of the project to City Council. E. On_______, 2019, the City Council reviewed the request. After hearing public testimony, the Council voted to uphold the Director’s denial of the requested fence variance. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. In accordance with Guideline Section 15270 CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves. SECTION 3. VARIANCE FINDINGS. The request by the applicant to maintain the existing fence exceeding fence regulations under PAMC Chapter 16.24 does not comply with the required Findings for a VARIANCE as required in Chapter 18.76.030 of the PAMC. Finding #1: Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title does not substantially deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. The project site is a standard corner lot within the R-1 Zone District. The parcel is 9,555 sf in lot area, and 65 feet by 147 feet, with standard corner lot setbacks. The subject parcel has an access alley (Community Lane) at the rear which runs the length of the block and provides rear yard vehicle access for all properties on this block of Parkinson Avenue. The applicant has requested a variance to allow for an increase in fence height which includes a 6 foot 2-inch fence along the street side yard and rear yard with 1 foot 2-inch lattice above the fence for total fence heights of 7 foot 4-inches. Additionally, the applicant has requested a street facing fence of 5 foot 9 inch with a 1 foot 1-inch lattice located within the street side setback facing Parkinson Avenue, for a total fence height of 6 foot 10-inches. The applicant has requested a variance for increased fence heights beyond what is allowed by the Municipal Code and for their property to be considered a back to back corner lot in consideration to how the subject lot is impacted by traffic, security, and privacy concerns. However, the subject lot conditions are not unique to this property. There are a total of nineteen (19) properties along Parkinson Avenue, located within the R-1 Zone District, with rear yard alley access onto Community Lane. Additionally, there are eight eighty (88) properties with rear yard alley access similar to the subject site within 2,000 feet (less than a half mile) of the subject property for a total of one hundred and seven (107) properties with similar rear access situations in the immediate area. Of these properties, thirty-one are corner lots and are subject to the same standard fence regulations for corner lots as the subject property. Meaning that the street side yard (along Newell Road) has a limitation of four (4) feet maximum height for fences facing the street unless said fences are located at least sixteen (16) feet away from a street facing property line. Furthermore, the request to be considered a back to back corner lot is not possible as PAMC 16.24.060 “Fences on corner lots” clearly states that corner lots are adjacent properties with joining rear yards. This lot configuration is not present in on the subject lot. The standard corner lot allows for seven foot tall rear and interior yard fences, along with six foot tall fences at a minimum of sixteen feet from the street side and front lot lines, and four foot tall fences along the street side yard and front lot lines within sixteen feet of said property lines. The applicant states concerns over privacy as being one of the motivations for the request for taller fences, however, there is an option for the applicant to supplement a code compliant fence with hedges or other tall dense fast growing plants. The Palo Alto Municipal Code does not speak to regulations involving the height of vegetation outside of required vision sight triangles and maintaining clearances in the public right of ways. Thus, the privacy issues claimed by the applicant could be addressed by planting dense hedges directly adjacent to a code compliant fence. Plants that are six to eight feet in height, fast growing, and low water usage are readily available and utilized in the development of single-family homes throughout the City in the R-1 district. Furthermore, the applicants statements regarding impacts to their privacy due to lower code compliant fence heights are no greater than other corner lots in the area. The applicant states that high traffic volumes from both automotive and pedestrian traffic, produce noise and pose a security concern, and the request for a taller fence would address these issues. However, similar conditions are experienced by all properties in the area, and the applicant does have the option to supplement code compliant fencing with tall dense planting, presenting no hardship or constraints on the subject property. The request from the applicant does not identify how they are precluded from designing and developing the parcel in compliance with local regulations. As stated by the applicant, the home on the subject property was recently built and designed to the applicant's specifications while developing the parcel in compliance with local regulations. The purpose of the granting of a variance, as outlined in PAMC Section 18.76.030(a) is to provide a way to grant relief when strict application of the zoning regulation would subject development of a site to substantial hardships, constraints, or practical difficulties that do not normally arise on other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district. As noted above, the subject property has similar constraints and conditions as many other properties within the immediate vicinity and within the same zone district. Therefore, the fact that the lot is standard corner lot with rear alley access alone does not, in and of itself, constitute a hardship, constraint, or practical difficulty that does not normally arise on other properties within the immediate vicinity and within the same zone district and does not substantially deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties within the immediate vicinity and in the same zoning district. For the reasons outlined above, the request finding described in PAMC Section 18.76.030(c)(1) for approval of the variance cannot be made for the proposed project. Finding #2: The granting of the application affects substantial compliance with the regulations or constitutes a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. As noted above, all other properties within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district that are corner lots are all similarly restricted by the regulations for fences in regards to maximum height, location, and sight triangle requirements. Therefore, the granting of a variance for the subject property would constitute a grant of special privileges that would be inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. Further, the applicant is requesting approval for taller fences within a vision sight triangle for the corner of the subject property at the intersection of Community Lane and Newell Road. The vision triangle described in PAMC 16.24.090 would reduce the fence height and prohibit any vegetation from growing beyond three (3) feet tall. The submitted application does not account for this requirement. Furthermore, PAMC 16.24.090 “Variances” specifically states that no variance may be granted to the requirements contained in sections 16.24.040 “Fences at intersections”. The extent of the requested variance affects substantial compliance with the regulations. For the reasons outlined above, the request finding described in PAMC Section 18.76.030(c)(2) for approval of the variance cannot be made for the proposed project. Finding #3: The granting of the application will be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The requested variance as submitted for the increased fence heights at the rear and street side yard, as discussed in the section above, does not account for the required vision triangle where the rear property line meets the street side property line. The vision triangle is required to allow a clear line of sight for pedestrians, cyclists, and automobiles where Community Lane intersects with Newell Road. Without the vision triangle, the conditions would increase the potential for a collision to occur when a vehicle is exiting Community Lane at Newell Road. The submitted application does not account for this requirement, as such the requested variance for additional height would be detrimental or injurious to public safety. In accordance with the PAMC Section 16.24.040 “A fence, wall or structure in the nature of a fence located at the intersection of any street improved for vehicular traffic, shall not exceed three feet in height above the adjacent curb grade, within a triangular area formed by the curblines, and their projection, and a line connecting them at points thirty-five feet from the intersection of the projected curblines”, which requires the described vision triangle. Therefore, the requisite finding described in PAMC Section 18.76.030(c)(4) for approval of the variance cannot be made for the proposed project. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. The requisite findings described in PAMC 18.76.030(c) for approval of a Variance cannot be made for the proposed project. The variance request is therefore denied and this decision is effective immediately upon adoption. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney ATTACHMENT B ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 1210 Newell Road, 18PLN-00289 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.12 (R-1 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Minimum Site Area, Width and Depth 6,000 sf area, 60 feet width, 100 feet depth 9,555 sf area, 65 feet width, 147 feet depth Front Setback 20 feet 20 feet Rear Setback 20 feet 20 feet Interior Side Setback 6 feet 6 feet Street Side Setback 16 feet 16 feet Table 2: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 16.24 FENCES Regulation Maximum Height Within Setbacks Existing Height Front Yard 4 feet with up to 5 feet tall posts, 6 feet tall if at least 16 feet from the front property line ~7 feet 5 inches Rear Yard 7 feet ~7 feet 6 inches fence, 8 feet 3 inches gate Interior Side Yard 7 feet ~7 feet 5 inches Street Side Yard (Standard Corner Lots) 4 feet with up to 5 feet tall posts, 6 feet tall if at least 16 feet from the street side property line ~7 feet 5 inches 16.24.020(a) Fences Between the Street Setback Line and the Lot Line. A fence, wall, or other structure in the nature of a fence located between the street setback line and the lot line, shall be permitted up to four feet in height, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. Support posts or columns, not exceeding five feet in height or eighteen inches in width, and pedestrian gates and trellises used as entryway features, not exceeding eight feet in height, three feet in depth or five feet in width shall be permitted. 16.24.040 Fences at intersections: A fence, wall or structure in the nature of a fence located at the intersection of any street improved for vehicular traffic, shall not exceed three feet in height above the adjacent curb grade, within a triangular area formed by the curblines, and their projection, and a line connecting them at points thirty-five feet from the intersection of the projected curblines. 16.24.060 Fences on corner lots. Where corner lots are adjacent to each other with rear yards joining, a six-feet fence is permitted on the street side yard lot line at a point beginning fifty feet from the radius point of the corner, except that where a driveway occurs in that area, no fence may be constructed for a clear distance of twelve feet from the point of intersection of driveway and property lines. This provision shall not apply to corner lots whose rear or side yard abuts an interior side yard of an adjacent property. Standard Fences – Corner Lots Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 10123) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/10/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 1210 Newell Road: Fence Variance Hearing Request Title: PUBLIC HEARING. 1210 Newell Road [18PLN-00289]: Request for Hearing on the Director's Tentative Decision to Deny a Variance Request to Allow for an Exception From the Standard Corner Lot Fence Height Regulations for an Unpermitted Fence of Approximately: 7' 5" Front Yard (Where 6’ is Allowed), 8' Rear Yard (Where 7’ is Allowed), 7' 5” Interior Yard (Where 7’ is Allowed), and 7' 5" Street Yard with No Sight Triangle Reduction at The Newell Road/Community Lane Intersection (Where Approximately 4’ is Allowed and a Sight Triangle Limits Fences to 3’ Tall). Environmental Assessment: The Proposed Project is Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Zoning District: R-1 (Single-Family). For More Information, Contact Project Planner, Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend Council deny the variance request based on the project’s inability to meet the required findings. Background Project Information Owner: Chu Ching-Yao and Zhang Xin Architect: Not Applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Representative: Not Applicable Legal Counsel: Derek R. Longstaff Property Information Address: 1210 Newell Road Neighborhood: Community Center Lot Dimensions & Area: 65’ by 147’ & 9,555 sf Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Street Tree on Newell Road Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s): 3,376 sf; 2 stories; 25’ 10” high; built 2017 Existing Land Use(s): SF – Single Family Residential Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: R-1 Single Family Homes West: R-1 Single Family Homes East: PF Public Facilities South: PF Public Facilities Special Setbacks: Not Applicable Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: R-1 Single-Family Residential District Comp. Plan Designation: SF Single Family Residential Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Project Description The proposal is to retain an existing fence built in violation of the City’s Fence Code. The applicant has requested a Variance to exceed the allowed fence height set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 16.24. The existing fence has approximate heights of 7' 5" in the front yard, 8' along the rear property line, 7' 5” along the interior side yard, and 7' 5" along the street side yard. The request also seeks to maintain the existing fence heights at the Newell Road/Community Lane Intersection, which currently does not comply with the Sight Triangle requirements of PAMC Chapter 16.24.040. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary application is being requested and subject to PTC purview: • Variance: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.76.030 and 18.77.050. The director shall prepare a proposed written decision. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing of the planning and transportation commission (PTC) on the proposed director’s decision by filing a written request. Within 45 days following the filing of a timely hearing request of a proposed director’s decision the PTC shall hold a hearing on the application. The recommendation of the PTC shall be placed on the consent calendar of the Council within 45 days. The decision of the Council is final. The purpose of a variance is to: (1) provide a way for a site with special physical constraints, resulting from natural or built features, to be used in ways similar to other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district; and (2) provide a way to grant relief when strict application of the zoning regulations would subject development of a site to substantial hardships, constraints, or practical difficulties that do not normally arise on other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district. Variances are applicable to the requirements of Chapter 16.24 (Fences) except for the fences identified in Section 16.24.090 (Variances). Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.030 (c) sets forth the findings to approve or deny a variance application. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project denial. Special circumstances that are expressly excluded from consideration are; the personal circumstances of the property owner, and any changes in the size or shape of the subject property made by the property owner or his predecessors in interest while the property was subject to the same zoning designation. The findings to deny the subject variance application are provided in Attachment D. Analysis1 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. Planning and Transportation Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommended action. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project is located on a standard corner lot within the R-1 Zone District in the Community Center neighborhood. The subject parcel is developed with a new two story home that recently replaced the previously existing single story home. The subject parcel has an access alley (Community Lane) at the rear which runs the length of the block and provides rear yard vehicle access for all properties on this block of Parkinson Avenue. There is a total of nineteen (19) properties with rear yard alley access to this portion of Community Lane. Six of these properties, as shown on the location map, have back yards directly across from the Community Center tennis court. Background The applicant submitted the fence variance application after a Code Enforcement investigation found the existing fence on the subject property to be in violation of the fence code standards found within PAMC Chapter 16.24. Code Enforcement staff investigated the site upon receiving a complaint. Photos from the initial code enforcement investigation can be viewed on Attachment F of this report. Code Enforcement notified the property owner that the fences would need to be brought into conformance with the City fence regulations. The owner chose to submit a variance application requesting to exceed the fence height limit to keep the existing fence(s). Zoning Compliance2 A detailed review of the proposed project’s inconsistency with applicable Municipal Code standards is shown in the Zoning Comparison Table (Attachment B). The Variance request seeks to diverge from all fence heights requirements as required for a standard residential corner lot. The existing fences on site not only exceed the code allowances in terms of height, but also violate the required sight triangle (aka vision triangle) at the intersection with Community Lane and Newell Rd. The vision triangle regulation, set forth in PAMC Section 16.24.040 (Fences at Intersections), is intended to help avoid collision hazards for vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists. The applicant’s request for a variance conflicts with this section. An approval for any fence variance involving a property with an intersection, must ensure the fence meets the required sight triangle for the corner of the subject property. The vision triangle described in PAMC 16.24.040 would necessitate a reduction in the fence height within that triangle to a maximum height of three feet. This code also requires pruning of vegetation that grows beyond a height of three feet above grade within the triangle. The submitted application does not account for this requirement. Furthermore, PAMC 16.24.090 “Variances” specifically states that no variance may be granted for vision triangles. 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 A violation of any provision of chapter 16.24.080 is an infraction. However, since the variance process was started, code enforcement actions have been placed on hold, pending the conclusion of the hearing process for the applicant’s hearing request. Consistency with Application Findings The requested variance does not meet the required approval findings set forth in PAMC Section 18.76.030 “Variance”, as further described in Attachment D. According to this section of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, neither the Director, nor the City Council on appeal, shall grant a variance, unless it is found that: (1) Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. Special circumstances that are expressly excluded from consideration are: (A) The personal circumstances of the property owner, and (B) Any changes in the size or shape of the subject property made by the property owner or his predecessors in interest while the property was subject to the same zoning designation. (2) The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property, and (3) The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning), and (4) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The applicant provided justifications (Attachment H) for the requested variance based on personal circumstances, including the property owners’ fear of crime and privacy based on the design of their newly constructed home. The applicant has requested a variance to allow for an increase in fence height for all existing fencing. Staff finds there are 88 properties with rear yard alley access similar to the subject site within 2,000 feet (less than a half mile) of the property for a total of 107 properties with similar rear access situations. Of those properties, 31 are corner lots and are subject to the same standard fence regulations for corner lots as the subject property. In other words, this property is not unique. The applicant’s request for increased fence heights also argues for the consideration of their property as a back–to back corner lot. However, the subject lot’s conditions are not unique to this property. The context represented by the tennis courts and Community Lane access presents a challenge for many parcels, not only the subject parcel, and the regulations for fence heights on a standard corner lot are applicable to all residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, the sight triangle required by PAMC 16.24.040 cannot be intruded upon using a variance City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 request. This triangle is required for line of sight for all modes of travel at an intersection that facilities vehicle traffic. Without, this sight triangle, the finding cannot be made in the affirmative that granting of the variance request will not be detrimental to public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. There is no evidence to support the findings that the subject property is hindered by the existing regulation in such a manner that the property does not enjoy the same rights and privileges of similar properties in the area. Furthermore, the findings cannot be made in the affirmative that Council approval of the variance would not grant special privileges to this property that are inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. Applicant Submittal After Hearing Request The applicant’s legal counsel has prepared a document response in support of the requested Variance application. This response was submitted to the Project Planner on March 27, 2019 and can be found at Attachment H. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The project was tentatively denied by the Director, and therefore no environmental review is required. However, if approved, a project of this nature would be exempted under a Class 3 exemption, 15303 Small Structures, since the property has an existing single-family residence and the fence is accessory to the residence. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on March 29, 2019, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on March 27, 2019, which is 15 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, public comments were received during the review and tentative denial of the variance application. The received comments can be found in Attachment I of this report. The majority of comments received are not supportive of the requested variance. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) may: 1. Recommend Council approval of the project with modified findings or conditions; City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Report Author & Contact Information PTC3 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2679 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • ATTACHMENT A: LOCATION MAP (PDF) • ATTACHMENT B: ZONING COMPARISON TABLE (DOCX) • ATTACHMENT C: TENTATIVE DENIAL LETTER (PDF) • ATTACHMENT D: DRAFT RECORD OF LAND USE ACTION Sam - see track changes (DOCX) • ATTACHMENT E: REQUEST FOR HEARING (PDF) • ATTACHMENT F: CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATION PHOTOS (PDF) • ATTACHMENT G: APPLICANT REQUEST TO WAIVE 45 DAY HEARING REQUIREMENT (PDF) • ATTACHMENT H: APPLICANT RESPONSE TO DECISION (PDF) • ATTACHMENT I: PUBLIC COMMENTS (PDF) • ATTACHMENT J: PROJECT PLANS (DOCX) • COI MAP 1210 Newell Road - NO CONFLICTS (PDF) 3 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Page 1 of 22 Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Excerpt Minutes: April 10, 2019 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. PUBLIC HEARING. 1210 Newell Road [18PLN-00289]: Request for Hearing on the 8 Director's Tentative Decision to Deny a Variance Request to Allow for an Exception 9 From the Standard Corner Lot Fence Height Regulations for an Unpermitted Fence 10 of Approximately: 7' 5" Front Yard (Where 6’ is Allowed), 8' Rear Yard (Where 7’ is 11 Allowed), 7' 5” Interior Yard (Where 7’ is Allowed), and 7' 5" Street Yard with No 12 Sight Triangle Reduction at The Newell Road/Community Lane Intersection (Where 13 Approximately 4’ is Allowed and a Sight Triangle Limits Fences to 3’ Tall). 14 Environmental Assessment: The Proposed Project is Exempt From the Provisions of 15 the California\ Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with Guideline 16 Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Zoning 17 District: R-1 (Single-Family). For More Information, Contact Project Planner, Samuel 18 Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org 19 20 Chair Riggs: Ok was that… with that said we have a study session or sorry we have a public 21 hearing on 1210 Newell Road. A request for hearing on the Director’s tentative decision to deny 22 a Variance Request to allow for an Exception from the standard corner lot fence with the height 23 regulations for an unpermitted fence of a approximately 7-foot 5-inches in the front where 6-24 foot is allowed, 8-foot in the rear where 7-foot is allowed, 7-foot 5-inches in the interior yard 25 where 7-foot is allowed and 7-foot 5-inches on the street yard with no sight triangle reduction 26 at the Newell Road and Community Lane intersection. This project is exempted from CEQA and 27 I will let Staff take it away from there. 28 29 Mr. Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning: Great, thanks Chair, we’re… Samuel Gutierrez will make 30 the presentation this evening and we’re also joined by Jodie Gerhardt who is the Planning 31 Manager for the Current Planning Program. Sam? 32 33 Mr. Samuel Gutierrez: Thank you. Gooding evening to the Commission Members here. Here, 34 let’s just jump into the presentation, we’ll start with… this is just the straight elevation view of 35 the existing site and the existing conditions as is. Just to give you a brief overview of the project 36 here this was initially started as a Code Enforcement case last summer. We did an investigation 37 and a notice of violation was sent out. There was some discussion with the property owner 38 about options and what to do to correct the issues and the property owner chose to with a 39 Variance which was submitted in August. After discussions and viewing the Variance application 40 we sent out a tentative denial January of this year and the property owner did make a timely 41 Page 2 of 22 request for a hearing so here we are. And also, just to keep in mind this is a single-family 1 residential zone and the house that is currently on site is newly constructed. 2 3 So just to go over a bit of the Variance, remember the purpose of Variance here is to give some 4 flexibility to the property owner that has some specific constraints for a number of reasons. It 5 could be the site size; it could be possibly trees or some watercourse. That is unique to that 6 property and applying zoning or other sections of the code would be difficult. There it would 7 actually hinder them more than similar properties in the area. 8 9 And of course, a Variance does require Findings. All Findings must be met and if we don’t meet 10 one of the Findings then a Variance cannot be approved. There are a number of Findings, I 11 summarized them here in the three bullet points. Again, special circumstances of the property 12 could hinder that property from enjoying the privileges that properties in the same district can 13 enjoy. Also, we want to be sure that we aren’t granting a Variance that now makes that 14 property have special privileges far beyond what other properties enjoy. And then, of course, 15 the granting a Variance wouldn’t be detrimental to public safety, health, welfare, and 16 convenience so those are a summary of the required Findings. 17 18 Here’s photos of the… again the existing conditions from all angles. You can see again the street 19 view front side of the home, the second picture in the upper right you can see the Newell Road 20 Street-facing side, you can see the fence that’s existing, and then a zoomed in photo of that 21 same fence on the lower fence. And then the lower right is the backyard fence that runs along 22 Community Lane which is the alley behind this property. Here’s a map of the vicinity, you can 23 see the property there indicated with the little pin drop, and our public tennis courts that are 24 across from Rinconada Library. And there you can see here that a number of properties actually 25 back up to the tennis courts as well not just this one property. And you can also see Community 26 Lane how it cuts through the rear portion of these properties. 27 28 Just to give you a brief overview of the zoning. This is a standard R-1 zone so a 6,000-square 29 foot lot is the minimum. This property is over that, over 9,000-square feet so it is a large 30 property in consideration of the R-1 Zone. As we move on here, we can compare the what is 31 permitted per the fence code versus what’s existing. The fences are over all of the required 32 fence sizes and this would be the illustration of what would be permitted on site. This is a 33 standards corner lot fence regulation diagram. And you can see here with the red outline that’s 34 superimposed on this image that’s the footprint roughly of the house and where the larger 35 fences would normally go and where the smaller fences should be which currently are occupied 36 by the larger existing fence. And also, there a depiction of the sight triangle on the top portion 37 of this image which applies to corners and intersections. Of course, this property has 38 Community Lane running along the rear so that changes this image a little bit where we have to 39 have a sight triangle here as well. This is that corner intersection that I was referring to earlier 40 where Community Lane and Newell Road. The existing fence is over 7-feet tall and it goes right 41 to the public right of way, the sidewalk, and the Community Lane that runs along the rear and 42 you can see here how tall it is. This is a break down of Community Lane as it intersects the 43 sideway and Newell Road and where the sight triangle should be. And here you can see from 44 Page 3 of 22 the pedestrian perspective the… if you’re standing here on this right image, this would be your 1 approach towards Community Lane and the tennis court facility. You don’t really have a large 2 line of sight at all whereas if you stand on the other side you have more line of sight. As you can 3 see this fence we do have at our public facility is offset, pulled back, so it does grant a bit more 4 view. This is a requirement in the code because we do want to have this sight triangle to avoid 5 collision points and allow pedestrians, cyclists, or anyone driving enough time to react as 6 another car is coming. So that is depicted here in these images, you can on the Vehicle A and 7 Vehicle B this sight line is the sight line triangle. And that would be the point where it would 8 allow these two moving vehicles to have a reaction point. They can see a car approaching, they 9 know to slow down, and this is also further depicted in these triangles here. This one’s for a 10 driveway, this one is for an intersection, and furthermore here in this lower right photo you can 11 see that if the sight triangle is offset further back then these two moving vehicles would have 12 greater time to see one another and react. Where if the sight triangle doesn’t exist, you’re 13 almost at the collision point already and that’s what this image here essentially shows is the 14 existing condition. You have vehicles there; you have bicyclists and you have pedestrians so as 15 they’re heading towards the tennis court facilities on Newell you have this conflict point here. 16 And that is a requirement in the Fence Code to have these reductions in fence heights in this 17 area so that it allows this sight triangle to exist and then you have a minimized collision point. 18 19 So, the key consideration is that we couldn’t make Findings in the affirmative for all of the 20 requirement Variance Findings for this fence as is. There was no modification to it so it was 21 difficult to make a Finding that it… the property is unique and is somehow restricted. The other 22 Finding is the Safety Finding that’s required and convenience to public health and safety 23 because there is no sight triangle and you can actually not request a Variance for the sight 24 triangle. The code specifically says that you cannot pass for a Variance from that so that was 25 another problem with the Variance Findings, we couldn’t make that Finding as well because of 26 that. 27 28 So, as we move forward, we… oh, I’m sorry, we also did present some options to the property 29 owner. There are the options of putting the code compliant fences and if they have a concern 30 about privacy there’s also hedges that you could put behind the code compliance fences that 31 now would create a privacy screen. There’s also the potential for the sight triangle to be 32 somehow changed in the sense that their fence would be cut down but pushed back and they 33 could plant hedges along there and still maintain a privacy screen. There was a lot of concern 34 about privacy towards their rear yard and we said if you bring down the fence for the sight 35 triangle, I don’t have that anymore but that’s not quite true. You have still the ability to have 36 hedges planted at the higher point than the code compliant fence as long as it’s outside of the 37 sight triangle. So, these options were discussed with the property owner as well. 38 39 So, we do recommend that the Planning and Transportation Commission take the following 40 action. Recommend that the Council deny the Variance request based on the project’s inability 41 to meet the required Findings and that ends the presentation. The applicant has prepared a 42 presentation as well. 43 44 Page 4 of 22 Mr. Derek Longstaff: Good evening, my name is Derek Longstaff, I’m an attorney at practice 1 here in Palo Alto. Thank you for taking the time to hear from me on behalf of my clients Chu 2 Ching-Yao and Cindy Zhang who’s here with me. I’d also like to if it’s ok have Ms. Zhang make a 3 very brief statement at the end of my statements here. 4 5 First and for most I have to say the principle problem here is a matter of legal interpretation 6 and it goes to Municipal Code Sections 16.24.040. Unfortunately, I have no idea if the City 7 Attorney has reviewed our interpretation of this code section. I have no knowledge as to 8 whether or not the City Attorney has advised this body of our arguments. The code upon which 9 Planning relies exclusively on specifically states that a vision corner, this vision triangle which 10 was basically the entire presentation, is required in a case where a street is improved for 11 vehicular traffic. Community Lane does allow cars to go down it, however, in reading the code 12 in context, it is not a street improved for vehicular traffic. And the definition upon which the 13 City relies states, “A street is anything that includes courts, places, squares, curbs, or other 14 public ways.” That is taken from 1.04.050, again it would be more useful for this body had 15 Planning rendered – offered to have the City Attorney render a legal opinion. The definition of 16 street upon which the applicant relies states, “at a street is a highway, thoroughfare, parkway, 17 road or avenue,” and it specifically states, “It does not include an alleyway or driveway.” 18 Planning has told us that Community Lane is considered an alleyway. If an alley is not a street 19 under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 21.04.30 then this code section does not apply. 20 21 Secondarily, this condition of a 6-foot high fence or higher at the corner of a street, an actual 22 street not their version of a street but an actual street, and a lane, an alleyway, exists all over 23 the City. There are numerous homes and I will try and show you just a few by scrolling through 24 this thing with bad vision. Let’s see… where… how do we get this thing to move? Yeah, there we 25 go. First of all, I want to point out this is the condition of Community Lane and Newell Road at 26 the time that my clients bought the property. There was a 6-foot high fence on that corner at 27 that time. This is 1008 Bryant and I actually have a better picture there that I’d like to pass to 28 you. These are measurements of fences along streets. That post that the gentlemen is holding 29 as a marker at 6-feet and 7-feet and this is all laid out in our PowerPoint deck and I believe you 30 all have a hard copy of. This is, let’s see, look at… these are all homes in similar conditions with 31 similar fencing all around them and at… I apologize I cannot find the one that we’re looking for. 32 There it is. 1160 Ramona Street is actually 1160 Bryant Street, I have a correction page for this. 33 That is the corner of what is identified as I believe 69 Lane. I’m going to pass around if I can 34 hard copies, I printed out of Google street views of these fences so you can get a better 35 orientation of that street Bryant. It’s actually Kingsley and this 69 East Lane. It’s a little lane, 36 these are lanes that will only accommodate one car in one direction at a time and by their 37 definition, by the City’s definition, it’s an alley. 38 39 The last point that I want to make here before my client has a chance to speak with you aside 40 from the fact that this condition exists all over the City and I can’t get this to go backward. 41 There we go. These are the crime reports for the immediate area. They live near Highway 101 42 and Embarcadero. We all know where the Rinconada Library is and those tennis courts and 43 that’s our next slide. These are all the public facilities around this property so aside from the 44 Page 5 of 22 fact that this is a back to back lot because Community Lane is not a street. As side from the fact 1 that Planning has mis-interrupted the City’s Code and therefore does not apply. This property is 2 entitled to an accommodation, a Variance because unlike many properties in the City it is 3 surrounded by all of these public facilities. You see in the pictures that it backs right into the 4 tennis court. It is right across, directly across from Rinconada Library. A 4-foot high fence along 5 Newell Road makes no sense given the exposure to all of these public locations. I don’t know of 6 any homeowner in this City that would not ask for a Variance along Newell Road that faces out 7 to a public parking lot. So, all we heard was vision triangle, relying exclusively on a Municipal 8 Code that I’d be interested to hear from the City Attorney on because it simply does not apply 9 according to my reading. 10 11 And the rest of the Variance is necessary here given the unique location of this property and 12 that was not addressed. And the fact that I can show you with my handouts with any drive 13 around town and the slides that we’ve provided you multiple homes with fencing all around 14 these busier streets. Multiple homes with 6-foot high or higher fencing right along the corner of 15 a lane, not a street, and a street. So, this is the condition and the reason why this is allowed at 16 1008 Bryant, the reason why… Byron excuse me, the reason why it’s allowed at 1160 Bryant is 17 because at that time the City interpreted their own code correctly. They correctly understood 18 that the lane was not a street improved for vehicular traffic. So, it does not apply and I will pass 19 out some further views so that you can get a better orientation of other locations in the City 20 that have this condition. Thanks. 21 22 Chair Riggs: I’m sorry is your client going to address the Commission? 23 24 Ms. Cindy Zhang: Good evening ladies and gentlemen, my name is Cindy Zhang, homeowner of 25 1210 Newell Road and my husband George Choo he is listening in from Shanghai, China now; 26 you know I have on my cell connected with him. 27 28 We moved to Silicon Valley 25-years ago and we made it our home ever since then. We’ve 29 really enjoyed it. 1210 Newell Road was purchased in August 2013. The 6-foot fence was there 30 along with all the property. We then hired Roger Kohler’s team to design a new home for our 31 family. During the design stage, no one questioned anything about fence height. I expected a 6-32 foot fence would be there, therefore we made two very important decisions based on that. 33 First, we relocated the driveway from facing Rinconada Library on the Newell Road to the alley 34 facing the tennis courts because it was for privacy purpose. I didn’t want people to peek into 35 our back yard whenever we drive in our vehicle or we drive the vehicle out of our garage. And 36 then the second decision was Mr. Kohler’s advice and then the design expertise we used a lot of 37 large glass patio doors because we want to be able to enjoy the outdoor living with the 6-foot 38 fence being there. And we always made it very clear to the City the fence about… we won’t 39 change the 6-foot fence. Privacy, safety, security are extremely important for us. I guess it’s the 40 same for all of you, everybody, here. We have three children, one daughter, two younger boys, 41 my husband does not live with us for most of the time. When we started on the join to build 42 this new home about 5-years ago my kids only 11, 9, and 8-years old. As you can imagine myself 43 alone with three young kids we needed very, very, much an extra sense of security and I still 44 Page 6 of 22 could not express how much shocked when I first learned there is a code violation on this fence 1 when I received that notice from the City. 2 3 They are talking about vision triangle on the rear corner where the Community Lane meets the 4 Newell Road and they insisted on we lower the fence height to 3-feet. 3-feet means like this 5 height and then our rear side… just assume this is the lot, our rear side 65-feet and then 35-feet 6 means this much. You know you cut in and there’s 3-feet along the Community Lane, 35-feet 7 long and 35-feet long along Newell Road; only a 3-feet fence. You know this is absolutely just 8 literally no fence, open back yard. Its almost just gives me enormous pressure. I had many, 9 many sleeps last night. Still… I still have a sleeping difficulty and then many times I’m crying to 10 my husband. Had I known this I wouldn’t consider relocating the driveway. We would have kept 11 the garage outside to get more privacy. Also, even had I known this I wouldn’t even consider 12 buying this property because of this. I didn’t expect… we have no privacy, just a house exposed 13 to the public facility and the public roads. 14 15 And another thing I would like to challenge (interrupted) 16 17 Chair Riggs: You can… please just finish and be judicious of your time. 18 19 Ms. Zhang: Sure, the height of the fence measurement. I have a totally different opinion with 20 what the City stated here from Planning. For example, they say the interior fence height 21 between my home and then my neighbor, Mr. Joe is my next-door neighbor, is 7-feet 5-inches 22 but I think they must measure wrong. This is the fence, this is the 6-foot marker… 7-foot marker 23 and I think we all can see this is not 7’ 5”. And they are talking about the front facing fence, 7-24 foot 5-inches. Again, this is our front yard, 6-foot this is with the lattice 1-foot, without it not 25 even 6; with this about, I mean you know 6’ maybe 9”, 6’ 8”, you know that’s it. So even on the 26 street, the Newell side (interrupted) 27 28 Chair Riggs: If you could wrap up your comments, we’re a little over what’s been allowed. 29 30 Ms. Zhang: Sure, my point is here on all four sides the measurement stated here is incorrect. 31 Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. 32 33 Chair Riggs: Thank you. So, I think before we go into a public hearing, I have three comment 34 cards from Mr. Cala, Mr. Longstaff, and Mr. Keopl but any specific questions from 35 Commissioners on the content from Staff? 36 37 Mr. Lait: And I just might also suggest that we… I don’t think we’ve done disclosures yet too. 38 39 Commissioner Summa: What? 40 41 Mr. Lait: Did you do (interrupted) 42 43 Page 7 of 22 Chair Riggs: We did not and we can say that this is quasi-judicial item and that we do need to do 1 disclosures but maybe we can have questions first just because I had already… any specific 2 questions? 3 4 Commissioner Lauing: Are these to Staff? 5 6 Chair Riggs: Correct, to Staff. 7 8 Commissioner Roohparvar: Does that include Albert? 9 10 Chair Riggs: What’s that? 11 12 Commissioner Roohparvar: Does that include Albert? 13 14 Chair Riggs: That’s correct. 15 16 Mr. Lait: [unintelligible – off mic] 17 18 Commissioner Roohparvar: I do have a question. 19 20 Chair Riggs: Yeah, Commissioner Roohparvar. 21 22 Commissioner Roohparvar: So, I have some questions for the City Attorney, I want to make sure 23 I fully understand this. The fence heights, the regulations that we’re looking at, it’s not only 24 based on the sight triangle where it’s not in compliance. There are also additional code 25 requirements for the remainder of the parcel? So, it’s on two bases, it’s on the bases of the 26 sight triangle and the basis of the remaining fence around the property? 27 28 Mr. Albert Yang, Senior Deputy Attorney: That’s correct. The request for the Variance is for to 29 allow additional height on all around the property in addition to allowing [unintelligible] 30 (interrupted) 31 32 Commissioner Roohparvar: The Variance on the sight triangle. 33 34 Mr. Yang: In the sight triangle area. 35 36 Commissioner Roohparvar: Go ahead. 37 38 Chair Riggs: Are you finished Commissioner Roohparvar? Commissioner Lauing and the 39 Commissioner Templeton. 40 41 Commissioner Lauing: Would you remind us of the lattice on top of fences? That regulation 42 compared to the actual fence. Is that a freebie or does that count as part of the fence? I don’t 43 recall that. 44 Page 8 of 22 1 Ms. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: So, the lattice is considered part of the fence 2 structure. 3 4 Commissioner Lauing: Ok, I didn’t recall that. Is it Staff’s interpretation that the existing… 5 reported existing 6-foot fence that was there, to begin with, is now sort of overruled because 6 it’s an entirely new property as opposed to a remodeled property so that it might be 7 grandfathered in? 8 9 Ms. Gerhardt: There are several… fences don’t require a Planning Permit or a Building Permit, 10 they are just required to adhere to the code. And so, there are several illegal fences throughout 11 the City so that is likely the case here for the existing fence that was there prior to the house. 12 13 Commissioner Lauing: Ok so you’re saying there’s no difference because they put up a new 14 house as opposed to a remodeled house that just happened to have an illegal house… sorry 15 illegal fence when they moved in? 16 17 Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. 18 19 Commissioner Lauing: Ok, that’s it for now. 20 21 Chair Riggs: Alright Commissioner Templeton and then Commissioner Waldfogel and 22 Commissioner Alcheck. I’ll remind you that we still have a hearing to go through as well 23 Commissioners. 24 25 Commissioner Templeton: I wanted to ask… well, I’m trying to figure out your… you’re trying to 26 segment our comments so I have questions of Staff. Can you clarify what you want before and 27 what you want after? 28 29 Chair Riggs: I’d like detailed questions and clarifications based on the presentations. I’d like to… 30 please withhold your dialog until later if you can. 31 32 Commissioner Templeton: Ok. 33 34 Mr. Yang: Sorry, if I could interrupt. You know if we’re going to get into these sorts of questions, 35 I’d like to do the disclosure first if you don’t mind. 36 37 Chair Riggs: That’s fine we can do disclosures. Let’s start with Commissioner Waldfogel if you 38 don’t mind? 39 40 Commissioner Waldfogel: I drove past the property after I saw the Packet. 41 42 Commissioner Summa: Yeah, I went and looked at the property and I also looked at the history 43 of the property on Google maps. 44 Page 9 of 22 1 Commissioner Templeton: No disclosures. 2 3 Chair Riggs: Nothing to disclose. 4 5 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Yeah just for clarification, it’s not a disclosure if we visited the property. I 6 had no contacts with the applicant and I don’t have... I don’t live near the applicant. 7 8 Commissioner Roohparvar: No disclosures. 9 10 Commissioner Lauing: No disclosures. 11 12 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Templeton. 13 14 Commissioner Templeton: Could you clarify whether this property was inspected when it was 15 being built? 16 17 Ms. Gerhardt: So, this is a two-story house that went through our Individual Review process so 18 the house itself would have been inspected prior to occupancy. 19 20 Commissioner Templeton: And did it pass inspection? 21 22 Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, it would have had too to be occupied. 23 24 Commissioner Templeton: And was the fence on the site at the time? 25 26 Ms. Gerhardt: That’s the information that I do not know. 27 28 Commissioner Templeton: Ok and what can you tell me about the difference between a street 29 and a lane and a driveway or is that discussion? Bill you’re pulling your hair over here so do you 30 want me to wait for this kind of question? 31 32 Chair Riggs: If you all would prefer; we’re having the dialog that we need to have after the 33 hearing. I’d prefer to maybe to withdraw these comments unless there’s really specific 34 questions on what was presented. I think that (interrupted) 35 36 Commissioner Templeton: [off mic] These are all relevant but it’s (interrupted) 37 38 Chair Riggs: I’m not disagreeing, they’re relevant but I think that we need to hear from the 39 public and if you have something specific please (interrupted) 40 41 Commissioner Waldfogel: Yes, a specific technical question, you can differ it if you wish. Just 42 remind us the definition of natural grade. 43 44 Page 10 of 22 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Summa. 1 2 Commissioner Summa: [off mic] I can wait if you want. 3 4 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Alcheck. 5 6 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Yep, the same, I’ll wait. 7 8 Chair Riggs: Yeah ok so I’d like to… I think its… we need to open the public hearing and then 9 hear from our… hear from the public. So maybe we can hear from John Cala first and after John 10 Cala Derek Longstaff. 11 12 Mr. John Cala: Good evening, my name is John Cala, I live at 1420 Parkinson Avenue which is 13 two houses down from 1210 Newell. I’ll keep my comments briefly, very brief, and respectful of 14 your time. First off, we had a lot of discussion in the earlier presentations about the fence. I 15 would remind you all of the fences, every bit of the fence is above the allowed height, 16 notwithstanding that side discussion about the triangle. I’ve written in objection to that, I don’t 17 like the fortress feel that it creates for the neighborhood. Several of my other neighbors have 18 written to that effect as well and in your Packet, I see that there are other neighbors that are 19 more sympathetic and support the fences. So, you have mixed views in the neighborhood. I’ve 20 spoken out against it because it creates a fortress. 21 22 Secondly with respect to the alleyway and how you… I’ll leave the legal interpretation of what 23 might come to bare there. I drive down that alley every day. My driveway is on the back, my 24 garage is there, I park in the garage. It is incredibly unsafe. There is no visual sight line for me 25 exiting across the sideways onto Newell for the bikers or the pedestrians on the sidewalk. 26 None. I cannot see until I’ve actually crossed the sidewalk because of that. Those of you that 27 are familiar you’ll know that Newell is the main transport road for the kids riding their bikes 28 down to Green Middle School in the morning. So, in addition to the cars and the safety of the 29 cars, you’ve got the issues of the sidewalk and the pedestrians and the bicyclists on the 30 sidewalk. I don’t know if that’s relevant legally but I’m just offering that point of view and 31 speaking out against it. 32 33 Lastly, if you were to ask the homeowner to produce the records from the fence-building 34 company and the invoices there. You will find that the fence was constructed three days after 35 the final site inspection. Thank you. 36 37 Chair Riggs: Mr. Longstaff. 38 39 Mr. Longstaff: [unintelligible – off mic] 40 41 Mr. Lait: Yeah, this is the (interrupted) 42 43 Chair Riggs: Alright, ok. 44 Page 11 of 22 1 Mr. Lait: Yeah unless there’s another public speaker and then the applicant would have a 2 chance to rebut. 3 4 Chair Riggs: Mr. Keopl. 5 6 Mr. Joseph Keopl: Good evening, my name is Joseph Keopl, I live at 1430 Parkinson Avenue, and 7 I’m the abutting neighbor to Cindy’s property. There are a couple issues here that I think are 8 important to understand. One is as I read through the documents that were presented here 9 today what I didn’t note was the unique nature of the property at 1210 Newell in conjunction 10 to those other public facilities that were shown on the slide. The key thing there is that the 11 library is directly across the street, the Palo Alto Art Center is next door to that, and then the 12 tennis courts are behind this. To give you some kind of understanding of what this means, as 13 I’ve looked at data for 2017 there were 24,000 visits, separate visits to that library that walks 14 along that line that their property fronts. There are 10,000 people who attend certain events at 15 the Palo Alto Art Center including the glass and the pumpkin glass displays that are there. That’s 16 not even counting the people from the tennis courts, the park that’s there, and often I’ve gone 17 in the back there while that house was being constructed and encountered individuals who 18 really clearly shouldn’t have been there. As I mentioned before too many neighbors that I’ve 19 run into people dumping garbage back there and people who really shouldn’t be there. So, they 20 do present a different security risk than what was presented in the documents here and it really 21 needs to be taken into account. While that house was down, I was the frontage property to 22 Newell and I saw many things that were very disturbing from a point of view of privacy, 23 security, and quiet enjoyment of my property. 24 25 We can’t take a cookie cutter approach to these things and Variance is put there for a specific 26 reason and that is if you have an exceptional property you have to make an exceptional 27 remedy. And in this particular case, I think they have warranted that; I think they’ve 28 demonstrated that. While there is an issue with respect to that Community Lane, it really has to 29 be looked at from its overall safety perspective. I don’t think you can find anyone on that block 30 who could tell you what direction you drive on that lane. I will tell you one thing, a simple 31 inspection of that will show a stop sign at one end on Pine Street. No stopping on the side 32 facing Newell. I’m not even sure you're supposed to be able to drive out there. Even if that was 33 the case the stop sign and the vegetation at the end of the alley on Pine Street blocks the view 34 as well. There’s no triangle sight, there’s no sight there, you have to do the same thing that you 35 do all the time in an alley. Proceed to around 5 to 11 MPH and be very cautious as you move 36 forward for the reasons that John stated; that there are bicycles there, there are kids, and there 37 all kinds of people there. If they did take down that fence at that area there, they still have a 38 sight angle problem because there’s vegetation that I believe the City owns that presents a 39 similar blockage that was upon Mr. Gutierrez’s slide over there when he showed the picture. If 40 you didn’t notice it because he might have been pointing to the line sight. The vegetation is 41 there, that would have to be dealt with. I’m very concerned about vehicular traffic and people 42 and injuries and those kinds of things. And one of the things that I think would be… whatever 43 happens to this particular case there needs to be a mirror put up there or one-way directional 44 Page 12 of 22 sign or something to tell the public when they’re driving in there which way to drive down 1 there, how to proceed safely because it does require some type of a mirror even if you took 2 down the fence. That fence removal is not going to change that issues (interrupted) 3 4 Chair Riggs: Ok, thanks. 5 6 Mr. Keopl: So, I’d like to conclude my comments and thank you for listening. 7 8 Chair Riggs: Ok that concludes our hearing unless the applicant would like to make another 9 statement? So (interrupted) 10 11 Mr. Longstaff: Very briefly because I just want to correct a couple things. 12 13 Chair Riggs: Ok, Mr.…. Thank you, Mr. Longstaff, go ahead. 14 15 Mr. Longstaff: We have in the Package you got from the applicants, slide 53, 54, 55. So one of 16 the earlier speakers, John I think something, anyway said that the fence was put up three days 17 after final inspection and he’d like to see the contractor’s records. We already provided that. 18 The fence was up about 2-weeks, 3-weeks before the final inspection. It was there so those 19 slides make it clear. My client took a cell phone picture… just happened to take a picture of her 20 kitchen so you can see… go back one, please? Thank you. The final inspection is 6/14/2018 and 21 then the next slide is the picture out of her window and that’s the fence that’s already there 22 and then the next… so that’s 6/6. These are the canceled checks, she paid him half when he 23 started the job and half when he finished the job so that’s May 31st. So, it was present prior to 24 the final inspection and there are other slides in the deck that make clear that the 6-foot high 25 fence along Newell was always in the plans. These are plans that the neighborhood would have 26 had a chance to speak about, these are plans that the City reviewed, these are plans the City 27 approved, and they designed and built their house with a lot of glass based upon those 28 approvals. So, we did cite some case authority, I will be the first to admit it’s not a slam dunk 29 legally but there is some good case that once a City’s has blessed the mess they have to sort of 30 live with it. So, in this sense, the 6-foot high fence in the plans should have been allowed. 31 32 The lattice is probably where we’re getting some differences in measurements between the 33 two sides but this conversation about its every single fence is over the limit might be an 34 interruption based upon the lattice; which as this Commission rightfully pointed out is not as 35 clear as it should be in the code about the lattice. I think you need to clean… ideally, that would 36 be cleaned up but in reliance upon that and in reliance upon the architect advising them at the 37 time they built it the right way. 38 39 And lastly, I’m sorry to hear that the Community Lane, the little alleyway, is somehow 40 dangerous. That’s unfortunate and it’s unfortunate to a mother of three kids that lives right 41 there. It’s also the case that that’s been the situation for a long time, a very long time. Thank 42 you. 43 44 Page 13 of 22 Chair Riggs: Thank you. That concludes the public hearing, we’ll bring it back to the 1 Commission. Before we do that, there were two things that came out in the premeeting 2 yesterday Mr. Gutierrez and Ms. Gerhardt that I think I would just like you to mention. You 3 mentioned yesterday to Vice-Chair Alcheck and I that code compliance is complaint based and I 4 wonder if you could speak to that. And also, how we should treat a quasi-judicial item and that 5 it’s judging the property against the code, not against other properties. And I was hoping you 6 could speak to both of those items and Dr. Lait and Albert if you would like to speak to that too 7 but I think that would help us direct our discussion a little better. 8 9 Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, so Code Enforcement is in this City operated under a complaint-based 10 system. So, you would need to submit a formal complaint to Code Enforcement for us to initiate 11 Code Enforcement action. That’s typically done through the 311 System or contacting a Code 12 Enforcement Officer via email and even at times a planner. You say this is a possible violation I 13 suspected, I’ve observed it at this address on this date, a lot of times they submit photos of 14 that, and then we would proceed with a Code Enforcement investigation to foresee if that is 15 the case. I mean the code is dense so sometimes what may be perceived as a Code 16 Enforcement violation isn’t actually that. So, we do confirm that first and then we… after we do 17 a confirmation, we inform the complainant that there is or there isn’t and then we inform the 18 subject property owner wherever the infraction lies. 19 20 Mr. Lait: Right and so with respect to the subject application, yeah, it’s true, there may be other 21 properties that have non-complying illegal fences; you know we don’t know. Like Sam noted 22 our Code Enforcement is a complaint-driven effort at this time and for your consideration when 23 you’re reviewing this Variance request it’s on the Findings. And the Findings are pretty clear as 24 to what the standard for review is and maybe Sam, can we get those Findings back on the 25 board for the Commission? And in this… as you review the Findings for this it does not include 26 any sort of reference to existing conditions of other properties, that’s not a standard for your 27 review. These are the special circumstances that apply to the property that deprive the owner 28 of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same district and you can review the other 29 ones. That the granting of the application would not constitute a special privilege to this owner 30 and not others or it would be detrimental injurious to the property, public health, safety, 31 general welfare, or convenience. And all three of these would have to be answered in the 32 affirmative to grant the Variance and one area where I think we get… very clearly have a 33 concern is with respect to the visual triangle that we’re trying to maintain. So that pedestrian, 34 bicycle and motor conflicts can be reduced or eliminated with the inclusion of that provision 35 and we have other references in our Zoning Code, excuse me, in our Municipal Code that 36 speaks to what a street is and a street does include by definition an alley. And so, we feel like in 37 this particular area in particular that we’re not able to support the Variance Findings but of 38 course, that’s before the Commission now. 39 40 Chair Riggs: Ok thanks for that framework, I think that was somewhat lost in… not… Sam, you’re 41 great, your presentation was great. I just want to make sure that it [unintelligible] lost. So, if my 42 Commissioners don’t mind, I want to start in a different way. I know Commissioner Templeton 43 you had a lot… you said you had a lot of comments so if you don’t mind, we’ll start with 44 Page 14 of 22 Commissioner Templeton, Commissioner Summa, and then Commissioner Waldfogel and then 1 we’ll do the same on this side. Any questions, comments, let's just keep it moving. 2 3 Commissioner Templeton: Thank you Mr. Chair. So, I did want to talk… I had some questions 4 about the selective enforcement process, you said that’s complaint driven. Are there any other 5 factors that you… a process you go through to ensure that it’s not somehow biased? 6 7 Mr. Lait: Well somehow not what? 8 9 Commissioner Templeton: Biased. 10 11 Mr. Lait: Yeah, well I would say that it’s not selective, its complaint driven. When we receive a 12 complaint, we send (interrupted) 13 14 Commissioner Templeton: That is a selection criterion, right? That’s the selection criteria is 15 what you’re saying? 16 17 Mr. Lait: I’m distinguishing complaint driven from proactive where if we find a violation, we 18 would follow up on it. We’re simply not Staffed for that. I mean we have three positions in total 19 in the City and two of them are vacant right now. So especially at this point in time, we’re only 20 able to respond to complaints that come in. 21 22 Commissioner Templeton: Ok thank you and regarding the measurement accuracy can you 23 clarify? One of the applicants mentioned a discrepancy between the measurements. 24 25 Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, so I believe that they didn’t include the lattice as a part of the fence because 26 it’s a separate structure that’s bolted on but we do include anything that’s attached to the top 27 of the fence that is structural to be a part of the fence. So, this could be a decorative light that’s 28 on top of the fence. That’s is the totality of the fence from the ground up. 29 30 Commissioner Templeton: But in the photo, it looked like the pole that she was holding took 31 the… it was right… the lattice was present. Is that… do you have any other measure 32 (interrupted) 33 34 Mr. Gutierrez: Yeah, I don’t know how they measured that, I’m not sure if that was 6-feet. 35 When this all started this was again with the Code Enforcement case and the Code Enforcement 36 Office at the time did take measurements of the fence from the public right of way. 37 38 Commissioner Templeton: Ok and did you discuss as part of your alternative ways of dealing 39 with this case, did you talk about removing the lattice? 40 41 Mr. Gutierrez: The lattice and bringing down the fence height to the proper code height which 42 would be 4-feet along Newell. So that was discussed and then like I mentioned earlier in my 43 presentation we discussed the privacy factor which then was you could plant hedges and 44 Page 15 of 22 shrubs. There’s a number of properties that do do this, they have a smaller fence and then they 1 have dense vegetation as a privacy buffer, sound buffer as well. So those were the options that 2 were discussed. 3 4 Commissioner Templeton: And for the sight triangle did you discuss alternatives like mirrors or 5 other ways of handling the safety of the intersection that didn’t involve cutting through the 6 back yard. 7 8 Mr. Gutierrez: So, the mirrors aren’t something that’s referenced in the code so that wouldn’t 9 be something that’s applicable. 10 11 Commissioner Templeton: Ok and inspecting the fence height of adjourning properties is out of 12 scope? Is that what you were saying earlier? 13 14 Mr. Gutierrez: Correct, that wouldn’t be something that we would look at for Code 15 Enforcement nor would it be something during the Variance application. That’s not apart of the 16 required Findings. 17 18 Commissioner Templeton: How does that relate to the Finding here about the enjoying the 19 property with the privileges that the other properties have? How does that… I don’t know if 20 that’s an Albert question? 21 22 Mr. Lait: I think what you need to look at is a couple of factors. One is our City does have 23 different regulations for corner properties. And so, I think if there is… if you are looking at how 24 the regulations apply to other corner properties in the same zoning district with the same 25 conditions, I think that might be a measure of standard to look at. And in that context, all of 26 those properties are subject to the same standards. 27 28 Commissioner Templeton: Is the property on the other end of the block does that have a 35-29 foot triangle, sight triangle? 30 31 Mr. Lait: [off mic] I don’t know the reference (interrupted) 32 33 Mr. Gutierrez: Which block would you be talking about, Community Lane or Newell? 34 35 Commissioner Templeton: Community… the block that the subject property of the applicant. 36 So, here’s the applicant, does this one have a 35-foot line of sight triangle? 37 38 Mr. Gutierrez: At their corner of Newell and Pine? I’m not aware of their situation because if 39 you’re speaking to the Newell and Pine intersection, the one that you pointed too in the top 40 left, that one is different in the sense of (interrupted) 41 42 Commissioner Templeton: I mean the one on Community Lane on the same block that the 43 house is on. Maybe if we brought up the picture (interrupted) 44 Page 16 of 22 1 Ms. Gerhardt: So, we’ll get the neighborhood diagram up here but I think you’re talking about 2 the other end of Community Lane, is that correct? 3 4 Commissioner Templeton: That’s correct. 5 6 Ms. Gerhardt: Ok so in that… yeah, that particular house is facing in a different direction so it 7 actually has its front setback… I’m not sure what that street is. 8 9 Commissioner Templeton: I’m just wondering about the Community Lane corner if that 10 (interrupted) 11 12 Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah so it has a very low fence. I’ve got it up on Google Maps but it’s very low, 13 either 3 or 4-foot fence. I can’t tell from the (interrupted) 14 15 Commissioner Templeton: Great, thank you. I think that’s everything I had, thank you very 16 much. 17 18 Commissioner Templeton: Commissioner Summa. 19 20 Commissioner Summa: Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for coming out tonight and thank you 21 for the Staff report. I thought the Findings were very thoroughly and nicely made. I did have a 22 question on Packet Page 44… 43 and it relates to some of the discussion from the attorney. Its… 23 and this is I guess maybe an Albert and Jonathan question but it’s not my impression that an 24 approved permit or an approved inspection gives you the right to no be in compliance with the 25 law based on… would that be accurate? 26 27 Mr. Yang: That’s correct so even if a permit is issued in error or there’s a final inspection that’s 28 approved in error it does not provide any right to continue that condition. 29 30 Commissioner Summa: Ok thank you for that and does Staff have any observation on the 31 placement of garages in general on this block because it seems to me like they’re mostly in the 32 back? And maybe they would have been required to comply with our… that law and put it in 33 the back on the alley anyway. Does Staff have an opinion on that? 34 35 Mr. Lait: So that would have been reviewed during the IR process and I think for the purpose of 36 this Variance I don’t think we’ve done any analysis as to the context-based garage placement. 37 38 Commissioner Summa: Ok yeah, yeah, yeah (interrupted) 39 40 Mr. Lait: I mean we could (interrupted) 41 42 Commissioner Summa: Because all the other garages are in the back on that block. 43 44 Page 17 of 22 Mr. Lait: Yeah, we could probably do some quick work on that but I (interrupted) 1 2 Commissioner Summa: No, I was just curious, you don’t have to do any more work on it, I was 3 curious. It did appear to be the pattern on that block. So, and I have always thought in the code 4 that it was clear that we treat alleys like streets. It’s in the definition in Title 1 it makes that very 5 clear. And the definition in the other place, I forget where it is, Title 21, is for the… is 6 considering this for with regards to the Subdivision Map Act which I think is a different context 7 and it clearly, in that title, it clearly says alley is a private alley. And since this is a public alley I 8 really… I don’t see that that’s very pertinent in this situation. So, and I think that the safety 9 issue at corners is a very real consideration so those my thoughts for now. 10 11 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Waldfogel. 12 13 Commissioner Waldfogel: Thank you. I think there are two issues so I’ll just take one at a time. 14 First one is the intersection view triangle situation. So, if this is an intersection then my 15 understanding is, we have no ability to make a… to allow a Variance, is that correct? So is there 16 any way… I heard an interesting suggestion from the public that if this were… if Community 17 Lane were one-way then the circulation… there was no circulation out from Community Lane to 18 Newell that we wouldn’t encounter this situation. Would that be a possible cure if we were to 19 one-way Community Lane? Just… I just want to run through a hypothetical with you. 20 21 Mr. Lait: You know I’ll look to Staff to help out. I don’t know that there’s a distinction between 22 in our code about whether one-way or two-way but I’ll note that by bicyclists would certainly 23 travel in it. Others use the alley besides motor vehicles too so that’s something to be mindful 24 about. 25 26 Commissioner Waldfogel: I’m just looking for a possible cure. I’m trying to be creative and I 27 heard an interesting suggestion but it sounds like it may not be doable. I mean unless you have 28 some other idea. 29 30 Mr. Lait: Yeah so there’s no distinction in our code today, you know maybe a future 31 consideration. 32 33 Commissioner Waldfogel: Yeah ok I mean it’s maybe something we could make a note on as we 34 look at code cleanups sometime in the future. And then I think beyond this the Fence Code is 35 pretty clear. I think that your analysis is pretty straight forward and I don’t really understand 36 why there’s so much ambiguity here. I mean it’s the code is pretty clear about 4-feet, 6-feet, 37 subject to this natural grade question. Is natural grade from the street grade or is that from the 38 improved grade when you measure fence height? 39 40 Mr. Lait: Yes, it’s typically from the grade adjacent to the fence. 41 42 Commissioner Waldfogel: Adjacent to the fence? 43 44 Page 18 of 22 Mr. Lait: Yeah. 1 2 Commissioner Waldfogel: Ok so you can… and you’re allowed to… I think you’re allowed to fill 3 by some about 6-inches or 12-inches from (interrupted) 4 5 Mr. Lait: So, what we do is we get a survey typically for a new home and so we have at least a 6 topical survey that reveals what the grade is at that particular locations and we measure and 7 extrapolate from that. 8 9 Commissioner Waldfogel: Ok so we’re not measuring from sidewalk grade to top of fence? 10 11 Mr. Lait: No, no. 12 13 Commissioner Waldfogel: I just want to be clear on what the standard is. 14 15 Mr. Lait: Correct. 16 17 Commissioner Waldfogel: Please. I think that Mr. Gutierrez has a comment here. 18 19 Mr. Lait: I don’t know if the public though (interrupted) 20 21 Commissioner Waldfogel: Anything to add? That’s all I have. 22 23 Chair Riggs: Alright, Commissioner Alcheck. 24 25 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Actually, can you come back to me? 26 27 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Roohparvar. 28 29 Commissioner Roohparvar: Sure, I just echo Commissioner Summa and Waldfogel sentiments. I 30 feel the Packet is pretty clear, this is a pretty clear-cut issue to me. I will say it right now I 31 cannot make the Findings. Variances require a uniqueness of the property that’s inherent in the 32 physical… how it physically is. This is not a situation like that and granting a Variance in this 33 instance would be a special privilege without a doubt. Variances aren’t created to whoever 34 doesn’t like the code come in and say hey, can you cut me a break here? The fact that other 35 neighbors are not complying with the law doesn’t make it ok in this instance and I mean that’s 36 pretty much what I have to say. I do feel a lot of empathy for the homeowner and what they 37 are going through. I just don’t think… I think our hands are tied in this instance and I don’t think 38 a Variance the appropriate mechanism by which to accomplish what they are trying to achieve. 39 40 Chair Riggs: Commissioner Lauing? 41 42 Commissioner Lauing: Just a couple comments and I won’t repeat prior colleague’s comments. 43 It is odd and unfortunate that the building inspector didn’t catch something that is to me as 44 Page 19 of 22 obvious as the height of a fence but he didn’t so that doesn’t change the status of the law. I’m 1 not convinced that a 6-foot fence is much more or less safe than a 4-foot fence but that’s not in 2 our Findings anyway and as the applicant heard there’s almost no constraints outside of the 3 vision triangle on landscaping. So, you could build something that’s 15-feet tall as long as it 4 doesn’t interfere on the corners which is quite an effective natural remedy. So, I’m in support 5 of the Staff recommendation. 6 7 Chair Riggs: Any… Commissioner Alcheck. 8 9 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Yeah ok thank you for your comments and your presentation. So, I had a 10 couple questions, I don’t know… look, I think is some uniqueness here. I think strict application 11 of our zoning regulations do suggest that there’s a substantial hardship here. I think… I guess I 12 have a could question about… well, let’s start with this. I’m not entirely sure that I can make the 13 Findings for a Variance either but I am curious to know what is the path a resident should take 14 legally if they disagree with an interruption by the Planning Department say with respect 15 whether this road is for vehicular traffic as opposed to whether it qualifies as a lane which is not 16 the word that we used in Section .040 [PAMC Section 16.24.040] ? And what would the path be 17 for an applicant who wished to challenge an interpretation they think is wrong? 18 19 Mr. Yang: So, for Zoning Code interruptions we do have a process to ask the Director to issue a 20 formal interpretation and then there’s a… something that can follow on from there. For issues 21 outside of Zoning Code, we don’t have similar provisions. In this instance where the dispute was 22 initiated through a Code Enforcement action, the property owner could request a hearing 23 before an Administrative Hearing Officer over the validity of that code violation. And that’s an 24 area where you could argue the interpretation of the code and then from there once that 25 administrative process is over you could seek judicial review. 26 27 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Ok. I think there may be some relevance to the suggest that the… I think 28 there’s… sort of when you look at it and you try to consider whether there’s some legal 29 significance to the argument that the interpretation may be wrong changes things. If we were 30 to look at this intersection as something less than the type of intersection arises to the level 31 defined in .040 then maybe that would change how you could have the code applied to the 32 corner. And so, I think that doesn’t necessarily address what happens along Newell Road which 33 is sort of different. I think that to some extent the path for the interruption argument might 34 need to go down a different road. 35 36 I am a little… I’m not excited about reviewing this when there’s what seems like varying 37 differing measurements. It didn’t occur to me to take my own measuring tape out there. I 38 didn’t anticipate actually that the owner would suggest that our measurements were off. I 39 don’t believe that you came here with the wrong information as a California Licensed attorney 40 so I really wonder if maybe ahead of the City Council meeting you ought to go out there 41 yourself before you make the presentation and double check. Maybe even meet the applicant 42 and check the measurements because if as the pictures demonstrated not very many of the 43 Page 20 of 22 fences are even rising above 6-feet or 7-feet then it would… I think it would be better. I just 1 think it would lend credibility to the Staff’s assessment. 2 3 I agree with other Commissioners on the points they made. I have a question; would it change if 4 the fence wasn’t solid? If they use a metal railing fence along Newell? 5 6 Mr. Gutierrez: No, it would be the same. 7 8 Vice-Chair Alcheck: I think the thing that I’m struggling with the most here is that we are 9 acknowledging that they could create a landscaped barrier that would impede visual sight 10 almost entirely. And that may not necessarily… if they planted hedges along Newell, they could 11 theoretically be much higher than 4-feet? 12 13 Mr. Gutierrez: They could and everyone could do that because we do not regulate the height of 14 the vegetation outside of that sight triangle. So, you could plant cypress trees along… behind 15 the code compliant fence and have… cypress trees grow up to 20-feet and more for example. 16 The one regulation that would or the one thing that you couldn’t do was have vegetation that 17 overgrows into the public right of way blocking the sidewalk. 18 19 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Yeah no I just… there’s some components that are… that seems… well, 20 whatever so I guess my only statement would be that I don’t know that we can make the 21 Findings for a Variance. I think that there may be a pathway with respect to the interpretation 22 argument on the rear which would change the rear sight triangle. But I think in any case I 23 wonder if we could encourage Staff to also consider the… when we looked at the picture of 24 that… if you wouldn’t mind putting that picture up. 25 26 Mr. Gutierrez: Which photo? 27 28 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Of the path, that lane, that alley with the… so there’s a pole there. I’m 29 wondering if it would be possible for the City to also consider the addition of a mirror just 30 because I guess both sides of the table sort of talked about it and it seems like it would be a 31 good addition. 32 33 And then the second… I guess the last thing is to what extent is it… I guess since you’re already 34 aware of this particular entrance would… I mean there’s two sides to this street. Is the other 35 side in compliance? Are we (interrupted) 36 37 Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, the other end of… that was… we were talking to Commissioner Templeton. 38 The other end of it has a front setback and it has a lower fence. 39 40 Vice-Chair Alcheck: And do we know why this side doesn’t have a stop sign if the other side 41 does? Is there any (interrupted) 42 43 Page 21 of 22 Ms. Gerhardt: Oh, I didn’t mean stop sign, I meant lower fences. The other end of Community 1 Lane has lower fences. 2 3 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Right and is their thing… is there any information on why one side has a 4 stop sign and the other side doesn’t? Was this (interrupted) 5 6 Chair Riggs: I can answer that question. You need 1,500 trips to warrant a stop sign, the other 7 side doesn’t warrant a stop sign either. The… it's (interrupted) 8 9 Mr. Yang: We don’t have that information 10 11 Chair Riggs: Ok I’m trying to educate you. 12 13 Commissioner Roohparvar: Educate us, I’d like to know. 14 15 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Appreciate it. That’s all I got. Oh, wait I’ll add one more thing, I think with 16 respect with what you asked about. I think it’s different for corner lots because the front of this 17 lot is not Newell or this lane, it’s… I know the address says 1210 Newell but the front edge of 18 this is actually on a different street, right? 19 20 [Female]: Parkinson. 21 22 Mr. Gutierrez: Correct it’s on Parkinson. 23 24 Vice-Chair Alcheck: So, any location actually along Newell would have not been considered 25 front for a corner lot with respect to your question about the location of the driveway and a car 26 parking. Yeah, it wouldn’t have changed, it would have been restricted to have access to the 27 location of the parking facility along Newell because that’s not considered a front street. 28 29 Commissioner Summa: [off mic] It was before [unintelligible] (interrupted) 30 31 Vice-Chair Alcheck: Right, no, I know I’m saying the… you could have accessed a read parking 32 facility on Newell regardless of the predominance of parking facilities on that street because it’s 33 not the front… it’s a side street. So even if the (interrupted) 34 35 Mr. Lait: I’m sorry it’s just not relevant to the Variance. 36 37 Vice-Chair Alcheck: No, I know but it is… look I’ll say this we should have some sympathy for the 38 fact that maybe when the original survey was done it likely showed… before they submitted 39 their plans it likely showed a 6-foot fence, an existing 6-foot fence. 40 41 Chair Riggs: I think Commissioner Alcheck you’re (interrupted) 42 43 Page 22 of 22 Vice-Chair Alcheck: To the extent that they may not have known that may have changed the 1 way they design their lot. I think there’s… if they would have had to relocate their driveway to 2 the read anyways and they knew it then that’s a different story but, in this case, I think… I’m 3 just trying to address what Commissioner Summa was saying. 4 5 Chair Riggs: Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, would anyone entertain a motion? 6 Commissioner Summa. 7 8 MOTION 9 10 Commissioner Summa: Yes, I’d like to make a motion to move Staff’s recommendation on the 11 basis of the Findings. 12 13 Chair Riggs: Do I have a second? 14 15 SECOND 16 17 Commissioner Roohparvar: I’ll second. 18 19 VOTE 20 21 Chair Riggs: Any discussion of the motion on the floor? Seeing none well let’s just take a vote. 22 All in favor? Any opposed? Alright, motion carries 7-0. That concludes that hearing. 23 24 MOTION PASSED 7(Lauing, Roohparvar, Alcheck, Riggs, Templeton, Summa, Waldfogel) -0 25 26 Commission Action: Motion to approve Staff’s recommendation to deny fence variance request 27 was made by Commissioner Summa and seconded by Commissioner Roohparvar. The motion 28 passed 7-0. 29 30 31 Alyssa Roy Direct Dial: (650) 320-1516 E-mail: aroy@rutan.com May 8, 2019 Rutan & Tucker, LLP | Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA 94306 -9814 | 650-320-1500 | Fax 650-320-9905 Orange County | Palo Alto | www.rutan.com 2786/099999-0084 13705077.1 a05/08/19 VIA E-MAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Samuel J. Gutierrez Associate Partner P&CE Department CITY OF PALO ALTO 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: 1210 Newell Road Dear Mr. Gutierrez: We are writing on behalf of our clients, Ching-Yao Chu and Xin Zhang (“Owners”), who are the owners and residents of 1210 Newell Road (“Property”). We appreciate this opportunity to respond to your request for a letter regarding our understanding of the circumstances surrounding the fencing at the Property and the pending variance application, and includes a preliminary statement of our position regarding these matters. Based on our current understanding of the facts, there are no grounds for code enforcement action with respect to the Property, and no need to acquire a variance to maintain the existing fencing. Background on the Owners and Property The Owners purchased the Property in August 2013 with plans to build a new single family home. The City issued a building permit on June 29, 2015, which clearly approved 6’ fencing on the perimeter of the Property, consistent with the fencing that existed at the time of purchase. Construction began in July 2015, and continued to June 2018. The City’s planning department provided the final sign off on June 7, 2018, and then a week later on June 14, 2018, the City’s building department provided the final inspection sign off. Both sign offs occurred after construction of the 6’ fence with a 1’ decorative lattice topper, which were in plain view to the planning and building department at these final sign-offs. Code Enforcement Actions In or about July 2018, a neighbor complained to the City about the height of the 6’ fence and 1’ decorative lattice topper. On July 12, 2018, now-retired Code Enforcement Officer Judy Glaes sent a Notice of Violations to the Owners, alleging five fence code violations. That Notice of Violation correctly recognized Community Lane as a through street, but inaccurately attempted Samuel J. Gutierrez May 8, 2019 Page 2 2786/099999-0084 13705077.1 a05/08/19 to apply the vision triangle requirement, despite the fact that Community Lane is not a street “improved for vehicular traffic.” On July 19, 2018, Ms. Glaes emailed an update, revising the prior notice of violation to claim that the lot is a standard corner lot without a through lot component, and to state that the Community Lane does not constitute a street. Ms. Glaes also referenced inaccurate fence height measurements that do not correctly reflect the fence height from grade. Owners communicated with Mr. Starmer following the Notice of Violations, and he suggested that although he did not think there was anything wrong with the fencing, Owners could request a variance with respect to the 1’ decorative lattice topper, as the fastest way to get approvals to keep the lattice. Variance Application and PTC Hearing In August 2018, the Owners made a request to the City of Palo Alto for a “variance” seeking to keep their existing 6’ fence plus 1’ decorative lattice topper. It was tentatively denied by letter dated January 15, 2019, and Owners requested a hearing pursuant to PAMC § 18.77.060. On April 10, 2019, City’s Planning and Traffic Commission (“PTC”) denied the variance request on the grounds the Owners’ property is required to have a so-called traffic triangle along Community Lane at Newell Road, pursuant to PAMC § 16.24.040. The PTC recommendation to City Council does not otherwise consider or make a recommendation on the 6’ fence height or 1’ decorative lattice topper at other locations on the Property. We have been informed that City Council is tentatively scheduled to vote on whether or not to adopt the PTC’s decision on June 3, 2019. The denial of the variance and PTC recommendation for denial of the appeal are based on erroneous fence height measurements and incorrect application of PAMC § 16.24.040 to purport to require a vision triangle at Community Lane and Newell. The City’s Code does not define fence to include decorative lattice toppers As was presented at the April 10, 2019 PTC hearing on the subject variance, the decorative lattice topper is a pervasive feature in Palo Alto. In fact, Bud Starmer, who signed off on the final inspection, communicated to the Owners that he did not think there was anything wrong with the fencing as permitted, built, and ultimately approved by him. There is nothing in the PAMC that specifies that a decorative lattice topper is included in the definition of a fence, nor is there anything that specifies that a decorative lattice topper counts towards the applicable fence height restrictions. Staff indicated at the PTC hearing that it considers anything including lights atop a fence to count towards the fence height, but cites to no provision in the code to corroborate that interpretation. Samuel J. Gutierrez May 8, 2019 Page 3 2786/099999-0084 13705077.1 a05/08/19 The City’s actions to date rely upon inaccurate fence height measurements The issue of the incorrect measurement of the fence height came up at the April 10, 2019 PTC hearing, but staff has not yet communicated a resolution on that issue. The measurements relied upon by the City were taken by a now-retired Code Enforcement Officer. We request a meeting at the Property so the City can re-measure and we can reach consensus on the actual fence heights at issue. Community Lane is not a street “improved for vehicular traffic” The staff’s current interpretation of PAMC § 16.24.040 to apply to the Community Lane is inconsistent with the City’s own actions at Community Lane, evidencing that the City has never considered Community Lane at Newell to be a street “improved for vehicular traffic.” First, Section 16.24.040 does not apply because narrow driveways like Community Lane do not meet the definition of a street improved for vehicular traffic as set forth in Section 16.24.040. For the sake of argument, assuming Community Lane qualified as a “street” under PAMC 1.04.050(a)(8) and PAMC 8.04.010(a)(3), it is not “improved for vehicular traffic” as it is a narrow, one-lane 8’ alley that provides pedestrian access to the rear of the tennis courts and provides the few abutting properties with access to their rear entries. Second, the City’s existing fencing along the Community Center tennis courts is more than 6’ tall before the segmented approximately 1’ topper. If the vision triangle applied here, the City’s own fencing would be located within the vision triangle. It is clear that the City has never considered Community Lane to be a “street improved for vehicular traffic” and it would be arbitrary and discriminatory to now force a property owner who relied upon approved building permits and planning and building final sign-offs to remove lawful fencing. Should the City re-characterize Community Lane in the future, Owners’ rights are already vested, and the City would be equitably estopped from enforcing an interpretation against Owners that the City has never adhered to at the same location. The Owners request the City provide to them any archival information about the history and purpose of PAMC § 16.24.040 and the subject Community Lane, including the City’s construction and maintenance of the existing fencing surrounding the Community Center tennis courts that front Community Lane, Newell Road, and Hopkins Avenue. The Fence Height on Community Lane may be 8’ The portion of the Property abutting Community Lane is entitled to an 8’ fence as it abuts public property other than a street. Community Lane is not a street, it is a glorified driveway and pedestrian access route. Samuel J. Gutierrez May 8, 2019 Page 4 2786/099999-0084 13705077.1 a05/08/19 Conclusion By way of this letter, the Owners are requesting that the City Attorney review the PTC’s application of Section 16.24.040 to the subject property, as well as the facts demonstrating estoppel and grandfathering of the existing fence heights at Newell and Community Lane. Both prior to and at the April 10 PTC hearing, the Owners contended Section 16.24.040 does not apply to their property and should not have been considered by the PTC. The Owners are asking for the City Attorney’s review be completed and communicated to the Owners prior to Council’s tentatively scheduled meeting on June 3, 2019. We also request the opportunity to meet with you in person to discuss the fence height measurements and lot characterization as applicable to the Property. Your consideration of this request is much appreciated. Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP Alyssa Roy ABR:mtr January 15, 2019 Xin Zhang 1210 Newell Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Email: xin_zhang@hotmail.com RE: 1210 Newell Road [18PLN-00289]; Variance Dear Xin Zhang: On January 15, 2019, the application referenced above was denied by the Director of Planning and Community Environment pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.77.060. This determination is based on the review of all information contained within the project file and the review of the proposal in comparison to applicable zoning and municipal code requirements. The findings for this denial are set forth in the attachment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Variance to Allow for an Exception from the regulated fence height per Palo Alto Municipal Code. The fence fronting Newell Road and Parkinson Ave has a proposed height of 6'10". The fence fronting the rear of the property has a proposed height of 7'4" and the interior side fence has a proposed height of 6'. Zone District: R-1 (Single-Family). DIRECTOR’S DECISION: Application Denied. This Director’s decision has been denied based on the findings provided on the next page. This decision shall become final fourteen (14) calendar days from the postmark date of this mailing (or on the next business day if it falls on a weekend or holiday) unless a request for a hearing is filed pursuant to PAMC Section 18.77.060. The request for a hearing shall be in writing and submitted to the Planning and Community Environment Department prior to the end of the business day of the fourteenth day. If you have any questions regarding this determination, please do not hesitate to contact me at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org or by calling (650) 329-2225. Sincerely, Samuel Gutierrez Project Planner 1210 Newell RD, 18PLN-00289 Page 2 of 4 VARIANCE FINDINGS Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.030 (c) sets for the findings to approve or deny a variance application. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project denial. This application has been denied based on the following findings: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title does not substantially deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. The project is located on a standard corner lot within the R-1 Zone District. The parcel is 9,555 sf in lot area, and 65 feet by 147 feet, with standard corner lot setbacks. The subject parcel has an access alley (Community Lane) at the rear which runs the length of the block and provides rear yard vehicle access for all properties on this block of Parkinson Avenue. The applicant has requested a variance to allow for an increase in fence height which includes a 6 foot 2-inch fence along the street side yard and rear yard with 1 foot 2-inch lattice above the fence for total fence heights of 7 foot 4-inches. Additionally, the applicant has requested a street facing fence of 5 foot 9 inch with a 1 foot 1-inch lattice located within the street side setback facing Parkinson Avenue, for a total fence height of 6 foot 10-inches. The applicant has requested a variance for increased fence heights beyond what is allowed by the Municipal Code and for their property to be considered a back to back corner lot in consideration to how the subject lot is impacted by traffic, security, and privacy concerns. However, the subject lots conditions are not unique to this property. There is a total of nineteen (19) properties on the subject properties street block along Parkinson Avenue, located within the R-1 Zone District, with rear yard alley access (Community Lane). Additionally, there are eight eighty (88) properties with rear yard alley access similar to the subject site within 2,000 feet (less than a half mile) of the subject property for a total of one hundred and seven (107) properties with similar rear access situations. Of those properties, thirty-one are corner lots and are subject to the same standard fence regulations for corner lots as the subject property. Meaning the that the street side yard (along Newell Road) has a limitation of four (4) feet maximum height for fences facing the street unless said fences are located at least sixteen (16) feet away from a street facing property line. Furthermore, the request to be considered a back to back corner lot is not possible as PAMC 16.24.060 “Fences on corner lots” clearly states that corner lots that are adjacent to each other with rear yards joining, a six foot tall fence is permitted on the street side yard. This lot configuration is not present in on the subject lot. The standard corner lot allows for seven foot tall rear and interior yard fences at a minimum of sixteen feet from the street side and front lot lines, and four foot tall fences along the street side yard and front lot lines within sixteen feet of said property lines, with a six foot high street facing fence beyond sixteen feet at a minimum of sixteen feet from the street side and front lot lines. The applicant states concerns over privacy being one of the motivations for the request for taller fences, however, there is an 1210 Newell RD, 18PLN-00289 Page 3 of 4 option for the applicant to supplement a code compliant fence with hedges or other tall dense fast growing plants. The Palo Alto Municipal Code does not speak to regulations involving the height of vegetation outside of required vision sight triangles and maintaining clearances in the public right of ways. Thus, the privacy issues claimed by the applicant could be potentially addressed by planting dense hedges directly adjacent to a code compliant fence. Plants that are six to eight feet in height, fast growing, and low water usage are readily available and utilized in the development of single-family homes throughout the City in the R-1 district. Furthermore, the applicants statements regarding impacts to their privacy due to lower code compliant fence heights are no greater than other corner lots in the area. The applicant states that high traffic volumes from both automotive and pedestrian traffic, produce noise and pose a security concern and the request for a taller fence would address these issues. However, similar conditions are experienced by all properties in the area, and the applicant does have the option to supplement code compliant fencing with tall dense planting, presenting no hardship or constraints on the subject property. The requests from the applicant does not identify how they are precluded designing and developing the parcel in compliance with local regulations. As stated by the applicant the home on the subject property was recently built and designed to the applicant's specifications while developing the parcel in compliance with local regulations. The purpose of the granting of a variance, as outlined in PAMC Section 18.76.030(a) is to provide a way to grant relief when strict application of the zoning regulation would subject development of a site to substantial hardships, constraints, or practical difficulties that do not normally arise on other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district. As noted above, the subject property has similar constraints conditions to many other properties within the immediate vicinity and within the same zone district. Therefore, the fact that the lot is standard corner lot with rear alley access alone does not, in and of itself, constitute a hardship, constraint, or practical difficulty that does not normally arise on other properties within the immediate vicinity and within the same zone district and does not substantially deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties within the immediate vicinity and in the same zoning district. For the reasons outlined above, the request finding described in PAMC Section 18.76.030(c)(1) for approval of the variance cannot be made for the proposed project. 2. The granting of the application affects substantial compliance with the regulations or constitutes a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. As noted above, all other properties within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district that are corner lots are all similarly restricted by the regulations for fences in regards to maximum height, location, and sight triangle requirements. Therefore, the granting of a variance for the subject property would constitute a grant of special privileges that would be inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. Further, the applicant is requesting approval for taller fences required the inclusion of a vision sight triangle for the corner of the subject property at the intersection of Community 1210 Newell RD, 18PLN-00289 Page 4 of 4 Lane and Newell Road. The vision triangle described in PAMC 16.24.090 would reduce the fence height and prohibit any vegetation from growing beyond three (3) feet tall. The submitted application does not account for this requirement. Furthermore, PAMC 16.24.090 “Variances” specifically states that no variance may be granted to the requirements contained in sections 16.24.040 “Fences at intersections”. The extent of the requested variance affects substantial compliance with the regulations. For the reasons outlined above, the request finding described in PAMC Section 18.76.030(c)(2) for approval of the variance cannot be made for the proposed project. 3. The granting of the application will be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The requested variance as submitted for the increased fence heights at the rear and street side yard as discussed in the section above does not account for the required vision triangle where the rear property line meets the street side property line. The vision triangle is required to allow a clear line of sight for pedestrians, cyclists, and automobiles where Community Lane intersection with Newell Road. Without the vision triangle, the conditions would increase the protentional for a collision to occur when a vehicle is existing Community Lane at Newell Road. The submitted application does not account for this requirement, as such the requested variance for additional height would be detrimental or injurious to public safety. In accordance with the PAMC Section 16.24.040 “A fence, wall or structure in the nature of a fence located at the intersection of any street improved for vehicular traffic, shall not exceed three feet in height above the adjacent curb grade, within a triangular area formed by the curblines, and their projection, and a line connecting them at points thirty-five feet from the intersection of the projected curblines”, which requires the described vision triangle. Therefore, the requisite finding described in PAMC Section 18.76.030(c)(4) for approval of the variance cannot be made for the proposed project. From:Glaes, Judy To:Glaes, Judy Subject:1210 Newell Rd - 6/25/18 violation photos Date:Wednesday, July 11, 2018 12:50:59 PM 1 Gutierrez, Samuel From:anne dazey <annekdazey@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 4:41 PM To:Gutierrez, Samuel Subject:18pln-00289 Thank you for the postcard indicating that the decision on the fence at 1210 Newell Road has a possibility of being denied. Aside from the fact that there is a city ordinance on the height of fences, it doesn't bode well for the city to start exceptions, as they tend to snowball. I personally feel that the fence as it is now is the only unattractive mark on a street that has such a welcoming feel to it. There are other ways to block passerbys from looking into your home, and there are examples all over Palo Alto. Of course I also object to all the 8 ‐ 12' high shrubs that people grow to circumvent the restriction on fence heights, but that is something for the city to decide what to do about. Thank you again for the tentative denial. As a neighbor that doesn't live that far away, I look forward to a more 'neighbor friendly' look to the property. (am also wondering about the bricked area next to Newell on the property that looks to be a second driveway....) anne 1 Gutierrez, Samuel From:Allen Podell <alpodell@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 18, 2019 4:57 PM To:Gutierrez, Samuel Subject:Fence variance on Newell Road We are strongly opposed to such a high fence because 1-It gives an unfriendly, closed in impression as one walks or drives down the street. 2-It reduces visibility around the corner I cannot imagine the impact on our city if a large number of people erect high fences. Please don't allow this. Sincerely, Allen Podell Janet Podell 1351 Harker Avenue From:John Cala To:Gutierrez, Samuel Subject:Objection to Proposed Development Project, File 18PLN-00289 Date:Friday, October 5, 2018 3:47:36 PM Samuel, I am writing to you again to stress my objection to the requested variance made by the current owner or the newly constructed fences. I can see from the city's website that the you have replied to the initial application with a request for more information. While I can appreciate that the process needs to proceed in its prescribed manner, I find it disappointing that these fences which were found to be in violation of the city's regulations several months ago remain intact. As a 20 year resident of this neighborhood, I cannot believe that there could possibly be a reasonable or objective consideration that would warrant an exception from regulations that have been followed by every other house in the immediate vicinity. It really feels that the variance request is being exploited to allow the owner to avoid taking action on something that should have been remedied long ago. As a separate note, the plants that obstruct the view of Newell for cars that exit from Community Lane have continued to grow unattended, further obstructing the views. It is an incredibly unsafe situation on a street with heavy bike traffic to Walter Hays and Greene schools. As we discussed, the property owner has never shown even the slightest inclination to maintain the shrubbery on the property unless specifically directed to do so by the city. I urge you to review the shrubs as well. Sincerely, John Cala ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: John Cala <johnjcala@yahoo.com> To: samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org <samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Susan Cala <calafampa@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018, 1:42:40 PM PDT Subject: Objection to Proposed Development Project Samuel, As we discussed, this email is to document my objection to the application for a variance to allow for an exemption from the regulated fence heights that are being requested for 1210 Newell Road. The file number on this request is 18PLN-00289. The fences exceed, by a substantial margin, the allowable fence height limits under the existing regulations. Allowing higher fences would create a "fortress" that is completely inconsistent with the existing neighborhood. As far as I can tell, none of the other homes within a several block radius have fences that are closed to the heights being proposed. Perhaps if there was an aesthetic quality to the fences I might be less strenuous in my objection but the fences that have been constructed are standard redwood fencing that is not particularly attractive and oddly inconsistent with the style of the very nice, new home that has been built on the property. My objection also includes the massive iron gate that has been installed in front of the driveway which is, at its peak, several inches higher than the requested exemption and well above the allowable limits under the current regulations. The regulations on these fences are not new and were available to the owner and contractor prior to building the fences and installing the oversized iron gate. In my view there is no reasonable basis for approving this variance request and I urge you to reject it and direct the homeowner to take the necessary actions to bring the fence and gate into compliance with the prevailing regulations. John Cala 1420 Parkinson Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 (415) 602-2473 1 Gutierrez, Samuel From:Heidi's Gmail <heidisue.phillips@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, September 8, 2018 3:16 PM To:Gutierrez, Samuel Subject:1210 Newell Rd 18PLN-00289 Hi Samuel My husband and I are owners of 1511 Walnut drive and have just received notice of the proposed project at 1210 Newell rd. We would like to register our concern about the proposed height of the fencing bordering Newell Ave. Its our strong feeling that the fencing bordering Newell and Parkinson should be subject to guidelines that are consistent with those of the neighborhood. This section of Newell is used by many pedestrians accessing the library, the community garden, and Rinconada park. We frequently walk down Parkinson Ave to access downtown and have always loved the character of this street. Allowing a 6 foot tall fence along either Newell Rd or Parkinson Ave would have a negative impact on the sense of community in a spot that is at the heart of the community center neighborhood. We urge you not to grant an exemption from the regulated fence height for the portions of the fencing bordering Newell or Parkinson Thank you for your consideration of our concern. Sincerely, Heidi and Joe Phillips Sent from my iPhone 1 Gutierrez, Samuel From:Sidney Buttrill <bud.buttrill@mindspring.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 5, 2018 9:50 PM To:Gutierrez, Samuel Cc:bud.buttrill@mindspring.com Subject:18PLN-00289 1210 Newell Rd. Mr. Gutierrez, I would like to oppose the construction of a 6’‐10” fence along Parkinson Ave. and Newell Road at the intersection of these two busy streets. The Palo Alto Fence Code limits the height of fences at the intersection of two streets to a maximum height of 3’‐0”. This is a matter of pedestrian and traffic safety. It would be impossible to see vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians around a 6’‐10” fence without driving out into the intersection. This would be especially hazardous for school children on bicycles who use the Newell Road bicycle paths on their way to and from Walter Hayes Elementary School and Greene Middle School. In addition to traffic safety concerns, an outsize fence would be unsightly and out of place in this residential neighborhood. I would not oppose the rear alley fence height of 7’‐4” provided it tapered down to the maximum 4’ height at the setback line. The interior side fence proposed to be 6’ in height should also taper down to 4’ at the lot line to be consistent with the other fences along Parkinson Avenue. Respectfully, Bud Buttrill 1417 Parkinson Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: (650)-321-8338 Cell: (650)380-5382 FAX: (650)327-8062 1 Gutierrez, Samuel From:Caitie Field <caitlinfield@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 5, 2018 10:28 AM To:Gutierrez, Samuel Subject:1210 Newell Road Dear Mr. Gutierrez, I am writing in favor of the variance to allow for an exception from the regulated fence height for 1210 Newell Road. The fence is esthetically pleasing, suits the neighborhood, is similar in height to most fences in and around the neighborhood and I feel the heigh is necessary for privacy and safety for the family. The family living at 1210 Newell Road as well as the family across the street have both had intruders in their back yard and well as entering their front door while the home was occupied. Newell is a busy street and the alley behind 1210 Newell is well travelled. I have spoken with other neighbors that agree the fence is fine as is and needed for safety and privacy. Best, Caitlin Field 1435 Parkinson Ave 1 Gutierrez, Samuel From:Bret E. Field <field@bozpat.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 9:03 PM To:ProjectPlans Subject:1210 Newell, Palo Alto CA 94301 Dear Planning Department: I am writing today to voice my strong support for our neighbor's fence at 1210 Newell Road. I live at 1435 Parkinson directly across the street from 1210 Newell Road. I find the fence to be nicely done and that it fits well with the overall look of the house. In no way do I find the fence to be a nuisance, intrusive or visually out of place. In addition, I think it is important for our neighbors to have the fence in its current form, as it serves an essential purpose as a privacy barrier from the road/library across the street. Furthermore, the fence in its current form will also serve an important security function for our neighbors. In closing I’d like to emphasize that I strongly support our neighbor’s desire to maintain the fence in its current form. Sincerely, Bret Field 1435 Parkinson Avenue Palo Alto CA 94301 Confidentiality Notice: This e‐mail transmission may contain confidential or legally privileged information that is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(ies) named in the e‐mail address. If you are not the intended recipient, or if this e‐mail has been mistakenly directed to you, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this e‐mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e‐mail transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender at 1‐650‐327‐3400, so that Bozicevic, Field and Francis LLP can arrange for proper delivery, and then please delete the message from your system. Thank you. 1 Gutierrez, Samuel From:Caitie Field <caitlinfield@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 11:48 AM To:ProjectPlans Subject:A note in favor of of fence 1210 Newell Road To whom it may concern, I am writing in support of the fence surrounding the new home construction at 1210 Newell Rd. I live across the street from the home and the fence causes no nuisance to me in the slightest. I often drive through the alley behind the home and the visibility is not an issue and provides much needed security and privacy for the occupants. There are often people passing through the alley as well as across the street at the Rinconada Library. The fence is not obtrusive or out of place visually. It fits in perfectly with the neighborhood and is of similar height to what was previously there. My other concern is the neighbor that complained about this fence has repeatedly made this project difficult for this family, threatening to call police for parking in front of their home (legally), cutting down their hedges without permission and blocking construction trucks by parking them in on both sides on purpose. All while remodeling their own home without city permits. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Caitlin Field 1435 Parkinson Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-740-7707 ATTACHMENT K Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Council members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll to find “1210 Newell Road” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the Project Plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4552&TargetID=319 City of Palo Alto (ID # 10355) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/3/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Climate/Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Summary Title: Accept Sustainability Work Plan Title: Policy and Services Committee Recommends the Council Accept the 2019-2020 Sustainability Work Plan From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommended Motion Staff and Policy and Services Committee recommend that City Council accept the attached 2019-2020 Sustainability Work Plan which implements one of the Council’s four key Priorities for 2019. Executive Summary Consistent with the Council’s adoption of “Climate/Sustainability and Climate Action Plan” as one of the top four Priorities for CY 2019, staff prepared a high–level Sustainability Work Plan to guide the City through CY 2019 and 2020. The key components of the Work Plan are largely taken from the 2018 –2020 Sustainability Implementation Plan, which was accepted by Council late in 2017. The first section of the Work Plan is divided into seven program areas: Energy, Mobility, Electric Vehicles, Water, Sea Level Rise & Climate Adaptation, Natural Environment, and Zero Waste. These seven areas all support the City’s over-arching goal of an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. In addition to this goal, traffic reduction; economic vitality; equity; water conservation and reuse; sea level rise adaptation; ecosystem protection; enhancing the urban forest and canopy cover; and waste reduction goals are also supported by these seven areas. Example key components of the 2019 Work Plan are: launching an induction cooktop campaign to begin electrification of cooking; initiating “Mobility on Demand” pilot software to assist City staff with reducing single occupancy vehicle commuting; completing the City’s first Green Storm Water Infrastructure Plan; completing the City’s Sea Level Rise Policy; developing a carbon sequestration tree planting project; adopting a “Deconstruction” Ordinance to reduce waste; and eliminating the gas incineration of the community’s sewage sludge. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Background In April 2001, Palo Alto City Council adopted a Sustainability Policy1 reflecting the City’s intention to be a sustainable community -one which meets its current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Since then, the City has undertaken a wide range of initiatives to improve the sustainability performance of both government operations and the community at large, including: in 2007 adopting one of the first municipal Climate Action Plans2 in the US; in April 2016 adopting an ambitious goal of reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHGs) emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 20303 -20 years ahead of the State of California 80 x 50 target;in November 2016 adopting the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) Framework4, which has served as the road map for achieving Palo Alto’s sustainability goals; as of July 1, 2017, providing 100 percent carbon neutral natural gas — making the City of Palo Alto Utilities the first utility in the world to provide carbon neutral electricity and natural gas as a standard to all customers —having provided 100 percent carbon neutral electricity since 2013; in November 2017 adopting the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which includes 10 sustainability goals and over 50 sustainability-related actions outlined in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Implementation Plan; and, in December 2017 accepting the 2018-2020 Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP)“Key Actions” as a summary of the City’s work program5. Discussion Although the 2018-2020 Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP) provides key actions through the end of 2020, staff believes Council will be well served by a summary of the specific projects related to those actions. Staff prepared the attached Sustainability Work Plan (Attachment A) for Council review. The Work Plan highlights the most important projects related to the SIP, and includes other key sustainability items, such as the 2020 S/CAP Update workplan, sustainability items that will be coming to Council, and global milestones of note that may influence the work. One important initiative that touches on multiple SIP areas is the development of City of Palo Alto “reach codes.” These codes are more stringent code requirements than State of California requirements and are intended for incorporation into the building code updates that will become effective on January 1, 2020.Staff report #10208 (Attachment B) provides an update on the City’s partnerships with local stakeholders and statewide and regional coalitions to evaluate potential reach code requirements, with a focus on building electrification. The Policy and Services Committee, at the April 3 meeting, voted to recommend the City Council: A.Accept the Work Plan for the 2018-2020 Sustainability Implementation Plan; 1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/7856 2 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/9946 3 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3534&TargetID=268 4 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/60858 5 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63141 City of Palo Alto Page 3 B.Direct Staff to explore the Cambridge, MA model of requiring protected bike lanes when significant roadwork is undertaken; and C.Direct Staff to explore including all vehicle types in “Electric Vehicle” programs, striking a better balance between cars and other vehicle types. Staff amended the Work Plan by adding the following key actions to Mobility: include the bikeshare and E-Scooter Pilot,and explore the feasibility of protected bike lanes; and the following key action to Electric Vehicles: add Zero Emission Motorcycle incentives and charging information on EV webpage. Resource Impact Appropriate resources are already in place or being considered through the FY 2020 budget process to implement the actions described in the Work Plan. Highlighting and tracking key components of the SIP will not require significant additional resources. Environmental Review Highlighting and tracking key components of the SIP does not constitute a project under CEQA. Attachments: ·Attachment A -2019-2020 Sustainability Workplan ·Attachment B -Green Building Program Update 2019 - 2020 Sustainability Workplan Last Updated 4/29/19 Jan/Feb Mar/Apr May/June July/Aug Sep/Oct Nov/Dec Jan/Feb Mar/Apr May/June July/Aug Sep/Oct Nov/Dec Energy Mobility Electric Vehicles Water Sea Level Rise Public Review of SLR Policy (Feb) Complete SLR Policy (Mar) Bring SLR Adaptation Plan to Council Natural Environment Consultant Selection:Prep CMR CMR to Council Prepare RFP Select Vendor Contract Public Meeting for SLR Policy (Feb 27) Council Mtg: SIP Update (Apr) Council Mtgs: 2020 S/CAP Input; Adopt SLR Plan (both by Dec) COP 26 - Submit climate pledges Consultant Work: 1. GHG Emissions and Sustainability Benefits, 2. Transportation Data, 3. CEQA Review Advisory Committee, SLT, SIP Teams, and ELT Review Jan Cleantech Forum, SF Review Existing Key Actions + USDN GHG Reduction High Impact Practices + CNCA Game Changers + 2030 Comp Plan Public Input, ELT Review Final List of Action Items Council Meetings: Mar 18 - SLR Policy, Connecting Palo Alto Grade Separation Recommendations; Apr 15 - SIP Update; May 13 - Green Stormwater Infrastructure; May 20 - Watershed Protection Ordinance updates, Integrated Regional Water Management Plan; June 10 - Ordinance Amending Title 5 of Municipal Code (Construction Site Deconstruction & Salvage, Food Ware & Plastics); Sept 16 - Stormwater Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer Ordinance, Waste Haulers Ordinance, Groundwater Ordinance Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting: Mar 26 - SLR Presentation Policy and Services Committee: Apr 3 - Sustainability MEETINGS AND MILESTONES Zero Waste Garbage Processing Solicitation for services after 2021 (to improve diversion) Adopt local energy reach code and green building ordinance to support low emissions building design Launch new energy efficiency programs, residential electrification assessment, and induction cooktop campaign; expand electric heat pump water heater (HPWH) marketing campaign; eliminate gas incineration of the community's sewage sludge (June) May International Conference on Climate Action, Heidelberg, Germany Nov COP 25, Chile Sep UN Climate Summit, NYC Review Ideas, Generate New Ones Advisory Committee, Sustainability Leadership Team (SLT), and SIP Teams Review Complete the Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan (July 1), CEQA for Salinity Removal Facility (Sept) Complete Construction / Deconstruction Ordinance and Food Ware Ordinance (May) Expand GreenWaste Contract to include new zero waste programs (Feb) New Draft List of Ideas; Begin work on incorporating sustainability in CIP process and staff reports CA - Reduce: GHGs to 1990 Levels, carbon intensity of transportation fuels by 10%, urban water demand by 20%, landfill use by 75%; Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) 33%; all new residential construction will be zero net energy (ZNE) Initiate FTA-funded Mobility on Demand Pilot, extend Bikeshare & E- Scooter Pilot Program (March) 20 1 8 - 2 0 2 0 S I P a n d S / C A P I M P L E M E N T A T I O N 2020 S/CAP UPDATE (Sustainability and Climate Action Plan) PREPARATION Continue to fund the Palo Alto TMA (Transportation Management Association ), begin Phase 3 of the Charleston- Arastradero Corridor Project, begin preparation of environmental documents for the preferred rail grade separation alternative Continue to explore ways to diversify the charging network, explore Distributed Energy Resources (DER) adoption and pilot programs for EVs and battery storage, explore EV Pilots in City fleet, expand EV procurement in City fleet to light trucks, develop educational events Complete the Water Integrated Resources Plan (WIRP), explore potential ordinances and programs to expand onsite water reuse systems, implement the Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan Conduct SLR Vulnerability Assessment. Explore development of a SLR Task Force Develop Draft SLR Adaptation Plan (pending budget approval) Implement the 2019 Urban Forest Master Plan Begin to enforce Phase 1 of Construction / Deconstruction Ordinance (July 1) Begin to enforce Single-Use Food Ware and Reduction Ordinance Complete Phase 1 and 2 of the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project, explore the feasibility of protected bike lanes 2019 2020 Plan for EV charging on the distribution system in residential neighborhoods, expand rebate program, diversify the EV charging network, conduct expanded educational events, add Zero Emission Motorcycle incentives and charging information on EV webpage Complete Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan (May) Update Urban Forest Master Plan (Feb)Develop a Carbon Offset Project for South Palo Alto Explore a Zero Emissions Building Roadmap, promote all-electric new construction projects, complete Multifamily Gas Furnace Heat Pump pilot, collaborate with other local governments and CCAs (Community Choice Aggregation) to drive market transformation of HPWH City of Palo Alto (ID # 10208) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 4/1/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Climate/Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Summary Title: Green Building Program Update Title: Green Building Program Update From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Executive Summary This memo provides an interim update on the City of Palo Alto’s recent efforts related to its Green Building Program. The City’s Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP) commits to exploring green building, energy efficiency, and electrification policy options that go beyond code minimum in the next update to our building codes. The next applicable code update cycles will be the adoption of the 2019 California Code of Regulations, Title 24, that incorporates the 2019 California Green Building Code and 2019 California Energy Code. Once adopted, these regulations will be enforceable starting on January 1st, 2020. Staff will return to Council in the latter half of 2019 with proposed regulations to provide increased standards to these codes. In the interim, this memo summarizes the City’s work over the last year in support of this effort and summaries recent progress in related ongoing programs to support green building in Palo Alto. Background Every three years, the State of California adopts new building standards that are codified in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, referred to as the California Building Standards Code. Since 2008, Palo Alto has a history of developing requirements that are more stringent than the baseline State requirements in the California Green Building and Energy Codes; we refer to our more stringent requirements as “reach codes” because they reach beyond the state standards. Energy efficiency requirements reside in chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which adopts and modifies the current version of the California Energy Code. Water efficiency, electric vehicle charging, material conservation, resource efficiency, and indoor air quality requirements reside in chapter 16.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code which adopts and modifies the current version of the California Green Building Code. Attachment B City of Palo Alto Page 2 These local energy and green building regulations are intended to create a new generation of efficient, environmentally responsible, and healthy buildings. The current energy requirements in the Palo Alto Municipal Code include specific cost-effective compliance options that are triggered on permit applications for the following project types: 1) new single-family residential, 2) new multi-family residential, and 3) new commercial construction. More detailed information about the City’s Energy Reach Code Ordinance may be found in the staff report for the last update to this portion of the code from May 2, 2016 (ID #6796), when the Council voted 9-0 to adopt and amend the code as recommended. Discussion This staff report will summarize staff progress in three areas: • Green Building Summit and Green Building Technical Advisory Group: Community engagement and policy development efforts to inform our green building and energy code updates; • Statewide and Regional efforts: the City of Palo Alto has partnered with other jurisdictions to strengthen broader coalitions to promote sustainability gains in the green building arena; and • Ongoing Green Building Compliance and Incentive Programs: the City of Palo Alto continues to provide exceptional customer service support and financial incentives to strengthen the impact of the City’s green building priorities. Green Building Summit and Green Building Technical Advisory Group Several years ago, City staff convened a multi-disciplinary stakeholder committee, the Green Building Advisory Group (GBAG), to gain knowledge and suggestions for consideration into municipal code changes. GBAG is comprised of architects, engineers, energy modelers, developers, and contractors, and has met regularly since 2013 to help staff develop new recommendations for local green building and energy policies. On February 22, 2018, the City of Palo Alto hosted the “Green Building Summit” at Mitchell Park Community Center. The summit included the GBAG members and a panel of several distinguished guest experts, including Commissioner Andrew McAllister of the California Energy Commission, and Jason McLennan, the creator of the Living Building Challenge and an internationally-recognized leader in green building and sustainability. More than 50 community members joined with City staff from multiple departments to explore ways to address local priorities in the upcoming 2019 California Code of Regulations, Tile 24 update around energy efficiency, water efficiency, electrification, emissions, indoor air quality, and construction waste and debris management. Following the Green Building Summit, the Green Building Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), a sub-committee of the Green Building Advisory Group (GBAG), was convened for a vetting effort to explore building electrification and energy efficiency measures along with other green City of Palo Alto Page 3 building subject areas, as directed by the Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP). The TAC convened for ten community meetings between May and December of 2018 to review and discuss possible changes to the municipal code. The first four meetings were related to energy efficiency, emissions, and electrification, including one meeting dedicated to the topic of electric vehicles. Another three meetings were related to indoor air quality, material conservation and resource efficiency, construction waste and debris management, and water efficiency. There were also three final meetings to summarize the suggestions for future green building and energy reach policies. All agendas and meetings minutes are posted on the city’s Green Building Advisory Group webpage. As part of the 2018 TAC effort, the City of Palo Alto sponsored the preparation of an Energy Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Analysis that examined possible energy efficiency measures, including building electrification, for buildings within Palo Alto. In order to codify local energy efficiency requirements, the California Energy Commission requires that a cost-effectiveness study be conducted and filed in the case of a local amendment to the California Energy Code. It is required that the City demonstrate to the California Energy Commission, using a cost- effectiveness study, that the amendments to the code are financially responsible to the commercial and residential applicants. The study analyzes building design strategies that are more stringent than the upcoming 2019 California Energy Code, which goes into effect starting January 1st, 2020. When the TAC reviewed the findings of the City-sponsored study in late 2018, some members of the group expressed concerns that the findings may have been limited by the specificity of the original scope of the study. At about this time, staff learned of a newly forming statewide effort to conduct a more comprehensive cost-effectiveness study. City staff therefore decided to postpone the development of recommendations to the City Council pending the outcome of the statewide study projected to be released on June 30th, 2019. Statewide and Regional Efforts Palo Alto has joined a consortium of approximately thirty-five jurisdictions from throughout California to perform the statewide research project on building electrification. The results of the Palo Alto study were released during the beginning of the statewide study and helped the policy researchers by informing the direction of the statewide study. Participation in the statewide effort will help participating jurisdictions in the development of local Energy code changes. This will allow for new regulations to be based on the most robust statewide body of knowledge. While preliminary data is beginning to emerge from the statewide effort, the final report is anticipated at the end of June. Palo Alto staff will reconvene stakeholders to gather additional policy input once the final report has been analyzed, with the goal of bringing policy recommendations to the City Council in the second half of calendar year 2019. In addition to the statewide cost-effectiveness study, Palo Alto is partnering with the Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN), a collaboration of local governments from nine counties in City of Palo Alto Page 4 the Bay Area, to implement a regional market transformation program for heat-pump water heaters. Heat-pump water heaters (HPWH) are a focus of attention because they are far more energy efficient that gas-fueled water heaters. Heat pump systems also eliminate GHG emissions associated with gas-fired space heaters while improving air quality within the dwelling units. The BayREN program has been awarded grant funding from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and will provide contractor training, consumer education, and a HPWH incentive to distributors throughout the Bay Area. The regional program approach seeks to catalyze market transformation and address the persistent barriers that are less effectively addressed on a local scale. This program is expected to launch in spring of 2019. This is an example of focusing on market readiness, in addition to enforcing regulations, to more effectively promote the adoption of energy saving practices and equipment. Ongoing Green Building Compliance and Incentive Programs Codes are only effective if they are followed. Palo Alto’s Development Services Department has developed a Green Building Program to support compliance with the City’s green building and energy regulations. The program provides applicants with informative resources to streamline compliance with, and support understanding of, Palo Alto’s Green Building ordinances. The City’s Green Building Compliance webpage outlines requirements in the planning entitlement, plan check, inspection and post-occupancy phases for residential and commercial projects. The webpage provides 24/7 access to on-demand video trainings to help residential and non- residential project applicants understand the requirements and submittal process for permit applications. Additional videos have been created to promote Zero Net Energy strategies. In addition to the Green Building Compliance Program operated by the Development Services Department, Palo Alto’s Utilities Department has developed several financial incentive opportunities that support the Green Building Program. A heat-pump water heater pilot program was launched in spring of 2016 to encourage residents to replace their gas water heaters with more efficient heat-pump water heaters (HPWHs). The pilot program website provides information on rebate levels (up to $1,500), qualifying models that meet the minimum efficiency standard required by the California Energy Commission, and installation considerations. In May 2017, the program was expanded to include rebates for new construction projects. The HPWH pilot website was updated with a new look and feel in December 2017. In the past two years, the City has hosted two HPWH workshops with representatives from HPWH manufacturers providing overview of their products for homeowners, contractors and building professionals. As of December 2018, the City has paid rebates for 36 HPWHs, including 13 rebates paid to a new, all electric multi-family building. In July 2018, the Utilities Department was awarded a 2018 Climate Protection Grant in the amount of $296,220 from BAAQMD to implement a Multi-family Gas Furnace to Heat Pump Retrofit pilot program. The pilot will target up to three low-income apartment buildings to replace existing in-unit gas wall furnaces with high efficiency air source heat pumps. This City of Palo Alto Page 5 program will identify the technical and logistical hurdles of retrofitting the gas wall furnaces with heat pump units, and will conclude with a summary of the retrofit cost, energy savings and avoided GHG emissions in a case study. An RFP was issued to implement this pilot program in December 2018 and an implementation vendor was selected in February 2019. The City is also supporting green building through its Electric Vehicle (EV) Charger Rebate Program, launched in January 2017. The program currently offers incentives of up to $18,000 for multi-unit dwellings (MUDs) and up to $30,000 for schools and nonprofit organizations. The scope of the rebates includes financial support to upgrade electrical infrastructure and install EV chargers, also known as Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSEs), for communal use. To date, 28 properties have applied to participate in the EV Charger Rebate Program. To further encourage EV charger installations for existing buildings, the Utilities Department issued an RFP for EV Solutions and Technical Assistance. The contract is currently being finalized and is expected to be executed in April. Resource Impact The Development Services Department’s Green Building Program was funded with a $300,000 non-salary expense appropriation for Fiscal Year 2019. The costs are recovered through development fees. Other City departments’ sustainability allocations are also approved by City Council, through the annual budget process, and are typically cost recovery due the enterprise nature of Utilities, Zero Waste and the Water Quality Control Treatment Plant. City of Palo Alto (ID # 10365) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/3/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Resolution Correcting Wood Pole Wireless Standards Title: Adoption of a Resolution Amending Objective Standards for Wireless Communications Facilities on Wood Utility Poles in the Public Rights of Way to Correct an Administrative Error From: City Manager Lead Department: City Attorney Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A), amending the recently adopted objective standards for Wireless Communications Facilities (WCFs) attached to wood utility poles in the public rights of way to correct an administrative error. Discussion On April 15, 2019, the City Council adopted a resolution establishing objective standards for small cell Wireless Communications Facilities (WCFs) in the public rights of way. (Staff report available at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70193). The standards for the placement of small cell nodes on wood utility poles inadvertently included draft text (Attachment A, Exhibit 2, page 2, item number 22) regarding pole placement that staff did not intend to include in the final standards. This text represents an initial concept to regulate impacts related to second-story windows that staff was unable to fully develop prior to the Council’s April 15 meeting. The requirement is not clearly expressed and its practical implications have not been sufficiently analyzed; as a result, there are significant questions regarding its interpretation as written and there is some risk it would incentivize placement of WCFs in single-story residential neighborhoods. This error was only present in the standards for Wood Utility Poles; it was not included in the standards for Streetlight Poles. The attached resolution simply corrects this administrative error with respect to Wood Utility Poles, while leaving all other regulations unchanged. As directed by the Council at its April 15, 2019 meeting, staff will continue to develop the City’s objective standards for WCFs. In so doing, staff will further explore and evaluate the early concept described above, and will return to Council with fully-vetted and appropriate language on this topic. Attachments: City of Palo Alto Page 2 • Attachment A: 2019-04-18 WCF Standards Clean Up Resolution NOT YET ADOPTED 1 20190422 ay 0160013 Resolution No. ______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Objective Aesthetic, Noise, and Related Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities on Wood Utility Poles The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. a.On April 15, 2019, the City Council adopted a resolution establishing objective aesthetic, noise, and related standards for Wireless Communication Facilities (WCFs) on Streetlight and Wood Utility Poles in the Public Rights-of-Way. b.The adopted standards for WCFs on Wood Utility Poles contain a provision that was included as a result of an administrative error. c.The City Council wishes adopt amended standards for WCFs on Wood Utility Poles to correct this error. SECTION 2. Objective Standards for WCFs on Wood Utility Poles in the Public Rights-of- Way Amended, The City Council hereby adopts the standards in Exhibit 1, attached to and incorporated into this resolution as if fully set forth herein, for Wireless Communication Facilities on Wood Utility Poles in the Public Rights-of-Way. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this resolution or the attached standards is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the resolution and exhibits. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the resolution and exhibits, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 4. Environmental Review. The Council finds that this resolution is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it does not authorize the construction of Wireless Communication Facilities in any locations where such facilities are not already permitted; therefore it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the / / / / / / / / Attachment A NOT YET ADOPTED 2 20190422 ay 0160013 environment. The resolution is further exempt under CEQA Guidelines sections 15301, 15302, 15303 and 15305 because it simply represents part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme governing minor alterations to existing facilities or small structures. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Deputy City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment EXHIBIT 1 1 Wood Utility Poles Standard designs for WCFs located on Wood Utility Poles – An applicant proposing to attach to a wood utility pole in the public right of way shall utilize one of the other designs specified herein. a) Underground design: Radio equipment shall be placed in an underground vault in the pedestrian right of way. The antennae shall be placed in a shroud at the top of a nearby pole. i) Underground vaults shall be the minimum volume necessary to house WCF equipment. Application materials should explain why the proposed dimensions are required. In no event shall vault dimensions exceed 5 feet 8-inches x 8 feet 2-inches x 5 feet 7-inches or 260 cu. ft., excluding space required for ventilation or sump pump equipment. b) Top-mounted design: All equipment shall be enclosed within a shroud at the top of the pole containing both radio and antenna equipment. i) Top-mounted equipment shrouds shall not exceed 5.5 feet from the top of the pole or bayonet attachment, if one is used, and shall taper to meet the pole above the mast arm. The diameter of the antenna and shroud shall not exceed 15” at their widest. c) Minimal sunshield design: Radio equipment shall be enclosed within one or two sunshields not exceeding 8 inches wide nor 0.75 cubic feet in volume each, mounted directly to the side of the pole. To the extent separate antennae are required, antennae shall be placed in a shroud at the top of the pole. d) Existing signage: Radio equipment shall be attached to a pole behind existing signage under the following conditions: i) Radio equipment shall be placed within a shroud that does not exceed the dimensions of the sign in height and width, nor 4 inches in depth, including any required mounting bracket. ii) In no event shall WCF equipment obscure or interfere with the visibility or functioning of the signage. iii) To the extent separate antennae are required, antennae shall be placed in a shroud at the top of the pole. General standards for all WCFs located on Wood Utility Poles WCF equipment and shrouds 1) Antennae shall be the smallest antennae possible to achieve the coverage objective. Antennae shall not exceed 5.5 feet from the top of the pole or bayonet attachment, if one is used. The diameter of the antenna and shroud shall not exceed 15” at their widest. 2) Bayonet attachments and equipment or antennae at the top of the shroud shall be covered by a single integrated shroud and “antenna skirt” that shall meet the pole without any gaps. 3) All conduit shall be mounted flush to the pole. 4) All shrouds and equipment shall be painted to match PWD standards or the existing pole, as applicable. Paint shall be maintained regularly and shrouds shall be repainted if necessary to match changes in pole color over time. 5) All shrouds and equipment shall be designed without gaps between materials or sky visible between component surfaces. 6) Equipment that cannot propagate an adequate signal within the shrouding required by the standard designs shall be attached to the top of the pole or on a cross arm or brace protruding from the pole to the minimum extent necessary to comply with safety EXHIBIT 1 2 standards including GO95. Such cross arm shall be placed as high on the pole as technically feasible. Each instance of such equipment shall not exceed 0.85 cu. ft. nor shall the total volume of such equipment exceed 2.6 cu. ft. per wood utility pole. Height 7) For wood utility poles carrying power lines, replacement poles and pole-top bayonet attachments shall be the minimum height necessary to provide GO-95 mandated clearance between WCF equipment and power lines. 8) For wood utility poles without power lines, any pole top equipment shall not increase the height of the pole by more than six feet. 9) In no event shall the total height of a pole or replacement pole, including all equipment exceed 55 feet. 10) Replacement poles will conform to all standards adopted by CPAU. Landscaping 11) At the direction of the Urban Forestry division, Applicant shall provide street trees and/or smaller amenity trees that interrupt direct views of WCF equipment where Urban Forestry determines appropriate space exists within 35 feet of the pole. 12) Any existing landscaping removed or damaged by installation shall be replaced in kind. Noise 13) Noise shall comply with PAMC Chapter 9.10 and shall be consistent with noise-related Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. a) In residential areas with an average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) at or below 60 decibels (dB), noise generated by WCF equipment shall not cause the Ldn exceed 60dB or to increase by 5.0 dB or more, even if the resulting Ldn would remain below 60 dB. b) In residential areas with an Ldn above 60 dB, noise generated by WCF equipment shall not cause the average to increase by 3.0 decibels (dB) or more. Curb clearances 14) If placed below 16’ above ground level, attachments shall not be placed closer than 18” to the curb, nor shall they extend over the sidewalk (Caltrans Highway Design Manual Section 309). 15) WCF node equipment must be at least 3’ from a curb cut. Miscellaneous 16) Safety signage shall be the smallest size possible to accomplish its purpose. 17) Power disconnects shall be placed on the wood pole or in a vault near the base of the pole. 18) Except as provided in these standards, no equipment cabinets may be placed at grade. 19) If applicable, light mast orientation, height, color temperature and other photometric information shall comply with PWD standards. Pole location 20) Nodes shall utilize existing wood utility pole locations. Any new pole locations are prohibited unless approved through PWD/CPAU pole placement application. 21) Wood utility poles at a designated gateway location or along a scenic corridor shall not utilize a top-mounted design. City of Palo Alto (ID # 10402) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/3/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Climate/Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Summary Title: Adoption of Ordinance to Amend Title 16 (PCBs in Building Materials During Demolitions) Title: SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 (Building Regulations)of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Require Management of PCBs During Building Demolition in Compliance With the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (FIRST READING: May 20, 2019 PASSED 7-0) From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works This ordinance was first heard by the City Council on May 20, 2019, where it passed 7-0 with no changes. It is now before the Council for second reading. Attachments: ·Attachment A: ORD Regulating PCBs to Implement Stormwater MRP Requirement - Amending PAMC Chapter 16.11 to Add (KRV FINAL Edits) 2019050102 1 Not Yet Adopted Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 16.11 of Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Add Regulations for Management of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) During Demolition to Implement Stormwater Management and Pollution Prevention Measures in Compliance With the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. Elevated levels of PCBs have been detected in fish in the San Francisco Bay, making them less safe for consumption. B. Urban stormwater runoff is considered a significant pathway for PCBs into the Bay, and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Board (“Regional Water Board”), through the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) now in effect, has required Bay Area municipalities to address sources of PCBs in stormwater runoff discharged to the Bay from municipal separate storm sewers (referred to as “MS4s” or “storm drain systems”). C. The MRP requires that permittees, including the City of Palo Alto, adopt an effective protocol and implement a program focused on the demolition of buildings likely to contain building materials with relatively high levels of PCBs. Under the MRP, the program must be implemented by July 1, 2019. D. Consistent with the MRP and a screening protocol resulting from a coordinated regional effort to implement this MRP requirement, the regulations established by this Ordinance focus on projects that involve the demolition of an entire building constructed or remodeled between January 1, 1950 and December 31, 1980 (except single-family homes, two- family homes, and wood-framed structures), as projects that are high priority for PCBs- containing building materials based on structure age, use, and construction. SECTION 2. Chapter 16.11 of Title 16 is hereby amended to add a new Section 16.11.060 to read as follows: 16.11.060 Management of PCBs During Building Demolition. (a) Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this Section is to establish regulations related to the management of building materials containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) during building demolition activities in order to reduce the discharge of PCBs into the San Francisco Bay through stormwater runoff. This Section implements the requirements of the Attachment A 2019050102 2 municipal regional stormwater permit (MRP) issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Board applicable to the City. (b) Definitions. For the purposes of this Section, the following terms shall have the following meaning. 1. “Covered project” means a project that involves the demolition of an entire building constructed or remodeled between January 1, 1950 and December 31, 1980, inclusive. A covered project does not include a single-family residence, two-family residence or any wood-framed structure. 2. “PCBs” means polychlorinated biphenyls. 3. “PCB Assessment Applicant Package” means a document package approved by the Director of Public Works and provided by the City that includes an overview of the screening process, applicant instructions, a process flow chart, a screening assessment form, and a protocol for assessing Priority Building Materials before building demolition. 4. “Priority Building Materials” means the following: (i) Caulking (i.e., around windows and doors, at structure/walkway interfaces, in expansion joints); (ii) Thermal or fiberglass insulation (i.e., around HVAC systems, boilers, or heating transfer piping, and inside walls or crawl spaces); (iii) Adhesive/mastic (i.e., below carpet and floor tiles, under roofing materials, under flashing); and (iv) Rubber window gaskets (i.e., used in lieu of caulking to seal around windows in steel-framed buildings). (c) Screening Assessment Requirement. Any person undertaking a project that involves the demolition of an entire building shall submit a complete screening assessment for PCBs in Priority Building Materials with the building demolition permit application. The screening assessment shall be completed in compliance with the PCB Assessment Applicant Package, in a form approved by the Director, and shall provide information documenting the results of the screening, including: 1. Owner and project information, including location, year building was constructed and remodeled (if applicable), description of building construction type and use, and anticipated demolition date. 2019050102 3 2. Determination of whether the project is a covered project. 3. If the project is a covered project, the concentration of PCBs in each Priority Building Material present in the building or buildings proposed for demolition. If PCBs concentrations are determined through representative sampling and analysis, the applicant shall include a contractor’s report documenting the assessment and the analytical laboratory reports. 4. For each Priority Building Material present with a PCBs concentration equal to or greater than 50 ppm, the approximate amount (linear feet or square feet) of that material in the building. 5. Applicant’s certification of the accuracy of the information submitted. (d) Agency Notification, Abatement, and Disposal of Identified PCBs. 1. Applicant shall comply with the requirements set forth in the PCB Assessment Applicant Package including, but not limited to, requirements regarding the notification of other regulatory agencies, as applicable, prior to building demolition. 2. Applicant shall determine if additional agency notification or approvals, or additional sampling for and abatement of PCBs, is required under other applicable law. Applicant shall comply with all Federal and State laws and regulations, including but not limited to health, safety, and environmental laws and regulations, that relate to management and cleanup of any and all PCBs, including but not limited to PCBs in Priority Building Materials, other PCBs-contaminated materials, PCBs- contaminated liquids, and PCBs waste. The requirements of this Section do not replace or supplant the requirements of State or Federal law, including but not limited to the Toxic Substances Control Act, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 761, and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22. (f) Obligation to Notify City of Changes. Applicants shall submit written notifications documenting any changes in the information submitted in compliance with this Section to the Director when changes in project conditions affect the information submitted with the permit application. (e) Recordkeeping. Applicants shall maintain documentation of the results of the Priority Building Materials Screening Assessment for a minimum of five years after submittal to the City. 2019050102 4 (f) Liability. Applicant is responsible for safely and legally complying with the requirements of this Section. Neither the issuance of a permit under the requirements of the Director or Building Department, nor the compliance with the requirements of this Section or with any condition imposed by the City, shall relieve any person from responsibility for damage to persons or property resulting therefrom, or as otherwise imposed by law, nor impose any liability upon the City for damages to persons or property. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 4. The Council finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment. This exemption applies to actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. The Ordinance is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. // // // // // // // // // // 2019050102 5 SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance shall not apply to any project for which a complete building demolition permit application has been submitted as of the effective date of the Ordinance. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Public Works City of Palo Alto (ID # 10403) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/3/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Fiscal Sustainability Summary Title: Gas Statute of Limitations Ordinance Title: SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Set a 120 Day Statute of Limitations for Challenges to the City’s Gas Rates (FIRST READING: May 20, 2019 PASSED 7-0) From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities This ordinance was first heard by the City Council on May 20, 2019 where it passed 7-0 without any changes. It is now before the Council for the second reading. Attachments: • Attachment A: ORDINANCE Gas Rate Challenges Attachment A Not Yet Approved 6055163 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Section 12.20.030 (Statute of Limitations for Challenges to Gas Rates) to Chapter 12.20 (Utility Rules and Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Set a 120-Day Statute of Limitations for Challenges to Gas Rates The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. A statute of limitations for challenges to gas rates and charges aims to balance the interests of the City of Palo Alto (“City”) with the interests of City of Palo Alto Utilities Customers (“Customers”), by allowing Customers to bring challenges to gas rates and charges within a reasonable, but limited, period of time. B. Without a statute of limitations, Customers may argue that they are able to request a refund years after a charge has been collected, making it difficult for the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department to maintain the stable budget necessary to operate effectively, while keeping rates as low as possible. C. By establishing a reasonable period of time beyond which the City will not face exposure to challenges to the validity of gas rates or charges, a statute of limitations minimizes the fiscal uncertainty that results when there is no clearly established closure on such challenges, and provides clear guidance to customers considering a challenge. D. The California State Legislature enacted a similar 120-day statute of limitations for challenges to electric rates or charges in 2000, which is codified in Public Utilities Code Section 10004.5. This rule applies to electric rate challenges in Palo Alto. E. The California State Legislature did not enact a similar statute of limitations for challenges to gas rates or charges, because there are only a few municipal gas utilities in the State. As one of the few municipal gas utilities in the State of California, it is incumbent upon the City of Palo Alto to enact its own statute of limitations for challenges to gas rates or charges, which reflects the same public policy concerns underlying Public Utilities Code Section 10004.5. SECTION 2. Section 12.20.030 (Statute of Limitations for Challenges to Gas Rates) of Chapter 12.20 (Utility Rules and Regulations) is hereby added to read as follows: 12.20.030 Statute of Limitations for Challenges to Gas Rates. Any judicial action or proceeding against the City, to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an ordinance, resolution, or motion fixing or changing a rate or charge for a gas commodity or a gas service furnished by City and adopted on or after June 1, 2019, shall be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of that ordinance, resolution, or motion. Attachment A Not Yet Approved 2 SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance setting a statute of limitations for challenges to gas rates does not meet the definition of a project under Public Resources Code section 21065, therefore California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) review is not required. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ General Manager, Utilities City of Palo Alto (ID # 10377) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/3/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Cubberley Master Plan Update Title: Discussion and Direction Regarding the Cubberley Master Plan Including a Request for Proposal for Development of the Cubberley Business Plan and Level of Housing for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council: 1. Direct staff to proceed with a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a consultant to develop a business plan and proforma for future Cubberley construction and operations 2. Provide direction on the level of housing to include in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Project Description Executive Summary The Cubberley Community Center is located on a 35-acre site in Palo Alto, of which 27 acres are owned by the Palo Alto Unified School District and eight acres are owned by the City of Palo Alto. A community process to co-design a Cubberley Master Plan began in September 2018 with the first of four community co-design meetings. The final meeting in the co-design process was held on May 9, 2019. There has been a total of 724 meeting participants present among the four community meetings. At the May 9 meeting, a series of visual displays were used to share the draft Master Plan with the community. These visual displays were developed from results of the first three community co-design meetings, and study sessions with the City Council, Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Board of Education, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Planning and Transportation Commission. Visuals included topics related to site organization, site circulation, look and feel, phasing, housing and sustainability. Comment cards specific to each topic were used to collect feedback on these elements of the draft Master Plan. City of Palo Alto Page 2 During this agenda item, the City Council will have an opportunity to review some of the same visual boards that were displayed at the May 9 meeting. These can also be viewed at: https://www.pausd.org/sites/default/files/M4%20BOARDS_SMALsm.pdf With the master plan co-design process nearing completion, staff is now planning for the next steps that will be necessary to realize the community’s vision for the site. Staff are preparing a scope of work for a business plan and pro forma that will help inform decisions on funding, policy and operations with considerations for shared occupancy, long-term nonprofit tenants, and hourly rental space. Staff is requesting City Council’s support to proceed with an RFP for this work. CEQA analysis and documentation is required for the master plan and that work will begin in June 2019. The first step in assessing the potential impacts associated with the master plan is to develop a Project Description. Housing on the 8-acres owned by the City has been included in two of the four master plan concepts. Staff is seeking direction from City Council on the level of housing to include in the Project Description for CEQA analysis. Background The Cubberley Community Center is located on a 35-acre site in south Palo Alto that was home to Cubberley High School until 1979. Of the 35 acres, the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) owns 27 acres and the City of Palo Alto owns 8 acres. The City leases PAUSD’s 27 acres and operates the community center on the combined 35-acre site. The lease has since been amended multiple times and the current amendment will expire in December 2019. The lease amendment includes a condition that the City and PAUSD will jointly develop a master plan for the entire site by December 31, 2019. Cubberley currently provides space for City staff, long-term non-profit tenants, and hourly rentals. Cubberley provides an opportunity for organizations to offer programs and services to the community in an affordable space. The collective of these organizations results in a vibrant multi-generational, multi-cultural community center that supports health and wellness, education, and the visual and performing arts. The existing programs and their distribution within the existing site of Cubberley, and the adjacent Greendell School and 525 San Antonio Road properties are included in Attachment A. A Cubberley Citizens Advisory Committee (CCAC) representing a cross-section of Cubberley tenants, city-wide neighborhoods, schools and city-wide representatives, and other relevant organizations, was formed in 2012 to cooperatively explore all practical joint uses of the Cubberley campus for both educational and community service needs. The result of the CCAC process was the recommendation that the site be designed for shared City/School District use and for the City and the School District to work City of Palo Alto Page 3 cooperatively toward a phased development to support both school and community needs. The final report of the CCAC can be found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/33455. On March 9, 2016, the Palo Alto City Manager and PAUSD Superintendent signed a Cubberley Futures Compact to demonstrate the commitment between the City and the School District to collaboratively plan for the future of the 35-acre Cubberley site. City and PAUSD staff began working together on a scope of work and request for proposals for professional services to assist with the master planning effort and community engagement. A professional services agreement with Concordia, LLC was approved by City Council on June 18, 2018 to assist with engaging the community to develop a vision and master plan for the 35-acre site. The City and PAUSD are sharing equally in the cost of the master planning effort. On December 17, 2018 City Council approved the addition of the adjacent PAUSD properties, Greendell School and 525 San Antonio Road, to the project area and scope of the master plan, increasing the project area by 7.7 acres. The PAUSD Board of Education subsequently approved the addition of the two parcels. The June 18 and December 17, 2018 City Council Staff Reports can be found at: https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65435 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=63453.06&BlobID=6 8173 Discussion Summary of Process The Cubberley community co-design process began with two community meetings at the Cubberley Pavilion on September 27, 2018 and November 1, 2018. At these meetings, and with assistance from a team of volunteer community “fellows”, participants engaged in activities that would help define additional or expanded programs to complement the existing uses at Cubberley and allow for a future school at the site. At the first meeting, participants nominated over 200 unique ideas to enhance or improve the existing programs and services at Cubberley. For meeting two, these ideas were organized into common groups and themes and participants were asked to rank them and describe their vision in more detail. The highest ranked ideas included: • Adult education • Theater/performing arts space • Green space • Makerspace/workshop • Senior/multi-generational programs • Health and wellness center • Café • Flexible rental space City of Palo Alto Page 4 • Pool • Performing arts center Participants were generally in favor of sharing space between the community center and future school where possible. The recommendations for shared space include a theater, gymnasiums, arts classrooms and gallery space, a community kitchen, makerspace, and a large flexible event space. Participants also engaged in activities designed to understand the community’s preferences and tolerances toward building height, parking, and amount of green space, using existing zoning limitations as a guide. Participants expressed a tolerance for 2-3 story buildings and preferred underground parking to maximize the site for green space. The third community meeting on January 24, 2019 used a draft massing (building shape, form and size) and program organization model to begin conversations around site circulation, program layout, and aesthetics. The model was developed from the community input received during the first two meetings and was intended to plan and organize the array of recommended educational and community uses that exist and were recommended. The model also provided an opportunity to analyze site circulation and potential phasing. After the first three community meetings, a series of study sessions were held to check in on progress and share input received from the community thus far. A study session was held with City Council on February 11, 2019. Presentations were also made to the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). The PAUSD Board of Education held a study session on February 12. The February 11, 2019 Council Study Session report can be found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68770 The fourth and final community co-design meeting was held on May 9 and presented elements of a draft Master Plan, developed from input received from community, City Council, Board of Education, PRC and PTC. Major changes made between meeting three and meeting four were a result of community feedback and include: • Removed vehicle access into Cubberley from San Antonio • Moved two-story buildings away from neighbors • Reduced parking structure from 35’ to 9’ tall • Move the swimming pool away from neighbors • Design bike paths to be two-way During the February 11 Council study session and the PTC discussion, some feedback was received to include an alternative that showed housing on the City’s eight-acre parcel. Working with Concordia, three additional scenarios with varying levels of housing were developed and all were presented to the community at the May community meeting. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Display boards were shown to the 179 meeting participants and comment cards specific to the board were used to collect comments. There were seven boards displayed, each with a specific focus (Attachment B). The areas of focus include: 1. Summary of process 2. Site organization 3. Site circulation 4. Look and feel 5. Phasing 6. Housing 7. Sustainability Targets and Strategies Because of the large amount of detailed information presented at the community meeting, several of these visual boards will be on display during the City Council meeting and a portion of this agenda item will be dedicated to review of the visuals by Councilmembers. A summary of comments received from the meeting participants will be included in the presentation to City Council. All project information, including meeting presentation and materials, meeting summaries and deliverables are available on the project website: www.pausd.org/cubberleycodesign. Business Plan A scope of work for a business plan and proforma is being developed to obtain a consultant with specific expertise to better understand how the Cubberley Master Plan could be funded, constructed, and operated. This will include considerations for shared facilities built on both City and PAUSD owned property, long-term nonprofit tenants and hourly rentals, and operating needs and costs. A draft scope of work for Consultant Services will be provided At Places at the City Council meeting. Housing At the City Council Study Session on February 11, the draft concept that was presented included 32 units of proposed PAUSD staff housing on the 525 San Antonio Road parcel. To demonstrate how the Cubberley site might accommodate varying levels of housing, additional scenarios were developed to include more staff housing on PAUSD land, and housing on the City’s eight acres. The number of housing units in each scenario is summarized below and shown on Page 6 of Attachment B. Number of units on PAUSD land Number of units on City land Total housing units Housing Option 1 32 0 32 Housing Option 2 64 0 64 Housing Option 3 64 48 112 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Housing Option 4 64 100 164 In addition to the number of units and location within the Cubberley site, several other considerations related to housing must be addressed. The first of these is zoning. The eight-acre parcel owned by the City is currently zoned Public Facility (PF) and adding housing would require a zoning change. A zoning change would also apply if housing was included on PAUSD’S property. Another consideration is the type of housing and to whom it would be made available. Since the Cubberley Master Plan retains and expands programs and services for seniors; providing housing for Palo Alto’s aging population at Cubberley would enhance opportunities for senior health, wellness and education. Offering affordable housing to seniors would help fill an existing need in the community. As the CEQA process begins, staff is requesting direction from Council on the level of housing to include in the CEQA Project Description, which is the basis for the environmental analysis. The Project Description should include the greatest number of housing units that Council may potentially approve in order to analyze all possible environmental impacts. The Project Description is not binding in terms of what Council may approve but allows the environmental analysis to provide full disclosure of environmental impacts. Next Steps June 11, 2019 – PAUSD Board meeting June City/School Committee meeting – Discuss upcoming Joint Study Session Summer 2019 – Consultant begins business plan development Fall – City Council and Board of Education Joint Study Session December 2019 – Staff to recommend City Council adoption of Master Plan and CEQA Resource Impact The costs for the Cubberley Master Plan are funded through the Cubberley Community Center Master Plan Project (CB-16001). Consultant services to develop a business plan is currently unfunded. If City Council directs staff to develop and RFP for consultant services, staff will need to identify a funding source. Environmental Review Preparation of a master plan is considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Request for Proposals for a consultant to complete CEQA analysis was completed and a contract is tentatively scheduled for the June 10, 2019 Council meeting. Attachments: City of Palo Alto Page 7 • Attachment A: Existing Programs at Cubberley • Attachment B: Draft Master Plan Elements Zohar Palo Alto Soccer Club Stanford Soccer Club Education Children’s Preschool Center Good Neighbor Montessori Genius Kids Living Wisdom School BrainVyne Imagination School Ivy Goal Education Make X Acme Education Center Chinese for Christ Hua Kuang Chinese Reading Room Children’s Museum and Zoo Visual & Performing Arts Artist’s Studios California Pops Orchestra Palo Alto Chamber Orchestra Melody’s Music Community Center Services City of Palo Alto - OES &XEEHUOH\&HQWHU2IÀFH Palo Alto Historical Association Palo Alto Humane Society Minority Project California Law Revision Friends of the Palo Alto Library Greendell Young Fives Transitional Kindergarten Special Education Preschool Program Springboard to Kindergarten PreSchool Family PAUSD Adult Education 525 San Antonio Road Genius Kids Athena Academy N 200' 1000' Existing Program Distribution Cubberley Rentable Rooms Pavilion Classrooms Lecture Activity Meeting Room Dance Studios Gym A & B Gym Activity Room Theatre Auditorium Music Room Health & Wellness Avenidas REACH Cardiac Therapy/Heart for Life Art of Living Ranger Taekwondo Silicon Valley Karate Dance Connection Dance Magic Dance Visions Attachment A CO-DESIGN: HOW WE GOT HERE MEETING 1 MEETING 2 MEETING 3 MEETING 4 Maximize green space Preserve fields Use underground and structured parking Tolerance for buildings between 2 and 4 stories Interest in courtyards and occupiable roofs Contemporary/High-Tech Style followed by mid-century modern, mission, and arts and crafts. Mixture of organic and orthogonal landscape Image sizes are proportional to positive response Organic forms More Landscape Warmer palette Orthogonal More Hardscape Cooler palette Preference for open space and native landscaping over abundance of hardscape Neutral/Warm palette in the hardscape Draft plan with most common Meeting 3 participant edits The Shared Village concept was the favorite among Meeting 2 participants. Program Organization and Massing Draft Master Plan Preferred Stylistic Direction Massing Activity Major Takeaways 3 Concept Options Independent Campuses Shared Village Building in a Park PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION BALANCE OF BUILDINGS AND GREEN SPACE BALANCE OF BUILDINGS AND GREEN SPACE BALANCE OF BUILDINGS AND GREEN SPACE BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION THROUGH SITE PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION THROUGH SITE PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION THROUGH SITE LANDSCAPE & GREEN SPACE ORGANIZATION LANDSCAPE & GREEN SPACE ORGANIZATION LANDSCAPE & GREEN SPACE ORGANIZATION 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 ARRIVAL, PARKING, & SAFETY ARRIVAL, PARKING, & SAFETY ARRIVAL, PARKING, & SAFETY Characteristics:Mostly independent campuses with their own court- yards; linear park connects Middlefield Road to the fields; two points of entry and drop-off area along Middlefield, parking under the fields; lowest build- ings (mostly 2 story) and largest building footprint; buildings near the street edge. Characteristics: Shared courtyard areas between community center and school uses; single point of entry/exit with two drop-off loops; all long-term parking in a parking garage; mostly 3 story buildings for compact footprint away from the street edge, for more green space along Middlefield; buildings oriented on E/W axis to maximize energy efficiency and daylighting. Characteristics:Single structure surrounded by green space; single point of entry with one drop-off area; all long-term parking in a central parking garage with green roof, around which buildings wrap and connect; most compact footprint, greatest green space; 4 story building with cascading tiers of balconies; light wells and/or atriums employed to provide daylighting to inner areas. COMMENTS OVERALL RANK(among the three concepts)3 COMMENTS OVERALL RANK(among the three concepts)3 COMMENTS OVERALL RANK(among the three concepts)3 100’ 200’ 300’ 400’ 500’ 600’ 1/8 Mile 100’ 200’ 300’ 400’ 500’ 600’ 1/8 Mile 100’ 200’ 300’ 400’ 500’ 600’ 1/8 Mile N NN Future School Campus Futur e S c h o o l U s e Future School Use Heath & Wellness Center Heath & Wellne s s C e n t e r Heath & Wellness Center Childcare Oth e r C o m m u n i t y Cen t e r P r o g r a m s Auditorium/Large Event Space Sur f a c e P a r k i n g Drop-Off Loop with some Short-Term Parking Drop-Off Loop Drop-Off loop with some Short-Term Park-ing Bike/WalkingPath Drop-Off area Underground Parking beneath fields Theatre Theatre Theatre Auditorium/Large Event Space Arts & Makerspace Arts & Makerspace Arts & Makerspace LargeGym LargeGym Indoor Pool and Gym above Stacked Gyms LargeGym LargeGym Pool Pool Sp o r t s C o u r t s Sp o r t s C o u r t s Parking Garage withSports Courts on Roof Sp o r t s C o u r t s Sports C o u r t s Dog Park Dog Park Dog Park Playground Playground Playground Central Parking Structure with Green Roof Community Gardens Community Gardens Community Gardens Community Center Othe r C o m m u n i t y Cen t e r P r o g r a m s Small Gym Small Gym Sp o r t s C o u r t s Bike/Walking P a t h 1st 1. Discuss what architectural style you’d like to see at Cubberley. 2. Grade the elements of the precedents on a 1-5 scale.3. Rank the four styles shown. 4. Add comments and/or suggest other precedents for how the buildings should look and feel. Let us know about precedents we should look at. Materials Windows and openings Fit in the neighborhood Roof shape 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 OVERALL RANK (among the four precedents)4 COMMENTS/ ADDITIONAL PRECEDENTS Materials Windows and openings Fit in the neighborhood Roof shape 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 OVERALL RANK (among the four precedents)4 COMMENTS/ ADDITIONAL PRECEDENTS Materials Windows and openings Fit in the neighborhood Roof shape 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 OVERALL RANK (among the four precedents)4 COMMENTS/ ADDITIONAL PRECEDENTS Materials Windows and openings Fit in the neighborhood Roof shape 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 OVERALL RANK (among the four precedents)4 COMMENTS/ ADDITIONAL PRECEDENTS Mission Style Red Clay Gable CreamStucco Siding Portico Raised Planting Beds Contemporary/ High-Tech Polished Concrete Flat Roofs Curved Aluminum & glass wall Scored Polished Concrete Siding Arts & Crafts Solar Panel Roof Floor to Ceiling Windows Shaded Exterior Circulation Wood Siding Aluminum Siding Wood Accent Ceiling Wood Accent Ceiling Mid-Century Modern Exaggerated Roof Exaggerated Roof Overhang Gable Gable Solar Panel Roof Gable Exposed Rafter Tails Exposed Rafter Tails Red Clay Gable Roof Arcade CreamStucco Siding Shingle Exterior Brick Accents Look and Feel: Architectural Style Preferences Together your table will work together to create overall design guidelines. 1. Discuss what architectural style you’d like to see at Cubberley. 2. Grade the elements of the precedents on a 1-5 scale.3. Rank the four styles shown. 4. Add comments and/or suggest other precedents for how the buildings should look and feel. Let us know about precedents we should look at. Materials Windows and openings Fit in the neighborhood Roof shape 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 OVERALL RANK(among the four precedents)4 COMMENTS/ ADDITIONAL PRECEDENTS Materials Windows and openings Fit in the neighborhood Roof shape 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 OVERALL RANK(among the four precedents)4 COMMENTS/ ADDITIONAL PRECEDENTS Materials Windows and openings Fit in the neighborhood Roof shape 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 OVERALL RANK(among the four precedents)4 COMMENTS/ ADDITIONAL PRECEDENTS Materials Windows and openings Fit in the neighborhood Roof shape 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 OVERALL RANK(among the four precedents)4 COMMENTS/ ADDITIONAL PRECEDENTS Mission Style Red Clay Gable CreamStucco Siding Portico Raised Planting Beds Contemporary/ High-Tech Polished Concrete Flat Roofs Curved Aluminum & glass wall Scored Polished Concrete Siding Arts & Crafts Solar Panel Roof Floor to Ceiling Windows Shaded Exterior Circulation Wood Siding Aluminum Siding Wood Accent Ceiling Wood Accent Ceiling Mid-Century Modern Exaggerated Roof Exaggerated Roof Overhang Gable Gable Solar Panel Roof Gable Exposed Rafter Tails Exposed Rafter Tails Red Clay Gable Roof Arcade CreamStucco Siding Shingle Exterior Brick Accents Look and Feel: Architectural Style Preferences Together your table will work together to create overall design guidelines. 1. Discuss what architectural style you’d like to see at Cubberley. 2. Grade the elements of the precedents on a 1-5 scale.3. Rank the four styles shown. 4. Add comments and/or suggest other precedents for how the buildings should look and feel. Let us know about precedents we should look at. Materials Windows and openings Fit in the neighborhood Roof shape 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 OVERALL RANK(among the four precedents)4 COMMENTS/ ADDITIONAL PRECEDENTS Materials Windows and openings Fit in the neighborhood Roof shape 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 OVERALL RANK(among the four precedents)4 COMMENTS/ ADDITIONAL PRECEDENTS Materials Windows and openings Fit in the neighborhood Roof shape 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 OVERALL RANK(among the four precedents)4 COMMENTS/ ADDITIONAL PRECEDENTS Materials Windows and openings Fit in the neighborhood Roof shape 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 OVERALL RANK(among the four precedents)4 COMMENTS/ ADDITIONAL PRECEDENTS Mission Style Red Clay Gable CreamStucco Siding Portico Raised Planting Beds Contemporary/ High-Tech Polished Concrete Flat Roofs Curved Aluminum & glass wall Scored Polished Concrete Siding Arts & Crafts Solar Panel Roof Floor to Ceiling Windows Shaded Exterior Circulation Wood SidingAluminum Siding Wood Accent Ceiling Wood Accent Ceiling Mid-Century Modern Exaggerated Roof Exaggerated Roof Overhang Gable Gable Solar Panel Roof Gable Exposed Rafter Tails Exposed Rafter Tails Red Clay Gable Roof Arcade CreamStucco Siding Shingle Exterior Brick Accents Look and Feel: Architectural Style Preferences Together your table will work together to create overall design guidelines. 1. Discuss what architectural style you’d like to see at Cubberley. 2. Grade the elements of the precedents on a 1-5 scale.3. Rank the four styles shown. 4. Add comments and/or suggest other precedents for how the buildings should look and feel. Let us know about precedents we should look at. Materials Windows and openings Fit in the neighborhood Roof shape 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 OVERALL RANK(among the four precedents)4 COMMENTS/ ADDITIONAL PRECEDENTS Materials Windows and openings Fit in the neighborhood Roof shape 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 OVERALL RANK(among the four precedents)4 COMMENTS/ ADDITIONAL PRECEDENTS Materials Windows and openings Fit in the neighborhood Roof shape 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 OVERALL RANK(among the four precedents)4 COMMENTS/ ADDITIONAL PRECEDENTS Materials Windows and openings Fit in the neighborhood Roof shape 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 OVERALL RANK(among the four precedents)4 COMMENTS/ ADDITIONAL PRECEDENTS Mission Style Red Clay Gable CreamStucco Siding Portico Raised Planting Beds Contemporary/ High-Tech Polished Concrete Flat Roofs Curved Aluminum & glass wall Scored Polished Concrete Siding Arts & Crafts Solar Panel Roof Floor to Ceiling Windows Shaded Exterior Circulation Wood SidingAluminum Siding Wood Accent Ceiling Wood Accent Ceiling Mid-Century Modern Exaggerated Roof Exaggerated Roof Overhang Gable Gable Solar Panel Roof Gable Exposed Rafter Tails Exposed Rafter Tails Red Clay Gable Roof Arcade CreamStucco Siding Shingle Exterior Brick Accents Look and Feel: Architectural Style Preferences Together your table will work together to create overall design guidelines. Shapes and Forms Landscape / Hardscape Paving Color Palette Look and Feel: Landscape Style Preferences 1. Discuss and choose where your group’s preferences lie on each of the three style spectrums below.2. Add suggestions for how the landscape should look and feel. Let us know if there are precedents we should look at! Together your table will work together to create overall design guidelines. Organic Native Landscaping Warm Cool Hardscape Orthogonal Shapes and Forms Landscape / Hardscape Paving Color Palette Look and Feel: Landscape Style Preferences 1. Discuss and choose where your group’s preferences lie on each of the three style spectrums below.2. Add suggestions for how the landscape should look and feel. Let us know if there are precedents we should look at! Together your table will work together to create overall design guidelines. Organic Native Landscaping Warm Cool Hardscape Orthogonal Shapes and Forms Landscape / Hardscape Paving Color Palette Look and Feel: Landscape Style Preferences 1. Discuss and choose where your group’s preferences lie on each of the three style spectrums below.2. Add suggestions for how the landscape should look and feel. Let us know if there are precedents we should look at! Together your table will work together to create overall design guidelines. Organic Native Landscaping Warm Cool Hardscape Orthogonal Shapes and Forms Landscape / Hardscape Paving Color Palette Look and Feel: Landscape Style Preferences 1. Discuss and choose where your group’s preferences lie on each of the three style spectrums below.2. Add suggestions for how the landscape should look and feel. Let us know if there are precedents we should look at! Together your table will work together to create overall design guidelines. Organic Native Landscaping Warm Cool Hardscape Orthogonal Shapes and Forms Landscape / Hardscape Paving Color Palette Look and Feel: Landscape Style Preferences 1. Discuss and choose where your group’s preferences lie on each of the three style spectrums below.2. Add suggestions for how the landscape should look and feel. Let us know if there are precedents we should look at! Together your table will work together to create overall design guidelines. Organic Native Landscaping Warm Cool Hardscape Orthogonal Shapes and Forms Landscape / Hardscape Paving Color Palette Look and Feel: Landscape Style Preferences 1. Discuss and choose where your group’s preferences lie on each of the three style spectrums below.2. Add suggestions for how the landscape should look and feel. Let us know if there are precedents we should look at! Together your table will work together to create overall design guidelines. Organic Native Landscaping Warm Cool Hardscape Orthogonal Shapes and Forms Landscape / Hardscape Paving Color Palette Look and Feel: Landscape Style Preferences 1. Discuss and choose where your group’s preferences lie on each of the three style spectrums below.2. Add suggestions for how the landscape should look and feel. Let us know if there are precedents we should look at! Together your table will work together to create overall design guidelines. Organic Native Landscaping Warm Cool Hardscape OrthogonalShapes and Forms Landscape / Hardscape Paving Color Palette Look and Feel: Landscape Style Preferences 1. Discuss and choose where your group’s preferences lie on each of the three style spectrums below.2. Add suggestions for how the landscape should look and feel. Let us know if there are precedents we should look at! Together your table will work together to create overall design guidelines. Organic Native Landscaping Warm Cool Hardscape Orthogonal Shapes and Forms Landscape / Hardscape Paving Color Palette Look and Feel: Landscape Style Preferences 1. Discuss and choose where your group’s preferences lie on each of the three style spectrums below.2. Add suggestions for how the landscape should look and feel. Let us know if there are precedents we should look at! Together your table will work together to create overall design guidelines. Organic Native Landscaping Warm Cool Hardscape Orthogonal Shapes and Forms Landscape / Hardscape Paving Color Palette Look and Feel: Landscape Style Preferences 1. Discuss and choose where your group’s preferences lie on each of the three style spectrums below.2. Add suggestions for how the landscape should look and feel. Let us know if there are precedents we should look at! Together your table will work together to create overall design guidelines. Organic Native Landscaping Warm Cool Hardscape Orthogonal Move the Pool Make all bike paths 2-wayPush 2-story buildings away from neighbors Reduce/reconfigure parking structure Reduce car access from San Antonio Independent Campuses Shared Village Building in a Park PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION BALANCE OF BUILDINGS AND GREEN SPACE BALANCE OF BUILDINGS AND GREEN SPACE BALANCE OF BUILDINGS AND GREEN SPACE BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION THROUGH SITE PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION THROUGH SITE PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION THROUGH SITE LANDSCAPE & GREEN SPACE ORGANIZATION LANDSCAPE & GREEN SPACE ORGANIZATION LANDSCAPE & GREEN SPACE ORGANIZATION 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 ARRIVAL, PARKING, & SAFETY ARRIVAL, PARKING, & SAFETY ARRIVAL, PARKING, & SAFETY Characteristics:Mostly independent campuses with their own court-yards; linear park connects Middlefield Road to the fields; two points of entry and drop-off area along Middlefield, parking under the fields; lowest build-ings (mostly 2 story) and largest building footprint; buildings near the street edge. Characteristics: Shared courtyard areas between community center and school uses; single point of entry/exit with two drop-off loops; all long-term parking in a parking garage; mostly 3 story buildings for compact footprint away from the street edge, for more green space along Middlefield; buildings oriented on E/W axis to maximize energy efficiency and daylighting. Characteristics:Single structure surrounded by green space; single point of entry with one drop-off area; all long-term parking in a central parking garage with green roof, around which buildings wrap and connect; most compact footprint, greatest green space; 4 story building with cascading tiers of balconies; light wells and/or atriums employed to provide daylighting to inner areas. COMMENTS OVERALL RANK(among the three concepts)3 COMMENTS OVERALL RANK(among the three concepts)3 COMMENTS OVERALL RANK(among the three concepts)3 100’ 200’ 300’ 400’ 500’ 600’ 1/8 Mile 100’ 200’ 300’ 400’ 500’ 600’ 1/8 Mile 100’ 200’ 300’ 400’ 500’ 600’ 1/8 Mile N NN Future School Campus Future S c h o o l U s e Future School Use Heath & Wellness Center Heath & Wellne s s C e n t e r Heath & Wellness Center Childcare Other C o m m u n i t y Cen t e r P r o g r a m s Auditorium/Large Event Space Surfa c e P a r k i n g Drop-Off Loop with some Short-Term Parking Drop-Off Loop Drop-Off loop with some Short-Term Park-ing Bike/WalkingPath Drop-Off area Underground Parking beneath fields Theatre Theatre Theatre Auditorium/Large Event Space Arts & Makerspace Arts & Makerspace Arts & Makerspace LargeGym LargeGym Indoor Pool and Gym above Stacked Gyms LargeGym LargeGym Pool Pool Spo r t s C o u r t s Spo r t s C o u r t s Parking Garage withSports Courts on Roof Spo r t s C o u r t s Sport s C o u r t s Dog Park Dog Park Dog Park Playground Playground Playground Central Parking Structure with Green Roof Community Gardens Community Gardens Community Gardens Community Center Othe r C o m m u n i t y Cent e r P r o g r a m s Small Gym Small Gym Spo r t s C o u r t s Bike/Walking Path 3rd Average Community rank of 2.75 out of 3 Building in a Park Shared Village Average community rank of 1.22 out of 3 Independent Campuses Shared Village Building in a Park PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION BALANCE OF BUILDINGS AND GREEN SPACE BALANCE OF BUILDINGS AND GREEN SPACE BALANCE OF BUILDINGS AND GREEN SPACE BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION THROUGH SITE PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION THROUGH SITE PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION THROUGH SITE LANDSCAPE & GREEN SPACE ORGANIZATION LANDSCAPE & GREEN SPACE ORGANIZATION LANDSCAPE & GREEN SPACE ORGANIZATION 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 ARRIVAL, PARKING, & SAFETY ARRIVAL, PARKING, & SAFETY ARRIVAL, PARKING, & SAFETY Characteristics:Mostly independent campuses with their own court-yards; linear park connects Middlefield Road to the fields; two points of entry and drop-off area along Middlefield, parking under the fields; lowest build-ings (mostly 2 story) and largest building footprint; buildings near the street edge. Characteristics: Shared courtyard areas between community center and school uses; single point of entry/exit with two drop-off loops; all long-term parking in a parking garage; mostly 3 story buildings for compact footprint away from the street edge, for more green space along Middlefield; buildings oriented on E/W axis to maximize energy efficiency and daylighting. Characteristics:Single structure surrounded by green space; single point of entry with one drop-off area; all long-term parking in a central parking garage with green roof, around which buildings wrap and connect; most compact footprint, greatest green space; 4 story building with cascading tiers of balconies; light wells and/or atriums employed to provide daylighting to inner areas. COMMENTS OVERALL RANK(among the three concepts)3 COMMENTS OVERALL RANK(among the three concepts)3 COMMENTS OVERALL RANK(among the three concepts)3 100’ 200’ 300’ 400’ 500’ 600’ 1/8 Mile 100’ 200’ 300’ 400’ 500’ 600’ 1/8 Mile 100’ 200’ 300’ 400’ 500’ 600’ 1/8 Mile N NN Future School Campus Future S c h o o l U s e Future School Use Heath & Wellness Center Heath & Wellne s s C e n t e r Heath & Wellness Center Childcare Othe r C o m m u n i t y Cent e r P r o g r a m s Auditorium/Large Event Space Surf a c e P a r k i n g Drop-Off Loop with some Short-Term Parking Drop-Off Loop Drop-Off loop with some Short-Term Park-ing Bike/WalkingPath Drop-Off area Underground Parking beneath fields Theatre Theatre Theatre Auditorium/Large Event Space Arts & Makerspace Arts & Makerspace Arts & Makerspace LargeGym LargeGym Indoor Pool and Gym above Stacked Gyms LargeGym LargeGym Pool Pool Spo r t s C o u r t s Sp o r t s C o u r t s Parking Garage withSports Courts on Roof Spo r t s C o u r t s Sports C o u r t s Dog Park Dog Park Dog Park Playground Playground Playground Central Parking Structure with Green Roof Community Gardens Community Gardens Community Gardens Community Center Othe r C o m m u n i t y Cen t e r P r o g r a m s Small Gym Small Gym Spo r t s C o u r t s Bike/Walking Path 2nd Independent Campuses Average community rank 2.03 out of 3 Shapes and Forms Landscape / Hardscape Paving Color Palette Look and Feel: Landscape Style Preferences 1. Discuss and choose where your group’s preferences lie on each of the three style spectrums below.2. Add suggestions for how the landscape should look and feel. Let us know if there are precedents we should look at! Together your table will work together to create overall design guidelines. Organic Native Landscaping Warm Cool Hardscape Orthogonal Shapes and Forms Landscape / Hardscape Paving Color Palette Look and Feel: Landscape Style Preferences 1. Discuss and choose where your group’s preferences lie on each of the three style spectrums below.2. Add suggestions for how the landscape should look and feel. Let us know if there are precedents we should look at! Together your table will work together to create overall design guidelines. Organic Native Landscaping Warm Cool Hardscape Orthogonal Only bikes and pedestrians have thru access from San Antonio Ave Garage now 9’ tall (was 35’) Other Changes: • Pool moved • Added Pickleball court • All 2-way bike paths 545 co-designers across the three meetings (380 unique participants) Top 90% of program recommendations from Meeting 1 and nearly all Meeting 2 priorities incorporated COMMUNITY-LED DESIGN • High degree of shared-use facilities • Overlapping campuses • More green space • Increased security at preschools • Additional drop-off • More underground parking • Better bike connectivity Outdoor m o v i e s Tutoring Programs Clustered By Similar Uses Program Brainstorm Activity Results Honing the Program Vision Top Ranked Programs Adult Education Theatre/Performance Space Green space Makerspace Sen./Multi-Gen. Space Wellness Center Café Rentable Space Pool Dance Center Cardiac & Stroke Care Walking/Biking Paths Rehearsal Space Courts Expanded Playing Fields CUBBERLEY CO-DESIGN PROGRAM DOCUMENT01.08.19 Prepared by Concordia for the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Unified School District. Program Document 1st 2nd 3rd 4th pausd.org/cubberleycodesign Attachment B pausd.org/cubberleycodesign SITE ORGANIZATION PROGRAM LAYOUT Chart Title Green space Building Footprint Paths and Other Impermeable Surfaces (inc. tennis courts) Parking and Access Roads 35%19% 33%13% Re-Greening Cubberley 57% more green space 55% 15% 22% 8% Green SpaceBuilding FootprintPedestrian/Cyclist pavingRoads and Parking 43% reduction in paving, including roads, parking lots, and walkways Over double the interior area with just a 17% increase in the building footprint Chart Title Green space Building Footprint Paths and Other Impermeable Surfaces (inc. tennis courts) Parking and Access Roads 35%19% 33%13% EXISTING PROPOSED Large Tenant Space 6,000 sq. ft. Tenant Spaces8,250 sq. ft. Hourly Rental Rooms15,500 sq. ft. Friends of Palo Alto Library Storage and Offices5000 sq. ft. Educational Programs15,500 sq. ft. Cubberley Office & Lobby4,700 sq. ft. Office of Emergency Services800 sq. ft. Tenant Space1,000 sq. ft. Meeting Room1,800 sq. ft. Martial Arts3,500 sq. ft. Children’s Preschool11,000 sq. ft. Montessori Preschool6,500 sq. ft. Dance Classes14,000 sq. ft. Friends of the Palo Alto Library10,000 sq. ft. Shared Health Center Uses3,300 sq. ft. Physical Therapy & Health5.500 sq. ft. Heart Health & Fitness10,000 sq. ft. Senior Center8,000 sq. ft. PROGRAM AXONS Community Center Services (1A.1 - 1A.3)Performing Arts Center (1B.2) Theater Seating6,550 sq. ft. Mezzanine Seating4,400 sq. ft. Open to below Lobby/ Cafe Seating4,200 sq. ft. Cafe Kitchen1,200 sq. ft. Woodshop4,200 sq. ft. Upholstery4,000 sq. ft. Makerspace2,000 sq. ft. Loading, Storage, Offices 1,700 sq. ft. Loading Dock & Dumpster Stage/Fly 5,200 sq. ft. Storage/Back Stage1,900 sq. ft. Music and Theater Classes and Rehearsal 12,500 sq. ft. Outdoor Program Quiet Grove Kid’s Courtyard Cubberley Commons Drop-off Circles Promenade Welcome Green and Community Gardens Green Buffer along Middlefield Future School Quad Greendell Courtyard Greendell Field Running Track and Field (Existing) Cubberley Fields (Existing) and Cycle Loop Community Playground and Plaza Exercise Plaza Green Buffer and Cooling Towers Central Plaza Community Pool Tennis and Pickleball Courts 16,500 23,000 12,600 44,000 64,150 13,700 45,000 37,200 5,500 20,000 212,000 385,000 19,200 7,500 22,000 13,000 19,000 93,600 Name Size (sq. ft.)KEY O.1 O.2 O.3 O.4 O.5 O.6 O.7 O.8 O.9 O.10 O.11 O.12 O.13 O.14 O.15 O.16 O.17 O.18 Indoor Program 2 2 2-4 2/3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2/33/4 2/3 Community Center ServicesFloor 1: Health, Wellness, and Senior ProgramsFloor 2: Health, Wellness, and Senior Programs Community Center Services Floor 1: Cubberley Childcare and Preschools Floor 2: Dance and Martial Arts ProgramsCommunity Center ServicesCubberley Admin. and Tenant Spaces Rentable/Flexible SpacesCubberley GymsFloor 1: Gym (option 1 & 2) or Indoor Pool (options 3 & 4)Floor 2: GymFloor 1, 2, 3 Locker rooms and support spaces Visual Arts Floor 1: Gallery, Multi-media lab, art classroomsFloor 2: Artist Studios and Art ClassroomsFloor 3: Artist StudiosFlexible Event Space Large Flexible Event Space Commercial KitchenPAUSD Offices Shared Use Gyms Floor 1: Gym & Accessory spacesFloor 2: GymPerforming Arts CenterTheatre Café Lobby/Cafe Seating/CirculationMakerspace/Woodshop/UpholsteryLoading/StorageMusic, Rehearsal, and Accessory Theatre Spaces Mezzanine Seating Circulation Greendell Greendell School (Fl. 1) Adult School (Fl. 2) Future PAUSD SchoolFuture PAUSD SchoolFuture PAUSD School Future PAUSD School Core Community Center + PAUSD OfficesShared Gyms and Performing Arts CenterPAUSD: Greendell School, Adult School, Staff Housing, Future PAUSD School 26,60013,30013,300 31,800 17,50017,50066,40034,700 34,70031,50013,20013,2005,100 29,400 9,8009,8009,80011,700 10,000 1,70030,000 30,100 18,40011,70050,90011,600 1,500 6,50010,0002,00012,800 4,500 2,000 80,00040,000 40,000 129,90034,60049,900 45,400 227,40081,00080,000 129,900 518,300 33,600 24,00030,00046,500 33,60057,60087,600134,100 2 242 1A.1 1A.2 1A.3 1A.4.1 1A.5 1A.6 1A.7 1B.1 1B.2Floor 1 Floor 2 2A.3 2B2B.12B.2 2B.3 1A1B2A 2B Subtotal before housing 2A.22A.11A.4.21A.1-3 Option 1Option 2Option 3Option 4 PAUSD Staff Housing PAUSD Staff Housing Housing building by gymsHousing over Community Center PAUSD Staff HousingPAUSD Staff Housing Housing building by gyms Housing over Community Center PROGRAM ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE 32 32 4852 3264112164 1, 2, 3, 4 2,3,43, 44 HOUSING BREAK-OUT # unitsOptions levels sq. ft. # STORIESBUILDING/ PHASE ID Existing Amphitheater14,500 sq. ft.Proposed Flexible Green Spaces86,500 sq. ft. 37,200sq. ft.12,600 sq. ft. 13,700 sq. ft.23,000 sq. ft. 500’ N PAUSD Use Shared Use EXISTING PROPOSED O.1 O.14 O.15 O.12 O.11 O.2 O.3 O.13 O.18 O.17 O.5O.16 O.4 O.4 O.6 O.7 O.9 O.10 O.8 1A.1 1A.2 1A.3 1A.4.1 1A.4.2 1A.5 1A.6 1B.2 2B.1 1B.1 1A.7 2A.1 2A.3 2A.2 2B.2 2B.3 O.5 O.16Central Plaza O.1Quiet Grove O.4Drop-Off Circle O.3Cubberley Commons Community Center Use Housing Option 3 shown Floor 2 Floor 2 Floor 1 Floor 1 SITE CIRCULATION 1 minute walk to pool 1/20th of a mile 2 minute walk to pool 1/10th of a mile 3 minute walk to pool 3/20th of a mile 4 minute walk to pool 1/5th of a mile Ne l s o n D r i v e Footpath to Ferne Ave 1.3 miles of two-way bicycle track 1800 bike parking stalls to Charleston Center 1 Sectional Diagram of 1A.4.P parking and bike/pedestrian crossover 25 meter lap pool, 12 lanes SITE CIRCULATION Entering and Exiting Mechanical lift parking systems for residential parking North Drop-off South Drop-off 1 minute walk to pool 1/20th of a mile 2 minute walk to pool 1/10th of a mile 3 minute walk to pool 3/20th of a mile 4 minute walk to pool 1/5th of a mile Ne l s o n D r i v e Footpath to Nelson Drive 1.3 miles of two-way bicycle track 1800 bike parking stalls to Charleston Center 1 Sectional Diagram of 1A.4.P parking and bike/pedestrian crossover 25 meter lap pool, 12 lanes (Lap Pool beyond)1A.4.P 1A.4 beyond Option 3 shown Parking Diagram 667 44 58 115 99* 251 100** 63 63 435 387** 48 99 41 58 1,264 3131144540 161 1,425stalls 1,411 1A 1A.1 1A.2 1A.3 1A.4 1A.4.P 1A.7 1B 1B.1 2A 2A.1 2A.2 2B 2B.2 2B.3 Existing1A.SP11A.SP21A.SP32A.SP TOTAL Parking under buildings to have a 12’ floor to floor height. Stand-alone Parking garages to have a 10’ floor to floor height. STALLS NEEDED BY CODE: PhaseID Est. # Stalls OPTION 3 shown STRUCTURED PARKING SURFACE PARKING STRUCTURED SUBTOTAL SURFACE SUBTOTAL 2 mi n u t e w a l k 3.5 minutes 8 minute walk 4 minu t e w a l k 2 m i n u t e w a l k Mi d d l e f i e l d R d . San A n t o n i o A v e Middlefield bike lane Bike and Scooter share station Bus Stop pausd.org/cubberleycodesign Walking and Biking Cars 6’6’35’14’14’Native Planting and Seating Planting &Bike Parking Walkways 60’ green walking & biking cooridor between buildings and propery edge Note: The farthest thing for future students to walk to is the lap pool, which is only a 2-minute walk from the center of the quad. 10’ two-way bike trackBicycle Parking Pedestrian circulation Bike and pedestrian access points Two points of bike/car intersection. These areas to have signage and paving change to indicate that cars are to stop for crossing pedestrians and cyclists. 10’ two-way bike track 1 1/20th mile | 1 minute walk 500’1000’ N Bike and walking access over the park-ing garage eliminates need to cross car traffic 500’ 1000’N Future possibility: If drone rideshares ever happen, the center of the dropoff roundabouts can be converted into landing zones Two story portion of garage. First level is 6’ below grade. Second level is 6’ above grade. In Options 2-4, only parking stalls directly under housing building to have double-decker lift parking First level under buildings: 6’ below grade, typical of all garages below buildings unless otherwise noted. 1A.SP2: Pre-school short-term parking 1A.SP3 2A.SP On-s t r e e t p a r k i n g San A n t o n i o A v e Mi d d l e f i e l d R o a d Mont r o s e A v e 1A.1 1A.2 1A.31A.4 1A.4.P 2B.2 2B.3 1A.7 2A.1 2A.2 1B.1 Car Parking & Dropoffs Zones DROPOFF ZONES Right turn only MI D D L E F I E L D R D . CLEA RK E E P CLEA RK E E P CLEA RK E E P CLE A RK E E P STOP MI D D L E F I E L D R D . MON T R O S E Provide flagger during peak periods of pick-up/dropoff Option 3 shown 1 3 2 1 3 2 SITE CIRCULATION Entering and Exiting Mechanical lift parking systems for residential parking North Drop-off South Drop-off 1 minute walk to pool 1/20th of a mile 2 minute walk to pool 1/10th of a mile 3 minute walk to pool 3/20th of a mile 4 minute walk to pool 1/5th of a mile Ne l s o n D r i v e Footpath to Nelson Drive 1.3 miles of two-way bicycle track 1800 bike parking stalls to Charleston Center 1 Sectional Diagram of 1A.4.P parking and bike/pedestrian crossover 25 meter lap pool, 12 lanes (Lap Pool beyond)1A.4.P 1A.4 beyond Option 3 shown Parking Diagram 667 44 58 115 99* 251 100** 63 63 435 387** 48 99 41 58 1,264 3131144540 161 1,425stalls 1,411 1A 1A.1 1A.2 1A.3 1A.4 1A.4.P 1A.7 1B 1B.1 2A 2A.1 2A.2 2B 2B.2 2B.3 Existing1A.SP11A.SP21A.SP32A.SP TOTAL Parking under buildings to have a 12’ floor to floor height. Stand-alone Parking garages to have a 10’ floor to floor height. STALLS NEEDED BY CODE: PhaseID Est. # Stalls OPTION 3 shown STRUCTURED PARKING SURFACE PARKING STRUCTURED SUBTOTAL SURFACE SUBTOTAL 2 mi n u t e w a l k 3.5 minutes 8 minute walk 4 minu t e w a l k 2 m i n u t e w a l k Mi d d l e f i e l d R d . San A n t o n i o A v e Middlefield bike lane Bike and Scooter share station Bus Stop pausd.org/cubberleycodesign Walking and Biking Cars 6’6’35’14’14’Native Planting and Seating Planting &Bike Parking Walkways 60’ green walking & biking cooridor between buildings and propery edge Note: The farthest thing for future students to walk to is the lap pool, which is only a 2-minute walk from the center of the quad. 10’ two-way bike trackBicycle Parking Pedestrian circulation Bike and pedestrian access points Two points of bike/car intersection. These areas to have signage and paving change to indicate that cars are to stop for crossing pedestrians and cyclists. 10’ two-way bike track 1 1/20th mile | 1 minute walk 500’1000’ N Bike and walking access over the park-ing garage eliminates need to cross car traffic 500’ 1000’N Future possibility: If drone rideshares ever happen, the center of the dropoff roundabouts can be converted into landing zones Two story portion of garage. First level is 6’ below grade. Second level is 6’ above grade. In Options 2-4, only parking stalls directly under housing building to have double-decker lift parking First level under buildings: 6’ below grade, typical of all garages below buildings unless otherwise noted. 1A.SP2: Pre-school short-term parking 1A.SP3 2A.SP On-s t r e e t p a r k i n g San A n t o n i o A v e Mi d d l e f i e l d R o a d Mont r o s e A v e 1A.1 1A.2 1A.31A.4 1A.4.P 2B.2 2B.3 1A.7 2A.1 2A.2 1B.1 Car Parking & Dropoffs Zones DROPOFF ZONES Right turn only MI D D L E F I E L D R D . CLEA RK E E P CLEA RK E E P CLEA RK E E P CLE A RK E E P STOP MI D D L E F I E L D R D . MON T R O S E Provide flagger during peak periods of pick-up/dropoff Option 3 shown 1 3 2 1 3 2 (Lap Pool beyond)1A.4.P 1A.4 beyond Parking Counts 667 44 58 115 99* 251 100** 63 63 435 387** 48 99 41 58 1,264 3131144540 161 1,425stalls 1,411 1A 1A.1 1A.2 1A.3 1A.4 1A.4.P 1A.7 1B 1B.1 2A 2A.1 2A.2 2B 2B.2 2B.3 On-street (existing)1A.SP11A.SP21A.SP32A.SP TOTAL Parking under buildings to have a 12’ floor to floor height to create possibility for future conversion into indoor space. STALLS NEEDED BY CODE: Area ID # Stalls STRUCTURED PARKING SURFACE PARKING STRUCTURED SUBTOTAL SURFACE SUBTOTAL OPTION 3 shown for example purposes. There is not significant changes in parking areas between the Options. Higher number options use more mechanical parking. Mechanical lift parking systems for residential parking North Drop-off South Drop-off 2 mi n u t e w a l k 3.5 minutes 8 minute walk 4 minu t e w a l k 2 m i n u t e w a l k Mi d d l e f i e l d R d . San A n t o n i o A v e Middlefield bike lane Bike and Scooter share station Bus Stop pausd.org/cubberleycodesign Walking and Biking Cars 6’6’35’14’14’Native Planting and Seating Planting &Bike Parking Walkways 60’-wide green walking & biking corridor between buildings and property edge Note: The farthest thing for future students to walk to is the lap pool, which is only a 2-minute walk from the center of the quad. 10’ two-way bike trackBicycle Parking Pedestrian circulation Bike and pedestrian access points Two points of bike/car intersection. These areas to have signage and paving change to indicate that cars are to stop for crossing pedestrians and cyclists. 10’-wide two-way bike track 1 1/20th mile | 1 minute walk 500’1000’ N Bike and walking access over the parking garage eliminates need to cross car traffic Entering and Exiting 500’ 1000’N Two story portion of garage. First level is 6’ below grade. Second level is 6’ above grade. In Options 2-4, only parking stalls directly under housing building to have double-decker lift parking First level under buildings: 6’ below grade, typical of all garages below buildings unless otherwise noted. 1A.SP2: Preschool short-term parking 1A.SP3 2A.SP On-s t r e e t p a r k i n g San A n t o n i o A v e Mi d d l e f i e l d R o a d Mont r o s e A v e 1A.1 1A.2 1A.31A.4 1A.4.P 2B.2 2B.3 1A.7 2A.1 2A.2 1B.1 Car Parking & Drop-off Zones DROP-OFF ZONES Right turn only MI D D L E F I E L D R D . CLEA RK E E P CLEA RK E E P CLEA RK E E P CLE A RK E E P STOP MI D D L E F I E L D R D . MON T R O S E Provide flagger during peak periods of pick-up/drop-off Option 3 shown 1 3 2 1 3 2 A: Overhangs and light shelves to regulate daylight and shade B: Wood-clad covered walkways through center of site A: Earthtone pavers and stone built-in seatingB: Xeriscape landscaping in the center of the promenades Rinconada Library Stanford Central Energy Facility VA Hospital Public Safety Building Mitchell Park Library 500 University Ave Junior Museum and Zoo Mountain View Community Center pausd.org/cubberleycodesign LOOK AND FEEL 7. Promenade 8. Quiet Grove Q: How can this playground complement the Magical Bridge playground? Preschool Playground Participants at the last meeting liked the contemporary style precedent the most. Below are several examples of contemporary design in and near Palo Alto. Using dots and Post-its, comment on the elements you like and dislike about these buildings. Are there any other buildings you want to recommend as precedents? Palo Alto Contemporary Building PrecedentsShading and Landscape Strategies Site Elements 9. Bike Parking Q: How can this community pool complement the pool at Rinconada park? 3 4 10 9 5 6 7 8 1 2 A. Standard rack B. Covered Racks - Select Locations A A A A A B B B B 3. South Drop-Off 2. Welcome Green 1. Greendell and 525 San Antonio Rd 6. Central Plaza 5. Cubberley Commons 4. North Drop-Off (Gyms and Theater) Food Truck parking during events Tower serves as landmark, with signage and wayfinding at its base 10. Community Pool and All-inclusive Playground Model 3D views 60’ 78’ pausd.org/cubberleycodesign 1A.1 1A.3 1B.1 1A. 2 1A . 7 1A.6 1A.5 1A.4.2 1A.4.1 1A.1 1A.3 1B.1 1A . 2 1A . 7 1A.6 1A.5 1A.4.2 1A.4.1 1A.1 1A.31A. 2 1A . 7 1A.6 1A.5 1B.1 1B.2 1A.4.2 1A.4.1 1A.1 1A.3 1A . 2 1A . 7 1A.6 1A.5 1B.1 1B.2 1A.4.2 1A.4.1 Schools move off site during demolition 1A.1 2A . 1 1A. 3 2A.2 2A.3 1A . 2 1A . 7 1A.6 1A.5 1B.1 1B.2 1A.4.2 1A.4.1 1A.1 1A. 3 1A . 2 1A . 7 1A.6 1A.5 2B.1 1B.1 1B.2 1A.4.2 1A.4.1 2A . 1 2A.2 2A.3 1A.1 1A. 3 1A . 2 1A . 7 1A.6 1A.5 2B.1 2B.2 1B.1 1B.2 1A.4.2 1A.4.1 2A . 1 2A.2 2A.3 1A.1 1A . 2 1A . 7 1A. 3 1A.6 1A.5 2B.1 2B.2 2B . 3 1B.1 1B.2 1A.4.2 1A.4.1 2A . 1 2A.2 2A.3 1B.1 1B.2 1A.1 1A.4.2 1A.4.1 1A . 2 1A.3 1A.6 1A.5 2B.1 2B . 3 1A . 7 2B.2 2A . 1 2A.2 2A.3 1A.1 1A.3 1A . 2 1A . 7 1A.6 1A.5 1B.1 1B.2 1A.4.2 1A.4.1 PHASE 2B FINAL PHASE 1A 1A.1 1A.3 1A . 2 1A.1 1A.3 1A . 2 1A.4.2 1A.4.1 demo 1 BUILD demo demo demo demo demo 2 BUILD BUILD 1 BUILD 2 BUILD 3 BUILD demo demo demo 1 BUILD 2 BUILD 3 BUILD 4 BUILD 5 BUILD 6 BUILD 7 BUILD End of Phase 1A 1A.1 1A. 3 1A. 2 1A.5 1A.4.2 1A.4.1 1A.1 1A. 3 1A. 2 1A.6 1A.5 1A.4.2 1A.4.1 1A.1 1A.31A. 2 1A . 7 1A.6 1A.5 1A.4.2 1A.4.1 PHASE 1B PHASE 2A PHASING 1A.1 Built: Health, Wellness, and Senior Programs 1A.1 1A.3 1A . 2 1A.4.2 1A.4.1 Built: Cubberley Gyms (& Housing Building in Options 3&4), Pools, Parking, Playground, Tennis Courts and track 1A.1 1A.3 1A . 2 1A.5 1A.4.2 1A.4.1 Built: Arts Building Built: Shared Gyms Built: Greendell School, PAUSD Adult School, PAUSD Staff Housing, Parking Garage 1A.1 1A . 2 Built: Preschools, Dance, Martial Arts 1A.1 1A.3 1A . 2 Built: Other community center tenant and rental spaces Demo: P, L, K 1A.1 Demo: F, H, U, V 1A.1 1A . 2 Demo: B, C, D, E, J, T GymsIJK C B AD L R P FH U V T S Auditorium TheaterM N G Q Pavilion E Existing Buildings on Site Built: Multi-use Event Space & Kitchen Built: PAUSD Offices Demo: Pavilion Demo: 525 San Antonio Road, Greendell SchoolSchools move off site during construction Potential for small school to be constructed prior to large high school. Maximum Scenario: Large High School on site Demo: Theater, Area converted to surface parking and landscape Demo: I, R, Q, Tennis Courts Demo: Auditorium Demo: A, Gyms, G Built: Performing Arts Center: Makerspace/Woodshop/Upholstery, Cafe, Music Classrooms and Rehearsal spaces Greendell School Campus 525 San Antonio Road 1A.1-31A.4.1 1A.4.21A.51A.61A.71B.11B.22A.1-2 2A.32B.1-3 Phasing is a way of controlling cost over time and staging the construction so that programs are not displaced. There is a logical sequence of construction beginning with the northwest corner. This board shows that it is physically viable to do this in stages. The program movements shown in these diagrams are only examples. During each phase of work, a more detailed plan for program continuity will be developed. The use of portable buildings is another viable option if existing spaces on site are not available for temporary occupancy during a given sub-phase. Community Center ServicesCubberley GymsHousing Visual ArtsFlexible Event SpacePAUSD OfficesShared Use GymsPerforming Arts Center PAUSD Staff Housing Greendell SchoolFuture PAUSD School pausd.org/cubberleycodesign FOUR HOUSING OPTIONS 130’ to property line OPTION 4 OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 PAUSD Adult School separated from Greendell 64 units of PAUSD staff housing 64 units of PAUSD staff housing 64 units of PAUSD staff housing 48 units of housing (TBD: possibly senior, city staff, PAUSD staff, affordable) 100 units of housing (TBD: possibly senior, city staff, PAUSD staff, affordable)Greendell is 1 story Gym moves and expands to include an indoor lap pool Additional housing added to Community Center32 Units of PAUSD staff housing on 525 site Adult School Entrance Parking for Adult School and other Cubberley programs Two-story PAUSD housing (32 units)One-story Greendell School Two-story PAUSD Adult School Two-story housing units on 525 site (32 units) (4-plexes shown) Greendell Entrance Outdoor lap pool (12 lanes) Lap pool in first floor of gym (12 lanes) Larger second floor of gym Four-story housing building (48 units) Two-story housing on top of Community Center (52 units) No housing on top of Community Center building Two-story gym Total Housing: 32 Units Housing Area: 33,600 sq. ft. Total Building Area: 553,700 sq. ft. Total Housing: 64 Units Housing Area: 57,600 sq. ft. Total Building Area: 577,300 sq. ft. Total Housing: 112 Units Housing Area: 87,600 sq. ft. Total Building Area: 612,100 sq. ft. Total Housing: 164 Units Housing Area: 134,100 sq. ft. Total Building Area: 652,400 sq. ft. NOTE: Housing units will vary in size and unit type. Currently the average unit size is 800 sq. ft. LEAST HOUSING MOST HOUSING 130’130’ 145’ 78’78’78’78’ 50’50’50’50’ pausd.org/cubberleycodesign These seven Energy Conservation Measures (ECM) will achieve net zero energy consumption for the site. They will also reduce CO2 emissions by 98%, from 2.5 million to 44 thousand tons of CO2 emitted per year. These measures will deliver energy cost savings of approximately $2.2M per year, paying for themselves after 5.5 years. SUSTAINABILITY TARGETS AND STRATEGIES Reduce site potable water use by 75% • Eliminate unnecessary turf and replace with landscaping that does not require irrigation • Utilize recycled water and/or captured rainwater to irrigate remaining landscape areas • Capture waste water from lavatories and showers for use in supplying water for flushing toilets and urinals. When available, connect to recycled water “Purple Pipe” • Use low-flow fixtures (required by state code) Improve Storm Water Management • 57% increase in permeable vegetated area on site will absorb more storm water • Use permeable paving for surface parking and other paved areas where feasible • Comply with City’s Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan Meet LEED Enhanced Indoor Air Quality req. • Exceed ASHRAE 62.1 ventilation standards by 30% • Specify minimum of MERV 13 filtration air systems • Incorporate natural ventilation (ECM 4) Meet WELL Building Standard • Specify low-VOC products for paints, flooring, lumber, and other building materials • Increase ventilation effectiveness (ECM 5) • Provide adequate daylight and daylighting controls to assist with circadian rhythm (ECM 2) • Improve acoustics in interior design • Meet ASHRAE Standard 55 for thermal comfort • Implement requirements for green cleaning materials and pesticides WATERWELLBEINGNET ZERO ENERGY 70% PV Grid Coverage Light shelves reflect indirect light into the building, reducing need for artificial light Parking lot bioswales and pervious pavingLight tubes, operable skylights and vertical openings through the buildings to provide natural light and ventilation to the center of buildings Daylighting and Natural Ventilation typical building section AirLight Total Cost Premium: $11.8M Cost Recovery: 5.5 years Net Zero Energy achieved through these seven measures ECM 4: Integrate natural ventilation ECM 5: Improve energy efficiency of base mechanical system to include energy/heat recovery, demand controlled ventilation (DCV), condensing boilers ECM 6: Change mechanical system to water cooled variable refrigerant heat pump system (vertical bore geo-exchange) ECM 7: Solar panels covering 70% of roof area. Base energy Consumption ECM 1: Improve Building Envelope 30% greater than ASHRAE 90.1-2016 standards ECM 2: Improve Lighting Power Density to 30% better than ASHRAE 90.1-2016 by incorporating LED fixtures and daylighting controls ECM 3: Reduce receptacle and Domestic Hot Water demand by 25% of Title 24-2016 values 25,000 15,000 5,000 30,000 35,000 20,000 10,000 0 To t a l E n e r g y C o n s u m p t i o n ( 1 , 0 0 0 M b t u / y r ) ECM 1-5 Cost Premium:$4.9M ECM 6 Cost Premium: $3.2M ECM 7 Cost Premium:$3.7M Reductions from Energy Conservation Measures City of Palo Alto (ID # 10005) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/3/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 2321 Wellesley Street: Zone Change from R-1 to RMD(NP) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2321 Wellesley Street [18PLN- 00178]: Request for a Zone Change From R-1 to RMD(NP) and Approval of an Major Architectural Review to Construct a Two-Family Residence. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Section 15303. Zoning District: R-1 (Single-Family Residential) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council take the following actions: 1. Find the proposed ordinance and project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(b) 2. Introduce an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map to rezone the subject property from R-1 to RMD(NP) as recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission on December 12, 2018 3. Adopt the Record of Land Use Action approving the Architectural Review, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval as recommended by the Architectural Review Board on December 20, 2018 Background: The Zoning Map amendment and the associated two family residence (duplex) proposed in this application have been reviewed by for compliance with the development standards found with the RMD zoning district. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) have both reviewed and commented on this project. The PTC supported the project and the Zoning Map amendment with no added conditions. The ARB City of Palo Alto Page 2 supported the project with conditions to update the landscaping to better meet the ARB findings for native landscaping, revise the front yard pathway to provide ease of access to the trash enclosure, and not to allow mechanical equipment near the setbacks. The plans were updated accordingly per the ARB’s conditions of approval. Discussion: The subject parcel is approximately 6,250 square feet, is currently zoned R-1, and has historically been used as a single-family residence. However, the 1931 dwelling was demolished in the early 1990s and the parcel has remained vacant since this time. The subject parcel is surrounded by multi-family and duplex dwellings in the RMD (NP) zone to the north and to the east, with the College Terrace Library located directly adjacent on the west side. The subject property is the only R-1 zoned property on the north side of Wellesley Street as shown in Attachment A and further discussed below. The submitted application involves a request for a zoning map amendment for the subject parcel located at 2321 Wellesley from its current zoning of R-1 Single Family Residential District to RMD(NP) Residential Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District with the Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP). The NP combining district modifies the RMD zone district and requires the preservation of the visual and historic character of such designated neighborhoods to be formally reviewed in the Architectural Review process. Rezoning the property from R-1 to RMD (NP) also modifies the development potential of the site and increases allowances for lot coverage, height, and floor area. A detailed comparison of these and other differences between the zones are shown in the chart below. Comparison of Site Development Standards Between R-1 and RMD (NP) Zoning Districts R-1 RMD (NP) Lot Size 6,250 sf 6,250 sf Maximum Density Single Family Home and an ADU Up to 17 DU/AC (2 units) Site Coverage 35% + 5% for eaves, cover patios, etc.) = 2,187.5 sf +312.5 sf = 2,500 sf 40% = 2,500 sf Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2,625 sf (.45 FAR first 5,000 sf + .30 FAR of remaining sf) and up to 220 sf for an associated ADU 3,125 sf* (.50 FAR first 5,000 sf + .50 FAR of remaining sf) Front Yard Setback 20 ft 20 ft Side Yard Setback 6 ft 6 ft Rear Yard Setback 20 ft 20 ft Height Limit 35 ft 35 ft City of Palo Alto Page 3 Required Parking (Two- units) Two required (one space required covered) Three required (two spaces required covered) Daylight Plane Side Yards 10 feet (initial height); 45 degree angle over 15 feet (initial height); 45 degree angle over Daylight Plane Rear Yard 16 feet (initial height); 60 degree angle over 15 feet (initial height); 45 degree angle over *PAMC 18.10.040(a)(4) allows floor area limits to be exceeded up to a maximum of 200 square feet for the purpose of providing one required covered parking space in the R-2 and RMD zoning districts. The differences in the development standards outside of floor area are minor and when viewed in terms of neighborhood compatibility, any proposed development on the subject site can be designed to be compatible with both the multi-family and single-family developments in the neighborhood within either zoning district. Since the submittal of this application, the Palo Alto Municipal Code has had an update to the ADU development regulations within the low-density residential zone districts. However, the changes to the ADU regulations do not change the daylight plane, floor area, and parking requirements between the R-1 and RMD(NP) zone districts, where the RMD(NP) has the advantage of additional FAR and daylight plane allowances but does require more on-site parking. The existing R-1 zoning of the subject parcel allows for the construction of a new single-family residence as well as construction of an accessory dwelling unit. The Residential Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District (RMD) would permit two full-size dwellings under the same ownership. Though both the R-1 and RMD zone allow for two dwelling units on the subject parcel under common ownership, the R-1 zone would achieve the second dwelling unit by way of adding an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), which is limited to 600 square feet in area. (900 square feet, if detached). The RMD zone allows for two, single-family homes without the same floor area limitation. The requested zone change to RMD also involves the Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP), which modifies the RMD two unit multiple-family residential district areas, and requires the preservation of the visual and historic character of such designated neighborhoods. The City Council reviewed the project during a prescreening hearing on October 2, 2017. The City Councils comments were in favor of the project and recommend that the applicant submit a formal application with no significant changes recommended by Council. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed the project on December 12, 2018. The PTC comments were all supportive of the project and event stated that more housing should be proposed like the duplex the subject project. The PTC was also pleased to hear that the applicant was proposing a zoning change that would provide more parking on-site along with the larger dwelling unit of the duplex, as opposed to the applicant developing within the existing R-1 zone and proposing an ADU with a Single Family and would provide less parking on- site. Additionally, the PTC was in favor of the zoning map amendment as it allows greater City of Palo Alto Page 4 height over the R-1 zone which makes this project more compatible with the surrounding multi- family developments that surround the project site. The PTC voted in favor of the zoning map amendment (4-0) with two absent and one recusal. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the project on December 20, 2019. The ARB supported the project and the design as proposed with only minor conditions to update the landscaping to better meet the ARB findings for native landscaping, revise the front yard pathway to provide ease of access to the trash enclosure, and not to allow mechanical equipment near the setbacks. The ARB vote in support of the project (5-0). The plans were updated accordingly per the ARB’s conditions of approval. Staff supports the project as it would allow for the development of the site to be better aligned with the massing and density of the surrounding multi-family properties. To develop under the RMD(NP) development standards provides additional height and a larger second unit. This zoning change would allow the property to serve as the transition point between the R-1 zone and the existing single-family homes on and multi-family apartments on Wellesley Street. This would not be the case if the project utilized the R-1 zone development standards with its lower height maximums and smaller Accessory Dwelling Unit size. Also, the requested zoning map amendment is unique in that the existing zoning of the area would not create a “spot zoning” situation as the surrounding zoning is RMD(NP) and the requested change would make this side of Wellesley Street zoning consistent. Timeline: The application was brought to Council pre-screening on October 2, 2017. The application was formally submitted to the City for review on May 25, 2018. This application went to the Planning and Transportation Commission for hearing on December 12, 2018, followed by a hearing before the Architectural Review Board on December 20, 2018. Weblinks to staff reports with attachments Council prescreening staff report: https://bit.ly/2TGgT6U PTC staff report: https://bit.ly/2TGAJ1L ARB staff report: https://bit.ly/2ERGXm2 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Environmental Review: The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from CEQA per Guideline Section 15303(b) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). This application falls under this exemption as it involves a proposed duplex residential structure that totals no more than six dwelling units in an urbanized area. Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Draft Ordiance (DOCX) Attachment C: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOCX) Attachment D: December 12, 2018 PTC staff report w/o attachments (PDF) Attachment E: December 20, 2018 ARB staff report w/o attachments (PDF) Attachment F: Applicant's Request Letter (PDF) Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 2 6Jodie Gerhardt 5Russ Reich Coll e g e T e r r a c e _ L i b r a r y 165 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 25. 0 ' 50.0 ' 140. 0 ' 75.0 ' 180. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 180 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 264 . 1 ' 660 . 9 ' 264 . 1 ' 659 . 7 ' 658. 9 ' 198 . 3 ' 659. 7 ' 198 . 3 ' 115. 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115. 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 75.0 ' 140 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 25.0 '25.0 ' 50.0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 34. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 34. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115. 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 80.0' 125 . 0 ' 80. 0 ' 125.0'61. 5 ' 125 . 0 ' 61. 5 ' 125 . 0 ' 36.0' 125 . 0 ' 36. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 75.0' 125 . 0 ' 75. 0 ' 125.0'25100 25.0 ' 99125 7.5'100.0'7.5'100.0' 13. 5 ' 125 . 0 ' 13.5 ' 125 . 0 ' 38. 7 ' 18.0 ' 10. 5 ' 95.0 ' 28.0 ' 113 . 0 ' 56. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 28. 0 ' 95.0 ' 10. 5 '18.0 ' 38. 7 ' 12.0 ' 28. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 28. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 40.0 ' 125 . 0 ' 40. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 40. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 40. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 40.0 ' 125 . 0 ' 40. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 416 . 0 ' 658 . 9 ' 416 . 0 ' 657 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115. 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 192.5'119. 9 ' 125.0'144.9'50.0'90.0'17.5'174.7'22.5'100.0'22.5'100.0' 100 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 100 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 45. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 45.0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 65. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 65. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 57. 5 ' 100 . 0 ' 57. 5 ' 100 . 0 ' 25. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 25.0 ' 125 . 0 ' 25. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 25. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 160 . 0 ' 310 . 0 ' 160. 0 ' 310 . 0 ' 115 . 0 ' 75.0 ' 115. 0 ' 75.0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 37.5 ' 115 . 0 ' 37.5 ' 115 . 0 ' 37.5 ' 115 . 0 ' 37.5 ' 115.0'50.0'115.0'50.0' 46. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 46. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 6 25 229 5 228 5 231 4 - 234 0 228 2 - 2 2 8 8 239 4 239 2 239 0 239 6 236 9 236 1 235 3 237 7 239 3 234 5 72 0 - 74 0 75 2 - 7 6 0 75 0 85 0 860 86 8 - 87 6 78 0 232 1 80 0 2310 230 1 231 7 233 1 2330 233 3 - 2 3 3 7 234 2 234 4 62 4 64 2 65 8 234 3 - 234 7 238 5 239 5 550 227 7 2251 227 1 234 0 233 0 235 7 235 3 234 5 232 0 234 9 232 5 229 5 228 5 222 6 - 224 8 70 7 70 3 73 9 75 7 224 1 225 5 226 0 228 0 223 9 230 0 225 2 225 4 71 5 - 72 7 2215 232 4 238 5 228 9 229 1 64 4 234 6 YALE STREET WI L L I A M S S T R E E T CAL I F O R N I A A V E N U E W E L L E S L E Y S T R E E T PF This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts Project Site 0'71' 2321 Wellesley St CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R AT E D C ALIFOR NI A 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 Alto sgutier, 2018-12-06 14:26:08 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\sgutier.mdb) RMD (NP) R-1 Pro j e c t S i t e Not Yet Approved 1 of 5 Ordinance No. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto for 2321 Wellesley Street to Change the Zoning from the R-1 (Single Family Residential) to the RMD(NP) (Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District with Neighborhood Preservation Overlay) Zoning District. The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. A. The Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on December 12, 2018, at which it reviewed, considered, and recommended the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) be amended to rezone that certain real property commonly known as 2321 Wellesley Street and more particularly described in Exhibit A) change the zoning from the R-1 (Single Family Residential) to the RMD(NP) (Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District with Neighborhood Preservation Overlay) zoning district. B. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on May 13, 2019, and considered the subject amendment of the Zoning Map, including the recommendation by staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission and all public comments received prior to or at the hearing. C. The site has existed as a vacant site within the R-1 zone, and the uses proposed for the site under the RMD (NP) zone are of such characteristics that the proposed dwellings meets the application of the general district and the combining district. D. Development of the site under the provisions of the RMD (NP) (Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District) (Neighborhood Preservation Combining District) will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of existing general district (R-1 Single Family Residential) in that the Project includes the following public benefit that id inherent to the Project and above those required by city zoning districts: • An undeveloped lot will be developed with a two unit residential building in a residential neighborhood with mixed zoning, developed under the RMD(NP) general district and combining district to provided two dwelling units with less restrictions in regards to the development standards for the additional dwelling unit if the site were to be developed within the existing R-1 general district. • The council further finds that these public benefits are of sufficient Not Yet Approved 2 of 5 importance to make the Project as a whole, which includes an additional housing unit of greater size than that which the existing zoning would permit, and as the additional housing unit is located below grade and would be exempted from the calculation of floor area, allowing more desirable dwellings to be developed which are considered a public benefit. E. The uses permitted and the site development regulations applicable within the District are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the existing and potential uses on the adjoining sites or within the general vicinity in that the Project would be consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: • Local Land Use Policy L-3.1 which seeks to “Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures” SECTION 2. Amendment of Zoning Map. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the “Zoning Map,” is hereby amended by changing the zoning from the Single Family Residential (R-1) to the Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District with Neighborhood Preservation Overlay (RMD(NP)) zoning district for all that real property situated in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described in Exhibit A (Legal Description and Map) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and commonly known as 2321 Wellesley Street. SECTION 3. Environmental Review. The City Council finds that the zoning map amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(b) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). This application falls under this exemption as it involves a proposed duplex residential structure that totals no more than six dwelling units in an urbanized area. SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage and adoption. INTRODUED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Not Yet Approved 3 of 5 ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Deputy City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment Exhibit A – Legal Description and Map Not Yet Approved 4 of 5 Not Yet Approved 5 of 5 Page 1 of 14 APPROVAL NO. 2019-____ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 2321 WELLESLEY: MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (18PLN-00174) On _______, 2019, the Council held a duly noticed public hearing and, after considering all of the evidence presented, approved the application to allow a request for Major Architectural Review and Zone Change to change the zoning district from R-1 to RMD(NP) and allow the construction of a new attached duplex two-story home. In approving the application, the Council make the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. A. The applicant requested a Zone Change and Major Architectural Review to change the zoning district from R-1 to RMD(NP) and allow the construction of a new attached duplex comprised of an approximately 2,915 square foot, two-story single family home with an attached 1,126 square foot duplex unit in the basement (“The Project”). B. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed the project on December 12, 2018, and the Architectural Review Board Review (ARB) reviewed the project on December 20, 2018. The PTC recommended approval of the construction project and the zoning map amendment no additional conditions. The ARB recommended approval of the project with conditions to update the landscaping to better meet the ARB findings for native landscaping, revise the front yard pathway to provide ease of access to the trash enclosure, and to not allow mechanical equipment near the setbacks. The plans were updated accordingly per the ARB’s conditions of approval. C. On June 3, 2019, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which evidence was presented and all persons were afforded an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Council’s Policies and Procedures. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. On June 3, 2019, The City Council made a determination that was in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from CEQA per Guideline Section 15303(b) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). This application falls under this exemption as it involves a proposed duplex residential structure that totals no more than six dwelling units in an urbanized area. SECTION 3. Architectural Review Findings. The design is approved as it meets the required Architectural Review Findings as detailed by the following: Page 2 of 14 Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The proposed project complies with the RMD zoning code and requires no exceptions to the development standards. The project is subject to the Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP) Design Guidelines. The purpose of design review of properties in an (NP) combining district is to achieve compatibility of scale, silhouette, façade articulation, and materials of new construction with existing structure on the same property or on surrounding properties within a combining district. The proposed project is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, below is an analysis of the applicable goals and policies: Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Single Family (SF) Residential which applies to residential neighborhoods primarily characterized by detached single-family homes. Accessory dwelling units or duplexes are allowed subject to certain size limitations and other development standards and duplexes may be allowed in select, limited areas where they would be compatible with neighborhood character and do not create traffic and parking problems. The project consists of a two family residential development (duplex), which is consistent with the Comp Plan land use designation. Land Use and Community Design GOAL L-1: A compact and resilient city providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping districts, public facilities and open spaces. This is an infill project that would develop an existing vacant lot with low density residential uses. The project proposes a duplex with an architectural style and massing that fits within the character of the neighborhood. Goal L-2 An enhanced sense of “community” with development designed to foster public life, meet citywide needs and embrace the principles of sustainability The design of the project fits into the character of the neighborhood and provides two new units of housing in the City. Policy L-3.1 Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The design of the two family dwelling with its two story craftsmen style is compatible with the adjacent multiple family developments and the single family developments in the area as it would be an intermediary between the massing of the adjacent single family residential and multi-family residential Page 3 of 14 developments in the neighborhood. Goal L-3 Safe, attractive residential neighborhoods, each with its own distinct character and within walking distance of shopping, services, schools and/or other public gathering places. The project will develop a vacant parcel within a residential neighborhood, directly adjacent to a public facility (College Terrace Library) with a craftsman styled two family dwelling that is consistent in scale with the surrounding neighborhood character. The project has also been reviewed for conformance with the development standards in the Zoning Code and found to be in compliance with the intent and regulations contained therein. A comprehensive review of the project to applicable development standards is included in the administrative record. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The neighborhood is comprised of various residential buildings one to two stories in height. The project proposes to construct a building that is taller than the single family homes across the street, although the proposed height of 28 feet tall is consistent with the adjacent RMD zoned properties with multifamily buildings. Though the project proposed two dwelling units, the second (smaller) dwelling unit is proposed in the basement and is accessed via lightwells on each side of the proposed residence, allowing the proposed building to be consistent with the single family homes in the area, while providing larger residences within walking distance of City amenities. The context-based design criteria are not applicable to the RMD(NP) zoning district. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The project proposes a new duplex with a classic craftsmen inspired two story style with appropriate architectural features such as exposed rafters and wood shingle siding. This would allow the new Page 4 of 14 building to blend in with the existing homes, the College Terrace Library, and a neighborhood that has an eclectic collection of architectural styles. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The design of the new buildings will provide sufficient parking on site that is accessible to both dwellings within the proposed duplex. The project also provides sufficient open space for each unit in both private and common areas on-site. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: The project provides a variety of low to moderate water usage plants. Some of the plantings that are selected in the landscape plan are California native plants such as the Hearst's Ceanothus, Pacific Wax Myrtle, and the Western Columbine. In addition, the plant selection includes some species that attract pollinators such as Dwarf English Lavender, Citrus limon 'Meyer Improved', Hearst's Ceanothus, Star Jasmine, and the Cecil Brunner Climbing Rose when they flower. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the project will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. In addition, as shown on sheet 1 of the submitted plans, the project includes solar panels on the roof. SECTION 4. Architectural Review Approval Granted. Architectural Review Approval is hereby granted for the Project by the City Council pursuant to PAMC Section 18.77.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, June 3, 2019 and subject to the conditions of approval in Section 6 of this Record. SECTION 5. Plan Approval. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Jarvis Architects titled “2321 & 2323 Wellesley Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306”, consisting of 13 pages, dated August 2, 2018, and received April 11, 2019. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development. The conditions of approval in Section 6 shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. Page 5 of 14 SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval. PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "2321 & 2323 Wellesley Street” stamped as received by the City on April 11th, 2019 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. Project plans submitted for Building permits shall incorporate the following changes: a. Update the project landscaping to better meet the ARB findings for native landscaping, b. Revise the front yard pathway to provide ease of access to the trash enclosure 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. REQUIRED PARKING: All RMD zoned two family residential developments shall be provided with a minimum of two covered parking space (10 foot by 20 foot interior dimensions) and one uncovered parking space (8.5 feet by 17.5 feet). 6. UTILITY LOCATIONS: In no case shall utilities be placed in a location that requires equipment and/or bollards to encroach into a required parking space. In no case shall a pipeline be placed within 10 feet of a proposed tree and/or tree designated to remain. 7. BAY WINDOWS: The proposed bay windows shall have an interior base at least 18 inches above the floor joists, have no exterior skirt wall, projecting no more than two feet, and with more than 50% window surface. Bay windows that do not meet this definition will be counted towards the homes floor area ratio (FAR), which may cause the home to be out of compliance with required Zoning standards. Any changes to proposed bay windows must first be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. 8. NOISE PRODUCING EQUIPMENT: All noise producing equipment shall be located outside of required setbacks, except they may project 6 feet into the required street side setbacks. In accordance with Section 9.10.030, no person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any Page 6 of 14 machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. 9. FENCES. Fences and walls shall comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 16.24, Fences, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Heights of all new and existing fencing must be shown on the Building Permit plans. 10. BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION WALLS: Any walls, temporary or otherwise, installed to facilitate construction of a basement shall be removed or constructed in such a way as to not significantly restrict the growth of required landscaping, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 11. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 12. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE: Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $9,656.00, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 13. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90- day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 14. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. Page 7 of 14 15. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY 16. NEW TREES—PERFORMANCE MEASURES. New trees shall be shown on all relevant plans: site, utility, irrigation, landscape, etc. in a location 10’ clear radius from any (new or existing) underground utility or curb cut. a. Add note on the Planting Plan that states, “Tree Planting. Prior to in-ground installation, Urban Forestry inspection/approval required for tree stock, planting conditions and irrigation adequacy. Contact (650-496-5953).” b. Landscape Plan tree planting shall state the Urban Forestry approved species, size and using Standard Planting Dwg. #604 for street trees or those planted in a parking median, and shall note the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. Wooden cross-brace is prohibited. c. Add note on the Planting & Irrigation Plan that states, “Irrigation and tree planting in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.” d. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. e. Automatic irrigation bubblers shall be provided for each tree. Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Bubblers mounted inside an aeration tube are prohibited. 17. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. Page 8 of 14 18. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 19. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 20. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 21. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b) verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. 22. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 23. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 24. OBLIGATION TO MONITOR AND PROTECT NEIGHBORING TREES. Project site arborist will protect and monitor neighboring trees/protected redwood/protected oak during construction and share information with the tree owner. All work shall be done in conformance with State regulations so as to ensure the long term health of the tree. Project site arborist will request access to the tree on the neighboring property as necessary to measure an exact diameter, assess condition, and/or perform treatment. If access is not granted, monitoring and any necessary treatment will be performed from the project site. Page 9 of 14 PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 25. EXCAVATION & GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. Applicant shall prepare and submit an excavation and grading permit to Public Works separately from the building permit set and prior to building permit issuance. The permit application and instructions are available at the Development Center and on our website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp. 26. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10-feet from the property line and 3-feet from side and rear property lines, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. Include these dimensions on the plan. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 27. The site drainage system that collects runoff from downspouts and landscape area shall be separated from the pump system that discharges runoff from light wells. Plot and clearly label the two separate systems and include the separate outfalls for each system. 28. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring Plans prepared by a licensed professional are required for the Basement Excavation and shall be submitted with the Grading and Excavation Permit. Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 29. DEWATERING: Contact Public Works as soon as possible to set up a meeting to discuss new dewatering regulations. Excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not allowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend that a piezometer be installed in the soil boring. The contractor shall determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using a piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole. Based on the determined groundwater depth and season, the contractor may be required to dewater the site or stop all grading and excavation work. In addition Public Works may require that all groundwater be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an Page 10 of 14 independent testing firm to test the discharge water for contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. 30. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 5% or 2% per 2013 CBC section 1804.3. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubblers, etc. Grading that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from neighboring properties will not be allowed. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. 31. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 32. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: This project creates or replaces 500 square feet or more of impervious area, the applicant needs to fill out the impervious area worksheet and submit it with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2718 33. RESIDENTIAL&SMALL PROJECTS STORMWATER TREATMENT: This project may trigger the California Regional WaterQuality Control Board’s revised provision C.3 for stormwater regulations(incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section16.11) that apply to residential land development projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant must implement one or more of the following site design measures: •Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse. •Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas. •Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. •Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas. •Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. •Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. 34. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and/or Grading and Drainage Plan:“Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinated to keep materials and equipment on-site. 35. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Page 11 of 14 Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter, and planter strip. 36. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the Public road right- of-way: “Any construction within the city’s public road right-of-way shall have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 37. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Provide a note adjacent to street trees: “Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within10 feet of street trees must be approved by PublicWorks' arborist (phone:650- 496-5953).”Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements. 38. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact the Public Works’ Inspector at 650- 496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. Include a scan copy of the Site Inspection Directive from the PW Inspector in the plan set whether replacement work is required or not. If replacement work is required, the site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 39. Provide the following as a note on the Site Plan: “The contractor may be required to submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, stormwater pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected surrounding properties, and schedule of work. The requirement to submit a logistics plan will be dependent on the number of applications Public Works Engineering receives within close proximity to help mitigate and control the impact to the public right-of-way. If necessary, Public Works may require a Logistics Plan during construction.” UTILITIES WGW 40. Any water service, gas service, or wastewater lateral not in use must be disconnected and abandoned. Page 12 of 14 41. The City’s gas and sewer main only reach half way of the property on Wellesley St. (owner to contact CPAU for water & gas meter and sewer clean out locations). 42. Each unit shall have its own water and gas meter. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service, and wastewater lateral connection. (all WGW utility services/meters/lateral per CPAU latest standards) 43. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 44. The contractor/applicant shall not disconnect any part of the existing water, gas, or wastewater mains except by expressed permission of the WGW utilities inspector and shall submit a schedule of the estimated shutdown time to obtain said permission. 45. If the existing utility service/s will cross one property to serve another property after the property line is moved, the utility service/s has to be relocated or the applicant will need a PUE across the impacted property. 46. Only City Staff can work on the City gas distribution system. GREEN BUILDING This section contains general information to assist the applicant team in understanding the requirements that will be applicable to the project at plan check, inspection, and post-occupancy. Requirements are subject to change. You may also email Melanie Jacobson or Kelsey Anderson at greenbuilding@CityofPaloAlto.org for specific questions about your project. Please also visit the Green Building Compliance page for more details: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp Local Energy Reach Code for Residential Projects There are two options for compliance with the local Energy Reach Code: 47. Energy Efficiency Option 1: No Photovoltaic System. If the project includes new construction, then the project triggers the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. For all new single-family residential and multi-family residential, non-residential construction, the performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed new-single family residential or multi-family construction is at least: 10 percent less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design if the proposed building does not include a photovoltaic system. (Ord. 5383 § 1 (part), 2016) 48. Energy Efficiency Option 2: With a Photovoltaic System. If the project includes new construction, then the project triggers the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. For all new single-family residential and multi-family residential, the performance approach specified within the 2016 Page 13 of 14 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed new- single family residential or multi-family construction is at least: 20 percent less than TDV Energy of the Standard Design if proposed building includes a photovoltaic system. (Ord. 5383 § 1 (part), 2016) Green Building Requirements for Residential Projects The following conditions apply to the project: 49. CALGreen Checklist: If the project is a new construction residential building, then the project must meet the California Green Building Code Mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with local amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre- permit third-party design review and a third-party green building inspection process. The project must select from the City’s list of approved inspectors found on the Green Building Compliance Webpage. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) *Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2016 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18. 50. Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance: If the rehabilitated project has an aggregate (combined) landscape area of greater than 2,500 square feet, the project is subject to the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) and the project will require an separate permit for Outdoor Water Efficiency. See Outdoor Water Efficiency Submittal Guidelines and permit instructions at the following link. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/outdoor_water_efficiency_.asp 51. Recycled Water Infrastructure for Landscape: If the project is either a new construction or a rehabilitated landscape and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install a dedicated irrigation meter related to the recycled water infrastructure. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 52. Recycled Water Infrastructure for Landscape: If the project is outside the boundaries of the recycled water project area and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install recycled water infrastructure for irrigation systems. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 53. Construction & Demolition: For residential construction projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 requirements, the project must meet the enhanced construction waste reduction at 80% construction waste reduction. PAMC 16.14.260 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. https://www.greenhalosystems.com 54. Deconstruction Survey: If the project is a single-family residential dwellings of any size applying for a demolition permit, a deconstruction survey is required. PAMC 16.14.135 (Ord. 5393 § 1 Page 14 of 14 (part), 2016) Projects shall comply with the instructions found on the following page: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/cnd_debris_diversion_program.asp 55. EVSE: If the project is a new detached single-family dwelling, then the project shall comply with the following requirements for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) as shown in: a) The property owner shall provide as minimum a panel capable to accommodate a dedicated branch circuit and service capacity to install at least a 208/240V, 50 amperes grounded AC outlet (Level 2 EVSE). The raceway shall terminate in close proximity to the proposed location of the charging system into a listed cabinet, box, enclosure, or receptacle. The raceway shall be installed so that minimal removal of materials is necessary to complete the final installation. The raceway shall have capacity to accommodate a 100-ampere circuit. (b) Design. The proposed location of a charging station may be internal or external to the dwelling, and shall be in close proximity to an on-site parking space. The proposed design must comply with all applicable design guidelines, setbacks and other code requirements. PAMC 16.14.420. (Ord. 5393 § 2, 2016) 56. OPTIONAL: The project may be eligible for several rebates offered through the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. These rebates are most successfully obtained when planned into the project early in design. For the incentives available for the project, please see the information provided on the Utilities website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/residents/resrebate SECTION 7. Term of Approval. Architectural Review Approval. The approval shall be valid for two years from the original date of approval. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Page 15 of 14 Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: 1. Those plans prepared by Jarvis Architects titled “2321 & 2323 Wellesley Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306”, consisting of 13 pages, dated August 2, 2018, and received April 11, 2019. Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 9710) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/12/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2321 Wellesley Street: Zone Change from R-1 to RMD(NP) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2321 Wellesley Street [18PLN-00178]: Request for a Zoning Map Amendment to Change the Subject Property From R-1 to RMD(NP) to Construct a Two-Family Residence. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Section 15303. Zoning District: R-1 (Single-Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez (samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org) From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Find the proposed ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(b). 2. Recommend approval of the proposed ordinance (Attachment B) to the City Council. Background Project Information Owner: Jack Culpepper Architect: Jarvis Architects Representative: Not Specified Legal Counsel: Not Specified Property Information Address: 2321 Wellesley St Neighborhood: College Terrace Lot Dimensions & Area: 50’ x 125’; 6,250 sf Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: One (1) Street Tree Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s): Vacant Lot Existing Land Use(s): Vacant Lot Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: RMD (NP) (Multi-Family Residential) West: PF (College Terrace Library) East: RMD (NP) (Multi-Family Residential) South: R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Special Setbacks: Not Applicable Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: R-1 Single Family Residential District Comp. Plan Designation: Single Family (SF) Context-Based Design: Not Applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Downtown Urban Design: Not Applicable SOFA II CAP: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not Applicable Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: Prescreening For Rezoning (October 2, 2017) Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61252 Transcript (starting on page 17): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62983 PTC: Not Applicable HRB: Not Applicable ARB: Not Applicable Project Description and Process A request for Major Architectural Review and Zone Change to change the zoning district from R-1 to RMD(NP). The project also includes the construction of a new attached duplex units (two units) on the existing vacant site. The proposed duplex is comprised of an approximately 2,915 square foot, two-story dwelling with an attached 1,126 square foot second (duplex) unit located in the basement. The rezoning application is being processed concurrently with an Architectural Review application. Details of the design of the project, including the massing, neighborhood context, parking facilities, landscaping, and open space, will be evaluated by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) at a hearing following the Planning and Transportation Commission’s hearing. Furthermore, the ARB will evaluate whether the project plans, which are provided to the PTC for informational purposes, are in conformance with the Municipal Code, including the (NP) Combining District (PAMC Section 18.10.140), as well as the Comprehensive Plan. The PTC public hearing on the rezoning process is codified in Section 18.80.070. In summary, the Planning and Transportation Commission’s purview on the project is to make a recommendation on the requested change from R-1 to RMD(NP) based on whether the change would be in accord with the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Requested Entitlements and Findings: The following discretionary applications are being requested and subject to PTC purview: • Zone Change: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.80. This Code Section is intended to provide a review process for changes in district City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 boundaries, or by changing the regulations applicable within one or more districts, whenever the public interest or general welfare may so require. The PTC’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Additionally, the project requires design review, which is not the purview of the PTC: • Major Architectural Review: If the Zone Change is recommended for approval, the project then requires review before the Architectural Review Board per the required design review processes of the Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP) set forth in PAMC 18.10.140. The purpose of design review of properties in an (NP) combining district is to achieve compatibility of scale, silhouette, façade articulation, and materials of new construction with existing structure on the same property or on surrounding properties within a combining district. Analysis1 The subject parcel is approximately 6,250 square feet, is currently zoned R-1, and has historically been used as a single-family residence. However, the 1931 dwelling was demolished in the early 1990s and the parcel has remained vacant. The subject parcel is located directly adjacent to a Public Facility zoned site (College Terrace Children’s Center, College Terrace Library and Mayfield Park) and is surrounded by multi-family and duplex dwellings in the RMD (NP) zone to the north and to the east. The relationship of the subject parcel relative to the surrounding zoning can be viewed on Attachment A. The subject property is the only R-1 zoned property on the north side of this block of Wellesley Street. The subject parcel is surrounded by a mixture of one-story and two-story residences, and multi-family apartment buildings located at 2226 Wellesley Street, 811 College Avenue, and 2345 Wellesley Street. The existing R-1 zoning of the subject parcel allows for the construction of a new single-family residence as well as construction of an accessory dwelling unit. The Residential Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District (RMD) would permit two full size dwellings under the same ownership. Though both the R-1 and RMD zone allow for two dwelling units on the subject parcel under common ownership, the R-1 zone would achieve the second dwelling unit by way of adding an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), which is limited to 600 square feet in area. (900 square feet, if detached). The RMD zone allows for two, single-family homes without the same floor area limitation. The requested zone change to RMD also involves the Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP), which modifies the RMD two unit multiple-family residential district areas, and requires the preservation of the visual and historic character of such designated neighborhoods. The (NP) combining district requires formal review by the Architectural Review 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. Planning and Transportation Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommended action. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Board (ARB) to ensure quality design and compatibility with surrounding properties. Review before the ARB is pending. Rezoning the property from R-1 to RMD (NP) modifies the development potential of the site and increases allowances for lot coverage, height, and floor area. A detailed comparison of these and other differences between the zones are shown in the chart below. Comparison of Site Development Standards Between R-1 and RMD (NP) Zoning Districts R-1 RMD (NP) Subject Lot Size 6,250 sf 6,250 sf Maximum Site Coverage 35% (+5% for eaves, cover patios, etc.) = 2,187.5 sf (+312.5 sf) 40% = 2,500 sf Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2,625 sf (.45 FAR first 5,000 sf + .30 FAR of remaining sf) 3,125 sf* (.50 FAR first 5,000 sf + .50 FAR of remaining sf) Front Yard Setback 20 ft 20 ft Side Yard Setback 6 ft 6 ft Rear Yard Setback 20 ft 20 ft Height Limit 35 ft 35 ft Required Parking (Two-units) Two required (one space required covered) Three required (two spaces required covered) Daylight Plane Side Yards 10 feet (initial height); 45 degree angle over 15 feet (initial height); 45 degree angle over Daylight Plane Rear Yard 16 feet (initial height); 60 degree angle over 15 feet (initial height); 45 degree angle over *PAMC 18.10.040(a)(4) allows floor area limits to be exceeded up to a maximum of 200 square feet for the purpose of providing one required covered parking space in the R-2 and RMD zoning districts. The differences in the development standards outside of floor area are minor and when viewed in terms of neighborhood compatibility, any proposed development on the subject site can be designed to be compatible with both the multi-family and single-family developments in the neighborhood within either zoning district. While there is an economic advantage for rezoning the property, the location and site conditions are such that staff does not anticipate a significant impact one way or another with respect to keeping the zoning as is or changing it as requested by the property owner. The applicant’s reasons supporting the zone change are provided in Attachment C. Though it is not within the PTC purview regarding this application to comment on the design of the proposed residential development, the proposed design can be viewed in Attachment D. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan2 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 On balance, the requested zone change and the intention to develop two dwelling units on the subject parcel is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans as it would provide two net new housing units to the City housing supply. In addition, the (NP) combining district requires any new development on the subject site to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood which is consistent with Policy L-3.1 which seeks to “Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures”. Furthermore, the requested zone change would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plans Land-Use Map as the RMD(NP) zone district is designated Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from CEQA per Guideline Section 15303(b) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). This application falls under this exemption as it involves a proposed duplex residential structure that totals no more than six dwelling units in an urbanized area. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on November 30, 2018, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on November 28, 2018, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information PTC3 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez, Associate Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2679 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpalolalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B: Draft Ordinance (DOCX) 3 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 • Attachment C: Applicant's Request Letter (PDF) • Attachment D: Project Plans (DOCX) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9726) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/20/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2321 Wellesley Street: Two New Units & Zone Change from R- 1 to RMD(NP) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2321 Wellesley Street [18PLN-00178]: Request for Architectural Review of a Two- Family Residential Project. This Application Will Also be Heard by the PTC on December 12, 2018 for a Zoning Map Amendment to Change the Subject Property From R-1 to RMD(NP). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: R-1 (Single-Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez (samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org) From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the City Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Background Project Information Owner: Jack Culpepper Architect: Jarvis Architects Representative: Not Specified Legal Counsel: Not Specified Property Information Address: 2321 Wellesley St 4 Packet Pg. 105 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Neighborhood: College Terrace Lot Dimensions & Area: 50’ x 125’; 6,250 sf Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: One (1) Street Tree Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s): Vacant Lot Existing Land Use(s): Vacant Lot Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: RMD (NP) (Multi-Family Residential) West: PF (College Terrace Library) East: RMD (NP) (Multi-Family Residential) South: R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Special Setbacks: Not Applicable Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Maps 4 Packet Pg. 106 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: R-1 Single Family Residential District Comp. Plan Designation: Single Family (SF) Context-Based Design: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design: Not Applicable SOFA II CAP: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not Applicable Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: Prescreening ….. PTC: The proposed Zone Change was heard by the PTC on December 12, 2018, Staff Report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68094 HRB: Not Applicable ARB: Not Applicable Project Description A request for Major Architectural Review and Zone Change to change the zoning district from R- 1 to RMD(NP) and allow the construction of a new attached duplex comprised of an approximately 2,915 square foot, two-story single family home with an attached 1,126 square foot second unit in the basement. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested: Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. Zone Change: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.80. This Code Section is intended to provide a review process for changes in district boundaries, or by changing the regulations applicable within one or more districts, 4 Packet Pg. 107 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 whenever the public interest or general welfare may so require. The PTC’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The subject parcel is approximately 6,250 square feet and is currently zoned R-1 and has historically been used as a single-family residence. However, the 1931 dwelling was demolished in the early 1990s and the parcel has remained vacant. The subject parcel is located directly adjacent to a Public Facility zone (College Terrace Children’s Center, College Terrace Library and Mayfield Park) and is surrounded by multi-family and duplex dwellings in the RMD (NP) zone to the north and to the east. The relationship of the subject parcel relative to the surrounding zoning can be viewed on Attachment A. The subject property is the only R-1 zoned property on the north side of Wellesley Street on this block. The subject parcel is surrounded by a mixture of one-story and two-story residences, and multi-family complexes located at 2226 Wellesley Street, 811 College Avenue, and 2345 Wellesley Street. Subject Parcel 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 4 Packet Pg. 108 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Adjacent Apartment Building Single Family Homes Across From The Subject Parcel The existing R-1 zoning of the subject parcel allows for the construction of a new single-family residence as well as construction of an accessory dwelling unit. While the Residential Multiple- Family Residential District (RMD) would permit a single-family dwelling with a second dwelling unit under the same ownership as the initial dwelling unit. Though both the R-1 and RMD zone would allow for two dwelling units on the subject parcel under common ownership, the R-1 zone would achieve the second dwelling unit by way of adding an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), which is limited to 600 square feet in area. (900 square feet, if detached). The RMD zone allows for two, single-family homes without the same floor area limitation for the second unit. Recently effective ADU code changes to allow an additional (bonus) 220 square feet of floor area would not be applicable to this project as the bonus floor area would be for homes that were existing on January 1, 2017. The requested zone change to RMD also involves the Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP), which modifies the RMD two unit multiple-family residential district areas, and requires the preservation of the visual and historic character of such designated neighborhoods. The (NP) combining district requires formal review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to ensure quality design and compatibility with surrounding properties. As discussed, the neighborhood has a mixture of housing densities and an eclectic mix of architectural styles, Staff seeks the ARB’s input on the proposed design of the two-family dwelling (duplex) in relation to the ARB findings and the neighborhood context as required by 4 Packet Pg. 109 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 the NP combining district. The proposed craftsmen style, utilizing wood siding, appears to be consistent with the varied styles in the neighborhood. Additionally, staff seeks the ARBs guidance regarding the submitted landscape plan. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan2 On balance, the requested zone change and the intention to develop two dwelling units on the subject parcel is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans as it would provide two net new housing units to the City housing supply. In addition, the (NP) combining district requires any new development on the subject site to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood which is consistent with Policy L-3.1 which seeks to “Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures”. Furthermore, the requested zone change would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plans Land-Use Map as the RMD(NP) zone district is designated Multi-family Residential, and is not associated with spot zoning. Zoning Compliance3 Rezoning the property from R-1 to RMD (NP) modifies the development potential of the site and increases allowances for lot coverage, height, and floor area. A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment D. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes, or is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project has proposed a carport with two parking spaces, in addition to the driveway area that would have capacity for additional parking on site. This proposal meets the Code requirement. The RMD zone allows for the maximum FAR to be exceeded by 200 sf in order to accommodate the required second covered parking space (PAMC 18.10.060). This project is utilizing the FAR exemption for the second covered parking space. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from CEQA per Guideline Section 15303(b) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). This application falls under this exemption as it involves a proposed duplex residential structure that totals no more than six dwelling units in an urbanized area. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 4 Packet Pg. 110 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on December 7, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on December 10, 2018, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received pertaining to the design or massing the project. Comments from the public were received regarding the zone change process and what the requested change would mean for development standards. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX) Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX) Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) Attachment E: Applicant Request Letter (PDF) Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 111 Attachment F Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to the PTC. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll to find “2321 Wellesley Street” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4411&TargetID=319 City of Palo Alto (ID # 10143) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/3/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approve Funding Request for Wilton Court Title: Authorize and Approve $1 Million From the Residential Housing In- Lieu Fund and $9 Million from the Commercial Housing Fund for a Total of $10 Million for the Development and Construction of t he 100 Percent Affordable Housing Project at 3705 El Camino Real; and Approve Budget Amendments in the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund and the Commercial Housing Fund From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve a $10 million loan to Palo Alto Housing Corporation for the predevelopment and construction of an 100% affordable housing project at 3705 El Camino Real, including: 1) Amend the Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Appropriation Ordinance for: a) the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund by: i) Increasing Grants and Subsidies in the amount of $1,000,000; and ii) Decreasing the Ending Fund Balance in the amount of $1,000,000; b) the Commercial Housing Fund by: i) Increasing Grants and Subsidies in the amount of $9,000,000; and ii) Decreasing the Ending Fund Balance in the amount of $9,000,000; 2) Authorize the City Manager or designee to negotiate and execute a Loan Agreement, Regulatory Agreement, and related documents necessary to implement Council direction in a form substantially similar to prior agreements approved by the City. Executive Summary On January 14, 2019, the City Council unanimously approved Palo Alto Housing (PAH) proposal to construct 59 units of affordable rental housing units, of which one unit would be exempt for an on-site manager’s unit (CMR 9917). Rents for the 58 restricted units would be affordable to City of Palo Alto Page 2 those with incomes between 30% and 60% of Area Median Income (AMI). As of May 2019, for a family of two at 60% AMI, the household’s income cannot exceed $70,260. Of the total 59 units, 21 of the units will be reserved for adults with developmental disabilities. Given the deep affordability of the project, the PAH is requesting financial assistance from local, State and Federal governments, including $10 million from the City of Palo Alto’s Residential Housing and Commercial In-Lieu funds. Background In April 2018, the City Council adopted the Affordable Housing Combining District (CMR 8966) which enabled 100% affordable, multi-family housing projects located within half-mile of major transit stops or quarter-mile from a transit corridor to utilize the development standards of an Affordable Housing Combining District (AHCD). The AHCD allows commercial zoned parcels to submit 100% affordable housing projects and provides flexibility in development standards that enables density increases beyond the State Density Bonus Law. The AHCD allows increases in the maximum allowable floor area, a decrease of parking requirements, an increase from the 35-foot height limit to 50 feet and provides alternatives to the requirement for ground-floor retail. The new zoning tool allowed PAH to apply for a mixed-used development combining two parcels at 3703-3705 and 3707-3709 El Camino Real. In addition, on January 14, 2019, Council adopted a provision to allow affordable housing projects to waive the requirement for the preservation of ground floor retail uses. Discussion On January 14, 2019, the City Council approved PAH’s application to combine parcels, 3703- 3705 and 3703-3709 El Camino Real, zone changes to apply the Affordable Housing Combining District to the site, and a waiver from the retail preservation requirement (CMR 9917). The rental apartments would include fifty-nine (59) apartments—56 studios and 3 one-bedrooms. Of the 59 apartment units, one (1) unit will be an exempt, unrestricted unit for an on-site manager. The project will include a community room with computer lab, management office, mailroom, bike storage, and building-associated services spaces. In addition, the project includes two levels of garage parking that would provide 50 residential parking spaces. The apartments would be affordable to households earning 30 to 60% AMI. Twenty-one (21) of the units will be restricted for adults with developmental disabilities. Loan Agreement The recommendation for funding acknowledges the mutual interest of the City and PAH to develop affordable housing. In recent years the City has included provisions in affordable housing loans making them entirely forgivable upon maturity if the projects are affordable in perpetuity. This provision of forgiveness will be in the proposed Loan Agreement which details City of Palo Alto Page 3 the terms of the City’s $10,000,000 loan. The loan will be supported by a Promissory Note and Deed of Trust secured by the property. The Note will bear simple interest at 3% per annum and payments will be made from any residual receipts beyond the project’s net operating income expenses. Payments will be divided among funding agencies with the City receiving its proportionate share based on its funding to total development costs. No interest will accrue, and no payments will be required until after the project is constructed and occupied. The proposed project will be affordable to extremely low and low-income households, and the affordability restrictions or Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants will be in place for a minimum of 55 years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Rents and Occupancy of the Apartments The maximum rent for each household will be based on 30% of household income, not to exceed 60% AMI. For a household of two in a 1-bedroom unit at 60% AMI, the maximum household income as of May 2019, would be $70,260. Given the project will be subject to tax credit rent limits, the rent will not exceed 30% of income or $1,647. PAH proposed rents comply with affordability requirements as shown below in Table 1 and in detail in Attachment A. The mix of unit types and expected rents is shown in Table 1 below. Given the mission of PAH to provide affordable housing rentals, the project relies entirely on public funds to be developed. One major funding source that will help the construction of the project is the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) administered by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC). Table 1: Unit Mix and Rent for Wilton Court Apartments Affordability Household Size Number of Units Type Rental Amount with Utility Allowance 30% AMI 1 16 Studio $659 50% AMI 1 17 Studio $1,124 60% AMI 1 23 Studio $1,357 60% AMI 2 2 1 bedroom $1,442 Exempt 2 1 1 bedroom Exempt Total 59 According to the applicant, the project will cost approximately $46,127,456 to be developed. Attachment B is the project’s development proposed financing, which lays out the uses, sources, and the total gap financing needed for the project. The table below assumes that $16,600,000 in tax credits will be awarded to the project. To succeed in the competition for the LIHTC, PAH needs to emphasize housing for extremely low-income and low-income households. City of Palo Alto Page 4 The project’s proposed rent categories and income limits may change somewhat by the time the project is constructed and ready for occupancy due to changes in the County median income. Per LIHTC application eligibility requirements, the development must provide at least 40 percent of the residential dwelling units to households whose income does not exceed 60% AMI; the entitled project is within compliance as 100% of the project will be restricted to household’s income under 60% AMI. The project will apply in a non-competitive application for tax-exempt 4% tax credits. If approved for the 4% tax credits, the tax credit can provide 30% of the cost of the project. The City has approximately $5 million in the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund and approximately $9 million in the Commercial Housing Fund. If the loan is approved by City Council, staff will amend the budget to allocate $1 million from the Residential fund, and $9 million from the Commercial fund to provide a total of $10,000,000 to assist with the development of 3705 El Camino Real. The development cost for each unit is $781,821. The City’s $10 million loan is equivalent to providing $169,492 per unit in exchange for 58 deed restricted units of affordable housing. PAH will leverage City funds for other public funding, estimated and detailed in the table below. PAH estimates the overall development cost for the 59-unit Wilton project to be $46,127,456 in which PAH plans to assemble a financing package to fund the project as shown below, using the City funds as leverage for other public funds. Permanent Sources of Funds for Construction Low Income Housing Tax Credits $ 16,624,706 State of California MHP Funding $ 10,771,936 City of Palo Alto $ 10,000,000 County of Santa Clara – Developmental Disabled Funding $ 4,000,000 Permanent Construction Loan $ 2,480,814 Sheridan Affordability Reserve Account1 $ 2,250,000 TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING $ 46,127,456 1 Council passed CMR 8105 that amended the Promissory Note Amendment No. 1, to Amendment No. 2, which revised the use of the Affordability Reserve Account (ARA). The revision enabled PAHC to use ARA funds on new construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing by 2030. Details of the Sheridan ARA are included in the Informational Report dated June 3, 2019 that will be provided as a late packet item on May 30, 2019. City of Palo Alto Page 5 TOTAL COST PER UNIT: $ 781,821 City’s Contribution Commercial and Residential Funds $ 10,000,000 (Commercial $9M) (Residential $1M) TOTAL CITY FUNDING PER UNIT $ 169,492 Given the complexity of funding affordable housing project, strategic financing is needed. City’s funding support will be used as leverage to apply for other sources. There is adequate funding in the Affordable Housing Fund to continue the City’s history of supporting affordable housing. Palo Alto Housing would like to secure City funding in order to apply for County and State funding. The following is an estimate of the project’s funding timeline: City's Funding Commitment June 2019 Apply for County Funds Summer Apply for State Funds Fall/Winter Apply for Tax Credits Spring 2020 Start Construction Summer 2020 Completion of project Winter 2021/2022 POLICY IMPLICATIONS The actions recommended in this report implements the City’s adopted 2015-2023 Housing Element policies and programs supporting the development of low-income housing. Attachment C describes many of the policies and programs that the Wilton Court Apartments will fulfill under the Housing Element. Policy H2.1 calls for diverse, affordable and mixed income housing to support the City’s fair share of the RHNA allocation. Whereas, notably, Program 2.1.9, calls for Housing Inventory Site identified in the 2015-2023 Housing Element for zoning changes--to encourage the consolidation of smaller lot to facilitate the development of affordable housing. Program 2.1.9 has been codified in Palo Alto Municipal Code, 18.42.140 that has provided additional incentives for the developers. In addition, each Housing Inventory Site suggested in the Housing Element identifies a suggested yield and recently, reinforced by state law. A more detailed review of the conformance of the project with Housing Element policies is presented in Attachment C., City of Palo Alto Page 6 Senate Bill No. 166 (SB 166), prohibits the City from reducing, requiring, or permitting the reduction of the density (yield) on sites identified in its Housing Element unless the City produce findings that supports this reduction. This development site, 3705 and 3707 El Camino Real, is identified in the City’s Housing Element as an opportunity site for six (6) and three (3) units, respectively. Through the combination of parcels, 3703-3705 and 3707-3709 El Camino Real, the development has exceeded the suggested yield, with the entitlement of 59 units. State Housing Element law requires that localities provide for their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) or “fair share” of the region’s housing need. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determined that Palo Alto’s projected need for the period from January 1, 2014 – October 31, 2022 will be 1,988 units, of which 374 units are presently unmet need in the low-Income category. This project will provide 58 of the 59 units to households below 60% of the AMI, considered low-Income, which will help the city address the State requirements to assist in meeting housing needs of this population of the low-income category. The proposed project is a 100% affordable housing project and will serve individuals who are earning 30 to 60% of the area median income, many of whom commute to the city to work in service and unable to afford market rents. Council has directed preference for those who work and live in Palo Alto for the affordable units. This can help alleviate traffic conditions and promote living and working in the community. Resource Impact If approved, the project will receive $10 million from the City’s Commercial Housing Fund ($9 million) and Residential Housing In- Lieu Fund ($1 million) towards the construction of the project. The remaining balance of the Commericial Housing Fund will be $735,393 and $4,076,736 for the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund for a total balance of $4,812,129. Due to the need for funding commitment from the City in Fiscal Year 2019 and FY 2019 ending on June 30, 2019, staff will likely request reappropriation of the above funding from FY 2019 to FY 2020 during the annual reappropriation process, so it is available for disbursement in 2020. Timeline Staff will work with PAH to execute loan documents and release funds, if approved by City Council. Environmental Review Review and submittal of the attached report and the approval of the loan and related financing regulatory documents are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: Attachment A -Wilton Court- Cash Flow Projection (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 7 Attachment B - Wilton Court- Project Summary Sources and Uses (PDF) Attachment C - Housing Element Applicability for Wilton Court_Attachment (DOCX) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Tenant Payments 2.5%764,964 784,088 803,690 823,783 844,377 865,487 887,124 909,302 932,034 955,335 979,219 1,003,699 1,028,792 1,054,511 1,080,874 Section 8 Payments 1.5%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Income 2.5%4,248 4,354 4,463 4,575 4,689 4,806 4,926 5,050 5,176 5,305 5,438 5,574 5,713 5,856 6,002 Commercial/Childcare Income 2.5%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scheduled Gross Income 769,212 788,442 808,153 828,357 849,066 870,293 892,050 914,351 937,210 960,640 984,656 1,009,273 1,034,505 1,060,367 1,086,876 Residential Vacancy 5.0%(38,461)(39,422)(40,408)(41,418)(42,453)(43,515)(44,603)(45,718)(46,861)(48,032)(49,233)(50,464)(51,725)(53,018)(54,344) Section 8 Vacancy 5.0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial Vacancy 100.0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Effective Gross Income 730,751 749,020 767,746 786,939 806,613 826,778 847,448 868,634 890,350 912,608 935,424 958,809 982,779 1,007,349 1,032,533 Total Operating Expenses 3.5%472,000 488,520 505,618 523,315 541,631 560,588 580,209 600,516 621,534 643,288 665,803 689,106 713,224 738,187 764,024 Bond Issuer Fee 0.0%(4,000)(4,000)(4,000)(4,000)(4,000)(4,000)(4,000)(4,000)(4,000)(4,000)(4,000)(4,000)(4,000)(4,000)(4,000) Services Fee 3.5%(29,500)(30,533)(31,601)(32,707)(33,852)(35,037)(36,263)(37,532)(38,846)(40,205)(41,613)(43,069)(44,577)(46,137)(47,751) Operating Reserves 3.5% Replacement Reserves 0.0%(26,550)(26,550)(26,550)(26,550)(26,550)(26,550)(26,550)(26,550)(26,550)(26,550)(26,550)(26,550)(26,550)(26,550)(26,550) HCD/County Monitoring Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Operating Income 1,142,701 1,176,458 1,211,213 1,246,997 1,283,842 1,321,779 1,360,843 1,401,067 1,442,488 1,485,140 1,529,064 1,574,296 1,620,877 1,668,849 1,718,255 Debt Service (Tranche A)(172,784)(172,784)(172,784)(172,784)(172,784)(172,784)(172,784)(172,784)(172,784)(172,784)(172,784)(172,784)(172,784)(172,784)(172,784) Debt Service (Tranche B)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Debt Service (Tranche C)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Available Cash 969,917 1,003,674 1,038,429 1,074,213 1,111,058 1,148,995 1,188,059 1,228,283 1,269,704 1,312,356 1,356,280 1,401,512 1,448,093 1,496,065 1,545,471 Debt Coverage Ratio 6.61 6.81 7.01 7.22 7.43 7.65 7.88 8.11 8.35 8.60 8.85 9.11 9.38 9.66 9.94 Asset Management Fee 7,500$ (7,500)(7,763)(8,034)(8,315)(8,606)(8,908)(9,219)(9,542)(9,876)(10,222)(10,579)(10,950)(11,333)(11,730)(12,140) Deferred Developer Fee -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Partnership Management Fee 25,000$ (962,417)(995,911)(1,030,395)(1,065,898)(1,102,451)(1,140,088)(1,178,840)(1,218,741)(1,259,828)(1,302,135)(1,345,700)(1,390,562)(1,436,760)(1,484,336)(1,533,331) Accrued Partnership Management Fee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residual Cash Flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CASH FLOW PROJECTION Wilton Court, Palo Alto - 4% Credits LAND UNIT TYPES Rental Range Acreage 0 acres Studios $658 - 1,356 56 Density 126 units/acre 1-Bedroom $1,442 2 # of Stories 4 Total - 3 residential levels TOTAL AFFORDABLE UNITS 58 over 2-level, half-submerged podium AFFORDABILITY Household Income Range BUILDING Residential Units 22,223 sf 30% AMI 1 Person $27,930 to 3 Person $35,910 16 Circulation and Common 17,182 sf 40% AMI 1 Person $37,240 to 3 Person $47,880 0 Commercial/Childcare - sf 50% AMI 1 Person $46,550 to 3 Person $59,850 17 Garage 18,275 sf 60% AMI 1 Person $55,860 to 3 Person $71,820 25 Total Building Area 57,679 sf Manager's Unit 1 TOTAL UNITS 59 AVERAGE AFFORDABILITY 49% PARKING # of spaces 41 parking ratio 1 type Concrete Podium CONSTRUCTION SOURCES per unit Construction Loan 25,527,047.39$ 432,661.82$ Tax Credit Investor Proceeds 1,662,470.60$ 28,177.47$ ACQUISITION total per unit per sq ft County 2019 Funding for Developmentally Disabled (est.)4,000,000.00$ 67,796.61$ Total Land Cost 3,300,000.00$ 55,932.20$ 57.21$ City of Palo Alto - to be secured Spring 2019 10,000,000.00$ 169,491.53$ Other Acquisition Costs (inc demo)970,688.91$ 16,452.35$ 16.83$ Gap Source 2,604,387.29$ 43,406.45$ Relocation Costs 180,000.00$ 3,050.85$ 3.12$ -$ -$ Total Acquisition Costs 4,450,688.91$ 75,435.41$ 77.16$ Total 43,793,905.29$ 741,533.88$ HARD COSTS Construction/Rehabilitation 28,881,441.61$ 489,515.96$ 500.73$ -$ -$ -$ PERMANENT SOURCES Environmental Contingency 300,000.00$ 5,084.75$ 5.20$ Site Work 437,769.00$ 7,419.81$ 7.59$ Perm Loan - A Tranche 2,480,813.50$ 42,047.69$ General Contractor Overhead & Profit 3,511,897.46$ 59,523.69$ 60.89$ Perm Loan - B Tranche -$ -$ Total Hard Costs 33,131,108.07$ 561,544.20$ 574.41$ Tax Credit Investor Proceeds 16,624,706.03$ 281,774.68$ SOFT COSTS Architectural 1,254,465.00$ 21,262.12$ 21.75$ City of Palo Alto - to be secured Spring 2019 10,000,000.00$ 169,491.53$ Survey & Engineering 502,000.00$ 8,508.47$ 8.70$ County 2019 Funding for Developmentally Disabled (est.)4,000,000.00$ 67,796.61$ Construction Interest + Fees 2,505,570.67$ 42,467.30$ 43.44$ -$ -$ Financing & Syndication 186,178.73$ 3,155.57$ 3.23$ Gap Sources - State of CA MHP, City of Palo Alto Additional Funds 13,021,936.46$ 220,710.79$ Local Permits and Fees 590,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 10.23$ TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SOURCES 46,127,456.00$ 781,821.29$ Legal Fees 100,000.00$ 1,694.92$ 1.73$ Developer Fee/Add'l Contingency 2,500,000.00$ 42,372.88$ 43.34$ Reserves 234,944.61$ 3,982.11$ 4.07$ Other Soft Costs 672,500.00$ 11,398.31$ 11.66$ Total Soft Costs 8,545,659.01$ 144,841.68$ 148.16$ TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS 46,127,456 781,821 800 Wilton Court, Palo Alto - 4% Credits PROJECT DATA PROJECT FINANCING TOTAL DEVELOPMENT BUDGET Attachment C: Wilton Court Apartments Housing Element Policy H2.1: Identify and implement strategies to increase housing density and diversity, including mixed-use development and a range of unit styles, near community services. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and mixed income housing to support the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs and to ensure that the City’s population remains economically diverse. The Wilton Court project was approved under the Affordable Housing Combining District (AHCD) which enables the project to increase density for 100% affordable housing project for 58 households and 1 on- site manager. The City has only permitted 5% of its lower income RHNA allocation. Program H2.1.1: To allow for higher density residential development, consider amending the zoning code to permit high-density residential in mixed use or single use projects in commercial area within one-half mile of fixed rail stations and to allow limited exceptions to the 50-foot height limit for Housing Element sites within one-quarter mile of fixed rail stations. The Wilton Court project was approved at a higher density than its original zoning using the AHCD. being near a major transit stop. Program H2.1.4: Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units, including units for seniors, such as reduced parking requirements for units less than 900 square feet and other flexible development standards. The Wilton Court Apartments is composed of studios and 1 bedrooms only. Flexible standards were applied. Program H2.1.9: Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that encourage the consolidation of smaller lots identified as Housing Inventory Sites and developed with 100% affordable housing projects. Incentives may include development review streamlining, reduction in required parking for smaller units, or graduated density when consolidated lots are over one-half acre. Adopt amendments as appropriate. Provide information regarding zoning incentives to developers. The Wilton Court Apartments has combined two parcels to provide affordable housing above suggested yield. Attachment C: Wilton Court Apartments Housing Element Program H2.2.8: Assess the potential of removing maximum residential densities (i.e. dwelling units per acre) in mixed use zoning districts to encourage the creation of smaller housing units within the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and adopt standards as appropriate. The Wilton Court Apartments was approved under the AH Combining District which removes maximum unit density as a development standard entirely. Policy H3.1: Encourage, foster, and preserve diverse housing opportunities for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. The Wilton Court Apartments will increase the affordable housing stock with increase opportunities to household of very-low to low income households. Policy H 3.4: Pursue funding for the acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of housing that is affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. The proposed City funding will help fulfill the policy by funding affordable housing for very-low to low income households. Program H3.1.12: Amend the Zoning Code to provide additional incentives to developers who provide extremely low-income (ELI), very low- income, and low-income housing units, above and beyond what is required by the Below Market Rate program, such as reduced parking requirements for smaller units, reduced landscaping. The Wilton Court project was approved under the AH Combining District which provided for a more permissive development standard in exchange for affordable housing such as relaxed density and height. Attachment C: Wilton Court Apartments Housing Element Policy H4.2: Support housing that incorporates facilities and services to meet the health care, transit and social service needs of households with special needs, including seniors and persons with disabilities. Twenty-one (21) of the total number of units will be designated for persons with developmental disabilities, supporting the City’s Policy H4.2 of providing housing that incorporates this need. City of Palo Alto (ID # 10410) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 6/10/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Use of Sheridan Apartments' Affordability Reserve Account Title: Sheridan Apartments Affordability Reserve Account From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is an informational memorandum and no action is required. This informational memo describes the establishment by Palo Alto Housing Corporation of a $2,600,000 Affordability Reserve Account (ARA) for the Sheridan Apartments, and the City Manager’s recent approval for the reallocation of those funds to assist the development of the Wilton Court project, consistent with past City Council Actions (CMR #7803 and #8105). For ease of reference, staff have attached copies of the agreement, amended promissory notes and the City Manager’s Reports and actions taken in 2017. BACKGROUND On December 8, 1998, the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) entered into Loan Agreement to fund the acquisition of Sheridan Apartments for a very-low to low income rental apartment. The 1998 Loan Agreement for Sheridan apartments, in summary, includes three major components: 1. The City of Palo Alto and PAHC entered into a Loan Agreement for $2,450,000 for Sheridan Apartments, of which 66% of the funds were from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the remainder, or 34%, from the City’s Residential Housing Fund. 2. Sheridan Apartments also participates in a Housing Assistance (HAP) Contract with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) which provides Section 8 City of Palo Alto Page 2 vouchers which subsidizes tenants’ rent. If PAHC was unable to renew its contract with HUD for Section 8 subsidies, PAHC was to establish an Affordability Reserve Account (ARA) to help supplement the tenant’s rent. 3. Per loan agreement, Section 5.1, the ARA was maintained through the deposits of note payments and if applicable, incentive fee payments. Note payments are to be structured through residual receipts – if the property had an excess cash flow after operating costs, the funds were to be paid proportionately to lenders—however as required by the loan agreement, payments were instead deposited into the ARA. The loan agreement specified the ARA to have a threshold amount of $1,000,000. If PAHC exceeded the threshold amount, PAHC was to then make payments according to the Promissory Note terms and the interest on the note would increase from 3% to 9%. DISCUSSION 2017 City Council Actions In 2017, anticipating that ARA was approaching the $1,000,000 threshold, PAHC proposed to repay the entire outstanding balance of the loan. However, according to CDBG regulation 24 CFR Section 570.902 (a)(i), 60 days prior to the end of the grantee’s program year, the total amount of the City’s undisbursed CDBG funds or a line of credit cannot exceed 1.5 times the entitlement funds for the current program year. In 2017, the City received a CDBG allocation amount of $436,309. Using HUD’s threshold of 1.5 times, the City could not have more than $654,463.50. If the City were to receive the repayment of the original loan (over $2,000,000), the amount in the CDBG fund balance would exceed 1.5 times of the current year allocation. This would have resulted in a reduction of CDBG funds the following year, possibly up to a 100% reduction, jeopardizing the City’s CDBG program. As a result, on March 6, 2017 (CMR #7803), the City Council approved Amendment No. 1 of the Promissory Note to increase the ARA threshold to $2,600,000. Initially, in the original loan, if the ARA fund was near $1,000,000, the interest would have increase from 3% to 9% and payment would be due to the City. Raising the threshold delayed this increase in interest and repayment of the original loan. The primary purpose of the first amendment was to permit the City and PAHC to renegotiate and restructure the loans in a manner that would support future development of affordable housing and avoid the need for early repayment, which could jeopardize the City’s CDBG program. Thereafter, on June 5, 2017 (CMR #8105), the City Council approved Amendment No. 2, which restructured the loan agreement and promissory note. Amendment No. 2 stopped interest from accruing as of May 1, 2017 and gave PAHC flexibility in the use of the ARA. If the City determines that the ARA was no longer necessary for its original purpose, PAHC would be able to use the ARA funds on the construction of a new affordable housing project or rehabilitation City of Palo Alto Page 3 of an affordable housing project by March 1, 2030. If PAHC was successful and used the funds to develop an affordable housing project by 2030, it could also seek forgiveness of the loan, which aligns with provisions of the City’s more recent affordable housing loans. If PAHC was unable to use the funds by the 2030, the remaining balance would be due to the City. PAHC Request to Use ARA Funds for Wilton Court Predevelopment The City Council approved a 100% affordable housing project on 3703-3705 and 3707-3709 El Camino Real, commonly known as Wilton Court in January 2019. The development is designated for households with incomes not to exceed 60% of the area median income (AMI) and 21 units would be set aside for persons with developmental disabilities. Given the deep affordability, the developer, PAHC, is utilizing public funding to develop the project. The project will apply for 4% tax credits, State, County and City funds, however there is still a gap to financing the project in amount of $3-4 million. The City Manager recently determined that ARA funds are no longer needed for the Sheridan Apartments as the project has operated positively and PAHC has successfully renewed its HAP contract for an additional 20 years. Given the past Council action allowing PAHC to use the Sheridan Apartments’ ARA funds for another affordable housing project, the need of Wilton Court for those funds, PAHC has requested, and the City Manager has approved the use of ARA funds as predevelopment funds for the Wilton Court project. Attachments: Attachment A: City Manager’s Report #7803 B) Promissory Note Amendment No. 1 C) Loan Agreement D) Promissory Note Attachment B: City Manager’s Report #8105 A) Loan Agreement No. 2 B) Promissory Note Amendment No. 2