Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2018-04-09 City Council Agenda Packet
City Council 1 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Monday, April 9, 2018 Special Meeting Council Chambers 5:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 11 days preceding the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Closed Session 5:00-6:30 PM Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1.CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-POTENTIAL LITIGATION Subject: Noise and Other Impacts Arising From Management of Aircraft in the Northern California Airspace Authority: Potential Initiation of Litigation Under Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) (One Potential Case, as Plaintiff) Special Orders of the Day 6:30-6:40 PM 2.Proclamation Celebrating the 80th Anniversary of the Friends of the Palo Alto Library Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 6:40-6:50 PM Oral Communications 6:50-7:05 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. 2 April 9, 2018 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 C ITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Minutes Approval 7:05-7:10 PM 3.Approval of Action Minutes for the March 26, 2018 Council Meeting Consent Calendar 7:10-7:15 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 4.Approval of a Budget Amendment to the Electric and Fiber Optics Funds for the Upgrade Downtown Project, Increasing the Electric Communications System Improvements Budget by $1,000,000 and Decreasing the Fiber Optics Network System Improvements Budget by $1,070,202 5.Approval of $2.5 Million Grant From the Community Center Impact Fee Fund to Avenidas for the Cost of Rehabilitation and Expansion of the City Owned Building Located at 450 Bryant Street; and Approval of a Budget Amendment in the Community Center Impact Fee Fund 6.SECOND READING: Adoption of two Ordinances: the First Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 2.20 (Planning and Transportation Commission) of Title 2; Chapter 10.64 (Bicycles, Roller Skates and Coasters) of Title 10; and Chapters 18.04 (Definitions), 18.10 (Low-Density Residential (RE, R-2 and RMD)), 18.12 (R-1 Single-Family Residential District), 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus), 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community, and Service Commercial (CN, CC and CS) Districts), 18.28 (Special Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts), 18.30(G) (Combining Districts), 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions), 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses), 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements), 18.54 (Parking Facility Design Standards), 18.76 (Permits and Approvals), 18.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals), and 18.80 (Amendments to Zoning Map And Zoning Regulations) of Title 18; and Chapters 21.12 (Tentative Maps and Preliminary Parcel Maps) and 21.32 (Conditional Exceptions) of Title 21; and the Second Amending Chapter 10.04 (Definitions) and Chapter 10.64 (Bicycles, Roller Skates and Coasters) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) to Prohibit use of Bicycles and Similar Vehicles on Certain Sidewalks and Undercrossings and Establish Speed Limits on Shared-use Paths When Others are Present. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (FIRST READING: March 19, 2018 PASSED: 5-0 Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach absent) 3 April 9, 2018 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 C ITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:15-9:30 PM 7.PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 18 (Zoning) to add a new Chapter 18.30(J) (Affordable Housing Combining District) to Promote the Development of 100 Percent Affordable Housing Projects Located Within one-half Mile of a Major Transit Stop or one-quarter Mile of a High-quality Transit Corridor by Providing Flexible Development Standards and Modifying the Uses Allowed in the Commercial Districts and Subdistricts. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): This Ordinance is Within the Scope of the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Certified and Adopted on November 13, 2017 by Council Resolution Numbers 9720 and 9721. The Planning & Transportation Commission Suggested an Alternative and did not Recommend Adoption of the Ordinance at Their Meeting on March 14, 2018 9:30-10:30 PM 8.Policy and Services Committee and Staff Recommendations on Next Steps Related to Airplane Noise State/Federal Legislation Update/Action Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. MEMO MEMO MEMO Q&A 4 April 9, 2018 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 C ITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Standing Committee Meetings Sp. Policy and Services Committee Meeting April 10, 2018 (THIS MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELLED) Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report Palo Alto Downtown Monitoring Report 2016-2017 Earthquake Preparedness Month National Public Safety Communicators' Week - April 8-14, 2018 National Crime Victims' Rights Week - April 8-14, 2018 Public Letters to Council Set 1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 9045) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 4/9/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Friends of the Palo Alto Library Proclamation Title: Proclamation Celebrating the 80th Anniversary of the Friends of the Palo Alto Library From: City Manager Lead Department: Library Attachments: FOPAL Proclamation 2018 Proclamation The 80th Anniversary of the Friends of the Palo Alto Library WHEREAS, the Friends of the Palo Alto Library (FOPAL) is a non-profit agency formed in 1938 by a group of library lovers whose objective was to support the library and enrich Palo Alto’s cultural environment; and WHEREAS, FOPAL celebrates its 80th birthday in 2018; and WHERAS, FOPAL is supported by individuals whose gifts of time and commitment to the library sets an example of positive civic engagement for our community; and WHEREAS, FOPAL is an organization with over 410 volunteers who volunteer more than 4,000 hours annually; and WHEREAS, FOPAL has been a membership organization since its inception, with revenues based first on dues and later from book sales which began in the 1970’s; and WHEREAS, FOPAL sells books and other materials online and holds monthly book sales open to the public at the Cubberley Community Center and ongoing sales in the bookstore at Mitchell Park Library and in kiosks at Rinconada and Downtown Libraries; and WHEREAS, FOPAL has donated over $2,500,000 to the Palo Alto City Library since 2004 to fund building projects, Foundation support, special events, collections, and the continued support of programs and services. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Liz Kniss, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council, during National Library Week 2018, do hereby salute the Friends of the Palo Alto Library for its work in building a caring community of library supporters for the past 80 years and wish the organization many successful years to come. Presented: April 9, 2018 _____________________________ Liz Kniss Mayor CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK April 9, 2018 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the March 26, 2018 Council Meeting Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: 03-26-18 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 3 Special Meeting March 26, 2018 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:14 P.M. Present: DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach Absent: Scharff Study Session 1. Status Report Regarding the Stanford Research Park Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. 2. MuniServices Presentation on Sales Tax and Economic Trends. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. Consent Calendar MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to approve Agenda Item Number 3. 3. Request for Authorization to Increase two Existing Legal Services Agreements With Jarvis Fay Doporto & Gibson for: (a) General Transactional Legal Services (Contract S16164639) by an Additional $45,000 for a Total Not-To-Exceed Amount of $215,000; and (b) Litigation Defense in Staats v. City of Palo Alto (Contract S15159508) by an Additional $120,000 for a Total Not-To-Exceed Amount of $495,000. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent Action Items 4. Authorization of Recommended Council Chambers Audio/Visual and Broadcast System Option for Design/Build Request for Proposal. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 3 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 3/26/18 MOTION: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to: A. Refer this Item to the Finance Committee with direction to evaluate options between Design Option 1 and Design Option 2. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to continue to value engineer the Project, continue to identify options to reduce the overall cost, and identify items that can be completed incrementally.” (New Part B) SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member XX to continue this Item until polling has been completed. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to remove Part A of the Motion. INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Amendment, “and add to Part B, ‘with a focus towards Design Option 2.’” AMENDMENT AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to remove Part A of the Motion and add to Part B, “with a focus towards Design Option 2.” AMENDMENT AS AMENDED FAILED: 3-5 DuBois, Fine, Wolbach yes, Scharff absent MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to: A. Refer this Item to the Finance Committee with direction to evaluate options between Design Option 1 and Design Option 2; and B. Direct Staff to continue to value engineer the Project, continue to identify options to reduce the overall cost, and identify items that can be completed incrementally. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-1 Tanaka no, Scharff absent State/Federal Legislation Update/Action None. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 3 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 3/26/18 Closed Session 5. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY- EXISTING LITIGATION United States District Court, N.D. Cal., Case No. 5:17-cv-02516-BLF (One Case, as Defendant) –T.M.; by and Through his Mother and Guardian Alacia Hafner v. City of Palo Alto et al. Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1). CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-EXISTING LITIGATION Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 16CV296364 (One Case, as Defendant) –Muza Mdzinarishvili v. City of Palo Alto Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1). 6. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his Designees Pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Ed Shikada, Michelle Flaherty, Rumi Portillo, Sandra Blanch, Nicholas Raisch, Molly Stump, Terence Howzell, Charles Sakai, Lalo Perez, Kiely Nose, Robert Jonsen, Eric Nickel) Employee Organizations: Palo Alto Peace Officers’ Association (PAPOA); Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association (FCA); International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Local 1319; and Palo Alto Police Managers’ Association (PAPMA) Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a). STAFF REQUESTS THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO APRIL 2, 2018 MOTION: Vice Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent Council went into Closed Session at 10:03 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 10:50 P.M. Mayor Kniss announced no reportable action. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:51 P.M. TO: FROM: DATE: CITY OF PALO ALTO HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL ED SHIKADA, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER APRIL 2, 2018 3 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3 -Selection of Applicants to Interview on April 24, 2018 for the Historic Resources Board, the Human Relations Commission, the Public Art Commission, and the Utilities Advisory Commission Staff would like to provide additional information related to the selection of candidates for Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) interviews. As indicated in the staff report, there are two terms available on the UAC. Councilmembers may not be aware that the two incumbents whose terms are expiring have reapplied, and are in fact the current UAC chair and vice chair Michael Danaher and Arne Ballantine. Eight additional applications have been received for the UAC. We understand that the time required for ten UAC interviews, in combination with interviewing the other 14 applicants for other commissions, would require interviews to be split between two meetings. Alternatively, the Council could choose to dispense with UAC interviews in order to complete selections at one Council meeting. In order to enable Council to consider this option, staff recommends removing Item #3 from this evening's consent calendar and discussion of this alternative. Ed Shikada Assistant City Manager Utilities General Manager 1of1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 9017) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/9/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Funding Allocation for Upgrade Downtown Project Title: Approval of a Budget Amendment to the Electric and Fiber Optics Funds for the Upgrade Downtown Project, Increasing the Electric Communications System Improvements Budget by $1,000,000 an d Decreasing the Fiber Optics Network System Improvements Budget by $1,070,202 From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Amend the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Appropriation Ordinance for the Electric Fund by: a. Increasing the Electric Communications System Improvements (EL-89031) budget by $1,000,000; and b. Decreasing the Electric Fund Capital Improvement Projects and Rate Stabilization Reserves by $1,000,000. 2. Amend the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Appropriation Ordinance for the Fiber Optics Fund by: a. Decreasing the Fiber Optics Network System Improvements Project (FO- 10001) budget by $1,070,202.10; and b. Increasing the Fiber Optics Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve by $1,070,202.10. Background Council approved the citywide and multi-phase Upgrade Downtown project on January 22, 2018 (Report ID # 8517). This project includes utility improvements, traffic signal maintenance and enhancements, parking wayfinding signage, and pedestrian safety improvements. During the meeting, Council requested that staff evaluate funding reallocation options to potentially reduce expenditures for the fiber optics fund. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The Upgrade Downtown project will replace aging water and gas utility infrastructure and increase the availability of fiber optic conduit for future use. Fiber conduits were included in the joint trench design on University Avenue to minimize future excavation on a congested thoroughfare, thereby decreasing future construction-related inconvenience to businesses, and reducing costs by installing multiple utilities with a single project, minimizing overhead and mobilization costs. To meet future fiber optic needs, two 2-inch fiber conduits were included in the project. Discussion Since the January Council meeting, staff has determined that one of the fiber conduits can be used by the City’s Electric Utility to facilitate the installation of a dedicated communication system between the City’s electric substations for electric system protection, control, and monitoring. The existing system of communications between the substations uses leased lines from the City’s dark fiber network. Currently there are conduit infrastructure facilities in place for a dedicated fiber communications system between four of the City’s electric substations. Because dedicated fiber communications enhance the security and reliability of the overall communications system, its eventual expansion is planned for all nine of the City’s substations. To facilitate the expansion, staff is recommending allocating one of the Upgrade Downtown Project’s conduits originally proposed for fiber optic use, to the Electric utility. To ensure that adequate capacity would remain available for future fiber use, staff requested that Ranger Pipelines double the capacity of these conduits by upsizing the two 2-inch fiber conduits to two 4-inch conduits. Since the incremental cost for the materials is insignificant, Ranger Pipelines agreed to install two 4-inch conduits at no additional cost to the City. The increased capacity allows the Electric Utility to use one of the conduits for the communications system , while still maintaining the originally proposed capacity for future fiber optic cable installation. The remaining fiber optic capacity will be available for lease. While no specific use has yet been identified, this will provide a unique resource for future smart city applications along University Avenue . Given that staff has previously received interest from third parties to pursue smart city applications in the area, this asset may prove more valuable than previously anticipated. Joint trenching costs are allocated to the utilities that will share the trench. While the prior funding allocation split joint trench costs among the Water, Gas and Fiber Optics Funds, staff proposes that the Electric Fund cover half of the trenching costs originally allocated to the Fiber Fund, due to the addition of conduit dedicated to electric substation communications. In summary, the Electric Fund will contribute ap proximately $1 million, and the Fiber Optics Fund contribution will be reduced by the same to approximately $1 million. Resource Impact Original funding for the Upgrade Downtown Project was approved by Council on January 22, 2018 in Capital Improvement projects GS-12001, Gas Main Replacement Project 22; PL-15004, City of Palo Alto Page 3 Downtown Parking Wayfinding; PO-89003, Sidewalk Repairs; PE-86070, Street Maintenance; PL-16001, Downtown Mobility and Safety Improvements; FO-10001, Fiber Optics Network System Improvements; and, WS-12001, Water Main Replacement Project 26. Amendments to the Electric and Fiber Optics Funds are recommended in this report. As of February 9, 2018 the budget for Project EL-89031, Electric Communications System Improvements, had $308,000 remaining. Of this amount $208,000 is planned to be spent this year or reappropriated to FY 2019 for upcoming projects, leaving approximately $100,000. The recommended amendment of $1,000,000 to EL-89031 in addition to the unallocated budget funding is sufficient to cover electric’s share of the joint trench ($1,070,202). This increase to EL-89031 will be accompanied by a reduction to the Electric Fund Capital Improvement Projects and Rate Stabilization Reserves in the amount of $1,000,000. Project FO-10001, Fiber Optics Network System Improvements, cost will be decreased by $1,070,202.10 and this funding will be returned to the Fiber Optics Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve. The proposed amendment will not change the total cost of the project, nor impact other funding sources associated with this project. The tables below show a categorization of project costs by the work being performed, joint trench cost breakdown, and funding source table with amount funded by each fund. Project costs: Work Being Performed Cost 10% Contingency Total Electric communication and fiber optic conduit $1,945,822 $194,582 $2,140,404 Water mains and services $3,210,372 $321,037 $3,531,409 Gas mains and services $8,302,197 $830,220 $9,132,417 Parking wayfinding signage $414,400 $41,440 $455,840 Traffic signal and hardscape $2,035,900 $203,590 $2,239,490 Sidewalk ramp upgrade $462,895 $46,290 $509,185 Total $16,371,586 $1,637,159 $18,008,745 Joint Trench Cost Breakdown: Utility Cost 10% Contingency Total Water $1,893,372 $189,337 $2,082,709 Gas $1,893,372 $189,337 $2,082,709 Fiber Optic $946,686 $94,669 $1,041,355 Electric Communication $946,686 $94,669 $1,041,355 Total $5,680,116 $568,012 $6,248,128 The revised funding allocation including 10% contingency is as follows: Funding Source Total Encumbrance EL-89031 $1,070,202 FO-10001 $1,070,202 GS-12001 $9,132,417 City of Palo Alto Page 4 PL-15004 $900,000 PL-16001 $1,795,330 PE-89003 $509,185 WS-12001 $3,531,409 Total $18,008,745 Policy Implications The approval of this recommendation is consistent with existing City goals, policies, programs, and plans including: Utilities Strategic Plan BP1: Ensure a reliable supply of utility resources. BP2: Operate the utility systems safely. Environmental Review Council’s approval of this funding reallocation does not meet the California Environmental Quality Act’s (CEQA) definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), because it is an administrative governmental activity which will not cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment , and therefore, no environmental review is required. City of Palo Alto (ID # 8780) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/9/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Release of Approved Funding of $2.5 Million in Form of a Grant Payment to Avenidas Title: Approval of $2.5 Million Grant From the Community Center Impact Fee Fund to Avenidas for the Cost of Rehabilitation and Expansion of the City Owned Bui lding Located at 450 Bryant Street; Approval of a Budget Amendment in the Community Center Impact Fee Fund From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve a grant of $2.5 million from the Community Center Impact Fee Fund to Avenidas for rehabilitation and expansion of the City owned Avenidas Building at 450 Bryant Street. 2. Amend the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Appropriation for the Community Center Impact Fee Fund by: a. Increasing the interagency expense appropriation by $2,500,000, and b. Decreasing the ending fund balance by $2,500,000. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Avenidas is the sole provider of comprehensive programs and services for older adults in Palo Alto. Avenidas is housed in a City owned building at 450 Bryant Street, in what was once Palo Alto’s original Police and Fire building. Avenidas has been operating at this location since 1977 on a long term lease agreement with the City of Palo Alto. On January 1, 2015, Avenidas and the City entered into a new fifty (50) year lease agreement in anticipation of beginning a capital campaign to raise an estimated $18 million for a major renovation project to address needed building repairs, seismic upgrades, and expansion of the existing building to meet the needs of the ever growing older adult population in Palo Alto. On October 10, 2015, in response to request from the Board of Directors of Avenidas, the City Council approved a $5 million contribution in form of a grant to cover the costs of deferred City of Palo Alto Page 2 maintenance and renovation, including the necessary seismic upgrade of the City owned building in CMR ID# 5992. The request for City funding was driven by Avenidas’ assessment of the limits of private fundraising in reaching their goal. The renovation of the Avenidas Building has been on -going since August 2017. Avenidas has asked the City to release $2.5 million of the total $5.0 million grant at this time. Concurrently, Staff has been working on the certification of the Transfer Development Rights (TDR) for the Avenidas Building and will return to Council at a later date to request the eligibility of the Avindas building as a “Sender Site” in the Transfer Development Rights progra m to facilitate the payment of the remainder of amount of $2.5 million to Avenidas. At that time, Council May be asked to consider funding some of all of the initial $2.5 million from the sale of the TDRs, which would, if approved, backfill Community Center Funds, making them available for other projects. BACKGROUND A. Project Description Over the past 5 years, employing various strategies and activities including raising funds from private and public sources, Avenidas has raised sufficient capital to complete a comprehensive rehabilitation and seismic retrofit of the Avenidas Building to improve and expand its services to the senior population in the area and bring the building up to date with current building codes. The total cost of the project is pro jected to be $19.7 million, of which Avenidas has raised $18 million, which includes the $5 million grant from the City. Construction began in December of 2017 and the project has reached the thirty percent (30%) completion stage, with March 2019 as the current projected completion date for the renovation. The project plans that were approved by Architectural Review Board include the following improvements: Proposed interior renovation and addition of 7,158 square foot to the net floor area. Remodel of the existing building. Replacing and updating the old mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems. Seismic upgrade to current standards. Installation of an ADA-compliant elevator. B. Actions to Date: Architectural Resources Group, Inc. (ARG) completed a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) in connection with the proposed rehabilitation and new addition to the former Police and Fire Building at 450 Bryant Street in Palo Alto. The property is listed as a Category 2 building (“Major Building” of regional importance) in Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory, and is recognized as a Point of Historical Interest by the State of California. These designations qualify the building for consideration as a “historical resource” per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In California, historical resources must be considered in the environmental review process. In general, a project involving a historical resource that has been determined to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards can be considered a project that will not cause a significant impact on the historic resource per CEQA. City of Palo Alto Page 3 DISCUSSION The City and Avenidas have executed the grant agreement (Attachment A) dated February 28, 2018 that sets the terms and condition for providing and acceptance of the grant by both parties. Avenidas has focused on moving this project forward by raising funds from private donors, applying for grants from various sources and processing applications for appropriate permits from the City to assist with fund raising efforts to capitalize its construction budget for rehabilitation of the Building. At the present time, the projected budget needed to complete the rehabilitation for the Avenidas Building is $19.7 million. In order to close the gap between what has been raised and the cost of rehabilitation project, Avenidas has submitted a $2 .5M grant proposal to the Weinberg Foundation and continues to pursue other potential major donors. If Avenidas is unable to raise the needed fund to finish the project, they will take $2.5M (or whatever the remaining gap amount is) out of their endowment. Currently, the renovation phase is 30% complete and the anticipated completion date is late February of 2019.The funds are eligible for release since Avenidas has fulfilled its fund raising goal for the construction phase of the project from other potential sources. Avenidas has obtained all the required City permits and approval for the renovation project, and has executed the grant agreement with the city. TIMELINE Staff will return to Council in the future to provide an update of the progress of project, request the eligibility of TDR program for the site and facilitate the release of an additional $2.5 million to Avenidas according to the terms and conditions of the grant agreement with the City of Palo Alto. In the meantime, the Avenidas project will continue its progress toward completion. RESOURCE IMPACT Staff recommends the approval of a Budget Amendment in the Community Center Impact Fee Fund to process a $2.5 million payment to Avenidas for renovation costs, which is half of the $5.0 million originally granted from the City to Avenidas in CMR 5992. This will help Avenidas maintain the construction timeline while staff undergoes the process of recommending to Council to sell Transfer Development Rights (TDRs) which are planned to be used to fund the remaining $2.5 million of the grant. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation is consistent with existing City policy. The payment of funds through a grant to Avenidas has been approved by the City Council and the grant agreement ha s been executed by both parties. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The release of grant funds is categorically exempt from California Enviro nmental Quality Act (CEQA) review under CEQA guidelines se. The rehabilitation project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15331, Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation, as a project limited to maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation in accordance with the secretary of interior standards for historic preservation. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Attachments: Attachment A: CPA Avenidas_Grant_Agreement GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO & AVENIDAS Page 1 of 11 GRANT AGREEMENT between CITY OF PALO ALTO and AVENIDAS THIS GRANT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is made this February 28, 2018, in Palo Alto, California, by and between AVENIDAS, a non-profit, tax-exempt organization (“Grantee” or “Avenidas”) and the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“City”) acting by and through the Agency (as defined below). RECITALS WHEREAS, in a letter dated April 15, 2015 (the “Grant Proposal” as defined below), Avenidas submitted to the City a request for grant funding in the amount of five-million dollars to make necessary seismic and other improvements to the existing building at 450 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, California (the “Premise”) as detailed in the Grant Proposal; and WHEREAS, the Premise is leased to Avenidas by the City under a fifty (50) year lease agreement between the parties dated January 1, 2015 (the “Lease” as defined below), for the purpose of providing support services to older adults and their caregivers and related services as detailed in the Lease; and WHEREAS, the Palo Alto City Council approved on October 19, 2015 a motion to provide a grant to Avenidas in the amount of five million dollars to make necessary seismic and other improvements to the Premise; and WHEREAS, City desires to provide, and Avenidas desires to accept, such grant funding on the terms and conditions set forth herein: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants contained in this Agreement and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS 1.1 Specific Terms. Unless the context otherwise requires, the following capitalized terms (whether singular or plural) shall have the meanings set forth below: (a) “ADA” shall mean the Americans with Disabilities Act (including all rules and regulations thereunder) and all other applicable federal, state and local disability rights legislation, as the same may be amended, modified or supplemented from time to time. DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO & AVENIDAS Page 2 of 11 (b) “Agency” shall mean the CITY MANAGER. (c) “Charter” shall mean the City’s City Charter. (d) “Fiscal Year” shall mean each period of twelve (12) calendar months commencing on July 1 and ending on June 30 during all or any portion of which this Agreement is in effect. (e) “Funding Request” shall have the meaning set forth in Section 4.3 (“Disbursement Procedures”) herein. (f) “Grant Funds” shall mean any and all funds provided to Grantee by City pursuant to this Agreement. (g) “Grant Proposal” shall mean the letter from Avenidas detailed in Recitals paragraph 1 herein, including all exhibits, appendices and attachments thereto, in accordance with the motion approved by the City Council at its October 19, 2015 meeting, and as may be modified by all planning entitlements and supporting documents approved by the City in relation to the construction that is the subject of the Grant Proposal. The Grant Proposal, included as Appendix B (“Grant Proposal”) hereto, is hereby attached and incorporated into this Agreement by reference as though fully set forth herein. (h) “Lease” shall mean the lease between the parties detailed in Recitals paragraph 1 herein, including all exhibits, appendices and attachments thereto, and as may be amended by the parties in writing as provided for therein. The Lease, included as Appendix C (“Lease Agreement”) hereto, is hereby attached and incorporated into this Agreement by reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Lease and the provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of the Lease shall control. ARTICLE 2 TERM; EFFECTIVE DATE 2.1 Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the later of (a) February 16, 2018 and (b) the effective date specified in Section 2.2 (“Effective Date of Agreement”) herein. Such term shall end at 11:59 p.m. Pacific time on June 30, 2019. In the event that the Grant Proposal is not completed within the term, the City’s City Manager will have the option of extending the term for any period of time. Any such extension will not preclude any other rights or remedies available to City under this Agreement or by law. 2.2 Effective Date of Agreement. This Agreement shall become effective when approved by the City Council and executed by the authorized representatives of the parties. ARTICLE 3 IMPLEMENTATION OF GRANT PROPOSAL 3.1 Implementation of Grant Proposal. Grantee shall, in good faith and with diligence, implement the Grant Proposal on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement and the Grant Proposal. Grantee shall not materially decrease the nature or scope of the Grant Proposal without the prior written consent of City. DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO & AVENIDAS Page 3 of 11 3.2 Grantee Personnel. The Grant Proposal shall be implemented only by competent personnel under the direction and supervision of Grantee as employees or subcontractors of Grantee as detailed herein or in the Grant Proposal or as otherwise permitted by prior written consent of City. ARTICLE 4 USE AND DISBURSEMENT OF GRANT FUNDS 4.1 Amount of Grant Funds. The amount of the Grant Funds disbursed hereunder shall not exceed Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000), to be disbursed in two installments as follows: (a) Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000) shall be disbursed to Grantee upon the occurrence of the Effective Date of Agreement pursuant to Section 2.2 (“Effective Date of Agreement”) herein and according to the provisions of Section 4.3 (“Disbursement Procedures”) herein. (b) The remaining Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000) shall be disbursed to Grantee upon request in Fiscal Year 2019, according to the provisions of Section 4.3 (“Disbursement Procedures”) herein. 4.2 Use of Grant Funds. Grantee shall use the Grant Funds only for implementation of the Grant Proposal, in accordance with the motion approved by the City Council at its October 19, 2015 meeting, and for no other purpose, unless pursuant to a written amendment to this Agreement as provided for in Section 15.2 (“Modification of Agreement”) herein. 4.3 Disbursement Procedures. Grant Funds shall be disbursed to Grantee as follows: (a) Grantee shall submit to the Agency, in the manner specified for notices pursuant to Article 13 (“Notices”) herein, a document (a “Funding Request”) substantially in the form attached as Appendix A (“Form of Funding Request”) hereto, with regard to the applicable installment of Grant Funds under Section 4.1 (“Amount of Grant Funds”) herein. (b) The Agency shall make all disbursements of Grant Funds pursuant to this Section by check payable to Grantee, sent via U.S. mail in accordance with Article 13 (“Notices”) herein, unless the Agency otherwise agrees in writing, in its sole discretion. 4.4 Fiscal Provisions; Appropriation. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any Fiscal Year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a Fiscal Year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the Fiscal Year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This Section 4.4 will take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. ARTICLE 5 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS; AUDITS 5.1 Reports. Upon request, Grantee shall provide, in a reasonably timely manner, financial, operational and other reports as reasonably requested by the City. DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO & AVENIDAS Page 4 of 11 5.2 Organizational Documents. If requested by City, Grantee shall provide to City the names of its current officers well as satisfactory evidence of the valid tax-exempt status described in Section 7.1 (“Organization; Authorization”) herein. 5.3 Notification of Defaults or Changes in Circumstances. Grantee shall notify City immediately of (a) any Event of Default or event that, with the passage of time, would constitute an Event of Default; and (b) any change of circumstances that would cause any of the representations and warranties contained in Article 7 (“Representations and Warranties”) herein to be false or misleading at any time during the term of this Agreement. 5.4 Financial Statements. Upon request, Grantee shall deliver to City an unaudited balance sheet and the related statement of income and cash flows for the most recent Fiscal Year, all in reasonable detail acceptable to City, certified by an appropriate financial officer of Grantee as accurately presenting the financial position of Grantee. If requested by City, Grantee shall also deliver to City, no later than one hundred twenty (120) days following the end of any Fiscal Year, an audited balance sheet and the related statement of income and cash flows for such Fiscal Year, certified by a reputable accounting firm as accurately presenting the financial position of Grantee. 5.5 Books and Records. Grantee shall establish and maintain accurate files and records of all aspects of the Grant Proposal and the matters funded in whole or in part with Grant Funds during the term of this Agreement. Without limiting the scope of the foregoing, Grantee shall establish and maintain accurate financial books and accounting records relating to the Grant Funds received and expended under this Agreement, together with all invoices, documents, payrolls, time records and other data related to the matters covered by this Agreement, whether funded in whole or in part with Grant Funds. Grantee shall maintain all of the files, records, books, invoices, documents, payrolls and other data required to be maintained under this Section in a readily accessible location and condition for a period of not less than five (5) years after final payment under this Agreement or until any final audit has been fully completed, whichever is later. 5.6 Inspection and Audit. Grantee shall make available to City, its employees and authorized representatives, during regular business hours all of the files, records, books, invoices, documents, payrolls and other data required to be established and maintained by Grantee under Section 5.5 (“Books and Records”) herein. Grantee shall permit City, its employees and authorized representatives to inspect, audit, examine and make excerpts and transcripts from any of the foregoing. The rights of City pursuant to this Section shall remain in effect so long as Grantee has the obligation to maintain such files, records, books, invoices, documents, payrolls and other data under this Article 5. 5.7 Ownership of Results. As provided for in the Lease, the City is and shall remain the owner of the Premise that is the subject of the Lease and the subject of the Grant Proposal under this Agreement, including any and all improvements made to the Premise, in accordance with the Lease including without limitation Section 11.1 (“Ownership of Improvements”) therein. ARTICLE 6 TAXES 6.1 Grantee to Pay All Taxes. Grantee shall pay to the appropriate governmental authority, as and when due, any and all taxes, fees, assessments or other governmental charges, including possessory DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO & AVENIDAS Page 5 of 11 interest taxes and California sales and use taxes, levied upon or in connection with this Agreement, the Grant Proposal, the Grant Funds or any of the activities contemplated by this Agreement. ARTICLE 7 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES Grantee represents and warrants each of the following as of the date of this Agreement and at all times throughout the term of this Agreement: 7.1 Organization; Authorization. Grantee is a non-profit tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization. Grantee’s Board of Directors has authorized the implementation of the Grant Proposal. 7.2 Location. Grantee's operations, offices and headquarters are located at the address for notices set forth in Article 13 (“Notices”) herein. All aspects of the Grant Proposal will be implemented at the geographic location(s) specified in the Grant Proposal. 7.3 No Misstatements. No document furnished or to be furnished by Grantee to City in connection with the Grant Proposal, this Agreement, any Funding Request or any other document relating to any of the foregoing, contains or will contain any untrue statement of material fact or omits, or will omit, a material fact necessary to make the statements contained therein accurate or not misleading, under the circumstances under which any such statement shall have been made. 7.4 Conflict of Interest. In executing this Agreement, Grantee acknowledges that it is familiar with applicable conflict-of-interest provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the California Government Code, and certifies that it does not know of any facts which constitute a violation of said laws and agrees that it will immediately notify the City if it becomes aware of any such facts during the term of this Agreement. ARTICLE 8 INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE 8.1 Indemnification. The indemnification and hold harmless requirements detailed in Section 12 (“Hold Harmless/ Indemnification”) of the Lease are hereby incorporated into this Agreement as the insurance requirements applicable to this Agreement. 8.2 Insurance. The insurance requirements detailed in Section 20 (“Insurance”) of the Lease, and in Exhibit D (“Standard Insurance Requirements”) of the Lease, are hereby incorporated into this Agreement as the insurance requirements applicable to this Agreement. ARTICLE 9 DEFAULT AND REMEDIES 9.1 Default; Remedies (a) Default. Grantee shall be in default if Grantee: (a) fails or refuses to perform or observe any term, covenant or condition contained in this Agreement, and such default continues for a period of ten days after written notice thereof from City to Grantee.; (b) files or is the subject of a petition for bankruptcy or insolvency; or, (c) has a court-ordered receiver or trustee appointed with respect to DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO & AVENIDAS Page 6 of 11 Grantee’s assets. Each of the preceding shall constitute an event of default (“Event of Default”) under this Agreement. (b) Remedies. On and after any Event of Default, City shall have the right to exercise its legal and equitable remedies, including, without limitation, the right to terminate this Agreement or to seek specific performance of all or any part of this Agreement. All remedies provided for in this Agreement may be exercised individually or in combination with any other remedy available hereunder or under applicable laws, rules and regulations. The exercise of any remedy shall not preclude or in any way be deemed to waive any other remedy. ARTICLE 10 PUBLIC RECORDS 10.1 Public Records. Grantee acknowledges that this Agreement is, and that other records related hereto may be, subject to the California Public Records Act (California Government Code §6250 et. seq.), and other state and local public records laws. ARTICLE 11 ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING 11.1 No Assignment by Grantee. Except as otherwise expressly provided for in this Agreement, Grantee shall not, either directly or indirectly, assign, transfer, hypothecate, subcontract or delegate all or any portion of this Agreement or any rights, duties or obligations of Grantee hereunder without the prior written consent of City. This Agreement shall not, nor shall any interest herein, be assignable as to the interest of Grantee involuntarily or by operation of law without the prior written consent of City. A consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of City will be void and without effect. 11.2 Agreement Made in Violation of this Article. Any agreement made in violation of Section 11.1 (“No Assignment by Grantee”) herein shall confer no rights on any person or entity and shall automatically be null and void. 11.3 Subcontracting. Grantee shall have the right to subcontract on the terms set forth in this Section. Upon request, at any time during the term of this Agreement, Grantee shall provide to City a current list of any Grantee subcontractors providing goods or services under this Agreement. (a) Limitations. Grantee may subcontract for the provision of services under this Agreement without the prior consent of City; provided, however, that Grantee shall not thereby be relieved from any liability or obligation under this Agreement and, as between City and Grantee, Grantee shall be responsible for the acts, defaults and omissions of any subgrantee/subcontractor or its agents or employees as fully as if they were the acts, defaults or omissions of Grantee. Grantee shall ensure that its subgrantees/subcontractors comply with all of the terms of this Agreement, insofar as they apply to the subcontracted portion of the Grant Proposal. All references herein to duties and obligations of Grantee shall be deemed to pertain also to all subgrantees/subcontractors to the extent applicable. A default by any subgrantee/subcontractor shall be deemed to be an Event of Default hereunder. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create any contractual relationship between any subgrantee/subcontractor and City. DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO & AVENIDAS Page 7 of 11 11.4 Grantee Retains Responsibility. Grantee shall in all events remain liable for the performance by any assignee or subgrantee/subcontractor of all of the covenants terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. ARTICLE 12 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS 12.1 Independent Contractor. Grantee or any agent or employee of Grantee shall be deemed at all times to be an independent contractor and is wholly responsible for the manner in which it performs the services and work requested by City under this Agreement. Grantee or any agent or employee of Grantee is liable for the acts and omissions of itself, its employees and its agents. Grantee shall be responsible for all obligations and payments, whether imposed by federal, state or local law, including, but not limited to, FICA, income tax withholdings, unemployment compensation, insurance, and other similar responsibilities related to Grantee’s performing services and work, or any agent or employee of Grantee providing same. City or any agent or employee of City is liable for the acts and omissions of itself, its employees and its agents. City shall be responsible for all obligations and payments, whether imposed by federal, state or local law, including, but not limited to, FICA, income tax withholdings, unemployment compensation, insurance, and other similar responsibilities related to City’s activities under this Agreement, or any agent or employee of City’s activities under this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as creating an employment or agency relationship between City and Grantee or between any agent or employee of one party and the other party. Any terms in this Agreement referring to direction from City shall be construed as providing for direction as to policy and the result of Grantee’s work only, and not as to the means by which such a result is obtained. City does not retain the right to control the means or the method by which Grantee performs work under this Agreement. ARTICLE 13 NOTICES 13.1 Requirements. Unless specified otherwise herein: (a) all notices provided hereunder must be in writing and addressed to the attention of the party's primary point of contact as set forth below (or such alternative address as may be provided in writing as below); and (b) notice will be deemed given as follows: (i) on the date of receipt stated on the written receipt if sent by personal courier, overnight courier, U.S. mail with verification of receipt, or when received if sent by U.S. mail without verification of receipt; or (ii) on the date of receipt stated on the automated written receipt or electronic log if sent by facsimile or email. However, any notice of default must be sent by certified mail or via nationally- recognized overnight courier that guarantees next day delivery and provides a written receipt therefor. If to the Agency or City: City Manager’s Office 250 Hamilton Ave, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Rob de Geus Facsimile: _____________________ Email: ________________________ DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO & AVENIDAS Page 8 of 11 If to Grantee: Avenidas 4000 Middlefield Rd, #I-2 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Attn: Amy Andonian Facsimile: _____________________ Email: ________________________ 13.2 Change of Address. From time to time any party hereto may designate a new address for notices under this Article 13 (“Notices”) herein by written notice to the other party provided pursuant to this Article. ARTICLE 14 COMPLIANCE 14.1 Nondiscrimination. As set forth in Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, no discrimination will be made in the employment of persons under this Agreement because of the age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, disability, sexual preference or gender of such person. 14.2 Compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act. Grantee shall implement the Grant Proposal in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and all other applicable federal, state and local disability accessibility legislation. 14.3. Prevailing Wages. Grantee agrees that all construction work and/or maintenance work, as applicable, to be performed at and on the Premise pursuant to this Agreement is subject to applicable federal, state and local prevailing wage laws and regulations, and Grantee shall ensure that all such work is implemented, paid, documented and administered in compliance with such laws and regulations. 14.4 Compliance with Laws. Each party shall keep itself fully informed of the Charter, codes, ordinances and regulations of the City, and of all state and federal laws and regulations in any manner applicable to the performance of this Agreement, and must at all times comply with such Charter, codes, ordinances, regulations and laws as they may be amended from time to time. ARTICLE 15 MISCELLANEOUS 15.1 Non-Waiver of Rights. The omission by either party at any time to enforce any default or right reserved to it, or to require performance of any of the terms, covenants, or provisions hereof by the other party at the time designated, shall not be a waiver of any such default or right to which the party is entitled, nor shall it in any way affect the right of the party to enforce such provisions thereafter. 15.2 Modification of Agreement. This Agreement may not be modified, nor may compliance with any of its terms be waived, except by written instrument executed and approved in the same manner as this Agreement. 15.3 Agreement Made in California; Venue. The formation, interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by California law without regard to its conflict of law provisions. Venue for all litigation relative to the formation, interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be in Santa Clara County, California. DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO & AVENIDAS Page 9 of 11 15.4 Paragraph Headings. All paragraph headings are for convenience of reference only and shall not be considered in construing this Agreement. 15.5 Entire Agreement. This Agreement and the Grant Proposal set forth the entire Agreement between the parties, and supersede all other oral or written provisions. If there is any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the Grant Proposal, the terms of this Agreement shall govern. The following appendices are attached to and incorporated into this Agreement by reference as though fully set forth herein: Appendix A, Form of Funding Request Appendix B, Grant Proposal Appendix C, Lease Agreement 15.6 Severability. Should the application of any provision of this Agreement to any particular facts or circumstances be found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, then (a) the validity of other provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected or impaired thereby, and (b) such provision shall be enforced to the maximum extent possible so as to effect the intent of the parties and shall be reformed without further action by the parties to the extent necessary to make such provision valid and enforceable. 15.7 Successors; No Third-Party Beneficiaries. Subject to the terms of Article 11 (“Assignment and Subcontracting”) herein, the terms of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their successors and assigns. Nothing in this Agreement, whether express or implied, shall be construed to give any person or entity (other than the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns) any legal or equitable right, remedy or claim under or in respect of this Agreement or any covenants, conditions or provisions contained herein. 15.8 Survival of Terms. The following provisions of this Agreement shall survive and continue following expiration or termination of this Agreement: Section 5.4 Financial Statements. Section 5.5 Books and Records. Section 5.6 Inspection and Audit. Section 5.7 Ownership of Results. Article 6 Taxes. Article 8 Indemnification and Insurance. Section 11.4 Grantee Retains Responsibility. Section 15.8 Survival of Terms. Section 15.9 Further Assurances. Section 15.10 Dispute Resolution Procedure. 15.9 Further Assurances. From and after the date of this Agreement, each party agrees to do such things, perform such acts, and make, execute, acknowledge and deliver such documents as may be reasonably necessary or proper and usual to complete the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and/or to carry out the purpose of this Agreement in accordance with this Agreement. 15.10 Dispute Resolution. Prior to resort to legal remedy, the designated contact persons for this Agreement shall exercise reasonable efforts and negotiate in good faith to resolve any dispute that may arise concerning the performance by either party of its obligations under this Agreement; if the designated contact persons cannot resolve a dispute through such negotiations, they shall escalate the dispute to their respective executives, as applicable, who shall exercise reasonable efforts and negotiate in good faith to resolve the dispute. DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO & AVENIDAS Page 10 of 11 15.11 Cooperative Drafting. This Agreement has been drafted through a cooperative effort of both parties, and both parties have had an opportunity to have the Agreement reviewed and revised by legal counsel. No party shall be considered the drafter of this Agreement, and no presumption or rule that an ambiguity shall be construed against the party drafting the clause shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement. 15.12 Incorporation of Recitals. The parties understand and agree that the Recitals set forth on page one of this Agreement are terms of this Agreement and are fully incorporated herein by this reference. DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO & AVENIDAS Page 11 of 11 PARTY SIGNATURES TO THE AGREEMENT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the date first specified herein. CITY OF PALO ALTO Approved by: ___________________________________ James Keene City Manager Approved as to Form: By: ________________________________ Cassie Coleman Assistant City Attorney AVENIDAS Approved by: _____________________________________ Amy Andonian President and CEO DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO & AVENIDAS Appendix A Appendix A—Form of Funding Request The form of the funding request from Grantee to City shall be a letter on Grantee letterhead, signed by an authorized representative of Grantee, stating that Grantee is ready to receive disbursal of the applicable installment of Grant Funds under Section 4.1 (“Amount of Grant Funds”) herein. DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO & AVENIDAS Appendix B Appendix B—Grant Proposal Appendix B, Grant Proposal, is attached to this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO & AVENIDAS Appendix C Appendix C—Lease Agreement Appendix C, Lease Agreement, is attached to this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTAL 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO.129.021 K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 05.27.15 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD COVER SHEET G0.0 101 SITE THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF AN ADDITION TO AND RENOVATION OF AN EXISTING +/- 16,000 SF HISTORIC BUILDING BUILT IN 1927 LOCATED AT 450 BRYANT STREET AND OCCUPIED IN A LONG TERM LEASE BY AVENIDAS. IT WILL INCLUDE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 2,600 SF ADDITION BUILT IN 1978 AND A CONSTRUCTION A NEW ADDITION OF APPROXIMATELY 10,100 SF WITH A COMPLETE TENANT IMPROVEMENT AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. PROJECT ADDRESS:................................ PROJECT SITE AREA:............................... A.P.N.:.......................................................... EXISTING BUILDING AREA:....................... BUILDING AREA TO BE DEMOLISHED:.... NEW ADDITION BUILDING AREA:............. Mountain View, CA. 94043 445 N. Whisman Rd., Suite 200 Fax 650 . 965 . 0700 650 . 960 . 0707 KEVIN JONES Palo Alto, CA 9431 450 BRYANT STREET Fax 415. 421.1680 415 . 421 . 0127 LISA HENDRICKSON ex.32 Fax G0.0 COVER SHEET G1.0 EXISTING BUILDING DESCRIPTION G2.0 PROJECT CONCEPTS AND GUIDELINES G3.0 OVERALL EXISTING PLAN EL C A M I N O R E A L AL M A MID D L E F I E L D R D EMBA R C A D E R O R D UN I V E R S I T Y A V E BR Y A N T LY T T O N HA M I L T O N 450 BRYANT ST, PALO ALTO +/- 16,000 SF +/- 2,600 SF 10,100 SF 1.4 ACRES 120-26-095 415 . 421 . 1680 415 . 421 . 0127 San Francisco, CA 94111 Pier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 107 PAULA MADERA ex.25 G4.0 OVERALL PROPOSED PLAN A1.0 GENERAL VIEW A2.0 PERSPECTIVES A2.1 PERSPECTIVES A2.2 INTERIOR PERSPECTIVES A3.0 MATERIAL BOARD A4.0 EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN A4.1 PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN A4.2 EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN A4.3 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR A4.4 EXISTING SECOND FLOOR A4.5 PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR A4.6 PROPOSED THIRD FLOOR A5.3 REAR BIRGE CLARK BUILDING ALTERATIONS PLAN HISTORIC REVIEW BOARD & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTAL Fax 415 . 433 . 4672 415 . 433 . 5003 San Francisco, CA 94111 181 Greenwich Street JAMES WINSTEAD Fax 650 . 964 . 9219 650 . 964 . 9229Los Altos, CA 94024 1420 Holly Avenue STEVAN NAKASHIMA GARY LAYMON G2.1 PROJECT CONCEPTS AND GUIDELINES A5.0 EXISTING ELEVATIONS A5.1 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS A5.2 REAR BIRGE CLARK BUILDING ALTERATIONS PLAN L1.0 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN L1.1 COURTYARD ENLARGEMENT L1.2 ROOF DECK ENLARGEMENT L1.3 DINING PATIO SKETCH CHARLES CHASE SARAH HAHN A4.7 EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 A6.0 BUILDING SECTIONS A6.1 BUILDING SECTIONS DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD Police-Fire Building, date unknown (Source: Palo Alto Historical Association)Palo Alto Fire/Police building, 450 Bryant Street, c. 1927 (Source: Palo Alto Historical Association) BRYANT STREET COGSWELL PLAZA PROJECT ADDRESS:................................ ASSESOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:............... ZONE DISTRICT.......................................... NET LOT AREA........................................... ALLOWABLE FAR....................................... PROPOSED FAR......................................... 450 BRYANT ST, PALO ALTO 129-26-095 PF 1.40 ACRES / 61150,5 sf 1.0:1 0.4 (existing + addition) ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE.................. PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE.................... 30 % 20 % (existing + addition) The building at 450 Bryant Street is located in downtown Palo Alto. It lies between Cogswell Plaza to the west and an alleyway to the east. The surrounding neighborhood is generally commercial in nature. The main building at 450 Bryant Street is constructed of reinforced concrete and wood framing with a stucco exterior finish. Stylistically, it is a Spanish Colonial Revival building. The original building, 'The Palo Alto Police and Fire Building' was designed by Birge Clark in 1926. The building, constructed in 1927, was thought to house the police department and jail, the fire department and offices, and the municipal court. These entities operated for nearly forty years. An addition at the north end of the building was designed by Clark's firm, Clark & Stromquist. The firm, designed a full renovation of the building interior and cafeteria addition in 1978 to accommodate the Senior Coordinating Council of Palo Alto, which moved in the next year. PARKING LOT RAMONA STREET 1927 ORIGINAL BUILDING 1978 ADDITION 1950 ADDITION BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING DESCRIPTION G1.0 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD PROJECT CONCEPTS AND GUIDELINES G2.0 The new addition is located adjacent to the existing Birge Clark building and landlocked by three existing limits: the existing rear parking lot, the Cogswell Plaza in its West side and the back alley in its East side. BRYANT STREET COGSWELL PLAZA RAMONA STREET EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING PARKING LOT BACK ALLEY The addition project would require minimal changes to the defining characteristics of the existing Birge Clark building and its site and environment. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize the property will be avoided. The new addition will not create a false sense of historic development. Even though the existing-proposed compatibility might be the main guideline, historic materials and features will not be copied. The new addition will be differentiated from the old construction and it will be compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural features. The building at 450 Bryant Street was designed by prominent architect Birge Clark, who was responsible for designing hundreds of buildings in Palo Alto and the surrounding area during the first half of the twentieth century. The main concept for the new addition will be to preserve the historic character of the existing construction. To protect the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment >> >> The addition sits in the rear facade of the existing building. From Bryant Street, which represents the main side of the building the addition will be barely noticed. >> The new construction requires the demolition of just one part of the existing 1970's addition. >> The original 1920 Birge Clark building will be preserved. Its rear facade will be minimally altered and will be seen from the interior of the new construction. >> The Shed addition will remain in order to maintain the original composition of the parcel. >> All the heights of the new building will try to match the existing ones in the Birge Clark building. THREE STORY ADDITION: transparent and airy to reflect the activity of the center Existing Garden Room to be preserved HISTORIC BIRGE CLARK BUILDING TO BE PRESERVED The addition will maintain the rear facade of the 1920's construction, either as an exterior facade (in the courtyard) or as an interior one EXISTING COURTYARD TO BE SAVED AND REDESIGNED 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD PROJECT CONCEPTS AND GUIDELINES G2.1 NEW ACCESS MAIN ACCESS NEW ACCESS BR Y A N T S T R E E T RA M O N A S T R E E T PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Avenidas operates out of the existing historic building at 450 Bryant Street in downtown Palo Alto. The building was built in 1927 as the City of Palo Alto Police and Fire Station. The building was designed by Palo Alto architect Birge Clarke. Avenidas modified and renovated the building in 1977-1978 when its occupancy of the building began. Over the past six years, Avenidas has been exploring how to continue to provide the highest level of services to the community and accommodate the growing demand at the existing location. The senior population is large and growing rapidly. The 55+ segment of Palo Alto's population grew 25% between 2000 and 2010 and today represents almost one-third of the total population of the city. As indicated in the City of Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan, Avenidas (formerly the Senior Coordinating Council) is the sole provider of senior services on behalf of the City of Palo Alto. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals for community services, Avenidas must evolve and adapt to the changing needs of the aging population.Meeting these needs starts with our programs and extends into our physical infrastructure. The expansion and remodeling of our facilities is fundamental to our abilities to continue to provide the highest level of service to the Palo Alto community. This expansion and remodeling also addresses Community Services goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan: “Goal C-4: “Attractive, Well-maintained CommunityFacilities That Serve Palo Alto Residents… Reinvest in aging facilities to improve their usefulness and appearance. Avoid deferred maintenance of City infrastructure. (Policy C-24)” City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Community Services and Facilities, page C-16. The proposed existing building and addition is +/-22,700 square feet. The first level is the largest at +/-11,100 square feet and includes the addition of an atriumlobby, main lobby, reception and classrooms and multi-purpose rooms. The second floor is +/-7,500 square feet and includes multipurpose rooms, meeting rooms, classrooms and administrative areas. A third floor in the new wing will be +/- 2,500 square feet and will include a fitness room and small meeting room. The circa 1950 shed at the rear (the “Garden Room” or “Villages Offices”) will be renovated to house the staff and members of Avenidas Village.The basement below the original building will become a theater/small auditorium. PARKING Part of the project's challenge is the limited space available for development based on Avenidas' leasehold area and the adjacent park and parking lot. The proposed addition is to remain within the current leasehold boundary. With no land on which to build parking spaces, it is our plan to meet the project's parking requirement of 31 spaces by paying an in-lieu fee to the Downtown Parking Assessment District. It may, however, be possible for the City to obtain an exception to this parking requirement, under direction from the City's Comprehensive Plan which states: Policy L-56: To reinforce the scale and character of University Avenue/Downtown, promote the preservation of significant historic buildings. Older buildings may be at a disadvantage because of the expense and specialized skills needed to adapt them for contemporary use. This is particularly true where seismic strengthening is needed or where the site cannot accommodate current parking requirements. In some cases, the use forwhich the building was designed is not even allowed by current zoning. The following programs are intended to help overcome these obstaclesand enable older buildings to be more competitive with new development. Allow parking exceptions for historic buildings to encourage rehabilitation. Require design review findings that the historic integrity of the building exterior will be maintained. City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 2007, Land Use and Community Design, pages L39-40 HISTORIC PRESERVATION The City of Palo Alto's Downtown design guideline recommends that a sense of history be preserved and historic structures be emphasized. The architectural concept of the addition is to significantly maintain the architectural features of the existing historic building by adding an addition at the back of the building, replacing the 1978 dining room with a three story wing and a two story atrium. The design aesthetic of the new addition is modern with the building composed of aluminum, glass and stoneelements. The scale and massing of the addition is such that it is in proportion to the existing historic building. The existing rear wall of the historic building will become a prominent feature of the proposed new wing. The main building entry will remain along Bryant Street. No exterior building modifications are proposed to the other three sides of the existing building. Participants will enter into a main lobby/reception that will look out into the remaining courtyard. With the remodeling of the interior space,the circulation and way finding throughout the facility will be improved. No historic interior features remain after previous interior renovations. The renovated building will have less office space than it presently does. Except for a few staff who interact directly and daily with participants and guests, staff will beconsolidated into part of the second floor in open space configured with workstations, a few private offices and shared huddle rooms. We do not expect that more staff will be required as a result of the building expansion. Interior renovations are being designed to make the space feel open and inviting. We want visitors to be able to walk through the building and see what is going on andbe enticed to join in. Small spaces will be combined into larger spaces. We also want pedestrians walking by on the Bryant Street sidewalk to be able to look in and see what's going on. Foundation landscape will be replaced with low-scale plantings and there will be larger and more active multi-purpose rooms flanking the frontentrance. EXISTING STAIRS TO BE RECONFIGURED EXISTING ELEVATOR TO BE REFURBISHED NEW OPEN STAIRS NEW ENCLOSED STAIRS NEW ACCESSIBLE ELEVATOR FIRST FLOOR La Comida Dining Room La Comida Kitchen Multipurpose Room Multipurpose Room Reception Admin offices Workstations and admin. offices Age Lab EXISTING RESTROOMS NEW RESTROOMS Villages Offices SECOND FLOOR Wellness area Admin. open workstations and offices Meeting Meeting Multipurpose room Multipurpose room NEW TRASH ENCLOSURE THIRD FLOOR Fitness area Multipurpose room 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD OVERALL EXISTING PLAN G3.0 OVERALL EXISTING PLAN - View from the Cogswell Plaza View from the Parking lot La Comida Dining Room from Cogswell Plaza Rear entrance from Parking lot 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD OVERALL PROPOSED PLAN G4.0 OVERALL PROPOSED PLAN -2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD GENERAL VIEW A1.0 BEFORE... (Existing view from Cogswell Plaza) 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 AFTER...Proposed view from Cogswell Plaza DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD PERSPECTIVES A2.0 GENERAL VIEW OF THE BUILDING FROM THE PARKING LOT - GENERAL VIEW OF THE DECK -2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD PERSPECTIVES A2.1 GENERAL VIEW OF THE BUILDING FROM THE PARKING LOT - GENERAL VIEW OF THE REAR ELEVATION -2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD INTERIOR PICTURES A2.2 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 1 LA COMIDA DINING ROOM 2 MULTIPURPOSE ROOM 3 CORRIDOR AND INFORMAL MEETING AREAS 4 FITNESS ROOM - Lobby artwork feature with donor names and Avenidas history - Abstract tree figure applied to glass panels Palo Alto = tall tree, symbol of longevity and growth - Donor names etched in glass - Visual history and Birge Clark legacy FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR DONORS AND BIRGE CLARK LEGACY WALL The addition will house one architectural and symbolic key element: the core. It will work with a double function. First of all, it will be the place for restrooms, mechanical shaft, and other servant spaces as well. On the other hand, it will show in its two main walls the legacy of noted Architect Birge Clark and the big effort done by Avenidas' donors to make the project happen. DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD MATERIAL BOARD A3.0 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 SHEET KEYNOTES SPANISH CLAY TILE ROOFING STUCCO WALLS MULTI-PANE STEEL CASEMENT WINDOW HIGH- PERFORMANCE CLEAR GLASS ALUMINUM FRAMES STONE WALL 2 1 4 5 STEEL AND GLASS ENTRY CANOPY CLIMBING PLANTS MOTORIZED SHADE CONTROL SYSTEM TO PROVIDE WINDOW SHADING SOLUTIONS IN THE INTERIORS ALUMINUM REVEALS 3 9 GLASS SYSTEM DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN A4.0 64'-3" PC LAB MAC LAB STORAGE STORAGE STORAGE BOILER STORAGE 54 ' - 8 " 9'- 6 " 38 ' - 1 1 " 28'-6" 5'-6" 35'-9" EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 3/32" 30'-2" 48 ' - 4 " 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 SHEET KEYNOTES EXISTING ELEVATOR TO BASEMENT TO BE REFURBISHED EXISTING STAIRS TO REMAIN EXISTING EXTERIOR STAIRS TO REMAIN EXISTING STRUCTURAL COLUMNS TO REMAIN EXISTING DOOR / WINDOW TO BE INFILLED EXISTING STAIRS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WINDOWS TO REMAIN EXISTING DOORS AND WINDOWS TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW ELEVATOR NEW STAIRS NEW EXTERIOR DOOR / WINDOW NEW ENCLOSED STAIRS EXISTING TRASH ROOM TO BE DEMOLISHED AND REBUILT EXISTING GATES TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW GATES EXISTING COURTYARD TO BE REDESIGNED (SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS) NEW WINDOW SYSTEM AT EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED NEW TRASH ROOM SEISMIC JOINT EXISTING DOOR TO REMAIN NEW WINDOW SYSTEM RESTROOMS AND SERVICES CORE LIMESTONE WALL NEW INTERIOR DOOR / WINDOW IN EXISTING WALL PLASTER WALL CANOPY SPANISH CLAY TILES DECK AREA DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN A4.1 PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 3/32" 64'-3" LECTURE LA COMIDA STORAGE JANITOR LOAN CLOSET BOILER STORAGE 54 ' - 8 " 9'- 6 " 38 ' - 1 1 " 28'-6" 5'-6" 35'-9" 30'-2" 48 ' - 4 " 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 SHEET KEYNOTES EXISTING ELEVATOR TO BASEMENT TO BE REFURBISHED EXISTING STAIRS TO REMAIN EXISTING EXTERIOR STAIRS TO REMAIN EXISTING STRUCTURAL COLUMNS TO REMAIN EXISTING DOOR / WINDOW TO BE INFILLED EXISTING STAIRS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WINDOWS TO REMAIN EXISTING DOORS AND WINDOWS TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW ELEVATOR NEW STAIRS NEW EXTERIOR DOOR / WINDOW NEW ENCLOSED STAIRS EXISTING TRASH ROOM TO BE DEMOLISHED AND REBUILT EXISTING GATES TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW GATES EXISTING COURTYARD TO BE REDESIGNED (SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS) NEW WINDOW SYSTEM AT EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED NEW TRASH ROOM SEISMIC JOINT EXISTING DOOR TO REMAIN NEW WINDOW SYSTEM RESTROOMS AND SERVICES CORE LIMESTONE WALL NEW INTERIOR DOOR / WINDOW IN EXISTING WALL PLASTER WALL CANOPY SPANISH CLAY TILES DECK AREA DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN A4.2 49'-7" 52 ' - 1 " 28 ' - 0 " 6'-0" 42 ' - 0 " 6'- 4 " 49'-6" 65 ' - 1 0 " 64'-11" OLD VILLAGES OFFICE LA COMIDA DINING ROOM KITCHEN VILLAGES OFFICES HEALTH LIBRARY NORTH LOBBY REST.REST. OFFICE FRIENDSHIP ROOM STAFF STAFF LOBBY JAN. REST. REST. OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICEOFFICE OFFICE OFFICE SOUTH LOBBY 20'-3" EXISTING FIRST FLOOR 3/32" 114'-6" 58'-2"6'-9" 89 ' - 1 1 " 5'- 7 " 17'-8"12'-10"20'-3" 115'-7" 24 ' - 1 1 " 11 7 ' - 6 " 40 ' - 6 " 42 ' - 3 " 30'-2" 12 4 ' - 3 " 30 ' - 5 " 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 SHEET KEYNOTES EXISTING ELEVATOR TO BASEMENT TO BE REFURBISHED EXISTING STAIRS TO REMAIN EXISTING EXTERIOR STAIRS TO REMAIN EXISTING STRUCTURAL COLUMNS TO REMAIN EXISTING DOOR / WINDOW TO BE INFILLED EXISTING STAIRS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WINDOWS TO REMAIN EXISTING DOORS AND WINDOWS TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW ELEVATOR NEW STAIRS NEW EXTERIOR DOOR / WINDOW NEW ENCLOSED STAIRS EXISTING TRASH ROOM TO BE DEMOLISHED AND REBUILT EXISTING GATES TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW GATES EXISTING COURTYARD TO BE REDESIGNED (SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS) NEW WINDOW SYSTEM AT EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED NEW TRASH ROOM SEISMIC JOINT EXISTING DOOR TO REMAIN NEW WINDOW SYSTEM RESTROOMS AND SERVICES CORE LIMESTONE WALL NEW INTERIOR DOOR / WINDOW IN EXISTING WALL PLASTER WALL CANOPY SPANISH CLAY TILES DECK AREA DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN A4.3 OFFICE 2'-5" WORKSTATIONS RECEP. LA COMIDA DINING ROOM KITCHEN MULTI. LA COMIDA AREA LOBBY SOCIAL WORKER FACILITY MAINTENANCE TOOLS AND SUPPLIES CENTER DIRECTORREST. WORKS. OFFICE AGE LAB. COPY PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR 3/32" 49'-7" 35 ' - 1 1 " 28 ' - 0 " 6'-0" 42 ' - 0 " 6'- 4 " 64'-11" 114'-6" 58'-2"6'-9" 12 4 ' - 3 " 5'- 7 " 17'-8"12'-10"20'-3" 115'-7" 11 5 ' - 6 " 40 ' - 6 " 42 ' - 3 " 30'-2" 10 ' - 5 " 28 ' - 8 " 2'- 0 " 37'-6" 11'-9" PASS WINDOW 4'- 4 " 3'-7" NEW WALLS LEGEND EXISTING WALLS 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 SHEET KEYNOTES EXISTING ELEVATOR TO BASEMENT TO BE REFURBISHED EXISTING STAIRS TO REMAIN EXISTING EXTERIOR STAIRS TO REMAIN EXISTING STRUCTURAL COLUMNS TO REMAIN EXISTING DOOR / WINDOW TO BE INFILLED EXISTING STAIRS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WINDOWS TO REMAIN EXISTING DOORS AND WINDOWS TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW ELEVATOR NEW STAIRS NEW EXTERIOR DOOR / WINDOW NEW ENCLOSED STAIRS EXISTING TRASH ROOM TO BE DEMOLISHED AND REBUILT EXISTING GATES TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW GATES EXISTING COURTYARD TO BE REDESIGNED (SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS) NEW WINDOW SYSTEM AT EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED NEW TRASH ROOM SEISMIC JOINT EXISTING DOOR TO REMAIN NEW WINDOW SYSTEM RESTROOMS AND SERVICES CORE LIMESTONE WALL NEW INTERIOR DOOR / WINDOW IN EXISTING WALL PLASTER WALL CANOPY SPANISH CLAY TILES DECK AREA DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN A4.4 EXISTING SECOND FLOOR 3/32" 30 ' - 5 " 89 ' - 1 1 " 64'-11" 112'-5" 17'-8"10'-6"25'-0" 120'-4" 12 2 ' - 3 " 45 ' - 3 " 56 ' - 1 0 " 20 ' - 3 " 2'-4" OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICEOPEN AREA OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE LOBBY REST. REST. STORAGE MULTI.BOARD ROOM CLASSROOM CLASSROOM CONFERENCE COPY LOUNGE OPEN AREA 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 SHEET KEYNOTES EXISTING ELEVATOR TO BASEMENT TO BE REFURBISHED EXISTING STAIRS TO REMAIN EXISTING EXTERIOR STAIRS TO REMAIN EXISTING STRUCTURAL COLUMNS TO REMAIN EXISTING DOOR / WINDOW TO BE INFILLED EXISTING STAIRS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WINDOWS TO REMAIN EXISTING DOORS AND WINDOWS TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW ELEVATOR NEW STAIRS NEW EXTERIOR DOOR / WINDOW NEW ENCLOSED STAIRS EXISTING TRASH ROOM TO BE DEMOLISHED AND REBUILT EXISTING GATES TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW GATES EXISTING COURTYARD TO BE REDESIGNED (SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS) NEW WINDOW SYSTEM AT EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED NEW TRASH ROOM SEISMIC JOINT EXISTING DOOR TO REMAIN NEW WINDOW SYSTEM RESTROOMS AND SERVICES CORE LIMESTONE WALL NEW INTERIOR DOOR / WINDOW IN EXISTING WALL PLASTER WALL CANOPY SPANISH CLAY TILES DECK AREA DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN A4.5 PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR 3/32" 30 ' - 5 " 89 ' - 1 1 " 6'- 4 " 64'-11" 112'-5" 17'-8"10'-6"25'-0" 120'-4" 12 2 ' - 3 " 45 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 5 " 28 ' - 8 " 2'-4" 35 ' - 1 1 " 37'-5" 11'-10" 60'-6" 4'- 4 " NEW WALLS LEGEND EXISTING WALLS 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 SHEET KEYNOTES EXISTING ELEVATOR TO BASEMENT TO BE REFURBISHED EXISTING STAIRS TO REMAIN EXISTING EXTERIOR STAIRS TO REMAIN EXISTING STRUCTURAL COLUMNS TO REMAIN EXISTING DOOR / WINDOW TO BE INFILLED EXISTING STAIRS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WINDOWS TO REMAIN EXISTING DOORS AND WINDOWS TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW ELEVATOR NEW STAIRS NEW EXTERIOR DOOR / WINDOW NEW ENCLOSED STAIRS EXISTING TRASH ROOM TO BE DEMOLISHED AND REBUILT EXISTING GATES TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW GATES EXISTING COURTYARD TO BE REDESIGNED (SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS) NEW WINDOW SYSTEM AT EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED NEW TRASH ROOM SEISMIC JOINT EXISTING DOOR TO REMAIN NEW WINDOW SYSTEM RESTROOMS AND SERVICES CORE LIMESTONE WALL NEW INTERIOR DOOR / WINDOW IN EXISTING WALL PLASTER WALL CANOPY SPANISH CLAY TILES DECK AREA DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD PROPOSED THIRD FLOOR PLAN A4.6 EXISTING SECOND FLOOR 3/32" 28 ' - 0 " 89 ' - 1 1 " 2'- 4 " 69'-8"15'-3"10'-6"25'-0" 120'-4" 11 7 ' - 1 1 " 45 ' - 3 " 10 ' - 5 " 2'-4" 35 ' - 1 1 " 37'-6" 11'-10" 60'-6" 2'- 4 " 4'- 4 " 2'-5" 3'-7" 31 ' - 2 " NEW WALLS LEGEND EXISTING WALLS 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 SHEET KEYNOTES EXISTING ELEVATOR TO BASEMENT TO BE REFURBISHED EXISTING STAIRS TO REMAIN EXISTING EXTERIOR STAIRS TO REMAIN EXISTING STRUCTURAL COLUMNS TO REMAIN EXISTING DOOR / WINDOW TO BE INFILLED EXISTING STAIRS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WINDOWS TO REMAIN EXISTING DOORS AND WINDOWS TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW ELEVATOR NEW STAIRS NEW EXTERIOR DOOR / WINDOW NEW ENCLOSED STAIRS EXISTING TRASH ROOM TO BE DEMOLISHED AND REBUILT EXISTING GATES TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW GATES EXISTING COURTYARD TO BE REDESIGNED (SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS) NEW WINDOW SYSTEM AT EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED NEW TRASH ROOM SEISMIC JOINT EXISTING DOOR TO REMAIN NEW WINDOW SYSTEM RESTROOMS AND SERVICES CORE LIMESTONE WALL NEW INTERIOR DOOR / WINDOW IN EXISTING WALL PLASTER WALL CANOPY SPANISH CLAY TILES DECK AREA DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROOF PLAN A4.7 10'-1" 55 ' - 3 " 2'-4" 69'-8" 60'-6" 25'-0" 31 ' - 8 " 45 ' - 3 " 14'-3"32'-10" 22'-9" 94 ' - 8 " 28 ' - 0 " 11'-10"48'-8" 11 ' - 1 0 " 16 ' - 2 " 41'-5" LEGEND PORTION OF THE OVERHANGING OF 1920s BUILDING TO REMOVE AND SAVE (2' 4'') EXISTING ROOF PLAN - DEMOLITION ROOF PLAN - PROPOSED ROOF PLAN - 69'-8" 94 ' - 8 " 71 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 1 0 " 18'-5" 10'-6" 25'-0" 11 ' - 1 0 " 11 ' - 1 0 " 16 ' - 2 " 88'-9"28 ' - 0 " 6'-9" 112'-6" 56 ' - 1 0 " 20 ' - 3 " 45 ' - 3 " 52'-0" 2'-4" 56 ' - 1 0 " 2'- 4 " 19'-0" 2'-4" 59 ' - 6 " PORTION OF THE OVERHANGING OF 1970s BUILDING TO REMOVE AND SAVE (2' 4'') +27'-0" +35'-0" +37'-0" +38'-0" T.O.P. +36'-0" T.O.P. T.O.D. +44'-0" T.O.P. +43'-0" +42'-0" T.O.P. +41'-0" 9'-4"10'-1" 22'-6" 10'-1" 15 ' - 4 " 22 ' - 5 " 4'- 4 " 37 ' - 6 " 15 ' - 4 " +0'-0"DENOTES ELEVATION POINT T.O.D. TOP OF ROOF DECK ELEVATION T.O.P. TOP OF PARAPET ELEVATION +38'-0" ROOF RIDGE @ +/- 17'-0'' ROOF RIDGE @ +/- 35'-0'' ROOF @ +/- 9'-0'' ROOF RIDGE @ +/- 17'-0'' 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 SHEET KEYNOTES SPANISH CLAY TILES EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING STAIRS TO SECOND FLOOR TO BE DEMOLISHED DECK AREA NOTE: REMOVED HISTORIC TILES TO BE SAVED AND REUSED DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD +0'-0'' +16'-0'' +0'-0'' EXISTING ELEVATIONS A5.0 SOUTHWEST ELEVATION 3/32"SOUTHEAST ELEVATION 3/32" NORTHWEST ELEVATION 3/32"NORTHTHEAST ELEVATION 3/32" NORTHEAST ELEVATION (BRYANT STREET) NORTHWEST ELEVATION (COGSWELL PLAZA) SOUTHEAST ELEVATION (PARKING LOT)SOUTHWEST ELEVATION (BACK ALLEY) SPANISH CLAY TILES SPANISH CLAY TILESMULTI-PANE STEEL CASEMENT WINDOWS SPANISH CLAY TILES STUCCO EXTERIOR FINISH STUCCO EXTERIOR FINISH SPANISH CLAY TILES MULTI-PANE STEEL CASEMENT WINDOWS WOOD FRAME FRENCH DOORS TILED BULKHEAD WALL MULTI-PANE GLAZED PEDESTRIAN ENTRY DOOR BALCONIES WITH WROUGHT IRON HARDWARE SPANISH CLAY TILES STUCCO EXTERIOR FINISH SPANISH CLAY TILES SPANISH CLAY TILES MULTI-PANE STEEL CASEMENT WINDOWS STUCCO EXTERIOR FINISH SPANISH CLAY TILES MULTI-PANE STEEL CASEMENT WINDOWS SPANISH CLAY TILES STUCCO EXTERIOR FINISH STUCCO EXTERIOR FINISHMETAL GATE STEEL BARS TO SECURE WINDOW TRASH ENCLOSURE 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD PROPOSED ELEVATIONS A5.1 SOUTHWEST ELEVATION -SOUTHEAST ELEVATION - NORTHWEST ELEVATION -NORTHEAST ELEVATION - 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 SHEET KEYNOTES HIGH PERFORMANCE CLEAR GLASS SYSTEM SPANISH CLAY TILE ROOFING PLASTER WALL LIMESTONE WALL STEEL AND GLASS ENTRY CANOPY ALUMINUM REVEALS ALUMINUM FRAMES NEW GATE NEW TRASH ENCLOSURE DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD PROPOSED ELEVATIONS (ALTERNATIVE) A5.1 SOUTHWEST ELEVATION -SOUTHEAST ELEVATION - NORTHWEST ELEVATION -NORTHEAST ELEVATION - 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 SHEET KEYNOTES HIGH PERFORMANCE CLEAR GLASS SYSTEM SPANISH CLAY TILE ROOFING PLASTER WALL LIMESTONE WALL STEEL AND GLASS ENTRY CANOPY ALUMINUM REVEALS ALUMINUM FRAMES NEW GATE NEW TRASH ENCLOSURE NOTE: ELEVATIONS SOUTHEAST AND NORTHWEST SHOW A DIFFERENT MATERIAL OPTION IN THE REAR WALL DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD REAR BIRGE CLARK BUILDING ALTERATIONS PLAN A5.2 EXISTING REAR BIRGE CLARK BUILDING ELEVATION (FROM THE COURTYARD)1/8" EXISTING REAR BIRGE CLARK BUILDING ELEVATION (FROM THE PARKING LOT)1/8" In order to retain the integrity of the existing building and maintain its historic character, the proposed addition will avoid the removal or alteration of important historic materials, features and spaces that characterize the property (Standard 2). With this main goal, the rear existing facade of the Birge Clark building will be preserved as much as possible. Part of the existing exterior elevation will turn into an interior one. As depicted in the graphic (left side of the sheet), when walking through the new addition, part of the historic facade will be seen from different positions and perspectives. 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 SHEET KEYNOTES EXISTING WINDOW TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WINDOW TO REMAIN EXISTING WINDOW / DOOR TO BE INFILLED AND REMAIN NEW WINDOW / DOOR EXISTING BUILDING TO BE REMOVED EXISTING DOOR TO BE REMOVED EXISTING DOOR TO REMAIN EXISTING DOOR TO BE MODIFIED AND REMAIN EXISTING GATE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING STAIRS TO SECOND FLOOR TO BE REMOVED EXISTING TILE ROOF TO REMAIN EXISTING WOOD CANOPY TO BE REMOVED EXISTING OLD VILLAGES OFFICE BUILDING TO REMAIN EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING BUILDING MOLDINGS TO REMAIN DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD REAR BIRGE CLARK BUILDING ALTERATIONS PLAN A5.3 ALTERATIONS IN THE EXISTING BIRGE CLARK BUILDING 1/8" PROPOSED REAR BIRGE CLARK BUILDING ELEVATION 1/8" SECOND FLOOR PROPOSED WALL FIRST FLOOR PROPOSED WALL LEGEND EXISTING WALL TO BE VISIBLE EXISTING WALL TO BE INFILLED 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 SHEET KEYNOTES EXISTING WINDOW TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WINDOW TO REMAIN EXISTING WINDOW / DOOR TO BE INFILLED AND REMAIN NEW WINDOW / DOOR EXISTING BUILDING TO BE REMOVED EXISTING DOOR TO BE REMOVED EXISTING DOOR TO REMAIN EXISTING DOOR TO BE MODIFIED AND REMAIN EXISTING GATE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING STAIRS TO SECOND FLOOR TO BE REMOVED EXISTING TILE ROOF TO REMAIN EXISTING WOOD CANOPY TO BE REMOVED EXISTING GARDEN ROOM BUILDING TO REMAIN EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING BUILDING MOLDINGS TO REMAIN DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD +0'-0" First floor +0'-0" First floor +16'-0" Second floor +35'-0" Top of parapet MULTI. Existing Birge Clark BuildingProposed addition +16'-0" Second floor +28'-0" Third floor +41'-0" Top of parapet SECTION 3/8" +0'-0" First floor +0'-0" First floor +16'-0" Second floor +35'-0" Top of parapet OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE LA COMIDA AREA MULTI. Existing Birge Clark BuildingProposed addition +16'-0" Second floor +28'-0" Third floor +41'-0" Top of parapet STAIR CORE LA COMIDA DINING ROOM WELLNESS AREA FITNESS ROOM STAIR CORE BUILDING SECTIONS A6.0 SECTION 3/8" 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 SHEET KEYNOTES GENERAL NOTES NOT ALL NOTES APPLY1. SINGLE PLY ROOFING SYSTEM OVER RIGID INSULATION BOARD AND EXTERIOR SHEATHING METAL DECKING WITH CONCRETE FILL STRUCTURAL BEAM STRUCTURAL STEEL COLUMN STONE WALL ALUMINUM REVEAL HIGH-PERFORMANCE CLEAR GLASS SYSTEM WITH ALUMINUM FRAMES CONCRETE SLAB / FOUNDATION CLEAR GLASS HANDRAIL SYSTEM WITH METAL BALAUSTERS METAL STAIR SYSTEM EXPANSION JOINT EXISTING MECHANICAL WELL NEW MECHANICAL WELL EXISTING STUCCO WALL PROPOSED STUCCO WALL REINFORCED CONCRETE AND WOOD FRAMING STRUCTURE SPANISH CLAY TILE ROOFING EXISTING MULTI-PANE STEEL CASEMENT WINDOW EXISTING WINDOW / DOOR TO REMAIN EXISTING WINDOW / DOOR TO BE INFILLED NEW WINDOW / DOOR IN EXISTING WALL NEW TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATOR SHAFT 49'-7" +43'-0" +43'-0" 64'-11" 49'-7"64'-11" DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD SECTION 3/8" +0'-0" First floor Existing 1970's additionProposed addition +16'-0" Second floor +28'-0" Third floor +41'-0" Top of parapet LA COMIDA DINING ROOM WELLNESS AREA FITNESS ROOM +0'-0" First floor +17'-0" Top of parapet NEW CLASSROOMKITCHEN BUILDING SECTIONS A6.1 SECTION 3/8" 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 CONSULTANT 129.021 AS SHOWN REVISION CHECKED BY AVENIDAS 450 BRYANT STREET PALO ALTO PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 05.27.15 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL 05.27.15 SHEET KEYNOTES GENERAL NOTES NOT ALL NOTES APPLY1. SINGLE PLY ROOFING SYSTEM OVER RIGID INSULATION BOARD AND EXTERIOR SHEATHING METAL DECKING WITH CONCRETE FILL STRUCTURAL BEAM STRUCTURAL STEEL COLUMN STONE WALL ALUMINUM REVEAL HIGH-PERFORMANCE CLEAR GLASS SYSTEM WITH ALUMINUM FRAMES CONCRETE SLAB / FOUNDATION CLEAR GLASS HANDRAIL SYSTEM WITH METAL BALAUSTERS METAL STAIR SYSTEM EXPANSION JOINT EXISTING MECHANICAL WELL NEW MECHANICAL WELL EXISTING STUCCO WALL PROPOSED STUCCO WALL REINFORCED CONCRETE AND WOOD FRAMING STRUCTURE SPANISH CLAY TILE ROOFING EXISTING MULTI-PANE STEEL CASEMENT WINDOW EXISTING WINDOW / DOOR TO REMAIN EXISTING WINDOW / DOOR TO BE INFILLED NEW WINDOW / DOOR IN EXISTING WALL NEW TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATOR SHAFT +0'-0" First floor +16'-0" Second floor +28'-0" Third floor +41'-0" Top of parapet +0'-0" +9'-0" +27'-0" +35'-0" +23'-0" ENCLOSED STAIRS CORRIDOR REST.MULTI. MULTI. LOBBYLOUNGE DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD LEASE AGREEMENT TEMPLATE-USER INSTRUCTIONS ,,.,, . WHEN TO USE FORM: This form should only be used when the City is leasing City owned property to someone else. If the City is leasing property from a private party DO NOT USE this form. HOW TO COMPLETE FORM: To use this form, you will need to fill in the information requested in bold. Below is a summary. of the major items of information and lease references that will need to be customized before completing the agreement: o tenant: Avenidas o Address of Property: 450 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 o Square Footage and Description of Properfy: Approximately 17,400 Square Feet of Office Building Located o Lease Term with Start and End: o Length of Option Period~: N_/A~---------- o Monthly Rent: $1.00 & Yearly o Amount of Security Deposit:~N~o=n=e~---- o Required Uses of Property: Office & Administration functions to run a comm1mity center that provides services to seniors in the area o Who Will Pay Utilities:'---"'T'-"'e=n=an=t"-------- o Who Will Perform Maintenance: Refer to the lease section 9 o Who Will Maintain Common and other Areas: Refer to lease section 9 o What Construction Lessee Will Perform, Permission Needed, and End Date: NIA o What Construction Cost Requires City Approval:~N_/_A _________ _ o Parcel Map of Property (Exhibit A) o General Map (Exhibit B) o Premise (Exhibit C) o Insurance (Exhibit D) o Parking Map (Exhibit E) DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO AND AVENIDAS TABLE OF CONTENTS LEASE PROVISIONS 1. PREMISES. 2. TERM. 3. RENT 4. SECURITY DEPOSIT 5. USE OF PROPERTY 6. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 7. UTILITIES AND OPERATING EXPENSES 8. TAXES 9. MAINTENANCE 10. ALTERATIONS BY LESSEE 11. CONSTRUCTION BY LESSEE 12. HOLD HARMLESS/INDEMNIFICATION 13. DAMAGE, DESTRUCTION AND TERMINATION 14. SIGNS 15. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING 16. DEFAULTS; REMEDIES 17. INTEREST ON PAST-DUE OBLIGATIONS 18. HOLDING OVER 19. CITY'S ACCESS 20. INSURANCE 21. RESERVATION OF A VIGATIONAL EASEMENT 22. EMINENT DOMAIN 23. POST-ACQUISITION TENANCY 24. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 25. NON-LIABILITY OF OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD 26. NON-DISCRIMINATION 27. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR 28. CONFLICT OF INTEREST 29. MEMORANDUM OF LEASE 30. ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE 31. LIENS 32. VACATING 33. ABANDONMENT 34. NOTICES 35. TIME 36. AMENDMENTS 37. SIGNING AUTHORITY 38. CAPTIONS 39. SURRENDER OF LEASE NOT MERGER 40. INTEGRATED DOCUMENT 41. WAIVER 42. INTERPRETATIONS 43. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE 44. GOVERNING LAW 45. VENUE 46. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS 47. BROKERS 48PARKING 49. AMENDMENTS 50. ATTACHMENTS TO LEASE 51. EXHIBITS DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO AND AVENIDAS This lease agreement (herein "Lease") is made and entered into this 1st day of January, 2015, by and between the City of Palo Alto, a California chartered municipal corporation (herein "City") and A venidas, a non-profit, tax-exempt organization, (herein "Lessee"). City and Lessee may be referred to individually as a "Party" or collectively as the "Parties" or the "Parties to this Lease." The City Manager serves as Contract Administrator for this Lease on behalf of the City Council. RECITALS This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts: A. The City is the fee simple owner of the real property located at 450 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, situated County of Santa Clara, State of California, Assessor's Parcel Number 120- 26-095 and site plan shown respectively on Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" of this Agreement (the "Property") B. A venidas, a non-profit organization has been a tenant of the City at the Property since May of 1977 and the current lease with the City is set to expire on May of2027. C. In order continue to provide quality services for the seniors in the area over a long term horizon, A venidas has requested a new lease with a term of 50 years. D. Lessee desires to continue to occupy and use the Property which consists of a community center of approximately 17,400 square feet, more particularly described and shown in Exhibit "C" of this Agreement (the "Premise"), for the general purpose of providing services and activities to help older adults stay active, healthy, engaged and independent. E. The Parties are willing to terminate the current lease and City is willing to grant a new Lease to Lessee for the specific and limited uses described in this Agreement. Now, therefore, in consideration of these recitals and the following covenants, terms, and conditions, Lessee and City mutually agree as follows: 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD LEASE PROVISIONS 1. PREMISES. City hereby leases to Lessee, certain real property located in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, commonly known as A venidas and more particularly shown in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The Property consists of approximately 17,400-square feet of space. Unless specifically provided, Lessee accepts the Premise "as-is" on the date of execution of this Lease. 2. TERM. 2.1 Original Term. The teIP.2-ofthis Lease shall be for fifty (50) years, commencing on l:!_:JJ~i S and ending on /-:_/_::_-2,4.fi.> Lessee shall, at the expiration of the term of this lease, or upon its earlier termination, surrender the Property in as good condition as it is now at· the date of this lease. The Parties expect reasonable wear and tear. 2.3 Early Termination by City. Intentionally Deleted. 3. RENT. 3.1 Base Rent. The rent to be paid by Lessee shall be at $1.00 per year in advance on or before the first day of July of every calendar year during the term of this lease. 4. SECURITY DEPOSIT. Not Applicable. 5. USE OF PROPERTY. 5 .1 Permitted Uses. A venidas shall use the Premises for the purpose of providing support services to older adults and their caregivers, including but not limited to Lifelong Leaming and Leisure programs, Health and Wellness services, Social Work services, Transportation and Handyman services and Volunteer programs, and Lessee may also use the Premises for the following uses: staff development, employee training, program review, meetings with business contacts A venidas, and any other legally related use. Lessee may also rent rooms for occasional use to support its operation. The Premises may not be used for any other purposes without City's prior written consent, which consent may be withheld in the sole and absolute discretion of the City. 5.2. Intent of the Use. It is the further intent of the City and Lessee that Lessee is primarily responsible for the identification of sources and for the securing of commitments for the funds necessary to bring together on the premises a broad range of activities and services responsive to the interest and needs of senior citizens, to mobilize the energies and talents of senior citizens, to maximize the use of community resources, and to simulate development of new programs for Page 2 of 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD senior citizens. During the terms of this lease, Lessee agrees to use the premises to maintain and operate programs for senior citizens to carry out such purposes and for no other purpose. 5.3 Annual Budget. In order to insure that the use of the Premises is in keeping with the intended uses as set forth above, Lessee annually shall present to City the annual budget of Lessee within thirty (30) days after the Lessee has approved said budget. Lessee also will present to City for its information an annual report of the operation of the Center in the form as submitted to the State of California as required for a tax-exempt organization within one hundred and eighty (180) days of the end of each budget or operating year, and such statement shall include annual financial statement of Lessee. 5.4 Prohibited Uses. Lessee shall not use Premises for any purpose not expressly permitted hereunder. Lessee shall not create, cause, maintain or permit any nuisance or waste in, on, or about the Premises, or permit or allow the Premises to be used for any unlawful or immoral purpose. Lessee shall not do or permit to be done anything in any manner which unreasonably disturbs the users of the neighboring property. Specifically, and without limiting the above, Lessee agrees not to cause any unreasonable odor, noise, vibration, power emission, or other item to emanate from the Premises. No materials or articles of any nature shall be stored outside upon any portion of the Premises. Lessee will not use Property in a manner that increases the risk of fire, cost of fire insurance or improvements thereon. No unreasonable sign or placard shall be painted, inscribed or placed in or on said Property; and no tree or shrub thereon shall be destroyed or removed (except in connection with Lessee's maintenance of, or modification to, the landscaping) or other waste committed of said Property. No motorcycles, automobiles or other mechanical means of transportation shall be placed or stored anywhere on the Property, provided that the foregoing shall in no way limit Lessee's rights to use the parking areas on the Property. No repair, overhaul or modification of any motor vehicle shall take place on the Property or the street in front of said Property. Lessee, at his/her expense, shall keep ·the Property in as good condition as it was at the beginning of the terms hereof, except damage occasioned by ordinary wear and tear, and except damage to the roof, the exterior walls, sidewalks and underground plumbing, which is not the fault of Lessee. 5.5 Condition, Use of Premises. City makes no warranty or representation of any kind concerning the condition of the Premises, or the fitness of the Premises for the use intended by Lessee, and hereby disclaims any personal knowledge with respect thereto, it being expressly understood by the parties that Lessee has personally inspected the Premises, knows its condition, finds it fit for Lessee's intended use, accepts it as is, and has ascertained that it can be used exclusively for the limited purposes specified in Section 5 .1. 6. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. 6.1 Hazardous Materials Defined. The term "Hazardous Material(s)" shall mean any toxic or hazardous substance, material or waste or any pollutant or contaminant, or infectious or radioactive material, including but not limited to, those substances, materials, or wastes regulated now or in the future under any of the following statutes or regulations and any and all of those substances included within the definitions of "hazardous substances", "hazardous waste'', "hazardous chemical substance or mixture", "imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture," "toxic substances," "hazardous air pollutant", "toxic pollutant" or "solid waste" in the Page 3 of 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD (a) CERCLA or Superfund as amended by SARA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601 et seq., (b) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6901 et seq., (c) CW A., 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq., (d) CAA, 42 U.S.C. 78401 et seq., (e) TSCA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2601 et seq., (f) The Refuse Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 407, (g) OSHA, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq. (h) Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. Sec. 1801 et seq., (i) USDOT Table (40 CFR Part 302 and amendments) or the EPA Table (40 CFR Part 302 and amendments), G) California Superfund, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 25300 et seq., (k) Cal. Hazardous Waste Control Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code Section 25100 et seq., (1) Porter-Cologne Act, Cal. Water Code Sec. 13000 et seq., (m) Hazardous Waste Disposal Land Use Law, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 25220 et seq., (n) Proposition 65, Cal. Health and Safety Code Sec. 25249.5 et seq., (o) Hazardous Substances Underground Storage Tank Law, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 25280 et seq., (p) California Hazardous Substance Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 28740 et seq., (q) Air Resources Law, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 39000 et seq., (r) Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory, Cal. Health & Safety Code Secs. 25500-25541, (s) TCPA, Cal. Health and Safety Code Secs. 25208 et seq., and (t) regulations promulgated pursuant to said laws or any replacement thereof, or as similar terms are defined in the federal, state and local laws, statutes, regulations, orders or rules. Hazardous Materials shall also mean any and all other substances, materials, and wastes which are, or in the future become, regulated under applicable local, state or federal law for the protection of health or the environment, or which are classified as hazardous or toxic substances, materials or wastes, pollutants or contaminants, as defined, listed or regulated by any federal, state or local law, regulation or order or by common law decision, including without limitation: (i) trichloroethylene, tetracholoethylene, perchloroethylene and other chlorinated solvents; (ii) any petroleum products or fractions thereof; (iii) asbestos, (iv) polychlorinated biphenyls; (v) flammable explosives; (vi) urea formaldehyde; and, (vii) radioactive materials and waste. 6.2. Compliance with Laws. Lessee shall not cause or permit any Hazardous Material (as defined below) to be brought upon, kept or used in or about the Premises or Project by Lessee, its agents, employees, contractors or invitees. 6.3 Termination of Lease. City shall have the right to terminate the Lease in City's sole and absolute discretion in the event that: (i) any anticipated use of the Premises by Lessee involves the generation or storage, use, treatment, disposal, or release of Hazardous Material in a manner or for a purpose prohibited or regulated by any governmental agency, authority, or Hazardous Materials Laws; (ii) Lessee has been required by any lender or governmental authority to take remedial action in connection with Hazardous Material contaminating the Premises, if the contamination resulted from Lessee's action or use of the Premises; or (iii) Lessee is subject to an enforcement order issued by any governmental authority in connection with the release, use, disposal, or storage of a Hazardous Material on the Premises, if the contamination resulted from Lessee's action or use of the Premises. 6.4 Assignment and Subletting. It shall not be unreasonable for City to withhold its consent to an assignment or subletting to such proposed assignee or sublessee if: (i) any anticipated use of the Premises by any proposed assignee or sublessee involves the generation or storage, use, treatment, disposal, or release of Hazardous Material in a manner or for any purpose; (ii) the proposed assignee or sublessees has been required by any prior landlord, lender, or governmental authority to take remedial action in connection with Hazardous Material contaminating a property, if the contamination resulted from such party's action or use of the property in Page 4 of 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD question; or, (iii) the proposed assignee or sublessee is subject to an enforcement order issued by any governmental authority in connection with the release, use, disposal or storage of a Hazardous Material. 6.5 Hazardous Materials Indemnity. Lessee shall indemnify, defend (by counsel reasonably acceptable to City), protect, and hold City harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities, penalties, forfeitures, losses, and/or expenses, including without limitation, diminution in value of the Premises, damages for the loss or restriction on use of the rentable or usable space or of any amenity of the Premises, damages arising from any adverse impact or marketing of the Premises and sums paid in settlement of claims, response costs, cleanup costs, site assessment costs, attorneys' fees, consultant and expert fees, judgments, administrative rulings or orders, fines, costs of death of or injury to any person, or damage to any property whatsoever (including, without limitation, groundwater, sewer systems, and atmosphere), arising from, caused, or resulting, either prior to or during the Lease Term, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, by the presence or discharge in, on, under, or about the Premises by Lessee, Lessee's agents, employees, licensees, or invitees or at Lessee's direction, of Hazardous Material, or by Lessee's failure to comply with any Hazardous Materials Law, whether knowingly or by strict liability. For purposes ofthe indemnity provided herein, any acts or omissions of Lessee or its employees, agents, customers, sublessees, assignees, contractors, or subcontractors of Lessee (whether or not they are negligent, intentional, willful or unlawful) shall be strictly attributable to Lessee. Lessee's indemnification obligations shall include, without limitation, and whether foreseeable or unforeseeable, all costs of any required or necessary Hazardous Materials management plan, investigation, repairs, cleanup or detoxification or decontamination of the Premises, and the presence and implementation of any closure, remedial action or other required plans, and shall survive the expiration of or early termination of the Lease Term. 6.6 City's Right to Perform Tests. At any time prior to the expiration of the Lease Term, City shall have the right to enter upon the Premises in order to conduct tests of water and soil. 7. UTILITIES AND OPERA TING EXPENSES. 7.1. Operating Cost. City shall furnish to the Property reasonable quantities of gas, electricity, water, sewer and refuse collections services as required for Lessee's use. The Lessee shall also be allowed use of internet access as exists within the Premises. However, if City is required to construct new or additional utility installations, including, without limitation, wiring, plumbing, conduits, and mains, resulting from Lessee's special requirements, Lessee shall on demand pay to City the total cost of such items. Lessee agrees to pay for all water, gas, heat, electricity, power, light, telephone service, garbage removal, or other public utility service used during the term of this lease; provided, however, Lessee shall pay twenty -five percent (25%) of any monthly City utilities charges for the Premises, and City shall pay the remaining seventy five percent (75%) of the monthly City utilities charges from City's General Fund. Lessee agrees to employ sound and innovative conservation practices in addition to abiding by all City conservation requirements. 8. TAXES. 8.1 Real Property Taxes Defined. The term "real property taxes" as used herein shall mean all Page 5 of 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD taxes, assessments, levies and other charges, general and special, foreseen and unforeseen, now or hereafter imposed by any governmental or quasi-governmental authority or special district having the direct or indirect power to tax or levy assessments, which are levied or assessed against or with respect to: (i) value, occupancy, use or possession of the Premises and/or the Improvements; (ii) any improvements, fixtures, equipment and other real or personal property of Lessee that are an integral part of the Premises; or, (iii) use of the Premises, Improvements public utilities or energy within the Premises. The term "real property taxes" shall also mean all charges, levies or fees imposed by reason of environmental regulation or other governmental control of the premises and/or the Improvements, new or altered excise, transaction, sales, privilege, assessment, or other taxes or charges now or hereafter imposed upon City as a result of this Lease, and all costs and fees (including attorneys' fees) incurred by City in contesting any real property taxes and in negotiating with public authorities as to any real property taxes affecting the Premises. If any real property taxes are based upon property or rents unrelated to the Premises and/or the Improvements, then only that part of such tax that is fairly allocable to the Premises and/or the Improvements, as determined by City, on the basis of the assessor's worksheets or other available information, shall be included within the meaning of the term "real property taxes." 8.2 Payment of Real Property Taxes. Lessee shall pay Lessee's share of all real property taxes (as defined in Section 8.1 above) which become due and payable to City on or before the later of ten (10) days prior to the delinquency thereof or fifteen (15) days after the date on which Lessee receives a copy of the tax bill and notice of City's determination hereunder. Lessee's liability to pay real property taxes shall be prorated on the basis of a three hundred sixty-five (365) day year to account for any fraction or portion of a tax year included in the Lease Term at the commencement or expiration of the Lease. 8.3 Revenue and Taxation Code. Lessee specifically acknowledges it is familiar with section 107 .6 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. Lessee realizes that a possessory interest subject to property taxes may be created, agrees to pay any such tax, and hereby waives any rights Lessee may have under said California Revenue and Taxation Code section 107 .6. 8.4 Personal Property Taxes. Lessee shall pay before delinquent, or if requested by City, reimburse City for, any and all taxes, fees, and assessments associated with the Property, the personal property contained in the Premises and other taxes, fees, and assessments regarding any activities which take place at the Property. Lessee recognizes and understands in accepting this Lease that its interest therein may be subject to a possible possessory interest tax that City or County may impose on such interest and that such tax payment shall not reduce any rent due City hereunder and any such tax shall be the liability of and be paid by Lessee. 9. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 9.1 Lessee Responsibilities. Lessee at Lessee's expense, shall perform all maintenance and repairs, including all painting, and all maintenance of landscaped areas necessary to keep the Premises and all improvements thereto in first-class order, repair, and condition, and shall keep the Premises in a safe, clean, wholesome, and sanitary condition to the complete but reasonable satisfaction of City, and in compliance with all applicable laws, throughout the term of this Lease. In addition, Lessee shall maintain, at Lessee's expense, all equipment, furnishings and Page 6 of 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD trade fixtures upon the Premises required for the maintenance and operation of a first-class business of the type to be conducted pursuant to this Lease. Lessee shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the structures located on the Premises and all the main support systems exclusively serving the Premises, including plumbing (but excluding the portions of the same that are underground), electrical, HV AC, foundation, framing, exterior walls of the Premises and structural support systems. Lessee will be responsible for the maintenance, repair of the roof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, except to the extent any maintenance, repair or replacement is made necessary by the negligence of Lessee, the City shall be responsible for the replacement of the roof. 9.2 Waiver of Civil Code. Lessee expressly waives the benefit of any statute now or hereinafter in effect, including the provisions of sections 1941 and 1942 of the Civil Code of California, which would otherwise afford Lessee the right to make repairs at City's expense or to terminate this Lease because of City's failure to keep Premises in good order, condition and repair. Lessee further agrees that if and when any repairs, alterations, additions or betterments shall be made by Lessee as required by this paragraph, Lessee shall promptly pay for all labor done or materials furnished and shall keep the Premises free and clear of any lien or encumbrance of any kind whatsoever. If Lessee fails to make any repairs or perform any maintenance work for which Lessee is responsible within a reasonable time (as determined by the City Manager in the City Manager's sole discretion) after demand by the City, City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to make the repairs at Lessee's expense; within ten (10) days of receipt of a bill, Lessee shall reimburse City for the cost of such repairs, including a fifteen percent (15% administrative overhead fee. The making of such repairs or performance of maintenance by City shall in no event be construed as a waiver of the duty of Lessee to make repairs or perform maintenance as provided in this Section. 10. ALTERATIONS BY LESSEE Lessee shall not make any alterations or improvements to the Premises without obtaining the prior written consent of the City Manager, except for alterations or improvements that cost less than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) and which do not affect the building systems or the structural integrity or structural components of the Premises. Lessee may, at any time and at its sole expense, and without the prior written consent of City, install and place business fixtures and equipment within the Premises. 11. CONSTRUCTION BY LESSEE. 11. l Ownership of Improvements. All improvements constructed, erected, or installed upon the Premises must be free and clear of all liens, claims, or liability for labor or material and shall become the property of City, at its election, upon expiration or earlier termination of this lease and upon City's election, shall remain upon the Premises upon termination of this Lease. Title to all equipment, furniture, furnishings, and trade fixtures placed by Lessee upon the Premises shall remain in Lessee, and replacements, substitutions and modifications thereof may be made by Lessee throughout the term of this Lease. Lessee may remove such fixtures and furnishings upon termination of this Lease if Lessee is not then in default under this Lease, provided that Lessee shall repair to the satisfaction of City any damage to the Premises and improvements Page 7 of 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD caused by such removal and provided that usual and customary lighting, plumbing and heating fixtures shall remain upon the Premises upon termination of this Lease. 11.2 Indemnity for Claims Arising Out of Construction. Lessee shall defend and indemnify City against all claims, liabilities, and losses of any type arising out of work performed on the Premises by Lessee, together with reasonable attorneys' fees and all costs and expenses reasonably incurred by City in negotiating, settling, defending or otherwise protecting against such claims. 11.3 Assurance of Completion. Prior to commencement of any construction or alteration expected to cost more than $5,000, Lessee shall furnish the City Manager evidence that assures City that sufficient funds will be available to complete the proposed work. The amount of such assurance shall be at least the total estimated construction cost. Evidence of such assurance shall take one of the forms set out below and shall guarantee Lessee's full and faithful performance of all of the terms, covenants, and conditions of this Lease: A. Completion Bond; B. Performance, labor and material bonds, supplied by Lessee's contractor or contractors, provided the bonds are issued jointly to Lessee and City; C. Irrevocable letter of credit from a financial institution; D. Proof of cash or other liquid assets; or E. Any combination of the above. All bonds and letters of credit must be issued by a company qualified to do business in the State of California and be acceptable to the City Manager. All bonds and letters of credit shall be in a form acceptable to the City Manager, and shall insure faithful and full observance and performance by Lessee of all of the terms, conditions, covenants, and agreements relating to the construction of improvements or alterations in accordance with this Lease. 11.4 Certificate of Inspection. Upon completion of construction of any building, Lessee shall submit to the City Manager a Certificate of Inspection, verifying that the construction was completed in conformance with Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations for residential construction, or in conformance with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations for non residential construction. 11.5 As Built Plans. Lessee shall provide the City Manager with a complete set of reproducible "as built plans" reflecting actual construction within or upon the Premises upon completion of any: (i) new construction; (ii) structural alterations; or, (iii) non-structural alterations costing more than $25,000. 12. HOLD HARMLESS/INDEMNIFICATION. 12.1 Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, Lessee agrees to protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify City, its City Council, commissions, officers, agents, volunteers, and employees from and against any claim, injury, liability, loss, cost, and/or expense or damage, however same may be caused, including all costs and reasonable attorney's fees in providing a defense to any claim arising therefrom for which City shall become legally liable arising from Page 8 of 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD Lessee's negligent, reckless, or wrongful acts, errors, or omissions with respect to or in any way connected with this Lease. Lessee shall give City immediate notice of any claim or liability hereby indemnified against. This indemnity shall be in addition to the Hazardous Materials indemnity contained in this Lease and shall survive shall survive the expiration of or early termination of the Lease Term. 12.2 Waiver of Claims. Lessee waives any claims against City for injury to Lessee's business or any loss of income therefrom, for damage to Lessee's property, or for injury or death of any person in or about the Premises, from any cause whatsoever, except to the extent caused by the active negligence or willful misconduct of City or City's officers, agents, contractors, volunteers, and employees. 13. DAMAGE, DESTRUCTION AND TERMINATION. 13.1 Nontermination and Nonabatement. Except as provided herein, no destruction or damage to the Premises by fire, windstorm or other casualty, whether insured or uninsured, shall entitle Lessee to terminate this Lease. City and Lessee waive the provisions of any statutes which relate to termination of a lease when leased property is destroyed and agree that such event shall be governed by the terms of this Lease. 13.2 Force Majeure. Prevention, delay or stoppage due to strikes, lockouts, labor disputes, Acts of God, inability to obtain labor, inability to obtain materials or reasonable substitutes, governmental restrictions, governmental regulation, governmental controls, judicial orders, enemy or hostile governmental actions, civil commotion, fire or other casualty, and other causes beyond the reasonable control of Lessee (financial inability excepted), shall excuse the performance by Lessee for a period equal to the prevention, delay, or stoppage, except the obligations imposed with regard to rent to be paid by Lessee pursuant to this Lease. In the event any work performed by Lessee or Lessee's contractors results in a strike, lockout, and/or labor dispute, the strike, lockout, and/or labor dispute shall not excuse the performance by Lessee of the provisions of this Lease. 13 .3 Restoration of Premises by Lessee. 13.3.1 Destruction Due to Risk Covered by Insurance. If, during the term, the Premises are totally or partially destroyed from a risk covered by the insurance described in Section 20 (Insurance), rendering the Premises totally or partially inaccessible or unusable, Lessee shall restore the Premises to substantially the same condition as it was in immediately before. destruction, but only to the extent of insurance proceeds actually received. Such destruction shall not terminate this Lease. If the laws existing at that time do not permit the restoration, either party can terminate this Lease immediately by giving notice to the other party. A. Minor Loss. If, during the term of this Lease, the Premises are destroyed from a risk covered by the insurance described in Section 20 (Insurance), and the total amount of loss does not exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), Lessee shall make the loss adjustment with the insurance company insuring the loss. The proceeds shall be paid directly to Lessee for the sole purpose of making the Page 9 of 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD restoration of the Premises in accordance with this Lease. B. Major Loss-Insurance Trustee. If, during the term of this Lease, the Premises are destroyed from a risk covered by the insurance described in Section 20 (Insurance), and the total amount of loss exceeds the amount set forth in paragraph (1 ), Lessee shall make the loss adjustment with the insurance company insuring the loss and on receipt of the proceeds shall immediately pay them to an institutional lender or title company as may be jointly selected by the parties ("the Insurance Trustee"), and funds shall be disbursed by the Insurance Trustee pursuant to the procedures set forth below in Section 13.3.2. 13.3.2 Destruction Due to Risk Not Covered by Insurance. If, during the term, the Premises are totally or partially destroyed from a risk not covered by the insurance described in Section 20 (Insurance), rendering the Premises totally or partially inaccessible or unusable, Lessee shall restore the Premises to substantially the same condition as it was in immediately before destruction, whether or not the insurance proceeds are sufficient to cover the actual cost of restoration. Such destruction shall not terminate this Lease. If the laws existing at that time do not permit the restoration, either party can terminate this Lease immediately by giving notice to the other party. If the cost of restoration exceeds ten percent (10%) of the then replacement value of the Premises totally or partially destroyed, Lessee can elect to terminate this Lease by giving notice to City within sixty ( 60) days after determining the restoration cost and replacement value. If Lessee elects to terminate this Lease, City, within thirty (30) days after receiving Lessee's notice to terminate, can elect to pay to Lessee, at the time City notifies Lessee of its election, the difference between ten percent ( 10%) of the replacement value of the Premises and the actual cost of restoration, in which case Lessee shall restore the Premises. On City's making its election to contribute, each party shall deposit immediately the amount of its contribution with such institutional lender or Title Company as may be jointly selected by the parties ("the Insurance Trustee"). If the Destruction does not exceed ten percent ( 10%) of the then replacement value of the Premises but does exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), Lessee shall immediately deposit the cost of restoration with an Insurance Trustee. This Lease shall terminate if Lessee elects to terminate this Lease and City does not elect to contribute toward the cost of restoration as provided in this section. If the Premises are destroyed from a risk not covered by the insurance described in Section 20 (Insurance), and Lessee has the obligation to restore the Premises as provided in subsection (B), both parties shall d(fposit with the Insurance Trustee their respective contributions toward the cost of restoration. All sums deposited with the Insurance Trustee shall be held for the following purposes and the Insurance Trustee shall have the following powers and duties: The sums shall be paid in installments by the Insurance Trustee to the contractor retained by Lessee as construction progresses, for payment of the cost of Page 10 of 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD Restoration. A 10% retention fund shall be established that will be paid to the contractor on completion of restoration, payment of all costs, expiration of all applicable lien periods, and proof that the Premises are free of all mechanics' liens and lienable claims. Payments shall be made on presentation of certificates or vouchers from the architect or engineer retained by Lessee showing the amount due. If the Insurance Trustee, in its reasonable discretion, determines that the certificates or vouchers are being improperly approved by the architect or engineer retained by Lessee, the Insurance Trustee shall have the right to appoint an architect or an engineer to supervise construction and to make payments on certificates or vouchers approved by the architect or engineer retained by the Insurance Trustee. The reasonable expenses and charges of the architect or engineer retained by the Insurance Trustee shall be paid by the insurance trustee out of the trust fund. Both parties shall promptly execute all documents and perform all acts reasonably required by the Insurance Trustee to perform its obligations under this section. If the sums held by the Insurance Trustee are not sufficient to pay the actual cost of restoration Lessee shall deposit the amount of the deficiency with the Insurance Trustee within fifteen (15) days after request by the Insurance Trustee indicating the amount of the deficiency. Any undisbursed funds after compliance with the provisions of this section shall be delivered to City to the extent of City's contribution to the fund, and the balance, if any, shall be paid to Lessee. All actual costs and charges of the Insurance Trustee shall be paid by Lessee. If the Insurance Trustee resigns or for any reason is unwilling to act or continue to act, a new trustee shall be jointly selected by the parties and shall be substituted in the place of the designated Insurance Trustee. The new trustee must be an institutional lender or title company. 13.3.3 Procedure for Restoring Premises. When Lessee is obligated to restore the Premises, within ninety (90) days Lessee at its cost shall prepare final plans, specifications, and working drawings complying with applicable Laws that will be necessary for restoration of the Premises and shall deliver the same to City for approval. The plans, specifications, and working drawings must be approved by City, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. City shall have thirty (30) days after receipt of the plans and specifications and working drawings to either approve or disapprove the plans, specifications, and working drawings and return them to Lessee. If City disapproves the plans, specifications, and working drawings, City shall notify Lessee of its objections and City's proposed solution to each objection. Lessee acknowledges that the plans, specifications, and working drawings shall be subject to approval of the appropriate governmental bodies and that they will be prepared in such a manner as to obtain that approval. The restoration shall be accomplished as follows: Page 11 of 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD A. Lessee shall make commercially reasonable efforts to complete the restoration within 180 working days after final plans and specifications and working drawings have been approved by the appropriate governmental bodies and all required permits have been obtained (subject to a reasonable extension for delays resulting from causes beyond Lessee's reasonable control). B. Lessee shall retain a licensed contractor that is bondable. The contractor shall be required to carry public liability and property damage insurance, standard fire and extended coverage insurance, with vandalism and malicious mischief endorsements, during the period of construction in accordance with Section 20 (Insurance). Such insurance shall contain waiver of subrogation clauses in favor of City and Lessee in accordance with the Provisions of Exhibit B. C. Lessee shall notify City of the date of commencement of the restoration at least · ten (10) days before commencement of the restoration to enable City to post and record notices of nonresponsibility. The contractor retained by Lessee shall not commence construction until a completion bond and a labor and materials bond have been delivered to City to insure completion of the construction. D. Lessee shall accomplish the restoration in a manner that will cause the least inconvenience, annoyance, and disruption at the Premises. E. On completion of the restoration Lessee shall immediately record a notice of completion in the county in which the Premises are located. F. If funds are required to be deposited with an Insurance Trustee as required by this Section 13, the restoration shall not be commenced until sums sufficient to cover the cost of restoration are placed with the Insurance Trustee as provided in this section. 14. SIGNS. Lessee shall not place, construct, maintain, or allow any signs upon the Premises without prior written consent of City, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. 15. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. 15 .1 City's Consent Required. Lessee shall not assign this lease, nor any interest therein, and shall not sublet or encumber the Property or any part thereof, nor any right or privilege appurtenant thereto, nor allow or permit any other person(s) to occupy or use the Property, or any portion thereof, without the prior written consent of City. This Lease shall be binding upon any permitted assignee or successor of Lessee. Consent by City to one assignment, subletting, occupation or use by another person shall not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment, subletting, occupation or use by another person. No assignment, subletting, or encumbrance by Lessee shall release it from or in any way alter any of Lessee's obligations under this Lease. Lessee may, without the prior written consent of City, have the Property delivered to (i) a parent or subsidiary company of Lessee, (ii) an entity which purchases all of the assets of Page 12 of 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD Lessee, or (iii) an entity into which Lessee is merged or consolidated, but such arrangement shall in no way alter Lessee's responsibilities hereunder with respect to the Property, and Lessee shall promptly notify City of such transfer. Any assignment, subletting, encumbrances, occupation, or use contrary to the provisions of this Lease shall be void and shall constitute breach of this Lease. City may assign any of its rights hereunder without notice to Lessee. 15.2 No Release of Lessee. No subletting or assignment as approved by City shall release Lessee of Lessee's obligation or alter the primary liability of Lessee to pay the rent and to perform all other obligations by Lessee hereunder. The acceptance of rent by City from any other person shall not be deemed to be a waiver by City of any provision hereof. In the event of default by any assignee of Lessee or any successor of Lessee in the performance of any of the terms hereof, City may proceed directly against Lessee without the necessity of exhausting remedies against said assignee. 16. DEFAULTS; REMEDIES. 16.1 Defaults. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall constitute a material default, or breach of this Lease, by Lessee: 16.1.1 Abandonment of the Premises by Lessee as defined by California Civil Code section 1951.3; 16.1.2 Failure by Lessee to make any payment of rent or any other payment required to be made by Lessee hereunder, as provided in this Lease, where such failure shall continue for a period often (10) business days after written notice thereof from City to Lessee. In the event City serves Lessee with a Notice to Pay Rent or Quit pursuant to applicable Unlawful Detainer statutes, such Notice to Pay Rent or Quit shall also constitute the notice required by this subparagraph; · 16.1.3 Failure by Lessee to observe or perform any of the covenants, conditions or provisions of this Lease in any material respect where such failure shall continue for a period of thirty . (30) days after written notice thereof from City to Lessee; provided, however, that if the nature of Lessee's default is such that more than thirty (30) days are reasonably required for its cure, then Lessee shall not be deemed to be in default if Lessee commenced such cure within said thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligently prosecutes such cure to completion; 16.1.4 Making by Lessee of any general arrangement or assignment for the benefit of creditors; Lessee's becoming a "debtor" as defined in 11 U.S.C. §101 or any successor statute thereto (unless, in the case of a petition filed against Lessee, the same is dismissed within sixty (60) days); the appointment of a bankruptcy trustee or receiver to take possession of all or substantially all of Lessee's assets located at or on the Premises or of Lessee's interest in this Lease where possession is not restored to Lessee within thirty (30) days; or the attachment, execution or other judicial seizure of all or substantially all of Lessee's assets located at or on the Premises or of Lessee's interest in this Lease, where such seizure is not discharged within thirty (30) days. Page 13 of 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD 16.2 Remedies. In the event of any material default or breach by Lessee, City may at any time thereafter, following any notice required by statute, and without limiting City in the exercise of any right or remedy which City may have by reason of such default or breach: 16.2.1 Terminate Lessee's right to possession of the Premises by any lawful means, in which case this Lease shall terminate and Lessee shall immediately surrender possession of the Premises and Improvements to City. In such event, City shall be entitled to recover from Lessee all damages incurred by City by reason of Lessee's default including but not limited to: the cost of recovering possession of the Premises and Improvements; expenses of reletting, including necessary renovation and alteration of the Premises and Improvements; reasonable attorneys' fees; the worth at the time of the award of the unpaid rent that had been earned at the time of termination of this Lease and the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after the time of such award exceeds the amount of such rental loss for the same period that Lessee proves could be reasonably avoided. 16.2.2 Maintain Lessee's right to possession, in which case this Lease shall continue in effect whether or not Lessee shall have abandoned the Premises. In such event, City shall be entitled to enforce all of City's rights and rem~dies under this Lease, including the right to recover rent and other payments as they become due hereunder. 16.2.3 Pursue any other remedy now or hereafter available to City under the laws or judicial decisions of the State of California. City shall have all remedies provided by law and equity. 16.3 No Relief from Forfeiture After Default. Lessee waives all rights of redemption or relief from forfeiture under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1174 and 1179, and any other present or future law, in the event Lessee is evicted or City otherwise lawfully takes possession of the Premises by reason of any default or breach of this Lease by Lessee. 16.4 Disposition of Abandoned Personal Property. If the Lessee fails to remove any personal property belonging to Lessee from the Premises after forty-five (45) days of the expiration or termination of this Lease, such property shall at the option of City be deemed to have been transferred to City. City shall have the right to remove and to dispose of such property without liability to Lessee or to any person claiming under Lessee, and the City shall have no need to account for such property. 17. INTEREST ON PAST-DUE OBLIGATIONS. Except as expressly provided herein, any amount due City when not paid when due shall bear interest at the lesser of ten percent (10%) per year or the maximum rate then allowable by law from the date due. 18. HOLDING OVER. If Lessee remains in possession of the Premises or any part thereof after the expiration of the term or option term hereof, such occupancy shall be a tenancy from month to month with all the Page 14 of 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD obligations of this Lease applicable to Lessee and at a monthly rental obligation of ten percent (10%) increase over the Base Rent in effect at the time of expiration. Nothing contained in this Lease shall give to Lessee the right to occupy the Property after the expiration of the term, or upon an earlier termination for breach. 19. CITY'S ACCESS. 19.1 Access for Inspection. City and City's agents shall have the right to enter the Premises at reasonable times, upon not less than twenty-four (24) hours prior notice to Lessee, for the purpose of inspecting same, showing same to prospective purchasers, lenders or lessees, and making such alterations, repairs, improvements, or additions to the Premises as City may deem necessary. City may at any time place on or about the Premises any ordinary "For Sale" signs and City may at any time during the last one hundred twenty ( 120) days of the term hereof place on or about the Premises any ordinary "For Lease" signs, all without rebate of rent or liability to Lessee. 19 .2 Security Measures. City shall have the right to require a reasonable security system, device, operation, or plan be installed and implemented to protect the Premises or the Improvements. Should City, in its sole discretion, require Lessee to install such a security system, Lessee agrees to bear the sole cost and expense of any security system, device, operation or plan and the installation and implementation thereof. Lessee shall obtain City's prior approval before installing, implementing or changing any City approved security system, device, operation or plan. 19.3 New Locks. Lessee may install new locks on all exterior doors. Lessee shall advise City of such action and shall provide City with keys to said locks. Lessee shall also deliver to City the old locks with keys. Upon termination, all locks shall become the property of City. 20. INSURANCE. Lessee's responsibility for the Property begins immediately upon delivery and Lessee, at its sole cost and expense, and at no cost to City, shall purchase and maintain in full force and effect during the entire term of this Lease insurance coverage in amounts and in a form acceptable to City as set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Said policies shall be maintained with respect to Lessee's employees, if any, and all vehicles operated on the Premises. The policies shall include the required endorsements, certificates of insurance and coverage verifications as described in Exhibit D. Lessee also agrees to secure renter's liability insurance. Lessee shall deposit with the City Manager, on or before the effective date of this Lease, certificates of insurance necessary to satisfy City that the insurance provisions of this Lease have been complied with, and to keep such insurance in effect and the certificates therefore on deposit with City during the entire term of this Lease. Should Lessee not provide evidence of such required coverage at least three (3) days prior to the expiration of any existing insurance coverage, City may purchase such insurance, on behalf of and at the expense of Lessee to provide six months of coverage. Page 15 of 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD City shall retain the right at any time to review the coverage, form, and amount of the insurance required hereby. If, in the opinion of the City's Risk Manager (or comparable official), the insurance provisions in this Lease do not provide adequate protection for City and for members of the public using the Premises, the City Manager may require Lessee to obtain insurance sufficient in coverage, form, and amount to provide adequate protection as determined by the Risk Manager. City's requirements shall be reasonable and shall be designed to assure protection from and against the kind and extent of risk that exists at the time a change in insurance is required. The City Manager shall notify Lessee in writing of changes in the· insurance requirements. If Lessee does not deposit copies of acceptable insurance policies with City incorporating such changes within sixty (60) days of receipt of such notice, or in the event Lessee fails to maintain in effect any required insurance coverage, Lessee shall be in default under this lease without further notice to Lessee. Such failure shall constitute a material breach and shall be grounds for immediate termination of this Lease at the option of City. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance shall not be construed to limit Lessee's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provision and requirements of this Lease. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, Lessee shall be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or connected with this Lease or with use or occupancy of the Premises, except to the extent caused by the active negligence or willful misconduct of City or City's officers, agents, contractors, volunteers, and employees. 21. RESERVATION OF A VIGATIONAL EASEMENT. City hereby reserves for the use and benefits of the public, a right of avigation over the Premises for the passage of aircraft landing at, taking off, or operating from the adjacent airport operated by the County of Santa Clara. Lessee releases the City from all liability for noise, vibration, and any other related nuisance. 22. EMINENT DOMAIN. 22.1 If all or any part of the Premises (or the building in which the Premises are located) is condemned by a public entity in the lawful exercise of its power of eminent domain, this Lease shall cease as to the part condemned. The date of such termination shall be the effective date of possession of the whole or part of the Premises by the condemning public entity. 22.2 If only a part is condemned and the condemnation of that part does not substantially impair the capacity of the remainder to be used for the purposes required by this Lease, Lessee shall continue to be bound by the terms, covenants, and conditions of this Lease. However, the then monthly rent shall be reduced in proportion to the diminution in value of the Premises. If the condemnation of a part of the Premises substantially impairs the capacity of the remainder to be used for the purposes required by this Lease, Lessee may: A. Terminate this Lease and thereby be absolved of obligations under this Lease which have not accrued as of the date of possession by the condemning public entity; or B. Continue to occupy the remaining Premises and thereby continue to be bound by Page 16 of 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD [_ -- the terms, covenants and conditions of this Lease. If Lessee elects to continue in possession of the remainder of the Premises, the monthly rent shall be reduced m proportion to the diminution in value of the Premises. C. Lessee shall provide City with written notice advising City of Lessee's choice within thirty (30) days of possession of the part condemned by the condemning public entity. 22.3 City shall be entitled to and shall receive all compensation related to the condemnation, except that Lessee shall be entitled to: (a) that portion of the compensation which represents the value for the remainder of the Lease term of any Lessee-constructed improvements taken by the condemning public entity, which amount shall not exceed the actual cost of such improvements reduced in proportion to the relationship of the remaining Lease term to the original Lease term, using a straight line approach; and (b) any amount specifically designated as a moving allowance or as compensation for Lessee's personal property. Lessee shall have no claim against City for the value of any unexpired term of this Lease. 23. POST-ACQUISITION TENANCY. Except as otherwise set forth in Section 22.3 above, Lessee understands and agrees to waive all claims for relocation assistance and benefits under federal, state or local law. 24. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. 24.1 Unless otherwise mutually agreed to, any controversies between Lessee and City regarding the construction or application of this Lease, and claims arising out of this Lease or its breach shall be submitted to mediation within thirty (30) days of the written request of one Party after the service of that request on the other Party. 24.2 The Parties may agree on one mediator. If they cannot agree on one mediator, the Party demanding mediation shall request the Superior Court of ~anta Clara County to appoint a mediator. The mediation meeting shall not exceed one day (eight (8) hours). The Parties may agree to extend the time allowed for mediation underthis Lease. 24.3 The costs of mediatfon shall be borne by the Parties equally. 24.4 Mediation under this section is a condition precedent to filing an action in any court. In the event of litigation arising out of any dispute related to this Lease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover their reasonable attorney's fees, expert witness costs and cost of suit. 25. NON-LIABILITY OF OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY. No official or employee of City shall be personally liable for any default or liability under this agreement. 26. NON-DISCRIMINATION Page 17 of 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD 26.1 Non-discrimination in Lease Activities. Lessee agrees that in the performance of this Lease and in connection with all of the activities Lessee conducts on the Premises, it shall not discriminate against any employee or person because of the race, skin color, gender,, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. Lessee acknowledges that is familiar with the provisions set forth in Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to nondiscrimination in employment and Section 9. 73 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to City policy against arbitrary discrimination. 26.2 Human Rights Policy. In connection with all activities that are conducted upon the Premises, Lessee agrees to accept and enforce the statements of policy set forth in Section 9. 73.010 which provides: "It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to affirm, support and protect the human rights of every person within its jurisdiction. These rights include, but are not limited to, equal economic, political, and educational opportunity; equal accommodations in all business establishments in the city; and equal service and protection by all public agencies of the city." 27. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is agreed that Lessee shall act and be an independent contractor and not an agent nor employee of City. 28. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Lessee shall at all times avoid conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest in performance of this agreement. Lessee warrants and covenants that no official or employee of City nor any business entity in which any official or employee of City is interested: (1) has been employed or retained to solicit or aid in the procuring of this agreement; or (2) will be employed in the performance of this agreement without the divulgence of such fact to City. In the event that City determines that the employment of any such official, employee or business entity is not compatible with such official's or employee's duties as an official or employee of City, Lessee upon request of City shall immediately terminate such employment. Violation of this provision constitutes a serious breach of this Lease and City may terminate this Lease as a result of such violation. 29. MEMORANDUM OF LEASE. Following execution of this Lease, either party, at its sole expense, shall be entitled to record a Memorandum of Lease in the official records of Santa Clara County. Upon termination or expiration of this Lease, Lessee shall execute and record a quitclaim deed as to its leasehold interest. 30. ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE. Lessee shall, from time to time, upon at least thirty (30) days prior written notice from City, execute, acknowledge and deliver to City a statement in writing: (i) certifying this Lease is · unmodified and in full force and effect, or, if modified, stating the nature of the modification and certifying that the Lease, as modified, is in full force and effect, and the date to which the rental Page 18 of 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD L ___ _ and other charges, if any, have been paid; and, (ii) acknowledging that there are not to Lessee's knowledge, any defaults, or stating if any defaults are claimed, any statement may be relied upon by any prospective purchaser or encumbrance of the Property. 31. LIENS. Lessee agrees at its sole cost and expense to keep the Property free and clear of any and all claims, levies, liens, encumbrances or attachments. 32. VACATING. Upon termination of the tenancy, Lessee shall completely vacate the Property, including the removal of any and all of its property. Before departure, Lessee shall return the Premises to a good, clean and sanitary condition, reasonable wear and tear excepted. Lessee shall allow City to inspect the Property and complete a walk-through to verify the condition of the Property and its contents. 33. ABANDONMENT. Lessee's absence from the Property for three (3) consecutive days, without prior notice, during which time rent or other charges are delinquent, shall be deemed abandonment of the Property. Such abandonment will be deemed cause for immediate termination without notice. City shall thereupon be authorized to enter and take possession and to remove and dispose of the property of Lessee or its guests without any liability whatsoever to City. 34. NOTICES. All notices to the Parties shall, unless otherwise requested in writing, be sent to City addressed as follows: City of Palo Alto Avenidas Real Estate Division Attention: President & CEO . 250 Hamilton A venue 450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, 94301 Palo Alto, CA 94063 Phone: 650-329-2264 Phone:650-289-5400 Fax: 650-323-8356 Fax: 650-328-0366 Notices may be served upon Lessee in person, by first class mail, or by certified mail whether or not said mailing is accepted by Lessee. Notices sent via regular mail shall be deemed given 48 hours after the same is addressed as required herein and mailed with postage prepaid. If notice is sent via facsimile, a signed, hard copy of the material shall also be mailed. The workday the facsimile was sent shall control the date notice was deemed given if there is a facsimile machine generated document on the date of transmission. A facsimile transmitted after 1 :00 p.m. on a Friday shall be deemed to have been transmitted on the following Monday. These addresses shall be used for service of process. 35. TIME. Page 19 of 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD L __ Time shall be of the essence in this Lease. 36. AMENDMENTS. It is mutually agreed that no oral Leases have been entered into and that no alteration or variation of the terms of this Lease shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the Parties to this Lease. 37. SIGNING AUTHORITY. If this Lease is not signed by all Lessees named herein, the person actually signing warrants that he/she has the authority to sign for the others. 38. CAPTIONS. The captions of the various sections, paragraphs and subparagraphs of this Lease are for convenience only and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of interpretation. 39. SURRENDER OF LEASE NOT MERGER. The voluntary or other surrender of this lease by Lessee, or a mutual cancellation thereof, shall not work a merger, and shall, at the option of City, terminate all or any existing subleases or subtenancies, or may, at the option of City, operate as an assignment of any and all such subleases or subtenancies. 40. INTEGRATED DOCUMENT. This Lease, including any exhibits attached hereto, embodies the entire agreement between City and Lessee. No other understanding, agreements, conversations or otherwise, with any officer, agent or employee of City prior to execution of this Lease shall affect or modify any of the terms or obligations contained in any documents comprising this Lease. Any such verbal agreement shall be considered as unofficial information and in no way binding upon City .. All agreements with City are subject to approval of the City Council before City shall be bound thereby. 41. WAIVER. Waiver by City of one or more conditions of performance or any breach of a condition under this Lease shall not be construed as a waiver of any other condition of performance or subsequent breaches. The subsequent acceptance by a Party of the performance of any obligation or duty by another Party shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any term or condition of this Lease. The exercise of any remedy, right, option or privilege hereunder by City shall not preclude City from exercising the same or any and all other remedies, rights, options and privileges hereunder and City's failure to exercise any remedy, right, option or privilege at law or equity, or otherwise which City may have, shall not be construed as a waiver. Page 20 of 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD 42. INTERPRETATIONS. In construing or interpreting this Lease, the word "or" shall not be construed as exclusive and the word "including" shall not be limiting. The Parties agree that this Lease shall be fairly interpreted in accordance with its terms without any strict construction in favor of or against any other Party. 43. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. If any provision of this Lease is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable in full or in part, for any reason, then such provision shall be modified to the minimum extent necessary to make the provision legal, valid and enforceable, and the other provisions of this Lease shall not be affected thereby. 44. GOVERNING LAW. This Lease shall be governed and construed in accordance with the statutes and laws of the State of California. 45. VENUE. In the event that suit shall be brought by any Party to this Lease, the Parties agree that venue shall be exclusively vested in the state courts of the County of Santa Clara. 46. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. The Parties hereto shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state and local governments in the performance of their rights, duties and obligations under this Lease. 47. BROKERS. Each party represents that is has not had dealings with any real estate broker, finder, or other person, with respect to this lease in any manner. Each Party shall hold harmless the other party from all damages resulting from any claims that may be asserted against the other party by any broker, finder, or other person with whom the Indemnifying Party has or purportedly has dealt. 48.PARKING City grants to Lessee a nonexclusive license to use twenty-five (25) parking spaces in Lot C as and four ( 4) exclusive parking spaces in the Paulsen Lane alley as shown in Exhibit,:};;\E near as practical to the Premises, as specified by City Manager or designee for the accommodations and parking of automobiles by Lessee, any subtenants on the Premise and visitors to A venidas. Lessee agrees to abide by any and all rules and parking regulation of the City for the subject parking area and the manner and mode of Lessee's use thereof. 49. AMENDMENTS. The parties acknowledge no oral agreements regarding this lease have been entered into by and that no alteration or variation of the provisions shall be valid unless Page 21 of 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD L __ made in writing, and signed by the parties. 50. PRIOR LEASE SUPERSEDED. The prior lease between the City and Avenidas dated May 11, 1977 and any amendments thereto is hereby terminated and superseded by this Agreement. 51. ATTACHMENTS TO LEASE. The following exhibits are attached to and made a part of this Agreement: "A" -Parcel Map of Subject Property "B" -Subject Property "C" -Premises "D" -Standard Insurance Requirements "E" Parking Spaces IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Lease the day and year first above written. CITY: LESSEE: CITY OF PALO ALTO (LESSOR) Avenidas k By:~tk .~ .... -'• '• . Title: Preslde.nt $CEO I I I I t t iO' ATTEST: ~LG \\~ City Clerk 50l Cc) 3. oooproflt + ............ .. Type of Corporation: or,:rn\ z:.ct . t 0 n Page 22 of 28 • i ~ i I DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD 'P. ~ ~·· ;:; ~ ~,: ~ SANTA CALIFORNIA ! I Ii 12o I[ CLARA COUNTY, MILLS SUBDIVISION OF .BLOCK 13 -----I --AVENUE-----<>-... "' 1zs.oa 250 sc <5 · "s "is· is · "" • "" "25""'25-·T25· 60 !!; 55 54 ff" i 35 ~ ~1~ L&J 3 101 IC') t•I I 1£W"l"'"'I I I~ I.., 3 ;:l t ~ ~ ~ -::i 105 :!! , 2 ...... ~ 100 125 ... ...... 14 I 16 17 L&.I ., 55 54 53 52 >J 1j}_6 ~ L&.I .. J. .l t ..l. ~ ~ .1. .1. .J.. _:_s11s\01~9_:_~~~7 ~ IA 0 "' ~ 20 19 '20I'1!2. !CO a 24 ~ ~! ...... 25 .L&.I I 56 57 + + 53 52 ;-...... ~ ~ 'w=· ~)<! / "'= 18 ___ _:oo I.I.I pa_ 1 ~ ':' (/) ~ ~: 18 · z.so :1: F ~ 34 56 J'4s ~ 75 f.1 ,.. F Ii~ -(/') -~ ----(/') .'l~.u-7~ i:l ~!<> ~ liir 119so Sl ~; -f.I ~ •• , ~ u1 J1 Pa... A ~-:..-------· :c· : ~ 17 --!!> -~-~ ~ '! ~ 0 ~ 15 --oz - ,,,26 ,-----0::: "It-~ F .,::• 27 u -~ (/') & 95 2. @ I ' I ....ri I -y-. .~.: P.M. '. .. 829-M-52 t -, LLA. 18517643 . @ :E ¢ ________ : 44112.50 ~ en~ · 32 Pa... B l 4 2 2§ -j ~ a>... -w ~ ----~··· ____ ii_Sff __ En i:.) l . 60 42 1'2. • ~I d -CITY OF' -+PALO ALTO -- D '? ci ~ -61 + 4127 l!l' :::E "' 62 4o"""'" I ~ , .. _ + 0.5~ AC.NET I i II> iC l 2 63 39 I l(l. I :ii -r!l~T-r.l.T-.-!f2,jOT_ a.: 30 31 32 / 33 34 1 35 36 : 37 38 l I I II 18 ~ : J.Q : 2i : 28g -I ' . - I I 2s~2s:is :'2s: 2s 1 ISi 165 171•$ 18$ :C 102.so 14 ~~~~--;;-ia- ~ ~---'.!:~-~~ ~~-ilZ II ; l(: 102."' 10 -1-T""T- t ,,I 213 4 5 "> I ~ g "1: 20 "'-.&!'.1 - I 'Zs:2s: ?.s!2s!2S 201:;.5 209-19 =~ 50 22$ 227 I.LA 17834705 ZJI0-40 2»-S P.M.598-M-29 150)$f/$6/62/64 17Q 172•4 180-2-4 zzo-z 221 HO 'ZS 1 'Zs 1 25:;;1 2s rlS 1 2S:'Z5 1 ~s 1 2 I 5 1 '35 100 ; 1:~1 :.CITYOF :!'Cl~ I 0 r ll4-J~8 "' I$ ~~ 1;!n-;. "12 lf:.A. lSS?I 61U1~;1_ l 60 °"T 1 1 08 I :.:::Z-1-' I I -lt ~ 1 1 :ll!aa I ;i; i;it3 , .. 1s / 16 17: 1e 1 191 20 I i.__i "'.f~61..J.Qi..~...,;;2S:,i...-1.-'--- ; 31 I az 12s734 35 .., roo 12 21 2 "'----••l'l!•..,...,.,,r--:-azi--i----100 'I' 36 : \fl ~ ~ II 22 69 ~ lill ' --1§ -___ ........_ __ 'l"I '"' ~ 1§ LOT I '"' IOI 5il CliY OF p ALO ALI 88 ~ ;I IQD .J I ~ •• ... 0 f 5 :c . :i:_ ~ 10_ :!3 '7n -~ -g I OJI a.. .4¥ "'~ ~a "" . 9 24 ""' 58 51 + 59 -CITY OF • ( 60 61~ 48 /I-62 47 + l.94AC. 63 46 + 64 45 1.?;:~:-.- '.·f~;.: + 65 44 -:-112.50 s5-±...43 ~ 4 '35 I 3s :37 13813s :40 1 41 1 ~ 1J/P I I I · 11 A : .1.Q LR.: .11. gJ, 1f:;':~Q.: : : . I ~-- ,..., ~ "a !::>· ,o Ito: 25 ! 5 ~ "lS: 25 !2s ! 25: 2S : 15.JI SO 4,934 sf m >< =r 25/·S 261•S•7 271 281 , --@ C" . ·· ... ..... ·· 1 -v' \LL.A.21330434 )> ~ PCL APN I 280 j 103 250 I/NITS 100,01~ -llNIVERS!TY 104,......... .. ......... ->:¢iiY OF P 6327062 g: pa_ 1 :;; lo7.s0'-~ ~ '/l-~ : 1-8 -"' -~ ,.,.,41_ 25 0.58 AC. NET 225 ···-···----· 40 Rf 1 ' '/l "' '/l (j 0 2 7 26 ... ·-l 27 19269614 !0>.fl!! PCL 1 !lj I& 11,286 sf 109 ~·: a. ro~.!Jf--: .. .,.-------6-i6.a14~ ~-te '1iiz 7 ... _ Z§ _ :-r,,_.,TR'.f "'::t 0~;: 5 ··~ }~ .... 0..29, 11~ i:: 125 1.J...O ,.; 95 ~ 6,30491 PCL.B II I~ - " 91 -12 HAMILTON ~ .. N .., Cl) -------- ' ! ~ 'tJ-: ~· < '?1.&.1~-Y -ll 'z /:' ta 2 -~ 0 ,... -:&· "°' Jlig I I I r -_. •ffil Qo I 4:11 ~st &0 ••~00 . ~ '2S 25 25 25 ~ 177 201~7-!1·15-:a 229-2lll-2SS-M7 £t: ~. J. M~RllN'S ---£--t - -MILLERS-SUBDIVISION SIJIBDIVISION OF BLOCK 5 @ OF BLOCK 12 !!! 6 :c ~.8 .. _ so 167 ...... :z ~ 0:: .IXI A VENUE ;::;f'"-..... __..,_ P.M.274-~? n~f~{J~ :t .. :: .. ~!." .. ~· :io ~ DETAIL mt D£T. MAP 11 LA v.fiENCE E. STC ~~f(J'GS9 Compied under R. ' Effectlw Roa Year DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD The City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2015-01~ 11:02:31 Buildings (\\co-mapslgls$\gls\admin\meta\view.mdb) 450 Bryant St. Project Site EXHIBITB <ot & CofC June26,2002 --O' 100' Thia document la a graphic representation only of best available sources. The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. C1989to 2015 City of Palo Alto DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD The City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2015-01-0511:07:33 (\\co-maps\gis$\gis'\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 450 Bryant St. Project Site with 2013 Aerial Photos EXHIBITC This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS --O' 100' Thia document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. C1989to 2015 City of Palo Alto DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD EXHIBITD STANDARD INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Insurance Requirements for Lessee: Lessee shall purchase and maintain the insurance policies set forth below on all of its operations under this Lease at its sole cost and expense. Such policies shall be maintained for the full term of this Lease and the related warranty period (if applicable). For purposes of the insurance policies required under this Lease, the term "City" shall include the duly elected or appointed council members, commissioners, officers, agents, employees and volunteers of the City of Palo Alto, California, individually or collectively. Coverages (RL 28.lA) S Minimum Scope of Insurance Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001). 2) Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). 3) Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance (for lessees with employees). 4) Property insurance against all risks of loss to any tenant improvements or betterments The policy or policies of insurance maintained by Lessee shall provide the following limits and coverages: POLICY (1) Commercial General Liability (2) Automobile Liability Including Owned, Hired and Non-Owned Automobiles (3) Workers' Compensation MINIMUM LIMITS OF LIABILITY $1,000,000 per each occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage $ 1,000,000 Combined Single Limit Statutory Page 23 of 28 DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD . :J z. ·. ·.w -~ .<:( .· ..... . . z : ·o .. r... ·. 1-:· . ·>-. . . _J FIELD BOOK-- PAGE OAT£ ' ' . . ... . ·1 . .... ·-·. ' . . Exhib_it E ... · .. ~ . . . . ',-._BRYANT ... STREET : .. T I . T ."t .. : T .. ;S < _, CL.. · .. ('. . . ··' . .· 'v. 0 .\15 :PUBLIC PARKING. LOT · lS· rJ~·~(it?L.."~'-~ . ·. . . . _fA~~ ~-I~-_f/JAc'j. ·. . ... .L .L ... .L . . l · RAMOf~.~ ST·REET· . . LEASE DIAGRAM CITY OWNED LAND .............. I. I ,....,,, t ~ ..... ,..._ t, t...., I IA t 1 I I r ... , ' ,....._, f I r DocuSign Envelope ID: 98854A50-5F7E-413C-AE5F-9FFA182C14CD City of Palo Alto (ID # 9091) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/9/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 2nd Reading - Annual Planning Code Update 2018 Title: SECOND READING: Adoption of two Ordinances; the First Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 2.20 (Planning and Transportation Commission) of Title 2, Chapter 10.64 (Bicycles, Roller Skates and Coasters) of Title 10, and Chapters 18.04 (Definitions), 18.10 (Low -Density Residential (RE, R-2 and RMD)), 18.12 (R -1 Single-Family Residential District), 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus), 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community, and Service Commercial (CN, CC and CS) Districts), 18.28 (Special Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts), 18.30(G) (Combining Districts), 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions), 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses), 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements), 18.54 (Parking Fa cility Design Standards), 18.76 (Permits and Approvals), 18.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals), and 18.80 (Amendments to Zoning Map And Zoning Regulations) of Title 18, and Chapters 21.12 (Tentative Maps and Preliminary Parcel Maps) and 21.32 (Conditional Exceptions) of Title 21; and the Second Amending Chapter 10.04 (Definitions) and Chapter 10.64 (Bicycles, Roller Skates and Coasters) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) to Prohibit Use of Bicycles and Similar Vehicles on Certain Sidewalks and Undercr ossings and Establish Speed Limits on Shared - use Paths When Others Present. CEQA: Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (FIRST READING: March 19, 2018 PASSED: 5 -0 Kniss, Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach absent) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council conduct a second reading and adopt the attached ordinances (Attachments A and B). City of Palo Alto Page 2 BACKGROUND On March 19, 2018, the City Council reviewed and adopted on first reading two draft ordinances amending various sections of the municipal code (staff report #9042). The ordinances have been modified to incorporate the Council’s desired changes summarized below and that are detailed in Draft Action Minutes. Attachment A 1. Remove references to the specification of setbacks for o utdoor fireplaces and BBQs in Sections 5, 6, and 11 of the ordinance (item #20 in 03/19/18 staff report). 2. Revised the request for hearing timeline to ten days for minor Architectural Review in Section 16 of the ordinance (item #22 in 03/19/18 staff report). 3. Remove the proposed delay to the Individual Review process for replacement homes when a historic inventory property has been demolished in Section 6 of the ordinance (item #25 in 03/19/18 staff report). Attachment B 1. Modify the rules for bike riding in undercrossings in Section 2 of the ordinance to only apply when other people are present (item #27 in 03/19/18 staff report). 2. Modify the bike speed limits in Section 3 of the ordinance to apply only when pedestrians are present (item #28 in 03/19/18 staff report). The modifications to the ordinance in Attachment B from the original ordinance are shown in double-strikethrough (deletions) and double-underlines (additions). Attachments: Attachment A: Ordinance Amending Planning Related Codes (PDF) Attachment B: Ordinance Amending Bike Speed Limit on Shared Paths and Bikes on Sidewalks (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 1 March 2018 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 2.20 (Planning and Transportation Commission) of Title 2, Chapter 10.64 (Bicycles, Roller Skates and Coasters) of Title 10, and Chapters 18.04 (Definitions), 18.10 (Low-Density Residential (RE, R-2 and RMD)), 18.12 (R-1 Single-Family Residential District), 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus), 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community, and Service Commercial (CN, CC and CS) Districts), 18.28 (Special Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts), 18.30(G) (Combining Districts), 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions), 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses), 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements), 18.54 (Parking Facility Design Standards), 18.76 (Permits and Approvals), 18.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals), and 18.80 (Amendments to Zoning Map And Zoning Regulations) of Title 18, and Chapters 21.12 (Tentative Maps and Preliminary Parcel Maps), and 21.32 (Conditional Exceptions) of Title 21 The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Section 2.20.030 (Officers) of Chapter 2.20 (Planning and Transportation Commission) of Title 2 (Administrative Code) is amended as follows: 2.20.030 Officers The commission Commission shall elect its officers annually at the first meeting in Novembera chairperson and a vice chairperson from its membership who shall serve in such capacity for terms of one year each, or until a successor is elected, unless his or her term as a member of the Commission sooner expires. SECTION 2. [Deleted] SECTION 3. Sections 10.64.010 (Bicycle license required), 10.64.060 (License fees), and 10.64.070 (Safe mechanical condition prerequisite to issuance of license) of Chapter 10.64 (Bicycles, Roller Skates and Coasters) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the PAMC are deleted in their entirety. 10.64.010 Bicycle license required No resident of the city shall operate any bicycle (defined as any device which a person may ride, which is propelled by human power through a system of belts, chains, or gears and which has wheels at least twenty inches in diameter and a frame size of at least fourteen inches) on any street, road, highway, or other public property within the city, unless such bicycle is licensed in accordance with Division 16.7, Sections 39000 through 39011 of the California Vehicle Code. Any person who violates the provisions of this section may be cited pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 39002(a).10.64.060 License fees The license fee to be paid for each bicycle licensed pursuant to Section 10.64.010 shall be paid in advance. A fee shall be paid for application for transfer of license pursuant to Section 39008 of the California Vehicle Code. Said fees shall be as set forth in the municipal fee schedule. NOT YET APPROVED jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 2 March 2018 10.64.070 Safe mechanical condition prerequisite to issuance of license Any person applying for a bicycle license pursuant to the provisions of this chapter must demonstrate to the chief of police or his designated representative that the bicycle for which the applicant desires to secure license plates meets the requirements of this chapter and the California Vehicle Code as to safe mechanical condition. SECTION 4. Section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC is amended as follows: 18.04.030 Definitions (a) Throughout this title the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed in this section. . . . (23.5 94.5) “Cannabis” means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa Linnaeus, Cannabis indica, or Cannabis ruderalis, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin, whether crude or purified, extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or resin. “Cannabis” also means the separated resin, whether crude or purified, obtained from cannabis. “Cannabis” does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination. For the purpose of this Title, “cannabis” does not mean “industrial hemp” as defined by Section 11018.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (A) “Commercial cannabis activity” includes the cultivation, possession, manufacture, distribution, processing, storing, laboratory testing, packaging, labeling, transportation, delivery or sale of cannabis and cannabis products as provided for in Division 10 of the California Business and Professions Code. “Commercial cannabis activity” does not include personal uses allowed by Health and Safety Code sections 11362.1 and 11362.2 or personal medicinal uses allowed by sections 11362.765 and 11362.77, as amended from time to time. (B) “Cultivation” means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing, grading, or trimming of cannabis. (C) “Medical cannabis dispensary” is a facility where cannabis is made available for medicinal purposes in accordance with any provision of state law that authorizes the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes. . . . (24.5) “Carport" means a portion of a principal residential building or an accessory building to a residential use designed to be utilized for the shelter parking or storage of one or more motor vehicles, which is at least 50% open (unenclosed) on two or more sides, including on the vehicular entry side, and which is covered with a solid roof. . . . NOT YET APPROVED jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 3 March 2018 (41.5) “Director” means the director of planning and community environment or his or her designee. . . . (59) “Garage, private” means a portion of a principal residential building or an accessory building to a residential use designed to be utilized for the shelter parking or storage of one or more motor vehicles, and which is enclosed on three two or more sides and covered with a solid roof. . . . (65) "Gross floor area" is defined as follows: . . . (B) Non-residential & Multifamily Exclusions: For all zoning districts other than the R-E, R-1, R-2 and RMD residence districts, "gross floor area" shall not include the following: . . . (iv) Except in the CD District and in areas designated as special study areas, For existing structures, minor additions of floor area approved by the director of planning and community environment for purposes of resource conservation or code compliance, upon the determination that such minor additions will increase compliance with environmental health, safety or other federal, state or local standards. Any additional floor area approved shall not qualify for grandfathered floor area in the event the building is later replaced or redeveloped. Such allowable additions may include, but not be limited to, the following: a. Except in the CD District, aAreas designed for resource conservation, such as trash compactors, recycling, and other energy facilities meeting the criteria outlined in Section 18.42.120 (Resource Conservation Energy Facilities); and b. Areas designed and required for hazardous materials storage facilities, disability related access or seismic upgrades. For the purposes of this section disability related upgrades are limited to the incremental square footage necessary to accommodate disability access and shall be subject to the Director’s approval not to exceed 500 square feet per site. Disability related upgrades shall only apply to remodels of existing buildings and shall not qualify for grandfathered floor area in the event the building is later replaced or otherwise redeveloped.; and c. Areas designed and required for refuse storage, such as trash, recycling, and compost, when it is the minimum amount needed to comply with current code requirements. The provisions of this subsection (a)(65)(B)(iv) are not intended to NOT YET APPROVED jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 4 March 2018 and do not allow the removal of a previously approved existing interior refuse storage area. . . . (D) Low Density Residential Exclusions: In the RE and R-1 single-family residence districts and in the R-2 and RMD two-family residence districts, "gross floor area" shall not include the following: . . . (vii) For residences designated on the city’s Historic Inventory as a Category 1 through 4or Category 2 historic structure as defined in Section 16.49.020 of this or any contributing structure within a locally designated historic district, or if individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources, the following gross floor area exclusions apply. . . . (114.2) “Porte-cochere” means a covered structure attached to a residence or adjacent to a residence and erected over a driveway, which is completely open on three or more sides and used for the temporary unloading and loading of vehicles. . . . SECTION 5. Section 18.10.090 (Basements) of Chapter 18.10 (Low Density Residential RE, R-2 and RMD Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC is amended as follows: 18.10.090 Basements . . . (b) Inclusion of Gross Floor Area Basements shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area, provided that: (1) basement area is not deemed to be habitable space, such as crawlspace; or (2) basement area is deemed to be habitable space but the finished level of the first floor is no more than three feet above the grade around the perimeter of the building foundation. Grade is measured at the lowest point of adjacent ground elevation prior to grading or fill, or finished grade, whichever is lower; or (3) basement area is associated with a historic property as described in Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(D)(vii). . . . SECTION 6. Sections 18.12.040 (Development Standards), 18.12.090 (Basements), and 18.12.120 (Home Improvement Exception) of Chapter 18.12 (R-1 Single- Family Residential District) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC are amended as follows: NOT YET APPROVED jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 5 March 2018 18.12.040 Site Development Standards . . . (b) Gross Floor Area Summary . . . TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF GROSS FLOOR AREA FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Description Included in GFA Excluded from GFA Accessory structures greater than 120 sq. ft. Second floor equivalent: areas with heights >17' counted twice) Third floor equivalent: areas with heights > 26' (counted three Third floor equivalent, where roof pitch is > 4:12 up to 200 sq. ft. of unusable space Garages and carports Porte cocheres Entry feature < 12' in height, if not substantially enclosed and not recessed (counted once) Vaulted entry > 12' in height (footprint counted twice) Fireplace footprint (counted once) First floor roofed or unenclosed porches First floor recessed porches <10' in depth and open on exterior side Second floor roofed or enclosed porches, arcades, balconies, porticos, breeze- ways Basements (complying with patio & lightwell requirements described in Section 18.12.090) Areas on floors above the first floor where the height from the floor level to the underside of the rafter or finished roof surface is 5 or greater Bay windows (if at least 18" above interior floor, does not project more than 2', and more than 50% is covered by windows) Basement area for Category 1 & 2-4 Historic Homes or contributing structure within a historic district, and individually listed homes on the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historic Resources (even if the finished level of the first floor is greater than 3' above grade) Unusable attic space for category 1 & 2-4 Historic Homes or contributing structure within a historic district, and individually listed homes on the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources (up to 500 sq. ft.) . . . (f) Contextual Garage and Carport Placement If the predominant neighborhood pattern is of garages or carports located within the rear half of the site, or with no garage or carport present, attached garages/carports shall be located in the rear half of the house footprint. Otherwise, an attached garage/carport may be located in the front half of the house footprint. "Predominant neighborhood pattern" means the existing garage/carport placement pattern for more than half of the houses on the same side of the block, including the subject site. NOT YET APPROVED jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 6 March 2018 This calculation shall exclude flag lots, corner lots and existing multifamily developments of three or more units. For blocks longer than 600 feet, the calculations shall be based on the 10 homes located nearest to and on the same side of the block as the subject property, plus the subject site, but for a distance no greater than 600 feet. Detached garages/carports shall be located in the rear half of the site and, if within a rear or side setback, at least 75 feet from the front property line. Detached garages/carports on lots of less than 95 feet in depth, however, may be placed in a required interior side or rear yard if located in the rear half of the lot. Access shall be provided from a rear alley if the existing development pattern provides for alley access. For the calculation of corner lots, the "predominant pattern" shall be established for the street where the new garage/carports fronts. . . . 18.12.090 Basements . . . (b) Inclusion of Gross Floor Area Basements shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area, provided that: (1) basement area is not deemed to be habitable space, such as crawlspace; or (2) basement area is deemed to be habitable space but the finished level of the first floor is no more than three feet above the grade around the perimeter of the building foundation. Grade is measured at the lowest point of adjacent ground elevation prior to grading or fill, or finished grade, whichever is lower; or 3) basement area is associated with a historic property as described in Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(D)(vii). . . . 18.12.120 Home Improvement Exception . . . (c) Limits of the Home Improvement Exception A home improvement exception may be granted only for one or more of the following, not to exceed the specified limits: . . . (10) For any residence designated on the city's Historic Inventory as a Category 1 or Category 2 through 4 historic structure as defined in Section 16.49.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or any contributing structure within a locally designated historic district, to allow up to 250 square feet of floor area in excess of that allowed on the site, provided that any requested addition or exterior modifications associated with the HIE shall be in substantial conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation. The property owner who is granted a home improvement exception under this subsection NOT YET APPROVED jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 7 March 2018 (10) shall be required to sign and record a covenant against the property, acceptable to the city attorney, which requires that the property be maintained in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation. . . . SECTION 7. Sections 18.15.020 (Definitions), 18.15.030 (Density Bonuses), 18.15.080 (Application Requirements), and 18.15.090 (Review Procedures) of Chapter 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC are amended as follows: 18.15.020 Definitions Whenever the following terms are used in this Chapter, they shall have the meaning established by this Section: . . . (h) “Density bonus” means a density increase over the maximum residential density granted pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 and this ordinance., or, if elected by the applicant, a lesser percentage of density increase, including, but not limited to, no increase in density. . . . (s) “Replace” means either of the following: (i) If any dwelling units described in Section 18.15.030(h) are occupied on the date that the application is submitted to the City, the proposed housing development shall provide at least the same number of units of equivalent size or type, or both, to be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families in the same or lower income category as those households in occupancy. For unoccupied dwelling units described in Section 18.15.030(h) in a development with occupied units, the proposed housing development shall provide units of equivalent size or type, or both, to be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families in the same or lower income category in the same proportion of affordability as the occupied units. All replacement calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. If the replacement units will be rental dwelling units, theses units shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years. For purposes of this subsection (s) of Section 18.15.020, “equivalent size” means that the replacement units contain at least the same total number of bedrooms as the units being replaced. (ii) If all dwelling units described in Section 18.15.030(h) have been vacated or demolished within the five-year period preceding the application, the proposed housing development shall provide at least the same number of units of equivalent size or type, or both, as existed at the highpoint of those units in the five-year period preceding the application to be made NOT YET APPROVED jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 8 March 2018 available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families in the same or lower income category as those persons and families in occupancy at that time, if known. If the incomes of the persons and families in occupancy at the highpoint is not known, then one-half of the required units shall be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, very low income persons and families and one-half of the required units shall be made available for rent at affordable housing costs to, and occupied by, low- income persons and families. All replacement calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. If the replacement units will be rental dwelling units, these units shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years. . . . 18.15.030 Density Bonuses This Section describes the density bonuses that will be provided, at the request of an applicant, when that applicant provides restricted affordable units as described below. (a) The City shall grant a 20 percent (20%) density bonus when an applicant for a development of five (5) or more dwelling units seeks and agrees to construct at least any one of the following in accordance with the requirements of this Section and Government Code Section 65915: . . . (iv) A qualifying mobile home park; or. (v) At least ten percent (10%) of the total dwelling units of the development for transitional foster youth, as defined in Section 66025.9 of the Education Code, disabled veterans, as defined in Section 18541 of the Government Code, or homeless persons, as defined in the federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 11301 et seq.). The units described in this subsection shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction of 55 years and shall be provided at the same affordability level as very low income units. . . . (c) No additional density bonus shall be authorized for a senior citizen development or qualifying mobilehome park beyond the density bonus authorized by subsection (a) of this Section.Reserved . . . (e) Each development is entitled to only one density bonus, which shall be selected by the applicant based on the percentage of very low restricted affordable units, lower income restricted affordable units, or moderate income restricted affordable units, or the development’s status as a senior citizen housing development or qualifying mobilehome park, or the development’s provision of restricted affordable units for transitional foster youth, disabled veterans or homeless persons. Density bonuses NOT YET APPROVED jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 9 March 2018 from more than one category may not be combined. In no case shall a development be entitled to a density bonus of more than thirty-five percent (35%). . . . 18.15.080 Application Requirements An Application for a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, modification or revised parking standard shall be made as follows: (a) An application for a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, modification or revised parking standard shall be submitted with the first application for a discretionary permit for a development and shall be processed concurrently with those discretionary permits. The application shall be on a form prescribed by the City and shall include the following information: . . . (iv) If a concession or incentive is requested, a brief explanation as to the actual cost reduction achieved through the concession or incentive and how the cost reduction allows the applicant to provide the restricted affordable units. . . . (viii) For concessions and incentives that are not included within the menu of incentives/concessions set forth in subsection (c) of Section 18.15.050, the application requires the submittal of the project proforma or other comparable documentation (referred to herein as the “proforma information”) to the Director, providing evidence that the requested concessions and incentives result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. The cost of reviewing the project proforma information, including, but not limited to, the cost to the City of hiring a consultant to review the financial data, shall be borne by the applicant. The proforma information shall include all of the following items: . . . (B) Evidence that the cost reduction allows the applicant to provide affordable rents or affordable sales prices; and (BC) Other information requested by the Planning Director. The Planning Director may require additional financial information including information regarding capital costs, equity investment, debt service, projected revenues, operating expenses, and such other information as is required to evaluate the financial proforma information; . . . 18.15.090 Review Procedures . . . NOT YET APPROVED jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 10 March 2018 (a) Before approving an application for a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, modification or revised parking standard, the Approval Authority shall make the following findings, as applicable: . . . (ii) Any requested concession or incentive will result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions based upon the financial analysis and documentation provided. The City finds that the concessions and incentives included in Section 18.150.050(c) will result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. . . . SECTION 8. Section 18.16.050 (Office Use Restrictions) of Chapter 18.16 (Neighborhood, Community, and Service Commercial (CN, CC and CS) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC is amended as follows: 18.16.050 Office Use Restrictions The following restrictions shall apply to office uses: (a) Conversion of Ground Floor Housing and Non-Office Commercial to Office Medical, Professional, and Business offices shall not be located on the ground floor, unless any of the following apply to such offices: (1) Have been continuously in existence in that space since March 19, 2001, and as of such date, were neither non-conforming nor in the process of being amortized pursuant to Chapter 18.30(I); (2) Occupy a space that was not occupied by housing, neighborhood business service, retail services, personal services, eating and drinking services, or automotive service on March 19, 2001 or thereafter; (3) In the case of CS zoned properties with site frontage on El Camino Real, were not occupied by housing on March 19, 2001; (43) Occupy a space that was vacant on March 19, 2001; . . . SECTION 9. Section 18.28.070 (Additional OS District Regulations) of Chapter 18.28 Special Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC is amended as follows: 18.28.070 Additional OS District Regulations . . . (b) Site and Design Approval NOT YET APPROVED jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 11 March 2018 (2) Major Site and Design Review: For all other projects not reviewed as Minor Site and Design Review, the project will be forwarded to the Planning and Transportation Commission for review and recommendation and then placed on the Council Consent agenda for final action, as prescribed for staff actions outlined in Section 18.76.06018.77.060 (Standard Staff Review Process). Provided, however, that the following projects may be forwarded directly to the City Council Consent agenda by staff without review by the Planning and Transportation Commission, where all of the following conditions apply: . . . SECTION 10. Section 18.30(G).060 (Action by Commission) of Chapter 18.30(G) (Site and Design (D) Review Combining District Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC is amended as follows: 18.30(G).060 Action by Commission Unless the application for design approval is diverted for minor architectural review under Section 18.76.020 (b)(3)(DE), the planning commission shall review the site plan and drawings, and shall recommend approval or shall recommend such changes as it may deem necessary to accomplish the following objectives: . . . SECTION 11. Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC is amended to add new Sections 18.40.190 (Application Withdrawal) and 18.40.200 (New Application Submittal Required) as follows: 18.40.190 Application Withdrawal by Applicant or Director (a) Applicant Withdrawal. The applicant may withdraw any rezoning, permit or other application submitted pursuant to this Title at any time before action to approve, conditionally approve or deny the application has been taken by the decisionmaking body, by providing written notification to the Director. (b) Inactive Applications. Where there is inactivity on an application on the part of the applicant for a period of at least six consecutive months, the Director shall have the authority to deem an application withdrawn after providing written notice as provided herein. The Director shall provide notice of his or her intent to deem an application withdrawn at least thirty days’ prior to the proposed effective date. Such notice shall be provided by first class mail to the last known address of the applicant on record with the Director. For purposes of this section, “inactivity” on an application means that the Director has requested from the applicant or has provided the applicant with notice of additional information, materials and/or fees needed by the Director from the applicant to continue to process the application and the applicant has failed to adequately respond to that request or notice. 18.40.200 New Application Submittal Required NOT YET APPROVED jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 12 March 2018 The Director shall have the authority to require the filing of a new application when a pending application project description, proposed land uses, building design, or other aspects of the project are substantially modified as to warrant a new review of the project to applicable code sections. The filing of a new application shall be subject to new fees and shall render the previous application withdrawn. SECTION 12. Section 18.42.110 (Wireless Communication Facilities) of Chapter 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC is amended as follows: 18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities . . . (f) Tier 1 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be final and shall not be appealable pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapters 18.77 or 18.78; (2) The Director shall grant a Tier 1 WCF Permit provided that the Director finds that the applicant proposes an eligible facilities request; (3) The Director shall impose the following conditions on the grant of a Tier 1 WCF Permit: (i) The proposed collocation or modification shall not defeat any existing concealment elements of the support structure; and (ii) The proposed WCF shall comply with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i)(3), (5), (6) and (7), and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j). (g) Tier 2 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director, who may, in his or her sole discretion, refer an application to the Architectural Review Board. The Director's decision shall be appealable directly to the City Council. An appeal may be set for hearing before the City Council or may be placed on the Council’s consent calendar, pursuant to the process for appeal of architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070(f). . . . (h) Tier 3 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director, who may, in his or her sole discretion, refer an application to the Architectural Review Board and/or Planning and Transportation Commission. The Director's decision shall be appealable directly to the City Council. An appeal may be set for hearing before the City Council or may be placed on the Council’s consent calendar, NOT YET APPROVED jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 13 March 2018 pursuant to the process for appeal of architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070(f) and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. . . . (k) Removal of Abandoned Equipment A WCF (Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3) or a component of that WCF that ceases to be in use for more than ninety (90) days shall be removed by the applicant, wireless communications service provider, or property owner within ninety (90) days of the cessation of use of that WCF. A new conditional useWCF permit shall not be issued to an owner or operator of a WCF or a wireless communications service provider until the abandoned WCF or its component is removed. (l) Revocation The Director may revoke any WCF Permit if the permit holder fails to comply with any condition of the permit. The Director's decision to revoke a Permit shall be appealable pursuant to the process applicable to issuance of the Permit, as provided in subdivisions (f), (g), and (h) of this sectionfor architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. SECTION 13. Sections 18.52.030 (Basic Parking Regulations) and 18.52.050 (Adjustments by the Director) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC are amended as follows: 18.52.030 Basic Parking Regulations . . . (i) Transportation Demand Management Plan (1) Requirement for TDM Plan: A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan to reduce and manage the number of single-occupant motor vehicle trips generated by the project shall be prepared and submitted by the applicant in the following circumstances: A. For all projects that generate 100 50 or more net new weekday (AM or PM peak hour) or weekend peak hour trips; . . . (1) The Director shall have the authority to adopt guidelines for preparing TDM plans and when applicable shall coordinate such guidelines with the Transportation Management AuthorityAssociation. 18.52.050 Adjustments by the Director . . . (d) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) NOT YET APPROVED jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 14 March 2018 (2) Where a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program is proposed or required, the TDM program shall outline parking and/or traffic demand measures to be implemented to reduce parking need and trip generation. The Director shall have the authority to adopt guidelines for preparing TDM plans. Required measures may include, but are not limited to: participation in the Transportation Management Authority Association or similar organization, limiting “assigned” parking to one space per residential unit, providing for transit passes, parking cash- out, enhanced shuttle service (or contributions to extend or enhance existing shuttle service or to create new shared or public shuttle service), car-sharing, traffic-reducing housing, providing priority parking spaces for carpools/vanpools or “green” vehicles (zero emission vehicles, inherently low emission vehicles, or plug- in hybrids, etc.), vehicle charging stations, additional bicycle parking facilities, or other measures to encourage transit use or to reduce parking needs. The program shall be proposed to the satisfaction of the director, shall include proposed performance targets for parking and/or trip reduction and indicate the basis for such estimates, and shall designate a single entity (property owner, homeowners association, etc.) to implement the proposed measures. . . . SECTION 14. Section 18.54.020 (Vehicle Parking Facilities) of Chapter 18.54 (Parking Facility Design Standards) of the PAMC is amended as follows: 18.54.020 Vehicle Parking Facilities (a) Parking Facility Design . . . (3) The required stall widths shown in Table 5 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. . . . SECTION 15. Section 18.76.020 (Architectural Review) of Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC is amended as follows: 18.76.020 Architectural Review . . . (b) Applicability No permit required under Title 2, Title 12 or Title 16 shall be issued for a major or minor project, as set forth in this section, unless an application for architectural review is reviewed, acted upon, and approved or approved with conditions as set forth in Section 18.77.070. NOT YET APPROVED jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 15 March 2018 (1) Exempt Projects. The following projects do not require architectural review: Single-family and two-family residences do not require architectural review, except as provided under subsections (2)(C) and (2)(D). (A) Single-family and two-family residences do not require architectural review, except as provided under subsections (2)(C) and (2)(D). (B) Projects determined by the director of planning and community environment to be substantially minor in nature and have inconsequential visual impacts to the adjacent properties and public streets. These exempt projects are referred to as “over the counter projects”. The director shall have the authority to promulgate a list of such exempt projects under this subsection. . . . (3) Minor Projects. The following are “minor projects” for the purposes of the architectural review process set forth in Section 18.77.070, except when determined to be major pursuant to subsection (2)(I) or exempt pursuant to subsection (1)(B): . . . SECTION 16. Sections 18.77.020 (Applications), 18.77.060 (Standard Staff Review Process), 18.77.070 (Architectural Review Process), 18.77.080 (Notice), and 18.77.110 (Revocation or Modification of Approvals) of Chapter 18.77 (Processing of Permits and Approvals) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC are amended, and new Section 18.77.077 (Over the Counter Project Review Process) is added to the same Chapter, as follows: 18.77.020 Applications . . . (d) Resubmittal of applications If an application is denied, the director or city council may specify that a substantially similar application may not be accepted within 12 months prior tofollowing the date of such denial, unless it is shown that the circumstances surrounding the application have changed substantially. 18.77.060 Standard Staff Review Process . . . (b) Notice of Application Completeness Not later than thirty days after an application has been received, the director shall notify the applicant in writing whether the application is complete. If the application is determined not to be complete, procedures outlined in in Section 18.77.030 shall apply. Once an application is deemed complete, notice that the application has been filed and deemed complete shall be given by mail to owners and residents of property within 600 feet of the NOT YET APPROVED jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 16 March 2018 property, by publication, by e-mail, and by posting in a public place. The notice shall include the address of the property and a brief description of the proposed project. (c) Decision by the Director Not less than twenty-one days following the date an application is deemed complete: . . . (2) Notice of the proposed director's decision shall be given by mail to owners and residents of property within 600 feet of the property, by publication, by e-mail, and by posting in a public place. The notice shall include the address of the property, a brief description of the proposed project, a brief description of the proposed director's decision, the date the decision will be final if no hearing is requested, and a description of how to request a hearing. (3) The proposed director's decision shall become final fourteen days after the date notice is mailed or published, whichever is later, unless a request for a hearing is filed. The director may, for good cause, specify in writing a longer period for requesting a hearing at the time he or she issued the proposed decisions. . . . (d) Withdrawal of Hearing Request . . . (2) Notice of the proposed director's decision shall be given by mail to owners and residents of property within 600 feet of the property, by publication, by e-mail, and by posting in a public place. Notice shall include the address of the property, a brief description of the proposed project, the specific modifications made to the application, the date the decision will be final, a description of how to request a hearing, and a statement that any request for a hearing on the revised decision is limited to those modifications. (3) The revised proposed director's decision shall become final fourteen days after the date notice is mailed or published, whichever is later, unless a request for a hearing is filed. The director may, for good cause, specify in writing a longer period for requesting a hearing at the time he or she issues the proposed decision. (e) Hearing and Recommendation (Upon Request) by the Planning and Transportation Commission (2) Notice of the revised director's decision shall be given by mail to owners and residents of property within 600 feet of the property, by publication, by e-mail, and by posting in a public place. Notice shall include the address of the property, a brief description of the proposed project, and the date, time and location of the hearing. . . . NOT YET APPROVED jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 17 March 2018 18.77.070 Architectural Review Process . . . (b) Tentative Director’s Decision and Hearing Upon Request for Minor Projects For a minor project, as defined in Section 18.76.020(b)(3), once the application is deemed complete: . . . (2) Notice of the proposed director's decision shall be given mailed to property owner or applicant and posted in a public placeby publication. The notice shall include the address of the property, a brief description of the proposed project, a brief description of the proposed director's decision, the date the decision will be final if no hearing is requested, and a description of how to request a hearing. (3) The proposed director's decision shall become final 14 10 days after the date notice is mailed or published, whichever is later, unless an appeal is filed. The director may, for good cause, specify in writing a longer period for requesting a hearing at the time he or she issues the proposed decision. (i) When there is more than one entitlement required for a project, the longer appeal or request for hearing period shall govern the effective date for the Minor Architectural Review decision. (4) The applicant or the subject property owner, or owners or tenants of an adjacent propertyAny party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the architectural review board on the proposed director's decision by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. . . . (d) Decision by the Director Upon receipt of a recommendation of the architectural review board: . . . (2) Notice of the director's decision shall be given by mailing to owners and residents of property within 600 feet of the property, by publication once in a local newspaper, and by posting in a public place. Notice shall include the address of the property, a brief description of the proposed project, a brief description of the action to be taken, the date the decision will be final, and a description of how to request a hearing. (3) The director's decision shall become final 14 days after the date notice is mailed or published, whichever is later , unless an appeal is filed. The director may, for good cause, specify in writing a longer period for requesting a hearing at the time he or she issues the proposed decision. NOT YET APPROVED jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 18 March 2018 (e) Appeal of the Director's Decision – Filing Any party, including the applicant, may file an appeal of the director's decision with the planning division for projects reviewed by the architectural review board. The appeal shall be filed in written form in a manner prescribed by the director. . . . 18.77.077 Over the Counter Project Review Process The director of planning and community environment shall be authorized to adopt guidelines, rules, and procedures to implement the over the counter project review process for projects exempt from architectural review under Section 18.76.020(b)(1)(B) of this Title. 18.77.080 Notice . . . (f) Notice by Posting in a Public Place When notice by posting in a public place is required, notice shall be posted in one or more locations accessible to the public, which may include posting on the city’s website. The director shall determine the location or locations for posting. . . . 18.77.110 Revocation or Modification of Approvals . . . (c) Decision by the director . . . (2) Notice of the director's decision shall be given by mailing to owners and residents of property within 600 feet of the property, and by publication once in a local newspaper, and by posting in a public place. Notice shall include the address of the property, a brief description of the noncompliance, a brief description of the action to be taken, the date the decision will be final, and a description of how to appeal the decision. . . . SECTION 17. Section 18.80.060 (Notice of Public Hearing) of Chapter 18.80 (Amendments to Zoning Map and Zoning Regulations) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the PAMC is amended as follows: 18.80.060 Notice of Public Hearing (a) The planning commission shall give a notice of hearing on a proposed change of district boundaries in the following manner: (1) Notice of the hearing shall be given by publication once in a local newspaper of general circulation not less than twelve ten days prior to the date of the hearing. NOT YET APPROVED jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 19 March 2018 (2) Additionally, excepting a city-wide change in the zoning map, the city shall mail written notice of such hearing at least twelve ten days prior to the date of the hearing to each owner of real property and to each residential occupant within 600 feet of the exterior boundary of the property for which classification is sought. Notice shall be provided as specified in Section 18.77.080. Compliance with the procedures set forth in this section shall constitute a good faith effort to provide notice, and the failure of any owner or occupant to receive notice shall not prevent the city from proceeding with the hearing or from taking any action nor affect the validity of any action. . . . SECTION 18. Section 21.12.090 (Action on tentative and preliminary parcel maps) of Chapter 21.12 (Tentative Maps and Preliminary Parcel Maps) of Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land) of the PAMC is amended as follows: 21.21.090 Action on tentative and preliminary parcel maps . . . (e) Action on Preliminary Parcel Map. Subject to the appeal procedures of this title, the director of planning shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny any preliminary parcel map filed. The director of planning shall take such action or defer the application for decision by the City Council pursuant to Section 18.40.170 of Title 18, within fifty days of the date of filing, unless extended by the mutual consent of the director of planning and the applicant. Prior to taking any such actionapproving, conditionally approving, or denying a preliminary parcel map, the director of planning shall hold a public hearing at which any interested person shall be allowed to present testimony regarding the preliminary parcel map. If, in the opinion of the director of planning, there are issues of major significance associated with the proposed parcel map, such map may be deferred by the director of planning to the planning commission and the city council for processing in accordance with the procedures set forth in subsections (c) and (d) of this section. (f) Notice of Hearing. (1) Notice of the hearing required by subsections (c), (d), or (e) above shall be given by publication once in a local newspaper of general circulation not less than twelve ten days prior to the date of the hearing. (2) Additionally, the city shall mail written notice of such hearing at least twelve ten days prior to the date of the hearing to each owner of record of real property within ninety-one and four-tenths meters (threesix hundred feet) of the exterior boundary of the property for which classification is sought as such owner of record is shown in the last equalized assessment roll and to owners or occupants of the property within ninety-one and four-tenths meters (three six hundred feet) as shown on the city utility customer file. Compliance with the procedures NOT YET APPROVED jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 20 March 2018 set forth in this section shall constitute a good-faith effort to provide notice and the failure of any owner or occupant to receive notice shall not prevent the city from proceeding with the hearing or from taking any action nor affect the validity of any action. . . . (4) In addition to any other information required, the applicant shall submit with its application a list of all owners of record of real property within ninety-one and four-tenths meters (threesix hundred feet) of the exterior boundary of the property to be subdivided as shown in the last equalized assessment roll (as updated by the semiannual real estate update information). SECTION 19. Section 21.32.010 (Application for exceptions) of Chapter 21.32 (Conditional Exceptions) of Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land) of the PAMC is amended as follows: 21.32.010 Application for exceptions A subdivider may apply for conditional Eexceptions to any of the requirements and regulations set forth in this title and Title 18, as defined in Section 21.04.030(b)(17). Such exceptions may be granted only by the city council after recommendation by the planning commission. Application for such exception shall be made by petition of the subdivider, stating fully the grounds of the application and the facts relied upon by the petitioner. Such petition shall be submitted with the tentative or preliminary parcel map for which the exception is requested and shall be reviewed and processed concurrent with said map. SECTION 20. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 21. 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 22. The Ordinance is an annual update of planning and transportation related codes in Palo Alto Municipal Code Titles 9, 10, 18 and 21 that encompasses amendments to a number of code sections, many of which are unrelated, the purpose and effect of which are to clarify and correct certain sections, align regulations to reflect current practice, conform regulations to State law, amend procedures related to the comprehensive permitting scheme, and remove obsolete provisions. The Council finds that the Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in NOT YET APPROVED jb SL/Amending Planning Codes 21 March 2018 question may have a significant effect on the environment. Further, technical clarifications and corrections, with no change in practice, in PAMC section 18.04.030, and modifications to the election of Planning & Transportation Commission officers in PAMC section 2.20.030 are not a project under CEQA. SECTION 23. 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 & Community Environment Not Yet Approved Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 10.04 (Definitions) and Chapter 10.64 (Bicycles, Roller Skates and Coasters) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Prohibit Use of Bicycles and Similar Vehicles on Certain Sidewalks and Undercrossings and to Establish Speed Limits on Shared-Use Paths The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. A new Section 10.04.128 (Shared-use path) is added to Chapter 10.04 (Definitions) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to read as follows: 10.04.128 Shared-use path “Shared-use path” means a graded linear area or pathway, paved or unpaved, that is designated for the use of both pedestrians and bicyclists and is not part of a roadway. SECTION 2. Section 10.64.130 (Riding bicycles on sidewalks) of Chapter 10.64 (Bicycles, Roller Skates and Coasters) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the PAMC is amended as follows: 10.64.130 Riding bicycles on sidewalks and in undercrossings. (a) No person shall ride or operate a bicycle upon any sidewalk in a business district,. (b) No person shall ride or operate a bicycle upon any sidewalk in the University Avenue undercrossing below Alma Street and the Palo Alto train station or any sidewalk in the California Avenue undercrossing below Alma Street and the California Avenue train station when others are present or on any pedestrian underpass or overpass, or any sidewalk on the Embarcadero Road Overpass across Bayshore Freeway unless such sidewalk is officially designated as a bicycle route. (b) (c) Any person riding or operating a bicycle upon any sidewalk shall exercise due care and shall yield the right-of-way to all pedestrians. (c) (d) No person riding or operating a bicycle upon any sidewalk where a bicycle lane or path has been established shall travel in a direction other than as posted. SECTION 3. A new Section 10.64.220 (Speed limits on Class I Shared-use paths and Class IV separated bikeways) is added to Chapter 10.64 (Bicycles, Roller Skates and Coasters) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the PAMC to read as follows: 10.64.220 Speed limits on Shared-use paths. Not Yet Approved (a) No person shall ride or operate any bicycle, skateboard, or any other transportation vehicle or device in excess of 15 miles per hour upon on a Shared-use Path when pedestrians are present. (b) No person shall operate any transportation vehicle or device at a speed greater than is reasonable for safe operation, nor in any manner which may endanger the safety of others. SECTION 4. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 5. 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 6. The Council finds that this Ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 7. 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: Not Yet Approved ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto (ID # 8966) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/9/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District Ordinance Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 18 (Zoning) to add a New Chapter 18.30(J) (Affordable Housing Combining District) to Promote the Dev elopment of 100 Percent Affordable Housing Projects Located Within One -half Mile of a Major Transit Stop or One-quarter Mile of a High -Quality Transit Corridor by Providing Flexible Development Standards and Modifying the Uses Allowed in the Commercial Districts and Subdistricts. CEQA: This Ordinance is Within the Scope of the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Certified and Adopted on November 13, 2017 by Council Resolution Nos. 9720 and 9721. The Planning & Transportation Commission Sug gested an Alternative and did not Recommend Adoption of the Ordinance at Their Meeting on March 14, 2018 From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends Council take one of the following two actions: Option 1: Find the proposed draft ordinance in Attachment A within the scope of the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopt the ordinance amending Chapter 18.30 of Title 18 of the Municipal Code to add a new chapter establishing an Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District and related regulations. – OR -- Option 2: Accept the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendations and direct staff (a) to work with the property owner of a site at El Camino Real and Wilton Court to develop a site-specific Planned Community (PC) zoning ordinance and City of Palo Alto Page 2 development agreement for affordable housing and (b) to work with the Commission on a series of additional recommendations developed by an ad hoc committee of the Commission (Attachment B). Note: On March 14, 2018, the Planning and Transportation Commission voted 4 -3 to recommend Option 2 in lieu of Option 1. Option 1 reflects staff’s recommendation and the version of the draft ordinance that was presented to the PTC on March 14, 2018. Executive Summary The City Council has prioritized housing this year, recognizing that affirmative actions are needed to meet the City’s housing production goals. This report transmits a proposed ordinance intended to encourage affordable housing production by adding a new chapter to Chapter 18.30 (Combining Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Th e ordinance would create a new combining district (also referred to as an “overlay zone”) that would provide flexible development standards for 100% affordable housing projects located on commercially-zoned sites within ½ mile of major transit stops and ¼ mile of high-quality transit corridors. The new Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District would not apply to any specific sites unless a separate legislative action is taken. This overlay concept was developed following an August 28, 2017 prescreening discussion by the City Council about a site owned by Palo Alto Housing at the corner of El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue. The options discussed at the pre-screening included (a) use of a combining district, (b) use of a site-specific Planned Community (PC) ordinance, or (c) use of a local alternative to the State density bonus law, which would permit additional density and development standards by right. Based on the Council’s discussion that evening, staff developed the proposed combining district ordinance (Option 1), which would allow any property owner (including Palo Alto Housing) to apply for a site-specific zoning map amendment if they wish to make use of the new combining district to build an 100% affordable housing project. A zoning map amen dment is a legislative process subject to additional public input, Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) review, and Council’s approval. The PTC considered the AH combining district ordinance at their meetings of February 14 and March 14, 2018.1 An ad hoc committee was formed and met several times between the two 1 Attachment A reflects the March 14, 2018 version of the ordinance. This version differs from staff’s original February 14, 2018 draft of the ordinance in three ways: (1) it specifies a distance of ¼ mile rather than ½ mile of transit corridors; (2) it institutes a transitional height requirement of 35’ for portions of sites that are within 50 feet of residential zones; and (3) it specifies a parking requirement of one space per unit or bedroom, whichever is City of Palo Alto Page 3 hearings; their recommendations were ultimately support ed by a majority of the commission. That recommendation (Option 2) would direct staff to develop a Planned Community (PC) zoning ordinance in conjunction with a development agreement to advance an affordable housing project on the El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue site and directs staff to continue work on the combining district and other policy initiatives. Adoption of a PC zoning ordinance and development agreement would be a legislative process subject to additional public input, Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) review, and Council’s approval. Amendments to Chapter 18.38 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (about PC zoning districts) may also be required to allow flexibility with regards to development standards currently applicable to PC zones, including transitional height and setback requirements. Background The proposed code amendment originates from a “pre-screening” in August 2017 and is identified in the Housing Work Plan adopted by the City Council in February 2018. In May 2017 Palo Alto Housing (PAH), a local non-profit housing developer, submitted a prescreening application with the Planning Department for a mixed-use development at 3703- 3709 El Camino Real incorporating 61 affordable housing units as well as 2,412 square feet of ground floor commercial space. On August 28, 2017 the City Council reviewed the prescreening application at a public hearing, during which the Council discussed three possible approaches to advancing the project: (a) use of a combining district, (b) use of a site-specific Planned Community (PC) ordinance, or (c) use of a local alternative to the State density bonus law, which would permit additional density and development standards by right. No votes are taken at pre-screening study sessions, however a number of Council members expressed general interest in a new affordable housing combining district and there did not seem to be sufficient support for a PC ordinance. The staff report, meeting transcript, and video of this prescreening study session are included here: August 28, 2017 City Council Prescreening Study Session Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/60907 Meeting Transcript: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61317 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-136/ Following the prescreening study session, staff reached out to Palo Alto Housing and crafted a draft combining district ordinance intended to allow them to apply for a 100% affordable housing project at the El Camino Real/Wilton Avenue site and/or other sites meeting specific criteria. Other property owners interested in constructin g 100% affordable housing projects greater, except where precluded by State law, while the February 14 ordinance specified one space per unit. The original version of the ordinance is available as an attachment to the February 14, 2018 PTC staff report here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63360. City of Palo Alto Page 4 could also request rezoning to make use of the combining district . The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed the draft AH Combining Distr ict Ordinance at public meetings on February 14, 2018 and March 14, 2018. The staff reports, meeting minutes, and videos of those meetings are included here: February 14, 2018 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63360 Draft Meeting Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63824 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63-2/ March 14, 2018 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63857 Meeting Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64223 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63-2-2/ As noted earlier, the PTC formed an ad hoc committee after their February 14, 2018 meeting, and the committee presented the recommendations that were ultimately adopted as the Commission’s recommendations on March 14, 2018. The full text of the ad hoc committee’s analysis and recommendations are included as Attachment B. The AH ordinance was in preparation at the time the February 2018 Draft Housing Work Plan was prepared, discussed, and adopted by the City Council on February 12, 2018 (Attachment E). The Work Plan describes the City’s progress towards the housing production goals (i.e. the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation or RHNA) in its Housing Element, and the City’s progress towards the housing projections developed during preparation of the Comprehensive Plan Update. In both cases, the City is far behind where it should be to meet its goals, and the Housing Work Plan indicates that affirmative action is needed to spur the production of housing. Table 1. Summary of City Housing Goals Source Goal Progress as of December 31, 2017 Timing # Units Units % of Goal Housing Element (Affordable Units) 2014-2023 1,401 143 10% Housing Element (Total Units) 2014-2023 1,988 393 20% Comprehensive Plan Projections 2015-2030 3,545-4,420 353 +10%(1) Note: (1) The Housing Work Plan estimates that the City will have to increase its rate of City of Palo Alto Page 5 housing production to approximately 300 units per year to achieve the Comprehensive Plan projection. Source: Palo Alto Draft Housing Work Plan & Updated Information, March 2018 The AH combining district ordinance, with specific reference to Palo Alto Housing’s Wilton Avenue site, is identified as an “ongoing initiative” number 1.8 in the Housing Work Plan adopted by Council. In conjunction with other ongoing initiatives and zoning ordinance adjustments proposed for 2018 and 2019, the combining district is intended to implement programs of the Comprehensive Plan Update and Housing Element, and encourage the construction of housing -- including affordable housing. The proposed combining district ordinance would create the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District, but does not amend the Zoning Map to apply the Combining District to any specific site or sites. Instead, the ordinance sets the criteria for evaluating which sites could be eligible for the application of the combining district. A map showing the areas of the City that meet the eligibility criteria is included in Attachment C of this report. After adoption of the ordinance, such eligible sites could be rezoned to include the AH Combining District through a Rezoning Map Amendment application. Such an application would require review by the Planning and Transportation Commission and a decision by the City Council. Discussion The Comprehensive Plan includes a number policies and programs that are directly related to the proposed code amendment (Attachment D). These policies include general support for increasing opportunities for multi-family housing near transit, and incentivizing affordable housing in particular with development standards that are more flexible than base zoning would otherwise allow. Development Standards The draft combining district ordinance (Attachment A) retains several of the development standards that would otherwise apply to a commercially zoned site to retain basic patterns of site planning, such as setbacks, build-to lines, and daylight plane requirements when adjacent to low-density residential districts. The standards that are “relaxed” relative to base commercial zoning standards include lot coverage, usable open space, required parking, transitional height requirements, and maximum residential density, the last of which would be eliminated in favor of a 50 foot height limit and maximum residential FAR of 2.0:1. A provision to allow the City Council to waive retail preservation requirements is also proposed and discussed later in this report. Application to Commercial Zones City of Palo Alto Page 6 The Comprehensive Plan identifies seven commercial land use designations intended to provide a mixture of commercial uses at various intensities. These land use designations are Neighborhood Commercial, Regional/Community Commercial, Service Commercial, Mixed Use, Commercial Hotel, Research/Office Park, and Light Industrial. With the exception of the Commercial Hotel designation, each of these commercial designations a lso supports higher density multi-family housing near transit centers and corridors. In practice, sites located within Neighborhood Commercial, Regional/Community Commercial, and Service Commercial designations also tend to have base commercial zoning (CN, CC and CC(2), CS, and CD) which permit mixed use development. Attachment C provides a map showing these four base zones in pink, with the additional eligibility requirement of transit proximity in yellow. Only those sites meeting both eligibility requirements would qualify for a rezoning to apply the AH Combining District. Conformance to Other Combining Districts and Retail Preservation From a use perspective, the largest change enabled by the AH Combining District is that it removes the current prohibition on residential-only projects in the base commercial zone. The AH Combining District is intended to enable both mixed use (residential and ground floor retail) as well as residential-only projects, except as otherwise limited by the standards of other applicable combining districts or retail preservation requirements. In those instances, such as a site located Downtown with Retail Shopping (R Combining District) or Ground Floor (GF Combining District) requirements, the application of the AH Combining District’s development standards would work in tandem with, and not undermine, the ground floor retail requirements. However, for sites not located within the R or GF Combining Districts, an applicant could request a reduction or waiver of the of the City-wide retail preservation requirements. In those instances, such as with CN and CS base-zoned sites along El Camino Real with existing retail, the AH Combining District standards would allow for a reduction or waiver from the square footage that would otherwise be required to be replaced, with the Council’s approval and determination that it would be in the public interest. Relevance to Palo Alto Housing’s “Wilton Court” Prescreening To the best of staff’s knowledge, the AH Combining District Ordinance addre sses the zoning constraints discussed during the August 28, 2017 City Council prescreening of a 100% affordable housing project at the intersection of Wilton Avenue and El Camino Real , which is commonly but mistakenly referred to as the “Wilton Court” site . Should the ordinance be adopted, the Wilton Avenue project proponents could potentially apply for a zone change to apply the AH ordinance to the site. Such an action would require additional review by the Planning and Transportation Commission, Architectural Review Board, and City Council, as outlined later in this report. PTC Ad Hoc Committee Recommendations The PTC’s ad-hoc committee met after the February 14 PTC hearing to study the proposed AH City of Palo Alto Page 7 Ordinance as well as alternatives to the proposed ordinance. The ad-hoc committee reported conducting a series of interviews with affordable housing providers, market rate developers and community members, and documented several observations that helped them form the seven recommendations included in their letter (Attachment B). Ultimately, the ad hoc committee and the PTC acknowledged that the planning process for creating affordable housing is daunting and may be discouraging potential affordable housing developers from coming forward with projects. At the same time, the ad hoc committee and a majority of Commissioners articulated a desire to have the Wilton Avenue project move forward immediately through a site-specific process, while spending more time on zoning ordinance adjustments. Principally, the ad hoc committee recommended the Palo Alto Housing project presented to the Council in August of 2017 be pursued through a development agreement, which would necessitate a zoning change (because development agreements can only be used to implement projects that are consistent with local zoning). As discussed at the March 14, 2018 PTC meeting, the ad hoc committee and ultimately a majority of the PTC preferred a Planned Community (PC) zoning ordinance rather than a combining district ordinance in conjunction with a development agreement. As noted earlier, this concept of using the PC process was explored with the City Council at the August 28, 2017 prescreening application for the Wilton Avenue site. A PC Zoning Ordinance and related development agreement would 1) require the mutual agreement of the City and the applicant, 2) still require a legislative change to adjust the underlying zoning for the property, and 3) likely require text amendments to PAMC Chapter 18.38 to modify uniformly applicable development standards for transitional height and setback requirements for PC zoned sites. The PTC’s additional recommendations are listed in Attachment B in the context of the ad hoc committee’s report. They include a suggestion that the City take different approach es to incentives for units affordable to households at 60% of Area Median Income (AMI) and units affordable to households at 61-120% of AMI (i.e. “Very Low” income versus “Low” and “Moderate” income units) because federal tax credit financing is only avail able to units at 60% or below of AMI. Other recommendations suggest possible approaches to retail preservation and parking (including additional incentives and perhaps City funding), and preservation of current transitional height standards (i.e. use of 1 50’ versus the 50’ proposed in the combining district ordinance). Planned Community Ordinance and Special Requirements The PC approach for the contemplated Wilton Avenue project, while presented as an option during the Council’s prescreening last year, is impractical without specific amendments to the City’s PC regulations. Specifically, there are special requirements for PCs in PAMC Chapter 18.38 that limit the height of a development to 35 feet when located within 150 of a single or multi - family zoning district. Additionally, Chapter 18.38 includes setback requirements that appear City of Palo Alto Page 8 problematic for the Wilton Avenue project based on the conceptual plans previously presented to the Council. Since 2013, planned community applications have been discouraged and no applications have been filed or processed. The “time out” on new PC ordinances originally resulted from controversies associated with past PC ordinances, including debate as to whether they involved sufficient public benefits, whether they were enforceable, and whether site-specific zoning is appropriate or desirable. Prior Council discussions suggested revisiting the PC process following adoption of the Comprehensive Plan update. While there continues to be some community animosity toward PCs in general, given the PTC’s recent discussion and strong Council interest to promote housing, the time may be right to explore an alternative to the PC regulations. A new affordable housing incentive ordinance could be drafted that is patterned after the PC process, but focused on affordable housing production. Such an approach, however, would take many months to draft and review with the community and PTC before it could be presented to Council. Staff also understands Palo Alto Housing is reticent about filing an application when the process to evaluate such a request is not codified. Accordingly, if these actions were administered consecutively, it would be a considerable time before any action could be taken on a future Wilton Avenue project. A more expeditious process would be to approve the proposed combining district ordinance recommended in this report, or some variation thereof, and direct staff to pursue changes to the PC regulations based on Council’s guidance following preparation of the 2018 zoning ordinance amendments called for in the Housing Work Plan adopted in February. This approach has the benefit of potentially encouraging interested affordable housing providers to file more timely applications and does not require a negotiated development agreement between the City and housing provider. Moreover, it directs staff to continue working on multiple strategies to help address the regional housing problems. Community Input Staff and the PTC received public comments on the draft ordinance prior to and during the February 14 and March 14, 2018 public hearings. Many of the comments on the ordinance were supportive, with some suggestions, including those made by groups such as the League of Women Voters and Palo Alto Forward, that the ordinance should be more permissive (add the Research Park and General Manufacturing Zoning Districts as eligible, “combinable” base zones, more expansive allowances for FAR increases and retail preservation waivers). Other less supportive comments perceived associations between higher residential density and reduced parking requirements with increased traffic and impacts to neighborhood street parking. Several residents in proximity to the Wilton Avenue site spoke in opposition. Policy Implications The preparation and consideration of the AH combining district ordinance to support housing City of Palo Alto Page 9 on the Housing Element Inventory Site at El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue is Task 1.8 of the Housing Work Plan adopted by the City Council on February 12, 2018 (Attachment E). The PTC’s recommendation of a PC process in lieu of the AH combining district ordinance would deviate from the Work Plan, although either option presented in the Recommendation section of this report would be consistent with the Housing Element text which explains th e temporary moratorium on PC ordinances and says: “If the PC code is removed, the City will replace the PC zone with another mechanism that would provide the same affordable housing opportunities. A possible substitute or mechanism could be an Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO). The AHO could be designated in areas identified as appopriate for affordable housing projects. If a developer chooses to develop within the AHO, the developer could receive incentives or additional benefits such as greater density and other modifications to encourage affordable housing development.” (Housing Element p. 109) An analysis of the proposed AH Combining District Ordinance’s conformance to the Comprehensive Plan is included in Attachment D of this report. The ordinance directly implements several of the policies and programs contained in the Land Use and Housing Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is consistent with and implements several policies and programs reviewed in the Environmental Impact Report (E IR) for the Comprehensive Plan Update, which was certified and adopted on November 13, 2017 by Council Resolution Nos. 9720 and 9721. No additional environmental analysis is warranted at this time. All future discretionary development that may be impacted by the proposed Code change will be subject to a project specific CEQA analysis as part of the required planning entitlement review (e.g. Rezoning, Architectural Review, Subdivision, etc.) to determine if there are any environmental impacts. Attachments: Attachment A: AH Combining District Ordinance (DOCX) Attachment B: PTC Ad-hoc Committee Report (DOCX) Attachment C: AH Combining District - 1/4 Mile Corridor Map (PDF) Attachment D: AH Ordinance Comprehensive Plan Table (DOCX) Attachment E: Housing Work Plan (DOCX) Not Yet Adopted 180206 SL/PCE Planning/AH Combining District Page 1 of 5 Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18.30 of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Add a New Chapter 18.30(J), Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District Regulations The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. Housing in California is becoming increasingly unaffordable. The average California home currently costs about 2.5 times the national average home price and monthly rent is 50% higher than the rest of the nation. Rent in San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, and Los Angeles are among the top 10 most unaffordable in the nation. With rising population growth, California must not only provide housing but also ensure affordability. B. Despite a high median income in Palo Alto, nearly 30 percent of all households overpaid for their housing (more than 30 percent of their income) in 2010. C. The lack of an adequate supply of housing at all levels of affordability drives up the rents and costs of ownership of housing, which has a detrimental effect upon residents who may be displaced from their community and local employees who must endure longer commutes for lack of housing opportunities near work. D. It is in the public interest that a continuum of housing be provided for a broad spectrum of persons, including those earning moderate, low, and very low incomes. E. The high cost of land acquisition and development, construction, and operation of housing projects have discouraged the production of affordable housing projects. Allowing higher density housing, reduced parking requirements, and an increase in the allowable gross floor area in appropriate locations improves the feasibility of affordable housing projects. F. Encouraging the development of transit-oriented multi-family housing affordable to moderate, low, and very low-income residents supports City and State goals to reduce vehicle miles traveled and associated greenhouse gas and other air emissions. SECTION 2. Chapter 18.30 (Combining Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Section 18.30(J) as follows: New Chapter 18.30(J) AFFORDABLE HOUSING (AH) COMBINING DISTRICT REGULATIONS Sections: 18.30(J).010 Specific Purpose 18.30(J).020 Applicability of Regulations 18.30(J).030 Definitions Not Yet Adopted 180206 SL/PCE Planning/AH Combining District Page 2 of 5 18.30(J).040 Zoning Map Designation 18.30(J).050 Site Development Review Process 18.30(J).060 Conformance to Other Combining Districts and Retail Preservation 18.30(J).070 Permitted Uses 18.30(J).080 Conditional Uses 18.30(J).090 Development Standards 18.30(J).010 Specific Purpose The affordable housing combining district is intended to promote the development of 100% affordable housing projects located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or one-quarter mile of a high- quality transit corridor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, by providing flexible development standards and modifying the uses allowed in the commercial districts and subdistricts. 18.30(J).020 Applicability of Regulations (a) The affordable housing combining district may be combined with the CD, CN, CS, and CC districts set forth in Chapters 18.16 and 18.18 of this Title, in accord with the Chapter 18.08 and Chapter 18.80. Where so combined, the regulations established by this Chapter shall apply for 100% affordable housing projects in lieu of the uses allowed and development standards and procedures applied in the underlying district. A property owner may elect to use the site consistent with the underlying district, in which case the applicable regulations in Chapter 18.16 and 18.18 for the commercial districts shall apply. (b) The affordable housing combining district provides flexibility in development standards that allow for a density increase that would in most cases exceed density bonuses under state law, Government Code Section 65915. Therefore, a project applicant may utilize the affordable housing combining district and the provisions of this Chapter as an alternative to use of the state density bonus law implemented through Chapter 18.15 (Density Bonus) of this Title, but may not utilize both the affordable housing combining district and density bonuses. If an applicant utilizes state density bonus law, the regulations in Chapter 18.16 or 18.18 for the applicable underlying commercial district shall apply. 18.30(J).030 Definitions For purposes of this Chapter, the following definitions shall apply. (a) “100% affordable housing project” means a multiple-family housing project consisting entirely of Affordable Units, as defined in Section 16.65.020 of this code. 18.30(J).040 Zoning Map Designation The affordable housing combining district shall apply to properties designated on the zoning map by the symbol “AH” within parentheses, following the commercial designation with which it is combined. 18.30(J).050 Site Development Review Process All projects shall be subject to architectural review as provided in Section 18.76.020 and shall not be subject to the requirements of site and design review in Chapter 18.30(G). Not Yet Adopted 180206 SL/PCE Planning/AH Combining District Page 3 of 5 18.30(J).060 Conformance to Other Combining Districts and Retail Preservation The following requirements shall apply to projects in the AH affordable housing combining district: (a) Where applicable, the requirements of Chapter 18.30(A) (Retail Shopping (R) Combining District Regulations), Chapter 18.30(B) (Pedestrian Shopping (P) Combining District Regulations), and Chapter 18.30(C) (Ground Floor (GF) Combining District Regulations), and Pedestrian Shopping (P) Combining Districts shall apply. (b) Where applicable, the retail preservation requirements of Section 18.40.180 shall apply except as provided below. i. Waivers and Adjustments Except in the R or GF combining districts, the City Council shall have the authority to reduce or waive the amount of retail or retail like gross floor area required in Section 18.40.180 for any 100% affordable housing project if the City Council determines that it would be in the public interest. Any such reduction or waiver shall not be subject to the waiver and adjustments requirements in Section 18.40.180(c). In the R and GF combining districts, any reduction or waiver in retail or retail like gross floor area shall remain subject to the requirements of Section 18.40.180(c) or the combining district as applicable. 18.30(J).070 Permitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted in the AH affordable housing combining district: (a) 100% affordable housing projects; (b) In conjunction with a 100% affordable housing project, any uses permitted in the underlying district, provided the uses are limited to the ground floor. 18.30(J).080 Conditional Uses The following uses may be permitted in the AH affordable housing combining district in conjunction with an 100% affordable housing project, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals), provided that the uses are limited to the ground floor: (a) Business or trade school. (b) Adult day care home. (c) Office less than 5,000 square feet when deed-restricted for use by a not-for-profit organization. (d) All other uses conditionally permitted in the applicable underlying zoning district. 18.30(J).090 Development Standards The following development standards shall apply to projects subject to the AH affordable housing combining district in lieu of the development standards for the underlying zoning district, except where noted below: Table 1 Development Standards Not Yet Adopted 180206 SL/PCE Planning/AH Combining District Page 4 of 5 AH Combining District(1) Minimum Site Specifications Subject to regulations in: Site Area (ft 2 ) None required Site Width (ft) Site Depth (ft) Minimum Setbacks Setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of this code may apply Front Yard (ft) Same as underlying district Rear Yard (ft) Same as underlying district Rear Yard abutting residential zoning district (ft) Same as underlying district Interior Side Yard if abutting residential zoning district (ft) Same as underlying district Street Side Yard (ft) Same as underlying district Build-to-Lines Same as underlying district Permitted Setback Encroachments Same as underlying district Maximum Site Coverage None Required Landscape/Open Space Coverage 20%(2) Usable Open Space 25 sq ft per unit for 5 or fewer units (2), 50 sq ft per unit for 6 units or more (2) Maximum Height (ft) 50’ For those portions of a site within 50 ft of a R1, R-2, RMD, RM-15, or RM-30 zoned property 35’ Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zoning districts Daylight plane height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zoning district abutting the lot line Maximum Residential Density (net) None Required Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) – Residential Portion of a Project 2.0:1 Maximum Non-Residential FAR 0.4:1 Not Yet Adopted 180206 SL/PCE Planning/AH Combining District Page 5 of 5 Notes: (1) These developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23, as well as the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.13.060 for residential-only projects, Section 18.16.090 for mixed use projects in the CN, CC, and CS districts, and Section 18.18.110 for mixed use projects in the CD district, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director of planning and community environment, pursuant to Section 18.76.020. (2) Landscape coverage is the total area of the site covered with landscaping as defined in Chapter 18.04. For the purposes of this Chapter 18.30(J), areas provided for usable open space may be counted towards the landscape site coverage requirement. Landscape and open space areas may be located on or above the ground level, and may include balconies, terraces, and rooftop gardens. SECTION 3. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. 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 5. The City Council finds that the environmental impacts of this Ordinance were disclosed, analyzed and evaluated as part of that certain Final Environmental Impact Report for the Vehicle Parking 0.5 per bedroom or unit, whichever is greater, except as preempted by state law. The Director may modify this standard based on findings from a parking study that show fewer spaces are needed for the project. The required parking ratio for special needs housing units, as defined in Section 51312 of the Health and Safety Code shall not exceed 0.3 spaces per unit. Adjustments to the required ratios shall be considered per Chapter 18.52 (Parking). For Commercial Uses, See Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 (Parking). TDM Plan A transportation demand management (TDM) plan shall be required pursuant to Section 18.52.050(d) and associated administrative guidelines 18.52.050(d) Not Yet Adopted 180206 SL/PCE Planning/AH Combining District Page 6 of 5 Comprehensive Plan Update considered and certified by the City Council on November 13, 2017, by Resolution Nos. 9720 and 9721 (“EIR”). The City Council considered the EIR prior to taking action on this Ordinance, in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), together with state and local regulations implementing CEQA. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ _____________________________ Deputy City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment Ad Hoc Affordable Housing Overlay Committee: Przemek Gardias, Doria Summa, Asher Waldfogel Through a series of interviews over a very short period of time with affordable housing providers, market rate developers and community members we have observed that: 1. Affordable housing development below 60% AMI and above 60% AMI are in different financing markets, have different financial hurdles and metrics and need different solutions. 2. Under 60% AMI projects must cost under $500K per door to compete for limited tax-credit financing. 3. Affordable housing providers believe they do not need to provide parking above .5 spaces/unit, but cities may finance additional parking based on demand studies. 4. Actual parking demand in affordable units is between .5 and 1.3 spaces per unit in Palo Alto. Parking standards need to meet actual demand. 5. Retail space does not qualify for tax-credit financing. 6. Affordable housing projects that retain retail will need additional sources of funding and/or zoning concessions. 7. Existing PAMC development transitional height standards limit building heights to 35 feet within 150 feet of residential districts. This is a concern, particularly along the El Camino Corridor. 8. Affordable housing providers want more certainty in the development process. A general process that requires site-specific zoning changes does not meet their needs. Here are our recommendations: RECOMMENDATION 1: We recommend the City pursue a development agreement with PAH to advance the Wilton Court project. We believe a serious negotiation over the Wilton Court project will inform how to write a better city-wide ordinance. RECOMMENDATION 2: We recommend separating affordable housing into two work items: under 60% AMI (AH60) and 60% to 120% AMI (AH120). RECOMMENDATION 3: For AH60 we recommend the following options for retail preservation I. Where retail is retained, offer a zoning (height) concession. II. Where affordable housing provider financing precludes retail: City or a 3rd party may participate in project financing, potentially in exchange for an ownership position. III. As a last resort, City may waive the retail requirement as provided by the retail preservation ordinance. RECOMMENDATION 4: For AH60 we recommend City financial contributions to develop parking to meet demand based on measured parking utilization rates of comparable properties. The City may exercise an option to build additional parking available to the public. RECOMMENDATION 5: We recommend maintaining the transition height standards in all the C districts adjacent to residential districts. We recommend a community process with outreach before changing transition heights for AH60 housing. RECOMMENDATION 6: We recommend an open space standard for AH60, but we recommend against roof gardens adjacent to low density residential districts. RECOMMENDATION 7: We recommend folding AH120 work into the Housing Workplan effort. The regional consensus is to accomplish AH120 with inclusionary standards. We are not in a position today to make a recommendation on the right inclusionary standard. 800 J u n i p e r o S e r r a B o u l e v a r d Road ro Road E l C a m i n o R e a l S an A n to n io A v enu e C har l es ton Road O r e g o n E x p r e s s w a y M i d d l e f i e l d R o a d University Avenue 1 0 1 A l m a S t r e e t F o o t h i l l E x p r e s s w a yHillview West Bayshore Fabian Sand Hill Road Embarcadero Road Willo RP(L) RP(L) CC(2) RP RP RP RP-5 CS (AS1) RP-5(D) CN CC(2)(R) CC(2) CC(2)(R) CC(2)(R) CC(2) (R)(P) CS RP(L) CS CN CS(H) RP CS RP-5 RP-5(D)(L) CN CC CC(2)(R) CN CS GM GM CS CS GM CS RP CN CN (GF/P) CS CC RP CN CS CS CS CD-C (P) CD-S(P) CC CC CN(L)(GF/P) CD-C (P) CD-C (P) CD-C (P) CD-N (P) CD-N (P) CD-C(GF)(P) CD-C (P) CD-C (P) CC(L) RP (AS2) CN CN CS CS(H) CS CS(L) CS(L) CS CS CS CS(H) CS(L) CN CS CD-S(P) CC (2)(P)GMGM (AD) CS (AD) CS CS CS (AD) CS CS(AD) CD-C (P) CS GM CS(AD) CS GM CN (GF/P) CN CD-C(GF)(P) CN (R) CN CS(L)(D) CC(2)(R) CC(2)(R) CS(D) CD-C (P) CD-C(GF)(P) CD-S(GF)(P) CC(2) CC(2) CC(2) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend 1/4 mile from Transit Corridor or Major Transit Stop & 1/2 mile from Fixed Rail (Caltrain) Stations CC, CD, CN, & CS Zone Districts RP & GM Zone Districts City Jurisdictional Limits Fixed Rail (Caltrain) Stations 0' 1800' DR A F T Af f o r d a b l e H o u s i n g C o m b i n i n g D i s t r i c t O r d i n a n c e wit h CC , C D , C N , C S , G M a n d R P Z o n e D i s t r i c t s Ar e a M a p CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATE D CAL I F ORN I A P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2018-03-19 17:25:20 AffordableHousingOverlay withRPGMZones Analysis DRAFT qrtrmileecr (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) ATTACHMENT C COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE Affordable Housing Combining District Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs How ordinance adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan Land Use and Community Design Element Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. The ordinance increases the maximum allowable floor area ratio for 100% affordable housing projects, while retaining other basic site planning development standards such as setbacks, build-to lines, and daylight plane requirements. The ordinance would require that 100% affordable housing projects be reviewed through the City’s Architectural Review process, which will ensure that projects are compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the City. Policy L-2.5: Support the creation of affordable housing units for middle to lower income level earners, such as City and school district employees, as feasible. The ordinance specifically incentivizes the creation of housing units for lower income level earners by eliminating the maximum density development standard. Policy L-2.7: Support efforts to retain housing that is more affordable in existing neighborhoods, including a range of smaller housing types. The ordinance would allow apply only to commercially zoned sites close to public transit, and would not apply to the residential districts. Accordingly, the ordinance would not displace existing housing units in residential neighborhoods. Program L2.4.7: Explore mechanisms for increasing multi-family housing density near multimodal transit centers. The ordinance would specifically incentivize multi- family housing at higher densities when combined sites are located near transit centers and along high-quality transit corridors. Program L2.4.5: Update the municipal code to include zoning changes that allow a mix of retail and residential uses but no office uses. The intent of these changes would be to encourage a mix of land uses that contributes to the vitality and walkability of commercial centers and transit corridors. The ordinance would allow for mixed use projects that include 100% affordable housing units as well as ground floor retail uses. Office uses would only be permitted as a conditional use when under 5,000 square feet in floor area and deed restricted for use by not-for-profit organizations. Policy L-2.6: Create opportunities for new mixed use development consisting of housing and retail. The ordinance would specifically encourage the construction of mixed use projects incorporating 100% affordable housing and ground floor retail. Policy L-3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The ordinance would require that 100% affordable housing projects be reviewed through the City’s Architectural Review process, which will ensure that projects are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Policy L-4.2: Preserve ground-floor retail, limit the displacement of existing retail from neighborhood centers and explore opportunities to expand retail. Projects using the provisions of the ordinance would be required to adhere to the retail preservation requirements, except when adjusted or waived by the City Council after determining that doing so would be in the public interest. Policy L-4.7: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as a major commercial center of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. The ordinance would encourage the construction of 100% affordable housing in the commercial districts, including in the Downtown Commercial (CD) district. Projects utilizing the provisions of the ordinance would be subject to architectural review, which would ensure the pedestrian character of the downtown is respected with future development. Policy L-4.15: Recognize El Camino Real as both a local serving and regional serving corridor, defined by a mix of commercial uses and housing. The ordinance would allow for a mix of 100% affordable housing and ground floor commercial uses in the commercial zones along El Camino Real with a subsequent rezoning application. Policy L-6.7: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non- residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. The ordinance specifically eliminates the maximum unit density standard for 100% affordable projects in the commercial zones. There are areas where commercial districts near transit (qualifying parcels) abut residential districts, and in those cases, the ordinance requires that projects adjacent to residential districts must utilize the same daylight plane requirements that apply to the adjacent residential district. This will establish a building “step-back” for higher floors of qualifying projects. Housing Element Policy H2.1: Identify and implement strategies to increase housing density and diversity, including mixed-use development and a range of unit styles, near community services. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and mixed income housing to support the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs and to ensure that the City’s population remains economically diverse. The ordinance will allow for increased housing for lower income households in both residential-only and mixed use building types. By eliminating the density standard, the ordinance will allow future applicants to propose a range of housing unit sizes. This flexibility will also provide the ability for future applicants to contribute to the City’s RHNA requirements. Program H2.1.1: To allow for higher density residential development, consider amending the Zoning Code to permit high-density residential in mixed use or single use projects in commercial areas within one-half a mile of fixed rail stations and to allow limited exceptions to the 50-foot height limit for Housing Element Sites within one- quarter mile of fixed rail stations. The ordinance provides for no maximum density requirement for 100% affordable housing projects located near transit stops and high-quality transit corridors. The City Council is invited to discuss allowing exceptions to the 50-foot height limit for qualifying projects, including those on Housing Element Sites near transit stops and corridors. Program H2.1.2: Allow increased residential densities and mixed use development only where adequate urban services and amenities, including roadway capacity, are available. The ordinance would allow 100% affordable housing projects when combined with the commercial zones, all of which are located in areas of the city with adequate urban services. Roadway capacity would be analyzed when future applicants propose to rezone a site to allow for the application of the AH Combining District. Program H2.1.4: Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units, including units for seniors, such as reduced parking requirements for units less than 900 square feet and other flexible development standards. The ordinance specifically incentivizes the creation of housing units for lower income level earners by eliminating the maximum density development standard. Housing for individuals with special needs are further incentivized through the establishment of a maximum parking requirement for units housing these individuals. Program H2.1.6: Consider density bonuses and/or concessions including allowing greater concessions for 100% affordable housing developments. The ordinance relaxes certain development standards for 100% affordable housing developments located in the commercial zones and near transit services. Program H2.1.10: As a part of planning for the future of El Camino Real, explore the identification of pedestrian nodes (i.e. “pearls on a string”) consistent with the South El Camino Design Guidelines, with greater densities in these nodes than in other areas. The ordinance would allow for a mix of 100% affordable housing and ground floor commercial uses in the commercial zones along El Camino Real with a subsequent rezoning application. The ordinance eliminates the density standard in order to incentivize the production of more housing units. Program H2.2.6: On parcels zoned for mixed use, consider allowing exclusively residential use on extremely small parcels through the transfer of zoning requirements between adjacent parcels to create horizontal mixed use arrangements. If determined to be appropriate, adopt an ordinance to implement this program. The ordinance would allow for residential-only projects when combined with a base commercial zone, except as limited by the provisions of other combining districts (GF, R, etc.) or city-wide retail preservation requirements. Attachment E Housing Work Plan Hardcopies of the Housing Work Plan are provided to Council members. This document available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environment Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Direct Link to Housing Work Plan Webpage: http://bit.ly/PAhousingworkplan 27 March 2018 To: Mayor and City Council City of Palo Alto Palo Alto City Hall, 7th floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA From: Commissioner William Riggs, Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Vice Chair, Sue Monk, Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Commissioner Michael Alcheck, Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Re: Minority Recommendation from PTC on Affordable Housing Combining District Dear Mayor and Council Members: This memo serves to: 1) provide context for an item on your April 9th agenda; and 2) highlight the minority opinion from the February 14 and March 14 meetings on the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District. During the PTC's two meeting review of the AH Combining District, staff presented two different draft ordinances. These draft ordinances are available for review in your packet. The second version of the ordinance was crafted to respond to some of the anticipated feedback from an ad hoc committee that was formed at the first meeting. At the conclusion of the second meeting, a motion was put forward by a four member majority that ultimately recommended rejecting both the February 14th version of the AH Combining District as well as the more conservative March 14th version of the same AH Combining District. The authors of this memo were unable to support such a motion and en lieu of that, we would like to provide this minority recommendation: please approve the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District Draft Ordinance, as originally presented by staff on February 14th, with the following considerations: 1. Allow for a waiver of retail preservation for qualifying projects; 2. Include Research Park and General Manufacturing Districts; 3. Provide for flexibility when evaluating the precise distance from high capacity transit corridors; and 4. Allow FAR and height increases where appropriate. We believe this recommendation is worthy of Council consideration for the following reasons: • It is the most promising tool our body has considered to address the enormous shortage of affordable housing in our City. Such zoning overlay ordinances are "simple" policies that do not obfuscate existing zoning, but rather provide yet another tool in the toolbox for non-for-profit developers to use when attempting to bring forward the rarely proposed 100% affordable housing project. • This AH Combining District Ordinance as written and recommended herein, does not automatically apply to any parcel in the City. Parcel owners that are within the radius of application would still need to apply for and receive approval for said zoning designation. Every application would still require yet another review at the PTC and Council levels, and Council would retain the power to condition approval as Council deems appropriate in Council's effort to encourage appropriate outcomes. While our hope is that Council will accept our minority recommendation, we recognize that it will not solve all of our City 's housing supply issues. That said, we believe that we must begin taking actions to address housing now, and we believe this recommendation is an important first step. Thank you for your consideration. William Riggs, PhD Susan Monk Michael Alcheck Page 2 of 2 City of Palo Alto (ID # 9109) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/9/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: P&S Committee Recommendations re Airplane Noise Title: Policy and Services Committee and Staff Recommendations on Next Steps Related to Airplane Noise From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation The Policy and Services Committee and staff recommend the City Council commits to regularly assign one or more Council Members to actively participate on available community roundtables related to aircraft impacts; and directs staff to: i. Request temporary noise monitoring from San Francisco International Airport; and ii. Provide support to Palo Alto Council Members participating on available community roundtables related to aircraft impacts; and iii. Continue to include the health impacts of aircraft noise and emissions in the City’s regional, state and federal legislative priorities and engage with policy makers and associated advocacy groups as appropriate; and iv. Include in the above efforts Palo Alto’s support for: a. Improvements to SFO’s Fly Quiet Program, b. Adherence to the agreement to, whenever able, increase the altitude of aircraft over the Peninsula, c. Maximizing the use of the BDEGA East Arrival route to SFO when possible, d. Collaboration with other jurisdictions to develop a regional position in support system-wide solutions by the FAA, e. Development of a noise-monitoring plan in concert with other jurisdictions, f. Maximizing sequencing under current conditions and prioritizing the application of air traffic control technology to improve sequencing and aircraft management to minimize community impacts, g. Adoption of improved metrics for airplane noise and related impacts, and h. Greater community engagement by the FAA and SFO and SJC airports. In addition to the action above, Policy and Services recommends that Council endorse a number of additional proposals advanced at the Committee meeting by members of the public. A number of the citizen-initiated proposals have been incorporated into revised and updated City of Palo Alto Page 2 language with respect to i-iv, above. Several of the proposals deserve further evaluation and consideration; these are noted and discussed in greater detail below. Background On June 19, 2017, the City Council voted 7-0 (Fine, Scharff absent) to direct staff to: 1. Obtain expert opinion on aircraft noise monitoring strategy; and 2. Meet with neighboring cities to establish a regional position on the issue of aircraft noise; and 3. Align resources to be prepared to respond to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) response to the reports of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals and San Francisco International Airport (SFO)/Community Roundtable. The City of Palo Alto submitted a letter to the FAA on July 7, 2017 (Attachment A) to express its positions in alignment with several recommendations from the Select Committee and the SFO Roundtable. In late July 2017, the FAA released its initial response to the Select Committee and SFO Roundtable recommendations in the form of the “Phase Two report on the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns of Santa Cruz/Santa Clara/San Mateo/San Francisco Counties, compiled at the requests of Representatives Farr (Panetta), Eshoo and Speier.” On November 15, 2017, the City of Palo Alto submitted a letter to the FAA (Attachment B) expressing its concerns about the Phase Two report and clarifying its positions on the need to reduce the concentration of SFO arrivals using the MENLO waypoint, increase the minimum altitude of flights in this vicinity, and reduce vectoring of flights. The letter also underscored the positions the Select Committee had taken with regard to reverting the SERFR track to the previous BSR track and the importance of improved noise metrics. The cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park sent similar letters to the FAA in mid-November. In late November 2017, the FAA released its “Update on the Phase Two report on the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns of Santa Cruz/Santa Clara/San Mateo/San Francisco Counties, compiled at the requests of Representatives Farr (Panetta), Eshoo and Speier” (Phase Two Update) (Attachment C). On October 3, 2017, the San José City Council authorized the establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee on South Flow Arrivals to explore possible solutions to address the noise impacts on residents from certain landing configurations at Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC). All cities in Santa Clara County, and the county, were invited to participate with one vote except San José, which has two votes. Council Member Lydia Kou represents the City of Palo Alto on this body, which was envisioned to complete its work in 120 days. The south flow committee has held five meetings since first convening in November 2017. Council Member Kou may wish to update Council on the committee’s work. City of Palo Alto Page 3 At the recommendation of the Select Committee and of Representatives Eshoo, Khanna and Panetta, the Cities Association of Santa Clara County has formed a separate Ad Hoc Committee to explore building the framework for a permanent Roundtable for the South Bay (Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties) regarding aircraft noise issues related to SFO and SJC. Palo Alto Council Member Greg Scharff chairs this committee, which has seven members. The Cities Association’s Ad Hoc Committee has held four meetings since first convening in August 2017. Council Member Scharff may wish to update Council on the committee’s work. At the Policy and Services Committee meeting of February 13, 2018, the Committee voted unanimously to incorporate into a set of staff recommendations the comments contained in a letter from a Palo Alto resident who spoke at the committee meeting (Attachm ent I). A discussion of these comments is included at the end of the “Discussion” section below. On March 13, 2018, Council Members Fine, Kniss, Kou, Scharff and Wolbach joined with City Manager James Keene and staff at FAA headquarters in Washington, D.C. to meet with several FAA executives, including Brian Langdon, Manager of Government and Industry Affairs; George Gonzalez from the PBN Technical Support Services Team; James Arrighi from the Metroplex team, and Lois Yoshida from the FAA Office of the Chief Counsel. City representatives presented the arguments summarized in the City of Palo Alto’s information paper on FAA Noise and Community Engagement (Attachment H). Discussion With respect to item #1 in Council’s June 2017 direction to staff (obtain expert opinion on aircraft noise monitoring strategy), staff has consulted experts, interested community members, and the SFO Noise Office. SFO staff have confirmed that SFO will honor a previous offer to provide temporary noise monitoring in the City of Palo Alto. Policy and Services Committee concurred with staff’s recommendation that the City pursue this option with SFO. With respect to item #2 in Council’s June 2017 direction to staff (meet with neighboring cities to establish a regional position on the issue of aircraft noise), city staff began reaching out to city staff of neighboring jurisdictions last summer. In addition, the mayors of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park met with residents to discuss shared perspectives, resulting in the three cities communicating consistent messages to the FAA in November 2017. The formation of one or more roundtable entities would provide a more effective, comprehensive and transparent means of establishing a regional position on aircraft noise. Policy and Services Committee concurred with staff’s recommendation that the City participate collaboratively on the currently established and proposed roundtables described above. With respect to item #3 in Council’s June 2017 direction to staff (align resources to be prepared to respond to the FAA Phase Two report), staff has reviewed the agency’s Phase Two Update with aviation experts and interested members of the community. In the Phase Two Update, the FAA categorizes its responses to community positions in four categories: “Addressed Concerns”, City of Palo Alto Page 4 “Feasible and Could Be Implemented in the Short Term”, “Feasible and Could Be Implemented in the Long Term”, or “Not Endorsed”. Unfortunately, the majority of Palo Alto’s positions were not endorsed by the FAA or, if found feasible, present limited potential relief due to the considerable restrictions faced by a metropolitan region juggling arrivals and departures for three large airports (SFO, SJC, and Oakland [OAK]). A brief summary of those City positions (which were adopted in support of formal positions articulated by the Select Committee and/or the SFO Roundtable), and FAA responses provided in its Phase Two Update is presented here in items A – G, followed by a brief discussion of recurring themes in the report. A. Reduce Concentration of Arrivals through MENLO Waypoint: Not Endorsed. Palo Alto supported reducing the concentration of SFO arrivals using the MENLO waypoint. The FAA has explained it cannot endorse this proposal because shifting arrivals to variously proposed points to the east or north would conflict with SJC airspace, which cannot be modified due to safety requirements for SJC.1 B. Relocate Arrivals from the South to the East: Not Endorsed. Palo Alto supported the notion of redirecting flights arriving from th e south farther to the east (towards the hills to the west of Interstate 5). The FAA has explained that the current flow of arriving flights from the east (via FAITH waypoint and DYAMD arrivals) is already saturated with the majority (68%) of SFO’s arriving traffic, and could not accommodate the addition of flights currently arriving from the south.2 The FAA also argues against the inefficiency of routing flights from southern California (and Phoenix, and Mexico) farther to the northeast of their current route into the approach used by the majority of flights arriving from the east coast and Midwest.3 C. Fly Higher Over the Peninsula: Not Endorsed; Addressed Concerns. (This is an example of apparent contractions in the Phase Two Update.) Palo Alto supported proposals to increase the minimum altitude for flights in our vicinity from 4,000 to 5,000 feet. In one portion of the Phase Two Update, the FAA states this recommendation is not endorsed for safety reasons because, to fly a stabilized approach, aircraft are subject to specific descent gradient requirements that essentially prohibit being too high, too close to landing. According to the FAA, to stay above 5,000 feet over our area, SFO arrivals would have to travel farther away from SFO to descend to the appropriate altitude for approach, thereby forcing them into prohibited SJC airspace.4 1 Attachment C, page 108. 2 Attachment C, page 109. 3 Attachment C, page 111. 4 Attachment C, pages 106-107. City of Palo Alto Page 5 However, in another section of the Phase Two Update, the FAA categorizes this matter as an “addressed concern,” referencing the existing agreement between the SFO Aircraft Noise Abatement Office and the FAA’s Northern California TRACON that calls for aircraft to cross the MENLO waypoint “at 5,000 feet during visual conditions and 4,000 feet during instrument landing conditions” when able. The SFO roundtable requested that this agreement stay in place and be followed, and the FAA states it agrees with the Roundtable’s recommendation “to the extent feasible.”5 Policy and Services Committee concurred with staff’s recommendation that the City of Palo Alto advocate for adherence to this agreement. D. Relocate Northern Arrivals from Peninsula to Bay: Concern Addressed; Feasible in Short-Term. (This is an example of an “addressed concern” and a “short -term feasible” solution that presents little to no improvement from the current state.) Palo Alto supported calls for BDEGA arrivals to be shifted from the west leg to the east leg. (The BDEGA arrival from the north is characterized by two options. The BDEGA West Downwind leg brings arrivals from north of San Francisco southbound over the Peninsula before they make a easterly U-turn into a north-facing approach over the Bay into SFO. The BDEGA East Downwind leg brings arrivals from north of San Francisco southeasterly over the Bay before they make a westerly U-turn to approach SFO over the Bay. See Figure 1.) The FAA classifies its answer to this proposal as an “Addressed Concern” because it concurs with the recommendation to utilize BDEGA East when possible. In fact, the FAA “currently routes BDEGA arrivals to the East downwind to the extent operationally feasible.”6 However, the FAA report underscores the limitations of utilizing BDEGA East because it shares its final approach with the DYAMD arrival from the east (which carries the majority of SFO’s arrivals). Folding BDEGA arrivals in with DYAMD arrivals is a challenge not only due to DYAMD’s density of use, but also because DYAMD is constrained by OAK airspace to the north and SJC airspace to the south, thereby limiting the ability of air traffic controllers to vector DYAMD arrivals (to make space for BDEGA arrivals) without creating “a ripple effecting, jeopardizing safety and resulting in delays” potentially across all three airports (See Figure 2). Furthermore, the limited space in between DYAMD arrivals that can be used for routing BDEGA arrivals on the East leg instead of the West leg will likely continually decrease as SFO’s overall traffic counts are expected to continually increase.7 Therefore, while this solution demonstrates a willingness on the part of the FAA to mitigate impact s on the Peninsula, it is not likely to produce any improvement from the current state (since it is already being utilized) and, instead, will likely shrink in value over time as a mitigating solution – at least with respect to daytime noise. 5 Attachment C, page 88. 6 Attachment C, page 98. 7 Attachment C, pages 71-72, 81-82. City of Palo Alto Page 6 With respect to nighttime hours, the FAA identifies a “feasible short-term” solution as it reports it is working to update its procedures to accommodate maximizing use of BDEGA East from the beginning of Nose Abatement Procedure hours until 6:00AM. The FAA commits to “continue to reinforce the use of this procedure to personnel through training and briefings.”8 Policy and Services Committee concurred with staff’s recommendation that the City communicate its acknowledgement of the FAA’s commitment to this short-term solution and encourage continued exploration of other ways to maximize use of BDEGA East whenever possible. E. Reduce Vectoring over the Peninsula: Requirements Not Endorsed; Study Feasible Short-Term. The City joined with others in calls for reduced vectoring of arriving flights. The FAA insists that speed control and vectoring are tactical decisions used by air traffic controllers to manage the sequencing of aircraft and it will not support any proposed formal restrictions on when air traffic controllers may or may not use this “vital component” of their tools for accomplishing their mission.9 However, the FAA “is continuously working to improve aircraft setup and sequencing between facilities” and agrees that the BDEGA Arrival route has light enough traffic that it is a candidate for studying whether in-trail spacing may result in a decrease in vectoring.10 Policy and Services Committee concurred with staff’s recommendation that the City seek opportunities to maximize the FAA’s use of sequencing on BDEGA in the near term and, when beneficial, on additional routes in the long term. F. Organize Aircraft Schedules, Use Flow Management to Limit Noise: Feasible Long- Term. The City of Palo Alto has supported recommendations to encourage the FAA staff to work across its divisions to minimize noise through efficient organization of aircraft schedules and utilizing arrival descents that limit the use of speed brakes. In response to calls for new, more effective, time-based flow management tools that allow for better sequencing of aircraft that are vectored or held prior to final approach, the FAA has stated it is committed to incorporating these improvements as they become available.11 Policy and Services Committee concurred with staff’s recommendation that the City continue to advocate for such solutions to be implemented by the FAA as quickly and thoroughly as possible. G. Develop Improved Metrics for Airplane Noise: “Not FAA’s Action” The City of Palo Alto has supported recommendations by the Select Committee calling for Congressional action to direct the FAA to adopt supplemental metrics that better characterize the true impact of aircraft on people on the ground. Although the adoption 8 Attachment C, page 98. 9 Attachment C, page 110. 10 Attachment C, page 97. 11 Attachment C, page 101. City of Palo Alto Page 7 of new metrics would fall under the purview of the FAA, the FAA’s Phase Two Update declined to speak to this policy recommendation; apparently because the recommendation’s phrasing is, technically, directed to the legislative branch of the federal government. The City of Palo Alto, through its legislative advocacy team in Washington, D.C., has been monitoring the progress of FAA reauthorization legislation. As reported to the Policy & Services Committee during its discussion of legislative priorities on November 14, 2017, while the Senate bill does not address aircraft noise and community engagement, the House bill includes several provisions related to noise and community engagement. These include a requirement for the FAA to conduct a review of the relationship between aircraft noise exposure and its effects on communities around airports, to inform future recommendations for revising the FAA’s land use compatibility guidelines (See attachment E). Policy and Services Committee concurred with staff’s recommendation that the City continue to advocate for improved noise metrics and other solutions to negative impacts of aircraft, including greater FAA community engagement. The FAA’s Phase Two Update addresses several community concerns by citing its request that SFO update its Fly Quiet Program. Staff recommends the City partner with other jurisdictions, including through community roundtables, to work with SFO in developing detailed improvements as part of its update to its Fly Quiet Program. Throughout the Phase Two Update, the FAA makes clear that safety considerations are paramount; City staff concurs. Several times in the Phase Two Update, the FAA reiterates it will not support solutions that result in shifting the problem of noise from one community to another. It also repeatedly identifies increased flying distance as an unacceptable outcome of many community-proposed solutions that conflict with the economic, environmental, and operational efficiency benefits gained from shorter flying distances. In addition, it repeatedly points to the anticipated inevitability of increases in congestion as airports increase their number of flight operations. The report explicitly states it will not move forward on certain feasible recommendations “until issues of congestion, noise shifting and flying distance have been addressed with the airline stakeholders and the affected communities by the Select Committee and/or SFO Roundtable.”12 While the Select Committee has disbanded, the South Bay Roundtable envisioned by the Cities Association would likely be viewed as an appropriate surrogate for this function in partnership with the SFO Roundtable. The City of Palo Alto is one of over 100 municipalities in the Bay Area. The ability of any single community of 67,000 to influence the complex operations of a federal agency serving a region 12 Attachment C, page 103 City of Palo Alto Page 8 of 8 million people is, by definition, limited. In addition, the impacts of airplane noise must be considered amid the competing interests of the flying public, airline industry priorities, airport operational requirements, broader economic and environmental impacts and, above all else, safety. The successful navigation of these public interest challenges requires effective collaboration. Policy and Services Committee concurred with staff’s recommendation that the City seek cooperative opportunities to team with neighboring jurisd ictions through community roundtables and similar partnerships to most effectively address the community impacts of aircraft operations. Palo Alto’s Representative Anna Eshoo, as well as Representatives Khanna, Panetta and Speier, have expressed support for aircraft noise solutions. In addition, Congresswoman Eshoo joined with other Members of Congress to form the Quiet Skies Caucus in Congress to support policy solutions to address airplane noise. Staff recommends the City continue to express appreciation to Congresswoman Eshoo and the rest of the region’s Congressional delegation, as well as California’s two Senators, for their continued support on these issues. Staff also recommends the City continue partnering with national organizations like the National Association to Insure a Sound Controlled Environment (N.O.I.S.E.) (see Attachment F) to advocate at the federal level for improved noise metrics, community engagement, and other solutions to the negative impacts of aircraft operations. The Policy and Services Committee concurred with these staff recommendations. Regarding the comments submitted by a resident at the February 13, 2018 Policy and Services Committee meeting: Portions a, b and c of Request #1 are respectively incorporated into portions iii, iv.d, and iv.e of the staff recommendation presented in this memorandum. Request #2 is addressed in a separate memorandum from the City Attorney’s Office. Request #3 proposes that the City of Palo Alto advocate on a recommendation by the Select Committee related to the movement of the SERFR ground track to the old BSR ground track. This matter has caused controversy among other jurisdictions in our region and the City of Palo Alto has been contacted by resid ents who both support and oppose this request. Therefore, staff do not recommend that the City Council include this request in its actions at this time. Attachments: Attachment A; July 2017 Letter to FAA Attachment B; Nov 2017 Letter to FAA Attachment C; FAA Phase Two Update - Placeholder w-Link Attachment D; Maps Attachment E; VanScoyoc Attachment F; NOISE Attachment G; Mercury News Article Attachment H; Information Paper on FAA Noise and Community Engagement Attachment I; Resident Letter City of Palo Alto Office of the Mayor and City Council July 7,2017 Michael P. Huerta, Administrator Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave SW Washington D.C. 20024 Subject: FAA response to reports of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals and San Francisco International Airport (SFO)/Community Roundtable Dear Administrator Huerta, On behalf of the Palo Alto City Council, I would like to recognize the hard work of FAA staff to address aircraft noise over the skies of Palo Alto and Silicon Valley. This was evident by former Western Regional Director Glen Martin's commitment to the local Select Committee meetings. The city of Palo Alto is located approximately 20 miles from SFO and is the birthplace of Silicon Valley. We are the location for many of our nation's top companies, neighbor to Stanford University, and home to approximately 66,000 residents. The impacts from aircraft noise have a negative impact on the quality of life and health of the people who live and work in our city. Palo Alto places a high value on working with other communities to maintain Silicon Valley's important role in the national and international economy. It is critical that no single community be disproportionately affected by aircraft flights. It is our understanding that in the coming weeks the FAA will submit for Department of Transportation (DOT) review your agency's response to the reports of the Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals and SFO Community Roundtable. On several occasions the City has recommended that the FAA should: 1. Create more "points" for aircraft to use while entering SFO. There is currently one point (MENLO waypoint) used for flights coming in from the north, west, and south. This point centralizes all arrival aircraft and noise over Palo Alto. (Aligns with Select Committee report sections 1.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 and SFO Roundtable report recommendations 16 and 17.) 2. Redirect flights arriving from the south to the east; away from the Pacific Ocean coast to the hills west of Interstate 5 and have aircraft enter the Bay from the east. (Aligns with Select Committee report sections 2.14 and SFO Roundtable report recommendations 8 and 9.) P O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.257I 650.328 3631 fax 3. Shift the flights arriving from the north away from the Peninsula to the Bay. (Aligns with Select Committee report sections 2.2 and SFO Roundtable report recommendations 1, 7, and 11.) 4. Encourage the divisions and staff within FAA to work in partnership with each other to minimize noise through efficient organization of aircraft schedules and routes while also utilizing arrival descents that limit speed brakes. (Aligns with Select Committee report sections 1.6, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 and SFO Roundtable report recommendations 6 and 8.) We sincerely hope the FAA takes these recommendations into account. Additionally, we ask that the FAA: 1. Create a permanent forum or ad hoc committee to address aircraft noise and the health risk concerns of residents of cities not represented by the SFO Community Roundtable. If not, then amend the SFO Community Roundtable structure to be inclusive of cities beyond San Mateo County. (Aligns with Select Committee report sections 3.1.) 2, Adopt supplemental metrics in recognition of the limitations of the Day -Night Average Sound Level (DNL). (Aligns with Select Committee report sections 3,3. ) The Palo Alto City Council is committed to working with the FAA, SFO, San Jose International Airport, neighboring cities, counties and all stakeholders to ensure a reasonable solution is identified for Silicon Valley. Sincerely, Greg Scharff Mayor Cc: Dianne Feinstein, California Senator Kamala D. Harris, California Senator Anna G. Eshoo, Congresswoman California's 18th Congressional District Dennis Roberts, Federal Aviation Administration, Regional Administrator Palo Alto City Council James Keene, City Manager Molly Stump, City Attorney P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2571 650 328 3631 fax Michael P. Huerta, Administrator Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave. SW Washington, D.C. 20024 Ci~ of Palo Alto Office of the Mayor and City Council Subject: City of Palo Alto Response to FAA Initiative Phase Two Report Issued July 2017 Dear Administrator Huerta: On behalf of the Palo Alto City Council and further to our letter dated July 7, 2017, I want to reiterate our continuing appreciation for the work of FAA staff to address the problems Palo Alto and neighboring cities have experienced since implementation of the NextGen program in the Northern California Metroplex. NextGen added substantial air traffic to our skies, mainly due to the high concentration of jets that now fly over or near MENLO waypoint, at low altitudes, throughout the day and night. It remains critical to achieve meaningful relief since jet noise -as well as emissions -have a negative impact on the quality of life and health of people who live, work and study in our City. We recognize that the FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns of Santa Cruz/Santa Clara/San Mateo/San Francisco Counties is intended to explore changes to published procedures that would help mitigate noise complaints . The purpose of this letter is to highlight Palo Alto's top three priorities as they relate to specific items in the FM's Phase Two report issued July 2017 (the "Report") as part of the initiative. While the Report signals some relief is in progress at last, we are concerned the FAA does not provide adequate assurance that solutions will include higher, more distributed flights, as well as fewer overnight flights, sooner rather than later. Nor does it sufficiently commit to a transparent process - including credible impact assessments -before any final implementation decisions. We urge the FM to consider the below priorities as it prepares for Phase Three of the initiative process. 1. Reduce the concentration of SFO arrivals using MENLO waypoint. Per FAA data, 60% of SFO arrivals pass over or near MENLO waypoint, mostly on the SERFR and BDEGA West-leg paths. One action that would greatly alleviate this problem is to designate alternative waypoint(s) to MENLO for a portion of SERFR southern arrivals {which represent 30% of all SFO arrivals). The Report indicates this proposal is "currently under evaluation" {4.d .iv). Some alternative waypoints have been proposed that could enable aircraft to fly at significantly higher altitudes -and over less-populated areas-and then descend the length of the Bay. We also encourage the FM to develop other options based on its analysis and modeling . To address potential objections to moving some flights (in both this and other contexts), the FAA should specify objective criteria for what constitutes "noise shifting."1 1 One such standard appears i n the FAA's Finding of No Significant Impact and Record of Decision for the NorCal OAPM Project issued July 2014 (at http://www .metroplexenvironmental.com/docs/norcal metroplex/ NorCal OAPM FONSl-ROD .pdf). On page 5, it states that noise impacts need only be evaluated for proposed changes in arrival procedures up to 7,000 feet above ground level (AGL), which implies that re -routing flights to above 7,000 feet AGL would not be considered to cause noise-shifting . To the extent some overflights of populated areas will occur below 7,000-foot altitudes, the FAA should establish an equitable dispersal approach that uses a "pre-NextGen baseline" of flight concentrations . P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2477 650.328 .3631 fax November 15, 2017 Another action that would help reduce MENLO concentration is to rebalance BDEGA West northern arrivals {which come down the Peninsula and make a U-turn over Palo Alto area) and BDEGA East arrivals {which fly more over the Bay). We appreciate that the Report indicates rerouting night flights is feasible and could be implemented in the short term {l.c.vi, 2.a.i). The Report additionally states that rerouting flights during certain times of the day is also feasible but implementation would be in the long term {3.a.i), and that restoring the West/East balance to its pre-2010 level {SO/SO) is "currently under evaluation" (4.a.iii). Although these changes would still leave a significant number of BDEGA flights over Palo Alto, they would provide some relief, and we therefore hope the FAA proceeds with these steps as expeditiously as possible. 2. Increase minimum altitude for all flights over/in vicinity of MENLO waypoint to at least 5,000 feet. The current minimum altitude at MENLO is 4,000 feet {although anecdotal data from users of the stop.jetnoise.net app show a significant portion of jets overfly MENLO below 4,000 feet), which is lower than before NextGen. The Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals unanimously recommended increasing the minimum altitude to S,000 feet for all traffic over and around MENLO. The Report states that a S,000 minimum altitude for vectored flights in the vicinity of Menlo, as well as aircraft crossing Menlo/vicinity under visual conditions, is "currently under evaluation" (4.d.i, 4.d.ii). The Report rejects a 4,000-foot minimum altitude for instrument approaches over MENLO as "not feasible" due to "procedural development criteria & safety standards" (6.c.viii). While we are encouraged that S,000-foot minimums are under evaluation for vectored and visual approaches and urge prompt action, we believe strongly that similar relief must be extended to instrument arrivals, which constitute much of the MENLO traffic. The FAA provided assurance that NextGen would allow aircraft to "maintain higher altitudes and lower thrust for longer periods" in its draft Environmental Assessment for the NorCal OAPM published in March 2014.2 No sound reason has been given why a S,000-foot minimum for instrument flights would not be feasible if, for example, the glide slopes for RWYs 28R and/or 28L were increased even slightly to allow for higher descending altitudes, especially considering that technological advances such as RNAV and GPS enable aircraft to follow more accurate and better-defined routes. We therefore urge the FAA to reconsider its position and to further provide a means for ongoing monitoring and enforcement to assure compliance once new procedures are established. 3. Reduce vectoring of SFO arrivals without worsening MENLO concentration. About SO% of arrivals on SERFR, plus those on BDEGA and OCEANIC, are routinely turned off their assigned procedure by Air Traffic Control to sequence them for merging onto final SFO approach. This causes substantial noise due to more aircraft miles, turning, and changes in speed. The Report notes that a proposal for the FAA to work with the SFO Roundtable "to determine where aircraft can be vectored with the least noise impact" is feasible/short-term {2.d.i). Increased in-trail separation on SERFR and possibly BDEGA, which may entail ground delays at departing airports, is noted as feasible/long-term (3.c.ii). We appreciate the intent to direct aircraft to be vectored so as to cause "the least noise impact," but request more specific criteria for how this determination will be made. Also, under no circumstances should a reduction in vectoring lead to even higher concentrations on flight paths over and around MENLO waypoint. 2 At http://www.metroplexenvironmental.com/docs/norcal metroplex/NorCal OAPM DEA Complete.pdf, section 1.2.5.3. 2 In addition, the FAA is considering reverting the SERFR track to the old BSR track (2.f.i). The Select Committee had conditioned its approval of this proposal on several criteria to prevent moving noise as compared to 2014 levels, and it is important these are followed. Further, we continue to believe that improved, supplemental noise metrics are critical to properly assess the true impact experienced by people on the ground, and we encourage prompt action on the FAA's evaluation of this issue (4.e.xi). The Palo Alto City Council remains committed to working with the FAA, San Francisco International Airport, San Jose International Airport, Congressional leaders, our neighboring cities and counties, and all stakeholders to ensure a reasonable solution is identified for our region. Sincerely, ~ H. G egory Scharff Mayor cc: Senator Dianne Feinstein of California Senator Kamala D. Harris of California Representative Anna Eshoo Representative Jackie Speier Dennis Roberts, Federal Aviation Administration, Regional Administrator Palo Alto City Council James Keene, City Manager Molly Stump, City Attorney 3 Attachment C: FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns of Santa Cruz/Santa Clara/San Mateo/San Francisco Counties UPDATE ON PHASE TWO Compiled at the Requests of Representatives Farr (Panetta), Eshoo and Speier November 2017 This attachment can be found at the following link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62294 Attachment D Figure 1: BDEGA Arrivals, West and East Legs Figure 2: DYAMD Arrival, SFO Final Approach, and Surrounding Airspace 1 Memorandum TO: Heather Dauler and Khashayar Alaee FROM: Steve Palmer, Channon Hanna, and David Haines RE: Update: Committee Votes on House and Senate FAA Reauthorization Bills / Summary of Noise and Community Engagement Provisions DATE: June 30, 2017 This memo is an update to the memo dated June 23 which outlined the noise and community engagement provisions in H.R. 2997, the 21st Century Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization Act (21st Century AIRR Act) and S. 1405, the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2017. The additional information reflects in this memo reflects how both bills were treated during Committee consideration. H.R. 2997, the 21st Century Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization Act House Committee Markup On June 27, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved by a vote of 32-25, H.R. 2997, the 21st Century AIRR Act. The six-year bill creates a private, nonprofit organization to run the nation’s air traffic control system and provides additional language on airport noise and community engagement. During the markup, only one amendment on noise was offered by Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA). The amendment would have given FAA the exclusive authority to resolve noise disputes and require any change in air traffic management procedures, including standard instrument departure procedures, standard terminal arrival routes, and instrument approach procedures, or other necessary activities by the new corporation affecting the airspace to reduce noise exposure. During the discussion, Chairman Shuster voiced opposition to the amendment saying that he believes the bill already provides this authority on noise issues to FAA. He continued by saying that he would agree to continue to work on this issue with Rep. Capuano, if he would agree to withdraw his amendment. In response, Rep. Capuano withdrew the amendment saying he looked forward to working with the Chairman on the issue. H.R. 2997 – Noise and Community Engagement Provisions The following provisions are in the bill and did not change during this week’s committee action: • Addressing Community Noise Concerns. When proposing or amending area navigation departure procedures that would have flights between the surface and 6,000 feet over noise sensitive areas, the bill requires FAA to consider other procedures to address community noise concerns if: 1) the affected airport, in consultation with the affected community, submits a 2 request to FAA to consider other procedures; 2) the airport’s request would not conflict with the safe and efficient operation of the national airspace system; and 3) the effect of a modified departure procedure would not significantly increase the noise over noise sensitive areas. • Study on Potential Heath Impacts of Overflight Noise. The bill requires FAA to conduct a study on the heath impacts of noise from aircraft flights on residents exposed to a range of noise levels. The study must include: an examination of the incremental health impacts of noise exposure including sleep disturbance and elevated blood pressure; consider the incremental heath impacts on residents living partly or wholly underneath flight paths most frequently used by aircraft flying below 10,000 feet, including during takeoff and landing; include an assessment of the relationship between a perceived increase in aircraft noise and an actual increase in noise, particularly in areas with high or variable levels or non-aircraft ambient noise. The study is required to focus on the following metropolitan areas: Boston, Chicago, New York, the Northern California Metroplex, Phoenix, and any other area the FAA believes should be considered. A report to Congress is due within 90 days of FAA completing the study. • Community Involvement in FAA NextGen Projects Located in Metroplexes. The bill requires that within 180 days of enactment, FAA complete a review of the agency’s community involvement practices for Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) projects located in FAA- identified metroplexes. There is a requirement that the review include a determination of how and when to engage airports and communities in performance based navigation proposals. • The FAA is required to submit a report to Congress within 60 days of the review which describes: 1) how FAA will improve community involvement practices for NextGen projects located in metroplexes; 2) how and when FAA will engage airports and communities in performance based navigation proposals; and 3) lessons learned from NextGen projects and pilot programs and how those lessons are being integrated into community involvement practices for future NextGen projects located in metroplexes. • Noise Exposure Study. The bill requires that FAA conduct a review of the relationship between aircraft noise exposure and its effects on communities around airports. The FAA is required to send a report to Congress within two years containing the results of the review. Based on the results of the review and in coordination with other agencies, the report should include FAA’s preliminary recommendations for revising the land use compatibility guidelines. S. 1405, the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2017 Senate Committee Markup On June 29, the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee approved S. 1405, the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2017. The bill does not contain any relevant language on airport noise and community engagement. During the markup, several amendments were offered and accepted, none of which touched on airport noise or community engagement. Next Steps While both House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster and Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Chairman John Thune have said they would like to see floor action on their 3 respective bills in July, both have admitted that time may not be available given the packed Congressional agenda before August recess. We will continue to track these bills as they move through both the House and the Senate and notify you of any changes made that are relevant to airport noise and community engagement. N.O.I.S.E. National Association to Insure a Sound Controlled Environment 2017 Legislative Priorities 1. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT // ADVOCACY N.O.I.S.E. supports expanding community engagement/review and the elimination of Categorical Exclusions (CATEX) when implementing Performance Based Navigation (PBN). Although N.O.I.S.E. supports NextGen and its goal of modernizing the air traffic control system, Performance Based Navigation (PBN) has the potential to bring significant changes to flight patterns across the country. N.O.I.S.E. contends that the community impacts of aviation noise should be considered as a crucial part of the calculation that determines the overall benefits of the proposed changes. Changes should not be solely based on improved capacity and fuel savings. With the increased concentration of overflights due to the narrowing of flight paths and the decrease in separation between aircraft enabled by PBN, air traffic changes have become even more closely tied to changes on the ground. Aviation noise is a health issue. Aviation noise is an economic issue. To that end, robust, two-way communication with affected communities is vital to ensuring that the impact and concerns of communities are heard and incorporated into the final design of new airspace as much asfuel savings and efficiency of airspace. This would allow communities under a new or concentrated flight path, guaranteed participation in a due process during the implementation of PBN. As a part of efforts to ensure adequate community engagement, N.O.I.S.E. believes that both regulatory and legislative Categorical Exclusions or “CATEXes” in current NEPA regulation are not appropriate for the implementation of significant changes to our aviation system. N.O.I.S.E. supports efforts by the FAA and Congress to develop, implement and maintain a more robust community impacts process, in addition to or outside of the traditional NEPA process. This process should insure that ground impacts are considered and community concerns are not only heard, but also incorporated into PBN and traditional track changes that will change noise exposure, even if it does not reach the current FAA threshold of “measurable impacts” In December of 2016, the following language was included in the National Defense Authorization Act, which promotes this priority: Performance-Based Navigation : This section improves the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) advance consultation with communities underneath the flight paths of proposed "NextGen" departure and arrival procedures, and requires the Administrator to reopen his assessment of new NextGen procedures at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport and to mitigate any adverse effects on the human environment that resulted from those procedures." 2. NOISE METRICS REVIEW N.O.I.S.E. supports investigation and review of DNL and its current level of 65 as the only metric used to measure noise impact and expanding noise metrics to take into account the increased concentration of overflights due to the narrowing of flight paths and the decrease in separation between aircraft enabled by PBN procedures to insure that noise impacts are appropriately measured. N.O.I.S.E. National Association to Insure a Sound Controlled Environment In order to adequately understand and address the impacts of aviation noise, we must first establish adequate metrics to measure those impacts. The FAA and Members of Congress are in the process of studying whether 65 is still the appropriate DNL level for measuring noise impacts. As we move forward with NextGen, implement PBN and undertake major airport overhauls, lowering the DNL level may allow for further mitigation for impacted communities and N.O.I.SE supports investigation of lowering the DNL level, however it will not address impacts that are caused by concentrated flight paths characterized by PBN procedures. As DNL is an average and humans do not perceive noise in averages but rather as individual events, we believe it is time to investigate alternative metrics that could measure impacts such as: • The psychological impact of concentrated, extended noise • The physiological impact of infrequent, significant noise spikes during nighttime hours • Impact of less audible low frequency noise who’s vibration induces audible noise • The length of each period of frequent, regular noise spikes “rush hours” due to over-flights • The number of rush hours per day • The average dB of a rush hour’s noise—not day-night average • The intensity of spikes above the average dB of a rush hour’s noise • The intensity and number of spikes above the average, for non-rush hours from 10 PM to 7 AM Investigating a more appropriate metric to measure aviation noise impacts is crucial and will supplement efforts to greater engage the community to understand their concerns. 3. HEALTH IMPACTS STUDI ES N.O.I.S.E. supports increased funding for studies on the health impacts of aviation noise. There are currently very few federal studies pertaining to the human impact of the concentration of flights associated with PBN procedures. Some communities do not have the ability to mitigate noise below flight paths and their citizens are exposed to continuous concentrated noise. Although there may not necessarily be an increase in decibels from the planes, there are unknown potential impacts from the increased number and frequency of flights under a given PBN procedure. Although N.O.I.S.E. has supported the implementation of NextGen technologies as a part of their formal legislative platform in the past, we assert that there must be proper investment into research and development on the health and psychological impacts of that type of the resulting noise due to the more concentrated flight paths. These studies need to begin as soon as possible in order to protect the health of affected communities and mitigate avoidable damage. 4. SOUND INSULATION PRO GRAM FUNDING N.O.I.S.E. supports implementing Sound Insulation Programs Resulting from Part 150 Program studies to the standards used prior to the September, 2012 Public Guidance Letter (PGL-12-09). A Part 150 program is a noise mitigation master plan developed by the airport and communities to address noise impacts and is funded by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) out of the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). One outcome or tool of a Part 150 is a sound insulation program where homes are mitigated for noise by providing improvements to windows or heating and cooling systems. N.O.I.S.E. National Association to Insure a Sound Controlled Environment Insulation programs historically have mitigated homes within the 65 DNL noise contour. A Public Guidance Letter (PGL) was issued by the FAA to change the AIP handbook in August, 2012 and amended in November, 2012. In order to be eligible for insulation, properties must meet a 2-stage eligibility test: the property must be in the 65 contour and the property must meet an interior noise level requirement (45 dB or greater). Additionally, use of Passenger Facility Charges (PFC’s) is no longer considered eligible to be used to mitigate beyond the stated criteria. The FAA maintains that this is not a new policy and that this PGL serves to clarify their noise policy that has been in place since the mid-1980’s. Previously, however, common practice dictated that properties need only be within the 65 DNL to qualify for mitigation. In addition, given the age of some SIP programs in the Unites States, as well as the increase in traffic density at our nation’s airports and improved technologies, N.O.I.S.E. supports the development of criteria for eligibility for SIP funding for “second round” implementations. 5. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PRIVATIZATION N.O.I.S.E. opposes privatization of the air traffic control N.O.I.S.E. has advocated strongly for community engagement opportunities when air traffic patterns are changed. Under a federally-operated Air Traffic Control (ATC) system, those opportunities are the result of persistent advocacy by the community and often times at the request of elected officials at the Congressional level. Although small communities have a role in the proposed advisory board of the new private air traffic control, airport-adjacent communities are concerned that without a mechanism for compelling the private company to meet and discuss their concerns over ground and noise impacts of airport traffic. Authors of this proposal in the House have assured interest groups that community concerns will still be managed by the FAA and not the private ATC. However, because of the great importance that N.O.I.S.E. and its members place on the ability to build relationships and trust with local air traffic employees, our concerns with this proposal remain. 6. N.O.I.S.E. SUPPORTS EFFORTS TO REINSTITU TE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PR OTECTION AGENCY’S (EPA) OFFICE OF NOIS E ABATEMENT AND CONTROL (ONAC). The EPA office of Noise Abatement and Control was previously responsible for oversight and regulation of aviation noise, however, in 1981, the Office was defunded due to budget cuts. There are currently legislative efforts, such as Congresswoman Grace Meng’s (NY) “Quiet Communities Act of 2015” (H.R.3384) which requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to combat aviation noise pollution. This legislation would reinstate the ONAC, and also require the EPA Administrator to conduct a study of airport noise and examine the FAA’s selection of noise measurement methodologies, health impact thresholds, and abatement program effectiveness. N.O.I.S.E. supports this legislation and the reinstitution of the ONAC in order to provide proper checks and balances to FAA noise policies and procedures that impact residents and the environment on the ground under flight paths and in airport- adjacent communities. New and cheaper flights fueled by resurgence at Bay Area airports The surge in flights at SJC and OAK has been a delight to East Bay and South Bay travelers By JOHN WOOLFOLK | jwoolfolk@bayareanewsgroup.com | PUBLISHED: January 28, 2018 at 6:00 am | UPDATED: January 29, 2018 at 5:53 am It’s a good time to fly in the Bay Area. In a turnaround that seemed unimaginable a decade ago, airlines that were rocked by spiking fuel prices, a sour economy and a rash of bankruptcies are now flying high, filling Bay Area airports with new and cheaper domestic and international flights. Flights once available only in San Francisco have flocked to San Jose, now the nation’s fastest growing airport, and Oakland, which has seen a surge in international travel. Gone are the days when the only San Jose to New York flight was a red-eye and the city airport’s only international destination was Mexico. Silicon Valley travelers now fly from San Jose to the Big Apple throughout the day, and jet straight to Japan, China, England, Canada and Germany. At Oakland’s airport, international no longer means just late night flights to Mexico and a weekly departure to the Azores during the summer. It now boasts flights to Spain, England, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and coming this year, Italy and France. “The Bay Area and Silicon Valley in particular has become the center of the universe, and every airline wants to be part of the action,” said Chris McGinnis, founder of San Francisco-based travel blog Travelskills.com. “San Francisco appears to be running out of space to accommodate all this, so everyone’s running to San Jose and Oakland to get into the market. With all those new seats and new flights, it means fares are coming down.” A couple could book a weekend getaway in April with nonstop roundtrip flights from San Jose to Beijing for as low as $470 on Hainan Airlines. They could fly from Oakland to Barcelona nonstop on Norwegian for $588 round trip each. The resurgence of the Bay Area’s smaller airports has been a delight to travelers, particularly those who find San Jose or Oakland closer to work or home. “It’s a lot more convenient,” said Tim Renouf, 50, a software engineer at Advanced Micro Devices who now flies direct between home in England and work in Silicon Valley. “It beats sitting on 101 after a long flight to San Francisco,” co-worker David Stuttard, 47, said with a smile. For Veronica Niegsch of Pleasanton, more options to fly direct from Oakland to visit family in Mexico have been a blessing. “I love it,” said Niegsch, 44, a Federal Aviation Administration budget official who was waiting last week to board a Volaris flight to Guadalajara. Not only is Oakland closer to home, but she finds it much quicker to park and get through security. “It’s small, but you have a lot of options.” The air travel surge has been a relief to Bay Area airport officials, who bet big on modernizing their 1960s-era facilities during the downturn a decade ago. Shortly after San Jose approved its biggest-ever bond sale for a $1.3 billion airport makeover, the airport’s top official warned that the U.S. airline industry was “facing its worst crisis in its history.” Fuel prices were soaring, carriers were reporting record losses and a half-dozen airlines had filed for bankruptcy protection. San Jose and Oakland watched anxiously as struggling airlines consolidated routes at major hubs like San Francisco. Passenger traffic was still falling to 8.2 million in 2010 when San Jose unveiled its gleaming new, spacious high-tech terminal, which had been scaled back from a more ambitious plan. Oakland invested in a $300 million terminal improvement program and a BART transit connection that opened in 2014. Yet passenger traffic that peaked at 14.6 million in 2007 plummeted to 9.3 million with the onset of the Great Recession. But in the last five years, annual passenger traffic has jumped 25 percent to 55.8 million at San Francisco International, 31 percent to 13.1 million at Oakland International and a stunning 51 percent to 12.5 million at Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport. “To some extent San Jose has bounced back the most because it had lost the most before,” said Alan R. Bender, professor of aeronautics at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Worldwide in Daytona Beach, Florida. Falling fuel prices and a now-booming economy helped pull the airlines out of their tailspin, along with a wave of mergers and a new generation of highly efficient jetliners. Aircraft like the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 have allowed airlines more freedom to take chances on routes from smaller airports. “With fuel prices low and these very economical jets, that favors medium markets like San Jose,” Bender said. “They can take risks they couldn’t take a few years ago.” But patience, persistence and some smart plays helped San Jose and Oakland take advantage as the industry recovered. In San Jose, city officials spent years courting a direct flight to Asia, something Silicon Valley executives had been craving. They worked with business leaders to assure airlines there was pent up demand for new routes. It eventually paid off when All Nippon Airways launched a direct flight to Japan in 2013 on the new 787 Dreamliner. A wave of other flights quickly followed. “If a couple carriers go to a new airport, others do follow,” said Carl Guardino, chief executive of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which represents major technology companies. “But it’s really hard to get the first ones to make that bet. We tell that airline that if they come here, we’ll do everything we can to make them successful.” In five years San Jose went from 29 domestic and two international destinations in 2012 to 43 domestic and 11 international destinations in 2017. “The rate of growth has been tremendous,” said Marc Casto, president of Casto Travel in San Jose, one of the largest travel management companies in the Bay Area. “It’s one of the fastest growing airports in passenger growth around the nation.” The growth has been so rapid that San Jose added two gates, bringing the total to 30, and is planning an expansion of up to 10 more. “We’ve experienced tremendous passenger growth and it’s been a great thing,” said San Jose Airport Director John Aitken. “But with that growth comes some deficiencies in our facilities we’ll have to deal with pretty soon.” Oakland airport officials bored into travel data and found a huge proportion of international travelers flying out of San Francisco lived in the East Bay or Wine Country, and pursued a strategy to tap that market. “You can go over to another airport and be the fourth airline going to a European market, or go to Oakland and be the only one,” said John Albrecht, Oakland International’s manager of aviation marketing. It paid off. Oakland has gone from 29 domestic and three international destinations in 2012 to 48 domestic and 14 international destinations today. International traffic surged 134 percent in the past year, and the airport just completed a $45 million renovation and expansion that doubled its international arrival operations capacity. San Francisco meanwhile continues to set new records in passenger traffic. Some airports have seen double-digit growth,” said SFO spokesman Doug Yakel, noting the bounce-back at the Bay Area’s smaller airports. “Our growth has been steady for a number of years.” McGinnis said the turnabout at the smaller airports has been stunning. “Multiple flights to Asia from San Jose is something I never thought I’d see,” McGinnis said. “And I never thought I’d see Oakland be the first airport (in the Bay Area) to get a nonstop to Rome. They beat San Francisco to that, that’s a big deal.” Guardino said businesses don’t see the airports in competition, but that “the goal is to balance out three great airports so that the whole region is successful.” At the moment, that seems to be working, for both business and leisure travelers. Albrecht said that with so many oversees flights pushing prices down, Bay Area travelers are making weekend getaways to Europe. “You wouldn’t do it if air fare was $2,000, but now that it’s $500 round trip, it’s suddenly on the list of things to do,” Albrecht said. “That used to be ‘Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.'” FAA NOISE AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FAA’s Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) initiative is designed to modernize the nation’s air traffic control system by implementing satellite navigation, allowing for more direct routes, fuel savings, improved safety, and enhanced efficiencies. However, new NextGen arrival and departure procedures have dramatically increased the aircraft noise for many communities, especially in the City of Palo Alto. Specifically, at San Francisco International Airport (SFO), three arrival routes converge through a waypoint that directs the majority of airport arrivals directly over the residential community of Palo Alto at low altitudes and with louder procedures than prior to NextGen. Below, we note specific challenges faced by residents: • Palo Alto uniquely bears the brunt of 60% of SFO arrivals flying at low altitudes over its residential community. The FAA should redistribute arrivals more equitably. • Despite an agreement between SFO and the FAA’s Northern California TRACON to maintain arrivals in the vicinity of Palo Alto at 5,000 feet during visual conditions and 4,000 feet during instrument landing conditions, the November 2017 Update on the Phase Two Report from the FAA claims that while the Administration now supports this agreement “to the extent feasible,” it does not endorse this position. The FAA should, at a minimum, stand by its established agreement and, further, limit all flights in the vicinity of Palo Alto to 5,000 feet. • NextGen arrival procedures include new speed constraints, resulting in large-scale use of noisy speed brakes and accelerations over densely populated residential areas. These new practices require the development of new mitigation strategies by the FAA. • The science of NextGen has changed the nature of aircraft environmental impacts on residential communities, including how many communities are affected and at which distances from airports. Therefore, the FAA should recognize the correlating need for new scientific approaches to sound and air quality measurement and mitigation for affected communities. Yet in its November 2017 Update on the Phase Two Report, the FAA identified these issues as not under its responsibility. • The frequency and volume of air traffic has increased with planes routinely flying over some Palo Alto neighborhoods 60 to 90 seconds apart. The FAA should take into consideration the current and anticipated growth of airports in our metroplex and acknowledge the magnitude of the need for associated corrective air traffic control action to mitigate impacts, and take that action. • In the November 2017 Update on the Phase Two Report, the FAA declares its refusal to consider a variety of potential solutions “until issues of congestion, noise shifting and flying distance have been addressed with the airline stakeholders and the affected communities by the Select Committee and/or SFO Roundtable.” The City of Palo Alto supported our regional partners in the development of an extraordinary number of proposals from the Select Committee and the SFO Roundtable. The responses to these many proposals in the FAA’s November 2017 Update on the Phase Two Report amount to no solutions of any significance for the residents of Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto asks that the FAA develop solutions to mitigate the considerable and disproportionate burden imposed on Palo Alto by SFO arrivals. • In addition to supporting the work of the Select Committee and the SFO Roundtable, the City of Palo Alto submitted additional solution proposals through letters to the FAA dated July 7, 2017 and November 15, 2017. The FAA has not responded. The City of Palo Alto requests the courtesy of a reply to its communications with the FAA. Dear Council Members, My name is Marie-Jo Fremont. I am here tonight to make specific requests on the subject of Airplane Noise on behalf of other Palo Alto residents who have paid close attention to this issue since 2015: 1. Request #1: we support the Staff recommendations and would like to propose 3 more items a. Advocate for solutions to reduce the health impact of both airplane noise AND emissions. The negative health effects of both noise and emissions have been documented through various studies. b. Collaborate with other elected officials to establish a regional position and ask the FAA to solve the problem with system-wide solutions, not independent point solutions. c. Develop a noise-monitoring plan in concert with others (be it airports, roundtables, airplane noise committees, other cities affected by airplane noise) 2. Request #2: direct staff to put in place a fast track process by the end of June to allow the City, if necessary, to file a complaint within 60 days of the FAA implementing a change. a. The City may never have to use it but must be ready to act if necessary under the 60-day FAA deadline to file. 3. Request #3: write a letter to the FAA and Congressional Reps as a response to the FAA Update on Phase Two report from November. The response should highlight in particular that the Select Committee recommendation to move the SERFR ground track to the old BSR ground track was for a new procedure that would follow nine criteria, including flying at idle power all the way to the Bay and at altitudes at or higher than the previous BSR procedure along the entire route. Thank you. TO: FROM: DATE: CITY OF PALO ALTO HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL MICHELLE POCHE FLAHERTY, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER APRIL 9, 2018 8 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 8 -Policy and Services Committee and Staff Recommendations on Next Steps Related to Airplane Noise. The following correction is provided to Page 4, packet page 149, of City Council Staff Report #9109. Item B is revised as follows: B. Relocate Arrivals from the South to the East: Not Endorsed. Palo Alto supported the notion of redirecting flights arriving from the south farther to the east (towards the hills to the west of Interstate 5). +he-Although the majority -approximately 53% - of SFO's arriving traffic is currently routed over Palo Alto (via SERFR, OCEANIC and BDEGA East), the FAA has explained that the current flow of arriving flights from the east (via FAITH waypoint and DYAMD , as well as BDEGA West arrivals) is already .:_saturated: with the majority (88%) of si;o's arriviAg traffic, and could not accommodate the addition of flights currently arriving from the south.2 The FAA also argues against the inefficiency of routing flights from southern California (and Phoenix, and Mexico) farther to the northeast of their current route into the approach used by the majority of flights arriving from the east coast and Midwest.3 The corrected paragraph reads: B. Relocate Arrivals from the South to the East: Not Endorsed. Palo Alto supported the notion of redirecting flights arriving from the south farther to the east (towards the hills to the west of Interstate 5). Although the majority-approximately 53%-of SFO's arriving traffic is currently routed over Palo Alto (via SERFR, OCEANIC and BDEGA West), the FAA has explained that the current flow of arriving flights from the east (via FAITH waypoint and DYAMD as well as BDEGA East arrivals) is already "saturated" and could not accommodate the addition of flights currently arriving from the south.2 The FAA also argues against the inefficiency of routing flights from southern California (and Phoenix, and Mexico) farther to the northeast of their current route into the approach used by the flights arriving from the east coast and Midwest.3 ,Ill""" - James Keene City Manager 1of1 PALO ALTO Date: To: From: Subject: Memorandum Office of the City Attorney City of Palo Alto April 5, 2018 Members of the Council Molly Stump City Attorney Legal Framework Regarding FAA Airspace Actions We are transmitting to you the attached public Memorandum prepared by the City's special counsel on airport and airplane noise issues, Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell, regarding legal cha ll enges to airspace actions taken by the Federal Aviation Administration {FAA). This information supports the Counc il 's discussion of next steps related to airplane noise, It em 8 on the April 9th Council agenda. In addition to the public discussion of next steps, Council wi ll have an opportunity to explore attorney-client privi leged aspects of this issue with Mr. Kirsch in Closed Session. Enclosure: cc: Respectfully submitted, / ~r City Attorney Challenges to FAA Airspace Actions, Memorandum from Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwe ll to Molly Stump James Keene, City Manager Ed Shikada, Assistant City Manager Michelle Poche Flaherty, Deputy City Manager Beth Minor, City Clerk M E M O R A N D U M TO:Molly Stump, City Attorney CITY OF PALO ALTO FROM:KAPLAN KIRSCH &ROCKWELL LLP DATE: March 29, 2018 SUBJECT: Challenges to FAA Airspace Actions Overview This memorandum examines the legal options for challenging any Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airspace actions, particularly new flight procedures implemented as a result of FAA’s initiative to modernize the federal airspace system, referred to as the NextGeneration Air Transportation System, or NextGen. This memorandum has been drafted to avoid any privileged attorney-client communication or legal advice and may, therefore, be available to the public if you agree. The NextGen initiative began in Northern California in 2012, when the FAA proposed to undertake the Northern California Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (Northern California OAPM).1 The FAA conducted its environmental review through an environmental assessment (EA) and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact and Record of Decision approving the proposal in August 2014.2 The Northern California OAPM was fully implemented by December 2015.3 A number of residents of the South Bay unsuccessfully challenged the FAA approval of the new procedures in federal court.4 In response to community concerns and congressional inquiries about the Northern California OAPM, FAA began the so-called “Northern California Noise Initiative” in late 2015 to review and explore recommended modifications to approach and departure procedures in the Northern California Metroplex. FAA provide a Phase One report in May 2016, which included an analysis 1 The purpose of this NextGen project was to improve the efficiency of the National Airspace System in the Northern California Metroplex by optimizing aircraft arrival and departure routes at San Francisco International Airport (SFO), Oakland International Airport (OAK), Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC) and Sacramento International Airport (SMF), and their environs. 2 FAA, FONSI and ROD for the Northern California Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (NorCal OAPM) (2014) (http://metroplexenvironmental.com/norcal_metroplex/norcal_introduction.html). 3 See, www.nbaa.org/ops/airspace/regional/western/FAA-NorCal-Metroplex-Procedures-20151210.pdf. 4 Lyons v. FAA, (9th Cir. No. 14-72991, Dec. 21, 2016). That litigation concerned the adequacy of the FAA’s environmental review of the Northern California OAPM procedures. The court, deferring to the FAA as it is required to pursuant to Barnes v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 655 F.3d 1124, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011), found that the agency “conducted an extensive, detailed, mathematical analysis of the anticipated noise impacts.” Lyons, slip op. at 2. March 29, 2018 Page 2 and preliminary feasibility study of all the recommendations received by 2015. It met with a working group throughout the latter half of 2016, and published a Phase Two report in July 2017, which evaluated many – but not all – of the recommendations. 5 In November 2017, FAA published an update to the Phase Two report, which contained a full evaluation of the suite of community recommendations. The Phase Two Update identified 101 recommendations already addressed, 25 recommendations to be addressed, and 77 recommendations that FAA did not endorse.6 At least one recommended change is expected to occur imminently.7 Part One of this memorandum summarizes the available options and the attendant limitations to each option. Part Two provides a more detailed background on the applicable legal principles. Part One: Summary and Conclusions There are a series of legal hurdles that limit the degree to which a local community or individual can challenge or change FAA’s implementation of a new flight track or tracks. First, Congress delegated exclusive jurisdiction of the national airspace to the federal government. As a result, it is almost impossible for a local jurisdiction to impose regulations over the time and manner of aircraft operations. Second, legal challenges to FAA actions must be filed no later than 60 days after any final agency order is issued. For airspace actions, the “final order” is generally the FAA’s Record of Decision (ROD) approving the action as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), if the ROD was published, or the FAA’s publication of the flight tracks if no NEPA document was published. While there is an exception permitting late-filed petitions, it is rarely satisfied. Third, there are limits on the ability to sue the federal government for tort claims (e.g., nuisance). The key legal issues and options are outlined briefly below. 1.Airport sponsors and local governments cannot modify (or otherwise restrict) offending flight procedures. The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over the national airspace, so local governments are preempted from directly regulating air travel. There is a narrow exception, permitting airport proprietors to restrict operations when exercising their proprietary powers with regard to operation of their airport. However, even when acting within this narrow area, proprietors are still bound by the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, which imposes procedural requirements and also requires airport sponsors to secure prior approval either from FAA or from all affected air carriers in order to restrict most jet aircraft. That statute has never been used successfully to impose a restriction on airport operations. 5 See, https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/nextgen_near_you/community_involvement/norcal/#wgmp. 6FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns of Santa Cruz/Santa Clara/San Mateo/San Francisco Counties: Update on Phase II (Nov. 2017). 7 See, www.santacruzsentinel.com/government-and-politics/20180326/faa-sfo-flight-path-change-coming-thursday. March 29, 2018 Page 3 2.Neither airport sponsors, nor local governments, nor affected residents, can sue FAA for damages due to noise from overflights. The United States has sovereign immunity and while certain tort claims against the United States are permitted under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the statute provides an exception barring tort claims against an agency when it is exercising a discretionary functions such as determining the location of new flight procedures. 3.Affected parties can directly challenge FAA’s “final order” implementing new flight changes, but there is a strict statute of limitations for these claims. The primary means of challenging an FAA airspace decision is a direct challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act challenging a violation of a statutory mandate or procedural requirement. Any such suit must be filed within 60 days of FAA’s final action. The most recent final action in the Northern California Metroplex is the August 2015 Record of Decision approving the Northern California OAPM. It is extremely unlikely that any petitioner could now identify “reasonable” grounds for filing any challenge to an order that was issued two and a half years ago, especially because of the prior unsuccessful litigation that raised a timely challenge to the FAA decision. 4.Changes to the Northern California OAPM will require new approvals – and therefore new options for legal action. FAA has been reviewing recommendations for changes to the Northern California OAPM as part of the ongoing “Northern California Noise Initiative.” Any new changes – such as the new SERFR 3 route – would require new NEPA approvals.8 The “final action” that would trigger the jurisdictional clock on a revised procedure or other change would be either a new NEPA approval, or (in the absence of a formal NEPA order), the actual FAA publication of the new flight procedure in the aeronautical charts. (The new SERFR 3 route is supposed to be implemented today.9 We have not been able to identify any NEPA documentation to support this action but is possible that FAA prepared such documentation without any public disclosure, which is allowed in limited circumstances. It would be necessary to obtain FAA documents from the agency or through a Freedom of Information Act request to determine what environmental documentation was prepared prior to today’s implementation of that procedure.) While a new FAA action would restart the clock, a potential litigant would still need to identify a legally-cognizable error with respect to that action, which may be difficult. FAA’s actions will be accorded deference by the courts, and a plaintiff will need to show that the agency acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Options for future challenges include: 8 FAA, FAA Initiative to Address Noise Concerns of Santa Cruz/Santa Clara/San Mateo/San Francisco Counties: Update on Phase II at 5 (“the FAA’s processes and standards for evaluating noise impacts associated with potential amendments to currently published procedures … will be followed before implementing any airspace or procedural changes.”) 9 http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/government-and-politics/20180326/faa-sfo-flight-path-change-coming-thursday March 29, 2018 Page 4 (a)Finding error in the NEPA process for any new change to the Northern California OAPM. Finding a NEPA error may be difficult for two reasons. First, Congress legislatively excluded many NextGen procedures from the need to prepare environmental documentation, in effect authorizing the least stringent NEPA review for these actions. Second, Congress expressly delegated to FAA the authority to set noise thresholds and authorized the use of those thresholds for evaluating noise impacts.10 While residents may object to noise levels below this threshold, there is no clear mandate for relief in the form of mitigation under NEPA if the agency’s significance threshold is not met. (b)Failure to follow FAA’s own procedures for implementing new flight procedures. Finding a procedural error may be difficult as many NextGen procedures are not subject to the agency’s standard rules for implementing new flight procedures. (c)Failure to comply with any other relevant statutory obligation under a stand-alone statute such as the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) or Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. In particular, the NHPA regulations provide for the opportunity to seek re-initiation of consultation to reconsider impacts from airspace changes in the event of any new information and/or changed procedures that could affect historic properties. 5.A specific statutory provision directing review of certain prior NextGen actions is not available for the Northern California Metroplex. In 2016, Congress required FAA to review all categorical exclusions made after February 2012 for airspace procedures to determine if the implementation had a “significant effect.” This statutory directive does not apply to the Northern California NextGen procedures because they were examined through an environmental assessment, not a categorical exclusion. Before implementing any new procedures in the future, FAA would need to complete environmental review and, given recent precedents and Congressional directives, it is likely that FAA would conduct some level of environmental review. 10 See, generally, FAA, 1050.1F Desk Reference (2015) at ch. 11. March 29, 2018 Page 5 Part Two: Applicable Legal Principles I.AUTHORITY TO REGULATE AIRSPACE A.Exclusive Authority The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over the national airspace.11 FAA alone is tasked with developing plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assigning by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace.12 Congress has delegated to FAA the responsibility to address aircraft noise13 and has expressly preempted the local regulation of the “price, route, or service of an air carrier”14 with a limited exception for the exercise of proprietary powers discussed immediately below. As a result, states and local governments are preempted from directly regulating most aspects of air travel.15 Where airport proprietors have been successful in influencing flight patterns or other airspace procedures, they have exercised either political leverage or used the environmental review process to force desirable changes. None of these measures have been implemented independently by an airport proprietor. B.Narrow Exception for Airport Proprietors Congress expressly reserved to airport proprietors the authority to restrict operations at their airport to address local noise concerns.16 Courts have reaffirmed this so-called “proprietor’s exception” for decades.17 The proprietor’s exception is narrow in that it applies only to actions by airport proprietors, affecting operations at or related to that airport. The proprietor’s exception allows for broad authority to regulate noise levels so long as the regulation is “reasonable, nonarbitrary and non-discriminatory.”18 Notwithstanding the breadth of the proprietor’s exception, the exception has been practically limited by subsequent federal legislation and court interpretations. 11 49 U.S.C. § 40103 (the United States government has exclusive authority of airspace of the United States) 12 49 U.S.C. § 40103. 13 49 U.S.C. § 44715(a) (FAA shall prescribe “standards to measure aircraft noise and sonic boom” and “regulations to control and abate aircraft noise and sonic boom”). 14 49 U.S.C. §§ 44701-16; § 41713(b)(1). 15 Skysign Int’l v. City & County of Honolulu, 276 F.2d 1109, 1116, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 275, *12-13, citing City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, 411 U.S. 624, 633 (1973) (aircraft noise); Air Transp. Ass'n of Am. v. City & County of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 1064, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 2001) (pricing). 16 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(3) (airport operators not preempted from exercising proprietary powers). 17 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(3); British Airways Bd. v. Port Auth., 558 F.2d 75, 85 (2d Cir. 1977) (“Congress has reserved to proprietors the authority to enact reasonable noise regulations, as an exercise of ownership rights in the airport, because they are in a better position to assure the public weal” than FAA”). 18 Nat’l Helicopter Corp. of Am. v. City of New York, 137 F.3d 81, 87 (2d Cir. 1998). March 29, 2018 Page 6 C.Airport Noise and Capacity Act In 1990, Congress enacted the Airport Nosie and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA),19 which imposes additional restrictions beyond those established by other federal laws, constitutional law and preemption principles to severely limit the ability of airport proprietors to address aircraft noise through local regulation. Under ANCA, restrictions on Stage 2 aircraft20 are subject to procedural requirements including an extended public comment period and required study elements.21 (Congress banned all Stage 2 jets after December 31, 2015,22 making the Stage 2 regulations now applicable only to a small number of non-jet aircraft that are stage-rated by the FAA.) By contrast, restrictions on Stage 3 (and higher) aircraft are subject to procedural and substantive requirements. In particular, the airport proprietor must prepare a detailed study, and also secure FAA approval.23 Since enactment of ANCA, no airport proprietor has successfully secured FAA approval for a restriction affecting Stage 3 (or higher) aircraft. Alternatively, a local operator can impose a noise or access restriction without FAA approval if it can obtain the consent of all affected aircraft operators.24 This route also has also never been used successfully. II.FAA AIRSPACE ACTIONS A.General Rulemaking Authority FAA has general authority to adopt regulations governing the national airspace.25 FAA formally promulgates many airspace changes through its rulemaking authority.26 For example, FAA has published general flight rules at 14 C.F.R. Part 91. The Part 91 regulations govern a full range of issues including visual flight rules, instrument flight rules, and minimum clearance standards. In addition, FAA publishes instrument flight procedures at 14 C.F.R. Part 97. FAA also has a suite of binding Orders which outline policies and procedures for the promulgation of flight procedures. Historically, the FAA relied on these orders, including Order 7100.9, Standard Terminal Arrival (STAR) Program and Procedures and Order 8260.3, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), when promulgating airspace changes. 19 49 U.S.C. §§ 47521 et seq. 20 An aircraft’s “stage” rating refers to the FAA system used to determine and certify the noise level of an aircraft based on weight, number of engines, and occasionally passenger capacity. All jet aircraft and some larger propeller aircraft and helicopters are stage-certified. The smallest propeller aircraft do not have a stage certification. 14 C.F.R. Part 36. See generally, https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/noise_emissions/ airport_aircraft_noise_issues/levels/ 21 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b); 14 C.F.R. Part 16 Subpart C. 22 49 U.S.C. § 47534; 78 Fed. Reg. 39,576 (July 2, 2013). 23 49 U.S.C. § 47524(c); 14 C.F.R. Part 161 Subpart D. 24 14 C.F.R. Part 161 Subpart B. 25 49 U.S.C. § 106(f) (general rulemaking authority regarding aviation safety); 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(2) (air traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft) (use of the airspace); 49 U.S.C. § 44701 (general requirements) 26 See, e.g., 14 C.F.R. Part 71 (designation of airspace classes); 14 C.F.R. Part 97 (standard instrument procedures). March 29, 2018 Page 7 B.NextGen Mandate In the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Congress required the FAA to create a new National Airspace System to transform the nation’s air traffic control system from a radar-based system with radio communication to one that is satellite-based.27 This new system is referred to as Next Generation Air Transportation System or NextGen. NextGen is a comprehensive set of interconnected systems permitting more precise navigation and communications.28 Chief among these is Performance Based Navigation (PBN), an advanced, satellite-enabled form of air navigation that enables FAA to design extremely precise flight procedures that will increase efficiencies in the National Airspace System (NAS).29 FAA has already published more than 9,000 new PBN routes across the country and “new ones are introduced regularly.”30 1.NextGen Implementing Regulations In April 2014, FAA published a new Order, Order 7100.41, Performance-Based Navigation Implementation Process, which sets forth procedures for implementation of new PBN routes.31 In April 2016, FAA replaced Order 7100.41 with Order 710041A.32 In the same timeframe, FAA cancelled former Order 7100.9.33 Order 7100.41 created a five-phase implementation process for new PBN procedures.34 Order 7100.41A keeps the five-phase implementation process, but newly clarifies that national initiatives with defined alternative processes, such as Metroplexes, are not subject to the Order.35 The five phases are: 1.Preliminary activities. In this phase, a work group defines and provides justification for a PBN procedure/route project. During this phase, the work group examines current operations, drafts a mission statement, develops a concept of operations, and records expected benefits. This phase begins when a proponent has requested a new route or procedure and ends when the PBN Policy and Support Group makes a recommendation to the Regional Airspace and Procedures Team (RAPT) based upon the data presented.36 27 Pub. L. 112-095 at Section II (enacted Feb. 14, 2012). 28 See, FAA, How NextGen Works, available at www.faa.gov/nextgen/how_nextgen_works/. 29 FAA, How NextGen Works, available at www.faa.gov/nextgen/how_nextgen_works/. 30 FAA, Where We Are Now, available at www.faa.gov/nextgen/where_we_are_now/ . 31 FAA Order 7100.41, Performance Based Navigation Implementation Process (April 3, 2014), available at: www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1023306. 32 FAA Order 7100.41A, Performance Based Navigation Implementation Process (April 29, 2016), available at: www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1029451. 33 See, Memorandum from G. Norek (Acting Director, FAA Airspace Services) to A. Spence (Directives Program Manager) Re: Order 7100.9, Standard Terminal Arrival (STAR) Program and Procedures (May 19, 2016) (available at: www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/Cancellation_Memo_7100.9E.pdf. 34 FAA Order 7100.41, at 2-1. 35 FAA Order 7100.41A at pp. i & ii. 36 FAA Order 7100.41 at ¶ 2-3; see also FAA Order 7100.41A at Chapter III § 1. March 29, 2018 Page 8 2.Development. The purpose of the development phase, the second phase of the process, is to generate a single PBN procedure or a set of PBN procedures and routes that are operationally viable, flyable, and suitable for submission for approval and publication. During this phase, a full work group is formed; the procedures and routes are designed, evaluated, and checked; and the required documentation is assembled. This phase also includes the initial environmental evaluation. This phase starts with assembling the full work group and holding a formal project-kickoff meeting. It ends with the submission of the procedures and routes to AeroNav Products.37 3.Operational preparations. The goal of this phase is to identify any operational items that need to be implemented prior to publishing the procedures or routes. During this phase, a series of operational steps is completed, such as training, issuing notifications, considering automation issues, updating video maps, and processing documents. This phase concludes when all the necessary operational steps have been completed and an implementation date has been set by the work group.38 4.Implementation. The goal of this phase is implementing the routes and/or procedures as designed. This phase starts with confirmation by the work group that all steps required up to this point have been completed; it ends when the PBN-based procedures and/or routes are published and implemented.39 5.Post-implementation and evaluation. During this phase, the operation of the procedures and/or routes are observed to ensure they perform as expected and meet the mission statement finalized during the Development phase. Post-implementation activities also involve collecting and analyzing data to ensure that safe and beneficial procedures were developed. This phase starts with the use of the procedures and routes, including the monitoring of the initial usage. The phase ends with the completion of the PBN Post Implementation Analysis Report and the closing of the project.40 Order 7100.41 specified that airport operators must be included as a member of the PBN work group to provide “input on procedure and route design, including any potential operational or environmental impacts to the airport and surrounding communities.”41 In contrast, Order 7100.41A notes that airport authorities “may” be included “as appropriate” in the full working group.42 2.Congressional Directive to Review Certain Procedures In the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2017, Congress further directed that FAA should review any decision the agency had made to issue a NEPA categorical exclusion between 37 FAA Order 7100.41 at ¶ 2-4; see also FAA Order 7100.41A at Chapter III § 2. 38 FAA Order 7100.41 at ¶ 2-5; see also FAA Order 7100.41A at Chapter III § 3. 39 FAA Order 7100.41 at ¶ 2-6; see also FAA Order 7100.41A at Chapter III § 4. 40 FAA Order 7100.41at ¶ 2-7; see also FAA Order 7100.41A at Chapter III § 5. 41 FAA Order 7100.41 at p. A-5. 42 FAA Order 7100.41A at Chapter II, § 2(c). March 29, 2018 Page 9 February 14, 201243 and December 23, 201644 with respect to an airspace procedure implemented at an Operational Evolution Partnership (OEP) airport45 where the procedure was a “material change from procedures previously in effect at the airport.”46 The purpose of the statutorily-required review is to determine whether the implementation of the procedure had a “significant effect on the human environment in the community in which the airport is located.”47 If FAA conducts such a review and concludes that there was a significant effect, Congress directed that FAA must then: (1) consult with the operator of the airport to identify measures to mitigate the effect of the procedure on the human environment; and (2) in conducting such consultations, consider the use of alternative flight paths that do not substantially degrade the efficiencies achieved by the implementation of the procedure being reviewed.48 III.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF AIRSPACE PROCEDURES A.Overview Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), all federal agencies must consider the potential environmental consequences of their actions.49 NEPA may be satisfied through either a categorical exclusion (the lowest level of environmental review),50 an environmental assessment (EA) resulting in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI), or a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).51 FAA has identified categories of actions that are categorically excluded from NEPA review because FAA has determined, based on previous experience, that these actions do not have significant individual or cumulative impact on the quality of the human environment except in “extraordinary circumstances”.52 This list includes: 43 The initial NextGen mandate was enacted on February 14, 2012. Pub. L. 112-095 at Section II (enacted Feb. 14, 2012). 44 The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2017 was enacted on December 23, 2016. 45 OEP airports are airports are commercial U.S. airports with significant activity. They serve major metropolitan areas and also serve as hubs for airline operations. San Francisco International is an OEP airport. See http://aspmhelp.faa.gov/index.php/OEP_35. 46 Pub. L. 114-328 at Sec. 341(b) (Dec. 23, 2016). 47 Pub. L. 114-328 at Sec. 341(b) (Dec. 23, 2016). 48 Pub. L. 114-328 at Sec. 341(b) (Dec. 23, 2016). 49 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq. 50 There is a common misconception that a categorical exclusion means that no NEPA review is required. Technically, a CatEx is a type of NEPA review – albeit a very abbreviated review with minimal or no public participation. As a result, when FAA commits to undertake NEPA review, it is not necessarily committing to preparation of an EA or EIS or even to a public review process. The public often misunderstands FAA commitments, as it made with respect to the SERFR3 route, to mean that there will be a public review process. 51 40 C.F.R. § 1507.3(b). 52 FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures (July 16, 2015) at ¶ 1-7. Extraordinary circumstances are factors or circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact that then requires further analysis in an EA or an EIS, including: (1) a division or disruption of an established community, or a disruption of orderly, planned development, or an inconsistency with plans or goals that have been adopted by the community in which the project is located; and (2) an impact on noise levels of noise sensitive areas. Id. at ¶ 5-2. March 29, 2018 Page 10 -Establishment of new or revised air traffic control procedures conducted at 3,000 feet or more above ground level (AGL); procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not cause traffic to be routinely routed over noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently approved procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas; and increases in minimum altitudes and landing minima. For modifications to air traffic procedures at or above 3,000 feet AGL, the Noise Screening Tool (NST) or other FAA-approved environmental screening methodology should be applied.53 -Publication of existing air traffic control procedures that do not essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, change altitude, or change concentration of aircraft on these tracks.54 -Establishment of new procedures that routinely route aircraft over non-noise sensitive areas.55 With the new NextGen mandate, Congress created an additional legislative categorical exclusion for navigation performance or other performance based navigation procedure that, in the determination of the Administrator, would result in measurable reductions in fuel consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, and noise, on a per flight basis, as compared to aircraft operations that follow existing instrument flight rules procedures in the same airspace.56 In response, FAA added the following to its list of categorically excluded actions: -The following procedures taken in accordance with Section 213 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, conducted at, above, or below 3,000 feet above ground level (AGL), unless there is a determination that extraordinary circumstances exist:57 o Area Navigation/Required Navigation Performance (RNAV/RNP) procedures proposed for core airports and any medium or small hub airports located within the same metroplex area considered appropriate by the Administrator; and o RNP procedures proposed at 35 non-core airports selected by the Administrator. -Any navigation performance or other performance based navigation procedure that, in the determination of the Administrator, would result in measurable reductions in fuel consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, and noise, on a per flight basis, as compared to aircraft operations that follow existing instrument flight rules procedures in the same airspace. This CATEX may be used irrespective of the altitude of such procedures.58 By contrast, FAA’s Order requires that an EA should be prepared for “[n]ew air traffic control procedures (e.g., instrument approach procedures, departure procedures, en route procedures) and modifications to currently approved procedures that routinely route aircraft over noise 53 FAA Order 1050.1F at ¶ 5-6.5(i). 54 FAA Order 1050.1F at ¶ 5-6.5(k). 55 FAA Order 1050.1F at ¶ 5-6.5(p). 56 FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-95 (Feb. 14, 2012) at § 213(c). 57 FAA Order 1050.1F at ¶ 5-6.5(q). 58 FAA Order 1050.1F at ¶ 5-6.5(r). March 29, 2018 Page 11 sensitive areas at less than 3,000 feet above ground level (AGL) (unless otherwise categorically excluded …).59 B.Identifying (and Mitigating) Noise Impacts As noted above, Congress has expressly delegated sovereignty over airspace to the FAA. In addition, Congress has given the agency the authority to set noise thresholds for purposes of environmental analysis. For aviation noise analyses, the FAA has determined that the cumulative noise energy exposure of individuals to noise resulting from aviation activities must be measured in terms of Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL), the FAA’s primary noise metric.60 FAA recognizes that local land use jurisdictions may have noise and land use compatibility standards that may differ from the FAA’s land use compatibility guidelines.61 However, the FAA does not use local standards to determine the significance of noise impacts.62 Rather, FAA’s significance threshold for noise is: The action would increase noise by DNL 1.5 dB or more for a noise sensitive area that is exposed to noise at or above the DNL 65 dB noise exposure level, or that will be exposed at or above the DNL 65dB level due to a DNL 1.5dB or greater increase, when compared to the no action alternative for the same timeframe.63 Common operational measures to mitigate noise, such as preferential runway use and noise abatement flight procedures are only considered or required where the threshold of significance is exceeded. The courts have deferred to FAA in its judgment over the establishment of both the metrics and the thresholds.64 The FAA’s noise metric (DNL) and general threshold of compatibility for NEPA purposes (65 dB DNL) are important in this context because almost all community concerns and expressions of opposition to NextGen procedures (both in Northern California and elsewhere) have occurred in areas where the noise levels are far lower than 65 dB DNL and where changes in noise impacts are less than the threshold that would trigger environmental analysis under the applicable FAA Orders. This fact has led many to criticize the FAA threshold and metric but such criticisms have, by and large, fallen on deaf ears in the federal courts. C.Substantive Statutes Examined During the NEPA Review There are a number of substantive statutes that are generally implicated in a NEPA environmental review but there are only two substantive federal laws that are most commonly triggered by FAA actions related to flight tracks or airspace. 59 FAA Order 1050.1F at ¶ 3-1.2(b)(12). 60 FAA, 1050.1F Desk Reference (July 2015) at p. 11-2. 61 E.g., 14 C.F.R. Part 150, Appx. A, Table 1. 62 FAA, 1050.1F Desk Reference at p. 11-7. 63 FAA, 1050.1F Desk Reference at p. 11-10. 64 See, e.g., City of Grapevine v. Dept. of Transp., 17 F.3d 1502 (D.C. Cir. 1994). March 29, 2018 Page 12 1.National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), a federal agency having jurisdiction over a proposed “undertaking” shall “take into account the effect of the undertaking on any historic property.”65 NHPA regulations require agencies, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and other parties, to identify the project’s “area of potential effect,” locate all historic properties in that area eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and assess the effect of the undertaking on those properties.66 Agencies must “[s]eek information, as appropriate, from consulting parties, and other individuals and organizations likely to have knowledge of, or concerns with, historic properties in the area, and identify issues relating to the undertaking’s potential effects on historic properties.”67 The agency must consult with and consider the views of local governments with jurisdiction over the properties. 68 An “adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.”69 Criteria for an adverse effect include the “[i]ntroduction of . . . audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s significant historic features.”70 If an agency proposes a finding of “no adverse effect”, it must “notify all consulting parties . . . and make the documentation available for public inspection prior to approving the undertaking.”71 Consulting parties have 30 days to review the finding.72 If the SHPO or other consulting party disagrees, the agency must either consult with the disagreeing party or request that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) review the finding.73 If historic properties would experience adverse effects, the agency must consult with the ACHP, SHPO, and others to “develop and evaluate alternatives or modifications to the undertaking that could avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects . . . .” 74 NHPA regulations require agencies to reinitiate consultation if presented with new information that shows adverse effects after the initiation of the federal action.75 2.Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act Section 4(f) allows FAA to approve a project “requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park . . . or land of an historic site of national, State, or local significance . . . only if—(1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and (2) the program or project 65 54 U.S.C. § 3306108. 66 See 36 C.F.R. §§ 800.4(a)–(c), 800.5, 67 36 C.F.R § 800.4(a)(3), 68 36 C.F.R § 800.2(c)(3). 69 36 C.F.R § 800.5(a)(1). 70 36 C.F.R § 800.5(a)(2)(v). 71 36 C.F.R § 800.4(d)(1). 72 36 C.F.R § 800.5(c). 73 36 C.F.R § 800.5(c)(2)(i). 74 36 C.F.R § 800.6(a). 75 36 C.F.R § 800.13(b)(1). March 29, 2018 Page 13 includes all possible planning to minimize harm . . . resulting from the use.”76 In this context, “[n]oise that is inconsistent with a parcel of land’s continuing to serve its recreational, refuge, or historical purpose is a ‘use’ of that land.”77 FAA Order 1050.1F—which provides FAA’s procedures for implementing NEPA, NHPA, and Section 4(f)—mandates that FAA “must consult all appropriate Federal, State, and local officials having jurisdiction over the affected section 4(f) resources when determining whether project- related noise impacts would substantially impair the resources.”78 IV.JURISDICTION OVER LEGAL CHALLENGES TO FAA AIRSPACE DECISIONS A.Administrative Procedure Act The primary means of challenging FAA airspace actions is through an Administrative Procedure Act (APA)79 challenge to FAA’s decisions implementing the airspace change(s). Under the APA, agency decisions may be set aside only if “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”80 Courts may reverse under the arbitrary and capricious standard only if the agency has relied on factors that Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.81 Moreover, courts generally defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations82 unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with regulation.83 B.Exclusive Jurisdiction in the Courts of Appeals for Review of Final FAA Action The federal courts of appeals have exclusive jurisdiction to “affirm, amend, modify, or set aside any part of” a final FAA order.84 For claims arising in California, this means that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals are the only fora where plaintiffs may seek review of whether the FAA’s action should be set aside as unlawful.85 There are two critical limits to the statute providing jurisdiction for courts to hear challenges to FAA actions. 76 49 U.S.C. § 303(c), 77 City of Grapevine v. Dept. of Transp., 17 F.3d 1502, 1507 (D.C. Cir. 1994). 78 FAA, Order 1050.1F app. A ¶ 6.2e. 79 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. 80 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); United States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71, 77 (2002); Gardner v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 638 F.3d 1217, 1224 (9th Cir. 2011). 81 Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Lewis, 628 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2010). 82 E.g., Public Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Federal Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 371 F.3d 701, 706 (9th Cir. 2004). 83 See League of Wilderness Defenders v. Forsgren, 309 F.3d 1181, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002). 84 49 U.S.C. 46110; See Krauss v. FAA, No. 15-cv-05365 HRL, Dkt. No. 53, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38961 at *10 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2016). 85 Id. March 29, 2018 Page 14 1.Exhausting Administrative Remedies First, the court may only consider a challenge to a final agency action only if the objection was made in the underlying agency proceeding or if there was “a reasonable ground” for not making the objection in the proceeding.86 2.Time Limit for Challenges The second – and far more significant– limit is that a petition must be filed not later than 60 days after the order is issued. The only exception to this strict deadline is if the court finds that there are “reasonable grounds” for not filing by this deadline.87 –This exception is rarely satisfied.88 The few instances in which courts have permitted late-filed petitions include: •Where the lapse is due to the attempt to exhaust administrative remedies.89 •Where the agency promulgated a final rule but “explicitly left its rulemaking docket open in order to receive additional comments from the public.”90 •Where the agency published a new advisory circular that provoked a “significant uproar”, and then told the industry to ignore the rule pending a revision.91 •Where the agency led the petitioners to believe that it might fix the problem without being forced to do so by a court.92 86 49 U.S.C. § 46110(d). 87 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). 88 City of Phoenix v. Huerta, 869 F.3d 963, 969 (D.C. Cir. 2017). As an illustration of how unusual the Phoenix case is, a case decided just this week reached the opposite conclusion. The case is similar in some respects to the Phoenix litigation, in that the petitioners asked the D.C. Circuit to find that their failure to file a challenge to FAA airspace procedures in the Washington, DC vicinity within 60 days was reasonable under the statutory exception. Citizens Assoc. of Georgetown v. FAA (D.C. Circuit Mar. 27, 2018). The Court ruled in favor of the FAA, finding that the Petitioners had not filed within the 60-day limitations period of 49 USC 46110. The Court found that this 60-day clock started with the FAA’s issuance of the Finding of No Significant Impact in December 2013, not in later years when FAA published and implemented the routes. The Court also found that the petitioners did not have “reasonable grounds” for waiting past 60 days from the FONSI publication. The Court reiterated that such findings are very rare and have involved FAA actions that reasonably led parties to conclude that it was making changes to its action, justifying a wait in filing suit. Id., slip op. at 9-16. 89 Americopters, LLC. v. FAA, 441 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2005), citing Watson v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Board, 513 F.3d 1081, 1082 (9th Cir. 1975) (“Even if we assume that the sixty day statute of limitations . . . [is] tolled . . . when [petitioner] erroneously filed his petition with the NTSB, the filing was yet several years overdue.”) and Reder v. FAA, 116 F.3d 1261, 1263 (8th Cir. 1997) (holding that an “unsuccessful attempt to exhaust administrative remedies . . . was a reasonable ground for not filing [an] appeal . . . by the sixtieth day.”). 90 Paralyzed Veterans of America v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 752 F.2d 694, 705 n.82 (D.C. Cir. 1985), rev’d on other grounds (“Aware that the rule might be undergoing modification and unable to predict how extensive ay modifications would be, petitioners elected to wait until the regulation was in final form before seeking review”). 91 Safe Extensions, Inc. v. FAA, 509 F.3d 593, 603 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (finding reasonable grounds for delayed filing where the petitioner, “[b]ased on these representations, and hoping to avoid litigation,” decided to wait and see if the agency would address its concerns voluntarily). 92 City of Phoenix v. Huerta, 869 F.3d 963, 970 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (agency’s pattern of repeated assurances “would certainly have led reasonable observers to think the FAA might fix the noise problem without being forced to do so by a court”) (“Given the FAA’s serial promises, petitioning for review soon after the September order might have shut down dialogue between the petitioners and the agency. We do not punish the petitioners for treating litigation as a last rather than a first resort when an agency behaves as the FAA did here.”) March 29, 2018 Page 15 3.Identifying the “Final” Action The 60-day clock for review is triggered only when the agency issues a final order. To be “final,” the agency action must be: (1) the “consummation” of the agency's decisionmaking process, not merely a tentative or interlocutory decision; and (2) one by which “rights or obligations have been determined,” or from which “legal consequences will flow.”93 In the recent Phoenix v. Huerta case, FAA argued, and the D.C. Circuit agreed, that FAA’s final “order” with regard to new NextGen airspace procedures, was the date of formal publication of the procedures on the FAA’s website on flight procedures.94 In that case, as the environmental review was completed with a categorical exclusion and was never published, the formal publication occurred at step 4 of Order 7100.41A.95 The court found that the publication marked the consummation of the agency’s decisionmaking process because “it put the new routes into effect following extensive testing and evaluation intended to ensure that those routes would be safe and consistent with air traffic requirements.”96 The D.C. Circuit has just recently clarified that where an agency has published its final decision in an EA, the action becomes final upon publication of the Record of Decision, and not at the subsequent publication of the procedures in the aeronautical charts.97 C.Residual Federal District Court Jurisdiction for Constitutional Claims As noted above, while the federal appellate courts are the exclusive fora for the resolution of “procedural and substantive” objections to a final FAA regulatory decision,98 a federal district court may still entertain claims that “broadly challenge[] the constitutionality of” the procedures that led to the issuance of FAA orders.99 It difficult, however, to identify a potentially successful constitutional challenge to FAA’s implementation of NextGen procedures in Northern California, given the broad public notice and opportunity for comment. V.FEDERAL TORT LIABILITY It is well established that the United States “may not be sued without its consent and that the existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.”100 The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) authorizes limited opportunity to bring claims against the United States for: “injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the 93 Am. Small Bus. League v. Contreras-Sweet, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 3800, *1-2 (9th Cir. 2018), citing Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177-78 (1997). 94 https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/procedures/ 95 City of Phoenix v. Huerta, 869 F.3d 963, 968-9. 96 City of Phoenix v. Huerta, 869 F.3d 963, 969. 97 Citizens Assoc. of Georgetown et al v. FAA, ___ F.3d ___(D.C. Cir. Mar. 27, 2018). 98 E.g., Mace v. Skinner, 34 F.3d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1994). 99 Krauss v. FAA, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28961, at *8, citing Mace v. Skinner, 34 F.3d 854, 858 (9th Cir, 1994). 100 United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212, 103 S. Ct. 2961, 77 L. Ed. 2d 580 (1983). March 29, 2018 Page 16 United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”101 However, there are exceptions to this waiver of sovereign immunity, including an exception for discretionary functions. The statute provides that no liability shall lie for: Any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be valid, or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.”102 Courts apply a two-prong test when applying the discretionary function exception.103 First, the court must consider whether the challenged action involves an element of judgment or choice (as opposed to the subject of a mandatory federal statute, regulation or policy prescribing a specific course of action. If the first prong is met – i.e., the decision does involve an element of judgment – the court must then examine whether that judgment is of the kind that Congress intended the exception to shield. In essence, the discretionary function exception insulates the federal government from liability if the action challenged in the case involves the permissible exercise of policy judgment.104 101 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). 102 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). 103 Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531, 537 (1988). 104 Burrows v. United States, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1104, *8-10 (Dist. Md., 2004), citing Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 537 (Thus, a claim by plaintiffs bothered by the noise of a postal loading facility was barred under principles of sovereign immunity because the action challenged – operating the postal facility at certain hours of the day -- involved the permissible exercise of policy judgment, the government.)