Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2020-08-10 City Council Agenda Packet
City Council 1 Monday, August 10, 2020 Special Meeting 5:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 11 days preceding the meeting. ****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY*** https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833 Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, issued on March 17, 2020, to prevent the spread of Covid-19, this meeting will be held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and Midpen Media Center at https://midpenmedia.org. Members of the public who wish to participate by computer or phone can find the instructions at the end of this agenda. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest calling in or connecting online 15 minutes before the item you wish to speak on. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Oral Communications 5:00-5:15 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Consent Calendar 5:15-5:20 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 1.Adoption of a Resolution Establishing Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Secured and Unsecured Property Tax Levy for the City of Palo Alto’s General Obligation Bond Indebtedness (Measure N) 2.Approval and Authorization for the City Manager or Designee to Execute a Blanket Purchase Order With the Okonite Company for REVISED 2 August 10, 2020 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Underground Cable for the Utility's Electric Underground System in an Annual Amount of $350,000 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $1,750,000 Over the Next Five Years 3.Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute Necessary Agreements Subordinating the City's Interests in the Palo Alto Gardens Multiple Family Residential Property at 648 San Antonio Road to Facilitate Refinancing of the Affordable Housing Development 4.Policy and Services Committee Recommends the City Council Accept the Status Updates of the Parking Funds Audit 5.QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2585 E Bayshore Road: Approval of the Planning and Development Services Director's Determination to Authorize a Waiver From the Retail Preservation Ordinance. Environmental Assessment: Exempt in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) City Manager Comments 5:20-5:30 PM Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 5:30-6:00 PM 5A. Selection of Applicants to Interview for one Position on the Human Relations Commission and two Positions on the Public Art Commission (Continued From August 3, 2020) 6:00-7:00 PM 5B. Update and Discussion on Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation Process; and Direction to Staff to Prepare Comment Letters on These Regional Efforts (Continued From August 3, 2020) 7:00-8:15 PM 6.Accept an Update on the Summer Streets Program; Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution Number 9909 to Extend the Temporary Street Closures of California Avenue, University Avenue and Adjacent Downtown Blocks to December 31, 2020; Extend the University Avenue Closure to High Street; Extend the Expiration Date of Resolution Number 9909 Including the Temporary Parklet Program to September 7, 2021; and Clarify Allowed Activities 8:15-9:15 PM 7.PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 Adjusting Parking Requirements to Facilitate EVSE Installation, Compliance With Accessibility Laws, Parking Substitutions, and Parking Lot Re-striping Presentation Presentation Public Comment Public Comment Presentation 3 August 10, 2020 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. and Maintenance. Environmental Assessment: This Project is Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, 15302, 15303, and 15061(b)(3) 9:15-10:30 PM 8.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2353 Webster Street [18PLN- 00339]: Appeal of Director’s Approval of an Individual Review Application to Demolish an Existing One-story 1,593 Square Foot (SF) Home and Construct a Two-story Home (Approximately 2,935 SF) With a Basement and an Attached Garage. Zoning District: Single-family Residential (R-1) 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. Public Comment 4 August 10, 2020 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Informational Report Report on Contracts Awarded by the City Manager and Procurement Officer per Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 2.30.710, for the Period of January 2020 through June 2020; and Report on Emergency Contracts per PAMC Section 2.30.210. Standing Committee Meetings Policy and Services Committee Meeting August 11, 2020 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Public Letters to Council Set 1 5 August 10, 2020 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Public Comment Instructions Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. A. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. B. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. C. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. E. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B-E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833 City of Palo Alto (ID # 11032) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/10/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Establishing GO Bond Tax Levy for FY 2021 Title: Adoption of a Resolution Establishing Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Secured and Unsecured Property Tax Levy for the City of Palo Alto’s General Obligation Bond Indebtedness (Measure N) From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) approving the establishment of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 property tax levy of $9.56 per $100,000 in Assessed Value (AV) for the secured and utility tax roll and $10.62 per $100,000 in AV for the unsecured tax roll for the City of Palo Alto's Measure N General Obligation (GO) Bond Library Bonds (First and Second Series). Background On November 4, 2008, City voters passed Measure N which gave the City authority to issue a maximum amount of $76 million of General Obligation bonds (the "Bonds") for capital improvements to the Mitchell Park, Downtown, and Rinconada (formerly Main) libraries and to construct the Mitchell Park Community Center. The City successfully sold the Bonds in two series to provide $76 million in funds for the design and construction costs. Both Standard and Poor's (S&P) and Moody's awarded their highest credit ratings, Triple A, to both series of Bonds which they affirmed by Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s in February 2019 and May 2020, respectively. On March 1, 2016, Council approved the decommissioning of the Library Bond Oversight Committee and accepted a financial report showing approximately $3.0 million in project savings (CMR: 6632). In addition, bond premium of $3.1 million could be used to redeem and/or defease bonds. On June 6, 2016, Council authorized the use of $6.1 million of the Series 2010A & 2013A General Obligation (Measure N) Bonds to defease and/or retire a portion of outstanding bonds and to pay associated redemption costs (CMR: 6993). To maximize savings to property owners the longest bonds were paid off; total savings of $11 million were realized which includes $4.9 million in interest savings over time. Of the $11 million, $5.4 million will be saved through FY 2040 while $5.6 million will be saved from FY 2041 through FY 2044. City of Palo Alto Page 2 As of July 1, 2020, principal amount of $58.8 million is outstanding on the Bonds. Discussion Debt service payments on these Bonds are paid through ad valorem taxes on all taxable land and improvements (both secured and unsecured assessment roll) within the City. Staff is seeking Council approval of the attached resolution (Attachment A) which authorizes the placement of an ad valorem property tax levy in the amount of $0.00956 per $100 or $9.56 per $100,000 in assessed value (AV) for the secured tax roll; and $0.01062 per $100 or $10.62 per $100,000 in AV for the unsecured tax roll. In comparison, the prior year’s secured and unsecured tax levy was $10.62 and $11.06 respectively, per $100,000 of AV. The assessment rate for FY 2021 is decreasing for both the secured and unsecured property taxes. The rate decreases are attributable to the rise in the AV for properties throughout Palo Alto by 7.8 percent, an increase of $3.1 billion. In addition, the rise in AV during FY 2021, due to property sales and new construction, resulted in excess collections which further reduced the FY 2021 annual assessment. As for the unsecured property taxes, per the County of Santa Clara’s methodology, the prior year’s secured tax rate becomes this year’s unsecured tax rate. As a result this rate won’t benefit from the coming year’s Assessed Value increase until FY 2022. With the new assessment for FY 2021, a house with an assessed value of $1.0 million, for example, would see an annual assessment of $95.60 on their property tax bill. In FY 2020, a $1.0 million home had an assessment of $106.20. Resource Impact The bond issuances result in a 2021 calendar year debt service expenditure of approximately $4.5 million and Council approval of the attached resolution will result in ad valorem tax levy revenue of $4.1 million with the $0.4 million difference attributable to available funds on hand. Again, secured and unsecured property owners will see a levy of $9.56 and $10.62, respectively, per $100,000 of AV on their FY 2021 property tax statement. Environmental Review There is no environmental review required for this report. Attachments: • Attachment A Resolution Establishing FY 2020-21 Property Tax Levy Attachment A Not Yet Approved 1 Resolution No.____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing Fiscal Year 2021 Property Tax Levy of $9.56 Per $100,000 of Secured and $10.62 Per $100,000 of Unsecured Assessed Valuations for the City’s General Obligation Bond Indebtedness (Measure N Library Projects) R E C I T A L S A. At the City of Palo Alto’s (“City”) general election held on November 4, 2008, more than two-thirds of voters approved Measure N, authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds in the amount not to exceed $76,000,000 (the “Authorization”) to fund construction of a new Mitchell Park Library and Community center and renovation and improvements to Downtown and Main libraries. B. Pursuant to the Authorization, the City issued two series (Series 2010A and 2013A) of general obligation bonds in June 2010 and June 2013 that yielded $75.8 million for project needs. C. The City is obligated to levy ad valorem taxes on all property within the City subject to taxation by the City, without limitation on rate or amount (except with respect to certain personal property which is taxed at limited rates), for the payment of the debt service on the Bonds. D. The City is obligated to direct the County of Santa Clara to collect such ad valorem taxes in such amounts and at such times as is necessary to ensure the timely payment of debt service on the Bonds. E. The amount of the annual ad valorem tax levied by the City to repay the Bonds is determined by the relationship between the assessed valuation of taxable property in the City and the amount of debt service due on the bonds. The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the Authorization, an ad valorem property tax is hereby established to be levied on all land and improvements in the City of Palo Alto during Fiscal Year 2021 in the amount of $0.00956 per $100 in assessed value for the secured and utility tax roll and $0.01062 per $100 in assessed value for the unsecured tax roll based on the calculations set forth in the attached Exhibit "A". SECTION 2. The City’s Director of Administrative Services shall cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be delivered to the Auditor of the County of Santa Clara for entry in the assessment book of the respective sums in dollars and cents, to be paid as established by this Resolution. Attachment A Not Yet Approved 2 SECTION 3. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Assistant City Attorney City Manager Director of Administrative Services A) Assessed Valuations (AV) 1 ) 2020-21 Taxable Secured Assessed Valuation (AV)40,159,310,703$ 2 ) 2020-21 Taxable Unsecured AV 2,194,615,259$ 3 ) Less: Estimated Delinquency 0.00% -$ 4 ) Net Taxable Unsecured AV 2,194,615,259$ 5 )Total Assessed Valuation (AV)42,353,925,962$ B) Tax Levy Requirement 5 ) 2020-21 Debt Service Payments 6 ) 2010 GO Bonds - February 1,2021 990,746.88$ 7 ) 2010 GO Bonds - August 1, 2021 2,385,746.88 3,376,494 8 ) 2013 GO Bonds - February 1,2021 311,200.00$ 9 ) 2013 GO Bonds - August 1, 2021 776,200.00 1,087,400.00 10 )Total Calendar Year 2021 Debt Service Payments 4,463,893.76 11 ) Excess Funds on Hand Applied Toward Debt Service (400,000.00) 12 ) Sub-total 4,063,893.76 13 ) Santa Clara County Administration Fee (0.25% of Principal & Interest)10,159.73 14 )Total 2020-21 Annual Debt Service Requirement 4,074,053.49 C) Secured and Unsecured Tax Rate 15 )2020-21 Unsecured Tax Rate per $100 of Unsecured AV (Prior Year's Secured Tax Rate) 0.01062$ 16 )2020-21 Unsecured Tax Rate per $100,000 of Unsecured AV 10.62$ 17 ) 2020-21 Estimated Revenue from Unsecured AV (line 4 divide by 100 times by line 12)233,068.14$ 18 ) 2020-21 Estimated Revenue from Secured AV (line 11 minus line 13)3,840,985.35 19 ) Total 2020-21 Annual Debt Service Requirement 4,074,053.49$ 20 )2020-21 Secured Tax Rate per $100 of Secured AV (line 14 divided by line 1*100)0.00956$ 21 )2020-21 Secured Tax Rate per $100,000 of Secured AV (line 14 divided by line 1 times 100,000)9.56$ Exhibit A City of Palo Alto General Obligation (GO) Bonds, Election of 2008, Series 2010 and 2013 Tax Rate Calculation Based on 2020-21 Assessed Values City of Palo Alto (ID # 11356) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/10/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Utilities Medium Voltage Cable Standardization With The Okonite Company Title: Approval and Authorization for the City Manager or Designee to Execute a Blanket Purchase Order With the Okonite Company for Underground Cable for the Utility's Electric Underground System in an Annual Amount of $350,000 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $1,750,000 Over the Next 5 Years From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommended Motion Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute a blanket purchase order with The Okonite Company (Okonite) in an amount not-to-exceed $350,000 annually over the following five years, for a total purchase amount not-to-exceed $1,750,000 from Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 to FY 2025, for medium voltage underground cable for the utility’s electric underground system. Staff recommends standardization with Okonite for this equipment, consistent with Section 2.30.900 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Background The electric distribution system in Palo Alto is comprised of overhead and underground wires throughout the city to provide power to residents and commercial customers. For the underground system, CPAU’s underground cable technical specification covers the physical and electrical requirements for operation on the City’s medium voltage (4,000 and 12,000 Volts), 60 Hertz, 3-phase, and 3 or 4 wire systems. Cables used in CPAU operations must meet CPAU’s cable specifications and industry standards. The underground cable specification was written to ensure a high-level performance and reliability standard. Utilities staff has been installing Okonite underground cable for over 15 years and to this date CPA has never had an Okonite cable failure. Any exceptions to the underground cable specification by any cable manufacturer are always reviewed, but Okonite is the only cable manufacturer that fully meets the City’s specification for both cable insulation and a manufacturing processes that ensures quality and reliability. Therefore, Staff is City of Palo Alto Page 2 recommending that the City Manager approve an equipment standardization with Okonite for medium voltage underground cable pursuant to Section 2.30.900 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. An equipment standardization will minimize material costs and spare parts, and promote efficient design, construction, and maintenance practices. Furthermore, Staff is requesting an exception to the City's competitive solicitation requirements based on the approval of the equipment standardization, consistent with Section 2.30.360(e) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Discussion Medium voltage cables are used in residential and commercial underground circuits for the distribution of power. Utilities underground electric system designs includes three standard cable sizes that are regularly stocked; 1) 750 kcmil, 15kV rated, 2) 600 kcmil, 25kV rated, and 3) 1/0 AWG, 15kV rated. Often, Utilities must make unplanned repairs, so it is important to have standards for this material and a supplier who has demonstrated the ability to ensure product quality, uniformity of manufacture, ready availability, on time delivery, and accommodation of city requirements that maintains staff familiarity with the product and ultimately electric system reliability and resiliency. Staff recommends standardization with Okonite for medium voltage underground cable for the utility’s electric underground system pursuant to Section 2.30.900 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code for the following reasons: 1. Base Pricing • There have been no increases in the base pricing from the prior contract initiated in 2015 to 2020 • Adjustments in metals may rise but cannot increase higher than the CPI • Adjustments in metals may decrease which the City would receive that pricing benefit 2. Repair, maintenance, and replacement costs will be minimized. • Okonite is a supplier to PG&E and Palo Alto takes advantage of the bulk pricing discounts achieved when using the same cable as PG&E. • Okonite is the only cable manufacturer that met the City’s specification for both cable insulation and manufacturing processes that ensures quality and reliability. 3. Supplies and spare parts would be minimized • As the City uses some of the same cable as PG&E, Okonite keeps a stock on hand and can meet the City’s short lead time delivery requirements. Okonite maintains a minimum stock of the cables used by the City for emergency requests. • Okonite offers the City the ability to order reels cut to length for specific City of Palo Alto Page 3 projects to help manage inventory and reduce unusable cable segments. • Okonite’s factory (Santa Maria, CA) is located relatively close to Palo Alto and can expedite delivery of cable if needed for emergencies. 4. Standardizing existing equipment facilitates efficient construction and maintenance practices by helping City employees to more consistently plan, design, identify, and work with existing utility infrastructure. • Engineers and field workers are familiar with and can easily identify and work with Okonite cables because of the existing prevalence of these cables in the City system. • By using a standard product Utilities staff can implement a consistent maintenance and replacement program. In 2015, Utilities staff issued a competitive solicitation to award a five-year term agreement, or purchase order, for medium voltage cable. Staff sent a Request for Quotation (RFQ) for medium voltage cables used in Palo Alto to five suppliers and advertised the RFQ on the City’s website. The RFQ requested a unit price per foot for each standard cable type and the determination of award was based on the total extended price based on estimated annual quantities. Four suppliers responded, but only Okonite fully met the City’s specifications without any exceptions and was the lowest bidder on 3 out of 4 standard cables which are regularly stocked in the warehouse. For the past 15 years, Okonite has been the lowest responsible bidder and been awarded the purchase order to supply medium voltage underground cable as needed to the City. Cable shipments have never been missed and there have been no quality issues associated with Okonite cable. In addition, Okonite has provided excellent customer service to engineering and operations staff with training and support to the City. Therefore, Staff requests an exception to the City's competitive solicitation requirements based on the approval of the equipment standardization, consistent with Section 2.30.360(e) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. In 2015, Council approved agreement blanket purchase order with Okonite (Staff Report ID 6131) for underground cable with annual purchase limits of $350,000. Although Utilities staff is projecting a slightly lower level of new customer service business and some reductions in capital improvement projects over the next fiscal year, staff must be prepared to account for unplanned repairs and increasing raw material costs. Okonite will make annual price adjustments based on the consumer price index (CPI-W) as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The price adjustments will be applied to the current base price of copper at $2.00/lb and aluminum at $1.00/lb with a maximum increase of 2.5% and minimum of 1.5%. Staff requests authorization to set the purchase limit at $350,000 for each fiscal year based on historical expenditures and future projections. Any unspent funds will be returned to reserves or the capital improvement project as part of the year end procurement process. Timeline City of Palo Alto Page 4 The current purchase order with Okonite expired in June 2020. Utilities is requesting to standardize with Okonite and to approve a purchase order of $350,000 for FY 2021 and $350,000 annually for the next four (4) fiscal years. Resource Impact Funding for this agreement is available from the FY 2021 Capital Budget in the Electric Fund Project EL-98003 (Electric System Improvements). Funding for subsequent years for the blanket purchase order are subject to City Council approval of annual appropriations. The term agreement format means the City enters an agreement for an unspecified number of units, up to a maximum expenditure amount per year (PAMC 2.30.110) and items are ordered as needed, based on standard prices provided from the vendor. The City’s purchase order template permits the City to terminate without cause or for convenience by providing written notice to the contractor. In the event the City finds itself facing a challenging budget situation, and it is determined that City resources need to be refocused elsewhere, the City can terminate for convenience. Other options include amending the purchase order to reduce the cost, for example, by reducing the quantity of items purchased. Policy Implications This recommendation is consistent with the 2018 Council-approved Utilities Strategic Plan to manage finances optimally and use resources efficiently to meet customer service priorities. Stakeholder Engagement This agreement for materials does not directly impact customers that would require community outreach. Similarly, staff requested Council contract approval in October 2015. Environmental Review This term agreement and standardization determination does not meet the definition of a project pursuant to section 21065 of the California Public Resources Code and is otherwise categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under section 15301 (repair or maintenance of existing facilities), and section 15302 (replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities) of California Code of Regulations Title 14 (the “CEQA Guidelines”). City of Palo Alto (ID # 11384) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/10/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Palo Alto Gardens Refinance Agreement (648 San Antonio Road) Title: Approval and Authorize the City Manager to Execute Necessary Agreements Subordinating the City's Interests in the Palo Alto Gardens Multiple Family Residential Property at 648 San Antonio Road to Facilitate Refinancing of the Affordable Housing Development From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager to execute necessary documents to subordinate the City’s loans and regulatory agreements for the affordable housing development at 648 San Antonio Road (known as Palo Alto Gardens). Staff further recommends, consistent with the City’s “Affordable Housing Fund Guidelines” adopted in 2015, that the City Manager be authorized to approve any subsequent requests for subordination related to the property at 648 San Antonio Road (Palo Alto Gardens). Executive Summary The Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition (Mid-Pen) seeks to refinance the primary loan for Palo Alto Gardens, which is located at 648 San Antonio Road. The loan financed the acquisition and rehabilitation of the 156 affordable units at Palo Alto Gardens. Mid-Pen selected a lender, Walker and Dunlap, and made a formal request for the City to subordinate their loans on July 9, 2020 (Attachment A). City loans and regulatory agreements are currently subordinate to the primary loan for the purchase and development of the property. With this action, the City would agree to maintain a subordinate position to the new, refinanced loan. Typically, Council delegates the authority to subordinate loans to the City Manager. That did not happen in this case. Therefore, the request for subordination to the refinancing has been brought forward to the City Council for approval. This request includes allowing the City Manager to approve any future subordination requests for this property (Attachment B). City of Palo Alto Page 2 Background The City of Palo Alto receives funds annually from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as an entitlement city under the Community Development Block Grants Program (CDBG). In order to receive these Federal funds given to improve physical, economic, and social conditions in the community, the City must prepare a strategic five-year plan (Consolidated Plan) and approve an Annual Action Plan that confirms planned appropriations. During the 2015-2020 planning period, increasing affordable housing opportunities was a top priority. This remains a top priority today. Given the challenges of constructing new affordable housing coupled with decreasing CDBG funds, the City focused on rehabilitating existing affordable housing stock in need of repair. The rehabilitation of 156 units at Palo Alto Gardens represents the execution of this strategy. In 1999 Mid-Pen purchased Palo Alto Gardens, an existing, 156-unit apartment complex. Over the years the City has approved loans to Mid-Pen to facilitate the renovation of the property in 1999, 2016 and 2017. The total amount loaned from City CDBG funds is $771,193. Council approved these loans in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2015-16 and FY2016-17 Annual Action Plans that implement the City’s 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan for local implementation of the city’s CDBG obligations. These loans were included in the Annual Action Plans for appropriation in 1999, 2016, and 2017. Discussion The Mid-Pen Housing Corporation is requesting to refinance the Palo Alto Gardens project at this time to take advantage of historically low mortgage interest rates. The current lender, Walker and Dunlap, is offering just under 3% for a 30-year loan. The refinance will also provide for some additional rehabilitation at the property. HUD allows the refinance of projects using their funds after 10 years. The original primary loan for this project was financed in 1999. The refinance of the primary loan will not affect the continuation of these 156 units as affordable housing. Nor would the 40-year repayment requirements of the City’s loans be affected. The Palo Alto Gardens Project provides 156 affordable housing units for both senior citizens and families. There are 31 units for very low income and 123 units for low income households. Twenty-five units are available to those with Section 8 vouchers. These 156 units and income levels assigned would be assured with the subordination agreement. Timeline, Resource Impact, Policy Implications The refinance of the primary loan on this property and subordination of the City’s loans is consistent with the City’s current adopted 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan program and with the Annual Action Plans for funding planned projects. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Stakeholder Engagement This request was made by Mid-Peninsula Housing Corporation with assurances included that these units will remain affordable under the provisions of the new loan. There have been no public comments on the request. Environmental Review Refinancing and the subordination of the city’s loans are not a project under CEQA. Attachments Attachment A: Mid-Peninsula Housing Corporation letter to City of Palo Alto, July 9, 2020 requesting subordination of city loans. Attachment B: Affordable Housing fund Guidelines, Approved by City Council on August 17, 2015, Resolution No. 9539. Attachments: • Attachment A: Palo Alto Gardens Refinance Letter 7-9-20 • Attachment B: Affordable Housing Fund Guidelines July 9, 2020 Jonathan Lait Director of Planning and Development Services City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Palo Alto Gardens Dear Jonatha, This letter is in reference to the refinance plan for Palo Alto Gardens (the “Property”). The Property is a 156 unit multi-family affordable housing community located in the City of Palo Alto serving low-income families. It was originally built in 1973 and substantially rehabbed with tax credit financing in 1999. The Property was also financed with tax exempt bonds issued by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and $100,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the City of Palo Alto. In 2017, the Property received another $671,193 in CDBG funds from the City to improve landscaping, irrigation and sidewalk. The Property is owned and operated by MidPen Housing Corporation, a nonprofit affordable housing developer and social services provider serving the greater Bay Area region. MidPen has been in business for 50 years, expanding affordable housing and serving low-income populations. With each of MidPen’s 120+ affordable properties, the core mission is to preserve high-quality affordable housing for populations in the most need. As part of the refinance, MP Palo Alto Gardens LLC (the “Owner”) will pay off the tax exempt bonds and obtain a new Freddie Mac loan through Walker & Dunlop in the approximate amount of $21,450,000. The projected closing date of the refinance is end of September 2020. The Property then will undergo a rehab sometime in 2021, delayed to avoid disrupting residents during the COVID-19 crisis. The City CDBG loans are secured by deeds of trust and regulatory agreements which are subordinate to the bond loan from ABAG. As part of the refinancing, Freddie Mac requires and we are asking that the City subordinate its deeds of trust and regulatory agreements to the new first mortgage lender. We understand the City will need to take the proposal to the City Council before August 10th, 2020. For that reason, we have provided you with a form of Suboridnation Agreement from the lender for review and comments. Please let us know if you have any questions. MidPen is pursuing the refinance to take advantage of the current low interest rate environment which will benefit the Property and allow us to perform some rehab work. As the lending market has been changing rapidly, we are in a tight time-line to close the refinance and lock the interest rate. We look forward to a successful closing and we will coordinate with you as needed to present the proposal to the City Council. My email address is 650-393-9768 and my phone number is amahmud@midpen-housing.org. Sincerely, Aditi Mahmud Senior Project Asset Manager Page 1 of 13 City of Palo Alto Affordable Housing Fund Guidelines Approved by the City Council on August 17, 2015 by Resolution No.9539 A. Definition of the City of Palo Alto’s Affordable Housing Fund The Affordable Housing Fund is a local housing trust fund established by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto, California to provide financial assistance for the development, acquisition and rehabilitation of housing affordable to extremely low, very low, low and moderate income households that live or work in the City. The City currently administers five distinct Sub-Funds for affordable housing that together comprises the City’s Affordable Housing Fund. The BMR Emergency Fund has the sole purpose of preservation of the BMR ownership housing stock, whereas the other four funds have the broader purposes listed above. 1) Commercial Housing Fund 2) Residential Housing Fund 3) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Housing Fund 4) Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Fund 5) Below Market Rate (BMR) Emergency Fund These Administrative Guidelines summarize the City’s goals, policies and priorities for both the overall Fund and the Sub-Funds. These Guidelines cover eligible projects, eligible and ineligible costs, funding criteria and priorities, typical loan terms, application process and administrative procedures. B. Program History, Summary and Description 1. Commercial Housing Fund In 1977, the City of Palo Alto began requiring affordable housing mitigation payments on large industrial and commercial projects under its environmental review authority under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Mitigation payments were deposited into a separate account and the funds were used exclusively to assist in the development of new housing units, with most units affordable to very low and low-income households. Originally, this fund was named the Industrial – Commercial Account; later it was renamed the Commercial Housing In-Lieu Fund. It is now to be called the Commercial Housing Fund. In 1984, the City Council adopted Chapter 16.47 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code requiring that all commercial, retail, hotel and industrial projects pay an affordable housing mitigation fee on net new square footage as a condition of project approval. In March 2002, the Council increased the fee rate from $4.21 to $15.00 based on updated nexus study findings; the current fee is much less than the full cost of affordable housing impacts. The fee rate is adjusted annually to reflect inflation and is currently $19.85 per square foot. Collection, administration and reporting concerning the commercial housing mitigation fee is consistent with provisions of the State’s Mitigation Fee Act (Sections 66000 et seq. of the California Government Code). The fees collected must be utilized in ways that preserve or increase affordable housing for Palo Alto’s Page 2 of 13 workforce. Since the Fund’s inception, Palo Alto’s Commercial Housing Funds have been used by developers in combination with other State and federal housing programs, such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credits, project-based Section 8, HUD Section 202 and Section 811, HOME, AHP and the Multi-Family Housing Program (MHP). 2. Residential Housing Fund Starting in 1974, the City required developers of market-rate housing to include below market rate (BMR) housing units in housing developments containing more than a minimum number of units. At that time, Palo Alto also started collecting housing in-lieu fees from small projects, for fractional units and for residential developments where it is infeasible to provide below market rate units on-site. Based on a court decision in 2009, this inclusionary housing program and in lieu fee are currently applicable only to units produced for sale, rather than rental housing. (Like other jurisdictions, Palo Alto is seeking to address this issue by preparing a new nexus study, which will update impact fees for commercial and residential development projects where inclusionary units are not provided. It is also expected that legislation will be introduced to allow rental units to be subject to inclusionary requirements.) Residential fees, along with interest earnings of the Fund and other miscellaneous revenues related to housing, are placed in the Residential Housing Fund. Examples of miscellaneous revenue sources have included proceeds from the sale of surplus public land, payments pursuant to housing development agreements, and repayment of loans made from the Residential Housing Fund. The Residential Housing Fund may be used to provide funding for new housing development or for the conversion of existing housing to affordable housing through acquisition. The Fund may also be used for the rehabilitation and preservation of existing affordable housing. Throughout the history of the Fund, all housing assisted has been rental and most of the units have been affordable to very low and low-income households. 3. CDBG Housing Fund The City has been an entitlement recipient of federal Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG) since the creation of the program in 1974. Policies and priorities for the use of CDBG funds are stated in the HUD Consolidated Plan prepared by the City every five years. Historically, Palo Alto has allocated a large portion (typically 50%) of its annual CDBG grant for housing development activities. Any use of CDBG funds for housing activities must comply with the federal CDBG regulations (see CFR Section 570.200) as the regulations apply to Palo Alto’s grant. CDBG funds have been provided by the City to non-profit organizations for housing activities such as land acquisition for housing construction, housing pre-development costs, acquisition of existing rental apartment buildings, rehabilitation of rental units, construction or rehabilitation of shelters and transitional housing facilities for homeless persons, preservation of HUD-assisted rental housing, and acquisition and rehabilitation of group housing for persons with disabilities. Page 3 of 13 4. Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program and Program Income Fund The City does not receive federal HOME funds on an entitlement basis from HUD. In 2014 the City joined the Santa Clara County Home Consortium (SCCHC) for the period July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2018. Participation in the HOME consortium does not guarantee the City a direct allocation of HOME funds. Instead, through this effort the City of Palo Alto has become a participating jurisdiction and serves as a partner in bringing in additional funding into the County to help address regional affordable housing needs. Applications will be directly submitted through the County's request for proposal process for available HOME funds. It is anticipated that funding through the SCCHC for the first two years of the agreement will be available for pre-development, development, construction, acquisition, preservation and substantial rehabilitation of affordable, permanent or transitional, housing units. During the third year of the agreement, the SCCHC may choose to implement a Countywide Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program. The County will only fund a project that has the local support of the City. Therefore before a project can be considered by the County for funding under the SCCHC, staff will present the proposed project as part of the CDBG annual action plan and budget. This will provide the City Council with the opportunity to determine local support. Certain nonprofit organizations known as Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs) may also apply for funding from State HCD for housing projects located within Palo Alto. The City received one HOME grant from 1992 HOME funding for the Barker Hotel project. Proceeds from HOME loan repayments must be deposited into a HOME Program Income Fund and used in accordance with the HOME program regulations. 5. Other Funds BMR Emergency Fund: On September 9, 2002, the City Council adopted Ordinance 4761 together with the “Assessment Loan Program: Criteria, Need, Priorities, Definitions and Loan Terms” to establish the “Below Market Rate Program (BMR) Emergency Fund”. The Fund was created to preserve and maintain the City’s stock of BMR ownership units and to assist owners with low incomes and/or very limited assets pay for large mandatory assessments for capital repairs and improvements. An appropriation transfer of $150,000 from the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund provided the initial funding. C. Eligible Housing Types, Projects and Activities 1. Housing Types Palo Alto’s Affordable Housing Fund revenues will primarily be used to assist the following types of affordable housing: Rental housing, typically apartments (new and existing) Rental housing with supportive services for elderly and special needs populations Single room occupancy (SRO) rental units Transitional rental housing Group homes serving special needs populations Page 4 of 13 Shared housing, co-housing, mobile home parks and other special or innovative housing products Below Market Rate ownership housing with resale deed restrictions Some affordable housing activities such as down-payment assistance for home purchases and rehabilitation loans to low-income single-family homeowners are eligible, but either have never been offered, or in the case of rehabilitation loans, were discontinued. 2. Eligible Projects and Activities for Each Fund Commercial Housing Fund: Historically City policy has restricted the Commercial Housing Fund for use in funding activities that increase Palo Alto’s affordable housing stock through: The construction of new housing units, The addition of new units to existing buildings, or The conversion of non-residential space to housing units. Effective in August 2015, the Commercial Housing Fund may also be used for acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of existing housing whose long term affordability will be protected through deed restriction or other mechanism. Reasonable related administrative costs incurred by the City may also be paid from the Fund; examples of appropriate administrative costs include: Direct staff costs for the collection of housing mitigation fees and the administration of the fund, The cost of periodic consultant studies required to determine or update the fees charged, and Direct costs for the City to implement the affordable housing new construction program. Residential Housing Fund: All housing types are eligible for assistance utilizing Residential Fund monies. This Fund may be used for new housing projects, for acquisition of existing housing and for rehabilitation of existing housing serving any household type. Because most of the monies deposited to the Fund are from in-lieu fees received pursuant to the City’s BMR housing program requirements, a reasonable portion of the Fund’s average annual revenue may be used for administrative costs of operating the BMR program. Historically, the City has used Residential Housing Funds for the costs of an annual contract with an outside organization for the administration of certain aspects of the BMR program. CDBG Housing Fund: Uses of CDBG funds for housing must comply with the federal regulations, as stated previously. Broad funding priorities are established every five years as part of the City Council’s adoption of the Consolidated Plan. The current plan covers the period from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2005. Council also approves an Annual Action Plan with specific funding priorities and awards, usually in May. The annual CDBG funding cycle begins in the fall for funding for the fiscal year beginning the following July. HOME Program Funds: Housing assisted with HOME funds must comply with the federal regulations for the HOME program. Given the State’s once per year funding cycle, the focus of Palo Alto’s affordable housing programs and the local housing market, the City intends to seek HOME funds only for major rental housing projects. HOME program income will also be used only for rental housing activities. Page 5 of 13 BMR Emergency Fund: This Fund may be used for activities related to the preservation of the City’s BMR ownership housing stock. In September 2002, Council authorized: 1) An assessment loan program to provide deferred payment, low interest loans to assist BMR owners facing severe financial hardship in paying major capital assessments on their condominium homes. Regular monthly homeowner’s dues do not qualify for these loans. The Director of Planning and Community Environment establishes specific eligibility criteria and procedures within the general guidelines set by Council. 2) Protection and preservation of units within the program from loss due to foreclosure, typically by legal action and / or direct purchase by the City; 3) Repair, holding, and resale costs of BMR units acquired by the City; and 4) Short-term loans to correct deferred maintenance or rehabilitate older BMR units at resale Overall City Affordable Housing Loan Program Administrative Costs: From the inception of the City’s affordable housing program in the late 1970’s through 2003, the City has utilized the General Fund budget to cover staff administrative costs and third party direct costs, such as outside legal costs in administering and monitoring the loan program. The portion of the City’s CDBG grant that may be used for staff costs is very limited and has historically been only sufficient to cover the cost of the CDBG program management staff. The General Fund has covered the cost of affordable housing activities, including staff work in the Planning Division, the City Attorney’s Office and the Administrative Services Department. 3. Eligible Uses of Funds Commercial and Residential Housing Funds: All reasonable and necessary costs to the development of eligible affordable housing types may be funded from these two Funds. Examples of eligible costs are: feasibility studies, site evaluation, due diligence and environmental studies; all pre-development “soft” costs, including design, engineering, legal, costs necessary to apply for and close the project’s permanent and construction financing and subsidies, demolition and clearance, land acquisition, acquisition of air rights or by long-term lease, acquisition of buildings, hard construction costs, rehabilitation, on and off-site improvements, developer fees, impact fees, permit fees, marketing, initial funding of replacement and operating reserves, buy down of interest rates on permanent and construction financing and furnishing of on-site facilities that will primarily serve project residents, such as community rooms, playgrounds and child care centers. City funding may be used at any stage of project development from site search to long-term permanent loans. CDBG Housing Fund: The most commonly funded affordable housing activities in Palo Alto that are eligible under the federal regulations, are compatible with City housing priorities and the realities of the local housing market include: Acquisition of land for housing construction Acquisition of existing housing or buildings for conversion to housing Rehabilitation and major repairs of existing affordable rental housing projects Page 6 of 13 Feasibility studies, environmental and pre-development activities related to the acquisition of land or buildings Relocation studies and benefits Pre-development costs for new housing (to the extent allowed under HUD rules) Clearance & disposition of land or buildings Construction of off-site utilities necessary for housing Installation of accessibility improvements Construction, acquisition and rehabilitation for transitional housing Acquisition and / or rehabilitation of group homes for special needs populations 4. Specific Limitations, Restrictions and Ineligible Uses by Fund Commercial Fund: By Council policy, all costs must be directly related to the development of new housing units or to the preservation of existing housing whose long term affordability will be protected through deed restriction or other mechanism. In addition, because the Fund’s revenues are linked (as required by State law) to the affordable housing needs of Palo Alto’s work force, funded projects should provide housing for households likely to be participating in the work force. Housing with occupancy restrictions for individuals with statistically low work force participation (such as the elderly) will only be eligible for these funds in proportion to the extent that the intended residents typically participate in the work force. Furthermore, housing projects assisted with this Fund must be located within the City limits of the City of Palo Alto. Residential Housing Fund: There are no special limitations or restrictions on the use of this Fund. CDBG Housing Fund: Federal regulations prohibit the use of CDBG funds (except in unusual situations) for the actual construction costs of housing. Palo Alto is also very limited, by the way federal regulations are applied, in the amount of CDBG funds that can be provided for predevelopment costs of certain kinds of housing. 5. Eligible Applicants; Project Sponsors; Developers The typical funding applicant and project sponsor is a nonprofit housing development organization, a social service nonprofit, or a public agency (such as a city, county or the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County). Eligible non-governmental applicants are nonprofit corporations and limited partnerships (in which an eligible applicant, or an affiliate of an applicant, is a controlling general partner), that have as part of its organizational purposes the development of housing or operation of housing programs for households of extremely low-, low, very low- or moderate-income. The City will consider applications for funding from for- profit housing developers for the Commercial and Residential Funds on a case-by-case basis, providing provisions for long-term affordability can be met. All entities involved in a housing project, particularly the applicant, sponsor, consultants, developer, general partner, management entity, services provider and their principals or key staff, must have appropriate experience in affordable housing relative to the complexity, scale and type of project for which funding is sought. The City may require that applicants with insufficient Page 7 of 13 housing development or management experience secure a joint venture partner and / or agree to ownership and / or management of the housing units by an experienced affordable housing organization approved by the City. The CDBG and HOME regulations should also be carefully reviewed by applicants for specific rules regarding the types of organizations that are eligible funding recipients. D. Funding Priorities, Housing and Household Types, and Evaluation Criteria 1. Priorities for Affordable Housing Funding (Commercial, Residential, CDBG and HOME Funds) New construction of permanent rental housing, especially for households with children Preservation of existing, federally subsidized rental housing from conversion to market-rate New construction of permanent rental housing for households with special needs or disabilities New or existing permanent rental housing for homeless households or those at- risk of homelessness linked with supportive services Transitional rental housing linked with supportive services Acquisition and / or rehabilitation of existing affordable rental housing, including group and shared residential facilities, and mobile homes, especially for households with children and special needs households New construction of permanent rental housing primarily serving Palo Alto’s low- income work force, including Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units New construction of permanent rental housing primarily serving extremely low- income elderly Acquisition and rehabilitation of existing market rate rental housing for conversion to affordable housing for extremely low-income, very low-income, and low-income households Other Priorities To Meet the City’s Housing Production Goals as Stated in the Adopted Housing Element: Palo Alto also has important unmet housing production needs for low and moderate-income households as described in the City’s Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The BMR requirements are the City’s principal method of addressing these housing needs. Developers must provide the required BMR units, and any BMR units that satisfy a public benefit agreement, within the market-rate project or off-site, without funding assistance from the City. However, the City could consider providing funding to assist a developer provide additional BMR units (above and beyond the required units) if there was a significant or unique opportunity to substantially increase low and moderate income housing production, as follows: Page 8 of 13 New construction of very low and low-income rental housing units within, or in connection with, market-rate housing projects under the City’s BMR program requirements. New construction of moderate-income homeownership units, including units within market-rate projects under the BMR program. Two groups of households will be served: those with incomes between 80 and 100% of median income and households with incomes between 100 and 120% of median income. 2. Rent and Occupancy Standards: Income Targeting The primary objective of Palo Alto’s affordable housing program is to increase the City’s housing stock for those households with the most serious housing needs. To meet this objective, the City prioritizes and focuses the program and the available funding on serving extremely low, very-low and low-income households. Most rental housing projects funded with City Affordable Housing Funds also are funded by at least one, and often several, State, local or federal housing programs with rent and occupancy requirements. The City sets appropriate rent and occupancy requirements for each project giving consideration to factors such as: Financial feasibility Coordination with other funding rules, such as tax credits, HUD, State Availability of rental subsidies such as Section 8 Needs and income level of project’s target population (for example, elderly, homeless, working families, etc.) A loan agreement, deed of trust, and note are prepared for all City housing loans. A long-term regulatory agreement must be recorded against the property as a condition of any City housing loan. This regulatory agreement will include the City’s affordability and occupancy requirements. To the extent consistent with fair housing laws, local occupancy preferences for households living or employed within the City of Palo Alto may be required. The City may also require that existing rental assistance contracts be renewed and that the owner seek and give preferences to households receiving Section 8 assistance. 3. Evaluation Criteria for Project Selection and Underwriting Standards The following factors will be considered in evaluating applications for City housing funds. All factors will be assessed in relationship to the type of project being proposed and the difficulty and risk involved: Affordable Housing Fund Guidelines Housing needs and priorities stated in the most recent Consolidated Plan Relevant Housing Element and Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and programs Provision of a significant number of units (at least 30% of total units) affordable to extremely low-income households For family housing projects, whether there is a significant number of three or more bedroom units (at least 30% of total units) For special needs housing and housing for the homeless, the coordinated provision of supportive services available to the residents Lack of relocation of residential tenants and owners, especially low income tenants Page 9 of 13 Experience & staff capability of the development team and management entity Financial strength and fiscal record of sponsor & developer Project readiness & ability to meet a reasonable schedule For major projects, the likelihood of securing other State, federal or local housing subsidies to leverage City housing funds Matching of City housing funds including sponsor and developer commitments of equity funding, in-kind staff support, partial waiver or deferral of developer fees and other matching funds or resources committed Reasonable cost per unit for type of housing proposed Reasonable percentage of City funding to total development costs Management plan and experience of management entity Rehabilitation projects require specific information regarding the scope of work, specifications, inspections and written cost estimates. In addition to the above factors, funding applications involving new housing construction, demolition or conversion of use, especially where a site will require a rezoning, will be subject to City review for site-related factors such as the following. The City may require that a formal feasibility study be completed and reviewed by Council prior to application for, or approval of, site acquisition funding or development subsidies. Compatibility of the proposed use, density, height and other features with the surrounding neighborhood Suitability of the site for the proposed project Environmental review issues including traffic, access, parking and historic preservation Displacement and relocation issues Soil or groundwater contamination, including costs of remediation Provisions for site control, land acquisition costs and terms E. Loan Provisions and Terms Grants, Unsecured Loans: The City does not provide grants of housing funds, except for emergencies or very unusual circumstances and then only for small amounts, generally under $50,000. Funding for preliminary feasibility studies may be provided subject to an unsecured loan, if the property, or site, is not owned by the applicant If the project proceeds, then the feasibility loan will be combined with any further funding provided by the City into a permanent loan against the project. Non-profit organizations are the only entities eligible for grants and unsecured loans. Expenditure Limits: There are no per unit or per project expenditure limits. Leverage and Matching Funds: Project applicants should seek to maximize the leverage of the City funds and secure matching funds, to the extent feasible. Security: All loans must be secured against the real property with a promissory note and recorded deed of trust. Page 10 of 13 Subordination of City Loan Documents and Regulatory Agreements: The City normally consents to subordinate its loan to the loans of construction and permanent lenders, when required for the developer to secure the necessary funding to complete the project. Subordination of the City’s regulatory agreement to the loan documents and regulatory agreements of other lenders may also be approved, if absolutely necessary for the project to proceed to completion. All subordination agreements will be reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office on a case-by-case basis. Typically, the City Council delegates the authority to approve subordination agreements to the City Manager, with the recommendation of the City Attorney. Applicants must provide the City with information as soon as possible about the subordination policies and requirements of the other lenders, funders and investors in the project. Loan Terms: Typical minimum City loan terms are: 3% simple interest Deferred payment of interest and principal until senior debts, such as commercial lender mortgages, are repaid, or Annual payments from residual receipts (surplus cash flow) Principal and interest are due atrefinancing (depending on structure)or at the end of the affordability term Projects with substantial numbers of Section 8 assisted units will usually require the funding of an affordability reserve fund Loan interest rates, repayment provisions, and subordination provisions are negotiated on each project. Lending terms are tailored to the project’s cash flow and the specific requirements and legal regulations of other financing sources. Higher interest rates, loan amortization or other loan terms may be a condition of loan approval, depending on the specifics of the project. The Council must approve loan and regulatory agreements and other documents or specifically delegate such approval to the City Manager. Term of Affordability and Regulatory Agreements: Palo Alto’s policy is that housing provided with City Affordable Housing Fund subsidies remain affordable for the longest possible period of time with the ultimate goal of permanent affordability. The use and occupancy restrictions for affordability must be included in legal agreements between the applicant / developer, property owner and the City and will be recorded against the property. For City housing funds, regulatory agreements that survive repayment of the loan are required for funding exceeding $50,000. Where CDBG funds are used for housing, the federal regulations regarding the disposition or change in use of real property funded with federal assistance may apply when there is an early termination of the affordable housing use. The minimum term of the affordability controls are based on the source and amount of City funding, as follows: Page 11 of 13 Minimum Affordability Terms for City Housing Funding Source of Loan Funds Term of Affordability and Use Restrictions Other Provisions - Commercial & Residential Housing Fund Loans; - HOME & CDBG funding (Loans of over $150,000) 55 years -With provisions for extended affordability, where possible - Regulatory agreement required - CDBG Housing Fund (Loans over $50,000) 30 years - Regulatory Agreement required - CDBG Housing Fund (Loans under $50,000) 5 years or more - Subject to CDBG regulations regarding the disposition or change in use of real property acquired with federal funds F. Administrative Procedures and Responsibilities The Department of Planning and Community Environment is responsible for administering the City’s affordable housing programs and the Affordable Housing Fund. The Administrative Services Department provides financial management, accounting and reporting services for the Fund. The Affordable Housing Fund is regularly audited by the City’s outside auditor and may also be examined by the City Auditor’s Office. Exceptions and Revisions to the Affordable Housing Fund Guidelines: The City Manager may approve revisions to these Guidelines, or exceptions for a particular project, in order to comply with the regulations or requirements of other housing funding sources or with the regulations for the CDBG or HOME program, as necessary. Significant permanent revisions to the Guidelines shall be presented to the City Council for review and approval. G. Application Process Applications for Affordable Housing Funds shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Environment for review and recommendation by the City Manager to the City Council. Page 12 of 13 City of Palo Alto Affordable Housing Fund Guidelines Appendix A) Definition of Income Categories and Limits The City of Palo Alto generally uses the income categories and definitions established in State law. These income categories are derived from the HUD Area Median Income (AMI) for a four- person household. HUD publishes updated median income figures for major cities and metropolitan areas annually, usually in the early part of the year. HUD’s median income figure for the San Jose PSMA covers all of Santa Clara County. The State HCD uses HUD’s AMI figure to calculate income limits by household size for the following categories: Extremely low income (up to 30% of AMI) Very low income (up to 50% of AMI) Lower income (This category is equal to HUD’s low income limit for the CDBG program. The calculation is prescribed by federal regulations and varies from year to year; it has ranged from about 65% to 80% of AMI.) Median Income (this category is equal to the 100% of median figure) Moderate Income (up to 120% of AMI) Above Moderate Income is a household with incomes exceeding the 120% of median income For the BMR program, the City of Palo Alto uses as its “Low” Income limit the actual 80% of AMI figures, rather than the CDBG program definition of low income. Various State and federal housing assistance programs also target other income levels. City program staff should be contacted for information describing current income categories and the maximum income for each household size within each income category. B) Definition of Affordable Rents and Prices Affordable Rent: The City of Palo Alto generally using the methodology for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program to calculate a maximum affordable monthly rent at various levels of affordable housing. The Tax Credit Program rents are updated each year based on changes in the HUD AMI. Rents are published for different unit types by the number of bedrooms. Normally, if a project is regulated by another funding program such as the Tax Credit program, then the rents required by that program will be acceptable to the City. Affordable Sales Prices: The City of Palo Alto sets price guidelines annually for newly built BMR units using the target income ranges for the program, current interest rates and estimates of other ownership costs such as homeowners dues, insurance, maintenance and property taxes. Page 13 of 13 C)Application Forms The application forms to apply for funding from the Affordable Housing Fund are the same as the forms used for CDBG funding proposals together with the separate housing project proposal attachment. Contact City staff for copies of the forms and instructions or download them from the Internet at: Web Site: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cdbg/application.html D)Program Staff Contact Information The Affordable Housing Fund is administered by: Department of Planning & Community Environment Hillary Gitelman, Director City of Palo Alto 5th Floor City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 321-2441 (Department’s main information number) (650) 329-2154 (Fax) For information about the Guidelines, the Affordable Housing Fund, or the CDBG Program, please contact: Erum Maqbool, CDBG Staff Specialist at Erum.Maqbool@CityofPaloAlto.org E)Income Standards and Rent Limits (Palo Alto & Santa Clara County) Contact City staff for current income standards and rents. F)Price Guidelines for New BMR Units (Palo Alto) Contact City staff for current price guidelines for new ownership and rental BMR units. City of Palo Alto (ID # 11437) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/10/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: P&S Recommendation to accept status of Parking Funds Audit Title: Policy and Services Committee Recommends the City Council Accept the Status Updates of the Parking Funds Audit From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Recommendation The Policy and Services Committee and Staff recommend the City Council accept the status updates to the Parking Funds Audit. Background In December 2015, the City Auditor’s Office issued an audit of parking funds with the purpose of determining if the City’s parking in-lieu and parking permit fees are collected, accounted for, and used in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, policies and governing documents. Staff members from Planning and Development Services, Administrative Services, Public Works, City Attorney’s Office, Police, and Community Services have jointly worked to address the recommendations. All audit recommendations have been addressed and the audit response is now complete. Discussion Staff reported on the updates to the audit status to the Policy and Services Committee on November 14, 20171 June 21, 20182, and June 9, 2020.3 In the final update on June 9, 2020, the Policy and Services Committee approved and unanimously recommended that the City Council accept the reports. The auditor verified the response and all recommendations are now complete. There are no outstanding recommendations. 1 P&S Staff Report (11.14.17): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61695 2 P&S Staff Report (06.21.18): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65421 3 P&S Staff Report (06.09.20): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=65682.84&BlobID=77070 City of Palo Alto Page 2 The Policy and Services Committee minutes are available at: November 14, 2017: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62174June 21, 2018: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=45893.76&BlobID=65704 June 9, 2020: Minutes were not yet available at the time this staff report was produced. Stakeholder Engagement Stakeholder engagement included presentations at the Policy and Services Committee meetings and the meetings of the multi-department parking working group established as an outcome of this audit. City of Palo Alto (ID # 11474) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/10/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 2585 E Bayshore Road: Approval of Retail Preservation Waiver Title: QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2585 E Bayshore Road: Approval of the Planning and Development Services Director's Determination to Authorize a Waiver From the Retail Preservation Ordinance. Environmental Assessment: Exempt in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council accept the Director’s decision approving the subject waiver request. Executive Summary This report transmits the Planning & Development Services Director’s (Director) tentative approval of a waiver from the retail preservation ordinance for the subject property located at 2585 East Bayshore Road. The building, constructed in 1969, was converted to a day care center use in 2012 and the City Council adopted the Retail Preservation Ordinance on March 20, 2017. The applicant presented the required evidence indicating that (1) the permitted retail or retail- like uses are not viable; (2) the proposed use will support the purposes of the zoning district and Comprehensive Plan land use designation; and (3) the proposed use will encourage active pedestrian-oriented activity and connections. Therefore, the Director tentatively approved the waiver. The Council may accept this decision on Consent, or alternatively, three councilmembers may pull this item and require a future public hearing before Council. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Background Pursuant to the Retail Preservation Ordinance, and specifically Section 18.40.180(c)(1) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), “…the following shall be grounds for a request for waiver or adjustment of the requirements contained in this section: (A) Economic Hardship. An applicant may request that the requirements of this section be adjusted or waived based on a showing that applying the requirements of this section would effectuate an unconstitutional taking of property or otherwise have an unconstitutional application to the property; or (B) Alternative Viable Active Use. Except in the GF or R combining districts, an applicant may request that the requirements of this Section 18.40.160 be adjusted or waived based on a showing that: • permitted retail or retail-like use is not viable, • the proposed use will support the purposes of the zoning district and Comprehensive Plan land use designation, and • the proposed use will encourage active pedestrian-oriented activity and connections.” Applicants must provide substantial evidence to support their application and bear the burden of proof. The Director renders a tentative decision, which is then placed on the City Council’s consent agenda. The Council may accept this decision on Consent, or alternatively, three councilmembers may pull this item and require a future public hearing before Council. The subject site is located on East Bayshore Road and directly adjacent to the Baylands area. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.20.030 details permitted and conditionally permitted land uses within the Research Office Light Manufacturing [ROLM(E)(D)(AD)] district. In this area, all retail and retail-like uses require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The exception to this is automobile dealerships, which are a permitted use. Attachment C provides an abridged zoning table with the permitted and conditionally permitted uses within the ROLM(E) zoning district along with supportive excerpt code sections. The property’s ROLM base zoning district provides for a limited group of office, research, and manufacturing uses in a manufacturing/research park environment. Office uses can be accommodated but should not predominate in the district. The ROLM subdistrict Embarcadero (E) (previously the E stood for environmental sensitivity) modifies the site development regulations of the ROLM district to apply to smaller sites in areas with limited access or with environmental sensitivity due to their proximity to the Palo Alto Baylands. The combining district of (D) requires site and design review intended to provide a process for review and approval of development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, reducing distributions to the applied areas. The intent of the review is to assure that use and development will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity and will be compatible with environmental and ecological objectives in accordance with the Palo Alto Comprehensive City of Palo Alto Page 3 Plan. The automobile dealership (AD) combining district modifies the regulations of the ROLM district, in this case. The intent of the AD overlay is to create and maintain areas accommodating automobile dealerships primarily engaged in new and used automobile sales and service on a citywide and regional basis. Discussion The property owner applied for a waiver from ground floor retail protections on March 2, 2020. The site has a 15,927-sf single-story office building constructed in 1969. The building was originally and mainly utilized for office uses for nearly 40 years. Following the economic downturn of 2008 and the depressed real estate market, the owner worked with the subject day care use to avoid a vacancy situation. In 2012, Council approved a Site and Design Review application to convert the use of the building and site to day care center use.1 No Conditional Use Permit was required at that time. Since then, the Code has changed to require a CUP for day care center uses in the ROLM zone. The current day care center user, the Mustard Seed Learning Center, indicated to the property owner they will not be renewing their lease of the site. The applicant seeks to return the building and site to its original and long-term general business office use. This use is allowed in the ROLM(E) zoning district and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Research/Office Park. A portion of the parking lot at the site (approximately 18 spaces) was converted into an outdoor play area for the day care use; however, this area can be converted back to parking to meet the requirements for a general business office use. The Research Office Light Manufacturing (ROLM) with combining (E)(D)(AD) zoning districts do not allow retail or retail-like uses by right, nor is the intent of the zoning district to populate retail and retail-like uses. To establish retail or retail-like uses on the site would require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), given the site’s zoning. Alternative Viable Active Use To obtain a waiver on the basis of an alternative viable active use per PAMC Section 18.40.180(c)(1)(B), an applicant must show that (1) the permitted retail or retail-like use is not viable; (2) the proposed use will support the purposes of the zoning district and Comprehensive Plan land use designation; and (3) the proposed use will encourage active pedestrian-oriented activity and connections. Here, the applicant has provided evidence that the first two conditions are met and asserts that the third is inapplicable. 1 Council staff report April 9, 2012 link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/29148; minutes link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30155 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Regarding retail viability, the applicant presents the closure of their tenant Mustard Seed Learning Center, a conditionally permitted retail-like use, as evidence that retail uses are not viable at this location. Mustard Seed Learning Center partially occupied the building on site and was unable to continue with their business, citing economic hardship and location concerns. The Site & Design approval limited the total number of children enrolled at Mustard Seed Learning Center to 117 after a traffic study was conducted and in consideration with traffic queuing concerns on E Bayshore Rd, which prevented the tenant from expanding their operations to fully occupy the building. Mustard Seed Learning Center has reduced their operations at the site significantly, resulting in a greater portion of the building being unoccupied today. The applicant asserts this pending closure illustrates that retail and retail-like uses on-site are neither viable nor suitable in this location. In addition, the applicant engaged the services of a professional commercial broker to assess the site. The broker specializes in site selection locations for retail tenants. In Attachment B, Exhibit D, the broker stated in this professional opinion: “Presently, I cannot identify a retail tenant that would occupy that property.” The letter includes additional analysis regarding appropriate uses for the site. Secondly, the zoning district does not envision or readily-allow retail or retail-like uses. The underlying zoning, which does not allow retail use as of right, and Comprehensive Plan land use designation suggests the City did not and does not intend for retail uses to proliferate in this location. As the area has developed, the site has become surrounded primarily by research and office uses. The building’s original and long-term use as a general business office is permitted in the ROLM(E) zoning district and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Research/Office Park. By contrast, retail and retail-like uses are only permitted through the issuance of a conditional use permit. Staff analyzed the five conditionally permitted uses: Commercial Recreation, Eating and Drinking Services (no drive-in/take-out services), Retail Services, Day Care Centers, Personal Services. Given the site’s remote location, lack of customers in the immediate area, and lack of transit options, it is not a desirable location for most of these uses. Of these, the Commercial Recreation uses are typically limited/restricted due to parking requirement based on PAMC 18.52.040(c) Table 1 and the required traffic analysis submitted during the CUP process to ensure no local impacts are generated on local public streets. This process would be similar to the process that limited the Mustard Seed day care center use to an enrollment of 117 where the business felt 200 students was more economically viable. Retail Eating & Drinking Services along with Retail Services are found to be problematic at this location as E Bayshore Road is not a retail corridor, it is an office and light manufacturing corridor/cluster which is consistent with the areas land use designation. The same finding can be applied to Personal Services, that City of Palo Alto Page 5 includes but is not limited to beauty shops, day spas, laundry and cleaning services, art and dance studios are retail-like uses, which are more viable within retail and pedestrian heavy areas. The applicant argues that the final requirement – that the proposed use encourages active pedestrian-oriented activity – is not applicable here because the site is not suited to pedestrian activity and none currently exists. The location is not readily accessible to pedestrians, is not near public transit, and does not have any pedestrian amenities, nor a development pattern/design at a pedestrian scale. Thus, it would be unreasonable to require a pedestrian- serving use. Economic Hardship As an alternative, the applicant also requested a waiver based on economic hardship per PAMC Section 18.40.180(c)(1)(A). To obtain a waiver on the basis of economic hardship, an applicant must show that the retail preservation ordinance would effectuate an unconstitutional taking of property or otherwise have an unconstitutional application to the property. The applicant’s constitutional arguments include both that the retail preservation ordinance would unconstitutionally frustrate the owner’s reasonable, investment-backed expectations and that the application of the ordinance to the property would be unconstitutionally arbitrary and capricious in a manner akin to illegal spot-zoning. In short, the applicant argues that the retail preservation ordinance cannot constitutionally be applied to its property because there are only five2 retail or retail-like uses that would be possible under the ordinance, and that all of them require a CUP, which would subject the property to uncertainty and burdens not shared by other sites with similar zoning. Director’s Decision The Director reviewed and approved the waiver request including the supporting information that was provided in Attachment B. The Director believes the request meets the standards of Section 18.40.160(c)(1)(B). In accordance with the provisions of the ordinance, the Director’s decision letter is included with this report as Attachment A. Also, the establishment of the day care center use in 2012 was not well received by all; in fact, several owners of neighboring properties were concerned about the use conversion at that time. Because of the aforementioned reasons and that Mustard Seed Learning Center will cease operations, leaving the property vacant, and retail use is unlikely in this location, staff supports the requested waiver. 2 The applicant has also provided reasoning related to the inapplicability of an automotive dealership use. The Municipal Code Chapter 18.30(F) clearly states that the (AD) combining district is intended to be applied to limited manufacturing zoning district parcels located within ¼ mile of the San Antonio Road/Highway 101 intersection. The subject property is not within this ¼ mile radius. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Policy Implications Ratifying the Directors' decision to approve the waiver for the subject property can provide future guidance, through precedent, for sites outside core retail areas of the City and within zoning districts and land use designations that are not intended to contain retail and retail-like uses. The affirmation of the Director’s decision will also avoid continued discussion related to ‘unconstitutional application’ of the Retail Preservation Ordinance. Resource Impact The recommendation in this report has no significant budget or fiscal impacts. Day Care Center use is not retail use per se, with no anticipated loss in sales tax. If the Council grants relief from the retail preservation ordinance through the requested waiver, the applicant will be able to return the building to the long-standing general business office use. The conversion to daycare center occurred before the advent of the City’s Retail Preservation Ordinance. The majority of the building is vacant and would likely continue to be vacant unless the waiver is granted, which may have marginal fiscal impacts to the City’s tax base and other unquantifiable benefits to area businesses. Timeline Council’s acceptance of this determination takes place immediately and is final. A request to pull this item from the consent calendar would result in a future public hearing before City Council on a date yet to be determined. Environmental Review This determination is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the decision to waive this property from the City’s retail preservation ordinance will not cause a significant effect on the environment. Attachments: Attachment A: Director's Tentative Approval of Waiver Attachment B: Applicant's Waiver Request Attachment C: Zoning Code Excerpts July 28, 2020 Daniel Cunningham 3197 Park Blvd Palo Alto, CA 94306 Subject: 2585 E Bayshore Retail Preservation Waiver Determination 20PLN-00048 Mr. Daniel Cunningham, In accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.40.160 (c){l){b), your request for a waiver from the City's retail preservation ordinance is tentatively approved. This determination will be placed on the City Council's August 10, 2020 consent calendar agenda. If three or more council members vote to pull the item from the consent agenda, you will be notified of a future public hearing regarding your request. If approved on the consent agenda, this decision will be final. This determination is based on information provided to the City, including information regarding the former tenant, the surrounding land uses and zoning, the limited options for retail and retail-like uses, and the fact that retail and retail-like uses must apply for and receive conditional use permits in order to occupy the subject premises. The City also noted that the current tenant, a retail-like use, discontinued their lease due to economic viability issues at that location. In terms of encouraging active pedestrian-oriented activity and connections that are conducive to retail uses, the existing site’s location and surrounding network of roads and sidewalks does not promote these objectives. Adoption of the retail preservation ordinance required the subject location remain as retail even though it was never developed, intended, or approved to be a retail use. Based on the aforementioned information, I find that retail and retail-like uses are not viable at this location at this time. Any future uses shall comply with the underlying zoning for permitted and conditionally permitted uses, and other applicable provisions of the municipal code, and would, therefore, be consistent with the purposes of the zoning district and consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. If you have any questions regarding this determination, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Rachael Tanner Assistant Director of Planning & Development Services On behalf of Jonathan Lait Director of Planning and Development Services DocuSign Envelope ID: BFD900AD-B35F-459D-ADFD-F3A705903308 Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: BFD900ADB35F459DADFDF3A705903308 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: 2585 E Bayshore Retail Preservation Waiver Determination 20PLN-00048 Source Envelope: Document Pages: 1 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 1 Initials: 0 Madina Klicheva AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 Madina.Klicheva@CityofPaloAlto.org IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Record Tracking Status: Original 7/27/2020 3:28:45 PM Holder: Madina Klicheva Madina.Klicheva@CityofPaloAlto.org Location: DocuSign Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Palo Alto Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Rachael Tanner Rachael.Tanner@CityofPaloAlto.org Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 136.24.13.203 Sent: 7/27/2020 3:31:09 PM Resent: 7/28/2020 12:52:40 PM Resent: 7/28/2020 1:09:27 PM Viewed: 7/27/2020 4:58:47 PM Signed: 7/28/2020 1:11:50 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Witness Events Signature Timestamp Notary Events Signature Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 7/28/2020 1:09:27 PM Certified Delivered Security Checked 7/28/2020 1:09:17 PM Signing Complete Security Checked 7/28/2020 1:11:50 PM Completed Security Checked 7/28/2020 1:11:50 PM Payment Events Status Timestamps 0 ptflsbutq P!Hsbuy ‘llinthrop S’a’,v 7t:man OL? tour E:nbararje’o Center.22nc loor Sac 6rancisco CA 341 17-5398 eJ i 5 383 1008 ax d15 383 1200MALINCADDHSSSP.O Box 2824.San rancisco,CA 94126-2820 Ronald E.Van Buskirk teL +1.41 5.983,1406 ronald.vanbuskirk(äpi]lsburylaw.com February 26,2020 Mr.Jonathan Lait Director of Planning and Community Development City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto,CA 94301 Re:Retail Preservation Ordinance --Waiver for 2585 East Bayshore Road Dear Mr.Lait: The property owner at 2585 East Ba shore Road (“Owner”)respecttitllv requests a waiver under the Retail Preservation Ordinance (“RPO”),§18.40180(c)of the Palo Alto Municipal Code(PAMC”),in order to return the subject property to its original CISC for office purposes. 1.Summary. The property is located east of IJS 1-Iighwav 101 on East Bayshore Road past the northboundfreewayoff-ramp .A map showing the POPC1Y location and nearby uses is attached as Exhibit A The property is designated RcsearchiOffice Park in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and is located in the ROLM zoning district (‘ROLM District”),’subject to a number of Combining Districtoverlays.The nearby uses are ollice,light industrial,and research,along with a church andflyingschool.There are neither nearby retail uses nor retail pedestrian traffic in the area.In theROhMDistrict,retail or retail-like uses are not permitted except tbr a few listed uses,but thoseareallowedonlywithapprovalofaconditionalusepermit(“CUP”).See PAMC §18.20.030(a). The property has a single-story 15.927 sq.ft.building and a 48-parking stall capacity.It wasdesignedandconstructedin1969asanofficebuildingandwasusedexclusivelyforofficepurposesforover40years.In 2010.Loren Brown purchased the building as the intended futureheadquarterstbrhisconstructioncompany,Vance Brown,Inc (“Vance Brown”)More detailedinformationonVanceBrown’s history in Palo Alto,the acquisition of the 2585 Last Bayshoreproperty,and the soon-to-expire Mctsrard Seed lease are provided in the Statement of LorenBrown.attached as Exhibit C (“foren Brown Statement”). Research,Office,and Limited Manutacturing (“R01 .M”)District (see PAMC,Chapter 18.20,18.20.010 at .seq). A description of applicable planning and zoning designations tbr the property is attached as Exhibit B 1 0 Following the 2008 economic downturn,the Palo Alto real estate market was historicallydepressedwithnoprospectiveofficetenantsandfewtenantsofanykind.While the design andlocationofthebuildingarenotconducivetoretailorretail-like uses,in order to avoid a vacancysituation.the Owner in 201 0 negotiated with the Mustard Seed Learning Center (‘MustardSced”),an after-school learning prograrnlchi]d-care provider,as a potential tenant.Following alengthyCityapprovalprocess,in April 2012 the City conditionally approved a day-care use onthepropertybasedonMustardSeed’s anticipated operations,2 including a limitation to 117students.3 The Owner and Mustard Seed then entered into a ten-year lease,commencing July 21,2012. This tease was granted before the RPO was proposed and adopted.Had the Owner been awarethatnewzoningrestrictionsforretailandretail-like uses would be adopted and applied to a day-care center use in the ROLM District,it would not have entered into the lease.4 Because the day-care center under the RPO is a listed Retail-Like Use,the property is now permanentlyprohibitedfromallbaseusesnormallypermittedasamatterofrightintheROLMDistrict (seePMAC18.40.180(a)),unless this waiver appLication is granted. The Mustard Seed lease expires in 2022.The tenant has notified the Owner that it will not renewtheleaseatthattime,and has also expressed a desire to be relieved from the lease sooner ifpossible.See Loren Brown Statement,p.2.The Owner desires to return the building to itsoriginalintendedpurposeastheVanceBrownheadquarters.Id.Even if the lease is notterminatedearly,at its expiration Vance Brown desires to keep its headquarters in a moreaffordableareainPaloAltothanitscurrentlocation,by re-locating to the 2585 East Bayshorepropertywhentheleaseexpires. As noted,the terms of the RPO prevent the Owner from returning this property’to office useunlessitobtainsanRPOwaiver.This places the Owner in an unfair and untenable position.Because the RPO prohibits the conversion to any non-retail use,this means that all base usesnormallypermittedasamatterofrightintheROLMDistrict(such as office)are off limits to theOwner.Denial of a waiver would thus deprive the Owner of any base use in the District,andforcetheOwnertoattempttomaintainanon-viable retail use in a zoning district where retailuseswereneverintendedanddonotexisttoday.Furthermore,the grant of a CUP for the limitedretailorretail-like uses even allowed in the District is entirely discretionary and City approvalwouldnotbeassured, These are severe restrictions that no other property owner in the ROLM District faces.It wouldeffectivelyrenderthepropertyanislandintheDistrictbeingtreateddifferentlythanallother At that time,a day-care center was an allowed use in the ROLM District subject to site and design review.However,the zoning regttlations have since been amended to require a CUP for this kind ot’use in the District.See PMAC §I$.20.030(a)(Table I)see also §18.04.125.1 (defining day care centers as a Retail-Like use”). Mustard Seed had approximately 80 students with a staff of 10,but was hopeful of expanding the studentpropulsionto200ormore.However,the City ‘s 2012 approval limited the student population to [17,and theday-care population has not been able to expand. Loran Brown Statement,p.2.The RPO provisions were initially adopted by the City on an Interim basis in 2015.and a permanent basis in 2017. 2 C properties.where landowners may undertake base uses permitted as a matter of right,includingofficeuses,consistent with the basic purposes of the District. Being required to keep the property in retail or retail-Like uses in the ROLM District that has nocurrentretailamenities,and is geographically separated from any true retail-centered areas inPaloAlto,is problematic because: •There are only 5 retail or retail-like uses allowed in the ROLM District,and none of thoseareallowedasamatterofright--meaning that in each case obtaining adiscretionaryCUP,in a substantial and expensive permitting process,would also benecessary;5 and •As documented in the report of Mr.Mike Costa of Cushman &Wakefield,attached asExhibitD(‘Costa Report”),none of those uses would be economically viable because thepropertyislocatedinanexclusivelyoffice,research and industrial area with no existingretailusesandnopedestriantraffic. for the reasons described below,the Owner respectfully requests the City to grant the requestedwaiverundertheRPO. II.A WAIVER SHOULD BE GRANTED FOR 2585 E.BAYSHORE. Section 18.40.180(c)(l)of the RPO provides two grounds for granting a waiver:(1)AlternativeViableActiveUse,and (ii)Economic Hardship.As explained below,a waiver may be grantedfor2595EastBayshoreunderbothstandards. A.Alternative Viable Active Use. The Alternative Viable Active Use (“AVAU”)standard provides for a waiver where thepermittedretailorretail-like use is not viable;the proposed use will support the purposes of thezoningdistrictandComprehensivePlanlandusedesignation;and the proposed use willencourageactivepedestrian-oriented activity and connections.See PAMC §18.40.180(c)(l)(B).The current application clearly meets the first two standards and the third isinapplicableinthecircumstances. 1.The permitted retail or retail-like use is not viable. The property is located in an area entirely unsuitable for retail or retail-like uses.The zoning andplanningregulationsdonotprovideforsuchusesintheROLMDistrict,and in fact there are noretailorretail-like uses adjacent to or near the property.See Costa Report.The current day-carelease(approved for only 117 students)cannot be economically sustained and the tenant intends There ate no retail or retail-like uses allowed as a matter ofHght in the ROLM District.Only five retail or retaillikeusesareallowedwithaCUP(retail services,eating and drinking services,personal services,commercialrecreation,day-care centers) 3 C to vacate the property and find a more sustainable site as soon as it can.Locen Brown Statement, p 2. As noted above,the property is designated as Research/Office Park in the 2030 ComprehensiveGeneralPlanandisincludedintheEastBayshoreandSanAntonioRoad/Bayshore CorridorEmploymentDistrict.In addition to being zoned ROLM,it is subject to the ROLM(E)subdistrictregulationsduetolimitedaccessandenvironmentalsensitivity,See PAMC §18.20.101(c).It is also subject to the “D”and “AD”combining district overlay regulations. None of these planning and zoning designations encourage retail uses in this area.In fact,theComprehensivePlanrecognizesthatretailusesaregenerallynotsuitableintheResearch/OfficeParkareaortheEastBayshoreEmploymentDistrict.See Comprehensive Plan at 33-34 (retailservicesmaybeinclodedintheResearch/Office Park district.“but only f they are found to hecompatiblewiththesurroundingareathroughtheconditionalusepermitprocess”(emphasisadded)).The ROLM zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.PAMC §18.20.030. Consistent with the property’s land use designations,there is no existing retail use or ground-level foot pedestrian traffic in the vicinity of the property.Nearby uses include office,researchorlightmanufacturingfunctions,except fot a school and church.See Exhibit A.For example,businesses and organizations along East Bayshore Road include the Stanford Flying Club,Blackstone Discovery (an I?consulting company),ICO RALLY (business office/electronicmaterials)and the Bay Area Christian Church and school.The property also abuts sensitivePF(D)open-space areas to the rear.None of these uses qualifies as retail or retail-like uses andnonewouldsupportretailuseatthesubjectproperty.6 See atso Costa Report,p.2. Based on economic and locational concerns,the current day-care tenant will not renew the leasein2022andstronglydesirestobereleasedfromthelease.Loren Brown Statement,p.2.TheCostaReportfurthersupportstheconclusionthatthisareaanditsdominantoffice-based rentalstructuremakeretailandretail-like uses problematic and unsustainable.In addition,the property’was not developed or constructed to provide parking to support retail uses,but for office buildinguse. 2.The proposed office use will support the purposes of the zoning districtandComprehensivePlanlandusedesignation. The Owner wishes to return the property to the original office-based purpose that existed fbrover40years.and utilize it as the main office of the Vance Brown construction company.Thecompany’s current offices on Park Boulevard are not sufficient to support its contintted successandgrowth.and the company wishes to remain in an allordable area in Palo Alto by using itsownpropertyat2585EastBayshoreasaheadquarters.Loren Brown Statement,p.2. The planning and zoning designations clearly contemplate office use,along with light industrialuse,in the district where the property is located.The Comprehensive Plan generally describes 6 The nearest “retail”or “retail-like”uses appear to be two auto dealerships and an auto body shop locatedapproximately13mileawayonEmbarcaderoRoad.A former large restaurant (Ming’s)at the corner ofEmbarcaderoRoadandEastBayshorehasceasedbusinessandthatpropertyisnowusedforautomobilestorage. 4 ‘.0 0 the Research/Office Park land use designation as allowing:“Office,research and manufacturingestablishmentswhoseoperationsarcbufferedfromadjacentresidentialuses...”as well as“mixed-uses that would benefit from the proximity to employment centers Comp.Ptan at 33-34.Additionally,the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor EmploymentDistrictisintendedtomaintainsuchusesanddoesnotincluderetail:Policy L-5.4 aims to“Im]aintain the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor areas as diversebusinessandtightindustrialdistricts.”Emphasis added. Similarly,the ROLM District “provides for a limited group of office,research andmanufacturingusesinamanufacturing/research park environment”and “L primarily intendedforlandusedesiguatedforresearchandofficeparkusebythePaloAltoComprehensivePlan...”PAMC §18.20.010(b)(emphasis added). In sum,the proposed office use for the Vance Brown headquarters is consistent with theComprehensivePlanandzoningregulations.Returning the property to its original office usewouldsupportthepurposeofthezoningdistrictandComprehensivePlanlandusedesignations,while denying a waiver and requiring the Owner to maintain a non-viable retail or retail-like usewouldnot. 3.The proposed use will not encourage active pcdcstrian-oriented activityandconnectionsasnonecurrentlyexists. The requirement that an applicant show the proposed use will “encourage active pedestrian-oriented activity”presupposes that local pedestrian activity exists in the area for retail purposesthatcouldbeencouraged.Here,the nearby uses are all office and light industrial businesses thatdiscouragelocalretailpedestrianactivity,and as a result there is no such activity.Costa Report, p.2. There is precedent that this provision may be found inapplicable for the current application.Thiswouldbesimilartothewaivergrantedfor425PortageAvenue,when the Director found that,“In terms of encouraging active pedestrian-oriented activity and connections,the existing sitedoeslittletoadvanceandpromotetheseobjectives.”7 The same finding should apply here. B.Fconomic Hardship. As an alternative ground,a waiver can also be granted if applying the RPO to a property See July 5,2017 letter from t-1illai’Gitelman to D&B Properties,attached as Exhibit E.In that matter,theDirector’s approval of a waiver was later affirmed by the Ci’Council.This was the first waiver consideredundertheAVAUtestadoptedbytheCouncilinMarch2017toamelioratethestringentnatureoftheEconomic Ilardship test.See City Council Staff Report,Feb.13,2017,p.7 (amendments “[m]odify the waiverliardshipprovisionstoincludeaprocessthatislessstringentthantheconstitutionaltakingsstandardusedintheinterimordinance)available it ]ps www_cinolpaloaIt..gcivcax_tilebankdoc.uments/57Q8 The intcnm ulgencyRPOinitiallypassedin2015includedonlythe“economic hardship”standard as a ground for waiver oradjustment. 5 ‘.0 0 “would effectuate an unconstitutional taking of property or otherwise have anunconstitutionalapplicationtotheproperty.”PAMC §18.40.1 $0(c)(1)(A). The City has recognized that this standard is difticult to meet,as reflected in the City’samendmenttotheinterimRPOtoincludethemoreflexiblestandardofan”alternative viableactiveuse.”Nonetheless,given the facts and circumstances involved with the 2585 EastBayshoresiteandtheROLM(E)sub-district,such constitutional standards are also satisfiedhere.8 1.Unconstitutional Taking. While the property is currently leased,that sittiation is temporary and will not continue as theLorenBrownStatementindicates.Given the (i)particular location of the property just off thefreewayonEastBayshoreRoad,(ii)base uses allowed under the applicable planning and zoningregctlationsforthisareathatdonotincluderetail,and (iii)physical as-built situation existing inthisareawithnonearbyretailusesorretailpedestrianactivity,there is no basis to find that aretailorretail-like use could succeed in this location or meet the property owner’s legitimateinvestment-back expectations when the property was acquired.9 The building was purchased in 201 0 undcr legitimate investment-backed expectations for officeusecommensuratewiththeROLM(E)()(AD)District regulations and 40 years of prior officebuildinguse.IThe lease to Mustard Seed was an interim measure to avoid vacancy in the face ofacollapsedmarketforofficeorsimilaruses.The Owners expectations would beunconstitutionallyfrustratedifthepropertyisnowconstrainedtoonlyfivelimited retail or retail-like uses,each requiring a discretionary CUP,with no ability to undertake base uses normallypermittedasofrightintheROLMDistrict. This situation is not be based on any rational planning goal for promotion of the public interest inthisparticulararea,10 but is due simply due to the unanticipated enactment of the RPO in 2015(three years after the Mustard Seed lease)with broad “retail-like use”definitions and anapplicationandrestrictiveeffectthroughouttheentireCityratherthaninjustcoreretailateas. 2.Other Unconstitutional Application. In addition,denying a waiver would “otherwise have an unconstitutional application to theproperty”in these circumstances,by producing an arbitrary and capricious result amounting to a 8 It may be uncertain whether this requirement applies to this property.The February 13 Staff Report,p.7,indicatesthatthe“economic hardship”requirement was primarily intended to apply to the Of and R combining districts,which do not apply to 2585 East Bayshore. ln determining whether a regulatory taking has occurred,courts consider several factors,including(l)theeconomicimpactoftheregulation,(2)the extent to which the regulation interfered with the property owner’sinestment-backcd expectations,and (3)the character of the government action.See Penn CentralTransportationCo.v.New York City 438 U.S.[04(1 978)Kcivcmau v.Santa Monica Rent Control Bd.(1997)16Cal.4th 761,775. 10 In adopting the RPO,the City’did not undcrtake a comprehensive City-wide study of all zoning districts and theirsuitabilityforpreservingretailorretail—like like uses. 6 0 denial of substantive due process.’’In contrast to every other property in the ROLM(E)(D)tD)District,all ci’which may as a “matter of righf’undertake any base use allowed in that District,the property at 2585 East Bayshore would be sharply limited to no base uses at all,and have onlyanarrowrangeoffiveretailorretail-like uses that would require obtaining a CLTP from the City.Among other things,obtaining an CUP is a burdensome and time-consuming process in whichtheCityhasdiscretiontodenythepermitandthereisnoguarantyofsuccess.12 In effect.through the operation of the RPO,the 2585 East Bayshore property alone would be singled outandrestrictedintheROLMDistrict--in effect “spot-zoned”for uses not even permitted withoutaCUP--in contrast to other property owners in the District. for all these reasons.the application of the RPO and denial of a waiver under thesecircumstanceswouldbearbitraryandcapricious,and would deny the Owner’s due process andequalprotection’3 rights cinder the U.S.and California Constitutions.However,in the event awaiverisgrantedtindertheAVAUstandard,the more complicated issues of an unconstitutionalapplicationoftheRPOtothesubjectpropertymaybeavoided. HI.Conclusion. Thu Owner respectfully requests that a waiver be granted to allow the Owner to return thepropertytoitsoriginallyintendedciscasanewofficeheadqciartersfortheVanceBrownconstructioncompany. Sincerely, Ronald E.Van Buskirk Cc:Mr.Loren Brown Mr.Dan Cunningham Mr.Ken 1-laves See /1yen/do San Juan Partnership v City otSan Cleinente (2011)201 Cal App.4th 1256,1268 (Onding city’simpositionoflow-density land use restrictions on parcel located in higher density zoning district to be arbitraryandcapricious,becatise the restrictions effectively created “an island ofrninimurn lot size zoning in a residentialoceanofsubstantiallylessrestrictivezoning,”and also awarding damages for a regulatory takings claim);see a/soHomerr’.Town v/Ross (1963)59 Cal.2d 776,783 (invalidating city’s one-acre minimum lot size requirement on“island”surrounded by developed lots of less than one acre).Zoning regulations violate substantive due processprinciplesiftheyarearbitraryandunreasonable,having “no substantial relation”to public health.morals orgeneralwelfare.Lmgte v.C’hev,”m,544 U.S.528.5’ll. 2 In other cases where the City has granted a waiver or adjustment under the RPO,the properties in question werezonedtoallowretailandretail-like uses as a matter of right.See Exhibit F summarizing previous RPO waiverapplications. For example.in contrast.a special waiver from the RPO was granted in .lanuary 2019 for the 3703-3709 ElCarninoRealhousingprojectbyamendingthehousingregulationstoallowawaviersimplybfindingthatprojecttobe“in the public interest”See Exhibit I-. 7 t C Exhibit A Property Location 0 ‘0 0 Exhibit B Current Land Use Regulations 2585 East Bayshore Road 2585 E.BAYSHORE ROAD CURRENT LAND USE REGULATIONS PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Research/Office Park The City’s Comprehensive Plan 2030 (CP 2030)designates the property as “Research/Office Park.’This designation permits retail services only if they are compatibte with the surrounding area: “Office,research and manufacturing establishments whose operations are buffered from adjacent residential uses...Other uses that may be included are educational institutions and child care facilities.Compatible commercial service uses such as banks and restaurants and residential or mixed-uses that would benefit from the proximity to employment centers,will also be allowed.Additional uses.including retail services,commercial recreation,churches and private clubs may also be located in ResearchlOl’flce Park areas,but onlyli they arJgjndto he conzjutthle with the surrounding area through the conditional use permit process.”CP 2030 at 33-34,emphases added. East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshorc Corridor Employment District The Property is also within the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor Employment District.The Employment Districts represent “a development type not found in other parts of the city.These Districts are characterized by large one-to four-story buildings,with some taller bciildings,separated by parking lots and landscaped areas.The Districts are accessed primarily by automobile or employer-supported transit,though future changes in land use and tenancy could support a shift toward transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel.”CP 2030 at 20. The Comprehensive Plan describes the East Bayshore and San Antonio RoadIBayshore Corridor Employment District as “serv[ingj a specific economic role.Its [sicJ relatively low-cost space provides opportunities for a variety of service industries and start-up businesses that could not feasibly locate in the higher cost areas.”Id.at 195. The following Comprehensive Plan policies arc pertinent to the East Bayshore Employment District: •Policy L-5.4:Maintain the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor areas as diverse business and light industrial districts. 4XU-2 -5621 v3 0 Policy B-7.7:Seek to balance increases in costs ftr business space with the need for rehabilitation and replacement of outdated space in the San Antonio Road and Fast Bayshore areas, ZONING CODE Zoning The Property is zoned Research Office Limited Manufacturing (“ROLM”).1 The ROLM district provides for a limited group of office,research and manufacturing uses in a manufacturing!research jark enviroament,where uses requiring larger sites and available natural light and air can locate.Office uses can be accommodated,bu.t should not predominate in the district.The ROLM district is primarily intended for land designated for research and office park use by the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and located east olEl Camino Real.”PAMC §18.20.010(h). Under current code provisions,retail uses and day care centers are permitted in the ROLM district only with a conditional use permit.See PAMC §18.20.030. Combining District Overlays The Property is also subject to the following Combining District Overlays in the Zoning Code: ROLM -Embarcadero (ROLM(E)sub-district):Modifies the site development regulatiot;s of the ROLM district to apply to smaller sites in areas with limited access or with environmental sensitivity due to their proximity to the Palo Alto Baylands in the Embarcadero Road area.PAMC §1 8.20.10(c). •Site and Design (D):Provides a process for review and approval of development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas,including established comm unity areas which may be sensitive to negative aesthetic factors,excessive noise,increased traffic or other disruptions.PAI\’IC §18.30(G).10. •Auto Dealership (Al)):“The automobile dealership (AD)combining district is intended to modify the regulations of the service commercial (CS)and general manufacturing (GM or GM(3))districts to create and maintain areas accommodating automobile dealerships primarily engaged in new and used automobile sates and service on a citywide and regional basis.”PAMC §18.30(f).10. Site and Design Review Site and design review is required in the (D)overlay district prior to “the issuance of any permit or other approval for the construction of any building or the establishment of any Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”)§18.20010 Ct seq. 48 82666-562 lvi 0 0 use.”PAMC §18.30(G).040 (emphasis added).Generally,the Site and Design Review Process involves revic’and approval by the planning commission,architectural review board,and City Council.See PAMC 18.30(G).020-.070.No building permit or other permit or approval for building construction or use of the site can be issued until the plans have been approved by the city council or by the director otp1anning and community environment,PAMC §l8.30(G).070. 1#I8-266(,-5621 v3 0 0 PA&0 ALTO GNEqAL PLAN UOATE 14D USE ECESIENI C)C > —f K 1S L I C3Y “I /t4 —\-Sc’c P:,r a’i Uc :rT sViw t •1II — —•:—:— 4-cflJ4’I,fl S -It’njIE.’t.t., — ünas UL’e >pace ——S 0 .,jjfl e,e Acre P.r ,4 dince ———iatw !Y,I;IS. UI—Ied “abI.t L.flf,Jt!O!*_S,,c tIrC J,se LiTd tiw C,riLCTh—S.Jr LS 4IIZ,SI Low Ucrht——.30,SZè{t4,!Re..enc’i L,Ii S 48 8-266t,-562 I.v3 C C IT Il). 4-., ‘r I‘IIAl•l!. t.4Wfl_I%I!44 ..t . -.*1I ‘l fl)IJ’..4)74.jt h-* a—4)CP3eIc’n0I !.• U T N 0 It.I%tI72I17£ C— :-N\ .7 N LiU’ 2 4471—T U U I- I U fl\ S U \ U / a C.7171N I *ii 1i -.. 0 Palo Alto IL I jL F..p I-I—S —* a I PAlO ALTO ULNLI4AC PLAN UPOAt IANU USE EtEMLNt —— MAo h.tIO— Cp ffNAi.d fl,..4o.,,,ld anforU u,tr3tv Land UE Q And.nttamp.4S C.qnan H.dd.,all.l Law flensi Ciaw.,,n,dnls.l Mnd.!aNTb.n,, r*V,pI/ll4nd8flb1rt!l %%rth ‘MLl an I Thj,/ V a.4 C C U 4 ‘4 —PI UmWeLLA$L,P’aa L,d LLa jn.LLofl, Othar CnoLi 4n,— —CarnPn. IOIf (a,nnwrwø— W,hbq.rcsc1 lmfl.fl’AJ *e,fl’:,r,,;flhlV rLne;iLrtuslr .1 IN ln,L—Arn tLwr:Ct.enMIfln 0 .‘rn L,ban ‘flKr .gPa T I (LWLIOandw,S,d all ,,--— 5345 LEN.fln N LEN.U5G.DS ‘SITE,LESSCE4UIOloMo,LUTE LIUnWoLLLUll MAP CE CDMPMEKTNSIVF PLAN LAND USC UlGNAtION’S , e S S 9 0 -.0,’ 55 : 19 •1 -4 Exhibit C Statement of Loren Brown .0 0 Statement of Loren Brown The following statement is submitted in support of the application by 2585 East Bayshore,LLC for a waiver from the Palo Alto Retail Preservation Ordinance (“RPO”). Applicant Background The property owner is 2585 East Bayshore,LLC.I am the majority owner of 2585 East Bayshore,LLC and also the principal owner of Vance Brown,Inc.(“Vance Brown”or the “Company”),a commercial general contractor serving Palo Alto/Stanford and surrounding communities.The Company was founded in 1932 and has operated continuously in Palo Alto for its entire existence.’It has been located in South Palo Alto (in the Park Boulevard area)for the past 70 years,including at 3197 Park Boulevard since 1995. When Vance Brown first located to Park Boulevard,the area was lightly populated by local service businesses (Pacific Ready Mix,Lloyd’s Towing,Bleibler Iron Works,Jost Sheet Metat, etc.).However,over time,virtually all of the local service businesses have been replaced by high tech firms (Ten Cent,Agilent,Cloudera,WeWorks,Sofibank,etc.).This has put significant pressure on space and rents in the area.Since 1995,the Company has seen its rent increase by almost 700%. Acquisition of 2585 East Baysliore In 2010,a rare opportunity arose to purchase the 2585 East Bayshore property which has a single-story 15,927 sq.ft building and a 48-parking stall capacity.The building was designed and constructed in 1969 as an office building and was used exclusively for office purposes for over 40 years.We purchased the property in 2010 as the intended future headquarters for Vance Brown.The Company foresaw a need for future expansion space and an opportunity for lower rents,along with the ability to control its real estate fate and remain in Palo Alto.We elected to purchase the building and lease it until expansion space for the Company was required. Generally,the design and location of the building are not conducive to retail or retail-like uses. However,in 2010-2011,the oftice space market remained depressed from the 2008 financial crisis and very few tenants were looking for space,and we considered interim options to avoid a vacancy situation. Mustard Seed Lease VBI’s recent projects include a number of projects at Stanford (Stanford Stadium,Maples Pavilion renovations, Stanford Alumni Center,Escondido Village Graduate Residences,Stanford Hospital Parking Structure 4)and in Palo Alto generally (Evvia Estiatorio,Bird Dog,Tin Pot Creameiy,Gunn High Schoot Library and Science Classrooms,Channing House renovations,Avenidas renovations,Junior Museum and Zoo,Palo Alto YMCA, Nixon Elementary School renovations,International School of the Peninsula,Castilleja School,Palo Alto High School Gymnasium,Palo Alto Medical Foundation Clark Building,Elks Club,Palo Alto Hills Golf and Tennis Club renovations). 4851-0545-7333.vl 0 As of 2010,the Mustard Seed Learning Center’s lease in existing space in another building was expiring,and Mustard Seed showed interest in the 2585 East Bayshore building.While Mustard Seed’s population of approximately 80 students was small relative to the building and its configuration,Mustard Seed was hopeful of expansion to 200 students or more. In 2010,a day-care use was an allowed use as of right in the ROLM District,subject to Site and Design Review.Mustard Seed sought and obtained necessary site and design review approvals from the City in April 2012,although it was restricted to 117 students.Mustard Seed executed a ten-year lease with 2585 Bayshore,LLC,effective July 19,2012. However,we would not have entered into the lease with Mustard Seed for a day-care use in this location had we known or been advised that the RPO would be enacted three years later and restrict future use of the property to retail or retail-like uses. Current Situation Mustard Seed has not been able to grow at 2585 East Bayshore.It also has not been successful in seeking to sublet any part of the building.Basically,due to costs,excessive space and the location,Mustard Seed has indicated that it will not renew the lease in 2022.It would also like to vacate the space early due to economic and other reasons. At this time,Vance Brown needs expansion space and would utilize the entire building.As noted above,Vance Brown has outgrown its current space at 3197 Park Boulevard,and the nature of that area has changed significantly with many high-tech firms driving rents higher than service businesses can afford.Relocation to 2585 East Bayshore would result in lower rents for Vance Brown,but still provide significantly higher rents to the building owner than day-care rents. Vance Brown’s use is classified as General Business under the Municipal Code.The underlying ROLM zoning considers General Business as a use allowed as of right.By re-locating to 2585 East Bayshore,the Company would pay a higher rent than a day-care use would be willing to pay;would have long-term security for a continued Palo Alto business presence;and would have expansion capacity in a single location which is already configured for office uses.Given the nature of the ROLM District and this particular area,there are no nearby retail or retail-like uses, and there is no retail foot traffic of any kind. It is my understanding that,absent a waiver,the RPO would not permit a General Business use at 2585 East Bayshore,because it restricts replacement to only Retail or Retail-Like Uses.The effective prohibition of a General Business use would result in a significant economic hardship to both the building owner and Vance Brown,and require the Company to explore alternative and affoable expansion optisrn’in other areas. ________________ -__2020 Loren Brown Date: 2525 East Bayshore LLC 4851-0545-7333 vi 0 Exhibit B Report of Mike Costa Cushman &Wakefield 3 C U S H MA N &300 BarItone Row til WAKEFIELD 2cA9528 el -i4OP6i534OOtx-l 4086103444 cushmanwekefielci corn February 18,2020 Mr Loren Brown 2585 East Bayshore.LLC do Vance Brown Construction 3197 Park Blvd. Palo Alto,CA 94301 Re;Potential Uses of 2585 East Bayshore Road Dear Mr Brown: You requested my opinion regarding the potential for retail and retail-like uses in the ROLM District east of thefreewayinthevicinityof2585EastBayshoreRoadinPaloAlto.I have looked at existing uses and rentstructuresforthisarea,as well as the property and building at 2585 East Bayshore itself. As explained in this letter,it is myopinion that retail or retail-like uses are not suitable or viable for this locationandareunlikelytolocatethereAmongotherthings,the general office and R&D tent structure in this area istoohighforsuchuses,there are no existing retail or retail-like cises in the vicinity;the area lacks retail foottrafficorpotentialforsuchfoottraffic:and the building itself is designed and constructed for general office useandisnotreadiysuitableforretailorretail-like uses. have been a commercial/retail broker on the mid-peninsula for over 25 years Generally,I specialize insiteselectionlocationsforretailtenants.Presently,I cannot identify a retail tenant that would occupy this property In my judgment,the primary uses for the building.given its location,size and configuration,would be office andR&D. Background You have provided the following background information on the property and structure at 2585 East Bayshore The property has a single-story 15,927 sq.ft.building with a 48-parking stall capacity The building wasdesignedandconstructedin1969asanofficebuildingandwasusedexclusivelyforofficepurposesuntil 2012. In 2010,the current ownership purchased the building as the intended future headquarters for the Vance Brownconstructioncompany(Vance Brown,Inc.),when the need for expansion occurred At the time you purchased the building,the Palo Alto real estate market was historically depressed following the2008economicdownturn.Generally,there were few prospective office tenants in the market at that time Iunderstandthatinordertoavoidavacancy,and to wait for the growth of Vance Brown to catch up to the sizeofthebuilding.a 10-year lease was s:gned in 2012 with the Mustard Seed Learning Center (“Mustard Seed”),an after-school learning program/child-care provider,as an interimmeasure,after the City granted necessarysiteanddesignapprovals1 I understand that as o12012,a day-care center was an allowed use in the ROLM District subject to site and design review,but cui’rent zoning regulaiions require a conditional use perolt for this kind ofuse OJo varrantv Cr ‘enrosentolion,espiensed or mplied s made as to :be accuracy of he information cntanred herein,and same .s submitted subiect o errors.omissions.change of once.rontal or other cønditians,nithdrsvl wOhout route,and to nine special listing caiid,tions.i o5cd by our principai 0 G CUSH MAN &(I WAKEHELD This lease was undertaken before the City adopted its retail preservation ordinance or RPO in 2015 2 amgenerallyfamiliarwiththeRPDfrommyworkwithnumerouslandlordsandtenantsforretailuses.Because theday-care center under the RPO is a listed Retail-Like Use,unless a waiver is granted,the property will remainprohibitedfromanyusenormallyallowedasamatterofrightintheROLMDistrict.You have indicated that thepropertywouldnothavebeenpurchased,not the interim lease to Mustard Seed granted,if it had been knownthatnewzoningregulationsintheformoftheRPOwouldsubsequentlybeimposedintheROLMDistrict. I understand the Mustard Seed lease expires in July 2022 and the tenant has indicated it will not renew theleaseatthattime.The tenant has also exoressed a desire to be relieved from the lease earlier,if possible,so itmayre-locate to more economic and efficient space.Because the school is limited by the 2012 approvals toonly117students,the building size/configuration are unsuitable to a child-care use for the iong term. You have also indicated that the company has outgrown its current space at 3197 Park Boulevard and desirestore-locate to the 2585 East Bayshore building as the Vance Brown headquarters Analysis I understand that the RPO prevents you from returning this property to office use unless you obtain a waiverfromtheCity.In my judgment,this limitation significantly restricts the sale or lease of your property.Incomparison,nearby landowners in the ROLM District can undertake the basic uses permitted in that district asamatterofright,including primary uses such as office and R&D. As I stated previously,this is not a retail location.Senerally.retaif tenants require retail co-tenancy,adequateparking,signage.and above all foot traffic in the area.Furthermore,potential non-office retail-like uses,suchasschools,day care,church,and health &fitness,generally cannot afford the typical rent structurecommandedcurrentlyinthisarea.The rental rates for these kinds of uses would be 50%to 70%below that ofanofficetenant,and normally the leases would only be short term.In addition,they would be considered muchhigherrisktenantsascomparedtoofficeusers. Basically,the 2585 East Bayshore property is an ‘off the freeway’property surrounded by office,R&D andwetlands.There are no existing retail uses or any potential for such long-term uses.In my opinion,such usesarenotviablethere,and it only makes sense for this property to be productive utilized for an office or R&Dfacilityasithasbeenformostofitshistory Very truly yours, Mike Costa Senior Director -Retail Cus’rman &‘Nakefield Lic.00415216 2 Palo Alto Mun.Code §I.40.180. No or representailon.enprssed or mound.5siade as to ihe accuracy at 5h info’nration contained hern,and aaron is subrTsiited subject to actors,omissions,change 0i prce,rental or other conditions.wrthdrwai wrihut not’ce,and to any tyecini hung conditions,posed lay ow principsis 0 0 Exhibit E Hillary Gitelman Letter (425 Portage) ‘-0 0 (CO’]NlT 11 CU .j 251)-4t k.,51r ii.j’ PALO ‘ic c.aALTOe:c sac a idv S.201 Lund smith D.B Pronertie 3260 Ash Street Palo Ato,CA 943C6 Subject 423 Portage Avenue Retaii Preservaton Wa ‘,er De’ermnauon Dear Mr und, in accordance wrh Palo Alto Municip&Code Section 13.40 160 {c)(fl(bj,Your request for a wai’Jer Fromthecity’s retail preservation .rdinance is tentatively approved Th’s determination wifl be placed on theCtyCounc‘s August 14.2017 consent calendar agenda If pulled by three or more councilmembers,yo. w II be notfied of a future public bearing on the req jest,If acceeted on consent,this decision will beInc. The determ naton is based on informanon provided to the city,including effort over the Ist 16 months to lease the prooerty,informat:on on tenant/broker inquires,surrounding and uses,substandard parkingsoacestosaoportetaiiandretal-like uses,testimony from ‘1our last tenant,and,a ten year history of previous and uses ft is further noted that tne last tenant’s transition from warehousing to retail services was cot ajrhoraed by the ci[y and would not nave been anproved due to the lack of required on-sitepakingtosupportretailservicesAdoptionoftheretailpreservationordinancerequiredthesubject location remain as retail even though it was never developed,intended or approved to be a retail use. Based on the foregoing information,I fnd that retail and retail-like uses are not viable at this ‘ocation atthistimeAn;future non-retail or retail-like uses that complies with the underlying zoning for permitted and conditionaly permitted uses,and other applicable provisions oFthe municipal code,would beconsistentwiththepurposesofthezoningdistrictandconsistentwiththecity’s Comprehensive Plan.In terms ci encouraging active pedestr’an-oriented activity and connections,the existing ste does little toadvanceardpromotetheseobiectives.To the extent a ruture tenant requires buildng mprcvements oruponsiteredeveopment,the cin/through it’s discretionary design review prccess will encourage designelementsthatenhanceaedestranconnectionsasappropriate. i you have any Cuestiens regarding this detemiratlcn,please do net hes’tate to contact me,or AssistantDirecrorjonathanLait. Sincer ly, ..,,..‘,t.’‘,i .,“‘i’..’’1.1J ‘. .0 Exhibit F Prior RPO Wavier Applications Pr e v i o u s Wa i v e r s / A d I us i m e n t s to Re t a i l Pr e s e r v a t i o n Or d i n a n c e Ba c k g r o u n d Bu i l d i n g on pr o p e r t y wa s oc c u p i e d by Ad d i s o n A n t i q u e s , a re t a i l us e , un t i l Ju n e 30 , 21 0 5 Si n c e th e n th e ow n e r s ha d be e n un s u c c e s a l u l l y tr y i n g to le a s e th e bu i l d i n g to a ne w re t a i l or re t a i l — l i k e us e [N O T E Th i s re q u e s t wa s ma d e un d e r th e In t e r i m RP O ad o p t e d on Ma y II 20 1 5 , wh i c h di d no t in c l u d e th e Al t e r n a t i v e Vi a b l e Ac t i v e Us e (A V A U ) st a n d a r d Va c a n t wa r e h o u s e bu i l d i n g Pr e v i o u s te n a n t . Pe t Fo o d De p o t . us e d th e bu i l d i n g fo r pe t fu n d st m a g e an d di s t r i b u t i o n al t h o u g h th e r e we r e so m e on - s i t e re t a i l sa l e s Pe t Fo o d De p o t wa s op e r a t i n g at th e li m e th e In t e r i m RP O wa s ad o p t e d , hu t la t e r di s c o n t i n u e d op e r a t i o n s Th e r e wa s no pr o p o s e d re p l a c e m e n t te n a n t at th e ti m e of ih e ap p t ica n on RT - 3 5 (R e s i d e n t i a l Tr a n s i t i o n ) . a sp e c i f i c zo n i n g cr e a t e d un d e r th e So u t h of Fo r e s t Ar e a (S O F A ) Co o r d i n a t e d Ar e a Pl a n Al l o w s a mi x of us e s as of ri g h t , in c l u d i n g of f i c e an d re t a i l un d t n Us e s Ac c o r d i n g to ap p l i c a t i o n , th e r e we r e fe w re t a i l us e s in th e ar e a (S t a f f Re p o r t di d no t ad d r e s s th e is s u e ) in . “S e r v i c e Co m m e r c i a l (C S ) al l o w s al l re t a i l us e s as of ri g h t (e x c e p t sh o p p i n g ce n t e r s ) , al s o al l o w s ad m i n of f i c e se r v i c e s pr o f e s s i o n a l an d ge n e r a l bu s i n e s s of f i c e s (P A M C 18 . 1 6 04 0 , ) Su r r o u n d i n g Us e s • At th e ti m e of th e ap p l i c a t i o n , on l y a fe w re t a i l us e s ex i s t e d in th e ar e a (i n c l u d i n g An t h r o p o l o g i e at 99 9 Al m a , wh i c h wa s va c a t i n g ) • Wi t h o u t th e fo o t tr a f f i c fr o r t i An t l s r o p o l o g i e . re t a i l us e no t su s t a i n a b l e • Th e RP O al l e g e d re s u l t e d in a “p a n i a l ” re g u l a t o r y ta k i n g (c i t i n g Pe n n Ce i i i r a i an d ot h e r ta k i n g s ca s e s ) • Re t a i l an d re t a i l - l i k e us e s we r e no t vi a b l e du e to ‘ a lo c a t i o n wh o s e su r r o u n d i n g us e s la c k re t a i l vi b r a n c y , ac c e s s i b i l i t y , an d vi s i b i l i t y . ” an d • A la c k of ’ In t e r e s t by pr o s p e c t i v e re t a i l te n a n t s fA p p l i c a n t ha d no t id e n t i f i e d a sp e c i f i c re p l a c e m e n t us e ] Ou t c o m e St a f f re c o m m e n d de n i a l fo r fa i l u r e to sh o w ec o n o m i c ha r d s h i p to th e po i n t of an un c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ta k i n g ’ On 8/ 2 2 1 2 0 1 6 Ci t s Co u n c i l de n t e d th e wa i er Co u n c i l al s o di r e c t e d st a l l to in c l u d e in th e pe r m a n e n t or d i n a n c e an ad d i t t o a l st a n d a r d to ev a l u a t e fu t u r e wa i v e r s Pl a n n i n g Di r e c t o r is s u e d te n t a t i v e ap p r o v a l of th e is a i v e r re t l u e s i On Ju l y 5 20 1 7 Ci t y Co u n c i l ap p r o v e d th e wa i v e r on No v e m b e r 6, 20 1 7 Th e ma t t e r wa s or i g i n a l l y on ti m Ci t y Co u , i e , l a co i i s e i i ag e n d a fo t Ju n e 2 0 20 1 6 , iv i t l i a ie c o t n n i e n d a t m o n fo r de n o i l , bu t wa s ei n o v e d fr o m th e co n s e n t ca l e n d a r by 3 me m b e r s of th e Co u n c i l Pr o p e r t y Ye a r 10 0 Ad d i s o n Av e . 20 1 6 Zo i i i n g / S u r r o u i i d i n g Us e s Su p p o r t i n g Ev i d e n c e Su b n i i t t e d /A r g u m e n t s A,p n l i c a m i t Ar g u m e n t s 42 5 Po r t a g e Av e . 20 ) 7 Ap p l i c a n i Ar g u m e n t s Wa i v e r Gr a n t e d 45 2 7 - 1 6 7 3 -5 56 5 [N o t e Th i s wa s t h e fi r s t ap p l i c a t i o n Mo 5 t l y of f i c e (t h o u g h o f f i c e • to he co n s i d e r e d un d e r th e AV A U wo n i d no t be pe r m i t t e d on th i s st a n d a r d 1 si t e du e to la c k of pa r k i n g ) 99 9 Al m a 20 1 7 Si t e va c a t e d by An t h r o p o l o g i c st o r e Ap p l i c a n t Ar e u m e n t s Wa i v e r Gr a n t e d , St . in 20 1 6 an d ha d b e e n va c a n t to t ov e r a ye a r at th e t i m e of Ci t y Co u n c i l RT - 3 5 . al l o w s ar n i x of us e s , • En t i r e bu i l d i n g c o u l d nu t su p p o r t On No v e m b e r 7, 20 1 7 Ci t y Co u n c i l he a r i n g in c l u d i n g of f i c e an d re t a i l (s e e re t a i l or re t a i l - l i k e us e du e to th e gr a n t e d th e wa i v e r to al l o w 5. 0 0 0 10 0 Ad d i s o n . ab o v e ) la c k of su r r o u n d i n g re t a i l u s e s sq u a r e fe e t of me d i c a l of f i c e us e at Th e pr o p o s a ] wa s to sp l i t th e 10 0 0 0 th e re a r of th e bu i l d i n g sq fo o t bu i l d i n g in i c i tw o us e s , of f i c e Su b j e c t to So u t h of Fo r e s t • Re c e i v e d no of f e r s fr o m r e t a i l us e r s an d re t a i l , ea c h wi t h 5, 0 0 0 sq fe e t , Co o r d i n a t e d Ar e a Pl a n (S O F A to le a s e th e en t i r e bu i l d i n g . wi t h th e of f i c e lo c a t e d tn th e re a r of II ) wh i c h is in t e n d e d to pr o m o t e th e bu i l d i n g co n i i n u a t i o n of a mi x e d us e . wa l k a b l e . ar e a wi t h a we a l t h of Re q u e s t e d a wa t ’ e r un d e r th e ol d e r b u i l d i n g s AV A U st a n d a r d St i r r o t i n d i n g Us e s Pr i m a r i l y r e s i d e n t i a l No ot h e r re t a i l te n a n t s al o n g Al m a St r e e t on th e sa m e bl o c k 37 0 5 El 20 1 9 Re q u e s t to wa i v e re t a i l pr e s e r v a t i o n nn In li e u of gr o u n d fl o o r re t a i l ap p l i c a n t Wa i v e r Gr a n t e d , Ca r n i n o re q u i r e n i e n t fo r la r g e af f o r d a b l e pr o p o s e d to pr o v i d e co m m u n i t y am e n i t y Re a l ho u s i n g pr o j e c t on a st t e co n t a i n i n g , Ne i g h b o r h o o d Co t n r n e r c t a l s p a c e ve h i c l e an d bi c y c l e p a r k t n g . an d Ci t y Co u n c i l ap p r o v e d th e re q u e s t am o n g o t h e r th i n g s . 70 0 0 sq u a r e (‘ C N ” ) , al l o w i n g fo r a ra n g e of ot h e r an c i l l a r y g r o u n d fl o o r us e s . un d e r th e ne w AH Co m b i n i n g fe e t of re t a i l sp a c e Pr o l e c t ut v o l v e d pe r m i t t e d an d co n d i t i o n a l l y Di s t r i c t r e g u l a t i o n s Th e s e z o n i n g ap p r o v a l of Af f o r d a b l e Ho u s i n g pe m s i n e d of f i c e us e s , r e t a i l us e s , co d e am e n d m e n t s re l a s e d th e Co m b i n i n g Di s t r i c t ( A H ) Ov e r l a y an d re s i d e n t i a l us e s Re t a i l st a n d a r d to t re t a i l co n v e r s i o n fo r th i s re g u l a t i o n s to mo d i f y de v e l o p m e n t se r v i c e s an d ea t i n g an d dn n l c i n g ty p e of pr o t e c t an d al l o w e d th e Ci t y st a n d a r d s of i h e un d e r l y i n g di s t r i c t s e r v i c e s ar e pe r m i t t e d as of ri g h t Co u n c i l to ex e m p t th e pr o i e c t fr o m Th e AH Co m b i n i n g Di s t r i c t (P A M C 18 16 0 4 0 ) ha v i n g to ob t a i n a wa i v e r un d e r th e re g u l a t i o n s al l o w e d Ci t y Co u n c i l to RP O un d e r a “p u b l i c in t e r e s t ap p r o v e wa i v e r fr o m R1 ’ O up o n Su r r o u n d i n g us e s st a n d a r d __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ fi n d i i m g th a t su c h an ac t i o n is “i n t h e 7 4S S ’ i - b / s - 5 o 5 S I pu b l i c In L e r e s t (P A M C § A di v e r s e ra n g e of us e s 18 30 ( J 01 0 ci se q ) in c l u d i n g on e an d ro - s t o r y re l a i l bu i l d i n g s an d mu l t i - f a m i l y re s i d e n t i a l ap a r t m e n t s 3 1S 2 1 i6 3 - 5 b S 1 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 22nd Floor | San Francisco, CA 94111-5998 | tel 415.983.1000 | fax 415.983.1200 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 2824, San Francisco, CA 94126-2824 Ronald E. Van Buskirk tel: +1.415.983.1496 ronald.vanbuskirk@pillsburylaw.com 1 March 24, 2020 Mr. Samuel Gutierrez Planning and Community Development Department City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Retail Preservation Ordinance -- Waiver for 2585 East Bayshore Road Dear Samuel: Thank you for holding a telephone conference with us last Friday. During the call, you raised several questions regarding potential alternative retail-like uses of the property and we wanted to respond as promptly as possible. Automobile Dealership We do not believe an automobile dealership is a viable option either legally or as a practical matter. Legally, auto dealerships are not permitted uses in the ROLM(E) district. See § 18.20.030(a)(Table 1) (list of permitted uses). The language of the Code appears definitive on this point. This conclusion is not changed because of the (AD) designator shown on the zoning map which appears to be in error. Under Section 18.04.030(32) ("Combining Districts"), special combining district regulations apply "only in combination with a general district." Emphasis added. On their face, the Automobile Dealership Combining District regulations (§18.30(F)) “modify the regulations of the service commercial (CS) and general manufacturing (GM or GM(B) districts” (see § 18.30(F).010),1 and also apply to limited manufacturing zoning district parcels located within ¼ mile of the San Antonio Road/Highway 101intersection (see § 18.30(F).020). However, these provisions do not include or apply to the ROLM(E) District, and a City 1 The GM district is a general district and is broken out distinctly from the ROLM District in Table 1 (§18.20.030). 2 Manager’s 2005 report confirms that the AD combining regulations were not intended to apply to parcels near the Highway 101/Embarcadero Road interchange.2 This is confirmed by the fact that the automobile dealerships located on Embarcadero Road are in different zones as follows: Mercedes Benz - CS(D); Audi - PC-4846;3 and Anderson Honda - PC-4847. In contrast, the ROLM(E) Districts on Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Roads are made up entirely of office buildings and there are no auto dealerships in these districts. As a practical matter, 2585 East Bayshore has an existing 16,000 sf building on an approximately 1-acre site. There are office-type buildings immediately adjacent to the site on both the North and South, and the rear of the property abuts protected open space. This site is far too small to reasonably accommodate an economically viable automobile dealership which includes adequate space for employees, guest parking, car display, exterior sales and display areas, drive throughs, car wash areas, service department, parts department, and the like. Commercial Recreation While Commercial Recreation4 is a retail-like use permitted in the ROLM(E) District with a CUP,5 there are several reasons why it could not be a viable alternative use for 2585 East Bayshore. First, the site lacks sufficient parking to support the building occupant densities for various Commercial Recreation uses listed in the Building Code (i.e. “exercise rooms”, “locker rooms”, “bowling centers,” and the like). These occupant load factors are listed in the 2019 California Building Code Table 1004.5 (Maximum Floor Area Allowances per Occupant). For example, exercise rooms require 50 gross sf per occupancy, and for 16,000 sf this would mean parking for 320 occupants (parking established in the Chapter 18.52 Parking and Loading Requirements at 1 space for each 4-person capacity). The site cannot provide parking for 320 occupants. As you know, the Mustard Seed (MS) day care center was restricted by the CUP to 117 children. It was the lack of sufficient parking on the site that resulted in a building occupancy cap of only 117 persons (Building Code Table 1004.5 would allow a greater day care density). But with that limitation MS found it very difficult to be profitable (even if they could have generated higher demand). The building was simply too large and the rent too high without a much larger enrollment, as it would be for any commercial recreational use. 2 See City Manager’s Report (CMR: 425:05) dated December 12, 2005, p. 3 (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/5587), copy attached hereto. 3 For example, the Audi dealership is in the PC-4846 district, see https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43478 4 “Commercial Recreation" means a use providing recreation, amusement, exercise or entertainment services, including theaters, bowling lanes, billiard parlors, skating arenas, gymnasiums, exercise studios or facilities, fitness centers, martial arts studios, group movement instruction, and similar services, operated on a private or for-profit basis, but excluding uses defined as personal services or outdoor recreation services. § 18.04.030(33). 5 See §§ 18.04.030(125.1(F)), 18.04.030(a) 3 Renting only part of the building to a tenant that would still use up all of the parking capacity is not a viable option, even if a commercial recreational tenant for partial occupancy could be found. The Cushman & Wakefield Report, submitted with the application, confirms that health & fitness uses could not afford the market rent structure for space in this area – a health and fitness tenant would need to pay rents 50-70% above market for Health and Fitness. Report, p. 2. Cushman & Wakefield also concluded that Commercial Recreational uses would involve shorter term leases with higher tenant risks. Such uses would also be contingent upon processing a successful CUP application, a costly and uncertain burden not faced by any other landowner in the ROLM(E) District. This would involve a number of issues. For example, while the existing daycare center is an E occupancy under the Building Code, conversion to a use like a fitness studio, dance studio or gym would be considered an A3 occupancy, making it stricter and more costly to convert. The costs associated with going from a Risk Category II to a Risk Category III under the § 1604.5 Risk Categories in the Building Code are significant and are infeasible for such uses as an economic matter. Conclusion The property was used for its intended office purpose for over 40 years. It was purchased in 2010, before the RPO was enacted, with the specific intention to relocate the Vance Brown headquarters there when the company’s expanding size warranted its use. Vance Brown has now reached that point. The current daycare tenant will not renew the lease in 2022 and desires to terminate the lease early. The site and structure work well as an office building because of the building size and the available parking, whereas retail and retail-like uses will not work for a variety of reasons. We look forward to your consideration of these points and would be pleased to discuss any questions with you. Sincerely, /S/ Ronald E. Van Buskirk Cc: Loren Brown Dan Cunningham Ken Hayes Attachment C Table 1 Industrial/Manufacturing District Land Uses (Table Truncated Specifically for ROLM(E) District PAMC 18.20.030) [P = Permitted Use CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required Highlight = Retail & Retail Like] ACCESSORY AND SUPPORT USES Accessory facilities and activities customarily associated with or essential to permitted uses, and operated incidental to the principal use. P Automatic Teller Machines P Home Occupations, when accessory to permitted residential uses. P EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUS, AND ASSEMBLY USES Religious Institutions P Colleges and Universities P Private Clubs, Lodges, or Fraternal Organizations CUP Private Schools (K-12) CUP Health Care Services Convalescent Facilities CUP Medical Office CUP Medical Research P MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING USES Manufacturing P Recycling Centers CUP R&D P Warehousing and Distribution P OFFICE USES Administrative Office Services P Financial Services CUP Professional and General Business Office P PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC USES Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility services but excluding construction/storage yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards CUP RECREATION USES Commercial Recreation CUP RESIDENTIAL USES Multiple-Family CUP Residential Care Homes CUP RETAIL USES Eating and Drinking Services, excluding drive-in and take-out services CUP Retail Services CUP SERVICE USES Day Care Centers CUP Emergency Shelters for the Homeless P Small Family Day Care CUP Large Family Day Care CUP Personal Services CUP Automobile Service Stations, subject to site and design review in accord with the provisions of Chapter 18.30(G) CUP Off-site new vehicle storage for auto dealerships located in Palo Alto CUP TEMPORARY USES Temporary Parking Facilities, provided that such facilities shall remain no more than five years CUP Zoning Code Excerpts 18.04.030 Definitions (a) Throughout this title the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed in this section. (125) “Retail service” means a use open to the public during typical business hours and predominantly engaged in providing retail sale, rental, service, processing, or repair of items primarily intended for consumer or household use. (A) “Extensive retail service,” as used with respect to parking requirements, means a retail sales use having more than seventy-five percent of the gross floor area used for display, sales, and related storage of bulky commodities, including household furniture and appliances, lumber and building materials, carpeting and floor covering, air conditioning and heating equipment, and similar goods, which uses have demonstrably low parking demand generation per square foot of gross floor area. (B) “Intensive retail service” as used with respect to parking requirements, means any retail service use not defined as extensive retail service. (125.1) “Retail-like use” means a use generally open to the public during typical business hours and predominantly engaged in providing services closely related to retail services, including but not limited to: (A) Eating and drinking services, as defined in subsection (47); (B) Hotels, as defined in subsection (73); (C) Personal services, as defined in subsection (114); (D) Theaters; (E) Travel agencies; (F) Commercial recreation, as defined in subsection (33); (G) Commercial nurseries; (H) Auto dealerships, as defined in subsection (12.5); and (I) Day care centers, as defined in subsection (42). 18.30(F).040 Permitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted in the (AD) combining district: (a) Automobile dealerships. (Ord. 4845 § 3 (Exh. A. (part)), 2004) 18.40.180 Retail Preservation (a) Conversion of Retail and Retail-Like Uses Prohibited. (1) Any ground floor Retail or Retail-Like use permitted or operating as of March 2, 2015 may be replaced only by another Retail or Retail-Like use, as permitted in the applicable district. (A) A ground floor Retail or Retail-Like use in the RT-35 district on properties with frontage on Alma Street between Channing Avenue and Lincoln Avenue may additionally be replaced by a Private Educational Facility use, provided that such use shall not be thereafter replaced by an Office use. (2) The phrase 'use permitted or operating' as used in this section means: (A) A lawfully established use conducting business, including legal non-conforming uses. (B) An established use conducting business without required city approvals, but is a permitted or conditionally permitted use in district. (C) For parcels vacant on March 2, 2015, the last use that was lawfully established, or established without required permits, and permitted or conditionally permitted in the district. (b) Non-conforming Uses. (1) The requirements imposed by subsection (a) shall not apply to Retail or Retail-like uses that are no longer permitted or conditionally permitted in the applicable district. (2) Nothing in this section shall modify the provisions of Chapter 18.70 regarding the expansion, change, discontinuance, or termination of a non-conforming use. (c) Waivers and Adjustments; and Exemptions. (1) Grounds. The following shall be grounds for a request for waiver or adjustment of the requirements contained in this section: (A) Economic Hardship. An applicant may request that the requirements of this section be adjusted or waived based on a showing that applying the requirements of this section would effectuate an unconstitutional taking of property or otherwise have an unconstitutional application to the property; or (B) Alternative Viable Active Use. Except in the GF or R combining districts, an applicant may request that the requirements of this Section 18.40.160 be adjusted or waived based on a showing that: the permitted retail or retail-like use is not viable; the proposed use will support the purposes of the zoning district and Comprehensive Plan land use designation; and the proposed use will encourage active pedestrian-oriented activity and connections. (2) Documentation. The applicant shall bear the burden of presenting substantial evidence to support a waiver or modification request under this Section and shall set forth in detail the factual and legal basis for the claim, including all supporting technical documentation. Evidence in support of a waiver under subsection (c)(1)(B) must demonstrate the viability of existing and future uses on the site, based on both the site characteristics and the surrounding uses; specifically whether a substitute use could be designed and/or conditioned to contribute to the goals and purposes of the zoning district. Examples of such evidence include: (A) A 10-year history of the site's occupancy and reasons for respective tenants vacating the site; (B) A map that indicates all the existing surrounding uses, both residential and non-residential, within one City-block; include the corresponding zone district on the map; (3) Any request under this section shall be submitted to the Director together with supporting documentation. The Director, in his or her sole discretion, may act on a request for waiver or refer the matter to the City Council. (A) A decision by the Director shall be placed on the City Council's consent calendar within 45 days. (B) Removal of the recommendation from the consent calendar shall require three votes, and shall result in a new public hearing before the City Council, following which the City Council shall take action on the waiver request. (C) The decision of the Council is final. (4) Exemptions. The provisions of this Section 18.40.180 shall not apply to: (A) A 100 percent affordable housing project not within the Ground Floor (GF) and/or Retail (R) combining districts or on a site abutting El Camino Real. A "100% affordable housing project" as used herein means a multiple-family housing project consisting entirely of affordable units, as defined in Section 16.65.020 of this code, available only to households with income levels at or below 120 percent of the area median income, as defined in Chapter 16.65, except for a building manager's unit. (B) A 100 percent affordable housing project on a site abutting El Camino Real in the CN and CS zone districts outside the Retail (R) combining district. A "100% affordable housing project" as used herein means a multiple-family housing project consisting entirely of affordable units, as defined in Section 16.65.020 of this code, available only to households with income levels at or below 120 percent of the area median income, as defined in Chapter 16.65, and where the average household income does not exceed eighty percent of the area median income level, except for a building manager's unit. (d) Reconstruction. Any ground floor Retail use existing on or after March 2, 2015 may be demolished and rebuilt provided that the portion of square footage used as Retail use on or after March 2, 2015 is not reduced except that Retail square footage may be reduced by the minimum amount needed to provide access to any new upper floor and/or lower level. (e) Applicability to Current Requirements. Nothing in this section shall alter requirements of site-specific Planned Community zoning ordinances or adopted conditions of approval. Nothing in the section shall be construed to waive the requirement for a conditional use permit or other entitlement where such requirements currently exist. CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK August 10, 2020 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Selection of Applicants to Interview for one Position on the Human Relations Commission and two Positions on the Public Art Commission (Continued From August 3, 2020) Recommendation Direct Staff to schedule interviews with all selected applicants for scheduled vacancies. Discussion A total of 14 applications have been submitted during this recruitment period. Staff is requesting the City Council select the candidates to be interviewed for: • One position on the Human Relations Commission (Xue resigned), filling a vacancy due to a resignation, with a term ending May 31, 2021 • Two positions on the Public Art Commission, with terms ending May 31, 2023 A date for interviews will be scheduled as soon as possible and is to be determined based on the availability of the City Council. Copies of all applications are attached to this staff report. Some applications may be redacted at the request of the applicant. Background On April 20, 2020, the Council directed Staff to reopen the recruitment for the Human Relations Commission and Public Art Commission. The City Clerk’s Office advertised this recruitment from June 2, 2020 through July 21, 2020, satisfying the 15-day minimum advertising period outlined in Municipal Code Section 2.16.060(a). Advertising included placements in the Daily Post newspaper, Palo Alto Online Express email, Palo Alto Weekly newspaper; promotion on the City’s website and social media; and inclusion in weekly Council Packet GovDelivery notifications. On August 3, 2020, the City Council passed an Ordinance reducing the number of members on the Human Relations Commission and Public Art Commission from seven to five. During the last several recruitments, Council has elected to interview all applicants for respective Boards and Commissions. Applicants Human Relations Commission (One position with a partial term expiring May 31, 2021) Page 2 1. Nilofer Chollampat 2. Sunita de Tourreil 3. Sofia Fojas 4. Curt Kinsky 5. David Villaseca Morales 6. Paula Rugg 7. Lestina Trainor Public Art Commission (Two positions with terms expiring May 31, 2023) 1. Djibril Drame 2. Marilyn Gottlieb-Roberts 3. Radina Philyaw 4. Hsinya Shen (Incumbent) 5. Harriet Stern 6. Katherine Talbot 7. Nia Taylor (Incumbent) ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A: HRC and PAC Applications 2020 (PDF) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Boards and Commission Applications Spring/Summer 2020 Recruitment Human Relations Commission and Public Art Commission Human Relations Commission: 1.Nilofer Chollampat 2.Sunita de Tourreil 3.Sofia Fojas 4.Curt Kinsky 5.David Villaseca Morales 6.Paula Rugg 7.Lestina Trainor Public Art Commission: 1.Djibril Drame 2.Marilyn Gottlieb-Roberts 3.Radina Philyaw 4.Hsinya Shen (Incumbent) 5.Harriet Stern 6.Katherine Talbot 7.Nia Taylor (Incumbent) Human Relations Commission Personal Information – Note: The HRC regularly meets the second Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m. Name: Address: Cell Phone: __ Home / __ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? __ Yes __ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? __ Yes __ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? __ Yes __ No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? __ Yes __ No Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto? __ Yes __ No How did you learn about the vacancy on the Human Relations Commission? __ Community Group __ Email from City Clerk __ Palo Alto Weekly __ Daily Post __ City Website __ Flyer Other: ______________________________________________________________________________ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: (621 characters) Page 1 Human Relations Commission Please email all completed applications to Jessica.Brettle@CityofPaloAlto.org or City.Clerk@CityofPaloAlto.org City Clerk's Office: 650-329-2571 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: (1242 characters) 1. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? (1518 characters) Page 2 Human Relations Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: LINK (1449 characters) 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? (1656 characters) Page 3 Human Relations Commission 4.Human Relations Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. (690 characters) Human Services Needs Assessment LINK Muni Code 9.72 – Mandatory Response Program LINK Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan LINK Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.” This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City’s website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: __ Home / __ Office Phone: E-mail: Signature: (Please type or sign)____________________________________ Date: _____________ Page 4 Human Relations Commission +XPDQ5HODWLRQV&RPPLVVLRQ Personal Information ±1RWH 7KH+5&UHJXODUO\PHHWVWKHVHFRQG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWKDW SP Name: Address: Cell Phone: __Home / __Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? __ Yes __ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? __ Yes __ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?__ Yes __ No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you RU\RXUVSRXVHhave an investment in, or do you RU\RXUVSRXVHserve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? __ Yes __ No Excluding your principal residence, do you RU\RXUVSRXVHown real property in Palo Alto?__ Yes __ No How did you Oearn about the vacancy on the Human Relations Commission? __ Community Group __ Email from City Clerk __ Palo Alto Weekly __ Daily Post __ City Website __ Flyer Other: ______________________________________________________________________________ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: FKDUDFWHUV Page 1 Human Relations Commission 1MFBTFFNBJMBMMDPNQMFUFEBQQMJDBUJPOTUP+FTTJDB#SFUUMF!$JUZPG1BMP"MUPPSHPS$JUZ$MFSL!$JUZPG1BMP"MUPPSH $JUZ$MFSLhT0GGJDF SUNITA DE TOURREIL 708 RAMONA STREET, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 650-796-5287 sunita@chocolatedividends.org ✔ PALO ALTO CORONAVIRUS REPORT MASTERS of SCIENCE, MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND HUMAN GENETICS Worked at UCSF with dying patients with Creutzfeldt Jakob disease, collaborating with nurses, orderlies, local businesses, doctors, scientists all working together to develop a diagnostic test. Founded and built a business that built diverse community in Palo Alto between 2010 and 2018 (The Chocolate Garage) and addressed bringing transparency, accountability and activism to the cocoa supply chain. Also lead luxury educational trips to the global south, to educate and open minds towards other cultures. Single mom to two kids going to school in Palo Alto. SUNITA DE TOURREIL Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: FKDUDFWHUV 1. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? FKDUDFWHUV Page 2 Human Relations Commission Self-employed, HAPPY CHOCOLATE EXPERIENCES LLC ENTREPRENEUR Volunteer at Addison Elementary School with Project Cornerstone (social emotional learning) and other activities at Addison and Girls Middle School. Started attending City Hall Meetings in early 2020. Spoke at one, inquiring about a police incident that I observed. Trained as a CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate) in 2005-2006. Multiple community events through my social enterprise, around educating around supply chains, around using your purchasing choices to bring about change in the world. I am open, curious, smart and I desire seeing stronger more resilient and inclusive communities, where we move from love and not from fear. I have excellent interpersonal skills, I am used to working with different parties, with different backgrounds and goals. I speak English, French and Spanish, and bring a cultural understanding with this language fluency. I feel I bring different cultural experiences and practices, having traveled a great deal in both the global south, as well as the global north. I give people the benefit of the doubt, and believe that humans are decent and are doing the best they can with the tools that they have. I think all these skills are needed for the Human Relations Commission, and I would dedicate myself to listening to more of the community I would be serving. I want to see a Palo Alto that helps everyone feel like they are welcome, they belong and are safe. SUNITA DE TOURREIL 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archiveGYLGHRIURPWKH0LGSHQ0HGLD&HQWHU:LINK FKDUDFWHUV 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? FKDUDFWHUV Page 3 Human Relations Commission I am interested in seeing more transparency and accountability around diversity, so that we include more voices, and more compassion in our city policies. I am interested in this as a biracial cisgender woman raising two white identified kids, as a single mom in a culture of white male supremacy. My white kids voices will likely be more listened to, and heard, than their black and brown friends and family members. In addition to raising them to understand their white privilege and then be moved to use that privilege to help protect and give voices to those who aren't being listened to, I want to take part in our local community, as a minority biracial resident of Palo Alto. I have benefited from much of the privilege that is bestowed upon affluent white families, having immigrant parents with graduate degrees and growing up in Canada and getting a graduate degree. I want to be aware of this privilege and use my skills to listen to those who have less voice. I also want to use my immigrant experience to bring a fresh look at our cultural short sightedness and broaden the conversations we are having and the solutions we are considering. I want to ensure that the recent policies around diversity and improvements to the policing systems in Palo Alto continue to be evaluated and improved upon. I think continuing to invite community members and various experts in this area to speak on panels, and answer HRC members questions, to dig deeply into these issues, and come up with creative and compassionate solutions, is one way to more deeply understand the legacies of our past, and find new ways to build better systems for the future. I think engagement with organizations already started by our local youth, and deep listening and learning from our next generation of leaders, is critical. Engaging them to help us achieve our goals, and guide our solutions. SUNITA DE TOURREIL 4. Human Relations Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. FKDUDFWHUV Human Services Needs Assessment LINK Muni Code 9.72 – Mandatory Response Program LINK Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan LINK Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.” This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City’s website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: __Home / __Office Phone: E-mail: Signature: 3OHDVHW\SHRUVLJQ ____________________________________Date: _____________ Page 4 Human Relations Commission July 9, 2020 I do not have experience with any of these documents. SUNITA DE TOURREIL +XPDQ5HODWLRQV&RPPLVVLRQ Personal Information ±1RWH 7KH+5&UHJXODUO\PHHWVWKHVHFRQG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWKDW SP Name: Address: Cell Phone: __Home /__Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident?__ Yes __ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? __ Yes __ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?__ Yes __ No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you RU\RXUVSRXVHhave an investment in, or do you RU\RXUVSRXVHserve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? __ Yes __ No Excluding your principal residence, do you RU\RXUVSRXVHown real property in Palo Alto?__ Yes __ No How did you Oearn about the vacancy on the Human Relations Commission? __ Community Group __ Email from City Clerk __Palo Alto Weekly __ Daily Post __ City Website __ Flyer Other: ______________________________________________________________________________ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: FKDUDFWHUV Page 1 Human Relations Commission 1MFBTFFNBJMBMMDPNQMFUFEBQQMJDBUJPOTUP+FTTJDB#SFUUMF!$JUZPG1BMP"MUPPSHPS$JUZ$MFSL!$JUZPG1BMP"MUPPSH $JUZ$MFSLhT0GGJDF Sofia Fojas 3371 Park Blvd, Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650)339-5596 slfojas@gmail.com ✔ ✔ I am an arts administrator for the Santa Clara County Office of Education and have teaching credential in Music as well as a Master's of Educational Leadership and an administrative credential. I am a 26-year veteran in public education and have worked in schools serving students of color living in poverty. I have been involved in racial equity work in the arts both at the local level, state level in my work with the California Alliance for Arts Education and at the national level on the Racial Equity Committee for the National Guild for Community Arts. Sofia Fojas Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: FKDUDFWHUV 1. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? FKDUDFWHUV Page 2 Human Relations Commission Santa Clara County Office of Education Arts Coordinator My work in public education has always been focused on students needing the most supports. I began as a music teacher in Stockton and then took a job in San Jose where I taught in arts programs funded under the Desegregation order in the 1970s. I have been a champion of arts and culture in my tenure as a teacher and served on the Bay Section Board of the California Music Educators' Association (CMEA)and the State chapter of CMEA as the Multicultural Representative, connecting teachers to cultural arts organizations in professional development sessions toward expanding what the arts could be in reaching students and families of color. In 2008, I was in the first class of First Act Silicon Valley's Multicultural Arts Leadership Initiative, a training program for young arts leaders. I served on the board of the California Alliance for Arts Education for two years in 2017 and am a member of the Racial Equity Committee on the board of the National Guild for Community Arts Education. In my current position, I and my new team will be delivering professional learning through a strong equity lens in supporting districts using a model of shared leadership between higher education, K-12 and arts organizations in the county. As a 26-year veteran in public education and a child of immigrants, I first became aware of the work of the Human Rights Commission in my work in San Francisco in 2016. I had several opportunities to work with members of the SF HRC staff around the development of equitable arts experiences for students in the Bayview. I have always been civic minded and have been aware of my acquired privilege through education and my influence and positional authority in the arena of arts education locally, at the state level and nationally. In my work around arts equity and particularly in these times of racial disparity, the pandemic and economic instability, I see the inequities played out in education as a symptom of a larger systemic imbalance. My interests in serving families have extended beyond education to address issues in housing, health access, economic opportunity and crime and social justice issues. The Human Rights Commission is an important vehicle for addressing these issues in Palo Alto and I want to bring my experiences and skillset in education as a voice on the Human Rights Commission. Sofia Fojas 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archiveGYLGHRIURPWKH0LGSHQ0HGLD&HQWHU:LINK FKDUDFWHUV 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? FKDUDFWHUV Page 3 Human Relations Commission I have been particularly interested in the reexamination of police services in our cities in light of the death of George Floyd as it relates to '8 Can't Wait'. As an educator, I have seen the increased presence of the police on our school campuses, especially apparent in schools where students of color are present. Palo Alto has always been a city in a bubble but I have been made aware of the unequal treatment of people of color in our city. I am a proud member of the Ventura neighborhood and am very much aware of its poor reputation even as it is the neighborhood founded on redlining and segregation. I am interested in looking at the role of the police in our city and finding ways to disrupt the racialized outcomes that people of color and those living in poverty encounter in their interactions with police. The specific goals I would like to address on the Human Rights Commission are: '8 Can't Wait' and reexamining the role of the police; homelessness and the unhoused; and youth development and diversity in moving away from a culture of excellence and competition, towards the development of empathy and social emotional learning. I imagine engaging the arts organizations and funders in this region to develop programs for community members to have conversations with each other through arts activities and experiences. We have Stanford University in our midst to bring in as a partner in this work as well as a arts and culture organizations in the county who would gladly pivot towards civic engagement while we are sheltering in place. The schools could also be a partner in this work around youth development and well-rounded education and the building of empathy through the arts to prepare for a 21st century world that is sure to look different than what we know to exist now. Sofia Fojas 4. Human Relations Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. FKDUDFWHUV Human Services Needs Assessment LINK Muni Code 9.72 – Mandatory Response Program LINK Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan LINK Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.” This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City’s website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: __Home / __Office Phone: E-mail: Signature: 3OHDVHW\SHRUVLJQ ____________________________________Date: _____________ Page 4 Human Relations Commission 07/21/2020 While I have heard about a couple of these documents, I have no direct experience with them. Sofia Fojas +XPDQ5HODWLRQV&RPPLVVLRQ Personal Information ±1RWH 7KH+5&UHJXODUO\PHHWVWKHVHFRQG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWKDW SP Name: Address: Cell Phone: __Home /__Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident?__ Yes __ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? __ Yes __ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?__ Yes __ No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you RU\RXUVSRXVHhave an investment in, or do you RU\RXUVSRXVHserve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? __ Yes __ No Excluding your principal residence, do you RU\RXUVSRXVHown real property in Palo Alto?__ Yes __ No How did you Oearn about the vacancy on the Human Relations Commission? __ Community Group __ Email from City Clerk __Palo Alto Weekly __ Daily Post __ City Website __ Flyer Other: ______________________________________________________________________________ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: FKDUDFWHUV Page 1 Human Relations Commission 1MFBTFFNBJMBMMDPNQMFUFEBQQMJDBUJPOTUP+FTTJDB#SFUUMF!$JUZPG1BMP"MUPPSHPS$JUZ$MFSL!$JUZPG1BMP"MUPPSH $JUZ$MFSLhT0GGJDF Curt B. Kinsky 1675 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94301 4088939273 curt.b.kinsky@outlook.com ✔ 30 years with Ernst & Young, a global professional services firm 21 years as a Principal leading multi-racial, gender diverse teams in delivering international tax services 17 years abroad (Amsterdam, Milan, London, Paris, Shanghai, and Hong Kong) with exposure to multi-cultural teams and issues Bachelor of Arts (1985; double major) in English and History from Kenyon College Master of Management (1996)in Marketing from Kellogg Graduate School of Management of Northwestern University Master of Arts (degree not yet conferred; 1987)in International Relations from The University of Chicago INSEAD Executive Education Curt B. Kinsky Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: FKDUDFWHUV 1. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? FKDUDFWHUV Page 2 Human Relations Commission Ersnt & Young LLP Principal, International Tax Services I have been an active volunteer with All Star Project Development School for Youth in San Francisco. Here we bring forward underprivileged high school student and provide them opportunities for workplace advancement they would not otherwise have. Honestly, my Palo Alto community involvement to date has been minimal to nonexistent. I view this application to the HRC as a first step towards engagement. NOW means now. I have to get involved; contribute to my community. After three decades of professional services experience at the highest levels across the globe, I know I have much to offer. In my business career, I have led teams across the globe with members from diverse ethnic, cultural, socio-economic, and gender characteristics. This has given me insight into the fundamental societal issues of the day. Given the extraordinary tumult we are living through, I believe my experience at finding common ground amongst diverse team members will prove invaluable to the Commission. To me, at this point in time, the bottom line is very simple: NOW means now - I have to find a way to be involved and to make a contribution. I honestly believe my proven ability to team and find common solutions amongst diverse members is accretive to the important work of the commission. Curt B. Kinsky 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archiveGYLGHRIURPWKH0LGSHQ0HGLD&HQWHU:LINK FKDUDFWHUV 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? FKDUDFWHUV Page 3 Human Relations Commission 8 Can't Wait The July meeting of the Commission was an important public forum discussion regarding policing in our community. I believe the implementation of 8 Can't Wait is extremely important and needs to be done now. However, this cannot be the only steps taken to reform our approach towards policing. Many are skeptical of these reforms citing they are too superficial to have any meaningful impact. While this premise remains to be proven, it none the less demonstrates the need to do more and think/act deeper. However, I believe we cannot go from a standing start to a full sprint without taking a few initial accelerating steps. We need to create positive momentum by putting in place the 8 reforms and using this as a platform to evolve further. We cannot afford the time to ignore these relatively straightforward recommendations at the expense of laborious discourse on deeper changes. Goal #1: Civil community discourse. If we are to accomplish any fundamental changes in our society, they must be premised on coalescing people with diverse views. We have to improve our capability to listen. I would accomplish this goal by leveraging my team building capabilities and cross cultural acumen to build positive consensus around issues. Goal #2: Diversification without coercion Palo Alto has diversity in its population and thinking. However, from the outside, it appears a Wonder Bread society. We have to find ways to bring forward the diversity resident in our society. In doing so, we need also to adhere to goal #1 and not force people into positions just to demonstrate diversity. There has been some internal conflict on the HRC and this has lead to a lack of confidence in the workings of the Commission. Curt B. Kinsky 4. Human Relations Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. FKDUDFWHUV Human Services Needs Assessment LINK Muni Code 9.72 – Mandatory Response Program LINK Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan LINK Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.” This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City’s website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: __Home / __Office Phone: E-mail: Signature: 3OHDVHW\SHRUVLJQ ____________________________________Date: _____________ Page 4 Human Relations Commission I do not have experience with these documents. However, in my three decades of work in professional services, I have operated under strict governance guidelines (some of which I have helped define/write) and thus am comfortable working in environments such as those described in the three links above. Curt B. Kinsky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f JSV 3VEGPI %GGIRXYVI &&:% 'SGE'SPE *ERXE 0:1, 47% 4IYKISX 'MXVSÌ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§1ERHEXSV]6IWTSRWI4VSKVEQ 0-2/ 'SQQYRMX]7IVZMGIW)PIQIRXSJXLI'SQTVILIRWMZI4PER 0-2/ 'SRWIRXXS4YFPMWL4IVWSREP-RJSVQEXMSRSRXLI'MX]SJ4EPS%PXS;IFWMXI 'EPMJSVRME+SZIVRQIRX'SHI7IGXMSRWXEXIWMRTEVX©2SWXEXISVPSGEPEKIRG]WLEPPTSWXXLI LSQI EHHVIWW SV XIPITLSRI RYQFIV SJ ER] IPIGXIH SV ETTSMRXIH SJJMGMEP SR XLI -RXIVRIX [MXLSYX JMVWX SFXEMRMRKXLI [VMXXIRTIVQMWWMSRSJ XLEXMRHMZMHYEPª8LMWGSRWIRXJSVQ[MPPRSX FIVIHEGXIHERH[MPPFI EXXEGLIHXSXLI%TTPMGEXMSRERHTSWXIHXSXLI'MX]¬W[IFWMXI 8LIJYPPGSHIGERFIVIEHLIVI 0-2/ 6IEHXLIGSHIERHGLIGOSRP]32)STXMSRFIPS[ -KMZITIVQMWWMSRJSVXLI'MX]SJ4EPS%PXSXSTSWXXSXLI'MX]¬W[IFWMXIXLIEXXEGLIH&SEVHERH 'SQQMWWMSR%TTPMGEXMSRMRXEGX-LEZIVIEHERHYRHIVWXERHQ]VMKLXWYRHIV+SZIVRQIRX'SHI 7IGXMSR-QE]VIZSOIXLMWTIVQMWWMSREXER]XMQIF]TVSZMHMRK[VMXXIRRSXMGIXSXLI4EPS %PXS'MX]'PIVO 36 -VIUYIWXXLEXXLI'MX]SJ4EPS%PXSVIHEGXQ]LSQIEHHVIWWTLSRIRYQFIVWERHIQEMPEHHVIWW JVSQXLIEXXEGLIH&SEVHERH'SQQMWWMSR%TTPMGEXMSRTVMSVXSTSWXMRKXSXLI'MX]¬W[IFWMXI-EQ TVSZMHMRKXLIJSPPS[MRKEPXIVREXIMRJSVQEXMSRERHVIUYIWXXLEXXLI]YWIXLIJSPPS[MRKGSRXEGX MRJSVQEXMSRMRWXIEH %HHVIWW 'IPP4LSRI CC,SQICC3JJMGI4LSRI )QEMP 7MKREXYVI CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC (EXI CCCCCCCCCCCCC 4EKI ,YQER6IPEXMSRW'SQQMWWMSR 1MHXS[R 4EPS %PXS HEZMH$HEZMHZMPPEWIGEGSQ (%:-( :-00%7)'% 136%0)7 +XPDQ5HODWLRQV&RPPLVVLRQ Personal Information ±1RWH 7KH+5&UHJXODUO\PHHWVWKHVHFRQG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWKDW SP Name: __ Home / __ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? __ Yes __ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? __ Yes __ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? __ Yes __ No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you RU\RXUVSRXVHhave an investment in, or do you RU\RXUVSRXVHserve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? __ Yes __ No Excluding your principal residence, do you RU\RXUVSRXVHown real property in Palo Alto? __ Yes __ No How did you Oearn about the vacancy on the Human Relations Commission? __ Community Group __ Email from City Clerk __ Palo Alto Weekly __ Daily Post __ City Website __ Flyer Other: ______________________________________________________________________________ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: FKDUDFWHUV Page 1 Human Relations Commission 1MFBTFFNBJMBMMDPNQMFUFEBQQMJDBUJPOTUP+FTTJDB#SFUUMF!$JUZPG1BMP"MUPPSHPS$JUZ$MFSL!$JUZPG1BMP"MUPPSH $JUZ$MFSLhT0GGJDF Paula Rugg Bonnie94306@yahoo.com ✔ BA in Education MA in Education Administration. Public School Adminstration - 23 years. CERT - Fremont and Palo Alto Paula Rugg Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: FKDUDFWHUV 1. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? FKDUDFWHUV Page 2 Human Relations Commission Fremont Unified School District School Principal I am a Board Member and Operations Lead for the Democratic Volunteer Center. My main tasks are encouraging volunteers to engage in the democratic process, register voters, walk precincts, and host speaker events. I have been a member of the League of Women Voters. Helping my neighbors in times of a disaster is important to me. Through the Office of Emergency Services I was trained to be a PANDA and recently became a Block Preparedness Coordinator in Midtown. I appreciate what Palo Alto offers in the fine arts as a member of the Cantor Arts Museum and by taking painting classes at the Pacific Art League. I stay informed about our community's issues through the Midtown Residents Association and by attending or watching on cable TV City Council meetings. I enjoy learning at the Palo Alto Adult School, am a member of the Ross Road YMCA and shop and dine locally. I am proud to be a Palo Alto Resident and Homeowner for22 years and that my son is a Gunn High School graduate. My interest in serving as a member of the Human Relations Commission stems from my lifelong focus on social welfare, social interaction, and social justice, and a 40 year career as an educator. The culmination of my worklife was my final 18 years as the principal of Ardenwood School, avery large (840+ students) elementary school, in Fremont. I had the joyous opportunity to lead the school's integration of a character education program which over the 18 years transformed an ordinary school into an extraordinary one. Responsibility, caring, honesty, respect for others, citizenship, planning and decision making, problem solving, and integrity were our guiding values. These "8 Great Traits" were taught by teachers, modeled by adults, and committed to by all members of the school community (including parents). Gradually the campus became a safer, more tolerant, more welcoming environment. Not only did grades increase and student misconduct decrease, the positive school climate was palpable and lead to the school receiving a California Blue Ribbon Distinguished School Award. I have a deep desire to have my town be as good as it can be. I want to use my experience in building consensus with various constituents around values based decision making to develop Palo Alto to an even better place to call home. Paula Rugg 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archiveGYLGHRIURPWKH0LGSHQ0HGLD&HQWHU: LINK FKDUDFWHUV 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? FKDUDFWHUV Page 3 Human Relations Commission The Safe Parking Pilot Program was brought to my attention a few months ago through my congregation's social action committee. Immediately I emailed my support of the Pilot Program to the City Council and soon watched the Members' discussion on TV. I walked around my neighborhood and visualized vehicles in the large most of the time empty parking lots of 4 churches within a five minute stroll of my home. I imagined how neighbors might respond; the good, the bad, and the ugly. Economic disparity resulting in homelessness and people sleeping in their vehicles is growing in our community and throughout the Bay Area. Wishing it away or ignoring it, is not a solution. It is not an easily addressed issue by a single social service agency or by a local government. It is a problem that takes a multigroup coodinated effort with advanced community awareness and engagement to even try to make an impact. I am pleased the City of Palo Alto has developed the Safe Parking Pilot Program and would diligently work on helping it succeed. The success of the program requires a tolerant citizenship willing to work and live respectfully with others. I would like to see the Human Relations Commission take a role in the Safe Parking Pilot Program. Working with City Staff, program providers, congregations, and Palo Alto residents around this issue is a concrete way to bring the words of the HRC mission statement "a community where civility, respect and responsible action are the norm" in to motion. The HRC can work with the stakeholders to promote awareness of the Program; host forums, knock on doors, meet with Residents Associations and congregation members, facilitate press announcements, post on Social Media, etc. The communication must reach as many residents as possible to avoid those who come to the table late and slow the process down to a halt. The communication must actively address concerns and fears and lead to workable solutions. This means premeetings with facilitators and presenters about respectful listening and use of procedures for effect civil discourse around sensitive issues. The process and successful implementation of the Safe Parking Pilot Program can then be used to establish dialogues and protocols which will benefit implementation of future HRC goals. Paula Rugg 4. Human Relations Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. FKDUDFWHUV Human Services Needs Assessment LINK Muni Code 9.72 – Mandatory Response Program LINK Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan LINK Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.” This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City’s website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: __ Home / __ Office Phone: E-mail: Signature: 3OHDVHW\SHRUVLJQ ____________________________________ Date: _____________ Page 4 Human Relations Commission May 8, 2020 I do not have experience with these documents. Midtown Resident Bonnie94306@yahoo.com Paula Rugg Human Relations Commission Personal Information – Note: The HRC regularly meets the second Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m. Name: Address: Cell Phone: __ Home / __ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? __ Yes __ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? __ Yes __ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? __ Yes __ No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? __ Yes __ No Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto? __ Yes __ No How did you learn about the vacancy on the Human Relations Commission? __ Community Group __ Email from City Clerk __ Palo Alto Weekly __ Daily Post __ City Website __ Flyer Other: ______________________________________________________________________________ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: (621 characters) Page 1 Human Relations Commission Please email all completed applications to Jessica.Brettle@CityofPaloAlto.org or City.Clerk@CityofPaloAlto.org City Clerk's Office: 650-329-2571 Lestina Trainor 32 Roosevelt Circle 203 482 2262 203 482 2262 lestina.trainor1@gmail.com 4 Boston College, BA Fordham University School of Law, JD Member of the Bar: New York, Connecticut Attorney 1998 - 2016 Lestina Trainor Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: (1242 characters) 1. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? (1518 characters) Page 2 Human Relations Commission Self Attorney Board of Directors, Family & Childrens Aid 2005 - present Guided executive team through tremendous growth and expansion over 15 years. Active in developing board governance, overseeing agency programs, acquisition of real estate and most recently, creating a task force to evaluate and implement changes to address systemic racism and inequity agency-wide, including on the Board of Directors. Board of Directors, League of Women Voters, Redding CT 2013 - 2019 In the wake of the Newtown Elementary school shooting, collected state-wide gun violence data and prepared a comprehensive study. Regular speaker at luncheons & panel discussions. Board of Directors, Connecticut Against Gun Violence 2013 - 2017 Founding member of March for Change, a grassroots movement demanding sensible gun legislation. Organized Valentines Day 2013 protest at the the state capitol building in Hartford attended by approximately 10k. Testified before state congress on multiple occasions. Board of Directors, Ridgefield Academy 2006 - 2008 Drafted school mission statement for Diversity & Inclusion. Organized/hosted fundraisers. Chairperson, The Fresh Air Fund 2009 - 2016 Recruited and vetted families in Connecticut to be summertime hosts to chil I recently moved to Palo Alto from the east coast. However, Ive spent a lifetime visiting Palo Alto to see my grandparents and other relatives. So in some respects, moving here feels a bit like coming home. I have always been an active participant in my community. I inherited this trait from both of my parents. Mom still tutors a linty of ESL students at the Mitchell Park and Rinconada librariesthough shes well past retirement age; and dad too, was an active volunteer teaching music in east bay schools until he passed away in 2009. I am eager to find my own volunteer opportunities in town. Not only do I love lending my talents to help make my community a better place, but I love meeting other people who share the same interest. Specifically, the HRC appeals to me because I have always been interested in advocating for vulnerable populations. My parents adopted a 3 year old boy when I was six. From that day on, I got an up close view of the many social/societal problems that surrounded the circumstances of his adoption: why he was up for adoption in the first place; the effects of foster care and multiple placements, the resulting setbacks in education and socialization that my brother faced. It really shaped our entire childhood. It also sparked my desire to study law with the intent of practicing child advocacy. Although my first job offer led my law practice in a different direction, I have continuously satisfied my need to serve and advocate for children through my volunteer work. Lestina Trainor 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: LINK (1449 characters) 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? (1656 characters) Page 3 Human Relations Commission I just recently became aware of the HRC last week when I watched a Zoom Virtual Town Hall presented by Embarcadero Media entitled Race, Policing and the Color of Justice, sponsored by Palo Alto Online. I believe Police Chief Bob Jonsen mentioned the HRC in connection with his anticipating input from the Commission. I was so impressed by the discussion and panelists that I immediately set out Googling each of the speakers and researching ways that I could possibly could get involved with the conversation. The next day I happened upon a You-Tube Q & A with Reverend Kaloma Smith, Chief Jonsen and City Manager Ed Shikada. I was further intrigued, inspired and energized by the panelists intelligence, optimism and willingness to engage on the tough subjects of systematic racism and policing. In my volunteer work I have chaired several Diversity & Inclusion Committees, drafted mission statements and policies pertaining to equity, and evaluated institutions for implicit bias, etc etc. Law school only deepened my understanding of issues surround racial justice, constitutional law, and the criminal justice system. With a father who hailed from Birmingham, Alabama and who had been a student activist and personal associate of Martin Luther King, Jr. I have been studying this topic for as long as I can remember. I believe my voice would add great value to the HRC on this topic and beyond. I would love to see the Human Relations Committee come up with a list of recommendations to be adopted by PAPD that effect significant and meaningful change. The goal: to have a reimagined system of policing in Palo Alto where (ultimately) all residents feel safe and protected by PAPD. In just in the short time that I have been a resident, I have been made aware of several police incidents that definitely warrant further unpacking. I have also been told about, and read several accounts by, residents who defiantly have a deep (and warranted) distrust of the police. I feel strongly that now is the time to make significant changes to benefit the community as a whole. I loved the enthusiastic general consensus of Chiefs Jonsen, East PA Chief Pardini and former East PA Chief Ron Davis, on the Embarcadero Media Virtual Town Hall, that NOW is a unique opportunity to enact swift, meaningful and impactful change. I believe this can be accomplished by gathering as much anecdotal evidence as we can. Looking for patterns; looking at existing policies and procedures and evaluating if they are being followed or not. Then exploring how some existing procedures may be problematic because they have a disparate impact on Black people and POC. I understand that PAPD is already quite close to meeting 8 Cant Wait standard. Good, but I think we can go beyond that baseline. Id also love to explore what changes could possibly be achieved by challenging police union policies & state laws that sometimes diminish the authority of local police chiefs. Lestina Trainor 4.Human Relations Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. (690 characters) Human Services Needs Assessment LINK Muni Code 9.72 – Mandatory Response Program LINK Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan LINK Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.” This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City’s website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: __ Home / __ Office Phone: E-mail: Signature: (Please type or sign)____________________________________ Date: _____________ Page 4 Human Relations Commission July 6, 2020 I have not worked with the specific documents attached. However in my capacity as an attorney I am accustomed to working with whatever document comes across my desk. I very much enjoy the process of digesting new information and interpreting/analyzing same. Lestina Trainor Public Art Commission Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Note: The PAC regularly meets the third Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m. Name: Address: Cell Ph ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1)engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto? ___ Yes ___ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: 'IVXMJMGEXMSRSJ1YWMG:MHIS'IVXMJMGEXMSRSJ%VXW'YVEXMSR&EGLIPSV MR.SYVREPMWQ'SQQYRMGEXMSRERH4YFPMG6IPEXMSRW (NMFVMP(VEQI 7SYXL7]GEQSVI%ZIRYI dramedjibril@gmail.com Public Art Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? ,EZIFIIRMR%VXWSZIVXLER]IEVW*VSQWXVIIXEVXTLSXSKVETL] JMPQERHTIVJSVQERGI 3VKERM^MRKGYVEXMRKGVIEXMRKI\GLERKMRKEVIWSQITSMRXWXLEXPMROQI [MXL4YFPMG%VX'SQQMWWMSR 1]GSQTEXMFMPMX][MXLXLMWTSWXMWXLEX-LEZIFIIRHSMRKKVEJJMXM WMRGI]IEVWSPHXLIRW[MXGLMRXSTLSXSKVETL]MREWE TVSJIWWMSREPFIIRHSGYQIRXMRKXLIKVEJJMXMWGIRIMR(EOEVWMRGI *VSQXLSWIHSGYQIRXEXMSR-QEHIETVSNIGXGEPPIH1]'SPSVJYP'MX]XLEX [IRXXS+IVQER]7IRIKEPERH-ZSV]'SEWX %JXIVGYVEXMRKEPSXSJI\LMFMXMSRWPEWX]IEV-LEZIHIGMHIHXSJSPPS[ E[SVOWLSTMRXS%VXW'YVEXMSRSVKERM^IHF]-RHITIRHIRX'YVEXSVW -RXIVREXMSREPMR(EOEV%QSRKXLIXIEGLIVW[ILEH7MQSR2NEQMEGXYEP GYVEXSVJSVXLI&MIRREPISJ(EOEV*VEROPMR7MVQERWSJXLI1MEQM4IVI^ 1YWIYQ -HSFIPMIZIXLEXQ]I\TIVMIRGI[MPPLIPTQIXSJMX 1MRMWXV]SJ0SGEP+SZIVRERGIMR7IRIKEP %WWMWXERXMR'SQQYRMGEXMSR &EGOLSQIMR7IRIKEP-LEZIFIIRMRZSPZIMRXSGSQQYRMX]SVKERM^EXMSRW ZSPYRXIIVMRKMRHMJJIVIRXRSRTVSJMXPMOI7IRIGS[MGLMWERSRTVSJMX JMKLXMRKEKEMRWXTSPPYXMSR -RWXIEHSJXLEX-LEZIFIIREPIEHIVMR(EOEV'VIEXMZI7GIRILIPTMRK HMJJIVIRXTIIVWXSWIXYTI\LMFMXMSRWGSRXEGXMRKTVIWWGYVEXMRK Public Art Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? 3RISJXLIMWWYIXLEXGEQIFIJSVIXLIGSQQMWWMSRMWXLIHMZIVWMX]SJ XLI[SVOWERHXLIWYFNIGXW-[SYPHPSZIXSXEPOEFSYXQSVIXLI EGGITXERGISJKE]GSQQYRMX]ERHLS[XSLIPTXLI[SVPHXSI\GLERKIERH PMZIXSKIXLIV -[SYPHPSZIXSWIIQSVIHMZIVWMX]0SZIEGGITXERGIPMFIVX]TIEGI NS] 1]KSEPWEVIXSFVMRKEGGITXERGIERHVIWTIGXXLVSYKLEVXW%RH-HS FIPMIZIXLEXXLISRP]TPEXJSVQXLEXGERLIPTQIXSEGLMIZIMXMW4EPS %PXS4YFPMG%VX'SQQMWWMSR Public Art Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Public Art Commission Members work with the document listed below. If you have experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this document is not required for selection. Municipal Arts Plan -RIZIVJEGIHXS[SVO[MXLXLMWHSGYQIRX8LMWMWXLIJSVXWXMQIXLEX- LEZIFIIRWIIMRKXLMW-[SYPHPSZIXSKIXXSORS[EFSYXXLIHSGYQIRX F]KIXXMRKMRXSXLI'SQQMWWMSR Public Art Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ___________________________________________________ Email: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be nonpublic and different than the address collected on page one. (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your Application, HVEQIHNMFVMP$KQEMPGSQ 7SYXL7]GEQSVI%ZIRYI Djibril DRAME 1264 South Sycamore Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90019 E-mail: dramedjlbrll@gmall.com Tel:+1{323) 723 64 20 Profile: Artistic-Photographer I PR & Communications I Journalist I Curator Languages: French & English Domain: Public relations I Visual Art I Consultancy I Journalism I Publishing I Curator Computer: Microsoft Office I Lightroom I Social Media (Facebook, Twitter, lnstagram, Tumblr) 2013 2008 2007 2007 November 2016 November 2015 Oct -Nov. 2015 Sept. -Oct. 2013 Jan 2013 September -Nov. 2012 March -Sept. 2012 June 2011 Nov. 2009 -Dec. 2010 2009 2009 2016 2011 2015 QUALIFICATIONS lnstltut Superteur des Sciences de l'lnformatfon et de la Communication, Dakar, Senegal Bachelors' Degree, Journalism and Communications Major: Public Relations Unfversfte Chefkh Ania Diop, Dakar, Senegal l st Year of Bachelors' Degree : English Certmcate in Music Video Direction Dakar, Senegal Groupe Scolalre Mauamba, Dakar, Senegal Baccalaureat : Option : L l (Humanities) EXHIBITIONS Brasn Cultural Center, Culver City, Los Angeles, CA The Peaceful Warriors (Solo exhibition) and Panelist for l Oth edition of Zumbi, Labasqulat Art Galary, Abidjan, C61e d'Ivoire Ma ville coloree (solo exhibition) Goethe lnstttut, Dakar, S6negal Mo ville coloree (solo exhibition) Centre FGO Barbara, Paris, France Leer Lanu Ge um (group exhibition), part of Tandem Dakar/Paris Goethe lnstttut, Dakar, S6n6gal Debat autour de la Photographie (solo exhibition) Haus der Jugend, Frelburg Im Brelsgau, Germany Mo ville coloree (solo exhibition), part of the Hip Hop festival Jam Down South Casa Afrlca, Las Palmas, Spain Graffrica (group exhibition) African Rim Festival, Tarla, Spain PHOTOAFRICA 201 l (group exhibition) Visages d'Afrlque {group exhibition) Asdar -Association pour la D6valoppamant de la Sant6 an Afrlqua Rurala Espace in vitro, Thionville, France Centro del Arte Moderno, Canary Islands, Spain Morees migrotoires (group exhibition) -Casa Africa project Goethe lntttut, Dakar, Senegal Les /us beaux moments du s ort au Sene al Awarded of the 4tti Edition of Sunu Thiossane annual show for my l l years of work in Arts Administration in Senegal decerned by Sunu Thiossane Selected as one of 25 finalists for 4th PHOTOAFRICA contest, part of the Tarifa African Cinema Festival, Spain Organised by Al Tarab NGO and Andalusian Centre of Photography, Spain PUBLICATIONS EdHlons Vives Vo~ Senegal Musique Senegoloise: participant (release February 2016) 2009 Odober 2016-Presenl July 2016-Present June 2016 January 2016 December 2015 Mars-June 2015 2014 February-March 2014 September 2013 September 2013 September 2012 February 2012 2009 2009 May 2016 Co-founder of ColdBrewTv A Youtube Channel showcasing changemakers, producing independent movies and broadcastings Co-founder of Style and Graffiti A digital platform reuniting Graffiti, murals, Walls and fashion. The purpose is to fine cool swag and a cool model and shot them in front of a graffiti. Sunu Thlossane Youth Development Agency (Bmed In Brookyln New Yorlc) 41h edition production of a short film entitled "Larabilaram: The talibe and me] & annual summ camp Director. Director of Photography & Publicist Untitled Cultural Annual Event, College Universffaire d'ArchHecture de Dakar 1st Edition, AfroPunk Themed event curated by freshman and Sophmore [Exhibition {paint & photography]. Concert and fashion show] Mentor and Sponsor RAW Material/ Independent Curators International OCIJ Dalc.ar, Senegal Curatorial intensive training Auditor and participant Petites Plerres, Dalc.ar, Senegal Selected for the writin worksho Writivism Mix Bar, Togo Curator : lndi o exhibition T olese artist Juvencio Goethe lnstltut, Dakar, Senegal Member of Organizational Committee Official Photographer. PR officer. Journalist: Melodie Mixxx Panos Project Acteurs culturels et acteurs mediatiques: Moteur en Afrique! Member of the editorial committee Project financed by the European Union for 3 years, uniting Senegal, Tunisia, Mali and Niger Pro·ect Mana er and Initiator: hoto ra h contest aimin to reduce social ine uali Tigo Cash • Advertisement campaign Event covera e in the suburbs of Dakar, Photo ra her L'espace Medina, Dakar, Senegal Curator: L'Emotion Ecrite exhibition ra her Mandione La e Kebe Begue Bus (Malboro, Phllp Morris) Photo ra her, Cam ai n tour in Sene al Jam Down South festival (Haus der Jugend, Freiburg Im Breisgau, Germany) Documentation hoto ra hie and written Arte (German TV channel) Appearance in the television programm Metropolis Goethe lnstltut Senegal Tour of Senegal with for photo book project, following the exhibition Les plus beaux moments c s rt au Sene al Casa Africa (Canary Islands, Spain) Photo ra her, translator and uide: Marees mi ratoires ain SUNNAY ProducHons Francophonie Abidjan 2106 (PR for the cultural committee of the Francophonie games during the Dok' Art Biennale 2016) Tastemalc.ers Africa February 2016 July-December 2015 June -July 2015 2013 June -July 2013 2012-present Dakar Ambassador (Co-coordinator, Guide, and Cultural Medium collaborator) Marathon Eiffage Photo ra her and assistant coordinator Ministry of Local Governance, Development and Urban Planning, Dalcar, Senegal Assistant: Department of Communications, Documentation and Public Relations Ministry of Tourism and AvlaHon (MTTA). Dakar, Senegal Photo ra her and PR Officer Africa Plus Size Fashion Week. Dakar, Senegal Official Photo ra her and Director Socas Senegal, Dalcar. Senegal Or anisation of hoto stand for Die Bou Diar cam ai n PeupleSenegalais.nef, lnformaHon slfe Co-founder Photo ra h , content writin , editor culture and art l'M Newspaper, Dalcar, Senegal Photo"oumalist: 1 ima e vaut 1000 mots, Journalist Senegal & Gambia (Goethe lnsitut, Dakar) Cote d'Ivoire Lebas ulat Art Galle , Abld an Germany (Haus der Jugend/Jam Down South, Frelburg) S atn Casa Africa, Cana Islands dram9djibril akagodeye I gadaay Djlbril Drame is a young visual artist, journalist and publicist with over l 0 years of experience. He is known amongst his visual peers as 11Gadaay/GodEye". Djibril, well connected in the artistic world, embarked on many exhibitions and competitions in Europe to share his work through his popular art collection known as "My Colored CHv" where he pushes the envelope of the Senegalese street art and the talents that play a great part such as graffiti artists, hip hop activists and ambassadors of the urban culture. Djibril Drame is among the pioneers and activists in the urban community who have traveled internationally due to his striking talents and captivating photography. While still conducting his own blog "www.peuplesenegalais.net" where he makes time to help expose the dynamics of the young Senegalese change makers locally and abroad about captivating topics we face in the Senegalese daily life and bringing light to social issues. Gadaay hardly entered photography in 2007, shortly after to participate as one of the youngest artistic photographer in the book "Dakar Emor• editions of Vives Voix. Right after this project, he joined the daily popular newspaper L'As where he hosted for one year a section of photographs called "A picture is worth l 000 words." In 201 o. his art is exported internationally, where he represented Senegal in an international event of contemporary art at the GRAFFRICA Fes11val (Las Palmas), in 2011 at the Festfval of the City of Tarlfa (Spain) and so many more. GodEye is among a creative network: of trendsetters and young artists in Senegal, in their own right, whether it be fashion, visual art, communications, dance or entrepreneurship. Down the line, God Eye aims to continue to share his expertise and experience by giving back to his community with the creation of his Visual Art & Communications Academy. He dreams of a bringing the true image of Africa to the wortd one country at a time and creating future ambassadors to continue this legacy. Djlbrll Drame is skilled in communications, mentoring young talents, leadership, management, working with others to achieve a main goal by contributing his experience and knowledge. He has worked with many NGOs and Top Companies in Senegal. Djibril Drame earned his Bachelors in Communications and Journalism with concentration in public relations at the lnstitut des Sciences de !'Information et de la Communication in Senegal. ICI Certificate of Completion THIS CERTIFICATE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT Mr. Djibril Drame HAS SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED INDEPENDENT CURATORS INTERNATIONAL'S CURATORIAL INTENSWE IN DAKAR WITH RAW MATERIAL COMPANY FROM MAY 30 TO JUNE 5, 2016. c u R A NDEPENDENT 0 .NTERNATIONAL s / Maria del Carmen Carrion Director of Public Programs & Research, ICI 3XEOLF$UW&RPPLVVLRQ Personal Information ±1RWH 7KH3$&UHJXODUO\PHHWVWKHWKLUG7KXUVGD\RIWKHPRQWKDW SP Name: Address: Cell Phone: __Home / __Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? __ Yes __ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? __ Yes __ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?__ Yes __ No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you RU\RXUVSRXVHhave an investment in, or do you RU\RXUVSRXVHserve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? __ Yes __ No Excluding your principal residence, do you RU\RXUVSRXVHown real property in Palo Alto?__ Yes __ No How did you Oearn about the vacancy on the Public Art Commission? __ Community Group __ Email from City Clerk __ Palo Alto Weekly __ Daily Post __ City Website __ Flyer Other: ______________________________________________________________________________ List relevant education, training, experience,certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: FKDUDWHUV Page 1 Public Art Commission 1MFBTFFNBJMBMMDPNQMFUFEBQQMJDBUJPOTUP+FTTJDB#SFUUMF!$JUZPG1BMP"MUPPSHPS$JUZ$MFSL!$JUZPG1BMP"MUPPSH $JUZ$MFSLhT0GGJDF Marilyn Gottlieb-Roberts 763 East Charleston Road (seasonal) 305-323-9242 m427@bellsouth.net ✔ ✔ My active career in the arts includes exhibits in the United States and in Spain, Nigeria, England and Austria. 1980-2006 I was tenured Professor of studio art and art history at Miami Dade College,Miami FL;I taught a Master Class as a 1994 Visiting Artist at Harvard University. MFA in Painting and Drawing from the University of Miami in 1977. Published work includes an invited essay in the proceedings of a conference at the Museum of Science and Natural History published 2015 by the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. I was a Teaching/Research Fulbright Scholar to the University of Jos in Nigeria, 2000-2002. Marilyn Gottlieb-Roberts Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: FKDUDFWHUV 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? FKDUDFWHUV Page 2 Public Art Commission Miami Dade College(Ret.) Active professional artist 2006-2011 Executive Board, Interdisciplinary Sound Arts Workshop (iSAW), South Florida Composer’s Alliance. 2006 Co-Producer,"Kwagh-hir",video documentary filmed in Nigeria.Director, Charles Recher. 2006 Academic Reviewer,"Janson’s History of Art, Western Tradition, 7th Edition" (Pearson/Prentice Hall) 2004-2005 Invitee, National Science Foundation Math/Art Workshop; U Indiana & Franklin & Marshall College. 2002 Editorial review,"Story" by Harold Scheub,"Africa Today", Indiana University Press. 2002 Referee, "African Studies Review", the African Studies Association Journal. 1998 “Fulani Astral Traditions and the Epic of Gilgamesh; A Comparative Study”, Sub-Saharan Literature panel, African Studies Association Annual Meeting, Chicago IL. 1998 Site Ethnographer,"Internationalizing New Work in the Performing Arts",Ford Foundation, New England Foundation for the Arts. 1995 Illustrations for"Deftere Ledde E Pudi"[Atlas of Fulani Traditional Botany], Fary Silaat Ka, ARED Press, Dakar, Senegal. 1983-1986 Founding Director, Miami Waves Film & Performance Festival, Miami FL Over time I’ve served on many cultural panels,including those managed by the Dade County Cultural Affairs Council, the State of Florida Division of Cultural Affairs, and National Foundation for Advancement in the Arts. I am an experienced artist, arts educator and cultural activist with a record of service in a variety of community settings. Even though I am new to Palo Alto, I have noticed that the Public Art Commission has promoted art as an enriching source of community pride and enchantment, which is what inspired me to submit this application. Here are two concrete examples that are compatible with my experience and whose challenge interests me: Assuming interest from within Palo Alto's artistic community, I'd like to develop workshops in the history,theory and practice of the public art idiom. I'd like to support creation of an artwork intended to encourage awareness of the relation between the Palo Alto landscape and the overhead skyscape. For example, a large scale "treasure hunt" model of our solar system with durably cast scale models of the sun and planets. An artist might envision the commission as flat images in sidewalks or on the sides of buildings, or as durably cast objects (for example, a pumpkin for sun, lemon for Saturn, etc.) mounted atop pedestals set in to-scale distances apart. Marilyn Gottlieb-Roberts 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archiveGYLGHRIURPWKH0LGSHQ0HGLD&HQWHU:LINK FKDUDFWHUV 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? FKDUDFWHUV Page 3 Public Art Commission I was working on an installation in a building that overlooked the NYC Federal Courthouse where Richard Serra's "Tilted Arc" had just been installed; quite a few of the judges and lawyers who labored there were all hair-on-fire over it. I thought Serra had an interesting point to make--both for the piece itself and for the rumpus he fully intended to raise. The resulting controversy was healthy--both for the questions it addressed to those laboring in the halls of justice, and for publicizing the essential difference between "plop art" and site-integrated art. The furor created, on the other hand, by the "Digital DNA" sculpture Adriana Varella and Nilton Maltz installed in Lytton Plaza, while possibly ennobled by references to the "Tilted Arc" controversy, was fundamentally different. Personally, I liked the piece and its regional evocations, and I really liked it that the community was hotly engaged pro and con in this eggsistential controversy-- besides, how often does an art work get a crusading editor to do its PR for it. However, because I assume Ms. Varella was aware her work would likely be exposed to wear, I felt the real issue was the choice of materials and finish; which left the Commission with the difficult but necessary work of deaccession. I'd love to see the Commission keep on doing what it's been doing, and I'd love to be able to contribute to the effort. Marilyn Gottlieb-Roberts 4. Public Art Commission Members work with the document listed below. If you have experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this document is not required for selection. FKDUDFWHUV 3XEOLF$UW0DVWHU3ODQ LINK Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.” This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City’s website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: __Home / __Office Phone: E-mail: Signature: 3OHDVHW\SHRUVLJQ _______________________________________________ Date: _____________ Page 4 Public Art Commission 2020 May 4Marilyn Gottlieb-Roberts Page 1 Public Art Commission Public Art Commission Personal Information – Note: The PAC regularly meets the third Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m. Name: Radina J. Philyaw Address: 2125Park Blvd Cell Phone: (650)799-3109 _#_ Home / __ Office Phone: (650)322-1052 E-mail: radinaphilyaw@yahoo.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident? _x_ Yes __ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? __ Yes _x_ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? x__ Yes __ No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? __ Yes x__ No Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto? __ Yes __x No How did you learn about the vacancy on the Public Art Commission? __ Community Group __ Email from City Clerk __ Palo Alto Weekly __ Daily Post __ City Website __ Flyer Other: I met someone from the art commission at the BLM mural painting._____________________________________________________________________________ _ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Employment Present or Last Employer: City of Menlo Park (belle Have CDC ) Occupation: Teacher Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations I actually don’t have any prior involvement. I was touched as well as proud to have this mural in my city. I want to become more involved in helping Palo alto display beautiful works of art. Page 2 Public Art Commission What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I don’t have experience besides considering myself an artist. I do love art and like I stated earlier, I want to be more involved with my community. 1. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: LINK. The BLM mural was/is such a wonderful experience for me. I went downtown the day the mural was being painted. It was so amazing to see so many different artist out there, creating such beauty for our city. To be honest, I was a little sad that I wasn’t a part of it. That day I introduced myself to almost all of the artist as well as members of the public that were out there, enjoying the experience as much as I was. I met someone that is a part of the art commission. We spoke for a little bit while being surrounded by such a great thing that was taking place. After speaking with the art commission member, I realized that that this would be something I would love to be a part of. 2. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? I would like to see more murals going up in different areas in Palo alto. I would explore the city in efforts to determine which places to choose. I would work with the team to see who would be the best person/artist to do the job. Page 3 Public Art Commission 3. Public Art Commission Members work with the document listed below. If you have experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this document is not required for selection. Public Art Master Plan LINK Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.” The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City’s website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: x I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: __ Home / __ Office Phone: E- mail: Page 4 Public Art Commission Signature: ______Radina J Philyaw__________________________________________________ Date: __7/19/2020___________ Page 1 Public Art Commission Hsinya Shen __ __ __ __ __ __ Please email all completed applications to Jessica.Brettle@CityofPaloAlto.org or City.Clerk@CityofPaloAlto.org City Clerk’s Office: 650-329-2571 Public Art Commission Personal Information - Note: The PAC regularly meets the third Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m. Name: Hsinya Shen Address: Cell Phone: Home / 650-888-7052 Office Phone: E-mail: Hsinyashen@yahoo.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident? __ Yes No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? Yes No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? __ Yes __ No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? Yes No Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto? Yes No How did you learn about the vacancy on the Public Art Commission? Community Group Email from City Clerk Palo Alto Weekly Daily Post City Website Flyer Other: I currently serve on the Public Art Commission. List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: (621 charaters) I have served on the Palo Alto Public Art Commission for the last 3 years and would love the opportunity to continue to contribute based on all I have learned in the last 3 years. Outside of the PAC, I am a life long student and appreciator of the arts. I studied Art History at Wellesley College. I have spent significant time renovating properties and landscape and community building within Palo Alto. I have a demonstrated interest in community betterment and improvement through the arts. Page 2 Public Art Commission Hsinya Shen Employment Present or Last Employer: Akamai Technologies, Inc. Occupation: Attorney Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: (1311 characters) I have served on the Palo Alto Public Art Commission for the last 3 years and would love the opportunity to continue to contribute based on all I have learned in the last 3 years. Outside of PAC, having served on the board of a community bank for nearly a decade, I have supported community reinvestment and outreach programs. Also, leveraging my legal background, I have provided community pro bono legal support, including citizenship drive. 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? (1518 characters) I believe art can cultivate the human spirit, enhance communication, and promote relationships and community building. While Palo Alto is a suburban city in size and location, it has an international draw and reach. Daily, Palo Alto also draws talents from neighboring towns and brings together a wonderfully diverse population, many of whom welcome the opportunity to get to know the city and connect with the community. As a Palo Alto resident, I have often enjoyed artistic contributions from individual families and businesses. Supplementing these efforts, I believe the Public Art Commission, by investing in different areas of Palo Alto with diverse public art projects, can create spaces and foster opportunities for people to meet, connect, participate, and enrich our community. Page 3 Public Art Commission Hsinya Shen 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: LINK (1518 characters) One particularly impressionable project for me was by a developer on University Avenue. This developer insisted on spending its 1% public art commitment onsite and ended up proposing a public art sculpture in a dangerous and invisible location, both endangering pedestrians and detracting from the beauty of the building. It is always the individual developer’s choice whether to contribute their 1% public art commitment to the in-lieu pool. If we can show how successful public art projects funded by in-lieu fund improve the city overall, we can hopefully inspire future developers to fulfill their public art commitment with a contribution to the in-lieu fund when their onsite options are limited. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? (1656 characters) As a member of the Public Arts Commission, I would like to continue to support projects like California Ave. Master Plan and policies related to important issues like deaccession that will allow us to update public art projects in Palo Alto systematically. Palo Alto is a diverse city by population. Palo Alto Public Art projects reflect its population's diverse prospective, and it would be important to continue to ensure diversity in our public artworks. 4. Public Art Commission Members work with the document listed below. If you have experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this document is not required for selection. (759 characters) Public Art Master Plan LINK I have a great appreciation for the Public Art Master Plan. It helps Palo Alto public art team to support an incredibly rich portfolio of short, medium, and long term projects all over Palo Alto. Adhering to the missions and visions outlined in this plan will help the public art team continue to deliver exciting public arts to the city. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.” This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City’s website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: C/O City of Palo Alto Cell Phone: Home / 650-888-7052 Office Phone: E-mail: Hsinyashen@yahoo.com Signature: (Please type or sign) Hsinya Shen Date: 4/20/20 Page 4 Public Art Commission Public Art Commission Personal Information – Note: The PAC regularly meets the third Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m. Name: Address: Cell Phone: __ Home / __ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? __ Yes __ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? __ Yes __ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? __ Yes __ No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? __ Yes __ No Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto? __ Yes __ No How did you learn about the vacancy on the Public Art Commission? __ Community Group __ Email from City Clerk __ Palo Alto Weekly __ Daily Post __ City Website __ Flyer Other: ______________________________________________________________________________ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Page 1 Public Art Commission Harriet Stern 1675 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto 408-893-5199 jacobeatrice@gmail.com X X X X X X BA, Art History, Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio MA Studies, Modern Art History ,Theory and Criticism, School of the Art Institute of Chicago Diploma, Interior Architecture, Inchbald School of Design, London Internships: Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Washington D.C.; Peggy Guggenheim Collection, Venice, IT Chicago Park District, Archives Department; Art Institute of Chicago, Department of 20th Century Art Teaching Assistant, School of the Art Institute of Chicago Assistant Director, White Pine Gallery, Chicago Corporate Art Consultant, Merrill Chase Galleries, Chicago and Corporate Artworks, Schaumberg, IL Curator, IBEW Local 1245, Vacaville, CA Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1.What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? Page 2 Public Art Commission My last full-time employer was Corporate Artworks now located in Arlington Heights, IL. There I served as an Art Consultant. Since living in Palo Alto I have free-lanced as a curator for the IBEW Local 1245 in Vacaville. In my community I have taken a number of classes at Pacific Art League, Mid-Peninsula Media Center, The Art Center. I attend lectures and music at Stanford, visit arts programming often at all sorts of venues from open studios to the Anderson Collection and everything in between. We attend lots of community and regional theater. I have kids in PAUSD since 2018. I try to stay active and up to date with local and school affairs. For example I have been one of those people writing letters about the airplane noise! Palo Alto Weekly subscriber! My volunteering has been around school for the most part. I try to do one long-term commitment a year coupled with as many one-off assignments possible. To give an example, these are my recent longer term volunteer commitments: Odyssey of the Mind Coach, Elementary Division, The Harbour School, Hong Kong, World Championship Qualifiers, 2017 All Students Matter, Ravenswood School District, Weekly Literacy Volunteer, 2018/19 Palo Alto High School, Weekly Career Counselling Center Volunteer, 2019/2020 A first time visitor comes to Palo Alto City Hall and sees our new Black Lives Matter mural and engages with Cache Me If You Can. They keep walking and see many examples of art around our city. With these public art works Palo Alto signals that creativity and expression are celebrated here. These art works project our community’s values and vision. The Public Art Commission serves a critical role in the direction of this vision—aesthetic and cultural. My specific interest in serving on The Commission is to maintain the public’s trust and the responsible management of our community’s collections, future acquisitions and programming pursuant to our vision. It is my opinion that art should be integral to our city. Palo Alto should support our local artists. We should engage partners to build support for public art and I would like to help create awareness about the program and the collection with community outreach. My experience as a Corporate Art Consultant would serve me well as a Commissioner as I often commissioned artists to create site specific work. I have worked in both commercial and not-for-profit art environments. 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: LINK. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Page 3 Public Art Commission The Commission has addressed some interesting subjects recently that will be ongoing. One which particularly resonates is that of cultural and racial equality in the field of public art. The BLM mural project was immediate and inclusive, relevant and responsive. How about reaching across the 101 and working with our brothers and sisters in EPA to create something together? Expanding the reach and flexibility of public art interests me. One issue I thought would come up was censoring Cece Carpio’s image of Assata Shakur but was happy to learn there were only letters in support of keeping the mural as it stands. Another issue that interested me was City Council’s recommendation to reduce the Public Art Commission from 7 to 5 Commissioners. What is the net gain in that and is it just a recruitment issue? I would think that the PAC works best with seven diverse points of view to put forth recommendations to City Council, especially as we seek cultural and racial equality in Palo Alto’s future public art goals. Isn’t the river mightier with many tributaries than fewer? As for the BLM mural, which is a huge success and a source of civic pride, it literally would have been difficult to achieve with fewer physical bodies on the Commission. All the Commissioners worked overtime to make that happen seemingly overnight-- quite a remarkable effort at anytime but doubly so given our very unusual world in 2020. World standards of public art and place-making are changing by the minute as we become more culturally and racially aware. It is quite interesting that two years ago our own community renamed two middle schools because some inquisitive students discovered that they are named after some old racists and whose ideologies were incompatible with our current civic vision. This year third-rate Jim Crow-era monuments are being toppled from their plinths and the Washington Redskins are finally being renamed—(when did Stanford drop the name Indians?). The Public Art Commission must always be sensitive that the permanent public art Palo Alto creates today will be judged well in 100 years time. In the same breath, as a student of art history, I revere monuments left by less than perfect societies of the past. How can we not be touched by the magic of Venice or magnificence of Michelangelo’s Pieta or Sistine Chapel? Those sublime Vermeers and the riches of the Rijks Museum, all funded less than ethically if we consider them through or 21st C. lens. These are the challenges those who leave lasting marks, no matter the sector, must consider. It is an exciting time to be in engaged in public art, to change-up the dialogue, to re-direct the discourse. How the world communicates has changed so much since Palo Alto’s Public Art Program was established; it has changed so much in the past six months! Weddings, Baptisms, Funerals by Zoom? For me, the future of public art in Palo Alto reaches a wider community. It speaks to more people— engages across classes, races, ages and genders. Maybe that is through social media and Submittable. Permanent installations need to reflect diversity. Perhaps that means physically going into places we didn’t go before and creating flash events and ride-alongs. Maybe it is making more temporary, ephemeral art that reacts to current events and that taps into the pulse of the moment. No doubt the future of public art is more racially and culturally equitable in acquisitions and programming. The recent BLM mural is a great example of a new wave of public art in PA—responsive, nimble, loads of submissions, exciting and creating lots of interest and civic pride. (This is a great way to increase recruiting for the Public Art Commission as well). I would also like to see Palo Alto teaming with neighboring communities to create art and build friendship and trust. 4.Public Art Commission Members work with the document listed below. If you have experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this document is not required for selection. Public Art Master Plan LINK Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.” The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City’s website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: __ Home / __ Office Phone: E-mail: Signature: ________________________________________________________ Date: _____________ Page 4 Public Art Commission 07/21/20 X Yes, I am familiar with the Master Plan. I attended a focus group with the authors and have read the final document. I know that we are about halfway through the ten year plan. The Master Plan has effectively established a professional approach to our Public Art Program and its administration. The goals and timeline are very clearly stated. The Cubberley Artist Studios are included in the Master Plan as a point of discussion. It is my very strong opinion that if Cubberley is used for something else in the future, Palo Alto should maintain subsidised artist studios somewhere within our city limits. Artists enhance diversity of our community. They can't afford to be here without our support. Not ready to submit 1. Click OTHER ACTIONS Your Application? 2. Click FINISH LATER Public Art Commission Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Note: The PAC regularly meets the third Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m. Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto? ___ Yes ___ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope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ot ready to submit 1. Click OTHER ACTIONS Your Application? 2. Click FINISH LATER Public Art Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope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ot ready to submit 1. Click OTHER ACTIONS Your Application? 2. Click FINISH LATER Public Art Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope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ot ready to submit 1. Click OTHER ACTIONS Your Application? 2. Click FINISH LATER Public Art Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Public Art Commission Members work with the document listed below. If you have experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this document is not required for selection. Public Art Master Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: C30CBA5E-7147-4FA8-9342-292C19C5B70B -NYWXVIEHEPQSWXEPPSJXLIHSGYQIRXERHJSYRHMXXSFIGSQTPIXIERH GSQTVILIRWMZI2MGINSFTVSHYGMRKXLMW[IPP[VMXXIRHSGYQIRX2S[MX MWXMQIXSMQTPIQIRXXLIWIVIGSQQIRHEXMSRWERH- HPSZIXSFIMRZSPZIH Not ready to submit 1. Click OTHER ACTIONS Your Application? 2. Click FINISH LATER Public Art Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ I give permission for the City of Palo Alto Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ___________________________________________________ Email: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be nonpublic and different than the address collected on page one. (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your DocuSign Envelope ID: C30CBA5E-7147-4FA8-9342-292C19C5B70B .YRMTIVS7IVVE&PZH7XERJSVH OEXMIEXEPFSX$LSXQEMPGSQ Page 1 Public Art Commission __ __ __ __ __ __ Please email all completed applications to Jessica.Brettle@CityofPaloAlto.org or City.Clerk@CityofPaloAlto.org City Clerk’s Office: 650-329-2571 Public Art Commission Personal Information - Note: The PAC regularly meets the third Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m. Name: Nia Taylor Address: Cell Phone: Home / Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? __ Yes No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? Yes No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? __ Yes __ No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? Yes No Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto? Yes No How did you learn about the vacancy on the Public Art Commission? Community Group Email from City Clerk Palo Alto Weekly Daily Post City Website Flyer Other: current commissioner List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: (621 charaters) Current Public Art Commissioner (Since May 2014) Art Educator MA in Visual Arts Administration Minor in Art History Page 2 Public Art Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Congregation Sherith Israel Occupation: Membership & Development Manager Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: (1311 characters) Commissioner, City of Palo Alto Public Art Commission, May 2014 - present Volunteer, Friends of Lafayette Park, 2014 - present. Once a month I clean and beautify Lafayette Park in San Francicso. The park is 3 blocks from my current place of employment. Volunteer, Jewish Family and Children’s Services, 2010 - present. I help the organization package and deliver food packages for homebound seniors during Jewish holidays. 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? (1518 characters) With a background in visual arts administration, art education, and art history, I love creating, talking, and viewing art in all its forms. I am a firm believer that art, as much as possible, should free and accessible to all people, hence the reason I initially decided to apply for a position on the Public Art Commission. Since my tenure, I have thoroughly enjoyed working with my fellow commissioners, public art advisors, architects, and community members, to procure, and protect, public art that will beautify and enhance the City of Palo Alto. Page 3 Public Art Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: LINK (1518 characters) Although I enjoy all aspects of being on the Public Art Commission, I have become particulary interested in our Percent for Art in Private Development Program. I especially like that it encourages developers to a) support artists and the visual arts, and b) promote art as a cultutral resource for the community. Since joining the commission in 2014, we have supported a number of Percent for Art in Private Development projects, many of which are currently on public view. If given the opportunity to continue for another term, I hope that I will be able to inspire more private developers to seek and display public art that is thought provoking and positively invites public interaction. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? (1656 characters) Goal #1: Develop a marketing campaign (e.g. bus and newspaper ads, banners, poster, etc.) that would promote and enhance the visibility of our wonderful collection. Ways to meet goal: Contact local media outlets (Weekly, PA Daily Post, blogs) and ask if they would publicize some of the works in our collection and/or enable us to place a low-cost and/or free ad promoting the collection. Goal #2: Enhance California and University Avenue by adding art inside empty store fronts and/or art onto contrusction barriers. Ways to meet goal: Ask artists (local and non-local, professional and novice) to submit 2-D works of art which we could hang inside empty storefronts and/or onto construction barriers. (Fun fact: I had the pleasure of being on a panel to choose art for a contrustion barrier behind California Avenue. It was a huge success.) Page 4 Public Art Commission 4. Public Art Commission Members work with the document listed below. If you have experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this document is not required for selection. (759 characters) Public Art Master Plan LINK I was on the commission when the Master Plan was being developed. I have also had the great pleasure of being on the commission to implement many of the suggested recommendations. I hope that I will have the opportunity to continue turning suggested recommendations into actions should I be chosen to complete another term on the PAC. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.” This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City’s website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: Home / E-mail: Office Phone: Signature: (Please type or sign) Date: 3.31.2020 City of Palo Alto (ID # 11527) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/10/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: PBA 2050 / RHNA Update (Continued From August 3, 2020) Title: Update and Discussion on Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation Process and Direction to Staff to Prepare Comment Letters on These Regional Efforts (Continued From August 3, 2020) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Discuss and provide direction to staff as appropriate on two regional planning efforts, which are Plan Bay Area 2050 and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process; and 2. Direct staff to submit a comment letter to ABAG/MTC’s Housing Methodology Committee reflecting City Council initial comments regarding the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) methodology options that are under consideration. Note that the two recommended actions above remain after the August 3, 2020 City Council action on a third staff recommendation to issue a comment letter on the Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint.1 Background / Discussion The purpose of this report and agenda item is to update the community and Council on the two subject regional planning initiatives and provide an opportunity for public comment. There was insufficient capacity to schedule this discussion in advance of Council’s summer recess, so an informational report2 was prepared for the June 22, 2020 meeting. The lack of a discussion on this topic before the break raised concerns from some community and Council members interested in advocating the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) appeal the Housing 1 August 3, 2020 City Manager Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77747 2 June 22, 2020 Informational Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77349 City of Palo Alto Page 2 and Community Development (HCD) department’s regional housing needs determination (RHND); the deadline for ABAG to appeal was July 10, 2020. Information on the regional housing needs determination is provided below as well as updates on efforts to develop a methodology that would distribute housing throughout the region. This report also includes an update on Plan Bay Area 2050, which has a recently released a draft findings report and is seeking public comment on or before August 10, 2020. Staff prepared a comment letter regarding the Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint (Attachment B) and City Council took action on August 3, 2020 for the comment letter to be signed by the Mayor and issued. A second letter has been prepared to document the City’s initial comments on the RHNA methodology options currently under consideration; this letter would be sent to the ABAG Housing Methodology Committee in advance of their August 13, 2020 meeting. If significant changes are required to either letter, staff recommends the Council authorize the Mayor sign a revised letter consistent with the Council majority’s interests. Both draft letters are included with this report as Attachments A and B respectively. Regional Housing Needs Determination The regional housing needs determination (RHND) represents the number of housing units that must be planned for in a given region over a certain period of time. The state Housing and Community Development (HCD) department makes this determination for all metropolitan planning organizations in California. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) serves as our MPO and distributes this housing allocation across the nine counties and 101 cities and towns in the Bay Area. For the planning period from 2023 through 2030, the Bay Area was assigned 441,176 housing units, which represents a 16% growth in housing units over the next eight years. These units are distributed among four incomes levels as shown in Table 1 below. HCD develops its forecast based on projected population growth which includes analyzing birth and death rates, and migration. Data for this analysis is collected from the California Department of Finance (DOF). City of Palo Alto Page 3 In 2018 the state legislature required HCD to consider additional criteria to respond to the state’s housing crisis and amplify existing policies to affirmatively further fair housing in upcoming housing element cycles. Some of these criteria include adjustments for housing unit replacements, accounting for overcrowding rates, housing cost burden, and target vacancy rates. These adjustments alone accounted for 217,626 new housing units, or approximately 49% of the RHND of the 441,176 new housing units that HCD sent to ABAG. Future job growth is not an explicit data point factored into HCD’s RHND, however, to the extent net migration reflects future job growth, it represents a relatively small percent of overall population growth. ABAG received the RHND from HCD on June 9, 2020. The ABAG Executive Board reviewed the RHND on June 18, 2020. The ABAG Executive Board declined to appeal the RHND for the nine county Bay Area. Only ABAG has the authority to contest the RHND. The process to contest the RHND is set forth in state law and the ability for ABAG to register an objection on the RHND is limited to two criteria and in its objection, ABAG would have needed to submit a proposed alternative determination of its regional housing need along with documentation substantiating its basis for the alternative determination. Since Plan Bay Area 2050 is well underway and forecasts a larger Bay Area population than projected by HCD, it is unlikely any objection would have resulted in a lower regional housing determination. Furthermore, ABAG staff recommended that the ABAG Executive Board accept the RHND. The Governor and state legislature up to this point have not made any adjustments to the state deadlines3 associated with the upcoming housing cycle and local response to the coronavirus pandemic is not currently a qualifying reason for ABAG to object to or appeal the RHND. 3 The Cities Association of Santa Clara County recently sent a letter to the Governor and the Director of HCD requesting the regional housing needs allocation schedule be modified to give regional jurisdictions and the state adequate time to assess the impact of COVID-19 and ensure the RHNA process achieves HCD’s goals. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Regional Housing Needs Allocation Methodology The Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) is an advisory group consisting of local elected officials, jurisdiction staff, regional stakeholders, and a state partner.4 The HMC is supported by ABAG staff and is tasked with developing a methodology that will distribute the RHND across all counties, cities, and towns within the Bay Area, subject to statutory requirements.5 This recommendation is forwarded to the Regional Planning Committee, which in turn, will make a recommendation to the ABAG Executive Board. The ABAG Executive Board will decide on its preferred approach to distribute housing units, which must be approved by HCD. Once accepted, an appeal period begins where any jurisdiction within the Bay Area can appeal their own regional housing needs assessment (RHNA), or another jurisdiction’s RHNA allocation. Once a methodology is established, a RHNA number is assigned to each jurisdiction in the region. The RHNA number represents a housing production target at various household income levels that municipalities must proactively plan to accommodate within their jurisdiction. A community’s plan to support future housing growth is set forth in their Housing Element, which is (typically) updated every eight years to coincide with the RHNA process.6 The next HMC meeting will occur on August 13, 2020. At this meeting, the Committee is expected to decide on a baseline that will serve as a starting point for distributing the RHND throughout the Bay Area. One approach being considered is to use 2019 household numbers and increase that number by sixteen percent (16%) for each jurisdiction, which reflects the regional increase generated by the RHND. A second approach being considered is to use the Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint as the baseline with its forecasted growth adjusted to coincide with the RHNA cycle; this baseline is also influenced by planning assumptions about where job growth and housing is projected to occur in the future. For Palo Alto, the baseline methodology determination is significant. 4 Housing Methodology Committee Roster: https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/hmc_roster_06_16_2020_0.pdf 5 RHNA Methodology Summary Requirements: • Increasing the housing supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability in all cities and counties within the region in an equitable manner. • Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, the encouragement of efficient development patterns, and the achievement of the region’s greenhouse gas reductions targets. • Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing, including an improved balance between the number of low-wage jobs and the number of housing units affordable to low-wage workers in each jurisdiction. • Allocating a lower proportion of housing need to an income category when a jurisdiction already has a disproportionately high share of households in that income category. • Affirmatively furthering fair housing. 6 The Housing Element is one of seven mandated elements in a local government’s general or comprehensive plan. City of Palo Alto Page 5 RHNA Methodology Baseline Data Options7 2019 Household A 4,475 Housing Units Plan Bay Area B 11,130 Housing Units A Source: https://rhna-factors.mtcanalytics.org/option1.html B Source: https://abag.ca.gov/meetings/housing-methodology- committee-2020-jul-09 The baseline data alone, however, may not sufficiently address statutory requirements to distribute housing units in a manner that promotes infill development and socioeconomic equity, address housing fit, jobs/housing balance, or affirmatively further fair housing requirements such as access to high resource and opportunity areas, among other factors. Accordingly, as noted in the June 22, 2020 informational report, the HMC is considering ten factors8 and exploring options to weight those factors in accordance with their mandated objectives. This chart was previously provided and illustrates factor options HMC is evaluating and how they could be weighted (note: at a previous meeting, more Committee members supported the Housing/Jobs Crescent approach, while ‘hazards’ as a factor in the RHNA methodology lost support): Depending on the factors and weights chosen, each jurisdiction’s RHNA number will fluctuate above or below the baseline data set. Much of Palo Alto is identified as either transit rich or 7 Numbers used in this report to illustrate anticipated housing units allocations are approximate and may adjust significantly based on any number of factors until a methodology is adopted. 8 Ten Factors Include: Access to High Opportunity Areas; Divergence Index; Job-Proximity – Auto; Job Proximity – Transit; Vehicle Miles Traveled; Job-Housing Balance; Jobs-Housing Fit; Future Jobs; Transit Connectivity; Natural Hazards. More description regarding these factors is available online: https://rhna- factors.mtcanalytics.org/data/RHNA_tool_factors_overview.pdf City of Palo Alto Page 6 high opportunity areas, and Palo Alto has a sizeable jobs/housing imbalance. These characteristics tend to result in more housing units being allocated to Palo Alto. Some factors also influence the percentage of units directed toward lower income units versus market rate units. Another metric the HMC is considering is an income shift multiplier, which is intended to move a jurisdiction’s mix of housing within four income bands in a direction that better reflects the mix of housing throughout the region. Depending on the income shift percentage chosen, a community with more high income housing units would likely see a greater share of its RHNA allocated toward lower income units and vice versa. The income shift does not result in more housing allocated toward a jurisdiction but reallocates the number of units assigned to each income category. The following chart illustrates this concept. An income shift multiplier of 100 percent results in every jurisdiction’s RHNA mirroring the region’s existing income distribution. In theory, setting the income shift multiplier above 100 percent could close the gap between a jurisdiction’s income distribution and the region’s distribution in a shorter period of time. At their May meeting, HMC members expressed the most support for an income shift multiplier between 100 percent and 150 percent. City of Palo Alto Page 7 In contrast to the income shift approach and the methodology options presented above, the HMC is also considering an alternative, standalone methodology referred to as the Bottom-Up concept. This approach uses factors to determine allocations for the four income categories, and the sum of these income group allocations represents a jurisdiction’s total allocation. A jurisdiction’s allocation within each income category is determined based on how the jurisdiction scores relative to the rest of the region on the selected factors. This approach is illustrated in the following diagram: The HMC considered a two factor approach as well where each factor is weighed at 50%. Depending on the combination of baseline data and factors recommended by the HMC, Palo Alto stands to have a significant increase in market rate and affordable housing units in the upcoming cycle. The range of housing units allocated to Palo Alto is depicted in this chart produced by ABAG staff for the July HMC public meeting: City of Palo Alto Page 8 While many in the region may support the higher housing unit targets depicted above, from a staff perspective, the diagram reveals that a Plan Bay Area 2050 Blueprint baseline is not realistic for Palo Alto. The expectation that Palo Alto would increase its housing supply by 55% over the next eight years is clearly unattainable. Accordingly, staff’s draft comment letter to HMC recommends in favor of using the 2019 Household baseline for a future RHNA methodology. The comment letter also highlights concerns staff has regarding unreasonably high housing targets and the implications that may have on communities based on current state law, specifically, SB35. Palo Alto has struggled to produce significant low income housing units, is marginally meeting the market rate target for the current housing cycle, and is well short of the Council’s expressed goal of producing 300+ units each year through 2030. Palo Alto’s access to high paying jobs, excellent schools, proximity to fixed rail and transit, well-established jobs/housing imbalance, disproportionate mix of higher income households and lack of affordable housing for lower wage earners makes this community more susceptible to higher RHNA numbers. Palo Alto will face some difficult choices ahead that will necessarily need to consider community member’s interests regarding parking, floor area, density and height regulations to spur market rate housing or risk losing significant local control over future qualifying housing projects based on SB35. Senate Bill 35 approved by the state legislature and signed by the governor in 2017 sets forth the requirements for a market rate housing project to qualify for streamlined review, including requiring a certain percentage of on-site affordable units; having at least two-thirds of the floor area dedicated to residential uses; and, workers are paid at a prevailing wage, among other factors. Palo Alto is currently subject to SB35’s streamlining provisions, but to qualify under this law, fifty percent (50%) of the housing units must be deed restricted for low income housing. City of Palo Alto Page 9 If the City misses its market rate housing targets after four years in the new housing cycle (or fails to meet it at the end of the current cycle), qualifying market rate housing projects would be subject to a 90 day review period and must be administratively approved; the City could not impose any conditions of approval or deny the project if it meets all objective standards. Moreover, the on-site affordability requirement is reduced from 50% to the 10% (note: in practice, applicants will be subject to the 15% inclusionary requirement in the City’s municipal code). Plan Bay Area 2050 Plan Bay Area 2050 is a 30 year long range planning document for the nine county Bay Area region. This effort is being managed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and builds on the Horizon Initiative,9 which sought to explore what living in the Bay Area would be like in 2050 and explored challenges the region it is likely to encounter in the future. Plan Bay Area 2050 will examine a possible future for the Bay Area and is organized into four topic areas: • Housing • Transportation • Economy • Environment The Plan will also need to meet statutory requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as determined by the California Air Resources Board (CARB); accommodate projected household growth; and will ultimately serve as the region’s sustainable communities strategy and regional transportation plan. Federal law further requires the plan be financially constrained and reflect reasonably anticipated transportation revenues during the planning period. Plan Bay Area 2050 sets forth a vision of the Bay Area that is resilient and equitable. The effort is guided by principles supporting affordability, diversity, connectivity, community health and vibrancy – and uses twenty-five (25) strategies organized into nine objectives to model a path forward for the region. These strategies are not binding and require a coordinated effort among local, regional, state governments to achieve the goal. Funding mechanisms are key implementation components of this framework requiring political and in some instances voter approval. Importantly, Plan Bay Area 2050 does not require any changes to local policy documents, comprehensive plans or zoning regulations. Some communities may find they will miss out on future funding opportunities if their local programs are not aligned with the Plan and there is 9 More information on the Horizon Initiative is available online: https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/plans- projects/horizon City of Palo Alto Page 10 some connection between Plan Bay Area 2050 and how housing units are distributed in the Bay Area through the RHNA process. Draft Blueprint On July 6, 2020, MTC/ABAG released the Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint.10 The public comment period ends on August 10, 2020. Staff has reviewed this document and prepared a comment letter (Attachment B). City Council took action on August 3, 2020 for the comment letter to be signed by the Mayor and issued. The letter covers a range of topics, seeking clarification and advocating for positions in the best interest of Palo Altans. For example, several points seek assurance that the inputs to the Blueprint and the model used to create the Blueprint include accurate information and assumptions. The letter identifies and supports strategies that align with Palo Alto policies, such as protecting high-value conservation lands, requiring that 10 to 20 percent of new housing be affordable, and advancing low-cost transit projects. The letter also identifies additional strategies for inclusion and consideration, such as locating jobs in housing-rich areas (such as Alameda County). A chief request, though, is that ABAG/MTC seek relief from the statutory timeline to provide more time for this process. Advancing a long-range planning process at this time does not afford the Bay Area the opportunity to incorporate changes from the COVID-19 pandemic and recession into the long-range plan. For example, the letter suggests that growth in telecommuting could be greater than predicted and may change the location of jobs, housing, and the demand for office space. Furthermore, community members, elected officials, and local staff throughout the Bay Area are consumed by responding to the ongoing crisis. Allowing only 30 days for public process seems insufficient during these times. An extension of time is sorely needed. In addition to the letter, staff outline below upcoming opportunities for City Council members and community members to participate in the Plan Bay Area 2050 process and feedback on the draft Blueprint. Planning and Transportation Commission Review On July 8, 2020, the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission held a study session regarding these two regional planning initiatives.11 Approximately fifteen community members provided public comments during the study session in addition to written comments provided to the PTC as well as the City Council. Commissioners perspectives have been incorporated into the draft letters. As noted above, Commissioners cautioned against the Bottom-Up approach to allocating the RHND. Additional reflections from Commissioners include asking ABAG/MTC to apply more scrutiny to the definition of transit rich, aligning Plan Bay Area 2050 closely with 10 MTC/ABAG 11 Staff report for Planning and Transportation Commission July 8, 2020 Study Session: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77546 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Palo Alto’s goals of climate sustainability and affordable housing development, and addressing the regional jobs-housing imbalance by encouraging greater job development in other parts of the region. Timeline / Public Engagement The following table provides a list of key milestones for Plan Bay Area 2050, RHNA, and forthcoming Housing Element update processes. The public is encouraged to participate in any of the following public engagement opportunities. ABAG 2023 RHNA and Plan Bay Area 2050 Key Milestones12 ABAG 2023 RHNA/Plan Bay Area 2050 Key Milestones Proposed Deadline Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint Public Comment Period July 7, 2020 through August 10, 2020 RHNA Housing Methodology Committee Public Comment Period on RHNA Methodology Options Next Meeting: August 13, 2020 Ongoing through Fall 2020 ABAG & Housing Methodology Committee Proposed RHNA Methodology, Draft Subregion Shares Fall 2020 Plan Bay Area 2050 Final Blueprint December 2020 Final Subregion Shares December 2020 Draft RHNA Methodology to HCD for Review Winter 2021 Final RHNA Methodology, Draft Allocation Spring 2021 RHNA Appeals Summer 2021 Final Plan Bay Area 2050 September 2021 Final RHNA Allocation Winter 2021 Housing Element Due Date January 2023 Dates are tentative and subject to change Key Upcoming Meetings for Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint: • July 30, 2020 (1:45PM-3:45PM) Policy Advisory Council Equity & Access Subcommittee: Registration link: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/plan-bay-area-2050-blueprint-workshop- a-focus-on-equity-tickets-113656431446 • August 5, 2020 (11:30AM – 1:30PM) Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint Virtual Workshop: Santa Clara County: Registration link: https://bayareametro.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_VOD7L-qhS- yUVRfuLHrd0g 12 April 27, 2020 Revised RHNA Timeline: https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/abag_rhna_timelineapril.pdf City of Palo Alto Page 12 • September 2, 2020 ABAG Regional Planning Committee Meeting Attendance Information: https://mtc.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx • September 11, 2020 Joint MTC Planning Committee with the ABAG Administrative Committee Meeting Attendance Information: https://mtc.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx Key Upcoming Meetings for RHNA: • August 13, 2020 ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Housing Methodology Committee Meeting Attendance Information: https://mtc.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx; https://abag.ca.gov/our- work/housing/rhna-regional-housing-needs-allocation/housing-methodology-committee • September 18, 2020 ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Housing Methodology Committee Meeting Attendance Information: https://mtc.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx; https://abag.ca.gov/our- work/housing/rhna-regional-housing-needs-allocation/housing-methodology-committee Next Steps Following Council’s discussion, staff will finalize the comment letter to ABAG/MTC’s Housing Methodology Committee reflecting City Council initial comments regarding the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) methodology options that are under consideration as directed and send them to the appropriate individuals. Staff will continue to attend Plan Bay Area 2050 and HMC meetings and will regularly report back to Council. Discussion items will be scheduled on the Council agenda when direction is needed, or as otherwise directed by the City Council. Staff encourages interested community members to attend upcoming meetings listed in the table above to share their voice on these topics. Administratively, a recruitment is underway to hire a housing specialist for Palo Alto and a long- range planning professional to support the City’s effort in these and other initiatives. Attachments: • Attachment A: Draft Comments on RHNA Methodology (August 2020) City of Palo Alto Page 13 • Attachment B: Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint Comment Letter (Attachment Removed Reflecting Council Action on August 3, 2020) • Attachment C: Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint Documents (July 2020) Date: August 9, 2020 Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) Members, info@bayareametro.gov ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation Staff, RHNA@bayareametro.gov Re: City of Palo Alto Initial Comments on 6th Cycle RHNA Methodology Options Thank you, Committee members, for your time, expertise and commitment to designing a methodology that fairly distributes housing in our region. The City of Palo Alto requests that the Housing Methodology Committee recommend use of the 2019 existing households as a baseline allocation for the RHNA methodology and continue its review of an appropriate mix of weighted factors using up to a 150% Income Shift multiplier to distribute new housing units across the region. The alternative baseline approach being considered by the Committee is unattainable for some Bay Area jurisdictions and the imposition of this standard ensures some communities will dramatically fail to meet their housing obligation. While those communities will need to contend with that result, including implications associated with SB35, the risk is also that the region as a whole will produce far less housing than it otherwise could achieve. Plan Bay Area 2050 is a long range plan that requires significant economic investment and an extraordinary amount of regional policy collaboration to implement its vision. Building a methodology today that is actionable over the next eight years and relies on an idealized model depicting a regional housing distribution thirty years from now ignores the reality that the infrastructure, funding and local regulatory framework is simply not yet present to achieve this goal. Palo Alto supports the regional efforts of Plan Bay Area 2050 and commends agency leadership and staff for their tireless work to create a framework for our future. Palo Alto is a partner in this endeavor and recognizes its role to stimulate more housing – especially more equitable and inclusive housing for all. At the same time, Palo Alto cannot reasonably be expected to increase its housing supply by more than 50% over the next eight years, as would be required under some early modeling results that use the Draft Blueprint as a baseline. There will be three and a half regional housing need cycles before the region meets the horizon year of Plan Bay Area 2050. It is imperative that the RHNA methodology be used to shift local policies toward a more inclusive and better balanced future to achieve housing equity and environmental goals. This RHNA methodology needs to bridge where we are today as a region with where we want to go tomorrow. Using the 2019 existing households as a baseline reflects where we are today, shares the responsibility for adding more housing units throughout the region and is consistent with, but not dependent upon Plan Bay Area 2050. Moreover, weighted factors can be used that stretch communities toward our housing, transportation and environmental goals. Thank you for your consideration, Ed Shikada, City Manager Attachment B City Council took action on August 3, 2020 for the comment letter on the Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint to be signed by the Mayor and issued. Attachment C The Plan Bay Area 2050 Blueprint materials can be viewed via this link: https://bit.ly/pba2050_blueprint_findings City of Palo Alto (ID # 11473) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/10/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Accept an Update on the Summer Streets Program; Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 9909 Title: Accept an Update on the Summer Streets Program; Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 9909 to Extend the Temporary Street Closures of California Avenue, University Avenue and Adjacent Downtown Blocks to December 31, 2020, Extend the University Avenue Closure to High Street, Extend the Expiration Date of Resolution No. 9909 Including the Temporary Parklet Program to September 7, 2021, and Clarify Allowed Activities From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: (1) Receive a Report and Update Regarding the Summer Streets Program Initiated on June 23, 2020; (2) Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 9909 to: a. Extend the Temporary Street Closures of California Avenue, University Avenue and Other Downtown Blocks to December 31, 2020; b. Extend the Temporary Street Closure of University Avenue to Include the Block Between Emerson Street and High Street; c. Extend the Expiration Date of Resolution No. 9909, Including the Duration of the Temporary Parklet Program, to September 7, 2021; and d. Allow Activities in Addition to Outdoor Dining and Retail to Occur on Temporarily Closed Streets; and (3) Provide Comment and Further Direction on the Program. Executive Summary Overall, the Summer Streets program, adopted by Council and implemented by staff, has successfully allowed some business activities—particularly restaurants—to resume some level City of Palo Alto Page 2 of activity. This has resulted in opportunities for residents and visitors to enjoy commercial districts, enabled businesses to provide wages to employees, and provided an adjusted sense of “normalcy” for the Palo Alto community. While these efforts alone are not sufficient to sustain all types of local businesses nor can they be the entire substance of the recovery from the pandemic, the Summer Streets program has demonstrated the Palo Alto community’s commitment to shared support and collective success. This report reviews the programs implemented, with an enhanced focus on Downtown Palo Alto and the California Avenue Business District. Due to frequently changing circumstances, some information contained in this report may be outdated by the time the City Council meeting occurs. Based on the information and the program’s impact thus far, staff proposes amendments to the resolution, as noted in the recommendation section. In addition, staff look forward to hearing from Council members and the community on their impressions of the program to date. As noted during prior Council discussion, this program reflects an unusual level of speed and flexibility in City actions. Council may choose to give staff additional direction regarding exploration of additional items intended to address ongoing challenges and the forthcoming change of season. Background On June 23, 2020, the City Council considered and passed a resolution authorizing temporary street closures and a temporary pilot parklet program.1 The same evening, the Council also passed an interim urgency ordinance temporarily allowing the expansion of outdoor dining and retail on both public and private property, as well as waiving permit fees, design review, and allowing on-sale consumption of alcohol in these outdoor areas. Both the ordinance and resolution passed unanimously. These Council actions followed the State of Emergency issued by California Governor Gavin Newsom (March 4, 2020), the Local State of Emergency (March 16, 2020), and the Shelter in Place Health Order issued by Santa Clara County (March 16, 2020). The global coronavirus pandemic served as the impetus for these States of Emergency and Shelter in Place Order; these actions and subsequent actions aim to decrease the community spread of COVID-19. The global pandemic continues, with the United States leading the world in COVID-19 cases and deaths. The pandemic and associated measures to reduce the spread of the coronavirus are expected to continue until an effective vaccine is created and sufficiently distributed, and/or until effective treatments and therapeutics are available. 1 Staff report from June 23, 2020 City Council Meeting: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77353 City of Palo Alto Page 3 The Council took these actions to help businesses and business districts in Palo Alto to survive the pandemic. By supporting local businesses and shopping districts, Palo Altans can meet their daily needs, the City can generate tax revenue for infrastructure and services, and Palo Alto can remain a community that recognizes cross-sector interdependencies that enable a high quality of life. While the Council’s actions have positively impacted several businesses, overall business activity remains diminished. In accordance with the Santa Clara County Health Order, all workers who can work remotely must do so. As a result, only a fraction of employees is returning to work sites in Palo Alto. For example, Jamie Jarvis, programs director at the Stanford Research Park, reports that approximately 10% of the Park’s 29,000 workers are on- site. These once daily visitors made up a significant portion of the customers for local retailers, restaurants, and service providers. With global travel still limited and Stanford classes not in session, the customer base is further diminished. So, while the overall outcomes of the Council’s actions are positive, prospects for local retail remain dim. The City, County, and State alongside partners in business and other sectors will need to continue to implement creative, innovative, and collaborative ways to weather the pandemic. Discussion The overall challenge notwithstanding, this report summarizes the implementation of the programs authorized in the resolution and ordinance, including quantitative and qualitative impacts of the programs. Street Closures The Council authorized the closure of portions of University Avenue and California Avenue to vehicular traffic. Council also authorized businesses to apply for a no-cost Summer Streets Encroachment Permit to place tables, chairs, and retail merchandise in closed portions of streets. California Avenue After consultation with the merchants, the closure on California Avenue began on June 19, 2020. California Avenue from El Camino Real to Birch is closed to traffic 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. Some early morning or late-night deliveries are accommodated, and overnight street sweeping occurs three times per week. A brief closure of California from Birch to Park was tested for approximately 1 week. Due to limited use by businesses in that block and challenges the closure posed from some merchants, that section was re-opened to traffic. Tables 1, 2, and 3 show the average number of persons walking, standing, seated at a restaurant, and biking on California Avenue during different times throughout the week. Weekday evening activity is only slightly higher than weekday lunch time activity. Weekend activity is higher than weekday activity, with activity nearly doubling on the weekends. For the purposes of the counts, Friday evening and Saturday evening are considered the “weekend” City of Palo Alto Page 4 evenings. The counts closely mirror survey responses; when asked “What day did you dine outdoors?”, Friday and Saturday were the top responses, with 48% and 49% respectively. Table 1: California Avenue Average - Weekday Lunch Wednesdays, 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm Activity 7/2/20 7/8/20 7/15/20 7/22/20 Walking/Standing 36 29 39 38 Seated 117 96 90 91 Biking 4 7 4 7 Total 157 132 132 137 Table 2: California Avenue Average - Weekday Dinner Wednesdays, 6:00 pm - 7:00 pm Activity 7/2/20 7/22/20 Walking/Standing 18 25 Seated 122 136 Biking 3 6 Total 143 167 Table 3: California Avenue Average - Weekend Dinner Friday and Saturday 6:00 - 7:00 pm Activity Friday Friday Saturday 7/10/20 7/17/20 7/18/20 Walking/Standing 75 93 96 Seated 247 257 279 Biking 11 11 8 Total 333 360 383 Office of Transportation staff monitored corridors in the nearby Evergreen Park-Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) area. Specifically, staff counted the available and occupied parking spaces along blocks of Grant Avenue and College Avenue. If more than 75% of on-street parking spaces are occupied, a corridor is parking impacted. The data shows this RPP has not been impacted. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Survey respondents who drove to the area reported their parking experience was “great,” with a handful rating their parking experience as fair. Efforts by the City and merchants to encourage the use of free parking in public parking garages and lots, as well as many patrons reporting that they walk and bike to the Avenue have likely led to the limited parking impacts in nearby areas. Table 4: Evergreen Park-Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking Corridor Monitoring Street Corridors ~ Total Spaces 6/12 6/19 6/26 7/2 7/10 7/17 ~5:30pm ~5:30pm ~5:30pm ~7:30pm ~5:30pm ~6:30pm Grant (ECR to Park) 89 57% 25% 54% 36% 36% 43% College (ECR to Park) 94 51% 24% 52% 52% 52% 53% Eleven (11) restaurants along California Avenue have applied for Summer Street dining permits to place tables and chairs in the closed street. Additional restaurants in the area have sidewalk dining permits. 1. Kali Greek 2. Zareen 3. Italico 4. Terun 5. La Boheme 6. The Counter 7. Izzy’s 8. Jinsho Restaurant 9. La Bodeguita 10. Lotus Thai Bistro 11. Antonio’s Nut House Through the online survey and weekly meetings, the businesses—restaurants and retail— report the program is successfully drawing patrons to the area. The number of patrons, though, is insufficient. They remain earning a fraction of their pre-pandemic revenues. Restaurants and retailers are working to stay open; restaurants are hoping that indoor dining is allowed by the time winter begins. Table 5: California Avenue Revenues as a Share of Pre-Pandemic Revenue Survey Question: My business revenue is ____% of pre-pandemic revenue. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Range 25-60% Median 32% Requested improvements to California Avenue include a desire for better signage, especially facing El Camino Real, to ensure passersby know the street is open for business even while it remains closed to vehicular traffic. The City has invested in placing string lights on the trees along California Ave to enhance the ambiance. Businesses are also brainstorming ways to prepare for winter, in the event indoor dining is not allowed. University Avenue The closure of University Avenue began on July 3, 2020. The closure lasted for one weekend; which coincided with Independence Day Weekend. University Avenue opened to traffic on Monday July 6 and closed to vehicular traffic again at 10 am on July 10, 2020. University Avenue from High Street to Cowper has remained closed to vehicular traffic since that time. Like California Avenue, the closure is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Table 6: University Avenue Average - Weekday Lunch Wednesdays, 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm 7/15/20 7/22/20 Walking/Standing 111 63 Seated 101 92 Biking 6 5 Total 218 160 Table 8: University Avenue Average - Weekend Dinner Friday and Saturday 6:00 - 7:00 pm Friday Friday Saturday 7/10/20 7/17/20 7/18/20 Walking/Standing 180 189 174 Seated 275 266 278 Biking 17 9 11 Total 471 464 462 Tables 6, 7, and 8 show the average number of persons walking, standing, seated at a restaurant, and biking on University Avenue during different times throughout the week. Like California Avenue, University is busiest on weekend evenings, followed by weekday evenings, and least busy on weekdays during lunch. This is also reflected in visitor surveys. Table 7: University Avenue Average - Weekday Dinner Wednesdays, 6:00 pm - 7:00 pm 7/15/20 7/22/20 Walking/Standing 80 132 Seated 126 152 Biking 19 13 Total 225 297 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Office of Transportation staff monitored corridors in the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking area. Specifically, staff counted the available and occupied parking spaces along blocks of Forest Avenue, Webster Street, and Everett Avenue. If more than 75% of on-street parking spaces are occupied, a corridor is parking impacted. For the most part, the area has not been parking impacted. Webster Street, from Forest to Lytton, has had the greatest impacts. All survey respondents who drove to University Avenue reported their parking experience was “great.” Table 9: Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Corridor Monitoring Street Corridors Occupancy Percentage ~ Total Spaces 6/12 6/19 6/26 7/2 7/10 7/17 ~5:30pm ~5:30pm ~5:30pm ~7:30pm ~5:30pm ~6:30pm Forest Ave. (Bryant to Middlefield) 114 62% 49% 53% 49% 48% 47% Webster St. (Forest to Lytton) 58 76% 60% 53% 66% 71% 64% Everett Ave. (Webster to Alma) 170 46% 32% 39% 27% 48% 47% In addition to monitoring parking, the City has monitored traffic flow in downtown Palo Alto by measuring the average traffic volume on certain downtown streets. This measures the number of vehicles traveling on a street in either direction; the counts of each 24-hour period are averaged over the entire week. Surprisingly, traffic volumes on certain downtown streets meet or exceed the volumes in 2016. This is likely due to the detours caused by University Avenue’s closure, commuting trips for essential workers, and daily trips residents take. Table 10: Average Traffic Volume Location 2016 (Pre-COVID) July 7-13, 2020 Cowper (Lytton & University) N/A 2,446 Lytton (Cowper & Kipling) 10,770 10,037 High (University & Hamilton) 2,365 4,169 Hamilton (Bryant & Gillman) 3,986 4,704 Approximately 15 businesses have placed tables and chairs in the public street. 1. Sliderbar 2. 220 Cafe 3. Café Venetia City of Palo Alto Page 8 4. Siam Royal 5. Yayoi 6. Burma Ruby 7. Wahlburgers 8. Curry Pizza House 9. Taste 10. Pho Banh Mi 11. Ruby Sushi 12. Sprout’s Café 13. Local Union 271 *also parklet 14. Rooh *also parklet 15. The Taproom 16. Orens Hummus The businesses located on University Avenue reported higher revenue than those on California Avenue. Restaurants and retail on streets crossing University reported lower revenues than the restaurants located on University. The revenues of downtown businesses located on crossing streets were similar to restaurants on California Avenue (which were 25-40% of their pre- pandemic revenues, with 60% as an outlier). During the weekly meetings with downtown businesses, business located on crossing streets have suggested that the attractive pedestrian area on University draws away their customers. One business owner reported visitors drive up, park in front of their establishment, and head straight to University. Several businesses located on crossing streets suggest the attractive pedestrian environment on University creates an unfair advantage. They suggest opening the street to traffic, while allowing restaurants to create parklets, is a fairer solution. Not all restaurants on side streets feel this way. In fact, some are working together to propose a closure of an additional street to pilot the impact a closure of an additional block may have. Restaurants located on University Avenue support continuing the closure while seeking additional ways to boost business in the downtown. Additionally, they note that even if patrons spread out and enjoy restaurants in a more equitable fashion, the customer base has been depleted. Until the customer base from office workers and Stanford students and employees returns, and if the pandemic decreases the number of patrons, revenues and employment will not return to pre-pandemic levels. Finally, some express concern that if downtown Palo Alto does not offer a pleasant, spacious pedestrian thoroughfare, patrons may simply visit California Avenue, Castro Street in Mountain View, or other areas that offer an inviting pedestrian atmosphere. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Table 11: Downtown Revenues as a Share of Pre-Pandemic Revenue Survey Question: My business revenue is ____% of pre-pandemic revenue. University Ave Range -16% - 80% Median 35% Crossing Street Range 22-60% Median 22% Patron Feedback Qualitatively, visitors to both California Avenue and University Avenue areas have thoroughly enjoyed their experiences. Many expressed sentiments like Palo Alto resident and survey respondent Yvonne who said, of California Ave: “Love it! So nice to dine outdoors with no cars. Can we make these changes permanent? Would love to keep this European-style outdoor experience.” Palo Alto resident Rhonda’s sentiments capture the thoughts of many regarding downtown; Rhonda wrote “Love it! Keep it for as long as we can. Make parklets permanent. Save our businesses and our business cores as offices are closed. We need to be a destination.” Many survey respondents support keeping the street closures permanently, bringing them back every summer, or at least keeping them until the pandemic subsides. Still, not all respondents felt positive. Several respondents reported dismay at seeing patrons without masks and requested more enforcement. Some visitors enjoyed people watching and strolling on the streets but felt dining outside posed too great a risk. Others offered suggestions for better demarcation of space, including more clearly identifying passageways for cyclists and pedestrians in the center of each street. Parklets At the time this report is written, the City has received 22 applications for parklets. Of those, 6 parklets have been constructed and are in use. The City developed the Parklet Standards and Other Requirements, attached to, and referenced in the Resolution passed on June 23, 2020. In addition, the City contracted with an architect to create basic plans for parallel and angle parklets that applicants can use as a model for their parklets. Public Works staff receive and review applications and inspect the construction of the parklets. Overall, the program is operating successfully and increases the outdoor dining capacity for restaurants throughout Palo Alto. Private Parking Lots Retailers and restaurants can use up to 50% of their parking spaces for retail and/or dining purposes. So far, 2 restaurants have applied for approval to repurpose their parking lots for these purposes. Additional restaurants and retailers have used their parking spaces without City of Palo Alto Page 10 going through this process. Staff are reaching out to ensure the uses are permitted, safe, and do not inhibit circulation. Public Parking Lots In a few instances, the City has allowed portions of public parking lots to be used for retail, restaurants, and recreational uses. For example, Rose and Crown was permitted to use a small portion of a City parking lot to create an outdoor dining area. Likewise, two fitness businesses are collaborating with the City to offer group classes and personal training in portions of public parking lots. Currently, public parking lots remain far below capacity. The use of the parking lots in this manner is not adversely affecting parking availability. Recreation, Personal Services, and Other Uses Santa Clara County issued a revised Health Order that became effective on July 13, 2020. Subsequently, Governor Gavin Newsom used his authority to shut down certain activities throughout the state, including indoor dining. In addition, the Governor created a “three-day watch list.” Counties on the list cannot allow certain activities to resume. The Governor’s actions effectively overrode the County Health Order and certain aspects of the updated County Health Order did not go into effect as a result. In particular, indoor gyms and fitness centers, and indoor personal services (i.e., hair salons, barbershops, nail salons) were not allowed to resume. These conditions have heightened the need for the City Manager to promulgate rules to allow certain activities, such as recreation and personal services, to occur outdoors. Any such rules must also be consistent with State and County laws. At the time of this report’s drafting, staff are actively working with gyms and salons to understand the needs of these operations and to create a framework that will allow these activities to occur outdoors while minimizing conflicts with neighboring uses. Summary of Key Issues: Extend the Maximum Allowable Duration of Street Closures to December 31, 2020 Staff recommends Council authorize extending the temporary street closures to December 31, 2020 by amending Resolution No. 9909. Such an allowance would not mean the streets will be closed throughout that entire time. Rather, this amendment would give the City flexibility to work with restaurants, retailers, and other stakeholders to modify the closures throughout that time. Modifications may include the time of day or days of the week the closures occur. Further modifications may be made if and when indoor dining is allowed, as the seasons change, and during the holiday shopping period. Staff intend to return to the City Council in early December to consider this topic; at that time, the program could sunset or the temporary street closures could be further extended or modified. City of Palo Alto Page 11 As described above, businesses in the downtown core, both located on and near University Avenue, expressed both support and opposition for the street closures. City staff seek low- or no-cost ways to safely enhance the environment for businesses located outside of the closure area. Measures include ensuring outdoor seating on University not exceed a restaurant’s previously allowed capacity and the at-grade parklet program described in the next section. Continuing to allow closures to vehicular traffic provides the flexibility needed for restaurants, retailers, and the City to work together to provide a safer experience for pedestrians, cyclists, shoppers, and diners. Without an extension of time, the possibility of street closures would be eliminated. The businesses along California Avenue are more unified in their support of the street closure. City staff will continue to meet weekly with the business community to make adjustments, improvements, and work to provide each business a platform for success. Add One Block to Closure Footprint in Downtown Staff recommend amending Resolution No. 9909 to add the block of University Avenue from High Street to Emerson Street to the allowable closure footprint. Currently, this closure is effectuated under a separate temporary street closure permit the City has issued. While this section of University hosts fewer diners and pedestrians than other sections, the flexibility to close this section enhances options for these restaurants. Extend the Expiration Date for the Temporary Parklet Program to September 7, 2021 Staff recommend extending the expiration date of Resolution No. 9909 to allow the parklet program to run through Labor Day 2021. This in turn would allow the Director of Public Works to extend the duration of the permits for platform parklets through that date (the permits would expire at 12:01 am on Tuesday September 7, 2021). The extension would create a longer time period over which restaurateurs could amortize the parklet investment. In other words, the longer time period makes the benefit of the parklet worth the cost of installing the parklet. After Council adoption of the proposed resolution, the Director of Public Works would update the Parklet Standards and Other Requirements document to reflect the new permit expiration date. All permit-holders would receive written notice of the extended expiration date. The current pace of re-opening across the state and the high likelihood that the pandemic will continue into 2021 increase the chances that outdoor dining may remain the only means for table service to continue. Even if indoor dining is allowed, patrons may be unwilling to participate, or the opportunity may be rescinded occasionally if the county exceeds the indicator thresholds issued by the state. Even during winter months, code-compliant lighting and heaters can make parklets a viable and comfortable option for diners. During the intervening year, staff propose to develop guidelines for a permanent parklet program. City Council can consider adopting a permanent parklet program, extend the City of Palo Alto Page 12 temporary parklet program, or allow the temporary parklet program to sunset—which would require removal of the parklets. As the year and pandemic continue, Council may take up this discussion again to make further adjustments to the program. Maintain December 31, 2020 Expiration Date for At-Grade Parklets At the encouragement of the City Council to identify a low-cost parklet option for businesses, staff researched the risks and opportunities associated with at-grade parklets. At-grade parklets allow tables, chairs, and other permitted items (such as heaters, lights, etc.) to occupy an on- street parking space, and for those items to be placed directly on the surface of the street. Staff researched other Bay Area cities permitting at-grade parklets. If a permit holder can provide at least 5% of its outdoor seating (usually 1 table and associated seating) in an accessible area— such as the sidewalk—then the permit holder can also create an at-grade parklet. The accessible table and seating would need to be substantially the same as other outdoor seating at the establishment. The Public Works Director, as authorized by Resolution No. 9909, updated the Parklet Standards and Other Requirements to reflect the at-grade parklet standards and expiration date. At-grade parklets provide lower-cost opportunities for restaurants to offer outdoor dining. At- grade parklets are particularly important for restaurants not located on closed portions of University or California Avenues. While this lower-cost opportunity is important, the look and feel may not be as high-quality as the platform parklet. Since the cost is lower, permit holders do not need to amortize the investment over a longer period. Thus, staff intend to retain the original parklet permit period of December 31, 2020 for at-grade parklets; the establishment could then seek a new permit or permit extension. No Further Substantive Changes to Other Provisions of Resolution or Ordinance The proposed resolution would amend Resolution No. 9909 to expressly state that the allowed activities on the temporarily closed streets may include activities in addition to outdoor dining and retail. The urgency ordinance adopted on June 23, 2020, acknowledged that such additional uses could be allowed on public and private property addressed in the ordinance (including streets), subject to the City Manager adopting and publishing regulations identifying the additional uses and parameters for their conduct. The modification to the resolution would align with the previously adopted ordinance now that it is apparent that several business activities in addition to dining will not be allowed to resume in their indoor settings in the near- term. Staff do not recommend further changes to the resolution or ordinance. The interim urgency ordinance allows outdoor dining and retail in private parking lots, modifies the process for encroachment permits (including waiving design review and waiving permits), and allows for the development of rules for the use of City-owned parking lots, as well as rules for allowing personal services, indoor recreation, and other uses outdoors. The ordinance remains in effect City of Palo Alto Page 13 for the duration of the Local Emergency or until December 31, 2020. When staff return to Council in December, the need for extension or sunset of the ordinance may be more apparent. Proposed amendments to the resolution have been discussed above. No further changes are recommended. Policy Implications The proposed modifications do not create any permanent programs. As currently suggested, the programs remain temporary. While the duration of some programs is proposed to be extended, regular reports to Council are proposed. These touch points provide opportunities for the Council to continue adjusting the program. Resource Impact The implementation of the programs requires significant staff resources. Staff engage in high- touch communication and outreach, monitoring of progress, counting pedestrians and parked cars, creating and disseminating communication materials, and reviewing plans and monitoring construction. The City is offering no-fee permit and therefore is not recovering any of the costs associated with these activities. Ultimately, though, if the retail core of Palo Alto cannot survive to thrive in the future, then the City itself will face greater challenges. Hopefully, by strategically investing staff resources now, the City can improve future outcomes. Timeline The proposed program adjustments have various timelines as proposed above. Stakeholder Engagement The City has offered the following opportunities for public engagement to understand the impact of the closures and to continually iterate the Summer Streets program: 1) Weekly Zoom meeting for California Avenue and downtown businesses 2) Bi-weekly Zoom meetings for members of the public 3) Counting pedestrian, cycling, and dining activity in each area four times per week 4) Counting on-street parking two times weekly for each area 5) Online survey for residents (Attachment B) 6) Online survey for businesses (Attachment C) 7) Ongoing email and socially distanced in-person communication with business owners and managers City of Palo Alto Page 14 Environmental Review (If Applicable) The proposed actions are statutorily exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) section 20180(b)(4) (specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency) and are categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines 15301 (existing facilities) and 15304(e) (minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment). Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution to Extend Temporary Street Closures to End of 2020 and Temporary Pilot Parklet Program to Sep 2021 Attachment B: Summer Streets Program Survey Results Summary - Public Attachment C: Summer Streets Program Survey Results Summary - Businesses NOT YET ADOPTED 2020072801 1 Resolution No. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Resolution No. 9909 to Extend the Temporary Closures of Portions of California Avenue and University Avenue and Certain Downtown Streets Intersecting University Avenue Pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 21101, and Extending the Effective Date of Resolution No. 9909, All Pursuant to the Local Emergency Declaration to Facilitate Outdoor Dining, Retail, and Other Uses R E C I T A L S A. On June 23, 2020, the Council adopted Resolution No. 9909 approving the temporary closure of portions of California Avenue, University Avenue and certain other Downtown streets through Labor Day 2020 to allow for outdoor dining and retail on those streets, consistent with the Santa Clara County Public Health Order in effect. The street closures were part of a Summer Streets Program initiated by the City to accommodate outdoor uses at a time when indoor dining remained prohibited in the County and the growing scientific evidence showed a lower risk of COVID-19 transmission outdoors compared to indoors. At that time, the City anticipated that indoor dining would be allowed to resume in the County, as had been allowed in neighboring counties, and sought to address the immediate needs of the community including residents, workers and businesses that had been severely impacted by loss of business activity and revenue. B. Through Resolution No. 9909 the Council also approved a temporary pilot parklet program to allow parklets to be installed in on-street parking spaces on an expedited and temporary basis to provide more space for outdoor dining. C. On July 2, 2020, the County Public Health Officer issued a revised Shelter in Place Order, to become effective on July 13, 2020, that allowed certain additional activities to resume if specified strict across-the-board risk reduction measures were followed. The objective was to allow activities that were already allowed in surrounding jurisdictions, which had reopened more quickly than Santa Clara County, so long as the prescribed risk reduction measures were followed. D. On July 7, 2020, the State approved Santa Clara County’s requested variance that allowed the revised Shelter in Place Order to go into effect on July 13, 2020. E. However, with the number of COVID-19 cases dramatically increasing again in the State, on July 13, 2020, the Governor announced a sweeping roll back of the reopening that the State had allowed. The State mandated that all counties close certain indoor operations, including in-restaurant dining. For counties on the State’s NOT YET ADOPTED 2020072801 2 monitoring list for 3 consecutive days (and thus placed on the State “watchlist”), the State required the closure of additional industries or activities unless they could be modified to operate outside or by pick-up; these included gyms and fitness centers, places of worship and cultural ceremonies, personal care services, hair salons and barbershops, and shopping malls. F. Through the summer, the United States including “hot spots” like California continued to hit new highs in confirmed cases and deaths, as the loosening of shelter-in-place restrictions had precipitated a resurgence of the virus in many states, including California. As of July 27, 2020, the State was averaging nearly 10,000 new COVID-19 cases per day, and hospitals and their intensive care units were filling up. Thirty-seven counties representing 93% of the State’s population were on the State’s watchlist, and California had 460,550 confirmed cases of COVID-19, resulting in 8,445 deaths. G. In the midst of this surge in COVID-19 cases, the City of Palo Alto has continued to take measured steps to allow businesses to resume activities in outdoor settings. As a key part of those efforts, the Summer Streets Program has created an attractive pedestrian environment on the closed streets resulting in increased foot traffic. A number of restaurants have taken advantage of the program and created outdoor seating in the streets, on sidewalks, and on parklets. Residents and visitors who have come to University Avenue and California Avenue have expressed delight and reported having a highly enjoyable experience. H. The current pace of re-opening across the State and the high likelihood that the pandemic will continue into 2021 increase the chances that outdoor dining may remain the only means for table service to continue. Even if indoor dining is allowed, patrons may be unwilling to participate, or the opportunity may be rescinded occasionally if the County exceeds the COVID indicator thresholds issued by the State. I. The Council desires to extend the street closures beyond Labor Day and through the rest of the calendar year to allow for the continued use of the main thoroughfares in the heart of its commercial districts for outdoor dining, and potentially other activities as may be allowed by the State and County Public Health Orders. J. The Council also desires to allow the temporary parklet program to continue for another year as the need for outdoor dining will likely persist into 2021 until the virus can be more effectively contained and mitigated through a vaccine or other public health advancements and measures. NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: NOT YET ADOPTED 2020072801 3 SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The Council hereby adopts the above Recitals as findings of the Council. SECTION 2. Extension of Temporary Street Closures. The Temporary Street Closures approved and authorized in Section 2 (Temporary Street Closures) of Resolution No. 9909 are hereby extended through December 31, 2020. Section 2 of Resolution No. 9909 is amended to read as follows: Temporary Street Closures A. The following streets are hereby closed to any and all vehicular traffic through September 7December 31, 2020, in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 21101(e), to facilitate the temporary uses of outdoor dining, and retail, and other permitted uses: 1. California Avenue from Birch Street to El Camino Real. 2. University Avenue from Emerson High Street to Cowper Street, with continued vehicular access across University Avenue at each of the intersecting streets. B. The City Manager is authorized to determine the days, hours and duration of the temporary street closure(s) within the period specified in Section A, with reasonable notice provided, and whether exceptions to the closure shall be made for municipal purposes. SECTION 3. Effective Date of Resolution No. 9909. Resolution No. 9909 shall remain in effect until September 7, 2021, unless extended by the City Council. SECTION 4. The Council finds that this Resolution is statutorily exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 20180(b)(4) (specific actions necessary to mitigate or prevent an emergency) and is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (existing facilities) and 15304(e) (minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment). // // // NOT YET ADOPTED 2020072801 4 SECTION 5. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Public Works _____________________________ Chief Transportation Official City of Palo Alto (ID # 11052) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/10/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Adoption of Minor Changes to Parking Code Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 Adjusting Parking Requirements to Facilitate EVSE Installation, Compliance With Accessibility Laws, Parking Substitutions, and Parking Lot Re-striping and Maintenance. Environmental Assessment: This Project is Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, 15302, 15303, and 15061(b)(3) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Recommendation The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommends the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance (Attachment A) amending Title 18 (Zoning Code) Chapters 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) and 18.54 (Parking Facility Design Standards) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Staff concur with this recommendation. Executive Summary The proposed amendments to PAMC Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 are intended to: • Facilitate electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE)1 installation throughout Palo Alto, • Promote the use of alternate modes of transportation, • Achieve compliance and alignment with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California Building Code Accessibility Chapters 11A and 11B, and • Allow for re-striping and maintenance of existing parking lots. 1 Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE)” is defined to be consistent with the California Electrical Code and applies to any level or capacity of supply equipment installed specifically for transferring energy between the premises wiring and electric vehicles. Commonly EVSE is referred to as EV chargers City of Palo Alto Page 2 In addition, the proposed amendments support environmentally sustainable development and sustainable transportation modes that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Reductions in GHG emissions help fight climate change and help the City reach its sustainability targets. As noted in the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Priorities, “Road transportation represents the largest percentage of Palo Alto’s existing carbon footprint.”2 The proposed Code changes include: 1. Addressing Zoning Compliance Challenges for EVSE Retrofitting: Minimally reducing the overall number or size of vehicle parking stalls to accommodate the installation of EVSE and associated electrical utility equipment. 2. Allowing Substitution of Bicycle Parking for Automobile Parking Spaces: Establishing allowances for eight additional bicycle parking spaces to replace one required vehicle parking space. 3. Establishing Language Regarding Motorcycle Parking: Adding language to allow for motorcycle parking. 4. Supporting Maintenance of Existing Facilities: Providing local standards for existing parking lot re-striping and maintenance of existing parking facilities. 5. Complying with State Law: Bringing local code language in compliance with state-mandated parking requirements related to the California Building Code Accessibility requirements and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 6. Retrofitting Parking Lots: Retrofits for EVSE associated electrical utility equipment 7. Code Cleanup: Code clean-up associated with the proposed changes above and for internal consistency and clarity. Background The proposed code amendments follow the May 27, 2020, PTC public hearing and formal recommendation. Excerpt minutes of the PTC discussion of the proposed ordinance are provided as Attachment C. The amendments arose from a PTC Study Session March 13, 2019; staff and the PTC discussed the common barriers for EVSE installations within existing developments. Draft code language and policy suggestions were the subject of a second Study Session on January 29, 2020. The second session expanded the conversation to include 2 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=59291.03&BlobID=75163 City of Palo Alto Page 3 amendments: • Complying with new State Laws, • Addressing EVSE retrofitting more robustly, and • Addressing other common issues related to parking requirements and design regulations. The PTC recommended the draft ordinance, with minor revisions, on May 27, 2020. The PTC recommended approval, on a 5-1-1 vote (Summa voting no, Riggs absent). The PTC recommended minor modifications intended to improve the clarity of the ordinance. Links to previous staff reports and minutes can be found below: PTC Hearing March 3, 2019 Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/69684 Meeting Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70120 PTC Hearing January 29, 2020, Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/74958 Meeting Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/75701 PTC Hearing May 27, 2020 Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/76827 Meeting Minutes: Not approved by PTC at the time of report publication. Draft excerpt minutes is Attachment C. Discussion 1. Zoning Compliance Challenges for EVSE Retrofitting The ordinance accommodates electric vehicle chargers (EVSE) within existing parking areas. Retrofitting existing parking lots for electric vehicle charging has been challenging, given the limited flexibility of the existing Zoning Code. The proposed ordinance allows minor encroachments into the required dimensions of parking spaces to install EVSE. The ordinance minimizes points of conflict between EVSE and the required collision protection (bollards). The ordinance allows a minimum space dimension reduction of no more than 18 inches to accommodate EVSE or the associated electrical utility equipment. The ordinance includes a cap to this allowance; a maximum of 10% of the overall parking spaces or two stalls, whichever is greater. This approach allows the flexibility needed to install EVSE at existing parking facilities at existing developments while balancing the desire to preserve existing parking capacity. The amendment would allow EVSE permit applications to move forward with less process, saving time and money for applicants. Staff recognizes that this approach would not cover all City of Palo Alto Page 4 situations; a Director’s Adjustment provision enables a greater number of parking stalls to be reduced in size for EVSE installations. The Directors Adjustment process is done in association with an entitlement. 2. Substitution of Bicycle Parking for Automobile Parking Spaces The proposed ordinance allows the substitution of additional bicycle parking spaces for one required automobile parking space. This substitution would be allowed when eight short-term or four long-term bicycle parking spaces are proposed to replace one code-required automobile parking space. The substitution parking space location must be near primary entries of the building on-site or meet best practices for bicycle parking facilities. Best practices include placement in highly visible areas that are well-lit while being as close as possible to the building entrances. This would not be a means for a site to reach its code required bicycle parking totals; the substitution of bicycle parking spaces would be in addition to the required bike parking spaces. The ordinance provides a means to increase bicycle parking capacity where additional bicycle parking facilities cannot be installed outside of the parking facility area. A maximum cap is proposed: 10% or at least two of existing automobile parking stalls can be substituted. This code amendment is similar to the 1998 code language for extra bicycle space substitutions. This amendment supports many of the City’s sustainability goals and Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals; these goals emphasize and facilitate other means of transportation than single-occupancy motor vehicles. The PTC clarified that this would be allowed when applicants demonstrate that there is no available area for bicycle parking near a primary entry within landscaped areas or pathways. 3. Establishing Language Regarding Motorcycle Parking While researching the policies of other cities regarding EVSE retro-fitting, staff observed that many cities provide a standard for motorcycle parking that facilitates more efficient usage of parking facilities. Motorcycle parking stalls have smaller dimensions than standard automobile parking stalls. Taking this concept and recognizing that the Palo Alto Municipal Code does not have a standard for motorcycles, staff developed code language that would introduce motorcycle parking standards. The intent is to allow for private parking lots to stripe for motorcycle parking spaces, increase parking capacity in some situations, and avoid situations where a lone motorcycle is occupying a standard parking space for an automobile. This provides an alternative location for motorcycles that is appropriate to their size while utilizing areas of existing parking lots that are underused to be stripped for motorcycles. Motorcycle parking spaces may be added in areas of the parking facility that safely accommodate motorcycles, even though such space may not be appropriately dimensioned for a car. This can increase the parking capacity of existing facilities City of Palo Alto Page 5 and new facilities. Code language associated with the definition and the required dimensions for motorcycle parking are included in the ordinance. Motorcycle parking does not replace any code required parking for automobiles. 4. Maintenance of Existing Parking Facilities The proposed ordinance enables existing parking facilities, considered legal non-complying facilities, to be updated. The current code states that non-complying facilities cannot be changed if the change increases the degree of non-compliance. Owners will be able to restripe a non-complying parking lot to provide safer clearances, with some loss of spaces. This allowance brings parking facilities in line with current standards and best practices that ensure safety and minimize circulation hazards. Owners would also be able to restripe the parking lot to accommodate a refuse enclosure compliant with current stormwater protection regulations. The ordinance includes a Director's Adjustment to allow owners of existing non-complying facilities to restripe their existing parking facilities. The restriping would be to improve vehicle circulation by reducing or eliminating hazards or to meet current parking facility design standards, City waste management objectives, and stormwater policies. A Director’s Adjustment would require a staff-level Architectural Review process. The adjustment would not be available with a new development proposal. A parking in-lieu fee would not be assessed for properties located in the Downtown parking district seeking to restripe an existing parking facility under this provision. 5. Code Amendment for Compliance with State Mandated Parking Requirements for Accessible Parking and Related EVSE Regulations. The proposed ordinance aligns with new State Law regulation for accessible parking spaces related to EVSE. State Law (AB 1100), effective since January 1, 2020, requires local jurisdictions to count an accessible parking space with access aisles served by EVSE or accessible parking space with an aisle designated as “EV Ready” to be counted as at least two standard automobile parking spaces. The ordinance enables staff to count standard accessible spaces in the same fashion, to have a consistent counting methodology for accessible parking regardless of EVSE or EV Ready designations. The PTC supported the draft language with this counting methodology for accessible parking spaces. Also, new State Law requires standard EVSE and “EV Ready” (not accessible) spaces to count at least once towards the parking requirements. For development reviews, staff has not differentiated standard automobile parking spaces from EVSE and “EV Ready.” The proposed code language would codify current practice and provide consistency with State Law. Staff has also allowed tenants and property owners of developed properties to upgrade City of Palo Alto Page 6 accessible parking if the site is out of compliance with current State accessibility requirements. The need to add accessible parking spaces is often triggered by changes of use. Tenant improvements to an existing building can also trigger new accessibility requirements. Staff and the PTC recommend codifying the current practice of allowing minor parking stall losses associated with required accessibility upgrades. The PTC had no objections to the minor parking stall losses associated with this situation. The proposed code language allows for these modifications to be reviewed ministerially, when the improvements are associated with State requirements. 6. Parking Lot Retrofitting for EVSE Associated Electrical Utility Equipment In section 1 of the proposed code amendments, the language allows for EVSE associated utility equipment (such as transformers and switchgear) to encroach into the required parking stall dimensions by no more than 18 inches. However, this minor allowance would not always accommodate the utility equipment. Utility equipment varies in size, requires collision protection, and has required access clearances. The ordinance addresses situations where EVSE associated electrical utility equipment is required but there is no physical place for it to be installed. Site constraints can result in difficulties, such that the minor allowance for 18-inch stall dimension reductions would not be sufficient; in those cases, the equipment would be allowed to occupy existing parking spaces. In these situations, similar to the minor parking stall losses for required accessible spaces, that the ordinance would allow a ministerial process, and impose a cap of 10% or allow one stall to be lost in this situation, to limit total stall losses for the site. 7. Code Clean-Up Associated the Proposed Code Amendments The ordinance includes additional minor changes to the affected PAMC chapters to allow for internal consistency with the amendments. The ordinance addresses outdated code sections related to accessible parking and confusing code sections related to Downtown parking regulations. Specifically, for accessible parking, the existing code PAMC Section 18.52.040(6) states that parking for a disabled person shall be provided in addition to the parking requirement outlined in the chapter’s Tables 1 and 2. This is an outdated code section; accessible parking is counted towards the parking requirements and is proposed to be amended accordingly. Concerning Downtown parking regulations, PAMC Chapters 18.18 and 18.52 both have code sections that speak to the Downtown parking and loading requirement. Both sections have nearly identical language except for a few minor differences. Retaining both sections can lead to confusion in terms of what section applies in a given situation. As such, PAMC 18.18.090 is proposed to be deleted and restated to reference Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 for governing the CD district. The proposed deletion of PAMC 18.18.090 would not change the parking City of Palo Alto Page 7 regulations for the CD district. The change intends to provide clarity and consistency in the code. Resource Impact There are potential impacts on existing electrical utilities throughout the City as more EVSE is installed; that is, there would be an associated impact on existing utility transformers. Existing sites with retro-fitted EVSE’s would likely require new transformers and electrical switchgears to support the increased electrical demands from the EVSE’s. The costs associated with the transformer and switch gear upgrades are typically paid for by the property owner or tenant. Timeline Second reading of the ordinance, If adopted, will be scheduled for the August 10, 2020, Council consent agenda. Stakeholder Engagement Three public hearings enabled public participation. As of writing this report, staff had not received written public comments on this item. Environmental Review The proposed amendments to the Palo Alto Municipal Code are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, 15302, 15303, and 15061(b)(3). The proposed changes to the Municipal Code would enable renovation of existing facilities within developed areas of the City and promote sustainable forms of transportation that have fewer environmental impacts. Attachments: Attachment A: Draft Ordinance to amend PAMC Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 Attachment B: Comprehensive Plan Consistency Attachment C: Excerpt Draft Minutes PTC 5.27.2020 EV *NOT YET ADOPTED* DRAFT 1 20200609_ay_16_0160026 Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) and Chapter 18.54 (Parking Facility Design) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to Facilitate EVSE Installation, Compliance with Accessibility Requirements, Parking Substitutions, and Associated Parking Adjustments The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. On October 12, 2019, the Governor approved AB 1100, which requires local authorities to count as a standard automobile parking space any parking space served by electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) or designated for future EVSE. AB 1100 further requires cities to count as two standard automobile parking spaces any accessible parking space with an access aisle served by EVSE or designated for future EVSE. B. The City of Palo Alto promotes the use of Electric Vehicles. In 2017, one in three new vehicles purchased in Palo Alto was electric ‐ the highest adoption rate in the country. C. It can be especially difficult for existing parking facilities to install new EVSE, as both the EVSE and require electric utility equipment require additional spaces compared to standard automobile parking. D. Existing parking facilities also face difficulty installing accessible parking spaces in compliance with state and federal law. Successful implementation often requires the loss of one or more existing parking spaces. E. Numerous other City priorities, including expansion of bicycle infrastructure, facilitation of waste management, and improvement of substandard parking stalls may be hampered by strict application of existing parking standards. F. The City Council desires to update the parking requirements in Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to facilitate installation of EVSE and accessible parking spaces, improve flexibility for existing parking facilities, and make associated code changes. // // *NOT YET ADOPTED* DRAFT 2 20200609_ay_16_0160026 SECTION 2. Section 18.52.020 (Definitions) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended as follows: 18.52.020 Definitions For purposes of this chapter: (a) "Accessible" "Accessible" means the ability to be used by persons with disabilities as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. (b) "Construction of Floor Area" "Construction of floor area" means the construction or building of "floor area" except for new floor area added to an existing, restored, or partially reconstructed building to meet the minimum requirements of federal, state or local laws relating to fire prevention and safety, handicapped access, and building and seismic safety; (c) "Design Approval" "Design approval" means approval pursuant to Sections 18.76.020 and 18.77.070 by the director of planning and community environment (the "director") upon recommendation of the architectural review board. (d) “Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE)” “Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE)” is defined to be consistent with the California Electrical Code and applies to any level or capacity of supply equipment installed specifically for transferring energy between the premises wiring and electric vehicles. (e) “Motorcycle Parking” “Motorcycle Parking” means a parking space designed for any motor vehicle designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground. This includes mopeds and motor scooters. (d)(f) "Parking Assessment Areas" "Parking assessment areas" means either: (1) The "downtown parking assessment area," which is that certain area of the city delineated on the map of the University Avenue parking assessment district *NOT YET ADOPTED* DRAFT 3 20200609_ay_16_0160026 entitled Proposed Boundaries of University Avenue Off‐Street Parking Project No. 75‐63 Assessment District, City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, dated October 30, 1978, and on file with the city clerk; or (2) The "California Avenue area parking assessment district," which is that certain area of the city delineated on the map of the California Avenue area parking assessment district entitled Proposed Boundaries, California Avenue Area Parking Maintenance District, dated December 16, 1976, and on file with the city clerk; (e)(g) "Shared (Joint Use) Parking" "Shared (joint use) parking" means parking intended to accommodate multiple uses, whether residential or non‐residential or both, and to minimize the number of parking spaces needed by allowing some spaces to be used for different uses at different times of the day or night. (h) Definitions for other parking‐related terms can be found in Section 18.04.030(a) (Definitions), including "Parking as a principal use," "Parking facility," and "Parking space." SECTION 3. Section 18.52.030 (Basic Parking Regulations) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended to amend subsection (c) as follows: 18.52.030 Basic Parking Regulations [. . .] (c) Non‐Conformance Due to Parking Requirements No use of land lawfully existing on July 20, 1978 is nonconforming solely because of the lack of off‐street parking, loading, or bicycle facilities prescribed in this chapter; provided, that facilities being used for off‐street parking on July 20, 1978, shall not be reduced in capacity to less than the number of spaces prescribed in this chapter or altered in design or function to less than the minimum standards prescribed in this chapter except for the allowed reductions in parking and the modifications to existing facilities allowed pursuant to Sections 18.52.045 and 18.52.050. [. . .] // // *NOT YET ADOPTED* DRAFT 4 20200609_ay_16_0160026 SECTION 4. Subsection (b) of Section 18.52.040 (Off‐Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Facility Requirements) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended as follows: 18.52.040 Off‐Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Facility Requirements [. . .] (b) Calculation of Required Parking Off‐street parking, loading and bicycle facility requirements established by subsection (a) shall be applied as follows: (1) Where the application of the schedule results in a fractional requirement, a fraction of 0.5 or greater shall be resolved to the next higher whole number. (2) For purposes of this chapter, gross floor area shall not include enclosed or covered areas used for off‐street parking or loading, or bicycle facilities. (3) Where uses or activities subject to differing requirements are located in the same structure or on the same site, or are intended to be served by a common facility, the total requirement shall be the sum of the requirements for each use or activity computed separately, except as adjusted by the director under the provisions of Table 1 or Section 18.52.050. The director, when issuing a permit(s) for multiple uses on a site, may restrict the hours of operation or place other conditions on the multiple uses so that parking needs do not overlap and may then modify the total parking requirement to be based on the most intense combination of uses at any one time. (4) Where requirements are established on the basis of seats or person capacity, the building regulations provisions applicable at the time of determination shall be used to define capacity. (5) Where residential use is conducted together with or accessory to other permitted uses, applicable residential requirements shall apply in addition to other nonresidential requirements, except as provided by Sections 18.52.050 and 18.52.080. (6) In addition to t The parking requirements outlined in Tables 1 and 2 are inclusive of parking spaces that fulfill accessibility requirements set forth, parking for handicapped persons shall be provided pursuant to the requirements of Section 18.54.030 (Accessible Parking) and consistent with criteria outlined in Title 16 (Building Code) of the Municipal Code in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). *NOT YET ADOPTED* DRAFT 5 20200609_ay_16_0160026 (7) A parking space served by EVSE or a parking space designated for future installation of EVSE (EV Ready) shall count as one standard automobile parking space for purposes of the parking requirements outlined in Tables 1 and 2. (8) A van‐accessible parking space or accessible parking space with an adjacent accessible path of travel shall count as at least two standard automobile parking spaces for purposes of the parking requirements outlined in Tables 1 and 2, inclusive of van‐accessible parking spaces served by EVSE or designated as EV Ready. (9) Motorcycle parking shall not count towards the vehicle parking requirements outlined in Tables 1 and 2. [. . .] SECTION 5. Section 18.52.045 (Minor Adjustments to Existing Parking Facilities) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby added as follows: 18.52.045 Minor Adjustments to Existing Parking Facilities The following minor adjustments may be made to existing parking facilities that are intended to remain in substantially the same form after restriping. (a) Accessibility and EVSE‐related equipment. For sites with existing development, the number on‐site parking spaces may be reduced to the minimum extent necessary to: (1) achieve state or federally mandated accessibility requirements or (2) permit installation of electrical utility equipment required for EVSE. A maximum of 10% of the existing automobile parking stalls, or one stall, whichever is greater, may be removed pursuant to this section. The loss of a parking space is not permitted to accommodate EVSE itself. To the extent reasonably feasible, electrical equipment required for EVSE shall be placed in a location that minimizes visibility from the public right of way. (b) Substitution of bicycle parking. For sites with existing development, where additional bicycle parking facilities cannot reasonably be located outside of the parking facility area, existing automobile parking stalls may be substituted with long‐ or short‐ term bicycle parking facilities. The maximum number of substitutions shall be two existing automobile parking spaces, or 10% of the existing automobile parking stalls, whichever is greater. A minimum of four long‐term or eight short‐term bicycle parking spaces is required per automobile parking space. The bicycle parking spaces are to be located in the same physical location as the automobile spaces they are replacing, which shall be near primary entries of the building on‐site or in locations that meet best practices for bicycle parking facilities. // *NOT YET ADOPTED* DRAFT 6 20200609_ay_16_0160026 SECTION 6. Table 4 (Allowable Parking Adjustments) of Section 18.52.050 (Adjustments by the Director) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended as follows: 18.52.050 Adjustments by the Director [. . .] Table 4 Allowable Parking Adjustments Purpose of Adjustment Amount of Adjustment Maximum Reduction 2 On‐Site Employee Amenities Square footage of commercial or industrial uses to be used for an on‐site cafeteria, recreational facility, and/or day care facility, to be provided to employees or their children and not open to the general public, may be exempted from the parking requirements. 100% of requirement for on‐site employee amenities Joint Use (Shared) Parking Facilities For any site or sites with multiple uses where the application of this chapter requires a total of or more than ten (10) spaces, the total number of spaces otherwise required by application of Table 1 may be reduced when the joint facility will serve all existing, proposed, and potential uses as effectively and conveniently as would separate parking facilities for each use or site. In making such a determination, the director shall consider a parking analysis using criteria developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) or similar methodology to estimate the shared parking characteristics of the proposed land uses. The analysis shall employ the city's parking ratios as the basis for the calculation of the base parking requirement and for the determination of parking requirements for individual land uses. The director may also require submittal and approval of a TDM program 1 to further assure parking reductions are achieved. 20% of total spaces required for the site *NOT YET ADOPTED* DRAFT 7 20200609_ay_16_0160026 100% Affordable Housing (4) Based on maximum anticipated demand; applicant may request up to a 100% reduction in parking. Affordable Housing Units and Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Units (3) The total number of spaces required may be reduced for affordable housing and single room occupancy (SRO) units, commensurate with the reduced parking demand created by the housing facility, including for visitors and accessory facilities. The reduction shall consider proximity to transit and support services and the director may require traffic demand management measures1 in conjunction with any approval. a. 40% for Extremely Low Income and SRO Units b. 30% for Very Low Income Units c. 20% for Low Income Units Housing Near Transit Facilities The total number of spaces required may be reduced for housing located within a designated Pedestrian/Transit Oriented area or elsewhere in immediate proximity to public transportation facilities serving a significant portion of residents, employees, or customers, when such reduction will be commensurate with the reduced parking demand created by the housing facility, including for visitors and accessory facilities, and subject to submittal and approval of a TDM program.1 20% of the total spaces required for the site. Transportation and Parking Alternatives Where effective alternatives to automobile access are provided, other than those listed above, parking requirements may be reduced to an extent commensurate with the permanence, effectiveness, and the demonstrated reduction of off‐street parking demand effectuated by such alternative programs. Examples of such programs may include, but are not limited to, transportation demand management (TDM) programs, or innovative parking pricing or design solutions.1 (note: landscape reserve requirement is deleted). 20% of the total spaces required for the site Combined Parking Adjustments Parking reductions may be granted for any combination of the above circumstances as prescribed by this chapter, subject to limitations on the combined total reduction allowed. a. 30% reduction of the total parking demand *NOT YET ADOPTED* DRAFT 8 20200609_ay_16_0160026 otherwise required b. 40% reduction for affordable housing projects Modification to Off‐Street Loading Requirements The director may modify the quantity or dimensions of off‐street loading requirements for non‐residential development based on existing or proposed site conditions; availability of alternative means to address loading and unloading activity; and, upon finding that: 1) the off‐street loading requirement may conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to site design planning, circulation and access, or urban design principles; and 2) the use of shared on‐street loading would not conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to site design planning, circulation and access or urban design principles; maximum reduction in one loading space. One loading space may be waived Restriping Existing Parking Facilities Existing parking facilities may be restriped in accordance with applicable provisions of the municipal code. The Director may approve a reduction in the number of required on‐site parking spaces to achieve the City’s waste management objectives, make improvements to on‐site circulation that would reduce or eliminate a hazard, or bring substandard parking stalls into compliance with current design requirements. This provision applies only to sites with existing structures and existing parking facilities that are intended to remain in substantially the same form after re‐striping of the facility. 10% of the total spaces required for the site, or 2 spaces, whichever is greater. (1) See Section 18.52.050(d) below regarding requirements for TDM programs. (2) No parking reductions may be granted that would result in provision of less than ten (10) parking spaces on site, except for 100% affordable housing projects. *NOT YET ADOPTED* DRAFT 9 20200609_ay_16_0160026 (3) No parking reductions may be granted for projects that are entitled to the reduced parking standards in Table 1 of Section 18.52.040 for senior housing. (4) Applies to 100% affordable housing projects and the residential component of 100% affordable housing mixed‐use projects. “100% affordable housing” as used herein means a multiple‐family housing project consisting entirely of affordable units, as defined in Section 16.65.020 of this code, available only to households with income levels at or below 120% of the area median income, as defined in Chapter 16.65, except for a building manager’s unit. [. . .] SECTION 7. Section 18.52.080 (Adjustments to Parking Assessment Area Requirements by the Director) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended as follows: 18.52.080 Adjustments to Parking Assessment Area Requirements by the Director Automobile parking requirements prescribed in this chapter may be adjusted by the director for properties within parking assessment areas in the following instances and in accord with the prescribed limitations where, in his/her opinion, such adjustment will be in accord with purposes of this chapter and will not create undue impact on existing or potential uses adjoining the site or in the general vicinity. Adjustments shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.78. The decision of the Director regarding parking adjustments may be appealed as set forth in Chapter 18.78 (Appeals) (a) Tandem Parking Tandem parking (a multiple parking configuration locating one stall behind another) may be allowed where in the judgment of the director the parking will serve all proposed uses conveniently. The director shall require such covenants and guarantees as deemed necessary to ensure use and maintenance of such parking facilities. (b) Percentage of Compact Parking Stalls For parking facilities exceeding five stalls and with architectural review approval prior to June 1, 2007, a maximum of fifty percent compact parking stalls may be allowed. For any project approved subsequent to June 1, 2007, compact parking is not allowed. (c) Shared Parking Facilities For any site or sites with multiple uses where joint use of on‐site private or nearby public parking facilities can occur without conflict, and the use is exempt from parking *NOT YET ADOPTED* DRAFT 10 20200609_ay_16_0160026 assessment, the total number of spaces otherwise required by application of the schedule may be reduced when the joint facility will serve all existing, proposed, and potential uses as effectively and conveniently as would separate parking facilities for each use or site. In making such a determination, the director shall consider a parking analysis using criteria developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) or similar methodology to estimate the shared parking characteristics of the proposed land uses. The analysis shall employ the city's parking ratios as the basis for the calculation of the base parking requirement and for the determination of parking requirements for individual land uses. The number of parking stalls required for any new development or addition may be reduced by no more than twenty percent (20%) of the total number of spaces otherwise required for the site or sites. (d) Off‐Site Parking Within parking assessment areas, the director may authorize all or a portion of the required parking for a use to be located on a site within the parking assessment area or not more than 500 feet from the boundaries of the parking assessment area, where the zoning of such site permits parking as a use. The director shall require such covenants and guarantees as deemed necessary to ensure use and maintenance of such parking facilities. (e) Modifications to Off‐Street Loading Requirements The director may modify the quantity or dimensions of off‐street loading requirements for non‐residential development based on existing or proposed site conditions; availability of alternative means to address loading and unloading activity; and, upon finding that: 1) the off‐street loading requirement may conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to site design planning, circulation and access, or urban design principles; maximum reduction is one loading space; and 2) and the use of shared on‐street loading would not conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to site design planning, circulation and access or urban design principles; maximum reduction in one loading space. (f) Affordable Housing For 100 percent affordable housing projects, the director may waive up to 100 percent of the parking requirement based on maximum anticipated demand. "100% affordable housing" as used herein means a multiple‐family housing project consisting entirely of affordable units, as defined in Section 16.65.020 of this code, available only to households with income levels at or below 120 percent of the area median income, as defined in Chapter 16.65, except for a building manager's unit. (g) Adjustments to Existing Parking Facilities The Director may approve a reduction in existing on‐site parking spaces to achieve the City’s waste management objectives, make improvements to on‐site circulation that *NOT YET ADOPTED* DRAFT 11 20200609_ay_16_0160026 would reduce or eliminate a hazard, or bring substandard parking stalls into compliance with current design requirements. This provision applies only to sites with existing structures and existing parking facilities that are intended to remain in substantially the same form after re‐striping of the facility. A maximum of 10% of the existing automobile parking stalls, or two stalls, whichever is greater, may be removed pursuant to this section. SECTION 8. Section 18.54.020 (Vehicle Parking Facilities) of Chapter 18.54 (Parking Facility Design Standards) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended as follows: 18.54.020 Vehicle Parking Facilities (a) Parking Facility Design Parking facilities shall be designed in accordance with the following regulations: (1) Requirements for dimensions of parking facilities at, above, and below grade are contained in this section and in Figures 1‐67 and Tables 3‐6 of Section 18.54.070. (2) Stalls and aisles shall be designed such that columns, walls, or other obstructions do not interfere with normal vehicle parking maneuvers. All required stall and aisle widths shall be designed to be clear of such obstructions. (3) The required stall widths shown in Table 3 of Section 18.54.070 shall be increased by 0.5 foot for any stall located immediately adjacent to a wall, whether on one or both sides. The director may require that the required stall widths be increased by 0.5 foot for any stall located immediately adjacent to a post, where such post limits turning movements into or out of the stall. (4) For property owners or tenants seeking to install EVSE, the required stall widths shown in Table 3 of Section 18.54.070 may be reduced by no more than 18 inches below the code required minimum dimensions in order to accommodate EVSE or associated Electrical Utility equipment. This reduction may be applied to 10% of the total required parking stalls, or two stalls, whichever is greater. The Director may approve a reduction in width for a greater number of stalls through a Director’s Adjustment pursuant to Section 18.52.050. (4)(5) Dead‐end aisles shall be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. (5)(6) Except for at‐grade parking facilities serving a maximum of two dwelling units, all parking facilities shall be set back a sufficient distance from the street *NOT YET ADOPTED* DRAFT 12 20200609_ay_16_0160026 so that vehicles need not back out into or over a public street (not including an alley) or sidewalk. (b) Off‐Street Parking Stalls (1) Each off‐street parking stall shall consist of a rectangular area not less than eight and one‐half (8.5) feet wide by seventeen and one‐half (17.5) feet long (uni‐class stall), or as otherwise prescribed for angled parking by Table 1 Table 3 in Section 18.54.070. [. . .] (5) Each off‐street motorcycle parking stall shall consist of a rectangular area not less than five (5) feet wide by ten (10) feet long, as illustrated in Figure 7 of Section 18.54.070. (c) Off‐Street Loading Spaces [. . .] (f) Figures and Tables Figures 1‐67 and Tables 3‐6 are located at the end of this chapter in Section 18.54.070 and depict design requirements for parking stalls, aisles, driveways, accessibility, and parking lots. SECTION 9. Figure 7 is added to Section 18.54.070 (Parking Design Tables and Figures) of Chapter 18.54 (Parking Facility Design Standards) of Title 18 (Zoning) as follows: Figure 7 Motorcycle Parking Dimensions *NOT YET ADOPTED* DRAFT 13 20200609_ay_16_0160026 SECTION 10. Section 18.52.070 (Parking Regulations for CD Assessment District) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby deleted in its entirety and restated as follows: 18.52.070 Parking Regulations for CD Assessment District With respect to on‐site and off‐site parking space requirements for nonresidential uses within an assessment district wherein properties are assessed under a Bond Plan G financing pursuant to Title 13, the requirements of this Section 18.52.070 shall apply in the CD Assessment district in lieu of comparable requirements in this Chapter 18.52. Requirements for the size and other design criteria for parking spaces shall continue to be governed by the provisions of Chapter 18.54. (a) On‐Site Parking Requirement Any new development, any addition or enlargement of existing development, or any use of any floor area that has never been assessed under any Bond Plan G financing pursuant to Title 13, shall provide one parking space for each 250 gross square feet of floor area, except as may be exempt from such requirement by the provisions of subsection (b) of this section. The purpose of this subsection is to regulate the number of parking spaces required. (b) Exceptions to On‐Site Parking Requirement The requirement for on‐site parking provided in subsection (a) of this section shall not apply in the following circumstances: (1) The following square footage shall be exempt from the on‐site parking requirement of subsection (a): (A) Square footage for handicapped access which does not increase the usable floor area, as determined by Section 18.18.060(e); (B) Square footage for at or above grade parking, though such square footage is included in the FAR calculations in Section 18.18.060(a). (2) A conversion to commercial use of a historic building in Categories 1 and 2 shall be exempt from the on‐site parking requirement in subsection (a), provided that the building is fifty feet or less in height and has most recently been in residential use. Such conversion, in order to be exempt, shall be done in conjunction with exterior historic rehabilitation approved by the director of planning and community environment upon the recommendation of the architectural review board in consultation with the historic resources board. Such conversion must not eliminate any existing on‐site parking. *NOT YET ADOPTED* DRAFT 14 20200609_ay_16_0160026 (3) Vacant parcels shall be exempt from the requirements of subsection (a) of this section at the time when development occurs as provided herein. Such development shall be exempt to the extent of 0.3 parking spaces for every one thousand square feet of site area, provided that such parcels were at some time assessed for parking under a Bond Plan E financing pursuant to Chapter 13.16 or were subject to other ad valorem assessments for parking. (4) No new parking spaces will be required for a site in conjunction with the development or replacement of the amount of floor area used for nonresidential use equal to the amount of adjusted square footage for the site shown on the engineer’s report for fiscal year 1986‐87 for the latest Bond Plan G financing for parking acquisition or improvements in that certain area of the city delineated on the map of the University Avenue parking assessment district entitled, “Proposed Boundaries of University Avenue Off‐Street Parking Project #75‐63 Assessment District, City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California,” dated October 30, 1978, and on file with the city clerk. No exemption from parking requirements shall be available where a residential use changes to a nonresidential use, except pursuant to subdivision (b)(2) of this subsection. (c) Off‐Site Parking Parking required by this chapter may be provided by off‐site parking, provided that such off‐site parking is within a reasonable distance of the site using it or, if the site is within an assessment district, within a reasonable distance of the assessment district boundary and approved in writing by the director of planning and community environment. The director shall assure that sufficient covenants and guarantees are provided to ensure use and maintenance of such parking facilities, including an enforceable agreement that any development occurring on the site where parking is provided shall not result in a net reduction of parking spaces provided, considering both the parking previously provided and the parking required by the proposed use. (d) In‐Lieu Parking Provisions In connection with any expansion of the supply of public parking spaces within the CD commercial downtown district, the city shall allocate a number of spaces for use as “in‐ lieu parking” spaces to allow development to occur on sites which would otherwise be precluded from development due to parking constraints imposed by this chapter. Off‐ site parking on such sites may be provided by payment of an in‐lieu monetary contribution to the city to defray the cost of providing such parking. Contributions for each required parking space shall equal the incremental cost of providing a net new parking space in an assessment district project plus cost for the administration of the program, all as determined pursuant to Chapter 16.57 of Title 16 of this code, by the director, whose decision shall be final. Only sites satisfying one or more of the following *NOT YET ADOPTED* DRAFT 15 20200609_ay_16_0160026 criteria, as determined by the director, shall be eligible to participate in the in‐lieu parking program: (1) Construction of on‐site parking would necessitate destruction or substantial demolition of a designated historic structure; (2) The site area is less than ten thousand square feet and it would not be physically feasible to provide the required on‐site parking; (3) The site is greater than ten thousand square feet, but of such an unusual configuration that it would not be physically feasible to provide the required on‐ site parking; (4) The site is located in an area where city policy precludes curb cuts or otherwise prevents use of the site for on‐site parking; (5) The site has other physical constraints, such as a high groundwater table, which preclude provision of on‐site parking without extraordinary expense. Office uses above the ground floor shall not be eligible to participate in the in‐lieu parking program for one year from the effective date of Ordinance No. 5460, from May 2, 2019 through May 1, 2020. (e) Underground Parking Underground parking deeper than two levels below grade shall be prohibited unless a soils report or engineering analysis demonstrates that regular pumping of subsurface water will not be required. (f) Minor Adjustments to Existing Parking Facilities The following minor adjustments may be made to existing parking facilities that are intended to remain in substantially the same form after restriping. (1) Accessibility and EVSE‐related equipment. For sites with existing development, the number on‐site parking spaces may be reduced to the minimum extent necessary to: (1) achieve state or federally mandated accessibility requirements or (2) permit installation of electrical utility equipment required for EVSE. A maximum of 10% of the existing automobile parking stalls, or one stall, whichever is greater, may be removed pursuant to this section. The loss of a parking space is not permitted to accommodate EVSE itself. To the extent reasonably feasible, electrical equipment required for EVSE shall be placed in a location that minimizes visibility from the public right of way. *NOT YET ADOPTED* DRAFT 16 20200609_ay_16_0160026 (2) Substitution of bicycle parking. For sites with existing development, where additional bicycle parking facilities cannot reasonably be located outside of the parking facility area, existing automobile parking stalls may be substituted with long‐ or short‐term bicycle parking facilities. The maximum number of substitutions shall be two existing automobile parking spaces, or 10% of the existing automobile parking stalls, whichever is greater. A minimum of four long‐ term or eight short‐term bicycle parking spaces is required per automobile parking space. The bicycle parking spaces are to be located in the same physical location as the automobile spaces they are replacing, which shall be near primary entries of the building on‐site or in locations that meet best practices for bicycle parking facilities. SECTION 11. Section 18.18.090 (Parking and Loading) of Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial (CD) District) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby deleted in its entirety and restated as follows: 18.18.090 Parking and Loading The provisions of Chapter 18.52 and 18.54 shall apply within the CD district. In particular, on‐site and off‐site parking for non‐residential uses within an assessment district wherein properties are assessed under a Bond Plan G financing pursuant to Title 13 shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.52.070. SECTION 12. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 13. The City Council determines that adoption of this ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15311 (Accessory Structures) because it regulates the construction or modification of parking facilities. // // // // // *NOT YET ADOPTED* DRAFT 17 20200609_ay_16_0160026 SECTION 14. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty‐first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning & Development Services Attachment B Code Amendment Comprehensive Plan Consistency Table 1 summarizes Comprehensive Plan1 programs and policies that directly support policies for facilitating EVSE installation. Providing more flexibility to retrofit existing parking facilities for EVSE installation will increase the EVSE infrastructure Citywide. Also, providing screening for the associated utility equipment or thoughtfully placing the utility equipment (transformers and switch gears) to minimize their visual intrusion and unsightliness. Both of which are addressed in the proposed code amendments. Table 1: Comprehensive Plans, Programs, & Policies Supporting EVSE Installation Electric Vehicle Policies/Programs Program T-1.3.1: Develop an electric vehicle promotion program that identifies policy and technical issues, barriers, and opportunities to the expansion of electric vehicles Policy T-1.4: Ensure that electric vehicle charging infrastructure, including infrastructure for charging e-bikes, is available citywide. Program T-1.4.1: Update the Zoning Code to ensure compatibility with the electric vehicle infrastructure requirements. Utilities and Infrastructure Policy L-9.10 Design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures, parking garages and parking lots to meet high-quality urban design standards and embrace technological advances. Look for opportunities to use art and artists in the design of public infrastructure. Remove or mitigate elements of existing infrastructure that are unsightly or visually disruptive. Program L9.10.2 Encourage the use of compact and well-designed utility elements, such as transformers, switching devices, backflow preventers, and telecommunications infrastructure. Place these elements in locations that will minimize their visual intrusion. 1 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online:http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp Table 2 summarizes Comprehensive Plan programs and policies that support increasing personal transportation alternatives to cars, reducing single-occupant vehicle trips, GHG emissions, and reducing VTM. The proposed changes to the Municipal Code related to bicycle parking substitutions for vehicle parking support increasing personal transportation alternatives by providing methods for increased on-site bicycle parking capacity, making bicycling more convenient. Table 2: Comprehensive Plans, Programs, & Policies Supporting Changes to PAMC 18.52.050 Bicycle Policies/Programs GOAL T-1: Create a sustainable transportation system, complemented by a mix of land uses, that emphasizes walking, bicycling, use of public transportation and other methods to reduce GHG emissions and the use of single-occupancy motor vehicles. Policy T-1.1: Take a comprehensive approach to reducing single-occupant vehicle trips by involving those who live, work and shop in Palo Alto in developing strategies that make it easier and more convenient not to drive. Policy T-1.16 Promote personal transportation vehicles an alternative to cars (e.g. bicycles, skateboards, roller blades) to get to work, school, shopping, recreational facilities and transit stops Policy T-1.3: Reduce GHG and pollutant emissions associated with transportation by reducing VMT and per-mile emissions through increasing transit options, supporting biking and walking, and the use of zero-emission vehicle technologies to meet City and State goals for GHG reductions by 2030. Policy T-5.12 To promote bicycle use, increase the number of safe, attractive and well- designed bicycle parking spaces available in the city, including spots for diverse types of bicycle and associated equipment, including bicycle trailers, prioritizing heavily travelled areas such as commercial and retail centers, employment districts, recreational/cultural facilities, multi-modal transit facilities and ride share stops for bicycle parking infrastructure. Program T-5.12.1 Work with employers, merchants, schools and community service providers, to identify ways to provide more bicycle parking, including e-bike parking with charging stations, near existing shops, services and places of employment. Policy T-5.7 Require new or redesigned parking lots to optimize pedestrian and bicycle safety. Program T-5.8.2 Identify incentives to encourage the retrofit of privately owned surface parking areas to incorporate best management practices for stormwater management and urban heat island mitigation as well as incentives for the provision of publicly accessible bicycle parking in privately owned lots. Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Item #4 Excerpt Minutes 2 May 27, 2020 3 Virtual Meeting 4 6:00 PM 5 6 Members present: 7 Chair Carolyn Templeton 8 Vice Chair Giselle Roohparvar 9 Commissioners Michael Alcheck, Bart Hechtman, Ed Lauing, Doria Summa 10 Absent member: Commissioner William Riggs 11 12 4. PUBLIC HEARING. Recommendation on an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal 13 Code Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 Adjusting Parking Stall Requirements to Facilitate 14 EVSE Installation, Parking Substitutions, Parking Lot Re-striping and Maintenance, 15 Compliance with Accessibility Requirements, State Law AB 1100, and Associated 16 Code Clean Up for Consistency with the Above Changes. Environmental Assessment: 17 Exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Sections 15301, 18 15302, 15303, and 15061(b)(3). Zone District: Citywide. For More Information 19 Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org 20 21 Chair Templeton: See if I can find the entire title to read unless Ms. French has it handy. I think I 22 found it. Ok, parking adjustments to facilitate EV ES installation, ADA compliance, and restriping 23 is Agenda Item Number Four. Who would… is there someone on Staff who wants to read the 24 full title and do the public hearing part or shall I read it? 25 26 Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yes, let me introduce Sam Gutierrez. I believe he might 27 have come before Planning Commission before, but perhaps not. 28 29 Chair Templeton: He has, welcome back. 30 31 Ms. French: Alright, Sam is here to present. 32 33 Mr. Sam Gutierrez, Planner: Ok, I believe the Chair requested we read the full title. Should I do 34 that? 35 36 Chair Templeton: Only if it’s required. 37 38 Mr. Gutierrez: I’m not sure. 39 1 Ms. French: I think it's typical that we read that, correct. 2 3 Mr. Albert Yang, Assistant City Attorney: Yeah, it’s typical. It’s not necessarily required. 4 5 Chair Templeton: Go forth Mr. Gutierrez. Please feel free to read the title and then we will 6 move on. 7 8 Mr. Gutierrez: I will read the full title to keep with the… our standard. So, this is a public 9 hearing, a recommendation on an ordinance amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapters 10 18.52 and 18.54 adjusting Parking Stall Requirements to facilitate EVSE installation, parking 11 substitutions, parking lot re-striping and maintenance and compliance with accessibility 12 requirements, State Law Assembly Bill 1100, and associated code clean up for consistency with 13 the above changes. The environmental assessment is exempt pursuant to the California 14 Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Sections 15301, 15302, 15303, and 15061(b)(3). This 15 would be applicable to the Citywide so it would be applicable in all zoning districts. Ok, I know 16 that was a lot. So, I will move into the Staff presentation right now. One moment while I adjust 17 and share my screen. Ok, so I’m hoping that this displaying correctly for everyone. 18 19 Again, we’re presenting today an ordinance that went through four other PTC before to amend 20 primarily (interrupted) 21 22 Chair Templeton: One… I’m sorry, sorry to interrupt. Is anyone else seeing the presentation? 23 I’m not seeing it. So, the share screen didn’t work, you may have to work with (interrupted) 24 25 Mr. Gutierrez: Ok, thank you for confirming that. 26 27 Chair Templeton: The host to be permitted. Yeah, sorry about that. 28 29 Mr. Gutierrez: Ok, let’s try it again. Is that working now? It looks like it is. 30 31 Chair Templeton: We got it now. 32 33 Mr. Gutierrez: Perfect, thank you for that. So, this is again an ordinance amending PAMC 18.52 34 and 18.54 primarily. These are the parking code sections. Moving into the presentation. 35 36 There’s a number of code update items but I do want to give a general overview of tonight’s 37 presentation on this item. We are going to go through the code updates and the itemized list 38 which then makes the list or the numbering system in the Staff Report where it goes in greater 39 detail for each item. We’ll briefly speak to the timeline overview of how we started this process 40 initially and how did we get to the point that we’re at today. And then of course a summary of 41 each of the seven code changes that Staff is proposing and then a recommendation. 42 43 So, moving onto the code update Items One and Two, Item One reduces standard vehicle 1 parking stall dimensions to allow installation of Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment which is 2 commonly referred to as EVSE. These are the charger for electric cars. Update Two re-3 establishes and updates a prior code to allow extra bike parking to replace required vehicle 4 parking spaces. Three through Seven, moving to Three, establishing language governing 5 motorcycle parking. Four provides local standards for lot re-striping and maintenance and Five 6 brings local code language in compliance with state requirements and the Americans with 7 Disability Act. Number Six enables parking lot retrofits for accessible parking and EVSE utility 8 equipment and Item Seven adjusts codes associated with the proposed changes and provides 9 internal consistency and clarity within in the amendment chapters of the Municipal Code. 10 11 So, a brief timeline overview, initially this all started with a discussion in front of the PTC in 12 March 3rd, 2019 where we brought to the PTC some issues that Staff had been experiencing 13 when dealing with EVSE permitting and installation. And we wanted to see what the feedback 14 from the PTC would be for some possible solution to explore drafting some ordinances to 15 address that. Then on January 29th, 2020 we had another PTC study where Staff actually had 16 some more detailed suggestions for an ordinance possibilities. We wanted to gather the PTC’s 17 thoughts, concerns, and feedback on those before we refined a draft ordinance which we are 18 bringing forward to you today. Next steps would be moving to Council should the PTC make a 19 recommendation on the draft ordinance as presented tonight. We do have a tentative date of 20 June 22nd of this year to go before the City Council with this… with these ordinance updates. I 21 do want to remind everyone that some of the code updates that we’re proposing are actually 22 to bring us in line with state law and make sure that our code is consistent with state law in 23 terms of EVSE regulations and accessibility compliance. 24 25 So, moving to the first ordinance or code update is the reduction install size for EVSE. So, this is 26 to address an issue that’s very common when we’re retrofitting for EVSE chargers. The Staff is 27 suggesting that we allow new code or introduce in the code section that allows for minor size 28 reductions. You can see them as an encroachment into the required stall space and this would 29 be for exiting sites. And the reduction install size could be up to 18-inches for these charges, a 30 maximum cap of 10 percent of the required parking stalls or two stalls whichever is greater. 31 And the associated utility equipment that would accompany EVSE chargers such as 32 transformers and switchgear, could also utilize these minor encroachments depending on the 33 parking lot facility design. And here you can see a small image of the example in the green box 34 there. I’m not sure if my curser comes up, the mouse cursor on this screen that I’m sharing. 35 Here you can see an example of an EVSE charger with two cars parked in their standard stalls 36 where the charger itself with the collision protection bollard partially encroaches at the further 37 in corners of the parking stall. Typically, the way the code is written now the… this would result 38 in a loss of space. There is no allowances for these reductions and that’s kind of where Staff was 39 going before. And that’s the example on the far right where we would have restriped, resulted 40 in a loss of space, create this charger parking area striped area, and upon further review and 41 analysis, we found that if we allowed some minor encroachments after looking at different 42 types of EVSE equipment. That actually it would still work and we wouldn’t have to lose an 43 entire parking stall or several depending on how the parking lot would be. And as Staff 44 developed this code amendment we did want to make it as minimal as processor… less process 1 attentive as we could because these are usually just Building Permits that are coming in only to 2 install chargers. So, to minimize processing time and cost to property owners and tenants, we 3 did develop in the manner which would be more ministerial to allow these minor 4 encroachments into the parking stall. Also, the cap and the allowance for a minimum of two, 5 whichever is great, counts for large parking lots and small parking lots as well. 6 7 Moving on to the second code update and change is the bicycle parking substitution for a car 8 space. This allows for more bicycle parking on sites. The substitution would be eight short term 9 bicycle parking or four long term, typically bike lockers, to replace one car parking space. A 10 substitution would be for extra spaces above what the site is required to provide. Per the code 11 each site, depending on the use based on its square footage, is required to provide an X 12 number of bicycle parking spaces. Just like it would automobiles or loading spaces and this 13 substitution would be in excess of that. It would not be a mechanism to achieve that code 14 minimum. And again, we copy the same logic as the previous code update where we account 15 for large lots and small lots by having a cap of 10 percent and a minimum allowance of two. 16 Again, we want to make this less process of intensive and allow for greater bicycle parking 17 capacity. If somebody has retained space that is frequented a lot by the biking community in 18 Palo Alto, we didn’t want to make them go through a more intensive process just to put in 19 some extra bike racks. And then we did put in some provisions that it would need to meet best 20 practices for bicycle parking. It would need to be close to the building. This would not be a case 21 where bicycle racks would be far away from the primary entrances of a building; you know far 22 in the back of a parking lot. And this would be of course something that’s requested by a tenant 23 or a property owner. 24 25 Number Three, motorcycle parking, so in reviewing different jurisdictions, best practices for 26 EVSE, charger installation, something that Staff continuously came across is the use of 27 motorcycle parking. And then the photo example that you see in this slide you’ll see that the 28 motorcycle parking is obviously much smaller. Motorcycle is smaller than the vehicle and it 29 could be used to optimize parking capacity overall in a parking lot where a motorcycle could fit 30 where a standard vehicle or a loading space would not work at all like in the example in the 31 larger photo. [unintelligible] the porkchop area of a parking structure where someone would 32 make that turn to move to the next aisle. A car couldn’t park there but now we have 33 motorcycles that could fit there avoiding the situation in the smaller picture where we have a 34 motorcycle, which at maximum can whole two people, take up an entire space where a car that 35 depending on the size of the car or SUV could fit between four and possible eight people 36 wouldn’t be the best use of that space. So, we did want to establish this because we found that 37 it could be useful in certain circumstances but the new code does not allow motorcycle parking 38 to be a substitution or counted towards the required parking for a site. It would just be 39 something again to optimize the parking lot as is. 40 41 Moving on to Four, parking lot re-striping and maintenance, this allows for existing facilities to 42 be re-striped for improvements to circulation, meet current parking standards, possibility the 43 City waste management objective for refuse enclosures, and stormwater policies. Often times 44 Staff has encountered sites that have been long-existing, their grandfathered in legal non-1 conforming and it is a strange situation where we have to continuously approve parking lots 2 that don’t have the current code required backup distances or parking stalls or turning radiuses 3 where we could improve circulation overall. So, this allows for some adjustments to be done 4 and possible parking stall loss. As a result, if the end result is improved circulation or we have a 5 location that can actually fit a trash enclosure or a site that’s already built out and existing 6 cannot physically fit one and again that ties into the stormwater policies for the City overall. 7 This… because it is more analytical and would need to be reviewed by several departments, we 8 are suggesting this to be a Director’s Adjustment because it would vary case by case. There 9 would be different situations and different adjustments needed to maybe achieve some of 10 these goals that we’re identifying here. So, this is another avenue to improve just parking lots in 11 general for existing developments with the existing buildings. 12 13 Moving onto Number Five, this is state law compliance for accessible parking and EVSE. Again, I 14 mentioned earlier that some of the code updates are required per state law and we’re just 15 aligning with state law and making sure that’s reflected in our code. In particular, Assembly Bill 16 1100 regulates how local jurisdictions would count or calculate EVSE and EVSE ready spaces 17 towards the minimum required parking numbers for a site. Aligning with that would make it so 18 that we have a code section that clearly states that EVSE and EVSE ready parking spaces would 19 count toward our parking numbers as one parking space. We’ve already done this by practice 20 but we wanted to be sure that that was clear in the code. And then the state does require that 21 accessible EV and EV ready spaces do count twice. So, these are your van accessible space or 22 the spaces that have the accessible path of travel adjacent to them. And previously when this 23 was suggested to the PTC, we did suggest for consistency in our we count accessible spaces 24 between the EV and non-EV spaces to align that double-counting, and that seemed to be 25 supported by PTC at the time. So, we are suggesting to have a uniform method for how we 26 calculate accessible parking spaces so there isn’t a different standard and possible ambiguity in 27 the code. Again, this is pretty standard, straight forward update and it would make us align with 28 state law. 29 30 Moving on to Number Six, this local code compliance with accessibility requirements and 31 retrofitting EVSE. There’s certain circumstances where an existing site might be doing some 32 tenant improvements, only internal, and that triggers a certain threshold. That then they have 33 to require or they’re required to update the site in terms of accessibility. That could be a door 34 width or the door pusher to open the door but in particular for parking lots, this often triggers a 35 requirement to bring whatever accessible spaces, be the… an insufficient number of total or 36 dimensionally insufficient, to current standards. Again, this is a state mandate, so Staff has in 37 practice always allowed this to happen. We don’t really have an avenue to prevent it as it’s 38 required but we did want to formalize that practice in the code. So, this is a part of this allow a 39 minor stall loss as they adjust where perhaps they didn’t have a van accessible space and now 40 they have to have one and that extra hash loading area will take up some spaces. So that is now 41 just codified in this suggested code update. And then the other part of this is its Palo Alto 42 utilities’ equipment. Earlier I stated that they could take advantage of that minor encroachment 43 but of course, this utility equipment is large. Typically, they take up about a 5-foot by 5-foot 44 space in terms of the physical footprint of the switchgear or transformer that would support 1 the electrical demands of installing these EVSE chargers. And then also the clearances that 2 utilities require to access them and service them. So again, trying to make the process as easy 3 and as simple as possible. We tied another component of this code update to allow for minor 4 stall lots for EVSE utility equipment as shown in that image below where you see these tall 5 cabinets. These are the transformers actually proposed at the Stanford Shopping Center where 6 they have actually more parking than what’s required per code and they have the luxury of 7 being able to lose spaces; whereas pretty much everywhere in the City doesn’t have the ability 8 because they have an overparked situation. But if they want to install EV chargers, where would 9 these transformers and switchgear go? In some circumstances, you have a building that’s built 10 to basically the property line, and then the parking lot is built to the property lines as well. 11 There isn’t much-landscaped area, so the only solution would be to place it in a parking space 12 and that would allow EVSE chargers to be installed. So, this kind of addresses the second half of 13 the EVSE charger issue that we run into where we could get the chargers in but then we have 14 problems with the supportive utility equipment for those chargers. So that’s the premise of this 15 code update and again, this minimizes process and formalizes current practices. And this allows 16 for additional flexibility associated with EVSE installation and this would only be for existing 17 sites, not for new sites or new development excuse me. 18 19 And finally, we have Number Seven, code clean up. This is for minor changes to the code that 20 provide clarification, definitions associated with some of the code language that we’re 21 proposing in this ordinance, and for internal consistency because some of these allowance in 22 stall encroachment or reduction or losses. If we didn’t update other sections of the code we’d 23 have a conflict where they say you cannot reduce the size and whatnot. So, this addresses 24 those situations and also, we found in looking at the code there were some areas that 25 presented possible conflict or ambiguity. For example, it would be downtown Parking Code 26 Section 18.18 along with 18.52. So, we wanted to make sure that since we’re updating a 27 number of sections related to parking, that we address a lot of these ambiguous points 28 throughout the code. So, we are suggesting some internal revisions for consistency purposes. 29 And again, we wanted to update the code to provide definitions for EVSE for example which is 30 not referenced currently in the 18.52 or 18. 54 or motorcycle parking for example. That’s also 31 not referenced in the code at all, so we have to create these references and definitions to make 32 it clear and a true code update. 33 34 And the recommendation tonight is the Staff recommends that the Planning and 35 Transportation Commission take the following action. Recommend that the City Council adopt 36 the proposed ordinance and Attachment B amending Title 18 of the Zoning Code Chapter 18.52 37 and 18.54 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and that concludes Staff’s presentation. 38 39 Chair Templeton: Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Gutierrez, for a thorough and detailed and well-40 organized presentation. So, we have seen this material before so that is… should be helpful to 41 the Commissioners. I would encourage folks who want to speak up to raise your hand. Be 42 prepared to limit your comments to 5-minutes or less if possible. Of course, if you have more 43 we can continue. As far as public comment goes, I don’t see any attendees that have signed in 44 for public comment. If you are listening online or on the radio, now would be the time to join 1 the meeting and request to participate in the public comment. So, we’ll let that percolate for a 2 movement and then we will move on. I don’t see any hands raised, so this is an action item. If 3 you don’t have discussion you’re welcome to make a motion. I see Commissioner Lauing. So, 4 hold on, before you start Commissioner Lauing, I’m going to close public comment and now you 5 may continue. Thank you. 6 7 Commissioner Lauing: Ok, you can hear me? 8 9 Chair Templeton: We can, yes. 10 11 Commissioner Lauing: Ok, I’m going to stay on message tonight and say this is excellent to get a 12 second reading because the improvements here… I’m not speaking to the ordinance but in 13 terms of the content and the things that you even learned about. That’s good because now we 14 have a better thing to recommend to Council. I just have a few very brief questions but 15 otherwise, I’m in total support. 16 17 I just found it curious on the bottom of Page 73 that you couldn’t find anybody else that was 18 doing this in all the other territories that you looked at. Was that surprising to you? 19 20 Mr. Gutierrez: A little, yes because some of the other jurisdictions that I looked at and I looked 21 at some locally. The county actually complied a large report that did an audit of EVSE codes in 22 the Santa Clara County so that was a large research item. And then I spread it out to a couple 23 other Cities that seemed to have similar sustainability goals like the City of Santa Monica for 24 example and there wasn’t this allowance for encroachment to parking spaces. I do however 25 should mention that no every jurisdiction requires collision protection for the EVSE chargers 26 whereas our Fire Department does require them along with other jurisdictions locally. So, if the 27 bollards are actually eliminated, it does actually help the situation a bit and doesn’t cause much 28 conflict but we do require them. There are legitimate reasons to require that and then that’s 29 where we have not just the unit itself but then these extra vertical barriers that cause 30 problems. So, I think it’s a little bit more complex. 31 32 Commissioner Lauing: On the bike parking, Page 74, is this… I want… is this for inside and/or 33 outside? The bikes are only for outside. 34 35 Mr. Gutierrez: This would be outside, so this would actually physically take up a parking space. 36 That’s…(interrupted) 37 38 Commissioner Lauing: Right but only for outside parking? 39 40 Mr. Gutierrez: Oh, are you referring to a garage parking perhaps? 41 42 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah, I am. 43 44 Mr. Gutierrez: The ordinance doesn’t speak specifically to that. It could potentially utilize 1 garage parking if the bicycle parking was near an elevator. Again, mimicking best practices for 2 bicycle parking and then if it is in a garage it’s likely to be a bicycle locker which is what’s 3 typically allowed in garage parking. 4 5 Commissioner Lauing: If there’s any ambiguity there in terms of enforcing it you might want to 6 clarify but that’s up to you guys. And is it… does it require either racks or containers, whatever 7 those are called? Bike lockers. 8 9 Mr. Gutierrez: So, it really leaves it a bit more open-ended so it depends on the use. So, for 10 example, a retailer would want racks. 11 12 Commissioner Lauing: Let me make sure you understand my question. Could you leave it with 13 nothing or you have to put something there to designate it as a bike space? 14 15 Mr. Gutierrez: It needs a rack. It would need a rack or a locker, yes. 16 17 Commissioner Lauing: Because otherwise, it could just be a secret parking space. 18 19 Mr. Gutierrez: Right. 20 21 Commissioner Lauing: That’s what I was checking on. 22 23 Mr. Gutierrez: Got it. 24 25 Commissioner Lauing: Ok and I think that’s it. That’s it, thank you. 26 27 Chair Templeton: Thank you very much. I saw Commissioner Summa’s hand. Did you still want 28 to talk or was your question addressed? 29 30 Commissioner Summa: Sure, thank you very much. So (interrupted) 31 32 Chair Templeton: Of course. 33 34 Commissioner Summa: Just a few quick questions and one is I know we want to encourage 35 bicycle use, but I really wonder about trading bicycle parking spots for vehicle parking spots. 36 Especially downtown where there are so many different exceptions to vehicle parking that kind 37 of add up and have contributed to the need for parking in the neighborhoods by commuter 38 parkers. So that’s my first question and that’s about Number Two basically. 39 40 And then Number Three, I was wondering… this is kind of the flip side of bike parking, I was 41 wondering what the need for motorcycle parking was because I’m wondering if there’s not 42 more of a need in those little interstitial spaces that aren’t big enough for cars in parking 43 structures. If there’s not more of a need for bicycle parking, I just don’t know how much there… 1 demand there is for motorcycle parking. It’s just a question I had thought about. 2 3 And then finally… and the rest of this is great bringing us to speed with state law, thank you. 4 And then on Number Seven which is the downtown code cleanup, there was a mention in the 5 Staff Report that there were a few discrepancies in the two places in the code that deal with 6 downtown. That didn’t have to do… I was wondering if just all of the discrepancies had to do 7 with these EVSE issues or if there were other discrepancies? I couldn’t quite compare those two 8 places in the code. So just quickly if there are any other areas where there was… there were 9 discrepancies in between… internally in the code between the CD parking rules? 10 11 Mr. Gutierrez: Sure, so in the downtown parking regulation section it basically mimicked what 12 was in 18.52 except that it was worded slightly differently. If you glanced at it you’re correct, it 13 would be difficult to see the difference but you’d really have to read it in great detail to really 14 see that they use slightly different verbiage which ran a little conflict. Albert actually found this 15 conflict in the code and suggested that we clean it up. So maybe Albert could speak a little bit 16 more to it. 17 18 Mr. Yang: I can provide a little bit more detail about the areas where there were minor 19 differences between what was in 18.18 and what was in 18.52. One of them was… I’ll just go 20 through each one. One of them was where there was a reference… a cross-reference to 21 another part of the code, but just numbers had been mistyped. One of them was where there 22 was a typo where there was a number missing and so the sentence didn’t make as much sense. 23 Another section where there was just a difference in wording and one phraseology was clearer 24 than the other so we went with the clearer version. And then, let me see if I can pull this up and 25 I can just share my screen because that’s probably the easiest way to go with it. 26 27 Commissioner Summa: So, where I’m going here is because of the sensitivity about parking 28 issues downtown and the concern from a lot of people that there’s already a lot of reductions. I 29 just wanted to make sure we’re not throwing out a baby in the bathwater. I just want to make 30 sure we’re not getting rid of a parking restriction that we need in other words. 31 32 Mr. Yang: I guess I can say going from having two sections saying basically the same thing to 33 one section. We’ve really just tried to clean up of typos and that sort of issue. 34 35 Commissioner Summa: Ok, that’s all I wanted to know. I mean I read it and read it and read it 36 and read it and I thought oh, this word is in a different place here versus there. So, it didn’t 37 seem substantive to me so that was my only concern. 38 39 Mr. Gutierrez: Right and then to answer your question about motorcycle parking. Again, that’s 40 something that I ended up coming across in researching other jurisdictions and as my… in my 41 time at the Development Center and counter in my early years with the City. This would come 42 up but I would have to tell people there is no… we can’t approve this. We don’t have… it 43 doesn’t exist in our code so essentially, they would have to use a standard parking stall to park 44 motorcycles. Which again isn’t the best use of that standard stall so that’s why I… we thought it 1 was a good idea to introduce it into the code where we could utilize these leftover areas of 2 parking lots to facilitate a space for smaller motorcycles. 3 4 Commissioner Summa: Yep seems like a good idea. I was… and down the road, if they’re not 5 being used by motorcycles I guess we could change it to bikes because (interrupted) 6 7 Mr. Gutierrez: Correct. 8 9 Commissioner Summa: It almost seems like we might have more need for that so thank you 10 very much. 11 12 Mr. Gutierrez: Sure. 13 14 Chair Templeton: Thank you, Commissioner Summa. Commissioner Hechtman. 15 16 Commissioner Hechtman: Thank you and Chair Templeton I will try my best to keep myself to 17 my… to 5-minutes but no promises. 18 19 Chair Templeton: That’s all we ask, thank you. 20 21 Commissioner Hechtman: First of all, I want to say I’m guided on this item really by part of the 22 discussion we had earlier tonight about the RPPs and the recognition that every time we lose a 23 parking space in a parking lot. That puts some pressure on whoever would have parked in that 24 space, to park somewhere else and some of those people eventually are going to look for a 25 permit to park in a residence… a residential area. And so, I don’t think we should be easily 26 surrendering existing parking spaces. So, looking at the… your seven categories which are tied 27 and I thought the Staff Report really nicely laid things out. Your seven categories are really tied 28 to specific provisions of the new ordinance or the… that you’re proposing and so I just want to 29 use your numbering and go through those. 30 31 So, Item One, which is reducing the stalls… the stall size for EVAs [EVSE] 10 percent or two 32 stalls, which is greater. I’m supportive of Staff recommendation there. 33 34 Item Two, the substitute for bike parking which is in 18.52.045 sub B, so this is one we talked 35 about last time. And I gave the effort… the example of the Ross Road YMC which on both sides 36 of the entry has great off parking lot, on-site bike parking. And my question then and is today is 37 why wouldn’t we make it a prerequisite for someone who wants to convert an existing car 38 parking space into bike spaces to demonstrate first that there is no place on the property off 39 the parking lot near the entrances that would be equally suitable? And I actually would like that 40 to be a prerequisite to converting an existing space into a space for either four or eight short-41 term long-term spaces. I’d like to see that language in that subpart. 42 43 Item Three, motorcycle parking, I like the idea of using these little odd areas, but I don’t 1 understand why we wouldn’t allow some number of paired motorcycle spaces to replace 2 parking spaces. For example, 5 percent of the total spaces or two parking spaces whichever is 3 greater. While I understand that it would be nice, it's possible that automobile parking in the 4 space brought four people. The more realistic scenario is it just brought one and in that one 5 space, we could have two motorcycles that definitionally would have led to at least two people. 6 And so, I don’t understand so I would… I don’t feel strongly about this, but it seems like we 7 could be promoting fuel efficiency if we would allow some small number of parking spaces to 8 be replaced with two motorcycle spaces. 9 10 Item Four, maintenance of existing parking spaces, now the slide that Sam showed… so the real 11 issue here isn’t whether you should re-stripe. Of course, I don’t have an issue with that. The 12 issue is whether in re-striping we’re going to reduce the number of parking spaces and while 13 the slide that was shown said that it could result in a minor reduction in parking spaces. When 14 you look at the code language that proposed, it's not limited to minor reductions. It’s the 15 Director who can reduce the number of parking spaces for the following reasons. And I got no 16 problem with any of those reasons except as I did the last time this idea of making 17 improvements to onsite circulation because I can go to virtually any parking lot and if you let 18 me take out two spaces to widen the drive isle. I will have improved the onsite circulation. So, 19 we basically are giving people potentially a free pass to take away parking spaces under the 20 guise of improving circulation. It's too vague, so last time I had suggested you want to tether 21 that something else, fine, but that hasn’t happened. And so, my request would be that we 22 delete that. That is not a justification just to improve on-site circulation. If it can’t be connected 23 to something else then my feeling is it’s too vague and we’ll lose parking spaces where… and 24 these are existing parking lots where circulation has somehow made it this far. 25 26 Item Five, the ADA parking, I’m supportive of that. 27 28 Item Six, the parking lot re-striping, this is really about where EVAs [EVSE?] equipment has no 29 place to go. The language I didn’t like here, and I never like is in this Section 18.52.045(a), it says 30 to the maximum extent feasible. To me, that is an undesirable standard because it sets the bar 31 too high. We need people who are making use of our ordinance to act reasonably, not 32 extremely, and so what I’d like to see there to the extent reasonably feasible rather than to the 33 maximum extent feasible. 34 35 And then the last Item Seven, code clean up, in 18.52.080 subpart G, there’s this same make 36 improvements to onsite circulation. Again, its parallel code clean up, but to the extent, we 37 change the earlier version of that. I think this one needs to follow suit. Those are my comments. 38 Thank you Staff for a concise report. 39 40 Chair Templeton: Thank you Commissioner Hechtman for speeding through all of that meaty 41 content. I don’t want to put you on the spot so it’s ok if you don’t have an answer for this but 42 on your comments on Item Five. Did you have suggested alternate wording that would provide 43 the restrictions that you’re looking for? 44 1 Commissioner Hechtman: Item Five was the ADA parking, I was in agreement with Staff’s 2 recommendation. Do you mean (interrupted) 3 4 Chair Templeton: Oh, that was Six and five was one about improving flow. Losing a space if you 5 improve the flow. 6 7 Commissioner Hechtman: Oh, the circulation. 8 9 Chair Templeton: Yes. 10 11 Commissioner Hechtman: My recommendation at this point is just to remove that. 12 13 Chair Templeton: I see. 14 15 Commissioner Hechtman: So, remove the reference in… so this is actually Item Four which is 16 18.52.050 it’s… I think it’s in Table 4. Make improvements to onsite circulation. My 17 recommendation would be to delete that. Again, I think it’s important but it’s just going to 18 stand alone it’s subject to abuse. 19 20 Chair Templeton: Mr. Gutierrez would you like to speak to this concern. I’d be interested to 21 hear your thoughts on the abuse concern. 22 23 Mr. Gutierrez: Yeah, I’m… as Staff, I’m not quite seeing your concern on it being abused and just 24 eliminating parking because this would be for existing development. This wouldn’t be for new 25 and if they have to reduce parking in most cases the property owners and tenants don’t want to 26 do that. We’re talking about an instance that we know that perhaps there is a problem. The 27 backup distance is very narrow and it causes an issue. So, it would be in a special case and again 28 that’s why we suggested a Director’s adjustment because it would be analyzed by the Office of 29 Transportation. We found that there is a potential hazard, then that’s what we were trying to 30 get at where we could correct that. I Director’s adjustment doesn’t mean you are automatically 31 granted it. That’s where the analysis comes in and if we find that it’s not necessary. Yes, it’s 32 maybe undersized or a turning radius isn’t quite up to par with today’s code but it still pencils 33 out from a transportation engineering standpoint. Then we wouldn’t grant that in that 34 circumstance. 35 36 Mr. Yang: I guess I’ll just add-in, I think that this is something that we can take a closer look at 37 and especially because we do still have that reference in there to allowing this adjustment to 38 bring the lot into compliance with current standards. And so that might actually encompass all 39 the potential circulation improvements that we’d be interested in but we’ll take a closer look at 40 it. 41 42 Commissioner Hechtman: Or actually Mr. Gutierrez your reference to eliminating a potential 43 hazard. Even that alone I think would be an improvement, right? Improving onsite circulation as 44 necessary to remove a potential hazard. Something like that, that again it tethers it so the… I 1 think the kind of intent that Staff had. 2 3 Mr. Gutierrez: Understood. I think I understand now. 4 5 Chair Templeton: Alright thank you all who have comments. Raised your hand if you had 6 anything to add to this discussion or if you wish to make a motion. Commissioner Hechtman. 7 8 MOTION 9 10 Commissioner Hechtman: So, I suppose I’ll have to put my motion where my mouth is and I will 11 move approval of Staff recommendation with the following revisions. And will it… let me just 12 try to work through it and see if it’s clear enough. If not, we can clean it up. 13 14 Chair Templeton: Before you start may I interject and ask Mr. Gutierrez to display the Staff 15 recommendation again on his shared screen. I think that would be helpful, thank you. 16 17 Commissioner Hechtman: Yes. 18 19 Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, one moment. Whoops. 20 21 Commissioner Hechtman: You can go back there, sweetie. 22 23 Mr. Gutierrez: I skipped around. One moment while I pull that up. Here we are. 24 25 Commissioner Hechtman: Ok, are you waiting for me? 26 27 Chair Templeton: Yes, you’re on. 28 29 Commissioner Hechtman: Ok, alright, so moving the Staff recommendation with the following 30 revisions regarding Category Two in Section 18.52.045 subpart B, a requirement that the 31 applicant first demonstrates that there is no available area on the property off the parking lot 32 near the… reasonably near the entrance to provide the bicycle parking. And I would leave it to 33 Staff to craft better language to fulfill that purpose. Second change would be in Item Four, 34 18.52.050 Table 4, the language makes improvements to onsite circulation. I would add to that 35 to the extent necessary to reduce a hazardous condition. Item Five is fine. Item Six, which is 36 18.52.045 subpart A, replace maximum extent feasible with the [unintelligible- audio 37 disturbance] reasonably feasible. Subpart G, make the same improvement… sorry, make the 38 same addition to the language make improvements to onsite circulation. And I left out the 39 motorcycle parking, I think it is more complicated… a more complicated issue may be to be 40 taken up sometimes in the future. So that’s the motion. 41 42 Chair Templeton: Thank you. Any seconder? I see Commissioner Summa’s hand. 43 44 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 1 2 Commissioner Summa: So, I have a question for the maker of the motion. I… if I would willing 3 second this but I was wondering if you would on Item Two, I won’t repeat the code, but if… I 4 would say if you could make it conditional on finding a substitution place rather than… like it 5 wouldn’t be allowed to remove parking spots. It would just find… I mean to me sure, they 6 should look for a better space than removing a parking spot because of the paucity of parking 7 spots. But it’s kind of weak because it allows them to do it if they can’t find another place and in 8 existing buildings and parking lots that’s probably not going to be very possible. So, I would 9 second this motion if we can make Number Two stronger. 10 11 Commissioner Hechtman: So, I’m hesitant to do that because I think there will be situation… I 12 want to preserve some flexibility to the Director to make these calls. My idea for this language 13 would be to give the Director guidance as to this first step but there will be situations where I 14 think there won’t be a place. And so, then it will be appropriate to move to step two so I would 15 decline that friendly amendment. 16 17 Commissioner Summa: Ok. 18 19 SECOND 20 21 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m happy to second (interrupted) 22 23 Chair Templeton: Thank you for bringing that up. 24 25 Commissioner Alcheck: The amendment… I’m happy to second the motion. 26 27 Chair Templeton: Thank you Commissioner Alcheck. Any other comments? 28 29 Mr. Yang: Can I ask one clarifying question? 30 31 Chair Templeton: Please. 32 33 Mr. Yang: So, Commissioner Hechtman, your last comment suggested to me that if a developer 34 or a property owner were able to show that there were, make that showing. There’s no other 35 location on the lot where you could have the bike parking. That you would still want then the 36 next steps to be a discretionary decision by the Director as opposed to a ministerial approval of 37 the substitution. And I just want to confirm that that’s the thought. 38 39 Commissioner Hechtman: I’m taking a quick look at the language of that code section in the 40 Staff Report because I wasn’t really intending to add more layers to dimension. I thought that 41 this was already in there. Hold on a minute, I’m looking right now. 42 43 Mr. Yang: Ok, yeah, I can clarify, it’s currently set up as a ministerial action. 44 1 Commissioner Hechtman: Yeah. So, I’m comfortable (interrupted) 2 3 Chair Templeton: Please share page numbers. 4 5 Commissioner Hechtman: Page… sorry… Packet Page 74, it’s the code language towards the 6 bottom of the page and as a practical matter, I think by inserting language along the lines that 7 I’ve suggested will… it creates a discretionary determination by Staff to see if there is a place or 8 not where things can go. So, I… and I’m comfortable with that. 9 10 Mr. Yang: Great, thank you. 11 12 Commissioner Hechtman: So, no other change. 13 14 15 Chair Templeton: Yeah, I think he was just clarifying and to make sure I understand it. Your 16 adjustment is that if the bicycle parking can be sufficient not in the parking lot itself, that would 17 be ok with you. Is that what you’re seeking? 18 19 Commissioner Hechtman: Yes, they have to show that they can’t do it outside the parking lot 20 before they can take up a parking space. 21 22 Chair Templeton: Right, ok, yeah ok. I don’t see any hands raised. I will speak in favor of this 23 motion. I really appreciate all the work that Mr. Gutierrez has done to tidy things up and 24 incorporation with other members of Staff. So, thank you, everyone, who contributed to this. I 25 think anything we can do to improve more fuel-efficient vehicles being welcome in parking lots, 26 as strange as that may sound, it’s good. So, I appreciate this and I’m inclined to support it so 27 thank you. Any other thoughts before we take a vote? 28 29 Mr. Yang: I’m sorry, do we have a second? 30 31 Chair Templeton: We did. 32 33 Mr. Yang: Oh, ok. Sorry. 34 35 Chair Templeton: Commissioner Alcheck. 36 37 Mr. Yang: Sorry I missed that. 38 39 VOTE 40 41 Chair Templeton: No problem. A good thing to check. Alright, let’s take a voice vote, please. Mr. 42 Nguyen. 43 44 Mr. Vinh Nguyen, Admin Associate III: Yes, Commissioner Alcheck? 1 2 Commissioner Alcheck: Aye. 3 4 Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Hechtman? 5 6 Commissioner Hechtman: Aye. 7 8 Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Lauing? 9 10 Commissioner Lauing: Yes. 11 12 Mr. Nguyen: Vice-Chair Roohparvar? 13 14 Vice-Chair Roohparvar: Aye. 15 16 Mr. Nguyen: Commissioner Summa? Commissioner Summa? 17 18 Commissioner Summa: Sorry, I forgot to unmute, no. 19 20 Mr. Nguyen: And Chair Templeton? 21 22 Chair Templeton: Yes. 23 24 Mr. Nguyen: Ok the motion passes. Thank you. 25 26 MOTION PASSED 5 (Templeton, Roohparvar, Lauing, Alcheck, Hechtman) -1 (Summa)-1 (Riggs 27 absent) 28 29 Chair Templeton: Alright thank you all for a good discussion and we hit our 30-minute target so 30 good job, everybody. 31 32 Commission Action: Hechtman moved, Alcheck second. Motion passes 5-1 (Summa against) 33 City of Palo Alto (ID # 11411) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/10/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 2353 Webster Street: Appeal of Director's Decision on Individual Review Application Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2353 Webster Street [18PLN- 00339]: Appeal of Director’s Approval of an Individual Review Application to Demolish an Existing One-story 1,593 sf Home and Construct a Two-story Home (Approx. 2,935 sf) With a Basement and an Attached Garage. Zoning District: Single-family Residential (R-1) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Recommendation Staff recommends City Council uphold the Planning and Development Services Director’s approval of the Individual Review (IR) application (File No. 18PLN-00339). The project is a new two-story home within the Old Palo Alto neighborhood. Executive Summary This request is an appeal of the Planning and Development Services Director’s (Director) approval of a Single-Family Individual Review (IR) application for a new two-story home. Three Council members voted to remove this item from the Consent Calendar on May 18, 2020 to hold a formal public hearing. Appellants Jack Morton and Mary Ellen White are the owners of 2343 Webster Street, a single- story home abutting the subject property. As required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code, staff mailed all decision and hearing notices regarding the project to the immediate neighbors, including the appellant. The appellant is concerned about the Valley oak tree in the proposed home’s rear yard, and how it will be affected by construction including potential dewatering to construct the basement. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Staff is equally committed to protecting the tree to the highest degree feasible. Tree protection is achievable through the implementation of standard project conditions of approval, adopted City regulations, and project-specific conditions of approval. Background Individual Review applications are reviewed and approved through the Low-Density Residential Review Process set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 18.77.075. The first decision is a staff-level, tentative ‘Director’s decision’; this tentative decision is subject to a hearing request process. Any adjacent property owner or occupant may request a Director’s Hearing within 14 days of the tentative decision. If requested, the Director then sets and conducts a noticed public hearing on the project, receives testimony, and makes a decision that becomes final 14 days thereafter. A Director’s Hearing was requested for this project and was held on February 27, 2020, after which the Director reapproved the project with additional tree protection measures. Following this approval, and within the 14-day appeal period, owners or occupants of abutting properties may appeal the decision to Council. Appeals are placed on the Council consent calendar for final action. An appeal was received on March 31, 2020. The project was then placed on the Council’s May 18, 2020 consent agenda. Council removed the item from the consent calendar and which time staff scheduled this August 3, 2020 public hearing. As part of this hearing, the Council shall adopt findings and act on the application. The decision of the Council is final. Further background information is available in the Council staff report from the May 18th Council Meeting, https://bit.ly/2353WebsterCCReport. May 18, 2020 Public Comment Two residents shared public comments during the consent calendar hearing for this project on May 18, 2020: (1) Mr. Keith Bennett provided both written and oral comments. He is concerned the current project Conditions of Approval do not adaquately protect the specimen oak tree with regards to basement construction, particularly dewatering. (2) The appellant Mr. Jack Morton expressed concern that potential damage to the tree would dramatically impact his quality of life. Discussion The project meets all five of the City’s Individual Review (IR) guidelines. The project complies with the Public Works regulations for dewatering. The project also complies with Urban Forestry regulations for protecting the mature Valley Oak tree. Findings for the project’s compliance with IR guidelines are available in the administrative record and were provided as Attachment F in the May 18, 2020 staff report. The findings include analysis provided by the City’s consulting architect, dated October 3, 2019. The document also includes recommended City of Palo Alto Page 3 conditions of approval, which were incorporated as Conditions of Approval #5e and #13a. The project is required to meet all standards for dewatering, in accordance with the Conditions of Approval. Following the Director’s Hearing, the Director added conditions to further clarify how to protect the Valley Oak tree. These conditions are provided as Condition of Approval #1, Special Conditions (Attachment B). In total, the project has met the findings for approval, and the project approval is enhanced with the Director’s special conditions to ensure protection of the Valley Oak tree. Therefore, staff recommends upholding the Director’s decision to approve the project. Overall Tree Health The tree in question is a Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) tree with a mature canopy radius of 38 feet. The project arborist, Davey Resource Group, deems the tree to be in fair condition. The tree is approximately 4.5 feet from the existing house, which is to be demolished. The proposed house will be at least 34-feet, 4-inches away from the base of the trunk. The Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for this tree is a 60-foot radius measured from the trunk, which amounts to approximately 50% of the buildable area. Excavation for the new home is proposed within the outer portion of the TPZ, 30-40 feet from the trunk and beyond. Proposed demolition and construction would potentially impact 17% of the TPZ. Impacts to more than 25% of the root system may be defined as “removal” of the tree, though each situation has both site and tree specific factors to consider. It is important to note that with the existing house foundation currently sitting within the dripline of the tree, therefore, fewer tree roots are likely to be found in this area. A number of tree protection measures were adopted in the Director’s approval letter following the Director’s Hearing. In particular: • The project shall follow all standard tree protection conditions and Urban Forestry regulations including PAMC 8.10; • Staff will hold a pre-construction meeting to discuss the construction phase conditions with those who will be onsite during construction (Condition #2); • The 14 feet of the existing foundation nearest the tree shall not be removed, to prevent disturbance of any underlying roots; • Demolition of the remaining foundation shall be accomplished by air spade and/or hand tools only, and be performed under the supervision of a Certified Arborist; • Recommendations from the final Arborist Report (submitted at Building Permit application) shall be included as additional conditions of approval; • Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to demolition, where feasible, and placed City of Palo Alto Page 4 no closer than 40 feet from the trunk of the Valley Oak; • The applicant’s consulting arborist is to make daily visits during demolition to the site and prepare a daily memo attesting to the contractor’s compliance with the arborist’s report and related Urban Forestry conditions of approval (Conditions #27-40); • During demolition and construction, all pervious area within the TPZ shall be covered with 12 inches of woodchips and a layer of plywood, to the satisfaction of the Urban Forester (Conditions #28b and 28c); • The location for the dewatering monitoring well required in Condition #43 shall be determined by the Director of Public Works prior to building permit approval, to ensure the goals of the monitoring well are balanced with the need to protect the Valley Oak. It is important to state that if the applicant were to propose to remove the Valley Oak tree, the application would be processed administratively, by the Urban Forestry Team, in accordance with Municipal Code. PAMC 8.10.050(d)(2) states: Removal is permitted as part of project approval under Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) of this Code, because retention of the tree would result in reduction of the otherwise-permissible buildable area by more than 25%. In such a case, the approval shall be conditioned upon tree replacement in accordance with the standards in the Tree Technical Manual. The buildable area is defined as the portion of the lot which is not within the required setbacks. Since the TPZ of the Valley Oak is a 60-foot radius, it takes up more than half of the lot, and approximately 50% of the buildable area. To build the house fully outside the TPZ would reduce the building area by more than twenty-five percent. However, the City also has policies to ensure “no net loss of canopy” which would require any such removal to include a combination of replacement trees and potentially in-lieu payment to achieve this goal. Dewatering One of the neighbor’s main concerns is that the dewatering aspect of the project has not been sufficiently analyzed. In a typical IR project, dewatering review is conducted at the time of Building Permit application, not Planning Entitlement. A hydrogeological study is provided as a part of the building permit application materials. This provides detailed information of the expected need for dewatering, including the volume of water potentially to be pumped, and potential impact to surrounding trees and buildings. It is possible the basement project will require no dewatering, but this will not be determined until the applicant provides the full hydrogeological study. Furthermore, staff is confident the existing regulations for dewatering sufficiently protect the oak tree. There are a few ways the basement could be constructed, which have different potential impacts. Regardless of the basement construction method, the current Conditions of Approval already require a certified arborist to supervise all excavation. City of Palo Alto Page 5 • The basement could be shored with secant walls. In this method, I-beams are driven into the ground and concrete is poured to shore and isolate the excavation area. Dewatering is limited to the basement footprint within the secant walls, however construction of the secant walls may unexpectedly cut tree roots. • The basement could be shored with I-beams and wood lagging. I-beams are driven into the ground and wood is installed between the beams every few feet as excavation commences. Because the lagging is not watertight like a secant wall, it is not recommended in high water table areas, as dewatering may extend a few feet beyond the basement footprint. In this method, I-beams may still cut minor tree roots, but less than secant walls. • The basement does not use shoring. The basement is allowed to be excavated using a 1:1 cutback to prevent caving, with vertical excavation allowed for the lowest five feet. No beams are driven, so it is more likely tree roots will be visible during construction and the on-site Arborist can be more aware of any damage to the roots. However, this requires an area approximately five feet wider than the proposed basement footprint to be excavated. The area to be dewatered would be comparable to other methods, because dewatering is only expected to occur within the last few feet of excavation, and not within the cutback. Based on the three options, staff recommends the applicant use I-beam and wood lagging shoring. This method would use fewer drill holes compared to a secant wall, while also limiting excavation outside of the basement footprint. During excavation, there is also the ability to be more conscious of tree roots within the TPZ. As noted below, the City Council may decide to impose this additional condition on the project, if approved. In all cases, the Public Works Department provides strict monitoring requirements for dewatering, per PAMC 16.28.155. These requirements have been significantly strengthened over recent years (2016-2018) in response to residents’ concerns. Open pit dewatering is not allowed, and groundwater pumped is required to be reused for on-site and/or local irrigation to the extent possible. A groundwater monitoring well is required on site, and groundwater level reports are required daily for the first two weeks, and weekly thereafter. All dewatering is limited to a maximum 12-week period within Palo Alto’s dry season, April to October. If the initial daily report results are greater than anticipated, a revised Dewatering Hydrogeological Study is required. Additional requirements for the hydrogeological study, pre-construction analysis, and regulations and monitoring during construction are available in Attachment D. The dewatering requirements are applied to all basement projects in the City, which require dewatering. It is typically not a discretionary process. For example, a new one-story house with basement requires only a building permit, and the proposal to build a basement could not be appealed to Council by neighbors. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Lastly, it is important to consider the particular tree species. A Valley oak is a drought-tolerant tree. Its roots are generally within 4 feet of the surface, significantly higher than the average groundwater depth of 9-12 feet. The tree likely depends on seasonal rain and surface irrigation for water rather than groundwater. Too much water may in fact damage an oak. Therefore, dewatering is unlikely to impact the water sources of the tree. Alternative to Staff Recommendation The Council is to adopt findings and act on the project, per PAMC 18.75.075(g)(2). Alternatives to the staff recommendation include: • Require additional conditions of approval or modifications to the proposed project design or scope; • Deny the project; or • Continue the item to a future hearing. While staff believes there are sufficient tree protection conditions placed on this project to help protect the mature Valley Oak tree, Council may still wish to apply additional conditions, which could include the following: • Additional oversight by City Staff. Additional inspections by the City’s Urban Forestry Team could be required during demolition, excavation, and/or construction. (Please note the applicant’s project Arborist will be highly involved and is currently required to be onsite and provide daily monitoring reports during the demolition phase.) This condition will add further expense to the applicant to recover staff time spent on this additional oversight work. • Require vertical I-beam and wood lagging for shoring. This method of shoring used during basement excavation would be preferred over alternative shoring methods, to limit potential impacts to the tree roots and from dewatering. Policy Implications The Director’s decision to approve the application is consistent with staff’s implementation of the Individual Review Guidelines, the Tree Technical Manual, and the City’s dewatering regulations, and with the policies and intent of the Individual Review Process. This is the third appeal of an Individual Review project since 2015. It is, however, the first appeal during the five-year time period of a home that is not within an Eichler neighborhood. Also, notably absent from the appeal are privacy concerns, which are typically an appeal topic associated with IR applications. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Environmental Review This project is exempt from the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303(a) (New Construction of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Director's Decision Letter signed March 16, 2020 (PDF) Attachment C: Appeal Letter received March 31, 2020 (PDF) Attachment D: 2020 Regulations for Dewatering during Construction of Below Ground Structures (PDF) Attachment E: September 2019 Arborist Report and Tree Sheets (PDF) Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX) 50. 0' 00' 50. 0' 112.0' 70.0' 112.0' 11.7' 22.0' 12 0 . 0' 112.0' 20 .0' 14.0' 14 0 . 0' 126.0'124.1' 72. 0' 110.3' 72 .0' 110.3' 72. 0' 110.4' 72.0' 110.4' 72. 0' 110.4' 72.0' 110.4' 72. 0' 50 . 0' 00.0' 50. 0' 100.0' 100.0' 50 . 0' 100.0' 50 .0' 100.0' 50. 0' 100.0' 100.0' 60. 0' 109.9' 60 .0' 109.9' 59. 4' 109.9' 59 .4' 109.9' 59 . 4' 109.9' 4' 109.9' 60. 0' 109.9' 10 5 . 0' 1.5'21.4 ' 42.1' 11 9 . 4' 57.0' 55.0' 12 0 . 0' 55.0' 12 0 . 0' 112.0' 14. 5'14.0' 11 1 . 0' 126.0' 96. 5' 99.4' 109.9' 99 .4' 112.7' 37. 0' 124.1' 72.6' 110.4' 35. 0' 14.1' 108.6' 80 . 8' 112.0' 80.8' 112.0' 80. 8' 112.0' 80 .8' 112.0' 142.0' 50 .0' 142.0'142.0' 50.0' 6.7' 127.1' 76.7' 127.1'6.7' 63. 9' 112.0' 63 .9' 112.0' 70.2' 115.5' 120.0' 112.0' 59.0' 112.0' 59 . 0' 60 .0' 112.0' 50. 50.0' 142.0' 2330 2397 2371 2361 2351 2344 2360 2370 2370A 2334 6 2343 2353 2333 2350 61 5 2360 2323 60 9 2301 2320 2320 A 2290 2342 2333 2323 2300 2309 2352 2345 2361 6 STREET BYR O N STREET O REGO N This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site Current Features 0' 47' Attachment A:Location Map2353 Webster Street CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto efoley2, 2020-06-23 16:12:20Attachment A. Location Map (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) March 16, 2020 Yali Zhou 2353 Webster St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Gordana Pavlović 602 Hawthorne Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Email: design@gordana.net SUBJECT: 2353 Webster Street - Individual Review Application 18PLN-00339 On December 5, 2019, the Director of Planning and Community Environment conditionally approved Single Family Individual Review application 18PLN-00339 for a new two-story residence with a basement at 2353 Webster St. This approval was granted pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Sections 18.12.110 and 18.77.075. The conditionally approved project plan set received November 20, 2019, meets the Palo Alto Single Family Individual Review Guidelines, and complies with the R-1 zone district regulations and other applicable City regulations for development as conditioned. Prior to the approval becoming effective, a timely request for Director’s Hearing was received and a Director’s Hearing was held on February 27, 2020. On March 16, 2020, the Director of Planning and Community Environment upheld the conditionally approved project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposal is a request by Gordana Pavlović for Single Family Individual Review to allow demolition of an existing single story residence and construction of a new two-story single-family residence with a basement and an attached one-car garage in the R-1 zoning district, as shown on the plans received on November 20, 2019. DIRECTOR’S HEARING The hearing was requested by Jack Morton and Mary Ellen White. Their concerns included the size of the home, protection for the 300-year old Oak tree, and dewatering during basement construction. DECISION AND FINDINGS The Director of Planning and Community Environment finds that the project (as submitted on November 20, 2019 and as conditioned here) is in compliance with both the Municipal Code and the Individual Review Design Guidelines. The Director finds: DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F69F71E-F7A2-4BBE-A368-09596D6D50FD 2353 Webster Street 18PLN-00339 March 16, 2020 2 The project has been reviewed and found to be in compliance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and IR Guidelines 1-5. This property contains a 300-year-old specimen valley oak that requires specific and carefully prescribed tree protection measures during construction. Potential impacts of dewatering are sufficiently reduced and monitored through Public Works standard conditions of approval and policies for dewatering. This approval will become effective 14 calendar days from the postmark date of this letter, unless an appeal is filed, as provided by Chapter 18.77.075 of the PAMC. An appeal may be filed by written request with the City Clerk before the date the Director’s decision becomes final. The written request shall be accompanied by a fee, as set forth in the municipal fee schedule. Only an applicant, or the owner or tenant of an adjacent property may appeal. If you need assistance reviewing the plans, you may visit the City’s Development Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue. A copy of this letter shall accompany all future requests for City permits relating to this approval. This approval expires in 24 months from the effective date. Should you have any questions regarding this approval, please feel free to contact Emily Foley, AICP at emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org. Sincerely, Jonathan Lait, AICP Director of Planning and Development Services Attachment A – Findings for Approval cc: Jack Morton, 2343 Webster St, Palo Alto, CA 94301, jack@mortoncpa.com Mary Ellen 2343 Webster St, Palo Alto, CA 94301, mycek@earthlink.net Sandra Browman, 2397 Webster St, Palo Alto, CA 94301 sandra.browman@yahoo.com Keith Bennett, kbennett@luxsci.net Neighbor notification list DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F69F71E-F7A2-4BBE-A368-09596D6D50FD 2353 Webster Street 18PLN-00339 March 16, 2020 3 Attachment A INDIVIDUAL REVIEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2353 Webster Street 18PLN-00339 March 16, 2020 The approval is subject to compliance with the following conditions. The property owner is solely responsible for the conditions of approval being met. Planning staff recommends the property owner discuss the conditions of approval with the contractor, designer, etc. and contact Planning staff with any questions. PLANNING DIVISION 1. SPECIAL CONDITIONS. Based on the significance of the 300 year old specimen Valley Oak tree (Quercus lobata), the following special conditions apply: a. The 14 feet of the existing foundation nearest the tree shall be abandoned (left in place - remain as existing). b. Demolition of the remaining existing foundation shall use air spade and/or hand tools only and be performed under the supervision of a Certified Arborist. c. The final Arborist Report shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Urban Forester and printed on the building permit plans; all recommendations from the Arborist Report shall be followed. d. The tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to demolition, where feasible. Following demolition, the remainder of the tree protection fencing shall be installed per approved plans and no closer than 40 feet from the specimen Valley Oak. e. During demolition, the applicant’s consulting arborist shall make daily visits to the site and prepare a daily memo attesting to the contractor’s compliance with the arborists report and related Urban Forestry conditions of approval (Condition Numbers 27-40) f. During demolition and construction, all pervious area within the TPZ shall be covered with 12 inches of woodchips and a layer of plywood, to the satisfaction of Urban Forestry (Condition Numbers 28b and 28c) g. The location for the dewatering monitoring well required in Condition Number 43 shall be determined by the Director of Public Works prior to building permit approval to ensure the goals of the monitoring well are balanced with the need to protect the specimen Valley Oak. 2. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING. A preconstruction meeting shall occur at the time of building permit issuance. The contractor, homeowner, contracted project arborist, as well as the project planner, urban forester, building official and supervising building inspector shall be present at this meeting to discuss construction-phase conditions of approval, particularly arborist supervision of demolition of the existing structure. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F69F71E-F7A2-4BBE-A368-09596D6D50FD 2353 Webster Street 18PLN-00339 March 16, 2020 4 3. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, “Yali Residence, 2353 Webster Street, Palo Alto, California,” stamped as received by the City on November 20, 2019 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 4. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 5. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit. Project plans submitted for Building permits shall incorporate the following changes: a. Gravel is not allowed within the first 10 feet of the property. b. The roof overhang at the front entry counts towards the Lot Coverage. Please show this on the FAR diagram and cover sheet data table. c. The T sheets shall be updated with the arborist report dated September 2019 which was submitted separately from the Plan Set and received November 20, 2019 d. Tree protection fencing shall be shown on Site Plan, matching the Arborist Report e. A row of tall shrubs and/or at least two trees along the left side lot line starting from near the rear corner of the house and extending to the rear lot setback line. The trees and/or tall shrubs should be evergreen and form a relatively continuous screen with plants that can grow to at 20 feet tall under normal conditions. This shall be shown on the Site Plan. f. Provide the correct GB-1 sheet, signed by the applicant or owner 6. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 7. OBSCURED/TRANSLUCENT GLAZING. All obscure glazing, as shown on the plan set, shall be permanent in nature and shall remain for the life of the structure. Obscure glazing is either decorative glazing that does not allow views through placed into the window frame or acid etched or similar permanent alteration of the glass. Films or like additions to clear glass are not permitted where obscure glazing is shown. Obscure glazing shall not be altered in the future and shall be replaced with like materials if damaged. If operable, these windows shall open towards the public right-of-way. 8. REQUIRED PARKING: All single family homes shall be provided with a minimum of one covered parking space (10 foot by 20 foot interior dimensions) and one uncovered parking space (8.5 feet by 17.5 feet). DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F69F71E-F7A2-4BBE-A368-09596D6D50FD 2353 Webster Street 18PLN-00339 March 16, 2020 5 9. UTILITY LOCATIONS: In no case shall utilities be placed in a location that requires equipment and/or bollards to encroach into a required parking space. In no case shall a pipeline be placed within 10 feet of a proposed tree and/or tree designated to remain. 10. NOISE PRODUCING EQUIPMENT: All noise producing equipment shall be located outside of required setbacks, except they may project 6 feet into the required street side setbacks. In accordance with Section 9.10.030, No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. 11. DAYLIGHT PLANE: The daylight plane must clear the point where the wall plane intersects the top of the roof material. 12. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: A minimum of 60 % of the required front yard shall have a permeable surface that permits water absorption directly into the soil (Section 18.12.040 (h)). The building permit plan set shall include a diagram demonstrating compliance. 13. REQUIRED IR LANDSCAPING/TREES. The following landscaping is required to ensure the project’s conformance with the City’s IR Guidelines and therefore must remain for the life of the structure. Required new screening trees and shrubs shall be a minimum size of 24 inch box and measure at least eight (8) feet tall. a. A row of shrubs or a minimum of two large trees as described in Condition #3e. b. Existing oak tree in rear yard 14. PROJECT ARBORIST. The property owner shall hire a certified arborist to ensure the project conforms to all Planning and Urban Forestry conditions related to landscaping/trees. 15. TREE PROTECTION FENCING. Tree protection fencing shall be required for the front street tree and the rear yard oak tree. 16. FENCES. Fences and walls shall comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 16.24, Fences, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Heights of all new and existing fencing must be shown on the Building Permit plans. a. Where the existing fence is located off the subject property and/or where the existing fence is failing, a new Code compliant fence shall be constructed. 17. LIGHT WELLS. Railings around light wells shall be screened from street view. Screening may consist of plant material or fencing. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F69F71E-F7A2-4BBE-A368-09596D6D50FD 2353 Webster Street 18PLN-00339 March 16, 2020 6 18. BASEMENT WALLS: Basement retaining walls shall not extend beyond the exterior wall plane of the first floor of the house, excluding lightwells, below grade patios and approved extensions, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 19. BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION WALLS: Any walls, temporary or otherwise, installed to facilitate construction of a basement shall be removed or constructed in such a way as to not significantly restrict the growth of required landscaping, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 20. DECONSTRUCTION SURVEY: A Deconstruction Survey is required for demolition permit applications submitted on or after January 1, 2017. This survey submittal shall include a list of materials that are salvageable from the project as well as the values of such materials. At this time, the City’s only approved vendor for this service is The ReUse People. Contact them to schedule this FREE service by phone (888)588-9490 or e-mail info@thereusepeople.org. More information can be found at www.TheReusePeople.org. If you have further questions, please contact Scott McKay at scott.mckay@cityofpaloalto.org. 21. PLANNING FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, fenestration and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner at the number below to schedule this inspection. 22. PERMIT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration, by emailing the Current Planning Support Staff (Alicia Spotwood - Alicia.Spotwood@CityofPaloAlto.org). If a timely extension is not received, or the project has already received an extension and the applicant still wishes to pursue this project, they must first file for a new Planning application and pay the associated fees. This new application will be reviewed for conformance with the regulations in place at that time. 23. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. GREEN BUILDING & ENERGY REACH CODE REQUIREMENTS: NOTICE FOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED ON OR AFTER 1/1/20: Please be advised that the Palo Alto City Council has approved Energy Ordinance 5485 and Green Building Ordinance 5481 for all new permit applications. The Green Building Ordinance has an effective date of January 1st, 2020 and the Energy Reach Code Ordinance has an effective date DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F69F71E-F7A2-4BBE-A368-09596D6D50FD 2353 Webster Street 18PLN-00339 March 16, 2020 7 of April 1, 2020. To review the upcoming changes, visit the Development Services webpage .On the left-hand side under “EXPLORE”, hover over “Green Building” and select “Compliance.” You may also email Green Building at GreenBuilding@cityofpaloalto.org for specific questions about your project. 24. GREEN BUILDING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a) The project is a new construction residential building of any size** and therefore must meet the California Green Building Code mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with local amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre-permit third-party design review and a third-party green building inspection process. The project must select a Green Building Special Inspector from the City’s list of approved inspectors. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5481 § 1, 2019) (1) *Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2019 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18 as described in the Energy Reach Code section of this letter. (2) **Accessory Dwelling Unit (Detached) Exception: (a) Free standing detached Accessory Dwelling Units of new construction shall meet the following: (i) California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory plus Tier 2 prerequisite requirements. (ii) No Planning and Design electives. (iii) Two (2) Water Efficiency and Conservation electives. (iv) Two (2) Material Conservation and Resource Efficiency electives. (v) One (1) Environmental Quality elective. b) The project is a residential construction project of any size with a given valuation of $25,000 or more and therefore must meet the enhanced construction waste reduction at Tier 2 (80% construction waste reduction). PAMC 16.14.260 (Ord. 5481 § 1 (part), 2019) c) The project is a new detached single-family, dwelling and therefore shall comply with the following requirements for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE): (a) In general. The property owner shall provide Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for each residence. The property owner shall provide as minimum a panel capable to accommodate a dedicated branch circuit and service capacity to install at least a 208/240V, 50 amperes grounded AC outlet (Level 2 EVSE). The raceway shall terminate in close proximity to the proposed location of the charging system into a listed cabinet, box, enclosure, or receptacle. The raceway shall be installed so that minimal removal of materials is necessary to complete the final installation. The raceway shall have capacity to accommodate a 100-ampere circuit. (b) Design. The proposed location of a charging station may be internal or external to the dwelling, and shall be in close proximity to an on-site parking space. The DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F69F71E-F7A2-4BBE-A368-09596D6D50FD 2353 Webster Street 18PLN-00339 March 16, 2020 8 proposed design must comply with all applicable design guidelines, setbacks and other code requirements. PAMC 16.14.420 (Ord. 5481 §1, 2019) 25. LOCAL ENERGY REACH CODE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL – Effective 4/1/20 a) The project includes new residential construction of any size and is submitted for building permit on or after April 1, 2020 and therefore triggers the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. All new residential construction projects of any size submitted after January 1, 2020 until March 31, 2020 shall comply with statewide mandatory energy standards as outlined in the 2019 California Energy Code, Title 24, Part 6. i) Single-Family Residential Options: (1) New single-family residential construction projects shall be designed to be all-electric. (2) The installation of fireplaces, space-conditioning equipment, water heating system, clothes drying and cooking appliances shall be electric and not fueled by natural gas. (a) An All-Electric Building complies with the performance standard if both the Total Energy Design Rating and the Energy Efficiency Design Rating for the Proposed Building are no greater than the corresponding Energy Design Ratings for the Standard Design Building. (b) The Energy Budget for newly constructed buildings is expressed in terms of the Energy Design Rating, which is based on TDV energy. The Energy Design Rating (EDR) has two components, the Energy Efficiency Design Rating, and the Solar Electric Generation and Demand Flexibility Design Rating. The Solar Electric Generation and Demand Flexibility Design Rating shall be subtracted from the Energy Efficiency Design Rating to determine the Total Energy Design Rating. The Proposed Building shall separately comply with the Energy Efficiency Design Rating and the Total Energy Design Rating. (i) Compliance demonstration requirements for performance standards: Certificate of Compliance. The Certificate of Compliance is prepared and signed by a Certified Energy Analyst and the Total Energy Design Rating of the Proposed Design shall be no greater than the Standard Design Building. (Ord. 5485 §1, 2019) b) Mandatory Photovoltaic (PV) Requirements: i) All new low-rise residential buildings shall have a photovoltaic (PV) system meeting the minimum qualification requirements as specified in Joint Appendix JA11, with annual electrical output equal to or greater than the dwelling’s annual electrical usage. (CEC §150.1, 2019) 26. Additional Green Building and Energy Reach Code information, ordinances and applications can be found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. If you have any questions DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F69F71E-F7A2-4BBE-A368-09596D6D50FD 2353 Webster Street 18PLN-00339 March 16, 2020 9 regarding Green Building requirements please call the Green Building Consultant at (650) 329-2179 or send an email to GreenBuilding@CityofPaloAlto.org. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY CONDITIONS – Catherine Mondkar catherine.mondkar@cityofpaloalto.org 27. SPECIAL CONDITIONS. The Applicant shall strictly adhere to the recommendations for tree preservation, pneumatic/hand evacuation, and to all tree protection measures as outlined in the 9/22/19 Davey Resources Group arborist report, or as updated thereafter. Additional tree protection protocol shall be followed as specified by Palo Alto Urban Forestry in the following items below. a) The first fourteen feet (14’) of the existing concrete slab closest to tree #5 (72” DBH Valley Oak, Quercus lobata) shall be left in place, abandoned, and therefore shall not demolished. Regarding the remaining portion of the concrete slab to be demolished within the TPZ, the construction procedures as described in Condition 27 below are to be employed for the demolition of the remaining twenty-six feet (26’) of existing concrete slab within the TPZ. 28. SPECIAL TREE PROTECTION MEASURES. The Contractor shall under the supervision of an ISA certified Arborist furnish the following tree protection materials on site prior to commencing demolition of the specified portion of the existing home foundation. a) No heavy equipment or vehicles of any sort are to be used within the tree protection zone (TPZ= DBHx10/12= 60’ TPZ). Hand tools and pneumatic air spades only are to be used within the TPZ for the purpose of demolition. No loading of equipment, materials or objects of any sort may be stored within the TPZ. b) 12” inches of wood chips topped with sheets of plywood shall be furnished within all pervious areas of the tree protection zone within the scope of work prior to beginning demolition. c) As pervious areas within the TPZ are gradually exposed, 12” inches of wood chips topped with sheets of plywood shall be furnished within the remaining areas of the TPZ . d) Only hand and pneumatic excavation are to be used during deconstruction of the existing foundation. e) As demolition progresses and pervious areas are surfaced, any roots exposed to the air for greater than one (1) hour are to be wrapped in burlap to maintain moisture and covered in original soil where possible. f) Following hand and pneumatic demolition of the specified portion on the existing foundation, type I tree protection fencing (as specified on the T-1 sheet) shall be installed to the extent of the TPZ as per plan drawings and maintained for the duration of the project. 29. TREE PROTECTION INSPECTIONS. In addition to standard tree protection fencing inspections, at the time of pneumatic demolition around tree #5, City Staff will perform a tree protection inspection to ensure that hand excavation and tree protection measures are being met as outlined in the above- mentioned conditions of approval. Following demolition of the specified portion of the foundation, another tree protection inspection by City staff will take place to ensure that the required fencing is in place. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F69F71E-F7A2-4BBE-A368-09596D6D50FD 2353 Webster Street 18PLN-00339 March 16, 2020 10 30. ARBORIST CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION. For the duration of hand demolition within the TPZ, the project Arborist shall make a daily visit on site to ensure that tree protection measures, materials and best practices are being employed by the contractor and on-site foreman overseeing the work. 31. TREE APPRAISAL. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall prepare and secure a tree appraisal for tree #5 (72” DBH Valley Oak, Quercus lobata). The appraisal of the condition and replacement value of tree #5 shall recognize the location of the tree in the proposed development. The appraisal may be part of the Tree Survey Report or listed separately. For the purposes of tree appraisal, the monetary market or replacement value shall be determined using the most recent version of the “Guide for Plant Appraisal”, in conjunction with the Species and Classification Guide for Northern California. The appraisal shall be performed at the applicant’s expense, and the appraiser shall be subject to the Director’s approval. See PAMC 8.10.020(k)(2), 8.10.110 (b)(2), and sections 6.25 and 6.40 of the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. 32. TREE APPRAISAL DURATION. The tree appraisal duration period shall be five years from the date of final occupancy. A tree shall be considered dead when the main leader has died back, 25% of the crown is dead or if major trunk or root damage is evident. A new tree or trees of equal or greater appraised value shall be planted in the same area by the property owner. Landscape area and irrigation shall be readapted to provide optimum growing conditions for the replacement tree(s). The replacement tree(s) that are planted shall be subject to a new two-year establishment and monitoring program. The project sponsor shall provide an annual tree evaluation report as originally required. 33. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 34. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 35. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20- 2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F69F71E-F7A2-4BBE-A368-09596D6D50FD 2353 Webster Street 18PLN-00339 March 16, 2020 11 36. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 37. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (c) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. 38. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 39. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 40. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a) SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #1-7 applies) b) The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index. c) Plans to show protective tree fencing. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I, Type II or Type III fencing around each Regulated Tree, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans); or by using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F69F71E-F7A2-4BBE-A368-09596D6D50FD 2353 Webster Street 18PLN-00339 March 16, 2020 12 PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING CONDITIONS – Ajay Kumar ajay.kumar@cityofpaloalto.org The following shall be addressed prior to issuance of a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit and/or Encroachment Permit. 41. DEMOLITION PLAN: Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”. 42. GRADING PERMIT: Separate Excavation and Grading Permit will be required for grading activities on private property that fill, excavate, store or dispose of 100 cubic yards or more based on PAMC Section 16.28.060. Applicant shall prepare and submit an excavation and grading permit to Public Works separately from the building permit set. The permit application and instructions are available at the Development Center and on our website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 43. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes, finished floor elevations, area drain and bubbler locations, drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2% or 5% for 10-feet per 2013 CBC section 1804.3. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubblers, etc. Grading that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from neighboring properties, will not be allowed. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single Family Residences on the City’s website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 44. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10-feet from the property line and 3-feet from side an rear property lines, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. Include these dimensions on the plan. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F69F71E-F7A2-4BBE-A368-09596D6D50FD 2353 Webster Street 18PLN-00339 March 16, 2020 13 45. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring Plans prepared by a licensed professional are required for the Basement Excavation and shall be submitted with the Grading and Excavation Permit. Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 46. The site drainage system that collects runoff from downspouts and landscape area shall be a separated from the pump system that discharges runoff from light wells. Plot and clearly label the two separate systems and including the separate outfalls for each system. 47. UTILITIES: Note that all above ground utilities, such as transformer, backflow preventer, gas meters, etc., shall be located within project site but accessible from the street. Any new or relocated utilities will correspond with approved locations from City Utilities Department. 48. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Shall clearly identify the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade. Provide the following note on the Final Grading Plans. “In my professional judgement, the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade. As a result, the proposed drainage system for the basement retaining wall will not encounter and pump groundwater during the life of this wall.” 49. DEWATERING: Excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not allowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend that a piezometer be installed in the soil boring. The contractor shall determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using a piezometer or by drilling and exploratory hole. Based on the determined groundwater depth and season the contractor may be required to dewater the site or stop all grading and excavation work. In addition Public Works may require that all groundwater be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Grading Permit and Dewatering Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a Grading Permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits/default.asp DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F69F71E-F7A2-4BBE-A368-09596D6D50FD 2353 Webster Street 18PLN-00339 March 16, 2020 14 50. WATER FILLING STATION: applicant shall install a water station for the non-potable reuse of the dewatering water. This water station shall be constructed within private property, next to the right- of-way, (typically, behind the sidewalk). The station shall be accessible 24 hours a day for the filling of water carrying vehicles (i.e. street sweepers, etc.). The water station may also be used for onsite dust control. Before a discharge permit can be issued, the water supply station shall be installed, ready for operational and inspected by Public Works. The groundwater will also need to be tested for contaminants and chemical properties for the non-potable use. The discharge permit cannot be issued until the test results are received. Additional information regarding the station will be made available on the City’s website under Public Works. 51. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 52. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the Public road right- of-way. “Any construction within the city’s public road right-of-way shall have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 53. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite. 54. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant shall replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so that the inspector can discuss the extent of replacement work along the public road. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. Provide site direction sheet obtained from PW inspector in plan set. 55. Any existing driveway to be abandoned shall be replaced with standard curb & gutter. This work must be included within a Permit for Construction in the Public Street from the Public Works DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F69F71E-F7A2-4BBE-A368-09596D6D50FD 2353 Webster Street 18PLN-00339 March 16, 2020 15 Department. A note of this requirement shall be placed on the plans adjacent to the area on the Site Plan. 56. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 57. PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS CONDITIONS: The City's full-sized "Standard Conditions" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=67175.06&BlobID=66261 58. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works on our website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 59. This project triggers the California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s revised provision C.3 for storm water regulations (incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that apply to residential land development projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant must implement one or more of the following site design measures on the grading and drainage plan: Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse. Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas. Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas. Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces 60. Provide the following as a note on the Site Plan: “The contractor may be required to submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected surrounding properties , and schedule of work. The requirement to submit a logistics plan will be dependent on the number of applications Public Works Engineering receives within close proximity to help mitigate and control the impact to the public-right-of-way. If necessary, Public Works may require a Logistics Plan during construction.” End Project Conditions DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F69F71E-F7A2-4BBE-A368-09596D6D50FD UPDATED: February 26, 2020 1 Regulations for Groundwater Dewatering during Construction of Below Ground Structures A How-to Guide to Meeting City of Palo Alto Dewatering Requirements I. BACKGROUND In recent years, concerns that temporary construction-related groundwater dewatering may be wasting water, potentially damaging structures, trees and vegetation, and depleting or altering the flow of groundwater, have arisen. In response, the City of Palo Alto (City) established new requirements in February 2016 designed to minimize and standardize the process of pumping and discharge of groundwater from dewatering of below ground structures (e.g., basement or parking garage) during construction. After the results of new groundwater dewatering regulations from the 2016 and 2017 Construction Seasons, the City Council approved several enhancements to the dewatering policy that were codified in the Palo Alto Municipal Code and went into effect in May 2017, and again in December 2017 (Attachment 1). The 2017 changes included improving Fill Station performance, monitoring actual groundwater elevation changes during assessing impacts on nearby structures, clarifying reporting requirements, and a Hydrogeological Study (Study). This guide provides further explanation regarding the most recent code changes (which became effective on February 21, 2018) and is intended to assist project applicants in meeting code requirements. II. GENERAL GROUNDWATER DEWATERING REQUIREMENTS Note that this document is in reference to temporary groundwater dewatering during construction of below ground structures. This document does not contain information regarding dewatering of existing below ground structures in the City of Palo Alto. Temporary construction-related groundwater dewatering (dewatering) may be conducted using 1) groundwater exclusionary techniques (e.g., secant or cut-off walls), or 2) controlled groundwater pumping, also known as drawdown well dewatering. The City’s Public Works Department (Public Works) does not allow open pit dewatering of groundwater during construction; however, it may be allowed, if water quality limits are met, for removal of rainwater if it has accumulated at the bottom of an excavation site. If rainwater dewatering is required, the project manager/applicant must contact the City’s Watershed Protection Group at (650) 329-2122 before discharging to the City’s storm drain system. Attachment 2 provides applicants a basic flow chart to understand the City’s compliance process regarding the two types of allowed construction dewatering. To assist the City in determining whether dewatering will likely be required in the construction of below ground structures, the project applicant must submit a Geotechnical Report, also known as a soils report, (separate from the Hydrogeological Study described below) prior to the Building Permit application. In addition, if the deepest excavation will be within five feet of the anticipated groundwater level stated in the Geotechnical Report, the contractor must determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to submittal of the Excavation and Grading Permit. It is recommended that the boring hole for this depth measurement be protected and maintained and used as the monitoring well for the dewatering operations. UPDATED: February 26, 2020 2 As discussed later in this document, all dewatering sites are required to install a monitoring well onsite at the farthest feasible point from the underground structure. Placing this boring correctly and protecting it may avoid future work. If groundwater is found to be within two feet of the deepest excavation, a drawdown well dewatering system or cutoff wall must be installed. Regardless of this testing, if groundwater is actually encountered during construction (and the applicant does not have a dewatering permit), the contractor must immediately stop all work and must meet all of the following requirements prior to resuming work. The City’s dewatering season is April 1 through October 31 due to the capacity of the City's storm drain system. Dewatering to the sanitary sewer system is prohibited, exceptions may be allowed only under special circumstances and with a discharge permit obtained through Public Works’ Watershed Protection Group. During the dewatering season, sites will be allowed to dewater for a 12-week time period, including a two-week start-up period. The two-week start-up period is intended to provide adequate time for the contractor to meet the City’s dewatering requirements as well as City staff to inspect and monitor the dewatering start-up operation. At the end of the two-week start-up period, compliance with all performance standards and water quality standards, the hydrogeological study data, shall be demonstrated in order to continue dewatering. Residential sites are expected to complete dewatering within the allotted time period. Dewatering beyond 12 weeks is allowed only under special circumstances and if approved by the City Engineer. The City will consider allowing groundwater discharges to occur (to the storm drain system) from November 1 to March 31 if the applicant can provide sufficient evidence that the receiving storm drain line and water body has sufficient capacity to accommodate a 10-year, 6-hour storm event in addition to the dewatering discharge (a pipe capacity calculation). Where dewatering is required, applicants shall conduct dewatering in full compliance with the provisions of Chapter 16.28 (Excavation, Grading and Fills) as well as Chapter 9.10 (Noise) of the City’s Municipal Code, the regulations in this guide, and other permit conditions established by City staff. Due to the complexity of dewatering projects, City staff may impose and enforce additional requirements when or after a permit is issued in order to ensure public safety, ensure the condition of its infrastructure, or to protect the water quality of downstream water bodies. During the period of construction and dewatering discharge, project applicants/permittees are expected to promptly implement actions identified and required by City staff, including, but not limited to, notices of non-compliance and directives requiring immediate cessation of discharge. Administrative penalties may be put into effect for sites not in compliance with any of the City requirements, and will accrue if the applicant does not comply as requested by the City. A cessation order may be issued for reasons including, but not limited to: capacity issues in the storm drain or sanitary sewer systems; storm drain or sanitary sewer system failures; excess flow entering the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant, including exceptional storm events; emergency or routine maintenance of City infrastructure; protection of the environment, public health, safety and welfare; and failure to follow the terms/conditions/requirements of any permit. UPDATED: February 26, 2020 3 NOTE: All information contained in the dewatering permit application, dewatering permit, supporting documents, and the associated street work permit will be made available to the public upon request. III. GROUNDWATER EXCLUSIONARY TECHNIQUE REQUIREMENTS If the rate of groundwater discharge is greater than thirty gallons per minute for residential sites, groundwater exclusionary techniques cannot be used, and the requirements of Subsections IV (below) shall be followed. When groundwater exclusionary techniques are utilized, applicants must submit to the City a Dewatering Permit – Groundwater Exclusionary Technique packet with a Grading and Excavation Permit application (after Planning entitlement is approved). The Grading and Excavation Permit for a project will not be issued until all required submittals related to dewatering have been submitted, reviewed and approved by Public Works Engineering staff. The (Exclusionary Techniques) Dewatering Packet (Attachment 3) shall include the following: 1) Exclusionary Technique Permit form, 2) Exclusionary Technique plan, and 3) Inspection Checklist. Groundwater exclusionary techniques shall be conducted in compliance with the following: A. The rate of discharge of groundwater shall be limited to thirty gpm or less for residential dewatering projects. B. The Dewatering Plan shall be followed at all times and shall consist of a plan view of the project site and include all required features of the dewatering operation such as but not limited to: metered settling tank and it’s safely accessible location onsite, monitoring well at the farthest feasible onsite point from the excavation, location and size of percolation pits, pump location/s, associated piping, and stabilized construction entrance. C. Groundwater Use Plan shall illustrate how the groundwater will be used to the maximum extent practicable and without discharge to the storm drain system. When feasible, the primary focus of discharge shall be to percolate the discharge onto the construction property, usually into percolation pits. A secondary method of discharge should be to percolate the groundwater onto adjacent neighbor properties upon their permission (this should be handled between the project applicant and the property owners without facilitation or further approval from the City). Finally, the groundwater may be trucked offsite and, in coordination with the City’s Urban Forestry and/or Parks and Recreation staff, distributed throughout the City to locations that can use the water. D. The applicant shall install a groundwater monitoring well at the site. It shall be located at the farthest feasible onsite point from the underground structure. Initial groundwater level results must be included in the dewatering plan (same data point as the one required prior to grading and excavation permit application). E. Project status reporting: During the construction period of the underground structure, the applicant must submit periodic groundwater level reports and have the data available per request. At minimum, monitoring well data shall be collected daily for the first two weeks beginning with the start of the excavation UPDATED: February 26, 2020 4 activity and weekly thereafter. A final report shall be submitted two weeks after pumping of residual water ceases. All status reports should be submitted to Public Works Engineering (PWE) staff at the Development Center, email to the PWE staff person reviewing the project is preferred. Questions should be directed to pwecips@CityofPaloAlto.org. NOTE: Administrative Penalties may be imposed upon failure to follow the required reporting frequency. IV. CONTROLLED GROUNDWATER PUMPING (WITHOUT A SECANT OR CUT-OFF WALL) REQUIREMENTS When controlled groundwater pumping techniques are utilized, applicants must submit to the City a Dewatering Permit – Controlled Groundwater Pumping Packet with the Excavation and Grading Permit and Street Work Permit applications (after Planning entitlement is approved). The Excavation and Grading permit for a project will not be issued until all required submittals have been received, reviewed, and approved by PWE staff. A Dewatering Permit must be obtained before any discharge from the site occurs. Note that for residential projects, the Excavation and Grading Permit is only issued concurrently with the Building Permit. While discharging to the storm drain system, construction work on the underground structure shall be continuous and occur daily (in accordance with approved work hours). The contractor shall make progress towards completion of the underground structure without delay and following the detailed construction schedule provided in the Excavation and Grading Permit and/or the Dewatering Permit packet. In addition to what is required for exclusionary techniques (aside from the cut-off wall itself and the 30 gpm limitation), a Hydrogeological Study and an in-depth Groundwater Use Plan must also be submitted. Refer to the Controlled Groundwater Pumping Dewatering Permit Packet in Attachment 4 for more information. The following provides additional details regarding the City’s controlled groundwater pumping requirements: HYDROGEOLOGICAL STUDY REQUIREMENTS HAVE CHANGED: Public Works will no longer accept the use of “single layer models” to analyze subsurface soil condition of a particular parcel or project site where an underground structure is proposed and where dewatering is required. A “single layer model” is defined as any calculation, computer program or other method, which models the composition and/or properties of subsurface soils as a single, homogeneous layer of material. Site specific tests shall be performed to generate data in order to model the subsurface soil properties and produce a more accurate, site-specific, model. Additional information is detailed below. As with exclusionary techniques, the applicant shall install a groundwater monitoring well on the construction site at the farthest feasible point from the underground structure. Initial groundwater level results must be included in the Hydrogeological Study. During the construction period of the underground structure, the applicant must submit frequent groundwater level reports and have the data available per request. At minimum, monitoring well data shall be conducted daily for the first two weeks of the 12-week period and weekly UPDATED: February 26, 2020 5 thereafter. At the end of the two week start-up period, or thereafter, if drawdown results are greater than anticipated, the applicant shall submit a revised Dewatering Hydrogeological Study and any revised conclusions on impacts of the groundwater drawdown. A. Dewatering Hydrogeological Study - The purpose of this Study is to determine the initial, pre-construction groundwater levels as well as the impacts of groundwater pumping on the site and surrounding area. The Study should include the radius of influence (i.e. extent of cone of depression) from each dewatering well (if more than one is installed on-site) as a function of time, based on local soil and groundwater conditions. The Hydrogeological Study shall demonstrate that the dewatering plan has been designed to the maximum extent practicable to minimize the volume of water pumped during the dewatering operation, the flow rate, and the duration of the pumping. The Study shall be stamped by a California licensed Hydrogeologist or California licensed Geotechnical Engineer and submitted to the City as part of the Dewatering Packet. The Study should also include the following items: i. A minimum of 4 borings or other subsurface tests (Cone Penetrometer Tests, CPTs, are preferred) shall be performed across the project site/excavation area by a California licensed Geotechnical Engineer in order to develop a multilayer model of the subsurface soil conditions and properties. The tests should be performed to a depth of no less than 30 feet below existing grade (for residential projects). The test data shall be used to create a multi-layer model of subsurface conditions; single-layer models which model site conditions as a homogenous layer will not be accepted. 1. The data shall be used to design a dewatering plan based on the subsurface conditions/strata which results in the minimization of pumped water to the maximum extent practicable. 2. Well depth shall be specified based upon the subsurface conditions. 3. The pump depth within the dewatering well shall be specified based on the subsurface conditions and required drawdown. ii. A description and cross section(s) of the cone(s) of depression of any on- site monitoring well(s) as well as any nearby dewatering sites within a 400-foot radius of the property that may interact with or be influenced by the dewatering activity at the site. The location of the monitoring well(s) and nearby sites should also be shown on a map. iii. Anticipated drawdown curve and pumping flow rate. A description and cross section(s) of the cones of depression of the dewatering wells shall be calculated and graphed. The predicted drawdown level (depth to groundwater) at the onsite monitoring well shall be shown as a function of time; accurately graphed cross sections with data points or tabular data format shall be provided. The anticipated pumping flow rate shall be calculated for the dewatering system as well as the total volume due to be pumped for the 12 week dewatering period and daily totals. UPDATED: February 26, 2020 6 1. NOTE: The depth of each dewatering well pump will be verified in the field once installed and prior to any dewatering operations. iv. Using extrapolated data from the drawdown curves, determine the pumping rates needed to achieve the following drawdown performance: 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. These values can be extrapolated using the (verified) drawdown curves and the on-site monitoring well data points. B. Groundwater Use Plan (Plan) shall demonstrate how the pumped groundwater will be used to the maximum extent practicable. Two required components of this plan are the 1) groundwater flow meter and sediment settling tank system and 2) the Fill Station. Both components must be inspected and approved by City staff before obtaining a Controlled Groundwater Pumping Dewatering Permit. Inspections and approvals are documented via the Inspection Checklist (Attachment 4), which must be signed by a Public Works Inspector prior to issuing the Grading Permit, Dewatering Permit, Street Work permit, and associated Building Permit; no Dewatering Permit will be issued without a Public Works Inspector–signed Checklist. At a minimum, the Plan should include the items below; however, the applicant should be creative in their plan to use the pumped groundwater and shall adhere to the Plan throughout the dewatering period: i. Groundwater flow meter and sediment settling tank system: 1. Provide an accurate, non-mechanical flow meter with a data logger in good working condition at the inlet of the tank. The flow meter shall be positioned in a location which is safely accessible by City inspectors on a regular basis. Both flow rate and total flow measurements shall be easily readable and set to gallons. Before any water is pumped, the initial flow meter reading shall be checked and verified by the Watershed Protection Inspector (WP Inspector) as part of the initial dewatering Inspection Checklist approval process. The WP Inspector will collect meter readings on a daily basis during the two-week start-up period and weekly thereafter; the contractor is required to also monitor and record the meter readings using the same frequency. a. The area surrounding the tank should be kept clear at all times, with a safe pathway to the meter and tank. b. The edge of the tank should not be at the edge of the excavation area, as it may lead to unsafe conditions. c. The contractor shall contact PW Inspection prior to changing or replacing any meter. d. The point of outlet on the settling tank cannot be at the bottom of the settling tank. e. The settling tank must have a discharge valve which can be locked in a closed position. PW or WP Inspectors will UPDATED: February 26, 2020 7 lock the discharge valve to ensure that the erroneous discharge does not occur and that the City is notified and aware of exactly when discharge begins. Further sections below explain this process in greater detail. 2. Design the tank system so that the storage tank is always at minimum one-half full during the entire dewatering period to facilitate water truck usage. 3. Prior to the start-up period and as part of the Inspection Checklist process, once the tank is at least half-full and before any discharge of groundwater occurs, contact Watershed Protection at (650) 329-2122 for an initial inspection and for water quality testing. For non-(contaminated) plume areas, basic measurements will generally include pH, conductivity and turbidity. 4. After the WP Inspector collects water quality samples and provides a clearance that the sample is within acceptable limits, the contractor will contact the WP Inspector to temporarily unlock the tank discharge valve to allow the tank to be drained to the property while waiting to obtain the Dewatering Permit Packet from Public Works Engineering. Consult the WP Inspector for assistance. Provide a screen or other covering over the tank for mosquito management. City staff may require the use of Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti), a naturally occurring soil bacterium that effectively kills mosquito larvae, if necessary. ii. A Fill Station shall be constructed to provide the City and nearby residents and business owners the opportunity to use the pumped groundwater and to minimize the amount discharged to the storm drain system. The Fill Station should include two methods for water distribution: a truck-filling outlet for water truck distribution to sites in the City and a fill-up outlet, or hose bibbs, for neighboring properties. Detailed information about the fill station and its components is listed below. When the Fill Station is ready, contact Public Works Engineering Inspection staff (PWE Inspector) at (650) 496-6929 for an inspection of both the Fill Station and settling tank system and contact Building Inspection staff at (650) 444-6173 for an Electrical Safety Check. (Inspectors must check off these items on the Inspection Checklist.) The following is required for the Fill Station: 1. Location and set-up: • Locate the Fill Station outside the site construction fence to allow 24-hour access. The construction site should be locked outside of normal construction hours. • A lock is not required at the Fill Station, but if the applicant deems it necessary, a combination lock should be used with the combination of 2, 4, 6, 8 (or other easily UPDATED: February 26, 2020 8 remembered combination and shared with City Inspectors). • Truck fill outlet: provide a 2.5-inch hydrant fitting hose connection with a 50-foot traffic-rated hose. • Neighboring properties fill outlet: provide at least two 100-foot (minimum) hoses arranged on reels and connected to standard hose bibs. Hose bibs shall produce a minimum of 10gpm at the end of each 100 foot hose simultaneously. The applicant shall allow adjacent properties to use hoses connected to the fill station(s). Hoses shall be placed in a manner that is safe to the public and does not cause damage to neighboring or City property. Hoses shall not cross the street. The City may modify these requirements as circumstances require. • As with the tank system, the fill station shall include accurate and safely accessible, non-mechanical flow meters with data loggers in good working condition at the outlet point of the Fill Station to log water reuse. Both flow rate and total flow measurements shall be easily readable and set to gallons. The initial flow meter reading should be noted before any water is pumped. Flow meter reading shall be checked and verified by the PWE or WP Inspector as part of the initial dewatering approval process, Inspection Checklist. The WP Inspector will collect Fill Station meter readings on a daily basis during the two- week start-up period and weekly thereafter; the contractor is required to also monitor and record the meter readings using the same frequency. • Supply log sheets and a pen for truck drivers to log the truck company, date, and amount of each fill-up. • The temporary power source needed for the Fill Station should be placed inside the construction site (and NOT in the Fill Station), if possible. If needed, a switch with an in- use cover to power on the Fill Station pump may be placed inside the fill station cabinet. An additional switch with an in-use cover for the truck-fill hose pump should be provided. Both switches should be clearly labeled. • Provide easy-to-read signage for the Fill Station (including “Do not Drink”) and directions explaining how to use it. • For the hose bibs, provide signage that reads "No Hoses Crossing Street, Sidewalk, or Private Properties." 2. The applicant must demonstrate maximum 10-minute fill time for a ~2700 gallon water truck as part of the Inspection Checklist signoff. 3. Prior to the commencement of dewatering activities, the applicant shall notify occupants of neighboring properties of the temporary availability of water. Contact Public Works Engineering UPDATED: February 26, 2020 9 staff (650 329-2496, Option 8) for copies of door hangers to be used for notification. Door hangers not collected/received by the residents must be removed after 24 hours. iii. Irrigation of sites: The applicant is responsible for having the pumped groundwater delivered to nearby sites as directed by the City. The applicant shall contract with or otherwise provide water truck service; the water truck operator/company shall contact the City’s Urban Forestry staff should be contacted by the truck service company at (650) 496-5986 to determine the location of sites to be irrigated. During the first six weeks of dewatering activities (not including the two-week start-up period), water should be trucked one full day (8 hours) per week from the project site to the irrigation sites. This shall increase to five days per week (8 hours per day) during the remaining 4 weeks of the dewatering period. iv. On-site Use of Groundwater: Pumped groundwater should be used on the construction site as needed and whenever possible. This includes controlled infiltration, irrigation of existing landscaping, dust suppression and other construction needs. C. A Pre-construction Building Condition Survey and Report of structures located on adjacent parcels prepared by a licensed surveyor and meeting City standards must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to obtaining a dewatering permit. The survey must be prepared by a California licensed surveyor whereas the photographic and narrative report may be prepared by the applicant. Both documents shall be submitted at the same time as one report. The applicant is responsible for obtaining permission from neighboring property owners to enter their property to take survey points of the building interior. If permission is not granted, City staff should be notified; however, interior survey points are not required in order to obtain a Dewatering Permit. The survey shall include a photographic and narrative report on the external condition of each structure as well as surveyed and marked elevations of adjacent parcels, with particular attention to the condition of concrete foundations, structural connections, brickwork, plasterwork and other architectural finishes that are susceptible to cracking. The report shall assess the likelihood that the proposed dewatering would cause effects (including but not limited to settlement or movement) on off- site private or public structures or infrastructure, including the right-of-way, easements, and utilities within public utility easements, and the health or viability of vegetation or trees. To the extent that the report concludes that off-site effects are reasonably likely to occur, the applicant shall identify avoidance measures to be implemented that will minimize the type and severity of those effects and shall develop a monitoring plan to assess any actual effects on vegetation, trees, structures and infrastructure. D. A pipe capacity calculation is required. This calculation shall show that the storm drain inlet to which the dewatering water is proposed to be discharged to can accommodate the anticipated dewatering discharge in addition to a 10-year, 6 hour storm event. PW Engineering can assist in providing the appropriate storm UPDATED: February 26, 2020 10 drain staff for assistance. NOTE: If the pipe capacity analysis determines that the storm drain discharge point cannot accommodate the dewatering flow in addition to the 10 year, 6 hour, storm event, a Dewatering permit CANNOT be issued the day-of or after the date which is 12 weeks prior to October 31st. In other words, dewatering cannot begin within 12 weeks of October 31st. E. A detailed construction schedule must be included in the dewatering permit application packet. This schedule shall detail construction phases such as, but not limited to: a. Equipment mobilization b. Shoring installation c. Dewatering plan setup d. Excavation activity e. Dewatering start f. Finished excavation g. Basement construction – base rock, rebar, forms, plumbing, concrete, waterproofing, etc. h. Backfill i. Dewatering end The construction schedule shall list the duration of each step in days/weeks and total the number of weeks between Dewatering start and Dewatering end. F. A Dewatering Regulation Acknowledgement Statement must be signed by the property owner/s and licensed contractor and shall accompany the dewatering application. G. Contractor is required to begin shoring installation and excavation once the Excavation and Grading permit is issued and PRIOR to any dewatering operations. In order to minimize the volume of groundwater discharged to the storm drain and to maximize the 12 week allowable dewatering period, the dewatering system may ONLY be turned on once the excavation has encountered water or reached a depth within 2 feet of where groundwater is located based on the current monitoring well measurement at that time. The contractor is required to contact PW Inspection or WP Inspection prior to dewatering operation startup to unlock the settling tank discharge valve. Once the discharge valve is unlocked, the contractor must IMMEDIATELY obtain the dewatering permit from PW staff at the Development Center. If the dewatering permit is not immediately obtained on the same day the discharge valve is unlocked, PW will revoke the Excavation and Grading permit and daily administrative penalties may apply. H. STARTUP of dewatering operations is limited to Monday through Thursday ONLY. UPDATED: February 26, 2020 11 Dewatering may NOT start Friday through Sunday. I. Upon dewatering shutdown, the settling tank meter shall remain in place until City staff have recorded the final meter reading; PW or WP inspection should be contacted to record the meter reading. J. Verify the anticipated drawdown curve with a pump test performed on monitoring well(s) installed on the project site. Though the City is not currently requiring a particular type of pump test, the type used should be authorized and approved by a California licensed Hydrogeologist or CA licensed Geotechnical Engineer. Using the pump test and any other relevant data, the report shall state the anticipated pumping flow rate as well as the total amount of water due to be pumped for the 12 week dewatering period; daily pumped totals shall also be included. Following the two-week start-up period, the dewatering, pumping rates and maximum amount of water pumped on a daily basis shall be limited to the values calculated in the verification study. F. Project status reporting: During the construction period of the underground structure, the applicant must submit periodic reports and have the data available per request. Report contents and submittal frequency requirements are listed below. All status reports should be submitted via email to the Public Works Engineering staff who has been working on your project and who issued the Excavation and Grading permit. Questions should be directed to pwecips@CityofPaloAlto.org. 1) Monitoring well levels: At minimum, monitoring well data shall be collected daily for the first two weeks (start-up period) of the 12-week period and weekly thereafter. Status reports should be submitted weekly during start-up period and monthly thereafter. A final report shall be submitted two weeks after pumping ceases. 2) Flow meter readings: At minimum, flow meter data shall be collected daily for the first two weeks (start-up period) of the 12-week period and weekly thereafter. Status reports should be submitted weekly during start-up period and monthly thereafter. A final report shall be submitted two weeks after pumping ceases. 3) Survey data (see subsection IV.C. above): Once dewatering commences, survey data should be collected and reported weekly during the two-week start-up period and monthly thereafter. Note that the information will be made available to the public upon request. G. The Contractor and/or Applicant is required to contact PW Inspection to obtain the final meter readings once groundwater discharge has finished and prior to dismantling any dewatering system components. UPDATED: February 26, 2020 12 V. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION-RELATED GROUNDWATER DEWATERING IN GROUNDWATER (CONTAMINATED) PLUME AREAS Certain areas in the City have contaminated groundwater plumes due to previous land use. To determine if a site is in or nearby one of these areas, refer to the Attachment 5 figure. Dewatering sites in these areas must be carefully managed to ensure pumped groundwater does not enter the City’s storm drain system nor that it is used by members of the public without being treated. Therefore, Fill Stations are not required at these sites. However, the same flow meter/data logger requirements described in Section IV (B.i.) shall still be followed in order to account for the amount of groundwater pumped from the site. Construction of below ground structures in these areas triggers treatment requirements (in addition to sediment settlement) before discharging to the City’s storm drain system in order to protect the water quality of downstream creeks and the SF Bay. Because of site complexities, specific requirements may vary site by site. Therefore, for any site in or within 500 feet of the edge of a plume, contact the City’s Watershed Protection Group at (650) 329-2122 for guidance and requirements on sampling, treatment and disposal of temporary construction-related groundwater. Sampling groundwater for contaminants prior to initial discharge will be required, and potentially at intervals during dewatering. For all required sampling, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to collect and process samples. Finally, the applicant should contact the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) to ensure additional state agency requirements are met. Note that compliance with the City does not imply compliance with the Water Board. Corporate Headquarters 1500 North Mantua Street P.O. Box 5193 Kent, OH 4240-5193 330-673-5685 Toll Free 1-800-828-8312 Fax: 330-673-0860 Western Region Office 6005 Capistrano Suite A Atascadero, CA 93422 Direct: 720-667-9236 barry.duncil@davey.com September 22nd, 2019 Gordana Pavlovic Gordana Design Studio, LLC 602 Hawthorne Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 650.483.4622 RE: Arborist Report and Tree Protection Plan for Potential Development Impacts at 2353 Webster St. in Palo Alto, California Dear Ms. Pavlovic, Thank you for contracting with Davey Resource Group regarding the above project. In support of your objectives, Davey Resource Group (DRG) is pleased to provide you with the attached report for the planned construction. A DRG International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist conducted the site inspection of the trees that may be impacted by construction located at the above location in Palo Alto, California on February 3rd, as well as July 31st, 2019. The trees were assessed for location, size, current condition and overall health, as well as identifying critical and structural root zones to assist with tree protection plans. The attached report can be used to make informed decisions about demolition and construction planning, and long-term care of the trees. The survey determined the following: ▪ Twenty-one (21) trees within the potential impacts of the project scope were evaluated. ▪ Fourteen (14) species were identified with the most significant four (4) species listed as: valley oak (Quercus lobata), coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), ash (Fraxinus spp.) and southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) ▪ Tree condition ratings ranged from 52% (Fair) to 75% (Good). ▪ It was determined that eighteen (18) trees will require some form of tree protection measures due to proposed site improvements. ▪ Two (2) trees are recommended for removal due to proposed site improvements. ▪ One (1) large valley oak will require extensive monitoring and specific procedures during demolition and construction Please feel free to contact me if you would like more information or have any questions. Sincerely, Emily Spillett Davey Resource Group Certified Arborist #WE-6702A 2353 Webster St., Palo Alto, CA 1 September 2019 ARBORIST REPORT AND TREE PROTECTION PLAN 2353 Webster St. Palo Alto, California August 2019 Revised September 2019 2353 Webster St., Palo Alto, CA 2 September 2019 Arborist Report & Tree Protection Plan for 2353 Webster St. Palo Alto, California Prepared for Gordana Pavlovic Gordana Design Studio, LLC 602 Hawthorne Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 August 2019 Revised September 2019 Prepared by Davey Resource Group A Division of The Davey Tree Expert Company 1500 North Mantua Street Kent, OH 44240 Contact: Ruth Williams Western Region Office 6005 Capistrano Suite A Atascadero, CA 93422 Phone: 503.880.3818 E-mail: ruth.williams@davey.com www.daveyresourcegroup.com Notice of Disclaimer Inventory data provided by Davey Resource Group is based on visual recording at the time of inspection. Visual records do not include testing or analysis and do not include aerial or subterranean inspection. Davey Resource Group is not responsible for discovery or identification of hidden or otherwise non-observable risks. Records may not remain accurate after inspection due to variable deterioration of inventoried material and site disturbance. Davey Resource Group provides no warranty with respect to the fitness of the urban forest for any use or purpose whatsoever or for future outcomes of the inventoried trees. 2353 Webster St., Palo Alto, CA 3 September 2019 Table of Contents Summary 4 Introduction 4 Background 4 Assignment 4 Limits of Assignment 5 Purpose and Use of Report 5 Observations 5 Methods 5 Site Observations 5 Tree Observations 5 Analysis and Discussion 5 Conclusion and Recommendations 6 Appendix A – Tree Photograph Summary 8 Appendix B – Tree Inventory and Condition Assessment 11 Appendix C - Tree Protection Plan Drawing 13 2353 Webster St., Palo Alto, CA 4 September 2019 Summary In August 2017, Davey Resource Group (DRG) was contracted by Gordana Pavlovic to explore the possibility of having a new home on the site, address concerns about the impacts the project might have on the trees in proximity and define an area on the lot where the new construction would be possible at 2353 Webster St. in Palo Alto, CA, and what the condition of the trees are in before any design or construction began. In February 2019, DRG was again contracted by Ms. Pavlovic with a revised design as requested by the Planning department, to update the tree assessment and develop a tree protection plan for the existing trees. The revised design shifted the proposed building further away from a large oak to further protect this tree during and after construction. In the meantime, Jason Shirar, Arborist from S.P. McClenahan Co has been retained by Gordana to care and maintain the trees on the property. An International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist (#WE-9234A) from DRG conducted the evaluation of twenty-one (21) trees that may be impacted by development on February 3rd, 2018. After receiving comments from the City of Palo Alto, DRG sent another arborist to the site to collect additional information about the trees and neighboring trees. The initial assessment did not note a neighboring Deodar Cedar and as there was some concern expressed by comment from a neighbor, on September 22, 2019, the neighboring Deodar Cedar was added to the assessment. The trees were assessed by their location, size, current condition, and overall health. The current site survey was used to plot the critical root zones (CRZ) of the trees to help guide construction options to reduce potential impacts on the trees. Tree condition was primarily fair (6 trees), while fourteen (14) trees were in good condition. It was determined that two (2) of the trees are recommended for removal due to site improvements, and fifteen (15) trees are recommended for varying degrees of tree protection measures as described in this report as well as the Tree Protection Plan. Tree #5 is a large oak that will require monitoring, specific demolition practices, and fencing during and after demolition to best determine the retention potential of this tree. Typical tree protection fence will include Type I and Type II as found in the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. Introduction Background Yali Zhou is planning construction at 2353 Webster St. in Palo Alto, CA. In 2017, DRG was contracted to address concerns about the impacts the project might have on the trees in proximity to development and what the condition of the trees are in before any construction began. Gordana Pavlovic requested that DRG provide feedback regarding a proposed residential design at 2353 Webster St., and how that design may be changed or updated to reflect less impact to a large oak specimen. In 2019, Ms. Pavlovic had designed a new building plan in response to DRG’s recommendations to create a larger Tree Protection Zone for the specimen tree. In February 2019, DRG was again contracted to assess the existing trees and provide Tree Protection Plans for the new proposed residence at 2353 Webster. It was requested on behalf of the homeowners that DRG provide an arborist report on the health of the trees, and to identify what tree protection measures may be needed before final plans are submitted to Palo Alto for approval of the new project. Assignment DRG was contracted to conduct a site evaluation of twenty-one (21) existing trees within the limits of the project scope at 2353 Webster St. in Palo Alto, CA and recommend any necessary tree protection measures for the identified trees. The survey included a visual assessment of the trees’ condition, observations of the site conditions and estimating the current critical root zones to assist with upcoming construction planning. 2353 Webster St., Palo Alto, CA 5 September 2019 Limits of Assignment Many factors can limit specific and accurate data when performing evaluations of trees, their conditions, and potential for failure or response to site disturbances. No soil or tissue testing was performed. All observations were made from the ground and no soil excavation to expose roots was performed. The most recent development plans were available to assist in determining potential construction impacts, but these did not include detailed demolition plans. The determinations and recommendations presented here are based on current data and conditions that existed at the time of the evaluation and cannot be a predictor of the ultimate outcome for the evaluated trees in the future. Purpose and Use of Report The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the evaluations of the trees located at 2353 Webster St., including an assessment of the current condition and health, as well as providing a tree protection plan for all evaluated trees that may be impacted by construction plans. The findings in this report can be used to make informed decisions on design planning and be used to guide long-term care of the trees. This report and detailed tree protection plan can also be submitted to Palo Alto for permitting purposes. Should the development plans be revised, this report and plan must also be revised to remain valid. Observations Methods Only a visual inspection was used to develop the findings, conclusions, and recommendations found in this report. Data collection included measuring the diameter of significant trees at approximately 54 inches above grade (DBH), height estimation, canopy radius estimation, a visual assessment of tree condition, structure, and health, and a photographic record. Numerical values were assigned to grade the attributes of the roots, trunk, branches, and foliage, including structure and health, and to obtain an overall condition rating. No physical inspection of the upper canopy, sounding, root crown excavation, resistance drilling, or other technologies were used in the evaluation of the trees. Site Observations The surveyed site is a residence on a relatively flat location in Palo Alto, CA. Most of the grounds are landscaped. Tree Observations Twenty-one (21) trees were evaluated as part of this report. Four (4) important species were identified: valley oak (Quercus lobata), coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), ash (Fraxinus spp.) and southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora). Visual assessments determined tree condition ratings ranged from 52-58% (Fair, 6 trees) to 75% (Good, 14 trees). Tree diameters ranged from 8 to 72 inches. Finally, tree heights were estimated to be approximately 14 to 60 feet. Tree photographs are available upon request and a complete Tree Inventory and Condition Assessment can be found in Appendix A. Analysis and Discussion The surveyed trees are of a mixed size (age) class. Seven (7) trees are on the property under construction, while ten (10) trees are on adjacent property and four (4) are street trees. Lower tree condition ratings were based on trunk structure or damage, visible decay, minor dieback, poor structure, or observed stress. Tree #5 is an older tree that be considered mature and is located very close to the existing house. It is likely that many of the tree roots grow along the house and at the base of the of the existing footers, and this should be noted for the demolition phase. 2353 Webster St., Palo Alto, CA 6 September 2019 The diameters of the surveyed trees were used to illustrate the potential critical root zone (CRZ) of each tree. The CRZ is the area of soil around a tree where the minimum amount of roots considered critical to the health of the tree are located. The CRZ was calculated by multiplying the DBH by 0.83 feet (10 inches). For instance, tree #1 has a DBH of 12 inches and a calculated CRZ of 10 feet (12 x 0.83). This distance may extend beyond the tree canopy dripline and is normally considered the tree protection zone (TPZ). Tree protection fencing is normally installed to protect the CRZ, but at a minimum should be installed at the dripline. Like the CRZ, the structural root zone (SRZ) was also calculated using a commonly accepted method established by Dr. Kim Coder in Construction Damage Assessments: Trees and Sites.1 In this method, the root plate size (i.e. pedestal roots, zone of rapid taper area, and roots under compression) and limit of disruption based upon tree DBH is considered as a minimum distance that any disruption should occur during construction. Significant risk of catastrophic tree failure exists if structural roots within this given radius are destroyed or severely damaged. The SRZ is the area minimal or no disturbance should occur without arborist supervision. Both the CRZ and SRZ for the surveyed trees are illustrated in Appendix C. Conclusion and Recommendations Tree #5 will require extensive planning, additional budget and thorough communication with supervising arborist and the contractor. As the structural root zone may be impacted during demolition, it is critical that all demolition techniques minimize impacts in this area. Currently, the CRZ for this tree is estimated at approximately 11,000 square feet. Based on the proposed demolition that will occur, we estimate that 1850 square feet (17% percent) of this CRZ will be removed. Minor impact to the remaining CRZ area is anticipated from proposed demolition, restoration and utility connections. It is recommended that existing structure demolition is completed by hand from within the building footprint. No Equipment outside the footprint and an arborist should approve the equipment inside the footprint. All demolition and restoration work within the CRZs of retained trees shall be completed by hand and under arborist supervision. Existing soil moisture should be mimicked throughout demolition and construction. Subsequent protection measures should be considered through all stages of demolition and construction. This may include: tree growth regulator (tree #5); root protection matting and 4-6” inches of mulch; installing trunk wrap; using hand tools and light machinery when working in the Tree Protection Zone; watering, wetting and covering roots that may be exposed to sunlight and dry conditions; potentially leaving some parts of the foundation and existing footings in place as to minimally disturb existing roots. Additionally, all fill soils around tree #5 shall mimic existing native soils and shall not be over-compacted, as determined by a soil specialist. To facilitate the demolition of the existing building foundation, the tree protection should be temporarily moved to the outside of the demolition area once the Arborist has arrived onsite to document any tree impacts. Root protection matting and mulch may be necessary to minimize soil compaction and impacts to the existing roots within the Tree Protection Zone, as determined by the supervising arborist. When demolition is complete, soil should be immediately backfilled and incorporated with the native soils using pneumatic air tools, and finally the area should be mulched. Then the tree protection fence should be replaced and remain throughout the duration of construction. All work performed in the TPZ of the trees to be retained should be supervised by a Certified Arborist. Temporary root protection is recommended by using a 4-6” layer of mulch. In addition, the proposed electric 1 Dr. Kim D. Coder, University of Georgia July 1996 2353 Webster St., Palo Alto, CA 7 September 2019 utility connection through the TPZ must be excavated by air tools or by hand, or be directional bored, to avoid unnecessary root damage. The utility work will require arborist oversight. Tree protection measures should be in place before any site work occurs, including: ● Installation of 6’ min high tree protection fencing ● Mulching according to the tree protection plans ● Posting signage on the tree protection fencing ● Pre-work meetings and site visits with the design team ● Ensuring that contractor and subcontractors know when arborist supervision is required This helps to ensure that everyone is on-board towards the same goal- retaining and preserving the twenty- one (21) trees while maintaining a safe residential setting. Following construction, the trees should be monitored monthly by a Certified Arborist to ensure the condition and structure of the tree do not decline over time or become hazardous. If a change in state is observed, the Arborist should recommend mitigation measures, which may include, but are not limited to, increased monitoring, pruning, general plant health care, or removal. 2353 Webster St., Palo Alto, CA 8 September 2019 Appendix A – Tree Photograph Summary Additional photos upon request Image 1. Trees #1-3 along Webster St. 2353 Webster St., Palo Alto, CA 9 September 2019 Image 2. Tree #5 behind house 2353 Webster St., Palo Alto, CA 10 September 2019 Image 3. Tree #5 2353 Webster St., Palo Alto, CA 11 September 2019 Image 4. Tree #5 2353 Webster St., Palo Alto, CA 12 September 2019 Appendix B – Tree Inventory and Condition Assessment Attached 2353 Webster St., Palo Alto, CA 13 September 2019 Appendix C - Tree Protection Plan Drawing Attached Wetland 5300 Wellington Branch Drive • Suite 100 Gainesville, Virginia 20155 Phone: 703-679-5600 • Fax: 703-679-5601 www.wetlandstudies.com Studies and Solutions, Inc.R Ci t y o f P a l o A l t o Tr e e P r o t e c t i o n - I t ’ s P a r t o f t h e P l a n ! Ma k e s u r e y o u r c r e w s a n d s u b s d o t h e j o b r i g h t ! T- 2 Sp e c i a l T r e e P r o t e c t i o n I n s t r u c t i o n S h e e t Ci t y o f P a l o A l t o Al l o t h e r t r e e - r e l a t e d r e p o r t s s h a l l b e a d d e d t o t h e s p a c e p r o v i d e d o n t h i s s h e e t ( a d d i n g a s n e e d e d ) In c l u d e t h i s s h e e t ( s ) o n P r o j e c t S h e e t I n d e x o r L e g e n d P a g e . A c o p y o f T - 1 c a n b e d o w n l o a d e d a t w w w . c i t y o f p a l o a l t o . o r g / a r b / f o r m s ZHOU RESIDENCE 2353 WEBSTER ST PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA WSSI PROJECT # DRGWEST234 T- 2 Wetland 5300 Wellington Branch Drive • Suite 100 Gainesville, Virginia 20155 Phone: 703-679-5600 • Fax: 703-679-5601 www.wetlandstudies.com Studies and Solutions, Inc.R T- 3 Sp e c i a l T r e e P r o t e c t i o n I n s t r u c t i o n S h e e t Ci t y o f P a l o A l t o Al l o t h e r t r e e - r e l a t e d r e p o r t s s h a l l b e a d d e d t o t h e s p a c e p r o v i d e d o n t h i s s h e e t ( a d d i n g a s n e e d e d ) In c l u d e t h i s s h e e t ( s ) o n P r o j e c t S h e e t I n d e x o r L e g e n d P a g e . A c o p y o f T - 1 c a n b e d o w n l o a d e d a t w w w . c i t y o f p a l o a l t o . o r g / a r b / f o r m s ZHOU RESIDENCE 2353 WEBSTER ST PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA WSSI PROJECT # DRGWEST234 T- 3 Wetland 5300 Wellington Branch Drive • Suite 100 Gainesville, Virginia 20155 Phone: 703-679-5600 • Fax: 703-679-5601 www.wetlandstudies.com Studies and Solutions, Inc.R T- 4 Sp e c i a l T r e e P r o t e c t i o n I n s t r u c t i o n S h e e t Ci t y o f P a l o A l t o Al l o t h e r t r e e - r e l a t e d r e p o r t s s h a l l b e a d d e d t o t h e s p a c e p r o v i d e d o n t h i s s h e e t ( a d d i n g a s n e e d e d ) In c l u d e t h i s s h e e t ( s ) o n P r o j e c t S h e e t I n d e x o r L e g e n d P a g e . A c o p y o f T - 1 c a n b e d o w n l o a d e d a t w w w . c i t y o f p a l o a l t o . o r g / a r b / f o r m s ZHOU RESIDENCE 2353 WEBSTER ST PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA WSSI PROJECT # DRGWEST234 T- 4 Attachment F Project Plans During Shelter-in-Place, plans are only available online. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “2353 Webster Street” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details on the left side and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “2353 Webster Approved Plans” and dated 12/05/19 to review the tentatively approved plan set. City of Palo Alto (ID # 11488) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 8/10/2020 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Contracts Awarded by the City Manager and Procurement Officer Title: Report on Contracts Awarded by the City Manager and Procurement Officer per Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 2.30.710, for the Period of January 2020 through June 2020, and Report on Emergency Contracts per PAMC Section 2.30.210 From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 2.30.710 requires the City Manager to provide a biannual report to Council consisting of contracts awarded by the City Manager, Procurement Officer or other designated employees for: 1) General and professional services in excess of $25,000; and 2) Public works and goods in excess of $85,000. Attachments A and B fulfill this PAMC reporting requirement for the period from January 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020. In addition, per PAMC Section 2.30.210, expenditures made during an emergency are to be reported to Council, if Council would have made the approval if not for the emergency. Attachments A and B also address this PAMC reporting requirement, as further detailed below. In summary, the contracts in Attachment A consist of 9 distinct awards for materials, and the contracts in Attachment B consist of 59 distinct awards for a wide range of goods and services. These awards are a core element of the efficient and effective provision of services by the City to our community and reflect extensive coordination and prudent decision-making among operating departments, the Administrative Services Department, the City Attorney's Office, and City Clerk's Office. For informational purposes, Attachment C is an excerpt from the Palo Alto Municipal Code that sets forth the authority designated by Council to the Procurement Officer to award and sign contracts (PAMC 2.30.200) and exemptions from competitive solicitation (PAMC 2.30.360 and 2.30.900), as noted for certain contracts listed in Attachments A and B. City of Palo Alto Page 2 COVID-19 Public Health Emergency During this six-month period, the world began grappling with COVID-19, a global pandemic. The financial implications of this public health emergency are significant, with regional, national and global impacts on economies in response to shelter in place orders required by the State of California and the County of Santa Clara and related social distancing restrictions. On March 12, 2020 the City Manager, acting as the Director of Emergency Services, issued a Proclamation of Local Emergency regarding the presence and community spread of COVID-19 in Santa Clara County and our region. On Sunday, March 15, 2020, the City Manager activated the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and since that time, the City has managed the EOC virtually through a cross-functional multi-departmental team. On March 16, 2020, the City Council ratified the Proclamation of Local Emergency. This proclamation of local emergency has continued to be extended. As such, during this period, the City entered into emergency contracts (defined as contracts for goods or services necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare in the event of an emergency) in accordance with the emergency contracting and procurement provisions of the municipal code (see PAMC Sections 2.12.060 and 2.30.160). Contracts awarded under these guidelines are listed with authorization reference “COVID-19” in Attachment B. In total, $95,000 has been awarded under this emergency authority through June 2020. All purchases made under this authority are summarized and reported as information to the City Council as required in the municipal code. Attachments: • Attachment A - Material Contracts Awarded by CPO & CM January to June 2020 • Attachment B - Services Contracts Awarded by CPO & CM January to June 2020 • Attachment C - Excerpts from the Palo Alto Municipal Code ATTACHMENT A Material Contracts Awarded ($85,000 and above) January 1 to June 30, 2020 Materials Contract Contract Awarded To Award Date Award Amount Bidding Exemption or Number of Bids Sent/Received Description 4520000304 National Auto Fleet Group 01/02/2020 $107,774.08 2.30.360(k) Ford F‐350 with K‐Body 4520000306 National Auto Fleet Group 01/02/2020 $121,232.48 2.30.360(k) Ford F‐350 with K‐Body Dump Truck 4520000305 National Auto Fleet Group 01/02/2020 $132,901.71 2.30.360I(j) Ford F‐550 with AmTruck Body 4620000132 Oldcastle Infrastructure 03/01/2020 $125,000.00 2.30.900 Assorted Vaults and Pads 4520000391 National Auto Fleet Group 03/02/2020 $118,440.48 2.30.360(k) Ranger 2wdXL Scab 6' Box 4520000439 The Okonite Company 03/22/2020 $96,268.80 4/4 Cable, AL 1/0 15 kV 2/C PARALL 4520000459 Golden Gate Systems 04/01/2020 $97,392.38 2.30.360(j) Dynabook (Toshiba) Portege X30 Laptops 4520000516 Suez Treatment Solutions Inc 05/19/2020 $95,522.71 2.30.360(d) Flanges, Gaskets, and Hardware 4520000568 National Auto Fleet Group 07/01/2020 $167,918.66 2.30.360(k) Ford F‐550 with Crane ATTACHMENT B Service Contracts Awarded ($85,000 and above) January 1 to June 30, 2020 Service Contract Contract Awarded To Award Date Award Amount Bidding Exemption or Number of Bids Sent/Received Description S20177918 Jackson Lewis PC 01/02/2020 $32,700.00 2.30.360(g) Legal Services S20176643 SCI Consulting Group 01/15/2020 $58,100.00 3/3 GSI Funding Analysis S20175615 Sportykids 01/16/2020 $65,000.00 8/1 Multisport Summer Camps S20178065 Michael J Gennaco 01/17/2020 $75,000.00 2.30.360(g) Legal Services S20177312 Sacks Ricketts & Case LLP 01/23/2020 $30,000.00 2.30.360(i) HR ‐ Investigations S20175614 Thomas Sarsfield 01/27/2020 $34,501.00 6/1 Adult Tennis Classes S20176209 Assetworks, Inc 01/28/2020 $26,361.60 2.30.360(d) Telematics Monitoring/GPS S20177703 Cps Human Resource Services 01/30/2020 $25,000.00 2.30.360(i) Recruitment Services S20175881 Finite Matters Ltd. 02/06/2020 $40,750.00 2.30.200(e) Budget Document Publishing Software S20178094 Management Partners 02/09/2020 $85,000.00 2.30.360(d) Special Advisor Purchasing S20176958 Accruent LLC 02/10/2020 $28,019.19 2.30.360(i) MC Tech Support ‐ Facilities S20178165 Welker Brothers 02/11/2020 $42,900.00 4/4 LSCC Interior Flooring Replace S20176032 Stanley Convergent Security 02/19/2020 $46,000.00 2.30.360(d) Fire Alarm System Service S20178160 Performance Based Ergonomic, Inc. 02/24/2020 $25,000.00 2.30.360(i) Ergo Training S20178214 David J Powers & Associates Inc. 02/24/2020 $29,992.00 2.30.360(h) Initial Study CEQA S20178213 David J Powers & Associates Inc. 02/24/2020 $44,936.00 2.30.360(h) Initial Study/MND S20178348 Van Dermyden Maddux Law Corp. 02/25/2020 $50,000.00 2.30.220 Legal Services S20178241 Teri Black & Company LLC 02/25/2020 $51,000.00 2.30.360(b2) Executive Recruitment S20178408 PG&E 03/02/2020 $40,832.27 2.30.360(m) PG&E Relay Protection & Testing S20176781 CTE Cal INC 03/02/2020 $85,000.00 2/1 WMR27 ‐ Soil Compaction Testing S20177575 Bob Murray & Associates 03/03/2020 $30,000.00 2.30.360(i)Executive Recruitment S20178324 Law Office of Terry Roemer 03/05/2020 $50,000.00 2.30.220 Legal Services S20177821 Hirevue Inc. 03/09/2020 $43,400.00 2.30.360(i) Recruitment Technology S20178380 Dasher Technologies 03/10/2020 $29,106.00 3/3 Aerohive Support Renewal S20178100 Optiv Security Inc. 03/10/2020 $35,503.00 3/3 FireEye ETP Renewal ‐ 1YR FY20 S20178376 Marpi Studios LLC 03/17/2020 $40,650.00 2.30.360(i) Temporary Artwork for Code:ART2 S20175579 Toubar Equipment 03/26/2020 $84,975.00 31/1 Landfill Maintenance S20178039 MIG, Inc. 03/30/2020 $35,371.00 2.30.360(i) Project Permit Assistance S20176822 Verizon Wireless Corporation 03/31/2020 $49,000.00 2.30.360(k) GPS monthly S20178630 Management Partners 04/12/2020 $40,000.00 2.30.360(i) Consultant ‐ City Auditor Office RFP S20176706 Folgergraphics INC 04/14/2020 $40,001.00 11/4 Printing Services S20178679 RKS Research & Consulting 04/15/2020 $31,000.00 2.30.360(i) Utilities Customer Surveys S20178584 Code 42 Software, Inc. 04/15/2020 $66,500.00 2.30.360(d) Renewal with Code42 S20178749 Lifecycle Technology LLC 04/15/2020 $70,000.00 2.30.160 COVID‐19 Electronic Plan Review S20178892 Saltus Consulting 04/20/2020 $25,000.00 2.30.160 COVID‐19 Business Roundtable Facilitator S20176631 David Taussig & Associates 04/21/2020 $60,000.00 17/5 Development Impact Fee Nexus Study ATTACHMENT B Service Contracts Awarded ($85,000 and above) January 1 to June 30, 2020 Service Contract Contract Awarded To Award Date Award Amount Bidding Exemption or Number of Bids Sent/Received Description S20178997 Liebert Cassidy & Whitmore 04/24/2020 $25,000.00 2.30.360(g) Professional Legal Services S20178909 Rincon Consultants, Inc. 04/26/2020 $52,000.00 2.30.360(h) Planning Professional Services S20178516 Hohbach‐Lewin Inc. 05/06/2020 $49,950.00 11/1 On‐Call Structural Engineering Services S20177694 Pure Technologies US Inc. 05/06/2020 $59,292.50 14/3 Fire Hydrant Inspection S20176143 Clean Harbors Environmental 05/06/2020 $85,000.00 18/1 City Haz Waste Disposal S20177974 Peoples Associates Structural 05/10/2020 $38,720.00 2.30.360(i) Colorado Substation Driveway Design S20178232 Argsoft Group LLC 05/11/2020 $26,765.00 3/1 Argent Guardian Ultra S20179083 CDW Government 05/14/2020 $37,530.00 2.30.360(J) Armorblox ‐ InBound S19172116A Eurofins Calscience 05/19/2020 $54,840.00 19/2 Laboratory Analysis‐ WQCP Lab S20178827 Willamette Power Engineering 05/27/2020 $40,000.00 2.30.360(i) Aspen Model Update S20178720 Peoples Associates Structural 06/02/2020 $49,747.00 2.30.360(i) Electric Substation Foundation S20179167 Anaya Construction 06/04/2020 $48,000.00 3/3 Transport Modular Buildings S20175228 Finley Engineering Co Inc. 06/04/2020 $85,000.00 2/1 Communications Systems S20178993 Microsoft Corporation 06/09/2020 $75,418.00 2.30.360(j) MS Premier ‐ Unified Support S21179035 Megan Montanti 06/16/2020 $30,000.00 2.30.360(i) Children's Theatre Scenic Artist S20178105 Howden Roots LLC 06/16/2020 $76,780.00 2.30.360(d) Compressor Preventative Maintenance WWT S20177837 Abb Enterprise Software Inc. 06/16/2020 $84,000.00 2.30.360(d) Circuit Breaker Repair/Training S21179041 Christina Stankovich 06/17/2020 $32,400.00 230.360(i)Children's Theatre Costume Design Services S20178732 Absg Consulting Inc. 06/24/2020 $40,000.00 2.30.360(i) Wildfire Risk Assessment S20178102 Liquivision Technology Inc. 06/25/2020 $27,250.00 3/3 Tank Cleaning & Inspection S20179119 Watchguard Video 06/25/2020 $33,000.00 2.30.360(b3) Geo‐Server Annual Maintenance S20178175 Tritech Software Systems 06/25/2020 $33,736.50 2.30.360(d) Tennis Class & Summer Camps S21179054 Cross Land Surveying, Inc 07/01/2020 $40,000.00 2.30.360(i) As‐Needed Land Surveying Page 1 of 5 ATTACHMENT C Excerpts from the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.30 – Contracts and Purchasing Procedures 2.30.200 Procurement officer contract award authority. The Procurement Officer may award and sign the following contracts: (a) Public Works Contracts. Public works contracts, where the term does not exceed three years, and the contract price and any price contingency established for change orders, but excluding sales tax or use tax, do not exceed $85,000.00 in the first contract year, and do not exceed the sum of $85,000.00 and any unexpended monies carried forward from a prior contract year, in any subsequent contract year. (b) Contracts for Goods. Contracts to purchase goods, where the term does not exceed three years, and the contract price and any price contingency established for change orders, but excluding sales tax or use tax, do not exceed $85,000.00 in the first year, and do not exceed the sum of $85,000.00and any unexpended monies carried forward from a prior contract year, in any subsequent contract year. (c) General Services Contracts. General services contracts, where the term does not exceed three years, and the contract price and any price contingency established for change orders or additional services, but excluding sales tax or use tax, do not exceed $85,000.00 in the first contract year, and do not exceed $85,000.00 and any unexpended monies carried forward from a prior contract year, in any subsequent contract year. (d) Professional Services Contracts. Professional services contracts, where the term does not exceed three years, and the contract price, and any price contingency established for additional services, but excluding sales tax or use tax, do not exceed the sum of $85,000.00 in the first contract year, and do not exceed the sum of $85,000.00 and any unexpended monies carried forward from a prior contract year, in any subsequent contract year. (e) Software and Hardware Purchase, Licensing, Maintenance and Support Contracts. Notwithstanding Subsection 2.30.200(c), the Procurement Officer may award and sign contracts other than general services agreements, including, without limitation, vendor-based standard form hardware and software purchase and licensing contracts, for the purchase of hardware and software, the licensing of software, and the maintenance and support of hardware and software, where the term of licensing or maintenance and support services does not exceed five years and the contract price, excluding sales tax or use tax, does not exceed $85,000.00 per year in the first contract year and does not exceed the sum of $85,000.00 and any unexpended monies carried forward from a prior contract year, in any subsequent contract year. The contracts referred to herein may include contracts for data storage services, which shall be subject to the city's information security policies, terms, conditions and other requirements established by the chief information officer with the concurrence and approval of the City Attorney. (Ord. 5494 § 9, 2020: Ord. 5387 § 1 (part), 2016: Ord. 4827 § 1 (part), 2004) 2.30.210 City Manager contract award authority. The City Manager may award and sign the following contracts: (a) Public Works Contracts. Public works contracts, where the term does not exceed three years, and the contract price and any price contingency established for change orders, but excluding sales tax or use tax, do not exceed $250,000.00 in the first contract year, and do not exceed the sum of $250,000.00 and any unexpended monies carried forward from a prior contract year, in any subsequent contract year. (b) Contracts for Goods. Contracts to purchase goods, where the term does not exceed three years and the contract price and any contingency established for change orders, but excluding sales tax or use Page 2 of 5 tax, do not exceed $250,000.00 in the first contact year, and do not exceed the sum of $250,000.00 and any unexpended monies carried forward from a prior contract year, in any subsequent contract year. (c) General Services Contracts. Contracts for services associated with the leasing or licensing of personal property other than hardware or software, where the term does not exceed seven years, and the contract price and any price contingency established for change orders, but excluding sales tax or use tax, do not exceed $85,000.00 in the first contract year, and do not exceed the sum of $85,000.00 plus any unexpended monies carried forward from a prior contract year, in any subsequent contract year. (d) Contracts for Studies and Services Related to Private Development. Professional services contracts for: (1) the preparation of environmental assessments or other studies deemed necessary by the director of planning and development services for the processing of applications for private development projects, or (2) inspection and plan review services deemed necessary by the director of planning and development services to evaluate conformity of private development projects with applicable building codes, regardless of the cost or term thereof, provided the applicant for the private development project agrees, in writing, to bear responsibility for the entire contract cost, and the contract does not require the expenditure of city funds in any amount. (e) Rewards. The City Manager may offer and pay rewards where the amount of the reward does not exceed $25,000.00, in accordance with the procedures of Section 2.30.800. (f) Emergency Contracts. The City Manager is authorized to expend city funds for emergency contracts, as defined in Section 2.30.160, without limitation on the contract cost or amount and without following the contract solicitation and award procedures otherwise required by this chapter, provided that any procurement of goods and services obtained during an emergency declared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall comply with applicable FEMA Public Assistance Program's procurement orders, rules, regulations, guidelines and control procedures for cost reimbursement purposes. Expenditures made during an emergency must be reported to the Council at the next regular meeting if approval for such expenditures would otherwise have been made by the Council. The City Manager may issue a verbal report to the Council before a written report is delivered. (g) Contracts to Rent, Lease, License, Acquire, Transfer or Purchase Interests in Real Property from Other Parties. Contracts for the rental, leasing, licensing, or purchase by installment interests in real property from other parties for a term of seven years or less, where the contract price does not exceed $85,000.00 per year, or to encumber or transfer any interest in real property from other parties for any term of years. The City Manager may enter into and sign a contract to acquire or purchase an interest in real property, where the contract price does not exceed $85,000.00. (h) Contracts to Rent, Lease, or License City Real Property to Other Parties. The authority granted under this Section is distinct from the authority of the director of community services to grant individuals and groups permits for the exclusive temporary use of buildings and facilities located in, and the areas of, city parks and open spaces, as described in Chapter 22.04 of this municipal code or in the park and open space regulations. The City Manager may award and sign contracts to rent, lease or license city real property to other parties regardless of the price for a term not exceeding three years. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the City Manager may enter into and sign contracts for the rental, lease or licensing of real property at the Cubberley Community Center for terms of up to five years. (i) Contracts to Provide Municipal Services to other Public Entities or Utilities. A contract to provide municipal services and functions to any other public agency, public utility or other public entity in any amount for a term not exceeding three years, provided the contract is in compliance with all Council- adopted policies covering such contracts. The authority granted herein does not include the authority of the City Manager to add permanent employee positions. (j) Contracts Providing for Indemnity or Risk of Loss. The City Manager, with the concurrence and approval of the City Attorney and the insurance risk manager, may enter into and sign contracts, otherwise within the limits of his or her authority under Section 2.08.140 of this municipal code, that provide for the city or its officers or employees to defend, indemnify, or assume the risk of damage, loss, Page 3 of 5 or liability for, or subrogate to any other contracting party respecting claims, demands, actions, losses or liabilities arising from the city's performance or non-performance under the contract. (k) Wholesale Utility Commodities and Services Contracts. Wholesale utility commodities and services contracts, where the term does not exceed five years and the contract price does not exceed $250,000.00 in any contract year. (l) Software and Hardware Purchase, Licensing, Maintenance and Support Contracts. Notwithstanding Subsection 2.30.210(c), the City Manager may award and sign contracts other than general services agreements, including, without limitation, vendor-based standard form hardware and software purchase and licensing contracts, for the purchase of hardware and software, the licensing of software, and the maintenance and support of hardware and software, where the term of licensing or maintenance and support services does not exceed seven years and the contract price, excluding sales tax or use tax, does not exceed $85,000.00 per year in the first contract or fiscal year and does not exceed the sum of $85,000.00 and any unexpended monies carried forward from a prior fiscal year, in any subsequent contract or fiscal year. The contracts referred to herein may include contracts for data storage services, which shall be subject to the city's information security policies, terms, conditions and other requirements established by the chief information officer with the concurrence and approval of the City Attorney. (m) Other Contracts. All other types of contracts for which the contract term does not exceed three years and the total expenditure by the city does not exceed $85,000.00 in the first contract or fiscal year, and does not exceed the sum of $85,000.00 and any unexpended monies carried forward from a prior fiscal year, in any subsequent contract or fiscal year. (Ord. 5494 §§ 3, 10, 2020: Ord. 5387 § 1 (part), 2016: Ord. 4827 § 1 (part), 2004) *** 2.30.360 Exemptions from competitive solicitation requirements. The following are exemptions from the informal and formal competitive solicitation requirements of this chapter, except as otherwise provided. These exemptions will be narrowly interpreted and applied. The department requesting an exemption shall provide all relevant information supporting the application of the exemption to the Procurement Officer. Based upon this information, the Procurement Officer shall make a recommendation to the City Manager and the City Manager shall determine whether an exemption from the competitive solicitation requirements applies. Nothing herein is intended to preclude the use of competitive solicitations, as practicable. (a) Emergency Contracts, provided that any procurement of goods and services obtained during an emergency declared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall comply with applicable FEMA Public Assistance Program's orders, rules, regulations, guidelines and control procedures for cost reimbursement purposes. (b) Whenever solicitations of bids or proposals would for any reason be impracticable, unavailing or impossible, provided that in the case of a public works project, the project is not otherwise required by the charter to be formally bid. These situations are those where solicitations of bids or proposals would not be useful or produce any operational or financial advantage for the city. Situations where solicitations of bids or proposals would be impracticable, unavailing or impossible, include, without limitation, the following: (1) Contract specifications cannot be drawn in a way that would enable more than one vendor, consultant or contractor to meet them; Page 4 of 5 (2) Due to circumstances beyond the control of the city, the time necessary to use the competitive solicitation process, procedures and requirements would result in a substantial economic loss to the city or the substantial interference with a required city operation; (3) Special conditions attached to a grant, donation or gift requires the use of particular goods and/or services. All requests for exemptions under this subsection shall be supported by written documentation (facsimile or electronic mail may be used), approved by the department head and the Procurement Officer. (c) Where competitive bids or requests for proposals have been solicited and no bid or proposal has been received, or where no bid or proposal meeting the requirements of the invitation to bid or request for proposals has been received, provided that, in the case of a public works project, the project is not otherwise required by the charter to be formally bid. (d) Contracts for goods, wholesale commodities and services, general services or professional services available from only one source, where the Procurement Officer has determined, in writing, there is no adequate substitute or equivalent provider. Examples of acceptable sole source acquisitions or purchases may include, without limitation: equipment or services for equipment, for which there is no comparable competitive product or service except that provided by the equipment manufacturer, distributor or dealer; proprietary products sold directly by the manufacturer; a component or replacement part, for which there is no commercially available substitute and which can be obtained only from the manufacturer; goods where there is only one authorized distributor in the area; and goods where compatibility with goods in use by the city is an overriding consideration. All requests for sole source acquisitions or purchases shall be supported by written documentation (facsimile or electronic mail may be used), approved by the office or department head, and forwarded to the Procurement Officer. (e) Contracts for goods where, pursuant to Section 2.30.900, the City Manager has determined that standardization of the supplies, materials or equipment is permissible. (f) Placement of insurance coverage and surety bonds. (g) Legal services contracts, including, without limitation, the services of outside counsel, consultants and other experts needed for litigation, administrative or other legal proceedings. (h) Professional services contracts for private development related studies and services whenever the services are funded wholly by private developers. (i) Professional services contracts, where the estimated total expenditure by the city, regardless of term, does not exceed $50,000.00. (j) Cooperative purchases, with one or more other public agencies or through a cooperative purchasing agency, provided: (i) the services are solicited using methods substantially similar to those required by this chapter, as determined by the Procurement Officer; and (ii) the contract is consistent with the requirements specified in this municipal code. (k) The use of another governmental or public agency's contract or substantially the same contract terms provided: (i) the agency uses a solicitation method substantially similar to the method required by this chapter; (ii) the contract is consistent with the requirements specified in this municipal code; and (iii) the Procurement Officer determines that the city will realize overall value to utilizing the other agency's contract or contract terms compared to the city performing its own solicitation. (l) Contracts with, or solicited on the city's behalf by, Northern California Power Agency, Transmission Agency of Northern California, and Western Area Power Administration to procure wholesale utility commodities and services that meet the requirements of Section 2.30.340(d) or 2.30.360(k). Page 5 of 5 (m) Contracts with Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the California Independent System Operator Corporation for energy transmission services to the extent necessary and expedient to provide for the general health, safety and welfare of the city's utility customers. (n) Contracts with any public agency or governmental body to construct a public work, where the Procurement Officer determines the public agency or governmental body has used methods similar to those required by this chapter to contract for the public work. (o) Contracts with any public utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity or any entity holding a cable service or video service franchise pursuant to chapter 2.10 of this municipal code to construct a public works, where such works involves property of such public utility or cable service or video service franchisee and is otherwise of direct concern to both the city and such public utility or cable service or video service franchisee, provided that the project is not otherwise required by the charter to be formally bid. (p) Contracts with private developers to construct public improvements in connection with their development projects, even if the city contributes funds to the improvement project, provided that the projects are not otherwise required by the charter to be formally bid. (q) Projects, where the public work is performed by the city with its own employees. (r) Contracts, where the estimated total expenditure by the city does not exceed $10,000.00. (s) Contracts with entities to procure at wholesale prices utility commodities and services under a city "feed-in tariff" energy program that meets the requirements of Section 2.30.340(c). (t) Professional services contracts in relation to personnel matters for: recruitment consultants, workplace investigations, threat assessments, conflict intervention, and industrial safety. (Ord. 5494 § 21, 2020: Ord. 5387 § 1 (part), 2016: Ord. 5148 § 2, 2012: Ord. 5081 § 1, 2010: Ord. 4827 § 1 (part), 2004) *** 2.30.900 Standardization. Where the City Manager has determined that it is required by the health, safety or welfare of the people or employees of the city, or that significant costs savings have been demonstrated, the standardization of supplies, materials or equipment, including, without limitation, information technology property, for purchase or to be used in a public works project is permitted and the supplies, materials or equipment specifications may specify a single brand or trade name. The City Manager may consider the following factors in determining to standardize on a single brand or trade name: (a) Repair and maintenance costs would be minimized; (b) User personnel training would be facilitated thereby; (c) Supplies or spare parts would be minimized; (d) Modifications to existing equipment would not be necessary; (e) Training of repair and maintenance personnel would be minimized; and (f) Matching existing supplies, materials or equipment is required for proper operation of a function or program. (Ord. 5494 § 40, 2020: Ord. 5387 § 1 (part), 2016: Ord. 4827 § 1 (part), 2004)