Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-05-14 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, May 14, 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 5:00-6:00 PM Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his Designees Pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (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) Special Orders of the Day 6:00-6:15 PM 2. Proclamation Honoring MacArthur Park for Maintaining a Piece of Palo Alto’s Historic Past 2 May 14, 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 ALT O CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 3.Affordable Housing Week Proclamation Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 6:15-6:25 PM Oral Communications 6:25-6:40 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Minutes Approval 6:40-6:45 PM 4.Approval of Action Minutes for the April 30 2018 Council Meeting Consent Calendar 6:45-6:50 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 5.Approval of a Contract With O'Grady Paving, Inc. in the Amount of $4,743,018 for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 Street Resurfacing Project, Capital Improvements Program Projects PE-86070, PO-12001, PL-16000, PL-16001, and PL-04010 6.Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 10.51 of Title 10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Related to the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Program to Reflect the Current Status of Approved Streets Within the Program, to Tentatively Approve Additional Street Segments Within Crescent Park, and to add Provisions for Opting-out of or Dissolving the Restricted Parking Area 7.Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.39 (Private Intrusion Alarms) to Include the Addition of Unwanted, Unwarranted Residential and Commercial Fire Alarms 8.Adoption of a Resolution Correcting an Error in the Previously Adopted Resolution for the Southgate Residential Preferential Parking Program Related to the Availability of Daily Employee Parking Permits and Restating the Program Provisions Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 6:50-8:30 PM 9.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI JUDICIAL: 305 N. California Avenue [17PLN-00446]: Approval of a Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Community Center use at the First Baptist Church. Environmental Assessment: Exempt per Sections 15301 and 15323 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Zone District: R-1(10,000) (Single Family Residential) Q&A Memo 3 May 14, 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 ALT O CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 8:30-10:30 PM 10.Connecting Palo Alto Rail Program Status Update and Initial Screening of Grade Separation Ideas for Further Study 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. 4 May 14, 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 ALT O CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Standing Committee Meetings Sp. Finance Committee Meeting (Budget Hearing) May 15, 2018 Sp. Finance Committee Meeting (Budget Hearing) May 16, 2018 Sp. City/School Committee Meeting May 17, 2018 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report FY 2017 Annual Evaluation Report for the Santa Clara County Multi- jurisdictional Program for Public Information on Flood Preparedness/Awareness and Resulting Community Rating System Flood Insurance Discounts Proclamation Recognizing National Police Week - May 13-19, 2018 and National Peace Officers’ Memorial Day - May 15, 2018 Middlefield Road North Traffic Safety Project Collision Analysis Memo Public Letters to Council Set 1 Set 2 Sp. Council Appointed Officers Committee Meeting May 15, 2018 Q&A Q&A CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 14, 2018 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Proclamation Honoring MacArthur Park for Maintaining a Piece of Palo Alto’s Historic Past ATTACHMENTS:  MacArthur Park (DOCX) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 Proclamation Honoring MacArthur Park for Maintaining a Piece of Palo Alto’s Historic Past That Served as a Foundational Pillar of the Community PREAMBLE: MacArthur Park’s building, designed by famed architect Julia Morgan, turns 100 this year. Morgan believed that an architect’s legacy lived on in the buildings they created. MacArthur Park is more than a restaurant. It serves as a place for our veterans to meet; a place for citizens of Palo Alto to gather; a place where Palo Alto’s history can be experienced first-hand. Whereas, Julia Morgan, best known for Hearst Castle, was the first woman admitted to the architecture program l'École nationale supérieure des Beaux-Arts in Paris and the first woman architect licensed in California. She went on to create over 700 buildings, including the Hostess House, in a male-dominated field; and Whereas, after entering into World War I in 1917, the YWCA hired Julia Morgan to design a portion of the 1000 acre Camp Fremont known as the Hostess House, an ‘H’ shaped Craftsman styled building that served as a meeting place and community hub for soldiers, their relatives, and friends; bolstering the civic, neighborhood, and government organizations that are so vital to our area’s historic economic and social success; and Whereas, the YWCA sold the Hostess House to the City of Palo Alto for a nominal $1 (one dollar) which was also intended as a gift, where Julia Morgan personally gave strict instructions for the move of the building she designed. This was approved in a city committee in 1919, and the dismantling of the building began. The Hostess House was cut into 9 sections and was painstakingly moved by teams of horses to Palo Alto’s new El Camino Park; and Whereas, the Hostess House continued to serve California’s community as one of the nation’s earliest examples of a municipally funded community center; the Community Center House, was an employment center that also housed local “little theatre” performances, as well as various public programs and meetings, then by 1935 the building became known as the Veteran’s Memorial or Veteran’s Building hosting numerous veterans’ groups; and Whereas, the Veteran’s Building declined after WW II, deteriorating until it sadly became a candidate for demolition. In 1976, Hostess House was saved by its nomination for inclusion on the National Registry of Historic Places Inventory, and in 1980, after Dorothy Regnery led a preservation campaign, the City invited proposals for rehabilitation and new use by private developers, including MacArthur Patk co -founder and co- owner Charles Frank and head chef and co-owner Faz Poursohi; and Whereas, MacArthur Park continues to give back to its community by inviting everyone to be a part of Julia Morgan’s work, as well as supporting various community charities and Palo Alto’s veterans; MacArthur Park carries on the vision of the many amazing women who turned a building into a hub for the community. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Liz Kniss, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council hereby do hereby express our heartfelt appreciation of MacArthur Park for their contribution to preserving Palo Alto’s history. Presented: May 14, 2018 ______________________________ Liz Kniss Mayor City of Palo Alto (ID # 9215) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 5/14/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Affordable Housing Proclamation Title: Affordable Housing Week Proclamation From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Attachments:  Attachment A: Affordable Housing Week Proclamation Proclamation Affordable Housing Week, May 11-18, 2018 WHEREAS, each year, thousands of Silicon Valley families struggle to find an affordable home in one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation; and WHEREAS, affordable housing is a regional need that requires regional solutions and participation from all cities and the County; and WHEREAS, affordable housing near employment centers and transit reduces traffic congestion, air pollution, and emissions, and lowers housing and transportation costs for local workers; and WHEREAS, the strength of Palo Alto’s community and economy depends on providing access to housing options that allow current and future residents of all income levels to live where they work; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto has historically increased its supply of affordable housing by partnering with non-profit organizations and currently has over 1,600 affordable units located in affordable housing projects developed and managed by these partners as well as approximately 250 owner-occupied and 460 rental units in the Below Market Rate program managed by Palo Alto Housing; and WHEREAS, there are many organizations throughout Santa Clara County dedicated to providing safe, stable, permanent and affordable housing that are collaboratively working to bring the need for affordable housing to the forefront of discussion in Silicon Valley; and WHEREAS, these organizations have partnered with local agencies and community members to organize Affordable Housing Week to encourage the sharing of best practices, opportunities, and solutions to provide affordable housing that is the right of all individuals. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Liz Kniss, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim the week of May 11th through May 18th, 2018 as Affordable Housing Week in the City of Palo Alto to call upon all members of our community to support affordable housing solutions and to recognize the successful efforts of the City of Palo Alto and its dedicated partners who seek to improve access to affordable housing opportunities in Palo Alto and our neighboring communities. Presented: May 14, 2018 ______________________________ Liz Kniss Mayor CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 14, 2018 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the April 30 2018 Council Meeting Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: 04-30-18 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 11 Special Meeting April 30 2018 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:02 P.M. Present: DuBois, Filseth, Fine; Holman arrived at 5:06 P.M. Kniss; Kou arrived at 6:44 P.M., Scharff arrived at 5:04 P.M., Tanaka, Wolbach Participating remotely: Kou participating from Bay Area Council-Shanghai Office Suite 905-907, 9F, 333 Songhu Rd., KIC, Shanghai 上海市淞沪路333号9 楼905室-907室 Absent: Closed Session 1. 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). MOTION: Vice Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 6-0 Holman, Kou, Scharff absent Council went into Closed Session at 5:03 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 6:44 P.M. Mayor Kniss announced no reportable action. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 11 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 4/30/18 Study Session 2. Initial Presentation of the Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2018/19 Budget. Special Orders of the Day 3. Selection of Applicants to Interview on May 9, 2018 for the Historic Resources Board and the Human Relations Commission. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to interview all applicants for the Historic Resources Board and Human Relations Commission. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 4. North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan: City Council Appointment of Working Group Members. MOTION: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois moved to vote for all positions in one round: A. Allowing voting for “residents within Mayfield” positions from the “residents within NVCAP or greater N. Ventura neighborhood (north of Ventura Ave)” or “residents within the greater Ventura neighborhood” categories; and B. Voting for one member from the “business owners or work in NVCAP or surrounding area” category and one member from the “property owners (not single family home)” category , and one additional member from either category. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 First Round of voting for three positions on the North Ventura Neighborhood Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Advisory Committee, residents within NVCAP or greater North Ventura neighborhood (north of Ventura Ave). Voting For: David Adams DuBois, Filseth, Holman Voting For: Marian Cobb Scharff Voting For: Angela Dellaporta DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou, Tanaka Voting For: Chris Donlay DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou Voting For: Kirsten Flynn Fine, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Wolbach DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 11 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 4/30/18 Voting For: Waldemar Kaczmarski Fine, Kniss, Kou Voting For: Peter Lockhart Scharff, Tanaka Voting For: Lakiba Pittman DuBois, Filseth, Wolbach Voting For: Yunan Song Fine, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach David Carnahan, Deputy City Clerk announced that Angela Dellaporta with 5 votes, Kirsten Flynn with 5 votes, and Yunan Song with 6 votes were appointed to the Neighborhood Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Advisory Committee. First Round of voting for two positions on the North Ventura Neighborhood Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Advisory Committee, residents within greater Ventura neighborhood. Voting For: Christine Gabali Filseth Voting For: Rebecca Parker Mankey DuBois, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Voting For: Heather Rosen Fine, Kniss Voting For: Siyi Zhang DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Mr. Carnahan announced that Rebecca Parker Mankey with 8 votes and Siyi Zhang with 9 votes were appointed to the Neighborhood Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Advisory Committee. First Round of voting for two positions on the North Ventura Neighborhood Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Advisory Committee, residents within Mayfield. Voting For: Terry Holzmer DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Wolbach Mr. Carnahan announced that Terry Holzmer with 8 votes was appointed to the Neighborhood Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Advisory Committee. First Round of voting for one position on the North Ventura Neighborhood Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Advisory Committee, residents within Barron Park. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 11 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 4/30/18 Voting For: Gail Price DuBois, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Voting For: Carolyn Templeton Kou Voting For: Maryanne Welton Filseth Mr. Carnahan announced that Gail Price with 7 votes was appointed to the Neighborhood Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Advisory Committee. First Round of voting for two positions on the North Ventura Neighborhood Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Advisory Committee, business owners or work in NVCAP or surrounding area. Voting For: David Adams Holman, Kou Voting For: Stephanie Baltzer Voting For: Kirsten Flynn Tanaka Voting For: Christine Gabali Wolbach Voting For: Rebecca Parker Mankey Filseth Voting For: Yatin Patel Scharff Voting For: Lakiba Pittman DuBois, Holman, Kou Voting For: Carolyn Templeton DuBois, Fine, Kniss, Tanaka, Wolbach Mr. Carnahan announced that Carolyn Templeton with 5 votes was appointed to the Neighborhood Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Advisory Committee. First Round of voting for one position on the North Ventura Neighborhood Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Advisory Committee, property owners (not single family home). Voting For: Peter Lockhart Filseth Voting For: Yatin Patel Voting For: Lund Smith Fine, Kniss, Scharff, Tanaka Voting For: Tim Steele DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Voting For: Marcus Wood DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 11 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 4/30/18 Mr. Carnahan announced that Tim Steele with 9 votes was appointed to the Neighborhood Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Advisory Committee. First Round of voting for one position on the North Ventura Neighborhood Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Advisory Committee, does not fit in any category. Voting For: David Hirsch Voting For: Arthur Keller Second Round of voting for one position on the North Ventura Neighborhood Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Advisory Committee, residents within NVCAP or greater North Ventura neighborhood (north of Ventura Ave) or residents within greater Ventura neighborhood. Voting For: David Adams DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou Voting For: Waldemar Kaczmarski Kniss Voting For: Peter Lockhart Tanaka Voting For: Heather Rosen Fine, Scharff, Wolbach Second Round of voting for one position on the North Ventura Neighborhood Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Advisory Committee, business owners or work in NVCAP or surrounding area or property owners (not single family home). Voting For: Lakiba Pittman DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou Voting For: Lund Smith Fine, Kniss, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Mr. Carnahan announced that Lund Smith with 5 votes was appointed to the Neighborhood Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Advisory Committee. MOTION: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to appoint Heather Rosen to the NVCAP Advisory Committee. MOTION PASSED: 5-3 DuBois, Filseth, Holman no, Kou absent MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to appoint Lakiba Pittman as an Alternate to the NVCAP Advisory Committee. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kou absent DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 11 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 4/30/18 MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Filseth to appoint David Adams as an Alternate to the NVCAP Advisory Committee. MOTION FAILED: 4-4 Fine, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach no, Kou absent MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Mayor Kniss to appoint Waldemar Kaczmarski as an Alternate to the NVCAP Advisory Committee. MOTION PASSED: 6-2 DuBois, Holman no, Kou absent Appointed to the NVCAP Working Group: 1. Angela Dellaporta 2. Kirsten Flynn 3. Terry Holzmer 4. Rebecca Parker Mankey 5. Gail Price 6. Heather Rosen 7. Lund Smith 8. Yunan Song 9. Tim Steele 10. Carolyn Templeton 11. Siyi Zhang Appointed as Alternates to the NVCAP Working Group: 1. Waldemar Kaczmarski 2. Lakiba Pittman The NVCAP Working Group includes one representative from the Architectural Review Board, one from the Parks and Recreation Commission and one from the Planning & Transportation Commission. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. Minutes Approval 5. Approval of Action Minutes for the April 9 and 16, 2018 Council Meetings. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to approve the Action Minutes for the April 9 and 16, 2018 Council Meetings. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Consent Calendar MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Filseth to approve Agenda Item Numbers 6-10. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 7 of 11 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 4/30/18 6. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2017. 7. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2017. 8. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the Triennial External Quality Control Review of the Office of the City Auditor. 9. Ordinance 5435 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 4.6 (Permits for Retailers of Tobacco Products) of the Municipal Code to Allow Fees to be set by Ordinance (FIRST READING: April 16, 2018 PASSED: 8-0 Filseth Absent).” 10. Ordinance 5436 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the FY18 Municipal Fee Schedule to Amend the Golf Fees (FIRST READING: April 16, 2018 PASSED: 8 -0 Filseth Absent).” MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Action Items 11. Ordinance 5437 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing an Amendment to the Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) to add Cost-sharing Pursuant to Government Code Section 20516 (FIRST READING: Ap ril 2, 2018 PASSED: 8-0 DuBois absent).” MOTION: Vice Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to adopt an Ordinance amending the City’s contract with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS). MOTION PASSED: 9-0 12. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) to add a new Section Imposing an Annual Office Limit and Setting Forth Related Regulations, and to Repeal the Respective Regulations From Chapter 18.85 (Interim Zoning Ordinances). The Proposed Ordinance Will Perpetuate the Existing Annual Limit of 50,000 Square Feet of new Office/R&D Development per Year With Modifications Regarding the Review DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 8 of 11 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 4/30/18 Process, Unallocated Area Rollover Provisions, and Exemptions. The Planning and Transportation Commission Recommended Approval of the Ordinance on February 14, 2018. This Ordinance is Within the Scope of the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Certified and Adopted on November 13, 2017 by Council Resolution Number 9720 (Continued from April 16, 2018). Public Hearing opened at 9:01 P.M. Public Hearing closed at 9:18 P.M. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to: A. Adopt an Ordinance amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code to establish Annual Office Limit (AOL) regulations to replace the interim regulations, replacing in Section 18.40.190 (c)(2), “non -office” with “non-office annual limit land”; and B. Find the action within the scope of the Comprehensive Plan EIR certified on November 13, 2017. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to: A. Adopt an Ordinance amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code to establish Annual Office Limit (AOL) regulations to replace the interim regulations, replacing in Section 18.40.190 (c)(2), “non -office” with “non-office annual limit land”, eliminating the rollover provision and adding a competitive approval process; and B. Find the action within the scope of the Comprehensive Plan EIR certified on November 13, 2017. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 4-5 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou yes AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to only eliminate the rollover provision. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member XX to limit the rollover provision to 25,000 square feet per year. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO A LACK OF A SECOND AMENDMENT FAILED: 4-5 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou yes DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 9 of 11 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 4/30/18 AMENDMENT: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to add to the Motion, “return the Ordinance to Council within two to four years.” AMENDMENT PASSED: 5-4 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Wolbach no MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to: A. Adopt an Ordinance amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code to establish Annual Office Limit (AOL) regulations to replace the interim regulations, replacing in Section 18.40.190 (c)(2), “non-office” with “non-office annual limit land”; B. Find the action within the scope of the Comprehensive Plan EIR certified on November 13, 2017; and C. Return the Ordinance to Council within two to four years.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 5-4 DuBois, Fine, Holman, Kou no Council took a break from 10:31 P.M. to 10:42 P.M. 13. Finance Committee Recommendation Regarding Potential 2018 Ballot Measure to Address the Funding Gap for the 2014 Infrastructure Plan and Funding for Unplanned Potential Community Assets Projects, Discussion of Next Steps for Addressing the Funding Gap Needs, and Potential Refinement of Survey Elements and Objectives for a Follow - up Survey. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Filseth to: A. Explore a two percent Transient Occupancy Tax increase and a $1.10 per $1,000 increase in the Real Estate Transfer Tax, including moving forward with the necessary creation of a ballot statement, polling, testing, and authorizing Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates to perform associated tasks; and B. To discontinue consideration of a Sales Tax or a Parcel Tax. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 10 of 11 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 4/30/18 SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member XX: A. To discontinue consideration of a Sales Tax or a Parcel Tax; and to discontinue consideration to explore a Real Estate Transfer, continue to explore a two percent Transient Occupancy Tax increase; B. To direct Finance Committee to consider and explore the following: i. a Business License Tax, Employee Transportation Tax, Business Payroll Tax and Business Gross Receipts Tax, Commercial Users Tax, Commercial/Residential Rental Income Tax, Tax on all commercial transactions; ii. Regulating and creating a tax or fee structure for Uber, Lyft and like kind app based taxi and shuttle services; iii. Creating a fee and/or tax for all transportation and personal services using AI service pilot programs; C. To Direct Staff to report back to Council by end of Council summer break, the following: i. Update on the Business Registry, including the regulations and implementation, its successes and failures and recommendations to improve; ii. Provide accountability of the parking spaces in the Parking Assessment Districts. Provide number of spaces and its allotments to all developers/property owners who have paid into the assessment districts; D. For Council to appoint a task force specifically to consider revenue generating sources for the infrastructure projects, community assets and grade separation and reports to the Finance Committee; and E. For Council to review and discuss alternative scenarios of the 2014 Infrastructure projects, include grade separation and community assets and possible/potential deferment of certain projects. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part A, “sugar sweetened beverage tax of 1 to 2 cent per ounce” after “Transfer Tax.” DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 11 of 11 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 4/30/18 Council Member Kou left the meeting at 12:28 A.M. AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Tanaka to remove from the Motion Part A, “a $1.10 per $1,000 increase in the Real Estate Transfer Tax.” AMENDMENT FAILED: 2-6 DuBois, Tanaka yes, Kou absent AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to add to the Motion, “poll for a business tax.” AMENDMENT FAILED: 2-6 DuBois, Holman yes, Kou absent MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Filseth to: A. Explore a two percent Transient Occupancy Tax increase and a $1.10 per $1,000 increase in the Real Estate Transfer Tax, sugar sweetened beverage tax of 1 to 2 cent per ounce, including moving forward with the necessary creation of a ballot statement, polling, testing, and authorizing Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and, Associates to perform associated tasks; and B. To discontinue consideration of a Sales Tax or a Parcel Tax. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-1 Tanaka no, Kou absent State/Federal Legislation Update/Action None. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 A.M. City of Palo Alto (ID # 9155) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/14/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: FY 2018 Street Resurfacing Project Construction Contract Award Title: Approval of a Contract with O'Grady Paving, Inc. in the Amount of $4,743,018 for the FY 2018 Street Resurfacing Project, Capital Improvements Program Projects PE-86070, PO-12001, PL-16000, PL-16001, PL-04010 From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with O’Grady Paving, Inc. (Attachment A) in an amount not to exceed $4,743,018 for the Palo Alto FY 2018 Streets Resurfacing Project (Capital Improvement Program projects PE-86070, PO-12001, PL- 16000, PL-16001, PL-12000 and PL-04010); and 2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with O’Grady Paving, Inc. for related, additional but unforeseen work that may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $474,302. Background Public Works Engineering Services Division manages construction contracts for concrete repair, preventive maintenance, resurfacing and reconstruction of various City streets annually. In more recent years, additional Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects are being built through the annualized resurfacing contracts due to the complexity of construction and benefit of being included in a larger project. CITY OF PALO ALTO City of Palo Alto Page 2 The candidate streets are surveyed biennially by Public Works Engineering staff and rated by a computerized pavement maintenance management system (PMMS) and by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) pavement analysis program. All streets have been coordinated with the City’s Utilities Department and the Planning and Community Environment Department’s Transportation Division to minimize the cutting of newly resurfaced streets. Extensive public outreach will be conducted before and during the construction phase to keep the community informed throughout the process, including flyers sent to adjacent residences and businesses, and notices posted on Nextdoor and the City’s website. Discussion Project Description Staff recommends approval of this street resurfacing contract as part of an enhanced program to improve the condition of Palo Alto’s streets. This project is the result of an increase in funding by City Council specifically for the completion of the paving of Alma Street and Middlefield Road by the end of FY 2017. However, due to Transportation Division projects needing time for public coordination and design, the last segment of Alma Street from Melville Avenue to Palo Alto Avenue was postponed until FY 2018. The $4,743,018 expenditure for this contract will be used to repave 3.4 lane-miles of arterial streets (Alma Street from Melville Avenue to Palo Alto Avenue) with rubberized asphalt concrete (RAC) and 4.8 lane-miles of arterial and residential streets with hot mix asphalt (HMA). This will continue moving the City’s Pavement Condition Index (PCI) toward the goal of a citywide average PCI of 85 by the end of 2019. The streets being resurfaced in this contract are shown in Attachment B. Additional maps of the FY 2018 Streets Resurfacing Program and current five-year plan for street repaving are available on the Street Maintenance Program homepage located at www.cityofpaloalto.org/streets. Alma Street and Quarry Road Alma Street from Melville Avenue to Palo Alto Avenue will be milled up to three inches and repaved with RAC. Any damaged concrete road base will be replaced along with specific sections of damaged curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Some street corners will receive new concrete curb ramps designed to comply with current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Multimodal circulation and safety issues along the project segment of Alma Street were identified in Comprehensive Plan 2030, the 2013 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study, and the 2012 Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Consistent with the City’s adopted complete streets policy and Comprehensive Plan traffic safety polices, the Transportation Division may be recommending revisions to the signing and striping along Alma Street, pending the outcome of an upcoming series of community meetings, and ultimately, Council action. Approval of this contract will not affect the lane configuration along the corridor unless Council takes a subsequent action to approve signing and striping revisions. Initial options for consideration by the community will include measures to enhance multimodal safety and connectivity. This last segment of Alma Street resurfacing will complete the City Council direction of completing the paving of Alma Street and Middlefield Road. As part of this project, the signing and striping on Quarry Road from Welch Road to El Camino Real will be modified to include high-visibility crosswalks, wider and more visible bicycle lanes, enhanced bus and shuttle stops, and wayfinding signage. No traffic carrying capacity is being removed. These elements are part of a dedicated capital improvement project (PL-16000, Quarry Road Improvements and Transit Center Access), that is funded primarily through a transfer from Stanford University Medical Center Fund. The signing and striping plans have been reviewed by the public, Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), and Stanford University, and the Concept Plan was approved by Council on June 20, 2016 (CMR 6838). Bid Process On March 19, 2018, a notice inviting formal bids (IFB) for the Palo Alto FY 2018 Street Resurfacing Project was posted at City Hall and sent to 10 builder’s exchanges and 661 contractors through the City’s eProcurement system. The bidding period was 22 calendar days. Bids were received from three contractors on April 10, 2018 as listed on the attached Bid Summary (Attachment C). City of Palo Alto Page 4 Summary of Bid Process Bid Name/Number Palo Alto FY 2018 Street Resurfacing Project Proposed Length of Project 150 calendar days Number of Bid Packages Downloaded by Builder’s Exchanges 8 Number of Bid Packages Downloaded by Contractors 13 Total Days to Respond to Bid 22 Pre-Bid Meeting? No Number of Bids Received: 3 Bid Price Range $4,743,018 - $5,664,631 Bids ranged from $4,743,018 to $5,664,631 and 3% below to 11% above the engineer’s estimate of $4,850,000. Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends the bid of $4,743,018 submitted by O’Grady Paving, Inc. be accepted, and O’Grady Paving, Inc. be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The contingency amount of $474,302, representing ten percent of the total contract amount, is requested for related, additional, but unforeseen work, which may develop during the project. In addition to being 3% below the engineer’s estimate, the cost of the work is similar to last year’s FY 2017 Streets Resurfacing project. The FY 2017 project addressed 3.8 lane-miles at a cost of about $600,000 per lane-mile. The FY 2018 project will address 8.2 lane-miles at a cost of about $580,000 per lane-mile. These metrics are useful for simplifying the project costs, but do not account for other factors such as concrete work, parking lot resurfacing, and transportation improvements included in the projects. Staff reviewed other similar projects performed by the lowest responsible bidder, O’Grady Paving, Inc., including projects performed for the City and did not find City of Palo Alto Page 5 any significant complaints with their previous work. Staff also checked with the Contractor’s State License Board and confirmed the contractor has an active license on file. Resource Impact Funding for the FY 2018 Streets Resurfacing Project is available in CIP projects PE- 86070 Street Resurfacing Program; PO-12001 Curb and Gutter Repairs; PL-16000 Quarry Road Improvements and Transit Center Access; PL-16001 Downtown Mobility and Safety Improvements; PL-12000 Parking and Transportation Improvements; and PL-04010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation. The funding allocation is as follows: Funding Source Contract Contingency Total Encumbrance PE-86070 $3,373,213 $337,322 $3,710,535 PO-12001 $408,750 $40,875 $449,625 PL-16000 $500,000 $50,000 $550,000 PL-16001 $332,655 $33,265 $365,920 PL-12000 $81,819 $8,182 $90,001 PL-04010 $46,581 $4,658 $51,239 Total $4,743,018 $474,302 $5,217,320 Policy Implications Comprehensive Plan 2030 goals, policies, and programs that support the implementation of this project include: Goal T-1: Create a sustainable transportation system, complemented by a mix of land uses, that emphasizes walking, bicycling, use of public transportation and other methods to reduce GHG emissions and the use of single occupancy motor vehicles. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Policy T-1.16: Promote personal transportation vehicles as an alternative to cars (e.g. bicycles, skateboards, roller blades) to get to work, school, shopping, recreational facilities and transit stops. Policy T-1.19: Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking. Goal T-2: Decrease delay, congestion, and VMT with a priority on our worst intersections and our peak commute times, including school traffic. Policy T-2.4: Consistent with the principles of Complete Streets adopted by the City, work to achieve and maintain acceptable levels of service for transit vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians and automobiles on roads in Palo Alto, while maintaining the ability to customize to the Palo Alto context. Goal T-3: Maintain an efficient roadway network for all users. Policy T-3.1: Maintain a hierarchy of streets that includes freeways, expressways, arterials, residential arterials, collector streets and local streets, balancing the needs of all users in a safe and appropriate manner. Policy T-3.3: Avoid major increases in single-occupant vehicle capacity when constructing or modifying roadways unless needed to remedy severe congestion or critical neighborhood traffic problems. Where capacity is increased, balance the needs of motor vehicles with those of pedestrians and bicyclists. Policy T-3.5: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for use of the roadway by all users. Goal T-6: A High Level of Safety for Motorists, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists on Palo Alto Streets. Policy T-6.1: Continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety over motor vehicle level of service at intersections and motor vehicle parking. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Environmental Review Street resurfacing projects are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301c of the CEQA Guidelines as repair, maintenance and/or minor alteration of the existing facilities and no further environmental review is necessary. Attachments:  A: C18171539 O'Grady Paving Inc. Contract  B: Project Map & Street List  C: Bid Summary Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 1 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Contract No. C18171539 City of Palo Alto FY18 Streets Resurfacing Project (CIP: PE-86070) Attachment A CI TY OF PALO ALTO Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 2 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS…………………………………….…………..6 1.1 Recitals…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 1.2 Definitions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 SECTION 2 THE PROJECT………………………………………………………………………………………………………...6 SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS………………………………………………………………………………..7 3.1 List of Documents…………………………………………………………………………………………….........7 3.2 Order of Precedence……………………………………………………………………………………………......7 SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY…………………………………………………………………………………………..8 4.1 Contractor's Duties…………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM……………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 5.1 Contractor's Co-operation………………………………………………………………………………………..8 SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION…………………………………………………………………………………….......8 6.1 Time Is of Essence…………………………………………………………………………………………………….8 6.2 Commencement of Work…………………………………………………………………………………………8 6.3 Contract Time…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 6.4 Liquidated Damages…………………………………………………………………………………………………8 6.4.1 Other Remedies……………………………………………………………………………………………………..9 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time………………………………………………………………………………….9 SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR……………………………………………………………………….9 7.1 Contract Sum……………………………………………………………………………………………………………9 7.2 Full Compensation……………………………………………………………………………………………………9 SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE……………………………………………………………………………………………..9 8.1 Standard of Care…………………………………………………………………………………..…………………9 SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION…………………………………………………………………………………………..…10 9.1 Hold Harmless……………………………………………………………………………………………………….10 9.2 Survival…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10 SECTION 10 NON-DISCRIMINATION……..………………………………………………………………………………10 10.1 Municipal Code Requirement…………….………………………………..……………………………….10 SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.…………………………………………………………………………………10 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 3 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 11.1 Evidence of Coverage…………………………………………………………………………………………..10 SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS…………………………………………………………….…11 12.1 Assignment………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 12.2 Assignment by Law.………………………………………………………………………………………………11 SECTION 13 NOTICES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 13.1 Method of Notice …………………………………………………………………………………………………11 13.2 Notice Recipents ………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 13.3 Change of Address……………………………………………………………………………………………….12 SECTION 14 DEFAULT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...12 14.1 Notice of Default………………………………………………………………………………………………….12 14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default…………………………………………………………………………………12 SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES…………………………………………………………………………..13 15.1 Remedies Upon Default……………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.1 Delete Certain Services…………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.2 Perform and Withhold……………………………………………………………………………………..13 15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract…………………………………………………………………13 15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default………………………………………………13 15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.6 Additional Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.2 Delays by Sureties……………………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.3 Damages to City…………………………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.3.1 For Contractor's Default…………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.3.2 Compensation for Losses…………………………………………………………………………………14 15.4 Suspension by City……………………………………………………………………………………………….14 15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience……………………………………………………………………………..14 15.4.2 Suspension for Cause………………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.5 Termination Without Cause…………………………………………………………………………………14 15.5.1 Compensation………………………………………………………………………………………………….15 15.5.2 Subcontractors………………………………………………………………………………………………..15 15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination………………………………………………………………...15 SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES……………………………………………………………16 16.1 Contractor’s Remedies……………………………………..………………………………..………………….16 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 4 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 16.1.1 For Work Stoppage……………………………………………………………………………………………16 16.1.2 For City's Non-Payment…………………………………………………………………………………….16 16.2 Damages to Contractor………………………………………………………………………………………..16 SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS………………………………………………………………………………….…16 17.1 Financial Management and City Access………………………………………………………………..16 17.2 Compliance with City Requests…………………………………………………………………………….17 SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES……………………………………………………………………………………..17 18.1 Status of Parties……………………………………………………………………………………………………17 SECTION 19 NUISANCE……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…17 19.1 Nuisance Prohibited……………………………………………………………………………………………..17 SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES…………………………………………………………………………………….17 20.1 Payment of Fees…………………………………………………………………………………………………..17 SECTION 21 WAIVER…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17 21.1 Waiver………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17 SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE; COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS……………………………….18 22.1 Governing Law…………………………………………………………………………………………………….18 22.2 Compliance with Laws…………………………………………………………………………………………18 22.2.1 Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance…………….………………………………………………….18 SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT……………………………………………………………………………………18 23.1 Integration………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18 SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………..18 24.1 Survival of Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………………18 SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES………………………………………………………………………………………….18 SECTION 26 NON-APPROPRIATION……………………………………………………………………………………….19 26.1 Appropriation………………………………………………………………………………………………………19 SECTION 27 AUTHORITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………….19 27.1 Representation of Parties…………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS………………………………………………………………………………………………..19 28.1 Multiple Counterparts………………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………19 29.1 Severability………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES …………………………………………………..19 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 5 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 30.1 Amendments of Laws…………………………………………………………………………………………..19 SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION………………………………………………….….19 31.1 Workers Compensation…………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 32 DIR REGISTRATION AND OTHER SB 854 REQUIREMENTS………………………………..…20 32.1 General Notice to Contractor…………………………………………………………………………….20 32.2 Labor Code section 1771.1(a)…………………………………………………………………………….20 32.3 DIR Registration Required…………………………………………………………………………………20 32.4 Posting of Job Site Notices…………………………………………………………………………………20 32.5 Payroll Records…………………………………………………………………………………………………20 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 6 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on May 14, 2018 (“Execution Date”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and O’GRADY PAVING, INC. ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following: R E C I T A L S: A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. Contractor is a Corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of California , Contractor’s License Number 201696 and Department of Industrial Relations Registration Number 1000003381. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the obligations set forth in this Construction Contract. C. On March 19, 2018, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the FY18 Streets Resurfacing (“Project”). In response to the IFB, Contractor submitted a Bid. D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and other services as identified in the Contract Documents for the Project upon the following terms and conditions. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS. 1.1 Recitals. All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 1.2 Definitions. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract and in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail. SECTION 2 THE PROJECT. The Project is the FY18 Streets Resurfacing Project, located at various streets, Palo Alto, CA 94301 ("Project"). Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 7 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 3.1 List of Documents. The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”) consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby incorporated by reference. 1) Change Orders 2) Field Orders 3) Contract 4) Bidding Addenda 5) Special Provisions 6) General Conditions 7) Project Plans and Drawings 8) Technical Specifications 9) Instructions to Bidders 10) Invitation for Bids 11) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Declaration 12) Reports listed in the Contract Documents 13) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version at time of Bid) 14) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards (most current version at time of Bid) 15) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements 16) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations 17) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre- Qualification Checklist (if applicable) 18) Performance and Payment Bonds 3.2 Order of Precedence. For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence, the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best interests of the City. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 8 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY. 4.1 Contractor’s Duties Contractor agrees to perform all of the Work required for the Project, as specified in the Contract Documents, all of which are fully incorporated herein. Contractor shall provide, furnish, and supply all things necessary and incidental for the timely performance and completion of the Work, including, but not limited to, provision of all necessary labor, materials, equipment, transportation, and utilities, unless otherwise specified in the Contract Documents. Contractor also agrees to use its best efforts to complete the Work in a professional and expeditious manner and to meet or exceed the performance standards required by the Contract Documents. SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM. 5.1 Contractor’s Co-operation. In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Contract requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the Project. SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION. 6.1 Time Is of Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents. 6.2 Commencement of Work. Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. 6.3 Contract Time. Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be completed not later than . Within One Hundred Fifty calendar days (150) after the commencement date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. By executing this Construction Contract, Contractor expressly waives any claim for delayed early completion. 6.4 Liquidated Damages. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.85, if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time, including any approved extensions thereto, City may assess liquidated damages on a daily basis for each day of Unexcused Delay in achieving Substantial Completion, based on the amount of One Thousand dollars ($1,000) per day, or as otherwise specified in the Special Provisions. Liquidated damages may also be separately assessed for failure to meet milestones specified elsewhere in the Contract Documents, regardless of impact on the time for achieving Substantial Completion. The assessment of liquidated damages is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work. The City is entitled to setoff the amount of liquidated damages assessed against any payments otherwise due to Contractor, IZI Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 9 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT including, but not limited to, setoff against release of retention. If the total amount of liquidated damages assessed exceeds the amount of unreleased retention, City is entitled to recover the balance from Contractor or its sureties. Occupancy or use of the Project in whole or in part prior to Substantial Completion, shall not operate as a waiver of City’s right to assess liquidated damages. 6.4.1 Other Remedies. City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have where City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time. The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and memorialized in a Change Order approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR. 7.1 Contract Sum. Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Four Million Seven Hundred Forty Three Thousand Eighteen Dollars ($4,743,018). [This amount includes the Base Bid and Additive Alternates .] 7.2 Full Compensation. The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall cover all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of the Work, except as expressly provided herein. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change Orders approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE. 8.1 Standard of Care. Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 10 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION. 9.1 Hold Harmless. To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers (hereinafter individually referred to as an “Indemnitee” and collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and liability, loss, damage, claims, expenses (including, without limitation, attorney fees, expert witness fees, paralegal fees, and fees and costs of litigation or arbitration) (collectively, “Liability”) of every nature arising out of or in connection with the acts or omissions of Contractor, its employees, Subcontractors, representatives, or agents, in performing the Work or its failure to comply with any of its obligations under the Contract, except such Liability caused by the active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of an Indemnitee. Contractor shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Except as provided in Section 9.2 below, nothing in the Contract Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee. Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 9201, City shall timely notify Contractor upon receipt of any third-party claim relating to the Contract. 9.2 Survival. The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract. SECTION 10 NON-DISCRIMINATION. 10.1 Municipal Code Requirement. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any 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. Contractor acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS. 11.1 Evidence of coverage. Within ten (10) business days following issuance of the Notice of Award, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained insurance and shall submit Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 11 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS. 12.1 Assignment. City is entering into this Construction Contract in reliance upon the stated experience and qualifications of the Contractor and its Subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment, hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void, and shall be deemed a substantial breach of contract and grounds for default in addition to any other legal or equitable remedy available to the City. 12.2 Assignment by Law. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity. SECTION 13 NOTICES. 13.1 Method of Notice. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following: (i) On the date delivered if delivered personally; (ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided; (iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission; (iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or (v) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail. 13.2 Notice to Recipients. All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Change Order Requests and Claims) from Contractor to City shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be addressed to City at: To City: City of Palo Alto City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Copy to: City of Palo Alto Public Works Administration 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Holly Boyd AND [Include Construction Manager, If Applicable.] Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 12 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be provided to the following: Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, California 94303 All Claims shall be sent by registered mail or certified mail with return receipt requested. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to: O’Grady Paving, Inc. Attn: Craig Young 2513 Wyandotte Street Mountain View, Ca 94043 13.3 Change of Address. In advance of any change of address, Contractor shall notify City of the change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided. SECTION 14 DEFAULT. 14.1 Notice of Default. In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract, with a copy to Contractor’s performance bond surety. 14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default. Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 13 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 15.1 Remedies Upon Default. If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth above in Section 14, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including, without limitation, the following: 15.1.1 Delete Certain Services. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 15.1.2 Perform and Withhold. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work. 15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default. City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part, upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 14. City’s election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless otherwise provided therein. 15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond. City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond. 15.1.6 Additional Provisions. All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity. Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not waive the City’s authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City’s right to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the Agreement for breaches that are not material. City’s determination of whether there has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City. 15.2 Delays by Sureties. Time being of the essence in the performance of the Work, if Contractor’s surety fails to arrange for completion of the Work in accordance with the Performance Bond, within seven (7) calendar days from the date of the notice of termination, Contractor’s surety shall be deemed to have waived its right to complete the Work under the Contract, and City may immediately make arrangements for the completion of the Work through use of its own forces, by hiring a replacement contractor, or by any other means that City determines advisable under the circumstances. Contractor and its surety shall be jointly and severally Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 14 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT liable for any additional cost incurred by City to complete the Work following termination. In addition, City shall have the right to use any materials, supplies, and equipment belonging to Contractor and located at the Worksite for the purposes of completing the remaining Work. 15.3 Damages to City. 15.3.1 For Contractor's Default. City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents. 15.3.2 Compensation for Losses. In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents, City shall be entitled to deduct the cost of such Losses from monies otherwise payable to Contractor. If the Losses incurred by City exceed the amount payable, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall promptly remit same to City. 15.4 Suspension by City 15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience. City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order, delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the Work. 15.4.2 Suspension for Cause. In addition to all other remedies available to City, if Contractor fails to perform or correct work in accordance with the Contract Documents, City may immediately order the Work, or any portion thereof, suspended until the cause for the suspension has been eliminated to City’s satisfaction. Contractor shall not be entitled to an increase in Contract Time or Contract Price for a suspension occasioned by Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents. City’s right to suspend the Work shall not give rise to a duty to suspend the Work, and City’s failure to suspend the Work shall not constitute a defense to Contractor’s failure to comply with the requirements of the Contract Documents. 15.5 Termination Without Cause. City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or in whole upon written notice to Contractor. Upon receipt of such notice, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the notice and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs to close out and demobilize. The compensation allowed under this Paragraph 15.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive compensation for such termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination without cause. Termination pursuant to this provision does not relieve Contractor or its sureties from any of their obligations for Losses arising from or related to the Work performed by Contractor. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 15 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 15.5.1 Compensation. Following such termination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 15.5.1, City shall pay the following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the Work : .1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor. .2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors: (i) Demobilizing and (ii) Administering the close-out of its participation in the Project (including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty (30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination. .3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work. .4 Profit Allowance. An allowance for profit calculated as four percent (4%) of the sum of the above items, provided Contractor can prove a likelihood that it would have made a profit if the Construction Contract had not been terminated. 15.5.2 Subcontractors. Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section. 15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination. Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the notice directs otherwise, do the following: (i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice; (ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities, except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not discontinued; (iii) Provide to City a description in writing, no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes, payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract; (iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and (v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in transit thereto. Upon termination, whether for cause or for convenience, the provisions of the Contract Documents remain in effect as to any Claim, indemnity obligation, warranties, guarantees, Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 16 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT submittals of as-built drawings, instructions, or manuals, or other such rights and obligations arising prior to the termination date. SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 16.1 Contractor’s Remedies. Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the following: 16.1.1 For Work Stoppage. The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any work stoppage resulting from the City’s issuance of a suspension notice issued either for cause or for convenience. 16.1.2 For City's Non-Payment. If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract (30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the Construction Contract. 16.2 Damages to Contractor. In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided for in Paragraph 15.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind. SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS. 17.1 Financial Management and City Access. Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take-offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of (i) Final Payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for such longer period as may be required by law. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 17 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 17.2 Compliance with City Requests. Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 17 shall be a condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract Documents. City many enforce Contractor’s obligation to provide access to City of its business and other records referred to in Section 17.1 for inspection or copying by issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony. SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES. 18.1 Status of parties. Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint ventures’ of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set forth. SECTION 19 NUISANCE. 19.1 Nuisance Prohibited. Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract. SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES. 20.1 Payment of Fees. Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other government jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies. SECTION 21 WAIVER. 21.1 Waiver. A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 18 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE; COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. 22.1 Governing Law. This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California, and venue shall be in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Santa Clara, and no other place. 22.2 Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal and California laws and city laws, including, without limitation, ordinances and resolutions, in the performance of work under this Construction Contract. 22.2.1 Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance. Contractor shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as it may be amended from time to time. In particular, for any employee otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who performs at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the City, Contractor shall pay such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.030 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In addition, Contractor shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.060. SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT. 23.1 Integration. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT. 24.1 Survival of Provisions. The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities, payment obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract. SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES. This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project in accordance with SB 7, if the public works contract does not include a project of $25,000 or less, when the project is for construction work, or the contract does not include a project of $15,000 or less, when the project is for alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance (collectively, ‘improvement’) work. Or Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 19 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Copies of these rates may be obtained at the Purchasing Division’s office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of all sections, including, but not limited to, Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, and 1813, of the Labor Code pertaining to prevailing wages. SECTION 26 NON-APPROPRIATION. 26.1 Appropriations. 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 the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, 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 Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 27 AUTHORITY. 27.1 Representation of Parties. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS 28.1 Multiple Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement. SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY. 29.1 Severability. In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected. SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES. 30.1 Amendments to Laws. With respect to any amendments to any statutes or regulations referenced in these Contract Documents, the reference is deemed to be the version in effect on the date that the Contract was awarded by City, unless otherwise required by law. SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION. 31.1 Workers Compensation. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1861, by signing this Contract, Contractor certifies as follows: Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 20 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT “I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work on this Contract.” SECTION 32 DIR REGISTRATION AND OTHER SB 854 REQUIREMENTS. 32.1 General Notice to Contractor. City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of SB 854. 32.2 Labor Code section 1771.1(a) City provides notice to Contractor of the requirements of California Labor Code section 1771.1(a), which reads: “A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contactor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.” 32.3 DIR Registration Required. City will not accept a bid proposal from or enter into this Construction Contract with Contractor without proof that Contractor and its listed subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) to perform public work, subject to limited exceptions. 32.4 Posting of Job Site Notices. City gives notice to Contractor and its listed subcontractors that Contractor is required to post all job site notices prescribed by law or regulation and Contractor is subject to SB 854-compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. 32.5 Payroll Records. City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of Labor Code section 1776, including: (i) Keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by, respectively, Contractor and its listed subcontractors, in connection with the Project. (ii) The payroll records shall be verified as true and correct and shall be certified and made available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of Contractor and its listed subcontractors, respectively. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 21 Rev. March 17, 2017 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (iii) At the request of City, acting by its project manager, Contractor and its listed subcontractors shall make the certified payroll records available for inspection or furnished upon request to the project manager within ten (10) days of receipt of City’s request. City requests Contractor and its listed subcontractors to submit the certified payroll records to the project manager at the end of each week during the Project. (iv) If the certified payroll records are not produced to the project manager within the 10-day period, then Contractor and its listed subcontractors shall be subject to a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker, and City shall withhold the sum total of penalties from the progress payment(s) then due and payable to Contractor. This provision supplements the provisions of Section 15 hereof. (v) Inform the project manager of the location of contractor’s and its listed subcontractors’ payroll records (street address, city and county) at the commencement of the Project, and also provide notice to the project manager within five (5) business days of any change of location of those payroll records. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the date and year first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ Purchasing Manager City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ City Attorney or designee APPROVED: ____________________________ Public Works Director CONTRACTOR Officer 1 By:___________________________ Name:________________________ Title:__________________________ Date: _________________________ Officer 2 By:____________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:___________________________ Date:____________________________ ~ 4000 600 4000 700 600 3700 3800 3900 3800 300 3100 3300 4000 600 500 500 4200 4200 200 500 4100 41004100 4000 400 4100 3600 0 4100 4300 400 4200 200 0 4000 4200 300 200 300 200 4100 3800 100 3700 3700 3900 300 300 500 400 400 600 3900 300 4100 4000 3800 700 200 200 3500 100 3400 3300 300 500 3800 500 700 700 2700 400 3100 200 3000 2800 2900 2600 100 2500 500 3200 300 400 3000 3100 600 31003000 3200 2900 3300 35003400 700 3400 3800 3900 900 800 3600 900 4000 900 3600 3700 3800 800 700 3300 3100 3200 700 3200 3400 900 3600 3400 3500 1100 3700 1000 1000 2900 800 3000 900 700 800 2600 800 800 3100 900 3100 3300 3400 3200 1000 1000 3200 3000 3300 3000 2300 1200 2200 1400 2000 2000 2200 2000 2200 2200 2300 2100 1600 1400 1500 1600 2000 2600 900 600 700 3700 800 700 1000 800 600 3500 3800 3600 600 800 4000 4000 3900 3800 700 700 800 900 4000 1000 600 600 700 3800 3900 3200 3300 3600 3700 200 3400 1200 600 800 1900 1800 400 600 2000 2100 2000 2200 2000 2100 2000 800 2200 2000 1000 2300 2000 2000 1700 400 1500 1600 16001500 0 1800 1800 200 1800 300 1700 1900 2500 400 2400 2700 500 200 2800 3400 3500 300 400 2900 3000 2800 100 3000 200 3300 3000 400 300 2400 2300 300 2200 2200 100 200 2000 100 1800 20001900 2100 2000 200 300 1900 2600 100 2400 300 200 2700 100 2500 2500 2100 2100 200 2300 300 200 1900 400 400 500 200 400 300 2400 2600 2400 300 500 24002300 500 23002200 600 700 22002200 800 2400 1900 1900 2100 900 900 1700 500 500 1900 1000 2500 700 2200 800 2200 2400 2300 900 25002400 2800 1000 27002600 2600 1000 3000 31002900 2400 1000 1100 1100 1100 2000 1900 2300 2000 300 700 900 700 0 600 800 800 600 500 400 300 200 100 100 200 100 400 300 300 200 700 300 600 200 100 600 200 100 500 500 300 500 400 300 300 400 200 400 500400 600 200 400 500 100 100 300 200 300 200100 300 1200 1300 200 1600 1700 1600 500 1800 2100 1400 100 1700 400 1700 1800 1500 1500 1400 600 2000 600 700 700 700 400 1000 1300 500 1500 400 100 1100 1100 200 14001300 400 1400 100 200 1200 1200 900 800 600 1000 300 900800 1000 900 800 700600 700 400 500 700 500 400 600 800 700 700 500 900 400 1200 600 1100 400 1100 500 1000 700 600 900800 800 600 1000 800 1000 1000 1100 1000 900 1000 1200 13001200 700 1100 800 900 1200 1200 1100 1000 1100 1500 1400 1300 1700 700 1900 600 1600 500 1600 2100 1700 600 1800 800 1300 1200 800 1200 1200 1400 1100 1100 600 700 1100 1300 1300 1800 0 500 800 1500 900 700 1400 1000 1300 1100 1200 800 900 800 1700 1600 1700 1800 500 700 1400 1500 1400 600 1500 1600 1600 500 500 1400 2000 1800 2000 400 35003400 3200 2200 2200 2500 2800 1100 3200 3400 3700 3700 600 4100 2000 1900 600 2500 3900 300 400 3600 3600 27002600 3900 2600 2700 2800 3100 3200 2200 2200 2000 2200 2000 2200 200 400 600 800 2900 2900 3700 800 3300 1200 2400 900 1000 1100 2600 1800 3800 700 600 2200 2000 400 3100 800 900 700 3000 1500 400 2300 1000 1300 600 800 700 2700 3000 2800 3200 4100 2100 3400 3700 3100 3700 1000 1000 1100 400 4200 4200 4200 1100 3100 3100 3200 3200 3100 3100 3200 3200 1100 1100 11001100 1100 800 800 1100 800 3300 3400 4300 400 400 400 35003400 2400 100 43004200 4300 800 2800 700 2700 2800 2900 2300 2000 2100 400 4200 400 400 400 2500 1600 2400 2400 2500 2400 1500 1400 1400 4000 600 4000 700 600 3700 3800 3900 3800 300 3100 3300 4000 600 500 500 4200 4200 200 500 4100 41004100 4000 400 4100 3600 0 4100 4300 400 4200 200 0 4000 4200 300 200 300 200 4100 3800 100 3700 3700 3900 300 300 500 400 400 600 3900 300 4100 4000 3800 700 200 200 3500 100 3400 3300 300 500 3800 500 700 700 2700 400 3100 200 3000 2800 2900 2600 100 2500 500 3200 300 400 3000 3100 600 31003000 3200 2900 3300 35003400 700 3400 3800 3900 900 800 3600 900 4000 900 3600 3700 3800 800 700 3300 3100 3200 700 3200 3400 900 3600 3400 3500 1100 3700 1000 1000 2900 800 3000 900 700 800 2600 800 800 3100 900 3100 3300 3400 3200 1000 1000 3200 3000 3300 3000 2300 1200 2200 1400 2000 2000 2200 2000 2200 2200 2300 2100 1600 1400 1500 1600 2000 2600 900 600 700 3700 800 700 1000 800 600 3500 3800 3600 600 800 4000 4000 3900 3800 700 700 800 900 4000 1000 600 600 700 3800 3900 3200 3300 3600 3700 200 3400 1200 600 800 1900 1800 400 600 2000 2100 2000 2200 2000 2100 2000 800 2200 2000 1000 2300 2000 2000 1700 400 1500 1600 16001500 0 1800 1800 200 1800 300 1700 1900 2500 400 2400 2700 500 200 2800 3400 3500 300 400 2900 3000 2800 100 3000 200 3300 3000 400 300 2400 2300 300 2200 2200 100 200 2000 100 1800 20001900 2100 2000 200 300 1900 2600 100 2400 300 200 2700 100 2500 2500 2100 2100 200 2300 300 200 1900 400 400 500 200 400 300 2400 2600 2400 300 500 24002300 500 23002200 600 700 22002200 800 2400 1900 1900 2100 900 900 1700 500 500 1900 1000 2500 700 2200 800 2200 2400 2300 900 25002400 2800 1000 27002600 2600 1000 3000 31002900 2400 1000 1100 1100 1100 2000 1900 2300 2000 300 700 900 700 0 600 800 800 600 500 400 300 200 100 100 200 100 400 300 300 200 700 300 600 200 100 600 200 100 500 500 300 500 400 300 300 400 200 400 500400 600 200 400 500 100 100 300 200 300 200100 300 1200 1300 200 1600 1700 1600 500 1800 2100 1400 100 1700 400 1700 1800 1500 1500 1400 600 2000 600 700 700 700 400 1000 1300 500 1500 400 100 1100 1100 200 14001300 400 1400 100 200 1200 1200 900 800 600 1000 300 900800 1000 900 800 700600 700 400 500 700 500 400 600 800 700 700 500 900 400 1200 600 1100 400 1100 500 1000 700 600 900800 800 600 1000 800 1000 1000 1100 1000 900 1000 1200 13001200 700 1100 800 900 1200 1200 1100 1000 1100 1500 1400 1300 1700 700 1900 600 1600 500 1600 2100 1700 600 1800 800 1300 1200 800 1200 1200 1400 1100 1100 600 700 1100 1300 1300 1800 0 500 800 1500 900 700 1400 1000 1300 1100 1200 800 900 800 1700 1600 1700 1800 500 700 1400 1500 1400 600 1500 1600 1600 500 500 1400 2000 1800 2000 400 35003400 3200 2200 2200 2500 2800 1100 3200 3400 3700 3700 600 4100 2000 1900 600 2500 3900 300 400 3600 3600 27002600 3900 2600 2700 2800 3100 3200 2200 2200 2000 2200 2000 2200 200 400 600 800 2900 2900 3700 800 3300 1200 2400 900 1000 1100 2600 1800 3800 700 600 2200 2000 400 3100 800 900 700 3000 1500 400 2300 1000 1300 600 800 700 2700 3000 2800 3200 4100 2100 3400 3700 3100 3700 1000 10001100 400 4200 4200 4200 1100 3100 3100 3200 3200 3100 3100 3200 3200 1100 1100 11001100 1100 800 800 1100 800 3300 3400 4300 400 400 400 35003400 2400 100 43004200 4300 800 2800 700 2700 2800 2900 2300 2000 2100 400 4200 400 400 400 2500 1600 2400 2400 2500 2400 1500 1400 1400 Wallis Ct Donald Drive Encina Grande Drive Ce reza Drive Los Robles Avenue Villa Vera Verdosa Drive Campana Drive Solana Drive Georgia Ave Ynigo Way Driscoll Ct ngArthu r 'Maybell Way Maybell Avenue Frandon Ct Florales Drive Georgia Avenue Amaranta Avenue Am aranta Ct Ki sCourt Terman Drive Baker Avenue Vista Avenue Wisteria Ln Pena Ct Coulombe Drive Cherry Oaks Pl Pomona Avenue Arastradero Road Abel Avenue Clemo Avenue Villa Real El Camino Way Curtner Avenue Ventura Avenu e Maclane Emerson Street Ventura Ct Park Boulevard Ma gnolia Dr South El Camino Real Cypress Lane GlenbrookD Fairmede Avenue Arastradero Road Irven Court Los Palos Cir LosPalosPl Mayb ell Avenue Alta Mesa Ave Kelly Way Los Palos Avenue Suzanne Drive Suzanne Drive rive El Camino Real Suzanne Ct Lorabelle Ct McKellar Lane El Camino Way James Road Maclane Second Street Wilkie Way Camino Ct West Meadow Drive Thain Way Barclay Ct Victoria Place Interdale Way West Cha rleston Road Tennessee LaneWilkie Way Carolina Lane Tennessee Lane Park Boulevard Wilkie Ct Davenport Way Alma Street Roosev Monroe Drive Wilkie Way Whitclem Pl Whitclem Drive Duluth Circle Edlee Avenu e Dinah's Co urt Cesano Court Monroe DriveMiller Avenue Whitclem Wy Whitclem Ct Ferne AvenueBen Lomond Drive Fairfield Court Ferne Avenue Ponce Drive HemlockCourt Ferne Court Alma Street Monroe Drive San Antonio Road NitaAve Ruthelma Avenue Darlington Ct East Charleston Road LundyLane Newberry Ct Park Boulevard George Hood Ln Alma Street elt Circle LinderoDrive Wright Place Starr King Circle Shasta Drive Mackay DriveDiablo Court Scripps Avenue Scripps Court Nelson Drive Tioga Court Creeks i de Drive Greenmeadow Way Ben Lomond Drive Parkside Drive Dixon Place Ely Place Dake Avenue Ferne Avenue San Antonio C ChristopherCourt CalcaterraPlace Ely Place Ely Place Adobe Place Nelson Court Byron StreetKeats Court Middlefield Road Duncan Place Carlson Court Duncan Place Mumford Place East Charleston Road San Antonio Road East Meadow Drive Emerson Street Cour t Bryant Street RooseveltCircle RamonaStreet CarlsonCircleRedwoodCircle South Leghorn Street Montrose Avenue Maplewood Charleston Ct East Charleston Road Seminole Way Sutherland Drive Nelson Drive El Capitan Plac e Fabian Street Loma Verde Avenue Bryson Avenue Midtown Court Cowper Street Gary Court Waverley Street South Court Bryant Street Ramona Street Alma Street Coastland Drive Colorado AvenueByron Street Middlefield Road Gaspar Court Mo r e n o A v e n u e Coastland Drive El Carmelo Avenue Rosewood D Campesino Avenue Dymond Ct Martinsen Ct Ramona Street Bryant Street Towle Way Towle Place Wellsbury Ct AvalonCour t Flowers Lane Mackall Way Loma Verde Avenue Kipling Street Cowper Street South Court Waverley Street El Verano Avenue Wellsbury Way La Middlefield Road St Claire Drive Alger Drive Ashton Avenue St Michael Drive St Michael Drive Maureen Avenue Cowper Court Rambow Drive East Meadow Drive Ashton Court Murdoch Drive Cowper Street Murdoch Ct St Michael Court MayCourt Mayview Avenue Middlefield Road Ensign Way Bibbits DriveGailen Ct Gailen Avenue Grove Avenue San Antonio Road Commercial Street Industrial Avenue Bibbits Drive East Charleston Road Fabian Way T East Meadow Drive Grove Avenue Christine Drive Corina Way Ross RoadCorina Way Loui s Road Nathan Way Transport Street Ortega Court East Meadow Drive yneCourt alisman Loma Verde Avenue Allen Court Ross Court Loma Verde Pl Ames Avenue Richardson Court Holly Oak Drive Ames Avenue Cork OakWay Middlefield Road Ames Ct Ames Avenue Ross Road Rorke Way Rorke Way Stone Lane Toyon Place Torreya Court Lupine Avenue Thornwood Drive DriftwoodDrive Talisman Drive Arbutus Avenue Ross Road Louis Road Aspen Way Evergreen Drive East Meadow Drive Corporation Way Elwell Court Janice Way East Meadow Circle East Meadow Circle GreerRoad Bayshore Freeway rive Ellsworth Place San Carlos Court Wintergreen Way SutterAvenue Sutter Avenue Clara Drive Price Court Stern Avenue Colorado Avenue Randers Ct Ross Road Sycamore Drive Sevyson Ct Stelling Drive Ross Road David Avenue MurrayWay Stelling Drive Stelling Ct Manchester Court Kenneth Drive ThomasDrive Greer Road Stockton Place Vernon Terrace Louis Road Janice Way Thomas Drive Kenneth Drive Loma Verde Avenue Cl iftonCourt ElbridgeWay Clara Drive BautistaCourtStockton Place Morris Drive Maddux Drive Piers Ct Louis Road Moraga Ct over Street Stanford Avenu e Amherst Street Columbia Street Bowdoin Street Dartmouth Street Hanover Street College Avenue California Avenue Hanover Street Ramos Way (Private) Page Mill Road Hansen Way Hanover Street Laguna Ct Barron Avenue Josina Avenue Kendall Avenue Tippawingo St Julie CtMatadero Avenue Ilima Way Ilima Court Laguna Oaks Pl Carlitos Ct La Calle Laguna Avenue ElCerrit Paradise Way Roble Ridge (Private) LaMataWay Chimalus Drive Matadero Avenue o Road Paul AvenueKendall AvenueWhitsell Avenue Barron Avenue Los Robles Avenue Laguna Way ShaunaLane La Para Avenue San Jude Avenue El Centro Street Timlott La Jennifer Way Magno lia Dr North La Donna Avenue LosRobles Avenue Rinc Manzana Lane onCircle Crosby Pl Georgia Avenue Hubbartt Drive Willmar Drive Donald Drive La Para AvenueSan Jude Avenue Magnolia Drive Military Way Arbol Drive Orme Street Fernando Avenue Matadero Avenue Lambert Avenue Hansen Way El Camino Real Margarita Avenue Matadero Avenue Wilton Avenue Oxford Avenue Harvard Street California Avenue Wellesley Street Princeton Street Oberlin Street Cornell Street Cambridge Avenue College Avenue Williams Street Yale Street Staunton Court Oxford AvenueEl Camino Real Churchill Avenue Park Boulevard Park Avenue Escobita Avenue Churchill Avenue Sequoia Avenue Mariposa Avenue Castilleja Avenue Miramonte Avenue Madrono Avenue Portola Avenue Manzanita Avenue Coleridge Avenue Leland Avenue Stanford Avenue Birch Street Ash Street Lowell Avenue Alma StreetTennyson Avenue Grant Avenue Sheridan Avenue Jacaranda Lane El Camino Real Sherman Avenue Ash Street Page Mill Road Mimosa Lane Chestnut Avenue Portage Avenue Pepper Avenue Olive Avenue Acacia Avenue Emerson Street Park Boulevard Orinda Street Birch Street Ash Street Page Mill Road Ash Street Park Boulevard College Avenue Cambridge Avenue New Ma yfield LaneBirch Street California Avenue Park Boulevard Nogal Lane Rinconada Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Park Boulevard Seale Avenue Washington Avenue Santa Rita AvenueWaverleyStree Bryant Street High Street Emerson Street Colorado Avenu e Street Emerson Street Ramona Street Bryant Street South Court El Dorado Avenue Alma Street Alma Street High Street t Emerson Waverley Oaks Washington Avenue Bryant Street South Court Waverley Street Emerson Street Nevada Avenue North California Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Ramona Street High Street North California Avenue Oregon Expressway Marion Avenue Ramona Street Colorado Avenu e Waverley Street Kipling Street South Court Cowper Street Anton Court Nevada Avenue Tasso StreetTasso Street Oregon Avenue Marion Pl We b ster Street Middlefield Road Ross Road Warren Way El Cajon Way Emb arcadero Road Primrose Way Iris Way Tulip LaneTulip Lane Garland Drive Louis Road Greer Road Morton Street Greer Road Hamilton Avenue Hilbar Lane Alannah Ct Edge Rhodes Drive Marshall Drive Fieldin Moreno Avenue MarshallDrive Dennis Drive Agnes Way Oregon Avenue Blair Court Santa Ana Street Elsinore DriveElsinore Court El Cajon Way Greer Road North California Avenue gDrive Colorado Avenue Sycamore Drive Amarillo Avenue Van Auken Ci rcle Bruce Drive Colonial Lane Moreno Avenue Celia Drive Burnham Way Greer Road Indian Drive Elmdale Pl C Tanland Drive Moreno Avenue Amarillo Avenue West Bayshore Road Sandra Place Clara Drive Colorado Avenue Greer Road Colorado Avenue Simkins Court Otterson Ct Higgins Place Lawrence Lane Maddux Drive Genevieve Ct MetroCircle Moffett Circle Greer Road East Bayshore Road ardinalWay Santa Catalina Street ArrowheadWayAztec Way Chabot Terrace Oregon Avenue Carmel Drive SierraCourt StFrancisDrive West Bayshore Road Tanland Drive East Bayshore Road wood Dr i ve Edgewood Drive WildwoodLane Ivy Lane East Bayshore Road St Francis Drive Wildwood Lane Wa tson Court Laura Lane Sandalwood Ct O'Brine Lane (Private) Quarry Roa d Welch Road Arboretum Road Qu arry Road Sand Hill Road Homer Avenue Lane 8 West Medical Foundation Way Lane 7 West Lane 7 East Embarcadero Road Encina Avenue El Camino Real Urban Lane Wells Avenue Forest Avenue High Street Emerson Street Channing Avenue Alma StreetAlma Street PaloAltoA El Camino Real venue Mitchell Lane Hawthorne Avenue Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue Lane 15 E High Street Alma Street Bryant Street Lane 6 E Lane 11 W Lane 21 High Street Gilman Street Hamilton Avenue University Avenue Bryant Court Lane 30 Florence Street Kipling Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Ruthven Avenue Hawthorne Avenue Lane 33 PaloAltoAvenue Everett Avenue Poe Street Waverley Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Palo Alto Avenue Webster Street Everett Court Lytton Avenue Byron Street Fulton Street Middlefield Road Churchill Avenue Lowell Avenue Seale Avenue Tennyson Avenue Melville Avenue Cowper Street Tasso Street Webster Street Byron Street North California Avenue Coleridge AvenueWaverley Street Bryant Street Emerson Street Kellogg Avenue Kingsley Avenue Portal Place Ross Road Oregon Avenue Garland Drive Lane A West Lane B West Lane B East Lane D West Lane 59 East Whitman Court Kellogg Avenue Embarcadero Road Kingsley Avenue Lincoln Avenue Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Forest Avenue Downing Lane Homer Avenue Lane D East Lane 39 Lane 56 Hamilton Avenue Webster Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant Street Ramona Street Addison Avenue Scott Street Byron Street Palo Hale Street Seneca Street Lytton Avenue Guinda StreetPaloAltoAvenue Fulton Street Middlefield Road Forest Avenue Webster Street Kellogg Avenue Middlefield Road Byron Street Webster Street Cowper Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Boyce Avenue Forest Avenue Hamilton Avenue Homer Avenue Guinda Street Middlefield Road Channing Avenue AltoAvenueChaucer Street Chaucer Street University Avenue Channing Avenue Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Regent Pl Guinda Street Lincoln Avenue Fulton Street Melville Avenue Byron Street Kingsley Avenue Melville Avenue Hamilton Avenue Hamilton Court Forest Avenue Forest Ct Marlowe Street Maple Street Palm Street Somerset Pl Pitman Avenue Fife Avenue Forest AvenueDana Avenue Lincoln AvenueUniversity Avenue Coleridge Avenue Lowell Avenue Fulton Street Cowper Street Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue Northampton Drive West Greenwich Pl Middlefield Road Newell Road Guinda Street East Greenwich Pl Southampton Drive Webster Street Kirby Pl Kent Place Tevis Pl Martin Avenue Center Drive Harriet Street Wilson Street Cedar Street Harker AvenueGreenwood Avenue Hutchinson Avenue Channing Avenue Hopkins Avenue Embarcadero Road Ashby Drive Dana Avenue Hamilton Avenue Pitman Avenue Southwood Drive West CrescentDrive CrescentDrive University Avenue Center Drive East Crescen Arcadia Place Louisa Court Newell Pl Sharon Ct Erstwild Court Walter Hays Drive Walnut DriveNewell Road Parkinson Avenue Pine Street Mark Twain Street Louis Road Barbara Drive Primrose Way Iris Way Embarcadero Road Walter Hays Drive Lois LaneJordan Pl Lois Lane Heather Lane Bret Harte Street Stanley Way De Soto Drive De Soto Drive Alester Avenue Walter Hays Drive Channing Avenue Iris Way t Drive Dana Avenue Hamilton Avenue Newell Road Kings Lane Edgewood Dr i ve Island Drive Jefferson Drive JacksonDrive Pa tricia Lane Madison Way EdgewoodDr i ve Ramona Street Addison Avenue Channing Avenue Waverley Street Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue Middlefield Road Byron Street Webster Street Marion Avenue Welch Road Sedro Lane Peral Lane McGregor Way Monroe Drive Silva Avenue Silva Court Miller Court Briarwood Way Driscoll Place Paulsen Ln Community Lane Lane 15 E Court Madeline Ct David Ct Green Manor Oregon Expressway Oregon Expressway Sheridan Avenue Page Mill Road Cerrito Way Emerson Street Lane 20 WLane 20 E Oregon Expressway University Avenue Jacob's Ct CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW Emerson Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Clark Way Durand Way Sand Hill Ro adSwain Way Clark Way Mosher Way Charles Marx Way Orchard Lane Vineyard Lane Sand Hill Road Sand Hill Road Sand Hill Road Lane 66 Bryant Street Ramona Street Blake Wilbur Drive West Charleston Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Bayshore FreewayWest Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road West Bayshore Road East Bayshore RoadBayshore FreewayBayshore FreewayFabian Way Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Palo Road Shopping Center Way Shopping Center Way Shopping Center Way London Plane Way Plum Lane Sweet Olive Way Pear Lane Lane 66 La Selva Drive Grove Ct Stanford Avenue Lane 12 W Lane 5 E Lasuen Street Serra Mall Escondido Road Olmsted Road Phi l l i ps Road Pistache Place Lane C El Dorado Avenue Clara Drive Bellview Dr Everett Avenue Homer Avenue La Calle San Antonio Road Matadero Ave Colorado Pl Los Robles Avenue Timlott Ct Vista Villa Palo AltoAvenue Lane La Donna Avenue Cass Way Kenneth Drive Fabian Way Page Mill Road Middlefield RoadChristine Drive Louis Road East Charleston Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Chimalus Drive Hanover Street Community Lane Greenwood Avenue Harker Avenue Parkinson Avenue Avenue Maplewood Pl Mackay Drive Byron Street Varian Way Quail Dr Quail Dr Paloma Dr Paloma Dr Trinity Ln Heron Wy Feather LnStanislaus Ln Tuolumne Ln Plover Ln Sandpiper Ln Curlew Ln Mallard LnEgret Ln Klamath Ln Deodar St Alder Ln Spruce Ln Rickey's Ln Juniper Way Rickey's WyRickey's Wy Rickey's Wy Juniper Lane Emerson Street Boronda Lane Tahoe Lane Lake Avenue Donner Lane Almanor Lane Fallen Leaf Street Berryessa Street Cashel St Noble StHettinger Ln Pratt Ln Emma Court Galvez Mall Federation Way Abrams Court Angell Court Arguello Way ArguelloWay Avery Mall Ayrshire Farm Lane Barnes Court Bonair Siding Bowdoin Street Campus Drive Cam pus Drive Campus Drive Campus Dr i ve Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive rive Churchill Mall Comstock Circle Aboretum Road Aboretum Road Blackwelder Court Cowell Ln Crothers Way Dudl ey Lane a Street Escondido Mall Escondido Mall Escondido Road Escondido Road Escondido Road Way Galvez Mall Galvez Street Galvez Street Galvez Street Hoskins Court Hulme Court Jenk i ns CourtKnight Way Lasuen Mall Lasuen Mall en Mall Lasuen Street Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita Mall Masters Mall McFarland Court Mears Court Memorial Way Museum Way N Service Road Nelson Mall Nelson Road North-South Axis Oberlin St Comstock Circle Escondido Mall Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Palm Drive Palm Drive Pampas Lane Panama Mall P Peter Coutts Circle Peter Coutts Road Pine Hill Court Pine Hi ll Road Quarry Extension Quarry Road Quillen Ct Ro sse Lane Roth Way Roth Way Roth Way Running Farm Lane San Francisco Terrace San Francisco Court Serra Mall Serra Street Serra Street Serra Street Thoburn Court Via Ortega Via Palou Via Pueblo Mall Welch Road Wellesley St Wilbur Way Yale St Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Hawthorne Avenue Lytton Avenue bbott Way Sam McDonald Road Sam McDo nald Mall Bowdoin Lane Arguello Way Governors Lane Pasteur Drive Alma Village Lane Alma Village Circle Ryan LaneGene Ct Brassinga Ct Cole Ct Birch Street Arboretum Road Welch Road Pasteur Drive Pasteur Drive Lane 33 Quarry Road Whitman Court Kellogg Avenue Kellogg Avenue BryantStreet Alma Street Alma Street Ba rron Av enue La Calle Court EmersonStreet Cowper Street Guinda Street Hale Street This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Limits of AC Paving 0'1612' FY 1 8 A S P H A L T P A V I N G P R O J E C T 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 jhay, 2018-02-06 17:00:47 FY18 OVERLAY MAP (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\jhay.mdb) Attachment B @)) ' ,, .. •·-;-·~ "-1\. ,· ' :, /. \ ~) ' I -- \ ' ~\. •-~ Ir ", ,, ' -"\•-- ./ ' 3700 800 700 1000 80 0 600 3500 3800 3600 800 4000 3900 3800 700 700 800 900 4000 1000 700 3800 3900 800 700 3700 800 700 1000 800 600 3500 3800 3600 800 4000 3900 3800 700 700 800 900 4000 1000 700 3800 3900 800 700 En cina Gran i Los R obles A Solana Amaranta A Laguna Ct Ba rron Av enue Jos ina Avenue Kendall Avenue Julie Ct Matadero Avenue Ilima Wa y Ilima Court Laguna Oaks Pl Carlitos Ct La Calle Laguna Avenue ElCe r r i t Paradise Wa y Roble Ridge (Private) LaMataWay Chimalus Drive Matadero Avenue o Road Paul Avenu eKe n Los Robles Avenue L ShaunaLane La Para Avenue San Jude Avenue El Centro Street Timlott La Jennifer Way La Donna Avenue M La Para AvenueSan Jude Avenu Arbol Drive O McGregor Way Cerrito Way La Calle Matadero Ave Timlott Ct Lane La Donna Avenue Cass Way Chimalus Drive Han ove r St Emma Court Barro n Avenue La Calle Court This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Limits of AC Paving 0'433' FY 1 8 A S P H A L T PA V I N G P R O J E C T 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 jhay, 2018-02-06 17:04:23 FY18 OVERLAY MAP (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\jhay.mdb) n O i--------. \ \ \ l - 300 700 900 700 0 600 800 800 600 500 400 300 200 100 100 200 100 400 300 300 200 700 300 600 200 100 600 200 100 500 300 300 300200 400 500400100 300 200 1200 1300 14001000 1300 100 1100 1100 200 14001300 100 200 1200 1200 900 1000 300 900800 1000800700 1100 700 400 1000 1300 300 700 900 700 0 600 800 800 600 500 400 300 200 100 100 200 100 400 300 300 200 700 300 600 200 100 600 200 100 500 300 300 300200 400 500400100 300 200 1200 1300 14001000 1300 100 1100 1100 200 14001300 100 200 1200 1200 900 1000 300 900800 1000800700 1100 700 400 1000 1300 Quarry Road Welch Road Arboretum Road Quarry Road Homer Avenue Lane 8 West Medical Foundation Wa y Lane 7 West Lane 7 East Embarcadero Road Encina Avenue El Camino Real Urban Lane Wells Avenue Forest Avenue High Street Emerson Street Ch a n n i n g A v e n u e Alma StreetAlma Street PaloAltoA El Camino Real venue Mitchell Lane Hawthorne Avenue Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue Lane 15 E High Street Alma Street Bryant Street Lane 6 E Lane 11 W Lane 21 High Street Gilman Street Hamilton Avenue Bryant Court La Florence Street R Poe Street Waverley Street Avenue Melville Avenue Kellogg Avenue Kingsley Avenue Lane A West Lane B West Lane B East Lane D West Lane 59 East Whitman Court Kellogg Avenue Em barcadero Road Kingsley Avenue Lincoln Avenue Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Lane D East Waverley Street Bryant Street Ramona Street Addison Avenue Scott Street Ramona Street Waverley Street Paulsen Ln Lane 15 E Emerson Street Lane 20 WLane 20 E University Avenue CalTrain ROW Emerson Street Waverley Street Way Or chard Lane Vineyard Lane Sand Hill Ro ad Sand Hill Roa d Bryant Street Ramona Street Palo Road Shopping Center Way Shopping Center Way Shopping Center Wa y Plane Way Plum Lane Sweet Olive Way Pear Lane Lane 12 W Lane 5 E Lasuen Street Pistache Place Everett Avenue Homer Avenue Emerson Street ay Avery Mall Campus Drive mpus Dr i v e Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus D Churchill Mall Aboretum Road Aboretum Road Galvez Street Galvez Street Lasu en Street Drive Masters Mall um Way Nelson Mall Nelson Road Palm Drive Palm Drive Alma Street Alma Street Hawthorne Avenue Lytton Avenue Sam McDonald Road Sam M cDonald M allArboretum Road Quarry Road Whitman Co urt Ke llogg Av enue BryantStreet Alma Street Alma Street This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Limits of AC Paving 0'762' FY 1 8 A S P H A L T PA V I N G P R O J E C T 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 jhay, 2018-02-06 17:05:38 FY18 OVERLAY MAP (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\jhay.mdb) ·····•· .. ······~ -...... _ 400 16001500 1800 200 1800 1700 1900 200 2400 23002200 2200 100 2300 2000 100 1800 20001900 2100 2000 20 0 300 1900 2600 100 2400 2100 2100 200 2300 300 200 1900 400 500 400 2400 2400 300 500 24002300 500 23002200 600 200 1600 1700 1600 500 1800 2100 1400 100 1700 400 1700 1800 1500 1500 1400 600 2000 600 500 1500 400 1400 600 1600 500 1600 1700 600 18001400 2200 2200 2000 1900 600 1500 400 16001500 1800 200 1800 1700 1900 200 2400 23002200 2200 100 2300 2000 100 1800 20001900 2100 2000 200 300 1900 2600 100 2400 2100 2100 200 2300 300 200 1900 400 500 400 2400 2400 300 500 24002300 500 23002200 600 200 1600 1700 1600 500 1800 2100 1400 100 1700 400 1700 1800 1500 1500 1400 600 2000 600 500 1500 400 1400 600 1600 500 1600 1700 600 18001400 2200 2200 2000 1900 600 1500 C Escobita Avenue Churchill Avenue e Mariposa Avenue Castilleja Avenue Miramonte A ve n ue nue Coleridge Avenue Lowell Avenue Alma StreetTennyson Avenue Park Boulevard Nogal Lane Rinconada Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Park Boulevard Seale Avenue Washington Avenue Santa Rita AvenueWaverleyStree Bryant Street High Street Emerson Street Col Street Alma Street High Street t Emerson Wa v e r l e y O a k s Washington Avenue Bryant Street South Court Waverley Street Emerson Street Nevada Avenue North California Avenue Sa nta Rita Avenue Ramona Street High Street North California Avenue Or e gon Expresswa y Marion Avenue Ramona Street South Court Cowper Street Anton Court Nevada Avenue Tasso StreetTasso Street Oregon Avenue Marion Pl Middlefield Road Churchill Avenue Lowell Avenue Seale Avenue Tennyson Avenue Cowper Street Tasso Street Webster Street Byron Street Coleridge AvenueWaverley Street Bryant Street Emerson Street Portal Place Garland D Byron Street Coleridge Avenue Lowell Avenue Fulton Street r Street Tennyson Av Seal Middlefield Road ebster Street Emba Ten nys o n Ave nue Seale Aven ue Middlefield Road Byron Street Webster Street Green Manor Oregon Ex pressway Sheridan Avenue CalTrain ROW et Alma Street Alma Street EmersonStreet Cowper Street This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Limits of AC Paving 0'596' FY 1 8 A S P H A L T PA V I N G P R O J E C T 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 jhay, 2018-02-06 17:07:26 FY18 OVERLAY MAP (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\jhay.mdb) II ' _/ I ID I 7 I ~ i1 11 IC I I l ic==J 11 -- I 1wc I -= 711 I Cl I ~ --~ I --11 '[ 7 ~ I 81n1 I I ~ ------ CJ UI I _ J CJ L JG 00:01 I --)~ /4 ® I -I r--_, '--/ (( r7 I " nnl ~ --- 100 300 200 700 300 600 200 600 200 500 500 300 500 400 300 300 400 200 400 500400 600 200 400 500 100 100 300 200 300 200100 300 400 1100 200 200 1200 1200 900 800 600 1000 300 900800 1000 900 800 700600 700 400 500 700 500 400 600 800 700 70 0 500 900 400 1200 600 1100 400 1100 500 1000 700 600 900800 800 600 1000 800 1000 1000 1100 1000 900 1000 1200 11200 700 1100 800 900 1100 1000 800 1200 1100 1100 600 100 300 200 700 300 600 200 600 200 500 500 300 500 400 300 300 400 200 400 500400 600 200 400 500 100 100 300 200 300 200100 300 400 1100 200 200 1200 1200 900 800 600 1000 300 900800 1000 900 800 700600 700 400 500 700 500 400 600 800 700 70 0 500 900 400 1200 600 1100 400 1100 500 1000 700 600 900800 800 600 1000 800 1000 1000 1100 1000 900 1000 1200 11200 700 1100 800 900 1100 1000 800 1200 1100 1100 600 Lane 15 E Bryant Street Lane 11 W La ne 21 Gilman Street University Avenue Br yant Co urt Lane 30 Florence Street Kipling Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Ruthven Avenue Hawthorne Avenue Lane 33 PaloAltoAvenue Everett Avenue Poe Street Waverley Street Tasso Street Cowper Street to Avenue Webster Street Everett Court Lytton Avenue Byron Street Fulton Street Middlefield Road Lane D West Lane 59 East Whitman Court Embarcadero Kingsley Avenue Lincoln Avenue Forest Avenue Downing Lane Homer Avenue Lane D East Lane 39 Lane 56 Hamilton Avenue Webster Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant Street Ramona Street Addison Avenue Scott Street Byron Street Palo Hale Street Seneca Street Lytton Avenue Guinda StreetPaloAltoAvenue Fulton Street Middlefield Road Forest Avenue Webster Street Middlefield Road Webster Street Cowper Street Tass Cowper Street Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Boyce Avenue Forest Avenue Hamilton Avenue Homer Avenue Guinda Street Middlefield Road Ch a n n i n g A v e n u e AltoAvenueChaucer Street Chaucer Street Unive rsi ty Av en ue Channing Avenue Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Regent Pl Guinda Street Linc oln Ave nu e Fulton Street Melville Aven ue Byron Street King s l e y A v e n ue Melville Avenue Hamilton Aven ue Hamilton Court Forest Avenue Forest Ct M Somerset Pl Pitman Avenue Fife Avenue Forest Ave Lincoln A Kirby Pl Kent Place Tevis Pl Martin Avenue Harriet Street ue C nCt Ramona Street Ad diso n A ve nue Cha n nin g A ve nu e Waverley Street Paulsen Ln Lane 15 E Lane 20 WLane 20 E Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant Street Ramona Street Lane 12 W Everett Avenue Homer Avenue Palo AltoAvenue Greenwood Avenue Harker Avenue Parkinson Avenu Byron Street Hawthorne Avenue Lytton Avenue Lane 33 Whitman Co urt BryantStreet Guinda Street Hale Street This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Limits of AC Paving 0'716' FY 1 8 A S P H A L T PA V I N G P R O J E C T 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 jhay, 2018-02-06 17:09:14 FY18 OVERLAY MAP (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\jhay.mdb) STREET FROM TO 1 Alma Street Palo Alto Avenue Hawthorne Avenue 2 Alma Street Hawthorne Avenue Everett Avenue 3 Alma Street Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue 4 Alma Street Lytton Avenue Hamilton Avenue 5 Alma Street Hamilton Avenue Forest Avenue 6 Alma Street Forest Avenue Homer Avenue 7 Alma Street Homer Avenue Channing Avenue 8 Alma Street Channing Avenue Addison Avenue 9 Alma Street Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue 10 Alma Street Lincoln Avenue Kingsley Avenue 11 Alma Street Kingsley Avenue Melville Avenue 12 Barron Avenue Laguna Avenue La Calle 13 Barron Avenue La Calle Carlitos Court 14 Barron Avenue Carlitos Court El Centro Street 15 Barron Avenue El Centro Street Josina Avenue 16 Bryant Street Lincoln Avenue Kingsley Avenue 17 Emerson Street North California Avenue Nevada Avenue 18 Emerson Street Nevada Avenue Oregon Expressway 19 Guinda Street Melville Avenue Kingsley Avenue 20 Guinda Street Kingsley Avenue Lincoln Avenue 21 Guinda Street Lincoln Avenue Addison Avenue 22 Hale Street Palo Alto Avenue University Avenue 23 Kellogg Avenue Alma Street Emerson Street 24 Kellogg Avenue Emerson Street Bryant Street 25 Kellogg Avenue Bryant Street Waverley Street 26 Kellogg Avenue Cowper Street Tasso Street 27 Kellogg Avenue Tasso Street Webster Street 28 Kellogg Avenue Webster Street Byron Street 29 Kellogg Avenue Byron Street Middlefield Road 30 La Calle Barron Avenue End North 31 La Calle Barron Avenue End South  32 Lane 33 Ruthven Avenue Cowper Street 33 Quarry Road El Camino Real Arboretum Road 34 Quarry Road Arboretum Road Welch Road 35 Whitman Court Bryant Street Waverley Street FY 18 RESURFACING PROJECT FY 18 Streets Resurfacing  Project Bid Summary UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST 1 Rubberized Asphalt Overlay: 3,414 TON $ 165.00 563,310.00$ $ 145.00 495,030.00$ $ 140.00 477,960.00$ $ 194.00 662,316.00$ 2 AC Overlay:4,658 TON $ 125.00 582,250.00$ $ 120.00 558,960.00$ $ 125.00 582,250.00$ $ 150.00 698,700.00$ 3 AC Basefailure Repairs:919 TON $ 180.00 165,420.00$ $ 175.00 160,825.00$ $ 200.00 183,800.00$ $ 150.00 137,850.00$ 4 PCC Base Repair:23,925 SF $ 20.00 478,500.00$ $ 19.00 454,575.00$ $ 20.00 478,500.00$ $ 21.00 502,425.00$ 5 AC Milling: 517,964 SF $0.60 310,778.40$ $0.85 440,269.40$ $0.50 258,982.00$ $0.25 129,491.00$ 6 Crack Sealing:23,600 LF $0.60 14,160.00$ $0.70 16,520.00$ $1.00 23,600.00$ $1.25 29,500.00$ 7 Interlayer Membrane:1,800 LF $5.00 9,000.00$ $5.00 9,000.00$ $5.00 9,000.00$ $5.00 9,000.00$ 8 Reset Utility Box:98 EA $ 700.00 68,600.00$ $ 450.00 44,100.00$ $ 500.00 49,000.00$ $ 1,300.00 127,400.00$ 9 Reset Manhole:43 EA $ 1,000.00 43,000.00$ $ 650.00 27,950.00$ $ 1,000.00 43,000.00$ $ 1,645.00 70,735.00$ 10 HMA AC Conforms:7,985 SF $6.50 51,902.50$ $5.00 39,925.00$ $4.00 31,940.00$ $8.00 63,880.00$ 11 Recycling of Inert Solid Materials:8,072 TON $4.00 32,288.00$ $5.00 40,360.00$ $1.00 8,072.00$ $ 20.00 161,440.00$ 12 Inert recycling containing petromat:8,072 TON $8.00 64,576.00$ $1.00 8,072.00$ $1.00 8,072.00$ $ 25.00 201,800.00$ 13 Traffic loops:45 EA $ 3,000.00 135,000.00$ $ 340.00 15,300.00$ $ 300.00 13,500.00$ $ 310.00 13,950.00$ 14 Install Traffic Signal Conduits (Appendix I):240 LF $ 300.00 72,000.00$ $ 105.00 25,200.00$ $ 100.00 24,000.00$ $ 100.00 24,000.00$ 15 Install No.5 Pull Boxes (Appendix I):6 EA $ 750.00 4,500.00$ $ 1,800.00 10,800.00$ $ 2,000.00 12,000.00$ $ 1,850.00 11,100.00$ 16 One Street Light Assembly (Details in Appendices I & J):1 LS $ 10,000.00 10,000.00$ $ 15,000.00 15,000.00$ $ 20,000.00 20,000.00$ $ 19,800.00 19,800.00$ 17 Reset Catch Basin:6 EA $ 2,200.00 13,200.00$ $ 2,200.00 13,200.00$ $ 2,000.00 12,000.00$ $ 4,124.00 24,744.00$ 18 Type A vertical curb with 1' exposed gutter pan:2,200 LF $ 100.00 220,000.00$ $ 100.00 220,000.00$ $ 70.00 154,000.00$ $ 111.00 244,200.00$ 19 Type A vertical curb with 1' burried gutter pan:210 LF $ 105.00 22,050.00$ $ 95.00 19,950.00$ $ 120.00 25,200.00$ $ 236.00 49,560.00$ 20 Concrete valley gutter - 3' wide w/2' Conform each side:1,715 LF $ 150.00 257,250.00$ $ 245.00 420,175.00$ $ 130.00 222,950.00$ $ 173.00 296,695.00$ 21 Concrete valley gutter - 4' wide w/2' Conform each side:1,025 LF $ 170.00 174,250.00$ $ 260.00 266,500.00$ $ 170.00 174,250.00$ $ 238.00 243,950.00$ 22 Concrete Driveway:3,520 SF $ 20.00 70,400.00$ $ 19.00 66,880.00$ $ 30.00 105,600.00$ $ 63.00 221,760.00$ 23 Concrete Sidewalk:9,960 SF $ 18.00 179,280.00$ $ 17.00 169,320.00$ $ 20.00 199,200.00$ $ 25.00 249,000.00$ 24 Type A Curb Ramp:27 EA $ 6,000.00 162,000.00$ $ 5,600.00 151,200.00$ $ 6,000.00 162,000.00$ $ 6,300.00 170,100.00$ 25 Detectable Warning Surface:660 SF $ 50.00 33,000.00$ $ 49.00 32,340.00$ $ 100.00 66,000.00$ $ 50.00 33,000.00$ 26 Brickwork/Pavers Specialty Finishes:910 SF $ 45.00 40,950.00$ $ 60.00 54,600.00$ $ 15.00 13,650.00$ $ 98.00 89,180.00$ 27 Bus Pad (Per Appendix F Details and Specifications):340 SF $ 45.00 15,300.00$ $ 49.00 16,660.00$ $ 45.00 15,300.00$ $ 120.00 40,800.00$ 28 Concrete Median Demolition and Replace Street Section with 8' Class 2 AB, 6" PCC slab, & 2" AC:1,750 SF $ 40.00 70,000.00$ $ 31.00 54,250.00$ $ 20.00 35,000.00$ $ 43.00 75,250.00$ 29 Thermoplastic Paving Legends:167 EA $ 40.00 6,680.00$ $ 30.00 5,010.00$ $ 25.00 4,175.00$ $ 30.50 5,093.50$ 30 Thermo Striping, 12" White:491 LF $5.00 2,455.00$ $4.30 2,111.30$ $4.00 1,964.00$ $5.00 2,455.00$ 31 Thermo Striping, 12" Yellow:500 LF $5.00 2,500.00$ $4.30 2,150.00$ $4.00 2,000.00$ $5.00 2,500.00$ 32 Blue Pavement Markers:23 EA $ 30.00 690.00$ $ 22.00 506.00$ $20.00 460.00$ $24.50 563.50$ 33 Thermo Striping, 4" White Parking Stalls:1,670 LF $5.00 8,350.00$ $2.20 3,674.00$ $2.00 3,340.00$ $2.50 4,175.00$ 34 Thermo Striping, 4" Red:250 LF $5.00 1,250.00$ $ 13.00 3,250.00$ $ 10.00 2,500.00$ $ 15.00 3,750.00$ 35 Thermo Striping, Red Curb:100 LF $3.50 350.00$ $4.00 400.00$ $3.00 300.00$ $4.00 400.00$ 36 Thermo Striping, Hi-Visibility Crosswalk:935 LF $ 49.00 45,815.00$ $ 30.00 28,050.00$ $ 20.00 18,700.00$ $ 32.00 29,920.00$ 37 Thermo Striping, Green Bike Lane Marking:7,400 SF $ 16.00 118,400.00$ $ 13.00 96,200.00$ $ 10.00 74,000.00$ $ 14.65 108,410.00$ 38 Thermo Striping, Green Bike Lane Legend:1,215 SF $8.00 9,720.00$ $ 15.00 18,225.00$ $ 10.00 12,150.00$ $ 17.00 20,655.00$ 39 Thermo Striping, Green Bike Lane Arrow Legend:1,175 SF $8.00 9,400.00$ $ 15.00 17,625.00$ $ 10.00 11,750.00$ $ 17.00 19,975.00$ 40 Thermo Striping, Caltrans Detail 8:6,650 LF $3.50 23,275.00$ $0.70 4,655.00$ $0.50 3,325.00$ $0.75 4,987.50$ 41 Thermo Striping, Caltrans Detail 22:4,720 LF $4.00 18,880.00$ $1.70 8,024.00$ $2.00 9,440.00$ $1.95 9,204.00$ 42 Thermo Striping, Caltrans Detail 27B/27C:6,010 LF $2.50 15,025.00$ $0.70 4,207.00$ $0.50 3,005.00$ $0.75 4,507.50$ 43 Thermo Striping, Caltrans Detail 29:1,300 LF $6.00 7,800.00$ $1.50 1,950.00$ $2.00 2,600.00$ $1.70 2,210.00$ 44 Thermo Striping, Caltrans Detail 32:2,765 LF $6.00 16,590.00$ $1.60 4,424.00$ $2.00 5,530.00$ $1.85 5,115.25$ 45 Thermo Striping, Caltrans Detail 37B:380 LF $4.00 1,520.00$ $1.60 608.00$ $2.00 760.00$ $1.85 703.00$ 46 Thermo Striping, Caltrans Detail 38:770 LF $4.00 3,080.00$ $1.50 1,155.00$ $2.00 1,540.00$ $1.70 1,309.00$ 47 Thermo Striping, Caltrans Detail 39:5,580 LF $3.00 16,740.00$ $1.00 5,580.00$ $1.00 5,580.00$ $1.10 6,138.00$ 48 Thermo Striping, Caltrans Detail 39A:1,500 LF $3.00 4,500.00$ $1.00 1,500.00$ $1.00 1,500.00$ $1.10 1,650.00$ 49 Thermo Striping, Caltrans Detail 40:235 LF $2.50 587.50$ $1.00 235.00$ $1.00 235.00$ $0.75 176.25$ 50 Thermo Striping, Caltrans Detail 41:160 LF $2.50 400.00$ $0.70 112.00$ $1.00 160.00$ $0.75 120.00$ 51 Thermo Striping, 6" Yellow:705 LF $3.00 2,115.00$ $3.00 2,115.00$ $3.00 2,115.00$ $3.50 2,467.50$ 52 Thermo Striping, TYPE IV Arrow:35 EA $ 30.00 1,050.00$ $ 90.00 3,150.00$ $ 80.00 2,800.00$ $ 98.00 3,430.00$ 53 Thermo Striping, TYPE VI Arrow:6 EA $ 30.00 180.00$ $ 230.00 1,380.00$ $ 200.00 1,200.00$ $256.00 1,536.00$ 54 3S-K71 Delineators:33 EA $ 350.00 11,550.00$ $ 260.00 8,580.00$ $ 200.00 6,600.00$ $ 300.00 9,900.00$ 55 Provide and Install New Sign Panel:44 EA $ 150.00 6,600.00$ $ 200.00 8,800.00$ $ 200.00 8,800.00$ $ 195.00 8,580.00$ 56 Provide and Install New Sign Post:22 EA $ 300.00 6,600.00$ $ 375.00 8,250.00$ $ 350.00 7,700.00$ $ 315.00 6,930.00$ 57 Signage, Remove & Salvage Existing Sign & Post:10 EA $ 100.00 1,000.00$ $ 90.00 900.00$ $ 100.00 1,000.00$ $ 86.00 860.00$ 58 Signage, Remove & Salvage Existing Sign Panel:24 EA $ 100.00 2,400.00$ $ 70.00 1,680.00$ $ 100.00 2,400.00$ $ 66.00 1,584.00$ 59 Quarry Road Striping and Signage (Appendix D):1 LS $ 220,000.00 220,000.00$ $ 247,000.00 247,000.00$ $ 200,000.00 200,000.00$ $ 282,000.00 282,000.00$ 60 Bollard Re-Installation Plans (Appedix E):1 LS $ 12,500.00 12,500.00$ $ 10,000.00 10,000.00$ $ 5,000.00 5,000.00$ $ 30,000.00 30,000.00$ 61 Barron Avenue/La Calle Intersection Grading:11,200 SF $1.50 16,800.00$ $2.00 22,400.00$ $1.00 11,200.00$ $3.00 33,600.00$ 62 Median Curb Detail A (Appendix J):900 LF $ 125.00 112,500.00$ $ 76.00 68,400.00$ $ 200.00 180,000.00$ $ 143.00 128,700.00$ 63 Traffic Control:1 LS $ 200,000.00 200,000.00$ $ 175,000.00 175,000.00$ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00$ $ 250,000.00 250,000.00$ 64 Notices:1 LS $ 50,000.00 50,000.00$ $ 60,000.00 60,000.00$ $ 35,000.00 35,000.00$ $ 7,200.00 7,200.00$ 65 Utility Tie Out Drawings:1 LS $ 5,000.00 5,000.00$ $ 5,000.00 5,000.00$ $ 5,000.00 5,000.00$ $ 1,200.00 1,200.00$ 66 Tree Trimming:50 HRS $ 250.00 12,500.00$ $ 275.00 13,750.00$ $ 300.00 15,000.00$ $ 220.00 11,000.00$ 67 Misc. Transportation Improvements:1 LS $ 50,000.00 50,000.00$ $ 50,000.00 50,000.00$ $ 50,000.00 50,000.00$ $ 50,000.00 50,000.00$ 4,887,767.40$ 4,743,017.70$ 5,107,655.00$ 5,664,631.00$ 8% over GRANITE CONSTRUCTION 11% over O'GRADY PAVING, INC. Base Bid Total (Items 001 through 67) BID ITEM DESCRIPTION APPROX. QTY UNIT ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE -3% under DESILVA GATES Attachment C I I City of Palo Alto (ID # 9112) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/14/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Title: Adopt an Ordinance Amending Chapter 10.51 of Title 10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Related to the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Program to Reflect the Current Status of Approved Streets Withi n the Program, to Tentatively Approve Additional Street Segments Within Crescent Park, and to Add Provisions for Opting -Out of or Dissolving the Restricted Parking Area From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance (Attachment A) amending Chapter 10.51 of Title 10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to tentatively approve additional street segments within Crescent Park, and to add provisions for opting-out of or dissolving the restricted parking area. Note: When the Chapter 10.51 was last amended, some streets/street segments in the Crescent Park area were inadvertently left off the list of “tentatively approved” streets (eligible to petition into the program). The proposed ordinance would add those streets to the tentatively approved list and create an “opt out” procedure. Executive Summary On August 12, 2013, Council approved implementation of a pilot No Overnight Parking program on certain streets within the Crescent Park neighborhood for one year. Developed in response to resident concerns about non-resident parking, the program aimed to restrict overnight parking to resident permit holders only. Crescent Park residents petitioned by street, and the City implemented a pilot No Overnight Parking program requiring residents to display a valid City of Palo Alto parking permit on their vehicles to park on -street between the hours of 2:00 am and 5:00 am. Residents of streets within the program boundaries and whose streets have City of Palo Alto Page 2 opted to participate in the program are eligible to purchase permits. Residents are allowed up to two annual permits per household at a cost of $100 each. Based on the success of the program, Council authorized staff in September 2 014 to continue the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking program trial. Background Table 1 contains a full list of streets originally deemed eligible for the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking program based on initial Council direction, and indicates the current status at the writing of this report whether the street has opted into the program. While streets were approved for inclusion in the Crescent Park No Ovenight Parking program, each block must opt in individually via the following process: 1) Residents request a petition from City staff, and must submit the petition signed by at least one member of at least 50% of the parcels on the block. 2) The City issues a postal survey to verify participation/interest of all residents. At least a 70% support rate of parcels on the block is required for approval 3) Following validation of majority support, City staff implements signs and residents are notified of eligility to purchase parking permits at City Hall. Table 1 Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Program Participating Streets Crescent Park Street or Street Segment Edgewood Drive between Southwood and Channing Newell Road between Edgewood and Newell Place Phillips Road City of Palo Alto Page 3 Madison Way Hamilton Ave between Lincoln and Alester Jefferson Drive Southwood Drive Crescent Drive Dana Avenue between Center and Alester East Crescent Drive West Crescent Drive Island Drive Kings Lane Center Drive between University and Pitman Pitman Avenue, 1432 to 1494 Pitman University Avenue between Palm and East Crescent Louisa Court Arcadia Place Source: Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment, March 2018 In most instances, the implementation of overnight parking restrictions has reduced parking occupancy on those streets, and has received favorable feedback from the Crescent Park residents. Enforcement of the streets is based primarily on resident-request but the Police Department does provide random enforcement as staff time permits. In all, an estimated 480 parking citations have been issued since the implementation of the pilot program. Through the initial two years of the pilot program, as individual blocks opted into the program, displaced non-resident parkers have moved to other adjacent streets, thus increasing overall parking occupancy on other blocks. This spillover resulted in more blocks organizing and requesting inclusion in the program. Over time, the parking occupancy of blocks not included in the initial pilot has increased. Expanding the program boundary and including additional streets in the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking program does not automatically create permit restrictions on the street. Rather, residents of those streets are given the opportunity to organize and opt in to the program if they choose. Table 2 contains a full list of additional street segments recommended for eligibility into the Crescent Park No Overnight parking program . City of Palo Alto Page 4 Table 2 Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Program Recommended For Eligibility Crescent Park Street or Street Segment Channing Ave between Lincoln and W. Bayshore Center Drive between Pitman to Channing Lincoln Avenue between Channing and Hamilton (south side) Dana Avenue from Lincoln to Center Hamilton Avenue from Alester to Greer Ashby Drive Pitman Avenue from 1494 to Lincoln Dana between Lincoln and Center Forest between Lincoln and Center Lincoln between Hamilton and Channing University between Hale and Palm Alester between Channing and Hamilton Patricia Lane Jackson Drive Sandalwood Court Wildwood Lane Ivy Lane Hilbar Lane Alannah Court De Soto Drive Sharon Court Tevis Place Kent Place City of Palo Alto Page 5 Regent Place Somerset Place Kirby Place Palm Street Maples Street Marlowe Street Source: Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment, March 2018 Figure 1 shows the streets that are currently part of the program and streets staff recommend as eligible for the No Overnight Parking program (including those already tentatively approved and those proposed to be tentatively approved). Figure 1 Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Program Current Participation and Proposed Program Expansion Source: Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment, April 2018 Resource Impact Residents are allowed up to two annual permits per household at a cost of $100 each. Revenue impacts will depend upon which neighborhood blocks decide to opt into the program and can City of Palo Alto Page 6 be estimated at that time. The Crescent Park No Overnight Parking program currently receives no on-going targeted enforcement, relying primarily on resident requests to drive periodic enforcement. Additionally, given that the parking restriction is in the early morning hours, enforcement is by uniformed police officers as needed, rather than the parking control officer program. The limited enforcement minimizes the program’s operational costs and financial impact. Environmental Review Extension of existing parking restrictions and the addition of streets to the program are covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have th e potential to cause significant environmental impacts. Here it can be seen with certainty that the minor changes proposed will not have a significant impact and CEQA does not apply. (Public Resources Code 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)). Attachments: Attachment A: Ordinance Amending Chapter 10.51 Crescent Park Overnight Parking (PDF) Not Yet Approved Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 10.51 (Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Program) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Reflect the Current Status of Approved Streets and Add the Remaining Streets or Street Segments Within Crescent Park to the List of Tentatively Approved Streets and Street Segments, and to Add Provisions for Opting-Out of or Dissolving the Restricted Parking Area The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Section 10.51.030 (Designation of Crescent Park no overnight parking area) of Chapter 10.51 (Crescent Parking No Overnight Parking) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) is amended to read as follows: 10.51.030 Designation of Crescent Park no overnight parking area. (a) Area. (1) The following streets or street segments are approved for the Crescent Park no overnight parking program: Crescent Park Street or Street Segment Status Edgewood Drive between Southwood and Patricia Channing Opted in September 2013 Newell Road between Edgewood and Dana Newell Place Opted in September 2013 Phillips Road Opted in September 2013 Madison Way Opted in September 2013 Hamilton Ave between Island Lincoln and Alester Opted in September 2013 Jefferson Drive Opted in September 2013 Southwood Court Drive Opted in November 2013 Crescent Drive Opted in November 2013 Dana Avenue, Ashby to between Center and Alester Opted in November 2013 Newell Road, Dana to Pitman Opted in November 2013 Newell Road from Alester/Dana to Lincoln Opted in November 2013 East Crescent Drive Opted in December 2013 West Crescent Drive Not Yet Approved Island Drive Opted in April 2014 Kings Lane Opted in April 2014 Center Drive between University and Pitman Opted in June 2014 Pitman Avenue, 1432 to 1494 Pitman Opted in October 2014 University Avenue between East Palm and East Crescent and Lincoln Avenue Opted in December 2014 Louisa Court Opted in March 2015 Arcadia Place Opted in July 2015 Hamilton Avenue from Center to West Crescent Opted in August 2015 (2) The following streets or street segments are tentatively approved for the Crescent Park no overnight parking program:. Crescent Park Street or Street Segment Status Channing Avenue between Lincoln and West Bayshore Center Drive from Hamilton between Pitman to Channing Avenue Pending Approval Newell Place Pending Approval Lincoln Avenue between University Channing and Hamilton (south side) Pending Approval Southwood Drive from Hamilton to Edgewood Petition Distributed West Crescent Petition Distributed Dana Avenue from Ashby Lincoln to Center Petition Distributed Hamilton Avenue from West Crescent Alester to LincolnGreer No Petition Request Ashby Drive No Petition Request Pitman Avenue from 1494 to Center Lincoln No Petition Request Dana Avenue between Lincoln and Center Recommended Program Expansion Forest Avenue between Lincoln and Center Recommended Program Expansion Lincoln Avenue between Hamilton and Channing Recommended Program Expansion University Avenue between Lincoln Hale and Palm Recommended Program Expansion Alester Avenue between Channing and Hamilton Recommended Program Expansion Not Yet Approved Patricia Lane Recommended Program Expansion Jackson Drive Recommended Program Expansion Sandalwood Court Wildwood Lane Ivy Lane Hilbar Lane Alannah Court De Soto Drive Sharon Court Tevis Place Kent Place Regent Place Somerset Place Kirby Place Palm Street Maples Street Marlowe Street Hamilton Chaucer Street between Patricia Palo Alto Ave and Rhodes University Recommended Program Expansion Edgewood Palo Alto Avenue between Patricia Hale and Rhodes Marlowe Recommended Program Expansion (b) Parking restriction hours. (1) Vehicles not displaying a valid overnight residential parking permit are prohibited from parking within the restricted parking area between two a.m. and five a.m. every day of the week. All vehicles may utilize on-street parking in Crescent Park outside of this specified enforcement period. (2) City staff shall cause appropriate signs to be erected in that area, indicating prominently thereon the time limitation and period of the day for its application. Not Yet Approved SECTION 2. A new Section 10.51.065 (Modification or termination of restricted parking areas) is added to Chapter 10.51 (Crescent Parking No Overnight Parking) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the PAMC to read as follows: 10.51.065 Modification or termination of restricted parking areas. (a) Opting out. After final adoption of a designated restricted parking area, an application to opt out may be filed with the director of planning and community environment, subject to the following: (1) The minimum number of blocks and percentage of dwelling units supporting the opt-out shall be specified by the director in the administrative guidelines. (2) Each legal dwelling unit, as defined in Section 18.04.030(b)(46) of this code, shall be entitled to one vote towards the determination of support. (3) Applications for opting out shall be made in the form and manner prescribed by the director and shall be acted upon by the director. (b) Dissolution. The city council, following a noticed public hearing, may adopt a resolution dissolving a designated restricted parking area: (1) Upon receipt and verification of a signed petition representing 50% or more of the affected dwelling units within a designated restricted parking area; or (2) Upon findings by the city council that the criteria for designating the restricted parking area are no longer satisfied. 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 Council finds that this Ordinance does not meet the definition of a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Not Yet Approved SECTION 6. 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 City of Palo Alto (ID # 8448) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/14/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Fire Alarm Ordinance Title: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.39 (Private Intrusion Alarms) in include the addition of unwanted, unwarranted and preventable residential and commercial fire alarms. From: Cit y Manager Lead Department: Fire RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that City Council adopt the ordinance included as Attachment A amending Chapter 4.39 of the Municipal Code (Private Intrusion Alarms) to additionally regulate residential and commercial fire alarms. BACKGROUND In calendar year 2017, the Fire Department responded to a total of 9,153 calls for service. Of this total, fire alarms account for 1,308 calls. Ninety nine percent of fire alarm calls do not involve a fire or hazard and are unwanted, unwarranted, and preventable. Each of these calls ties up emergency response personnel and resources that could be available to respond to true, confirmed emergencies. The resulting lights and siren response to fire alarms also pose a preventable risk to drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians. The Fire Department’s goal is to reduce the risk to the public, while also minimizing the impact these unwarranted calls have on the City’s public safety resources and traffic infrastructure. The current Alarm Ordinance, codified in PAMC Chapter 4.39, was adopted in 2002 and focused on intrusion alarms related to law enforcement operations . The ordinance has proven effective in reducing false alarms and the allocation of police resources that respond to false alarms. In 2001 the Police Department received 4,675 alarms; that number has been reduced to 2,666 in 2015. The alarm ordinance revisions expand the City’s program to cover fire alarms. The revisions are also intended to remove inconsistencies and modernize the ordinance in order to prepare for an automated tracking and penalty collection program. City of Palo Alto Page 2 DISCUSSION The Fire Department has been tracking preventable fire alarms for two years. The most common causes of preventable fire alarms include: poor maintenance of smo ke detectors and fire sprinkler systems, failure of fire alarm contractors to notify Palo Alto Public Safety Communications Center (dispatch) of alarm system maintenance, and failure of contractors to notify dispatch of construction activities that generate particles and activate smoke detector alarms. The majority of preventable fire alarms are from commercial properties. In the last year, the Fire Department has made contact with commercial property managers with the most frequent alarms to advise them of the excessive use of Fire Department resources and to assist in minimizing future impacts. As the ordinance is rolled out, the Fire Department will continue to educate and assist commercial property managers in achieving compliance. Educational materials and assistance are also provided to contractors applying for construction permits in the City’s Development Center. Finally, the Fire Department continues its outreach and education of commercial fire alarm monitoring services. The Fire Department recognizes that all alarms cannot be eliminated; our goal is to reduce the number by 50 percent, similar to the reductions the Police Department was able to achieve. The bulk of the proposed revisions to the existing Intrusion Alarm Ordinance are minor language modification adding the Fire Department to the existing Police Department Intrusion Ordinance and making the two programs consistent with one another. Combining the policies of the two public safety departments will greatly simplify oversight and consistency between the two existing programs. Ordinance modifications also added definitions to facilitate future third party administrative support of the program. Both the Police and Fire Departments are considering outsourcing the administrative billing of these false alarm programs to a third party specializing in this type of service. This will allow City staff to focus on program management, oversight and assisting commercial property managers in alarm reduction education and assistance. A copy of the original Ordinance showing all changes is included in Attachment A. RESOURCE IMPACT Staff does not anticipate any significant change in revenue from these adjustments and no direct cost increases will result from the adoption of these modifications. POLICY IMPLICATIONS These actions are consistent with existing City policies and mirror the Fire Department’s longstanding False Alarm Policy & Police Department’s Intrusion Alarm Ordinance. Attachments:  Attachment A: Ordinance Amending Section 4.39 Alarms Not Yet Adopted 1 Ordinance No. ___ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 4.39 (Private Intrusion Alarms) of Title 4 (Business Licenses and Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Include Fire Alarms The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 4.39 (Private Intrusion Alarms) of Title 4 (Business Licenses and Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby Retitled “Private Intrusion and Fire Alarms” and amended to read as follows: Chapter 4.39 PRIVATE INTRUSION AND FIRE ALARMS Sections: 4.39.010 Findings and purpose. 4.39.020 Definitions. 4.39.030 Limitations on audible alarm systems. 4.39.040 Limitation on automatic telephone dialing devices. 4.39.050 Back-up power supply. 4.39.060 Registration of alarm. 4.39.070 Alarm tests. 4.39.080 False alarm service charges. 4.39.090 Revocation of alarm registration. 4.39.100 Appeal. 4.39.110 Enforcement. 4.39.010 Findings and purpose. (a) The City Council finds and declares that: (1) There are a substantial number of alarms of possible criminal activity which that come into the Palo Alto Police Department and preventable false fire alarms that come into the Palo Alto Fire Department. These alarms average in excess of four hundred per month for the Police Department and one hundred per month for the Fire Department. It is the policy and practice of the Palo Alto Police and Fire Departments to respond to all alarms except those which are known to be false and to report on all alarms genuine or false. Most alarms are false. Most false alarms are the result of improper maintenance or improper or careless use of an alarm system. (2) False alarms needlessly divert limited police and fire resources from genuine alarms and other emergencies. Police officers and fire crews responding to false alarms are not Not Yet Adopted 2 available to carry out other police public safety duties. In the interest of using limited law enforcement resources most effectively, the number of false alarms can and must be reduced. (3) The purpose of this chapter is to reduce the dangers and diversions of false alarms and to encourage alarm users to maintain their systems in good working order and to use them properly thereby conserving police and fire personnel time and increasing protection for all Palo Alto citizens. (4) Where the alarm system in question is a Fire Alarm, the enforcement official for the City shall be the Fire Chief or his or her designee. For all other alarm systems, the enforcement official shall be the Chief of Police or his or her designee. 4.39.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, certain terms used herein are defined as follows: (a) “Alarm Administrator” means a person or persons designated by the City (Police Chief and Fire Chief) to administer the provisions of this chapter. (ab) "Alarm business" means any person operating for any consideration who is engaged in the installation, maintenance, alteration or servicing of alarm systems or who responds to such alarm systems. (c) "Alarm user awareness class" means a class conducted for the purpose of educating alarm users about the responsible use, operation, and maintenance of alarm systems and the problems created by false alarms. (bd) "Alarm system" means an assembly of equipment and devices arranged to signal the presence of any condition upon premises within the City of Palo Alto to which the police and fire department normally responds. The term "alarm system" shall include equipment which is designed to detect an emergency, or which is designed to be activated by a person to report an emergency. Alarm systems include, but are not limited to, local alarm systems, direct connection systems, central station alarm systems and automatic telephone dialing systems. Alarm systems shall not include audible alarms affixed to automobiles. (ce) "Alarm user" means any person who owns, leases, is the agent of the owner or lessee of, or otherwise is in possession or control of a premises on which an alarm system has been installed and operates. (df) "Audible alarm system" means an alarm system which is capable of being heard outdoors when it is activated. (fg) "Automatic telephone dialing alarm system" means an alarm system which utilizes a device which automatically transmits a pre-recorded message over telephone lines to a number in the city's communications center. Not Yet Adopted 3 (fh) "Central station alarm system" means an alarm system which transmits the alarm signal to a facility where operators monitor the system and retransmit the signal to the city's communications center. (gj) "Direct connection alarm system" means an alarm system which transmits an alarm signal directly to the city's communications center. (hl) "False alarm" means an alarm signal resulting in a response by the Police or Fire departments when an emergency does not exist. An alarm shall be presumed false if the responding officer(s) police or fire personnel do not locate any evidence of an intrusion, or of the commission of an unlawful act, a fire, or other emergency on the premises which might have caused the alarm to sound. Alarms caused by earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, or other "violent" acts of nature, shall not be deemed false alarms. (im) "Local alarm system" means an alarm system which is operated by the user who is normally responsible for its operation. The alarm signal is annunciated only on the premises, does not emit an audible signal, and is not monitored by a third party monitoring provider. (jn) "Person" means and includes an individual, partnership, unincorporated association or corporation. (ko) "Premises" means any land and building located within the city except land or buildings owned or leased by the federal government, State of California or any political subdivision of the state, or by any municipal corporation or special district. 4.39.025 Requirements for all alarm systems (a) Before requesting a police or fire response, an alarm system monitoring company shall attempt to contact the alarm site and/or alarm user by telephone and/or other means, whether or not actual contact with a person is made, to determine whether an alarm signal is valid. A second call shall be made to an alternate number provided by the alarm user if the first attempt fails. EXCEPTION: In case of a fire, panic, or robbery-in-progress alarm or in cases where a crime-in-progress has been verified as defined in ANSI/CSAA CS-V-01-2016 (or current version). (b) Equipment and installation methods shall comply with all appropriate nationally recognized testing laboratories and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) requirements. (c) It shall be unlawful for automatic telephone dialing devices to dial any phone number used by the City of Palo Alto. 4.39.030 Limitations on audible alarm systems. (a) It is unlawful to install, sell or use an alarm system which, upon activation, emits a sound similar to a siren in use on public emergency vehicles or for public emergency vehicles or Not Yet Adopted 4 for public disaster warning purposes. For the purposes of this section, any variable pitch siren as opposed to steady pitch, shall be considered to emit a sound similar to the sound emitted by a public emergency vehicle. This section does not apply to sirens mounted inside a building which cannot be heard outside the building. (b) It is unlawful to operate an audible alarm system which does not shut off within a maximum time of ten minutes from the time of activation. 4.39.040 Limitation on automatic telephone dialing devices. Reserved. It shall be unlawful for automatic telephone dialing devices to dial any phone number used by the City of Palo Alto. 4.39.050 Back-up power supply. Any alarm system shall be supplied with an uninterrupted power supply in such a manner that the failure or interruption of the normal electric utility service will not activate the alarm system. The power supply must be capable of at least four hours of operation. 4.39.060 Registration of alarm. (a) It shall be unlawful to operate, or cause to be operated, an alarm system on any premises in the City of Palo Alto without an alarm registration. An alarm user shall register with the Police Department or Fire Department alarm administrator, by filling out a registration form with his home address, and business and residence telephone numbers. In addition, he shall provide the Police or Fire Department with a list of persons responsible for the premises protected by the alarm system. This list shall contain at least three names, one of which may be that of the alarm business maintaining the alarm system. The list shall be kept current by the alarm user and shall supply home and business telephone numbers of responsible persons. In addition, the registration form shall contain any information deemed necessary by the Chief of Police or Fire Chief to carry out the purposes of this chapter. A fee adopted in the municipal fee schedule shall be charged for registration. Any information contained in this form shall be confidential and shall not constitute a public record. An alarm registration shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of issuance unless sooner revoked. (b) Upon request by the Police or Fire department alarm administrator, the alarm user, or a responsible party, shall proceed to the scene of the alarm within thirty minutes and render any necessary service. Such service shall include, but not be limited to, opening the premises so that said premises may be searched by responding police officers or fire crews. 4.39.070 Alarm tests. An alarm user, or alarm business, shall notify the communications division of the Police Department Public Safety Communication Center prior to any service, test, repair, maintenance, adjustment, or installation of an alarm system which would normally result in a Not Yet Adopted 5 police or fire response. Any alarm activated, where such prior notice has been given, shall not constitute a false alarm. 4.39.080 False alarm service charges and penalties. (a) There is imposed upon every alarm user whose alarm system causes three or more false alarms within twelve months a false alarm service charge. A separate charge shall be imposed for each false alarm in excess of two as set forth in the municipal fee schedule. When the alarm business or alarm user notifies the public safety communication center that there is not an existing situation at the alarm site requiring emergency services response, within three (3) minutes of dispatch and prior to emergency personnel arriving at the scene, no fee will be assessed. (b) Service charges shall be due and payable and are delinquent after thirty days of the mailing of a bill from the city. Penalties Interest for delinquency in remittance of any service charge or any deficiency in remittance shall attach and be paid by the person required to remit at the rate of ten percent each month on the base false alarm delinquent or deficient charge, but such penalty interest shall not be compounded. (c) Debt to City. All fees and charges levied pursuant to this chapter shall constitute a valid and subsisting debt in favor of the city and against the alarm user for whom services were rendered. If the amount remains unpaid, a civil action may be filed with the appropriate court for the amount due together with any interest or penalties, any related charges and fees accrued due to nonpayment, and all fees and charges required to file and pursue such civil action. (d) An alarm user may appeal any alarm service charge under this section by submitting a letter of appeal to the Chief of Police the Police or Fire Department alarm administrator explaining the basis for the appeal within forty-five fifteen (15) days of the mailing of the bill for that service charge. While the appeal is pending, the bill shall not be due and payable. An administrative hearing officer shall set a time and place for a hearing on the appeal within fifteen days after receipt of the letter of appeal. Failure to file a timely letter of appeal shall be a waiver of the alarm user’s right to a hearing; however, the administrative hearing officer may set a date for a hearing if there is cause to believe that it might encourage substantial cooperation from the alarm user. At the time and place set for the hearing upon the appeal, the administrative hearing officer shall hear evidence as to whether the alarm service charge should be imposed in whole or in part. The burden of proof shall be upon the appellant to show that there was no substantial evidence that the alarm service charge was properly imposed as provided in this chapter. Within ten days after the conclusion of the hearing, the administrative hearing officer shall render a decision on the appeal. The decision shall be final. Notification of the decision shall be mailed to the appellant within three (3) days of the decision. If the appeal is denied, the notification shall inform the alarm user of the exact date that the alarm service charge shall become due and payable, which date shall in no event be sooner than five (5) days after notice of the decision has been mailed. Not Yet Adopted 6 (e) In addition to any service charges or fees imposed by authority of this chapter, an alarm user may also be subject to penalties for violating any of the mandatory requirements of the chapter or Chapter 15.04, as provided in Chapters 1.12 and 1.16 of this Code. 4.39.090 Revocation of alarm registration Suspension of response; Reinstatement. (a) The City may discontinue response of emergency services personnel if the City determines that: 1. There is any violation of this Chapter; 2. There is a false statement of material matter in the application for permit; 3. An alarm system has generated seven (7) or more false alarms during any twelve (12) month period; 4. The permit holder has failed to make payment of any service fee, permit fee, late fee or suspension fee assessed under this article within ninety (90) days of the assessment. (b) The City may resume emergency services response upon the alarm holder submitting satisfactory proof of all of the following, at the discretion of the Police or Fire Department alarm administrator: 1. Proof the alarm system has been inspected and the measures taken to ensure the alarm system is in good working order. Measures taken may require the alarm user repair, upgrade or modify the alarm system to be compliant with this Chapter. 2. Proof the alarm user has been retrained on the use of the alarm system and procedures for contacting the alarm business in the case of false activation. 3. The alarm user successfully completes an on-line alarm awareness class and test. 4. All fees and fines are paid in full including the reinstatement fee of fifty ($50.00) dollars. (a) After the Police department has recorded more than five false alarms on any specific premises within any twelve-month period, and after the alarm user has been notified by first- class mail that the false alarms have been activated, the chief of police shall notify the alarm user by first class mail of a pre-revocation hearing to discuss the cause of the false alarms and to remind the alarm user that the registration will be subject to revocation if the police department has recorded seven false alarms occur within any twelve-month period. The hearing will be within forty-five days from the date of mailing of the notification. Following a pre-revocation hearing, if the police department has recorded seven false alarms in any twelve- month period, the chief of police shall revoke the alarm user’s registration and from that time on the Police department will not respond to any alarm from that alarm user’s premises for a period of six months and until such time as the alarm user submits a new alarm registration application and the Chief of Police determines to issue an alarm registration upon proof that adequate measures have been taken to correct any problem causing the false alarms. 4.39.100 Appeal. An alarm user whose alarm registration has been denied or revoked by the chief of police City, may appeal that decision. Not Yet Adopted 7 (a) Letter of Appeal. Such alarm user must file a letter of appeal with the Chief of Police Police or Fire Department alarm administrator within fifteen (15) days of the mailing of the letter of notification of denial or revocation. While the appeal is pending, the alarm user’s shall registration shall not be revoked, but an appeal shall not affect the denial of an alarm registration. (b) Setting of Hearing. If the alarm user files a timely letter of appeal, the chief of police shall refer the appeal to an administrative hearing officer who shall set a time and place for a hearing on the appeal. The date set for hearing shall be no more than fifteen sixty (60) days after the city's receipt of the letter of appeal. Failure to file a timely letter of appeal shall be a waiver of the alarm user's right to a hearing; however, the administrative hearing officer may set a date for a hearing if there is cause to believe that it might encourage substantial cooperation from the alarm user. (c) Hearing. At the time and place set for the hearing upon the appeal, the administrative hearing officer shall hear evidence from the appellant and/or any other interested party. The burden of proof shall be upon the appellant to show that there was no substantial evidence to support disconnection the denial or revocation of the alarm registration. (d) Decision. Within ten (10) calendar days after the conclusion of the hearing, the administrative hearing officer shall render a decision on the appeal. The decision shall be final. Notification of the decision shall be mailed to the appellant within three (3) days of the decision. If the appeal of an alarm registration revocation is denied, the notification shall inform the alarm user of the exact date that revocation of the alarm registration shall commence which shall in no event be sooner than five (5) days after notice of the decision has been mailed. 4.39.110 Enforcement. (a) The amount of any service charge imposed by authority of this chapter shall be deemed a debt owing to the city. Proceedings may be instituted by the city in a court of competent jurisdiction to secure a judgment for the amount due. (b) It is unlawful for any person, or business entity to install, operate or maintain an alarm system contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter. Any person or business entity violating any of the mandatory requirements of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, punishable as provided in Section 1.08.010 of this code, and may additionally be subject to administrative penalties as provided in Chapters 1.12 and 1.16 of this code. SECTION 2. 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. Not Yet Adopted 8 SECTION 3. 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 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline sections 15061(b) and 15301, 15302 and 15305 because it simply provides a comprehensive permitting scheme. SECTION 5. 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: ____________________________ ____________________________ Deputy City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Fire Chief ____________________________ Chief of Police City of Palo Alto (ID # 9219) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/14/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Resolution Correcting and Amending the Southgate RPP Program Resolution Title: Adoption of a Resolution Correcting an Error in the Previously -adopted Resolution for the Southgate Residential Preferential Parking Program Related to the Availa bility of Daily Employee Parking Permits and Restating the Program Provisions From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution (Exhibit A) to remove the limit on the number of daily permits available to employees. Executive Summary A resolution adopted by the City Council on March 5, 2018 regarding the Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) program in the Southgate neighborhood inadvertently limited the number of daily employee permits, which was not consistent with the City Council’s direction on January 29, 2018. On January 29, 2018, the City Council directed staff to maintain all aspects of the current “pilot” phase of the parking program except for changes to the boundary to include sections of El Camino Real and the contingent release of 15 employee permits if Caltrans approves the boundary change. A copy of the Council’s motion from January 29, 2018 is available here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63464 . A video recording of the same meeting is available here: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-152/. Background & Discussion The City Council established the Southgate RPP Program as a one-year pilot program by adoption of Resolution No. 9688 in June 2017. Permit sales for the Southgate RPP Program City of Palo Alto Page 2 pilot began in October 2017, soft enforcement (only issuing warnings, no citations) began in November, and full enforcement rolled-out in December. With only two commercial properties within the Southgate neighborhood, only ten six-month employee parking permits were made available. Despite there being only two commercial properties in the Southgate neighborhood, there are seven businesses registered at these two addresses and some employees and some businesses were unable to secure the total number of employee parking permits desired. Early in the program’s implementation, some of these business owners requested that the City make available more six-month employee parking permits because the limited supply had quickly sold out and they were unable to secure permits for their employ ees. In response, City staff recommended to Council program modifications to add 15 additional six-month employee parking permits through the remainder of the pilot phase and other actions. On January 29, 2018, the City Council considered staff’s recommendation and provided alternative direction to keep the program generally as-is during the remainder of the pilot period, except for specific changes related to the inclusion of El Camino Real in the RPP district, the contingent release of 15 additional employee permits designated for a new zone on El Camino Real (upon Caltrans’ approval of extension of the RPP district to El Camino Real), and the addition of clarifying language regarding re-parking. When the revised resolution was presented to Council f or adoption on March 5, 2018, the resolution inadvertently retained the previously proposed amendment to limit the number of daily employee parking permits that had accompanied the proposed increase in the number of six-month employee parking permits. Without an increase in the six-month permits, the cap on daily permits (4 daily permits per month per employee) is a significant change in the middle of the pilot period and has created greater difficulties for businesses that were already experiencing problems with the limit on six-month employee permits. The cap is also contrary to the Council’s expressed desire to maintain the pilot program as -is for the time being, except as to the specific items addressed in the Council’s approved motion. The proposed Resolution would restore all provisions of the pre -existing Southgate resolution establishing the pilot program, except for the specific changes addressed in the Council’s motion from January 29, 2018. Policy Implications The following Comprehensive Plan programs and policies are relevant to the Southgate RPP program: City of Palo Alto Page 3 Policy T-5.5 Minimize the need for employees to park in and adjacent to commercial centers, employment districts and schools Policy T-5.11 Work to protect residential areas from parking impacts of nearby businesses and uses, recognizing that fully addressing some existing intrusions may take time. Policy B-1.2 Promote Palo Alto’s image as a business-friendly community. Assume an active role in fostering businesses, including small start-ups, entrepreneurs, and innovative businesses. Policy B-1.3 Engage with all stakeholders in the community, including businesses of all sizes, local retailers, the public, and City decision-makers in order to understand the challenges businesses and employers face. Policy B-2.3 Recognize that employers, businesses and neighborhoods share many values and concerns, including traffic and parking issues and preserving Palo Alto’s livability, and need to work together with a priority on neighborhood quality of life. Policy B-3.3 Develop strategies for promoting businesses and employers that generate revenues that will support a full range of high-quality City services, including retain and attract revenue-generating businesses. Policy B-4.2 Attract and support small businesses, start-ups, non-profit organizations, and professional services, which are vital to a diverse and innovative economy. Resource Impact The sale of additional daily employee parking permits will generate additional revenue for the City, while also creating additional expenses related to the sales and administration of these permits. Funding to cover any additional costs is available in the operating budget. Timeline If the Council adopts the proposed Resolution, staff would immediately resume the sale of daily employee parking permits without a cap, as previously administered. A review of the “pilot” phase of the Southgate RPP program is scheduled to occur later this year. Environmental Review This program is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this program may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed resolution will have a minor impact on existing facilities. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Attachments: Attachment A - Resolution Amending Southgate RPP (PDF) Attachment B - Public Letters to Council (PDF) 1 Resolution No. ____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Continuing the Southgate Residential Preferential Parking District (RPP) Pilot Program Established by Resolution No. 9688 and Amended by Resolution 9742 R E C I T A L S A. California Vehicle Code Section 22507 authorizes the establishment, by city council action, of permit parking programs in residential neighborhoods for residents and other categories of parkers. B. On December 15, 2014, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 5294, adding Chapter 10.50 to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which established the city-wide procedures for Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Districts in the city. C. On May 9, 2016, the City Council directed City staff to implement a Residential Preferential Parking program in the Southgate area. D. In July 2016, a stakeholders’ group comprised of Southgate residents and business interests met and made its recommendations to the City on the particular rules to be applied to the Southgate RPP District. E. On April 26, 2017, the Planning and Transportation Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed Southgate residential preferential parking program. F. On June 19, 2017, the Council adopted Resolution No. 9688, which established the Southgate Residential Preferential Parking Program pilot and rescinded existing parking restrictions that conflicted with the restrictions established by this RPP district. On March 5, 2018, the Council adopted resolution 9742 to amend the Southgate RPP program. G. The Council desires to continue the Southgate Residential Preferential Parking Program pilot established by Resolution No. 9688 with modifications, including expansion of the RPP district boundary to include a portion of the west side of El Camino Real, a state highway subject to Caltrans’ jurisdiction, and increasing the number of permits contingent on Caltrans’ approval of the boundary expansion, and to restate the applicable Program provisions for this RPP district in the subject Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES, as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The criteria set forth in Section 10.50.030 for designating a Residential Preferential Permit Zone have been met as follows: A. That non-resident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use of on-street or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents in that based on observation there are 2 few available parking spaces available midday, while the streets are relatively unoccupied at midnight thus demonstrating the parking intrusion is largely by nonresidents. B. That the interference by the non-resident vehicles occurs at regular and frequent intervals, either daily or weekly, in that the parking intrusion is most severe during daytime hours during the regular workweek. C. That the non-resident vehicles parked in the area of the District create traffic congestion, noise, or other disruption (including shortage of parking spaces for residents and their visitors) that disrupts neighborhood life in that based on information from residents and other city departments the vehicle congestion is interfering with regular activities. D. Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical in that the City has implemented a series of alternative parking strategies in the past and concurrently and there is still a shortage of parking available. SECTION 2. Trial Period. The Trial Period for the Southgate RPP Program shall be for one year, and reevaluated at that time. The RPP Program shall remain in force until the City Council takes action to extend, modify, or rescind. The City Council shall consider whether to make this RPP Program and its parking programs permanent, modify the Program and/or its parking regulations, or terminate it no later than September 30, 2018. SECTION 3. Hours and Days of Enforcement. The parking regulations shall be in effect Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, except on holidays as defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.08.100. During the regulated days and hours of enforcement, no person shall park a vehicle adjacent to any curb for more than two hours. Re-parking a vehicle more than two hours after initially parking on the same day is prohibited. Vehicles properly displaying a valid Parking Permit as described in Section 4 of this Resolution or exempt from the parking regulations contained in Chapter 10.50 are exempt from these regulations. Electric vehicles parked at an electric vehicle charging station shall be regulated by signage installed at the charging station. Outside of these enforcement hours, any motor vehicle may park in the Southgate RPP Program area, subject to other applicable parking regulations. SECTION 4. Parking Permits. A. Employee Parking Permits. The City may issue Employee Parking Permits for the use by employees working in the businesses located within the area identified in the Exhibit A Southgate RPP Program area table. Employee Parking Permits shall be subject to the following regulations: a. Duration. Employee Parking Permits will be available as six-month permits and one-day permits. b. Form of Permit. The City may issue Employee Parking Permits in any form it deems practicable, including stickers or hangtags or combination thereof. c. Commuting Only. Employee Parking Permits are for the exclusive use by employees working for Southgate businesses while commuting to work. d. Maximum Number of Permits Issued. A maximum of 10 six-month Employee Parking Permits will be available under the Southgate RPP Program. Upon 3 Caltrans’ approval of the incorporation of a portion of El Camino Real into the District by this Resolution, an additional 15 Six-Month Employee Parking Permits shall be granted, for a total of 25 Six-Month Employee Parking Permits granted at any given time. e. Zones. Upon Caltrans’ approval of the incorporation of a portion of El Camino Real into the District by this Resolution, Employee Parking Permits shall be specific to one of the Parking Zones shown in Exhibit A and shall entitle the permit holder to park only in the Parking Zone designated on the Employee Parking Permit. B. Resident Parking Permits. 1. Each dwelling unit within the Southgate RPP Program area may receive up to six (6) annual permits. Dwelling unit as used herein shall have the same meaning as it is defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 10.50.020. 2. The City may issue Resident Parking Permits in any form it deems practicable, including stickers or hangtags or combination thereof. 3. Each dwelling unit within the Southgate RPP Program area may receive up to 50 transferable one-day permit hangtags per year, which may be used on any vehicle including household visitor vehicles. C. Applicability. 1. The regulations and restrictions of this Southgate RPP Program, adopted by this resolution, shall apply to the city blocks identified in Table 1 below. 4 Table 1 STREET BLOCKS ENFORCED Castilleja Avenue 1500 and 1600 Churchill Avenue 12 to 100 El Camino Real East Side of El Camino Real, starting 190 feet North of Park Boulevard and ending at Churchill Avenue El Camino Real West Side of El Camino real between Park Boulevard and Churchill Avenue Escobita Avenue 1500 and 1600 Madrono Avenue 1500 and 1600 Manzanita Avenue 200 and 300 Mariposa Avenue 1500 and 1600 Miramonte Avenue 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500 Portola Avenue 1500 and 1600 Sequoia Avenue 200, 300, and 400 SECTION 5. Other Matters. A. Cost of Parking Permits. During the initial trial period of one year the cost of Parking Permits shall be: a. Resident Parking Permits i. Resident Annual Sticker – First free; additional $50/each/year; ii. Resident Annual Hangtag –$50/each/year; iii. Resident One-day Hangtag – $5/each. b. Employee Parking Permits 1. Employee Six-month Hangtag –$74.50/each/six-months; 2. Low-income Reduced-price Employee Six-month Hangtag – $25/each/six-months; 3. Employee One-day Hangtag – $5/each. B. Future permit fees would be set by the Municipal Fee Schedule and updated on an annual basis. SECTION 6. CEQA. This resolution is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption 5 and implementation of this resolution may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed resolution will have a minor impact on existing facilities. SECTION 7. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. The provisions with respect to El Camino Real will take effect upon the approval of Caltrans which has jurisdiction over this state highway. Enforcement shall commence, pursuant to Chapter 10.50 of Title 10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the California Vehicle Code, when signage is posted. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Assistant City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 6 Exhibit A EMPLOYEE ZONES AND PERMIT ALLOCATION Zone Name Employee Permit Allocation STREET BLOCKS ENFORCED S 10 permits Castilleja Avenue 1500 and 1600 Churchill Avenue 12 to 100 Escobita Avenue 1500 and 1600 Madrono Avenue 1500 and 1600 Manzanita Avenue 200 and 300 Mariposa Avenue 1500 and 1600 Miramonte Avenue 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500 Portola Avenue 1500 and 1600 Sequoia Avenue 200, 300, and 400 El Camino Real East Side of El Camino Real starting 190 feet North of Park Boulevard and ending at Churchill Avenue S1 15 permits El Camino Real West Side of El Camino Real between Park Boulevard and Churchill Avenue City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:38 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:angeline.f.lim@gmail.com on behalf of Dr. Lim <drlim@duetplasticsurgery.com> Sent:Thursday, April 26, 2018 12:03 PM To:Keene, James; City Mgr; Council, City; Mello, Joshuah Cc:Medical Director Plastic Surgery Center; Dorothea Tiong; drweintraub@duetplasticsurgery.com Subject:Southgate RPP heading toward crisis level for small businesses To the Palo Alto City Council and City Manager: As a physician who has been taking care of patients in the Southgate neighborhood for over ten years, I was recently delighted to receive several letters from the City of Palo Alto Business Registry thanking me for choosing to conduct business in the City of Palo Alto. "A healthy business community is a key factor in a vital local community, and your business is greatly valued for its contributions." However, the actions of the city seem completely contradictory to its words. The draconian parking restrictions implemented by the Southgate RPP in November 2017 were difficult enough for a healthy business to deal with, but now it appears that Council made further restrictions to parking in Southgate without public notice or input. An even more egregious blow to the "greatly valued" businesses: our online accounts have been locked out for weeks, making it impossible for most of us to purchase any parking permits at all. The Southgate permit holders received emails from the city on March 26th reminding us that our permits would expire on April 30 and that we would be able to purchase permits beginning April 16. We were also notified that "Any vehicle not displaying a permit can park up to two (2) hours during these specified time periods. Enforcement begins May 1, 2018." How does this work? The City of Palo Alto believes that a healthy business community is a key factor in a vital local community, yet is going out of its way to asphyxiate small businesses by impeding their ability to get to work. You tell me that my employees need to display parking permits, that enforcement begins May 1, but you will not enable us to purchase these permits? I am not sure what is the more horrifying possibility: 1) Is the City of Palo Alto trying to force small businesses that are minority owned and primarily serve women out of the Southgate neighborhood? 2) Or is the City trying to generate a new revenue stream at the expense of the businesses by creating a Catch-22 of restricting parking/requiring permits/ticketing violators? I, my fellow Southgate business colleagues, and our employees and patients eagerly await your answer. May 1, 2018 approaches rapidly. Angeline Lim, M.D. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:38 AM 2 -- Angeline Lim, M.D. D U E T Plastic Surgery, A Medical Corporation 1515 El Camino Real, Suite D Palo Alto, California 94306 650.380.0415 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone. Thank you. City of Palo Alto (ID # 8980) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/14/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: First Baptist Church Community Center Conditional Use Permit Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI JUDICIAL: 305 N California Avenue [17PLN - 00446]: Approval of a Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Community Center Use at the First Bapti st Church. Environmental Assessment: Exempt Per Sections 15301 and 15323 of the CEQA Guidelines. Zone District: R -1(10000) (Single Family Residential) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation The Planning & Transportation Commission and Staff recommend that Council: 1. Find the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Sections 15301 and 15323 of the CEQA Guidelines; and 2. Adopt the attached Record of Land Use Action approving the proposed Conditional Use Permit based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Note: The Planning & Transportation Commission considered the applicant’s request for a conditional use permit on April 11, 2018 and recommended approval with modifications to staff’s recommended conditions of approval as shown in Attachment A. Executive Summary This report transmits the applicant’s request for a conditional use permit to allow a community center use at the First Baptist Church located at 305 North California Avenue. The community center would use the existing church facilities on the site, including the sanctuary, fellowship hall, and assorted office and meeting spaces. No development is proposed. The application in intended to authorize a number of uses and activities on the site that are unrelated to the church beyond a landlord-tenant relationship and therefore do not comport with the City’s definition of a “church,” which is the existing legally noncomplying use on the site. The report City of Palo Alto Page 2 outlines the background that led to the community center application, as well as a number of issues that have been raised by neighbors living near the site. The draft Record of Land Use Action outlines conditions of approval for the conditional use permit in response to these issues. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed the application at a public hearing on April 11, 2018 and voted 5-1 to recommend approval with modified conditions of approval. Their modifications to staff’s original recommended conditions are provided in the draft record of Land Use Action in strike-out/underline format. Background The First Baptist Church was established at this location in the late 1940s. Over the intervening decades, residents report that the church held weekly worship services, as well as other life cycle events, such as weddings. Residents and the current pastor have reported a decline in the church’s congregation in more recent years. At the same time, residents report an increase of other events and activities. The New Mozart School, a for-profit organization, held music classes at the subject site for several years, but is now conducting its business on El Camino Real, following a code enforcement effort to abate the use. A non -profit organization, iSing, offers music education for girls in grades 1 through 12. There are psychotherapist offices providing mental health care to teens and adults. The City is also aware of a variety of other uses and singular and regular events, such as Tuesday Night Tango, offices of the Peninsula Peace and Justice Center, and weekly dinners of the Peninsula Macrobiotic Community, among others, that have occurred on the site. The applicant reports, and this notion is supported by others in the faith -based community, that these activities are an extension of a contemporary church use today. Residents, however, see these activities as more akin to a commercial operation disrupting the peace and quiet enjoyment of their residential neighborhood. From the City st aff’s perspective, there may be a need to revisit the Municipal Code’s church definition in the future, but much of the recent activity occurring at the subject site does not appear to share any relationship to or interaction with the church other than their use of church facilities. Thus, these uses would not fall within the current definition of church uses in the Municipal Code, even if interpreted broadly to encompass secular activities that are sponsored or promoted by the church for the benefit of its congregation or otherwise in furtherance of religious worship and education permitted on the site. Other religious institutions are following this application and have concerns about how the outcome may affect their current operations. Staff’s approach to this application has been to balance these varied interests. This approach focusses on the First Baptist Church, its site conditions, history, and neighborhood setting, which are unique to this church and not precedent-setting for other religious organizations in the city. Many of the activities taking place at the church do benefit the community by providing ancillary mental health services, encouraging and building confidence in young City of Palo Alto Page 3 people, and providing a place for secular public gathering. However, it is also clear that an unregulated approach toward managing these and other uses negatively impact nearby residents, create safety concerns for bicyclists, and contribute to motorist frustration. Accordingly, last year, the City issued a notice of violation to the church (as property owner) and other secular tenants located on the property that, in accordance with the Municipal Code, these uses did not meet the definition of a church and, therefore, were not permitted land uses. This action caused many tenants to leave the subject property and served as the impetus for the First Baptist Church to file an application for a community center. A community center requires a conditional use permit, which is a discretionary application that could allow some of the existing services and uses to continue. Staff is aware that some residents do not favor this approach and have argued that a community center is not appropriate at this location and that no activity beyond the church use should be allowed. The Council may also hear from many users of the facility who have benefited from these programs and would like to see them continue. Discussion A church is defined in the Municipal Code as “a use providing facilities for regular organized religious worship and religious education incidental thereto, but excluding a private educational facility. A property tax exemption obtained pursuant to Section 3(f) of Article XIII of the Constitution of the State of California and Section 206 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California, or successor legislation, constitutes prima facie evidence that such use is a church as defined in this section”. Community center is defined as “a place, structure, area, or other facility used for and providing religious, fraternal, social and/or recreational programs generally open to the public and designed to accommodate and serve significant segments of the community”. The applicant seeks a conditional use permit to classify and permit uses and activities falling outside the City’s definition of a church as consistent with the definition of a community center. The applicant’s request in included in Attachment D, and includes maximum hours of operation of 9:00 AM to 10:00 PM, Sunday through Thursday, and 9:00 AM to 11:00 PM, Friday and Saturday, and a maximum attendance for daily group activities of 120 people, exclusive of special events. The purpose of a conditional use permit, per the zoning code, is to provide for uses and accessory uses that are necessary or desirable for the development of the community or region but cannot readily be classified as permitted uses in individual districts by reason of uniqueness of size, scope, or possible effect on public facilities or surrounding uses. City of Palo Alto Page 4 A conditional use permit is a discretionary application. It may be approved, conditionally approved or denied based on required findings. These findings include the following: Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant a conditional use permit, unless it is found that the granting of the application will: (1) Not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; (2) Be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning). Typically, the Director of Planning and Community Environment reviews these applications administratively and issues a decision that can be appealed to the PTC for a recomm endation and final action by the City Council. However, in accordance with the Municipal Code (18.40.170), the Director may defer action on any application as deemed appropriate. Given the amount of public interest and strong feelings from those interested in this project, the Director has opted to defer this project to the City Council. The First Baptist Church is located at the northeast corner of Bryant Street and North California Avenue in the Old Palo Alto neighborhood. The neighborhood is residentia l in character, with many lots in the surrounding area exceeding 10,000 SF of lot area. The church is located on a lot with 37,067 square feet of lot area and is located adjacent to two two -story single family residences and a daycare center. The church was constructed in phases, with the sanctuary constructed in 1948, and the fellowship hall wing constructed in 1953. The church consists of a 2,000 SF sanctuary and a 1,900 SF fellowship hall, and these two buildings are connected by a 5,300 SF two-story hyphen with supporting office and meeting space. The church, based on municipal regulations, is a legally non -complying facility as the main church building lacks a conditional use permit as well as the required number of parking spaces. (8 spaces are provided, whereas a church of this size would require 71 spaces if constructed today) This noncomplying facility designation simply means that the church was established before the zoning code required churches to obtain a conditional use permit or comply with minimum on-site parking requirements.1 The church use may continue and is not regulated by the subject conditional use permit application to establish a community center. However, the operation and use of the community center may be affected by church operations. For instance, as discussed later in this report, to address concerns related to 1 A use permit was granted in 1953 to allow construction of the later fellowship hall wing, along with a variance from the 35 foot rear yard setback. City of Palo Alto Page 5 parking or intensity of use, the hours of operation for a community center use could be limited such that they do not overlap with any organized religious worship or religious education. The site is accessed from North California Avenue and has a one-way drive aisle and parking lot abutting the eastern property line. The drive aisle leads to the rear of the site, and then makes a 90-degree turn towards Bryant Street, which is the point of exit. The drive aisle also provides access to a land-locked parcel used by a day care center, which has three parking spaces and, by way of an easement, uses the church’s driveway for access. The church and owner of the land locked parcel have an agreement that the church may use these three parking spaces when the day care center is not open. (typical day care center hours are Monday -Friday, 7:30 AM – 5:30 PM) Today, under current code, the church would require 71 parking spaces, whi ch is based on a ratio of 1 person for every 4 person capacity (occupancy). For open gathering spaces without fixed seating, the Building Code provides for 1 occupant for every 7 square feet. The sanctuary is approximately 2,000 square feet, thus providing a maximum of 285 occupants. In addition, in 1953, the owner received approval of a use permit and variance to construct the fellowship hall. No additional parking was required at that time because the fellowship hall was ancillary and supportive of the church and its congregants would use one or the other buildings, but not both at the same time. Because the church was established before parking was required and the only expansion that occurred was the ancillary fellowship hall, no on -site parking was ever required. Since then, however, the codes have changed and now the site is noncomplying for 63 parking spaces (71 spaces minus the 8 provided). Our code provides for changes in use without provision of additional parking, as long as the new use does not intensify parking demand. One measure of intensification relates to the occupancy allowances for the church, and more specifically, the sanctuary. If the church does not exceed those limits as they existed when the church became noncomplying, no additional parking will be required. Similarly, if the community center use, if approved, does not exceed those occupancy limits and does not occur at the same time of religious worship or religious education, staff concludes no additional parking should be required for the community center. Included in this report as Attachment C is a chronology of parking information, requirements, dates and relevant code sections. For information purposes, staff has concluded that the maximum occupancy limit of the sanctuary is 28 5 persons. For background, and relevant to the discussion, the City is in the process of implementing its Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. A neighborhood traffic safety and bicycle boulevard project is underway on several local streets to reduce vehicle speeds and prioritize pedestrian and bicycle safety. Intersection improvements, including a roundabout, new crosswalks, and red curbs are planned at the adjacent Bryant Street and North California Avenue. This phase of the plan, however, was recently put on hold and it is unclear at this time when implementation of City of Palo Alto Page 6 these intersection improvements will commence. Nonetheless, some residents are concerned about how these future improvements, combined with the past or planned activity at the community center, may affect traffic and parking in the area. Summary of Key Issues and Planning & Transportation Commission Recommendation Residents over the past several years have complained of excessive noise, traffic, parking congestion, safety concerns, lack of adequate site management, and poor city enforcement, among other concerns, associated with the First Baptist Church. This section expands on these topics and illustrates how staff’s proposed conditions were intended to address these concerns. The PTC conducted a public hearing on the application on April 11, 2018 and forwarded a recommendation for approval (5-1, Summa no, Waldfogel absent/recused) to the Council. Their recommendation included discrete, but significant, modifications to several of the draft conditions of approval that staff had recommended, and included: a) Providing greater flexibility for the types of uses that could fall under the community center use b) Deferring to the applicant’s requested occupancy limit and permitted hours of operation c) Increasing the number of special events permitted on an annual basis d) Eliminating staff’s proposed prohibition on amplified sound The PTC also recommended, as mentioned below in the Policy Implications section, that the Council direct staff to bring forward a discussion of the uses that should be considered under the definition of a church. The draft Record of Land Use Action in Attachment A of this report includes staff’s recommendation with the PTC’s modifications included in strike -out/underline format. The staff report and video of the PTC hearing are included in the following links: Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64479 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63-2-2-2-2/ Also included below in bold italics is a discussion of the PTC’s modifications to staff’s recommended conditions of approval. Land Uses Defined and Permitted One of the challenges residents experience is the unpredictability of events, the lateness and frequency at which the events occur, and the perceived lack of appreciation for the expected standards that reflect the residential neighborhood in which the church is located. As noted City of Palo Alto Page 7 earlier, this conditional use permit does not regulate the church. Religious worship and religious education may continue as it has in the past. Staff’s recommendation in Condition 1 in the draft record of land use action (Attachment C) limited events to non-profit organizations; rehearsals, programs and performances by non - profit musical groups; and, ancillary counseling and psychotherapy uses. Because the definition for community center is broad, staff thought there was value in narrowing the types of permitted community center events that could be established. As drafted by staff, this condition would prohibit for-profit entities from using the facilities, and reflects the desire to keep commercial land uses out of this residential neighborhood while also promoting events that benefit the broader community. This list , however, also includes psychotherapy uses as an ancillary use to the community center, but Condition 3 limited the number of therapists on the premises at a time to no more than three individuals. The PTC disagreed with staff’s attempt to limit the permissible community center uses and recommended eliminating the discrete list, substituting instead a simple reference to the municipal code definition of community center. The PTC agreed that psychotherapy uses may be included as ancillary uses, but removed the limitation on the number of therapists, potentially opening the door for uses that go well beyond the ancillary level of activity taking place at the site today. Duration, Time and Intensity of Community Center Events Staff’s proposed Condition 2 limited the hours of operation to 10:00am through 7:30pm seven days a week, but included an exception for psychotherapy offices, which, because of the low intensity of the use, was allowed to begin at 9:00am. A complete closure requirement ensured no one affiliated with any community event may be on the premises past 8:00pm. Condition 10 limited the occupancy of all daily community center events at any given time to fifty (50) people. Events seeking a higher attendance could be considered through a Temporary Use Permit (see related discussion below on special events). The PTC recommended expanding the allowable hours of operation for all community center uses to align with the applicant’s requested hours (9:00am through 10:00pm Sunday through Thursday, 9:00am through 11:00pm Friday and Saturday). Also, the PTC recommended expanding the occupancy for daily community center events from 50 to 120 to align with the applicant’s requested occupancy limit. Community Event Related Noise Several conditions were recommended to address noise. There is a long history of complaints about noise, which is exacerbated by various tenants opening windows and doors during performances or events. The windows are opened, principally, in the fellowship hall and City of Palo Alto Page 8 portions of the building hyphen abutting two adjacent residential neighbors. The open windows provide ventilation because the fellowship hall lacks a heating, ventilation, and air condition system (HVAC) system. Staff recommended Conditions 8 and 9 attempted to address these concerns by requiring the windows and doors to remain closed during community center events. These conditions also required non-operable double pane windows to be installed where double pane windows do not presently exist. Finally, there was a requirement that an HVAC system be installed. These conditions relate to the fellowship hall and building hyphen; the property owner was given until August 1st to implement these changes. Other noise-related conditions prohibited amplified music, required compliance with the city’s noise ordinance, and prevented community center events from occurring outdoors (Conditions 6 and 7, respectively). These conditions, combined with limits on occupancy and hours of operation are expected to reduce noise-related disturbances. The PTC recommended eliminating the restriction on amplified music (Condition 6) entirely, and suggested that noise-related issues could be handled through enforcement of the City’s existing noise ordinance. Event Coordinator / Neighborhood Contact One complaint made by several neighbors is that some of the events lack on -site management, and that this exacerbates the issues related to pick-up/drop off and parking. Furthermore, the lack of management also prevents momentary problems, such as noise, from being handled in a timely fashion. Conditions 4 and 5 address this issue by requiring the property owner to establish a dedicated phone line that will be answered by someone either affiliated with the property owner or the community center event taking place. This point of contact would be responsible for ensuring that any neighbor complaints are responded to immediately. The property owner would also be required to notify the neighbors of the point of contact information within sixty days of the approval of the use permit. The PTC recommended adding a requirement that the property owner propose a “continuous improvement plan” to reasonably address major neighborhood concerns, which would be submitted annually to the Planning Director and made public to the neighborhood. Pick Up / Drop Off and Loading The noncomplying on-site parking condition does cause spill-over onto neighboring streets when events and activities exceed the parking lot’s capacity. Additionally, the existing drive aisle is narrow; parents picking up and dropping off children often forgo driving onto the site and instead load directly from the street curb. Staff has received several comments regarding this loading activity and concerns about safety for cyclists on North California Avenue. Both North California Avenue and Bryant Street in the vicinity of the site are designated Safe Routes to School paths and are used by students at Jordan Middle School and Palo Alto High School in City of Palo Alto Page 9 particular. While requiring such loading activity to occur on -site may be a best practice, some neighbors have indicated such an option would only exacerbate other issues, such as noise, and may result in additional motorist and cyclist conflicts on Bryant Street. As a temporary measure to address this issue, the City’s Transportation Division has installed signage outside of the church to prohibit stopping during school commute hours. Staff recommends with Condition 13 of this CUP that the loading/no-stopping signage and striping be extended onto the Bryant Street frontage of the site. Additionally, staff recommends a schedule of staggered pick -up and drop-off times to prevent sudden surges of vehicle traffic and queueing near the site. Additionally, for all community center tenants with regular events, Condition 14 requires a traffic management plan be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The PTC recommended adding a requirement that the property owner provide a parking attendant during peak hours and large events. Special Events Staff acknowledges that there may be some types of events, such as occasional musical performances, where a higher attendance or extended hours of operation may be desired by tenants and, if properly regulated, not detrimental to the neighborhood. Condition 15 is intended to allow for these types of special events with a Temporary Use Permit (TUP). Any event requesting a TUP would be required to file an application with the Planning Department at least 45 days prior to the event. Staff recommended that a maximum of six such TUP applications may be filed each calendar year, with no more than two such applications in a given month. Neighborhood notification would be required prior to these larger events. The PTC recommended increasing the maximum number of TUP applications that the community center could apply for annually from six to twelve. Enforcement A common concern raised among the neighbors is that enforcement of any conditional use permit on the site, should one be approved, may be difficult given the history of prior violations. Condition 17 reaffirms that a violation of any of these conditions is subject to citations as set forth in the administrative penalty schedule. Such penalties include escalating fines for repeat violations, including a second fine equal to 150% of the original fine and third and subsequent fines equal to 200%. Additionally, Condition 16 affirms the Director’s authority to make changes to the conditions of approval at a noticed public hearing if they are not adequately protecting the surrounding neighborhood. Policy Implications Several members of the faith community have expressed concerns to staff about the implications and precedent of this community center designation and how it would or would City of Palo Alto Page 10 not impact their existing operations. Several faith leaders have indicated that the types of programming at the First Baptist Church is common at their churches, and that the City’s definition of a “church” use is unnecessarily narrow and does not reflect the reality of the modern church and the various ways in which churches conduct their ministry. Staff acknowledges these perspectives and they were shared emphatically by a majority of the PTC in their motion. Thus, there appears to be a need to revisit the City’s definition of a “church,” although that should be done separately and apart from the subject application. Staff also believes that many of the issues stemming from the use are unique to the site and neighborhood. In particular, the building occupies a large portion of the small site, and was granted a variance from setbacks to provide for the construction of the fellowship hall. This lesser setback arguably exacerbates the noise issues stemming from the fellowship hall. Additionally, while many churches in Palo Alto have noncomplying parking lots, few are located in fully residential neighborhoods where the availability of on-street parking is considered an issue by many residents. Lastly, the passenger loading concerns are due primarily to the location of the site along a Bicycle Boulevard that is heavily used by students cycling to and from Jordan Middle and Palo Alto High School. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 and 15323 of the CEQA Guidelines. The project involves a change in use at an existing facility and involves no physical expansion of the church structure, and therefore is eligible for a Class 1 (Existing Facilities) exemption. Additionally, the project involves regulation of the normal operation of an existing facility for public gatherings, and there is a history of the facility being used in a similar fashion for more than three years. As a result, the project is el igible for a Class 23 (Normal Operations of Facilities for Public Gatherings). Public Comments Staff, the PTC, and the City Council have received many public comments on the application from neighbors, church tenants, and congregants. Generally, most com ments regarding the proposed community center use express concerns about parking, bicycle and pedestrian safety on and near the site, and noise emanating from the fellowship hall. Some supportive comments express support for the church’s application for a community center, while other supportive comments express reservations over the need for such an application. The public comments received as of the writing of this report are included in Attachment G. Staff has met with the interested parties on several occasions in order to gather feedback on the application and explain the use permit process. A community meeting attended by City of Palo Alto Page 11 approximately 50 people was held by staff at the Jordan Middle School on March 7, 2018. The church hosted a meeting with church staff, congregants, and tenants which was attended by staff on March 14, 2018. Additionally, a meeting organized by residents was attended by staff on March 23, 2018. Attachments: Attachment A: Draft RLUA With PTC Modifications (DOCX) Attachment B: Location Map (PDF) Attachment C: Chronology of City Requirements and Site Planning (DOCX) Attachment D: Application Materials (PDF) Attachment E: Emailed Public Comments (PDF) Attachment F: Mailed Public Comments (PDF) Attachment A Page 1 of 5 Draft ACTION NO. 2018-____ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 305 N. CALIFORNIA AVENUE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (17PLN-00446) On May 14, 2018, the Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Conditional Use Permit application for a community center at the First Baptist Church located in the R-1(10,000) Zoning District, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. An application for a conditional use permit to allow a community center as defined by PAMC 18.04.030(34) on the site was submitted on November 14, 2017. B. Planning Staff referred the application to the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) for a recommendation to the City Council. C. The Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the Project on April 11, 2018. The Commission’s recommendations are contained in CMR #8980 and the associated attachments. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The proposed project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt per section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15323 (Normal Operations of Facilities for Public Gatherings) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. SECTION 3. Conditional Use Permit Findings Conditional Use Permit approval is based on the findings indicated under PAMC Section 18.76.010: 1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The proposed Community Center use is a conditionally permitted use in the R-1(10,000) zoning district. The church building that would contain the community center use is located at the corner of N. California Avenue and Bryant Street, and is surrounded by low-density single family dwellings. The current and previous uses of the church have created concerns among many neighbors about nuisance issues, including noise, vehicle circulation and queueing, passenger loading, and parking spill-over onto neighboring blocks. The conditions of approval for the project seeks to address these issues by limiting the hours of operation, the number, frequency, and type of events, and enforcing ongoing performance standards for events of a certain size. These performance standards include the requirement to have a designated point of contact for all events that can troubleshoot issues and handle complaints in a timely manner, and the requirement that new windows and HVAC be installed in the fellowship hall in order to mitigate sound. With adherence to these conditions of approval, the use will not be conducted in a manner that will be injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or be detrimental to the public health, safety, Attachment A Page 2 of 5 and general welfare, or convenience. 2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. The subject site is designated Single Family in the Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is zoned R-1(10,000) This zoning allows Community Centers as a conditionally permitted use. The CUP allows the City to review the proposed use at this location to assure that it maintains operations that are compatible with the zoning district and other existing neighborhood uses. With adherence to conditions of approval, the use will be located and conducted in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code, including the Noise and Zoning Ordinances. SECTION 4. Conditions of Approval. 1. COMMUNITY CENTER EVENTS. This permit authorizes the use of the property as a community center, as defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.04.020.. For purposes of this use permit, any use, activity, event or similar function located on the subject property that is not directly related to organized religious worship or religious education shall constitute a community center event. Only the following community center events shall be permitted on the subject property, subject to the conditions specified in this use permit: a. Meetings and events sponsored or used by non-profit organizations b. Rehearsals, programs and performances by non-profit musical groups c. Ancillary counseling and psychotherapy offices 2. HOURS OF OPERATION. Community center events shall not occur at the same time and shall be separated by at least fifteen (15) minutes from any organized religious worship or religious education. Community center events shall only occur between 9:00am and 10:00pm Sunday through Thursday, 9:00am through 11:00pm Friday and Saturday., except that ancillary counseling and psychotherapy may occur as early as 9:00am and regardless of any organized religious worship or religious education. All individuals attending or affiliated with any community center event shall vacate the premises no later than 8:00pm nightly. 3. COUNSELING AND PSYCHOTHERAPY OFFICES. A maximum of three individual cCounselors or psychotherapists shall be permitted at any time as an ancillary use to the church and community center. 4. POINT OF CONTACT. The property owner is responsible for establishing and maintaining a dedicated phone line that shall be answered by someone affiliated with the church or other entity using the premises for any community center event purposes who will immediately respond to in- person complaints and complaints made by phone for any concerns related to noise, parking, or other neighborhood disturbances. This contact information shall be provided in all community event advertising, websites, and any neighborhood notification. The point of contact shall be located on-site at all times there is a community center event. A point of contact is not required for ancillary counseling or psychotherapy related uses. Attachment A Page 3 of 5 5. NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATION. Within sixty (60) days of this approval, the property owner shall prepare and distribute a notice to neighbors within 600 feet of the subject property advising occupants of the point of contact information in the above condition and to provide a copy of these conditions of approval. A new notice shall be mailed within five (5) days, in a manner consistent with this condition, for any change to the dedicated point of contact phone number. 6. AMPLIFIED MUSIC. Amplified music is prohibited during community center events. 7. NOISE. All community center events shall comply with the City’s noise ordinance, Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.10. All community center events shall occur indoors. 8. WINDOWS. Prior to August 1, 2018, the property owner shall replace all windows in the fellowship hall with non-operable double paned windows. Existing operable double pane windows may remain provided the windows remain closed during any community center event. 9. HVAC. Prior to August 1, 2018, the property owner shall install an appropriately sized heating, ventilation and air conditioning system for the fellowship hall. 10. OCCUPANCY. The maximum number of people attending or affiliated with any community center event, except for counseling and psychotherapy uses, collectively, at any time, shall not exceed 50 120 persons. 11. PARKING. All parking spaces on the subject property shall be made available for people affiliated with community center events. 12. DROP OFF AND PICK UP. The property owner and community center event point of contact shall ensure community center event attendees and affiliates do not block or otherwise impede the free movement of bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists traveling on the public right of way and shall ensure motorists associated with the community center event are not parking or stopping in areas where such action is prohibited. Community center events greater than 32 persons shall be staggered from any other event by 15 minutes to allow sufficient time between events and to facilitate access at drop off and pick up locations. 13. CURB SITE LOADING ZONES. A five (5) minute passenger drop off and pick up loading zone shall be established at the street frontage adjacent to the subject property along California Avenue and Bryant Street and signs installed at appropriate locations posting the following restrictions, subject to approval from the City’s Chief Transportation Official:  Passenger Loading and Unloading Monday through Friday 10am through 8:00pm, except during no stopping times.  During the school year, no stopping Monday, Tuesday and Thursday from 3:00pm through 4:00pm; Wednesday from 1:30pm to 4:15pm; and Friday 12:30pm – 4:00pm.  Street parking permitted all other times  The applicant shall provide a parking attendant during peak hours and special events. Attachment A Page 4 of 5 The property owner shall pay for street signs and curb painting as required by this condition. 14. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN. Tenants with regular or reoccurring community center events shall prepare a traffic management plan for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The plan shall document the tenant’s compliance with the applicable traffic, parking and loading-related conditions; efforts the tenant will take to inform event attendees and participants of these regulations through program registration, websites, emails or other media; promote carpooling; and, other efforts to promote the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding residential tenants and property owners. 15. SPECIAL EVENTS. In addition to community center events authorized by these conditions of approval, applications for up to twelve (12) six (6) temporary use permits may be filed each calendar year to allow for community center events that exceed the permitted hours of operation or occupancy limitations set forth in these conditions. Such applications must be filed with the Planning and Community Environment Department no less than 45 days prior to the event. No more than two (2) temporary use permit applications shall be granted during the same month. The Director’s determination to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application shall be based upon Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.42.050. 16. COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. The applicant shall at all times be in compliance with the conditions of approval and documentation describing the community center’s operation. If community center operations result in unanticipated impacts that negatively impact the general welfare, the Director of Planning and Community Environment may impose additional conditions to mitigate those impacts. Any changes by the Director to this approval or imposition of new or modified conditions shall be in writing and subject to the city’s appeal procedures for conditional use permits. 17. ENFORCEMENT. Any violation of the conditions of approval may be assessed fines set forth in the administrative penalty schedule. 18. APPLICATION FEES. Within sixty (60) days of approval, the property owner shall pay the City of Palo Alto application fees for the processing of this conditional use permit, unless a fee waiver has been authorized in writing in compliance with the City’s municipal fee schedule. 19. EFFECTIVE DATE. These conditions shall become effective immediately upon approval by the City Council. Any existing community event tenant shall have sixty (60) days from the date of approval to demonstrate compliance with all applicable conditions of approval. 20. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such Attachment A Page 5 of 5 action with attorneys of its own choice. 21. USE AND OCCUPANCY PERMIT. A valid Use and Occupancy permit issued by the Building Department is required for the Community Center use. 22. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PLAN. The applicant shall propose a continuous improvement plan to address traffic, noise, vehicle circulation, and queuing, loading, parking spill over. The plan and reasonable attainment of its goals, shall be submitted annually to the department and the neighbors. SECTION 5. Term of Approval. Conditional Use Permit Approval. In the event the actual change in use is not commenced within twelve months of the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.090 PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney 63.7' 105.4' 81.0' 89.1' 24.8' 70.2' 105.0' 60.5' 105.4' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 80.0' 105.0' 80.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 71.5' 105.0' 49.0' 22.3' 91.6' 50.0' 103.9' 105.0' 81.4' 22.3' 91.6' 60.0' 105 103.9' 107.8' 121.7' 50.2' 125.9' 5 125.9' 50.2' 130.0' 50.0' 130.0' 50.2' 134.2' 50.0' 134.2' 64.2' 139.5' 64.0' 9.1' 59.4' 121.7' 82.0' 141.0' 82.0' 141.0' 82.0' 106.5' 82.0' 106.5' 278.9' 105.3' 0' 75.0' 150.0'50.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'42.3' 112.9' 52.3' 112.5' 107.5' 94.0'99.1' 94.4' 99.1' 56.2' 50.0' 112.5' 139.4' 247.5' 247.5' 57.5' 247.5' 57.5' 247.5' 139.5' 248.4' 160.0' 247.5' 247.5' 92.3' 82.1' 52.3' 60.2' 60.4' 52.5' 87.4'87.4' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 2200 2230 2260 2257 2277 310 2299 2301 2203 365 355 375 2220 2180 280 252 2225 255 292 26 2266 305 275 349 2175 2161 100 2183 2185311 NORTH CALIFORNIA AVENUE BRYANT This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Building Roof Outline Underlying Lot Line abc Easement abc Lot Dimensions abc Zone District Labels Tree First Baptist Church Site 0' 77' First Baptist Church305 N California Avenue 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 gowen, 2018-03-29 17:33:31 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Attachment C – Chronology of City Requirements and Site Planning Site Access and On-site Parking The site is accessed via a curb cut on North California Avenue that leads to a one -way drive aisle and parking lot abutting the eastern property line. The drive aisle leads to the rear of the site, and then makes a 90-degree turn towards Bryant Street, which is the point of exit. The parking lot and drive aisle also provide access and parking for a land -locked parcel at 311 California Avenue (previously addressed as 2185 Bryant Street), which contains a day care facility. The subject site contains eight pa rking spaces, one of which is reserved for the pastor and the other for a psychologist who rents an office in the church building. Three additional spaces are provided on the adjacent day care site, which was previously controlled by the church but is now separately owned. The church has a license agreement with the day care center governing the shared use of the parking spaces on the day care site which allows the church to use the day care spaces when the day care is closed. This brings the total number of spaces that could be associated with the community center use to eleven. Existing Parking Non-compliance The church was constructed in 1948, which is prior to the City’s adoption of off -street parking requirements for such uses. Ordinance 1324, which was adopted by Council in 1951, established churches as a conditionally permitted use. Ordinance 1382, adopted by Council on February 11, 1952, amended the zoning ordinance to require a conditional use permit for churches located on sites of less than 40,000 sf of lot area and, additionally, to require 1 parking space for each five (5) seats which may potentially be provided in the main room of a church. The fellowship hall was constructed in 1953, and the City Council approved a Use Permit for the hall sub ject to the current vehicular egress pattern and a Variance to the 35-foot rear yard setback that was required at the time. The fellowship hall was intended to serve as an ancillary room to be used at a separate time from the sanctuary, and accordingly, no additional parking was required or provided with the construction of the fellowship hall. Chapter 18.52 of the Municipal Code provides the parking and loading requirements for various land uses. A community center use requires a minimum of 1 parking space for “every 4-person capacity”, which is based on the occupancy load as determined by the Building Code. Seating for the sanctuary for the church was previously arranged in pews, which provided seating for approximately 386 people. The pews have since been removed, and the sanctuary now contains movable chairs that can fit different arrangements. The sanctuary is approximately 2,000 square feet in floor area, yielding a maximum occupancy of approximately 285 people. Should a church with a sanctuary capacity of 285 people be proposed under the current provisions of the Municipal Code, a total of 71 spaces would be required. Chapter 18.52.040 of the Municipal Code provides that for any change of occupancy that would increase the number of required parking spaces, the additional parking shall be required only for such addition, enlargement, or change, and not for the entire building or use. As a result, if the community center use does not present an increase in the occupancy of the building relative to the church use, the new use would be consistent with the zoning code’s provisions for parking. The draft conditions include an occupancy restriction that ensures the community center use does not cause the building to exceed the current occupancy limit. 1 April 11, 2018 TO: THE CITY OF PALO ALTO PLANNING AND TRAFFIC COMMISSION; THE CITY OF PALOALTO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT FROM: FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, PALO ALTO PASTOR RICK MIXON Let me begin by saying that we at the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto want to be clear that we value our neighborhood and our neighbors. We very much want to be a good neighbor. We are aware of the concerns of some of our neighbors about noise, parking, and traffic. We share those concerns and are working hard to address them. Given what we have heard from our concerned neighbors, we are quite willing to give consideration to those concerns in scheduling use of the building as well as making changes to the building that address these concerns. We believe we have already made significant progress in addressing these concerns. Let me also express my appreciation to Hillary, Jonathan, Graham and the Planning Department for all the obvious hard work they have put in to resolving th ese issues. We recognize that this is a situation that has been challenging to try to resolve. We understand that it’s no fun to be stuck in the middle. Their background, analysis and recommendations concerning our application for a Conditional Use Permit to be designated as a Community Cente r show how clearly and diligently they have worked to craft a reasonable, workable solution. That said, we have several concerns about the conditions proposed in Attachment A of their report. I would like to go through these point by point. 1. To begin with, I’d like to be clear that the church continues to believe that the organizations and activities that share our space are consonant with our mission as a church in 2018. Therefore, the Community Center designation should be unnecessary, but we understand that the Planning Department sees this differently under the existing City Code and so we have proceeded with this application at their direction. 2. We requested that the hours of operation be 9:00 AM till 10:00 PM Sunday through Thursday and 9:00 AM till 11:00 PM on Saturday and Sunday. These are the hours outlined in other CUPs for religious institutions also located in R1 2 neighborhoods. We believe that the city should be consistent in designating hours of operation. This does not mean activit ies will be going on during all those hours all the time, but there are occasions when the church or our partners would reasonably make use of the space during those hours. 3. There are times and events when amplified music would be reasonably expected. For example, the church has had amplified music on its patio during cookouts and weddings. However, we are amenable to creating a reasonable schedule for noise levels and times when this would be permissible, as well as types of music that would be acceptable. 4. Several years ago, the church spent a considerable sum of money upgrading its patio for outside use. As mentioned, the church has held various activities there and on our lawn. We believe that use of this desirable space should be extended to our partners. Because we are serving children, we believe they need a place to run, play, and let off steam, as long as they are supervised. We have had more than one neighbor tell us that they or their children grew up playing on the church’s lawn. It has truly been the neighborhood’s lawn over the past 70 years. 5. We will install double paned windows in the Fellowship Hall by August 1 as part of a plan to refurbish the Hall. 6. We are very happy to report that a new HVAC system is scheduled to go into the Hall this week. 7. The suggested limit on occupancy seems unreasonable for the actual use of the space. In order for us to able to make good use of the building, we suggest a limit of 120. 8. We have kept the Pastor’s parking space where it is because it helps to ensure proper parking on that end of the lot where drivers turn into the exit driveway. We believe this is actually a safety measure. Most of time the parking lot is actually underutilized. 9. We are already staggering the beginning of events on the property to help with drop off and pick up. This seems to be working well. iSing staff ha s been closely monitoring compliance with rules and regulations for driving, stopping, and parking around the church. We have suggested that occasional police presence at 3 the site with the issuance of citations would help people understand that they need to obey the law. 10. The existing curbside loading zone seems to be working well, especially since the New Mozart School left the building, and iSing modified its hours. We believe that expanding the loading zone at this time is unnecessary. The hours when loading and unloading are relevant are those afternoon hours when iSing is in operation as already posted. 11. Because our Sanctuary provides an outstanding acoustic for musical performance and our Hall an excellent dance floor, they are highly desirable venues in the community. While we understand the need for regulation in scheduling these events, we request that the number be increased to up to 12 in a year. I do want to acknowledge that we recognize our responsibility to let our neighbors know what is going on the building, to monitor activities, and to work with them to address their concerns in a timely manner. We recognize that we have caused some concern in the neighborhood, which we never intended and for which we are sorry. While it is our desire that you amend the recommendations of the Planning Department as we have suggested, we also understand that you and they have a responsibility to monitor compliance with any CUP granted. We look forward to working together the Planning Department and our neighbors to insure this is so, while sustaining the well- being of the church and the neighborhood. Overall We value our neighborhood and our neighbors and we very much want to be a good neighbor. We are aware of the concerns of some of our neighbors. We share those concerns. Consideration of appropriate partners to share our space regularly has included size of the group along with noise, parking, and traffic that will be generated. Given what we have heard from our concerned neighbors, we are quite willing to give additional consideration to those concerns in scheduling further use of the building. We also value all the partners who share our space with us. We believe they reflect the mission of the church and are of great benefit to the city. We work closely with our partners to accommodate their use of the church facility. We have guidelines f or use of the facility, which we do all that we can to enforce. When we have difficulties with partners that we cannot resolve, we do not renew leases or contracts. We can cite several instances in which we moved programs and activities out of the building because they were not a good fit. We have limited space we can make available to partners as well as limited hours, so we consider carefully whether an activity or organization is compatible with those limitations and with our neighborhood. Noise The primary concerns about noise seem to come from use of the church’s Fellowship Hall, Patio, and lawn. Currently, these areas are primarily used by iSing Silicon Valley Girlchoir several late afternoons/early evenings a week on a regular, ongoing basis. In addition, there are occasional events – dances, parties, receptions, meals, meetings, retreats, etc. – both during the day and in the evening. Because we recognize that our neighbors have concerns about noise, we have already gotten estimates for air-conditioning the Hall so the windows and doors can be kept closed when noise-generating activities are going on. We are also open to considering the installation of double-paned windows, if that will help. On the second floor of our Educational Wing, where the New Mozart School operated, we worked with our near neighbor on Bryant Street to resolve noise concerns. We installed air-conditioning in those rooms and he paid for double-paned windows. When we had difficulties with the teachers adhering to our expectation that the windows in these rooms would be kept closed during lessons, we bolted the windows shut. So we have a track record of working with willing neighbors who come to us directly with their concerns to address those concerns. While we believe that noise generated by iSing is, for the most part reasonable and expectable for groups of children learning and playing, the directors of the prog ram are open to considering modifying their activities to lessen the noise. The grounds of the church building have a rich and long legacy of being the “playground” of the neighborhood. It seems to us that most of the activities on the church grounds are reasonable and acceptable. However, if neighbors have concerns about noise that exceeds that and will share those concerns with us, we are willing to work with them to address those concerns. Parking The city allowed this building to be built in 1947 with the current amount of parking. We can only assume that the city considered street parking to be adequate for a congregation of 600 to 700 members at that time and subsequently. This parking arrangement was affirmed in 1953 when the congregation completed its original design by adding the Fellowship Hall. In the early 1970s, when the church owned the property at 349 North California Avenue, we were denied permission by the city to turn that lot into additional parking. In 2016/17, when the city re-paved and re-striped North California Avenue, along with many of our neighbors, we raised concerns about the loss of parking. We were told at the time by Josh Mello, Chief Transportation Official, that there was plenty of parking within 2 blocks of the church. This was after the city had done an on-site inspection of parking and traffic at our site. If this is true, we can certainly work with our partners to encourage their participants to park appropriately and legally and walk to the church building. One drastic idea that has had some discussion is the possibility of turning part or all of our lawn into diagonal street parking to accommodate additional cars. However, it is our strong belief that parking is rarely a problem around the church. The vast majority of the time, there is plenty of street parking available. Of course, there are occasional events and activities which draw larger crowds and use much of the available parking around the church. Traffic While it is probably true that there has been an increase in traffic in the neighborhood, we do not believe that we are the sole cause or that it is a dramatic increase. It’s our experience that most drivers on both Bryant and North California navigate tho se streets with reasonable speed and respect for traffic rules, especially given a general awareness that these are major bicycle routes. It is true that there are scofflaws who do not obey the rules or drive appropriately. Of course, this could be observe d on any street in the city at a given time. We recognize that when both the New Mozart School and iSing were beginning classes soon after school got out, there were times of congestion as parents dropped off and picked up their children. This congestion would be significantly compounded when the phalanx of students from Jordan Middle School poured down North California Avenue after school. Again, it is our observation that this convergence took about 15 minutes , after which traffic patterns went back to “normal.” Now that New Mozart School has left the building, iSing has adjusted its hours, and the city has created a drop off zone in front of the church, these incidences of congestion are rare and traffic flows much better. We continue to believe that the creation of a traffic circle at the corner of North California and Bryant is a bad idea. While there may be data to demonstrate that, generally, traffic circles are “traffic calming” in areas with high volume bicycle traffic, we believe that this does not account for the way the middle school students come pouring down North California 3 and 4 abreast. That, coupled with the tendency of many cyclists to ignore the rules of the road (especially blowing through stop signs) will make a traffic circle at this particular intersection a hazard rather than a help. In regard to parking and traffic generally, iSing, our largest partner, has worked diligently to alter patterns around the church during their classes and activities. They have sent notices to their parents outlining the difficulties and instructing their parents to obey the traffic and parking rules. They have even posted their staff curbside to direct their parents and insure they are following the rules. In addition to trying to help enforce the rules, they have also encouraged their students to walk, cycle, or carpool to lessen traffic and the need for parking/idling. Bicycle Safety We do wonder what might be done, especially at Jordan Middle School, to help the student cyclists learn and obey the rules pertaining to bicycles on public streets. Can the city find ways to work with the school as well as parents and students to help them understand the risks to themselves and the problems they cause in the neighborhood when the disregard the “rules of the road”? Police Presence More than one person has suggested that some well-placed and timely policing of the neighborhood, including the issuance of citations, would help motorists and cyclists understand how important it is for them to obey traffic and parking rules. In addition, those tickets might add to the city coffers to help cover the cost of such policing. Received March 15, 2018 Graham Owen Associate Planner Planning and Community Development 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 MAR 19 2018 Department of ning & Community Subject: 305 N. California Avenue: Conditional Use Permit Application Some history of 349 North California Avenue and the PACCC Day Care Hi Graham, I'm including some copies of historical documents from the church that talk about: • The property at 349 North California Avenue, which the church used to own • The history with the day care center located at the back of the church property 349 California Avenue The church owned this property from 1960 until 1980 when it was sold to the current owners, Laura Seitel and Loy Martin. Between 1960 and 1980, in all the records of the church, this property was referred to as the "Clausen Cottage" after Jens Clausen, a long time church member and renowned Danish botanist. During the church's ownership, the property was used for classrooms and as a youth center for the church's young people. In the late seventies, the church council debated how to best use the property and asked the City of Palo Alto for permission to raze the structure and put in additional parking. The request was denied. (See page 25 of A Brief History of the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto.) In the February 28, 1978 minutes of the church Executive Board, under Mission, the members discussed "Cottage use." The board listed the following action options for the property: create a multi -purpose parking lot; lease it for City programs, or perhaps sell. In the June 26, 1978 minutes, then -Pastor Bjornson reported on meeting with the City Planning Director Naphthalia Knox and the City Building Inspector Stan Nowicki, who said at that time that the church did not require any special use permits for their activities. The church's Long Range Planning Committee came up with nine possibilities for use of the cottage property. Of those nine ideas, Building Inspector Nowicki favored renovation as a residence for church staff or for sale; a parkinglot/volleyball court; or a playground picnic area. In the November 30, 1978 minutes, the Long Range Planning Committee recommended the parking lot option. It was also stated in those minutes that "it is more than likely that the church would regret our having sold the Clausen Cottage property at this time than our having kept it." In the March 27, 1979 minutes, it was reported that "under present city regulations, if we were to use the property for parking, it would have to remain in parking and could not be sold for housing [at a later date]. Almost any change in the use of the property would require hearings." The neighbor next door to 349 North California, a Mrs. Rimerman, expressed interest in purchasing part of the property, and the board was going to look into creating a set of plans for a parking lot using less than the full lot. In the June 26, 1979 minutes, the board reviewed three alternate plans to use the lot for parking, providing from 23 to 36 additional parking spaces. It was said that the city may not allow the lot to be divided up. In the October 21, 1979 minutes, Mike Golick, a church member and local realtor, reported that the City will not allow housing to be demolished. He recommended that the church retain the property. In November 1979, the board voted to put the property up for sale, asking price $110,000. And it was sold to the current owners in 1980. 311 North California Avenue This is the Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC) day care center located at the back of the property, at the end of the church driveway and adjacent to the Brunicardi property at 2183 Bryant Street. The day care center rented the property for a few years, and then purchased 75% of it in 1998. The church still used it on the weekends and the day care center used it during the week. In August 2006, the day care center took full possession of the property. A Deed of Trust, dated December 23, 1998 (pages included with this letter) specifies on page 5: "Beginning at a point on the Northwesterly sideline of North California Avenue, a 60 -foot right-of-way, said point being 248.35 feet distant, Northwesterly from the intersection of this Northwesterly sideline of North California Avenue and the Northeasterly sideline of Bryant Street (a 60 foot right of way; said point of reference also being the Southeastern center of Lot 6, Block 5, and said point also being, the "true point of beginning" for the purposes of the following description..." This quoted passage is basically specifying the property lines and allowed ingress/egress to the PACCC property. It does not specify parking. Although I think their parking spaces are located within those specified property lines. I believe that the use of the parking spaces in front of the day care property is part of their purchase, as it is defined in the Deed of Trust specification. The church has a verbal agreement with PACCC that they are only to use those parking spaces, and not any of the spaces along the side of the Fellowship Hall of the church. I hope this information is of some help. Sincerely, Betsy Anderson Administrator, First Baptist Church A BRIEF HISTORY of the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto June 18, 1893 to June 18, 1993 BUILDINGS AND REFURBISHMENT Foreword rates its one -hundredth year of 1993. We celebrate a worthy past, a history deserving our best tpel car to the beautiful worship ?irst Baptist Church has existed to But existence is never enough for Institutions and people must have themselves as being of importance must be a felt linkage to whatever god of the universe. The reason :ause it has done something more st Baptist has survived is because ptured people's imagination and that people have found new life, it for the world in which they live pass on to the future. Dr. Charles F. Syverson, or 24 The fellowship of our church continues to be an active and vital presence in the community up to the present time. Changes have been made in some areas according to the needs of the membership and the neighborhood. Our buildings have served us and the neighborhood very well. The Annex served as additional classrooms and a meeting place for the International Play Group until 1976; later it was rented to Palo Alto Community Child Care which is still operating a child care center there. The Clausen cottage at 349 No. California Avenue, purchased in 1960, was used for classrooms until the late `70's. At that time the Youth Group renovated it and used it as a Youth Center. The Church requested the city of Palo Alto to allow the cottage to be razed in order to build a parking lot, but it was not permitted. The property was sold in 1980. A fence and landscaping along the driveway now separate it from the church. The house at 3626 Louis Road was purchased in 1982 as a home for the Pastor and his family. Beginning in 1983, a major refurbishing of the main church building was undertaken with Kitty Baggott as chairperson of the Refurbishing Committee. Lucille Hargrove chaired the committee working on redecorating the Education and Office building. Later, Lillian Bolton chaired the Sanctuary Refurbishing Committee. The Education and Office wing was done first so as not to interrupt the whole church at once. It was carpeted throughout and all rooms, including the Fellowship Hall, were painted. Vertical blinds were installed on all windows except in the parlor, which was updated with new draperies. New floor covering was installed in the kitchen and rest rooms. The sanctuary was re -designed, enlarging the choir and pulpit area with recesses on each side of the 25 MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARDtt FEB. 28, $178, Present: Fred Hillier, Walter Hart, Jin Chin, Joe Anderson, Jefftp Frantz, Muriel Self, Earl Knechtel, Mary Granholm, Carolyn Paine. The meeting was called to order at. 7:30. There was a time of sharing following which Jeff led in prayer. The minutes of the Jan 25 meeting were approved as corrected. I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Annex. A letter has.been received from the Palo Alto Zoning Administration --prompted by the action of a church neighbor-- inci dating that there is a problem.in our allowing use of the Annex as.a respite center. The letter has been referred to Lucille Gold of the Palo Alto Community Child Care Agency, which is seeking use of the Annex as. a Despite Center.. Following dis )scion of this matter., the Board voted to procede to explore with the Palo Alto Community Child Care Agency means by which. we as a church may accomplish establishment of the respite center by incorporating this service into our church program. B. Communication. It was suggested that the various church boards make.av5ilable minutes of their monthly meetings by placing a number of copies in the narthex. Another proposal was that the highlights of the board minutes be excerpted for insertion in the Spire a5 a standing depart/re nt. It was suggested that BJ might be willing to Go ntact Florence Way in this regard. C. Long Range Planning Commision. Membership is incomplete. Persons to represent the Trustees and Board of Christian Education have yet t.o be named. D. Pictorial Directory; No chairman has been secured, E,. Special Funds Chairman. The name of B. Jenks has been suggested, I I . NEW BUST- NESS Reports: Trustees, Two meetings, Jan, 31. and Feb. 8, -have been held CCec� since the last Executive Board meeting. hurt- �'` Joe Anderson suggested that when the opkgpett'directory is redone, the business phones of.uhe trustees. be listed. • Relda Poffen.roth, Joe Anderson and Earl Knechtel have check - signing reT onsibility. • The church has a deposit box at tiee South Palo Alto Branch of tiie Bank of America. * Exterior trim painting cont;nues. • Warren Young in consultation with. a lighting expert has pro- posed a plan for improving the lighting of. the choir loft. It i s possible this, project may be financed as. a memorial gift. A workday has been discussed but not.scheduled. There is at present.a shortage of skilb d workers in specialized areas among the membership. o A g roiip called Community Committee for International Students has been given permission to use. the Annex one.morning a week.. Treasurer. Earl Knechtel.reported total_ receipts. for January at $9,508.95 and : total disbursements of $8,351.05. Diaconate. Walter Hart repay ted that the board is seeking someone to carry responsibility for preparing the meal for the Father -Son banquet April 28. The is suggesting that the event be referred to as "Men of tile Church" banquet. * Faith and Life Series will be held March 12, March 19, April 2, April 9. • At the request of the Bard of Mission; the Sept. fellowship offering will go to the Scandinavian Se ents Mission. ,All -church picnic will be June 18 at Foothill Park with Sandy Young. in charge of arrangements, v Patio Hours will beheld following worship -June 25 through Sept, 3, with.each board responsible for hosting three Sundays,. a Choir -appreciation night will be June 1 • _ a Th.e board espouses BJ's goals for the t) noter? in the. Execu- tive Board minutes for Jan. 2 and feels thaifdorking toward re- alizing them is -the responsibility of each individual member. - 0' A Plan of Organization of the Diaconate has been set up with most leadership responsibilties assigned Education. Seekers may be using funds to secure speakers for their class. O The board discussed both churchwide goals and ,;oafs within the boax'b for the coming year. eDarlene Krause and Thelma Parodi will be attedning the Planning for the Summer Conference in Berkeley March 5. Mission. Lois Ville has agreed to be contact person for American Baptists Responsibility to Domestic and World Hunger. B. Jenks is contact person for world Mission Support Committee of the South Coastal Program Board. • Feb.*16 Family.TTght Program,a slide/talk presented by Alaskan missionaries, Bill and Joan Dotson wns welly attended and well re- ceived. • • Cottage use was discussed. the board listed the following action options: 1. multi -purpose parking lot 2. lease for city programs 3. perhaps sell "All -church retreat. The board suggest the topic "How to be an evangelical people :Jut in our own style." • Elmer Poffenroth, Ernie Parodi and Guy Pfaender are dealing with the wheelchair -pushing res>onsibility at the Veteranst Hos.:ital. MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD August 15, 1978 Present: Fred Hillier, B. J., Jin (thin, Joe Anderson, Earl Knechtel, Muriel Self, Thelma Parodi, Carolyn Paine. The meeting was called to order at 7:45. BJ led in prayer. The minutes of the `J% Sze -=26 meeting were accepted as submitted. Unfinished Business A. Pictorial Directory. "B"Foster is considering chairmanship of this project. B. Retreat. Muriel reported that all arrangements are complete except for meeting Dr. Stanley MacNair to discuss program and theme development. Muriel also noted that members Of the Long Range Planning Committee are giving careful consideration to various alternatives that have been identified on use of the cottage. No single recommendation will be made until after the retreat. Comments from the Board on disposition of the cottage underscored two considera- tions: a. how much income would be realized from sale of property. b. parking is a basic condition for growth --we would lose substantial off-street parking were we to sell property. C; Follow-up from Quarterly Business Meeting. Visitation. A group will be forming at a meeting on August 24 to initiate calling on newcomers, phut -ins and members who've not been attending. E. Renewal by Objectives emphasis. Plans to get underway in October. F. Discipling Groups to commence following retreat. - G. Baptist Camp Advance Plans and Calendar 1. Goal of $5,500 adopted at Quarterly Business Meeting. 2. Campaign to be initiated at Sept. 14 Family Night program. 3. Sept. 24 Pledge Sunday for Camp Advance. New Business A, Reports 1. Mission. Jin Chin reported that sponsors of the conference "Property Rights and Human Rights: Housing 1978" to be held in our church Nov. 11 are pleased to have us co=sponsor the event. Sept. 9, afternoon and evening, Menlo Park First Baptist Church is sponsoring a mission workshop for the South Coastal area. 2. Trustees. Financial campaign this fall will follow plan of last year's campaign. There is a question as to whether we are really challenging our givers. 3. Treasurer Fellowship offering for August goes to CC with 1O7 to the Fellowship Fund. 4. Education. Thelma reported that the winterizing of the Sierra Pines cabin "adopted" by our church is not complete. BJ will check into plans for completion of the project. Summer program, "Miracles and Mysteries" was a success and the board would like to try another such event next summer. Annex Church School rooms need cleaning. Thelma suggested that the Executive Board consider bringing before the 1.I"rIur:r, c.: U! .iu,.l .1.G : C "I CC!';'1 Keep Ft Use "as is" P'^c Property. value ,Milt there We are getting some use from it Will have it if future need arises We get parking space from it It's a buffer between neighbor d �S Stove is used occasionally for "overflow" cooking Land value may be appreciating Perhaps could be used. for storage of clothing, furniture for the needy . (by a charitable group) Renovate v Basic structure exists; would use for our cost less to renovate than program to build new It's a house, without institutional ambience Might be used by "outside" groups All of "keep °t use as is"(cleee- 'z51-) Proximity, convenient Meeting ulac& for us C0a" Laintenance is required It's al'nost aii eyesore "Repair", if not "renovation" needed Land ?t bldg..do cost us even "as Structure is deteriorating '[ depreci a- ing Currently there are no directions or plans that would require cottage. Pldg. is basically a "house" -not par- ticularly conducive to group meetings Past experience with plans for using cottage have not produced parti- cularly effective results. If it is renovated for a particular group, church must decide if that group will be responsible for main- tenance r scheduling its use Cost _ bother of renovating June 1977 estimates for renovating - "'10, 000 to "12, 000 P_IO renovate ?c use for staff • housing .iovate 'c uze for "community" program . Basic structure is there.• Fix- ing it less expensive than buying new Convenient Protection against vandalism Might save us money (reduce outlay for staff) Property value still there Would have it if future need arises It ' s a -buffer between neighbor d- us Land value may be appreciating Maybe could use stove for "overflow" Might still have some parking space cash Property value still there Land Value may be appreciating .Some parking space Maybe could use stove for "overflow" Might make possible a worthwhile service program in the name of Christ Some programs work better in a home atmosphere Too sman for aver a ye family Often staff desires more privacy Probably would lose tax exemption and bother Cost pf renovating (garage required?) Cost cf maintenance Might cause problems in hiring or firing fleigh'oors not particularly amenable to this idea and hotber Cost. of renovating 7z of maintenance (latter might be paid for by the program) Program would be largely out of our control 'lenovations plan might have to he de- termined by the type of program. .Do we develop a program because we. have the cottage? May have a Problem of city's OK We h.ve the annex June lc77 estimates for renovating -- ''.10 000 to 112, oco P:7.0 COI: Kenovaie rent as a awelling Will have the property if future need arises . • Land value may be appreciating Would furnish income Night be ".'low income" housing which would benefit a needy person or family Sell Cash proceeds could be invested "as is" to Provide annual income (t60, 000• r 7% ; 'tip,, 200 ) renovate first Would sell for higher price Once it is decided to renovate there are many avenues open such as using for church purposes, rental, sale;.it does not have to be sold when work is done if we find a better use for the property Nava to _main it All the orbbl ems of a landlord Would lose tax ex7emption House is small., suitable for couple or maybe pith one small child Cost of renovating °,: bmildin ; car shalt( Probably never would be able to re- purchase it (or other nearby nroperts if ever needed Would lose parking space Neighbors mould be right next door High cost of renovating Prob1e:r. or . ,o:-,t;;„� - T -et t_ny- lids, r:or;<an" Tor:' 4`•1+ c ntroctor, ,neetinff cedes, etc. Prospective purchaser might prefer to fix it to his tastes { Landscaper) parkin lot m.ndscaped only - prayer garden, bbq, play area etc. P:2o Gets rid of ' hito elephant" house Brines parking area closer to city standard More convenient parking for more of us (marketing studies indi- cate nearby parking essential. "I had to park a. block from the church!") St. Marks .vs 1St Meth. Better-appear-ance than now • Less maintenance expense Buffer between neighbor and us Neighbors probably would appreciate our having more off street parking 'We would still have the land in case of future need .Area might be used for activities, e.g. mission faire Might also be used for neighborhood recreation as well as recreation area for us This could be a contribution • from us to the area Loch more attractive than at present Good alternative for some meet- ings Eight encourage more bbq's '- other outside church family. - activities Possibly n:ore rrobl:ems yith kids Cost - recent estimate '1/.-15,CCC Yore with recreation equipment Compare With income if nrooerty sold funds invested - or even if house rented. Do we need such additional in- come? Would it reduce our need as Christian church members to be good stewards? Would not have the buildi.nF its kitchen Cost -.initially and for main- tenance Not much apparent need for these kinds of facilities Seems like a nice but expensive luxury What is the best use of this nr. opert7 by a church of Jesus Christ that is trying'to be Cod's people, doing his will, proclaiming '?i:n - at Dryant California in Palo Alto? ditch 19, Preseatg DJ, nod MlI 9&r0 Urea l Sttarr?y, Earl Enechtel, Murder SeHHo Nary Grc r -,helm, Boa Ande son, June Lees Otrolyn Paine The meeting way ca 1L i e ' tom order at Boy@ o Bd 1ed An Prayers The .purpose of the meeting was to consider the future of the cottage property. Several represented:vac or various hoards brought views of their? seers. Dice sate . The Board felt that if the prkAng Rae option were sdeptedn the plan should bsolude appropriate le scaping coed provisions far other uses e.g. recreation. The Board cape net fra Sm its feelings- about the parking lot eptE6m sad cart options shomad die &spin open. Trustees. The bawd had questioned uhstkog • aaose from sale of the property was -sourly .needod. Xi; WOG Bert that the-cPmek needled .too Eeautta a a' buffet between the chug tri and neighbors. If the property were to be uteri at' a parking lot to with geoggsion SOT rearestion,.t he board saes the rare; t- ioae p area e@ b@r ng on the .church side 4Dr the p opertdyo The beard 6Id net wish the cottage e to be renovated, nor rented„ nor used- so staff housing because of its unsound condition. BJ read a letter from Wrastee Sri Abbott ewpressing a strong opinion that the cottage he sold for; housing. Digwegoa. June Lee reported that the hoard had mgt" reached a coos rnous. . Moderator Fred ES-11Edr epde In favor Of selling the cottage ea hotai „ best- expressed coneer4 - :e ' it' co itie n a4 desaribed by the TTUotteeo0 The possibility of eferin,stihe neighbor on0.4half the .property aad using the. - other half ag a parking. facSlity mat suggested end added to the altematives as seen by the ixecuteme Boaodo Alteratives -on, future the cottage as defined by the &wenunisi 'e Beardg ro Landscaped sang Iot=coned to • ind et f this- use precludes @ail of property for laeuslag In the future. 20 `Fear down house 034 use area for yecreAtioay: garden, play yard. 30 Tear down banana a use hilt of area or ?neat w.4 s half for ploy arcs. 4. Tear _e esm house, .mme half as parking._ sell half tel uegghbor—vitea is fiend out if neighbor St interested. . Keep cottage as As with minimal emintenaem-aeed to -findf out rase of the lot it1M and without the house OMIt ani4T' posaihle future vain.' 6. Sell as Ia. The Long Range Planning Comae will check Into the questions on the various alternatives and will brims this information to the weer' Executive &mai.' meting March 27, 1979. The meeting cue$ adjourned ne d st 9040 'Carolyn Paine tturch Clerk MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD March 27, 1979 Present: Fred Hillier, BJ, B. Jenks, Goodwin Chin, Muriel Self, Earl Knechtel,, Howard Foster, Wendell Starr, Jeff Frantz, Carolyn Paine. The meeting was called to order at 7:45. Jeff led in prayer. The minutes of the February 27 meeting were approved as submitted. Unfinished Business A. Use of the Annex. Two groups are interested--Mid-Peninsula Support Network for office space, the Palo Alto Child Care Center for a day care facility. The former agency has the prior claim. However, this group might also consider use of rooms in the main building, leaving open the possibility of day care in the annex. BJ will be looking into questions of taxation in relation to these uses of church property. B. Future of the Cottage. Muriel Self reported on follow-up questions that had been raised on various options being considered. Under present city regulations, if we were to use the property for parking, it would have to remain in parking and could not be sold for housing. Almost any change in the use of the property would require hearings. Mrs. Rimerman, whose property is adjacent to the cottage property, has expressed interest in purchase of part of the lot. The Board moved that a set of plans for a parking facility, using less than the full lot, be drawn up and discussed with Mrs. Rimerman to determine what a feasible and mutually agreeable plan might be. The motion was carried. Muriel will report on this matter at the next meeting of the Board. It was suggested that a status report on cottage discussions be presented at the quarterly business meeting on April 22. C. Long Range Planning Committee. Representative for the Board of Christian Education will.be Bob Smithson. D. A11 -church banquet. A mid -January date -in conjunction with the Annual Meeting - was agreed to by the Diaconate. E. All -church Picnic shifted to June 24. F. Directory of Church officers nearly complete. G. Appointees to Executive Board. Special Funds Chairperson B. Jenks has been appointed to the Board. Other suggestions were a representative of young adult age group --011ie Johnson's name was suggesteed--and Publicity Chair- person, yet to• be named. HI. Diaconate has agreed to use of Fellowship Offering in June for American Baptist Churches of the South. New Business A. Reports 1. Senior Minister's report. a,BJ outlined progress on Pictorial Directory. The Board voted to look into the plan offered by Cimini Graphic first, with Redwood Studios as a second choice. b. A Baptist Camp Sunday, stressing schedule and opportunities for service, was suggested for a possible April date. c. A letter to be sent to non -attending members --which has been author- ized by the Diaconate --was shared. d. Small group potluck dinners are taking place on a slow-paced schedule. 2. Special Funds Chairperson B. Jenks shared her concerns about the organ- ization of the Memorial Book and will look into what might be involved MINUTES OF THE EKECUTIVE ..BOARD m June. 26, 1979 Page 2 both "in house" and outside responsibilities. Nominating Committee. Still seeking 'a cheirperson-for.:the"• Board of Christian Education. • • , Lonig_ Range -Planning Committee. .r 1) Cottage. -The toard reviewed three alternative plans drawn up. -by Kxiut Koester, for usage of'thi-s lot for- parking; the plans provided from 23 to 36-additiona%•- spaces. Other factors to be considererd: .the may not allow us to divide the lot; if the lot is converted to parking, we probably will not . be .able.- : .. ; to sell -the lot later:- A special meeting. of .,the ' Executive'Board and the Long. Range'•Planning Committee is planned for- July 9, at 7130 -to discuss .the. cottage. If this date proves unworkable, September-17,is set as an alternative date. . 2) Retreat. The . th^_me is "Reaching•:Out." .-Several leaders have been considered --representing varying.approaches. The -suggestion was made that perhaps keynote speakers could be engaged with follow-up discussion.and co- ordination -'being organized by.our people.. b: Quarterly Business Meeting. 'The date is July .17 (Tuesday) at 7:30.. The,agenda was discussed and an item.concern- ing CCSCC dropped,' since it was:being taken,up at this evening's meetin.g.• Board chairmen- were.urged,.to encourage attendance at -this July 17' meeting throughtheir board cortfiacts. : ' . - c. Request from Council of Churches of Santa,Clara .County. The Council"s work will be highlighted by representa- tives of the-=Councii through •special.,•presentations in 'each •of the.member churches, in the hope of making a positive effect,ori'the Council's budget. It was suggested that it our church, the presentation might be,:made within the context -of adult education, in,conjunction with the Board of Mission. Senior Minister's Report 1. BJ suggested•a need to fallow up on special emphasis Sundays, such as Seminary Sundy, to keep awareness high. 2. Family Night Programs cre planned, though speakers not all confirmed, through May. 3. Executive Board meeting dates: July 24 and August 28. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m% Carolyn Paine : Chuith 'Clerk MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD AND THE LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE - September 17, 1979 Present: Fred Hillier, BJ, Earl Knechtel, B. Jenks, Hugh Satterlee, David Johnson, 011ie Johnson, Mary Granholm, Don Granholm, Merle Africa, Wendell Starr, Muriel Self, Dorothy Aker, Carolyn Paine The meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m. BJ led the group in prayer. The group discussed the several options for the future of the cottage which had been prepared earlier in the year by the Long Range Planning Committee. Particular attention was given to the future financial situation of the church in terms of giving potential and the prospect of calling a new pastor in sev- eral years time. Among considerations discussed were: 1. The church is presently drawing on Special Funds at the rate of $1,000 per month; this cannot continue indefinitely. 2. Property values continue to rise rapidly. 3. The cottage As is is a blight an the neighborhood. 4. There are many drawbacks to the church's becoming a landlord should the cottage be renovated and rented. 5. Housing in this area is in extremely short supply. 6. If the property were converted into a parking.lot, the land very likely could not be returned to a building lot in the future. 7. Building a parking lot would involve a considerable outlay of money. 8. If the church itself were to be sold in the future, parking in line with city ordinances would be required in all likelihood. 9. Present high interest rates on bonds favor sale of the property and investment of money realized. 10. Melling would bring a very close neighbor and cut down on parking being used now. Nothing approaching consensus was achieved. It was felt that the various proposals and their advantages and disadvantages be brought to the membership at the next quarterly business meeting, October 21. Prior to that time, mate- rial will appear in the Spire sharing the concerns and quandry of the group in trying to reach a united recommendation --and inviting "position paragraphs" from persons who have already formed firm opinions on the future of the cottage. The following are options currently under consideration: 1. Parking lot --various plans including sale of a portion of the property to our neighbor. 2. Sell as is. 3. Keep as is. 4. Renovate and rent. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Carolyn Paine Church Clerk EXECUTIVE BOARD AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 25 1979 at 7:30 P.M. I. Sharing and prayer time. 11. Minutes III, Unfinished Business A. Sierra Pines Cabin - no progress B. Pictorial Directory - expected first part of October C. Use of Annex update - PACC has secured a $10,000 grant and are encouraged by developments; so they believe they may be able to be in operation by the first of 1980. D. Retreat: 1. How to handle expenses: honoria and camp expense not met by registration fees. 2. Followup - Long Range Planning Commission plus immediate groups,etc, 3. Six priority items - to be distributed to you and to boards for affirmation. 4. Other E. Cottage - methodology of informational report at Quarterly Business Meeting. F. Boat People Refugees; status of thinking as of now. G. Other IV. New Business A. Reports 1. Mission 2. Christian Education 3. ABW 4. Special Funds 5. Trustees (including update on Financial campaign plans) 6. Treasurer's Report 7. Diaconate 8. Executive Board a. Committee reports Pastoral Relations Publicity Nominating Committee Long Range Planning Other b. Church Covenant Discussion - item from Retreat c. Quarterly Business Meeting - October 21 at 12:30 p.m. Reports due October 1 or as soon as possible thereafter. Agenda Name delegatesto convention of ABCW at Santa Rosa (4) Cottage information (main item) Nominating Committee report - election Reports Possible consideration of Covenant dependent upon discussion above. B. '.Associate Minister's Report C. Senior Minister's Report D. Other items V. Adjourn MINUTES OF THE QUARTERLY BUSINESS MEETING October 21, 1979 The meeting was called to order by Fred Hillier, Moderator, at -12;45 p.m..A quorum was present, Minutes of theJuly,17 Quarterly Business_ Meeting were approved_as submit'ted;" Main purpose of the meeting was to discuss the use of the: Clausen :Cottage property. Several position papers are included with the written reports. Each writer comment- ed on his paper. • Muriel Self, Chairman .of Long Range Planning Committee -reviewed:: the :history of the study and various alternatives. Development of the. property: into a, parking lot was.. the. recommendation of the Committee. Fred Hillier reported that the.Executive Board had held two meetings.:.concerning the property. . Mike Golick reported that the City will not allow housing to be,d_emolished. His recommendation is to retain the property and develop housing for an assistant pastor, caretaker cottage, or for future equity. .for exchange. for.. pastor's home in another neighborhood. Fred Hillier recommends that we sell -property "as is" soon. be invested in bonds to bring.income for current expenses. be available later to help new pastor with housing. Hugh Satterlee's position was presented by Ron Tuttle. He ing property now as housing and then trading or selling it for pastor.. Alternative would be to sell property "as is" down payment on another property. Proceeds could Principal would recommends develop - later for housing and use money as Much discussion followed. A straw vote indicated 17 wished to sell "as is"; 18 wished to retain and renovate; 5 are undecided. REPORTS FROM BOARDS The following made comments or additions to their written reports: Treasurer, Earl Knechtel - Both pledges and expenditures are about $2,000 behind to date. October statement will be less optimistic. Special Funds, Ron Fredlund - Some stock will have to be sold to provide funds for budget. Trustees - Ron Tuttle - Panic bolt has been installed on front door of sanctuary. Diaconate - Wendell Starr - The church will discuss and possibly developa. church covenant. There will be an emphasis on small groups within the church this year. Recommendation: That the Church grant to Randall Hornibrook a license for Christian Ministry for three years. Motion seconded and carried. MINUTES _ - .EXECUTIVE BOARD .MEETING - October 23, .1979 1. Minutes of September meeting were approved. 2 Unfinished business - Report Items -. A. Sierra Pines cabin - The cost of renovation is placed at '$1,800 per cabin. 5o far, be have contributed $600. The roof/wall joint is in poor shape. Bill Jones says this should be re -worked and roof rebuilt. Hugh Satterlee, Milt Jones and Bill Jones will meet Thursday and report an agenda for fixing. B. Pictorial Directory -.This is late. It is being sent to us by air. C. Use of`Annex -=Still dependent Upon PACC securing necessary funds from Foundations. Followup of Quarterly Meeting - A. Cottage Questions : a. Pearl Abbott will look into capital gains question. b, Possibility of running this thru Palo Alto Housing Corp. as suggested by Ron Tuttle. Mike Golick will check on advantages. c. Need to set deadline. Decided on pledge Sunday (November 18) for all information to be in. Then three additional weeks are required. d. BJ suggests the formation 'of an Ad Hoc Committee composed of Muriel Self, Joe Anderson, Hugh Satterlee, Bill Abbott, Mike Golick,-Dave Johnson and Fred Hillier to report to November 27th meeting of Executive Board. Fred will chair the committee. Muriel Self will be the convenor. This was moved, seconded and passed. First meeting will be on 28th, 29th., or 31st of October. B. Covenant a. Randy - A covenant is a celebration of our appreciation.of the gifts of God, He is,leading the Young Adultsin the development of a covenant. Then it will be opened up, for discussion in Thursday evening meetings in late January. Details of how this is to be done must be discussed both in Diaconate and in Board of Education. Both of these board's shall desig- nate -people who want t� be involved in the Covenant. C. License for the Ministry to Randy Hornibrook a. The license certificate will be presented on November 25th. This will coincide with the celebratton of the 30th anniversary of BJ's ordination. Dorot..y ?.;orris, as publicity chairperson, will prepare a suitable news release with picture (black and white). She needs a negative. D. Boat People Project a. The DePanghers do havea family., b. We do not know the extent of the church's responsibility.. c... Motion - "The Board of Mission is authorized to investigate a boat people project and may commit the sponsorship of the church if it is feasible." Seconded and passed. E. Retreat Goals and Obfectives a. These must be kept fresh in our minds. Diaconate has responsibility for five of the six. Board of Education has one. b. The three small group 'meetings which have been started, can provide a focus. The Sunday evening group under BJ is working on priority one, which combines our emphasis on spiritual needs and getting to know each other better. Jeff's two groups will also be working in this area. 11 19-79 UNANIMOUS RECOw014AT° IOE J• TO EXECOTIVE &D FOR affaarm ACTION ON THE COMAE Dump 2 o -he by-laws of the First Baptist Church of Pala Alto o axe amended roc foi.lows: kdd to section 22g The e net proceeds of the sale of he Clausen Cottage aus to be 9 mestee? in short term qnst^L•JF4Ci!ent o ouch r"..a Treasury rotes or Treasury.Bills oE= other instruments of eC uiwa9C';r,t yield and safety, encept that a. portion of the groceeds may be held in the form cis a 8iSCrt teem mortgage to the buyer of dle property mtured by the property. The principal is Lntended to be available only for use in aL16.vg a neu pastor to purchase a residence if h arson wishes to do so. Z>;reoan from said 5°: i:c°aw;r�l may ba used to, ..?fin-'_aade church program if other income is not sufficient li« 60 00. The Trustees of the First Raptisim' Church aft au;:hoxized and d:reated to sell the 4dl2►usoffi Cottage adjacent to the church sia California Avenue with the following cot bens o 1. E2 they are unable tC.�.cC�is�'tL.(.:' c sale lit which tkey i:� c��1et�ptto be sufficiently y `�" aVantageomt to the they may return to the tml!�urdh for .Gt!1rlm4il5'.E, inotrulL.*l'+'3Q ns. 2 X that theropy t y will ll be listed approxiestely $110,000. 3 Subject to a cash �jas balance 'iJay�q��int of 1Q�p�L$_ 20% oZ eGale price they cay Recap% a fit_�i`tst gage ft the r"r�'.��:r`snce� under the following :ton -Pinions: ao The borrower must .be ableto dem n t °ste a :yredi Eva -riding eiliee' t axant :to that - required by banks doing business in Iala ' merest must; be within 1% of the current rate for first mortgages, i; o The balance must' be -gieid c g'$e'eI3y within 13 to 24 months of issuance of note and deed of trust ( out g ge). Shoul6 b yer pny off the outstanding balance prior to the e;tpiau"4ioa of c=r?C full term of the 't>'mrtgage''9 the prepayment pensity chnll be sin months interett. �4 t a 0 v i� g`:: t� y '."d' r ��, ;�.-..� -i.� t�: t�7U:n 9 rT st ,s. li_ .-a' �`�?'C. �ri.�.$ �.?�'t� �'e-'' C,�}i?3,:vi�j:C.._: _..L3,lae2�:E � �,'c`5�.'+7 '� c`�` J!.., %'.:� i�.., �__... +�'N._E:l.����' e:1,�.iY'�.���"aZo .M Nob Camfi7it .ee. on the Cottage, Ri x.. t' bbett.: See Anderson Ail Chang Mkt: Gt;<'Yl.ck Fred' Hillier (Chairman) Dave Jehnson Huge. S ti;e11'c e Minutes of Executive Board - page 2 November 27, 1979 June else) reported that`Donna Reddy is the new Director of the North County:Friendly Visiting `Sertiicea' Clausen Cottage. In a November 19 meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Cottage -- which is composed of proponents of both sides of the Cottage question--that'Committee voted unanimously to recommend to the Executive Committee certain specific actions. The Executive Board, in turn, voted unanimously to recommend to the entire church body these same actions,'for consideration ata special meeting of the church. On motion by Howard Foster, seconded by June lee, the following is unanimously recom- mended for church action: The, by-laws of the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto are amended as follows: Add to Section 22: The net proceeds of the sale of the Clausen Cottage are to be invested in short- term instruments such as Treasury Notes or Treasury Bills or other instruments of equivalent yield and safety, except that a portion of the proceeds may be held -in the form of a short term mortgage to'the buyer of the`.property •secured by the property. The principal is intended to be available only for use in aiding a new pastor to purchase a residence if the person wishes to do so. Income from sad principal may be used to finance church programs'if 'other-" income is not sufficientto do so. The Tr'ustees of the °First `-Baptist Church are authorized and directed to sell - The Clausen Cotinge adjacent to the church on California Avenue with the following conditions: , _1.. If. they;.are unable to make a sale which they believe to be sufficiently, adva-i.tageous ; to the church, they may return_ .to the church for further . ..; instructions. 2. It is understood that the property will be listed at approximately $110,000. 3. Subject to a cash down payment of 10 - 20% of.tlie sale price, they. mayaccept a mortgage for the balance, under the following conditions: The•borrower must be':able to ,demonstrate a credit: standing equivalent to .•`thdt tequired by. -banks doing business in Palo Alto. b., Interest must be within 17 of the current rate for first mortgages. • . c; : The .balance must be paid completely within 18 to 24'moriths. of:issuance •• o:note and deed of:trust (mortgage). Should buyer pay off.the outstand- ing balance prior to the expiration of the full term of the mortgage, .,the prepayment penalty shall be six months interest . 4.. The sale must be completed. within. 90 .days.: of signing of the purchase agreement. Special Meeting. It was recommended that the special meeting be called for January 6, after church. Covenant Study and Proposal. After discusson,.the following schedule was. accepted by consensus EXECUTIVE BOARD The .Executive -Board attempts to represent the entire church membership in overseeing and coordinating the.work of the four boards and several other committees. I am pleased to report that these boards and committees have•beeri functioning very well this past year, as you can judge from their reports on the following pages. We -have become quite concerned about the trend in the church's financial situa- tion. The church has been drawing upon Special Funds (bequests and memorial funds) at the rate of $1,000 per month in recent months, and the liquid funds are quickly being depleted. _The,hasic,'reason is that the total level of pledges have remained about the same the last few years rather t',.an being increased with inflation.' 'We now need.to work'very hard on returning the church to a “sound financial position without sacrificing our mission outreach. We can do ibis if we all resolve to become better stewards, contributing the first share to'God's Work of all cost -of -living increases in our personal incomes. Financial reality also seems to indicate that we eventually will need to be- come.a,one-minister church. To prepare for this day, we areassigning.the • .19o0.Long Range Planning Committee the task of studying our future staffing needs regarding paid or volunteer lay leadership. The'question of "what. to do with•the cottage" occupied much'of our -time this past year, as in many previous years. We are gratified that this' process has finally led to a firm recommendation (in conjucti--i with the Ad Hoc Committee on the cottage),.namely, to sell the cottage now, retain -the principal for future pastor housing, and use the interest for Current program.needs. The membership will be.acting•on this recommendation at the Budget Meeting on ;lanuary..13 . : As authorized at a Special Business Meeting on Jiine 17, 1979, we still hope to enter into a lease arrangement with the Palo Alto Community Child Care Agency fpr use. of 'our Annex as,a day care center for infants and toddlers. We will, be. testifying in support of this project at a use permit hearing to be held,by the City on January 28. -We have been working with the Board of Mission on a'tentative plan for church sponsorship of a Vietnamese "Boat People" family. You Will be hearing more • about this in the coming months. Our Long Range Planning Committee devoted numerous hours to planning an out- standing all -church retreat, held at Camp Castanoan in September. This was a memorable and renewing experience for all who could attend, and we still are working hard on implementing the priorities developed there. As one follow-up on this retreat, working with the Diaconate Board, we are overseeing the development of a church covenant, with as widespread partici- pation in this process as possible. We plan to make this the main item of discussion at the April Quarterly Business Meeting. I personally am very grateful to our outstanding ministers - BJ, Jeff and Randy - as well as the wonderful lay people on our Executive Board. Thank you for your dedication, wisdom., and continual good spirit throughout the past year. -1- LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE report on disposition of CLAUSE ? COTTAGE The Long Range Planning Committee voted that the Eecutive Board be provided copies of our'Pro/Con Findings'on use of the Clausen Cottage and recommends the parking lot option. November 30, 1978 We do not know what the future holds, whether an increase in church attendance requiring additional facilities at California °c Bryant or Christian committment nuturing and expressing itself in less structured ways, such as Church in the Home. In the future, it is more likely that the church would regret our having sold the Clausen Cottage property at this time than our :having kept it. It is probable that our Special Funds will be augmented from time to time by gifts and legacies.. March 6, 2018 Jonathan Lait Assistant Director Planning and Community Development 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Copy: Graham Owen, Hillary Gitelman Subject: Owner Designation for First Baptist Church of Palo Alto Dear Mr. Lait, As Pastor of the church and presiding Moderator of the Church Council, we the undersigned declare that either or both of us can sign on behalf of and representing the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto, located at 305 North California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Sincerely, Randle R. (Rick) Mixon, Ph.D. Pastor, First Baptist Church 6...1,-i-oik aniel Cudworth First Baptist Church Moderator nr‘eived March 2, 2018 Graham Owen Associate Planner Planning and Community Development 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 MAR 5 2018 Department of Planning nninggnt & Communiity Copy: Jonathan Lait, Hillary Gitelman Subject: 305 N. California Avenue: Conditional Use Permit Application Dear Mr. Owen, As a continuation of our application for a conditional use permit to be designated as a community center, we offer the following additional information: The Building The First Baptist Church building is made up of three wings: the Fellowship Hall (on the right as you face the church from California Avenue); the Sanctuary Wing (on the left as you face the church from California Avenue); and the Office Wing, which connects the two. The Fellowship Hall itself is a large room (1870 square feet) with windows on the East side along the driveway. The room's capacity is 160 for dining and 260 for assembly. Immediately off the Fellowship Hall is a kitchen (351 square feet). Across the hall is a small bathroom (42 square feet). The Sanctuary is 2000 square feet with windows on both sides. The room's capacity is 300-350. The Office Wing contains several rooms. The First Floor contains the Library (170.5 square feet); the Nursery (292 square feet); the Associate Pastor's office (181.5 square feet); and the Youth Room (544.5 square feet). The South side of the hallway contains the Community Office (154 square feet); the Administrator's Office (191 square feet); the Women's Restroom (137 square feet); a small kitchen (67.5 square feet); the Parlor (535 square feet). On the Second Floor, the Study and Room 1 are occupied by iSing; Room 2A is occupied by psychiatrist Joellen Werne; Room 2B is vacant; Room 3 was previously occupied by the Peninsula Peace and Justice Center, vacated in June 2017; Rooms 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were formerly occupied by the New Mozart School of Music (all of these rooms are empty, except for Room 6, which they retain for storage). The square footage of the Second Floor rooms is shown on the enclosed building drawing. Partners The church currently houses two permanent partners: • iSing Silicon Valley, a non-profit 501c choir for young girls in the community, has been sponsored by the church for over five years. They are in the Sanctuary and Fellowship Hall. Class hours are 4 PM to 8:30 PM Monday through Thursday. Class size varies: from 12 to 40 people. iSing uses two rooms upstairs in the Office Wing for office and storage. They are only present during their class time. • Joellen Werne, M.D. Dr. Werne is a clinical psychiatrist long associated with the Palo Alto community and has seen five or six patients a day at the church for several years. Many of her patients bike or walk to see her. Dr. Werne occupies Room 202A upstairs in the Office Wing. Her established office hours are 9 AM to 5 PM. Partners at the church once a week are: • Maryam Tafreshi (Children's Persian Language class, Fridays, 6 to 8 PM and Children's Persian Art and Music, Saturdays, 9 AM to Noon). Five children under the age of 5. Youth Room • Sirvan Manhoobi (Persian String Instrument class, Mondays 6 to 9 PM, Library). One on one teaching. Two or three students maximum • Apple Circle Women's Choir, Fellowship Hall, two hours Mondays at Noon. 20 people. NOTE: Before the original evaluation for land use by the City of Palo Alto, the church had more partners. The New Mozart School of Music left at the start of 2018. Their rooms upstairs in the Office Wing, except for one still used for storage, have all been vacated. Jill Cooper, the therapist who saw at -risk youth a few hours a day and formerly occupied Room 202B, has left. Many of Jill Cooper's clients were from the neighborhood and could walk or bike here —now they have to drive or be driven to the new location. The Peninsula Peace & Justice Center (formerly in Room 203) has left. The Peninsula Macrobiotic Community weekly dinner left in April 2017; they have not been at the church since then. The Palo Alto Philharmonic, Tuesday Night Tango, Tango Argentina, and Stanford International Folk Dancers have all left. Land Use/Activities The First Baptist Church strives to offer activities for both the church community and the surrounding neighborhood that reflect our church mission: to support education, to serve those in need, and to offer events that enhance the City of Palo Alto and the wider community. The Fellowship Hall is a room that is still rented for special occasions (weddings, birthday parties, and some dancing events). Some private tango lessons are held in the hall (one teacher/one student: two people) at various times when the hall is available. The church of course uses the hall for occasional brunches after church. The hall is used for meals, meetings, and iSing classes. The Parlor is used for meetings, such as church council one evening a month; church mission meeting once a month in the afternoon (two hours tops); Huntington's Support Group, two evening hours once a month; Community Gospel Choir, two evening hours once a month; First Baptist Church choir, two evening hours once a week. The Sanctuary is used for retreats and concerts as well as church service, weddings and memorial services. Hours of Operation Hours of operation are 9 AM to 10 PM (Sunday through Thursday) and 9 AM to 11 PM (Friday and Saturday). These hours are parameters; there are not any activities before or after these hours. I hope this provides you with the additional information you need. /,,7a ------- Randle R. (Rick) Mixon, Ph.D. Pastor, First Baptist Church We are enclosing the following: 1. Floor plan of the Sanctuary Wing (first floor and second floor behind the Sanctuary). 2. Floor plan of the Office Wing (first and second floors). 3. Fellowship Hall Wing (first floor; there is no second floor). 4. List of rooms and square footage. SQUARE FOOTAGE DIMENSIONS OF THE CHURCH OFFICE WING (First Floor): Parlor: 523.6 Small Kitchen: 67.5 Community and Admin offices: 341.25 Pastor Mixon's office: 374 Youth Room: 544.5 Pastor Stevens' office: 181.5 Nursery: 292 Library: 170.5 TOTAL: 2494.85 OFFICE WING (Second Floor): Study: 234 Room 1: 365 Room 2A: 391 Room 2B: 397.75 Room 3: 374 Room 4: 128 Room 5: 272 (double room) Room 6: 132 Room 7: 136 Room 8: 272 (double room) Room 9: 133 TOTAL: 2834.75 Received MAR 5 2018 Department of Planning li & Community FELLOWSHIP HALL Fellowship Hall: 1870.2 Stage Area: 507 Kitchen: 348 TOTAL: 2725.2 SANCTUARY WING (First Floor) Narthex: 900 Sanctuary: 2000 Choir Room: 494.2 Flower Room: 63.6 TOTAL: 3457.8 SANCTUARY WING (Second Floor) Storage & Archival (Bryant Street side): 494.2 Storage & Archival (by Organ Chambers): 129.7 Organ Chambers: 155.4 TOTAL: 779.33 We are enclosing the following: 1. Site Plan taken from the New Mozart School of Music's Conditional Use Permit application showing the entire church property and the second floor. 2. Second Floor Room drawing that includes Rooms 2A, 2B and 3. (The Second Floor room drawing in item 1 did not include these three rooms.) 3. Overall drawing of both floors of the church building showing general layout. (See item 2 for current specifics of Second Floor.) 4. Square footage summary of each room in the church. W. CHARLES PERRY & ASSOCIATES n W. HST AVE . SAN MATE O, CA 0 4c3 DRAWINGS ARE HALF SCALE AND N OT FOR C ONST RUCTION WHEN SHOWN ON 11%17 OR N OT WET SIGNED AND DATED U >H LL�� o Op' z2 ° 4/Z= SI TE PLAN DATE . 4/13'317 DRAWN BY 88 ' Al a F.I. MAIL22112. 242_10. 21. fd 651300 1:1.d SECOND FLOOR PLAN s LL 1/1' . I'd Nr.1111 Oe.= 66l 111.6666611 9 .unan.1 OawnanS ValaNewt d6 esn7 1. SL tIl 116 116 1n a..a..ns Lima amv 116 s>s 1m NOTES MSG 6r5116>, Au 6,66= 66 R1 . 66 U617 ro. 1.416 1,261611111 61162 REVISIONS 1.12 W. CHARLES PERRY 8 ASSOCIATES D1 W. 1ISTAVE. SAN MATEO, CA 9449 85OBJB-0518 DR AWIN GS ARE HALF SCALE AND NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION WHEN SH OWN ON 11 %17 OR NOT WET SIGNED AND DATED SE COND FLOOR PLA N D ATE. 41YJ017 DRAWNBY' RW J001. A2 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF PALO ALTO Baptistry Youth Room Stairs M ozart Mozart Mozart ' Baptis trjf' Cho" Roo m Library Nursery Church Office Mo :art Co nf. Room Stairs J Parlor Sanctuary Kitchen Pastor's Study Fellowship Hall 4 January 18, 2019 Jonathan Lait Assistant Director Planning and Community Development 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Copy: Graham Owen, Hillary Gitelman Received AN 19 2018 JAN 19 2016 Departmer1► v► �l Y'kiiiIi t►ment ¢C: ��n117J1Jf6' E Subject: 305 N. California Avenue: Conditional Use Permit Application Dear Mr. Lait, As a continuation of our application for a conditional use permit to establish a community center at our church's location, we offer the following additional information: • Land use includes a Fellowship Hall for meetings, performances, meals and dance events; a large meeting room (Parlor); classroom space for various classes, activities, community counseling and support services; the Sanctuary for retreats and concerts, as well as church service, weddings, and memorial services. • Hours of operation will be 9 AM to 10 PM (Sunday through Thursday) and 9 AM to 11 PM (Friday and Saturday). These hours are parameters; there should not be activities before or after these hours, and there may not be continuous use every day during these hours. • The maximum number of attendees for each daily group activity is 50, usually less than that. This attendance figure does not include special events, such as weddings, funerals, piano or vocal recitals, concerts, dances, church retreats, or church services. Maximum seating capacity in the Sanctuary is 300; in the Fellowship Hall, maximum seating capacity is 160 for dining, 260 for assembly. • Site plan, floor plan, and location of proposed land are enclosed. 1 hope this provides you with the additional information you need. Sincerely, Randle R. (Rick) Mixon, Ph.D. Pastor, First Baptist Church November 10, 2017 Hillary Gitelman, Director Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, Fifth Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH 40 Dear Hillary: Received NOV 14 2017 Department of Planning & Community Environment As directed by the Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment, we are submitting an application for a Conditional Use Permit as a Community Center. We are submitting this application under protest. Our "project" is to continue to be the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto, as we have been for the past 125 years, 70 years in our current location at 305 North California Avenue. As we've tried to make clear, the activities of every group and organization that lives in our space are consistent with the church's mission to serve the city, something that has always been central to our mission. In an effort to be more clear, these activities do now include and have always included the provision of "religious, fraternal, social and/or recreational programs generally open to the public and designed to accommodate and serve significant segments of the community." You are already aware of the partners who have shared our space. A list was delivered to the Code Enforcement Officer, James Stephens on June 16, 2017. We reject the claim that "our efforts to be a good neighbor have fallen short." As we have said repeatedly, we have never been privy to the bulk of the alleged complaints against us and so have never had the opportunity to address them directly. As I shared with you, when you toured our facility, when neighbors have come to us directly with their concerns, we have made every effort to come to a fair and reasonable resolution, with a good measure of success. We always want to be a good neighbor and have already begun to address some of the concerns that we have heard about indirectly. Both the iSing Silicon Valley Girlchoir and New Mozart School of Music have been working directly with their parents and students to mitigate traffic and parking issues. The City has now created a "loading zone" in front of the church's Fellowship Hall which should also help. The church has gotten bids (of approximately $21,000) to install anew HVAC system in the Hall which will enable us to keep the windows and doors closed. This would greatly reduce noise concerns. With the assistance of one of those neighbors who brought his concern directly to the church, we have installed double paned windows on the second floor all along the back driveway in the rooms occupied by the New Mozart School. Those windows have now been bolted shut. We hope this application and the above examples will help the city see that we do want to resolve these concerns in a way that is beneficial for all concerned. andle R. (Rick) Mixon, PhD Pastor, First Baptist Church 305 North California Avenue Palo Alto, CA cc James Keene, Jonathan Lait 305 North California Avenue • Palo Alto, California 94301 • 650/327-0561 November 10, 2017 To: The Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment From: The First Baptist Church of Palo Alto Re: Fees for a Conditional Use Permit as a Community Center We respectfully request that the city waive the fees for this application because: • We are a small congregation with limited resources. • We have already experienced loss of revenue because of the city's actions against us. • Addressing the concerns that we believe our neighbors have will be costly. • We are filing this application under duress. We are submitting this application for a Conditional Use Permit at the direction of the Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment and we are submitting it under protest. Thank you for your consideration. Owen, Graham From: Carol Heermance <cheermance@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 8:55 AM To: Owen, Graham Subject: conditional use permit for the First Baptist Church The Planning Commission for the City of Palo Alto FBC application for a Conditional Use Permit Since 1981 we have lived at 208 N California Avenue, down the street from the First Baptist Church, and in recent years we have enjoyed seeing an increase in the various activities that take place at the church. This is a great use of the building that would otherwise be unused during the week. We know that some neighbors are upset by the additional traffic, however, we do not agree with their assessment. We find it refreshing to see children and adults using this building for so many wonderful activities. The traffic on our street has increased over the years, as it has all over the city, but we do not find this bothersome, it just reflects today's world. Using the FBC as a community center is a plus for our neighborhood! We disagree with the residents that object to using the FBC as a "community center" and totally support the city giving the First Baptist Church a Conditional Use Permit. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Richard and Carol Heermance 208 N California Ave Palo Alto, CA 9430 1 Owen, Graham From: Sarah Burgess <sburgrval@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 2:46 AM To: Owen, Graham Cc: Lait, Jonathan; ronwilensky@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Status of FBC Response to Notice of Incomplete & Timing of Meeting Announcement Postcard 1 understand the distinction, Graham. However, since a CUP may only be granted for a use or purpose which is permitted by the provisions of the title, (section (b)(1)) a determination that the use is necessary or desirable is needed before proceedings to the findings stage. And the local community center space currently readily available is fundamental to that determination. ' Sarah Burgess Sent from my iPhone On Apr 2, 2018, at 11:12 PM, Owen, Graham <Graham.Owen a,CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Hi Sarah, Thanks for your message. To your point about the findings, the "necessary or desirable" clause that you've mentioned is actually in the Purpose section and not the Findings section in PAMC 18.76.010. I wanted to alert you to this because it while might seem like an irrelevant distinction it is important when it comes to processing and making decisions on CUPs. The findings to grant a CUP are the following: (c) Findings Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant a conditional use permit, unless it is found that the granting of the application will: (1) Not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; (2) Be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning). Let me know if you have any questions. Best, Graham From: sburgrval@aol.com [mailto:sburg_rval@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 11:03 PM To: Owen, Graham Cc: Lait, Jonathan Subject: Re: Status of FBC Response to Notice of Incomplete & Timing of Meeting Announcement Postcard I wanted to follow up on our meeting and give you some of the documentation I have of the readily available community center space in Palo Alto. As I said, I think this goes to the heart of the "necessary 1 or desirable" finding for a CUP per Section 18.76.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Attached are the fee schedules for the Cubberley Community Center, which you will see gives a substantial discount to non -profits and is commensurate with the fees charged by FBC. Also in this document you will find calendars for the large music classrooms at Cubberley and all the rooms at Lucy Stern - you can see the rooms are readily available.* Just to pick one, Cubberley H-1, you will see that it was available all afternoon long on Mondays, Tuesday, Thursdays and Fridays throughout February. This is just one of the 15 classrooms, 2 gyms, and 2 dance studios available for lease there, either by the day or by long term lease. Even the calendars for Lucie Stern, which appear full, show substantial available spaces throughout the day. Each of these centers have ample parking, are located away from residents so that noise would not be an issue, and have staff in attendance to address any issues which might arise. Additionally, these centers are run by Palo Alto tax dollars, and need rental income for their support. Most of the small grassroots and other organizations could easily find space here for rent. It appears with some manipulation of their schedule, iSing could also be accommodated. There is no "need" for additional community center space in our city. At the community meeting, a few residents who live within a few blocks of FBC spoke to their appreciation of the location. I do not believe individual resident convenience would rise to the level of making a community center at the FBC necessary or desirable, however, we should note that Jordan Middle School, within a few blocks of FBC, also rents out space. Their fees are also commensurate with those charged by FBC. https://www.oausd.org/facilitv-rental/schedule-charges-2017-18 Additionally, they have space for summer camps, complete with auditoriums, which could hold the hundreds of children which iSing brought to FBC for several weeks last summer (and I believe plans to bring again) FBC's request for community center status cannot meet the first finding, of such space being necessary or desirable with so much available, inexpensive community center space already in existence and going idle in our city. Sarah Burgess *my home scanner would not accommodate the two sided document, so some pages of the calendar are missing, however sufficient exists to show the available space. 2 Owen, Graham From: Bonnie Flanagan <bonnie.m.flanagan@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 11:13 AM To: Lait, Jonathan; Owen, Graham Cc: Gitelman, Hillary Subject: First Baptist Church CUP application Attachments: Video.MOV; Video_1.MOV Jonathan and Graham: I wanted to let you know about an event on Wednesday night since loud noise was an issue that came up during our recent meeting. I think you said that during the CUP process the church didn't have to comply with ensuring this type of situation doesn't occur, but it's another example of how important it will be to have a site manager when events are at the church. It was a large event that filled FBC's main sanctuary. Though loud music, it was the cheering & wahoos after songs that echoed all over the neighborhood. The door & all windows were opened & the noise went beyond the time I was videoing. The evening before Easter there was lovely music in the sanctuary & yet the door & all windows were closed. I hope the videos/picture are helpful in understand the challenge at hand. Thank you, Bonnie Sent from my iPhone 3/31 Saturday night - music practice probably for Easter Service Owen, Graham From: Ronald Wilensky <ronwilensky@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2018 7:01 PM To: Owen, Graham; Lait, Jonathan Subject: Re: FBCPA CUP Comments....one additional comment about bike riders on Bryant Street Attachments: City of Palo Alto Statement on Roundabouts.2018-03-30.pdf Dear Graham and Jonathan, In a statement issued by the City of Palo Alto on 30 March 2018 is an interesting data point about the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard. I've attached a copy of that statement and highlighted the last sentence, which states "For example, more than 216,000 bikers currently ride annually on the shared lane along Bryant Street, which has incorporated similar traffic calming elements to reduce motor speeds and make biking safer." To put 216,000 riders into perspective, consider for the sake of simplicity that the rides happen 365 -days per year with almost all occurring in a 10 -hour period during the day. That averages 59 riders per hour or about one per minute. I suspect a lot of those rides will pass through the Bryant Street/North California Ave, the corner at with the FBCPA is located. That's a lot of bike rides. And I'd guess that the peak ridership will result in a much higher rate when students are going to and from school. This adds some texture to my comments below about bike safety: Bryant Street has a lot of bicycle traffic so bike -lane safety must be a very important factor in your deliberations about the appropriateness of a community center at Bryant Street and North California Avenue. Best regards, Ron On Monday, March 26, 2018, 10:56:48 AM PDT, Ronald Wilensky <ronwilensky@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear Graham and Jonathan, Further to our conversation on March 23rd, I thought it would be useful to reiterate some of the key points we discussed concerning the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto (FBCPA) CUP application for a community center at its site. 1. The FBCPA location is the wrong place for a community center whether operated by FPBCA or any other entity. There is not enough parking. The site is at the intersection of two major bike lanes (Bryant Street and North California) and a soon -to -be - constructed traffic roundabout at Bryant & North California that will constrict and merge automobile and bicycle traffic in front of the church. The two bike lanes are on the path to Jordan Middle School, Palo Alto High School, and Castilleja School. Traffic/parking in 1 these bike lanes by people going to and from this proposed community center pose a danger to bicyclists. Furthermore, there is no apparent need for additional community center space. There are at least 100,000 square feet of space at the three existing community centers in Palo Alto. It is my understanding that one of more of these can handle, with some schedule adjustments, the large non -church group currently operating at the church. There would be no problem finding room at these centers for other activities involving only a few people. It is also my understanding that the rental fees at the City's community centers are equal to or less than those charged by the church. In addition, there is vacant space at the new and under-utilized Cooley Landing Education Center that has 3900 square feet of available area, capacity of up to 150 people, and a large on -site parking lot. It is also the City of Palo Alto's Program C1.13.1 in its Comprehensive Plan to "determine the potential for City shared use of PAUSD facilities" for community center activities when the schools are not using them. These facilities at already busy locations would greatly enlarge the space available for community center activities. Rental fees would also provide much -needed additional income to the school district. 2. If the Planning Department finds it is advisable to recommend granting a CUP to allow secular activities at FBCPA, there are many good reasons to impose operational restrictions that minimize the adverse impact of these activities on the neighborhood and bike -lane safety. The most important reason is that FBCPA is in a uniquely inappropriate location for a community center. Of the approximately 35 houses of worship in Palo Alto, 33 are either located on major thoroughfares or in business districts or have adequate parking. The other two (FBCPA and a small church on Channing Avenue) have only very limited on -site parking. Of those two only FBCPA is located at the intersection of two major bike lanes, at a corner where a traffic roundabout is to be installed, and on two busy routes to three large schools. And finally, FBCPA is embedded tightly in the neighborhood with its property very close to neighboring houses. 3. In the March 15th, 2018 issue of the Palo Alto Daily News, FBCPA's pastor said "It isn't that we had to rent the space to keep operating. It really is more that we have a wonderful space we can make available for cheap rent to organizations and activities that make this place a better place to live." The question to ask is "better place to live" for whom? Certainly not the many neighbors of the church and bicyclists on North California and Bryant who are adversely impacted by the secular community center activities at the FBCPA location. The "better place to live" criterion must be applied fairly not only to users of the proposed community center but also to those neighbors and bicyclists. Best regards, Ron Wilensky 2 , Owen, Graham From: Laura Seitel <Iseitel@mac.com> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 9:41 PM To: Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; Owen, Graham Subject: First Baptist Church CUP Dear Hillary, Jonathan and Graham, Loy and I thank you very much for meeting and corresponding with us and our neighbors for many weeks now to help us understand the intricacies of the First Baptist Church's CUP application to become a community center. We and our neighbors are not in any way convinced that this contributes to the welfare of our city or that it can be done without significantly compromising the safety, peace and tranquillity of our neighborhood. Our neighbor, Ron Wilensky, has elaborated these points in his most recent email to you that we fully endorse. We hope that Ron's arguments, and the many others made by neighbors of the church over the past months, will persuade you to recommend denying the church's application for a CUP. As you know, the First Baptist Church is unique among churches in the city in not being subject to any CUP for its church activities. This gives it wide latitude to decide what activities are appropriate to a church and when they can be engaged in. The church can thus impose upon its neighborhood - its safety and tranquillity - much more than other churches, even without the CUP it currently seeks. To add to this institution's ability to disturb and endanger the neighborhood, particularly given the beliefs and behaviors of its leaders during the last decade, would make an already heavy burden even heavier for the church's neighbors and seem an unjust allocation of suffering. We profoundly hope that it will not come to this, but If you are not persuaded by the arguments of the church's neighbors opposing its CUP application, then we would like to indicate some types of conditions that might help to mitigate the church's negative impact on the neighborhood. They are as follows: 1) Permitted tenants: Individuals and small groups engaged in quiet activities. 2) Hours of operation: 10 A.M. to 3 P.M. on weekdays; 6:30 P.M. to 8 P.M. one weekday evening (excepting Friday) per week in the sanctuary or office portion of the church (this excludes evening use of Fellowship Hall). This schedule minimizes the chance of church traffic overlapping with car and bicycle commuters in the morning; with students riding home from schools in the mid -afternoon; and with traffic during the late-afternoon/evening commute. It would also preserve the peace of our residential neighborhood during weekends and most evenings. 3) Numbers of occupants: apart from church staff, no more than 7 occupants involved in a group activity (no simultaneous groups). No more than 7 additional occupants in the office portion of the church (this includes the renters of individual church offices and whomever they invite to join them on a particular day). This would limit the number of cars entering, leaving and/or parking in the church neighborhood for church purposes to a maximum of 14 at any one time. There should be a fifteen minute gap between the time one group leaves and the next group arrives. 4) The CUP will require the installation of air-conditioning and double -paned windows in Fellowship Hall. 5) All doors and windows of all parts of the church will be closed when interior spaces are used. Amplified sound, musical practice or performance will be restricted to the sanctuary. 6) Once per quarter, the church will be permitted to use any part of its property for an event with up to 75 participants (for example, for a concert or a lecture) that ends by 9 P.M. 7) Enforcement: - A list of all tenants of the church and the hours of their occupancy will be published on the church's website and updated weekly. i - A monitor hired by the church and approved by the city will be on site and available to calls from neighbors during all hours of tenant occupancy. The telephone number of the monitor will be published on the church website and updated weekly or daily, if necessary. If the monitor does not answer the phone and/or the tenants do not comply with the conditions of the CUP, both the church and the tenants will incur significant monetary penalties with no grace periods or warnings. After two infractions, the tenant involved will no longer be able to rent space at the church. - Video monitors will be installed, if allowed by law, to document numbers and times of people entering and leaving the church. Thank you for your consideration of our views concerning the CUP application of the First Baptist Church. Please let us know if we can clarify them or help in any other way with your deliberations as they proceed. Kind regards, Laura and Loy 2 Owen, Graham From: Ronald Wilensky <ronwilensky@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 10:57 AM To: Owen, Graham; Lait, Jonathan Subject: FBCPA CUP Comments Dear Graham and Jonathan, Further to our conversation on March 23rd, I thought it would be useful to reiterate some of the key points we discussed concerning the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto (FBCPA) CUP application for a community center at its site. 1. The FBCPA location is the wrong place for a community center whether operated by FPBCA or any other entity. There is not enough parking. The site is at the intersection of two major bike lanes (Bryant Street and North California) and a soon -to -be - constructed traffic roundabout at Bryant & North California that will constrict and merge automobile and bicycle traffic in front of the church. The two bike lanes are on the path to Jordan Middle School, Palo Alto High School, and Castilleja School. Traffic/parking in these bike lanes by people going to and from this proposed community center pose a danger to bicyclists. Furthermore, there is no apparent need for additional community center space. There are at least 100,000 square feet of space at the three existing community centers in Palo Alto. It is my understanding that one of more of these can handle, with some schedule adjustments, the large non -church group currently operating at the church. There would be no problem finding room at these centers for other activities involving only a few people. It is also my understanding that the rental fees at the City's community centers are equal to or less than those charged by the church. In addition, there is vacant space at the new and under-utilized Cooley Landing Education Center that has 3900 square feet of available area, capacity of up to 150 people, and a large on -site parking lot. It is also the City of Palo Alto's Program C1.13.1 in its Comprehensive Plan to "determine the potential for City shared use of PAUSD facilities" for community center activities when the schools are not using them. These facilities at already busy locations would greatly enlarge the space available for community center activities. Rental fees would also provide much -needed additional income to the school district. 2. If the Planning Department finds it is advisable to recommend granting a CUP to allow secular activities at FBCPA, there are many good reasons to impose operational restrictions that minimize the adverse impact of these activities on the neighborhood and bike -lane safety. The most important reason is that FBCPA is in a uniquely inappropriate location for a community center. Of the approximately 35 houses of worship in Palo Alto, 33 are 1 either located on major thoroughfares or in business districts or have adequate parking. The other two (FBCPA and a small church on Channing Avenue) have only very limited on -site parking. Of those two only FBCPA is located at the intersection of two major bike lanes, at a corner where a traffic roundabout is to be installed, and on two busy routes to three large schools. And finally, FBCPA is embedded tightly in the neighborhood with its property very close to neighboring houses. 3. In the March 15th, 2018 issue of the Palo Alto Daily News, FBCPA's pastor said "It isn't that we had to rent the space to keep operating. It really is more that we have a wonderful space we can make available for cheap rent to organizations and activities that make this place a better place to live." The question to ask is "better place to live" for whom? Certainly not the many neighbors of the church and bicyclists on North California and Bryant who are adversely impacted by the secular community center activities at the FBCPA location. The "better place to live" criterion must be applied fairly not only to users of the proposed community center but also to those neighbors and bicyclists. Best regards, Ron Wilensky 2 Owen, Graham From: Rick Block <rickblock@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 10:00 PM To: Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; Owen, Graham Subject: First Baptist Church CUP Request Dear Ms. Gitelman, Mr. Lait, and Mr. Owen, My wife, Susan and I, own the home at 292 N. California Avenue, directly across the intersection from the First Baptist Church. I am writing to express our concern about the application of the church for a conditional use permit that would allow the conversion of the facility to a community center. While we are not opposed in principle to that change in classification, we are deeply worried about the problems of safety, parking, and noise that would result from granting the application on the terms proposed. Unlike the tenants who would occupy the premises and the hundreds of persons who would come and go each week in order to use it, we and our neighbors would be directly and adversely affected by having so many persons and activities taking place there each week. We are particularly disturbed at the prospect of so many activities and cars coming, parking, and going on weekday evenings and weekends. Of all institutions, a church should be sensitive to the detrimental impact of noise and traffic on the days of rest of their Christian, Jewish and Moslem neighbors. If the church is given permission to become a community center, it is imperative that there be clear and enforced limits on the hours, activities, and numbers of persons, cars and activities that may take place there, and that such limits be considerably more restrictive than the applicant proposes. Respectfully, Richard and Susan Block 1 Owen, Graham From: Laura Seitel <Iseitel@mac.com> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 3:24 PM To: Owen, Graham Cc: Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan Subject: Video of activity in FBC Fellowship Hall Attachment available until Apr 21, 2018 Hi Graham, In advance of our meeting tomorrow, I wanted to send this video of a weekend nighttime event in Fellowship Hall. (It's about 10 PM when I'm taking the video.) I hope you'll play it at full volume. It's a rather subdued and sparsely attended event compared to many others that occur regularly at the site. Often the room is packed, music blaring, with people spilling out onto the sidewalk and lawn until late at night. Thanks - and see you soon, Laura Click to Download 1MG 3360.tn4v 46.3 iM [3 1 Owen, Graham From: Bonnie Flanagan <bonnie.m.flanagan@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 2:59 PM To: Gitelman, Hillary Cc: Lait, Jonathan; Owen, Graham; Gaines, Chantal; Mello, Joshuah Subject: Re: FBC CUP Hillary: Thank you for your email & response. I want to clarify that I'm not oppose to the roundabout though I know other neighbors are. My former neighbor (corner Bryant & California Ave) took a petition around the neighborhood about 8 years ago (that 1 signed) to have a roundabout at that corner as it's a corner that accidents have occurred & she was very concerned about safety for the students biking to/from school. Her concern was before FBC's increasing activity with large groups utilizing the church. The City turned down the request saying it was not needed. I asked Josh Mello at a Bryant Street bike plan meeting why it was turned down & now planned. He told me it was a different department. My earlier email may have led you to a different conclusion on my part. What 1 was trying to convey & what is very concerning to me is how a roundabout can be at that corner with parking spaces being removed (we've been told varying numbers between 10-20) for the Bryant Street bike plan AND a CUP approved for hundreds of folks participating without adequate parking. The church has 8 spaces all assumed & street parking will be even less available with the bike plan. 1 doubt that the three huge buses in the picture 1 sent could even go around the roundabout. That area just can't take large buses 8z large amounts of people on a regular basis & dozens of cars parked on surrounding blocks. At other community centers or churches handling large groups, there is parking whereas FBC basically has none for attendees. Examples being: Cubberley, Lucie Stern, St. Mark's, First Congregational & First Presbyterian. 1 hope that clarifies what [ meant by having a community center, roundabout & bike path converge in that area as the City decides what can/can't be at FBC. Thanks again, Bonnie Sent from my iPhone On Mar 16, 2018, at 2:33 PM, Gitelman, Hillary<Hi11ary.Gitelman(a,CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Dear Ms. Flanagan, 1 Thank you for these comments. I'm sorry you couldn't make it to our meeting last week. We heard from other people who are concerned about traffic safety and who described bicycle and automobiles colliding in the vicinity of First Baptist Church, as well as cars making U-turns in the area. It is precisely for this reason that the City is planning to implement a roundabout at this location. Studies have shown that roundabouts are safer than stop signs or signal -controlled intersections, with a 75% reduction in injury crashes. In conjunction with other planned traffic calming measures they may also discourage "cut -through" regional traffic as overall speeds along neighborhood serving local streets are reduced. The roundabout at this location will also include additional street lighting, landscaping and signage and is intended to decrease points of conflicts between cars and bikes, and help lots of elementary, middle, and high school students stay safe on their way to school. The next steps in our planning process for the First Baptist Church is to develop a draft Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for review by the Planning & Transportation Commission, which we think will occur at their meeting on April 11. It would be great if you could attend that meeting or send us your specific comments on our draft, which will be disseminated around April 5`h. We are working hard to acknowledge and address traffic concerns associated with proposed uses at the church, including looking at the allowable size and timing of events. Thanks again, Hillary <image001.jpg> Hillary Gitelman 1 Planning Director 1 P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue 1 Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2321 1 E: hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email — Thank you! From: Bonnie Flanagan[mailto:bonnie.m.flanagan@gmail.comj Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 11:17 AM To: Council, City; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; Owen, Graham Subject: FBC CUP Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council: I was unable to make the meeting at Jordan Middle School on March 7th regarding First Baptist Church's request to become a Community Center, but I've been reading comments in both the Palo Alto Online & the PA Daily Post. Many are concerned with traffic & safety issues which was the focus of my February 1st letter to the Council. My concerned for the safety of our children riding bikes in this area continues. The situation at Ross Road regarding safety for bikers/cars will be mirrored when the California Avenue/Bryant roundabout & Bryant Street bike path is completed. Since my earlier letter there has been an accident on Bryant, a situation that sadly the neighborhood had expected to see happen, though hoped would not. One car had just picked up children from the daycare. The car had two small girls in the back seat where the impact occurred & airbags went off! The car that hit them zipped around CA Ave down Bryant. I was 2 told, though I don't know for sure, that the car causing the accident was a parent picking up students from the church. To my knowledge nobody came over to help from the church & yet the back door closest to the accident was opened; students came out to look, but no adult. VERY scared little girls. I've included pictures below. If a community center, roundabout & bike path converge in that area it's difficult to believe more accidents won't occur as they say "it's an accident waiting to happen." Please carefully consider what can be at FBC that does not impact child/bike safety & traffic. Thank you, Below are a few pictures: 1) accident on Bryant; car coming out of daycare hit by car coming down Bryant <image002.jpg> <image003.jpg> <image004.jpg> 2) 3 large buses returning iSing students to FBC; a Thursday when students are biking home <image005.jpg> <image006.jpg> <image007.jpg> 3 Owen, Graham From: sburgrval@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 4:16 PM To: Owen, Graham Cc: ronwilensky@yahoo.com; loymartin@icloud.com; Lait, Jonathan Subject: Re: First Baptist Church - Neighborhood Meeting Hi, Graham. I have read over the sections you site below, and I am not seeing a provision for grandfathering in a new, non -conforming use. Here is what I see. 1. A non -conforming use may only be replaced by a conforming use, unless the new use would be permitted under the most recent zoning classification (obviously not the case) or the change or replacement does not increase the extent of the nonconformity. Obviously, the change is severe and increases the extent of the nonconformity, that is what our entire conversation is about. 18.70.030 Nonconforming use - Change. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a nonconforming use shall not be changed to or replaced by any use except a conforming use. (b) A nonconforming use may be changed to or replaced by another nonconforming use which would have been permitted under the most recent zoning classification of the property under which the nonconforming use was a conforming use and which is of no higher occupancy rating than the existing nonconforming use as defined by Title 16 subject to the following limitations: (1) The change or replacement shall not increase the extent of the nonconformity, or the nature of the activity, or the site area or floor area occupied by the nonconforming use on the site, except as may be provided by Section 18.70.020(6) With regard to section 18.52, the site provides, 1852.030 Basic Parking Regulations (a) Applicability The regulations of this chapter apply to all parking areas in all districts established by this title. (b) Parking Required Off-street parking, loading and bicycle facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed and for any new use established, for any addition or enlargement of an existing building or use, and for any change in the occupancy of any building or the manner in which any use is conducted that would result in additional spaces being required, subject to the provisions of this chapter. Now, I certainly understand that we cannot be claiming the church needs to bring it's property up to parking conformity for church use - that would both be unfair and clearly against the code. But since the entire nature of what we are discussing involved a change in the non -conforming use, and will be a new use established I do not see anything allowing a grandfathered use of the number of parking spaces. Could you please let me know what exactly you are following to reach this conclusion? Am I missing a code provision? Since the previous application for CUP by Mozart came under a different standard, I am especially curious about this. Thanks so much, Sarah Burgess Original Message From: Owen, Graham<Graham.Owen@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: Sarah <sburgrval@aol.com> Cc: ronwilensky <ronwilensky@yahoo.com>; loymartin <loymartin@icloud.com>; Lait, Jonathan 1 <Jonathan. Lait@7CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Tue, Feb 13, 2018 1:56 pm Subject: RE: First Baptist Church - Neighborhood Meeting Hi Sarah, Sounds good. The applicable code provisions are 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) and 18.70 (Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Facilities). In this instance, a community center use has the same parking requirement as the church (1 space for each four person capacity), so the question becomes what size, frequency, and types of events do and do not increase the degree of noncompliance. This is similar to situations where you have a retail building with a 1:200 sf parking ratio that converts to a personal service use, which has the same requirement. If the site is legally nonconforming for the parking to begin with, the change in use would not require the provision of additional parking. Best, Graham From: Sarah [mailto:sburgrval@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 1:26 PM To: Owen, Graham Cc: ronwilensky@yahoo.com; Ioymartin@icloud.com; Lait, Jonathan Subject: Re: First Baptist Church - Neighborhood Meeting Thank you, and we will get back with a date, hopefully later today. Thank you for explaining the parking. I understand that the church use is considered legally nonconforming for parking, but the link I am not making is how that carries over to a different use. Is there a code section on that? The analysis provided with Mozart led me to believe that an application for a different use requires parking compliance for that use, as it would for other code requirements... Sarah On Feb 13, 2018, at 1:03 PM, Owen, Graham <Graham.Owen@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Hi Sarah, Understood, is there a date that would work for the three of you the week of Feb 26 or March 5? A lot of folks will be gone for the long weekend on the 2nd and 5th for President's Day weekend, but beyond that let me know what could work. Regarding the parking, the zoning code currently requires 1 space for every four seats or four person capacity (building code occupancy), based on maximum use of all facilities at the same time. Our understanding based on archived plans is that there are 30 pews in the sanctuary, each 14 feet in length. Per the building code, this type of pew seating yields one occupant for each 18 inches of seating length. This results in 280 occupants for the sanctuary pews. The choir area has 34 individual seats, so add 34 additional occupants, and the total of 314 occupants, or 79 required spaces. The church was built prior to the adoption of on -site parking requirements in the zoning code, so it is considered legally nonconforming for parking. Best, Graham 2 From: Sarah [mailto:sburgrval@aol.com] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 7:23 PM To: Owen, Graham Cc: ronwilensky@yahoo.com; loymartin@icloud.com; Lait, Jonathan Subject: Re: First Baptist Church - Neighborhood Meeting Graham, thank you so much for this. Regarding the meeting, unfortunately, neither Ron or I are available that date, nor is The date good for Loy. We could certainly hold the meeting with the other neighbors, but in terms of organization and keeping on track, it might be better to have us there. Are other dates available, or could we possibly have a few choices? Secondly, is it possible for you to explain the basis for the "grandfathered in" parking spaces? The previous application for CUP by Mozart did not have any of these as their basis so we are trying to understand where they come from, Again, thank you. Sarah On Feb 12, 2018, at 9:45 AM, Owen, Graham<Graham.Owen@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Hi Sarah, Please see my responses below in red. Best, Graham From: sburgrval@aol.com [mailto:sburgrval@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 5:54 PM To: Owen, Graham; ronwilensky@yahoo.com; loymartin@icloud.com Cc: Lait, Jonathan Subject: Re: First Baptist Church - Neighborhood Meeting Thank you, Graham. I was just in the process of preparing an email to you. May I ask a few questions that would pertain to the date of the meeting with the neighbors? 1. The timeline: You had mentioned that you had to give a response to Pastor Mixon by 2/18, based upon the date of his supplemental information. Is that still the end date we need to operate under? I would note, the church still has not posted the signage required for the CUP - Am I right in assuming that must be out for a certain period of time before the city responds? We're hoping for everyone's sake to move this application forward, so we'd like to have the community meeting this month. We've been in contact with Jordan Middle School and are targeting a meeting at the school on the 27th, stay tuned for more details. We will formally respond to the resubmitted application materials by 2/18. Thanks for letting me know about the sign again, I've followed up with Pastor Mixon to get the sign up on the property. The sign isn't a code requirement, but is standard practice for these types of applications. 2. You had indicated you would have some additional information to give us about the standard which will be applied for parking, ie, you were looking into whether there would be some leeway "grandfathered" in. Do you have that information? It would be helpful 3 to the neighbors to have that prior to meeting so that we can evaluate it based upon the impact to the neighborhood; We are still looking into this parking question and the grandfathering situation, but our current understanding is that the church use is grandfathered for 71 spaces (79 required for the church, minus the 8 provided on -site). The minimum parking requirement for a community center use and a church use are the same (1 space for each 4 person capacity), so without additional spaces available on the site this 71 space nonconformity is the baseline. 3. You were going to look into whether a Transportation Management Plan would be necessary/helpful for this application. Do you have a response to that yet? A few additional questions which have been raised by the neighbors were whether the change of use would require conforming with any present building codes and whether there would be insurance requirements by the city that would accompany any "community center" designation; Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans are typically required for large office projects in order to shift auto trips to public transit, so I'm not sure how helpful one would be in this instance. Regardless, we are looking into the parking and circulation issues, which are highly germane to the application. From a building code standpoint, if the community center use is approved with this CUP it would trigger the need to obtain a use and occupancy (U&O) permit from the Building Division. This permit would likely require inspections to determine what, if any, code issues need to be rectified. Could you elaborate on your insurance question, Planning doesn't typically regulate insurance. 4. Will you have any additional information about the listed tenants and the requested hours of use? As I had indicated, it is hard for the neighbors to evaluate any potential compromise when the information has not met the requirements; Right now all we have is the supplemental information that we sent out. If we don't receive anything else we will need to move forward with the information we have on file. Having said that, we have seen the Weekly article regarding the current uses, so we'll be asking for an updated list. 5. Another procedural issue raised by one of the residents: The church is a corporation, with a board of directors and an agent for service of process. Does Mr. Mixon have the authority to sign this SUP request? We require applicants/property owners to certify that they are authorized to act on behalf of their respective entities. And finally, in answer to your question, we earnestly want a neighborhood meeting with you, however in evaluating the number of people, we are worried none of our homes have the capacity. Can we meeting in the evening at city hall? We are targeting a meeting at Jordan Middle School on February 27th. We will send out notifications shortly, so stay tuned for more information. As soon as we have the timeline, we will be able to come up with a date to run by you. Answers to the additional questions I have listed, however will make the meeting more efficacious. Thank you, Sarah Burgess Original Message From: Owen, Graham<Graham.Owen@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: Sarah Burgess <sburgrval@aol.com>; Ronald Wilensky <ronwilensky@yahoo.com>; Loy Martin <loymartin@icloud.com> 4 Cc: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Thu, Feb 1, 2018 4:39 pm Subject: First Baptist Church - Neighborhood Meeting Hi Sarah, Ron, and Loy, Thanks again for meeting with Jon and me last week. As a follow up to our discussion, we think it would highly beneficial to meet with the larger neighborhood to hear their concerns and discuss the City's process for this CUP application. Would one of you be willing to organize and host a neighborhood meeting in the next few weeks? If so we would be happy to attend. Separately we will also be reaching out to Pastor Mixon to see if his tenants and congregants would like to host their own discussion. Best, Graham <image001.png> Graham Owen 1 Associate Planner 1 P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue 1 Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2552 1 E: graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email —Thank you! 5 Owen, Graham From: Loy Martin <loymartin@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 1:19 PM To: Gitelman, Hillary; Owen, Graham Subject: Re: Wish to meet Hillary and Graham, It looks like hectic schedules and short time will preclude the kind of casual chat I had in mind. We will all get to talk with you on Friday and, in any case, I wasn't suggesting that I come in and speak in behalf of the neighbors or present a "position." So here is a brief account of the modest "door of opportunity" that I felt had opened a bit last week. Maybe you saw it the same way. In the article by Kevin Kelly, Rick Mixon was quoted as saying that the rents derived from the tenants of FBC are not necessary to the financial survival of the church. This is, I think, an important change. I think it allows your team to fashion a solution that solely addresses the limited question of what uses are appropriate for this particular site, not the larger abstract questions about whether it's the proper role of city government to save churches or what the relationship should be between "church and state." These are the kinds of issues that are bound to come up in a full bombastic debate before the city council. I think it's in everyone's interest to avoid that if we can, to keep our solutions within the smaller frame of one street corner in Palo Alto rather than the large frame of political generalization. In short, would it be possible for you to fashion a solution in which the church is allowed to rent its spaces to small groups doing quiet things during limited hours? If FBC's financial survival doesn't depend on rental income such tenants should be enough to support the kinds of maintenance that Rick Mixon mentions in the Kelly article. I know my formulation is abstract. I don't know enough about your process to suggest how the CUP might be framed in detail or how enforcement would work. But for the question of what I mean by "quiet things" I think we need only look to the eloquent presentation made by JoEllen Werne at the Jordan School meeting. Her work sounds unquestionably valuable to the community and it requires the kind of spaces the church can provide. It doesn't assemble a great number of people at one time so it avoids the problems of parking and traffic and it's quiet. Moreover, unlike some of the other tenants, Dr. Werne makes a persuasive case for her work requiring below market rental rates. Laura, my wife, has, at times, mentioned to me an impressive list of the types of uses, from Yoga classes to grief counseling groups, that would fit comfortably into my category of small groups doing quiet things. Couldn't these activities be allowed at FBC while the dancing and singing and oratorical tenants find more appropriate sites? Hillary, when I spoke with you last fall, you said that other churches in Palo Alto were concerned that, if the city placed use restrictions on FBC, that would open the door to new restrictions placed on all the city's churches —a kind of domino theory. I think that might, indeed, be a danger if the debate over FBC becomes generalized in public debate before the city council. The history of court decisions emanating from the First Amendment "establishment clause" and even the California Constitution do point in that direction. I think it's in everyone's interest to keep our resolution small and soft and local. I wish we had had the leisure to talk this out in a more conversational exploratory way but I understand that the real world imposes its constraints and we need to make do with the means we have. If you should want to talk more about these ideas, either in your office or on the phone, I'm available. Best regards, 1 Loy On Mar 19, 2018, at 8:33 AM, Gitelman, Hillary <Hillary.Gitelman a,CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Good morning Loy, I'd be happy to talk, but I would ask that you start your conversation with Graham; he can set up a time to talk and bring me in as needed. We are all striving to "gently" resolve things! Hillary <image001.jpg> Hillary Gitelman I Planning Director 1 P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue 1 Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2321 1E: hillarv.gitelman@citvofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email — Thank you! From: Loy Martin [mailto:loymartin@icloud.comi Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 10:13 PM To: Gitelman, Hillary Subject: Wish to meet Dear Hillary, Today I read Kevin Kelly's article about the First Baptist Church controversy. It contained some material that gave me a couple of new ideas about how the matter might be gently resolved. Would it be possible for me to come speak to you at your office for a few minutes early next week? I could do that pretty much any time Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday and on short notice. I'll understand completely if you'd rather not. Regards, Loy Loy D. Martin 349 North California Avenue Palo Alto, CA. 94301 Phone: (650) 325-3416 loymartin(@.icloud.com www.l ovm a rti nfu rn itu re. co m Loy D. Martin 349 North California Avenue Palo Alto, CA. 94301 Phone: (650) 325-3416 lovmartin(@jcloud.com www.loymartinfurniture.com 2 PALO ALTO Owen, Graham From: Owen, Graham Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 5:08 PM To: Jerome Spector Subject: RE: First Baptist Church request Hi Jerry, Thanks for sending these suggestions along, I received your message this time. We're still working on the CUP but these recommendations are certainly helpful and much appreciated. Best, Graham Graham Owen I Associate Planner 1 P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue I Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2552 I E: graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email —Thank you! From: Jerome Spector [mailto:jerryss010gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2018 10:37 PM To: Owen, Graham Subject: First Baptist Church request March 14, 2018 Mr. Graham Owen Graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org Dear Mr. Graham, Thank you for hosting the meeting at Jordon Middle School re the use permit for the church at California & Bryant. I decided to write this email as my wife and I will be out of the country during the meeting in April and the City Council meeting in May. As a member of the Board of Directors of Avenidas, I understand the need for community activity the issue as expressed during the meeting is what can be done in a area where homes are in very close proximity and in an area that has one of the highest, if not the highest bike usage areas in Palo Alto. I truly enjoyed the presentation of the I sing director, mother and participants. As I also stated in my later comment, I sing appears to be the only group has taken active steps to attempt to be good neighbors. The neighbor who spoke about having a radio in his home all day long and into the night, I think actually describes the noise issue. The traffic problems, possible and actual accidents is a serious problem. So, given all this, is there a compromise.? I would like to suggest some. 1 All areas in which there are musical groups or dancing be held in rooms that have air conditioning, double insulated windows, and importantly acoustic tiles to assist in absorbing the sounds. The restrictions should also state that all doors and windows be kept closed while the concerts, practice are on. Groups that by there nature have very loud noise, such as rock bands, not be allowed as part of the use permit. Understanding the once an event is over, it takes time for people to leave, visit outside, clean up and disposal of bottles etc. This extends the "noise time". Thus the time be limited to the event ends no later than 9pm M -F and 10pm on Saturday & Sunday. The occupancy permit limits the use in any week to the members of the church plus 250 persons associated with other organizations. Private offices shall be available for psychologists, therapists, MDs etc. As I had also stated this would bring revenue to the church and be a "quiet activity". At any time, there is an event that 75 or more people, a monitor shall be present while people arrive to direct parking and someone shall be available until the event has concluded including evenings. Those people should be provided with a "church cell phone" and the neighbors have that phone number. The phone will be given to the person during the event. Traffic control, periodic enforcement by the police of both cars and bikes could "train" people. My children are now grown adults. They went to Walter Hayes, the Jordon, and then Paly. Unfortunately, I had more than one ticket and therefor required appearance with my sons who were given bike tickets for running a stop sign or violating other traffic rules. I have not seen any tickets being issued for bikes or for cars going to fast, parking illegally, etc. Last week I had a first. At the corner of Bryant and California, as I came to stop. Three young boys, I would guess 10. Stood in front of my car, started doing jumping jacks to block me from driving. When I got out of the car, they ran away. I know that other neighbors will write as well. Good luck in developing a plan that is reasonable for the area. Then one of the major issues will be how can it be enforced? Will the police help with safety issues, blocking driveways of neighbors etc. Thank you for your consideration in these matters. I have copied Liz Ness, a long-time neighbor, since as stated earlier, my wife and I will be out of town at the next meeting and at the city council meeting. Respectfully Submitted Jerome Spector 2332 South Court Palo Alto, Ca. jerryss0l ab,gmail.com 2 Owen, Graham From: Bonnie Flanagan <bonnie.m.flanagan@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 11:17 AM To: Council, City; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; Owen, Graham Subject: FBC CUP Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council: I was unable to make the meeting at Jordan Middle School on March 7th regarding First Baptist Church's request to become a Community Center, but I've been reading comments in both the Palo Alto Online & the PA Daily Post. Many are concerned with traffic & safety issues which was the focus of my February 1st letter to the Council. My concerned for the safety of our children riding bikes in this area continues. The situation at Ross Road regarding safety for bikers/cars will be mirrored when the California Avenue/Bryant roundabout & Bryant Street bike path is completed. Since my earlier letter there has been an accident on Bryant, a situation that sadly the neighborhood had expected to see happen, though hoped would not. One car had just picked up children from the daycare. The car had two small girls in the back seat where the impact occurred & airbags went off! The car that hit them zipped around CA Ave down Bryant. I was told, though I don't know for sure, that the car causing the accident was a parent picking up students from the church. To my knowledge nobody came over to help from the church & yet the back door closest to the accident was opened; students came out to look, but no adult. VERY scared little girls. I've included pictures below. If a community center, roundabout & bike path converge in that area it's difficult to believe more accidents won't occur — as they say "it's an accident waiting to happen." Please carefully consider what can be at FBC that does not impact child/bike safety & traffic. Thank you, Below are a few pictures: 1) accident on Bryant; car coming out of daycare hit by car coming down Bryant 1 . 2) 3 large buses returning iSing students to FBC; a Thursday when students are biking home - Owen, Graham From: Sharleen Fiddaman <sf@sharleenfiddaman.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 8:29 AM To: Owen, Graham Subject: FBC - community center issue To: City Council and Committee Heads: I attended the Discussion meeting on Wed. 3/7 but did not speak on the mic. I would like my comments recorded. I found it irresponsible of the City to only notify residents within 600' of the church about this meeting! As such the meeting had a very poor turnout. I only learned about it from a friend living near the church. I did email the neighbors on my block and was surprised that they had no idea of this issue of the First Baptist Church requesting a permit to operate as a Community Center. All residents bordering North California Ave. will be affected by increased traffic and thus becoming a safety hazard. Since the City restriped N. Calif. Ave. is it more dangerous for cars and bikes! That was a poor idea. The kids biking home afterschool from Jordan is the only influx of bicycles enmass, and they pay no heed to the bike lane, still riding 4 -abreast and into the street...just like they did before. Now cars are forced to drive down the middle of the street or into the bike lane when there is an opposing car. The intersection at Webster is the most dangerous as the STOP lines are misaligned and could cause a head-on if observed. Fortunately there is little traffic on N. Calif. currently since we are a quiet residential street. If there is a community center operating daily from 9 am to 10-11+ pm. that will be dangerous and noisy for all residents along the street! The church is located in a residential neighborhood and is not suited to an influx of activities! It only provides 5 parking spaces which is totally inadequate, resulting in a flood of cars daily parking in neighborhood streets causing problems: an inconvenience to the homeowners by blocking their driveways and not allowing space for their own vehicles; tossing homeowners recycle bins into the parking strip so they can park at the curb, parking in the bike lane blocking it for bicyclists, and causing accidents such as the one broadsiding a car with day-care children. We do not need another community center! especially one so close to homes. Cubberley and Lucie Stern have lots of parking available, as do some other churches in Palo Alto which could handle the overflow. The roundabout at Bryant and N. Calif. is also a bad unnecessary plan — please abort that! It will make the parking problem worse as it removes 8 curbside spaces. And it will be ugly. Roundabouts do not fit in residential neighborhood streets. The one on Coleridge and Webster was removed, thankfully. One day as I was going around it a cyclist sped through nearly hitting my car. I think they are dangerous. A 4 -way stop is far safer for everyone with excellent visibility. At the meeting is was said that conditions would be attached to the permit and then there would be code enforcement...very doubtful! People are not on duty for the long days of operation of a community center. For the past ten years I have periodically and repeatedly called code enforcement about things not right in the neighborhood...setbacks, fences, etc. Nothing was ever addressed. I mentioned this to a council member and it was admitted there was not the manpower to enforce rules. A new person would have to be hired at a big expense. 1 Our neighborhood is calm and quiet with little traffic and few bicyclists except at rush hours. We co -existed with the church and its regular church events for many years, but more recently the activities there are loud and continuous. I have sympathy for all the adjacent neighbors! They have the right to enjoy their home environments in peace. A new solution must be found. Through friends I've learned that other churches are available to many of these objectionable activities currently taking place at FBC; the groups just don't like the extra expense. Maybe someone would subsidize them. I had a suggestion that FBC solicit business groups for quiet retreats/conferences where attendees would travel by Cal -Train and walk to the church, thus no traffic or parking issue. And restaurants are nearby for lunches. Put on thinking caps to preserve our tranquil neighborhood! NO community center! Come and observe! Sharleen Fiddaman Webster Street at N. California Ave. Palo Alto E Virus -free. www.avast.com 2 Owen, Graham From: David Brunicardi <david.brunicardi@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 1:56 PM To: Owen, Graham Subject: FBC c.u.p. meeting Hi Mr. Owen, My name is David Brunicardi and my family and I live adjacent to the First Baptist Church. I am sorry to have missed the town hall meeting you held regarding the Conditional Use Permit application by the FBC. My 9 year old and I were holding down the fort last week while my wife was away. I have good neighborly relations with Pastor Rick at the FBC but have also had numerous conflicts with the for- profit music school that used to, or still does, rent the second floor. Please know that I truly do want the church to succeed and have always gone to Rick directly when there were problems. That said, I think he is asking for bit much in the church's c.u.p. application. I would love to share some of the materials I put together about the noise violations, the uniqueness of the R-1 FBC, and the history of businesses at the church. Would you be available to meet during the week sometime? All best, David Brunicardi Owen, Graham From: Mahendra Ranchod <mahen.ranchod@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2018 9:31 PM To: Owen, Graham Subject: First Baptist Church, North California Avenue Dear Mr. Owen, attended the meeting at Jordan Middle School on Wednesday evening but did not speak because of time constraints, and because I felt I had nothing new to add to the conversation. However, I have had time for reflection, and I now feel it necessary to add my voice to the neighbors' concerns about the First Baptist Church. accept that some of the music and dance groups who use the church provide a useful service to the community. However, the comments made at the meeting by some of the tenants have to be taken in context: Most of the participants live in other parts of town and have no idea of the impact they have on our neighborhood. Each participant sees the issue through the narrow lens of its group, without realizing that they are just one of many groups. They come to the church for an hour or two or three, sing and dance, and participate in activities of their choice. After they are done, they leave our neighborhood for the quiet of their neighborhoods and for the tranquility of their homes. But what about us? We have no control over the activities at the church. We are passive participants, victims of whatever sounds they impose on us. A planned afternoon tea on the patio or an evening with friends can be ruined by sounds we cannot control, music that is not of our choosing, a decibel level we cannot adjust. We retreat into our homes but cannot keep out the sound. What is music to their ears is noise to us. Imagine how this feels when it happens day after day after day, each day unpredictable, each day delivering a new barrage of noise. It is enough to make one feel distraught. I fully understand why the church has to supplement its income, and why it has had to shift its primary focus from saving souls to being a landlord. My neighbors and I do not object to the use of space at the church for non -religious activities, but we do care about the type of activity, how much noise that activity generates, how many participants there are at any one time, and the time of the day and night when these activities are permitted to occur. Like every other resident of our neighborhood, the church has to respect its boundaries. It cannot be disrespectful to its neighbors, it cannot undo the fabric of our 1 neighborhood, and it should not be allowed to create disruptive and unsafe traffic conditions. Sincerely, Mahendra Ranchod 2 Owen, Graham From: Loy Martin <Ioymartin@icloud.com> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2018 5:10 PM To: Owen, Graham Cc: Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan Subject: FBC Graham, Laura reminded me this afternoon that, when she met with you last Wednesday morning, you mentioned the possibility of trying to mitigate traffic and parking problems around the First Baptist Church by routing pick-up traffic through the church driveway where its parking spaces are now located. We would very strongly ask you not to consider that possibility. I can't imagine a more disastrous measure for us. It would place all of the commotion of entering and exiting cars only a few feet from our back deck and our family room where we spend most of our time. And the idling cars would produce substantial quantities of carbon monoxide for us to breathe. Moreover, all of those cars would need to exit the church driveway on the Bryant Street side. That exit is easily the most dangerous point on the church property. Vision is very difficult coming out from behind the church there. In fact there has been one serious accident there within the past few weeks —a vehicle to vehicle collision with air bags deployed and disabling damage to both vehicles. It is fortunate that, this time, bicycles were not involved since Bryant Street, as you know, is often crowded with bicyclists. Perhaps if you came by and looked for yourself you would see what I mean. I had not remembered that you had made this suggestion. I know your deliberations are a structured process that takes some time but, if you could assure us that traffic will not be redirected through this driveway, we would be deeply relieved. Best regards, Loy Loy D. Martin 349 North California Avenue Palo Alto, CA. 94301 Phone: (650) 325-3416 Ioymartin u(�icloud.com www.loymartinfurniture.com Owen, Graham From: Angie Evans <angiebevans@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 2:31 PM To: FBC Application Subject: Supporting Use Permit for First Baptist Church Hi, I wasn't able to attend last night's community input session but I was hoping to still share my opinion on this. I live 1 mile from the church and drive and ride my bike past it frequently. I also work in the non-profit sector and organize community events on a regular basis. I understand there is neighborhood frustration about the increasing traffic and noise from community events taking place there. Although I empathize with neighbor complaints, I worry about this space being lost because of a few frustrated people. The groups that rent space there are incredible assets to our community and we need to see them as that. Palo Alto isn't known just as a wealthy suburb with Stanford. People want to live here because of groups and activities like those at the church and if we continue to lose them we should be most concerned about how the community will change. Cities are only communities because of people and character in them. Let's not lose that! Please let me know what the next step is and if I'm contacting the correct person about this. Best, Angie Evans Palo Alto Resident 1 Owen, Graham From: brian.t.lewis@gmail.com on behalf of Brian Lewis <btlewis@btlewis.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 6:04 PM To: FBC Application Subject: Comments on the First Baptist Church, 305 N California Ave, CUP application I live at 275 N California Ave just one house away and about 200 feet from the First Baptist Church. While I'm not against any of the activities or groups at the church, I am very concerned about the increased traffic and parking congestion that a community center will bring. Even with the events that take place there currently, parking is often difficult on California Ave. We no longer park in front of our house. Driving down California Ave past the church to get home is a problem when an event takes place at the church: the cars dropping off or picking up people, turning around, and double-parking congest the street. It is especially hazardous for bicyclists riding down California Avenue. California is a popular bike path because it connects between Jordan Middle School, Middlefield, the bike/pedestrian underpass at the California Caltrans station, and Palo Alto High School. This bike -car traffic problem will only get worse when the roundabout and road narrowing is done at California Ave and Bryant Street. A community center at the church will make an already unsafe situation truly hazardous. The church has almost no parking. It only has six parking places, one of which is reserved for handicapped drivers. Having a community center in the middle of our residential R-1 neighborhood with its limited (and soon to be more limited) parking just won't work. I like the idea of another community center, and I admire what groups like iSing do, but a community center needs to be somewhere else with reasonable parking. Brian Lewis 275 N California Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 408-421-3101 1 Owen, Graham From: joellen werne <joellenwerne@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 9:43 PM To: FBC Application Cc: Rick Mixon Subject: In support of FBC application as a Community Center. Dear Graham, have already sent you an e-mail regarding how much I enjoy being a tenant at First Baptist Church and my sense that its potential designation as a Community Center would be a good fit for its expressed values and practices, and a real asset to the community. In addition, I would like to remind you that the City previously approved our tenancy. We checked with the City and met all the requirements asked of us before occupying the suite. My husband John Smolowe, M.D. and I applied to the City six years ago to subdivide a large FBC office into 2 psychotherapy offices with waiting rooms. We received a permit. On our plan, titled " Offices at First Baptist Church" the architect, Judith Wasserman, clearly stated under project information, "occupancy group B (office) and zone R1" Relying on this permit, we spent a substantial sum for the remodel. We also spent some $1900 on handicap improvements elsewhere in the building as required - and inspected - by the City as a condition of the permit. Since we were approved by the City, I feel we have some ethical, if not legal, right to stay in the office. have recently heard that the building "is not zoned for medical uses," which would include psychotherapy because the city makes no distinction between medical and psychotherapy use. I offer that, during the permit process, I saw the City of Palo Alto distinguish between medical and therapist offices. The City mandated as a condition of our permit that we could not renovate to use the 2 offices for medical services (e.g. sinks, examining tables), only for psychotherapy. It would thus seem that Planning and Building already have, at minimum, an informal protocol for allowing psychotherapy uses but not medical uses. Could this informal practice be continued of the proposed Community Center? Alternatively, could this informal practice be formalized into written code? would like, as well, to address the very real concern about traffic and parking issues as it pertains to my practice. I see mostly individuals; so, usually, only one car per patient visit is required. A number of my patients, moreover, walk to the session or ride their bikes. And a couple of folks come via commuter train. Therefore, I believe that my "footprint" is very small. Again, thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Joellen Joellen Werne, M.D., Psychiatry Please note: I am changing my email address to joellenwerne a(�.gmail.com. Thanks. 1 t Owen, Graham From: joellen werne <joellenwerne@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 6:01 PM To: FBC Application Cc: Rick Mixon Subject: Conditional Use Permit Application for FBC Dear Graham I am a psychiatrist, Yale and Stanford trained. I would like to speak to my experience as a tenant at First Baptist Church and to my support of the Church's application for a conditional use permit and designation as a community center. I have been in private practice in this area for 42 years, as well as a member of the (voluntary) clinical faculty at Stanford's Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences as an Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor, now emerita, but still teaching psychiatry residents. Unlike many of my psychiatrist colleagues in this area, the majority of my practice is insurance patients - that is, the only fee they pay me is a copay - insurance covers the rest of my contracted rate. This enables me to work with a much broader range of clientele within the community, most of whom cannot afford the several hundred dollars a session most cash -only psychiatrists charge. In the fall of 2011 I answered an ad from the first Baptist Church for a space that had been vacated by the non-profit grief counseling organization Kara, applied for a permit from the city to reconfigure the space, and have been working there since February 2012. I'd had an office in Palo Alto for 28 years, and one in Menlo Park for 8 - both of them very pleasant ones within small office buildings. But First Baptist was another experience entirely, I soon discovered. My patients have a a comfortable private waiting area where they may, if they wish, spend time either before of after a session, but here, also, a courtyard with a labyrinth meant for traversing, and a couple of tables and benches inviting one to sit awhile; and a Sanctuary whose doors are almost always open to the public, Inside the rectory whee my office is located, the 1st floor bulletin boards contain not only flyers and notices of church related activities but also of outreach projects geared to serve the wider community, At one end of the first floor hallway is a table with baskets and a place for clothing donations to the needy, and, at times, all manner of packaged and canned goods to be collected for the occasional food drives. The sign above the Sanctuary welcomes refugees and immigrants. Inside, gay, lesbian and transgender folk are invited to feel at home. In this time of extreme political, racial and religious divide, the Church's message is loud and clear: ALL are welcome. This spirit of community and commonality has added, I have realized, something unique and even healing to my patients' therapy experience. To many of those with whom I work - who struggle with depression, anxiety, alienation - this environment feels like a safe haven, and some take advantage of its welcoming openness to meditate in the Sanctuary or sit quietly in the courtyard. Even the sound of children singing at choir practice, which we can sometimes hear though the windows of my second floor office, contributes to a sense of well-being: It is a reminder, they say, 1 that in spite of their struggles and pain, life offers the possibility of growth, joy and connection to one another. For me, this office space is a perfect fit, and is, in addition, a way to serve the community in which I work. I hope that a conditional use permit will both help the Church meet its financial needs to sustain itself, and give our neighbors the opportunity to nourish both body and spirit through the activities available with its designation as a community center. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Joellen Joellen Werne, M.D. Please note: I am changing my email address to joellenwerne@gmail.com. Thanks. 2 Owen, Graham From: john s smolowe <johnsmolowe@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 1:31 PM To: FBC Application Cc: rick mixon; joellen werne Subject: FBC Hi Graham - I am writing in support of the FBC application for a conditional use permit, and in support of music education and psychotherapy as allowed uses. Yes, there is little onsite parking, but I understand the Church is quite willing to monitor the situation and advise both tenants and visitors in order to minimize traffic impact. Churches traditionally operate in residential neighborhoods, not just in business neighborhoods. The traffic from church use and community center use will still be well under the use of a typical Catholic church with multiple services every day. Regarding particular uses, I believe the Pastor should be given responsibility for choosing tenants and activities consistent with the Church mission. I note music education and psychotherapy as 2 uses challenged by the inspector. Music is a traditional church activity. Music education in Protestant churches dates back to Martin Luther, who wrote that the teaching of singing, and of the instruments required to support singing, was crucial to the Church mission. Counseling is also traditional in churches. The pastor can choose if he wishes to do the counseling himself or delegate it to tenant professionals. I understand that psychotherapy and medicine are not explicitly named as uses for community centers. Still, both medical and mental health services are already offered at the community centers. I note that the conditional use permit of 1992 for St. Marks Episcopal Church specifically allowed "community counseling and support services." I call your attention to the description of Cubberley Community Center on the City of Palo Alto website: "The Cubberley Community Center is also home to organizations that provide many services to the community in areas of: Education, Health, Child Care, Arts, Dance, and Music instruction." A quick google search of "Cubberley tenants" leads me to https:/.. www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/09/27/avenidas-heads-list-of-new-cubberley-tenants which describes "Cardiac Therapy" at Cubberley. I also find on google a link to "Heart Fit for Life" (perhaps the same program) at Cubberley http: //heartfitforlife.org/ which provides "cardiac rehabilitation," at which "specially trained cardiac nurses supervise..and take blood pressure." Rehabilitation medicine would certainly seem to be a medical use of the community center. A search of Alcoholics Anonymous, reveals several meetings a week at Lucie Stern and Mitchell Park Community Centers. https://aasanjose.org/meetin gsi Palo -alto -group A church community center might reasonably have a slightly different emphasis than a secular community center. Indeed, the services offered might well be expected to include counseling and mental health as these are traditionally and commonly offered by churches and synagogues. I note, for example, in the link just above, that weekly A.A. meetings are currently held at 8 different Palo Alto churches. If Pastor Mixon wishes to continue offering mental health services, I believe he is the person best suited to choose which formats of service - individual, group, class - would best serve the community, the space, the mission of the Church, and the parking limitations. 1 Also, the individual and couples counseling that have been offered at FBC bring one car at a time and thus burden parking less than the groups and classes allowed elsewhere, which bring multiple cars at once. Thanks, John John S. Smolowe, M.D. 2 Owen, Graham From: Carol Holsinger <pcusa@holsingerharps.com> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2018 4:01 PM To: FBC Application Subject: First Baptist Church Dear City of Palo Alto, As a member of Covenant Presbyterian Church in Palo Alto, I write to share my opinion about the city's actions towards First Baptist Church of Palo Alto. I do not understand why there are new requirements for an institution that has been in its current location, doing the same work it has always done, for the last 70 years. Every church seeks to serve the community in which it is located and First Baptist Church is no exception. Please remove these additional requirements that you have placed upon First Baptist Church so that it can get on with the business of being the church and serving the community rather than having to spend limited energy on complying with unnecessary regulatory activities. Sincerely, Carol Holsinger 1 Owen, Graham From: Charles Clark <ccclark38@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 8:59 AM To: FBC Application Cc: Admin Account Subject: FBCPA conditional use permit Attention: Graham Owen, Planner Dear Sir, My name is Charles C. Clark Jr.. I am an active, regular attending member of the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto writing in response to a letter from Mr. Jonathan Lait, dated last December 18, titled: "Neighbors and Tenants of the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto" soliciting comments regarding a conditional use permit for the church property. I am not to be confused with my father, Charles C. Clark Sr., who also wrote a similar response letter, dated February 7. I support the Community Center concept. By offering below -market rental space to community oriented non -profits, I believe FBCPA has added value to the surrounding neighborhood and Palo Alto as a whole in the past and will continue to do so in the future under the new Community Center concept. Many of these non-profit organizations would not be able to afford to locate and serve in Palo Alto otherwise. I understand the parking and traffic concerns affecting the immediate neighbors and hope these issues can be negotiated. Ultimately, I also believe an active and vibrant community center makes any extra traffic worthwhile to the neighborhood as a whole. I'd also like to express my concern whether an official designation as a community center would impact our status as a religious organization. Both in terms of tax status and identity. I now live in Redwood City, but grew up in Palo Alto as a member. My church identity is important to me. Thank you for this opportunity to submit my comments regarding the FBCPA Community Center conditional use permit. Charles C. Clark Jr. 75 Perry St., Apt. #116 Redwood City, Calif., 94063 Member: FBCPA 1 T, PALO ALTO Owen, Graham From: Owen, Graham Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 4:48 PM To: Gaines, Chantal; David Brunicardi Cc: Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan Subject: RE: First Baptist Church C.U.P. Hi David, I'm sorry to hear about the noise, we are looking at this issue as well. Just FYI we are going to be holding a community meeting on the First Baptist Church CUP on March 7th at 6:30pm at Jordan Middle School. As an adjacent resident I think it would be particularly valuable if you were able to attend to discuss the issues related to the church and the application currently on file. We will be sending notifications early next week in the mail, but I wanted to give you a heads up early. Thanks, Graham Graham Owen I Associate Planner 1 P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue 1 Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650 329.2552 I E: graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email — Thank you! From: Gaines, Chantal Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 4:31 PM To: David Brunicardi Cc: Owen, Graham Subject: RE: First Baptist Church C.U.P. Hi Mr. Brunicardi, Thank you for your message. The City Manager asked me to follow up with you to let you know that the planner processing the First Baptist Church conditional use permit (CUP) application, Graham Owen (copied here), has been forwarded your email. They are looking at the parking and circulation issues related to the various uses at the church and the adjacent right-of-way improvements at N California Ave and Bryant Street. As a component of the CUP process, they will need to analyze the existing and requested community center uses and see what size, frequency, and intensity of events could be acceptable and meet the CUP findings for approval that you referenced below. No decision has been made yet, and staff is hoping to gather neighbor feedback on the proposal before moving forward to a decision point. Staff is also hoping to hold a community meeting in the next few weeks to gather additional feedback, and if you would like to be added to any future invite list, Graham can certainly add your name. Also, I wanted to let you know that staff has set up a website for the application, which includes the materials submitted by the church and the latest updates: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/first baptist church.asp Please follow up with Graham if you have any questions. 1 Best, Chantal C. G. Chantal C. Gaines I Assistant to the City Manager 250 Hamilton Avenue 1 Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2572 1 E: Chantal.Gaines@citvofpaloalto.org From: David Brunicardi [mailto:david.brunicardi@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 4:45 PM To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Keene, James<James.Keene@CitvofPaloAlto.org> Subject: First Baptist Church C.U.P. Dear Councilmen and Councilwomen, As I write this email I am finding it difficult to concentrate because of the grating cacophony of a very loud English horn rehearsal underway a mere 12' from my property. There is no one from the church available to ask the person to close the window or move to another part of the facility. This is exactly where the function of usage and space at the First Baptist Church breaks down. This is what has the neighbors furious. 1 do want the church to succeed and hope that it finds appropriate tenants, but the neighbors must also be thought of as well when the Council reviews the application for a Conditional Use Permit. This is an R-1 entity in an R-1 neighborhood. The church has minuscule setbacks from it's neighbors and it is not a modern facility with soundproofing and sequestered rooms where loud occurrences go unnoticed. In the application the FBC is asking for hours where activities will be able to operate until 11:00 at night. My family and I will be under extreme duress if this is allowed to happen in the many small classroom adjacent to my property. I have video recordings of the latest sound violation and nearly one hundred others. Should any or all of you like to meet to review them please let me know. All best, David Brunicardi 2 Owen, Graham From: Steve Ketchpel <steve.ketchpel@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 9:06 PM To: FBC Application Subject: In support of Community Center at 305 N. California Ave. Dear Mr. Lait, I hope that Palo Alto will approve the application by Pastor Rick Mixon and First Baptist Church to be recognized as a community center. My belief is that, at its heart, a church *is* a community center. The definition that you provide ("a building used for and providing religious, fraternal, social and/or recreational programs generally open to the public and designed to accommodate and serve significant segments of the community.") fits what a church aims to be, and what, I think, First Baptist Church achieves. On its face, the (more than) weekly religious services are open to the public, and need to be open to the public. The provision of additional services to the community show the vibrancy of a church community; preventing the use of their space for these purposes would negatively impact both the church congregation and the community. This evening, I was attending a meeting including faith and religious leaders at the church, with the explicit purpose of making our community stronger and safer. While i was there, the sanctuary was open for prayers and meditation, and a girls' chorus was using other rooms for rehearsal. It was a space that was alive with connection and possibility. As our society faces fewer venues for interacting face-to-face with others, we should encourage and treasure those that do. - Steven Ketchpel Member of First Congregational Church of Palo Alto Resident of Belmont, CA 1 PALO ALTO Owen, Graham From: Gaines, Chantal Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 2:34 PM To: John McGilvray; Ron Wilensky Cc: Owen, Graham; Gitelman, Hillary Subject: RE: CUP for the First Baptist Church at 305 N. California Hello Mr. McGilvray, Thank you for your message. The City Manager asked me to follow up with you to let you know that the planner processing the First Baptist Church conditional use permit (CUP) application, Graham Owen (copied here), has been forwarded your email. They are looking at the parking and circulation issues related to the various uses at the church and the adjacent right-of-way improvements at N California Ave and Bryant Street. As a component of the CUP process, they will need to analyze the existing and requested community center uses and see what size, frequency, and intensity of events could be acceptable and meet the CUP findings for approval that you referenced below. No decision has been made yet, and staff is hoping to gather neighbor feedback on the proposal before moving forward to a decision point. Staff is also hoping to hold a community meeting in the next few weeks to gather additional feedback, and if you would like to be added to any future invite list, Graham can certainly add your name. Also, I wanted to let you know that staff has set up a website for the application, which includes the materials submitted by the church and the latest updates: https://www.citvofpaloalto.org/gov/topic/first baptist church.asp Please follow up with Graham if you have any questions. Best, Chantal C. G. Chantal C. Gaines I Assistant to the City Manager 250 Hamilton Avenue I Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2572 1 E: Chantal.Gaines@cityofpaloalto.org From: John McGilvray [mailto:jdmcg@pacbell.net1 Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 1:18 PM To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ron Wilensky <ronwilensky@yahoo.com> Subject: CUP for the First Baptist Church at 305 N. California Dear City Council -- My wife and I have lived on South Court for 47 years, and until the last few years, there have been no problems with traffic or parking for traditional First Baptist Church activities. However, as the church started renting space to paying tenants, traffic and parking have become major safety, property access and street usage issues. Residents have difficulty parking on the street, drivers waiting for people using the church's tenant's 1 services block driveways and street corners, and bicycle and general traffic flow on California Avenue becomes unnecessarily difficult and dangerous. The church's proposal to receive a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to continue its currently unauthorized operations, and be designated as a "community center" with longer hours and more noise and traffic, makes an existing problem much worse. With only eight on - site parking spaces, almost all people using the church for purposes other than religious worship will use the street for parking. Students going to and from Jordan will be endangered by drivers double parked, opening doors without checking for traffic, and blocking sight lines at crosswalks and intersections. When you add the planned traffic circle at Bryant and California, matters become even worse. Other churches may have "community center" status in R-1 districts, but all have significantly more off-street parking. Although we sympathize with the church's desire to generate revenue with its unused space, expanding the permitted functions beyond religious services and activities via a CUP allowing its designation as a "community center," will have a dramatic negative impact on the quality of life in our quiet residential district. There is no criticism intended for the Baptist Church's desire to continue or expand its use of facilities for non -religious functions. The proposed musical and professional services are a desirable and worthwhile contribution to the benefit of the Palo Alto community. But that is a totally separate issue from the impact such functions have on the church's neighbors and the safety issues it raises for traffic on California Avenue. Please do not risk the safety and quality of life for the local residents by approving a CUP for non -religious activities at the Baptist Church. John McGilvray 2300 South Court Palo Alto, CA 94301 Owen, Graham From: Bill Whitmer <bill.whitmer@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 5:48 PM To: Owen, Graham Subject: Re: RE: First Baptist Church Permit Application Graham, Thanks for your note. Please add me to your future invite list Thanks Bill On Thursday, February 15, 2018, 5:20:29 PM PST, Owen, Graham <Graham.Owen a,CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Hi Bill, Thank you for your message regarding the First Baptist Church CUP application. No decision has been made yet, and we are hoping to gather neighbor feedback on the proposal before moving forward to a decision point. We are also hoping to hold a community meeting in the next few weeks to gather additional feedback, and if you would like to be added to any future invite list I'd be happy to do so. Also, I wanted to let you know that we have set up a website for the application, which includes the materials submitted by the church and the latest updates: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/first baptist church.asp Let me know if you have any questions. Best, Graham From: Bill Whitmer [mailto bill.whitmer@..;vahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 12:30 PM To: Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James Subject: First Baptist Church Permit Application Dear Council Members. 1 We urge you to approve the application of First Baptist Church for a conditional use permit to operate as a community center. The church has provided space for many organizations which improve service to the broad Palo Alto community and should be encouraged to continue to do so. We've lived about a block from the church for forty years and have felt that they have consistently operated in an appropriate and considerate fashion. While occasional minor traffic issues occur, they have never, in our opinion, been an inconvenience worth attention. Noise has never been an issue. We believe the conclusions presented by SaveResidentialNeighborhoods a(gmail.com misrepresent the situation. We find the apparent rise of NIMBYism in our community a serious potential threat to the character of the community we joined many years ago. Please do what you can to preserve the character of our wonderful community by supporting community service organizations who are so important to our vitality. Respectfully, Jan and Bill Whitmer 2 Owen, Graham From: Owen, Graham Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 5:29 PM To: Debbie Nichols Subject: RE: CUP Request by the Baptist Church in Old Palo Alto Hello Ms. Nichols, Thank you for your message regarding the First Baptist Church CUP application. We are definitely looking at the parking and circulation issues related to the various uses at the church and the adjacent right-of-way improvements at N California Ave and Bryant Street. As a component of the CUP process, we will need to analyze the existing and requested community center uses and see what size, frequency, and intensity of events could be acceptable should it move forward. No decision has been made yet, and we are hoping to gather neighbor feedback on the proposal before moving forward to a decision point. We are also hoping to hold a community meeting in the next few weeks to gather additional feedback, and if you would like to be added to any future invite list I'd be happy to do so. Also, I wanted to let you know that we have set up a website for the application, which includes the materials submitted by the church and the latest updates: https://www.citvofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/first baptist church.asp Let me know if you have any questions. Best, Graham Graham Owen 1 Associate Planner 1 P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue 1 Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2552 1 E: graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email — Thank you! Original Message From: Debbie Nichols[mailto:debbiegailnichols@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 10:00 PM To: Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James; Lait, Jonathan; Owen, Graham Subject: CUP Request by the Baptist Church in Old Palo Alto Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council, The Baptist Church in Old Palo Alto has submitted a CUP request to become a community center. I am opposed to the idea. The church, located at the corner of North California and Bryant, is on a bike boulevard heavily used by Jordan Middle School students. It is such a busy and dangerous corner that the Transportation Department is scheduled to build a roundabout at that intersection in a few months. Allowing the church to become a community center on a bike boulevard will exacerbate the dangerous road conditions for cyclists, pedestrians and cars on that busy corner. The 1 church has only 8 parking spaces on their property. A community center should have a spacious parking lot. As a result, community center visitors will park in the bike boulevard lanes, forcing cyclists to ride in the middle of the street. Cars will be pulling in and out of the bike lanes creating dangerous biking conditions, especially for all the young middle school children bicycling home from school each day. The church is essentially operating as a commercial building in a residential R-1 neighborhood. It has multiple "for profit" companies and organizations illegally housed at the church. There is no professional security officer or church official stationed at the church at night to monitor the multitude of evening activities. They are inconsiderate neighbors who heretofore have taken advantage of the goodwill of the residents and have defied city zoning regulations. And all the while, enjoying a very low property tax rate of approximately $7500 per year. I urged the City Council to deny the CUP request. Thank you. Debbie Nichols A resident of Old Palo Alto February 14, 2018 2 Owen, Graham From: Owen, Graham Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 5:20 PM To: Bill Whitmer Subject: RE: First Baptist Church Permit Application Hi Bill, Thank you for your message regarding the First Baptist Church CUP application. No decision has been made yet, and we are hoping to gather neighbor feedback on the proposal before moving forward to a decision point. We are also hoping to hold a community meeting in the next few weeks to gather additional feedback, and if you would like to be added to any future invite list I'd be happy to do so. Also, I wanted to let you know that we have set up a website for the application, which includes the materials submitted by the church and the latest updates: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/govltopicslfirst baptist church. asp Let me know if you have any questions. Best, Graham From: Bill Whitmer[mailto:bill.whitmer(avahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 12:30 PM To: Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James Subject: First Baptist Church Permit Application Dear Council Members, We urge you to approve the application of First Baptist Church for a conditional use permit to operate as a community center. The church has provided space for many organizations which improve service to the broad Palo Alto community and should be encouraged to continue to do so. We've lived about a block from the church for forty years and have felt that they have consistently operated in an appropriate and considerate fashion. While occasional minor traffic issues occur, they have never, in our opinion, been an inconvenience worth attention. Noise has never been an issue. We believe the conclusions presented by SaveResidentialNeighborhoodsRgmail.com misrepresent the situation. We find the apparent rise of NIMBYism in our community a serious potential threat to the character of the community we joined many years ago. Please do what you can to preserve the character of our wonderful community by supporting community service organizations who are so important to our vitality. Respectfully, Jan and Bill Whitmer 1 Owen, Graham From: Tara D. Stein <tara@manzanitamgnt.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 3:47 PM To: FBC Application Subject: FW: Comment re CUP for First Baptist Church at 305 N. California Ave. From: Tara D. Stein Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 3:39 PM To: 'fbapplication@cityofpaloalto.org' <fbapplication@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Comment re CUP for First Baptist Church at 305 N. California Ave. I do hope you approve the conditional use permit, so the Church can continue to serve the community as a center for providing "religious, fraternal, social and/or recreational programs." I reside during the week at a house across the street from the Church. Never have I, personally, had a problem finding parking on the street, nor have I been disturbed by the presence of the children and adults attending lessons or by parents dropping off or picking up their children. (I have lived near elementary schools in the past and always enjoyed hearing and seeing the young people.) I really don't quite understand why a few of our neighbors are complaining so much. I like the neighbors and suspect that in their hearts they wish they lived in a small, quiet village somewhere. Palo Alto, however, as the City well knows, is no longer a quiet little village, but in fact a busy (and getting busier) bona fide metropolis, where one can't expect to enjoy quiet during the day —and no traffic. (I admit, though, that I do sometimes complain about the noise level at night from the trains, planes, autos, sirens, occasional noise from the local stadiums and various electronic sounds, etc. , but that is all part of living in a City, isn't it?) Anyway, I believe there is a great need for this community center and having such a center serves the community at large. Whereas, preventing the Church to operate as a community center would, it seems, only benefit a few neighbors. Tara Stein 1 Owen, Graham From: Sarah <sburgrval@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 10:11 PM To: Ronald Wilensky Cc: Owen, Graham; Ioymartin@icloud.com; Lait, Jonathan Subject: Re: First Baptist Church - Neighborhood Meeting...parking question Ron, I think you are pointing out that the Church has applied for use that requires about 20 spaces more than they could be grandfathered. But I have an additional question. At the time they were grandfathered in this use, NITC was still a part of the church, with its attendant 3 additional spaces. And there was no requirement that a space be reserved for disabled parking. So wouldn't the number the are short be at least 4 more, for a total of 23? Also, when the church was built, did it have a larger parking lot? I am remembering that the Annex was not a part of the 1940s church, but I could be mistaken... Sarah On Feb 13, 2018, at 3:28 PM, Ronald Wilensky <ronwilensky@yahoo.com> wrote: Hi Graham, To follow up on your helpful information, according to the church's January 18th letter the maximum capacities are 300 persons for the sanctuary and 260 persons for assembly in the fellowship hall. The total capacity is 560 persons not counting anyone in the office spaces located between the sanctuary and fellowship hall. PAMC 18.52.040, Table 1, says that for a religious institution the 1 space - for -4 -seats requirement is based on maximum use of all facilities with a reduction permitted by the Planning Dept. For "community" centers, the reduction as specified in a CUP cannot be more than 30%, which means there must be at least 0.7 x 140 = 98 spaces. Am I interpreting these requirements correctly? Best regards, Ron From: "Owen, Graham" <Graham.Owen(a�CityofPaloAlto.orq> To: Sarah <sburgrval(c�aol.com> Cc: "ronwilensky(ayahoo.com" <ronwilensky@yahoo.com>; "Ioymartin(a�icloud.com" <Ioymartin@icloud.com>; "Lait, Jonathan" <Jonathan.Lait(a,CityofPaloAlto.orq> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 1:56 PM Subject: RE: First Baptist Church - Neighborhood Meeting Hi Sarah, 1 Sounds good. The applicable code provisions are 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) and 18.70 (Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Facilities). In this instance, a community center use has the same parking requirement as the church (1 space for each four person capacity), so the question becomes what size, frequency, and types of events do and do not increase the degree of noncompliance. This is similar to situations where you have a retail building with a 1:200 sf parking ratio that converts to a personal service use, which has the same requirement. If the site is legally nonconforming for the parking to begin with, the change in use would not require the provision of additional parking. Best, Graham From: Sarah [mailto:sburgrval :aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 1:26 PM To: Owen, Graham Cc: ronwilenskyRyahoo.com; loymartin@icloud.com; Lait, Jonathan Subject: Re: First Baptist Church - Neighborhood Meeting Thank you, and we will get back with a date, hopefully later today. Thank you for explaining the parking. I understand that the church use is considered legally nonconforming for parking, but the link I am not making is how that carries over to a different use. Is there a code section on that? The analysis provided with Mozart led me to believe that an application for a different use requires parking compliance for that use, as it would for other code requirements... Sarah On Feb 13, 2018, at 1:03 PM, Owen, Graham <Graham.Owen@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Hi Sarah, Understood, is there a date that would work for the three of you the week of Feb 26 or March 5? A lot of folks will be gone for the long weekend on the 2"d and 5d' for President's Day weekend, but beyond that let me know what could work. Regarding the parking, the zoning code currently requires 1 space for every four seats or four person capacity (building code occupancy), based on maximum use of all facilities at the same time. Our understanding based on archived plans is that there are 30 pews in the sanctuary, each 14 feet in length. Per the building code, this type of pew seating yields one occupant for each 18 inches of seating length. This results in 280 occupants for the sanctuary pews. The choir area has 34 individual seats, so add 34 additional occupants, and the total of 314 occupants, or 79 required spaces. The church was built prior to the adoption of on -site parking requirements in the zoning code, so it is considered legally nonconforming for parking. Best, Graham From: Sarah [mailto:sburgrval@a,aol.com] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 7:23 PM To: Owen, Graham Cc: ronwilenskyna,yahoo.com; loymartin@icloud.com; Lait, Jonathan Subject: Re: First Baptist Church - Neighborhood Meeting 2 Graham, thank you so much for this. Regarding the meeting, unfortunately, neither Ron or I are available that date, nor is The date good for Loy. We could certainly hold the meeting with the other neighbors, but in terms of organization and keeping on track, it might be better to have us there. Are other dates available, or could we possibly have a few choices? Secondly, is it possible for you to explain the basis for the "grandfathered in" parking spaces? The previous application for CUP by Mozart did not have any of these as their basis so we are trying to understand where they come from, Again, thank you. Sarah On Feb 12, 2018, at 9:45 AM, Owen, Graham <Graham.Owen(CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Hi Sarah, Please see my responses below in red. Best, Graham From: sburgrval aol.com [mailto:sburgrvalktiaol.com] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 5:54 PM To: Owen, Graham; ronwilensky@yahoo.com; loymartin@icloud.com Cc: Lait, Jonathan Subject: Re: First Baptist Church - Neighborhood Meeting Thank you, Graham. I was just in the process of preparing an email to you. May I ask a few questions that would pertain to the date of the meeting with the neighbors? 1. The timeline: You had mentioned that you had to give a response to Pastor Mixon by 2/18, based upon the date of his supplemental information. Is that still the end date we need to operate under? I would note, the church still has not posted the signage required for the CUP - Am I right in assuming that must be out for a certain period of time before the city responds? We're hoping for everyone's sake to move this application forward, so we'd like to have the community meeting this month. We've been in contact with Jordan Middle School and are targeting a meeting at the school on the 27`h, stay tuned for more details. We will formally respond to the resubmitted application materials by 2/18. Thanks for letting me know about the sign again, I've followed up with Pastor Mixon to get the sign up on the property. The sign isn't a code requirement, but is standard practice for these types of applications. 2. You had indicated you would have some additional information to give us about the standard which will be applied for parking, ie, you were looking into whether there would be some leeway "grandfathered" in. Do you have that information? It would be helpful to the neighbors to have that prior to meeting so that we can evaluate it based upon the impact to the neighborhood; We are 3 still looking into this parking question and the grandfathering situation, but our current understanding is that the church use is grandfathered for 71 spaces (79 required for the church, minus the 8 provided on -site). The minimum parking requirement for a community center use and a church use are the same (1 space for each 4 person capacity), so without additional spaces available on the site this 71 space nonconformity is the baseline. 3. You were going to look into whether a Transportation Management Plan would be necessary/helpful for this application. Do you have a response to that yet? A few additional questions which have been raised by the neighbors were whether the change of use would require conforming with any present building codes and whether there would be insurance requirements by the city that would accompany any "community center" designation; Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans are typically required for large office projects in order to shift auto trips to public transit, so I'm not sure how helpful one would be in this instance. Regardless, we are looking into the parking and circulation issues, which are highly germane to the application. From a building code standpoint, if the community center use is approved with this CUP it would trigger the need to obtain a use and occupancy (U&O) permit from the Building Division. This permit would likely require inspections to determine what, if any, code issues need to be rectified. Could you elaborate on your insurance question, Planning doesn't typically regulate insurance. 4. Will you have any additional information about the listed tenants and the requested hours of use? As I had indicated, it is hard for the neighbors to evaluate any potential compromise when the information has not met the requirements; Right now all we have is the supplemental information that we sent out. If we don't receive anything else we will need to move forward with the information we have on file. Having said that, we have seen the Weekly article regarding the current uses, so we'll be asking for an updated list. 5. Another procedural issue raised by one of the residents: The church is a corporation, with a board of directors and an agent for service of process. Does Mr. Mixon have the authority to sign this SUP request? We require applicants/property owners to certify that they are authorized to act on behalf of their respective entities. And finally, in answer to your question, we earnestly want a neighborhood meeting with you, however in evaluating the number of people, we are worried none of our homes have the capacity. Can we meeting in the evening at city hall? We are targeting a meeting at Jordan Middle School on February 27`n. We will send out notifications shortly, so stay tuned for more information. As soon as we have the timeline, we will be able to come up with a date to run by you. Answers to the additional questions I have listed, however will make the meeting more efficacious. Thank you, Sarah Burgess Original Message From: Owen, Graham <Graham.Owen@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: Sarah Burgess <sburgrval@a,aol.com>; Ronald Wilensky <ronwilensky(Zii,yahoo.com>; Loy Martin <loymartin@icloud.corn> Cc: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@a,CityofPaloAlto.org> 4 Sent: Thu, Feb 1, 2018 4:39 pm Subject: First Baptist Church - Neighborhood Meeting Hi Sarah, Ron, and Loy, Thanks again for meeting with Jon and me last week. As a follow up to our discussion, we think it would highly beneficial to meet with the larger neighborhood to hear their concerns and discuss the City's process for this CUP application. Would one of you be willing to organize and host a neighborhood meeting in the next few weeks? If so we would be happy to attend. Separately we will also be reaching out to Pastor Mixon to see if his tenants and congregants would like to host their own discussion. Best, Graham <image001.png> Graham Owen Associate Planner 1 P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue l Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.25521 E: graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email — Thank you! 5 Crni PALO ALTO Owen, Graham From: Owen, Graham Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 11:41 AM To: david.recht@gmail.com Cc: Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan Subject: RE: Comment on Fwd: Comment on 17PLN-00015 Hello Mr. Recht, Thank you for your message. I wanted to reach out and let you know that I am the planner who is processing the First Baptist Church conditional use permit application. We are definitely looking at the parking and circulation issues related to the various uses at the church and the adjacent right-of-way improvements at N California Ave and Bryant Street. As a component of the CUP process, we will need to analyze the existing and requested community center uses and see what size, frequency, and intensity of events could be acceptable and meet the CUP findings for approval that you referenced below. No decision has been made yet, and we are hoping to gather neighbor feedback on the proposal before moving forward to a decision point. We are also hoping to hold a community meeting in the next few weeks to gather additional feedback, and if you would like to be added to any future invite list I'd be happy to do so. Also, I wanted to let you know that we have set up a website for the application, which includes the materials submitted by the church and the latest updates: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/first_baptist_church.asp Let me know if you have any questions. Best, Graham Graham Owen 1 Associate Planner 1 P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue 1 Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2552 1 E: graham.owen@ citvofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email — Thank you! From: David Recht [mailto:david.recht@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 9:42 AM To: Council, City Cc: Sarah Burgess; Laura Seitel; Bonnie Flanagan Subject: Comment on Fwd: Comment on 17PLN-00015 Dear Council: I am forwarding an email I had previously sent to Claire Hodgkins of the Palo Alto Planning Commission relative to the activity at the First Baptist Church on North California Avenue. I believe the points made in my email are still as valid today as they were then (please see my email below). 1 Additionally, I can only stress that the large flow of people, drop-offs, pick-ups, etc. continue on and, thus, continue to present a dangerous situation for children, and others, in this residential neighborhood. The church has almost no parking (I have not counted them myself but understand there are only 8-12 parking spaces to service the location. This necessarily means that all additional traffic from church bound uses (church or for- profit businesses at the church) is forced onto public residential streets that were not designed for this activity. The church itself was not designed for everyday use by dozens (hundreds?) of cars. Making matters more dangerous is the recent "upgrade" of North California road striping for cars (no striping) and bicycles (one bike lane on each side of the street) and the fact that Bryant Street is the city's main bicycle thorough fare (with plans to emphasize biking even more in the future?). Because of these two factors and the fact that we have Bryant bicyclists merging with a large flow of Jordan Middle School bicyclists (think of typical 6th, 7th and 8th graders who do not pay enough attention to their bicycle riding and typically ignore bicycle rules), this intersection is a dangerous place. The fact is I see a church that was never intended to be a community center (in the sense of weekday/everyday use) in an area that is extremely ill suited to handle large amounts of activity on an everyday basis. Surely there must be other locations much better suited to handling constant community activities than the location of the First Baptist Church (as an example, First Congregational on Louis has an ideal parking situation for handling large numbers of pickups and drop-offs). Please consider returning the First Baptist Church to its intended use by denying a larger community center role and also removing the for profit businesses that involve large amounts of everyday activities. This will help lower the risk of life threatening accidents to the many bicycle youth that have to use this area and would also preserve the residential character of our neighborhood instead of creating a commercial center. As a reminder the Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.76.10 (c) relative to conditional use permits states that a permit shall NOT be granted if it is: "1. Detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. 2. Not conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning)." Thank your for your consideration. David Recht david.recht@gmail.com 415-706-1521 Photo sites: davidrecht.net www.instagram.comidavid.recht/ https://500px.com/drecht https://www.flickr.com/photos/drecht/DavidRecht plus.google.com/+DavidRecht/photos http://drechtzenfolio.com 2 Begin forwarded message: From: David Recht <david.recht a,gmail.com> Subject: Comment on 17PLN-00015 Date: February 10, 2017 at 4:41:02 PM PST To: claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org Hi Claire: My wife and I live at 252 Washington, one house from Bryant street just north of California and very close to the Baptist Church. We have been a bit unaware of the full extent of the proposal for a Conditional Use Permit at the church for the Mozart School of Music. However, the notice we received from the city in the mail prompted us to want to comment. We have lived at our address for 29 years so we have experience with the church and have, over the many years, have been inconvenienced by church activities that fill the neighborhood with cars, etc. While it can be an imposition when either we or our guests are unable to park in front of or near our house, we have largely been accepting of this church activity as it was usually not a constant occurrence and, frankly, was often for a good cause. However, hearing that there is an actual business (and maybe not just the only business) operating at the church a year or so ago and seeing the flood of cars, students, mothers and fathers doing drop offs and pick ups, we would like to oppose granting this conditional use permit. The mailer specifies only the number of classrooms but does not specify the possible number of students that would be on site at the church. We can only guess at the total number but even at 10-20 students per classroom that would manifest in 100 to 200 students, if not more. That could easily translate into 200-400 drop offs and pickups or the parking of between 50 and 100 cars in the neighborhood. This would add greatly to the congestion at an already busy intersection - an intersection that is also along one of Palo Alto's designated bike boulevards. Parking issues are significant based on these projections (especially if other business are, in fact, operating at the church). But, maybe even more importantly, California Avenue is a major thorough fare for Jordan Middle School students on bike. To me the combination of an existing busy intersection, a major city bike boulevard and the student biking population presents a serious safety hazard to all involved - especially young middle school students who already demonstrate reckless biking traits. In addition to the above, I also wonder why a church would be allowed to host an actual for profit business in an area that clearly was not intended to be a commercial area. This raises questions about zoning as well as the tax exempt status of the church. Please do not allow this conditional use permit. We believe it goes against what we all cherish in Palo Alto which is peaceful and safe neighborhoods. Best regards, 3 David Recht david.recht gmail.com 415-706-1521 Photo sites: davidrecht.net plus.google.com/+DavidRecht/photos http://drecht.zenfolio.com https://www.flickr.com/photos/drecht/DavidRecht 4 Owen, Graham From: Kou, Lydia Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 8:29 AM To: Gitelman, Hillary Cc: Owen, Graham; Lait, Jonathan; Gaines, Chantal; Keene, James Subject: Re: First Baptist Church Jim, 1 sincerely hope the process will be transparent and a public hearing is conducted. Kind regards, Lydia Kou - Council Member Contact Info: https:/Lgoo.gl(BcgCQS From: Gitelman, Hillary Sent: Monday, February 5, 2018 3:08 PM To: tim.cain@att.net Cc: Owen, Graham; Lait, Jonathan; Gaines, Chantal; Keene, James Subject: First Baptist Church Mr. Cain, City Manager Jim Keene asked me to respond to your email from this weekend. As you have no doubt heard, the Planning Department is processing an application from the First Baptist Church to legitimize "community center" uses via a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. No decisions have been made, however these processes do usually result in some kind of approval with conditions (hence the term "conditional" use permit). Conditions typically address the intensity of use and neighborhood impacts. In this case, this means we will be considering the timing and number/size of events that should be allowed at the facility, as well as parking, traffic, noise, and other neighborhood issues. Graham Owen on our staff (copied here) is handling this matter for us and we welcome your input. Graham can also fill you in on the process and schedule, which will ultimately end up at the City Council for a decision, hopefully in June. All the best, Hillary From: Tim Cain [mailto:tim.cain@att.netj Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2018 11:05 AM To: Council, City <city.council(a�cityofpaloalto.orq> Cc: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.LaitACityofPaloAlto.orq>; Owen, Graham <Graham.Owen a(�CityofPaloAlto.orq> Subject: RE: Unsafe Traffic Hazard Hello again, City Council Members, Below is the text of the message I sent to James Keene at his email address and also the general city manager address back in August. I never got any response from him. Thank you, Tim Cain Hello Mr. Keene, read your article from the Palo Alto Weekly Friday and found it quite alarming. I really feel like you and the council have missed the point of what is going on in and around the The Baptist Church on North California Ave. It really shouldn't matter how adorable the serenading of the council was or even how much the program benefits those members of the community, it should matter whether or not they are legally allowed to conduct business there and whether it is a safe environment to house these programs. have lived on South Court ( just a few houses from the Church) for over 25 years. I have always enjoyed living by the church. Church services, weddings and choirs signing in the church have always been welcomed. I didn't even mind when they started to rent out space to the dancing groups in the evenings. However, over the years the number of people renting space appears to be 10 times what it was just a few years ago. For all of its vehicle intensive activities, it has exactly 10 parking spaces. Three spaces are reserved for the nursery school, 1 for the pastor and 1 for the doctor conducting business at the facility. That leaves just 5 open spaces (which accommodates fewer cars than my 1927 garage and driveway). I know for a fact that iSing on Wednesdays and Thursdsays has 150 girls dropped off after school for lessons. Mozart School has said they have 30 students daily. I am not sure how many people are seeing the doctors there or taking part in other dancing/singing lessons or picking up toddlers from the preschool but that is way too many people to share 5 spaces. If you go by on a Wednesday or Thursday during the school year, there are parents double and triple parked. They park illegally on corners ( blocking visibility of people trying to make a right or left hand turn onto North California from South Court) and some cars just stop right in the middle of North California to drop their children off and pick them up. You add the fact that Paly students are riding their bikes home from school on Bryant and Jordan kids on North California (both streets are designated bike routes), and it makes for a crazy situation with an accident waiting to happen. In a typical afternoon, you can spot numerous kids running back and forth across the street and kids on their bikes weaving in and out between cars. It is a scary sight for any parent and the fact that I witnessed a child just narrowly missed being hit by a car makes me sick to my stomach. In the meeting in the council chambers with the planning commission, Pastor Rick Mixon mentioned that he recognized that the lack of parking and the reckless driving/parking was a problem, but I don't believe he has ever done anything to try to address the safety. Is he more concerned 2 about the church finances than the safety of the children he serves? I find this a bit frightening. More concerning is the idea that this facility with 5 parking spaces could be a good space to be turned into a community center. hope that your comments were misquoted and that you will thoroughly investigate the situation. believe that the zoning for the church is not the only issue and the safety of our children should take priority over all. I look forward to hearing back from you on this subject. Thank you, Tim Cain 2261 South Court Palo Alto, Ca 94301 (650) 799-7203 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Tim Cain Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2018 10:48 AM To: city.council(cr�,cityofpaloalto.orq Cc: ionathan.laWcityofpaloalto.orq; graham.owena,cityofpaloalto.orq Subject: Unsafe Traffic Hazard Hello City Council Members, Below is a letter I sent on Dec 22 to Graham and I got a reply from him on Jan 19 acknowledging it and attaching additional info on the CUP filed by the First Baptist Church. I want to make sure you all see it again, since the topic of community center status seems to be on the table and the parking situation seems not to have a solution. Please pay special attention to the safety issues and traffic burdens. I sent a message to Mayor Keene a few months ago and got no reply. Thank you, Tim Cain Hello Mr. Owen, Thank you for taking on the analysis of the recent CUP application filed by First Baptist Church. was born in 1960 in Midtown and have lived with my wife and kids for the past 26 years at 2261 South Court in an old Tudor 4 bedroom house built in the late 20s. We REALLY love the neighborhood life ( that is why we moved here ) of a quiet street that "T"s off at both ends and our 3 daughters have lived their whole lives at this address. This is why we exceeded our upper limit price, took on tougher jobs so we could afford it, and bought our house here in this neighborhood. There are just two houses between us and the church, and its changing use has had an enormous impact on our formerly quiet lifestyle. We use North California as our connecting route whenever we leave our house (on bike or by car) because the Oregon Avenue frontage road intersections are too dangerous due to their confusing nature for non-residents who haven't figured out the stop sign -keep clear -wait here dance that is required to make the weight sensors work properly with the traffic signal system. On North California, the traffic at the church, which is exactly where South Court T's off, is also very dangerous, for different reasons. There is an almost non-stop flow of frantic cars dropping off and picking up one student each at the church's various tenant businesses. If you tally up all of the music classes being 3 held, you can multiply that times two to get the total number of trips by car to the curbs nearby, since there is virtually no parking on the church premises available to these businesses. North California has been striped to accommodate the huge volume of kids on their bikes coming and going from Jordan Middle school every day. The confluence of these middle schoolers in a hurry to get to school or back home, the now much narrower path for cars both ways, and the double parking drop-off realities of music student commutes make for an extremely high risk of life and limb at this location. Additionally, the quiet calm atmosphere we paid a premium for when we moved to South Court has been replaced by all those cars who aren't frantically double parking for their drop offs. These "ahead of schedule" commuters know that South Court is the closest source of curb space to the classrooms their kids need to get to, so they turn in and find the closest unoccupied stretch of parking they can find. Since we live on this block, we have seen it evolve from a quiet community of kids and pets able to play in their front yards, to a busy flow of parking and leaving on an hourly basis. Can you imagine the number of 3 point turns that are made in each of our driveways just so all of these parkers can come and go from North California, instead of Oregon Ave? Can you imagine the difference this constant activity would have on the quality of life for a new family putting down roots on South Court? We have spent the past quarter century preserving and enjoying our classic Palo Alto lifestyle, which features a front yard meant for use and enjoyment, not just parking for a nearby business. This coming, going, backing up and parallel parking is clearly a big worry for a new family with small children or pets, and it will surely reduce the pool of potential buyers who want to live here when we are gone, and it will reduce the price those few would be willing to pay. What is our personal cost ( in terms of resale value ) that we must pay for the church's desire to take in businesses without even the slightest accommodation for the realities of the traffic dangers they bring? Please protect our safety and quality of life. Thank you, Tim Cain 2261 South Court (650) 799-7203 cell Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Ronald Wilensky Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 3:19 PM To: Bonnie Flanagan; Laura Seitel Cc: Sarah; Brunicardi David & Caryn; Sheppard Barbara; david recht; tim cain; margiecain@rocketmail.com; mahen ranchod; Loy Martin; Debbie Nichols; Karen Ivey Subject: Re: Baptist Church & CUP....Ietter just received from City of PaloAlto Please see attached letter. I assume most (if not all) of you have received it. From: Debbie Nichols <debbiegailnichols(a)gmail.com> To: Karen Ivey <karenivey0.comcast.net> Cc: Ronald Wilensky <ronwilenskya(�yahoo.com>; Laura Seitel <Iseitel(cDmac.com>; Bonnie Flanagan <bonnie.m.flanagan(r. gmail.com>; Sarah <sburgrval a(�aol.com>; Brunicardi David & Caryn <david.brunicardi(a7gmail.com>; Sheppard Barbara <barbsheola nmail.com>; david recht <david.recht a(�,gmail.com>; tim cain <tim.cain a(�att.net>; margiecain(a�rocketmail.com; mahen ranchod <mahen.ranchod0gmail.com>; Loy Martin <loymartin(c�icloud.com> 4 Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 8:02 AM Subject: Re: Baptist Church & CUP will attend the meeting. Thanks for organizing it. Debbie Nichols Sent from my iPad On Dec 19, 2017, at 7:07 PM, Karen Ivey <karenivey(a�comcast.net> wrote: will plan to be there at 4 pm as well. Thank you, Karen Ivey From: "Ronald Wilensky" <ronwilenskyAyahoo.com> To: "Laura Seitel" <IseitelAmac.com> Cc: "Bonnie Flanagan"<bonnie.m.flanagan(a7gmail.com>, "Sarah" <sburgrval(a�aol.com>, "Brunicardi David & Caryn" <david.brunicardi(a�gmail.com>, "Sheppard Barbara" <barbshepp(cr),gmail.com>, "david recht" <david.rechtAgmail.com>, "Nichols Debbie" <debbiegailnichols(a gmail.com>, "ivey karen" <karenivey@comcast.net>, "tim cain" <tim.cain@att.net>, margiecain@rocketmail.com, "mahen ranchod" <mahen.ranchod@gmail.com>, "Loy Martin" <loymartin(a�icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 7:01:43 PM Subject: Re: Baptist Church & CUP See you on Jan12th at 4pm. Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 19, 2017, at 6:45 PM, Laura Seitel <Iseitel@mac.com> wrote: > Hi Bonnie, > Thanks for all of this info. I like your agenda items for the meeting with Hillary, which I hope will happen after we neighbors gather on the 12th. I'm going to propose a start time of 4 PM but can be flexible if that doesn't work for anyone. > Also, have you seen the CUP yet? I haven't been able to access it and I think the city is required to post it publicly. It won't make much sense to meet as neighbors if we don't know what we're facing with the church. > I'm looking forward to seeing many of you on the 12th. So far, Bonnie, Sarah, Ron, Mahendra, my husband Loy and I will be at the meeting at my house at 349 North California Avenue. Please let me know if anyone else can come. All are welcome! > Laura > On Dec 19, 2017, at 6:05 PM, Bonnie Flanagan <bonnie.m.flanagan(a�gmail.com> wrote: > AII: > I spoke to James Stephens this afternoon & he's proposed we have a meeting with he & Hillary Gitelman mid -late January to express our concerns. With the holiday break, we won't have a date until the 1st week of January, but I wanted to give you a heads -up. > Evidently, my emails with pictures showing all the cars within 2-3 blocks of both iSing & Mozart 5 classes/events was of interest to Hillary. > I'm hoping all of you are open to a meeting with them. Meanwhile, we can each work on a list of the major concerns/issues that are impacting our neighborhood. > Two items I mentioned today (& will include on my list) are: > 1) why is there not someone on site overseeing events & controlling issues when they occur - e.g. windows/doors open causing increased noise, illegal parking, dumped garbage bins > 2) is a permit needed/required when a large event like the recent Iran concert fundraiser takes place > Since the CUP has been filed & extensions will be permitted, due process required, etc this will go on for as long as the church can stretch this out. > James said to contact him directly if you need/want more information. His email is: <James.stephens a(�cityofpaloalto.orq> > Thanks, > Bonnie > Sent from my iPhone CoTY OF PIA LO A LT O Hillary Gitelman 1 Director 1 P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue 1 Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2321 E: hillary.g.itelman@cityofpaloalto.org Please think ()fill(' environment bcfbre printing this email - Thank you! 6 Owen, Graham From: Laura Seitel <Iseitel@mac.com> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2018 9:21 PM To: Council, City Cc: Owen, Graham; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan Subject: First Baptist Church: Please Deny CUP Dear City Council Members, I am writing to ask that you deny the First Baptist Church's CUP application for community center status. The church is in a location singularly unsuited for the level of activity this would permit at the site. Unlike other such institutions in Palo Alto, the First Baptist Church is separated from its nearest neighbors by a mere 13 feet on one side and 37 feet on the other (The 37 -foot -space includes the church driveway and its eight parking spaces.) The level of noise, car traffic, foot traffic and parking congestion that has been the norm at the church for many years has turned a tranquil residential area into a commercial free-for-all and has profoundly disturbed the peace and tranquility of all citizens living nearby. My husband and I bought our home next to the church in 1983. We carefully observed the level of activity at the church at that time and generally found it to behave in a way that respected the fact that it had close neighbors. Sunday mornings were, of course, busy with those attending services and a few other non -intrusive events were occasionally held during the week. But the neighborhood was relaxed and friendly and it remained possible to enjoy tranquility in our homes. About a decade ago, this peaceable coexistence began to disintegrate: the church now operates an all -day, deep -into -the -night commercial enterprise. Church spaces have been rented to well over forty organizations which has resulted in a constant stream of car and foot traffic, parking congestion, loud noise and littering. Renters keep doors and windows of the church annex open during rock concerts, parties, dance and singing events, loud political meetings, etc. Often these events spill out of the annex to the church lawn and neighborhood sidewalks. Events start early in the morning and end after 11 PM at night. My husband and I regularly hear noisy cleanup from parties and performances, sometimes as late as 12:30 A.M. In addition, there is no one from the church monitoring these activities whom neighbors can contact. Needless to say these events at the church have disturbed the peace of neighbors for many blocks around it. The wider Palo Alto community is also affected. Students bicycling to and from Jordan Middle School on North California Avenue and to and from Palo Alto High School on Bryant Street are endangered by the steady stream of cars brought into the neighborhood. This is particularly troubling since the city has designated Bryant Street a bicycle -friendly route and has recently created bicycle lanes along North California Avenue. On dark, rainy evenings, we often observe cars parked and double-parked for blocks near the church along with many other cars slowing in the darkness to spot a particular child or a parking space opening up. Car movement and doors opening into the bicycle lane under conditions of low visibility are dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians trying to cross the street. The few newly -designated spots for short-term parking along the church curb are an ineffective band -aid for this problem. The parking regulations are not observed or enforced, the amount of traffic overwhelms their efficacy and residents of the neighborhood have even fewer places they can park. In sum, the particular geography of the residential neighborhood surrounding the First Baptist Church makes it especially unsuitable for both it's current out -of -compliance activities and the increase of activity that community center status would allow it. I hope you will vote to restore a reasonable level of tranquility and safety in our neighborhood by denying the church's CUP application. Respectfully yours, 1 Laura Seitel Loy D. Martin 170 Glenn Way, #11 San Carlos, CA 94070 loymartin@u,icloud.com www.loymartinfurniture.com 2 Owen, Graham From: Ron Wilensky <rwilensky@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 4:47 PM To: Owen, Graham; Lait, Jonathan Cc: Sarah Burgess Subject: First Baptist Church states in Daily Post article 2/8/2018 it is renting space to new tenants.... Attachments: PaloAltoPost.2018-02-08.pdf Graham/Jonathan, In today's article in the Daily Post states that "few new groups have begun renting space at the church, which Mixon describes as "some small activities." Attached is a copy of the article with that text highlighted. Did the Planning Department or any other City officials allow the church to rent to new tenants while the CUP application is in process? Best regards, Ron Wilensky THURSDAY, Feb. 8, 2018 No. 1 in Palo Alto and the Mid -Peninsula POSI Locallyowned, independent Church loses tenants in zoning dispute BY ALLISON LEVITSKY Daily Post Staff Writer Several community groups that rent- ed space at the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto have moved out since neigh- bors' noise, traffic and parking com- plaints led the city to order their remov- al, the Rev. Rick Mixon told the Post yesterday. The Palo Alto Philharmonic and sev- eral folk and tango dance groups have left, but all have expressed interest in returning once the church obtains the proper permit. The New Mozart School of Music moved out last month and has set up shop in a much more expensive space in the College Terrace neighbor - [See CHURCH, page 38] FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH at 305 N. California Ave. CHURCH hood, at 2100 El Camino Real. The church could lose $60,000 to $70,000 in revenue this year from tenants having to pack up, Mixon said. First Baptist charges a base rate of $2.19 per square foot, a dirt-cheap rate that allows nonprofit programs and community groups to afford to operate in Palo Alto. It also ac- counts for about $110,000 to $120,000, or one-third of the church's annual revenue. The iSing Silicon Valley girls choir, which retired San Francisco 49ers quarterback Steve Young threw his support behind at a City Council meeting in Au- gust, is still operating at the church. Young's two daughters sing with the choir, which brings together girls age 5 to 18. The church applied for a conditional use permit on Jan. 19. Mixon, who has served as senior pastor at the church since 2006, said the city hadn't told him when to expect a response. "It's just all kind of in limbo," Mixon said. The conditional use permit would allow each tenant — including the Peninsula Macrobiotic Com- munity, the art and language toddler class Children of Bisheh. and two therapists who work with adoles- cen to fur go the length, expensive permitting pro, on their own. Church hopes fees will be waived The church requested a fee waiver for the con- ditional use permit application because it was sub- mitted under duress and protest, Mixon said, but he hasn't received a response to that request. If the fee waiver is denied, the application could cost thousands of dollars. A few new groups have also begun renting space at the church, which Mixon described only as "some small activities." The city ordered the church's tenants to vacate their space on the grounds that the church, like most of the city,. is in a single-family residential district. Other churches supplement their revenue by rent- ing space to community groups, but the city typically enforces the code upon receiving complaints. The 100 -member church, which is almost 70 years old, once had a congregation of 800. Neighbors say the dance groups create too much noise at their social events and parents dropping off and picking up stu- dents have worsened the neighborhood's traffic and street parking supply. Some have pointed out that the new bike lane on the east side of North California Avenue wiped out much of the neighborhood's street parking. The church has been wrongly blamed for that loss of park- ing, neighbor Ron wlensky said in August, Owen, Graham From: Ron Wilensky <rwilensky@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 10:22 PM To: Lait, Jonathan Cc: Owen, Graham; sburgrval@aol.com Subject: Re: Revised attachment Re: First Baptist Church states in Daily Post article 2/8/2018 it is renting space to new tenants.... Jonathan, Thank you for requesting follow-up to the statement in the Daily Post article in which the pastor says they are renting to new tenants. Ron - From: "Lait, Jonathan" <Jonathan.Lait(@7CityofPaloAlto.orq> To: "sburgrval(a�aol.com" <sburgrval(c�aol.com> Cc: "rilensky anyahoo.com" <rwilensky(cilyahoo.com>; "Owen, Graham" <Graham.Owen(@7CityofPaloAlto.orq> Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 2:30 PM Subject: Re: Revised attachment Re: First Baptist Church states in Daily Post article 2/8/2018 it is renting space to new tenants.... Thank you, Sarah. On Feb 9, 2018, at 1:04 PM, "sburgrvalRaol.com" <sburgrval@aol.com> wrote: Hi, thanks for looking into this. There was a very large practice on either Sunday or Monday, someone took some photos and asked who the tenant was. They were told they were a new tenant, that the pastor had said it was ok for them to be there. They are a new chorus group, apparently unassociated with iSing or other tenants. They might, however, be the group who held the concert in December when people were parking on the sidewalk. Regarding the number of people at events in the church on any given hour, I'd like to add that I walked by the church yesterday, and two iSing groups were practicing, doors open, in both the Annex and the sanctuary, as well as events going on in the classroom portion of the church. At least 70 girls in the Annex, I would guess 20 in the sanctuary, and unknown numbers getting private instruction in the rest of the building - my best guess would be over 100 participants at 5:50 at night. These were probably the groups arriving when the accident occurred at about 5:00, between a car trying to exit the driveway and a car dropping off iSing participants. Airbags deployed, police, firetrucks and paramedics all called. I do not know if there were any injuries but there were children in the car with the deployed airbags. In furtherance of my question about the authority of Mr. Mixon to make a CUP application for the church, I am attaching a copy of the Statement of Information for the Domestic non-profit corporation, First Baptist Church of Palo Alto. Please let me know if you are able to access it - resending these PDF's can be tricky, in my experience. Thank you, Sarah Burgess 1 Original Message From: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait(a7CityofPaloAlto.orq> To: Ron Wilensky <rwilensky(cDyahoo.com>; Owen, Graham <Graham.Owen(cr7CitvofPaloAlto.orq> Cc: Sarah Burgess <sburgrval(a)aol.com> Sent: Fri, Feb 9, 2018 11:51 am Subject: RE: Revised attachment Re: First Baptist Church states in Daily Post article 2/8/2018 it is renting space to new tenants.... Hi Ron. We saw the article but are unaware of any new tenants. Graham will follow up w/FBC. From: Ron Wilensky fmailto:rwilenskya vahoo.comj Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 4:51 PM To: Ron Wilensky <rwilensky(a�yahoo.com>; Owen, Graham <Graham.Owen(a�CityofPaloAlto.orq>; Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan. Lait(a�CityofPaloAlto.orq> Cc: Sarah Burgess <sburgrval(a7aol.com> Subject: Revised attachment Re: First Baptist Church states in Daily Post article 2/8/2018 it is renting space to new tenants.... Graham/Jonathan, My Adobe Acrobat highlighter was a little over -enthusiastic and highlighted more text than I intended. Attached is a version of the document with only the relevant text highlighted. My apologies. Best regards, Ron From: Ron Wilensky <rwilenskyftmhoo.com> To: Graham Owen <graham.owen(a cityofpaloalto.orq>; Jonathan Lait <Jonathan.laitOcityofpaloalto.orq> Cc: Sarah Burgess <sburgrval(a�aol.com> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 4:47 PM Subject: First Baptist Church states in Daily Post article 2/8/2018 it is renting space to new tenants.... Graham/Jonathan, In today's article in the Daily Post states that "few new groups have begun renting space at the church, which Mixon describes as "some small activities." Attached is a copy of the article with that text highlighted. Did the Planning Department or any other City officials allow the church to rent to new tenants while the CUP application is in process? Best regards, Ron Wilensky <document(9).pdf� 2 Owen, Graham From: Loy Martin <loymartin@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 11:18 AM To: Owen, Graham Cc: Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan Subject: Re: First Baptist Church Graham, Many thanks. This web page will be most useful going forward. We'll look carefully at these materials and then suggest a plan for clarifying our concerns to you, Jonathan and Hillary. Regards, Loy On Jan 8, 2018, at 10:37 AM, Owen, Graham<Graham.Owen@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Hi Loy, We have set up a City website (link below) that contains information regarding the First Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit application: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/first baptist church.asp The application materials that we have received can be downloaded from this site. As Hillary indicated we have requested additional information from First Baptist Church in order to have a complete application for review. This requested information is listed in the "Latest Update" section on the website. Given the current submittal the application is still at the early stages of review, but if you have any questions just let me know. Best, Graham <image002.png> Graham Owen 1 Associate Planner 1 P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue 1 Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2552 1 E: graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email — Thank you! From: Gitelman, Hillary Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 8:21 AM To: Loy Martin Cc: Owen, Graham; Lait, Jonathan Subject: RE: First Baptist Church 1 Hi Loy, Please let me introduce Graham Owen on our staff (copied here), who can send you a copy of the application we have from First Baptist Church as well as our recent request for additional information from the church. At present, we are also seeking neighbor input on the Conditional Use Permit and Graham and I would be happy to meet with your or get your thoughts via email. We're wondering if there are specific practices at the church (hours of operation, size of events, etc.) that should be addressed in our process. Thanks, Hillary <image001.jpg> Hillary Gitelman 1 Planning Director 1 P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue I Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2321 1 E: hillary.jitelman@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email — Thank you! From: Loy Martin [mailto:Ioymartinfticloud.coml Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 9:55 PM To: Gitelman, Hillary Subject: First Baptist Church Dear Hillary, Last summer you were kind enough to meet with me and answer some of my questions about our neighbor, the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto. I believe the church has now made an application to the city for a Conditional Use Permit to govern its future non -church activities. If this is true, would it be possible for you to forward to me a copy of that application? Best regards, Loy D. Martin 349 North California Avenue Palo Alto, CA. 94301 loymartin@icloud.com www.loymartinfurniture.com Loy D. Martin 170 Glenn Way, #11 San Carlos, CA 94070 loymartin(a)icloud.com www.loymartinfurniture.com 2 Owen, Graham From: Carol Heermance <cheermance@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 12:56 PM To: FBC Application Subject: community center at 305 N. California Ave I live just down the street from the First Baptist Church and am in favor of allowing that space to be used as a community center. All of the activities that are now located there contribute to a healthy environment. I cannot understand why anyone would be opposed. Any added traffic or parking problems due to a community center are minimal when compared to the impact of cars parking in our neighborhood from the new parking regulations in the California business area. I am in favor of allowing community activities to continue at 305 N. California Ave. Carol Heermance 208 N California Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 1 Owen, Graham From: Clark Charles <ccclark21@earthlink.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 1:24 PM To: FBC Application Cc: Admin Account Subject: Conditional use permit, CUP Attention: Graham Owen, Planner Dear Sir, Regarding the letter of December 18, 2017 from Mr. Jonathan Lait to "Neighbors and Tenants of the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto", a copy has been shared with the pastor and members of said church (applicants). As a neighbor -member of long standing there, I wish to respond in support of that invitation of the City for comments on the application CUP, to be recognized as a "community center" under current municipal coding. I do support the community center concept, as I have experienced some of those life events Mr. Lait expressed in defining a community center; "religious, fraternal, social and/or recreational programs". Examples may be a marriage ceremony, book study groups, men's/women's arts and crafts, etc. It fits a pattern I've known ! One concern I would state regarding the City Code is, will it allow the members of the existing church property the freedom to keep and maintain it's name (seen in bold signage lettering, "FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH", on the N. California Ave. front entrance). If a replacement or modification of that signage is requested by the City for inclusion of a "Community Center" sign, I would assume it may be negotiated. Correct? Thank you for this opportunity and I look forward to cooperating with our neighbors in services to our community. Charles C. Clark, Sr. 373 Pine Ln. Los Altos, CA 94022 1 Owen, Graham From: Mahendra Ranchod <mahen.ranchod@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 11:19 AM To: DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; Keene, James; Owen, Graham; hilary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org; Lait, Jonathan Subject: First Baptist Church, 305 N.California Avenue Dear City Council Members and Staff, I am writing to express my concern about the application of the First Baptist Church to expand its activities at 305 N. California Avenue. We live on the corner of N. California Avenue and Waverley Street, a block away from the church. Our neighborhood was once tranquil, but over the last few years, there has been an alarming escalation of non -church related activities at 305 N.California Avenue, activities that are accompanied by noise and a significant increase in traffic. Judging from the vehicular traffic, most people who participate in the activities at the church appear to live outside of our neighborhood, and because there is limited parking on the church's property, visitors search for parking close to the church, causing traffic congestion in the streets that adjoin the church. When children are dropped off and picked up, parents try to do this as close to the church as possible, engaging in unsafe practices, such as double-parking, unsafe U-turns, and the obstruction of driveways to private residences. This behavior is especially hazardous because both N.California Avenue and Bryant Street are favored by bicyclists, including students who bicycle home in the afternoon from Jordan Middle School and Palo Alto High. I have personally witnessed inappropriate behavior on the part of visitors to the church, and when I drive in the area of the church, I do so with added caution, always prepared for the unexpected. Our neighborhood is not designed for the type of activities that now take place at the church, and any increase in activity is untenable. The building at 305 N.California does not serve the neighborhood; it resembles a commercial enterprise, not a place of worship. Sincerely, Mahendra Ranchod I Owen, Graham From: Ron Wilensky <rwilensky@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 12:19 AM To: Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; DuBois, Tom; Holman, Karen; Fine, Adrian; Kniss, Liz (internal); Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory Cc: Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; jonathan.lat@cityofpaloalto.org; Owen, Graham; Council, City Subject: Request denial of CUP Application No. 17PLN-00446 for Community Center at 305 North California Avenue Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council: Please do not approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that would allow the church at 305 North California Avenue to operate as a community center for up 560 people or more, Monday to Thursday 9AM to 10PM and Friday and Saturday 9AM to 11PM. A community center of this size and level of activity is inappropriate in quiet, residential neighborhood zoned R-1 (10,000). A very important reason to deny the permit is that a community center attracts so many people, and the proposed operating hours will bring heavy traffic and parking congestion that would endanger bicyclists. The applicant has no parking off-street parking available to attendees of activities at the community center. Therefore, the many cars arriving at 305 North California Avenue park on the street, either adjacent to bike lanes or on nearby streets." 305 North California is at the corner of Bryant Street and North California Avenue, which is where two heavily -used bike boulevards intersect. These bike lanes serve students traveling between their homes and Jordan Middle School and Palo Alto High School as well as adults going to other parts of Palo Alto or to the California Avenue bike tunnel under the Caltrain tracks. That intersection is so dangerous that in several months the City will be installing a traffic circle to calm traffic. Neighbors have witnessed many near accidents caused by people parking at 305 North California not paying careful attention to bicyclists riding in the adjacent bike lanes. Because of this danger to cyclists, the community center not meet all the criteria for a CUP defined in PAMC 18.76.010. According to this municipal code in order to issue a CUP the City must find that "granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience." Operation of a community center that is active 7 -days per week through most of daylight and evening hours will be detrimental to safety since traffic and parking from people using the community center will endanger bicyclists on the heavily used Bryant Street and California Avenue bike lanes. Thank you for considering my request. Best regards, Ron Wilensky Resident of Old Palo Alto 2 Owen, Graham From: Ron Wilensky <rwilensky@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 12:22 AM To: Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; DuBois, Tom; Holman, Karen; Fine, Adrian; Kniss, Liz (internal); Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory Cc: Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; jonathan.lat@cityofpaloalto.org; Owen, Graham; Council, City Subject: Comment on CUP Application No. 17PLN-00446 for Community Center at 305 North California Avenue Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council: Please do not approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that would allow the church at 305 North California Avenue to operate as a community center for 500 people or more, Monday to Thursday 9AM to 10PM and Friday and Saturday 9AM to 11PM. A community center of this size and level of activity is inappropriate in quiet, residential neighborhood zoned R-1 (10,000) and does not meet the requirements in PAMC 18.76.010. I urge you to weigh carefully whether people writing in favor of the community center live in the neighborhood or are even residents of Palo Alto. I think you will find that most are not Palo Alto residents and those who are residents do not live nearby. These supporters of the community center are asking for its benefits but do not suffer its adverse effects on bike safety, traffic congestion and parking. Best regards, Ron Wilensky Resident of Old Palo Alto Owen, Graham From: Tim Cain <tim.cain@att.net> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2018 11:05 AM To: Council, City Cc: Lait, Jonathan; Owen, Graham Subject: RE: Unsafe Traffic Hazard Hello again, City Council Members, Below is the text of the message I sent to James Keene at his email address and also the general city manager address back in August. I never got any response from him. Thank you, Tim Cain Hello Mr. Keene, read your article from the Palo Alto Weekly Friday and found it quite alarming. I really feel like you and the council have missed the point of what is going on in and around the The Baptist Church on North California Ave. It really shouldn't matter how adorable the serenading of the council was or even how much the program benefits those members of the community, it should matter whether or not they are legally allowed to conduct business there and whether it is a safe environment to house these programs. have lived on South Court ( just a few houses from the Church) for over 25 years. I have always enjoyed living by the church. Church services, weddings and choirs signing in the church have always been welcomed. I didn't even mind when they started to rent out space to the dancing groups in the evenings. However, over the years the number of people renting space appears to be 10 times what it was just a few years ago. For all of its vehicle intensive activities, it has exactly 10 parking spaces. Three spaces are reserved for the nursery school, 1 for the pastor and 1 for the doctor conducting business at the facility. That leaves just 5 open spaces (which accommodates fewer cars than my 1927 garage and driveway). I know for a fact that iSing on Wednesdays and Thursdsays has 150 girls dropped off after school for lessons. Mozart School has said they have 30 students daily. I am not sure how many people are seeing the doctors there or taking part in other dancing/singing lessons or picking up toddlers from the preschool but that is way too many people to share 5 spaces. If you go by on a Wednesday or Thursday during the school year, there are parents double and triple parked. They park illegally on corners ( blocking visibility of people trying to make a right or left hand turn onto North California from South Court) and some cars just stop right in the middle of North California to drop their children off and pick them up. You add the fact that Paly students are riding their bikes home from school on Bryant and Jordan kids on North California (both streets are designated bike routes), and it makes for a crazy situation with an accident waiting to happen. In a typical afternoon, you can spot numerous kids running back and forth across the street and kids on their bikes weaving in and out between cars. It is a scary sight for any parent and the fact that I witnessed a child just narrowly missed being hit by a car makes me sick to my stomach. In the meeting in the council chambers with the planning commission, Pastor Rick Mixon mentioned that he recognized that the lack of parking and the reckless driving/parking was a problem, but I don't believe he has ever done anything to try to address the safety. Is he more concerned about the church finances than the safety of the children he serves? I find this a bit frightening. More i concerning is the idea that this facility with 5 parking spaces could be a good space to be turned into a community center. hope that your comments were misquoted and that you will thoroughly investigate the situation. believe that the zoning for the church is not the only issue and the safety of our children should take priority over all. I look forward to hearing back from you on this subject. Thank you, Tim Cain 2261 South Court Palo Alto, Ca 94301 (650) 799-7203 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Tim Cain Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2018 10:48 AM To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: jonathan.Tait@cityofpaloalto.org; graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: Unsafe Traffic Hazard Hello City Council Members, Below is a letter I sent on Dec 22 to Graham and I got a reply from him on Jan 19 acknowledging it and attaching additional info on the CUP filed by the First Baptist Church. I want to make sure you all see it again, since the topic of community center status seems to be on the table and the parking situation seems not to have a solution. Please pay special attention to the safety issues and traffic burdens. I sent a message to Mayor Keene a few months ago and got no reply. Thank you, Tim Cain Hello Mr. Owen, Thank you for taking on the analysis of the recent CUP application filed by First Baptist Church. I was born in 1960 in Midtown and have lived with my wife and kids for the past 26 years at 2261 South Court in an old Tudor 4 bedroom house built in the late 20s. We REALLY love the neighborhood life ( that is why we moved here ) of a quiet street that "T"s off at both ends and our 3 daughters have lived their whole lives at this address. This is why we exceeded our upper limit price, took on tougher jobs so we could afford it, and bought our house here in this neighborhood. There are just two houses between us and the church, and its changing use has had an enormous impact on our formerly quiet lifestyle. We use North California as our connecting route whenever we leave our house (on bike or by car) because the Oregon Avenue frontage road intersections are too dangerous due to their confusing nature for non-residents who haven't figured out the stop sign -keep clear -wait here dance that is required to make the weight sensors work properly with the traffic signal system. On North California, the traffic at the church, which is exactly where South Court T's off, is also very dangerous, for different reasons. There is an almost non-stop flow of frantic cars dropping off and picking up one student each at the church's various tenant businesses. If you tally up all of the music classes being held, you can multiply that times two to get the total number of trips by car to the curbs nearby, since there is virtually no parking on the church premises available to these businesses. North California has been striped to accommodate the huge volume of kids on their bikes coming and going from Jordan Middle school every day. The confluence of these middle schoolers 2 in a hurry to get to school or back home, the now much narrower path for cars both ways, and the double parking drop- off realities of music student commutes make for an extremely high risk of life and limb at this location. Additionally, the quiet calm atmosphere we paid a premium for when we moved to South Court has been replaced by all those cars who aren't frantically double parking for their drop offs. These "ahead of schedule" commuters know that South Court is the closest source of curb space to the classrooms their kids need to get to, so they turn in and find the closest unoccupied stretch of parking they can find. Since we live on this block, we have seen it evolve from a quiet community of kids and pets able to play in their front yards, to a busy flow of parking and leaving on an hourly basis. Can you imagine the number of 3 point turns that are made in each of our driveways just so all of these parkers can come and go from North California, instead of Oregon Ave? Can you imagine the difference this constant activity would have on the quality of life for a new family putting down roots on South Court? We have spent the past quarter century preserving and enjoying our classic Palo Alto lifestyle, which features a front yard meant for use and enjoyment, not just parking for a nearby business. This coming, going, backing up and parallel parking is clearly a big worry for a new family with small children or pets, and it will surely reduce the pool of potential buyers who want to live here when we are gone, and it will reduce the price those few would be willing to pay. What is our personal cost ( in terms of resale value ) that we must pay for the church's desire to take in businesses without even the slightest accommodation for the realities of the traffic dangers they bring? Please protect our safety and quality of life. Thank you, Tim Cain 2261 South Court (650) 799-7203 cell Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Ronald Wilensky Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 3:19 PM To: Bonnie Flanagan; Laura Seitel Cc: Sarah; Brunicardi David & Caryn; Sheppard Barbara; david recht; tim cain; margiecain@rocketmail.com; mahen ranchod; Loy Martin; Debbie Nichols; Karen Ivey Subject: Re: Baptist Church & CUP....letter just received from City of PaloAlto Please see attached letter. I assume most (if not all) of you have received it. From: Debbie Nichols <debbiegailnichols@gmail.com> To: Karen Ivey <karenivey@comcast.net> Cc: Ronald Wilensky <ronwilensky@yahoo.com>; Laura Seitel <Iseitel@mac.com>; Bonnie Flanagan <bonnie.m.flanagan@gmail.com>; Sarah <sburgrval@aol.com>; Brunicardi David & Caryn <david.brunicardi@gmail.com>; Sheppard Barbara <barbshepp@gmail.com>; david recht <david.recht@gmail.com>; tim cain <tim.cain@att.net>; margiecain@rocketmail.com; mahen ranchod <mahen.ranchod@gmail.com>; Loy Martin <loymartin@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 8:02 AM Subject: Re: Baptist Church & CUP will attend the meeting. Thanks for organizing it. Debbie Nichols Sent from my iPad 3 On Dec 19, 2017, at 7:07 PM, Karen Ivey <karenivey@comcast.net> wrote: I will plan to be there at 4 pm as well. Thank you, Karen Ivey From: "Ronald Wilensky" <ronwilensky@yahoo.com> To: "Laura Seitel" <Iseitel(a�mac.com> Cc: "Bonnie Flanagan"<bonnie.m.flanagan(a�gmail.com>, "Sarah" <sburgrval@aol.com>, "Brunicardi David & Caryn" <david.brunicardi a@,gmail.com>, "Sheppard Barbara" <barbshepp a©gmail.com>, "david recht" <david.recht@gmail.com>, "Nichols Debbie" <debbiegailnichols@gmail.com>, "ivey karen" <karenivey comcast.net>, "tim cain" <tim.cain@att.net>, margiecain@rocketmail.com, "mahen ranchod" <mahen.ranchod@gmail.com>, "Loy Martin" <loymartin(a�icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 7:01:43 PM Subject: Re: Baptist Church & CUP See you on Jan12th at 4pm. Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 19, 2017, at 6:45 PM, Laura Seitel <Iseitel@mac.com> wrote: > > Hi Bonnie, > > Thanks for all of this info. I like your agenda items for the meeting with Hillary, which hope will happen after we neighbors gather on the 12th. I'm going to propose a start time of 4 PM but can be flexible if that doesn't work for anyone. > > Also, have you seen the CUP yet? I haven't been able to access it and I think the city is required to post it publicly. It won't make much sense to meet as neighbors if we don't know what we're facing with the church. > > I'm looking forward to seeing many of you on the 12th. So far, Bonnie, Sarah, Ron, Mahendra, my husband Loy and I will be at the meeting at my house at 349 North California Avenue. Please let me know if anyone else can come. All are welcome! > > Laura > > On Dec 19, 2017, at 6:05 PM, Bonnie Flanagan <bonnie.m.flanaganAgmail.com> wrote: > > AII: > > I spoke to James Stephens this afternoon & he's proposed we have a meeting with he & Hillary Gitelman mid -late January to express our concerns. With the holiday break, we won't have a date until the 1st week of January, but I wanted to give you a heads - up. > > Evidently, my emails with pictures showing all the cars within 2-3 blocks of both iSing & Mozart classes/events was of interest to Hillary. > 4 > I'm hoping all of you are open to a meeting with them. Meanwhile, we can each work on a list of the major concerns/issues that are impacting our neighborhood. > > Two items I mentioned today (& will include on my list) are: > 1) why is there not someone on site overseeing events & controlling issues when they occur - e.g. windows/doors open causing increased noise, illegal parking, dumped garbage bins > > 2) is a permit needed/required when a large event like the recent Iran concert fundraiser takes place > > Since the CUP has been filed & extensions will be permitted, due process required, etc this will go on for as long as the church can stretch this out. > > James said to contact him directly if you need/want more information. His email is: <James.stephens(a�cityofpaloalto.orq> > > Thanks, > > Bonnie > > Sent from my iPhone > 5 Owen, Graham From: Margie Cain <margiecain@rocketmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2018 9:43 AM To: Council, City Cc: Owen, Graham; Lait, Jonathan Subject: Cosider Safety First I am writing to the City Council because I am a neighbor of the First Baptist Church. I know that the City Council will be considering a CUP application for the Church to become a Community Center. I am sure the programs currently using the church are wonderful programs that do benefit some portion of the community but I believe the big picture should not be based on the sweetness of the program but on the safety of the community as a whole. I have to ask the Council members if they have actually visited the First Baptist location. If you have then you would notice that there are just 10 parking spaces on the church grounds. Three of the ten spaces are reserved for the nursery school, 1 for the pastor and 1 for the doctor conducting business at the facility. That leaves just 5 open spaces. From what we understand, two days a week iSing has 80 girls dropped off and picked up after school for lessons. We have no idea how many more cars are dropping off and picking up between the parents of the preschool, the patients of the doctors, the music school, Tango lessons and other dancing groups but sharing 5 parking spaces among all of them is ridiculous. Parents are forced to park in the bike lanes and around the surrounding neighborhoods. If you go by on one of the heavily rented days during the school year, you will see parents double and triple parked. They park illegally on corners ( blocking visibility of people trying to make a right or left hand turn onto North California from South Court) and some cars just stop right in the middle of North California to drop their children off and pick them up. You add the fact that Paly students are riding their bikes home from school on Bryant and Jordan kids on North California (both streets are City designated bike routes), and it makes for a crazy situation with an accident waiting to happen. I find it ironic that the City Transportation department is doing their best to make North California safer by adding wide bike lanes in both directions and then you might consider adding hundreds of cars using those same bike lines right during the prime after school hours. In a typical afternoon, you can spot numerous kids running back and forth across the street and kids on their bikes weaving in and out between cars. It is a scary sight. Safety for our youth should be our number one concern. I don't really understand adding another community center considering the city already has 3 centers along a 2 mile stretch of Middlefield Road but if you do decide on this church becoming a community center then please make if safe for everyone. Without sufficient parking, no matter how sweet you think the iSing is, it would be reckless to allow this facility to continue being used the way it is. Thank you, Margie Cain (650) 387-2477 Owen, Graham From: Bonnie Flanagan <bonnie.m.flanagan@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 2:20 PM To: Council, City Cc: Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Owen, Graham; Lait, Jonathan; James.Stephens@cityofpalaorg Subject: First Baptist Church's CUP request Members of the City Council: I'm writing about the Baptist Church's CUP request to operate as a Community Center. Our family has lived across from the church since the mid 1960s. The church had a robust parish for many years & there were large Sunday services, Easter, Christmas, weddings & funerals. There were also socialicommunity services like Alcoholic Anonymous, election polling, etc. The parking & traffic situation was manageable & not reflective of what has occurred with recent organizations operating out of the church the largest being iSing & the Mozart Music School. The traffic that these businesses have brought to the neighborhood is significant. Most of this occurs when children are returning home from Jordan, Paly & other nearby schools. U-turns in the middle of the street while dropping off & picking up children is a regular occurrence. Classes & events have parents parking cars on nearby streets - South Court, Waverley, California Ave, Bryant & Washington. Other Palo Alto religious organizations have on -site parking; whereas, the Baptist Church has only eight on -site parking spaces: one for the Pastor, one for Joellen Werne, MD, one handicapped spot & one-two used by the daycare as their three designated spaces are for childcare drop off. That leaves three spots for other church -related staff. All other staff & participants must park on nearby streets. With Bryant Street designated as the bicycle path this will exacerbate the traffic & parking issues. Unless there have been changes to this area's bike plan, we've been told between 10-15 street parking spaces will be removed. This is not safe for bicyclist, pedestrians & cars utilizing both Bryant & California Avenues. It presents a very dangerous situation. 1'rn very concerned for the safety of our children riding bikes in this area & request that the CUP for a Community Center be denied as it significantly increases traffic & impacts the safety of our children. Thank you. Attached below: The June 14, 2017 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report that includes many letters describing safety issues & the impact on the neighborhood: 1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58205 Sent from my iPhone 2 Owen, Graham From: Loy Martin <loymartin@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 8:46 PM To: DuBois, Tom Subject: First Baptist Church of Palo Alto Dear Mr. Dubois, After stints as both an undergraduate and a faculty member at Stanford, I moved to Palo Alto for good thirty five years ago. This is the first time I have written a letter to the governing council of the city I consider my home. I write now after learning that our next door neighbor, the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto, has applied for a conditional use permit as a "community center." We bought our house at 349 North California Avenue in the spring of 1983. The First Baptist Church next door was a thriving church then and went about its business without unduly disturbing its neighbors. In addition to church services there were occasional weddings and other activities, mostly church related or charitable in nature. The congregants coming and going were, for the most part, familiar to the residents nearby. About a decade ago, things began to change, gradually at first, and in ways that it took us a few years to understand. We now know that this was around the time a new pastor, Randle Mixon, arrived on the scene. We also now know that the original healthy congregation of around eight hundred has, over the intervening years, and by Mr. Mixon's own estimate, lost nearly ninety percent of its membership. This loss, again according to Mr. Mixon, left the church unable to meet its financial obligations. In recent years the church has addressed its fiscal problems by accumulating secular tenants, renting the church buildings out on several days, and especially evenings, each week, for events often lasting until 11:00 PM. The main activities hall lies less than fifty feet from our home so my wife and I have had ample opportunity to observe the range of tenants involved. These tenants have included a restaurant, a school for ballroom dancing, a folk dancing group, a rock group, a venue for political rallying, a children's music school and a girls' choral group —all secular uses having nothing to do with the church as a religious institution. This growth of the property as a commercial business occurred without any municipal permits and, therefore, without regulation. The city government's recent objection to this practice has resulted in the current application for a conditional use permit to restore the church's full range of rental options. It's hard to find words to describe the magnitude of the intrusion into our home and lives brought about by the unrestrained uses of the church in recent years. Times of illness, times of pleasure, times of friendship and the ordinary peaceful times of domestic life —all have been repeatedly interrupted by the persistent clamor of the tenants renting the church's facility next door. With it's windows and doors wide open, its amplified sound and its total disregard for the community around it, the church makes a very great difference in the quality of life possible in this neighborhood. These effects are not a secret. They are widely known and, if one of us were to place our home on the market for sale, these unusual conditions would have to be disclosed to prospective buyers as a relevant nuisance. Left unregulated, in other words, activities at the church would materially compromise the property values of the homes that surround it. I hope the council members will understand that our complaint implies no judgment of the value of the various organizations that rent the church facilities. We object to their placement in an area that, in terms of 1 traffic, parking and noise, is inadequate to accommodate them. In his application for a permit, Mr. Mixon asks to be allowed to continue these activities every day and night for as many as five hundred people. He makes this application "under protest" because he seems to believe that a church should not be subject to normal municipal regulations under the city's zoning ordinances. Please consider carefully the logic of this position. Mr. Mixon is saying, in effect, that the further the church declines as a religious institution the more it is entitled to privileges that are unique to religious institutions and would be denied to any secular property in the community. I am familiar with the argument that the role of churches has changed over time, that churches need to become more integrated into the values and activities of the community at large and that this integration necessarily involves activities on their premises that are not specifically religious. The mistake would be to identify the First Baptist Church as representative of Palo Alto churches in general. It is not true that most of our churches have declined in their membership as the First Baptist Church has during Mr. Mixon's stewardship. Indeed some have enjoyed robust gains in the sizes of their congregations during the same period. It is also not true that Palo Alto churches all occupy spaces as physically constrained as this church does. Many have large parking facilities and buildings well separated from surrounding homes. Finally we need to ask what this debate is actually about. It is not about the church's tenants. As the New Mozart School has amply demonstrated, it is always possible to find alternative, and more appropriate, venues for our community's worthy activities. And it is not about the needs of a robust congregation of worshippers. Mr. Mixon and his supporters wish to use the church property as a commercial business for their own purposes. My argument is that they should not be allowed to do so to the detriment of the surrounding neighborhood. I respectfully request that you deny the First Baptist Church's application to become a community center. Thank you for your attention, Loy D. Martin 349 North California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 z Loy D. Martin 170 Glenn Way, #11 San Carlos, CA 94070 loymartin(a icloud.com www.loymartinfumiture.com 3 Owen, Graham From: jhchinatpa@aol.com Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 10:11 AM To: FBC Application Subject: Urge your prompt approval of Conditional Use Permit for First Baptist Church of Palo Alto Dear Mr. Graham Owen and Mr. Jonathan Lait, We have been members of the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto since 1960 when we first moved to Palo Alto and we have seen drastic changes in the church over the years from several hundreds attending Sunday church services to less than 50. We are a diverse group but considered that part of the mission of the church is to be all inclusive and to serve others. So the various groups that met in our church were considered to be part of our extended family who were contributing to the broader Palo Alto community. We have the space resources in our building for groups to meet and felt that was good stewardship of our resources. We now realize that we have had a huge communication gap among some of our neighbors, since we never had a chance to discuss ways we could resolve the issues of traffic and other things that were annoying them. Also we surmise that the City of Palo Alto assumed we were aware of the various issues brought to them by neighbors, but unfortunately we got the message by an enforcement letter without any discussion. We really do want to be good neighbors and are extremely sorry that we did not have a chance to discuss the current problem directly with our neighbors and reach some type of resolution that both sides would be satisfied, without having your division spend so much time with this issue. We gather that the new No Parking signs installed by the City on California Avenue in November has alleviated most of the problems when children are riding home from school and also the limit of 5 -minute drop-off zone at other times has been useful. Pending approval by the City of the conditional Use Permit, the church is ready to act on 2 bids for a HVAC system to be used in Fellowship Hall so that windows can remain closed to mitigate noise concerns of neighbors. Before the current situation we are fortunate that we did have a neighbor discuss concern and afterwards, had double -paned windows installed on the second floor. We hope that the church has now provided sufficient information for the Conditional Use Permit so that the planning commission will recommend speedy acceptance of the plan to the City Council so that we can resume what we normally do. We do have to admit that we do have apprehension that we may have to leave our beloved church facilities that have been at this location for 80 years since 1948 if this process is not handled expediently so that we can continue to be a good neighbor and still contribute to the city of Palo Alto. We appreciate your time and effort to understand our point of view that the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto is trying to continue what it has done over the years, similar to the conventional practice of other churches throughout the country, but , to comply with your request, is applying for a Conditional Use Permit so that we can be considered a "community center" as well as a church. Thank you for your help, Jane and Jin Chin 727 Christine Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 1 Owen, Graham From: Laura Seitel <Iseitel@mac.com> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 10:05 PM To: Owen, Graham Subject: Re: Noise at First Baptist Church in Palo Alto On Jan 29, 2018, at 10:28 AM, Laura Seitel <lseitel cr,rnac.com> wrote: Dear Graham, Thank you for your helpful response. I will send you my feedback about living next to the church shortly. I would very much like to be informed about the upcoming community meeting about the church's CUP application and I will check your website periodically. Your response suggests that the city has no power to extract from the church a list of of its current activities, that the city does not know what they are, and that the public thus has no right to access to this information. If I'm mistaken about that, please let me know. In the meantime, I will turn my efforts toward the more important effort of making the case against the church's CUP request. Again, thank you for all of your help with this. Best regards, Laura On Jan 29, 2018, at 9:13 AM, Owen, Graham <Graham.Owen@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Hello Ms. Seitel, Thanks for your message and follow-up. We have requested a complete schedule of the ongoing activities at the First Baptist Church as a component of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application for a community center currently on file with our department. So far we have not received the requested schedule, but if we do I will certainly provide it. In the interim, a community meeting on the application is in the works, and if you would like I would be more than happy to forward you the meeting details once they are confirmed. As an adjacent neighbor I would think your input would be particularly valuable. Also, if you haven't seen it already allow me to direct you to the City's website specifically established for the Community Center CUP application, which provides the details of the request:https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/first baptist church.asp. This website will be updated periodically while the CUP application is processed. Best, Graham <image001.png> Graham Owen I Associate Planner 1 P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue 1 Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2552 1 E: graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email —Thank you! 1 From: Laura Seitel [mailto:Iseitel@mac.com] Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2018 10:59 PM To: Owen, Graham Subject: Re: Noise at First Baptist Church in Palo Alto On Jan 27, 2018, at 12:05 PM, Laura Seitel <lseitel@mac.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Owen, I am re -sending my message to you of January 23rd to ask for confirmation that you received it and to ask, again, for a detailed schedule of what activities are currently permitted in the church. My request is based on the assumption that in attempting to understand the differences between the church and its neighbors, the city will be interested in knowing whether the church is currently conforming to city regulations or, as during the past decade, it is breaking them. Since to my knowledge no one in city government is monitoring church activities on a daily (and nightly) basis, it falls to the church's neighbors to gather as much of this information as we can. Thank you for your attention to my concerns. Sincerely, Laura Seitel On Jan 23, 2018, at 5:05 PM, Laura Seitel <lseitel@mac.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Owen, I live at 349 North California Avenue, right next door to the First Baptist Church. I will be sending you a longer and more general message about the ways that the church has disturbed the peace and tranquillity of my and my husband's lives and our neighborhood generally over the past decade, but today I am writing about a specific incident. I became aware at 4:45 PM this afternoon that there was loud noise coming from the church annex where iSing was holding an event. The front door was wide open, there was loud music playing and adults and children dancing, the iSing leader shouting and children screaming. I suspect this event had been going on for some time before I learned of it. I made a video recording which I am happy to make available to you. I am aware that iSing was granted a temporary stay of eviction from the church while the latter pursued negotiations with the City. I have a class schedule for the 2017-18 season which says that iSing is allowed to hold a class in Melodies at the church for 20 singers from 5 to 6 PM. on Tuesdays. It is therefore a mystery what iSing was doing in the church before this time. Perhaps my schedule is out of date. If so, I would be grateful to have a new one. In any event, I believe that iSing is violating city regulations at this point by creating such a noise disturbance, no matter what the time or date. Yours sincerely, 2 Laura Seitel 3 Owen, Graham From: Geoff Donaker <gdonaker@stanfordalumni.org> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 4:32 PM To: FBC Application Subject: Re: Permit for 305 N. California Ave (First Baptist Church) Hi Graham - Thanks for your response, and for this additional information. In this new attachment, I see that the church is proposing to keep the center open until 10pm weeknights and l 1pm on weekends. This strikes me as quite late at night, particularly if this is meant to include large (loud) events like weddings. I don't recall any recent church events that have gone that late into the evening, so it's not clear to me whether this is meant to be an expansion of their current activity. I also don't know what time restrictions are normal in other neighborhood event venues, so defer to you on those specifics. Thanks, Geoff On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:44 PM, FBC Application<FBCApplication(c�cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hi Geoff, Thanks for your message regarding this parking and loading issue, we will certainly take your suggestions into consideration. I wanted to let you know that we received a package of additional information from First Baptist Church today to supplement their Conditional Use Permit application. I have attached that package here for your reference. We are still reviewing this latest information, but I will keep you in the loop as we continue to process the application. Best, Graham 11) CITY OF PALO ALTO Graham Owen I Associate Planner I P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue 1 Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2552 1 E: graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org 1 Please think of the environment before printing this email — Thank you! From: Geoff Donaker[mailto:gdonaker(astanfordalumni.orq] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 8:44 AM To: FBC Application Subject: Permit for 305 N. California Ave (First Baptist Church) Mr Owen - Thanks for your work on the proposed community center permit for First Baptist Church. Fm generally happy to see the children- and family -based activity that happens at the church, so am supportive of a permit that allows that to continue. My one major concern has been around the parking and drop-off situation, which is often dangerous in the late afternoon and early evening.... as many parents double-park in the bike lanes and make mid -block U-turns as other children are biking home. While this is not directly the fault of the church or its tenants, I believe they can and should do more to mitigate this problem. Some options would be to stagger pick-up times, increase the parking lot size and/or staff a parking attendant to manage those busy times. In summary, I hope some reasonable compromise can be reached such that these community programs can all continue at the church, albeit with safer traffic. Thank you, Geoff Donaker (Neighbor of 305 N. California) 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO Owen, Graham From: Owen, Graham Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 3:42 PM To: Jerome Spector Subject: RE: CUP First Baptist Church Attachments: FBC CUP - Supplemental Information - Received 01.19.2018.pdf Hi Jerome, Thanks for your message regarding this parking issue. I wanted to let you know that we received a package of additional information from First Baptist Church today to supplement their Conditional Use Permit application. I have attached that package here for your reference. We are still reviewing this latest information, but I will keep you in the loop as we continue to process the application. Best, Graham Graham Owen 1 Associate Planner 1 P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue 1 Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2552 1 E: graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email —Thank you! From: Jerome Spector [mailto:jerryss011 gmail.comj Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 7:38 AM To: Owen, Graham Subject: CUP First Baptist Church re: First Baptist Church - CUP..Dear Mr. Owen, I am a resident who lives at 2332 South Court and would like to be kept infonned on any action on this application. My issue as many other neighbors have expressed is cars parking on the street and sometimes blocking driveways during activities. I did read the response that the pastor stated that he has "attempted" to speak to members about the parking, but they appear not to be listening. This combined with the terrible parking issues in the California business area which has shifted many commuters to park in neighborhoods is a real problem. Thank you for keeping me and my neighbors informed. Jerry Spector 2332 South Court jerryssOl@gmail.com Owen, Graham From: Barb Swenson <barb@bpswenson.com> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 3:23 PM To: FBC Application Subject: First Baptist Church I live at the corner of Waverly and North California which is about a half a block from the church. I have experienced no problems with people coming and going into the church more than usual. I am very pleased that the church is being utilized and seems vibrant compared to how it used to be where it was quiet except for Sunday morning and Monday evening when they have a vegetarian dinner in their multi -purpose room. I also loved the fact that every October they housed homeless people. I see no problem with extending their permit to Community Center and hope that if there are any specific problems like idling cars that that can be dealt with rather than rejecting their application. I decided to live in Palo Alto 45 years ago because of the Community Resources and I hope that my neighbors feel that way as well. Sincerely Barbara Swenson 2205 Waverley Street Palo Alto 1 Owen, Graham From: Ronald Wilensky <ronwilensky@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 11:46 PM To: Owen, Graham Cc: Sarah Burgess Subject: Re -confirmation of meeting on Jan 23 Hi Graham, 1. Please confirm that our meeting is indeed on Tuesday Jan 23 at 3pm. A Jan 24th was floating around for a while. Where is the precise location of your office? 2. It's been pointed out to me that in addition to the five organizations listed on https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/first baptist church.asp the Peninsula Peace and Justice Center also lists 305 N. California Avenue, #3 as its address on its web page Contact Us I Peninsula Peace and Justice Center taal ;o contact PPJC' and hok4 to find us. Office Location and Mailing Address Peninsula Peace and Justice Center 3... http://www.peaceandjustice.org/contactus/ Best regards, Ron Owen, Graham From: Robin Feldman <robinfeldman@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 8:23 PM To: FBC Application Subject: Conditional use permit, 305 N. California Dear City of Palo Alto Planning Department, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the use permit requested by 305 N. Caifornia Avenue to create a community center. I live at 2121 Waverley Street, quite close to 305 N. California. I strongly object to the permit requested. This is a quiet, residential neighborhood. A community center would be entirely out of character Turning the property into a community center would be incompatible and disruptive to the neighborhood character. Those uses bring a massive increase in automobile traffic, not just at the ordinary times of church worship, but constantly. With almost no parking, the visitors now (and with increased uses, there will be more going forward) park on the streets, creating congestion for the children and families who bike and walk in the neighborhood. Worse yet, the street is already dangerous in that area. After the recent repaving of N. California, the street is not wide enough to accommodate cars in both directions along with bicycles in the bike lane. When cars are moving in opposite directions, one has to pull over to let the other one pass. It is an accident waiting to happen, and one that will be hastened by increasing the traffic presence on the street. Having people park, get dropped off, and get picked up makes no sense in an area that is not designed for such flow. Those who engage in these uses already appear to be driving from other locations, rather than in the neighborhood. Thus, the current and any increased traffic pressure from the property will be from those arriving by car, not by bike or on foot. The supposed community center is simply a way of bringing income onto the property to cover the costs of operating a church that is failing. Regardless of how one tries to dress it up, that is the project. Moreover, given that there is a middle school a few blocks away that has recreational facilities and where community events could easily be held, one would be hard pressed to explain why there is an urgent need for a community center at this location. Certainly the need would not justify deviating from zoning restrictions on the property. Warmest regards, Robin Feldman 1 Owen, Graham From: Ronald Wilensky <ronwilensky@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 4:36 PM To: Owen, Graham Cc: hilary.gitelman@CityofPaloAlto.org Subject: Request for Information - First Baptist Church of Palo Alto CUP Application Dear Mr. Owen: I am a neighbor living across the street from the First Baptist Church of Palo (FBCPA). The intention of the FBCPA to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate its facilities as a Community Center is alarming to me. Over the years, my neighbors and I have suffered parking disruption, traffic congestion, and/or excessive noise from the New Mozart School of Music, iSing Silicon Valley, the Stanford International Folk Dance, and other large groups that have used FBCPA facilities without a CUP. The large-scale activities of these groups are inconsistent with the quiet residential (Zoned R-1) neighborhood of single-family homes that surrounds the FBCPA. I would like to provide more detailed comments on the current CUP application but there is not enough information available on the Buildingeye Palo Alto website to determine exactly what the FBCPA intends to do with the CUP. It would therefore be most helpful if you could send me whatever other materials you can that provide more details about the CUP application. I also understand that you have also requested additional information from FBCPA. If it's possible for you to send me that information it would also be very helpful. Thank you very much for your assistance. Best regards, Ron Wilensky ronwilensky@yahoo.com 1 Owen, Graham From: Kelly Reilly <kelandkidsr@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2018 5:11 PM To: FBC Application Subject: re: First Baptist Church We are in support of the church continuing all the services (dance, chorus, therapy, etc.) that they have been offering over the years. We have had no issues. Our children took music lessons years ago there and it was wonderful to walk to lessons. We hope it works out for them! Kelly Kelly Rose Reilly e-mail: kelandkidsR@gmail.com cell #: 650-678-7283 1 Owen, Graham From: Herb & Ann Nyser <hnyser@pacbell.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 4:28 PM To: FBC Application Subject: First Baptist Church Enough! Our once quiet street is now a major bypass to reach highway 101. The church has become everything but a church. Housing for homeless, aliens, Monday night dinners, music lessons etc. We do not need more traffic on this street. The church, which has few in attendance on Sunday for services, might try a new location in order to meet their tax base, just a thought. Thank you, Ann Nyser 453 North California Ave 1 Owen, Graham From: Donald Morgan <dlmorgan33@msn.com> Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2017 1:47 PM To: FBC Application Subject: Comments on First Baptist Church application to allow a community center at 305 N. California Ave; attention Jonathan Lait My wife and I support the subject application. We are not members of the church but I have attended some concerts there. We live one block from the church, at 428 N. California Ave. We have lived here for the past 9+ years and have never observed or heard of any inconvenience to the neighborhood from activities at the church. (We regularly drive past the church, and walk past it several times a week.) We have seen some increase in on -street parking during events at the church but that has been limited to the immediate vicinity, on the northwest side of California Ave between Bryant and Waverly Streets, and on the southeast side of Bryant near California Ave. (alongside the church). We see no reason to expect additional manifestations of activities at the church. The expected activities all seem quite beneficial to various segments of the public, and should enhance the experience of living in this neighborhood and a larger community as well. Respectfully submitted, Donald L. Morgan 1 Owen, Graham From: jennifer chan <jennchan99@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 10:00 PM To: FBC Application Subject: Traffic concerns We have traffic concerns regarding the community center application of the First Baptist Church. The church has prohibited parking at the N. California and Bryant intersection at peak use hours. This has lead to parents double parking along N. California and blocking the bike lane. Kids are dashing out of cars and cars and bikes are weaving around the double parked cars. With the recent widening of the bike lane, the car lanes on this section of N. California are already very narrow. With the limitation on parking spots, parked cars are (continuing) to overflow onto surrounding streets. We have cars parked now on the 200 block of Washington. Pedestrians, parents and children, are jaywalking in all direction to get to and from the church to their cars. Most concerning is jaywalking around the Bryant/N. California 4 way stop. At baseline, bikes rarely stop at the stop sign. Added to this we have parents and kids diagonally dashing across the busy 4 way stop. The church driveway that exits onto Bryant is also a hazard. With cars parked along the street, cyclists cannot see cars exiting the driveway onto Bryant. Bryant is a bike path and very busy with cyclists. In search of spots, cars are doing 3 point and U-turns at the T -intersection of Washington and Bryant. Quite a hazard as Bryant is heavy with cyclists going in both directions. Cars coming down bryant from Oregon Expressway are also accelerating at this point as they have just pulled thru the 4 way intersection at Bryant/N.California and have to suddenly stop for the u -turners on Bryant. I think if you had someone come up at watch the pedestrian and traffic patterns from 4-7PM on weekday during the school year, the problems would be quite evident. The corner of Bryant and N. California just cannot handle all the cars, bikes and pedestrians. Thank you for reviewing this safety matter, Jennifer Chan/240 Washington Owen, Graham From: Wenlin Chen <wenlinch@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 7:30 PM To: FBC Application Subject: Concerns on a Community Center at First Baptist Church Sorry that I accidentally sent my unfinished email. Here is the complete letter: The biggest concern for me about having a community center at First Baptist Church is the overflowing parked cars along my street. I won't have street space at my front door to park cars or for my garbage cans. If a community center is unavoidable there, I like to propose to have their patrons park only at designated spaces that are along the boundary of the church. Thank you for your considerations. Wenlin Chen 2284 Bryant Street Forwarded message From: Wenlin Chen <wenlinch a,gmail.com> Date: Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 6:02 PM Subject: Concers on a Community Ceter at First Baptist Church To:<fbcapplication@cityofpaloalto.org> Hello, The biggest concern for me about having a community center at First Baptist Church is the overflowing parked car along my street. I won't have street space at my front door to park cars or 1 Owen, Graham From: Gerhardt, Jodie Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 5:14 PM To: bill.whitmer@yahoo.com Cc: Owen, Graham; FBC Application Subject: RE: First Baptist Church Mr. Whitmer, Thank you for your email. The issue with the email address seems to be in the first few letters. The email address starts with "fbc" vs fcb. I have copied the correct email address above, so your comments will be included in the record. Sincerely, Jodie Gerhardt, AICP 1 Manager of Current Planning 1 P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue 1 Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2575 E: jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org . 7 s. PALO ALTO From: Kort, Evan Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 4:12 PM To: Owen, Graham Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie Subject: FW: First Baptist Church From: Bill Whitmer [mailto:bill.whitmer@yahoo.coml Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 4:02 PM To: PlannerOnDuty Subject: Fw: First Baptist Church To whom it may concern, I tried to send the message below in response to a mailing we received today. The address given in the mailing was the one we used below. I also tried the .gov domain and that failed too. Please resend your mailing with a usable address Thanks Bill Whitmer Forwarded Message From: Bill Whitmer <bill.whitmer@yahoo.com> To: fcbapplicationna cityofpaloalto.orq<fcbapplication(a�cityofpaloalto.orq> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017, 2:13:11 PM PST Subject: First Baptist Church Mr Owen, 1 We support the application by First Baptist Church to host a community center on their property. The church has been a leader in important community work. We wish to see them continue to fulfill this important role. We were appalled when the City of Palo Alto forced the church to begin evicting individuals and organizations that contributed to safe and peaceful community life. Traffic has never been an nuisance. We're been living at 2220 Ramona which is a block and a half away for 39 years. We can't remember ever having been inconvenienced by the church or church supported activities. Respectfully, Jan and Bill Whitmer 2 Owen, Graham From: Alison Guan <alisonguan@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 4:12 PM To: FBC Application Cc: Brian Guan Subject: Community comment on First Baptist Church Hi Mr. Owen, I am writing in response to your invitation for community feedback on the application by the pastor of the First Baptist Church to allow the church to be used as a community center. My husband Brian and I live at 2260 South Court. We purchased our home in 2015, so we are relative newcomers to the neighborhood. We live here with our two sons who attend Jordan Middle School. We are close enough to the Baptist Church that we regularly hear sounds of choir practice or other events from the church. We are also close enough that people attending activities at the church regularly park in front of our house. The proximity of the the church and the activities there do not bother us at all. On the contrary, we enjoy the liveliness and vitality it brings to the neighborhood. The church is situated as part of a corridor of activity, as there is a lot of foot & bike traffic along California Ave leading to the underpass. To us this is part of the attractive character of the neighborhood, the fact that the neighborhood has not just homes but community spaces including Jordan, Caltrain, and the First Baptist Church. We are pleased that the church has applied for a community center status and do hope it is approved. We would hate to see the church disappear and be replaced with more homes. Best regards, Alison & Brian Guan 2260 South Court Palo Alto 1 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:54 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Tim Cain <tim.cain@att.net> Sent:Tuesday, May 01, 2018 8:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:First Baptist Church Safety Hello City Council Members,    I was born in 1960 in Midtown and have lived with my wife and kids for the past 26 years at 2261 South Court in an old  Tudor 4 bedroom house built in the late 20s.  We REALLY love the neighborhood life ( that is why we moved here ) of a  quiet street that “T”s off at both ends and our 3 daughters have lived their whole lives at this address.  This is why we  exceeded our upper limit price, took on tougher jobs so we could afford it, and bought our house here in this  neighborhood.  There are just two houses between us and the church, and its changing use has had an enormous impact  on our formerly quiet lifestyle.    We love the city’s accommodation of bike traffic and are proud to live a few houses away from the intersection of  Bryant and North California, two of the most heavily used bike boulevards by students and commuters alike.  This  intersection will soon get a roundabout installed, which will eliminate curbside parking spaces for short stretches of both  streets in all 4 directions.  This will be good for bike safety and I applaud the city’s foresight.  However, after responding  to the official notice and attending the April 11 meeting in the Council Chambers, I am beginning to feel that my faith in  the Planning and Transportation Commission may have been misplaced.  By name, the Planning and Transportation  Commission should be concerned to some degree with safety.  At their highly dysfunctional April 11 meeting, the most  vocal member of the Commission turned the debate into a bullying diatribe against the hard work and analysis put forth  by city staff.  There was no visible concern for safety and the outcome was a recommendation for increased usage,  traffic and community center status, without regard for the realities of the bike route location and lack of parking.     We use North California as our connecting route whenever we leave our house (on bike or by car) because the Oregon  Avenue frontage road intersections are too dangerous due to their confusing nature for non‐residents who haven’t  figured out the stop sign‐keep clear‐wait here dance that is required to make the weight sensors work properly with the  traffic signal system.  On North California, the traffic at the church, which is exactly where South Court T’s off, is also  very dangerous, for different reasons.  There is an almost non‐stop flow of frantic cars dropping off and picking up one  student each at the church’s various tenant businesses.  If you tally up all of the music classes being held, you can  multiply that times two to get the total number of trips by car to the curbs nearby, since there is virtually no parking on  the church premises available to these businesses.  North California has been striped to accommodate the huge volume  of kids on their bikes coming and going from Jordan Middle school every day.  The confluence of these middle schoolers  in a hurry to get to school or back home, the now much narrower path for cars both ways, and the double parking drop‐ off realities of music student commutes make for an extremely high risk of life and limb at this location.     Additionally, the quiet calm atmosphere we paid a premium for when we moved to South Court has been replaced by all  those cars who aren’t frantically double parking for their drop offs.  These “ahead of schedule” commuters know that  South Court is the closest source of curb space to the classrooms their kids need to get to, so they turn in and find the  closest unoccupied stretch of parking they can find.  Since we live on this block, we have seen it evolve from a quiet  community of kids and pets able to play in their front yards, to a busy flow of parking and leaving on an hourly  basis.  Can you imagine the number of 3 point turns that are made in each of our driveways just so all of these parkers  can come and go from North California, instead of Oregon Ave?  Can you imagine the difference this constant activity  would have on the quality of life for a new family putting down roots on South Court?  We have spent the past quarter  century preserving and enjoying our classic Palo Alto lifestyle, which features a front yard meant for use and enjoyment,  not just parking for a nearby business.  This coming, going, backing up and parallel parking is clearly a big worry for a  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:54 AM 2 new family with small children or pets, and it will surely reduce the pool of potential buyers who want to live here when  we are gone, and it will reduce the price those few would be willing to pay.  What is our personal cost ( in terms of resale  value ) that we must pay for the church’s desire to take in businesses without even the slightest accommodation for the  realities of the traffic dangers they bring?     Please use your vote to protect our safety and quality of life.     Thank you,  Tim Cain  2261 South Court  (650) 799‐7203 cell      Sent from Mail for Windows 10    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:54 AM 3 Carnahan, David From:Tom Holzer <tom.holzer@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 01, 2018 3:11 PM To:Council, City Cc:info@isingsv.com Subject:First Baptist CUP To the Palo Alto City Council I am writing in support of a Conditional Use Permit for First Baptist Church (FBC) of Palo Alto that will permit FBC to host  its partners that provide invaluable arts and social services to the community. Local organizations like FBC provide  their partners with affordable and convenient facilities, an increasingly unavailable situation in Palo Alto. I recognize the needs of residential neighbors must be considered including usage and occupancy, but I am sure that a  reasonable compromise can be found that meets the needs of both the community and neighbors.     Thomas L. Holzer 15 Phillips Road Palo Alto, CA (A Palo Alto resident since 1975) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:54 AM 4 Carnahan, David From:Susan Bradley <sibnotes@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 01, 2018 5:17 PM To:Council, City Cc:info@isingsv.com Subject:First Baptist Church of Palo Alto's Conditional Use Permit Palo Alto City Council May 1, 2018 city.council@cityofPaloalto.org Dear Members, I attended the recent city meeting when supporters of the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto continuing its functioning as a community center of sorts, and neighbors complaining about noise, traffic, and parking, met to hear each other out. My impression was that both sides listened to each other. The church has before and since instituted many new practices to address the complaints. And the neighbors seem sympathetic to the groups who meet in the church. The testimonies of members of iSing seemed particularly moving to all. It would be a real victory for all if the concerns of both sides could be worked out amicably. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the church would signal the cooperation between the church supporters, and the church neighbors. I support the granting of a Conditional Use Permit for FBC with workable use conditions Including reasonable days, hours, and occupancy that will make it possible for FBC to host its arts and social service partners. I stopped in last Saturday and was happy to see the church buzzing along, children and adults busy in various activities. It seemed just like a church should be. Not still and somber and empty on every day but Sunday. Thank you for your attention, Susan Bradley City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:54 AM 5 Carnahan, David From:Gloria Seid <gseid@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, May 01, 2018 9:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:CUP First Baptist Church May 1, 2018 Dear Council Members, My family has lived directly across the street from the First Baptist Church for 40 years. The front door of the sanctuary faces my front door. Up until about 11 years ago, we have happily witnessed many religious events come and go at the church. We have enjoyed watching about 4 to 5 weddings per year and the happiness that it brought to the brides and grooms and their families. That has all ended. To my knowledge there was not a single wedding in the last year. I have also noticed that the congregation has continued to dwindle. I watched the number of parishioners that attended the Sunday sermon last weekend and counted only 16 members. This brings me to my point. It is apparent that the congregation is losing money, and that it is seeking other means to create more income. However, allowing the church to become a community center, and to lease space out for unrestricted commercial use as the Planning Commission decided, is not the answer. As you know, we are in R1 zone, in a designated bike corridor, there are only 8 parking spaces (one is for handicap parking and one is reserved for the pastor, which leaves only 6 usable spaces), and there is a huge traffic and safety issue. The additional cars that will be drawn to the neighborhood due to community center activities is dangerous and unsustainable, notwithstanding the impending roundabout which will take away an approximate additional 12 parking spaces at the corner. Being that we live on this corner of Bryant and N. California Ave., I have witnessed not only near misses but numerous car and bike accidents, some with serious injuries, broken shoulders and arms, a baby in a car seat with broken window glass in his mouth, inflated air bags from sudden impact. Will it take a critical injury or fatality to shake us into our senses before it is too late? We the neighbors are not ogres, not bullies and not nimbys (as we were accused of at the Jordan meeting). We want to protect our properties, our families and our quality of life. In lieu of not passing the conditional use permit, please heed the conditions that were put forth by the planning department, especially the proposals by Mr. Lait and Mr. Owen. I believe a neighborly compromise should be reached. Sincerely, Gloria Seid 310 N. California Ave City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:54 AM 6 Carnahan, David From:Judith Schwartz <judith@tothept.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 01, 2018 9:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:305 N. California Avenue First Baptist Church Community Center CUP May 1, 2018  Dear Council Members,  I’ve lived on Bryant Street, near the First Baptist Church, since 1984.  Like many of our neighbors, I appreciate the  wonderful weather we have in Palo Alto that allows us to live without air conditioning.  Keeping the windows and  skylights open all evening allows us to cool the house down.  When we remodeled 18 years ago, we insulated well and  created an energy efficient environment that minimizes the electricity we consume all summer.  Despite the proximity to Oregon Expressway, the noise pollution we suffer is limited to nights when the Shoreline  Amphitheater shakes our house with pounding base sounds and when the flight paths of the low flying jets align over  our home.  Most of the time, our home is a peaceful place where we can get away from the stresses that come from  being in a community that is increasingly urbanized.  I am very sympathetic to the immediate neighbors of the Church who have to hear children learning music for several  hours each day. While listening to your child practice or give a performance is a delight to family and close friends, it’s a  less happy experience for those without a personal connection—especially if the noise is constant.  The thought of  allowing the Church to finance their small congregation with a commercial operation with amplified music on every  evening they can book their hall at below market rates is distressing.  Imagine never being able to find peace or respite  in your own home or having to choose between deafening music and cooling your home to a reasonable temperature in  warm weather.  If the goal of the Church was to be a welcoming community center featuring choral and acoustic music, then reaching  out to the neighbors who could walk to performances would make a lot of sense as a resource that could potentially  benefit local residents.  That has not happened to date and the rejection of even the staff’s plan insures that we will  have no safeguards or recourse.  Instead we are getting an unregulated commercial enterprise without adequate  parking that will spill significant noise, cigarette smoke, additional traffic and parking problems onto the surrounding  streets. It is a foreseeable outcome.  We on California Avenue and Bryant Street already absorb the impact of being a bike boulevard and secondary  thoroughfare to Oregon Expressway.  We are not NIMBYS or bullies just because we do not want to be at the mercy of  an operation that has shown a complete disregard for our concerns.  I understand the passion of the iSing parents for a  program that benefits their children and appreciate the steps they are taking to mitigate the disruption they are causing  but there is nothing in the Commission’s recommendation and dismissal of the staff report that would protect the  neighborhood from other less considerate renters of the church space.  If 100+ cars are added to our neighborhood  every evening or weekend, there are simply not enough spaces on the streets around the Church to accommodate  residents and our invited guests.  If R‐1 Zoning is to be meaningful, then please reconsider the lack of restrictions being recommended by the Planning and  Transportation Commission.  Sincerely,  Judith Schwartz  2330 Bryant Street  Palo Alto, CA 94301 USA  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:54 AM 8 Carnahan, David From:Rick Block <rickblock@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 02, 2018 5:59 AM To:Council, City Subject:CUP Application of First Baptist Church Dear Council Members, Our home is at the corner of N. California and Bryant, diagonally across the intersection from First Baptist Church. We are writing to express deep concern about its application for a conditional use permit to allow the conversion of the facility to a community center. While we are not opposed in principle to that change in classification, we are extremely worried about the problems of safety, parking, and noise that would result from granting the application on the terms approved by the Planning Commission. And we are profoundly disappointed that the Planning Commission dismissed the carefully considered recommendations of city staff. These recommendations were the product of an extensive, professional, conscientious effort to address and balance the interests of the applicant, the concerns of those most adversely affected, and the safety of the many Palo Altans who would be put at risk. If Council, in its wisdom, determines to approves the CUP application, we implore it to reinstate the staff's recommendations. Respectfully, Rabbi Richard and Susan Block City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:54 AM 9 Carnahan, David From:Monty Frost <montyfrost@covad.net> Sent:Wednesday, May 02, 2018 11:24 AM To:Council, City; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; Owen, Graham Cc:Judy Frost Subject:Please do not approve First Baptist Church as a "Community Center" Dear Council Members and Planning Commission Members, The proposal to operate the First Baptist Church at the corner of North California Avenue and Bryant Street as a “community center” is detrimental to the safety of bicyclists on both the North California and Bryant bicycle routes. The proposal is also detrimental to the convenience of local residents who need spaces to park in front of their homes in the neighborhood. The problem is parking. The Baptist Church has only two parking spaces for the public,* so the only significant parking is on the street. How many places are needed for the proposed large meetings throughout the day and night? A lot. All on the street. Cars parking on either street will open their car doors right into the bicycle path, risking the safety of bicyclists. Cars dropping off people may also need to open their doors into the bicycle path. High volumes of cars pulling in and out will cross the bicycle path. This is not conducive to bicycle safety. Already, N. California Avenue is very crowded. A marked bicycle lane in each direction on N. California has been recently added by the bicycle initiative. Now, two cars going opposite directions on N. California have difficulty passing while staying out of the bicycle lanes. Adding a heavier traffic load to N. California Avenue is not conducive to automobile safety. Also, residents in the area value the ability to park in front of their homes, or allow guests, gardeners, delivery trucks, garbage collection and so forth to do so. The almost complete lack of parking at the proposed “Community Center” will force attendees who park onto the surrounding residential streets, creating another situation like Castelleja School. I don’t think we need that in Palo Alto. To make matters worse, the City’s bicycle initiative is putting a roundabout at N. California and Bryant, which will require that many of the street parking places be removed so motorists can see other vehicles and bicyclists approaching. Much of the existing street parking right in front of the church will be removed, further inconveniencing the neighbors. Three good examples of community-center-type-activities are the YMCA on Ross Road, the JCC on Charleston, and the Cubberley Center where there is total on-site parking, no doubt required by the City, as it should be. Where is the requirement for the Baptist Church? Please find that the proposed community center at the Baptist Church would be detrimental to residents in the surrounding neighborhood and dangerous for bicyclists and automobile traffic due to the lack of off-street parking. Also, in this era of declining membership in some churches, please consider the precedent you would be setting if you approve this proposal. Sincerely, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:54 AM 10 Monty and Judy Frost 1991 Bryant St. *We have been told that there are only 8 total parking spaces at the Church, with 2 dedicated to the pastor and administrator, 3 dedicated to the child care center, which is a separate property now, and one handicapped spot, leaving only two for the public. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:56 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Mahendra Ranchod <mahen.ranchod@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 29, 2018 10:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:First Baptist Church, North California Avenue Dear City Councillors, I live within a block of the church and I am writing this letter to express my alarm at the PTC's recommendation that the First Baptist Church be allowed to operate as a community center without restrictions. For the past five or more years, the First Baptist Church ignored municipal codes and rented its property to non-profit and for-profit groups, creating noise and hazardous traffic conditions that ceased only when the City shut down these activities because of code violations. At its April 11 meeting, the PTC ignored the Planning Department's recommendation for restricted activity at the church, and instead, recommended that the church be allowed to operate as a community center from 9-10pm Sundays through Thursdays, and 9am-11pm Fridays and Saturdays - unrestricted, for activities sponsored by non-profit and for-profit groups alike, and for any type of activity, including events with amplified music. The recommendation by the PTC is irresponsible, biased and not based on data. Isn't there a glaring discrepancy? How can the City close down illegal activities at the church one day and on another day, have the PTC not only restore those activities but expand their scope? Judging from the proceedings of the PTC meeting on April 11, it was clear that the commissioners' recommendations were swayed by at least two factors: a) The applicant is a church, a religious institution that the commissioners were partial to because it is a church. Would the commissioners have granted the same privileges to a mosque? b) There was over-representation at the meeting by supporters of a girl's choir group, and their impassioned statements may have played on the emotions of the commissioners. I am sure that this organization does good work, but the people aligned with this group only see the church through the eyes of their organization. They do not understand the cumulative effects of having multiple groups use the church, some noisier than others, all adding to traffic hazards at a busy bicycle intersection. The City cannot allow the First Baptist Church to revert to the practices they engaged in a few months ago when their activities were in violation of the City's municipal codes. The church's application to be a community center will take us back to that disruptive era. This church is not suitable for unrestricted use as a community center because it is tightly embedded in a residential neighborhood, has inadequate parking, and is located at the intersection of two busy bicycle boulevards. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:56 AM 2 When the PTC makes recommendations, it should be done thoughtfully, not in a cavalier fashion. The PTC has done our city a disservice. The City Council should ignore the PTC's recommendation and pay attention to the Planning Department's recommendations. Sincerely, Jaymati Ranchod City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:54 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Mahendra Ranchod <mahen.ranchod@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 29, 2018 8:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:First Baptist Church, North California Avenue Dear Members of the City Council, I live within a block of the First Baptist Church (FBC) and I am writing about the recommendation made by the Planning and Transportation Commission to allow the FBC to operate as a community center. I attended the PTC meeting on Wednesday April 11, and was shocked by the proceedings of that meeting. I would like to make a few points: 1. The Planning Department of the City put a great deal of effort into evaluating the church’s application to operate as a community center, and it came up with a plan that placed restrictions on the types of activities that could be hosted at the church, as well as restrictions on the hours of operation. One of the members of the PTC found fault with the Planning Department's analysis and went on a rampage, with arguments that persuaded all but one of the other commissioners to grant the church a free hand to do what it likes. If the PTC found fault with the Planning Department's data, it should have asked for more data instead of charging ahead with an inappropriate recommendation. 2. The PTC ignored the existing distinction in the municipal code between a church and a community center, and even if the City eliminates this distinction in the future, not all churches can be painted with the same brush. There are some unchangeable characteristics that make the FBC unsuitable for unrestricted use as a community center. These are: a) The church is in a R1 residential neighborhood and should not be allowed to host activities that are better suited to a commercial district. b) The church has 8 parking spaces, hopelessly inadequate, which means that visitors to the church have to park on nearby streets. There is insufficient street parking for large- City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:54 AM 2 group activities, a situation that will be exacerbated when street parking is reduced even further with the installation of a roundabout at the intersection of Bryant Street and North California Avenue. c) The church is at the intersection of two busy bicycle boulevards: Bryant Street and North California Avenue. It is unsafe to create a community center - a magnet for additional vehicular traffic - at the intersection of two bicycle boulevards. The shortage of parking on the premises of the church encourages poor driving etiquette, including double parking, blocking of entrances to driveways and parking on sidewalks, all of which increase the risk of accidents. Keep in mind that these two bicycle boulevards are heavily used by students who make their way to and from Jordan, Palo Alto High and Castilleja schools, and creating a community center in this location will put these students at significant risk. Has the PTC considered the legal liability this places on the City? d) The church does not have a dedicated area for drop-off and pick-up on its premises, which means that children who have activities at the church have to be dropped off and picked up curbside on streets with heavily-used bicycle lanes. This is extremely unsafe, and the notion that drop-offs and pick-ups can be staggered to avoid congestion is unworkable for large-group activities that have a fixed start-time and stop-time. The City should place a strict limit on the kinds of activities that require drop-off and pick-up of children and teenagers. 3. The Planning and Transportation Commission has failed in its duty to make an informed recommendation about the First Baptist Church. Their recommendation is not an example of good city planning; instead, the PTC has proposed that the City create hazardous conditions for all motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists who use the busy Bryant Street/North California intersection. I urge you to ignore the recommendation of the Planning and Transportation Commission, and that you request the Planning Department to present a plan that ensures the safety of all Palo Altans. Sincerely. Mahendra Ranchod City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:52 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Loy Martin <loymartin@icloud.com> Sent:Monday, April 30, 2018 7:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:First Baptist Church Attachments:Letter to city council.docx; First Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit.pdf Dear Council Members, I have written to you before expressing my opposition to the application made by the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto for a conditional use permit to operate as a community center. That letter is dated January 30, 2018 and I attach a copy here. Since I wrote that letter, the staff of the Planning Department has conducted a very thorough investigation into the neighborhood situation here. Jonathan Lait and Graham Owen have held community meetings and invested a great deal of time, skill and energy in trying to understand in fine detail both the needs of the church and those of the surrounding neighborhood. While I don’t agree with their conclusion that the CUP should go forward, I can only admire the conscientiousness of their effort. In short, they tried to find a middle ground, a set of compromises that all parties could accept. When the staff’s report was brought before the Planning and Transportation Commission on April 11, the most vocal member of the commission merely derided the report’s conclusions. What followed was an irresponsibly careless dismantling of the staff’s recommendations. In a few minutes, the careful analysis and work of many weeks was summarily dismissed. I write today to ask each member of the City Council to read with care and understanding the staff report as it was before it was attacked by the Planning and Transportation Commission. The Council has an opportunity to resolve the enmity generated by a very difficult period of nearly a decade in the neighborhood surrounding the First Baptist Church. If this resolution must be achieved through the community center framework, please give Mr. Lait and Mr. Owen the respect they deserve for a challenging job well done. I have attached a clean copy of their report for your convenience. Sincerely, Loy D. Martin 349 North California Avenue Palo Alto, CA. 94301 Phone: (650) 325-3416 loymartin@icloud.com www.loymartinfurniture.com After stints as both an undergraduate and a faculty member at Stanford, I moved to Palo Alto for good thirty five years ago. This is the first time I have written a letter to the governing council of the city I consider my home. I write now after learning that our next door neighbor, the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto, has applied for a conditional use permit as a “community center.” We bought our house at 349 North California Avenue in the spring of 1983. The First Baptist Church next door was a thriving church then and went about its business without unduly disturbing its neighbors. In addition to church services there were occasional weddings and other activities, mostly church related or charitable in nature. The congregants coming and going were, for the most part, familiar to the residents nearby. About a decade ago, things began to change, gradually at first, and in ways that it took us a few years to understand. We now know that this was around the time a new pastor, Randle Mixon, arrived on the scene. We also now know that the original healthy congregation of around eight hundred has, over the intervening years, and by Mr. Mixon’s own estimate, lost nearly ninety percent of its membership. This loss, again according to Mr. Mixon, left the church unable to meet its financial obligations. In recent years the church has addressed its fiscal problems by accumulating secular tenants, renting the church buildings out on several days, and especially evenings, each week, for events often lasting until 11:00 PM. The main activities hall lies less than fifty feet from our home so my wife and I have had ample opportunity to observe the range of tenants involved. These tenants have included a restaurant, a school for ballroom dancing, a folk dancing group, a rock group, a venue for political rallying, a children’s music school and a girls’ choral group—all secular uses having nothing to do with the church as a religious institution. This growth of the property as a commercial business occurred without any municipal permits and, therefore, without regulation. The city government’s recent objection to this practice has resulted in the current application for a conditional use permit to restore the church’s full range of rental options. It’s hard to find words to describe the magnitude of the intrusion into our home and lives brought about by the unrestrained uses of the church in recent years. Times of illness, times of pleasure, times of friendship and the ordinary peaceful times of domestic life—all have been repeatedly interrupted by the persistent clamor of the tenants renting the church’s facility next door. With it’s windows and doors wide open, its amplified sound and its total disregard for the community around it, the church makes a very great difference in the quality of life possible in this neighborhood. These effects are not a secret. They are widely known and, if one of us were to place our home on the market for sale, these unusual conditions would have to be disclosed to prospective buyers as a relevant nuisance. Left unregulated, in other words, activities at the church would materially compromise the property values of the homes that surround it. I hope the council members will understand that our complaint implies no judgment of the value of the various organizations that rent the church facilities. We object to their placement in an area that, in terms of traffic, parking and noise, is inadequate to accommodate them. In his application for a permit, Mr. Mixon asks to be allowed to continue these activities every day and night for as many as five hundred people. He makes this application “under protest” because he seems to believe that a church should not be subject to normal municipal regulations under the city’s zoning ordinances. Please consider carefully the logic of this position. Mr. Mixon is saying, in effect, that the further the church declines as a religious institution the more it is entitled to privileges that are unique to religious institutions and would be denied to any secular property in the community. I am familiar with the argument that the role of churches has changed over time, that churches need to become more integrated into the values and activities of the community at large and that this integration necessarily involves activities on their premises that are not specifically religious. The mistake would be to identify the First Baptist Church as representative of Palo Alto churches in general. It is not true that most of our churches have declined in their membership as the First Baptist Church has during Mr. Mixon’s stewardship. Indeed some have enjoyed robust gains in the sizes of their congregations during the same period. It is also not true that Palo Alto churches all occupy spaces as physically constrained as this church does. Many have large parking facilities and buildings well separated from surrounding homes. Finally we need to ask what this debate is actually about. It is not about the church’s tenants. As the New Mozart School has amply demonstrated, it is always possible to find alternative, and more appropriate, venues for our community’s worthy activities. And it is not about the needs of a robust congregation of worshippers. Mr. Mixon and his supporters wish to use the church property as a commercial business for their own purposes. My argument is that they should not be allowed to do so to the detriment of the surrounding neighborhood. I respectfully request that you deny the First Baptist Church’s application to become a community center. Thank you for your attention, Loy D. Martin 349 North California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Received MAR 13 2018 Annelie Myers 2215 Emerson Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 327-8335 Saturday, March 10, 2018 City of Palo Alto Attn: Ms. Hillary E. Gitelman, Director Planning/Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, Ca 94301 Re: First Baptist Church Application for Use as Community Center Department of Planning & Community Environment The March 7th meeting at Jordan Middle School was too lengthy for me to stay and speak, I therefore want to go on record as a nearby resident to object to the conversion of the Church into a Community Center. It would affect all the surrounding residences in a dramatic manner. My main concerns are lack of parking and increase of traffic both on Alma and California Avenue and near -by streets. t-ir, efit Annelie Myers Received MAR 13`2018 March 10, 2018 Department of Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Ms. Hillary E. Gitelman, Director Planning/Community Environment 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: First Baptist Church Application for Use as Community Center Thank you hosting last Wednesday's meeting at Jordan Middle School. I had another commitment that evening and was very sorry to miss it. As a nearby resident of the Baptist Church (I live 2 blocks away on Emerson St.), I have been concerned by the increase in traffic, congestion, biker safety issues and noise around the church for some time. I appreciate having a religious sanctuary in the neighborhood. When the Baptist Church had a full congregation and was not housing so many other organizations, there were certainly busier times, for example on Sunday. But these were limited in number and did not impact the neighborhood adversely. The situation is quite different now. For these reasons, I urge you to reject the Conditional Use Permit as it presently stands. However, I appreciate the Church's need for additional revenue and the difficulty of non -profits and small businesses to find affordable space in Palo Alto. Some questions: 1) Could a Conditional Use Permit with specific and more restricted parameters be issued? For example, more limited hours and only smaller group sizes. 2) For the larger groups, could the City offer affordable space at another Community Center location — for example, at Cubberly (especially after Avenidas leaves)? Thank you again for soliciting community input. I'll be on the look -out for your next meeting. Sincerely, /fit)9' Suzy Jensen suzyjensen@hotmail.com 590 Vine Street Menlo Park, CA 94025 February 23, 2018 Mr. Jonathan Lait Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mr. Lait: Received FEB 2 7 2018 Department of Planning & Community Environment Although I am a resident of Menlo Park, not Palo Alto, I am a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto, and I have many friends and colleagues in your community. One of these is Pastor Rick Mixon. We are both members of Multifaith Voices for Peace and Justice, and have worked together for over seven years . As you know, Rev. Mixon, the pastor of First Baptist Church, has applied for providing some of the facilities of First Baptist Church as a community center. This would formalize and expand the services that First Baptist Church has provided to the residents of Palo Alto for many years. Churches provide a variety of services to the community that are particularly important during times when political positions are becoming increasingly polarized. They provide neutral, welcoming, and respectful environments where people can come together, not only for religious services but also for community discussions and artistic experiences. I particularly appreciate the way that First Baptist Church has provided help for the homeless and solace for those in distress. A most recent instance that I attended was the special evening Peaceful Presence service held at First Baptist Church on February 11. Good faith efforts to accommodate our various needs and desires are required if we are to enjoy the benefits that a community can provide. I am confident that First Baptist Church will make the efforts needed to respect the needs of its neighbors, while also providing benefits both to them and to the larger community, and I support their application to formally establish a community center on their grounds. Sincerely, Richard O. Duda 650-223-3963 rod@duda.org What happens when a business illegally operates in a residential neighborhood? }(D r: Plved Departmnt u► running & Community Fnvironmenf This car crash occurred on February 7, when one parent of an iSing participant recklessly drove into the car of the parent of another iSing participant. The collision was violent enough to cause the air bag to deploy, and required response by the City of Palo Alto fire department and police officers. The crash happened when one car was exiting the narrow driveway (visible in photo) of the First Baptist Church at 305 North California, and the second car was traveling along the Bryant Street bike lane. The City of Palo Alto has failed to enforce the R-1 residential zoning code that is supposed to protect homeowners, residents, pedestrians and cyclists. The First Baptist Church is illegally leasing space to iSing, which holds seventeen group music classes every week, meaning several hundred car trips per week. There are only eight parking spaces available for use by the First Baptist Church and all of their illegal lessees in their lot. When the bike lane was expanded last fall, the City of Palo Alto eliminated half of the parking spaces that used to be available on North California. This spring, the City of Palo Alto will be removing more parking spaces at the same corner of North California and Bryant Street when the roundabout is installed. The City of Palo Alto has been repeatedly notified over the past few years of the illegal activities at 305 North California and the dangerous conditions at the corner of North California and Bryant. The City of Palo Alto's negligence in failing to enforce the municipal code will result in the sharing of liability for future harm and injury caused by the First Baptist Church's illegal leasing at 305 North California. Mina w hadoestog at 1M Finale fispll.l Chock at 306 tdordi CallIOntl 7 We M in a neeit orhood zoned R-1 for single body y home only The Red Baptist Cloth (FOC) hes bean in this nsiphborhood for many yews ruder an exoe pe on lo the zoning Much altos N to operate as s Moth The FBC is now seeking 10 die fist stake, and has applied 10 eo d for a Cowhand Use Perna 1C1.113) 10 op.rate as a `corrsrwrrty ctierMer • The FOC her apso:raly arched for permission b too ataases, Padannarlso. dodo's* eft". and madams of newsy kids, al day and lobe Nat ens night, seven days a week ® tram 0 am to 10 mime Ilundip to 1111rabr, and train, l era to 11 pm err Fridays.nd Saturdays Despite ON CIV Of Palo Alb eating. fie FBC reuses 1a list the WA/ an4 rwn+bers *Modesties and i wants 10 trout merely saying Ow the !scaly holds 500 people this zoning mslri be a drwrow and clasiryntn rye torn the church aced** which are now Ina N th *Vaned hannorie sly In our resickolial neighboohood for many yews. Via tM Cav d Peio Alb aondirew as Ow FBC woltaliorn ferny a Conpdan.t Use (CUM to operas se e'cmnaerinlly centr le rwiriewacht VIRG Godd nobles e . type of land Lees psurlasd in a rerdkerrgal dratriat. The is SNOW in a R-1 (10000) lard The perms ad land yeses lor this dada are Alio AMo WWI Code (AALIC) Solon 18.12 090 A commonly cellar is listod pematlyd, or slowed alb a CUP PA MC Solon 18.2'8010 egedains the and thinps required bad on a CUPAndy_ MAC Section 18.77060 In wallah a CUP is processed Mended Sot Review Firmest The aidablishing a ocmnasnsy mew is nos a by -right capon -- R to a requisite end is rim* in maw a appatie 1ha p cjet k ties nett be anodic findings coffee*** a wain oand0ore. Thew conaldwaticos can Ibis on ocompancy, main, paidne and olroulalion or nslg bodeaod. f fns appicason ve denied, the denial must also approve a consrond tape porn* apppcsson in the Cn1y of Pab Alta. l!.aatial a+rr1. In fns ellnsafve or in Me napalm. r fie dolman is 7b.O10 ft): coma on west she pans a oond.ranet ins permlL +heiress l byway or wprwunenla in the Actin, and 11tfi.tl4 ,n accord rah to Palo Alp Cainpt4f eve Ow FAC'e paritnp„ t,ebfc and nobs Feause7 ,i0a,fi 0cA i dye fitly el Pain Ally Oat to Ia them (blow that you craft to be Included M updates. -.ewe the slit to be FtliCis Conditional Uas Peinnnit epploalion ten toe CNy of Palo Alb **baits low s:ye ttol0aam orgeoviopcsitest baptist tY s h.aap Are you troubled by Si. daresssae In sodiaRtle street panel "Oran! are only erght pelting spots inarlable toot FBC use ors its properly so sm iaysse pair ut the day coo *mist to church. OW louroolit and t* nnpn-profit builw wets ec tiang spwo moray the FOC d arertlow to nearby Mist poise. The bike here changes !an Manx the lam of !Halt al the stroll preking pl"kows*y aviisttfs along North 8rkara Street is a dttYgnai ed bits bdsrlevwd. and the rot bout scheduled for i nshMsMon ±t months a aunt cYchlts toll causes the lose of mots shalt partdnl at tars same Are you concerned about the Incseaas In VIM and acrid its at the planer? k►on uararnt tenant Bepaty lsamnp horn the FBC is Sing. which craws ssysrtren group evert week. meaning several handfed can tripe per motto 305 Nora California as t i and p oA. Parents of Sing parloipard s roulnsly double pat In to bee on trots North California and Bryant wail in their cars 1011h Moir doors coon Modica se rant in their ears irdttngirnp on pay drioswsys, and park bbdrirq the stroller access to Bo earner of North Casllomla and Hryanl. Are you bothered by flea load noise and woods at lice Plant Calloneol Relstems dose to 3t?5 North Ce lornia are d It rbed by the Intrusive now torn a pulled sound systems as they try to study and Wasp in trek horns*. Neighbors (wing wham s blocks r1/port donna on from crowds noisily arriving and deportee torn dowse and Haw can you let tine City of Palo Attu know about your ao Hoene now** parking problems, expeslvs traffic and feud noise at lei North California? Send an ern ak wow a letlar or mato a phone cal to Clay I0 gOi mentors and to City al Prix A io sten responsble for cci nsidakip ens CUP app! pct. M you know any City Count* mentors nni7ors personally snare your his win hem Consider including paw of porting vrdtepons and safety Wards trnpacirng pediatrists and using to halos lanes. My correspondence delivered a a =Only of to City Cowndl . .. record. so do not mduds personal irdorrnalkwi tat you want to COMM You can writs to tits entire Oty Council sit ids addrowb City o! Palo AD. Mike of to City Curt 250 Harhillon Ave. Palo Aliio. CA 94301 You con eraMMrssnSMiii It you care about our neighborhood, it is time to speak up. of (Sing participant double-parked In the bike lane at 305 North California She refused to move when asked despite the danger she posed to young cyclists Parson of Ong Proticipard pentad Wedding the handicapped end stroller access et the censor of 306 North California and Bryant Street. CITY OF 9 PALO ALTO TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL BETH MINOR, CITY CLERK MAY 14, 2018 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 9-PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI JUDICIAL: 305 N. California Avenue [17PLN-00446]: Approval of a Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Community Center use at the First Baptist Church. Environmental Assessment: Exempt per Sections 15301 and 15323 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Zone District: R-1(10,000) (Single Family Residential). Attached is additional information regarding this agenda item that was addressed to Council, City Staff and residents. Beth Minor City Clerk 1of1 Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Staff and Residents, Gregory Stevens is the Assistant Minister at the First Baptist Church, located at 305 N California Ave, Palo Alto. Gregory Stevens has a public Twitter account. I thought some of his troubling recent tweets should come to the attention of Palo Alto city leaders and the residents of Palo Alto. Gregory Stevens comments should concern our community. Should this type of person and the organization he represents oversee a Palo Alto Community Center? Should a person that hates the City of Palo Alto, hates the Palo Alto Police Dept, hates Palo Alto residents, makes fun of our older citizens and ridicules another faith, be running a Palo Alto Community Center? A facility that would cater to the elderly, children and residents of our town? You can read Gregory Stevens Twitter account for yourself. It is public. Open the Twitter website. Search for Gregory Stevens. Then scroll down to GregoryStevens@HelloGregory. You can ready his troubling tweets for yourself. I urge the city council to enforce existing Rl zoning laws and severely restrict the non church related rental activities being conducted at the church . Thank you. . ' Tweets Tweets & replies Media cnnsttan. 0 Gregory Stevens @hellogregory · 3/31/18 Palo Alto is an elitist shit den of hate . 0 Cl Gregory Stevens @hell ogregory · 3/31/18 Palo Alto is disgusting. Q t.l. v L!J Gregory Stevens• @hellogr~oJ¥·3J14/18 Stood in fine behind two people who ponged. I ~ust wantee a ~u~ Qee. Now I want to die. 0 t'l Yes!H Marcus ·Frye @frye_marcus Replying to @hellogregory When I first started to reject my charismatic-eva _ng~e_li~ca_l ~ .. ..w--- --~--, -,. ... --- Gregory Stevens @hellogregory. 2/28/"18 Reading The geopolitics of knowledge and the l'l lo}ilaLcf!'tell!~ multitudes.net;?p=194 0 tl. \:) . Gregory Stevens • @hellogregory. 2128/18 This too! Gregory Stev 1111 Fuck 8 ens @hellogregory. 6d beyonce could literally be.nq av.et stage and pus.h out a hu§e log ~ millions of teens would sun say v. slay omg queen b yas slaYi Q y t.1. Greg ory Steve ns Retvveeted r'\r-r/\ m (n)nP.ta · 4/6/18 "--..l~ u1ith anima!lQ.___ ......... v W nen you're a socialist arguing with ~ right wing douche and they t rn ink you're a liberal so their insu\ts revo\v@ around Obama and Hillary \ t1 Detail s It's a pain in the a,;s to find radical commu'iity in the South Bay . Let's change that. V/e "ll start by ga~hering a'. a local.coffee shop (Prin:ers Cafe -320 S. Cal Ave. Pa!o Alto) and discuss our possible future. Srin;;i friends . ideas, and skills you might --___ .... _ _.__. -~ .... . -. --~-' -- • • I 4 -. ... .. ,,., ,.,i4, •.:: • •·· '.. --•• .' 4'_ t.l.69 (')2 2 4 Gregory Stevens @hellogregory · 22h Oh and PUSSY RIOT M1 ~t!!![l;l ry teveM ll!ll @hellogreg'iJry . 3k16J1 s My nose my sta~ bleeding bec&use nf ~e tellle ·~r s:t:'~lt'Q'r"i'.IP. ~ut ifi their cars. YALL FIX 1HIS. They S~'l:l l fJ @T oe at . induce migraines with smelly car scent chemte.als.@lyft <;) 1 t.l. 01 t!, Gregory Stevens • @hellogregory · 3/15/18 Another random thought: Gflti rct} Ord~inintl t:>bC:fies want <;1ueer, _ anarchist revolution9ries-tqJ9 ifiJ:their (white slJf)retnaeist, heteronorrnatiVe, eliti~t-mo ralit!ej) in_stitutions. I • r ,. .. 0 tl. C? , i. ai Gregory Stevens• @~ellogregory. 3/15718 balls on balls on balls emotional support turtle @l eft_coas t;_w oo 0 t_l, t.1 Gregory Stevens Abdalaziz Avil IV sensitive content. Retweetecl t:: @Abclalazizawill · 11h .. : ~, ' ' . . (?14 ' Gregory Stevens .. @hellogregory · 3/20/18 bahahhahahjhabd,jhlajhdlajhdlkajhkljhahahahahahaha ... 11 Ben Afffeck's back tattoo is apparently real and people are unsure whatl Gregory Stevens• @hellogregory · 3/2 /18 The musician bailed 30min prior to the event. "I love this job." -Nobody 0 t.1 Q i!.i Gregory Stevens • @hellogregory · 3/20/18 . BREAKING: San Francisco just banned fur! Th~)' are the f\ts~ · L:..J Gre s 90rY tevens )ii @hellogregory·1d GoSM Journal 7 • CoSM Journal 7 shop.cosm.org ~ Q tJ, \) t!.i Gregory Stevens @hellogregory · 1d In our church council meeting the old people always fall a~s~~s~a.­ Always. ALWAYS. FALL ASLEEP. 0 t.1 . Gregory Stevens • @hellogregory · 1d-~A 0 tJ. itunes.apple.com ~· 1· L:...J Gregory Stevens @hellogregory · 1d · times Q1 t1 Gregory Stevens @hellogregory · 1d LOOK WHAT I FOUND 0143 (;:;> 8,530 a soGial @lub>. Jacob J. Efiiek:son @jaco fi>jerickson • •I ----...... ~-- Q59 t.1607 P.M Press @PMPressOrg . . . ------- _____ .,, '"""'' 111<2 ... c your way to the parkin c.5eng Road, Palo Alto . Sp o n s or : f\cto rr a httP-S ://www.acterra.orglgrurt Q Gregory Stevens @hellogregory · 1d I hate ''social justice" in Palo Alto. What a fucking joke. Earth Day EV Ride & Drive Sat, April 14, 1 Oam -1 pm Palo Alto ------- 0 t12 1. palo alto police 2. the police in general 3. the violence of the police state . -___ .... , n .y-01.-cn ••• . 0 ~. . . \J Gregory Stevens ,_ @hellogregory · 4/6/~8 I've used @CREDOMobile for a while. I woufa n them. Ever. It's literally a hot mess of mildly pro ~ hijacked for corporate fiscal gain. Disgusting. 0 Gregory Stevens @hellogregory · 4/6/18\ in the nicest way possible: I hate palo alto ~ . l o ·n \J .!i J \ I Gregory Stevens . @hellogregory · 4/6/18 May 10, 2018 Mayor Kniss: I've been in NYC for 6 weeks over the last few months & was there again when you met with my neighbors. I understand it was suggested that we drop off letters as the packets are so huge it's challenging to see everything. These are copies of my two letters to you & council members in the last few months. When I looked into the packets that you've been receiving I noticed the pictures I attached were enlarged & can't be properly seen. Given that, I'm including them now so you can see them. The three huge buses were dropping off iSing participants on a Thursday at a time when students were biking home from school activities. I hope seeing them gives you a sense of the large impact occurring when large numbers of iSing students are returning to the church. There were also many, many cars there when parents were picking up the students. Whether it's a iSing or any other large group, the impact to safety is heightened & it presents an unsafe situation for bikers & pedestrians. If you have questions, I can be reached at 650-823-0957 . Thank you, ~Wsz_ Bonnie Flanagan SARAH BURGESS May 9, 2018 Liz Kniss Re: 305 N. California Street Hi, Liz I wanted to follow up on my statements to you at the Cains lat Friday. I I asked for updated availability information from Cubberley this week for organizations the size of iSing, and have included it with this note. Smaller classrooms for grassroots organizations are readily available. I also have included information on Cooley Landing, a beautiful community center built by East Palo Alto and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space district, which I understand largely stands unused -their calendar on line is basically empty. Finally, I've included a copy of my letter to the council sent last week. Thank you for your time and attention devoted to this. If you have any questions about these materials that I could answer, feel free to give me a call -650-996-3331 Sarah Burgess 2290 Waverley Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 ·-1 s~ bL Y'(\LYltiov\, :C mt/-kl~ ?as~ (f\; i<D'\.. --\-liu s m ()l.Y\-' "S. ~ llJa.s tuLW 1 //, i:s tu ~ r~ ~ &hv\fVD'Y\l:?s(_ ~~~S % '+tu_ ?faA'·Vl 15 ~S'S I~ mofl ~ . \ -tY1 'cc/ 1 I ~ I b I .£ -~ bb -0 59 SJ Ocf-::>'fV ?' qcrd~ ' r ~ --:Dl-bb,tZ---k) J/_J'J Here is a list of over 40 organizations that are currently housed at, or have recently been housed at the Baptist Church, and meet on a weekly or multi weekly basis. Tuesday Night Tango Dances with Latin Flair East European Folklife Center Peninsula English Country Dance Dance Maven TN Tango Klezmer Dance Party Interlocked Square Dances Benefit Concert for Iran's Quake Victims Joy Dance Stanford International Folk Dances Peninsula Peace and Justice Center Do the Bay Foursquare Concerts Raggazzi Boys Chorus Dr John Smolowe Dr Jill Cooper Dr Joellen Werne Palo Alto Men's Group Palo Alto Philharmonic Fall Chamber Concert Cities for CEDAW, the UN, and Women's Activism Globally Battfield Without Borders Nordic Footnotes Scandinavian Dance Parties Gourmet Vegetarian Dinners Peninsula Macrobiotic Community ,. Meatless Monday Dinners Senior Book Club ISing Music School and ISing Summer Camps LIVE Silicon Valley Arts and Entertainment Synapse School Mozart Music School Justice in Palo Alto Pacific Association of Challenge Enthusiasts The Happy Body Resounding Achord Productions Corey Head, Voice Teacher Bay Choral Guild rehearsals Baroque Music Concerts Peng Piano Academy Festival A variety of concerts and private parties, too numerous to list :ubberley Community Center -Availability https://mail .aol .com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage 1 "~A From: Ghods, Javod <Javod.Ghods@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: sburgrval <sburgrval@aol.com> Subject: Cubberley Community Center -Availability Date: Mon, May 7, 2018 2:21 pm Hello Sarah, My name is Javod Ghods and I work over at Cubberley Community Center. Below is how the availability for the Cubberley music rooms currently looks for the academic year starting 9/1/18 -5/31/19. However, please be aware that we book the rooms on a first come first serve basis. For summer camp availability, please feel free to check our online availability calendar and anything you find open through 8/31/18 can be reserved by submitting an application. Here is a link to our availability calendar (Select "Cubberley" as the location, and then select "view availability" next to the desired rooms. Please note that the times listed on the calendar are the times the space is available): https:/ /apm.activecommunities.com/paloalto/Facility _Search At this time, we are in the process of accepting and entering applications for our next booking year 9/1118 -8/31119. If you find times that will work for your group based on the availability you see below, I would suggest you submit a separate application for those times as soon as you can. Here are the room and availability information for 9/1/18 -8/31/19: M2 Music Rehearsal Room Capacity: 100 (1,400 square feet) Piano M4 Activity Room in the Music Win& Capacity: 125 (1,900 square feet) Piano 100 Chairs available 5/8/18, 3:37 PM Cubberley Community Center -Availability https://mail .aol .com/webmai 1-std/en-us/PrintMessage ?nf.d Bl Lecture Room Capacity 125 (1,900 square feet) Piano M3 Music Room Capacity 40 (700 square feet) Upright piano Room is sometimes used for a dressing room for the Theater but when it is booked the Vroom is available (which if 350 square feet and can accommodate 17 people) 5/8118, 3:37 PM :ubberley Community Center -Availability https://mail .aol .com/webmai I-std/en-us/ PnntMessage Available times: Mondays M2 3-6pm M4 3-6pm HI 3-6:30 pm* M3 or V available from 3-lOpm Tuesdays M4 3-4:30 pm Hl 3-6:30 pm M3 or V available from 3 -10 pm Wednesdays M4 3-6pm HI 3-6:30 pm* M3 or V available from 3 -10 pm Thursdays M2 6:30 -10 pm M4 4:30-6 pm HI 3-6pm M3 or V available from 3-IOpm Fridays M2 3-10 pm* M4 3-7:45 pm HI 3-7 pm V 3-10 pm *with a handful of previously booked city meetings during the year Please let me know if you have any questions or need more information. Thank you, " -CA 5/8/18, 3:37 Pl\ :ubberley Community Center -Availability https://mail .aol .com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage tof4 CITY OF PALO ALTO Javod Ghods I Program Assistant 4000 Middlefield Rd. #T2 I Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2418 I javod ghods @dtyofoaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email -Thank you 5/8/18, 3:37 PM 305 N. California Street CUP request https://mai I .aol .com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage 1 r.F? .. From: sburgrval <sburgrval@aol.com> To: city.council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: 305 N. California Street CUP request Date: Wed, May 2, 2018 1 :34 pm I live within 600 feet of 305 N. california, and have been in regular correspondence with the Planning Department regarding the issuance of a CUP to the First Baptist Church regarding their request to become a Community Center, which I believe is a part of the record in Planning Department correspondence. Since that correspondence, the Planning Department has issued recommendations and the Planning Commission has made a motion for the issuance of a CUP which changes those recommendations. The Council should note that all parties, the neighbors and the church, have noted multiple times that a CUP is not the appropriate vehicle for deciding what uses are appropriate at this location. FBC takes the position that its current uses are in accordance with modern church uses, and that the city should adapt accordingly. I believe the city should address this overriding position, rather than issuing piecemeal CUPs for churches to allow them to make different uses. In that way, the hours of a church operating in an Rl neighborhood, the number of attendees at any event, and the noise that is permissible, may be addressed in a uniform manner, allowing for the differences in church location. If the council proceeds with issuing this CUP, we have been advised other churches will follow suit, which will result in non-uniform allowable uses throughout the city. It will be viewed as precedent, and the result could be disastrous. If the council proceeds to consider a CUP, the most concerning issues to me are the burdens of parking upon the neighborhood, as well as safety. FBC has only 5 regularly available parking spaces. -8 in total including the disabled space and the spaces reserved for the Pastor and the psychologist who has offices there. If it were to apply for a permit to operate as a community center today, it would be allowed to have 32 people in attendance at any time. Because it originally began operating as a church in the 1940s, it can continue church services and uses with many more people. This is allowed in fairness and in law -it is grandfathered in, much as the neighbors have the right to require that the church only have the uses it did when the purchased their property. The new use, however, requires that FBC meet the current codes for parking (as well as codes for usage such as disabled entry, sprinklers, etc). No law has been cited by any of the parties to allow the use in contravention of the code requirements. I would note that Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.12.150 provides for the continuation of a grandfathered use in an Rl zone only " ... for continua/ use and occupancy by the same use" PAMC 18.12.150c)(l) [emphasis added} Any CUP allowed must limit the occupancy to no more than 4 people per parking space. With regard to safety, FBC lies at the intersection of two major bike routes, both part of the Safe Routes to School. To lessen the risks and burden upon the neighborhood and the bikers, the church has created a drop-off spot on the curb, through which cars must traverse the bike lane in order to drop off and pick up students. This is not a safe location for drop off and pick up, and would not be allowed at any other community center or school in the city. Under the uses proposed by the planning department (50 people in attendance over 9 hours during the day, assuming hourly changes for appointments or classes = 450 per day) or those proposed by the Planning Commission {120 people in attendance per day, over 13-14 hours per day, same assumption = 1560 / 1680 per day) the attendant traffic and drop off and pick up through 20 feet of a bike lane is mind-staggering. It does not matter whether the use is at this rate currently, the Council must address the fact that allowing a CUP with these provisions will allow a use at this rate. It is the job of our City Council to allow uses which are not only safe at this time, but will continue to be safe due to their provisions. The issuance of a CUP with these provisions simply is not safe. This is not the proper 5/9/18, 2: 10 PM 305 N. California Street CUP request https://mail .aol .com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage ~ '> nf '> location for a community center. Additionally, think of the cars which will travel on the 5afe Routes to School, in order to provide for these uses. While the Planning Department attempted to craft a CUP which ameliorated these concerns of citizens and voters, the Planning Commission, without facts or data, enlarged these uses to the figures above. Some of the many illegalities and irregularities of the motion made by the Planning Commission include: 1. Expanding the availability of the FBC to rent to mental health professionals. This use is illegal in an Rl zone as a personal service use (PAMC 13.12.130) The Planning Department limited these uses to 3 professionals at any time, determining that such would amount to an ancillary use. This may or may not be legal, however, enlarging that scope to 9 is certainly neither ancillary nor legal; 2. Enlarging the permitted hours of operation and permissible amplified music beyond that recommended by the Planning Department and beyond that allowed for other City-run community centers (which are in areas with large parking facilities, generous set backs and on major street arteries) and for other uses in the same neighborhood such as Gamble Garden. Finally, it cannot be emphasized enough, that this CUP has nothing to do with the worthiness of any of the uses presently in the FBC. Many seem worthwhile activities which would be heartily supported by these neighbors at other locations. But the attempts at consideration for the neighborhood sensitivities by these organizations as well as their value, is completely irrelevant to this application. This application is not for iSing, folk dancing, or the psychologist who Is presently renting office space at FBC. If the CUP is granted, FBC could evict all of these tenants tomorrow, and replace them with other, unknown uses. The application for the CUP must be evaluated on its own merits, without regard to any of the current tenants. FBC's talk of "partnership" and placing tenants who follow its values are not a part of the CUP request -it is simply a request to become a community center. If granted, any tenant who rents to a community center could come into our neighborhood -much as Palantir recently used Cubberley. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/04/27/palantirs-plan-for-cubberley-party-riles-neiqhbors Thank you for your careful consideration of this application for a community center in the middle of our quiet residential neighborhood. It is unprecedented, but most certainly will create precedent for the rest of our city. There are people who desire to live downtown, with busy traffic and no available parking. The people who carefully chose their houses, paid their taxes and voted for the past 30 years in the houses surrounding this church are not among them. 5arah Burgess 5/9/18. 2: 10 PM From: Bonnie Flanagan [mai lto:bon nje .rn.flan agan@gmajl.corn] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 11:17 AM To: Council, City; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jcmathan; Owen, Graham Subject: FBC CUP Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council: I was unable to make the meeting at Jordan Middle School on March 7th regarding First Baptist Church's request to become a Community Center, but I've been reading comments in both the :e_1.t10 Alto Online & the PA Dail~ Post. Many are concerned with traffic & safety issues which was the focus of my February 1st letter to the Council. My concerned for the safety of our children riding bikes in this area continues. The situation at Ro~ Road regarding safety for bikers/cars will be mix.mred when the California Avenue/Bcyant roundabout & Bcyant Street bike path is completed. Since my earlier letter there has been an accident on Biyant, a situation that sadly the neighborhood had expected to see happen, though hoped would not One car had just picked up children from the daycare. The car had two small girls "in the back seat where the impact occurred & airbags went offi The car that hit them zipped around CA Ave down Bryant I was told, tho~ I don't know for sure, that the car causing the accident was a parent picking up students ~the church. To my knowledge nobody came over to help from the church ·& yet the back door closest to the accident was opened; students came out to look, but no adult VERY scared little girls. I've included pictures below . .. If a community center, roundabout & bike path converge in that area it's difficult to believe more accidents won't occur-as they say "it's an accident waiting to happen." Please carefully consider what can be at FBC that does not impact child/bike safety & traffic. Thank you, Below are a few pictures: I) accident on Bryant; car coming out of daycare hit by car coming down Bryant <image002.jpg> <image003.jpg> <image004.jpg> 2) 3 large buses returning iSing students to FBC; a Thursday when students are biking home <image005 .jpg> <image006Jpg> <image007 .jpg> ~ttps://www.johnhancock1nsurance.com/long-term-care/cost-of-long-term-care-calculator/state-deta1l .aspx#CA 2/21/18, 8 :37 PM oaoe 3 of 2 .. / From: Bonnie Flanagan bonnie.m.flanagan@gmail.com ·subject: First Baptist Church's CUP request Date: Feb 1, 2018 at 2:19:45 PM To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: James.Keene@cityofpaloalto.org, Hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org, Graham.Owen@cityofpaloalto.org, Jonathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org, James.Stephens@cityofpalo.org 8cc: bonniemflanagan@gmail.com Members of the City Council: I'm writing about the Baptist Church's CUP request to operate as a Community Center. Our family has lived across from the church since the mid 1960s. The church had a robust parish for many years & there were large Sunday services, Easter, Christmas, weddings & funerals. There were also social/community services like Alcoholic Anonymous, election polling, etc. The parking & traffic situation was manageable & not reflective of what has occurred with recent organizations operating out of the church -the largest being iSing & the Mozart Music School. The traffic that these businesses have brought to the neighborhood is significant. Most of this occurs when children are returning home from Jordan, Paly & other nearby schools. U-turns in the middle of the street while dropping off & picking up children is a regular occurrence. Classes & events have parents parking cars on nearby streets -South Court, Waverley, California Ave, Bryant & Washington. Other Palo Alto religious organizations have on-site parking; whereas, the Baptist Church has only eight on-site parking spaces: one for the Pastor, one for Joellen Werne, MD, one handicapped spot & one-two used by the daycare as their three designated spaces are for childcare drop off. That leaves three spots for other church-related staff. All other staff & participants must park on nearby streets. With Bryant Street designated as the bicycle path this will exacerbate the traffic & parking issues. Unless there have been changes to this area's bike plan, we've ~ been told between 10-15 street parking spaces will be removed. This is not safe for bicyclist, pedestrians & cars utilizing both Bryant & California Avenues. It presents a very dangerous situation. I'm very concerned for the safety of our children riding bikes in this area & request that the CUP for a Community Center be denied as it significantly increases traffic & impacts the safety of our children. Thank you. Attached below: The June 14, 2017 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report that includes many letters describing safety issues & the impact on the If neighborhood: bn.~LLwww.city..Qfpaloalto.orgf civicaxlfilebank/documentsL58205 Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto (ID # 9201) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/14/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Initial Screening of Ideas for Further Study Title: Connecting Palo Alto Rail Program Status Update and Initial Screening of Ideas for Further Study From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation The City Council Rail Committee and Staff recommend that Council receive a report on the status of the Connecting Palo Alto Rail Program , approve moving forward with ten specific grade separation options, and authorize polling if Staff deems appropriate. Executive Summary The City of Palo Alto currently has four at-grade crossings of the Caltrain tracks that divide the City. With much needed Caltrain service enhancements underway (and High Speed Rail a possibility for the future), gate closures at these crossi ngs are expected to increase delays to motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists substantially in the future. As a result, the City Council has prioritized planning for grade separations and the City Council Rail Committee has been gathering public input and working to identify a handful of alternatives for in depth analysis. This agenda item is intended to provide the full Council with a status report on the planning process and approval of the Rail Committee’s initial screening to ten ideas for further study. The Council will have an opportunity to take further action on screening of ideas for in depth analysis in June. The ten Ideas recommended by the Rail Committee are listed below and the process used to derive them is described in Attachment B. Each Idea would affect one or more individual rail crossings and once the list of Ideas is further refined, they would ultimately need to be combined as a “preferred solution” (“preferred alternative” in CEQA parlance) to address Palo Alto’s entire rail corridor for environmental review purposes. 1. CAH - Churchill Avenue roadway under railroad hybrid 2. CAR - Churchill Avenue roadway over railroad reverse hybrid 3. CAX - Churchill Avenue crossing closed; improvement options include: widen existing Embarcadero Road undercrossing, add new traffic signals at Embarcadero Road ramps, City of Palo Alto Page 2 build bike/ped crossing at Churchill Avenue, and/or build Seale Avenue bike/ped crossing to connect to Peers Park and Stanford Avenue bicycle boulevard 4. MCL - Meadow Drive and Charleston Road railroad over roadway hybrid and build Loma Verde Avenue bike/ped crossing to connect to Margarita Avenue bicycle boulevard 5. MCR - Meadow Drive and Charleston Road roadway over railroad reverse hybrid and build Loma Verde Avenue bike/ped crossing to connect to M argarita Avenue bicycle boulevard 6. MCT - Meadow Drive and Charleston Road roadway over railroad trench or tunnel; Alma Street would not be within trench or tunnel (maintains Alma Street connections to Meadow Drive and Charleston Road) 7. MCV - Meadow Drive and Charleston Road railroad over roadway viaduct 8. PAH - Continue proposed Menlo Park railroad over roadway hybrid and/or viaduct across San Francisquito Creek and Palo Alto Avenue 9. PCX - Palo Alto Avenue crossing closed; improvement options include: build an E verett Avenue bike/ped undercrossing and widen University Avenue 10. WBP - City-wide deep-bore railroad under roadway tunnel within Palo Alto city limits with two new underground rail stations Background At its February 5, 2018 retreat, the City Council ad opted “Selecting a preferred grade separation alternative by December 2018” as its goal under the Council priority of Grade Separations. This goal was set based on understanding the time sensitivity of decisions needed in order to expeditiously plan, fund, design, and construct the rail grade separations needed to address community safety, access, and traffic congestion concerns throughout Palo Alto. Even under an aggressive timeline, the steps necessary to proceed with completing grade separations will likely span the upcoming decade. These steps and the timeframes involved are summarized below: City of Palo Alto Page 3 Figure 1. Connecting Palo Alto Timeline Date Action / Milestone 2018 1-Apr-18 Award new consultant agreement 30-Jun-18 Select alternatives to analyze 13-Dec-18 Select preferred alternative 2019 30-Jun-19 Circulate Draft EIR 31-Dec-19 Certify EIR & select preferred alternative 2020 31-Jan-20 Approve agency agreements for managing construction 1-Feb-20 Begin preliminary design 1-Dec-20 Begin final design 2021 1-Nov-21 Acquire properties? 2022 1-Nov-22 Obtain agency permits/ approvals 2023 31-Jan-23 Award and construct project(s) 1-Mar-23 Start construction 2028 31-Dec-28 Finish construction Source: City Of Palo Alto, February 2018 Achieving the timeline described above is dependent on the City’s ability to select a preferred alternative by the end of 2018. Over the last year, the City has undertaken an extensive City of Palo Alto Page 4 citywide engagement effort to establish a broad awareness of the need and issues associated with constructing rail grade separations to ensure Palo Alto’s community connectedness is maintained in the face of imminent electrification and increased train traffic on the Caltrain corridor. This has generated 34 discrete Ideas for grade separations, which the Rail Committee is currently reviewing in anticipation of a City Council deci sion on a discrete list of 4-8 Ideas for further study before the Council’s summer break. For more information on the Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program, and the work completed to- date, please visit http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/connectingpaloalto. Throughout 2017 and early 2018, community comments were collected through a project website, stakeholder interviews, an on-line questionnaire with 800 responses, two community workshops with 228 attendees, and four community roundtables with 381 attendees. To -date, Staff has received an additional 63 public comments or inquiries related to the project. All of the input received has been entered into a public comment database. Figure 1. Alternatives Screening Diagram Source: City of Palo Alto, March 2018 Staff has reviewed all of the input received to-date and drafted a Master List of Ideas. This list contains all of the various grade separation projects suggested by members of the public and as a result of previous planning efforts. A total of 34 discrete Ideas were identified by Staff (this was previously described as ~40 Ideas). This Master List of Ideas is included as Attachment C. As presented at the City Council retreat and Rail Committee meeting in February, the program goals for 2018 are to identify four (4) to eight (8) Alternatives for Study in June and select a Preferred Solution for Environmental Analysis and Preliminary Design by the end of the year. In order to move toward the goal of identification of the handful of Alternatives for Study, Staff recommends the early elimination of financially or technically infeasible Ideas through the use of Initial Screening Criteria, which are based on the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Evaluation Criteria adopted City of Palo Alto Page 5 by City Council on September 6, 2017. A glossary of the terms used in this staff report is included below. Glossary Option: A standard type of railroad grade crossing improvement or grade separation treatment. Examples of Options include: safety upgrades, closure, road under rail, road over rail, hybrid, rail under road, and rail over road. Idea: An initial concept for a treatment at one or more specific grade crossings. An Idea has not been evaluated for financial feasibility or constructability. Master List of Ideas: A comprehensive list of all grade crossing treatment Ideas. All Ideas on The Master List of Ideas were identified in public comments or in previous planning efforts. Alternative for Study: An Idea that has been initially screened for financial and technical feasibility and selected for further analysis. The cost to further analyze each Alternative for Study is estimated at $200,000 to $300,000*. Solution: A combination of one Alternative for Study for each of the four grade crossings (e.g., closing one crossing, putting a hybrid at two crossings, and putting a trench at one crossing would equal one Solution). The Alternatives for Study within a Solution must be compatible with one another. Preferred Solution: The Solution selected by City Council to move into the environmental analysis and preliminary design phase as the “preferred alternative” for CEQA purposes in 2019. * The further analysis of an Alternative for Study will likely include traffic circulation and multi - modal access evaluations, geotechnical investigations, structural type selections, hydraulic analysis, utility conflict evaluations, constraints analysis, preliminary cost analysis, economic and community impact analysis, construction phasing impacts, and multi -modal transportation impact analysis). Figure 2. Adopted Evaluation Criteria City of Palo Alto Page 6 Source: City of Palo Alto, March 12, 2018 Discussion Staff conducted an Initial Screening of the Master List of Ideas which identified a total of 18 Ideas for potential early elimination, leaving 16 Ideas on the Master List of Ideas. Staff then incorporated Rail Committee and Technical Advisory Committee feedback to further refine the Initial Screening of the Master List of Ideas, and presented 10 Ideas to the Rail Committee on April 18, 2018. This elimination, selection, and refinement process is summarized in Attachment B. The ten (10) Grade Separation Ideas recommended by the Rail Committee are summarized below and included in Attachment A. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Ideas that Include Grade Crossing Closure Option PCX Palo Alto Avenue crossing closed; improvement options include: build an Everett Avenue bike/ped undercrossing and widen University Avenue CAX Churchill Avenue crossing closed; improvement options include: widen existing Embarcadero Road undercrossing, add new traffic signals at Embarcadero Road ramps, build bike/ped crossing at Churchill Avenue, and/or build Seale Avenue bike/ped crossing to connect to Peers Park and Stanford Avenue bicycle boulevard Ideas that Include Reverse Hybrid Option (Roadway Raised Slightly & Railroad Depressed Slightly) CAR Churchill Avenue roadway over railroad reverse hybrid MCR Meadow Drive and Charleston Road roadway over railroad reverse hybrid and build Loma Verde Avenue bike/ped crossing to connect to Margarita Avenue bicycle boulevard Ideas that Include Hybrid Option (Railroad Raised Slightly and Roadway Depressed Slightly) PAH Continue proposed Menlo Park railroad over roadway hybrid and/or viaduct across San Francisquito Creek and Palo Alto Avenue CAH Churchill Avenue railroad over roadway hybrid MCL Meadow Drive and Charleston Road railroad over roadway hybrid and build Loma Verde Avenue bike/ped crossing to connect to Margarita Avenue bicycle boulevard Ideas that Include Railroad under Roadway Option MCT Meadow Drive and Charleston Road railroad under roadway trench or tunnel; Alma Street would not be within trench or tunnel (maintains Alma Street connections to Meadow Drive and Charleston Road) WBP City-wide deep-bore railroad under roadway tunnel within Palo Alto city limits with two new underground rail stations City of Palo Alto Page 8 Ideas that Include Railroad over Roadway Option MCV Meadow Drive and Charleston Road railroad over roadway viaduct Attachments:  Attachment A - Draft Recommended Ideas  Attachment B - Initial Screening Process  Attachment C - Draft Master List of Ideas  Attachment D - Public Letters to Council Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program Matrix of Ideas – Recommended Ideas from Initial Screening of 34 Ideas Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program Matrix of Ideas – Recommended Ideas from Initial Screening of 34 Ideas Type of Separation (Alphabetical Order) Citywide Palo Alto 2017 ADT (vehicles/day) = 16,200 (+ 550 bikes) Churchill 2017 ADT (vehicles/day) = 9,200 (+ 1,020 bikes) Meadow 2017 ADT (vehicles/day) = 8,900 (+ 900 bikes) Charleston 2017 ADT (vehicles/day) = 17,900 (+ 240 bikes) Closure Palo Alto Ave Closed, Add Improvements (PCX) Churchill Ave Closed, Add Improvements (CAX) Hybrid (Road over Rail) Churchill Ave Reverse Hybrid (CAR) Meadow + Charleston Reverse Hybrid, Loma Verde Bike/Ped (MCR) Hybrid (Road under Rail) Palo Alto Ave Hybrid and/or Viaduct (PAH) Churchill Ave Hybrid (CAH) Meadow + Charleston Hybrid, Loma Verde Bike/Ped (MCL) No Build / Do Nothing Rail under Road (Trench) Meadow + Charleston Trench or Tunnel (MCT) Rail under Road (Tunnel) City-Wide Tunnel within Palo Alto (WBP) Rail over Road (Berm/Viaduct) Meadow + Charleston Viaduct (MCV) Road under Rail Abbreviations CAX – Churchill Avenue crossing closed (X); improvement options include: widen existing Embarcadero Road undercrossing, add new traffic signals at Embarcadero Road ramps, build bike/ped crossing at Churchill Avenue, and/or build Seale Avenue bike/ped crossing to connect to Peers Park and Stanford Avenue bicycle boulevard CAH – Churchill Avenue roadway under railroad Hybrid CAR – Churchill Avenue roadway over railroad Reverse hybrid MCL − Meadow Drive and Charleston Road railroad over roadway hybrid and build Loma Verde Avenue bike/ped crossing to connect to Margarita Avenue bicycle boulevard MCR − Meadow Drive and Charleston Road roadway over railroad Reverse hybrid and build Loma Verde Avenue bike/ped crossing to connect to Margarita Avenue bicycle boulevard MCT − Meadow Drive and Charleston Road roadway over railroad Trench or tunnel; Alma Street would not be within trench or tunnel (maintains Alma Street connections to Meadow Drive and Charleston Road) MCV - Meadow Drive and Charleston Road railroad over roadway Viaduct PAH − Continue proposed Menlo Park railroad over roadway Hybrid and/or viaduct across San Francisquito Creek and Palo Alto Avenue PCX − Palo Alto Avenue Crossing closed (X); improvement options include: build an Everett Avenue bike/ped undercrossing and widen University Avenue WBP – City-Wide deep-Bore railroad under roadway tunnel within Palo Alto city limits with two new underground rail stations Initial Screening Process: Master List of 34 Ideas to 10 Recommended Ideas Over the last year, the City has undertaken an extensive citywide engagement effort to establish a broad awareness of the need and issues associated with constructing rail grade separations to ensure Palo Alto’s community connectedness is maintained in the face of imminent electrification and increased train traffic on the Caltrain corridor. This has generated 34 discrete Ideas for grade separations, which the Rail Committee is currently reviewing in anticipation of a City Council decision on a discrete list of 4-8 ideas for further study before the Council’s summer break. Using the methodology outlined below, Staff conducted an Initial Screening exercise based on the adopted Evaluation Criteria, as well as three new criteria: 1) Estimated Community Support, 2) Constructability, and 3) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Opinion. Much of this scoring is qualitative in nature and relies on the professional judgement of Staff. An internal working group comprised of staff from the Planning and Community Environment Department, Public Works Department, and Utilities Department coordinated on the evaluation under the technical screening criteria. It’s important to recognize, however, that cumulatively, a minor change to the score under one criterion is unlikely to change the results of the Initial Screening. Two exceptions to this are the so-called Fatal Flaw criteria of 1) Funding Feasibility and 2) Constructability. It will likely be the Staff recommendation that the Ideas that face substantial funding or construction challenges be removed from consideration. An additional criterion on TAC Opinion remains blank, as the Master List of Ideas was not presented to the Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program Technical Advisory Committee until March 13, 2018. Tier 1 Evaluation Criteria Facilitate Movement – All Modes  At year of completion, the project will likely improve access and mobility compared to a scenario with no project.  At year of completion, the project will likely result in similar levels of access and mobility compared to a scenario with no project.  At year of completion, the project will likely worsen access and mobility compared to a scenario with no project. Reduce Delay and Congestion  At year of completion, the project will likely decrease motor vehicle delay at signalized intersections compared to a scenario with no project.  At year of completion, the project will likely result in similar levels of motor vehicle delay at signalized intersections compared to a scenario with no project.  At year of completion, the project will likely increase motor vehicle delay at signalized intersections compared to a scenario with no project. Ped-Bike Circulation  The project is likely to substantially improve bicyclist and pedestrian connectivity across the rail corridor and between key destinations.  The project is likely to moderately improve bicyclist and pedestrian connectivity across the rail corridor and between key destinations.  The project is likely to degrade bicyclist and pedestrian connectivity across the rail corridor and between key destinations. Support Rail Operations  The project will likely facilitate improved rail operations.  The project will likely have no impact on rail operations.  The project will likely constrain flexibility for future rail operations and expansion of service. Funding Feasibility (Fatal Flaw) ✔It’s possible that the entire project can be funded with established revenue sources. X It’s possible that the majority of the project can be funded with established revenue sources, although some portion of the project will likely require new funding mechanisms, and that portion is likely to be eligible for competitive grant funding. X The estimated cost of the project likely exceeds the capacity of existing revenue sources and potential new funding mechanisms, and the project would be unlikely to be eligible for competitive grant funding. Tier 2 Evaluation Criteria Reduce Noise  The project will likely reduce noise from trains—air horns and roadway crossing warning bells—while not increasing other noise.  The project will likely reduce some sources of noise—air horns and roadway crossing warning bells—while potentially increasing the degree or intensity of noise from other sources.  The project will likely not reduce noise. Minimize Visual Changes  The project will likely either improve or not substantially alter the appearance of the project area.  The project will moderately alter the appearance of the project area.  The project will likely substantially alter the appearance of the project area. Minimize Right-of-Way  The project will likely require very minimal or no permanent property acquisition.  The project will likely require moderate permanent property acquisition, possibly impacting only small portions of affected parcels.  The project will likely require substantial permanent property acquisition. Minimize Construction Impacts  The extent and duration of project construction will likely have minimal impact on the public and be mostly within the existing railroad right-of-way.  The extent and duration of project construction will likely have a moderate impact on the public and be partially outside the existing railroad right-of-way.  The extent and duration of project construction will likely have a significant impact on the public and be mostly outside the existing railroad right-of-way. Estimated Community Support  Based on recent community engagement activities, Staff believes that the project may have broad support within the community.  Based on recent community engagement activities, Staff believes that the project may have some support within the community.  Based on recent community engagement activities, Staff believes that the project may have little support in the community. Constructability (Fatal Flaw) ✔Project can be constructed under existing technical standards and within existing political framework. “Political framework” refers to the City’s ability to obtain necessary approvals from other agencies. X Project cannot be constructed under existing technical standards or within existing political framework. X Project cannot be constructed under existing technical standards and within existing political framework. TAC Opinion The Technical Advisory Committee reviewed the Master List of Ideas and provided feedback, but did not score each individual idea. TAC comments are summarized below.  The breadth of ideas being explored is good and provides a robust level of analysis  Traffic analysis would be helpful, especially for closures  No build options may not be realistic or feasible  No build options were not considered for Measure B funding  The impact of high speed rail on no build options could be significant  Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossings Plans should consider the wider impact on the network.  The most important attribute to the city bike/ped network is the distance between crossings of the rail corridor.  Do grade separation options help with other problems?  Public Safety Response Times - need to factor into decisions, especially with regards to Closures  Detailed Right of Way Impacts are not available until a full analysis is conducted A total of 18 Ideas were identified by Staff for potential early elimination, which would leave 16 Ideas on the Master List of Ideas. The first group of Ideas identified by Staff for potential early elimination were based on the Funding Feasibility Fatal Flaw. These Ideas were eliminated because the estimated cost of the projects likely exceeds the capacity of existing revenue sources and potential new funding mechanisms, and the projects would be unlikely to be eligible for competitive grant funding. These Ideas are summarized below. Ideas with Funding Feasibility Fatal Flaw WBE Citywide deep bore railroad tunnel from Menlo Park city limits to Mountain View city limits under El Camino Real with two new underground rail stations WBR Citywide deep bore railroad tunnel from Menlo Park city limits to Mountain View city limits under existing rail corridor with two new underground rail stations WCE Citywide cut-and-cover railroad tunnel from Menlo Park city limits to Mountain View city limits under El Camino Real with two new underground rail stations WCR Citywide cut-and-cover railroad tunnel from Menlo Park city limits to Mountain View city limits under existing railroad corridor with two new underground rail stations WTR Citywide railroad under roadway trench within existing railroad right-of-way from Menlo Park city limits to Mountain View city limits with two new depressed rail stations CAT Railroad under roadway trench at Churchill Avenue crossing MDA No grade separation at Meadow Drive crossing; depress Alma Street into trench within existing Alma Street right-of-way under Meadow Drive (no connection between Meadow Drive and Alma Street) The second group of Ideas identified by Staff for potential early elimination were based on the Constructability Fatal Flaw. These Ideas were eliminated because the projects cannot be constructed under existing technical standards and within existing political framework. These Ideas are summarized below. Ideas with Constructability Fatal Flaw MCA Railroad under roadway trench within existing railroad corridor from Meadow Drive to Charleston Road; Alma Street within trench (no connections between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road) WER Citywide railroad berm from Menlo Park city limits to Mountain View city limits within existing rail corridor with two new elevated stations WVR Citywide railroad viaduct from Menlo Park city limits to Mountain View city limits within existing rail corridor with two new elevated stations PAT Connect Alma Street south of Palo Alto Avenue to Sand Hill Road with a roadway undercrossing beneath the railroad corridor and El Camino Real; dead-end Palo Alto Avenue east of Alma Street; connect the bicycle path from Menlo Park to El Camino Park PCA Close Palo Alto Avenue crossing and connect Alma Street to Alma Street in Menlo Park PCQ Close Palo Alto Avenue crossing and extend Quarry Road under rail corridor to Alma Street to tie into Lytton Avenue CAK Close Churchill Avenue crossing and build a a new bicycle and pedestrian crossing near Kellogg Avenue to connect to the existing Embarcadero Shared-use Path MDU Roadway under railroad undercrossing at Meadow Drive crossing (maintain Alma Street connection) CRA Roadway under railroad undercrossing at Charleston Road crossing (no connection between Charleston Road and Alma Street) CRO Roadway over railroad overcrossing at Charleston Road crossing (no connection between Charleston Road and Alma Street) CRU Roadway under railroad undercrossing at Charleston Road crossing (maintain connection between Charleston Road and Alma Street) The 16 remaining Ideas are summarized below, and reflect the results of Initial Screening only. Some of these Ideas may prove unworkable and/or be viewed unfavorably by the community as the screening process moves forward. Ultimately, the City Council will be asked to identify four (4) to eight (8) Ideas worthy of in-depth analysis. Ideas that Include Grade Crossing Closure Option CAE Close Churchill Avenue crossing and widen existing Embarcadero Road roadway undercrossing CAS Close Churchill Avenue crossing and build a new bicycle and pedestrian crossing near the planned Seale Avenue bicycle boulevard to connect to the existing Peers Park and planned Stanford Avenue bicycle boulevard MDL Close Meadow Drive crossing and build a new bicycle and pedestrian crossing near Loma Verde Avenue to connect to the planned Matadero Avenue bicycle boulevard PCE Close Palo Alto Avenue crossing and build planned Everett Avenue bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing PCU Close Palo Alto Avenue crossing and widen existing University Avenue roadway undercrossing Ideas that Include Hybrid Option (Railroad Raised Slightly and Roadway Depressed Slightly) CAH Roadway under railroad hybrid at Churchill Avenue crossing CRH Roadway under railroad hybrid at Charleston Road crossing (maintain connection between Charleston Road and Alma Street) MCH Roadway under rail hybrid at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings MCL Roadway under railroad hybrid at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings; new hybrid path under rail bicycle and pedestrian crossing near Loma Verde Avenue MDH Roadway under railroad hybrid at Meadow Drive crossing (maintain connection between Meadow Drive and Alma Street) PAH Continue proposed Menlo Park hybrid alternative across San Francisquito Creek and Palo Alto Avenue on a viaduct structure Ideas that Include No Build Option (Safety Upgrades Only) CAN No grade separation at Churchill Avenue crossing; implement minor safety improvements (quad-gates and wayside horns) in addition to planned Section 130 project to be completed in 2018-2019. MDN No grade separation at Meadow Drive crossing; implement minor safety improvements (quad- gates and wayside horns) in addition to potential Section 130 project to be completed in 2020- 2022. PAN No grade separation at Palo Alto Avenue crossing; implement minor safety improvements (quad-gates and wayside horns) with the goal of making a quiet zone Ideas that Include Rail under Road Option MCT Railroad under roadway trench from Meadow Drive to Charleston Road; Alma Street not within trench (maintain connections between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road) MCX Railroad under roadway trench at Charleston Road; Close Meadow Drive crossing; Alma Street not within trench (maintain connections between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road) Throughout March and early April, Staff received Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program Technical Advisory Committee feedback on the Master List of Ideas and also met with key stakeholders to review the results of the Initial Screening of the Master List of Ideas. On March 21, 2018, staff presented the Initial Screening of the Master List of Ideas to the Rail Committee. Based on feedback from the Rail Committee, and additional feedback from the Technical Advisory Committee, staff further refined the Initial Screening of the Master List of Ideas. An additional 4 Ideas were identified by Staff for potential early elimination, 6 Ideas were combined into 3 Ideas, and 1 Idea was added per the recommendation of the Technical A dvisory Committee, leaving 10 Ideas on the Master List of Ideas. The following refinements were made:  Removed unnecessary Ideas. MCX [Railroad under roadway trench at Charleston Road; Close Meadow Drive crossing; Alma Street not within trench (maintain connections between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road] was removed because there is no design benefit compared to MCT (Railroad under roadway trench from Meadow Drive to Charleston Road; Alma Street not within trench (maintain connections between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road)). A 2% grade is still required south of Charleston Rd.  Remove adjacent Ideas. MDH (Roadway under railroad hybrid at Meadow Drive crossing (maintain connection between Meadow Drive and Alma Street)) and CRH (Roadway under railroad hybrid at Charleston Road crossing (maintain connection between Charleston Road and Alma Street)) were removed because there is no design benefit when compared to a hybrid option that includes both Meadow Dr. and Charleston Rd. MDL (Close Meadow Drive crossing and build a new bicycle and pedestrian crossing near Loma Verde Avenue to connect to the planned Matadero Avenue bicycle boulevard) was removed because there is no design benefit to closing Meadow without addressing Charleston Rd.  Merge Overlapping Ideas. MCH (Roadway under rail hybrid at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings) was merged with MCL (Roadway under railroad hybrid at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings; new hybrid path under rail bicycle and pedestrian crossing near Loma Verde Avenue) because there is no design benefit for MCH when compared to MCL.  Combine Similar Ideas. PCE (Close Palo Alto Avenue crossing and build planned Everett Avenue bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing) and PCU (Close Palo Alto Avenue crossing and widen existing University Avenue roadway undercrossing) were combined into PCX, with a list of possible improvements options to choose from (Palo Alto Ave. Crossing closed; Improvement options include: build Everett Ave. bike/ped undercrossing and widen University Ave.). CAE (Close Churchill Avenue crossing and widen existing Embarcadero Road roadway undercrossing) and CAS (Close Churchill Avenue crossing and build a new bicycle and pedestrian crossing near the planned Seale Avenue bicycle boulevard to connect to the existing Peers Park and planned Stanford Avenue bicycle boulevard) were combined into CAX, with a list of possible improvements options to choose from (Churchill Ave. crossing closed; Improvement options include: widen existing Embarcadero Rd. undercrossing, add new traffic signals at Embarcadero Rd. ramp, and build bike/ped crossing near planned Seale Ave. bike boulevard to connect to Peers Park and Stanford Ave. bike boulevard).  Add Technical Advisory Committee Suggestion. Caltrain recommended exploring both a Road over Rail Hybrid as well as a Road under Rail Hybrid. Staff added MCR (Meadow Dr. and Charleston Rd. crossings with roadway over railroad Reverse Hybrid; new hybrid bike/ped path under rail near Loma Verde Ave.) These 10 Ideas were presented to the Rail Committee on April 18, 2018. Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Fine, to recommend the City Council move forward with the 10 Grade Separation Options recommended by Staff with the following changes: A. With the addition of Reverse Hybrid Option at Churchill Avenue; B. Add "and/or viaduct” to the recommended Palo Alto Avenue Hybrid Options; C. With the addition of a Viaduct Option for Meadow Drive and Charleston Road; D. Remove, No Build/Do Nothing Options from consideration, except for as needed for California Environmental Quality Act concerns; E. With the addition of a Citywide Tunnel Option beginning and ending within Palo Alto; F. Add, “or tunnel” to the MCT Option; and G. Authorize Staff to conduct polling if Staff deems this appropriate. The ten (10) Grade Separation Ideas recommended by the Rail Committee are summarized below. Ideas that Include Grade Crossing Closure Option PCX Palo Alto Avenue crossing closed; improvement options include: build an Everett Avenue bike/ped undercrossing and widen University Avenue CAX Churchill Avenue crossing closed; improvement options include: widen existing Embarcadero Road undercrossing, add new traffic signals at Embarcadero Road ramps, build bike/ped crossing at Churchill Avenue, and/or build Seale Avenue bike/ped crossing to connect to Peers Park and Stanford Avenue bicycle boulevard Ideas that Include Reverse Hybrid Option (Roadway Raised Slightly & Railroad Depressed Slightly) CAR Churchill Avenue roadway over railroad reverse hybrid MCR Meadow Drive and Charleston Road roadway over railroad reverse hybrid and build Loma Verde Avenue bike/ped crossing to connect to Margarita Avenue bicycle boulevard Ideas that Include Hybrid Option (Railroad Raised Slightly and Roadway Depressed Slightly) PAH Continue proposed Menlo Park railroad over roadway hybrid and/or viaduct across San Francisquito Creek and Palo Alto Avenue CAH Churchill Avenue railroad over roadway hybrid MCL Meadow Drive and Charleston Road railroad over roadway hybrid and build Loma Verde Avenue bike/ped crossing to connect to Margarita Avenue bicycle boulevard Ideas that Include Railroad under Roadway Option MCT Meadow Drive and Charleston Road railroad under roadway trench or tunnel; Alma Street would not be within trench or tunnel (maintains Alma Street connections to Meadow Drive and Charleston Road) WBP City-wide deep-bore railroad under roadway tunnel within Palo Alto city limits with two new underground rail stations Ideas that Include Railroad over Roadway Option MCV Meadow Drive and Charleston Road railroad over roadway viaduct Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program Master List of Ideas 03/07/2018 Alternative  ID Description of Alternative MCA Railroad under roadway trench within existing railroad corridor from Meadow Drive to Charleston Road; Alma  Street within trench (no connections between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road) MCH Roadway under rail hybrid at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings MCL Roadway under railroad hybrid at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings; new hybrid path under rail bicycle  and pedestrian crossing near Loma Verde Avenue MCT Railroad under roadway trench from Meadow Drive to Charleston Road; Alma Street not within trench (maintain  connections between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road) MCX Railroad under roadway trench at Charleston Road; Close Meadow Drive crossing; Alma Street not within trench  (maintain connections between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road) WBE Citywide deep bore railroad tunnel from Menlo Park city limits to Mountain View city limits under El Camino Real  with two new underground rail stations WBR Citywide deep bore railroad tunnel from Menlo Park city limits to Mountain View city limits under existing rail  corridor with two new underground rail stations WCE Citywide cut‐and‐cover railroad tunnel from Menlo Park city limits to Mountain View city limits under El Camino  Real with two new underground rail stations WCR Citywide cut‐and‐cover railroad tunnel from Menlo Park city limits to Mountain View city limits under existing  railroad corridor with two new underground rail stations WER Citywide railroad berm from Menlo Park city limits to Mountain View city limits within existing rail corridor with  two new elevated stations WTR Citywide railroad under roadway trench within existing railroad right‐of‐way from Menlo Park city limits to  Mountain View city limits with two new depressed rail stations WVR Citywide railroad viaduct from Menlo Park city limits to Mountain View city limits within existing rail corridor with  two new elevated stations Citywide or Multiple Crossing Alternatives DR A F T FO R DIS C U S S I O N ON L Y Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program Master List of Ideas 03/07/2018 Alternative  ID Description of Alternative PAH Continue proposed Menlo Park hybrid alternative across San Francisquito Creek and Palo Alto Avenue on a viaduct  structure PAN No grade separation at Palo Alto Avenue crossing; implement minor safety improvements (quadgates and wayside  horns) with the goal of making a quiet zone PAT Connect Alma Street south of Palo Alto Avenue to Sand Hill Road with a roadway undercrossing beneath the  railroad corridor and El Camino Real; dead‐end Palo Alto Avenue east of Alma Street; connect the bicycle path from  Menlo Park to El Camino Park PCA Close Palo Alto Avenue crossing and connect Alma Street to Alma Street in Menlo Park PCE Close Palo Alto Avenue crossing and build planned Everett Avenue bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing PCQ Close Palo Alto Avenue crossing and extend Quarry Road under rail corridor to Alma Street to tie into Lytton Avenue PCU Close Palo Alto Avenue crossing and widen existing University Avenue roadway undercrossing CAE Close Churchill Avenue crossing and widen existing Embarcadero Road roadway undercrossing CAH Roadway under railroad hybrid at Churchill Avenue crossing CAK Close Churchill Avenue crossing and build a a new bicycle and pedestrian crossing near Kellogg Avenue to connect to the  existing Embarcadero Shared‐use Path CAN No grade separation at Churchill Avenue crossing; implement minor safety improvements (quadgates and wayside horns) in  addition to planned Section 130 project to be completed in 2018‐2019. CAS Close Churchill Avenue crossing and build a new bicycle and pedestrian crossing near the planned Seale Avenue bicycle  boulevard to connect to the existing Peers Park and planned Stanford Avenue bicycle boulevard CAT Railroad under roadway trench at Churchill Avenue crossing Palo Alto Avenue (AKA Alma Street) Alternatives Churchill Avenue Alternatives DR A F T FO R DIS C U S S I O N ON L Y Connecting Palo Alto: Rail Program Master List of Ideas 03/07/2018 Alternative  ID Description of Alternative MDA No grade separation at Meadow Drive crossing; depress Alma Street into trench within existing Alma Street right‐of‐way  under Meadow Drive (no connection between Meadow Drive and Alma Street) MDH Roadway under railroad hybrid at Meadow Drive crossing (maintain connection between Meadow Drive and Alma Street) MDL Close Meadow Drive crossing and build a new bicycle and pedestrian crossing near Loma Verde Avenue to connect to the  planned Matadero Avenue bicycle boulevard MDN No grade separation at Meadow Drive crossing; implement minor safety improvements (quadgates and wayside horns) in  addition to potential Section 130 project to be completed in 2020‐2022. MDU Roadway under railroad undercrossing at Meadow Drive crossing (maintain Alma Street connection) CRA Roadway under railroad undercrossing at Charleston Road crossing (no connection between Charleston Road and Alma  Street) CRH Roadway under railroad hybrid at Charleston Road crossing (maintain connection between Charleston Road and Alma Street) CRO Roadway over railroad overcrossing at Charleston Road crossing (no connection between Charleston Road and Alma Street) CRU Roadway under railroad undercrossing at Charleston Road crossing (maintain connection between Charleston Road and  Alma Street) Charleston Road (Only) Alternatives Meadow Drive (Only) Alternatives DR A F T FO R DIS C U S S I O N ON L Y City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:39 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Maurizio Gianola <maurizio.gianola@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 26, 2018 4:53 PM To:Council, City Cc:A0 Maurizio Gianola; A1 Sabrina Corvo Subject:Citizen Concern Regarding Rail Grade Separation Dear Palo Alto City Council, There is growing concern within my local community, the North Old Palo Alto (NOPA) Community, regarding the imminent rail grade-separation project under review by the City. We are very supportive of the coming rail electrification and modernization initiatives, but we are concerned about the financial, community, environmental and safety implications of a subset of the grade separation options currently under consideration, specifically at Churchill Avenue. Our community members have become very actively involved in the City’s Connecting Palo Alto initiative, have attended several meetings with City staff, have read all the various research by the consultants on the project, and have started to hold local community meetings to become activated on these issues. We believe that there are some critically important elements missing from the current process and analyses that should be part of the City’s core guiding principles in considering these various grade separation proposals. Specifically, the NOPA Community members believe that the following principles are not yet adequately being factored into the City’s process or research and should be prioritized: (1) Complete Financial Impact, including the multi-hundred million dollar cost of Eminent Domain that would be required in some proposals; (2) Community Impact given that some options would eliminate dozens of families’ homes and destroy entire neighborhoods; (3) Leverage of Existing Infrastructure given that some options are being considered in isolation despite massive existing adjacent investments; and, (4) Safety Impact given that any proposals should address known safety concerns of our pedestrians and bicycling student/children. In order to properly communicate our concerns, we ask you to: (a) Please read our Community Letter to Palo Alto City Council (http://www.northoldpaloalto.org/community_letter_to_city_council), which lays out our concerns and proposals that we believe will provide for East-West traffic flows and pedestrian safety in the most cost- effective, community-sensitive way for the community at large. (b) Please meet with us to discuss our concerns and issues face-to-face. We would be happy to come to City City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:39 AM 2 Hall or welcome you to our home(s). Please let us know what is optimal for you. Please let us know when a meeting would be convenient for you. Many thanks in advance for your consideration. Regards, Maurizio Gianola & Sabrina Corvo Resident of Old Palo Alto City of Palo Alto (ID # 9053) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 5/14/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Annual Report for FY17 Santa Clara County Multi - Jurisdictional Flood Preparedness/Awareness Title: FY2017 Annual Evaluation Report for the Santa Clara County Multi - Jurisdictional Program for Public Information on Flood Preparedness/Awareness and Resulting Community Rating System Flood Insurance Discounts From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation This is an informational report and no Council action is required. Background The Community Rating System (CRS) is a voluntary program under the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that allows communities to earn flood insurance premium discounts for their residents and businesses. Communities earn CRS credit points for activities that promote good flood risk reduction practices and encourage the purchase of flood insurance. CRS Class Ratings are assigned at 500-point increments, and each improvement in Class Rating nets an additional 5% flood insurance premium discount. The CRS Class Ratings range from 1 to 10, with 10 being the lowest rating and 1 being the highest. The City of Palo Alto has participated in the CRS program since 1990 and is currently rated as a Class 6 community, which means residents and businesses get a 20% discount on their flood insurance premiums. The City of Palo Alto improved its rating from 7 to 6 on April 2017, which means the discount on flood insurance premium increased from 15% to 20% to its residents. The improvement on CRS rating was due to significant effort on flood awareness and floodplain management by the City. Neighboring cities have earned similar CRS ratings (Mountain View – 8, East Palo Alto – 8, Los Altos – 8, City of Palo Alto Page 2 Sunnyvale – 7). The 2013 CRS Guidance Manual introduced the concept of a regional Program for Public Information (PPI) and provided for new credits for communities that adopt and implement a PPI beginning in 2015. Under the PPI process, a local agency or group of agencies work together to decide what flood risk reduction messages are most appropriate for their local audience and design a coordinated program to deliver those messages. It is estimated that the PPI adopted by Santa Clara County communities will earn from 80 to 200 CRS credit points for each participating local agency. The number of CRS credit points earned by adopting an approved PPI will vary depending on how extensive a program is implemented within each community’s boundaries. The City has been an active participant in the development and implementation of the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional PPI program. The total dollar savings for Santa Clara County residents from CRS flood insurance premium discounts is approximately $2.3 million per year. City of Palo Alto residents and businesses pay $3.7 million (per FEMA data as of December 31, 2017) for flood insurance premiums per year. Without CRS the residents and businesses would have paid $4.4 million. The total savings from the 20% insurance discount achieved by the City on behalf of its residents due to its CRS participation is approximately $ 740,000 per year (per FEMA data as of December 31, 2017). The objectives of the City’s participation in the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional PPI program are to enhance the effectiveness of the flood risk messages to residents, reduce flood risks, and to maintain or improve the City’s CRS rating of 6. As required by the terms of the PPI, the regional PPI committee must convene annually to evaluate whether the flood risk reduction messages are still appropriate and adjust the PPI as needed. A report to FEMA must be submitted annually describing the PPI implementation. The annual report needs to be transmitted to the city council of each participating agency as information updating the councils on the various flood preparedness and awareness outreach programs that the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional PPI has undertaken for the past year. Discussion City of Palo Alto Page 3 The annual report for 2017 Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional PPI is attached as information for Council (Attachment A). The annual report highlights the elements of the flood safety outreach programs implemented by the ten Santa Clara County communities (Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale) that participate in CRS, along with the County of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The Santa Clara Valley Water District acted as the lead agency in developing the PPI and preparing the annual report. The District hosted the PPI development process starting in November 2013, and staff and stakeholders from each of the communities participated in the drafting of the Plan. The worksheet on Appendix A lists the outreach projects, implementing agencies, and the messages associated with each of the projects. Every year, the legislative bodies of all participating communities must re-approve the PPI plan to continue receiving CRS credit. The last PPI was approved by Council on December 5, 2016. Staff will continue to provide information to Council on the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional PPI on a regular basis as needed to achieve the maximum number of CRS credit points and associated flood insurance premium discounts for the community. Attachments:  Attachment A: Annual Evaluation Report for FY17 (Year 2) 11 Attachment A 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 City of Palo Alto (ID # 9130) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 5/14/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Proclamation - National Police Week Title: Proclamation Recognizing National Police Week - May 13-19, 2018 and National Peace Officers’ Memorial Day - May 15, 2018 From: City Manager Lead Department: Police Attachments:  National Police Week and National Police Officers' Memorial Day Proclamation National Police Week - May 13-19, 2018 and National Peace Officers’ Memorial Day - May 15, 2018 WHEREAS, Congress and the President of the United States have designated May 15 as National Peace Officers’ Memorial Day, and the week in which it falls as Police Week; and WHEREAS, the members of the Palo Alto Police Department play an essential role in safeguarding the rights and freedoms of its citizens; and WHEREAS, it is important that all citizens know and understand the problems, duties and responsibilities of their police department, and that members of our police department recognize their duty to serve the people by safeguarding life and property, by protecting them against violence or disorder, and by protectin g the innocent against deception and the weak against oppression or intimidation; and WHEREAS, the Palo Alto Police Department has grown to be a modern and progressive law enforcement agency which unceasingly provides a vital public service. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Mayor Liz Kniss, call upon all citizens of Palo Alto and upon all patriotic, civil, and educational organizations to observe the week of May 13-19, 2018, as Police Week with appropriate ceremonies in which all of our people may join in honoring police officers, past and present, who by their faithful and loyal devotion to their responsibilities have rendered a dedicated service to their communities and, in doing so, have established for themselves an enviable and enduring reputation for preserving the rights and security of all citizens. I FURTHER call upon all citizens of Palo Alto to observe Tuesday, May 15, 2018, as Peace Officers Memorial Day in honor of those peace officers who, through their courageous deeds, have lost their lives or have become disabled in the performance of duty. Presented: May 14, 2018 ______________________________ Liz Kniss Mayor City of Palo Alto (ID # 9168) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 5/14/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Middlefield Road North Traffic Safety Project -Collision Analysis Title: Middlefield Road North Traffic Safety Project -Collision Analysis Memo From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation This report is provided for information only and requires no Council action. Executive Summary On December 11, 2017, Council received the mid-pilot report for Middlefield Road North Traffic Safety Project. That report compared collision data between pre-pilot period (from April 1, 2017 to May 16, 2017), mid-pilot period (from May 17, 2017 to October 2, 2017), and the same time period for the previous three years (from 2014 to 2016). That report indicated that the rate of reported collisions remained consistent between the pre-and mid-pilot periods. However, the project stakeholders group requested that staff re-examine collision data, expand the mid-pilot period until December 2017, compare it to five year average instead of three years , and present a more granular view of the collision data. The collision analysis memorandum, included as Attachment A, compares collision data on Middlefield Road from Palo Alto Avenue to Lytton Avenue during the mid -pilot period (July-December) to the average number of collisions during the same period (July- December) in the five preceding years (2012 through 2016). The total number of collisions along the project corridor decreased from an average of 8.2 collisions between the periods of 2012 and 2016 to zero collisions within the period of 2017. This reduction in reported collisions represents a 100 percent decrease compared to the five - year average. This memo supersedes the collision information provided in the mid-pilot report. Background information on the project can be found here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=55488 . City of Palo Alto Page 2 Resource Impact Not applicable. Timeline The one-year pilot is scheduled to end in June 2018 and a final report will be presented to City Council in August 2018. At the conclusion of the pilot, City Council may adopt the current configuration as a permanent feature, direct staff to modify the current configuration, or direct staff to revert to the pre‐pilot conditions. If the project is made permanent, Staff will identify opportunities to add landscaping and other aesthetic features. Environmental Review Not applicable. Attachments:  Middlefield Road North Traffic Safety Project-Collision Analysis Memo alta FAM PLANNING + DESIGN MEMO 100 Webster Street, Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94607 www.altaplanning.com To: Ruchika Aggarwal and Rafael Rius (City of Palo Alto) From: Kyle James and Hugh Louch (Alta Planning + Design) Date: April 6, 2018 Re: Middlefield North Road Diet - Collision Analysis (Mid -pilot Comparison, 2012-2016 to 2017) Introduction To improve traffic safety conditions by reducing motor vehicle speeds and turning movement conflicts on Middlefield Road in northwest Palo Alto, the City of Palo Alto is in the process of testing a temporary re -configuration of the roadway on Middlefield Road from the north City limit (San Francisquito Creek) to Forest Avenue. The temporary re -configuration is being tested over a one-year period that began in summer 2017 and will end in summer 2018. This technical memorandum compares collision data on the selected corridor of Middlefield Road from Palo Alto Avenue to Lytton Avenue during the mid -pilot period (July -December) to the average number of collisions during the same period (July -December) in the five preceding years (2012 through 2016). As shown in Table 1, the total number of collisions along the selected corridor decreased from an average of 8.2 collisions between the periods of 2012 and 2016 to 0.0 collisions within the period of 2017. This reduction in reported collisions represents a 100 percent decrease compared to the five-year average. In addition to reported collisions, some collisions go unreported to the Police Department. And while near -miss collisions can be a strong indicator of potential collision risk, information on near -misses was not available between 2012 and 2016 along the study corridor for comparison to the 2017 observations. Table 1: Middlefield North Road Diet (Mid -pilot Comparison, 2012-2016 to 2017)* 2012-2016 Average Collisions Middlefield Road (Jul 1St to December 31St) between Palo Alto Avenue and Lytton Avenue at Hawthorne Avenue at Everett Avenue 2017 Total Collisions (Jul 1St to December 31St) Difference *Source: Palo Alto Police Department Middlefield North Road Diet 8.2 1.6 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 8.2 - 1.6 - 4.0 Middlefield Road North Collisions Reported collisions on Middlefield Road between 2012 and 2017 on Palo Alto Avenue and Lytton Avenue for the period of July l sY to December 31St are summarized in Table 2. Between 2012 and 2016, the number of total collisions on the corridor ranged between 6 collisions and 10 collisions per period. The corridor experienced an average of 8.2 collisions per period over the five-year interval. Of the 41 reported collisions between the periods (July -December) of 2012 and 2016, 46 percent were broadside collisions and 27 percent were side swipe collisions. The primary collision factors leading to the 41 reported collisions between the periods of 2012 and 2016 were failure to stop or yield at an intersection (49 percent) and unsafe turning (24 percent). The 41 reported collisions resulted in 19 injuries total, of which no injuries resulted in a fatality. The vast majority of the 41 reported collisions were between two or more motor vehicles (85 percent), while one collision was between a motor vehicle and a pedestrian (2 percent). There were no reported collisions during the period (July -December) of 2017. Compared to the five-year historic collision data, there was a 100 percent decrease in the number of reported collisions on Middlefield Road between Palo Alto Avenue and Lytton Avenue. Table 2: Collisions, Middlefield Road between Palo Alto Avenue and Lytton Avenue (July 1st - December 31st)* Year Total Collisions Type 4-, V a, 0 -0 a av a, 0 C a LL In 0 VI CU N -0 N O 8 ac in 1 m z Injuries 0 i- mary Collision Factors LL Unsafe Turn 0 CU v 0 - CU td Unsafe Lane a '49 c -o a, o .2 a) >- v - 0 i v V u Unsafe Backing -o a, 0 a a, cc 0 z Motor Vehicle Involved with 0 a, s O Fixed Ob'ect 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 7 10 8 6 10 0 2 1 1 0 1 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 4 0 3 4 7 3 2 2 0 0 0 1 4 4 6 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 3 0 1 3 5 7 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 7 0 0 10 0 0 7 0 0 4 0 1 7 1 0 2 0 0 Average (2012-2016) 8.2 0.4 0.8 2.2 0.4 3.8 0.6 3.8 0.0 2.0 0.8 0.4 4.0 0.2 0.8 7.0 0.2 0.2 0.8 2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Difference -8.2 -0.4 -0.8 -2.2 -0.4 -3.8 -0.6 *Source: Palo Alto Police Department Middlefield North Road Diet -3.8 0.0 -2.0 -0.8 -0.4 -4.0 -0.2 -0.8 -7.0 -0.2 -0.2 -0.8 12 Middlefield Road at Hawthorne Avenue Collisions Collisions on Middlefield Road at Hawthorne Avenue between 2012 and 2017 for the period of July 1St to December 31St are summarized in Table 3. Between 2012 and 2016, the number of total collisions on the corridor ranged between 0 collisions and 4 collisions per period. The corridor experienced an average of 1.6 collisions per period over the five-year interval. Of the 8 reported collisions between the periods (July -December) of 2012 and 2016, 38 percent were broadside collisions and 38 percent were side swipe collisions. The primary collision factors leading to the 8 reported collisions between the periods of 2012 and 2016 were failure to stop or yield at an intersection (50 percent) and unsafe turning (25 percent). The 8 reported collisions resulted in 2 injuries total, of which no injuries resulted in a fatality. All but 1 of the 8 reported collisions occurred between on or more motor vehicles; the parties involved in the lone non -vehicle -to -vehicle collision were not reported. There were no reported collisions during the period (July -December) of 2017. Compared to the five-year historic collision data, there was a 100 percent decrease in the number of reported collisions on Middlefield Road at Hawthorne Avenue. Table 3: Collisions, Middlefield Road at Hawthorne Avenue (July 15" - December 3159* Year Total Collisions Type V a) 0 w v CC a) 0. N a) -o in 0 Injuries to 0 H 03 LL Primary Collision Factors Unsafe Turn a, a, 0- V) 4- c Unsafe Lane rES 0- 0 -0 c u o C p i t 03 773 uc Unsafe Backing 0 0 a! cc 0 Z Motor Vehicle Involved with 0 a1 t O Fixed Ob'ect c R H aJ a) 0 0 0 a) cc 0 Z 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0 2 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Average (2012-2016) 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 2017* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Difference -1.6 -0.2 0.0 -0.6 0.0 -0.6 -0.2 "Source: Palo Alto Police Department Middlefield North Road Diet -0.4 0.0 -0.4 0.0 -0.2 -0.8 0.0 -0.2 -1.4 0.0 0.0 -0.2 13 Middlefield Road at Everett Avenue Collisions Collisions on Middlefield Road at Everett Avenue between 2012 and 2017 for the period of July 152 to December 3152 are summarized in Table 4. Between 2012 and 2016, the number of total collisions on the corridor ranged between 3 collisions and 7 collisions per period. The corridor experienced an average of 4.0 collisions per period over the five-year interval. Of the 20 reported collisions between the periods (July -December) of 2012 and 2016, 75 percent were broadside collisions and 10 percent were side swipe collisions. The primary collision factors leading to the 20 reported collisions between the periods of 2012 and 2016 were failure to stop or yield at an intersection (80 percent) and unsafe turning (10 percent). The 20 reported collisions resulted in 9 injuries total, of which no injuries resulted in a fatality. The vast majority of the 20 reported collisions were between two or more motor vehicles (75 percent), while one collision was between a motor vehicle and a pedestrian (5 percent). There were no reported collisions during the period (July -December) of 2017. Compared to the five-year historic collision data, there was a 100 percent decrease in the number of reported collisions on Middlefield Road at Everett Avenue. Table 4: Collisions, Middlefield Road at Everett Avenue (July 1st - December 31St)* Year Total Collisions Type V a) 0 W a) cc 0 a, 0 a, O 0 cu cc 0 z Injuries 2 0 H (13 4-0 fro u - Primary Collision Factors Unsafe Turn -o a, 0. N to c Unsafe Lane Unsafe Backing v O 0 a) cc 0 z Motor Vehicle Involved with 0 N t O Fixed Ob'ect c (Q -, aJ v v O 0 a) 0 z 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 3 4 7 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 7 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 7 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 4 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Average (2012-2016) 4.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 3.0 0.4 1.8 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.4 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.6 2017* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Difference -4.0 -0.2 0.0 -0.4 0.0 -3.0 -0.4 *Source: Palo Alto Police Department Middlefield North Road Diet -1.8 0.0 -0.4 0.0 0.0 -3.2 0.0 -0.4 -3.0 -0.2 -0.2 -0.6 I4