Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017-04-03 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. April 3, 2017 Regular Meeting Council Chambers 6:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 10 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. 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 6:00-7:15 PM Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his Designees Pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (Ed Shikada, Lalo Perez, Eric Nickel, Rumi Portillo, Molly Stump) Employee Organization: International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Local 1319 Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a) CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY—POTENTIAL LITIGATION Significant Exposure to Litigation Under Section 54956.9(d)(2) (One Potential Case, as Defendant) – Palo Alto-Stanford Fire Protection Agreement 2 April 3, 2017 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 7:15-7:25 PM Oral Communications 7:25-7:40 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 7:40-7:45 PM 2. Approval of Action Minutes for the March 7 and 20, 2017 Council Meetings Consent Calendar 7:45-7:50 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 3. Approval of the Update of the Ten-Year Gas Efficiency Goals 4. Adoption of a Resolution to Join the World Health Organization's Age Friendly Global Network and the Santa Clara County Age Friendly Initiative 5. Authorization for the City Manager to Vote on Storm Water Management Fee Ballots Received for Parcels Owned by the City of Palo Alto 6. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 16.28 of the Municipal Code to Require Testing, Monitoring and Protective Measures for Temporary Construction-related Groundwater Pumping (Dewatering) (FIRST READING: March 7, 2017 PASSED: 9-0) Action Items 7:50-10:30 PM Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7. Council Direction on the Parking and Retail Program and Related Zoning Changes Needed for the Public Parking Garage Component of the Public Safety Building and the new California Avenue Parking Garage Project at 250 Sherman Avenue and 350 Sherman Avenue, Respectively 3 April 3, 2017 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. Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs 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. 4 April 3, 2017 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 Council and Standing Committee Meetings Finance Committee Meeting April 4, 2017 Sp. Rail Committee Meeting April 5, 2017 Sp. City Council Retreat April 7, 2017 Sp. City Council Retreat April 8, 2017 City Council Meeting Cancellation April 10, 2017 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report Council Roster Independent Police Auditor's Report for the First Half of 2016 Public Letters to Council Set 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK April 3, 2017 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the March 7 and 20, 2017 Council Meetings Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: 03-07-17 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX) Attachment B: 03-20-17 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 8 Special Meeting March 7, 2017 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:03 P.M. Present: DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Absent: Action Items 1. Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 16.28 of the Municipal Code to Require Testing, Monitoring and Protective Measures for Temporary Construction-related Dewatering and Consideration of Recommendations From the Policy and Services Committee to Direct Staff to Analyze Additional Measures to Minimize Construction-related Groundwater Pumping. MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to: A. Adopt seven new components for the City’s Construction Dewatering Guidelines; and B. Adopt an Ordinance codifying the Dewatering Guidelines, with the updates recommended by Policy and Services, in the Municipal Code at Chapter 16.28 (Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control); and C. Direct Staff to consider four additional requirements and return to Council for adoption, with a goal of making the new requirements applicable for the 2018 construction season; and AMENDMENT: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to amend the Motion to include the proposed changes provided by Keith Bennett as follows: A. All proposed changes for the 2017 Enhancements (and the pre- existing requirements) would apply to all sites; and DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 3/7/17 B. Revise the Second Phase: Potential Calendar Year 2018 Construction Season Changes as follows: i. Direct Staff to investigate feasibility of an Ordinance related to underground construction to take effect in 2018 requiring zero waste of groundwater without flood risks; and ii. Investigate and propose such other policies as may be needed to reduce all impacts of construction dewatering, including impacts on neighboring properties and vegetation; and iii. If significant usage of storm drains is permitted, determine an appropriate charge for storm drain usage; and INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to apply the Second Phase: Potential Calendar Year (CY) 2018 Construction Season Changes in 2017 and the only projects that would be grandfathered are those that have received planning entitlements. Council took a break from 7:59 P.M. to 8:11 P.M. AMENDMENT RESTATED: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to add to the Motion: A. All proposed changes for the 2017 Enhancements (and the pre- existing requirements) would apply to all sites; and B. Revise the Second Phase: Potential Calendar Year 2018 Construction Season Changes as follows: i. Direct Staff to investigate feasibility of an Ordinance related to underground construction to take effect in 2018 requiring zero waste of groundwater without flood risks; and ii. Investigate and propose such other policies as may be needed to reduce all impacts of construction dewatering, including impacts on neighboring properties and vegetation; and iii. If significant usage of storm drains is permitted, determine an appropriate charge for storm drain usage; and C. Apply the Second Phase: Potential Calendar Year (CY) 2018 Construction Season Changes in 2017 and the only projects that would be grandfathered are those that have received planning entitlements. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 3/7/17 INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part A., “that have not received a building permit as of the effective date of the Ordinance.” INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to change the wording in Part C. from “planning entitlements” to “building permits.” INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to remove Part C. from the Amendment. INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the beginning of the Motion Part B. iii. “If zero waste is infeasible and.” AMENDMENT RESTATED: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to add to the Motion: A. All proposed changes for the 2017 Enhancements (and the pre- existing requirements) would apply to all sites that have not received a building permit as of the effective date of the Ordinance; and B. Revise the Second Phase: Potential Calendar Year 2018 Construction Season Changes as follows: i. Direct staff to investigate feasibility of an ordinance related to underground construction to take effect in 2018 requiring zero waste of groundwater without flood risks; and ii. Investigate and propose such other policies as may be needed to reduce all impacts of construction dewatering, including impacts on neighboring properties and vegetation; and iii. If zero waste is infeasible and significant usage of storm drains is permitted, determine an appropriate charge for storm drain usage; and Amendment split for purposes of voting. AMENDMENT PART A PASSED: 9-0 AMENDMENT PART B FAILED: 3-6 DuBois, Holman, Kou yes MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to: DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 3/7/17 A. Adopt seven new components for the City’s Construction Dewatering Guidelines; and B. Adopt an Ordinance codifying the Dewatering Guidelines, with the updates recommended by Policy and Services, in the Municipal Code at Chapter 16.28 (Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control); and C. Direct Staff to consider four additional requirements and return to Council for adoption, with a goal of making the new requirements applicable for the 2018 construction season; and D. All proposed changes for the 2017 Enhancements (and the pre- existing requirements) would apply to all sites that have not received a building permit as of the effective date of the Ordinance. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Update Code Sections Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units. The Ordinance is Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Sections 15061(b), 15301, 15303 and 15305 and was Recommended for Approval by the Planning & Transportation Commission on November 30, 2016 (Continued From February 6, 2017 and March 6, 2017). Public Hearing opened at 8:53 P.M. Public Hearing closed at 9:55 P.M. MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to move the Staff recommendation adopting an Ordinance amending Chapter 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to update Code sections regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), with the following changes and clarifications: a. Require no more than 6 feet side and rear setback for ADUs; b. Allow ADUs on all residential lot sizes; c. Allow an additional 175 square feet of FAR for an ADU, but not for a two-story ADU; d. Allow an additional 50 square feet of FAR for a JADU; e. Remove Lot Coverage requirements for ADUs on properties that are no smaller than 10 percent smaller than standard lot sizes; f. Limit ADUs to 17 feet high and single-story in Single Story Overlay (SSO) neighborhoods, even if the main house is a grandfathered 2-story house; DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 3/7/17 g. Outside of SSO neighborhoods, 25 feet height and two stories are allowed for ADUs, but such ADUs must: i. Have 12 foot side and rear setbacks; and ii. Be consistent with Daylight Plane rules; h. Remove design review and requirements; i. Remove door orientation requirements for ADUs; j. ADUs to have the same parking requirements as JADUs; and k. Remove requirements for covered parking on properties with an ADU or JADU. 1. Staff to return to Council next year with options and discussion of possible incentives to make ADUs available for moderate or low income residents, seniors, people with disabilities, or public employees. 2. Staff to return next year with options and discussion of mechanisms to bring existing ADUs into compliance, including when existing ADUs do not meet new standards. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add a new Part L. “allow required replacement parking on an existing driveway within the front setback” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion “Add the following language to Section 18.42.040 to address potential impacts on historic properties from new detached and attached ADUs: “For properties listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory, the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, or considered a historic resource after completion of a historic resource evaluation, compliance with the appropriate Secretary of Interior’s Standards will be required, as determined by the Planning Director.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion a new Part e “increase the maximum size of attached ADUs to 600 square feet” AMENDMENT: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to strike Section 10 (iii) (d) from the Ordinance and change 0.75 miles to 0.5 miles in Section 10 (iii) (a). INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER “and to also eliminate Item k from the Motion.” DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 3/7/17 AMENDMENT RESTATED: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to strike Section 10 (iii) (d) from the Ordinance and change 0.75 miles to 0.5 miles in Section 10 (iii) (a) and to also eliminate Item k. from the Motion. AMENDMENT FAILED: 4-5 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou yes AMENDMENT: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member XXX to not count FAR for underground parking and to allow underground parking. AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XXX to strike Section 10 (iii) (d) and change 0.75 miles to 0.5 miles in Section 10 (iii) (a). AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to allow detached ADUs on lots 7,200 square feet or larger. AMENDMENT FAILED: 3-6 DuBois, Holman, Kou yes AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Tanaka that the transit definition specifies a 15-minute headway AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to strike Sections c, d, f, j and h from the Motion. AMENDMENT FAILED: 4-5 Dubois, Filseth, Holman, Kou yes INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Ordinance Section 18.42.040 (a) 9 (xi) Tree Preservation: “No protected tree shall be removed for the purpose of establishing an accessory dwelling unit unless the tree should be removed because it is dead, dangerous or constitutes a nuisance under Section 8.04.050. Any protected tree removed pursuant to this subsection shall be replaced in accordance with the standards it the Tree Technical Manual.” AMENDMENT: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member XX to allow basement parking. AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 7 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 3/7/17 AMENDMENT: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to remove Item h. from the Motion, “Outside of SSO neighborhoods, 25 feet height and two stories are allowed for ADUs, but such ADUs must: i. Have 12 feet side and rear setbacks; and ii. Be consistent with Daylight Plane rules;” AMENDMENT PASSED: 8-1 Fine no AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member xx to change the language in Section 8 vii. of the Ordinance to “There shall be no windows, doors, mechanical equipment, or venting or exhaust systems located within five feet of a property line.” AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member xx to add to the Motion “prohibit clear windows facing the rear and side property lines.” AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to revise the Ordinance to allow a property owner to rent both the ADU and principal residence to one tenant without subletting. MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to move the Staff recommendation adopting an Ordinance amending Chapter 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to update Code sections regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), with the following changes and clarifications: a. Require no more than 6 foot side and rear setback for ADUs; b. Allow ADUs on all residential lot sizes; c. Allow an additional 175 square feet of FAR for an ADU, but not for a two-story ADU; d. Allow an additional 50 square feet of FAR for a JADU; e. Increase the maximum size of attached ADUs to 600 square feet; f. Remove Lot Coverage requirements for ADUs on properties that are no smaller than 10 percent smaller than standard lot sizes; g. Limit ADUs to 17 feet high and single-story in Single Story Overlay (SSO) neighborhoods, even if the main house is a grandfathered 2-story house; DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 8 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 3/7/17 h. Remove design review and requirements; i. Remove door orientation requirements for ADUs; j. ADUs to have the same parking requirements as JADUs; and k. Remove requirements for covered parking on properties with an ADU or JADU; and l. Allow required replacement parking on an existing driveway within the front setback; and 1. Add the following language to Section 18.42.040 to address potential impacts on historic properties from new detached and attached ADUs: “For properties listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory, the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, or considered a historic resource after completion of a historic resource evaluation, compliance with the appropriate Secretary of Interior’s Standards will be required, as determined by the Planning Director.” 2. Add to the Ordinance Section 18.42.040 (a) 9 (xi) Tree Preservation: “No protected tree shall be removed for the purpose of establishing an accessory dwelling unit unless the tree should be removed because it is dead, dangerous or constitutes a nuisance under Section 8.04.050. Any protected tree removed pursuant to this subsection shall be replaced in accordance with the standards it the Tree Technical Manual.” 3. Staff to return to Council next year with options and discussion of possible incentives to make ADUs available for moderate or low income residents, seniors, people with disabilities, or public employees; and 4. Staff to return next year with options and discussion of mechanisms to bring existing ADUs into compliance, including when existing ADUs do not meet new standards; and 5. Direct Staff to revise the Ordinance to allow a property owner to rent both the ADU and principal residence to one tenant without subletting. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-2-1 DuBois, Holman no, Kou abstain Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 A.M. CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 8 Regular Meeting March 20, 2017 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:07 P.M. Present: DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman arrived at 6:11 P.M., Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Absent: Closed Session 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS. THIS ITEM WILL NOT BE HEARD THIS EVENING AND BE WILL RESCHEDULED. Special Orders of the Day At this time Council heard Agenda Item Number 3. 3. Proclamation of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Honoring Loretta Green. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. Minutes Approval 4. Approval of Action Minutes for the February 13 and 27, 2017 Council Meetings. MOTION: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to approve the Action Minutes for the February 13 and 27, 2017 Council Meetings. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 03/20/17 Consent Calendar Council Members DuBois, Holman, and Kou registered no votes on Agenda Item Number 13- 429 University Avenue [14PLN-00222]… Vice Mayor Kniss advised she will not participate pertaining to Agenda Item Number 13- 429 University Avenue [14PLN-00222]… MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to approve Agenda Item Numbers 5-14. 5. Appointment of 2017 Emergency Standby Council. 6. Authorize Acceptance of Relinquishment of one Parcel From the State of California (Caltrans) and the Release and Quitclaim of Nine Parcels to the State of California (Caltrans) for the 101 Auxiliary Project Between the State Route 85 (SR 85) Interchange in Mountain View and the Embarcadero Road Interchange and the Replacement of the San Francisquito Creek Bridge. 7. Ordinance 5406 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning); Chapters 18.04 (Definitions), 18.30(F) (Automobile Dealership (AD) Combining District Regulations), 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements), and 18.54 (Parking Facility Design Standards); Adding Sections 18.40.160 (Replacement Project Required), 18.40.170 (Deferral of Director’s Action), and 18.42.140 (Housing Inventory Sites Small Lot Consolidation); and Repealing Chapter 10.70 (Trip Reduction and Travel Demand). The Proposed Ordinance is Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15061(b)(3) (FIRST READING: February 27, 2017 PASSED: 8-0 Tanaka absent).” 8. 1470 Monte Bello Road [16PLN-00180]: Approval of a Site and Design Review to Allow the Replacement of an Existing 24-foot Long Wooden Bridge Across an Unnamed Tributary to Steven's Creek With a new 45 to 50-foot Long Steel Bridge and to Construct a new 45 to 50-foot Long Steel Bridge Across Steven's Creek. Environmental Assessment: The Lead Agency, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Which was Adopted by the District on March 9, 2016. Open Space (OS) Zoning District. 9. Approval of a Construction Contract With Alcal Specialty Contracting, Inc. in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $364,728 to Provide Construction Services to Replace the Existing Roof at the Cubberley Community Center Auditorium Wing. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 03/20/17 10. Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute Contract Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number C15157280 in the Amount of $30,000 With Project Consultant David J. Powers for Historical Evaluation of Rinconada Park Additional Services; and Approve a Budget Amendment in the Capital Improvement Fund for Rinconada Long Range Plan (Project PE-12003) in the Amount of $45,000. 11. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement With SRT Consultants for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $708,736 for Assessment of the City's Current Water System Configuration and Recommendations to Enhance the City's Emergency Water Supply. 12. Approval of Contract Amendment Number 2 With SP Plus in the Amount of $368,390 for Additional Services for Parking Permits and On-site Customer Service and to Extend the Term of the Agreement to March 15, 2019; Approval of Contract Amendment Number 2 With Serco, Inc. in the Amount of $751,224 for Enforcement of Evergreen Park-Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) District and to Extend the Term of the Agreement to May 31, 2019; Approval of Contract Amendment Number 2 With McGuire Pacific Constructors in the Amount of $181,035 for Construction Services for Evergreen Park- Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking District. 13. 429 University Avenue [14PLN-00222]: Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a Mitigation Monitoring Plan, and a Record of Land Use Action Approving a Mixed Use Project With 28,547 Square Foot of Floor Area and two Subterranean Levels of Parking on an 11,000 Square Foot Site. Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated From November 17, 2014 to December 12, 2014. Zoning District: CD-C (GF)(P). 14. Ordinance 5407 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Making Permanent Interim Urgency Ordinance 5330 (Limiting the Conversion of Ground Floor Retail and Retail Like Uses), With Some Modifications; Extending the Ground Floor Combining District to Certain Properties Located Downtown; Modifying the Definition of Retail; Adding Regulations to Improve Pedestrian Oriented Design Standards in the Downtown; and Related Changes. The Proposed Ordinance is Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15308. The Planning and Transportation Commission Recommended Approval of the Proposed Ordinance (FIRST READING: February 13, 2017 PASSED: 6-3 Fine, Kniss, Tanaka no).” DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 03/20/17 MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 5-12, 14 PASSED: 9-0 MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 13 PASSED: 5-3-1 DuBois, Holman, Kou no, Kniss abstain Special Orders of the Day At this time Council heard Agenda Item Number 2. 2. Proclamation of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Honoring Roy Clay. Action Items 15. TEFRA HEARING: Resolution 9672 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Regarding Conduit Financing for the Channing House Project Located at 850 Webster Street, Palo Alto, and Approving the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority for the Purpose of Financing and Refinancing the Acquisition, Construction, Equipping and Furnishing of Improvements to Channing House.” MOTION: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to adopt a Resolution approving the issuance of the bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) for the benefit of Channing House (Borrower). MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss not participating 16. PUBLIC HEARING: Comprehensive Plan Update: Public Hearing on the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Revised Fiscal Study; Council Discussion and Direction to Staff Regarding a Preferred Planning Scenario; and Council Discussion and Direction to Staff Regarding the Organization of the Comprehensive Plan. Public Hearing opened at 7:29 P.M. Public Hearing closed at 8:31 P.M. MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to direct Staff to: A. Proceed with Option 4-B to include programs in the Implementation Plan and also in the main body of the Comprehensive Plan; and B. Complete the process of consolidating redundant Programs and eliminating infeasible Policies/Programs; and DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 03/20/17 C. Incorporate suggestions from Comprehensive Plan Update Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and public and use their own judgement to identify relative priority and timeline for implementing Programs (e.g. maintain current practice, short-term, medium-term, long-term; or current, 1-year, 5-year, 13-year) and estimate level of effort/cost associated with each Program (e.g. low, medium, high); and D. Return to Council to review the above prior to adoption. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to accept the description of a preferred scenario for the Comprehensive Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report described in the Staff Report with the following elements and adjustments: A. Estimated housing growth would be between Scenario 5 (3,545 dwelling units) and Scenario 4 (4,420 dwelling units); and B. Estimated non-residential square footage would be similar to Scenario 2 (3 million square feet, of which 1.3 million square feet has already been approved at the Stanford University Medical Center); and C. Estimated employment growth would be between Scenario 2 (9,850 jobs) and 11,500 jobs; and D. Transportation investments would be those listed in the Staff Report, subject to additional review and refinement when the Transportation Element returns to Council on May 1; and E. Additional Zoning Code amendments and policies advancing sustainability measures would be those listed in the Staff Report, subject to additional review and refinement when the Land Use Element returns to Council on May 1. AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to replace Part A of the Motion with, “estimated housing growth would be between Scenario 4 (4,420 dwelling units) and Scenario 6 (6,000 dwelling units).” INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Amendment, “Scenario 4 (4,420 dwelling units)” with “Scenario 5 (3,545 dwelling units).” AMENDMENT AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to replace Part A of the Motion DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 03/20/17 with, “estimated housing growth would be between Scenario 5 (3,545 dwelling units) and Scenario 6 (6,000 dwelling units).” AMENDMENT AS AMENDED FAILED: 4-5 Fine, Kniss, Tanaka, Wolbach yes AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to replace Part C of the Motion with, “estimated employment growth would be between Scenarios 5 and 6 (8,868 jobs) and Scenario 2 (9,850 jobs).” SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman add to Part C of the Motion, “to reintroduce some form of cap on development Downtown.” SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER AMENDMENT FAILED: 3-6 Holman, Kou, Wolbach yes AMENDMENT: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Tanaka to replace Part C of the Motion with, “estimated employment growth would be between Scenario 2 (9,850 jobs) and Scenario 4 (15,870 jobs).” AMENDMENT FAILED: 2-7 Fine, Tanaka yes AMENDMENT: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member XX to replace in Part A of the Motion, “Scenario 5 (3,545 dwelling units)” with “Scenario 2 (2,720 dwelling units).” AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to accept the description of a preferred scenario for the Comprehensive Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report described in the Staff Report with the following elements and adjustments: A. Estimated housing growth would be between Scenario 5 (3,545 dwelling units) and Scenario 4 (4,420 dwelling units); and B. Estimated non-residential square footage would be similar to Scenario 2 (3 million square feet, of which 1.3 million square feet has already been approved at the Stanford University Medical Center); and C. Estimated employment growth would be between Scenario 2 (9,850 jobs) and 11,500 jobs; and DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 7 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 03/20/17 D. Transportation investments would be those listed in the Staff Report, subject to additional review and refinement when the Transportation Element returns to Council on May 1; and E. Additional Zoning Code amendments and policies advancing sustainability measures would be those listed in the Staff Report, subject to additional review and refinement when the Land Use Element returns to Council on May 1. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-1 Wolbach no Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Mayor Scharff reported that there are a number of bills in the State legislature that impact housing and potentially impact local control. He requested Council schedule an agenda item to discuss these bills. James Keene, City Manager advised that he will work with the Mayor to schedule such an agenda item. Mayor Scharff supposed that the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) may take a stance of some of these bills. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member DuBois shared his appreciation of Robert De Geus, Peter Jensen, and James Reifschneider for their attendance at the Barron Park Annual Meeting and their presentations regarding Community Services and Police services. Vice Mayor Kniss reported her attendance at the National League of Cities Congressional City Conference in Washington, D.C. She and several Council colleagues met with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). She shared that the Conference is a great opportunity to interact with officials from around the country. She reported a general sense of negativity towards California. She shared her appreciation at having the opportunity to attend the Conference and that there was significant discussion about changes that may be made by the current administration. Council Member Wolbach announced that he also attended the Conference and encouraged other Council Members to participate in the future. He felt that meeting with the FAA was helpful regarding airplane noise. He shared his hopes that Caltrain electrification funding becomes available, that relief from airplane noise becomes a reality, and that funding for the upstream portions of the San Francisquito Creek project becomes available. He DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 8 of 8 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 03/20/17 reported his appointment to the Legislative Action Committee of the California League of Cities, Peninsula Division. This is a new Committee. Mayor Scharff shared that he attended the Conference and felt it was worthwhile. He felt speaking with Republican Senators that share the City’s concerns about potential transportation funding cuts was helpful. He is hopeful that the federal government will support Caltrain electrification. Vice Mayor Kniss reported that the New York Times recently ran an editorial in support of electrification. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 P.M. City of Palo Alto (ID # 7862) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/3/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Update of Ten-year Gas Efficiency Goals Title: Approval of the Update of the Ten-Year Gas Efficiency Goals From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that Council approve the proposed annual and cumulative gas efficiency goals for the period 2018 to 2027 as shown in the table below. Summary Table: Annual Gas Efficiency Goals % City load therms 2018 1.0% 287,000 2019 1.05% 301,000 2020 1.1% 316,000 2021 1.1% 314,000 2022 1.15% 327,000 2023 1.2% 342,000 2024 1.2% 342,000 2025 1.2% 343,000 2026 1.2% 346,000 2027 1.2% 350,000 Cumulative 10-year EE Goal 5.1% 1,491,000 Executive Summary Palo Alto adopted its first set of ten-year energy efficiency (EE) goals in 2007 to meet the state mandate on EE goal-setting and adhere to Council’s policy directive to include cost-effective energy efficiency as the highest priority energy resource. Since 2007, the City has updated both the electric and gas EE goals in 2010 and 2012. In February 2017 staff presented a revised set of aggressive electric EE goals for the period from 2018 to 2027 to the UAC for consideration and recommendation for Council adoption. In this City of Palo Alto Page 2 current report, staff proposes a similarly aggressive set of gas EE goals for 2018 to 2027, with an annual gas efficiency target of 1% in 2018, increasing to 1.2% in 2027, and a cumulative ten- year gas efficiency savings of 5.1% of the City’s projected gas load. These proposed targets are approximately double the gas efficiency targets in 2012. Background Council adopted the City’s first ten-year gas EE goals in April 2007, which were to reduce the City’s gas usage by 3.5% by 2017. Gas efficiency has been recognized by Council as an important strategy to meet the City’s greenhouse gas reduction (GHG) targets, initially in the 2007 Climate Protection Plan (CMR: 435:07), and subsequently in the 2016 Draft Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (Staff Report #6754). Also, gas efficiency is a key part of the City’s Gas Utility Long- term Plan (GULP), which sets out the objective of deploying all feasible, cost-effective energy efficiency measures. In April 2011 Council adopted an updated set of gas EE goals for the period from 2011 to 2020. The most recent set of gas EE goals were adopted by Council in December 2012, in conjunction with an updated set of electric EE goals. The City traditionally updates gas EE goals around the same time it updates electric EE goals, every four years.1 Figure 1 provides a summary of the annual gas EE goals and achievements since Fiscal Year (FY) 2008. The figure shows that actual EE achievements have exceeded goals for most years. The cumulative gas efficiency savings over the period from 2008 to 2016 is around 3.6%. 1 AB 2021 (2006) required publicly owned electric utilities to adopt annual energy efficiency savings goals over a ten-year period, with the first set of goals due by June 1, 2007 and every three years thereafter. AB 2227 (2012) changed the triennial electric EE target-setting schedule to a quadrennial schedule, beginning March 15, 2013 and every fourth year thereafter. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Figure 1. Gas EE Goals and Achievements for 2018-2016 Committee Review and Recommendation The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) considered staff’s recommendation at its February 1, 2017 meeting. After discussion, the UAC voted 6-0, with one commissioner absent, to accept the staff recommendation and recommended that Council adopt the proposed 10-year gas EE goals. Staff described the history and policy context for these gas EE goals, including previous updates of the 10-year gas EE goals, and historic gas EE achievements. Staff explained the modeling framework behind the proposed EE goals, including an overview of the current portfolio of gas EE programs and new programs in development. Utilities Advisory Commissioners inquired why staff is recommending an aggressive set of gas EE goals. Staff explained that while the proposed gas EE goals are aggressive, they are not reach goals, and are based on achievable, cost effective gas EE potential within the City. Additionally, gas EE is an important strategy to meeting the City’s GHG reduction targets in a cost effective manner. Commissioners asked what comprised the Residential Behavioral savings. Staff explained that the Home Energy Report program, launched in 2011 and discontinued in 2015, has been the key driver behind residential behavioral savings. These savings have continued to persist after the Home Energy Report program ended. In the meantime, CPAU is planning to launch an Energy Lottery program in the near future to encourage residential customers reduce energy usage in their homes, with attractive prizes for customers with the biggest reductions in their home energy usage. Commissioners asked if the City can continue its gas EE programs with no changes. Staff explained a few prior gas EE programs, such as the new construction programs to incentivize City of Palo Alto Page 4 buildings to install more efficient equipment and/or building envelope than the state mandated efficiency standards have been discontinued. The Green Building Code has displaced these new construction programs, and the City needs to be able to count the savings from the Green Building Code. After discussion, the Utilities Advisory Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Council approve the proposed electric 10-year EE goals in this report as the updated electric EE goals for 2018 to 2027. The excerpted minutes from the UAC discussion is provided as Attachment B. Discussion City of Palo Alto Page 5 Overview of Gas EE Goal Setting Process The first step in establishing gas EE goals is to determine the potential gas savings in the City. This step was completed using a gas EE potential model developed by Navigant Consulting, which is similar to the electric EE potential model used by publicly owned electric utilities statewide in setting their 2018-2027 electric EE goals. The model uses a bottom-up approach to estimate the total economic potential of market-ready gas efficiency technologies as well as emerging technologies. The proposed gas EE goals are based on the market potential, which applies an adoption curve to the economic potential to reflect customers’ awareness and willingness to adopt energy efficient technologies. The market potential assumes continuation of existing EE programs, addition of new EE programs, and calibrates the potential savings based on the historical EE program achievements. In addition to the existing gas EE programs, which includes traditional rebate programs, direct installation assistance programs, and residential behavioral program (i.e. Home Energy Report), the 2016 gas EE potential model added a key new program area to the gas EE portfolio. This new program area is the Green Building Code. Since 2015, Council has adopted an energy reach code within the City’s Green Building Ordinance that requires additional energy savings beyond California’s Title 24 Building Energy Standards for residential and non-residential new construction projects2. As an energy reach code specific only to the City of Palo Alto, energy savings from the Green Building Ordinance are included in the market potential and therefore the proposed EE goals. By contrast, energy savings captured under the state’s building energy standards and the federal appliance standards are excluded from the City’s market potential and the proposed EE goals. Appendix A gives a more detailed description of the EE potential model. Proposed Gas Efficiency Goals Staff proposes new annual gas EE targets at 1% of forecasted gas load beginning in FY 2018, increasing to 1.2% by FY 2023, and remaining at 1.2% through FY 2027. These proposed goals are approximately twice the annual gas EE targets adopted in 2012 (see Figure 2). 2 For building permit applications submitted between September 2015 and December 2016, Palo Alto’s Energy Reach Code requires 15% energy efficiency savings beyond the 2013 Title 24 Building Energy Standard for all residential and non-residential new construction projects. For building permit applications submitted between January 2017 and December 2019, Palo Alto’s Energy Reach Code requires 10% energy efficiency savings beyond the 2016 Title 24 Building Energy Standard for all residential and non-residential new construction projects if the proposed project does not include a photovoltaic system; a different set of requirements apply to projects that includes a photovoltaic system and all-electric new construction projects. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Figure 2. Proposed versus Current Annual Gas EE targets Figure 3 shows the actual historic gas EE savings, and the proposed 2018 to 2027 EE goals on a therm basis, which starts off in 2018 at the same level as the gas EE savings achieved in 2016. Nevertheless, assuming relatively low gas prices over the next decade (which make EE less cost effective), and assuming no new cost breakthroughs in gas EE technologies, the proposed gas EE goals are ambitious. Figure 3. Historic gas EE savings vs Proposed gas EE goals City of Palo Alto Page 7 As shown in Figure 4, the cumulative ten-year gas savings based on the proposed gas EE goals is projected to be 5.1% of the gas load in 2027.3 For context, Figure 4 also shows savings due to the State’s Title 24 Energy Code requirements and Department of Energy appliance standards. These “Codes and Standards” (C&S) savings are not counted in utility gas EE savings. If gas savings C&S standards are included, the cumulative ten-year gas savings from all EE is projected to be 10.8% of the gas load in 2027. Figure 4. Cumulative EE savings based on Proposed Gas EE Goals Estimated GHG Reductions based on Proposed Gas EE goals Gas efficiency is a key strategy to meeting the City’s aggressive GHG reduction targets in 2030. The total GHG emissions reduction based on the cumulative gas savings of the proposed gas EE targets is estimated at 7,800 metric tons in 2027, a 5% reduction from current levels. Projected Gas EE Program Costs The City has historically recovered the cost of gas EE programs through gas rates.4 Gas EE program expenditures have been steadily growing, from around $500,000 in 2009 to nearly $700,000 in 2016. Expressed as a percentage of gas utility revenues, gas EE program 3 Note that the cumulative EE impact over the ten-year period is not equal to the sum of the annual EE goals because some measures expire before the ten year period is over. As an example, while replacing a gas boiler can generate savings over 20 years, savings due to behavioral programs have a much shorter life unless regularly reinforced. 4 In 1996, Council proactively adopted a funding target of between 0.75% and 1.25% of natural gas revenues for Demand Side Management programs (CMR:209:96). City of Palo Alto Page 8 expenditures were 1.1% and 2.4% in 2009 and 2016 respectively. Gas revenues have been steadily declining since 2009 due to depressed natural gas prices and lower gas consumption. To meet the proposed EE goals, staff estimates that the annual gas EE budget will grow from about $600,000 in 2018 to just over $900,000 by 2024. Figure 5 shows the actual gas EE program expenditures for 2008 through 2016 and the estimated annual program budget needed to achieve the proposed EE targets. Staff will continue to evaluate the cost effectiveness and customer appeal of various gas efficiency programs and adjust the gas EE portfolio as necessary to control costs. In addition to the current mechanism of recovering the cost of gas EE programs through gas rates, funding for future gas EE programs can also come from the cap-and-trade auction revenue for the allocated allowances to the City’s gas utility. The annual cap-and-trade revenue is projected to grow from $700,000 in 2017 to $1.2 million in 2020. Figure 5. Actual and Projected Gas EE Program Costs Retail Rate Impact of the Proposed Gas EE Goals and EE Budget EE programs impact retail rates in two ways. First, the gas EE budget increases the revenue requirements for the gas utility. Second, lower gas load means that fixed costs (capital and operating costs to run the gas utility) must be distributed over a lower gas sales volume, thereby increasing the average retail rate. Based on the proposed 2018 to 2027 gas EE goals and estimated annual program costs, the retail gas rate in 2027 under the proposed ten-year goals is estimated to be about 5% to 6% higher compared to a scenario with no EE programs. The net average bill impact of the proposed goals and budget is estimated to be neutral over the lifetime of the EE savings. This is City of Palo Alto Page 9 because customer use is lower due to EE even though rates are higher, with the two trends offsetting each other. Resource Impact Although this report contains preliminary estimates of the costs of achieving the proposed gas EE goals, the detailed budget plan and staffing needs to meet the annual EE goals will be developed as part of the annual City budgeting process. The annual budget will present the costs for both internally administered, as well as contractor supported, efficiency programs. Policy Implications The proposed gas EE goals conform to the Council-approved Gas Utility Long term Plan (GULP) Guideline, which calls for the deployment of all feasible, reliable, and cost-effective energy efficiency measures. The proposed goals will replace the existing gas EE goals adopted by Council in 2012 and will be integrated into the City’s Sustainability Implementation Plans. They are an integral part of achieving the GHG reduction goals laid out in the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP). Environmental Review Approval of the proposed gas EE goals does not constitute a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore, no environmental review is required. Attachments: Attachment A: Overview of Gas Energy Efficiency Potential Model Attachment B: Excerpted Draft Minutes of the February 1, 2017 UAC Meeting APPENDIX A: Overview of Gas Energy Efficiency Potential Model The first step in establishing gas EE goals is to model the potential for energy savings within the City. This step was completed using an EE potential model developed by Navigant Consulting. The 2016 gas EE potential model is similar to the electric EE potential model used by staff to update the City’s 2018-2027 electric EE targets. The model estimates the technical, economic and market potential for energy efficiency measures for residential and non-residential customers, defined as follows: • Technical potential is the energy savings that would result from installation of the most energy efficient measures that are commercially available, regardless of cost- effectiveness. • Economic potential includes only savings from the installation of cost-effective EE measures. • Maximum Market potential is a subset of the economic potential that reflects customers’ awareness and willingness to adopt energy efficient equipment over time. • Market potential is the achievable portion of the maximum market potential calculated by the model, given: 1) the calibration of the model based on actual EE savings for a specific utility, and 2) the programs the utility chooses to include. The model is calibrated based on the achieved EE savings by end use, and uses a 3-year average from 2013 to 2015 as the base year. The model also takes into account past EE program achievements as well as Palo Alto-specific input such as projected gas supply costs, natural gas retail rates, a discount rate, and the building stock. Efficiency measures included in the analysis cover both current and emerging gas efficiency measures. For each year starting in 2015, the model steps through the calculation of the technical potential, then filters out the non-cost effective measures to determine the economic potential, then estimates the maximum market potential based on customers’ awareness and willingness to adopt and, finally, computes the market potential by applying a diffusion curve function to the maximum market potential for the portfolio of EE programs. The calculated market potential forms the basis of the proposed EE goals for 2018 to 2027. Figure A-1 shows the model’s sequential narrowing from technical potential to market potential. Figure A-1. EE Potential Modeling Schematic Limitations of the EE Potential Model The 2016 gas EE potential model has some intrinsic limitations. One source of uncertainty is the values for “willingness and awareness” factors used within the model, which attempt to approximate customer awareness of individual technology measures and their willingness to install the measure. The 2016 EE potential model applies generic values adopted from the IOUs’ EE potential model. Given the unique demographics of Palo Alto, the “willingness and awareness” numbers for Palo Alto may be different from the IOUs’. Also, the 2016 gas EE potential model assumes avoided gas costs based on the natural price forward price curve as of September 2016 and projected Cap and Trade compliance cost as of November 2016. Given the uncertainty of future natural gas prices and California’s Cap and Trade program, future avoided gas costs could be different from the assumed values, and which in turn would affect the cost effectiveness of the various gas efficiency measures and therefore the overall market potential. More broadly, this model cannot predict future disruptive technologies, or calculate savings from programs with completely new and different structures. The model incorporated two new programs in the overall potential analysis: the Green Building Code, which counts energy savings attributed to Palo Alto’s Green Building Ordinance that are beyond the state’s building energy standards, and the Building Operation Certification program, which offers training to facility managers to operate buildings more efficiently. The savings assumptions behind these two programs, however, are based on the IOUs’ model since Palo Alto-specific numbers are not available. Model Results For Palo Alto, the 2016 EE potential model estimates an annual incremental market potential of 1% of the forecasted load in 2018, increasing to 1.2% by 2023 and beyond. This assumes an expanded EE portfolio by offering early retirement incentives to customers to replace older, inefficient equipment with efficient alternatives, counting energy savings from the Green Building Code, and offering the Building Operator Certification program. If the City relies solely on a business as usual approach, the model projects gas savings that are 16% lower in 2018, and 23% lower in 2023. The 2016 EE Potential model also projects future market potential by end use. Figure A-2 shows that the 65% of the 2018 energy savings are expected from the residential sector, with residential behavioral savings accounting for half of the total gas savings. Gas savings attributed to the Green Building Code accounts for 13% of the savings. Retrocommissioning (RCx) activities such as resetting temperatures and schedules of the building HVAC systems account for another 8% of the savings. Figure A-2. Composition of Gas EE Market Potential in 2018 EXCERPTED DRAFT MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 1, 2017 UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION ITEM 3. ACTION: Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend that the City Council Approve the Updated Ten-year Gas Efficiency Goals for the period 2018 to 2027 Senior Resource Planner Christine Tam provided a summary of the written report. She described the benefits of cost effective gas energy efficiency (gas EE), which include reducing the City’s greenhouse gas emissions and lowering the City’s gas supply cost. Since 2008, the City’s annual gas EE achievements have surpassed the gas EE goals in most years, particularly for years when the City introduced new programs. For example, savings were high when the Home Energy Report was introduced in 2011 and when two new commercial EE programs introduced in 2013. Tam gave an overview of the gas EE modeling framework, and emphasized that the energy savings mandated through the state’s building and appliance energy standards are excluded in the gas EE potential. Tam presented the proposed gas EE goals, which were double the previous gas EE goals adopted by City Council in 2012. However, in the context of therm savings and the achieved gas EE savings in the past few years, the proposed 2018-2027 goals were aggressive but not unattainable. Commissioner Schwartz asked why the City needed to be so aggressive with the proposed goals, given that there were no advanced gas meters to give feedback to residents. In the absence of better technology, the City might want to pursue simpler approaches to help customers improve their envelope rather than setting a standard beyond the state’s requirements. Tam explained that the proposed goals were developed from the gas EE potential model, which considered gas EE savings that were feasible, cost effective, and took into account the likely uptake from customers. Assistant Director of Resource Management Jonathan Abendschein also pointed out the proposed goals were in line with historic gas EE savings achieved by the City. He stated that the proposed goals were aggressive but achievable. Commissioner Ballantine clarified that with the electric EE goals, as compared to gas EE, there was a state requirement to pursue aggressive goals. General Manager Shikada stated there was some desire to accommodate California Energy Commission (CEC) goals for gas EE and to be consistent with the mission of the Utilities Department. ATTACHMENT B Vice Chair Danaher expressed that he had no doubt that there is much efficiency to be gained given the existing use patterns. Commissioner Forssell asked for a description of Residential Behavioral measures. Tam responded that the City launched the Home Energy Report program in 2011, continuously ran the program for 4 years, and ended the program in 2015. While residents no longer receive the Home Energy Reports, some of the behavioral savings such as turning off lights and changing the thermostat setting persist. Staff was developing a new program, the Energy Lottery, which would encourage residents to reduce their energy usage through a competition, with an attractive prize for the winner. The Energy Lottery covers both electric and gas savings within households. Commissioner Forssell asked for an explanation of RCx, which was mentioned in the slide showing the composition of gas EE savings. Tam explained that RCx stands for Retro-commissioning, which are programs where third-party energy service providers help facility managers optimize the building’s energy management system, such as to avoid simultaneous heating and cooling. Commissioner Forssell also asked about what the percentage of gas EE savings relative to load in the slide “Gas EE goals & Achievement” represented. She clarified that for 2016, the 1% savings shown does not mean the City’s gas usage went down by 1%, but instead represents predictable gas savings associated with the installed measures. Tam confirmed that the 1% represents gas savings attributed to the gas EE programs based on the type of EE project rather than measured decreases in citywide gas usage , and that the City uses an EM&V consultant to evaluate and determine that the reported gas savings are real. Commissioner Johnston asked how much of the goals will be met by existing gas EE programs versus new programs. Tam pointed out that some of the EE programs in 2015 have been discontinued. An example is the New Construction program, which no longer makes sense given the strict energy requirements of the Green Building Code. In order to meet the aggressive EE goals, the City will need new programs as well as counting savings from the Green Building Code. ACTION: Commissioner Ballantine made a motion to recommend Council approval of the proposed ten-year gas efficiency goals for 2018 to 2027. Commissioner Forssell seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (6-0) with Vice Chair Danaher and Commissioners Ballantine, Forssell, Johnston, Schwartz, and Trumbull voting yes and Chair Cook absent. City of Palo Alto (ID # 7886) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/3/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Age Friendly Community Initiative Title: Adoption a Resolution to Join the World Health Organization's Age Friendly Global Network and the Santa Clara County Age Friendly Initiative From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve the following actions: 1) Adopt a resolution to join the World Health Organizations Age Friendly Global Network. (Attachment A – WHO Age Friendly Global Network Resolution) 2) Approve a request that Palo Alto join the Santa Clara County Age Friendly Initiative and move toward becoming more age-friendly over the next 5 years. Executive Summary One of the seven objectives of the City’s Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities Initiative’s implementation plan is to “Develop actions to enroll Palo Alto as an Age Friendly Community.” The concept of an Age Friendly Community was developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) to help cities consider and implement policies and services to support older adults as they grow older to live healthy and vibrant lives. To that end; a local task force (a sub-committee of the Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities Initiative) was identified and has been working towards completing all the actions needed to submit an application with the WHO to join its Age Friendly Global Network. On a local level, the Seniors Agenda of the Santa Clara Department of Aging Services has been spearheading an effort to have all cities in Santa Clara County (SCC) receive the Age Friendly designation from the WHO by July, 2017 so that SCC can become the first county in the City of Palo Alto Page 2 country to have each of its cities become active members of the WHO’s Age- Friendly Network of Cities and Communities. Background In 2006, the WHO recognized two major global trends: rapid aging and increasing urbanization. A major study was launched in 33 different cities around the globe to determine what amenities optimize and enhance the quality of life for residents as they age. Focus groups composed of individuals ages 60 and above from lower and middle-class backgrounds participated in helping the WHO compile a list of services that influence a resident’s quality of life as they age. Eight key elements were identified through this process as areas that require a conscious effort to create an age-friendly community: housing, transportation, social participation, respect and social inclusion, civic participation and employment, communication and information, community support and health services, and outdoor spaces and buildings. These results launched WHO’s Global Age-Friendly Cities initiative. Age-Friendly ideals optimize opportunities for health, participation and security in order to enhance the quality of life as people age. In the past nine years, hundreds of cities from around the world have embraced Age- Friendly ideals and are creating programs to incorporate the goals developed by the WHO. Currently in the United States over 150 cities have been accepted into the WHO Age-Friendly City Network. AARP (American Association of Retired People) facilitates the process for cities in the United States in the enrollment of WHO Age Friendly Network through their Network of Age Friendly Communities and gives assistance to cities in the implementation and assessment process. In the United States a number of large cities (Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco) have been accepted by WHO as Age-Friendly Cities. In Santa Clara County (SCC) six cities have already been accepted by the WHO as Age-Friendly Cities; San Jose, Los Altos, Mountain View, Morgan Hill, Saratoga and Los Altos Hills. Each of the other 9 cities is at some stage of working on the process, with a goal of all cities in SCC earning this designation by July of 2017. An Age-Friendly City has not only structures and services that are accessible and inclusive of older people with varying needs and capacities, but also the eight key elements support an urban environment that improves the quality of life for all its residents. For example, a sidewalk curb cut-out benefits an elderly person who has difficulty walking, an individual in a wheelchair or a parent pushing a stroller. City of Palo Alto Page 3 In regards to population trends, the US Census Bureau estimated that in 2013 12% of the population in Santa Clara County was 65 and older, and that by 2020 older adults are expected to make up 20% of the county residents. The following graph (provided by Avenidas) illustrates the projected senior growth in Palo Alto through 2040. This next graph illustrates that Palo Alto has a higher percentage of total residents age 65 and over than the County or State. (Source – American Communities Survey 2014.) City of Palo Alto Page 4 The City has long been anticipating this increase in the older adult population in Palo Alto. In 2006, the Community Services Department (CSD) initiated a task force of community leaders and service providers to “understand the impending impacts of a rapidly changing demographic environment driven by the aging of the Baby Boom Generation” and produced a “white paper” documenting their observations. Key survey and focus group results from that effort indicated the following results: Boomers want to live independently as they age and the concept of a “senior friendly” environment, especially with regards to mobility, is especially important. There is a deep desire to be engaged in community and social activities and have a variety of learning opportunities. Palo Alto Boomers want to stay involved, for either lifestyle or financial reasons, through volunteerism or continued part or full-time employment. Our Boomers want to remain physically and mentally active and healthy, well into their elder years. Finally, in 2015, the Human Relations Commission hosted a Senior Summit of over 40 aging services providers to identify older adults most pressing unmet/chronic needs and the barriers to addressing them. Key needs identified were in the areas of housing and transportation and the attendees underscored the need for collaboration in the provision of services to older adults in Palo Alto. Discussion City of Palo Alto Page 5 Palo Alto has been working on the process to become an Age Friendly City as it is one of the seven objectives as part of the Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities Initiative. A task force of aging professionals, Human Relations Commissioners, and city staff has been working on this process with the assistance of the Center for Age Friendly Excellence (CAFÉ), Age- Friendly Cities Collaborative Silicon Valley, and Santa Clara County. The process of being designated an Age-Friendly City has included: Identifying a task force to oversee the Age-Friendly Process (sub- committee of Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities Initiative) Conducting a series of four focus groups to assess the baseline “Age- Friendliness” of Palo Alto in the following areas or domains - Mobility/transportation, Outdoor Spaces and Buildings, Housing, Social Participation, Respect and Social Inclusion, Civic Participation and employment, Communication and information, Community and Health Services with the following. Focus groups were held at Avenidas, Senior Friendship Day (a weekly activity co-sponsored by the City/Palo Alto Adult School/Avenidas), The Sheridan (a senior housing residence operated by Palo Alto Housing) and with a diverse group of aging services professionals. A survey was also given to forum attendees and forwarded to aging related agencies in Palo Alto. Focus groups were structured to encourage participation by diverse racial and ethnic groups. Task force re-groups to review the results of the focus groups and survey results based on an assessment by CAFÉ and recommends a three year action plan for Palo Alto Identify indicators so progress can be monitored against the action plan. Age Friendly application is completed and includes a letter of intent signed by the Mayor. As a member of the Age-Friendly City world network the City would support the ideals of building a healthy community for all ages. The effort to become Age Friendly is a community-wide effort that will involve both the public and private sector. The Age Friendly Task force met to review the preliminary results of the focus groups and identified some areas of focus that it will be discussing and refining in the near future. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Specific programs and policies will be approved by the Council or the City Manager as required by local law and procedures. There is also a nationwide movement called Dementia Friendly America which seeks to support those who are living with dementia and their families and care givers. While we are not actively seeking to become a Dementia Friendly City as this time, the task force will actively work to incorporate elements of these efforts into Palo Alto’s actions plan and goals. Resources Impact There are no additional resource requests as part of the recommendations of this report. Policy Implications The following areas of the Comprehensive Plan are pertinent to this report: Policy C-18: Support and promote the provision of comprehensive senior services in coordination with senior service providers. Attachments: 0140178 WHO Age Friendly Global Network Reso 0140178 tlh 170313 RESOLUTION _____ OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO TO JOIN THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION'S AGE-FRIENDLY GLOBAL NETWORK WHEREAS, the global population of people aged 60 and over is expected to grow from 600 million in 2000 to almost 2 billion by 2050, and WHEREAS, in the United States, the population of people aged 65 and over is expected to grow from 35 million in 2000 to 88.5 million by 2050, taking the total share of the 65 and over population from 12 percent to 20 percent of the total population, and WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara currently has over 361,500 residents over the age of 65 and this will increase by 2060 to 25 percent of the total county population will be over the age of 65, and WHEREAS, the World Health Organization has developed a Global Network of Age- Friendly Communities to encourage and promote public policies to increase the number of communities that support active aging and thereby improve the health, well-being, satisfaction and quality of life for older adults, and WHEREAS, active aging is a life-long process, whereby an age-friendly community is not just "elder-friendly" but also intended to be friendly for all ages, and WHEREAS, the World Health Organization has developed eight domains of community life that influence the health and quality of life of older adults: 1. Outdoor spaces and building 2. Transportation 3. Housing 4. Social participation 5. Respect and Social inclusion 6. Civic Participation and employment 7. Communication and information 8. Community support and health services WHEREAS, the Seniors' Agenda for the County has been coordinating community collaboration and plans of action around these eight domains and shows the county's commitment to the older adult population, and WHEREAS, the World Health Organization recognizes that towns, cities and communities have different needs, resources and varying capacities to engage their resources to take action to facilitate active aging, 0140178 tlh 170313 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby supports initiatives and opportunities to engage in the World Health Organization's Age- Friendly Communities Network by encouraging and promoting public policies and projects in support of healthy and active aging. SECTION 1. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065, thus, no environmental assessment under the California Environmental Quality Act is required. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Community Services _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services City of Palo Alto (ID # 7919) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/3/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Authorize Staff to Vote “Yes” on the Storm Water Management Fee Ballots Title: Authorization for the City Manager to Vote on Storm Water Management Fee Ballots Received for Parcels Owned by the City of Palo Alto From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council direct the City Manager to vote ”Yes” on the City of Palo Alto’s Storm Water Management Fee for the approximately 85 ballots received for City-owned parcels. Background On October 24, 2016, the Palo Alto City Council adopted Resolution 9635, which called a Mail Ballot Election for Tuesday, April 11, 2017, to submit the proposed Storm Water Management Fee to property owners. If approved, this Fee would replace the existing Storm Drainage Fee, effective June 1, 2017. A “Description of the Proposed Storm Water Management Fee” is attached (Attachment A). Staff mailed approximately 20,000 ballots to property owners in February. Property owners of parcels subject to the Fee may cast a ballot for or against the Fee by returning their marked ballot(s) to the City Clerk’s Office by 5:30pm on Tuesday, April 11, 2017. The City received approximately 85 ballots for City-owned parcels. Policy Implication Voting in favor of the proposed Storm Water Management Fee is consistent with City Council’s direction to submit the proposed Fee to property owners via a Mail Ballot Election (Resolution 9635), and with the Procedures for the Conduct of Protest Hearing and Mail Ballot Election, (Resolution 9624). City of Palo Alto Page 2 Environmental Review Council direction to cast Ballots for City-owned parcels in favor of the proposed Palo Alto Storm Water Mangement Fee does not meet the definition of a project with for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5). The level of future CEQA review for projects developed with Fee funds will depend on the scope of the storm drain capital improvement projects that may be funded by the updated Storm Water Management Fee, if approved. Attachments: Attachment A - Atty approved SWMF description 2 7 17 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FEE A. Overview The proposed Storm Water Management Fee of $13.65 per ERU (Equivalent Residential Unit) per month would replace the existing Storm Drainage Fee of $13.03 per ERU per month. The Storm Water Management Fee would have two components: 1)A Base Component of $7.48 per ERU per month (adjusted annually for inflation as discussed later in this document), which would continue until terminated by the City Council. 2)A Projects and Infrastructure Component of $6.17 per ERU per month (adjusted annually for inflation as discussed later in this document), which would end after 15 years, on June 1, 2032, unless extended by the voters. If approved, the Storm Water Management Fee would go into effect June 1, 2017. Proceeds of the Storm Water Management Fee would be available to the City exclusively to pay for: Improving the quality of storm and surface water; The operation, maintenance, improvement and replacement of existing City storm drainage facilities; and The operation, maintenance, and replacement of future such facilities. Permissible uses would include, but not be limited to, Green Storm Water Infrastructure programs (including financial incentives to property owners) intended to reduce the quantity of storm water entering the City's public storm water system or to improve the quality of storm water before it enters that system through measures including, but not limited to, rain gardens, rain barrels/cisterns, green roofs, tree wells, bio‐retention/infiltration basins and planters, and permeable pavement. B. Background The Palo Alto City Council established the Storm Drainage Fund and an associated Storm Drainage Fee in 1989 as an independent means to fund municipal storm drain capital improvements, maintenance, and storm water quality protections programs. The fee was last authorized in a 2005 property owner election, and most of the current fee will sunset in June 2017. Revenue generated by the fee since 2005 has funded seven high‐priority storm drain capital improvement projects as well as ongoing operational costs. The new Storm Water Management Fee was recommended to the City Council by an appointed Blue Ribbon Storm Drain Committee of residents. Adoption of the proposed new fee will enable the implementation of additional drainage improvements throughout the City, including compliance with state permit requirements mandating green storm water infrastructure. Green storm water infrastructure reduces runoff, improves storm water quality, and restores the natural water cycle by collecting and retaining, and/or treating runoff rather than discharging it directly to storm drains. C. Budget 1. Base Component Each Year, the Base Component is anticipated to generate approximately $3.8 million (to be adjusted for inflation in future years). The Base Component has been calculated based on the City’s anticipated ongoing costs for the engineering, maintenance, storm water quality protection, operation and administration of the City’s storm water system, including regulatory permit compliance. Floodplain Management $ 101,000 Engineering $ 255,000 Storm Water Quality Protection $ 1,135,000 Storm Drain System Maintenance $ 1,293,000 Emergency Response $ 119,000 Administrative Support $ 1,112,000 SUBTOTAL (partially funded by other revenue) $ 4,015,000 Attachment A 2 2. Projects and Infrastructure Component Each Year, the Projects and Infrastructure Component is anticipated to generate approximately $3.1 million (to be adjusted for inflation in future years). The Projects and Infrastructure Component has been calculated based on anticipated 15‐year costs for the Storm Drain Capital Improvement Program (which includes both major capacity upgrade projects and capital improvement repair and rehabilitation), Incentive Projects, and Green Storm Water Infrastructure Projects. Storm Drain Capital Improvements $ 1,104,000 Debt Service for Past Capital Projects* $ 947,000 Storm Drain System Repairs $ 400,000 Capital Program Engineering Support $ 177,000 Green Storm Water Infrastructure Projects $ 375,000 Incentive Projects $ 125,000 SUBTOTAL $ 3,128.000 * Debt service obligations end in Fiscal Year 2024, after which this budget is available for use for new capital improvements. The fifteen‐year budget for major capital improvements was based on the following projects depicted on the attached exhibit: a. Loma Verde Avenue (Louis Road to Sterling Canal) storm drain capacity upgrade (Midtown) $2,200,000 b. Corporation Way/East Bayshore Road Pump Station to Adobe Creek (Baylands) $2,420,000 c. West Bayshore Road to Adobe Creek storm drain capacity upgrade (Palo Verde) $1,390,000 d. West Bayshore Road Pump Station to Adobe Creek (Palo Verde) $1,040,000 e. East Charleston Road to Adobe Creek storm drain capacity upgrade (Charleston Terrace) $1,300,000 f. East Meadow Circle storm drain connection to Adobe Creek Pump Station (E Meadow Circle)$360,000 g. East Meadow Drive to Adobe Creek Pump Station storm drain capacity upgrade (Ortega) $400,000 h. Fabian Way storm drain capacity upgrade (Fabian Way) $580,000 i. Hamilton Avenue (Center Drive to Rhodes Drive) storm drain capacity upgrade (Duveneck‐St Francis) $3,440,000 j. Louis Road (Embarcadero Road to Seale‐Wooster Canal) storm drain capacity upgrade (Garland/Midtown) $6,910,000 k. Louis Road (Seale‐Wooster Canal to Matadero Creek) overflow storm drain (Midtown) $1,560,000 l. Colorado Pump Station integration with Matadero Pump Station (Midtown) $430,000 m. Center Drive storm drain capacity upgrade (Crescent Park) $1,620,000 Project costs were estimated based upon the best information currently available for the purpose of developing a reasonable and appropriate capital improvement program budget. Final selection and sequencing of individual projects is subject to further study and analysis, such as analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act. D. Annual Inflation Adjustment In order to offset the effects of inflation on labor and material costs, the maximum rate for the Storm Water Management Fee (and each component of the Storm Water Management Fee) will be increased annually each July 1 (beginning July 1, 2018), by the lesser of (i) the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index [CPI] for the San Francisco‐Oakland‐San Jose CSMA, published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics during the prior calendar year or (ii) 6%. 3 The City Council would have the authority to set the rate for the Storm Water Management Fee (and each component of the Storm Water Management Fee) at any rate that is less than or equal to the inflation adjusted maximum rate. E. Method of Collection and Calculated As a general rule, ERU's are assigned to each parcel subject to the fee on the following basis: Single‐Family Residential Parcels: Lot Size ERU's <6,000 sq. ft. 0.8 ERU 6,000 ‐ 11,000 sq. ft. 1.0 ERU >11,000 sq. ft. 1.4 ERU All Other Improved Parcels: Number of ERU = Impervious Area (Sq. Ft.) / 2,500. Assigned ERU's are rounded to the nearest one‐tenth of an ERU. Fees are generally collected on water bills. The Storm Water Management Fee would be collected and calculated in the manner set forth in City of Palo Alto Utilities Rule and Regulation No. 25 (available online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/sdbrc), subject to the following exemptions: Unimproved parcels are not subject to the Storm Water Management Fee, and the fee will not be charged for developed parcels that (i) have their own maintained storm drainage facility or facilities, and which do not utilize City facilities or (ii) make no substantial contribution of storm or surface water to the City's storm drainage facilities. F. Oversight provision for proposed fee increase The City Council would appoint an oversight committee to monitor and review expenditures for all storm water funding elements, including, but not limited to, Green Storm Water Infrastructure projects, storm water Capital Improvement Program projects, and Incentive Project funding and ensure that the money raised from the increased storm water management fee is spent properly. The Committee would be empowered to consider and recommend consolidation of Green Storm Water Infrastructure and Incentive Project funding for particular projects. The City Council may choose to retain the members of the existing Council‐appointed Storm Drain Oversight Committee to perform this oversight function. The oversight committee would report its findings to the City Council at least annually. G. Pay‐as‐you‐go funding of capital improvements The storm drain capital improvements to be funded through the proposed Storm Water Management Fee would be paid for on a pay‐as‐you‐go basis, without debt financing. H. Additional Information Should you have any questions about the public hearing, please call or write to: Beth Minor, City Clerk, P.O. Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303. Telephone: (650) 329‐2571. For questions about the proposed fee, please call Joe Teresi in the Public Works Engineering Services Division at (650) 329‐2129 or visit the City’s web site at www.cityofpaloalto.org/sdbrc. HWY 10 1 W. Bays h o r e R o a d Lom a V e r d e A v e n u e Co l o r a d o A v e n u e Middlefield Road Ore g o n E x p r e s s w a y El Camino Real Ro a d Pa g e M i l l Alma Street Emerson Street Ch a n n i n g A v e n u e Emb a r c a d e r o R o a d 2. CORPORATION WAY ($2.4 MILLION) 9. HAMILTON AVE($3.4 MILLION) 5. EAST CHARLESTON ROAD ($ 1.3 MILLION) 12. COLORADO PUMP STATION ($430 THOUSAND) 6. EAST MEADOW CIRCLE ($360 THOUSAND) 8. FABIAN WAY ($ 580 THOUSAND) 1. LOMA VERDE AVE. ($2.2 MILLION) 7. EAST MEADOW DRIVE ($400 THOUSAND) 13. CENTER DRIVE ($1.6 MILLION) 11. LOUIS ROAD (SEALE - WOOSTER CANAL) ($1.5 MILLION) 3. WEST BAYSHORE ROAD ($1.3 MILLION)10. LOUIS ROAD (EMBARCADERO ROAD - SEALE -WOOSTER) ($6.9 MILLION)4. WEST BAYSHORE ROAD PUMP STATION ($1 MILLION) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'3000' ProposedStorm DrainCapital Improvements For Storm Water Management Fee CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O RAT E D C ALIFOR N I A P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 1 6 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto rhada, 2016-08-17 10:22:25Ballot Measure 2016 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Storm.mdb) CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK April 3, 2017 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 16.28 of the Municipal Code to Require Testing, Monitoring and Protective Measures for Temporary Construction-related Groundwater Pumping (Dewatering) (FIRST READING: March 7, 2017 PASSED: 9-0) This is the second reading of the construction dewatering Ordinance which was heard by the City Council on March 7, 2017 and passed 9-0. Below is the amended Motion. MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to: A. Adopt seven new components for the City’s Construction Dewatering Guidelines; and B. Adopt an Ordinance codifying the Dewatering Guidelines, with the updates recommended by Policy and Services, in the Municipal Code at Chapter 16.28 (Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control); and C. Direct Staff to consider four additional requirements and return to Council for adoption, with a goal of making the new requirements applicable for the 2018 construction season; and D. All proposed changes for the 2017 Enhancements (and the pre-existing requirements) would apply to all sites that have not received a building permit as of the effective date of the Ordinance. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Ordinance Ground Water (PDF) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 NOT YET APPROVED 1 February 2, 2017 Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 16.28 of the Municipal Code to Require Testing, Monitoring and Protective Measures for Temporary Construction-Related Groundwater Pumping (Dewatering) The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. Temporary pumping and discharge of groundwater during construction of below- ground basements and garages removes tens of millions of gallons of groundwater in Palo Alto each year, and discharges this water to the storm drain system. B. For many years, Palo Alto has prohibited pumping of groundwater after the completion of basement construction. C. In recent years, concerns have arisen regarding dewatering and its impacts, including significant waste of a community resource, potential damage to neighboring structures, trees and vegetation, and possible impacts on the groundwater system. D. To begin to address these concerns and gather additional information for potential future action, the Palo Alto City Council adopts this ordinance requiring testing, monitoring and protective measures where temporary construction-related groundwater pumping (dewatering) will occur. SECTION 2. Section 16.28.030 of Chapter 16.28 (Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 16.28.030 Definitions. When used in this chapter, the following words shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section. (a) "Applicant" means any person, corporation, partnership, association of any type, public agency, or any other legal entity who submits an application to the building official for a permit pursuant to this chapter. (b) "As-graded" means the surface conditions extant on completion of grading. (c) "Bedrock" means in-place solid rock. (d) "Bench" means a relatively level step excavated into earth material on which fill is to be placed. NOT YET APPROVED 170203 th 0140175 2 February 2, 2017 (e) "Best management practices" means a technique or series of techniques which, when used in an erosion control plan, is proven to be effective in controlling construction- related runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. (f) "Borrow" means earth material acquired from an off-site location for use in grading on a site. (g) "Building official" means the chief building official of the city of Palo Alto and his/her duly authorized designees. (h) "City engineer" means the city engineer of the city of Palo Alto and his/her duly authorized designees. (i) "Civil engineer" means a professional engineer registered in the state of California to practice in the field of civil works. (j) "Civil engineering" means the application of the knowledge of the forces of nature, principles of mechanics, and the properties of materials to the evaluation, design, and construction of civil works for the beneficial uses of mankind. (k) "Compaction" means the densification of a fill by mechanical means. (l) "Drainageway" means a natural or manmade channel which collects and intermittently or continuously conveys storm water runoff. (m) "Earth material" means any rock, natural soil, or fill, and/or combination thereof. (n) "Engineering geologist" means a geologist experienced and knowledgeable in engineering geology and certified by the state of California to practice engineering geology. (o) "Engineering geology" means the application of geologic knowledge and principles in the investigation and evaluation of naturally occurring rock and soil for use in the design of civil works. (p) "Erosion" means the wearing away of the ground surface as a result of the movement of wind, water, and/or ice. (q) "Final erosion and sediment control and storm water pollution prevention plan ('final plan')" means a set of best management practices or equivalent measures designed to control surface runoff and erosion and to retain sediment on a particular site after all other planned final structures and permanent improvements have been erected or installed. NOT YET APPROVED 170203 th 0140175 3 February 2, 2017 (r) "Grade" means the vertical location of the ground surface. "Existing grade" means the grade prior to grading. "Rough grade" means the stage at which the grade approximately conforms to the approved plan. "Finish grade" means the final grade of the site which conforms to the approved plan. (s) "Grading" means any land disturbance or land fill, or combination thereof. (t) "Interim erosion and sediment control and storm water pollution prevention plan ('interim plan')" means a set of best management practices or equivalent measures designed to control surface runoff and erosion and to retain sediment on a particular site during the period in which pre-construction and construction-related land disturbances, fills, and soil storage occur, and before final improvements are completed. (u) "Key" means a designed compacted fill placed in a trench excavated in earth material beneath the toe of a proposed fill slope. (v) "Land disturbance" or "land-disturbing activities" means any moving or removing by manual or mechanical means of the soil mantle or top six inches (6") of soil, whichever is shallower, including but not limited to excavations. (w) "Land fill" means any human activity depositing soil or other earth materials. (x) "Manual of standards" means a compilation of technical standards and design specifications published by the Association of Bay Area Governments. (y) "Permittee" means the applicant in whose name a valid permit is duly issued pursuant to this chapter and his/her agents, employees, and others acting under his/her direction. (z) "Sediment" means earth material deposited by water or wind. (aa) "Site" means any lot or parcel of land, or contiguous combination under the same ownership where grading is performed or permitted. (bb) "Slope" means an inclined ground surface, the inclination of which is expressed as a ratio of horizontal distance to vertical distance. (cc) "Soil" means naturally occurring superficial deposits overlying bedrock. (dd) "Soils engineer" means a professional civil engineer experienced and knowledgeable in the practice of soils engineering and licensed by the state of California for practice in that field. NOT YET APPROVED 170203 th 0140175 4 February 2, 2017 (ee) "Soils engineering" means the application of the principles of soils mechanics in the investigation, evaluation, and design of civil works involving the use of earth materials and the inspection and/or testing of the construction thereof. (ff) “Temporary construction-related dewatering” means temporary pumping of groundwater to facilitate construction of underground structures such as basements and garages. (ffgg) "Wet season" means the period from October 1 to April 15. SECTION 3. Section 16.28.060 of Chapter 16.28 (Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 16.28.060 Permit required. No person may grade, fill, excavate, store, or dispose of soil and earth materials or perform any other land-disturbing or land-filling activity, or engage in temporary construction- related dewatering, without first obtaining a permit as set forth in this chapter, except when the activity is performed in accordance with one or more of the general or specific exemptions set forth in Sections 16.28.070 and 16.28.080. Exemption from the requirement to obtain a permit does not provide relief from the requirement to conduct all grading activities in conformance with the general grading requirements contained in Sections 16.28.270 through 16.28.340 of this chapter. SECTION 4. Section 16.28.070 of Chapter 16.28 (Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 16.28.070 General exemptions. All land-disturbing or land-filling activities or soil storage, and all temporary construction-related dewatering, shall be undertaken in a manner designed to minimize surface runoff, erosion, and sedimentation and to safeguard life, limb, property, and the public welfare. A person performing such activities need not apply for a permit pursuant to this chapter, if all the following criteria are met: (a) The site upon which land area is to be disturbed or filled is 10,000 square feet or less, except where temporary construction-related dewatering will be required. (b) Natural and finished slopes are flatter than 10:1. (c) Volume of soil or earth materials stored is 100 cubic yards or less. (d) Rainwater runoff is diverted, either during or after construction, from an area smaller than 5,000 square feet. NOT YET APPROVED 170203 th 0140175 5 February 2, 2017 (e) An impervious surface, if any, of less than 5,000 square feet is created. (f) No drainageway is blocked or has its storm water carrying capacities or characteristics modified. (g) The activity does not take place within 100 feet by horizontal measurement from the top of the bank of a watercourse, the mean high watermark (line of vegetation) of a body of water or the boundary of the wetlands associated with a watercourse or water body, whichever distance is greater. SECTION 5. Section 16.28.155 is hereby added to Chapter 16.28 (Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control) to read as follows: 16.28.155 Additional Requirements for Temporary Construction-Related Dewatering (a) In addition to applicable requirements in this Chapter 16.28, where temporary construction-related dewatering will be required, applicants also shall: (1) Submit a dewatering geotechnical study conforming to regulations issued by the City Engineer, adhere to its findings, and make modifications as directed by the City Engineer. (2) Install and maintain at least one fill station meeting standards established by the City Engineer. (3) With the consent of neighboring property owners, water trees and other vegetation on adjacent properties. (4) Verify the anticipated drawdown curve in the dewatering geotechnical study with a pump test performed on monitoring wells installed on the project site, as specified by the City Engineer. (5) Prior to pumping, survey and mark elevations on structures on adjacent parcels. (6) Submit periodic measurements and reports as required by the City Engineer. (7) Continuously comply with all permit conditions, performance measures, regulations and requirements established by the City Engineer. Promptly implement corrective actions identified by the City to address any compliance issues. (b) Prior to pouring a basement slab, groundwater may be pumped no deeper than three feet below the depth of the slab, measured at the center. After the slab is poured, groundwater may be pumped no deeper than one foot below the center. NOT YET APPROVED 170203 th 0140175 6 February 2, 2017 (c) Dewatering may not be conducted before April 1 or after October 31. Pumping permits for single family residential basements are limited to ten (10) weeks, with an additional two (2) week start-up period. At the end of the start-up period, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with all performance and water quality standards established by the City Engineer. The City Engineer may adopt a regulation specifying time limitations for commercial property pumping. (d) The City Engineer is authorized to establish and from time to time revise regulations to implement this Section and advance the goals of minimizing temporary construction-related dewatering and reducing its impacts. (e) Where pumping is continuously limited to no more than 30 gallons per minute, the City Engineer is authorized to waive requirements for a geotechnical study, verification procedures and pump time limitations. SECTION 6. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 7. CEQA. The City Council finds and determines that this Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment in that this Ordinance simply clarifies existing local regulations. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / NOT YET APPROVED 170203 th 0140175 7 February 2, 2017 SECTION 8. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ City Manager ______________________________ City Attorney ____________________________ Director of Public Works/ City Engineer City of Palo Alto (ID # 7738) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/3/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Direction on Cal Ave Parking Garage Size Title: Council Direction on the Parking and Retail Program and Related Zoning Changes Needed for the Public Parking Garage Component of the Public Safety Building and New California Avenue Parking Garage Project at 250 Sherman Avenue and 350 Sherman Avenue, Respectively From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Direct staff to proceed with full preliminary design on a new 522-space parking garage concept with four levels of above-ground parking, one level of basement parking and no retail space, (i.e. California Avenue Parking Garage Option 3), and to design enhancements to the Birch Street frontage that will create an appealing interface between the garage and the pedestrian sidewalk, with the Council discussion serving the purpose of a prescreening preliminary review. 2. Direct staff to prepare revisions to the Public Facility (PF) zoning ordinance to specifically accommodate public parking garages. Executive Summary Construction of a new Public Safety Building (PSB) is the top infrastructure priority for Palo Alto. The selected site requires replacement of existing surface parking in a neighborhood with chronic parking deficiencies. Staff requests Council direction on the size of a new parking garage adjacent to the PSB. Community feedback appears to strongly support maximizing stall count over having a retail component along Birch Street. The staff recommendation incorporates this sentiment while also limiting costs by eliminating one basement parking level. In lieu of retail, the design of the new garage could include architectural elements City of Palo Alto Page 2 on the Birch Street frontage to activate the street frontage. The existing Public Facility (PF) zoning of the garage site does not fit typical commercial area parking structure concepts (e.g. setbacks, lot coverage, etc.). Modification of the PF Zoning Ordinance specifically for parking structures is recommended and would also benefit the proposed new garage on Downtown Parking Lot D in the University Avenue area. An alternative would be to require rezoning the public parking garage sites to Planned Community (PC) zone. (NOTE: By discussing possible approaches to this zoning issue, tonight’s discussion is intended to meet the requirement for “pre-screening” contained in Municipal Code Section 18.79.) Background In December 2015, Council directed staff to begin design for a 3-story Public Safety Building (PSB) on Parking Lot C-6 in the California Avenue business district (CMR 6069) and a new parking garage, with a stand-alone retail building along Birch Street, on Parking Lot C-7. The new parking garage is intended to replace the existing surface parking on Lots C-6 and C-7 while adding a minimum of 160 new parking stalls (460 total stalls). The PSB and California Avenue area parking garage projects are part of the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan. The direction from Council included a request for analysis of costs and other impacts for possible options to provide more than the minimum 460 parking stalls. In June 2016, Council authorized a contract with Nova Partners, Inc. (Nova) to provide program management services for the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan projects (CMR 6809). Nova assisted with developing the project delivery plan, preliminary schedule and scope of work for procuring design, and environmental review services for the PSB and garage. In December 2016, Council authorized a contract with RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture, Inc. (RDC) for design and environmental review services for the Public Safety Building Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project PE-15001 and the California Avenue Parking Garage CIP project PE-18000. The contract with RDC includes preparation of environmental documents, schematic designs, design development packages, and construction documents for a new PSB and parking garage (CMR 7417). One of the first steps in the design and environmental review process was to develop parking garage options that would provide more than 460 City of Palo Alto Page 3 spaces, and to bring these options to Council for direction. Discussion Parking Garage Options: Space Counts and Costs Following the award of contract to RDC, several options for increasing the size of the garage were developed. Three primary options evolved from the effort, and a fourth resulted from public input at the March 8, 2017 community meetings. 1. 471 space garage with two basement levels and three above-ground levels with retail space and a net increase of 129 spaces (This is the baseline option as selected by Council in December 2015). 2. 552 space garage with two basement levels and four above-ground levels with retail space and a net increase of 210 spaces. 3. 522 space garage with one basement level and four above ground levels with no retail space, for a net increase of 200 spaces. 3A. 636 space garage with two basement levels and four above ground levels with no retail space, for a net increase of 314 spaces. Beyond comparing the existing number of spaces in Lots C-6 and C-7 to the number of spaces in the future new garage, there are two other factors that must be considered in determining the net number of new spaces. The Feasibility Study presented to Council in December 2015 assumed that the 12 visitor spaces for the PSB would be on the PSB site (Lot C-6). Preliminary design work for the PSB determined that the PSB site area originally considered for visitor parking was needed for other functions, and relocated the 12 visitor spaces to the public parking garage. (These spaces would not be marked as dedicated to PSB visitor use.) Additionally, Options 1 and 2 include an approximately 4,700 square feet retail building. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.52.040 requires that retail spaces provide one parking space for each 240 square feet of gross floor area. The 4,700 square feet of retail space results in a need for 20 parking spaces. Table 1 shows the calculations for the net parking added by each option. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Table 1 Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 3A Total stalls in garage 471 552 522 636 - Existing surface 310 310 310 310 - Retail demand 20 20 0 0 - PSB visitors 12 12 12 12 Net Added Parking Stalls 129 210 200 314 All of the garage options have some common features. They all have a small pedestrian arcade along Jacaranda Lane behind 321 California Avenue (currently Antonio’s Nut House). The arcade links up to the midblock pedestrian walkway between Jacaranda Lane and California Avenue beside 361 California Avenue (currently Starbucks). The options all have the same vehicle entrance and exit location along Sherman Avenue approximately 90 feet west from the corner of Birch Street to the center of the driveway. Another common feature of all options is a wide sidewalk along Ash Street that would be partially underneath the second level of the structure, improving the pedestrian experience and potentially providing a public art opportunity. Mechanical parking was not considered for this garage. Parking demand typically peaks around lunchtime and dinnertime and is short term. Mechanical parking does not accommodate this type of peak parking demand very well. Building height restrictions also limit the efficiency of most mechanical and robotic parking concepts. It is anticipated that all options would support the installation of Photovoltaic (PV) panels over the top deck of the parking structure. Conceptually, this PV could be used to help power the adjacent PSB or it could be installed, owned, and operated via a public-private partnership with an agreement similar to the one executed with Komuna Palo Alto LLC for 4 existing City garages (CMR 6535). Funding for PV panels is not included in the project cost estimates. Public Works and Utilities staff are discussing options for funding this component of the project. Table 2 provides the project cost estimates for the four options. The estimates include soft and hard construction costs, but do not include staff salaries and City of Palo Alto Page 5 benefits. Table 2 ($ in million) Option 1* Option 2* Option 3 Option 3A Total stalls in garage 471 552 522 636 Construction Cost $20.9 $23.4 $18.6 $25.4 Escalation $2.1 $2.3 $1.9 $2.5 10% Contingency $2.3 $2.6 $2.0 $2.8 Soft and Other Costs $3.8 $3.9 $3.7 $4.0 Total Project Cost $29.0 $32.2 $26.2 $34.8 Cost per Stall $0.062 $0.058 $0.050 $0.055 * The retail building included in Options 1 and 2 could be expected to generate annual net operating income of approximately $150,000 if rented at market rates. Option 3 has a significantly lower cost because it requires excavation for only a single basement level. Basement levels are significantly more expensive than above-ground levels, and the cost per space for each successively lower basement level increases significantly. Community Meetings The conceptual plans and renderings of these options were presented to the public at two community meetings on March 8, 2017. One community meeting was held in the morning and the second in the evening. The presentation materials are included as Attachment A and are posted to the project website (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/publicsafetybldg). Attachment B is a summary of public comments and initial staff responses noted during the meetings. The preliminary massing and design information shown on Attachment A serve to illustrate the proposal and should not be considered final or proposed formal designs. Based on the City Council’s comments on this staff report, a more fully developed design proposal will be developed for code compliance review and environmental and architectural review. An immediate outcome of the meetings was to add Option 3A which is simply Option 3 with two basement levels of parking rather than only one level. Option 3 and Option 3A would look identical above-ground. Option 3A would have a higher cost and a higher stall count due to the second basement level. Option 3A was added during the morning meeting because of the immediate community City of Palo Alto Page 6 feedback that the parking garage should provide as much parking as possible. The sentiment towards building retail space with the garage was mixed. There were many positive comments made about the retail, but most favored more parking instead. The morning meeting on March 8, 2017 had approximately 33 attendees. At the end of the meeting an informal vote was conducted by allowing attendees to place stickers on the renderings. The majority of attendees at the morning meeting placed positive (green) stickers showing their preference for Option 3A (which would look identical to Option 3). Option 1 received the most negative (red) stickers. Option 2 received mostly yellow stickers to indicate that it was the second most preferred choice. The evening meeting had 7 attendees. The majority of attendees at the evening meeting placed positive (green) stickers showing their preference for Option 2. Option 3 and 3A received the most negative (red) stickers. Option 1 received mostly yellow stickers. A significant community concern about the PSB and California Avenue Garage project expressed at the March 8 meetings and at previous meetings is mitigating the loss of parking during construction. Staff has committed to phase the construction of the project so that the parking garage construction will be completed before PSB construction begins. This approach avoids simultaneously losing the parking on both current surface lots (C-6 and C-7). Additionally, staff has committed to developing a robust parking mitigation program during the parking garage construction. Ideas include partnering with the County Courthouse and Caltrain, shuttles, strictly enforcing limits on contractor parking, and valet parking. Public Facility (PF) Zoning Ordinance Revisions The PSB meets the PF zoning requirements applicable to the Lot C-6 site. None of the California Avenue Parking Garage options, however, can comply with PF zoning requirements for lot coverage, floor area ratio (FAR), and setbacks that are intended to apply to occupied buildings rather than parking structures. These zoning constraints were described in the 2015 Feasibility Study in its description of parking garage options. In addition, current zoning includes a height limit of 35 feet within a 150 feet radius of residential zoning. Otherwise, the 50 feet height City of Palo Alto Page 7 limit applies. A portion of the proposed parking garage is within 150 feet of residential zoning. For options 2, 3, and 3A, the safety railing on the top floor of the garage would exceed 35 feet in height by about 1.5 feet. Planning and Community Environment Department staff are evaluating whether the 35 feet height limit applies to a parking garage railing that will likely use cables and be transparent. The PV canopy for options 2, 3, and 3A would have a height of about 43 feet. To proceed with the parking garage project, the Lot C-7 parcel will require rezoning to the Planned Community (PC) zone or adoption of an ordinance modifying the text of the zoning code to allow the proposed facility within the PF zone. The existing parking garage at 475 Cambridge Avenue is zoned PF and was built in 1968. The garage at 275 Cambridge Avenue (built in 1994) and the two newest Downtown garages (built in 2003) are zoned PC. The existing Comprehensive Plan includes Program L-78 “Encourage the use of PC zoning for parking structures in the Downtown and California Avenue areas.” However, concern has been expressed by community members and Council about PC zoning in recent years. PC zoning was placed on “time out” in 2014, and may be replaced or significantly revised in the future. Therefore, staff recommends pursuing a modification to the text of the zoning ordinance to allow construction of the public parking garage in the PF zone instead. This approach would also benefit the proposed new garage on Downtown Parking Lot D. The PF zoning ordinance modifications would consist of at least the following new provisions: • Zero setbacks for public parking structures along site property boundaries. • Height limits for public parking structures that reflect adjacent commercial properties allowances unless single-family residential is within 150 feet of the property. • Elimination of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) restrictions for public parking structures. • Elimination of lot coverage restrictions for public parking structures. Upon Council direction to pursue PF zoning ordinance modifications, staff would prepare the code revisions and initially review the changes with the Planning and Transportation Commission before returning to City Council for approval. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Project Costs and 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan The 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan established the following budgets for the PSB and California Avenue Garage projects: 1. Public Safety Building (PE-15001), $57 million 2. California Avenue Garage (PE-18000), $9.6 million The PSB cost estimate of $57 million was developed in 2012, and the California Avenue Garage estimate of $9.6 million was developed in 2013 using the current Downtown Parking In-Lieu Fee at that time. Construction costs have escalated significantly since 2012 and 2013, and project costs for most of the Infrastructure Plan projects are increasing as a result. The current project cost estimate for the PSB is $75.3 million. The PSB cost estimate is still under development, and staff is evaluating opportunities to reduce the cost of the project. As described in Table 2 above, the project cost estimates for the California Avenue Garage options described in this report range from $26.2 to $34.8 million. (It is important to note that the garage estimates are not comparable to the 2013 estimate, as the project scope now includes replacing the existing parking on two surface parking lots rather than only the lot on which the garage will be constructed, and the baseline option that provides the original number of additional parking spaces also includes the retail building component.) Staff recommends that Council direct staff to proceed with Option 3 (522-space garage with no retail building, one basement level, and four above-ground levels), and to develop additional enhancements to the Birch Street frontage of the garage. Option 3 adds 71 net parking spaces more than the base Option 1, while reducing the project cost by $2.8 million. Option 3 is responsive to the community feedback that additional parking is important, while also considering the need to contain costs so that the Infrastructure Plan can be successfully executed. Although the retail building provided in Options 1 and 2 is desirable from an urban design perspective, the Option 3 project can focus on enhancing the Birch Street frontage to create an appealing interface between the garage and the pedestrian sidewalk. Overall, current estimates for the Infrastructure Plan projects exceed the funding provided in the FY 2017-2021 capital budget and 5-year plan by approximately $10-15 million. Staff is working to refine the individual project cost estimates, City of Palo Alto Page 9 evaluating options to reduce project costs, and coordinating with our program management consultants (Nova Partners) to control costs through the design and construction process. Additionally, staff is evaluating options for providing additional funding. More detailed information on the Infrastructure Plan project costs will be provided as part of the upcoming FY 2018 budget process. Timeline Following Council direction on the parking garage size and program, RDC will continue developing the design and preparing the environmental review. Staff anticipates that Council will have the opportunity to review and certify the final EIR in December 2017. Completion of the Parking Garage is targeted for late summer 2019, and completion of the PSB is expected in late spring of 2021. Resource Impact Total funding in the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan for both projects was established at $66.6 million, excluding staff salaries and benefits. Updated construction cost estimates and corresponding total project budgets will continue to be developed during the preliminary design phase. Policy Implications The staff recommendation does not represent a change in existing policies. A new Public Safety Building was designated the top priority of the nine projects established by the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan. In addition, the following policy statements in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan support the construction of a new PSB: Policy C-22 – Design and construct new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community. Policy C-29 – Strategically locate public facilities and parks to serve all neighborhoods in the City. The following policy statements in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan support the construction of new parking supply in addition to Council direction to staff on December 14, 2015: Policy T‐45 – Provide sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown City of Palo Alto Page 10 and California Avenue business districts to address long range needs. Policy T‐47 – Protect resident areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts. The policy implications involve discussion of the potential for increasing traffic in the immediate vicinity of a new garage and balancing this against the benefits (e.g. a reduction in the over‐flow parking in nearby residential neighborhoods and convenient parking for area employees and visitors). Environmental Review An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared for the Public Safety Building and California Avenue Garage. To start the EIR process, an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was filed on March 24, 2017. An EIR scoping meeting is scheduled for the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting on April 12, 2017. The NOP and Initial Study is included as Attachment C. Attachments: Attachment A - Community Meeting Presentation from March 8, 2017 Attachment B - Community Meeting Comments from March 8, 2017 Attachment C - Signed Notice of Preparation and Initial Study PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE 2017.03.08 UP DNUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUPPPPPPPDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN C - 6 Bi r c h S t r e e t As h S t r e e t Pa r k B l v d . Sherman Ave. Jacaranda Ln. California Ave. C - 7 148 SPACES 158 SPACES++-- EXISTING SITE 310 SPACES+- PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE 2017.03.08 UP DNUUUUUUUUUUUPPPPPPPPPPDDDDDDDNNNNNNNNNNN (N) PSB (N) 190 Onsite Parking Spaces (N) Public Plaza AreasPedestrian Arcade Pedestrian Arcade & Public Art (N) Parking Garage471 Spaces Bi r c h S t r e e t As h S t r e e t Pa r k B l v d . Sherman Ave. Jacaranda Ln. California Ave. (N)Retail OPTION 1: 471 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES + RETAIL (NN) PPubbldedePPP PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE 2017.03.08 UP DNUUUUUUUUUUUPPPPPPPPPPDDDDDDDNNNNNNNNNNN (N)Retail Bi r c h S t r e e t As h S t r e e t Pa r k B l v d . Sherman Ave. Jacaranda Ln. California Ave. (N) Parking Garage552 Spaces (N) 190 Onsite Parking Spaces (N) PSB OPTION 2: 552 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES + RETAIL (N) Public Plaza AreasPedestrian Arcade Pedestrian Arcade & Public Art PPP PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE 2017.03.08 UP DN BIKE RACK UUUUUUUUUUUPPPPPPPPPP DDDDDDDNNNNNNNNNNN BBBBBBBBBBBIIIIIIIIIKKKKKKKKKKKEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKK Bi r c h S t r e e t As h S t r e e t Pa r k B l v d . Sherman Ave. Jacaranda Ln. California Ave. (N) Parking Garage522 Spaces (N) 190 Onsite Parking Spaces (N) PSB OPTION 3: 522 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES - NO RETAIL (N) Public Plaza Areas Pedestrian Arcade & Public Art Pedestrian Arcade & Public Art PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE 2017.03.08 Birc h S t r e e t Park B l v d . California Ave. Jacaranda Ln Sherman A v e . Ash S t r e e t (N) PSB (N ) R e t a i l (N) Parking G a r a g e 471 Spaces OPTION 1: AERIAL VIEW PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE 2017.03.08 Birc h S t r e e t Park B l v d . California Ave. Jacaranda Ln Sherman A v e . Ash S t r e e t (N) PSB (N) R e t a i l (N) Parking G a r a g e 552 Spaces OPTION 2: AERIAL VIEW PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE 2017.03.08 Birc h S t r e e t Park B l v d . California Ave. Jacaranda Ln Sherman A v e . Ash S t r e e t (N) PSB (N) Parking G a r a g e 522 Spaces OPTION 3: AERIAL VIEW PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE 2017.03.08 FREE DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COM DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COMFREE PUBLICSIDEWALKSHERMAN AVE.PUBLICSIDEWALK LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COMFREEFREE DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COM DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COMFREE Potential Public Art DRIVEAISLEPUBLICSIDEWALKASH STREETPUBLICSIDEWALK LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 PEDESTRIANARCADE 25’-8” 25’-8” 385 SHERMAN AVE 2454 ASH STREET PARKING GARAGE 471 SPACES PARKING GARAGE 471 SPACES Solar Panel Solar Panel Top of Rail Top of Rail OPTION 1: STREET SECTIONS PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE 2017.03.08 FREE DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COM DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COMFREE PUBLICSIDEWALKSHERMAN AVE.PUBLICSIDEWALK LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COMFREEFREE DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COM DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COMFREE Potential Public Art DRIVEAISLEPUBLICSIDEWALKASH STREETPUBLICSIDEWALK LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 PEDESTRIANARCADE 385 SHERMAN AVE 2454 ASH STREET PARKING GARAGE 471 SPACES PARKING GARAGE 471 SPACES 36’-4” 36’-4” Top of Rail Top of Rail OPTION 2: STREET SECTIONS PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE 2017.03.08 FREE DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COM DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COMFREE PUBLICSIDEWALKSHERMAN AVE.PUBLICSIDEWALK LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COMFREEFREE DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COM DOWNLOAD @REVITCARS.COMFREE Potential Public Art DRIVEAISLEPUBLICSIDEWALKASH STREETPUBLICSIDEWALK LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 PEDESTRIANARCADE 385 SHERMAN AVE 2454 ASH STREET PARKING GARAGE 471 SPACES PARKING GARAGE 471 SPACES 36’-4” 36’-4” Top of Rail Top of Rail OPTION 3: STREET SECTIONS PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE 2017.03.08 Parking Garage w/ Solar Panels 22’-2”+10’H. Top of PV System Retail 20’H OPTION 1: BIRCH STREET VIEW FROM CALIFORNIA AVENUE PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE 2017.03.08 Parking Garage w/ Solar Panels 32’-10”+10’H. Top of PV System Retail 20’H OPTION 2: BIRCH STREET VIEW FROM CALIFORNIA AVENUE PRELIMINARY DESIGN: PALO ALTO PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING & CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE 2017.03.08 Parking Garage w/ Solar Panels 32’-10”+10’H. Top of PV System OPTION 3: BIRCH STREET VIEW FROM CALIFORNIA AVENUE Page 1 of 4 Public Safety Building and California Avenue Parking Garage Project Community Meeting Comments and Initial Responses Meeting Date: 3/8/2017 Morning Meeting (started at 9:30am) 1.Will new parking spaces be the same size as existing? a.Many of the existing stalls on the surface lots are sub‐standard (too narrow). The stalls proposed for the garage will meet current standards (8.5 feet wide by 17.7 feet long per Palo Alto Municipal Code §18.54.020). 2.What is the percentage of permit parking in the garage? a.To be determined by the Transportation Division of the Planning and Community Environment Department. 3.Does PV need to be done at the time of construction? a.No, the garage could be designed to accommodate PV installation at a later date. 4.Take a look at fiscal sustainability of neighborhood as a whole. 5.Cost and funding? a.Cost estimates are being developed. Primary funding is based on transit occupancy tax (TOT). 6.Concern neighborhood will turn into a “service” district. 7.Why isn’t there a 4th option of maximizing parking with no retail and two basement levels? a.Option 3A to match this suggestion was added for consideration. 8.Convert retail to parking. 9.Go down 2 basement levels. 10.Concerned that the pedestrian arcade under the upper garage levels will be cold, damp, and become a hangout for homeless persons. 11.Remove retail and build 2 levels down. Max parking buildout. 12.What is parking mitigation plan during construction? a.Mitigations for construction impacts will be proposed and developed during the EIR process. 13.Create parking service plans. Valet parking. 14.Customer loss due to unavailability of parking during construction. 15.Permit parking for construction workers is a problem. 16.Beautify Jacaranda Lane. Dumpsters, boxes are unsightly. 17.Does parking garage have smart parking? a.To be determined. This technology is currently being explored for the University Avenue Downtown area. 18.Discuss with Santa Clara County regarding courthouse visitor parking. The County eliminated visitor parking on their lot a few years ago. Now Courthouse visitors use lots C‐6 and C‐7. 19.Consider top floor for business employee parking. 20.Increase garage capacity for employees. 21.Maximum parking with “option 3A”, no retail, no carve outs, build out. 22.4,700 SF retail does not produce enough revenue. 23.Extra revenue from rents, meter parking. Page 2 of 4 24.No breaking ground on PSB until garage is complete and functioning. 25.Could garage be partially open during construction? 26.Valet parking during construction. 27.Can county courthouse parking lot be used during construction? 28.Show creative design of garage. 29.Can Lot C‐6 be maximized during garage construction? Recommendation to clear and reconfigure C‐6 to dense parking, and implement valet service. 30. Have Option 3 look into height exemption to add 1 or 2 more levels. 31.Has it been looked at to switch garage and PSB sites? 32.Has mechanically stacked parking considered for business employees? Survey Monkey building. 33.Need parking for business employees. 34.Neighborhood changing rapidly, consider re‐zoning for what the area will be like in 15‐20 years. Evening Meeting (started at 6:30pm) 1.How long can you park in the stalls? a.To be determined by the Transportation Division of the Planning and Community Environment Department. 2.What are the parking space sizes? a.Many of the existing stalls on the surface lots are sub‐standard (too narrow). The stalls proposed for the garage will meet current standards (8.5 feet wide by 17.7 feet long per Palo Alto Municipal Code §18.54.020). 3.Is there a short term parking solution during garage construction? a.Mitigations for construction impacts will be proposed and developed during the EIR process. 4.How tall is the Visa building? 5.What is the PV concept for the garage? 6.Retail is leaving Cal. Ave due to stress. 7.Concern about raising height limit; precedent for future projects to go higher. 8.Want to stay within existing height limits. 9.Garage becomes conduit for new development parking exceptions “not providing enough parking” 10. Whom does parking permits go to? a.To be determined by the Transportation Division of the Planning and Community Environment Department. 11.Need enough parking for peak hours, supporting retail, and make it a pleasant experience. 12.Want dedicated employee parking in the garage. 13.Park Blvd. has backups. How do new cars impact the area? a.A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be prepared as part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 14.Buildings nearby have under‐developed parking. 15.Need to consider local residents. 16.Cal. Ave is a fine grained environment. 17. Visa building is greatly under parked. 18.More parking, more better. Page 3 of 4 19.Retail is a positive component. 20.Consider going deeper with parking. 21.If there is smart parking, people would be comfortable finding parking on floors. 22.Between 11 am and 2 pm there is no parking on Cal. Ave. 23.What about switching retail from Birch to Ash St. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/9/2017 7:31 AM Page 4 of 4 Carnahan, David From:Kass <vz22@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 08, 2017 4:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:Retail space in parking garages I fully support a new parking garage near California Avenue with retail space. Since the city will own the space, there will be a opportunity to provide retail space at a discount for nonprofits that have been shut out of California Avenue as they can't afford the market rents. Palo Alto provided discounted rent to the Chamber of Commerce downtown. Only this time, how about renting to a nonprofit providing services to local residents instead of businesses? How about re-opening one of the thrift shops that benefited local charities, or renting to a nonprofit providing services to adolescents like the nonprofit Adolescent Counseling Services now providing services to PAUSD? Or what about Breast Cancer Connections, now called Bay Area Cancer Connections or Vista, both of which had to leave California Avenue locations in 2014 although fortunately they have not had to go too far. How safe are they in their new locations? Kathleen Goldfein Palo Alto Resident since 1989 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act NOTICE OF PREPARATION TO: Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and Other Interested Parties FROM: City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a proposed City of Palo Alto Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman and Parking Structure at 350 Sherman Avenue (AKA California Avenue Parking Garage). The City of Palo Alto will be the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and will prepare a project EIR for the proposed project, identified below. AGENCIES: The City of Palo Alto requests that public agencies provide comments regarding the scope and content of the EIR as it relates to an agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project in accordance with California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15082(b), if the agency will need to use the EIR prepared by the City of Palo Alto when considering any permit or other approval for the project. ORGANIZATION AND INTERESTED PARTIES: The City of Palo Alto requests comments and concerns from organizations and interested parties regarding the environmental issues associated with construction and operation of the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: City of Palo Alto Public Safety Building and California Avenue Parking Garage PROJECT LOCATION: 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue; two City blocks fronting Sherman A venue on the southeast and bounded by Jacaranda Lane to the northwest, Ash Street to the southwest and Park Boulevard to the northeast, and bisected by Birch Street, within the city of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Palo Alto (City/project applicant) proposes to relocate the City'S Police Department, Fire Administration, Emergency Communications Center (911), Office of Emergency Services, Emergency Operations Center (EOC), and associated parking and other support spaces from their current downtown location at the Palo Alto Civic Center at 275 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, California, to 250 Sherman Avenue in a new adequately sized Public Safety Building (PSB) facility designed to meet the operational and essential facility standards for police and emergency service providers. The City also proposes to construct a new public NOP for Sherrnan Avenue psa and garage March 20, 2017 Notice of Preparation of an EIR City of Palo Alto Public Safety Building and California Avenue Parking Garage parking garage at 350 Sherman Avenue to provide a net increase of 150 to 330 public parking stalls for the California A venue commercial area. The project site includes two City-owned surface parking lots designated as Lot C-6 and Lot C-7 on Sherman Avenue between Jacaranda Lane, Ash Street and Park Boulevard in the California A venue commercial area in Palo Alto. The construction of the PSB on the 1.2-acre Lot C-6 (at 250 Sherman Avenue) will displace approximately 160 existing public parking stalls. Redevelopment of the adjoining 0.93-acre surface parking Lot C-7 (at 350 Sherman Avenue) for a new parking garage will displace approximately 150 existing parking stalls and will contain 460 to 640 stalls (an increase in the number of parking spaces on-site). The construction of the 350 Sherman garage must be complete prior to the start of construction of the new PSB, in order to minimize construction disruption to the neighborhood and loss of parking to local merchants. The Project includes three primary elements: • A new three-story PSB ranging in size from 45,500 square feet (SF) to 50,000 SF, over two levels of secure basement parking providing approximately 170 to 190 total secure parking spaces at 250 Sherman Avenue (Lot C-6), and associated site improvements. • A new three-to four-level public parking garage over one to two basement parking levels, providing approximately 460 to 640 spaces at 350 Sherman Avenue (Lot C-7), and associated site improvements. • An approximately 4,200 SF to 4,700 SF multi-or single-tenant commercial shell space building fronting Birch Street, to be used as commercial retail space for new or existing businesses. This retail component is an option that would accompany the public parking garage of 460 to 640 spaces at 350 Sherman Avenue. Without the retail component, the parking garage would accommodate 522 to 640 parking spaces. Further details about the project design are included in the Initial Study, which is available for review at the City of Palo Alto website: http://www.cityofualoalto.orglplanningprojects The two blocks that comprise the site are both zoned as Public Facilities (PF) and are located in the California Avenue Business District. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation of the PSB project site is Public Facilities (PF). The parking garage site's Comprehensive Plan land use designation is Community Commercial. Implementation of the proposed project will require approval from the City Council. As currently planned, the proposed parking garage will require changes to the zoning district (from Public Facilities to another zone) or changes to the text of the zoning ordinance to allow for the planned lot coverage, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), height, and setbacks in the Public Facilities zone. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: The following areas of potentially significant environmental impact will be analyzed in the Draft EIR: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public Services, Transportation/Traffic, Utilities and Service Systems, and Energy. Potential cumulative impacts and altematives, including the No Project Alternative, will be evaluated. An Initial Study 2 March 20. 2017 Notice of Preporation of an EIR City of Palo Alto Public Safety Building and California A\'enue Parkmg Garage evaluating the project's environmental effects in other resource areas is available for review at the City of Palo Alto website, as noted above. SCOPING MEETING: The City of Palo Alto will hold a scoping meeting as part of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)'s regularly scheduled meeting on April 12, 2017. The meeting will start at 6:00 PM and will be held at the City of Palo Alto Council Chambers, located in City Hall at 250 Hamilton A venue. The meeting agenda will be posted to the City's website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.orglgovlboardslptc!default.asp. Interested parties are welcome to attend and present environmental information or concerns that you believe should be addressed in the EIR. The NOP and related CEQA documents for this project will be available for review on the web. You can view this NOP and the Initial Study electronically at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.orglplanningprojects If you require additional project information, please contact Matt Raschke, Senior Engineer, Department of Public Works, at Matt.Raschke@cityofpaloalto.org PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: This Notice of Preparation is available for public review and comment pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15082(b), for 30 days. The comment period for the NOP begins March 24, 2017 and ends on April 24, 2017. Due to the limits mandated by state law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. RESPONSES AND COMMENTS: Please indicate a contact person for your agency and send your responses and comments to: 3 Amy French, Chief Planning Official Planning & Community Environment Department City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone: (650) 329-2442 Fax: (650) 329-2154 Email: Amy.French@citvofpaloalto.org .... Date March 20, 2017 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: City of Palo Alto Public Safety Building (PSB) at 250 Sherman and Parking Structure at 350 Sherman (aka California Avenue Parking Garage) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: 4. Project Location: 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: S. Existing Plan Area Land Uses: City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Matt Raschke, Senior Engineer Department of Public Works Telephone: (650) 329-2151 Fax: (650) 329-2154 Email: Matt.Raschke@cityofpaloalto.org 250 and 350 Sherman, in the California Avenue Business District, bound by Sherman Avenue to the southeast, Jacaranda Lane to the northwest, Ash Street to the southwest, and Park Boulevard to the northeast, and bisected by Birch Street, within the city of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California. See Figures 1 and 2. City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 350 Sherman: Regional Community Commercial 250 Sherman: Public Facilities 350 Sherman: Public Facilities (PF) 250 Sherman: Public Facilities (PF) The project site is comprised of two city blocks fronting Sherman Avenue. Across Sherman Avenue from the proposed PSB is the Santa Clara County Courthouse and parking lot. Properties fronting Ash Avenue between Grant Avenue and Sherman Avenue include multiple-family residential uses and Sarah Wallis Park. Land uses along Park Boulevard from Grant Avenue to Sherman Avenue include office/commercial uses, including several restaurants. H:laddress projectslAddresses Nooresideniia/lpub/ic safety building and garagelJ'SB and Garage March 20 Drafl/nitia/ Sludy.docK 1 Figure 1. Public Safety Building Site at 2S0 Sherman Avenue 9. Description of Project: tal Proposed Public Safety Building. The City of Palo Alto (City/prOject applicant) proposes to relocate the City's Police Department, Fire Administration, Emergency Communications Center (911), Office of Emergency Services, Emergency Operations Center (EOe), and associated parking and other support spaces from their current downtown location at the Palo Alto Civic Center at 275 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, California, to a new adequately sized Public Safety Building (PSB) facility at 250 Sherman Avenue, designed to meet the operational and essential facility standards for police and emergency service providers. The City also proposes to construct a new public parking garage at 350 Sherman Avenue, to provide 150 to 330 net new public parking stalls for the California Avenue commercial area. The construction of the Public Safety Building and adjacent parking garage comprise the project. (It is assumed that space vacated in the civic center will be backfilled with new City employees, and no substantive change in use will occur at that location.) The project site is comprised of two City·owned surface parking lots designated as Lot C·G and Lot C-7 on Sherman H:iaddress projec1slAddresses NonresidentiafVJublic safely building and garagalPSB and Garage March 20 Dran Initial Sludy,doc< 2 Avenue between Ash Street and Park Boulevard in the California Avenue commercial area in Palo Alto. The construction of the PSB on the 1.2-acre Lot C-6 (250 Sherman Avenue) will displace approximately 160 existing public parking spaces. Redevelopment of the adjoining 0.93-acre surface parking Lot C-7 (350 Sherman Avenue) for a new garage will displace approximately 150 existing parking spaces. The new parking garage will contain 460 to 640 stalls to replace and increase the parking spaces on-site, for a net increase of 150 to 330 public parking stalls. The construction of the new public parking garage must be complete prior to the start of construction of the new PSB in order to minimize construction disruption to the neighborhood and loss of parking to local merchants. The project includes three primary elements: • A new three-story PSB ranging in size from 45,500 square feet (SF) to 50,000 SF, over two levels of secure basement parking providing approximately 170 to 190 total secure parking spaces on Lot C-6 (250 Sherman Avenue), and associated site improvements. • A new three-to four-level public parking garage over one to two basement parking levels, providing 460 to 640 spaces on Lot C-7 (350 Sherman Avenue), and associated site improvements. • An approximately 4,200 SF to 4,700 SF multi-or single-tenant commercial shell space building fronting Birch Street, to be used as commercial retail space for new or existing businesses. This retail component is an option that would accompany a public parking garage of 460 to 640 spaces. Without the retail component, the parking garage would accommodate 522 to 640 parking spaces. The principal components of the project are listed below. • Demolition and Site Preparation: The existing site improvements on parking Lots C-6 and C-7 will be demolished and removed, including all existing landscaping and trees. Combined, approximately 2.13 acres of existing site Improvements will be demolished and removed. Both sites will be excavated to allow for basement construction and all excavation spoils off-hauled and legally disposed of. Additional demolition, patching, and repair under all City streets bounding the project will be required for the potential relocation or connection of the project to City utilities. • Public Safety Building IPSB): The PSB is planned to be a three-story, 45,500 SF to 50,000 SF building, approximately 50 feet tall, over two levels of secure below-grade parking. The PSB will be approximately rectangular in shape with an articulated fa~ade, constructed with an interior light well, and set back from the property line by an approximately 25-foot security standoff distance. Per City zoning guidelines, building equipment penthouse spaces (e.g., for elevators and stairs) may exceed the 50-foot building height limit. • Public Safety Building Basement Garage: The PSB will include an approximately 101,000 SF secure parking basement with 170 to 190 parking spaces for police and staff. In addition to parking of police and staff vehicles, a variety of programmatic functions associated with police operations will also be located in the basement. The PSB basement will be served by two vehicle ramps. The primary two-way ramp will be located on Sherman Avenue, approximately 85 feet to the center of the ramp from the corner of Park Boulevard. The secondary ramp will be located on Birch Street, approximately 136 feet from the corner of Sherman Avenue. Visitor parking for the PSB will be available in the project's new public parking garage across the street from the main entry on Birch Street. • Public Safety Building Exterior Operations Yard: The PSB will indude an approximately 10,000 SF to 15,000 SF visually screened, secure exterior vehicle parking and staging area and associated one-story site support buildings. The PSB's emergency generator, chiller plant, and other building systems will be located in an accessory structure(s) at this location. • California Avenue Parking Garage: The approximately 166,200 SF California Avenue Parking Garage will be a three-to four-level parking structure over one to two levels of underground parking, providing an estimated 460 to 640 spaces to replace and increase the approximately 310 parking spaces on-site, for a net increase of H:\address projectslAddresses NonresidenliafVJublic safely building and garagalJ'SB and Garage March 20 Draft Initial Study.docx 3 150 to 330 public parking stalls. The overall height of the building will range from approximately 35 to 45 feet Including building equipment penthouse spaces (e.g., for elevators and stairs). As currently planned, the garage will require changes to the zoning district (from Public Facilities to another zone) or changes to the text of the zoning ordinance to allow for the planned lot coverage, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), height, and setbacks in the Public Facilities zone. The top level of the garage may include carport shade structures supporting photovoltaic panels (PV) feeding to the PSB's electrical system. The height of the carport support system above the top parking deck will be approximately 8 feet to 10 feet above finish deck. The garage will have one (1) two-way entry/exit onto Sherman Avenue, approximately 90 feet to center of ramp west from the corner of Birch Street. • Commercial Shell Space Building: A new single-or multi-tenant 16-foot to 24-foot tall, 4,200 SF to 4,700 SF single-story commercial building will be located adjacent to the new parking garage fronting Birch Street. This project element will be used as retail space for new or existing businesses to be leased out by the City of Palo Alto. The retail space will be designed to integrate the public garage fa~ade into the commercial fabric of the neighborhood. This retail component is an option that would accompany a public parking garage of 460 to 640 spaces. Without the retail component, the parking garage would accommodate 522 to 640 parking spaces. • Communications Tower: The PSB will include an approximately 13S-feet above finish grade communications tower on which will be mounted a mixed array of whip antennas and parabolic antenna dishes. The communications tower may be attached to the PSB or ground mounted. • Site Circulation and On-Street Parking: The PSB and California Avenue Parking Garage lots are bounded on all sides by City streets. There are no anticipated changes in the existing site's vehicular or pedestrian circulation except at Jacaranda lane. Jacaranda lane is a service alley located on what will be the north edge of both buildings. Vehicular access to the portion of Jacaranda lane adjacent to the PSB will be restricted to authorized entry and business owners only. Public parking will be prohibited on a portion of Jacaranda lane and Sherman Avenue directly adjacent to the PSB. Parking spaces for oversized emergency vehicles, including fire engines, will be provided adjacent to the PSB on Sherman Avenue and Jacaranda lane. • Parking and Deliveries: All public parking will be located in the new public parking garage. All police vehicle and staff parking will be in the PSB basement or in the surface exterior operations yard . PSB trash pick-up and deliveries will be in the operations yard. Trash pick-up for the garage and commercial building will be in a service apron on Sherman Avenue between those two structures. Authorized small truck deliveries could take place in the PSB basement. • Architectural Design: The project features contemporary architectural design carefully focusing on appropriate site planning, context, massing, scale, style, and materials and finishes, and subject to review and a recommendation by the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board (ARB). The City Council will receive the ARB's recommendation and make a final decision on the architectural design of the parking garage, the PSB, and associated landscaping and site improvements. • Sustainable lEED Silver or Higher Certified Design: The PSB portion of the project will be designed and built in conformance with the City's Green Building Policy, which requires lEED Silver or higher, and will be registered and certified with the United States Green Building Council as lEED Silver or higher. • Public Plazas: The project will include a new exterior public plaza including hardscape, street furniture, and landscape plantings on Birch Street in front of the PSB, and a small public plaza space at the parking garage pedestrian entry on Birch Street on the property corner closest to California Avenue. • landscaping: The City proposes to provide partial replacement of trees removed from the existing lots on-site and planted landscape areas for both sites. Street tree bulb-outs will be provided for tree planting areas along Sherman Avenue in the current parking zone adjacent to the proposed new parking garage. The street-level roof deck of the PSB basement garage will be landscaped. Planted areas on both sites may function as bio- filtration and storm water retention systems for the project. H:laddress projecls'Addresses N""residenUaf>public safely building and g.ragelPSB and Garage March 20 Dran Initi.1 Study docx 4 • Storm Water: The project will remain connected to the City's storm drain system and may include a system to capture, store, and reuse rainwater to support landscape irrigation. • Water Supply: Potable water will be provided to the project through the existing City system. • Sanitary Sewer: Sanitary sewer service will be provided through the existing City system. • Utilities and Services: Electricity and natural gas will be provided through the City's grid. Solid waste recycling and trash removal will be provided through City contracted haulers. Ibl Background. The current 25,000 SF Palo Alto Police Department facility was originally constructed In 1970. Numerous City-sponsored studies beginning in 1997, through the City's 2014 City Council Infrastructure Plan, identified and substantiated the need for a new PSB facility. The current facility is undersized by approximately 20,000 SF and does not meet current seismic, security, survivability, accessibility, and regulatory code requirements applicable to an essential facility. A variety of sites were considered for the project over the past 17 years, including renovating and expanding the current police facilities at the City Hall location. None of these options proved feasible or were completed. The project meets the projected long-term facility requirements of the Palo Alto Police Department. Ie! Objectives. The objectives of the project are to provide 150 to 250 new public parking stalls for the California Avenue commercial area and to relocate the City of Palo Alto Police Department, Fire Administration, Emergency Communications Center (911), Office of Emergency Services, and Emergency Operations Center (EOC) from their current downtown Civic Center location at 275 Forest Avenue. The existing facility's size, security, and safety have become Increasingly inadequate over the past 47 years. The current facility no longer meets the standards for an essential facility and lacks the necessary redundancy, hardening, and survivability necessary to support the mission of the City of Palo Alto's emergency service providers. The project will provide a new facility designed for Immediate Occupancy (10) per the California Building Code (CBC). 10. Required Approvals: The proposed project is within the City's jurisdiction and will require approval from the City Council. As currently planned, the proposed parking garage will require changes to the zoning district (from Public Facilities to another zone) or changes to the text of the zoning ordinance to allow for the planned lot coverage, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), height, and setbacks in the Public Facilities zone. 11. Tribal Consultation: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1, California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project will be contacted during the EIR preparation process. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, Involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [j!J Aesthetics [j!J Greenhouse Gas Emissions [j!J Public Services 0 Agricultural and Forestry [j!J Hazards & Hazardous Materials 0 Recreation Resources [j!J HydrologyiWater Quality [j!J Transportation/Traffic [j!J Air Quality [j!J Land UselPlanning [j!J Utilities/Service Systems [j!J Biological Resources 0 Mineral Resources [j!J Energy [j!J Cultural Resources [j!J Noise [j!J Mandatory Findings of Significance 00 Geology/Soils 0 Population/Housing H:iIlddtess projectslAddresses Nonresiden#a~blio .. 'ely building /l11d garagelPSB and Garage "'atch 20 Dran 'nitial S/udy.dcx:x 5 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: o I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. IRJ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. o I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated impact" on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated impact." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. o I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Prepared by: ~(fs:.-.. ~ .. Signature: Date: March 20, 2017 Reviewed by: Signature: Ray Pendro, CEQA Project Manager MIG, Inc. Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto Date: , )jpefJ 9- H:1sddress projects'Addresses Nonresidentlaflpublic safely building and garagelPSB and Garage MaICh 20 Dilln Initial S/udy.docx 6 Less Than Significant Potentialty with Less Than Significant Mitigation SignifICant No tmpact tncorporated Impact Impact ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic 0 0 0 [:&l vista? The project site and immediate vicinity are flat. Existing views are of a built environment that include mixed uselcommercial buildings, parking lots, and several residences. There are no views of scenic vistas from the project site. This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, 0 0 0 [:&l including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? There are no designated or eligible Santa Clara County scenic roads within one mile of the project site. This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual [:&l 0 0 0 character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Changes associated with the Public Safety Building (PSB) and parking garage could affect the visual character of specific locations and adjacent buildings at the edges of the project site, including the potential for shadow impacts. The EIR will evaluate the impacts of the proposed project on the visual character and quality of the project site and its surroundings, including the presentation of visual simulations. d) Create a new source of substantial light or [:&l 0 0 0 glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Existing sources of nighttime light within and around the project site include those common to urban areas, including street lights, parking lot lighting, building lighting, signs, vehicle headlamps, and interior lighting visible through windows. Glare is created by the reflection of sunlight and artificial light off windows, buildings, and other surfaces in the day, and from inadequately shielded and improperly directed light sources at night. Development of the PSB project in H'lIlddlllss projectsVlddresses NOI1l1lsidentiafopublic safely building and ga",galJ'SB and GarBg1l March 20 Ora" tnftia' Study. doc, 7 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact accordance with the City of Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan and the California Avenue Concept Plan could cause substantial spill light, glare, and sky glow that may create a nuisance for adjacent sensitive residential uses or adversely affect community character. The EIR will evaluate potential light and glare impacts. e) Substantially shadow public open space D D 0 lID (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21? There are no public spaces immediately adjacent to the project site. The nearest public space is Sarah Wallis Park, located at Grant and Ash Streets, approximately one-half block to the south and obscured from the project site by existing buildings. This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR. II. AGRtCUL TURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional modal to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, D D D lID or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program monitors the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses throughout the state, using classifications of important farmlands. Lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique H:lsddress projecfslAddresses Nonres/clenUal-public safety building and g.tageIPSB and Gatage March 20 Dran Inmal Sfudy.doc% a Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact tmpact Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance are considered important farmlands for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CECA). The project site is designated Urban and Built Up Land by the Department of Conservation. The proposed project would have no impact on important farmlands. This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 0 use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 0 [8] The project site and the surrounding area are urbanized, not zoned for agricultural use, and do not contain any lands under Williamson Act contracts. The proposed project would have no impact on agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts. This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause 0 0 0 [8] rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? The project site and the surrounding area are urbanized and not zoned for forest land or timberland. There are no lands in the vicinity of the project site that are planned, used, or managed for forest land or timber production. The proposed project would have no impact on timberland or forest resources. This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion 0 offorest land to non-forest use? 0 0 [8] There is no forest land within or near the project site. The proposed project would have no impact on timberland or forest resources. This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR. e) Involve other changes in the existing 0 environment which, due to their location or 0 0 [8] nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? There is no farmland or forest land within or near the project site. The proposed project does not involve any changes which could directly or indirectly result in conversion of H;l8ddress projectslAddresses N""reskJentiaflpublic safety building and garagelPSB and Garage Matrh 20 Ora" Initial Study_docx 9 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporaled Impact Impacl farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR. III. AIR QUALITY. (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 00 applicable air quality plan? (such as the Bay D D D Area Clean Air Plan) The consistency of the proposed PSB project with adopted, applicable air quality plans will be evaluated in the EIR. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 00 substantially to an existing or projected air D D D quality violation? Development of the proposed project could generate emissions of criteria air pollutants from mobile sources (increases in motor vehicle trips and changes in traffic congestion), area sources (water heaters, architectural coatings, landscaping maintenance equipment) and stationary sources (boilers, fueling stations) that exceed Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) significance thresholds. The regulated regional air pollutants of greatest concern and potential impact are fugitive dust or particulate matter 10 microns or smaller in diameter (PM,.) and 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter (PM2 5), and the precursors to ozone, which are reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Construction activities generate dust, exhaust emissions, and certain construction materials can evaporate and contribute to urban ozone. Operational activities could generate additional vehicle trips relative to use of the existing PSB at 275 Forest Avenue. This issue will be evaluated in the EIR. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 00 increase of any criteria pollutant for which the D D D project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) ? H:lBddress pnJjectslAddresses Nonresidentia/,public safety buiiding and garagelJ'SB and Garage Marth 20 Draa Initial Study.docx 10 See item lII.b above. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated H:lac/1iress projec!slAddresses Nonresidential'public salely building and garagelPSB and Garage March 20 oren Inmal Study. docK Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 11 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? See item IIl.b above. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The PSB project is not expected to generate objectionable odors that affect a substantial number of people. There are not any planned uses (e.g., manufacturing processes) that would create objectionable odors. This issue will not be analyzed in the EIR. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? SpeCial-status species are plants and animals that are legally protected under the State andlor federal Endangered Species Acts or other regulations, as well as other species that are considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration. Species with legal protection under the Endangered Species Acts may represent constraints to development, particularly when they are wide- ranging or highly sensitive to habitat disturbance and where proposed development would result in a "take" of these species. Bird nests in active use are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. and raptor nests are further protected under Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code when in active use. There are multiple trees that surround the two surface parking areas that comprise the project site. These trees could provide nesting habitat for raptor species and habitat for sensitive bat species. Some raptor species, like Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii, a state species of special concern on its nesting sites) are specifically listed as sensitive, and all raptor species are protected while nesting by Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5. Sensitive bat species with potential for occurrence in large trees and groves include Less Than Significant Potentlatty with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated IX] D D D D H:\addres. projects'Addres.es Nonresidentianpublic safety building and garagelPSB and Garage March 20 Drafl Inmal Study.docx Less Than Significant No tmpact tmpact D D D D o 12 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitlgalion Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus, a State species of special concern), Townsend's big- eared bat (Plecotus townsendi/), and Myotis species. These bat species have no legal protection under federal or State Endangered Species Act, but may meet the criteria of section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, this issue will be evaluated in the EIR. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 0 riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 0 0 [&J community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The State of California recognizes some plant communities as sensitive natural communities if they are uncommon, regionally declining, or vulnerable. Among these communities are riparian habitat, coast live oak forest, freshwater seeps, freshwater marshes, and coastal salt marsh. However, there is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community within or adjacent to the project area. The project would have no impact on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 0 0 0 [&J protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Although definitions vary, wetlands are generally considered to be areas that are periodically or permanently inundated by surface or groundwater, and support vegetation adapted to life in saturated soil. Wetlands are recognized as important features on a regional and national level due to their inherent value to fish and wildlife; use as storage areas for storm water and floodwaters; and water recharge, filtration, and purification functions. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) have jurisdiction over modifications to wetlands and other "waters of the United States.· Corps jurisdiction is established through provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which prohibits the 13 March 20, 2017 discharge of dredged or fill materiat into ·waters of the United States' without a permit. RWQCB jurisdiction is established through Section 401 of the Ctean Water Act, which requires certification or waiver for water quality whenever a Corps permit is required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. CDFW jurisdiction is established under Sections 1600-1607 of the State Fish and Game Code, which pertains to activities that woutd substantially divert or obstruct the naturat flow of, or substantially change or use any materiat from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or take. Any such activities require a Streambed Atteration Agreement to by issued by CDFW prior to project construction. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetlands Mapper, there are no wetlands or jurisdictional waters in or near the project site. There is a creek that bisects John Boulware Park, about one mile southeast of the project site. The proposed project would not involve the direct removal or fill of wetlands or indirectly affect the hydrology, soil, vegetation, or wildlife of wetlands. This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Wildlife use on the project site is expected to be relatively low due to the absence of natural habitat, the proximity to streets in a mostly built environment adjacent to the project site, and the lack of protective cover. Birds (e.g., house sparrow, starling, crow) and wildlife such as opossums and small rodents typically associated with developed commercial properties would be expected to occur. The project site is surrounded by the built environment, and therefore is limited as a potential wildlife movement corridor. Trees on the project site could potentially provide nesting habitat for small songbirds; nesting birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. The project would have a less-than- significant impact on wildlife movement or native wildlife nursery sites. This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR. Potentially Significant tmpact o Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated o 14 Less Than Significant Impact No Impact o March 20, 2017 Less Than Significant Potentiatly with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact tmpact e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 0 0 00 0 protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No portion of the project site is located in the following land use designation categories: Open SpacelControlied Development, Streamside Open Space, or Publicly-owned Conservation Land (Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Designation Map). In addition, the proposed project will be subject to the City's Heritage Tree Ordinance. The findings of the site-specific tree survey report prepared for the project (David L. Babby, 2016) will be reported and applicable tree preservation! replacement regulations explained. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted 0 0 0 00 Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved, local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? There is no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other adopted habitat conservation plan applicable to the project site. This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or 00 0 0 0 eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City's Historic Inventory? The State Office of Historic Preservation has determined that buildings, structures, and objects 45 years or older may be of historical value. The 1979 Historic Resources Inventory of the City of Palo Alto shows two historic properties on 1795 and 2110 Park Boulevard; these properties are located about one mile north of the project site. One historic property was identified adjacent to the project site in the most recent historic resources survey of 1998; the proposed project will be studied for impacts on this historic resource. Other adjacent buildings constructed in the 1950s have not been studied for potential historic eligibility since the 1998 survey was completed; the EIR will assess the proposed project's compatibility with these adjacent buildings. 15 March 20, 2017 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No tmpact tnc"""""ted Impact Impacl b) Eliminate important examples of major ~ 0 0 0 periods of California history or prehistory? See V.a above regarding historic resources. At the time of Euro-American contact, Native Americans in the Bay Area typically lived along alluvial terraces and the historic margins of San Francisco Bay. The project site was historically along the San Francisco Bay margin, and is therefore a location of high archaeological sensitivity. Ground-disturbing activities during previous development of the site would likely have disturbed archaeological resources that may have existed. Despite the history of site disturbance, the proposed project could potentially disrupt, alter, or eliminate as-yet undiscovered archaeological sites, potentially including Native American remains. This issue will be evaluated in the EIR. c) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ~ 0 0 0 significant of an archaeological resource pursuanlto 15064.5? See V.a and V.b above. The Holocene Formation, the geologic formation which underlies the project site, is a relatively recent formation (about 12,000 years old). The Holocene Formation is likely to contain only occasional small marine and non-marine invertebrate fossils . Ground- disturbing activities during previous development of the site would likely have disturbed, altered, or eliminated archaeological resources that may have existed. Despite the history of site disturbance, the proposed project could potentially disrupt, alter, or eliminate as-yet undiscovered archaeological resources. This issue will be evaluated in the EIR. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? ~ 0 0 0 There are no dedicated cemeteries located on the project site. However, the project site was historically along the San Francisco Bay margin, and is therefore a location of high archaeological sensitivity. Despite the history of site disturbance, the project could potentially disrupt, alter, or eliminate as-yet undiscovered archaeological resources, potentially including Native American remains. This issue will be evaluated in the EIR. 16 March 20, 2017 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique lID 0 0 0 paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The Holocene Formation, the geologic formation which underlies the project site, is a relatively recent formation (about 12,000 years old). The Holocene Formation is likely to contain only occasional small marine and non-marine invertebrate fossils. Ground- disturbing activities during previous development of the site would likely have disturbed, altered, or eliminated paleontological resources that may have existed. Despite the history of disturbance, the proposed project could potentially disrupt, alter, or eliminate as-yet undiscovered paleontological resources. This issue will be evaluated in the EIR. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council lID 0 0 0 resolution? See V.a and V.b above. g) Cause a substantial adverse change in the lID 0 0 0 significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is: 1) Listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1 (k), or 2) A resource determined by a lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. See V.b and V.d above. The proposed project has the potential to impact Tribal Cultural Resources. This issue will be discussed in depth in the EIR. Pursuant to 17 March 20, 2017 Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1, California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project will be contacted during the EIR preparation process. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) There are no mapped through-going faults within or adjacent to the project site, nor is the project site within an Alquist-Priolo Fault zone. The closest fault is the San Andreas Fault, located about 5.5 miles southwest of the project site. This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Ground shaking is the most widespread cause of earthquake damage. Most loss of life and injuries during an earthquake are related to the collapse of buildings and structures. The intensity of the ground shaking at a particular site depends on characteristics of the earthquake source (e.g., magnitude, location, and area of causative fault surface), distance from the fault, and amplification effects of local geologic deposits. Project improvements could be exposed to strong seismic ground shaking and related risk of loss or Injury in the event of an earthquake on one of the active or potentially active faults in the region. Potential risks to life and property from these seismic hazards would be adequately mitigated by existing laws, regulations, and polices, including the California Building Code and the City's development review procedures. Based on the geotechnical report prepared for the proposed project (Romig Engineers, 2016), the primary geotechnical concerns for the proposed project are: (1) the need for temporary shoring of the basement excavations; (2) Potenllally Significant Impact o o Less Than Significant with Mitigallon Incorporated o 18 Less Than SIgnificant tmpact o o No Impact o March 20, 2017 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact tmpact the likelihood that ground water will be present above the depth of the basement excavations, requiring dewatering; (3) the need to design and waterproof the floors and walls of the basement and access tunnel; and (4) the likelihood of severe ground shaking during a major earthquake. The geotechnical report's site- specific mitigation recommendations will be described. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including 0 [&] 0 0 liquefaction? Soil liquefaction is a process that occurs in water-saturated, unconsolidated sediment due to ground shaking. During liquefaction, soils lose strength and ground failure may occur, affecting structures and improvements. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose to medium dense, saturated granular soils with poor drainage, including Bay mud and artificial fill. According to the geotechnical report prepared for the proposed project (Romig Engineers, 2016), some portions (sand and sandy silt strata) of the soil could experience liquefaction during an earthquake. However, risks to life and property from these seismic hazards would be adequately mitigated by existing laws, regulations, and polices, including the California Building Code and the City's development review procedures, which require a site-specific geotechnical investigation be prepared by a licensed professional for proposed developments for seismic design categories C, D, E, and F. The geotechnical investigation would be reviewed by City staff prior to issuance of building permits to ensure compliance. The geotechnical report's site-specific mitigation recommendations will be described. iv) Landslides? 0 0 0 [&] The project site is flat and is not subject to landslides. This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR. v) Expansive soils? 0 [&] 0 0 Expansive soils possess a 'shrink-swell" characteristic, the cyclic expansion and contraction that occurs in fine-grained clay 19 March 20, 2017 Less Than Significant Potentially wilh Less Than Signirtcanl Mitigallon Significant No Impacl IncO!pOf"8ted Impact Impact sediments from the process of wetting and drying. Structural damage may result over a long period of time, usually the result of inadequate soil and foundation engineering or the placement of structures directly on expansive soils. Expansive soils are likely to be encountered on the project site, given the underlying Holocene Formation and the presence of clayey soils noted in the geotechnical report prepared for the proposed project (Romig Engineers, 2016). However, review and permitting of specific development projects would involve characterization and consideration of site-specific geologic and soils conditions, and implementation of individual project mitigations, where needed. State and local planning, building, and engineering regulations also address structures, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, and grading activities. The geotechnical report's site-specific mitigation recommendations will be described. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of 0 lID 0 0 topsoil? The potential for erosion during construction would be subject to the best management practices routinely implemented by the City and required as a condition of project approval for new development. Project construction would involve grading, excavation, or other activities that could temporarily expose disturbed soils to erosion. Construction erosion and water quality impacts are addressed in item IX.a below. The EIR will evaluate potential soil erosion Impacts. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 0 lID 0 0 unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result In on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? The project site is generally underlain by the Holocene Formation, a geologic unit of Pleistocene age. According to the project geotechnical report (Romig Engineers, 2016), the potential for lateral spreading is low, but there is some potential for liquefaction. The geotechnical report's site-specific mitigation recommendations will be described. See 20 March 20, 2017 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Vl.a.iii above. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in 0 [&J 0 0 Table 18-1-8 of the Uniform Building Gode (1994), creating substantial risks to life or properly? Expansive soils are likely to be encountered on the project site, given the underlying Holocene Formation and the presence of clayey soils noted in the geotechnical report prepared for the proposed project (Rom ig Engineers, 2016). The geotechnical report's site-specific mitigation recommendations will be described. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting 0 0 0 [&J the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed for the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to the capacity of local soils to effectively accommodate septic systems. This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR. f) Expose people or properly to major geologic 0 [&J 0 0 hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? See Vl.a.U, iii, and v; and Vl.b, c, and d, above. The geotechnical report's site-specific mitigation recommendations will be described. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either [&J 0 0 0 directly or indirectly, that may have e significant impact on the environment? Future development of the proposed project could result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions due primarily to potenUallncreases in vehicle miles traveled, energy use, consumer product use, and solid waste. The greenhouse gas emissions increase may exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds. The EIR will evaluate greenhouse gas emissions impacts. 21 March 20, 2017 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No tmpact tncorporated tmpact tmpact b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or I&J 0 0 0 regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Future development under the proposed project could result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions that would conflict with or impede the achievement of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) greenhouse gas reduction goals. The EIR will evaluate greenhouse gas emissions impacts. VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a Significant hazard to the public or the I&J 0 0 0 environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Hazardous substances may be generated, stored, transported, used, or disposed of in association with future activities allowed under the proposed project. The proposed project is to construct a new PSB and public parking garage. Uses of the new PSB could involve use of firearms, explosives, and hazardous chemicals. These uses could result in potentially Significant impacts, and therefore this issue will be evaluated in the EIR. Departmental protocols for handling, storing. transporting, and disposing of these substances will be described. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the I&J 0 0 0 environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? See VlIl.a above. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle 0 0 0 I&J hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? There are no schools wHhin one quarter mile of the project site. The EIR will not evaluate this issue. d) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 00 0 0 0 environment from existing hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users of the site to contamination either in excess of ground soil 22 March 20, 2017 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact and groundwater cleanup goals developed for the site or from the location on listed hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5? Given the long history of development within the project vicinity, there may be locations adjacent to the project site that are included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 (Cortese List). According to the Phase I ESA, the project site is located within the California-Olive-Emerson (CO E) groundwater study area. Groundwater containing releases of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) have migrated into this area from releases from the former Hewlett Packard (HP) site at 640 Page Mill Road. Existing hazardous materials contamination sites could pose a risk to human health or the environment. The EIR will evaluate this potential impact. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been 0 0 0 adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The project site is not located within two miles of the Palo Alto Airport, or within the Palo Alto Airport Land Use Plan area. Impacts to people working on the project site would be less than significant. This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 [8] airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No private airstrip exists in the project vicinity. This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR. g) Impair implementation of or physically [8] 0 0 0 interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Traffic from future development under the proposed project would shift existing vehicle trips for emergency police calls from 275 Forest Avenue to the new PSB project site. Traffic congestion associated with the new PSB could potentially interfere with an 23 March 20, 2017 adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. This issue will be more fully evaluated in the EIR. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? According to the Santa Clara County Fire Hazards Map, the City of Palo Alto Is not in a moderate, high, or very high fuel hazard zone. Moreover, the project site and vicinity are a built environment largely devoid of wildfire- prone vegetation (e.g., expanses of grasses and shrubs). This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR. IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Storm water runoff from impervious surfaces on the project site could degrade water quality in downstream receiving waters and San Francisco Bay. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWaCB) Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3 requirements apply to projects that create or replace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious area (5,000 square feet for certain types of projects). Project applicants must prepare and implement a Stormwater Control Plan containing treatment and source control measures that meet the "maximum extent practicable" standard as specified in the NPDES permit and the C.3 Guidebook. Project applicants must also prepare a Stormwater Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan and execute agreements to ensure the storm water treatment and f1ow- control facilities are maintained in perpetuity. Construction activities disturbing more than one acre would be required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the RWQCB to be covered by the State's General Construction Permit before beginning construction, which would require the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) containing Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be implemented during construction. The EIR will evaluate potential construction and operational water Potentially Significant tmpact o Less Than Significant with Mitigalion tncorporated o o 24 Less Than Significant Impact o No tmpact o o March 20, 2017 Less Than Significant Potentiatty with Less Than Significant Mitigation SignifICant No tmpact tncorporated Impact Impact quality impacts of the proposed PSB and public parking garage. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater 0 0 119 0 recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? According to the City of Palo Alto Urban Water Management Plan, the City does not use groundwater during normal water years. Therefore, impacts to groundwater supplies or recharge would be less-than-significant. The EIR will not evaluate this issue. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern (increase the rate, volume, or flow 119 0 0 0 duration of storm water runoff) of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in new or increased flooding on or off-site? The proposed project does not propose changes to existing drainage patterns. The area to be developed consists of two surface parking areas that are impervious surfaces. The proposed project would dislurb more than one acre and would be required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the RWQCB to be covered by the State's General Construction Permit before beginning construction, which would require the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) containing Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be implemented during construction. The EIR will evaluate the potential impacts of needed drainage improvements as well as the potential construction and operational water quality impacts. d) Result in stream bank instability? 0 0 0 lEI The project site is not located near a stream. The EIR will not evaluate this issue. e) Significantly alter the existing drainage pattern 119 0 0 0 (increase the rate, volume, or flow duration) of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of 25 March 20, 2017 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact tmpact surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? See IX.c above. The EIR will evaluate the potential impacts of needed drainage improvements and potential for on-or off-site flooding. Also see IX.h below. f) Create or contribute runoff water which would !XI 0 0 0 exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? See IX.a and lX.c above. g) Provide substantial additional sources of !XI 0 0 0 pollutants associated with urban runoff or otherwise substantially degrade water quality? See IX.a and IX.c above. h) Place housing within a 100-year "ood hazard !XI 0 0 0 area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Although Palo Alto contains no areas within a 1 aO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map, portions of the project area occasionally flood during combined high tides and heavy rain, due to inadequate storm drains, low etevation, and silt and debris obstruction of the storm drain system. Additionally, regional sea level rise predictions for the San Francisco Bay region predict a 16- inch rise in sea level by mid-century and a 55- inch rise by the end of the century. Portions of the project area are subject to flooding due to sea level rise associated with global climate change. However, for sea level rise to impact the project site, it would have to first inundate most of Palo Alto Airport, and regional mitigation strategies directed at the airport may also protect Palo Alto. The EIR will evaluate potential flood hazard impacts. i) Place within a 100-year "ood hazard area !XI 0 0 0 structures which would impede or redirect "ood"ows See IX.h above. j) Expose people or structures to a significant !XI 0 0 0 risk of loss, injury or death involving "ooding, 26 March 20, 2017 Less Than Significant PotenllaJly with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Based on Figure 7-5: Dam Inundation, from the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Existing Conditions report, the project area is located within a Dam Inundation Area for Lake Lagunita, and possibly Searsville Lake. This issue will be analyzed in the EIR. k) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 0 0 0 lID mudflow? A seiche is a tidal change in an enclosed or semi-enclosed water body caused by sustained high winds or an earthquake. The project site is not located close enough to San Francisco Bay to be affected by a seiche. A tsunami is a series of waves created when a body of water such as an ocean is rapidly displaced on a massive scale, most commonly as the result of an earthquake. Palo Alto is not in a tsunami/seiche area. The EIR will not address this issue. X. LAND USE AND PLANNtNG. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? lID 0 0 0 Development of the proposed project was anticipated in the California Avenue Area Concept Plan (refer to Policy CAP-l.9). The proposed project will need to be integrated into its surrounding environment without disrupting commercial and residential uses. The EIR will evaluate potential impacts on the physical arrangement of the community. b) Conflict with any applicable City land use lID 0 0 0 plan, policy, or regulation (including but not limited to the Comprehensive Plan, CAP, or the City's Zoning Ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? i) Substantially adversely change' the type or intensity of existing or planned land use patterns in the area? ii) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height? iii) Conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area? 27 March 20, 2017 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated tmpact Impact The California Avenue Area Concept Plan (Policy CAP-1 .9) anticipated the development of the proposed project. The EIR will evaluate consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the California Avenue Concept Plan, and other applicable plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 0 0 0 lID conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan is applicable to the project site. The project would have no impact related to conflicts with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The EIR will not evaluate this issue. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0 0 lID mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? The California Geological Survey (CGS) has classified lands within the San Francisco- Monterey Bay region into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) based on guidelines adopted by the California State Mining and Geology Board, as mandated by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. The CGS classified urbanizing lands within the South San Francisco Bay Production- Consumption Region according to the presence or absence of significant sand, gravel, or stone deposits that are suitable as sources of aggregate. Areas classified as MRZ-1 are areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little or no likelihood exists for their presence. There are no locally important mineral resource recovery sites delineated in the City of Palo Alto. The proposed project would have no impact related to the availability of mineral resources. This issue will not be discussed in the EIR. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally 0 0 0 lID important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? 28 March 20, 2017 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impaa Incorporaled Impact Impact See XI.a above. XII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of lID 0 0 0 excessive ground borne vibrations or ground borne noise levels? Demolition and construction activities associated with future development under the proposed project could generate excessive ground borne vibration. During construction, employees that work in the project vicinity could be exposed to excessive ground borne vibration. Employees could also possibly be exposed to ground borne vibration limits exceeding Federal Transit Administration thresholds of significance for frequent events due to Cal train operations. The EIR will evaluate this issue. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise lID 0 0 0 levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or the municipal code, State standards, or applicable standards of other agencies, including but not limited to: i) Result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? The proposed project does not involve residential development, so this issue will not be evaluated in the EIR. ii) Result in instantaneous noise levels of 50dB or more in a bedroom or 55 dB or more measures from other rooms inside a house? See XII.b.i above. The EIR will examine if the proposed PSB project would be exposed to other standards relevant to the project -for example, noise standards for outdoor public places, such as the new public plazas proposed by the project. c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase lID 0 0 0 in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project, including: i) Cause the average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even il the Ldn would remain below 60 dB? 29 March 20, 2017 Less Than Significant Potentially wilh Less Than Significant MItigation Significant No tmpact Incorporated Impact Impact ii) Cause the Ldn to increase by three dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? iii) Cause an increase of three dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB? Traffic generated by development in accordance with the proposed project could increase traffic noise levels along certain streets and thereby affect residential or other noise-sensitive uses. The proposed project would generate short- term temporary construction noise. The effects of noise resulting from construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors. The EIR will evaluate construction and operation related noise impacts. d) A substantial permanent increase in ambient IXI 0 0 0 noise levels in the project Vicinity above levels existing without the project. Traffic generated by development in accordance with the proposed project could increase traffic noise levels along certain streets and thereby affect residential or other noise-sensitive uses. The EIR will evaluate operations related noise impacts. e) For a project located within an airport land use 0 0 0 IXI plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project site is not located within two miles of the Palo Alto Airport. The EIR will not evaluate this issue. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 IXI airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No private airstrip exists in the project vicinity. This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR. XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: 30 March 20, 2017 Less Than Significant Potentially with Los. Than Signir",ant Mitigation Slgnlficanl No Impact Incorporated Impacl Impact a) Induc;e substantial population growth in an 0 0 0 IRJ area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The proposed project does not involve new home construction or sUbstantial new business-related construction (as part of the project, approximately 4,200 to 4,700 SF of commercial space is proposed for existing or new businesses). The project would not extend infrastructure to support substantial population growth. The proposed project would relocate and expand the space available for Ihe City's Police Department. Fire Administration. Emergency Communications Center (911), Office of Emergency Services. and Emergency Operations Center, as well as provide a new public parking garage. No further evaluation is needed. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of 0 0 0 IRJ replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project would be constructed on two lots currently used for surface parking. Existing housing would not be displaced. No further evaluation is needed. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 0 0 0 IRJ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? See item XIII.b above. d) Create a substantial imbalance between 0 0 0 IRJ employed residents and jobs? The proposed project would relocate and expand space available for police and emergency services, as well as provide a new public parking garage. The PSB is being designed to support approximately 158 jobs by 2032, a proportion of which could be Palo Alto residents. Since the Census Bureau estimates that Palo Alto's workforce Is more than 35,000 people, it is not likely that a substantial imbalance would result between employed residents of Palo Alto and jobs. This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse 31 March 20, 2017 Less Than Significant Potantially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Result in an adverse physical impact from the D D D 1:&1 construction of additional school facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? The proposed project is to relocate and expand space available for police and emergency services for the City. Construction and operation of a new PSB and parking garage would not require the construction of new school facilities, parks, recreational facilities, or library facilities. This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR. The proposed project would include two new public plazas as part of the overall project development and construction. b) Result in an adverse physical impact from the 1:&1 D 0 D construction of additional fire protection facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? The proposed project would relocate the City's Police Department, Fire Administration, Emergency Communications Center (911 ), Office of Emergency Services, Emergency Operations Center (EOC), and associated parking and other support spaces. Construction impacts associated with the project will be described, along with standard City regulations that minimize those impacts (e.g., construction traffic plan) and mitigations already included in other EIR chapters (e.g., construction air quality and noise). These potential impacts will be evaluated in the EIR. c) Result in an adverse physical impact from the D D 0 1:&1 construction of additional po/ice protection facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? See XIV.b above. d) Result in an adverse physical impact from the construction of additional parks and recreation D 0 0 1:&1 facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? 32 March 20, 2017 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant MItigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact See item XIV.a above. e) Result in an adverse physical impact from the 0 construction of additional library facilities in 0 0 !&l order to maintain acceptable performance standards? See item XIV. a above. XV. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing 0 0 0 !&l neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? The proposed project would relocate and expand space available for police and emergency services for the City. Since the proposed project would not increase residential uses, it is not expected to noticeably increase use of existing neighborhood or regional parks. The EIR will not evaluate this issue. The proposed project would include two new public plazas as part of the overall project development and construction. b) Does the project include recreational facilities, 0 0 0 !&l or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? See XIV.a and XIV.b above. XVI. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an intersection to drop below its level [8] of service standard, or if it is already operating at a substandard level of service, deteriorate by more than a specified amount? 0 0 0 Construction and operation of the PSB project could increase traffic congestion and cause intersections to operate below the desired Level of Service (LOS). The EIR will evaluate potential traffic impacts following guidelines of the City Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VT A). Specifically, the EIR will analyze AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions under Existing Conditions, Existing Plus Project Conditions, Background No Project Conditions, Background Plus Project Conditions, Cumulative (2035) No Project 33 March 20, 2017 Less Than Significant Potentialty with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No tmpact IncOlpOfBted tmpact Impact Conditions, and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions at the following intersections: 1. Park Boulevard I Sherman Avenue" 2. Park Boulevard I Page Mill Road" 3. Birch Street I Sherman Avenue" 4. Birch Street I Grant Street" 5. Birch Street I Sheridan Avenue" 6. Ash Street I California Avenue" 7. EI Camino Real I Cambridge Avenue 8. EI Camino Real I California Avenue 9. EI Camino Real I Page Mill Road 10. Middlefield Road I Oregon Expressway "Refers to unsignalized intersections. b) Cause a roadway segment to drop below its level of service standard, or deteriorate lID 0 0 0 operations that already operate at a substandard level of service? See item XVJ.a above. Any related impacts on roadway segments also will be evaluated in the EIR. c) Cause a freeway segment or ramp to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic In excess of 1 lID 0 0 0 percent of segment capacity to a freeway segment or ramp already operating at LOS F? See item XVJ.a above. Any related impacts on freeway segments or ramps also will be evaluated in the EIR. d) Impede the development or function of lID 0 0 0 planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities. The traffic analysis will evaluate the proposed project's impact on existing and any planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the project vicinity. This issue will be evaluated in the EIR. e) Increase demand for pedestrian and bicycle facilities that cannot be met by cu"ent or 0 lID 0 0 planned services. See item XVJ.d above. f) Impede the operation of a transit system as a lID 0 0 0 result of congestion or otherwise decrease the performance of safety of such facilities? See item XVI.a above. The EIR will evaluate the effects of project-generated traffic on the operation of the transit system. 34 March 20, 2017 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impacl tncorporated Impact Impacl g) Crftatft dftmand for transit services that cannot IKJ 0 0 0 be mftt by current or planned services? The EIR will evaluate whether the employees at Ihe new PSB localion would create a subslantial demand for transit services. h) Creatft thft potftntial dftmand for through traffic IKJ 0 0 0 to use local rftsidftntial strftftts? The EIR traffic analysis will model changes in LOS at 10 intersections, some of which involve local residential streets. See item XVI.a above. i) Causft any change in traffic that would increasft the Traffic Infusion on Residftntial Environment (TIRE) indftx by 0.1 or more? See item XVI.a above. J) Crftatft an operational safftty hazard? IKJ 0 0 0 The proposed project would relocate and provide additional space for police and emergency services for the City. Vehicular circulation on the project site and in relation to the surrounding community is a primary design consideration. The issue will be evaluated in the EIR. k) Rftsult in inadftquatft emergftncy access? IKJ 0 0 0 The proposed project would relocate and expand space available for police and emergency services for the City. Depending on how trips are distributed, they could potentially interfere with an existing emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan. This issue will be evaluated in the EIR. I) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, 0 0 0 IKJ including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The project site is not located within the Palo Alto Airport Land Use Plan area. The project would not generate air travel. This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR. 35 March 20, 2017 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact m) Cause queuing impacts based on a comparative analysis between the design 00 0 0 0 queue length and the available queue storage capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes et intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spillback queues on ramps. See item XVl.a above. XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Need new or expanded entitlements to water 00 0 0 0 supply? Palo Alto receives 100 percent of its potable water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). The proposed project's relationship to the City of Palo Alto 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (June 2016) will be evaluated in the EIR. b) Result in adverse physical impacts from new 00 0 0 0 or expanded utility facilities due to increased use as a result of/he project? The utility infrastructure requirements (e.g., water, wastewater, storm drainage), design solutions, and construction protocols of the proposed PSB project will be described in the EIR. Any additional, necessary mitigation will be described. c) Result in a substantial physical deterioration of a utility facility due to increased use as a 00 0 0 0 result of the project? See item XVll.b above. d) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control 0 0 00 0 Board? Palo Alto's wastewater is treated at the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), which also serves the five communities of East Palo Alto, Mountain View, Stanford, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills. The Long-Range Facilities Plan for the RWQCP, adopted in 2012, found that the existing facilities were operating within normal ranges. The existing secondary and tertiary treatment systems are adequately treating the wastewater to meet the existing discharge 36 March 20, 2017 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than SIgnificant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impoct Impact requirements. Construction and operation of the proposed project will be subject to applicable regional and local water quality standards and regulations. No further evaluation in the EIR is necessary. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater D D lID D treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? See item XVll.d above. f) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater D D lID D treatment facl7ities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? See item XVII .d above. g) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of lID D D D existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The storm water infrastructure requirements, design solutions, and construction protocols of the proposed PSB project will be described in the EIR. Any additional, necessary mitigation will be described. h) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted D D lID D capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? The proposed project would relocate police and emergency services to a new PSB. The new building would generate typical amounts of additional solid waste. Non-recyclable material is transferred to the Kirby Canyon Landfill owned by Waste Management, Inc. Kirby Canyon has sufficient permitted landfill capacity, with a remaining capacity of approximately 21 .6 million tons and a total projected capacity of approximately 29 million tons. The project impact would be less-than- significant. The EIR will not evaluale potential impacts related to solid waste disposal capacity. i) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes D D lID D and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed project would comply with all federal, State, and local statues and 37 March 20, 2017 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact regulations related to solid waste. These regulations are described in the Draft EIR for the Comprehensive Plan Update. The final version of the Comprehensive Plan Update is contemplating adding new policies pertaining to the City's recycling requirements. Should new policies be adopted, the proposed project would need to comply with these additional policies. This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR. j) Result in a substantial increase in natural gas lID 0 0 0 and electrical service demands that would require the new construction of energy supply facilities and distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing alterations to existing facilities? The project's natural gas, electrical, and fuel demands will be evaluated in the EIR, including actions and design solutions for reducing any potential for wasteful, Inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy, per CEOA Guidelines Appendix F (Energy Conservation). XVIII. ENERGY a) Have an energy impact? Energy impacts may lID 0 0 0 include: i) Impacts resulting from amount and fuel type used for each stage of the project ii) Impacts on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity iii) Impacts on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy iv) Impacts to energy resources v) Impacts resulting from the project's projected transportation energy use requirements See item XVll.j above. XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade lID 0 0 0 the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce 38 March 20, 2017 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant MItigation SIgnifICant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Pertaining to the quality of the environment, biological resources, and California historyl prehistory, this Initial Study has determined that impacts in the following environmental areas could be significant: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services, transportationltraffic, utilities and service systems, and energy. b) Does the project have impacts that ere lID 0 0 0 individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? This Initial Study has determined that some project impacts (e.g., air quality, traffic) could be cumulatively considerable. The EIR will evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project in conjunction with other pending and anticipated development in Palo Alto. c) Does the project have environmental effects lID 0 0 0 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Project effects identified in this Initial Study as having possible substantial adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly, include aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services, transportation/traffic, utilities and service systems, and energy. 39 March 20, 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK April 3, 2017 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Council Roster ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Public Roster Mar 2017 (DOCX) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 1 | P a g e 250 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto CA 94301 cityofpaloalto.org CITY ROSTER – March 2017 CITY INFORMATION: Discovered: 1769 Incorporated: April 23, 1894 Incorporated as a Charter City: July 1, 1909 Population: 66,478 Housing Units: approximately 27,555 Size: 25.85 square miles Sister Cities: Palo, Leyte, Philippines 1963 | Oaxaca, Mexico 1964 | Enschede, The Netherlands 1980 Linköping, Sweden 1987 | Albi, France 1994 | Tsuchiura City, Japan 2009 Note: Stanford University is not part of the City of Palo Alto, but Stanford Research Park and Stanford Shopping Center are included. CITY COUNCIL MEETING INFORMATION: When: Regular meetings are held on the first three Mondays of the month, at 6:00 P.M. Where: City Council Chambers are located on the ground floor of City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, 94301. Meetings are cablecast live in most cases (and replayed) on Government Channels 26 or 29 and broadcast via KZSU Radio, 90.1 FM. Video streaming of City Council meetings can be accessed at midpenmedia.org. Call the Community Media Center at 650-494-8686 for times of replays. Agendas are available on the City Webpage (http://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/) and the agendas are posted in King Plaza in front of City Hall on Thursday evenings 11 days prior to Council meetings. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), this document will be provided in other accessible formats. For information, contact ADA Coordinator, City of Palo Alto, 650-329-2368 (Voice) or ada@cityofpaloalto.org Please contact the City Clerk's office at 650-329-2571 to advise of roster amendments. 2 | P a g e CITY COUNCIL MEMBER CONTACT INFORMATION: The terms of the Mayor and Vice-Mayor are for one year and expire at the first City Council meeting in January. Council terms are for four years and Council Member’s may serve two consecutive terms. Your correspondence with City Council is a public record and is available for public inspection. Members of the public may address the entire Council via email correspondence to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org NAME ADDRESS/EMAIL PHONE TERM Tom DuBois 250 Hamilton Ave., 94301 tom.dubois@cityofpaloalto.org (415) 377-8455 (c) 1/1/2015 – 12/31/2018 Eric Filseth 250 Hamilton Ave., 94301 eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 329-2162 (c) 1/1/2015 – 12/31/2018 Adrian Fine 250 Hamilton Ave., 94301 adrian.fine@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 285-3694 (c) 1/1/2017 - 12/31/2020 Karen Holman 250 Hamilton Ave., 94301 karen.holman@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 444-4017 (c) 1/1/2010 – 12/31/2018 Liz Kniss Vice Mayor 1985 Cowper St., 94301 liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 888-8671 (c) 1/1/2013 – 12/31/2020 Lydia Kou 250 Hamilton Ave., 94301 lydia.kou@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 308-9893 (c) 1/1/2017 - 12/31/2020 Greg Scharff Mayor 250 Hamilton Ave., 94301 greg.scharff@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 868-9303 (c) 1/1/2010 – 12/31/2018 Greg Tanaka 250 Hamilton Ave., 94301 greg.tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org (415) 968-9436 (c) 1/1/2017 - 12/31/2020 Cory Wolbach 250 Hamilton Ave., 94301 cory.wolbach@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 329-2145 (c) 1/1/2015 – 12/31/2018 3 | P a g e CITY SERVICES For a listing of City services and departmental phone numbers, visit the City’s website at http://cityofpaloalto.org/iwantto/contact/phone.asp For emergency assistance call 9-1-1. COUNCIL APPOINTED OFFICERS City Attorney Molly Stump (650) 329-2171 City Auditor Harriet Richardson (650) 329-2629 City Clerk Beth Minor (650) 329-2379 City Manager James Keene (650) 329-2563 EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP TEAM Assistant City Manager/Utilities General Manager Ed Shikada (650) 329-2146 Director of Administrative Services/Chief Financial Officer Lalo Perez (650) 329-2675 Director Office of Management and Budget Kiely Nose (650) 838-2801 Chief Communications Officer Claudia Keith (650) 329-2607 Director of Community Services Rob de Geus (650) 463-4951 Director of Development Services Peter Pirnejad (650) 329-2349 Director of Emergency Services Kenneth Dueker (650) 329-2419 Fire Chief Eric Nickel (650) 329-2424 Director of Human Resources Rumi Portillo (650) 329-2124 4 | P a g e Director of Information Technology/Chief Information Officer Jonathan Reichental (650) 329-2182 Director of Library Services Monique Ziesenhenne (650) 329-2403 Director of Planning and Community Environment Hillary Gitelman (650) 329-2321 Interim Police Chief Ron Watson (650) 329-2131 Director of Public Works Mike Sartor (650) 329-2270 Chief Sustainability Officer Gil Friend (650) 329-2447 5 | P a g e BOARDS/COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEE ROSTER (C) Denotes Chair (VC) Denotes Vice Chair ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD (ARB) Regular meetings are held at 8:30 A.M. on the first and third Thursdays of each month and are cablecast live in most cases on Government Channels 26 or 29. Terms are for three years. See Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Sections 2.16 and 2.21. Staff Liaison: Jodie Gerhardt – Planning Manager, Planning & Community Environment (650) 329-2575 Administrative Support: Alicia Spotwood – Administrative Associate III (650) 617-3168 Board Email: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Name Address Phone Term Peter Baltay 450 Kipling St., 94301 (415) 407-1621 (c) 12/15/2018 Wynne Furth 216 Everett Ave., 94301 (650) 326-9313 (h) 12/15/2017 Robert Gooyer 1900 S. Norfolk St., Ste. 216, San Mateo, 94403 (650) 349-6549 (o) 12/15/2018 Kyu Kim (VC) 1130 Oregon Ave., 94303 (650) 852-9747 (c) 12/15/2017 Alexander Lew (C) 372 A Bush St., 94041 (650) 694-4662 (h) 12/15/2018 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD (HRB) Regular meetings are held at 8:30 A.M. on the second and fourth Thursdays of each month and are cablecast live in most cases on Government Channels 26 or 29. Terms are for three years. See PAMC Chapters 2.16 and 16.49. Council Liaison: Council Member Karen Holman Alternate Council Liaison: Council Member Adrian Fine Staff Liaison: Amy French – Chief Planning Official (650) 329-2336 Administrative Support: Robin Ellner – Administrative Associate III (650) 329-2603 Board Email: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org Name Address Phone Term Martin Bernstein (C) 250 Hamilton Ave., 94301 (650) 324-9610 (o) 12/31/2017 David Bower PO Box 1518, 94302 (650) 329-8564 (o) 12/15/2019 Beth Bunnenberg 250 Hamilton Ave., 94301 (650) 326-3813 (o) 12/15/2019 Brandon Corey 250 Hamilton Ave., 94301 (650) 201-3947 (c) 12/15/2019 Roger Kohler 721 Colorado Ave., Ste. 102, 94303 (650) 328-1086 (o) 12/15/2017 Michael Makinen 250 Hamilton Ave., 94301 (440) 503-4926 (c) 12/15/2017 Margaret Wimmer (VC) P.O. Box 60681, 94306 (650) 646-1610 (o) 12/15/2017 6 | P a g e HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION (HRC) Regular meetings are held at 7:00 P.M. on the second Thursday of each month and are cablecast live in most cases on Government Channels 26 or 29. Terms are for three years. See PAMC Sections 2.16 and 2.22. Council Liaison: Council Member Lydia Kou Alternate Council Liaison: Council Member Cory Wolbach Staff Liaison: Minka van der Zwaag – Manager of Human Services, Community Services (650) 463-4653 Administrative Support: Mary Constantino – Program Assistant II (650) 463-4906 Commission Email: hrc@cityofpaloalto.org Name Address Phone Term Mehdi Alhassani 4000 Middlefield Rd., T2, 94303 (650) 687-7544 (c) 5/31/2017 Theresa Chen 4000 Middlefield Rd., T2, 94303 (650) 463-4906 (o) 5/31/2018 Shelly Gordon Gray 4000 Middlefield Rd., T2, 94303 (650) 856-1607 (o) 5/31/2018 Jill O’Nan 4000 Middlefield Rd., T2, 94303 5/31/2019 Daryl Savage 4000 Middlefield Rd., T2, 94303 5/31/2017 Valerie Stinger (VC) 4000 Middlefield Rd., T2, 94303 (650) 493-6043 (h) 5/31/2018 Greer Stone (C) 4000 Middlefield Rd., T2, 94303 (650) 575-0405 (c) 5/31/2019 LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMISSION (LAC) Regular meetings are held at 7:00 P.M. on the fourth Thursday, every other month on even numbered months and are cablecast live in most cases on Government Channels 26 or 29. Terms are for three years. See PAMC Sections 2.16 and 2.24. Council Liaison: Council Member Lydia Kou Staff Liaison: Monique Ziesenhenne – Director, Library Services (650) 329-2403 Administrative Support: Evelyn Cheng – Administrative Assistant (650) 329-2516 Commission Email: library.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Name Address Phone Term Sheena Chin 250 Hamilton Ave., 94301 5/31/2019 Doug Hagan 250 Hamilton Ave., 94301 (650) 326-2367 (h) 5/31/2017 June Loy (C) 250 Hamilton Ave., 94301 5/31/2017 Don McDougall (VC) 250 Hamilton Ave., 94301 (650) 815-1455 (c) 5/31/2017 Robert Moss 4010 Orme St., 94306 (650) 493-2178 (h) 5/31/2019 7 | P a g e PALO ALTO MEDIATION PROGRAM Created by the Human Relations Commission (HRC) in September 1973, and charged with facilitating the resolution of rental housing and community disputes. Regular meetings are held at 7:15 P.M. on the third Thursday of each month. HRC Liaison: Mehdi Alhassani – Human Relations Commissioner Staff Liaison: Minka van der Zwaag – Manager of Human Services, Community Services (650) 329-2639 Emeritus Mediators Jim Baer Mark Harris Marina Brodskaya Richard Bloomfield Claudia Schweikert Alice Fischgrund Elisabeth Seaman Mediators Gill Barsley Virginia Feira Karen Michael Aruna Bellary Stan Freedman Dimple Pajwani Jeff Blum Megan Gorman Gail Shulman Kitty Clark Nuria Gonzalez-Martin Judith Stewart Joyce Davidson Rick Gross Sarah Tkach Martin Eichner Gabe Kralik Anjali Vishwanath Elaine El Bizri Dyane Matas Andrea Werboff PALO ALTO YOUTH COUNCIL Created by the Human Relations Commission at the direction of City Council in March 1979 and restructured at the direction of City Council in December 1983. The Youth Council is charged with representing the issues and concerns of youth to municipal government. Regular meetings are held at 5:00 P.M. every Monday. Council Liaison: Council Member Cory Wolbach Alternate Council Liaison: Council Member Tom DuBois Youth Council President: Uma Bahl Youth Council Vice-President: Dhara Yu Staff Liaison: Adam Howard – Manager, Community Services (650) 329-2192 Jose Perez Sanchez – Program Assistant I, Community Services (650) 329-2443 Members Mathew Antony Kevin Ji Wendy Qi Sohini Ashoke Jonathan Kao Bridget Quigley Uma Bahl Louisa Keyani Alyssa Sales Anyi Cheng Akhil Kumar Simran Sandhu Deiana Hristov Audrey Li Divya Tadimeti Chloe Iglegart Simran Pujji Dhara Yu 8 | P a g e PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (PARC) Regular meetings are at 7:00 P.M. on the fourth Tuesday of each month, and are cablecast live in most cases on Government Channels 26 or 29. Terms are for three years. See PAMC Sections 2.16 and 2.25. Council Liaison: Council Member Adrian Fine Alternate Council Liaison: Council Member Eric Filseth Staff Liaison: Kristen O’Kane – Assistant Director, Community Services (650) 463-4908 Administrative Support: Tanya Schornack – Administrative Associate III (650) 463-4912 Commission Email: parkrec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Name Address Phone Term Anne Cribbs 250 Hamilton Ave., 94301 (415) 264-2067 (c) 12/15/2018 Jeff Greenfield 3476 Waverley St., 94301 (650) 766-0511 (c) 12/15/2018 Jeff LaMere 671 Kingsley Ave., 94301 (650) 714-6571 (c) 12/15/2019 Ryan McCauley 1870 Embarcadero Rd., 94303 (650) 461-5600 (o) 12/15/2019 Don McDougall 270 Channing Ave., 94301 (650) 815-1455 (c) 12/15/2019 David Moss (VC) 250 Hamilton Ave., 94301 (650) 494-7234 (h) 12/15/2018 Keith Reckdahl (C) 256 Edlee Ave., 94306 (650) 575-1981 (c) 12/15/2019 PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (PTC) Regular meetings are held at 6:00 P.M. on the second and last Wednesdays of each month and are cablecast live in most cases on Government Channels 26 or 29. Terms are for four years. See PAMC Sections 2.16, 2.20, and 19.04. Staff Liaison: Jonathan Lait – Assistant Director, Planning and Community Environment (650) 329-2679 Administrative Support: Yolanda Cervantes – Administrative Assistant (650) 329-2404 Commission Email: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Name Address Phone Term Michael Alcheck (C) 250 Hamilton Ave., 94301 12/15/2017 Przemek Gardias 1252 Cedar St., 94301 (650) 289-8154 (c) 12/15/2018 Ed Lauing 1400 Webster St., 94301 (650) 279-0212 (c) 12/15/2020 Susan Monk 768 Bryant St., 94301 (619) 804-4141 (c) 12/15/2018 Eric Rosenblum 154 Bryant St., 94301 (206) 604-0443 (c) 12/15/2017 Doria Summa 250 Hamilton Ave., 94301 (415) 968-9436 (c) 12/15/2020 Asher Waldfogel (VC) 300 Santa Rita Ave., 94301 (650) 224-2425 (c) 12/15/2019 9 | P a g e PUBLIC ART COMMISSION (PAC) Regular meetings are held at 7:00 P.M. on the third Thursday of each month, and are cablecast live in most cases on Government Channels 26 or 29. Terms are for three years. See PAMC Sections 2.16, 2.18, and 2.26. Council Liaison: Vice Mayor Liz Kniss Alternate Council Liaison: Council Member Cory Wolbach Staff Liaison: Elise DeMarzo – Senior Manager, Community Services (650) 617-3517 Administrative Support: Nadya Chuprina – Program Assistant II (650) 329-2227 Commission Email: pac@cityofpaloalto.org Name Address Phone Term Amanda Beard Ross 1313 Newell Rd., 94303 5/31/2017 Loren Gordon 428 Maple St., 94301 (650) 269-6489 (c) 5/31/2018 Jim Migdal (C) 1313 Newell Rd., 94303 5/31/2017 Ben Miyaji (VC) 1313 Newell Rd., 94303 5/31/2018 Dara Olmsted Silverstein 1313 Newell Rd., 94303 5/31/2017 Nia Taylor 444 San Antonio Rd., #1C, 94306 (650) 380-5991 (c) 5/31/2017 Mila Zelkha 1313 Newell Rd., 94303 5/31/2018 STORM DRAIN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (SDOC) Meetings are held as needed. Terms are for four years. Staff Liaison: Michel Jeremias – Senior Engineer, Public Works (650) 329-2129 Name Address Phone Term Nancy Clark (VC) 225 Addison Ave., 94301 (650) 327-8205 (c) 12/15/2018 Stepheny McGraw 3303 Thomas Dr., 94303 (650) 856-0296 (h) 12/15/2016 Hal Mickelson (C) P.O. Box 20062, Stanford, 94309 (650) 868-2938 (h) 12/15/2018 Susan Rosenberg 1425 Stanford Ave., 94306 (650) 424-1448 (h) 12/15/2016 Richard Whaley 4240 Briarwood Way, 94306 (650) 494-0675 (h) 12/15/2018 10 | P a g e UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION (UAC) Regular meetings are held at 7:00 P.M. on the first Wednesday of each month and are cablecast live in most cases on Government Channels 26 or 29. Terms are for three years. See PAMC Sections 2.16 and 2.23. Council Liaison: Council Member Eric Filseth Alternate Council Liaison: Mayor Greg Scharff Staff Liaison: Ed Shikada – Assistant City Manager & Utilities General Manager (650) 329-2146 Administrative Support: Marites Ward – Administrative Assistant (650) 329-2326 Commission Email: uac@cityofpaloalto.org Name Address Phone Term Arne Ballantine 250 Hamilton Ave., 94301 5/31/2018 James Cook (C) 730 College Ave., 94306 (650) 455-1855 (c) 5/31/2017 Michael Danaher (VC) 1355 Hamilton Ave., 94301 (650) 320-4625 (o) 5/31/2018 Lisa Forssell 250 Hamilton Ave., 94301 (650) 566-1040 (h) 5/31/2017 A.C. Johnston 325 Channing Ave., Apt. 301, 94301 (650) 823-5561 (c) 5/31/2019 Judith Schwartz 2330 Bryant St., 94301 (650) 906-9927 (h) 5/31/2019 Terry Trumbull 250 Hamilton Ave., 94301 5/31/2019 EMERGENCY STANDBY COUNCIL The Standby Emergency Council is composed of former Council Members who have indicated a willingness to serve in an emergency situation; these individuals are appointed by the City Council. See PAMC Section 2.12.090. Name Phone Bern Beecham (650) 248-0903 (c) Peter Drekmeier (650) 223-3333 (h) Sid Espinosa (650) 693-1397 (w) Jack Morton (650) 323-6665 (w) Gail Price (650) 856-6260 (h) Nancy Shepherd (650) 326-6452 (h) Lanie Wheeler (650) 799-1633 (c) 11 | P a g e COUNCIL MEMBER ASSIGNMENTS Mayor: Greg Scharff Vice Mayor: Liz Kniss COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS City/School Liaison Committee (CS) Meets at 8:30 A.M. on the third Thursday of the month. Staff Liaison: Khashayar “Cash” Alaee, Senior Management Analyst (650) 329-2230 Council Member Eric Filseth, City Representative Vice Mayor Liz Kniss, City Representative School Board Member Ken Dauber, Palo Alto Unified School District School Board Member Melissa Baten Caswell, Palo Alto Unified School District (C) Cathy Mak, District Chief Business Officer Council Appointed Officer’s Committee (CAO) Meets on an as needed basis. Council Member Eric Filseth Council Member Adrian Fine Council Member Karen Holman Mayor Greg Scharff Finance Committee (FC) Meets at 7:00 P.M. on the first and third Tuesdays of the month. Staff Liaison: Lalo Perez, Administrative Services Director & Chief Financial Officer (650) 329-2675 Council Member Eric Filseth (C) Council Member Adrian Fine Council Member Karen Holman Council Member Greg Tanaka Policy and Services Committee (P&S) Meets at 7:00 P.M. on the second Tuesday of the month. Staff Liaison: Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager & Utilities General Manager (650) 329-2146 Council Member Tom DuBois Vice Mayor Liz Kniss Council Member Lydia Kou Council Member Cory Wolbach (C) 12 | P a g e City Council Rail Committee (CCRC) Meets on an as needed basis. Staff Liaison: Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager (650) 329-2146 Council Member Tom DuBois (C) Council Member Eric Filseth Council Member Adrian Fine Mayor Greg Scharff 13 | P a g e CITY COUNCIL LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS CITY AND LOCAL Art Center Foundation Vice Mayor Liz Kniss Council Member Lydia Kou (Alternate) Avenidas Vice Mayor Liz Kniss Council Member Tom DuBois (Alternate) Business Association of California Avenue (BACA) Council Member Greg Tanaka Council Member Adrian Fine (Alternate) Palo Alto Housing Corporation Vice Mayor Liz Kniss Council Member Karen Holman (Alternate) Lytton Gardens Council Member Lydia Kou Neighbors Abroad Council Member Adrian Fine Council Member Cory Wolbach (Alternate) Staff Liaison: Jessica Brettle, Assistant City Clerk (650) 329-2630 Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Council Member Cory Wolbach Council Member Greg Tanaka (Alternate) Palo Alto/Stanford Citizen Corps Council Council Member Lydia Kou Palo Alto Community Child Care Council Member Tom DuBois Council Member Lydia Kou (Alternate) SkyPosse Council Member Eric Filseth Council Member Lydia Kou (Alternate) Palo Alto Downtown Business & Professional Association (BID) Council Member Greg Tanaka Palo Alto Transportation Management Association Council Member Adrian Fine Mayor Greg Scharff (Alternate) Friends of Junior Museum & Zoo Council Member Cory Wolbach Council Member Eric Filseth (Alternate) Youth Liaison Council Member Karen Holman 14 | P a g e COUNTY Joint Recycled Water Committee Council Member Tom DuBois Council Member Cory Wolbach Santa Clara County Cities Association Mayor Greg Scharff (President) Santa Clara County Cities Association, Legislative Action Committee Mayor Greg Scharff Santa Clara Valley Water District Commission Council Member Adrian Fine Council Member Tom DuBois (Alternate) Silicon Valley Board of Realtors Council Member Liz Kniss Mayor Scharff (Alternate) Valley Transportation Authority Grand Boulevard Task Force Council Member Tom DuBois Council Member Adrian Fine Valley Transportation Authority, Policy Advisory Committee Vice Mayor Liz Kniss Council Member Cory Wolbach (Alternate) Valley Transportation Authority, El Camino Real Rapid Transit Policy Advisory Board Council Member Liz Kniss (Alternate) 15 | P a g e REGIONAL, STATE AND NATIONAL Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Mayor Greg Scharff Council Member Cory Wolbach (Alternate) Bay Area Regional Water System Financing Authority Mayor Greg Scharff Caltrain Policy Maker Committee Mayor Greg Scharff Council Member Tanaka League of California Cities, Peninsula Division Vice Mayor Liz Kniss Council Member Cory Wolbach (Alternate) Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) Mayor Greg Scharff Council Member Eric Filseth (Alternate) Alternate: Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager & Utilities General Manager (650) 329-2146 Alternate: Debra Lloyd, Utilities Compliance Manager (650) 329-2369 Alternate: Jon Abendschein, Assistant Utilities Director (650) 329-2309 Alternate: Monica Padilla, Senior Resource Planner (650) 329-2592 Alternate: Heather Dauler, Senior Resource Planner (650) 329-2214 SFO (San Francisco) Airport Roundtable Liaison Council Member Lydia Kou Council Member Eric Filseth San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Mayor Greg Scharff Council Member Greg Tanaka (Alternate) 16 | P a g e SCHOOL DISTRICTS Palo Alto Unified School District School Board elections are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, in even-numbered years. School Board terms are for four years. School Board meetings are held every other Tuesday, no later than 6:00 P.M. Board of Education 25 Churchill Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 329-3700 pausd.org President: Terry Godfrey Vice President: Ken Dauber Superintendent of Schools: Dr. Glen “Max” McGee Assistant Superintendents: Scott Bowers, Human Resources Holly Wade, Education Services Chief Business Official: Cathy Mak Student Board Member: Ankit Ranjan, Gunn High School Student Board Member: David Tayeri, Palo Alto High School Name Phone Term Melissa Baten Caswell (650) 823-1166 11/30/2020 Todd Collins (650) 403-2084 11/30/2020 Ken Dauber (650) 906-4340 11/30/2018 Jennifer DiBrienza (917) 501-0930 11/30/2020 Terry Godfrey (650) 387-3210 11/30/2018 Los Altos School District School Board elections are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, in even-numbered years. School Board terms are four years. Regular meetings are held at 7:00 P.M. on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. 201 Covington Road Los Altos, CA 94024 (650) 947-1150 losaltos.k12.ca.us 17 | P a g e COUNTY AND STATE GOVERNMENT Santa Clara County Government Regular meetings of the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors are held Tuesdays at 9:00 A.M. Palo Alto is located within the fifth District. sccgov.org County Executive Jeffery V. Smith 70 West Hedding St. 11th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 (408) 299-5102 County Clerk-Recorder Regina M. Alcomendras 70 West Hedding St. 1st Floor San Jose, CA 95110 (408) 299-5688 clerkrecorder@rec.sccgov.org Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors 70 West Hedding St., 10th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 (408) 299-5001 Name District Phone E-Mail Address Term Mike Wasserman District 1 (408) 299-5010 mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org December 2018 Cindy Chavez District 2 (408) 299-5020 cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org December 2020 Dave Cortese President District 3 (408) 299-5030 dave.cortese@bos.sccgov.org December 2020 Ken Yeager District 4 (408) 299-5040 ken.yeager@bos.sccgov.org December 2018 Joe Simitian Vice President District 5 (Palo Alto) (408) 299-5050 joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org December 2020 18 | P a g e California State Government Governor Jerry Brown – Term ends January 6, 2019 Office of the Governor State Capitol Building, Suite 1173 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-2841 governor@governor.ca.gov State Assembly Palo Alto is located within the 24th Assembly District Assembly Member Marc Berman (24th District) - Term ends December 2018 Capitol Office State Assembly P.O. Box 942849 Sacramento, CA 94249-0024 (916) 319-2024 (916) 319-2124 Fax assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov District Office 5050 El Camino Real, Suite 117 Los Altos, CA 94022 (650) 691-2121 (650) 691-2120 Fax Speaker of the Assembly (63rd District) - Term ends December 2018 Anthony Rendon State Assembly State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849 Sacramento, CA 94249 (916) 319-2063 assemblymember.rendon@assembly.ca.gov 19 | P a g e State Senate Palo Alto is located within the 13th Senate District Senator Jerry Hill (13th District) – Term ends December 2020 Capitol Office State Senate State Capitol, Room 5035 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 651-4013 senator.hill@senate.ca.gov District Office 1528 South El Camino Real Suite 303 San Mateo, CA 94402 (650) 212-3313 Senate President Pro-Tempore (24th District) – Term ends December 2020 Kevin De León State Senate State Capitol, Room 205 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 651-4024 senator.deleon@senate.ca.gov 20 | P a g e United States Government United States Senate Kamala Harris (D-CA) – Term ends January 2022 Washington D.C. Office 112 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-3553 (202) 224-2200 Fax harris.senate.gov Local Office 50 United Nations Plaza, Suite 5584 San Francisco, CA 94102 (213) 894-5000 (202) 224-0454 Fax Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) – Term ends January 2019 Washington D.C. Office 331 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-3841 (202) 224-3954 Fax feinstein.senate.gov Local Office One Post St., Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 393-0707 (415) 393-0710 Fax Unites States Congress Anna Eshoo (D – 18th Congressional District) – Term ends January 2019 Washington D.C. Office 241 Cannon Building Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-8104 (202) 225-8890 Fax eshoo.house.gov Local Office 698 Emerson St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 323-2984 (650) 323-3498 Fax Voter Information Applications for Voter Registration by mail are available from: County of Santa Clara Registrar of Voters Department of Elections & Records PO Box 611360 San Jose, CA 95161 866-430-VOTE (8683) sccvote.org Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave., 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org cityofpaloalto.org/clerk CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK April 3, 2017 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Independent Police Auditor's Report for the First Half of 2016 Attached you will find the Independent Police Auditor's Report for the first half of 2016. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Palo Alto PD First Half 2016 Final (PDF) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 1 OIR GROUP www.oirgroup.com INDEPENDENT POLICE AUDITOR’S FIRST REPORT - 2016 Presented to the Honorable City Council City of Palo Alto March 2017 Prepared by: Michael Gennaco and Stephen Connolly Independent Police Auditors for the City of Palo Alto Michael.Gennaco@oirgroup.com Stephen.Connolly@oirgroup.com 2 I. Introduction This report addresses materials received by the Independent Police Auditor (“IPA”) for review from the first half of 2016. Per an oversight protocol established by the City of Palo Alto in 2006, the Palo Alto Police Department (“PAPD”) sends completed cases to us from within three categories: complaint investigations, internally generated misconduct investigations, and reviews of Taser deployments. We then evaluate those cases for both the effectiveness of the process and the legitimacy of the results; where applicable, we also offer recommendations to the Department regarding best practices and systemic reforms. In May of 2016, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office completed its independent review of the Department’s first officer-involved shooting incident in several years. The fatal shooting by officers of a man holding a knife had occurred late in 2015. The investigation and assessment was in keeping with established protocols, and was conducted to evaluate the legality of officers’ use of deadly force. In this case, the D.A.’s office was able to rely on video recordings and other evidence in making its determination; it found the officers’ actions to be justified as a matter of self-defense. From there, the shooting case went to the Department for it to initiate its own administrative review. This process overlaps in some respects with the D.A. inquiry, but goes beyond the “bottom line” question of legal justification. Instead, it looks at a wider range of policy and performance questions and includes issues of both individual accountability and systemic reform. That internal review is still pending; when it is done, the IPA will have the opportunity to evaluate the Department’s response for its thoroughness and effectiveness, and will provide a public summary in our next Report. As for this version of our semi-annual audit, it features our smallest number of new cases in several years. There are two administrative misconduct investigations – both generated internally by PAPD executives and both resulting in “sustained” findings of policy violations. In fact, there were zero citizen complaints that rose to the level of requiring formal investigation. The Report also discusses two Taser deployments, both of which were found to be “in policy”. II. Case Reviews Case # 1 Factual Overview: This case began when a supervisor woke up not feeling well and decided to take the day off. He sent text messages to colleagues in an effort to provide notification and arrange for coverage; however, problems arose because of the type of official leave he attempted to take pursuant to the Department’s employee absence policies. Additionally, by recruiting his own 3 replacement informally, the supervisor also deviated from the established protocols for fair distribution of overtime among available and interested personnel. Outcome and Analysis The Department determined that the subject had violated policy with regard to technical timekeeping procedures – both in this instance and in prior absences that were reviewed as part of the case investigation. He was also found to be in violation of the specific policy governing the distribution of overtime. However, the more serious allegations, which involved intentionally misleading behavior and willful defiance of direct supervisorial instructions, were not sustained. It is also important to note that, although the different types of designated absences had different approval requirements, the investigation determined there was no financial advantage associated with choosing one instead of another, and no reason to believe that the supervisor’s actions were intended to acquire something to which he wasn’t entitled.1 We concur with these findings. As with examples from our previous Report, the case involves conduct by a supervisor. This has significance in a couple of directions. On the one hand, it continues to be concerning that supervisors seem disproportionately represented in recent misconduct allegations; one would obviously prefer to see that individuals entrusted with higher levels of responsibility are “leading by example” in better ways. At the same time, the willingness of Department management to address these issues belies the common belief that supervisors are more likely to remain exempt from accountability than rank and file officers. Apart from the rank of the involved party, this case was primarily notable for the thorough and thoughtful quality of the investigation and assessment. The issues had the potential to be extremely convoluted. This was because of the arcane nature of the timekeeping procedures, the circumstantial significance of a discussion between the subject employee and his own supervisor that had occurred weeks earlier, and the potential for ambiguity in the interpretation of text messages that comprised important evidence. The investigation separated and pursued the various issues with clarity and completeness, and the accompanying analysis of the different categories of evidence within the case file was consistently sophisticated and persuasive. 1 His informal recruitment of his replacement for an overtime position, on the other hand, did have the effect (if not the intention) of providing someone with an unfair “inside track” to a money-making opportunity, the prevention of which is part of the reason why the policy exists. 4 Case # 2: Factual Overview: This case originated from the internal assessment of a pedestrian stop involving an intoxicated juvenile. In the course of reviewing other potential concerns about the incident, it came to the attention of Department management that one of the responding officers had not activated his in-car “Mobile Audio Video” (“MAV”) system to record the encounter as required by policy. This prompted the Department to initiate an administrative investigation into that officer’s pattern of behavior. Outcome and Analysis: Based on a review of various recordings and shift records, the Department determined that – on multiple occasions in recent weeks leading up to the pedestrian stop – the officer had failed to test his recording equipment at the start of his shift, and/or failed to activate the system during relevant enforcement actions. The allegations were accordingly “sustained.” We concur with this result. We also commend the Department for its swift and efficient resolution of this straightforward matter; the investigation appears to have been completed and submitted for review within three weeks of the precipitating incident. In our experience across a range of agencies, the failure to activate recording equipment or personal microphones is a widespread issue. We should also note, in fairness to officers, that individual instances are often benign in their impact, and are frequently a function of mechanical problems or simple negligence rather than an intentional effort to evade the camera’s eye. Many agencies accordingly take a graduated approach to addressing the issue, especially when technology – such as the body cameras that PAPD has yet to adopt – is new. Here, though, the MAV system is of long standing. More importantly, the Department had already done a lower level intervention with the same officer for the same problem in 2015. Recordings are becoming increasingly prevalent in law enforcement, and increasingly connected to public expectations regarding the legitimacy of police accountability. Therefore, it makes sense for the Department to pay special attention to this type of lapse when it occurs. IV. Taser Case Incident # 1: Factual Overview: This incident commenced when an officer observed a vehicle traveling at an excessive rate of speed and pulled him over. The officer suspected that the driver was under the influence and requested backup. A supervisor responded to the location and the officer performed field 5 tests on the driver. The officer searched the vehicle and observed what appeared to be drug paraphernalia in the front passenger seat area. The officer then decided to arrest the driver and requested him to place his hands behind his back. After one handcuff was placed on the driver, he began to struggle with the officers, who repeatedly asked him to relax and stop resisting. As a result of his continuing to struggle, the driver was eventually taken to the ground by the two officers. The struggle continued on the ground resulting in the driver striking the supervisor in the head with his foot; the supervisor then used his Taser on the individual. At that time, the struggle subsided, an additional PAPD officer arrived on scene and the driver was handcuffed without further incident. The driver and involved officers suffered abrasions as a result of the struggle. The driver was escorted to the hospital for treatment prior to being booked; while there he spoke with an uninvolved supervisor who had responded to the location to conduct the force investigation. Outcome and Analysis: Based on the force investigation, PAPD determined that the force used, including the use of the Taser, was within policy.2 We agree with the Department’s conclusion regarding the use of force. The mobile-activated video system on the patrol car captured the incident as well as the verbal exchange between the driver and the two officers. As the driver began to struggle, the officer told him that he was about to “smash” his head into the ground. To the Department’s credit, they identified this comment as inappropriate and provided verbal counseling to the officer regarding the remark. While the use of force in this case was reasonable and PAPD addressed the inappropriate comment, our review revealed several issues regarding the force investigation itself: The Investigator Interviewed the Civilian Witnesses Together. Two civilian eyewitnesses to the force were identified and then interviewed by the investigator together. Standard investigations protocols recognize the importance of interviewing witnesses separately so that their respective versions are not influenced by the account or recollections of others. However, in this case, for no explained reason, the investigator chose to interview the two witnesses together. And, unsurprisingly, since the two witnesses knew each other, when the male witness was being interviewed, the female witness actually supplied answers to questions directed to 2 The supervisor reported that after he deployed the Taser, he received a shock to his hand, causing him to drop the device. It would have been beneficial for PAPD to have further explored this issue with its Taser defensive tactics expert to determine whether the shock to the officer occurred as a result of an equipment malfunction or as a result of how the Taser was deployed (or some other reason) so that it could avoid this undesirable result in the future. 6 him. By the time the PAPD investigator directed the interview to the female, she essentially was only asked whether she agreed with what the male had said. Officer Who Used Force Was Present When Arrestee Interviewed About the Force Incident. To his credit, the investigator travelled to the hospital to interview the arrestee. During the recorded interview, the officer who used force was present in the hospital room. In our prior experience, we have found that the presence of a directly involved officer during such an interview can have a chilling effect on the arrestee. The dynamic lessens the likelihood of a full and candid description of his perspective, and therefore impedes the fact-gathering process.3 It would have been preferable, then, for the interview of the arrestee to have occurred outside the presence of the force-using officer. Interview of Arrestee Ended with Leading Questions. The recorded interview4 of the arrestee is brief and began with the investigator appropriately asking the arrestee what happened. However, at the conclusion of the interview, the investigator wrapped up the interview with the following questions: “Is that why you resisted arrest today?” “When told you were under arrest, you decided to resist?” “You still resisted, correct?” Fact-gathering interviews are intended to be open-ended and should not suggest the answers to the questions as the investigator did here. “Leading” questions are especially problematic when the implied answers are so obviously favorable to the Department, thereby undercutting the objectivity of the process. The impression from this interview is that the investigator’s intent was to obtain a recorded statement in which the arrestee admitted resisting arrest, rather than simply obtaining his version of the events. Report Summary Relies on Information Not Contained in the Investigative Material. In the investigator’s use of force analysis, he concluded that his opinion that the force used was within policy was based in part on speaking with the supervisor at the scene. However, there is 3 We recognize that sometimes it is necessary to have an officer present for security purposes; if that was the case, and no practical alternatives were available, it would be useful to at least document those circumstances in the report. 4 PAPD has recently equipped its officers with body worn cameras that have the ability to video and audio record events. When the investigator interviewed both the civilian witnesses and the arrestee, he apparently used his body worn camera to do so, but did not direct the lens at the individuals he was interviewing. The video of the arrestee’s interview in particular could have provided helpful additional evidence as it would have better captured his affect and the injuries he suffered to his facial area. We have commented on this failure to take advantage of the video capabilities of the body worn camera during interviews in one of our earlier reports. 7 no documentation of what the supervisor said about the incident in the investigative package. Investigative principles dictate that information that is relied upon to render a determination should be included in the investigative material. That principle was not followed in this case. PAPD has established expectations that when one of its officers uses force, even if it appears on its face as straightforward, the matter is investigated consistent with basic fact- gathering principles. As detailed above, in this case, that expectation was not met in a number of ways. Moreover, PAPD’s internal review mechanisms for force investigations did not identify these issues when the report was submitted for review and approval. Recommendation: PAPD should find means to reinforce basic investigative principles with its supervisors, and should enhance its force review protocols to ensure quality control and – where necessary – appropriate remediation. Incident # 2: Factual Overview: This incident began with a witness reporting the presence of a male subject that had apparently “passed out” in some bushes in the downtown area. The subject was contacted by two PAPD officers, and proved to be unwilling or unable to secure a ride for himself in lieu of being arrested for public intoxication. When officers finally decided to take him into custody, he was uncooperative and then resistive. At that point, seconds into a struggle with the increasingly defiant subject, one officer gave warnings and then deployed his Taser for one short cycle. The probes contacted the subject, who stumbled over a trash can and fell to the ground, where he was handcuffed without further incident. The man was treated at the scene by paramedics and then transported to the hospital, where he was eventually cleared for booking. Outcome and Analysis: The Department followed its usual protocol in reviewing the TASER deployment, and determined that the use of force was “in policy.” We concur. In reaching its conclusion, the Department was able to rely on the officers’ reports, as well as independent witness statements and a MAV recording of the incident. The radio car was parked at some distance from the incident, and the video is therefore remote and slightly obscured. However, the audio recordings are clear and helpful, and the video does show a physical struggle that is consistent with the various accounts. The totality of the evidence establishes that the subject was uncooperative and that his level of physical resistance met the threshold for the Taser’s appropriate use. The officer who 8 deployed it gives clear warnings – and in fact evokes a response from the subject that “You can Tase me all you f***ing want.” All the relevant after-incident protocols appear to have been followed appropriately as well. That said, we make two small criticisms about the Department’s response. First, the supervisor’s written report on the incident describes the key moments in terms that seem slightly overheated. The struggle is described as “obviously worsening” and “very dangerous” for the officers. These terms are both subjective and relative, of course, but the recording shows a skirmish with an unarmed and drunk individual that seemed short in duration and mild in intensity. In fact, the involved officers – to their credit – appear to maintain considerable steadiness and aplomb in their competent and efficient resolution of the problem. We mention this not to quibble, and certainly not to question the legitimacy of the Taser deployment, which was “text book” in many respects. Instead, the concern is that if descriptions are exaggerated, it suggests an effort to give a rhetorical boost to the justification for force, rather than providing an objective analysis. To preserve the credibility and legitimacy of its final decisions, it is important for the Department to refrain from any appearance of putting its thumb on the scale as it evaluates force incidents. Recommendation: The Department should be careful to maintain objectivity and accuracy in its descriptions of force incidents, so as not to leave the impression that it is editorializing or otherwise influencing the outcome. Secondly, we had similarly minor but noteworthy concerns about the interview with the subject at the hospital, which was recorded by the handling supervisor. In our view, this is an important part of the force review process from both an investigative and risk management perspective. But it is also one where objectivity and proper regard for the rights of the subject are critical features. In this case, the interview appeared to lack focus, and there seemed to be a lack of communication with the subject (who was at the hospital awaiting treatment at the time of the interview, and still presumably intoxicated to some extent) about the goal of the questioning. This is significant to the extent that purely administrative questions about force are legally and substantively distinct from a criminal interview for which the Miranda warnings would apply. Ideally, these differences should be made clear from the outset. To his credit, the supervisor did do a fine job of defining and addressing the medical issues arising from the incident. However, the subject was reticent about describing his recollections of what had happened. The reasons – whether a lack of memory or unwillingness to cooperate – were ambiguous, and the supervisor’s line of questioning did not pin it down as effectively as it might have. What should have been a straightforward exercise was not, and the dialogue, which had been largely benign if ineffective, seemed to deteriorate in tone toward the end. 9 Recommendation: The Department should consider the advisability of briefing or training to supervisors that reinforces the goals and techniques of an effective subject interview in a use of force case. V. Conclusion Thank you for the continued opportunity to monitor PAPD on behalf of the community it serves. Please feel free to contact us at your convenience with questions or other feedback.