Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2021-06-14 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 ON THE CITY OF PALO ALTO WEBSITE. Monday, June 14, 2021 Special Meeting 5:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 11 days preceding the meeting. ***BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY*** CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833 Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, issued on March 17, 2020, to prevent the spread of Covid-19, this meeting will be held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and Midpen Media Center at https://midpenmedia.org. Members of the public who wish to participate by computer or phone can find the instructions at the end of this agenda. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest calling in or connecting online 15 minutes before the item you wish to speak on. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. Public comment may be addressed to the full City Council via email at City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Oral Communications 5:00-5:15 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. 2 June 14, 2021 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION ON THE CITY OF PALO ALTO WEBSITE. Minutes Approval 5:15-5:20 PM 1.Approval of Action Minutes for the June 1, 2021 City Council Meeting Consent Calendar 5:20-5:25 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 2.Approval of: 1) Construction Contract With Azulworks, Inc., in the Amount of $2,667,054 for the Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2021 Street Resurfacing Project (Capital Improvement Program Projects PE-86070, PE-09003, PE-21004, PO-12001, PO-89003, PL-04010, PL-05030, and OS-09001); 2) Authorization for the City Manager or his Designee to Negotiate and Execute Related Change Orders to the Contract With Azulworks, Inc. for Additional but Unforeseen Work That may Develop During the Project, Not-to-Exceed $266,706; and 3) Budget Amendments in the Capital Improvement Fund 3.Approval of Contract Amendments to Extend Three Public -private Partnership Agreements Between the City of Palo Alto and TheatreWorks, Palo Alto Players, and West Bay Opera for the use of the Lucie Stern Community Theatre for an Additional Year 4.Adoption of a Resolution to Enter Into a Cooperative Implementation Agreement With the California Department of Transportation for the Embarcadero Trash Capture Device Project 5.Approval of Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number C19173445 With Charles Sowers Studios, LLC to Extend the Term of the Contract Through December 31, 2021 for the Fabrication and Installation of Artwork at the Junior Museum and Zoo 6.Accept the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Third Quarter Financial Status Report and Approve the FY 2021 Budget Amendment in the General Fund City Manager Comments 5:25-5:35 PM Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 5:45-6:45 PM 7.Approval of Amendment Number One to Contract Number S20178065 With the OIR Group for Independent Police Auditing Services to Expand the Scope of Services and Increase the Contract Amount by $32,500 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $107,500 Q&A Q&A Q&A Additional Q&A Public Comment 3 June 14, 2021 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION ON THE CITY OF PALO ALTO WEBSITE. 6:45-7:45 PM 8.Request for City Council Interpretation Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.01.025 Related to Nonconforming Uses at the 340 Portage/3200 Park Site. Environmental Analysis: City Council Direction Regarding Interpretation of the Existing Code is not a Project, as Defined in Public Resources Code 21065 8:00-10:30 PM 9.PUBLIC HEARING: Recommendation on the Preferred Plan Alternative for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP). The Planning and Transportation Commission and Staff Recommend the City Council Review the NVCAP Alternatives and Select Alternative Number 3B as the Preferred Alternative Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. Public Comment Presentation Public Comment Presentation 4 June 14, 2021 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION ON THE CITY OF PALO ALTO WEBSITE. Additional Information Informational Report Fiscal Year 2021 Annual Evaluation Report for the Santa Clara County Multi-jurisdictional Program for Public Information on Flood Preparedness and Awareness, and the Resulting Community Rating System Flood Insurance Discounts Storm Water Management Oversight Committee Review of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Stormwater Management Fund Expenditures and the FY 2022 Stormwater Management Fund Proposed Budget Standing Committee Meetings Sp. Finance Committee Meeting June 15, 2021 City School Liaison Committee Meeting June 17, 2021 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Public Letters to Council Set 1 Set 2 5 June 14, 2021 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION ON THE CITY OF PALO ALTO WEBSITE. Public Comment Instructions Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. A. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. B. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. C. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. E. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B-E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK June 14, 2021 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the June 1, 2021 City Council Meeting Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A: 06-01-21 CCM DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 5 Special Meeting June 1, 2021 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in virtual teleconference at 5:01 P.M. Participating Remotely: Burt, Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Kou, Stone, Tanaka arrived at 6:21 P.M. Absent: Special Orders of the Day 1. Proclamation Honoring Gunn High School Football Coach Jason Miller. Council Member Kou read the proclamation into the record. NO ACTION TAKEN. 2. Proclamation Honoring Gunn High School Titans Football Team. Mayor DuBois read the proclamation into the record. NO ACTION TAKEN. Study Session 3. Discussion of the Format for Meetings of the City Council and Other Public Bodies Potentially Beginning August 2021. NO ACTION TAKEN. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Mayor DuBois announced Agenda Item Number 9 has been moved to June 7, 2021. Council took a break at 6:03 P.M. and returned at 6:16 P.M. Minutes Approval 4. Approval of Action Minutes for the May 17 and May 18, 2021 City Council Meetings. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 5 Sp. City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 06/01/2021 MOTION: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to approve the Action Minutes for the May 17 and May 18, 2021 City Council Meetings. MOTION PASSED: 6-0 Tanaka Absent Consent Calendar Council Member Kou registered a no vote on Agenda Item Number 5. MOTION: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Council Member Stone to approve Agenda Item Number 5. 5. SECOND READING: Ordinance 5523 and Ordinance 5524 Responding to State Housing Bills Regarding Density Bonus and Affordable Housing, Environmental Assessment: Exempt Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (FIRST READING: May 18, 2021 PASSED: 7-0). MOTION PASSED: 5-1 Kou no, Tanaka absent Action Items 6. Approval of the Tri-party Fire Agreement for Foothills Reserve Fire Station Staffing During Fire Season. MOTION: Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to approve entering into a memorandum of understanding with the Los Altos Hills County Fire District and the Santa Clara County Fire Department to staff Palo Alto Fire Station 8 (Foothills) during wildland fire seasons. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 7. Discussion on the Scope of Economic Development and Resources Needed for Implementation; and Direction to Staff on the Desired Scope and Goals of Future Investment. Council took a break at 7:51 P.M. and returned at 8:00 P.M. MOTION: Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to direct Staff to come back with a proposal for an RFP for an economic development strategy consultant and internal staffing plan to support a connection to the business community with a focus on: A. Analysis of shifts in Palo Alto business mix, including clean up and analysis of business registry data; DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 5 Sp. City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 06/01/2021 B. Strategies to deal with shifts caused by the pandemic; C. Strategies to bolster Palo Alto hotels; and D. Additional opportunities to bolster revenue and service local residents. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member Stone to: A. Hire an Economic Development Staff member to develop an internal staffing plan to support a connection to the business community with a focus on: i. Analysis of shifts in Palo Alto business mix including clean up and analysis of business registry data; ii. Strategies to deal with shifts caused by the pandemic; iii. Strategies to bolster Palo Alto hotels; iv. Additional opportunities to bolster revenue and service local residents; and B. Refer to the Finance Committee discussion of the funding source for this position. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 3-4 Burt, Kou, Stone yes MOTION PASSED: 6-1 Stone no 8. Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing Board and Commission Term Limits, Consolidating Recruitment to May of Each Year, and Codifying the Human Relations Commission's Existing Role of Recommending Grant Funding. MOTION: Vice Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Stone to approve an Ordinance, with adjustments on policy issues as desired, to amend various sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in order to: A. Create term limits for board and commission members as follows: i. Three 3-year terms for the Architectural Review Board (ARB), Historic Resources Board (HRB), Human Relations Commission (HRC), Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), Public Art Commission (PAC), and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC); DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 5 Sp. City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 06/01/2021 a) Cannot serve more than 9 years consecutively; ii. Two 4-year terms for the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee (SWMOC); a) Cannot serve more than 8 years consecutively; B. Approve the suggested policy issues regarding term limits, including i. Two recruitment periods with one commencing in January for PTC, HRB, HRC, and ARB with terms beginning in March; and one commencing in August for all other BCCs with terms beginning October; C. Effective date of Ordinance would be January 1, 2022 D. Codify existing duties of the Human Relations Commission. AMENDMENT: Mayor DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Cormack to amend the Motion Part B. i. to commence the recruitment for all Boards and Commissions in January with terms beginning in March. AMENDMENT PASSED: 5-2 Burt, Stone MOTION AS AMENDED: Vice Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Stone to approve an Ordinance, with adjustments on policy issues as desired, to amend various sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in order to: A. Create term limits for board and commission members as follows: i. Three 3-year terms for the Architectural Review Board (ARB), Historic Resources Board (HRB), Human Relations Commission (HRC), Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), Public Art Commission (PAC), and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC); a) Cannot serve more than 9 years consecutively; ii. Two 4-year terms for the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee (SWMOC); a) Cannot serve more than 8 years consecutively; B. Approve the suggested policy issues regarding term limits, including: DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 5 Sp. City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 06/01/2021 i. Commence the recruitment for all Boards and Commissions in January, with terms beginning in March; C. Effective date of Ordinance would be January 1, 2022; and D. Codify existing duties of the Human Relations Commission. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-1 Cormack no 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of a Resolution to Suspend Assessments for Fiscal Year 2022 for Downtown Business Improvement District (BID) (STAFF REQUESTS THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO JUNE 7, 2021). Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned in memory of the VTA shooting victims, their co-workers, and families at 10:40 P.M. ATTEST: APPROVED: ____________________ ____________________ City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Action minutes are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 2.04.160(a) and (b). Summary minutes (sense) are prepared in accordance with PAMC Section 2.04.160(c). Beginning in January 2018, in accordance with Ordinance No. 5423, the City Council found action minutes and the video/audio recordings of Council proceedings to be the official records of both Council and committee proceedings. These recordings are available on the City’s website. City of Palo Alto (ID # 12128) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/14/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Contract for FY 2021 Street Resurfacing Project & Budget Amendments Title: Approval of: 1) a Construction Contract With Azulworks, Inc., in the Amount of $2,667,054 for the Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2021 Street Resurfacing Project (Capital Impro vement Program Projects PE-86070, PE-09003, PE- 21004, PO-12001, PO -89003, PL -04010, PL -05030, and OS -09001); 2) Authorization for the City Manager or his Designee to Negotiate and Execute Related Change Orders to the Contract With Azulworks, Inc. for Addit ional but Unforeseen Work that may Develop During the Project, Not -to-Exceed $266,706; and 3) Budget Amendments in the Capital Improvement Fund 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 construction contract with Azulworks, Inc. (Contract No. C21181619), in an amount not to exceed $2,667,054 for Palo Alto Fiscal Year 2021 Street Resurfacing Project (Capital Improvement Program Projects PE-86070, PE-09003, PE-21004, PO-12001, PO-89003, PL-04010, PL-05030, and OS-09001); 2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute related change orders to the contract with Azulworks, Inc. for related additional but unforeseen work that may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $266,706; and 3. Amend the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Appropriation for the Capital Improvement Fund (simple majority approval needed) by: a. Decreasing the City Facility Parking Lot Maintenance Project (PE-09003) by 67,300; b. Decreasing the Curb and Gutter Repairs Project (PO-12001) by $97,500; c. Decreasing the Sidewalk Repairs Project (PO-89003) by $24,300; d. Decreasing the Traffic Signal and Intelligent Transportation Systems Project (PL - 05030) by $18,900; CITY OF PALO ALTO City of Palo Alto Page 2 e. Decreasing the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (PL-04010) by $19,800; f. Decreasing the Off-Road Pathway Resurfacing and Repair Project (OS-09001) by 48,400; and g. Increasing the Ending Fund Balance by $276,200. Background The Public Works Engineering Services Division manages construction cont racts 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 annualized resurfacing contracts due to the complexity of construction and benefit of being included in a larger project. The candidate streets are surveyed biennially by Public Works Engineering staff and rated by a computerized pavement maintenance management system (PMMS) and by the Metropo litan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) pavement analysis program. Discussion Project Description Staff recommends approval of this street resurfacing contract as part of the program to maintain and improve the condition of Palo Alto’s streets. The $2,667,054 expenditure for this contract will be used to repave 5.82 lane-miles of arterial and residential streets with PCIs averaging 44. This will help maintain the City’s Pavement Condition Index (PCI) beyond its average of 84 and will address many streets whose PCI scores fall below the City’s minimum goal of 60. The scope of work includes the replacement of approximately 2,194 linear feet (0.42 miles) of curbs and gutters, 2,946 square feet of driveways, 6,016 square feet of sidewalks, and 1,447 linear feet (0.27 miles) of valley gutter. Additionally, 15 new curb ramps will be installed, and 19 existing curb ramps will be retrofitted with truncated domes to conform to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This project includes an allowance to provide minor street improvements to University Avenue and California Avenue as required. The project also includes: • Replacing the brick pathway in kind at College Terrace and replacing the Hoover Park asphalt pathway with concrete due to tripping hazard s and tree roots uplifting the existing pavement. • Remove the truncated domes and restore the roadway at the intersections of Ross Road and Moreno Avenue, and East Meadow Drive and Ross Road. • Install a concrete median for the right turn pocket at the north corner o f Alma Street and East Meadow Drive. City of Palo Alto Page 3 The streets being resurfaced in this contract are shown in Attachment A. This year’s shorter street list reflects the over $1 million reduction in this CIP for Fiscal Year 2021 as part of the budget strategy. Bid Process On March 16, 2021, an invitation for bids (IFB) for the Palo Alto FY 2021 Street Resurfacing Project was posted at City Hall and sent to builder’s exchanges and contractors through the City’s eProcurement system. The bidding period was 22 calendar days. Bids were received from five (5) contractors on April 6, 2021 as listed on the attached Bid Summary (Attachment B). Summary of Bid Process BID NAME/NUMBER PALO ALTO FY 2021 STREET RESURFACING PROJECT IFB #181619 PROPOSED LENGTH OF PROJECT 120 calendar days NUMBER OF BID PACKAGES DOWNLOADED BY BUILDER’S EXCHANGES 2 NUMBER OF BID PACKAGES DOWNLOADED BY CONTRACTORS 27 TOTAL DAYS TO RESPOND TO BID 22 PRE-BID MEETING? No NUMBER OF BIDS RECEIVED: 5 BID PRICE RANGE $2,667,054 - $3,646,713 Staff has reviewed the bids submitted and recommends the bid of $2,667,054 submitted by Azulworks, Inc. be accepted, and Azulworks, Inc. be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The low bid is 12 percent lower than the engineer’s estimate of $3,022,556. Staff reviewed information and similar projects performed by the lowest bidder, Azulworks, Inc., and found them to be a responsible bidder. Staff also checked with the Contractor's State License Board and confirmed the contractor has an active license on file. This contract is on the City’s construction contract template, which permits the City to terminate without cause/for convenience by providing written notice to the contractor. In the event the City finds itself facing a challenging budget situation, and it is dete rmined that City resources need to be refocused elsewhere, the City can terminate for convenience. Other options include termination due to non-appropriation of funds or amending the contract to reduce the cost, for example, by reducing the scope of work. Resource Impact Funding for this contract is available in the Fiscal Year 2021 Capital Improvement Program Street Maintenance project (PE-86070), City Facility Parking Lot Maintenance project (PE- 09003), University Avenue Streetscape Upgrade (PE-21004), Curb and Gutter Repairs project (PO-12001), Sidewalk Repairs (PO-89003), Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (PL- City of Palo Alto Page 4 04010), Traffic Signal and Intelligent Transportation Systems (PL-05030), and Off-Road Pathway Resurfacing and Repair (OS-09001). The funding allocation is as follows: Capital Improvement Project Contract Contingency Total Encumbrance PE-86070 $2,277,338 $227,734 $2,505,072 PE-09003 $28,800 $2,880 $31,680 PE-21004 $90,000 $9,000 $99,000 PO-12001 $127,686 $12,769 $140,455 PO-89003 $30,430 $3,043 $33,473 PL-04010 $24,000 $2,400 $26,400 PL-05030 $32,800 $3,280 $36,080 OS-09001 $56,000 $5,600 $61,600 Total $2,667,054 $266,706 $2,933,760 Since the bids came in 12 percent below the engineer’s estimate, the additional funding of $276,200 is being returned to the Capital Improvement Fund. The savings will contribute to the funding plan to proceed with completing the remainder of the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project (PE-13011) as directed by Council on May 17, 2021. As noted, this savings has already been factored into the five-year Capital Improvement Fund CIP Plan and therefore no further action or allocation of this savings is needed. Stakeholder Engagement All streets have been coordinated with the City’s Utilities Departmen t and the Office of Transportation to minimize the cutting of newly resurfaced streets. Ex tensive public outreach will be conducted before and during the construction phase to keep the community informed throughout the process, including flyers sent to adj acent residences and businesses, and notices posted online on Nextdoor and the City’s website. A community meeting was held on El Cerrito Road on Wednesday, October 21, 2020 to discuss the valley gutter installed on the south end of El Cerrito Road and to inform residents about the potential installation of valley gutters on the east end of El Cerrito Road and Cerrito Way. A total of 15 residents attended the meeting. After the information and details had been discussed, attendees expressed strong support for the installation of valley gutters on the east end of El Cerrito Road and Cerrito Way. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Policy Implications This project is in conformance with the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan and does not represent any changes to existing City policies. 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. Links: • Contract No. C21181619 is provided via online link at the top of this Staff Report Attachments: • Attachment A: Street List and Map • Attachment B: Bid Summary ATTACHMENT A STREET LIST Street From Street To Street PCI Cerrito Way Los Robles Avenue El Cerrito Road 88 Chestnut Avenue Ash Street Birch Street 38 Chestnut Avenue Birch Street Boulware Park 28 College Terrace Pathway Cowper Street Palo Alto Avenue Ruthven Avenue 53 Cowper Street Seale Avenue Santa Rita Avenue 60 Darlington Court Park Boulevard End 45 East Bayshore Road 300' north of Adobe Creek 300' south of Adobe Creek Edgewood Drive Southwood Drive Island Drive 51 El Cerrito Road Cerrito Way End, east 69 Guinda Street Kingsley Avenue Melville Avenue 55 Hoover Park Pathway Kingsley Avenue Middlefield Road Fulton Street 47 Kingsley Avenue Fulton Street Guinda Street 46 Lane 5 East High Street Hamilton Avenue 19 Lane 6 East High Street Emerson Street 36 Lane 15 East Hawthorne Avenue Everett Avenue 54 McKellar Lane Arastradero Road Kelly Way 35 Newberry Court Park Boulevard End 53 Oregon Avenue Middlefield Road Ross Road 19 Oregon Avenue Bryant Street South Court 32 Orinda Street Fernando Avenue Margarita Avenue 48 Sandhill Road Stockfarm Road W.Oak Creek Drive 29 Sandhill Road W. Oak Creek Drive City Limits 29 Waverley Street Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue 45 Waverley Street Lincoln Avenue Kingsley Avenue 56 Waverley Street Kingsley Avenue Melville Avenue 53 Waverley Street Melville Avenue Embarcadero Road 53 Waverley Street Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue 15 West Bayshore Road 300' north of Adobe Creek 300' south of Adobe Creek Average PCI: 44 1 of 1 Attachment A 142 - 2 7 - 0 0 7 142-27-001 142-27-002 147-27-003 142-27-004 147-27-005 147-27-00 6 147-27-008 147-27-009 147-27-010 147-27-012 147-27-011 147-27-013 147-27-014 147-27-016 147 -27- 015 142-27-017 142-27-018 142-27-019 142-27-020 142-27-021 142-27-022 142-27-023 142-27- 024 142-27-025 142-27-026 142-27-028142-27-027 142-27-030142-27-029 142-27-031 142-27-032 142-27-033 142-27-034 142-27-035 142-27-036 142-27-037 142-27-038 142-27-039 142-09-010 142-09-010 142-04-024 142-21-037 142-04-036 142-04-036 C OLLE G E AVENUE PRIN CETO N STR EET C O RNEL L ST REE T CALIFO R NIA AVEN UE O BERL IN STREET HAR VARD STRE ET H A N O VER STREET DART M O UTH STREET C ALIFO RNIA AVENUE CO LLE GE AVENU E C OLLE GE AVEN UE DARTM O UTH STREET C OLU M BIA STREET C OLLEG E AVEN UE B O W D OIN STREETCOLLEGE AVENUE NIA AVENUE A M H ERST STREET STA NFO RD AVEN U E H ANSEN W AY HA NS EN W AY CALIFO RNIA AVENUE YALE STREET CA M BRID G E AVENUE CALIFO RNIA AVEN UE WILLIA M S STREET CALIFO RNIA AVEN UE G R ANT AVENUE EL CA MIN O REAL EL C A MIN O REAL EL CA MIN O REAL SHER M A N AVENUE SHER M A N AVENUE JACARANDA LA NE ASH STREET NE W M AYFIELD LANE NE W M AYFIELD LANE E L C A M I N O R E A L EL CA MINO REAL CALIFO R NIA AVEN UE CALIFO R NIA AVENUE PERAL LANE MIM OSA LAN E SE D R O LA N E C A M B RID GE AVENUE C OLLEGE AVEN UE W EL LESLEY ST RE ET CALIFO RNIA AVEN UE PA GE MILL R O AD PA GE MILL R O A D HAN SEN W AY PA GE MILL RO AD HANOV ER HAN OVE R STREE T EL CA MINO REAL M ATADE RO AVEN UE LAM BERT AVENUE EL C A MIN O REAL HANS EN W AY EL CAMINO REAL CHIM ALUS DR I VE DERO AVEN UE W H ITSELL AV HANSEN W AY HA NSEN W AY AS H STREET OXFO R D AVENUE STANFO RD AVENU E C O R NE LL STRE ET W ELLESL EY STREE T PRINCE TO N ST RE ET OBERL IN ST REE T H AR VAR D STREE T E L C A M I N O R E A L STA NFO RD AVEN UE E L C A M I N O R E A L E L C A M I N O R E A L ASH STREET LELAN D AVENUE OXFO RD AVENUE STREET STAN FORD AVENUE LE ASH STREET BIRCH STREET NEW M AYFIELD LANE CAM BRIDGE AVEN UE BIR CH STREET BIRCH STREET C OLLEG E AVEN UE COLLEG E AVEN U P A R K B O U L E V A R D CALIFORNIA AVENUE ALM A STREET PARK B O ULEVARD SHERM AN AVENU E JACARANDA LAN E PAR K B O ULEVA RD O XF E M E R S O N S T R E E T R A M O N A S T R E E T C O L O RAD O AV EN UE C O L O R A D O A V E N U E E M E R S O N S T R E E T HIG H S T R E E T A L M A S T R E E T AL M A STR EET OREGON EXPRESSWA Y B R Y O R E G O N A V E N U ENORTH CA HIG H S T R E E T A S T R E E T O R E C O L O R A D O A V E A M H ERST STAN FORD AVENUE A N G E L L C T CO LLEG E AVEN UE HANO VER STREET C OLU M BIA STREET B O W D OIN STREET STANFO RD AVENUE DARTM O UTH STREET STAN FO RD AVENUE STAN FO RD AVENUE B O W DOIN STREET WIL L I A MS STR EET YALE STREET GRANT AVE NUE SHER MA N AVEN UE S HERID A N AVE N UE SHERIDAN AVENU E ASH S TR EET BIRCH STREET BIR C H S TREET GRANT AVENUE E L D O ASH STREET BIRC PA RK B O ULEVARD PARK A L M A S T R E E T A CACIA AVEN UE PO RTAG E AVEN UE OLIVE AVEN U E PEPPER A VEN UE ASH STREET PA GE M ILL RO AD PAGE MILL ROAD EL CA MIN O REAL A L M A S T R E E T STA U NTO N C O URT PAGE M ILL RO AD PA GE M ILL R OAD PAGE M ILL ROAD PA GE MILL RO AD N O G AL LANE TIPPAWING O S T Ra m os W ay (Private) JACAR AND A LANE R D P E NIN S U L A C O R RID O R J O IN T P O W E R S B O A R D P E NIN S U L A C O R RID O R J O IN T P O W E R S B O A R D P E NIN S O XFO RD AVENUE ABRAMS COURT BAR N ES COURT NA I R S I DI N G ER COURT ESCO NDID O R OAD ESC ONDID O R OAD L A N A D A W A Y HULME COURT J E N K I N S C O U R T MCFARLAND COURT O B E RLIN ST OLMSTED ROAD O L M S T E D R O A D O L M S T E D R O A D O L M ST E D R O A D O L M S T E D R O A D O L M S T E D R O A D OLMSTED R O A D O L M S T E D R OAD O L M S T E D R O A D O L M S T E D R O A D C O M S TOCK CIRCLE ESC O N DID O RD PINE HILL COURT EN CT RUNNIN G FAR M LANE A S T R E E T S E R R A S TR E E T S E R R A S T R E E T A S T R E E T S E R R A ST R E ET AVENUE T H O B U R N COURT WELLESLEY ST OLMS T E D R D D U D L E Y L A N E YALE ST R OSSE LAN E A S L A N E PETER COU T CO MSTOCK C IR CLE HOSK I NS COURT S E R R A REE T E L C A M I N O R E A L E L C A M I N O R E A L EL CAMINO REAL EL CA MINO REAL EL CA MINO REAL EL CA MI N O REAL EL CA MIN O REAL O L M S T E D R O A D Colu mbia Place Colum bia Court Colu m bia Street Bowdoin Stlace Drake W ay This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'470' CITY O F PALO A L T O I N C O R P O R A T E D C ALI FO R N I A P a l o A l t o T 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 tbotkin, 2020-12-29 09:05:24 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) FY 2 0 2 1 O v e r l a y S t r e e t s -- 167-10-030 167-10-031 167-10-032 167-10-033 167-10-034 167-10-035 167-10-026 167-10-025 167-10-023 167-10-022 167-10-021 167-10-016 167-10 167-10-017 167-10-018 167-10-019 167-10-020 167-10-036 167-10-037 167-10-038 167-10-039 167-10-040 167-10-041 167-10-042 167-10-075 167-10-076 167-10-077 167-10-074 167-10-073 167-10-078 167-10-079 167-10-080 OLA N A DR IV E FLO RA LES D R IVE CEREZA D RIVEENCINA G R A N DE D RIVE CE REZA D RIVE AMARANTA AVENUE A M A R ANTA A VEN UE FLO R ALES D RIVE G EO R GIA AVEN UE G EO R GIA AVEN UE FRANDON COURT MAYBELL WAY MAYBELL AVENUE DONALD DRIVE WILLMAR DRIVE D MA YBELL AVENUE FL O R ALES D G E O R GIA A VEN UE G E O R GIA AVEN UE ABEL AVENUE BAKE R AVENUE MAY BELL AVENUE MAYBELL AVENUE CLEMO AVENUE COULOMBE DRIVE ARASTRADERO ROAD ARASTR ADERO ROAD POMONA AVENUE ARASTRADERO ROAD IRVEN COURT ALTA ME SA AVENUE ARASTRADERO ROA D L O S P A L O S A V E N U E S U Z A N N E D R I V E S U Z A N N E D R I V E POMONA AVENUE E L C A M I N O R E A L KE LL Y W A Y S U Z A N N E D R I VE E L C A M I N O R E A L M c K E L L A R L A N E E L C A M I N O R E A L THAIN WAY E L C A M I N O R E A L MAY BE LL A V ENU E PENA COURT W E S T C H A R L E S T O N R O A D W E S T C H AR L E S T O N ILIM A C O U RT G U N A AVENUE P A R A DISE W A Y AY LA PA R A AVENUE TIM LO TT LA NE TIM L OTT CT LA PA RA AVE NU E LA G U N A A VE N U E L O S RO BLES AVE NU E L O S R O B L E S A V E N U E C E R R I T O W A Y EL C E R RIT O R O A D LA JEN SA N JU DE AVENUE G EO R GIA AVEN UE DON ALD DRIVE WILLM AR DRIVE G E O R G I A A V E N U E LA PA R A A LO S R O BLES A VEN UE A R B OL D RIVE EN CIN A G R A NDE D RIVE A M ARANTA AVEN UE O R M E STREET LO S R O BLES A VEN UE LA G U NA W AY M ANZAN A LANE G E O E L C A M I N O R E A L L O S P A L O S C I R FA IRMEDE AVENUE D R I S C O L L C T INT ERD A L E W Y L O R A B EL L E C O U R T LOS PALOS P L A C E GLE N B R O O K D RIVE K E L L Y W A Y SU Z A N N E C T C H ERRY OAKS PLAC E KING ARTHURS C T GEORG I A A V E N U E DONALD D R I V E R I NCON C IRCLE LOS RO B L E S A V E N U E EL CERRITO ROAD S HAUNA L A N E LE D E O D A R S T R E E T D A L D E R S P R U C E L A N E R I C K E Y 'S L A N E RICKEY'S WAY R I C K E Y R I C K E Y ' S W A Y J AMARANTA COURT E L C A M I N O R E A L ORCHARDCT This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'324' FY 2 0 2 1 O v e r l a y S t r e e t s CITY O F PALO A L T O I N C O R P O R A T E D C ALI FO R N I A P a l o A l t o T 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 tbotkin, 2020-12-29 10:03:24 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) E M E R S O N S T R E E T C O L E RID G E A V E N U E B R Y A N T S T R E E T B R Y L O W E L L A V E N U E W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T KIN G S L E Y A V E N U E A L M A S T R E E T A L M A S T R E E T HIG H S T R E E T R A M O N A S T R E E T LIN C O L N A V E N U E LIN C O L N A V E N U E R A M O N A S T R E E T E M E R S O N S T R E E T HIG H S T R E E T E M B A R C A D E R O R O A D E M E R S O N S T R E E T E M E R S O N S T R E E T H O M E R A V E N U E E T O N S T R E E T E V E R E TT A V E N U E N U E HIG H S T R E E T L M A S T R E E T L Y T T ON A V E N UE A L M A S T R E E T E M E R S O N S T R E E T R A M O N A S T R E E TLYTTON A V E N U E U NIV E R SIT Y A V E N U E R A M O N A S T R E E T B R Y A N T S T R E E T HIG H S T R E E T E M E R S O N S T R E E T A L M A S T R E E T E M E R S O N S T R E E T HIG H S T R E E T HIG H S T R E E THAMILTON A V E N U E H A MIL T O N A V E N U E E M E R S O N S T R E E T H A MIL T O N A V E N U E GIL M A N S T R E E T W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T B R Y A N T S T R E E T F O R E S T A V E N U E F O R E S T A V E N U E B R Y A N T S T R E E T R A M O N A S T R E E T R A M O N A S T R E E T T S T R E E T F L O R E N C E S T R E E T R A M O N A S T R E E T B R Y A N T S T R E E T L Y T T O U NIV E R SIT Y A V E N U E W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T H A MIL T O N A V E N U ME L VIL L E A V E N U E E M E R S O N S T R E E T K E L L O G G A V E N U E E M E R S O N S T R E E T K E L L O G G A V E N U E C HILL A V E N U E C H U R C HIL L A V E N U E B R Y A N T S T R E E T B R Y A N T S T R E E T C O L E RID G E A V E N U E C H U R C HIL L A V E N U E W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T C H U R C HILL A V E N U E C H U R C HILL A V E N U E W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T K E L L O G G A V E N U E B R Y A N T S T R E E T E MB A R C A D E R O R O A D E M B A R C A D E R O R O A D W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T M E L VIL L E A V E N U E E M B A R C A D E R O R O A D E M E R S O N S T R E E T KIN G S L E Y A V E N U E B R Y A N T S T R E E T B R Y A N T S T R E E T C O W P E R S T R E E T S C O T T S T R E E T A D DIS O N A V E N U EB R Y A N T S T R E E T B R Y A N T S T R E E T A D DIS O N A V E N U E LIN C O L N A V E N U E W P E R S T R E E T F O R E S T A V E N U E F O R E S W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T B R Y A N T S T R E E T H O M E R A V E N U E W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T C H A N NIN G A V E N U E R A M O N A S T R E E T R A M O N A S T R E E T C O W P E R S T R E E T H OM E R A V E N U E H OM E R A V E N U E C O W P E R S T R E E T KIP LIN G S T R E E T C H A N NIN G A V E N U E W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T A D DIS ON A V E N U E W E B S T E R S T R E E T W E B S T E R S T R E E T K E L L O G G A V E N U E T A S S O S T R E E T E M B A R C A D E R O R O A D T A S S O S T R E E T M E L VILL E A V E N U E M E L VIL L E A V E N U E W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T C O W P E R S T R E E T C O W P E R S T R E E T KIN GS L E Y A V E N U E KIN GS L E Y A V E N U E W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T LIN C O L N A V E N U E C O W P E R S T R E E T K E L L OG G A V E N U E LIN C OL N A V E N U E A D DIS ON A V E N U E W E B S T E R S T R E E T L E FIE L D R O A D A D DIS O N A V E N U E C O W P E R S T R E E T W E B S T E R S T R E E T W E B S T E R S T R E E T C H A N NIN G A V E N U E C H A N NIN G A V E N U E MI D D L E FIE L D R O A D B Y R O N S T R E E T MI D D L E FIE L D R O A D M E L VIL L E A V E N U E PARKINSF U L T O N S T R E E T KIN G S L E Y A V E N U E KIN GS L E Y A V E N U E MEL VI LLE AVE N UE VILLE AVENUE G UIN D A S T R E E T M E L VIL L E A V E N U EW E B S T E R S T R E E T KIN GS L E Y A V E N U E KIN GS L E Y A V E N U E B Y R O N S T R E E T B Y R O N S T R E E T W E B S T E R S T R E E T LIN C OL N A V E N U E LIN C OL N A V E N U E F U L T O N S T R E E T F U L T O N S T R E E T MI D D L E FIE L D R O A D MI D D L E FIE L D R O A D A D DIS O HARKER AVENU B Y R O C O W P E R S T R E E T U N I V E R S I T Y C I R CLE L A N E B E A S T L A N E 7 E A S T L A N E 5 E A S T L A N E 6 E A S T L A N E 20 L A N E 20 W E S T L A N E 21 E L L L A N E P A U LS E N L A N E L A N E 12 W E S T L A N E 11 W E S T C E N T E N NIA L W A L K L A N E D E A S T L A N E D W E S T L A N E 59 E A S T W HIT M A N C O U R T C O LE RID G E D O W NIN G L A N E L A N E 56 A L M A S T R E E T P E NIN S U L A C O R RID O R J P E NIN S U L A C O R RID O R J OIN T P O W E R S B O A R D RID O R J OIN T P O W E R S B O A R D PALM DRIVE RETUM ROAD A R B O RE TU M R O A D G A L V E Z S T R E E T UEN ST REE T E M E R S O N S T R E E T E M E R S O N S T R E E T HIG H S T R E E T HIG H S T R E E T HIG H S T R E E T A L M A S T R E E T A L M A S T R E E T A L M A S T R E E T A L M A S T R E E T A L M A S T R E E T F OR E S T A V E N U E C H A N NIN G A V E N U E H O M E R A V E N U E A D DIS O N A V E N U E E L C A M I N O R E A L E L C A M I N O R E A L E L C A M I N O R E A L E L C A M I N O R E A L E L C A M I N O R E A L E L C A M I N O R E A L E L CE E M B A R C A D E R O R OA D W E L L S A V E N U E U R B A N L A N E U R B A N L A N E EN C I N A A V EN U E E N C I N A A V E N U E M E D I C A L F O U NDATION WAY L A N E 7 W E S T L A N E 8 W E S T L A N E A W E S T L A N E B W E S T C H A N NIN G A V E N U E This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'406' FY 2 0 2 1 O v e r l a y S t r e e t s CITY O F PALO A L T O I N C O R P O R A T E D C ALI FO R N I A P a l o A l t o T 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 tbotkin, 2020-12-29 09:23:56 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) SEC O N D STRE ET M ACLA NE WILKIE W AY W EST M EAD O W DRIVE VIC T O RIA PL A C E EL CA MIN O W AY E L C A M I N O R E A L C A M IN O C T E L C A M I N O W A Y W EST M EAD O W DR I V E DAVENPORT W AY J AM E S RO AD W IL KIE W A Y W IL KIE C O U R T T E N N E SS E E L A N E A L M A S T R E E T P A R K B O U L E V A R D T E N N E SS E E L A N E W IL KIE W A Y IN A L A N E E A S T C H A C A R O LIN A L A N E P A R K B O U L E V A R D W E S T C H A R L E S T O N R O A D R U T H E L M N E W B E R R Y C O U R W RIG H T P L A C E A L M A S T R E E T A L M A S T R E E T A L M A S T R E E T E M E R S O N S T R E E T PARK B O U LEVA RD M ACLANE EAST M EAD OW D RIVE EAST M EA D O W DRIVE R A M O N A S T R E E T W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T A L G E R D R I V E R A M B O W D RIV E C O W P E R CO U R TMAUREEN A V E N E M E R S O N S T R E E T R A M O N A S T R E E T B R Y A N T S T R E E T S O U T H C O U R T S O U T H C O U R T W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T E L V E R A N O A V E N U E E L V E R A N O A V E N HIM ALUS DRIVE JO S I N A A V E N U E M ATAD ERO AVEN UE JULIE C OURTVENUE KENDA L L AVENUE JO SINA AVENU E JO S INA AVEN UE AVENUE B A RR O N AVENU E W HITSELL AVENUE KEN D ALL AVEN UE LA D O NN A AVE NUE B A R R O N AVEN UE B A R R O N A VE N U E C ASS W AY AVEN U E B A R R O N AVENUE EL CENTR O STRE M A G N OLIA DRIVE N O RTH M A G N O LIA D RIVE MILITARY W AY LA D O N N A AVENUE LA D O N N A AVENUE SA N JU DE AVEN UE A PARA AVENUE PAUL AVEN UE UE VENTU R A AVEN UE EL CA MIN O REAL EL C A MIN O RE AL EL C A MIN O REAL L A S E L V A D RIV E M A G N O LIA D RIVE S O UTH VILL A VERA VILLA REAL (PRIVATE) VILL A VISTA (PRIVATE ) LO S R O BLES AVENUE LA D O NNA AVENUE E DRIVE VERD OSA D RIVE VISTA AVENUE WISTERIA LANE VILLA VISTA (PRIVATE) O RIN DA STREET M ATA DER O AVEN UE M A R G A RITA AVENUE WILTO N AVENUE EL CA MINO REAL M ATA DER O AVENUE FER NAND O AVEN UE B A R R O N A VEN U E C U RTN ER AVE N UEWILTO N AVEN UE K EN D ALL AVEN U E M ATADER O AVENUE EL C A MIN O REAL EL CA MIN O REAL LA M BERT AVEN UE L CA MIN O REAL EL CAMINO REAL C HIM ALU S D RIVE M ATADERO AVEN UE W HIT SELL A VEN UE A L M A S T R E E T A L M A S T R E E T VENTU R A C O U RT VENTU RA AVEN UE C U RTN ER AVENUE E M E R S O N S T R E E T R A M O N A S T R E E T L O M A V E R D E A V E N U E E L V E R A N O A V E N U E B R Y A N T S T R E E T R A M O N A S T R E E TMARGARITA AVEN U E PARK B O ULEVARD FER N AN D O AVE N U E LA M BERT AVEN UE C HESTN UT AVE N UE ASH STREET BIRCH STR EET BIR C H STR EET A L M A S T R E E T P A R K B O U L E V A R D P A R K B O U L E V A R D P A R K B O U L E V A R D D A R LIN G TO N C O U R T B A R C LA Y C O U R T A R L E S T O N R O A D EAST M E A D O W D RIVE E A S T M E A D O W D R I V E P O RTA G E AVEN UE B R Y A N T S T R E E T M ADELINE C O URT DRISC OLL PLA C E O U R T O RIN D A STREET C A M PA N A D RIV E VERD OS CYPRESS LANE J A C OB S C OU R T (P RIV A T E) L I N D E R O D R I V E LA NE 66 LA NE 66 BRYANT STREET SOUTH COURT ROOSEVE L T C I RCLE S T A RR KING CIRCLE REET L A S E L V A D R I V E TIP PAWINGO S T R EET P E NIN S U L A C O R RID O R J OIN T P O W E R S B O A R D P E NIN S U L A C O R RID O R J OIN T P O W E R S B O A R D P E NIN S U L A C O R RID O R J OIN T P O W E R S B O A R D P E NIN S U L A C O R RID O R J OIN T P O W E R S B O A R D P E NIN S U L A C E L C A M I N O R E A L EL C A MIN O RE AL E L C A M IN O R E A L E L C A M I N O R E A L A L M A VIL L A G E CIR C L E A L M A VIL L A G E CIR C L E A L M A VIL L A G E L A N E A L M A VIL L AG E CIR C L E A L MA VILL A G E CIR C L E This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'406' FY 2 0 2 1 O v e r l a y S t r e e t s CITY O F PALO A L T O I N C O R P O R A T E D C ALI FO R N I A P a l o A l t o T 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 tbotkin, 2020-12-29 09:57:49 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) REGENT PLACE MARTIN AVENUE SOMERSET PLACE LINCOLN AVENUE LINCOLN AVENUE FIFE AVENUE LINCOLN AVENUE FOREST AVENUE PALM STREET UE LINCOL N AVENUE LINCOLN AVENUE MILTON AVENUE KIRBY PLACE PITMAN AVENUE DANA AVENUE FOREST AVENUE DAN A AVENUE ASHBY DRIVE CENTER DRIVE CENTER DRIVE PITMAN AVENUE TEVIS PLACE KENT PLACE CENTER DRIVE HAMILTON AVENUE U NI VER SI T Y A V EN UE U NIV E R SIT Y A V E N U E S O U T H W O O D D R I V E HAMILTON AVENUE ARCADIA PLACE NEWELL R OAD LOUISA COURT DANA AVENUE DE SOT O DRIVE DE SOTO DRIVE GREER ROAD S O U T H W O O D D RIV E ISLAND DRIVE KINGS LANE HAMILTO N AVENUE DANA AVENUE NEWELL ROAD NEWELL ROAD NEWELL ROAD PITMAN AVENUE NEWELL ROAD DANA AVENUE MADISON WAY ALES T ER AVEN UE RHODES DRIVE E D G E W O O D D R I V E W E S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D RHODES DRIVE HILBAR LANE ALANNAH COURT E E A S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D WI L DWOOD L B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y C R E S C E N T D R I V E E A S T C R E S C E N T D R I V E W E S T C R E S C E N T DR I VE C E N T E R D R I V E E D G E W O O D D R I V E EDGEWOOD DR I VE E D G EW OOD DRIVE E D G E W O O D D R I VE EDGEWOOD DRIVEMADISON W A Y H A M I L T O N A VENUE H A M I L T O N AVE NU JEFFERS ON DRIVE PATR I C IA LANE J A C K S O N DR I VE JACK S O N DRIVE P H I L L I P S ROAD This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'406' FY 2 0 2 1 O v e r l a y S t r e e t s CITY O F PALO A L T O I N C O R P O R A T E D C ALI FO R N I A P a l o A l t o T 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 tbotkin, 2020-12-29 09:44:44 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) -- S A V E N U E U E MID D L E FIE L D R O A D M O R E NO A V E NU E M O R E NO A V E N UE M A RION A V E N U E C OA S T L A N D D RIV E MID D L E FIE L D R O A D W E BS T E R S T R E E T B R Y S O N A V E N U E C O L O R A D O A V E N U E B Y R O N S T R E E T C O L O R A D O A V E N U E C O W P E R S T R E E T D O A V E N U E C W A Y T O W L E W AY MID MID D L E FIE L D R O A D L A YN E C O U R T L O M A V E R D E A V E N U E R O S S R O A D R O SS C O U R T RIC H A R D S O N C O U R T A M E S A VEN U E A M E S C O U R T L L O U IS R O A D R OSE W O O D DRIVE ROS S ROA D MID D L E FIE L D R O A D S U T T ER A V EN U E ST ER N A V EN U E P RIC E C O U R T E LL S W O R T H P L A C E (P V T) C O L O R A D O A V E N U E S U TT E R A VEN U E R O S S R O A D C L A R A D RIV E C O L O R A D O A V E N U E M A R S H A L L D R IVE R O S S R O A D R A N D E R S C O U R T A L L E N CO UR T R O S S R O A D M A N C H E S T E R C O U R T L O M A V E R D E A V E N U E L O UIS R O A D L O UIS R O A D L O M A V E R D E A V E N U E L O UIS R O A D K E N N E T H D R I V E K E N N E T H D RIV E S T O C K T O N P L A C E V E R N O N T E R R A C E T H O M A S D RIV E J A NIC E WA Y GREER ROAD K E N N E T H D R I V E W E S KENNETH DRIVE S T O C K T O N P L A C E M O R RIS D RIV E G R E E R R O A D M A D D U X D R I V E M O R RIS D RIV E S T O C K T O N P L A C E BA U TIS T A CO U R T G R E E R R O A D L O M A V E R D E A V E N U E G R E E R R O A D L O M A V E R D E A V E N U E K E N N E T H D R I V EMORRIS D R IV E B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y E T R E E T KI P LIN G S T R E E T E Y S T R MID D L E FI E L D R O A D O RE G O N E X P R E S S WA Y U E MA RIO N A V E NU E RI O N P L A C E O R E G O N A V E N U ERLAND D RIV E G AR L A N D DRIV E R O S S R O A D O R E G O N A V E N UE R O S S R O A D C O A S TL A N D D RIV E O R E G O N E X P R E S S W A Y W A R R E N W A Y L O UIS R O A D E L SIN O RE D RIV E E L C A J O N W A Y G A R L A N D D RIV E M AR S HA LL DRIV E M A R S H A LL D RIVE M O RE N O A V E N UE E L SIN O R IR C O U R T O RE G O N E X P R E S S W A Y L O UIS R O A D W A R R E N W A Y M O RE N O A V E NU E M A R S H A LL D RIV E L O UIS R O A D A G N E S W A Y D E N NIS DRIV E O R E G O N A V E N U E B L AIR C B R U C E D R I V E FIE L DIN G D RIV E L O UIS R O A D A MA RILL O AV E N UE S Y C A M O R E D R I V E C E LIA DRIV E MO R E N O AV E N UE C O L O NIA L L A N E B U R N H A M W A Y G R E E R R O A D E A S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y W E S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D M A D D U X D RIV E E A S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D W E S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D C O L O R A D O A V E N U E O TTE R S O N C O U R T G E N E VIE V E C O U R T M A D D U X D R I V E HIG GIN S P L A C EG R E E R R O A D C O L O R A D O A V E N U E E A S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y W E S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D SI M K I N S C O U R T W E S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D O RE G D RIV E C A R G R E E R R O A D L A W R E N C E L A N E C O L O R A D O A V E N U E C L A R A D RIV ES A N D R A P L A C E SYC A M O R E D R I V E L O UIS R O A D L O UIS R O A D C O L O R A D O A V E N U E C L AR A D R I V E CL A RA DR I V E C L A R A D R I V E D A VID A V E N U E C L A R A D R IV E W IN TE R G R E E N W A Y R O S S R O A D S T E LLING D RIV E NO R T H C A LIF O R NIA AV E N U E A MA RILL O AV E NU E G R E E R R O A D C O L O NIA L L AN E AM ARILL O AV E NU E V A N A U K E N CIR C L E G R E E R R O A D A MA RIL L O AV E N M O R E N O A VE N U E E L M D A L E PL A C E CL I F T O N E L C A J O N W A Y L O UIS R O A D MID T O W N C O U R T S A N CA R L O S CO U R T T O W L E P L A C E T H O M A S D R I V E E A S T M E A D V E R N O N TE R R A C E M A D D U X D RIV E N L A N D D RIV E G A S P A R C O U R T E A S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D W E S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y PIE R S C O U R T S T E L LIN G C T M O R A G A C T L O M A V E R D E P L A C E C O A STL AND D R I V E R O S E W O O D DRIVE M O R E N O A V E N U E M E TRO C I R C LE M O F FET T C I RCLE S U T T E R A V E N U E E LB R I DGE WAY M U R RAY W A Y D A V I D A V E N U E S T E L L I N G D R I V E G R E E R R O A D G R E E R R O A D D avid C our t C O L O R A D O P L A C E S E V Y S O N C T C T C O L O R A D O A V E N U E F alle n L e af Stre et B e rr y e s s a S tr e e t B o r o n d a L a n e T a h o e L a n e L a k e A v e n u e D o n n e r L a n e A l m a n o r L a n e FI E L D IN G C T This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'495' FY 2 0 2 1 O v e r l a y S t r e e t s CITY O F PALO A L T O I N C O R P O R A T E D C ALI FO R N I A P a l o A l t o T 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 tbotkin, 2020-12-29 10:07:48 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) 142-04-024 MID D L E FI E L D R M A C O A S T L A N D D RIV W E B S T E R S T R E E T B R Y S O N A V E N C O L O R A D O A C O W P E R S T R E E T E L D O R A D O A V E N U E KIP LIN W A V E R L E Y S TORD AVEN UE U E M A D R O N O A V E N U E A N Z A NIT A A V E N U E U E A V E N U E P O R T O L A A V E N U E A L M A S T R E E T A L M A S T R E E T C H U R C HIL L A V E N U E A L M A S T R E E T M A RIP O S A A V E N U E C A S TIL L EJ A A V E N U E C A S TILL EJ A A V E N U E E S C O B IT A A V E N U E E S C O B IT A A V E N U E M I R A M O N T E A V E N U E M I RAM O NT E AV E NU E S E QU OI A A V E N U E M A D R O N O A V E N U E E L C A M I N O R E A L PAR K AVENUE E L C A M I N O R E A L E L C A M I N O R E A L E L C A M I N O R E A L ASH STREET LELA N D AVEN UE PA R K B O ULEVA RD STA NFOR D AVEN UE BIR CH S TR EET OXFOR D AVEN UE BIR CH STREET STA NFO R D AVENUE E M E R S O N S T R E E T C O L E RID G E A V E N U E E M E R S O N S T R E E T L O W E LL AV E N U E A L M A S T R E E TM A RIP O S A A V E N U E S E Q U O I A A V E N U E P A R K B O U L E V A R D BIR CH STREET LELAND AVENUE LELAN D AVENUE ASH STREET L O W E L L AV E N U E E M E R S O N S T R E E T T E N N Y S O N A V E N U E A L M A S T R E E T C O L E RID G E A V E N U E B R Y A N T S T R E E T W M AYFIELD LANE M B RID G E A VEN UE BIR C BIRCH STREET N UE C OLLEGE A VEN UE P A R K B O U L E V A R D R NIA AVENUE ALM A STREET PARK B EN UE A L M A S T R E E T P A R K B O U L E V A R D P A R K B O U L E V A R D OXFO RD AVEN UE T E N N Y S O N A V E N U E TE N N Y S O N A V E N U E B R Y A N T S T R E E T B R Y A N T S T R E E T E M E R S O N S T R E E T S E A L E AV E N U E S E A L E A V E N U E E M E R S O N S T R E E T RIN C O N A D A A V E N U E A L M A S T R E E T S E A L E A V E N U E B R Y A N T S T R E E T W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T RIN C O N AD A A V E N U E E M E R S O N S T R E E T S A N T A RIT A A V E N U E S A N T A RITA A V E N U E A L M A S T R E E T HIG H S T R E E T HIG H S T R E E T E M E R S O N S T R E E T L O W E L L AV E N U E W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T L OW E LL A V E N U E W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T T EN N Y S O N A VE N U E C O W P E R S T R E E T S E A LE A V E NU E C O L O R A D O A V E N U E E M E R S O N S T R E E T HIG H S T R E E T A L M ALM A STREET EXPRESSWAY B R Y A N T S T R E E T S O U T H C O U R T R A D O A V EN U E O R E G O N A V E N U E S A N T A RIT A A V E N U E C O W P E R S T R E E T S A N T A RIT A A V E N UE W A S HIN G T O N A V E N U E B R Y A N T S T R E ET W A V E R L E Y O A K S (P V T) E M E R S O N S T R E E T W A S HIN G T O N A V E N U E N O RTH C ALIFO RNIA AVEN UE N EV A D A A V E N U E O R E G O N A V E N U E HIG H S T R E E T W A SHIN G T O N A V E N U E N O RTH CALIFO RNIA AVEN UE N O RTH C ALIFO R NIA AVEN UEW AVERLEY STREET S O U T H C O U R T R A M O N A S T R E E T O R E G O N AV E N U E B R Y A N T S T R E E T S E A L E A V E N U E W E B S T E R S T R E E T T A S S O S T R E E T S A N T A RIT A A V EN U E B Y R O N ST R E E T R A M O N A S T R E E T W AVERLEY STREET O R E G O N E X PR E S S W A Y B R Y A N T S T R E ET S O U T H C O U R T W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T M A RIO N A V E N U E C O LO R A D O A V E N U E W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T C O W P E R S T R E E T KIP LIN G S T R E E T CO L O R AD O AV E N U E W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T C O W P E R S T R E E T C O W P E R S T R E E T N O R T H C A LIF O R NIA A VE N U E W E B S T E R S T R E E T W E B S T E R S T R E E T W A S HING T O N AV E NU E NE V ADA AV E N UE T A S S O S T R E E T T A S S O S T R E E T O R E G O N E X PR E S S W A Y O R E G O N A V E N U E A N T O N CO U R T C O W P E R S T R E E T N EV A D A A V E N U E MID D L E FIE L D R O A D MID D L E FIE L D R O A D B Y R O N S T R E E T O R E G O N A V E N U E O R E G O N E X P R E S S W A Y O R E G O N E X P R E S S W A Y O R E G O N A V E NU E O R E G O N E X P R E S S W A Y G R E E N M A N O R C O W P E R S T R E E T M A RIO N A V E N U E M A RIO N A V E N U E M A RIO N P L A C E T A S S O S T R E E T S A N T A RIT A A V E N UE B Y R O N S T R E E T MID D L E FIE L D R O A D N O R T H C A LIF O R NIA A V EN U E MID D L E FIE L D R O A D O R E G O N A V EN U E G A R L A N D D RIV E G A R L A N D D RIVE R O S S R O A D G A E M E R S O N S T R E E T K ELL O G G A V EN U E E M E R S O N S T R E E T K ELL O G G A V EN U E C H U R C HILL A V EN U E C H U R C HIL L A V EN U E B R Y A N T S T R E E T B R Y A N T S T R E E T C O L E RID G E A V EN U E C H U R C HILL A V EN U E W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T C H U R C HILL A V E N U E W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T K E LL O G G A V E N U E B R Y A N T S T R E E T E M B A R C A D E R O R O A D M R O A D Y A N T S T R E E T C O W P E R S T R E E T P O R T A L P L A C E W E S T G R E E NW IC H N O R T H A M P T MID D L E FIE L D R O A D SE A L E A VE N U E S EA L E A V E N U E W E B S T E R S T R E E T W E B S T E R S T R E E T MID D L E FIE L D R O A D T E N N YS O N A V E N U E L O W E LL A V E N U E C O W P E R S T R E E T S T R E E T N E W E LL R O A D S O U T H A M P TO N D RIV E N O R TH C A LIF O R NIA A V E N SO U T H C O W P E R S T R E E T W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T N O RTH C ALIFO RNIA AVENUE NORTH CALIFORNIA AVENUE T EN N Y S O N A VE N U E G A C O L E RID G E A V E N U E N O G AL LA NE C O A STLA N D D R I V E P E NIN S U L A C O R RID O R J OIN T P O W E R S B O A R D OIN T P O W E R S B O A R D P E NIN S U L A C O R RID O R J OIN T P O W E R S B O A R D P E NIN S U L A C O R RID O R J OIN T P O W E R S B O A R D P E NIN S U L A C O R RID O R J OIN T P O W E R S B O A R D P E NIN S U L A C O R RID O R J OIN T P O W E R S O R E G O N A V E N U E O L M S T E D R O A D This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'441' CITY O F PALO A L T O I N C O R P O R A T E D C ALI FO R N I A P a l o A l t o T 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 tbotkin, 2020-12-29 09:14:31 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) FY 2 0 2 1 O v e r l a y S t r e e t s -- 1 4 2-0 5-0 0 2 142 -0 5-0 0 3 1 4 2-0 5-004 142-0 5-005 1 4 2-05-0 0 7 142-05-045 142-05-045 142-05-045 142-05-045 142-05-016 142-05-006 142-05-008 142-05-015 142-05-013 42 05 009 142-05-020 W E L C H R O A D PASTEUR DRIVE BLAKE WILBUR DRIVE WELCH R O AD B L A K E W IL B U R D R I V E PASTEUR DRIVE WELCH ROAD S A N D H I L L R O A D WEL C H R O A D S A N D H IL L R O A D S A N D H IL L R O A D S A N D H I L L R O A D S A N D H I L L ROA D S AND H IL L RO A D S A N D H IL L R O A D S A N D HIL L R O A D PASTEUR DRIVE PASTEUR DRIVE WEL A N D W A Y C H A R L E S M A R X W A Y M O S H E R W A Y C L A R K W A Y S W A I N W A Y CL AR K W A Y C L A R K WA Y V A R I A P A S T E U R D R I V E O A K C R EEK DRIVE O A K C R E E K DR I V E OAK C R E E K D RI V E STO C K F A R M R O A D C L A R K W AM A R X W A Y M O S H E R W A Y C L A R K W A Y CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPU S D R I V E CAMP U S DCAMPUS D R I V E OS ARBOLES AVENUE O A K R O A D OAK RO AD PANAMA STR EET P A N A M A STREE T S SERVICE ROAD SEARSVILLE ROAD SEARSVILLE ROAD O JANE STANFORD WVIA ORTEGA VIA ORTEGA VIA ORTEG A VI VIA PALOU VIA PUEBLO MALL W E L C H R O A D CAMPUS DRIVE S T O C K F A R M R O AD VIA PUEBLO MALL FREMONT R OAD ORS AVE N UE GOVERNORS LANE P A N This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'406' FY 2 0 2 1 O v e r l a y S t r e e t s CITY O F PALO A L T O I N C O R P O R A T E D C ALI FO R N I A P a l o A l t o T 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 tbotkin, 2020-12-29 09:55:17 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) E M E R S O N S T R E E T H O M E R A V E N U E E A V E N U E R A M O N A S T R E E T O N S T R E E T E V E R E TT A V E N U E N U E HIG H S T R E E T M A S T R E E T L Y T T ON A V E N UE A L M A S T R E E T E M E R S O N S T R E E T R A M O N A S T R E E TLYTTON A V E N U E U NIV E R SIT Y A V E N U E R A M O N A S T R E E T B R Y A N T S T R E E T HIG H S T R E E T E M E R S O N S T R E E T A L M A S T R E E T E M E R S O N S T R E E T HIG H S T R E E T HIG H S T R E E THAMILTON A V E N U E H A MIL T O N A V E N U E E M E R S O N S T R E E T H A MIL T O N A V E N U E GIL M A N S T R E E T W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T B R Y A N T S T R E E T F O R E S T A V E N U E F O R E S T A V E N U E B R Y A N T S T R E E T R A M O N A S T R E E T R A M O N A S T R E E T B R Y A N T S T R E E T F L O R E N C E S T R E E T KIP LIN G S T R E E T L Y T T O N A V E N U E W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T E V E R E TT A V E N U E E V E R E T T A V E N U EB R Y A N T S T R E E T W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T H A W T H O R N E A V E N U E R A M O N A S T R E E T B R Y A N T S T R E E T L Y T T O N A V E N U E U NIV E R SIT Y A V E N U E C O W P E R S T R E E T KIP LIN G S T R E E T U NIV E R SIT Y A V E N U E U NIV E R SITY A V E N U E C O W P E R S T R E E T W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T H A MIL T O N A V E N U E R U T H V E N A V E N U E C O W P E R S T R E E T T A S S O S T R E E T R U T H V E N A V E N U E W E B S T E R S T R E E T B Y R O N S T R E E T H A W T H O R N E A V E N U E C O W P E R S T R E E T C O W P E R S T R E E T W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T H A W T H O R N E A V E N U E H A W T H O R N E A V E N U E KIP LIN G S T R E E T E V E R E T T A V E N U E C O W P E R S T R E E T W E B S T E R S T R E E T B Y R O N S T R E E T L T O N S T R E E T E V E R E TT A V E N U E MID D L E FIE L D R O A D MID D L E FIE L D R O A D E V E R E T T A V E N U E W E B S T E R S T R E E T W E B S T E R S T R E E T L Y TT ON A V E N U E B Y R O N S T R E E T T A S S O S T R E E T S C O T T S T R E E T N A V E N U EB R Y A N T S T H A MIL T O N A V E N U E C O W P E R S T R E E T F O R E S T A V E N U E F O R E S T A V E N U E W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T B R Y A N T S T R E E T H O M E R A V E N U E W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T C H A N NIN G A V E N U E R A M O N A S T R E E T W E B S T E R S T R E E T W E B S T E R S T R E E T C O W P E R S T R E E T H OM E R A V E N U E H OM E R A V E N U E C O W P E R S T R E E T KIP LIN G S T R E E T C H A N NIN G A V E N U E W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T A D DIS ON A V E N U E F U LT O N S T R E E T L Y T T O N A V E N U E G UIN D A S T R E E T L Y T T O N A V E N U E U NIV E R SIT Y A V E N U E U NIV E R SIT Y A V E N U E B Y R O N S T R E E T MID D L E FIE L D R O A D F U L T O N S T R E E T MID D L E FIE L D R O A D L Y T T ON A V E N U E W E B S T E R S T R E E T L Y T T ON A V E N U E G UIN D A S T R E E T A S T R E E T U NIV E R SIT Y A V E N U E G UIN D A S T R E E T F U L T O N S T R E E T F U L T O N S T R E E T MID D L E FIE L D R O A D H A MIL T ON A V E N U E H A MILT O N A V E N U E F OR E S T A V E N U E W E B S T E R S T R E E T V E N U E T AVILLE A V E N U E W C O W P E R SVENUE W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T LIN C O L N A V E N U E C O W P E R S T R E E T K E L L OG G A V E N U E LIN C OL N A V E N U E A D DIS ON A V E N U E W E B S T E R S T R E E T MID D L E FIE L D R O A D C H A N NIN G A V E N U E G UIN D A S T R E E T H OM E R A V E N U E BOYCE AVENUE BOYCE AVENUE F O R E S T A V E N U E S E N E C A S T R E E T A D DIS O N A V E N U E C O W P E R S T R E E T W E B S T E R S T R E E T S E N E C A S T R E E T H A MIL T O N A V E N U E H A MIL T ON A V E N U E G UIN D A S T R E E T F OR E S T A V E N U E MID D L E FIE L D R O A D H OM E R A V E N U E H OM E R A V E N U E MID D L E FIE L D R O A D W E B S T E R S T R E E T C H A N NIN G A V E N U E C H A N NIN G A V E N U E S E N E C A S T R E E T F OR E S T A V E N U E BOYC E AVE N UE U NIV E R SIT H A L E S T R E E T MID D L E FIE L D R O A D B Y R O N S T R E E T MID D L E FIE L D R O A D M E L VILL E A V E N U E PARKINSOF U L T O N S T R E E T KIN G S L E Y A V E N U E KIN GS L E Y A V E N U E MEL VI LLE AVE N UE MELVILLE AVENUE G UIN D A S T R E E T GREENW MELVILLE AVENUE CHANN LIN C OL N A V E N U E CHANNING AVENUE REGENT PLACE M E L VIL L E A V E N U EW E B S T E R S T R E E T KIN GS L E Y A V E N U E KIN GS L E Y A V E N U E B Y R O N S T R E E T B Y R O N S T R E E T W E B S T E R S T R E E T LIN C OL N A V E N U E LIN C OL N A V E N U E F U L T O N S T R E E T F U L T O N S T R E E T MID D L E FIE L D R O A D MID D L E FIE L D R O A D A D DIS ON A V E N U E G UIN D A S T R E E T A D DIS ON A V E N U E CHANNING AVENUE G UIN D A S T R E E T MARTIN AV SOMERSET PLACE LINCOLN AVENUE LINCOLN AVENUE FIFE AVENUE E FOREST AVENUE ADDISON AVENUE FIFE AVENUE FOREST COURTFOREST AVENUE HARKER AVENU PITMA B Y R O C O W P E R S T R E E T U N I V E R S I T Y C I R CLE G UIN D A S T R E E T E V E R E TT C O U R T L A N E 39 L A N E 7 E A S T L A N E 5 E A S T L A N E 6 E A S T L A N E 20 E A S T L A N E 30 L A N E 20 W E S T L A N E 21 L L L A N E L A N E 33 L A N E 15 E A S T B R Y A N T C OU R T P A U L S E N L A N E L A N E 12 W E S T L A N E 11 W E S T C E N T E N NIA L W A L K D O W NIN G L A N E L A N E 56 LINCOLN AVENUE P A L O A L T PALO A L T O A VENUE P A L O A LT O AV E N U E PALO ALTO AVENUE RID O R J OIN T P O W E R S B O A R D HIG H A L M A S T R E E T S T A V E N U E U R B A This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'406' FY 2 0 2 1 O v e r l a y S t r e e t s CITY O F PALO A L T O I N C O R P O R A T E D C ALI FO R N I A P a l o A l t o T 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 tbotkin, 2020-12-29 09:39:35 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) ~ ,Q ~o 127-07-071 070 127-07-033 127-07-034 127-08-097 127-08-096 127-08-095 127-08-056 127-08-094 127-08-091 127-62-011 127-62-010 127-62-009 127-07-057 127-07-056 127-07-055 127-07-054 127-23-067 127-07-072 127-08-099 127-07-037 127-07-036 127-07-041 127-07-042 127-07-043 127-07-044 127-07-045127-07-035 07-040 127-07-046 127-07-047 127-07-048 127-07-049 127-07-050 127-07-051 127-07-074 127-62-003 127-62-004 127-62-006 127-62-005 127-36-030 127-08-084 127-08-083 127-08-082 127-08-092 127-08-093 127-08-003 127-08-002 127-08-001 127-08-066 127-08-065 127-08-059 127-08-058 127-08-057 127-08-004 127-08-063 127-08-064 127-08-005 127-08-006 127-08-081 127-08-080 127-08-079 127-08-076 127-08-077 127-08-078 127-08-062 127-08-007 127-08-008 127-08-046 127-08-060 127-08-061 127-08-053 127-08-054 127-08-055 127-08-098 127-62-007 127-62-008 127-62-012 127-08-086 127-08-085 127-08-087 127-08-088 127-08-089 127-08-090 127-01-154 127-01-164 127-01-165 127-01-163 127-01-162 127-01-161 127-01-160 127-01-159 127-01-105 127-62-013 127-62-014 127-62-015 127-62-020 127-62-017 127-62-016 127-62-018 127-62-019 127-62-001 127-62-002 127-36-088 127-36-089 127-36-090 127-36-091 127-36-092 127-36-039 127-36-110 127-36-111 127-36-112 127-36-113 127-36-115 127-36-116 127-36-117 127-36-118 127-36-119 127-36-120 127-36-121 127-36-122 127-36-131 127-36-132 127-36-133 127-36-134 127-36-135 127-36-136 127-36-137 127-36-106 127-36-087 127-36-086 127-36-109 127-36-108 127-36-107 127-36-105 127-36-104 127-36-103 127-36-102 127-36-101 127-36-100 127-36-099 127-36-098 127-36-097 127-36-096 127-36-095 127-36-093 127-36-094 127-36-060 127-36-061 127-36-062 127-36-063 127-36-064 127-36-065 127-36-054 127-36-055 127-36-056 127-36-057 127-36-058 127-36-059 127-36-048 127-36-049 127-36-050 127-36-051 127-36-052 127-36-053 127-36-042 127-36-043 127-36-044 127-36-045 127-36-046 127-36-047 V E E A S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y W E S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D M A D D U X D R I V E E A S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D W E S T B A Y S H O R E R O A DCOLORADO A V E N U E G E N E V I E V E C O U R T M A DD U X D R I V E H I G GIN S P L A C E D R O A D E E W A Y Y S H O R E R O A D S I M K I N S C O U R T W E S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y F R E E W A Y C O L O R A D O P L A C E C O L O R A D O A V E N U E F alle n L eaf S B e r r y e s s a S t r e e t Bo r o n d a L an e T a h o e L an e L a k e A v e n u e D o n n e r L a n e 3064 3064 3023 3023 3039 3039 3055 3055 3068 3068 3136 3124 31243112 3112 1044 1 0 4 4 1032 1 0 3 2 3113 3113 3107 3107 1088 1 0 8 8 1066 1 0 6 6 3113 3113 3125 3125 3137 3137 3149 3149 3161 3161 683160 3160 3117 3117 1093 1 0 9 3 108 3 1 0 8 3 3109 3109 3101 31011073 1 0 7 3 1063 1 0 6 3 1053 1 0 5 3 1043 1 0 4 3 1033 1 0 3 3 1034 1034-1036 1036 1040 1040 1042 1042 1044 1044 1046 1046 1048 1048 1040 1044 11 2901 2 9 0 1 2903 2 9 0 3 2907 2 9 0 7 2905 2 9 0 5 2909 2 9 0 9 2911 2 9 1 1 2913 2 9 1 3 3 2 0 1 1082 1 0 8 2 1 0 6 3 - 1 0 7 5 1133 1135 1137 1139 2999 2 9 9 9 31983192 31923190 31903188 3188 1112 1 1 1 2 1116 1 1 1 6 1118 1 1 1 8 1120 1 1 2 0 1122 1 1 2 2 1126 1 1 2 6 1128 1 1 2 8 1130 1 1 3 0 1151 1 1 5 1 1153 1 1 5 3 1155 1 1 5 5 1159 1 1 5 9 1 1 5 1156 1 1 5 6 1158 1 1 5 8 3120 3 1 2 0 1199 1 1 9 9 1080 1 0 80 1129 1 1 2 9 3178 3 1 7 8 1167 1 1 6 7 1132 1 1 3 2 3209 48 3056 3056 1013 1 0 1 3 1023 1 0 2 3 3095 3095 941 951 9 5 1 961 9 6 1 971 9 7 1 3094 3094 3102 3052 3052 3020 3020 3036 3036 3029 3029 3041 3041 3053 3053 3065 3065 3077 3077 3084 3 0 8 4 3089 3089 3071 3071 1020 020 1030 1030 3160 3 1 6 0 3152 31523144 3144 3136 31363128 3128 3112 3112 3120 3120 3 1 4 8 3155 3119 119 3189 3189 3181 3181 3173 3173 3165 3165 3157 3157 3149 3149 3141 3141 3133 3133 3125 3125 1050 1050 1052 1052 1054 1054 1056 1 0 56 1058 1058 1060 1 0 60 1062 1 0 62 1064 10641066 1 0 6 6 1068 1 0 6 8 1070 1 0 70 1072 1 0 7 2 1074 1 0 7 4 1076 1 0 7 6 1078 1 0 7 8 2915 2 9 1 5 2917 2 9 1 7 2919 2 9 1 9 2850 2 8 5 0 1 1 2 5 - 1 1 3 9 2800 2 8 0 0 3 2 8 1 3 2 4 1 1 0 7 7 - 1 0 9 1 1 0 9 5 - 1 1 0 7 1 1 0 9 - 1 1 2 3 2860 2 8 6 0 1098 098 3182 31823180 31803178 3178 1111 1 1 1 1 1113 1 1 1 3 1115 1 1 1 5 1119 1 1 1 9 1100 1 1 0 0 1102 1 1 0 2 1106 1 1 0 6 1110 1 1 1 0 3180 3 1 8 0 3182 3 1 8 2 3186 3 1 8 6 31883 1 8 8 3190 3 1 9 0 31923 1 9 2 3198 3 1 9 8 1160 1 1 6 0 1161 1 1 6 1 1163 1 1 6 3 1165 1 1 6 5 3280 3 2 8 0 2 8 2 3181 3 1 8 1 3189 3 1 8 9 3281 3 2 8 1 3289 3 2 8 9 3270 3 2 7 0 3199 3 1 9 9 2870 2 8 7 0 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'209' CITY O F PALO A L T O I N C O R P O R A T E D C ALI FO R N 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 tbotkin, 2021-03-16 10:05:48 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) FY 2 0 2 1 O v e r l a y S t r e e t s Cl <> -- FY2021 Street Resurfacing Project Bid Summary UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST 1 AC Overlay: 7,097 TON $ 110.00 780,670.00$ $ 146.00 1,036,162.00$ $ 160.00 1,135,520.00$ $ 125.00 887,125.00$ $ 135.00 958,095.00$ $ 195.00 1,383,915.00$ 2 AC Base Repair:87 TON $ 225.00 19,575.00$ $ 176.00 15,312.00$ $ 250.00 21,750.00$ $ 350.00 30,450.00$ $ 350.00 30,450.00$ $210.00 18,270.00$ 3 PCC Base Repairs:14,235 SF $ 22.00 313,170.00$ $ 10.00 142,350.00$ $ 14.00 199,290.00$ $ 17.50 249,112.50$ $ 20.00 284,700.00$ $ 19.50 277,582.50$ 4 AC Milling: 402,908 SF $0.75 302,181.00$ $0.45 181,308.60$ $0.40 161,163.20$ $0.41 165,192.28$ $0.50 201,454.00$ $1.30 523,780.40$ 5 Crack Sealing:32,000 LF $1.50 48,000.00$ $2.35 75,200.00$ $1.00 32,000.00$ $0.90 28,800.00$ $1.55 49,600.00$ $2.10 67,200.00$ 6 Interlayer Membrane:3,500 LF $5.00 17,500.00$ $5.00 17,500.00$ $2.00 7,000.00$ $5.00 17,500.00$ $9.00 31,500.00$ $2.10 7,350.00$ 7 Reset Utility Box:93 EA $ 600.00 55,800.00$ $ 705.00 65,565.00$ $ 250.00 23,250.00$ $ 300.00 27,900.00$ $ 900.00 83,700.00$ $250.00 23,250.00$ 8 Reset Manhole:43 EA $ 1,000.00 43,000.00$ $ 940.00 40,420.00$ $ 400.00 17,200.00$ $ 300.00 12,900.00$ $ 1,300.00 55,900.00$ $ 250.00 10,750.00$ 9 Recycling of Inert Solid Materials:7,097 TON $5.00 35,485.00$ $ 15.00 106,455.00$ $1.00 7,097.00$ $ 19.70 139,810.90$ $1.00 7,097.00$ $5.00 35,485.00$ 10 Inert recycling containing petromat:7,097 TON $8.00 56,776.00$ $ 22.00 156,134.00$ $2.00 14,194.00$ $7.00 49,679.00$ $2.00 14,194.00$ $1.00 7,097.00$ 11 Reset Catch Basin:3 EA $ 2,000.00 6,000.00$ $ 880.00 2,640.00$ $ 1,500.00 4,500.00$ $ 550.00 1,650.00$ $ 1,500.00 4,500.00$ $ 250.00 750.00$ 12 Type A vertical curb with 1' exposed gutter pan:553 LF $ 100.00 55,300.00$ $ 58.00 32,074.00$ $ 75.00 41,475.00$ $ 94.00 51,982.00$ $ 85.00 47,005.00$ $70.00 38,710.00$ 13 Type A vertical curb with 3' exposed gutter pan:919 LF $ 120.00 110,280.00$ $ 70.00 64,330.00$ $ 128.00 117,632.00$ $ 121.00 111,199.00$ $ 111.00 102,009.00$ $75.00 68,925.00$ 14 Type B curb with 3' exposed gutter pan:25 LF $ 120.00 3,000.00$ $ 70.00 1,750.00$ $ 128.00 3,200.00$ $ 121.00 3,025.00$ $ 128.00 3,200.00$ $75.00 1,875.00$ 15 Type A vertical curb with 1' burried gutter pan:697 LF $ 90.00 62,730.00$ $ 58.00 40,426.00$ $ 85.00 59,245.00$ $ 94.00 65,518.00$ $ 90.00 62,730.00$ $70.00 48,790.00$ 16 Valley gutter 3' wide:1,419 LF $ 130.00 184,470.00$ $ 66.00 93,654.00$ $ 110.00 156,090.00$ $ 132.00 187,308.00$ $ 160.00 227,040.00$ $75.00 106,425.00$ 17 Valley gutter 8' wide 28 LF $ 260.00 7,280.00$ $ 100.00 2,800.00$ $ 275.00 7,700.00$ $ 264.00 7,392.00$ $ 275.00 7,700.00$ $125.00 3,500.00$ 18 PCC pathway 6" thick with wire mesh:4,000 SF $ 25.00 100,000.00$ $ 14.00 56,000.00$ $ 27.00 108,000.00$ $ 19.00 76,000.00$ $ 17.00 68,000.00$ $18.00 72,000.00$ 19 Concrete Driveway:2,946 SF $ 22.00 64,812.00$ $ 12.00 35,352.00$ $ 26.00 76,596.00$ $ 19.00 55,974.00$ $ 17.00 50,082.00$ $18.00 53,028.00$ 20 Concrete Sidewalk:6,016 SF $ 19.00 114,304.00$ $9.40 56,550.40$ $ 17.00 102,272.00$ $ 17.50 105,280.00$ $ 16.00 96,256.00$ $17.00 102,272.00$ 21 Type A Curb Ramp:15 EA $ 5,000.00 75,000.00$ $ 4,100.00 61,500.00$ $ 5,120.00 76,800.00$ $ 4,400.00 66,000.00$ $ 4,400.00 66,000.00$ $ 3,500.00 52,500.00$ 22 ADA Ramp landing retrofit:41 SF $ 25.00 1,025.00$ $ 58.00 2,378.00$ $ 35.00 1,435.00$ $ 83.00 3,403.00$ $ 35.00 1,435.00$ $ 2,000.00 82,000.00$ 23 Cast in place truncated domes:228 SF $ 85.00 19,380.00$ $ 90.00 20,520.00$ $ 50.00 11,400.00$ $ 83.00 18,924.00$ $ 50.00 11,400.00$ $80.00 18,240.00$ 24 College Terrace Brick Pathwat:1,800 SF $ 50.00 90,000.00$ $ 16.00 28,800.00$ $ 45.00 81,000.00$ $ 22.00 39,600.00$ $ 26.00 46,800.00$ $35.00 63,000.00$ 25 Brickwork/Pavers Specialty Finishes:265 SF $ 30.00 7,950.00$ $ 18.00 4,770.00$ $ 45.00 11,925.00$ $ 22.00 5,830.00$ $ 45.00 11,925.00$ $35.00 9,275.00$ 26 Alma and Meadow Island per Appendix C:1 LS $ 50,000.00 50,000.00$ $ 32,800.00 32,800.00$ $ 23,000.00 23,000.00$ $ 37,000.00 37,000.00$ $ 44,000.00 44,000.00$ $ 28,800.00 28,800.00$ 27 Ross and Meadow island/dome removal and roadway restoration per Appendix D:1LS $ 27,000.00 27,000.00$ $ 16,000.00 16,000.00$ $ 5,000.00 5,000.00$ $ 12,000.00 12,000.00$ $ 22,000.00 22,000.00$ $ 16,000.00 16,000.00$ 28 Ross and Moreno cast in place domes removal and roadway restoration per Appendix E:1LS $ 15,000.00 15,000.00$ $ 8,000.00 8,000.00$ $ 5,000.00 5,000.00$ $ 13,500.00 13,500.00$ $ 23,000.00 23,000.00$ $ 12,500.00 12,500.00$ 29 Thermoplastic Paving Legends:123 EA $ 35.00 4,305.00$ $ 260.00 31,980.00$ $ 17.00 2,091.00$ $ 18.00 2,214.00$ $ 17.00 2,091.00$ $19.00 2,337.00$ 30 Thermo Striping, 6" Yellow:2,900 LF $3.00 8,700.00$ $1.00 2,900.00$ $2.00 5,800.00$ $2.00 5,800.00$ $2.00 5,800.00$ $2.20 6,380.00$ 31 Thermo Striping, 4" White:30 LF $3.00 90.00$ $3.50 105.00$ $1.00 30.00$ $1.00 30.00$ $1.00 30.00$ $1.15 34.50$ 32 Thermo Striping, 12" White:1,095 LF $5.00 5,475.00$ $5.00 5,475.00$ $3.00 3,285.00$ $3.50 3,832.50$ $3.00 3,285.00$ $3.40 3,723.00$ 33 Blue Pavement Markers:27 EA $ 45.00 1,215.00$ $ 30.00 810.00$ $ 25.00 675.00$ $ 27.00 729.00$ $ 25.00 675.00$ $ 28.00 756.00$ 34 Thermo Striping, Caltrans Detail 1:945 LF $3.00 2,835.00$ $1.00 945.00$ $2.00 1,890.00$ $2.00 1,890.00$ $2.00 1,890.00$ $2.20 2,079.00$ 35 Thermo Striping, Caltrans Detail 8:35 LF $4.00 140.00$ $2.50 87.50$ $2.00 70.00$ $2.00 70.00$ $2.00 70.00$ $2.20 77.00$ 36 Thermo Striping, Caltrans Detail 21:1,392 LF $4.00 5,568.00$ $1.00 1,392.00$ $3.00 4,176.00$ $3.50 4,872.00$ $3.00 4,176.00$ $3.30 4,593.60$ 37 Thermo Striping, Caltrans Detail 22:866 LF $5.00 4,330.00$ $3.00 2,598.00$ $4.00 3,464.00$ $4.50 3,897.00$ $4.00 3,464.00$ $4.50 3,897.00$ 38 Thermo Striping, Caltrans Detail 39:1,500 LF $5.00 7,500.00$ $1.00 1,500.00$ $2.00 3,000.00$ $2.00 3,000.00$ $2.00 3,000.00$ $2.20 3,300.00$ 39 Green Thermo:150 SF $ 10.00 1,500.00$ $ 30.00 4,500.00$ $ 16.00 2,400.00$ $ 18.00 2,700.00$ $ 16.00 2,400.00$ $18.00 2,700.00$ 40 Green thermo with skips:72 SF $5.00 360.00$ $ 30.00 2,160.00$ $ 16.00 1,152.00$ $ 18.00 1,296.00$ $ 16.00 1,152.00$ $18.00 1,296.00$ 41 Thermo Striping, Red Curb:110 LF $ 10.00 1,100.00$ $5.00 550.00$ $5.00 550.00$ $6.00 660.00$ $5.00 550.00$ $5.50 605.00$ 42 Thermo Striping, White Curb:100 LF $ 10.00 1,000.00$ $5.00 500.00$ $5.00 500.00$ $6.00 600.00$ $5.00 500.00$ $5.50 550.00$ 43 Thermo Striping, Blue Curb:20 LF $ 10.00 200.00$ $5.00 100.00$ $6.00 120.00$ $7.00 140.00$ $6.00 120.00$ $7.00 140.00$ 44 Traffic Control:1 LS $ 145,000.00 145,000.00$ $ 50,000.00 50,000.00$ $ 150,000.00 150,000.00$ $ 218,500.00 218,500.00$ $ 240,476.00 240,476.00$ $ 325,000.00 325,000.00$ 45 Notices:1 LS $ 14,500.00 14,500.00$ $ 10,000.00 10,000.00$ $ 5,000.00 5,000.00$ $ 15,000.00 15,000.00$ $ 20,000.00 20,000.00$ $ 5,000.00 5,000.00$ 46 Utility Tie Out Drawings:1 LS $ 5,800.00 5,800.00$ $ 6,000.00 6,000.00$ $ 5,000.00 5,000.00$ $ 8,000.00 8,000.00$ $ 3,500.00 3,500.00$ $ 3,000.00 3,000.00$ 47 Tree Trimming:29 HRS $ 250.00 7,250.00$ $ 300.00 8,700.00$ $ 340.00 9,860.00$ $ 300.00 8,700.00$ $ 350.00 10,150.00$ $275.00 7,975.00$ 48 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$ $ 50,000.00 50,000.00$ $ 50,000.00 50,000.00$ 49 Misc. Streetscape Improvements:1 LS $ 90,000.00 90,000.00$ $ 90,000.00 90,000.00$ $ 90,000.00 90,000.00$ $ 90,000.00 90,000.00$ $ 90,000.00 90,000.00$ $ 90,000.00 90,000.00$ 3,022,556.00$ 2,667,053.50$ 2,849,797.20$ 2,891,985.18$ 3,055,101.00$ 3,646,713.00$ R&S Construction Management, Inc. 19% over A. Teichert & Son, Inc. 6% over O'Grady Paving, Inc. 1% over 7% over Roadway Construction, Inc.Azul Works, Inc. Base Bid Total (Items 001 through 49) BID ITEM DESCRIPTION APPROX. QTY UNIT ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE -12% under Attachment B I I 1 Kang, Danielle From:Rice, Danille Sent:Friday, June 11, 2021 7:27 PM To:Council, City; Council Agenda Email Cc:ORG - Clerk's Office; Executive Leadership Team; Boyd, Holly Subject:Council Agenda Consent Questions for June 14: Items 2, 3, and 6 Dear Mayor and Council Members: On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please find below the staff responses to inquiries made by Council Member Cormack and Council Member Tanaka in regard to the June 14, 2021 Council Meeting agenda. Item 2: Contract for FY 2021 Street Resurfacing Project & Budget Amendments Item 3: Approval of FY22 Community Theatre Partnership Agreements Item 6: Third Quarter Financial Status & Budget Amendment Item 2: Contract for FY 2021 Street Resurfacing Project & Budget Amendments (Question provided by Council Member Tanaka) 1. What distinguishes roads with PCIs in different ranges (i.e. 40s vs 60s vs 80s)? Pavement condition index (PCI) ranges from 0 to 100, with 0 representing a failed road and 100 representing a brand‐new road surface. Roads are rated with the following ranges: Failed/Poor with PCI score between 0‐49, At Risk between 50‐59, Fair/Good between 60‐79, and Very Good/Excellent between 80‐100. Segment PCI data is collected by City staff biennially and entered to Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) StreetSaver system. Data collected during the survey includes: cracks, pavement failure areas, raveling/weathering, rutting, etc. 2. Is the average age of the roads in question known? If so, what is it? The average age for the streets in this contract is 72 years. The average years from last major street maintenance (overlay/slurry seal/panel upgrades) is 23 years. 3. What future effects on taxpayers and city budgeting will this project have, if any? Annual street maintenance on streets keeps the streets in good condition and prevents the streets from further degradation. The average PCI for the streets in this contract is 44, well below the City’s average PCI of 84. A key principle in pavement management is that regular resurfacing avoids much more expensive reconstruction that is needed when streets are not resurfaced. This contract will repair and resurface the streets to prevent more costly future repairs. 4. Are there any potential transportation and traffic concerns that could arise from this project? There are no major transportation or traffic concerns. The work will be accomplished using methods to minimize traffic delays during the street construction. 2 Item 2: Contract for FY 2021 Street Resurfacing Project & Budget Amendments (Question provided by Council Member Cormack) 1. The scope of work also includes "Remove the truncated domes and restore the roadway at the intersections of Ross Road and Moreno Avenue, and East Meadow Drive and Ross Road." Can staff please explain what truncated domes are and what restorations will be made at these roundabouts? The improvements proposed at the splitter islands at Ross Road at East Meadow and Moreno are to address concerns/requests from GreenWaste and the Palo Alto Fire Department to remove the river stones in the noses of the splitter islands in order to make them fully mountable so that their vehicles can easily maneuver around the circles. Truncated domes are the tactile warning bumps on curb ramps and other transition surfaces used to notify visually impaired pedestrians that they are moving between pedestrian‐only spaces and spaces with vehicles. In this case, the truncated domes in the islands will be removed and restored with asphalt as the truncated dome placement in the splitter islands could cause confusion for the visually impaired. These modifications were presented at the February 24, 2020 Council meeting. The staff report can be found here. Item 3: Approval of FY22 Community Theatre Partnership Agreements (Question provided by Council Member Cormack) 1. The staff report doesn't clearly indicate what the terms of the original agreements are (although clicking through a few links does provide access to the contracts). Do the three organizations also pay rent or just pass through the two $2 fees per ticket? The Theatre groups do not pay rent for use of the Lucie Stern Community Theatre. A total of $4 per ticket goes to the City. The Patron Facility Use fee of $2 per ticket that was added in FY 2006 goes to the City’s General Fund and is considered to be compensation in lieu of rent. The additional $2 added to ticket prices in 2018 is specifically for facility improvements at the theatre. Item 6: Third Quarter Financial Status & Budget Amendment (Question provided by Council Member Cormack) 1. What are the Police Service fees listed under overtime net cost in attachment B? Police Service Fees in the Q3 Public Safety Overtime Analysis are attributed to special event fees in which the organizer pays an hourly rate for personnel presence, such as Police Officers at Stanford football games or in retail areas. These personnel rates are included in the FY 2021 Adopted Municipal Fee Schedule under the Special Events section in the Police Department. Thank you. Danille Rice Executive Assistant to the City Manager (650) 329‐2105 | danille.rice@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto (ID # 12257) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/14/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of FY22 Community Theatre Partnership Agreements Title: Approval of Contract Amendments to Extend Three Public -private Partnership Agreements Between the City of Palo Alto and TheatreWorks, Palo Alto Players, and West Bay Opera for the use of the Lucie Stern Community Theatre for an Additional Year From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that City Council approve three amendments to extend the public-private partnership agreements between the City of Palo Alto and TheatreWorks, Palo Alto Players, and West Bay Opera for cooperative use of the Lucie Stern Community Theatre (Staff Report #9684) for the period July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022. Background The Lucie Stern Community Theatre is used by three local companies: TheatreWorks, Palo Alto Players, and West Bay Opera, collectively producing approximately 15 productions each year. These partnerships provide the companies with an artistic home, an essential component of their ongoing existence, offering stability through the up and downs of the economy during times when cutbacks in government, foundation and corporate funding for the arts are the national norm. In return, the companies collectively provide culturally enriching theatrical experiences for more than 45,000 audience members annually. TheatreWorks was founded by San Francisco Bay Area native Robert Kelley in 1970 as a theatre arts workshop for teenage and college students. Chartered by the City to produce work that would reflect the concerns of the community during an unsettled period in American life, the company produced thirteen wholly original works for the stage in its first three years. Whe n the Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts opened in 1991, the company began producing five main stage productions there each season, along with three productions each season at the Lucie Stern Theatre. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Palo Alto Players became the Peninsula’s first theatre company in 1931 when a group of 100 residents gathered together to create a theatre dedicated to the Palo Alto community. Initially, productions were held at a makeshift performance space in the Palo Alto Community House adjacent to the train station (now MacArthur Park Restaurant). Soon after, Lucie Stern invited the Players to be the resident theatre company at the Community Theatre. In 1974, the Palo Alto layers dissolved their ties with the Parks and Recreation Department, becoming an independent company. Since that time, the City of Palo Alto has continued to support the Palo Alto Players with performance, rehearsal and shop space. West Bay Opera was founded by Henry Holt in 1955. Originally called the Little Opera Guild, the company began presenting fully staged operatic performances. Under the leadership of Mr. Holt, who was succeeded by his wife, Maria Holt, and then by the present director, José Luis Moscovich, West Bay Opera has grown steadily. Discussion Theatre Works, Palo Alto Players and West Bay Opera’s usage of the Lucie Stern Community Theatre are covered by public-private partnership agreements, which have been in place for decades. Given the long history of these partnerships and the cultural benefits of providing the Palo Alto community with a diverse range of artistic events, staff recommends that the City Council approve a one-year extension of the existing public-private partnership, with additional measures in place to ensure public safety at live events. The existing agreement names TheatreWorks Silicon Valley, Palo Alto Players, and West Bay Opera as Resident Theatre Companies of the Community Theatre, allowing them use of the Lucie Stern Community Theatre auditorium and ancillary spaces, including rehearsal hall, costume shop, scene shop and dressing rooms, for a term of three years (FY18 – FY21). Revenue (prior to the pandemic) for use of the theatre, derived from a $2.00 fee for each ticket sold, plus, as of FY20, a “Stern Theatre Improvement Fee” of $2.00 for each ticket sold, averaged $58,000 per year over a 5-year period. The new Stern Theatre Improvement fee is collected to offset the costs of building maintenance, enhancements, improvements, repairs and new equipment and furnishings for the theatre facility. Resource Impact City annual operating costs at the Lucie Stern Community Theatre total roughly $60,000 and include utilities and maintenance in addition to some staffing resources to manage these partnerships. No additional City resources are required to enact the recommendations in this report, and it is anticipated that this partnership will lead to enhanced programs over the life of the agreement. Policy Implications City of Palo Alto Page 3 This partnership would be categorized as a public/private partnership under the Ci ty’s Public- Private Partnership Policy (Policy 1-25: Public/Private Partnerships). These partnerships are also consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan Policy C-1.5, which states, “Work with Stanford University and other educational institutions, pr ivate, nonprofit, faith-based, public community service organizations and neighborhood associations, with the goal of enhancing the quality of life for Palo Alto’s student and residential communities. Increase opportunities for shared use among groups in the community at different times through public private partnerships and by developing programs, facilities and community services that ensure safe, non-discriminatory access to community services. “ Environmental Review Approval of the amendments attached are not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act and are not subject to environmental review. Attachments: • Attachment A – Amendment with Palo Alto Players to Community Theatre Partnership Agreement • Attachment B – Amendment with TheatreWorks Silicon Valley to Community Theatre Partnership Agreement • Attachment C – Amendment with West Bay Opera to Community Theatre Partnership Agreement City of Palo Alto Palo Alto Players Form Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Amendment No. 1 Page 1 of 3 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND PALO ALTO PLAYERS This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) to the Agreement For Performing Arts Services Between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Players (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of June 8, 2021 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and Palo Alto Players, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, located at 1305 Middlefield Road #1, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (“CONTRACTOR”). CITY and CONTRACTOR are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment. R E C I T A L S A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the provision of theatrical productions and use of City facilities, as detailed therein. B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract to extend the term of contract by twelve months, from the original end date of June 30, 202 1 through June 30, 2022, for the continued provision of services described in the Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree: SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment: a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean the Contract titled “Agreement for Performing Arts Services Between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Players,” between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated November 10, 2018. b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract. SECTION 2. Section 10 of the Contract is hereby amended to read as below. Subsections 10a. through 10d. shall remain as written in the Contract. 10. Term, Termination & Breach. This Agreement shall commence as of November 10, 2018 and shall terminate on June 30, 2022 (the “Term”). The Term of this Agreement may be amended by mutual written agreement of th e Parties to this Agreement pursuant to Section 16 (“Amendment”). DocuSign Envelope ID: 3B9622F8-05BE-4894-8412-9A1F6166C0B6 City of Palo Alto Palo Alto Players Form Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Amendment No. 1 Page 2 of 3 SECTION 3. A new section 24 is hereby added to the Contract to read as follows: 24. Safe Reopening Plan. Contractor shall submit a safe reopening plan to the City under the following provisions: a. The plan shall address: daily cleaning procedures, including prior to opening, mid- use (for all public areas, including bathrooms), and end of day; audience traffic plans to ensure social distancing; and hand sanitizing or other procedures . b. The plan shall also address any state or County health orders, rules, and guidelines to ensure compliance with applicable standards. c. The plan shall be submitted to the City at least 30 days prior to residency by emailing it to Marieke Gaboury at marieke.gaboury@cityofpaloalto.org. SECTION 4. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 5. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporat ed herein by this reference. (SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.) DocuSign Envelope ID: 3B9622F8-05BE-4894-8412-9A1F6166C0B6 City of Palo Alto Palo Alto Players Form Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Amendment No. 1 Page 3 of 3 SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney or designee PALO ALTO PLAYERS Officer 1 By: Name: Title: Officer 2 By: Name: Title: DocuSign Envelope ID: 3B9622F8-05BE-4894-8412-9A1F6166C0B6 Keith Goldberg Treasurer Tilmin Hudson Tilmin Hudson City of Palo Alto TheatreWorks Silicon Valley Form Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Amendment No. 1 Page 1 of 3 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THEATREWORKS SILICON VALLEY This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) to the Agreement For Performing Arts Services Between the City of Palo Alto and TheatreWorks Silicon Valley (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of June 8, 2021 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and TheatreWorks Silicon Valley, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, located at 350 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 127, Redwood City, CA 94065 (“CONTRACTOR”). CITY and CONTRACTOR are referred to collectively as the “Part ies” in this Amendment. R E C I T A L S A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the provision of theatrical productions and use of City facilities, as detailed therein. B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract to extend the term of contract by twelve months, from the original end date of June 30, 202 1 through June 30, 2022, for the continued provision of services described in the Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree: SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment: a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean the Contract titled “Agreement for Performing Arts Services Between the City of Palo Alto and TheatreWorks Silicon Valley,” between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated November 10, 2018. b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract. SECTION 2. Section 10 of the Contract is hereby amended to read as below. Subsections 10a. through 10d. shall remain as written in the Contract. 10. Term, Termination & Breach. This Agreement shall commence as of November 10, 2018 and shall terminate on June 30, 2022 (the “Term”). The Term of this Agreement may be amended by mutual written agreement of th e Parties to this Agreement pursuant to Section 16 (“Amendment”). DocuSign Envelope ID: 8F13BEB7-5643-432C-A1B9-F6595690DD85 City of Palo Alto TheatreWorks Silicon Valley Form Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Amendment No. 1 Page 2 of 3 SECTION 3. A new section 24 is hereby added to the Contract to read as follows: 24. Safe Reopening Plan. Contractor shall submit a safe reopening plan to the City under the following provisions: a. The plan shall address: daily cleaning procedures, including prior to opening, mid- use (for all public areas, including bathrooms), and end of day; audience traffic plans to ensure social distancing; and hand sanitizing or other procedures . b. The plan shall also address any state or County health orders, rules, and guidelines to ensure compliance with applicable standards. c. The plan shall be submitted to the City at least 30 days prior to residency by emailing it to Marieke Gaboury at marieke.gaboury@cityofpaloalto.org. SECTION 4. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 5. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporat ed herein by this reference. (SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.) DocuSign Envelope ID: 8F13BEB7-5643-432C-A1B9-F6595690DD85 City of Palo Alto TheatreWorks Silicon Valley Form Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Amendment No. 1 Page 3 of 3 SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney or designee THEATREWORKS SILICON VALLEY Officer 1 By: Name: Title: Officer 2 By: Name: Title: DocuSign Envelope ID: 8F13BEB7-5643-432C-A1B9-F6595690DD85 Phil Santora Executive Director Board Chair Roy Johnson Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: 8F13BEB75643432CA1B9F6595690DD85 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: TheaterWorks Silicon Valley - Theater amendment.doc Source Envelope: Document Pages: 3 Signatures: 2 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Marieke Gaboury AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 Marieke.Gaboury@cityofpaloalto.org IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Record Tracking Status: Original 5/10/2021 2:02:23 PM Holder: Marieke Gaboury Marieke.Gaboury@cityofpaloalto.org Location: DocuSign Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Palo Alto Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Phil Santora psantora@theatreworks.org Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 98.210.152.89 Sent: 5/10/2021 2:04:57 PM Viewed: 5/11/2021 3:15:02 PM Signed: 5/11/2021 3:15:26 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Roy Johnson rjohnson@sbcglobal.net Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 107.77.224.50 Sent: 5/10/2021 2:04:57 PM Viewed: 5/10/2021 2:07:06 PM Signed: 5/11/2021 2:49:39 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Witness Events Signature Timestamp Notary Events Signature Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 5/10/2021 2:04:57 PM Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Certified Delivered Security Checked 5/10/2021 2:07:06 PM Signing Complete Security Checked 5/11/2021 2:49:39 PM Completed Security Checked 5/11/2021 3:15:26 PM Payment Events Status Timestamps City of Palo Alto West Bay Opera Form Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Amendment No. 1 Page 1 of 3 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND WEST BAY OPERA This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) to the Agreement For Performing Arts Services Between the City of Palo Alto and West Bay Opera (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of June 8, 2021 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and WEST BAY OPERA, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, located at 221 Lambert Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306 (“CONTRACTOR”). CITY and CONTRACTOR are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment. R E C I T A L S A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the provision of theatrical productions and use of City facilities, as detailed therein. B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract to extend the term of contract by twelve months, from the original end date of June 30, 202 1 through June 30, 2022, for the continued provision of services described in the Contract . NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree: SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment: a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean the Contract titled “Agreement for Performing Arts Services Between the City of Palo Alto and West Bay Opera,” between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated November 10, 2018. b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract. SECTION 2. Section 10 of the Contract is hereby amended to read as below. Subsections 10a. through 10d. shall remain as written in the Contract. 10. Term, Termination & Breach. This Agreement shall commence as of November 10, 2018 and shall terminate on June 30, 2022 (the “Term”). The Term of this Agreement may be amended by mutual written agreement of the Parties to this Agreement pursuant to Section 16 (“Amendment”). DocuSign Envelope ID: 31BFD8D5-4D1D-4BCD-A900-30FAEA3BC33A City of Palo Alto West Bay Opera Form Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Amendment No. 1 Page 2 of 3 SECTION 3. A new section 24 is hereby added to the Contract to read as follows: 24. Safe Reopening Plan. Contractor shall submit a safe reopening plan to the City under the following provisions: a. The plan shall address: daily cleaning procedures, including prior to opening, mid- use (for all public areas, including bathrooms), and end of day; audience traffic plans to ensure social distancing; and hand sanitizing or other procedures. b. The plan shall also address any state or County health orders, rules, and guidelines to ensure compliance with applicable standards. c. The plan shall be submitted to the City at least 30 days prior to residency by emailing it to Marieke Gaboury at marieke.gaboury@cityofpaloalto.org. SECTION 4. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 5. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference. (SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.) DocuSign Envelope ID: 31BFD8D5-4D1D-4BCD-A900-30FAEA3BC33A City of Palo Alto West Bay Opera Form Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Amendment No. 1 Page 3 of 3 SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney or designee WEST BAY OPERA Officer 1 By: Name: Title: Officer 2 By: Name: Title: DocuSign Envelope ID: 31BFD8D5-4D1D-4BCD-A900-30FAEA3BC33A Secretary, Board of Directors Fei Yu General Director Jose Luis Moscovich 1 Kang, Danielle From:Rice, Danille Sent:Friday, June 11, 2021 7:27 PM To:Council, City; Council Agenda Email Cc:ORG - Clerk's Office; Executive Leadership Team; Boyd, Holly Subject:Council Agenda Consent Questions for June 14: Items 2, 3, and 6 Dear Mayor and Council Members: On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please find below the staff responses to inquiries made by Council Member Cormack and Council Member Tanaka in regard to the June 14, 2021 Council Meeting agenda. Item 2: Contract for FY 2021 Street Resurfacing Project & Budget Amendments Item 3: Approval of FY22 Community Theatre Partnership Agreements Item 6: Third Quarter Financial Status & Budget Amendment Item 2: Contract for FY 2021 Street Resurfacing Project & Budget Amendments (Question provided by Council Member Tanaka) 1. What distinguishes roads with PCIs in different ranges (i.e. 40s vs 60s vs 80s)? Pavement condition index (PCI) ranges from 0 to 100, with 0 representing a failed road and 100 representing a brand‐new road surface. Roads are rated with the following ranges: Failed/Poor with PCI score between 0‐49, At Risk between 50‐59, Fair/Good between 60‐79, and Very Good/Excellent between 80‐100. Segment PCI data is collected by City staff biennially and entered to Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) StreetSaver system. Data collected during the survey includes: cracks, pavement failure areas, raveling/weathering, rutting, etc. 2. Is the average age of the roads in question known? If so, what is it? The average age for the streets in this contract is 72 years. The average years from last major street maintenance (overlay/slurry seal/panel upgrades) is 23 years. 3. What future effects on taxpayers and city budgeting will this project have, if any? Annual street maintenance on streets keeps the streets in good condition and prevents the streets from further degradation. The average PCI for the streets in this contract is 44, well below the City’s average PCI of 84. A key principle in pavement management is that regular resurfacing avoids much more expensive reconstruction that is needed when streets are not resurfaced. This contract will repair and resurface the streets to prevent more costly future repairs. 4. Are there any potential transportation and traffic concerns that could arise from this project? There are no major transportation or traffic concerns. The work will be accomplished using methods to minimize traffic delays during the street construction. 2 Item 2: Contract for FY 2021 Street Resurfacing Project & Budget Amendments (Question provided by Council Member Cormack) 1. The scope of work also includes "Remove the truncated domes and restore the roadway at the intersections of Ross Road and Moreno Avenue, and East Meadow Drive and Ross Road." Can staff please explain what truncated domes are and what restorations will be made at these roundabouts? The improvements proposed at the splitter islands at Ross Road at East Meadow and Moreno are to address concerns/requests from GreenWaste and the Palo Alto Fire Department to remove the river stones in the noses of the splitter islands in order to make them fully mountable so that their vehicles can easily maneuver around the circles. Truncated domes are the tactile warning bumps on curb ramps and other transition surfaces used to notify visually impaired pedestrians that they are moving between pedestrian‐only spaces and spaces with vehicles. In this case, the truncated domes in the islands will be removed and restored with asphalt as the truncated dome placement in the splitter islands could cause confusion for the visually impaired. These modifications were presented at the February 24, 2020 Council meeting. The staff report can be found here. Item 3: Approval of FY22 Community Theatre Partnership Agreements (Question provided by Council Member Cormack) 1. The staff report doesn't clearly indicate what the terms of the original agreements are (although clicking through a few links does provide access to the contracts). Do the three organizations also pay rent or just pass through the two $2 fees per ticket? The Theatre groups do not pay rent for use of the Lucie Stern Community Theatre. A total of $4 per ticket goes to the City. The Patron Facility Use fee of $2 per ticket that was added in FY 2006 goes to the City’s General Fund and is considered to be compensation in lieu of rent. The additional $2 added to ticket prices in 2018 is specifically for facility improvements at the theatre. Item 6: Third Quarter Financial Status & Budget Amendment (Question provided by Council Member Cormack) 1. What are the Police Service fees listed under overtime net cost in attachment B? Police Service Fees in the Q3 Public Safety Overtime Analysis are attributed to special event fees in which the organizer pays an hourly rate for personnel presence, such as Police Officers at Stanford football games or in retail areas. These personnel rates are included in the FY 2021 Adopted Municipal Fee Schedule under the Special Events section in the Police Department. Thank you. Danille Rice Executive Assistant to the City Manager (650) 329‐2105 | danille.rice@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto (ID # 12267) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/14/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Climate/Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Summary Title: Adoption of a Resolution for CA Dept of Transportation Partnership for Trash Capture Project Title: Adoption of a Resolution to enter into Cooperative Implementation Agreement with CA Department of Transportation for Embarcadero Trash Capture Device Project From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the City Manager to execute a Cooperative Implementation Agreement (Attachment B) with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to receive reimbursement from Caltrans for the design and construction of the Embarcadero Trash Capture Device Project; and to execute all implementing documents. Executive Summary The California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit allows and encourages Caltrans to partner with municipalities by providing funding for stormwater quality treatment facilities that address trash or other pollutants. Palo Alto has been selected to receive such funding, and consequently, both agencies will receive compliance credit to meet permit requirements. Caltrans requires that all projects selected to be funded enter into a Cooperative Implementation Agreement (CIA, Attachment B). Adoption of this Resolution (Attachment A) provides the City Manager authority to execute the CIA on behalf of the City. Caltrans has agreed to reimburse the City up to $613,000 for the design and construction of a large trash capture device (TCD) to be installed on Embarcadero Road in front of the Baylands Golf Links, which will cover the entire Project cost. The City will then accept responsibility for the operations and maintenance of the device. Background City of Palo Alto Page 2 Caltrans is required by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) to address trash generated in its right of way. The agency’s State Stormwater Permit issued by the State Water Board allows Caltrans to partner with local municipalities by providing funding for regional water quality treatment facilities in significant trash generating areas (as identified in the Caltrans Statewide Trash Implementation Plan). Caltrans receives trash r eduction compliance credits for contributions to regional projects. The City is also required to comply with the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit in the San Francisco Bay Area (Order R2-2015-0049), also known as the Municipal Regional Permit or MRP. The MRP outlines various requirements for protecting the City’s storm drain system and local receiving waters from pollutants commonly found in urban stormwater runoff, including trash and other priority pollutants like PCBs and mercury. The MRP requ ires the 76 Permittees (including the City) to meet the goal of 100 percent trash load reduction , or no adverse impact to receiving waters from trash, by July 1, 2022. This deadline is expected to be extended to July 1, 2025 in the next MRP. Discussion The proposed Resolution authorizes the City Manager to execute a Cooperative Implementation Agreement (CIA) with Caltrans to receive reimburse from Caltrans for the design and construction of a large trash capture device; and to execute all implementing documents. In fiscal years 2022 and 2023, the City will carry out the design and construction of the trash capture device. Once the Project is completed, the City will seek reimbursement for design and construction and commence to undertake maintenance of the TCD. The Project will consist of installing a trash capture device within the existing City storm drain pipeline located at Baylands Golf Links along Embarcadero Road. The trash capture device (approved by the State Water Board) is a large, rectangular vault with metal cages and sumps with baffles designed to collect sediment and trash as small as five millimeters to prevent discharge to San Francisco Bay. The device also includes hydrocarbon booms that capture floating PCBs and oils. The boxes will be installed in-line with the storm drain system. Flow will enter the structure; trash will be caught in the cage while sediment will settle in the baffled sump. After passing by the floating hydrocarbon boom, the clean flow will exit the system and continue downstream to discharge into the Bay. The storm system at this location drains portions of the City right of way and open space land and Caltrans’ right of way, specifically Highway 101, and discharges to the Bay. The Project is designed to treat a total drainage area of 189.3 acres, which includes 168.8 acres of City land and 20.5 acres of Caltrans right of way. The City will receive 100 percent reduction credit for this drainage area, increasing Citywide trash reduction from 80 percent to 85 percent, a significant increase toward the trash reduction permit requirement. Caltrans will also receive compliance credits for trash reduction for providing funding toward this Project. The design and construction of this Project will be completed in close coordination with the City of Palo Alto Page 3 Community Services Department to maintain access to the Baylands Golf Links. Staff will be responsible for maintaining the trash capture device to periodically remove trash and ensure the device performs as designed and constructed. The devi ce will be designed to account for high groundwater levels and allow for dewatering in order to conduct maintenance. The total Project cost is estimated to range from $598,000 to $613,000 depending on the type of trash capture device installed (to be determined by consulting with Public Works Department’s Public Services and Engineering Services Divisions during the design phase). Caltrans will fund both the construction and final design phases regardless of which type of trash capture device is installed, with the City of Palo Alto funding the long-term operations and maintenance costs, further detailed in the resource impact section. Timeline The Project will take approximately one year from design to completion of construction. It is anticipated that the Project design will start in October 2021, with the final plans completed in March 2022. Construction will start in August 2022 with a planned Project completion in October 2022. As the project progresses, the City will submit monthly invoices to seek reimbursement until full reimbursement is received for TCD design and construction. Resource Impact Although there are no financial impacts associated with the recommendation to adopt the resolution, the result of approval, both this project and the on going operations and maintenance, will have financial impacts for the City for decades. This Project will be funded by the Stormwater Management Fund with commensurate reimbursement from Caltrans. No funds are needed in the remainder of Fiscal Year 2021. An action will be brought forward on June 21, 2021 as part of the City’s adoption of the FY 2022 Budget recommending a new Stormwater Management Fund Capital project Trash Capture Device Installation (SD-22002) project in the FY2022 Adopted Capital Budget. City staff are responsible for maintaining all trash capture devices throughout the City. Long- term operations and maintenance for this trash capture device is estimated at a total of $272,000 over 50 years and planned to be absorbed through the available operating budget of the Stormwater Management Fund in future years. This is not one of the 13 voter-approved projects of the 2017 Stormwater Ballot; however, trash reduction is mandated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the entire SF Bay r egion. Voters approved maintenance of the storm drain system (and pollution prevention activities), and the Public Works Public Services Division will maintain this infrastructure under that funding umbrella. Policy Implications The MRP requires that the City meet the goal of 100 percent trash load reduction, or no adverse impact to receiving waters from trash, by July 1, 2022. Although this deadline is expected to be extended to July 1, 2025 in the next MRP, the City must make significant efforts to reach the required goal by this timeline. This project will provide a 5 percent increase in trash City of Palo Alto Page 4 reduction, increasing the City’s rate from 80 percent to 85 percent. In addition, this project supports meeting required PCB and mercury load reductions. If the City does not meet the trash reduction deadline, it may be subject to MRP violations and fines. Adoption of the attached resolution is consistent with City policy documents, including the Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan and the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan. In addition, the following Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and program support the installation of this trash capture device: Goal N-4: Water resources and infrastructure that are managed to sustain plant and animal life, support urban activities, and protect public health and safety. Policy N-4.4: Manage water supply and water quality to reflect not only human use but also the water needed to sustain plant and animal life. Policy N-4.10: Reduce pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. Program N4.10.1: Monitor and implement practices for reducing water pollution. Examples include state-of-the-art best management practices (BMPs), land use planning approaches and construction of modern stormwater management facilities. Stakeholder Engagement This project is funded entirely by Caltrans. The project design and construction will be reviewed by the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee. Litter and trash control are top priorities in the City. A Citywide survey in late 2020 showed that 75 percent of respondents cited pollution in creeks and the Bay as a top environmental concern, ranking it third, just behind air quality and climate change. Environmental Review The installation of a trash capture device is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301(b) of the CEQA guidelines as a negligible expansion of use of a publicly owned utility, and no further environmental review is necessary. Attachments: • Attachment A: City of Palo Alto Resolution for CIA • Attachment B: Cooperative Implementation Agreement (CIA) with CA Department of Transportation Attachment A JB05202021 *Not Yet Approved* Resolution No. ____ A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Cooperative Implementation Agreement with Caltrans to Receive Reimbursement Grant Funds for Design and Construction of the Embarcadero Trash Capture Device Project R E C I T A L S A.The City of Palo Alto (City) is subject to pollutant load reduction requirements of the San Francisco Bay Municipal Stormwater Regional Permit (Order N. R2-2015-0049) and PCBs and Mercury Total Maximum Daily Loads adopted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. B. The City’s Project will construct a large trash capture device to treat stormwater runoff from the drainage area capturing runoff from the CA Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Right-of-Way and City Right-of-Way. C.This Project will allow the City and Caltrans to receive credit for reducing trash, PCBs and mercury loads to the San Francisco Bay. D.Caltrans has agreed to reimburse City in an amount not to exceed $613,000 Dollars for the design and construction of the Project Facilities, within the regional area under the jurisdiction of the City to comply with the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL). E.In order to be reimbursed, City is required to enter into a “Cooperative Implementation Agreement” with Caltrans, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Sections 114 and 130, providing for the design and construction of the Project facilities, maintenance obligations, and reimbursement procedures. // // // // // // // // // JB05202021 // NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute a Cooperative Implementation Agreement with Caltrans to receive reimbursement grant funds for the design and construction of the Embarcadero Trash Capture Device Project, along with all implementing documents. PASSED AND ADOPTED, at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto held on the ___ day of ___, 2021 by the following vote: INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: ___________________________ __________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ __________________________ City Attorney or Designee City Manager __________________________ Director of Public Works City of Palo Alto CIA No. D43CIASCL000X Page 1 of 13 COOPERATIVE IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO EFFECTIVE ON [June, XX, 2021], (the EFFECTIVE DATE) is between the State of California acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as CALTRANS and the City of Palo Alto, a body politic and a municipal corporation (chartered City) of the State of California, referred to herein as AGENCY. CALTRANS and AGENCY are together referred to as PARTIES. RECITALS 1. CALTRANS and AGENCY, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code (SHC) Sections 114 and 130, are authorized to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for improvements to the State Highway System (SHS) as a watershed stakeholder within AGENCY’s jurisdiction. 2. As per Attachment IV of the Caltrans National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit Order 2012-0011-DWQ (NPDES Permit), Section I.A, CALTRANS and AGENCY may collaboratively implement the NPDES Permit requirements as they have been identified as stakeholders in the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) or contain Significant Trash Generating Areas (STGA) for Embarcadero Road Trash Capture Project (hereinafter referred to as “PROJECT”). CALTRANS has agreed to contribute an amount not to exceed Six Hundred And Thirteen Thousand Dollars ($613,000) to AGENCY for AGENCY to construct the PROJECT, within the regional area under the jurisdiction of AGENCY to comply with the TMDL or to treat STGAs. The NPDES Permit (including Attachment IV) is located at: www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/caltrans.html 3. AGENCY has agreed to implement the PROJECT subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement including all documents attached hereto that are incorporated herein and hereby made a part of this Agreement (collectively referred to as the AGREEMENT). 4. AGENCY will be responsible for all management, maintenance and operations, including costs of the constructed PROJECT. 5. The SWRCB will credit CALTRANS with one (1) Compliance Unit (CU) for each Eighty- Eight Thousand Dollars ($88,000) paid to AGENCY. A compliance unit is defined as one (1) acre of CALTRANS’ Right-of-Way (ROW) from which the runoff is retained, treated, and/or otherwise controlled prior to discharge to the relevant reach. The financial equivalent as submitted by CALTRANS is One Hundred Seventy-Six Thousand Dollars ($176,000) per CU. The SWRCB is encouraging collaborative efforts and Cooperative Implementation Agreements to reduce pollutants in TMDL and STGA watersheds and uses a 50% discount for CU in dollars contributed to the Cooperative Implementation. This sets the CU equivalent at Eighty-Eight Thousand Dollars ($88,000). 6. For NPDES Permit compliance, CALTRANS will claim a percentage of PROJECT pollutant waste load reductions granted by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board for the PROJECT equal to the percentage of total PROJECT cost contributed by CALTRANS or the waste load allocation assigned to CALTRANS for the PROJECT watershed, whichever is less. CALTRANS intends to use the PROJECT waste City of Palo Alto CIA No. D43CIASCL000X Page 2 of 13 load reductions to demonstrate equivalent load reductions required to meet its TMDL waste load allocations. 7. Cooperative implementation has the following advantages: cooperative implementation (i) allows for water quality improvement projects off the ROW, at locations that may otherwise have space, access, or safety limitations within the ROW; (ii) provides for the involvement of local watershed partners who have an interest and expertise in the best way to protect, manage, and enhance water quality in the watershed; (iii) allows for implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other creative solutions not typically available to CALTRANS; (iv) allows for larger watershed-scale projects; and (v) leverages resources from other entities. 8. All services performed by AGENCY pursuant to this AGREEMENT are intended to be performed in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and AGENCY laws, ordinances, and regulations, and with CALTRANS published manuals, policies, and procedures. In case of a conflict between Federal, State and AGENCY laws, ordinances, or regulations, the order of precedence applicability of these laws shall be Federal, State and then AGENCY laws and regulations, respectively. 9. CALTRANS share of PROJECT funding is as follows: FUND TITLE FUND SOURCE DOLLAR AMOUNT SHA State of California $613,000 City of Palo Alto CIA No. D43CIASCL000X Page 3 of 13 SECTION I All sections of this AGREEMENT including the recitals are enforceable. 1. AGENCY has agreed to implement the PROJECT in accordance with Attachment II- SCOPE SUMMARY. The SCOPE SUMMARY that is attached to and made a part of this AGREEMENT defines in detail the PROJECT’s scope of work, description, schedule, location and budget. 2. AGENCY will be responsible for all management, maintenance and operations, including costs of the constructed PROJECT. 3. AGENCY will develop and construct the PROJECT in accordance with the applicable laws, policies, practices, procedures and standards. This applies to all procurements, including land acquisitions, licenses and permits. 4. AGENCY shall prepare initial engineering and geotechnical assessments, and detailed design as well as acquire environmental reviews and right of way (ROW) needed for the PROJECT. This work is equivalent to CALTRANS process of Project Initiation Document (PID), Project Approval & Environmental Document (PA&ED) and Plans, Specification and Estimate (PS&E). AGENCY will pay for, coordinate, prepare, obtain, implement, renew, and amend all permits needed to complete the PROJECT. AGENCY will prepare CEQA environmental documentation to meet California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. 5. AGENCY will advertise, open bids, award, and approve the construction contract in accordance with the California Public Contract Code and the California Labor Code and will be responsible for the administration, acceptance, and final documentation of the construction contract. 6. CALTRANS shall reimburse AGENCY for actual costs of the PROJECT not exceeding the amount set forth in Section 8 below. 7. CALTRANS shall have the right to inspect the PROJECT work to be performed hereunder at any time during its progress and to make final inspection upon completion thereof. Failure of CALTRANS to object within 30 days after final inspection shall indicate satisfactory performance of this AGREEMENT by AGENCY. 8. The total amount CALTRANS will reimburse to AGENCY pursuant to this AGREEMENT shall not exceed $613,000 (“Contract Sum”). Costs incurred by AGENCY for PROJECT work under this AGREEMENT in excess of the Contract Sum will be borne by AGENCY. It is understood and agreed that this AGREEMENT fund limit is an estimate and that CALTRANS will only reimburse the cost of services actually rendered as authorized by the CALTRANS Contract Manager or designee at or below the fund limitation amount set forth in this AGREEMENT and in accordance with the Budget included in Attachment II. 9. All administrative draft and administrative final reports, studies, materials, and documentation relied upon, produced, created or utilized for the PROJECT will be held in confidence to the extent permitted by law, and where applicable, the provisions of California Government Code section 6254.5(e) shall govern the disclosure of such documents in the event said documents are shared between the PARTIES. Parties will not distribute, release, or share said documents with anyone without prior written consent of the City of Palo Alto CIA No. D43CIASCL000X Page 4 of 13 party authorized to release said documents except: (i) to employees, agents, and consultants who require access to complete the work described within this AGREEMENT; or (ii) where release is required or authorized by law. 10. HM-1 is defined as hazardous material (including but not limited to hazardous waste) that requires removal and disposal pursuant to Federal or State law, whether it is disturbed by the PROJECT or not. HM-2 is defined as hazardous material (including but not limited to hazardous waste) that may require removal and disposal pursuant to Federal or State law, only if disturbed by the PROJECT. 11. CALTRANS, independent of the PROJECT costs, is responsible for any HM-1 found within existing CALTRANS ROW. CALTRANS will undertake HM-1 management activities with minimum impact to the PROJECT schedule and will pay all costs associated with HM-1 management activities. 12. CALTRANS has no responsibility for management activities or costs associated with HM- 1 found outside the CALTRANS existing ROW. AGENCY, independent of PROJECT costs, is responsible for any HM-1 found within PROJECT limits outside existing CALTRANS ROW, and will pay, or cause to be paid, all costs associated with HM-1 management activities. AGENCY will undertake, or cause to be undertaken, HM-1 management activities with minimum impact to the PROJECT schedule. 13. If HM-2 is found within the limits of the PROJECT, the AGENCY responsible for advertisement, award, and administration (AAA) of the PROJECT construction contract will be responsible for HM-2 management activities. Any management activity cost associated with HM-2 is a PROJECT construction cost. 14. This AGREEMENT may only be amended or modified by mutual written agreement of the PARTIES. City of Palo Alto CIA No. D43CIASCL000X Page 5 of 13 SECTION II- GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. TERMINATION A. This AGREEMENT may be terminated by the PARTIES upon mutual written agreement. In the event of a termination CALTRANS will reimburse AGENCY all allowable, authorized, and non-cancelable obligations and costs incurred by AGENCY prior to the termination. B. CALTRANS reserves the right to terminate this AGREEMENT before the AGENCY awards the PROJECT construction contract or begins to do project work. CALTRANS will reimburse AGENCY reasonable, allowable, authorized and non-cancelled costs up to the date of termination that are attributable to the PROJECT. C. This AGREEMENT will terminate upon completion of PROJECT when all PARTIES have met all scope, cost, and schedule commitments included in this AGREEMENT and have signed a closure statement, which is a document signed by the PARTIES that verifies the completion of PROJECT, except that all indemnification, document retention, audit, claims, environmental commitment, pending legal challenge, hazardous material, operation, maintenance and ownership provisions of this AGREEMENT will remain in effect until terminated or modified by mutual written agreement. D. AGENCY has sixty (60) days after the date this AGREEMENT is terminated or expires, or such other time agreed upon in writing by the PARTIES, to submit invoices to CALTRANS to make final allowable payments for PROJECT costs in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT. Failure to submit invoices within this period may result in a waiver by AGENCY of its right to reimbursement of expended costs. 2. BUDGET CONTINGENCY CLAUSE All obligations of CALTRANS under the terms of this AGREEMENT are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature, and the State Budget Act authority. It is mutually agreed that if the State Legislature does not appropriate sufficient funds for the program, this AGREEMENT shall be amended if possible to reflect any reduction in funds, but nothing herein obligates the PARTIES to provide additional funding or proceed if sufficient funding is unavailable. 3. ALLOWABLE COST, PAYMENTS AND INVOICING A. The method of payment for this AGREEMENT will be based on actual allowable costs. CALTRANS will reimburse AGENCY for expended actual allowable direct costs and indirect costs, including, but not limited to labor costs, employee benefits, travel (overhead is reimbursable only if the AGENCY has an approved indirect costs allocation plan) and contracted consultant services costs incurred by AGENCY in performance of the PROJECT work, not to exceed the Contract Sum of the PROJECT. B. Reimbursement of AGENCY expenditures will be authorized only for those allowable costs actually incurred by AGENCY in the performance of the PROJECT work. AGENCY must not only have incurred the expenditures on or after the EFFECTIVE DATE of this City of Palo Alto CIA No. D43CIASCL000X Page 6 of 13 AGREEMENT and before the date it is terminated or expires, but must have also paid for those costs to claim any reimbursement. C. PARTIES will agree upon CALTRANS’ annual reimbursement of the PROJECT costs, throughout its duration. Total reimbursement will not exceed the Contract Sum (as defined in Section I above). The encumbered funds are to be expended and invoiced to CALTRANS by AGENCY by May 1 of the third fiscal year from the fiscal year CALTRANS encumbered them. Any funds encumbered, but not expended by the end of the third fiscal year, will not be reimbursed to AGENCY by CALTRANS. D. Travel, per diem, and third-party contract reimbursements are PROJECT costs only after those hired by AGENCY to participate in the PROJECT incur and pay those costs. Payments for travel and per diem will not exceed the rates paid rank and file state employees under current California Department of Human Resources rules current at the EFFECTIVE DATE of this AGREEMENT. E. CALTRANS will reimburse AGENCY for all allowable PROJECT costs no more frequently and no later than monthly in arrears and as promptly as CALTRANS fiscal procedures permit upon receipt of itemized signed invoices. Invoices shall reference this AGREEMENT Number and shall be signed and submitted electronically to the Contract Manager at the following address: anand.maganti@dot.ca.gov cc: kriti.uppal@dot.ca.gov If electronic submittal is not possible, mail invoice to: California Department of Transportation Division of Environmental Analysis – Fiscal Analysis Unit, MS 27 1120 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814-5680 F. Invoices shall include the following information: 1) Invoice Cover Sheet The invoice cover sheet summarizes the previous, current and total amounts billed for the AGREEMENT. Details included on the cover sheet are: a. “INVOICE” near top of page b. Invoice Date c. Contract Number (D43CIAxx000x) d. Invoice Number [minimum format: City Initials-3-digit Invoice Number (XXX- 001)] e. Billing period (performance period), specified with beginning and ending dates (towards top of page). All work performed must be during the billing period. Invoice billing periods must not overlap. f. Brief description of the work performed g. Summary of total dollar amount billed to date i. Previous month invoice balance ii. Amount billed this month iii. Total amount billed including current invoice amount h. Total amount due i. Summary of charges City of Palo Alto CIA No. D43CIASCL000X Page 7 of 13 i. AGENCY (municipality) labor costs ii. Sub-Vendor labor costs (consultant) iii. Sub-vendor direct costs (materials, equipment, miscellaneous itemized costs) iv. Other direct costs j. Discounts (if applicable) k. Remittance information including name and address [MUST match Payee Data Record Declaration of Business Location (Form FA-204) submitted at contract execution or on file] l. AGENCY Contract Manager’s name, address and phone number m. AGENCY Contract Manager’s signature and signature block n. CALTRANS Contract Manager’s name and address o. CALTRANS Contract Manager’s signature block. 2) Invoice and Supports All invoice charges must match the rates on the contract cost proposal and personnel request. (Changes in billing rates must be approved before billing.) The CALTRANS’ Contract Manager must be provided invoices or other documentation with sufficient detail to verify the charges are allowable under this AGREEMENT with sufficient support to allow them to verify charges. Supporting documentation, such as receipts, is required for all costs included on the invoice that are not for hourly or sub-contract labor. AGENCY labor charges need to show person’s name, hours worked, billing rate and brief description of work performed. Supporting documents (timesheet or payroll report) need to be provided. These documents need to include: a. Name (first and last) b. Hours charged c. Brief description -- identify the work is for the project funded by the Cooperative Implementation Agreement d. Month, day and year of the charges (must be within the billing period) e. Worker and supervisor’s signatures (Exceptions can be made for electronic timesheets.) All overtime must be approved in advance by the CALTRANS Contract Manager. Direct costs (such as material costs, vehicle rental) are reimbursable. These costs need to be verified, therefore, a copy of the receipt, paid purchase order or other documentation that shows the items and cost needs to be attached to the invoice. AGENCY personnel travel costs may be reimbursed according to the Consultant and Contractor travel guidelines located on the CALTRANS’ website at: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/asc/travel/ch12/1consultant.htm. The Travel Expense Claim (TEC) form is available at: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/asc/travel/ch5/1tec.htm. Subcontractor costs are reimbursed after providing a copy of the paid invoice. This invoice needs to show that the AGENCY contract manager reviewed and approved the City of Palo Alto CIA No. D43CIASCL000X Page 8 of 13 payment. CALTRANS requires its vendors to submit proof of costs incurred, such as timesheet or payroll records, travel reimbursement form (that includes the reason and dates for travel) with receipts, receipts for materials, lab services or other items) and CALTRANS assumes the AGENCY has similar requirements that are documented. 3) Progress Reports Each invoice needs to be accompanied by a progress report for the billing period. This report includes: a. Work performed during the billing period (can be in a bullet format) b. Contract progress estimate -- percentage of work completed (not dollar based) c. Work anticipated during the next billing cycle (can be in a bullet format) d. Total amount spent during the billing period (AGENCY personnel, AGENCY direct costs, subcontractor costs and total) e. Total amount spent to date (AGENCY, subcontractor, total) f. CIA not to exceed amount g. Percentage of Cooperative Implementation Agreement (CIA) funds used to date. [Total (AGENCY and subcontractor)/CIA not to exceed amount)] 4. COST PRINCIPLES A. If PARTIES fund any part of PROJECT with state or federal funds, each PARTY will comply, and will ensure that any sub-recipient, contractor or subcontract hired to participate in PROJECT will comply with the federal cost principles and administrative requirements of 2 CFR, Part 200. These principles and requirements apply to all funding types included in this AGREEMENT. B. Any PROJECT costs for which AGENCY has received payment or credit that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under 2 CFR, Part 200, and/or Title 48, Chapter 1, Part 31, are subject to repayment by AGENCY to CALTRANS. Should AGENCY fail to reimburse moneys due CALTRANS within thirty (30) days of discovery or demand, or within such other period as may be agreed in writing between the PARTIES hereto, CALTRANS is authorized to intercept and withhold future payments due AGENCY from CALTRANS. C. The PARTIES will maintain and make available to each other all PROJECT related documents, including financial data, during the term of this AGREEMENT. PARTIES will retain all PROJECT-related records for three (3) years after the final payment voucher. 5. INDEMNIFICATION Neither CALTRANS nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage, or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by AGENCY, its contractors, sub-contractors, and/or its agents under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon AGENCY under this AGREEMENT. It is understood and agreed that AGENCY, to the extent permitted by law, will defend, indemnify, and save harmless CALTRANS and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought forth under, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, City of Palo Alto CIA No. D43CIASCL000X Page 9 of 13 inverse condemnation, or other theories and assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by AGENCY, its contractors, sub-contractors, and/or its agents under this AGREEMENT. 6. RETENTION OF RECORDS/AUDITS A. AGENCY, its contractors, subcontractors and sub-recipients shall establish and maintain an accounting system and records that properly accumulate and segregate incurred PROJECT costs. The accounting system of AGENCY, its contractors, all subcontractors, and sub- recipients shall conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), shall enable the determination of incurred costs at interim points of completion, and shall provide support for reimbursement payment vouchers or invoices. All books, documents, papers, accounting records and other supporting papers and evidence of performance under this AGREEMENT of AGENCY, its contractors, subcontractors and sub-recipients connected with PROJECT performance under this AGREEMENT shall be maintained for a minimum of three (3) years from the date of final payment to AGENCY and shall be held open to inspection, copying, and audit by representatives of CALTRANS, the California State Auditor, and auditors representing the federal government during business hours with appropriate notice. Copies thereof will be furnished by AGENCY, its contractors, its subcontractors and sub-recipients upon receipt of any request made by CALTRANS or its agents. In conducting an audit of the costs under this AGREEMENT, CALTRANS will rely to the maximum extent possible on any prior audit of AGENCY pursuant to the provisions of State and AGENCY law. In the absence of such an audit, any acceptable audit work performed by AGENCY’s external and internal auditors may be relied upon and used by CALTRANS when planning and conducting additional audits. B. AGENCY, its sub-recipients, contractors, and subcontractors will permit access to all records of employment, employment advertisements, employment application forms, and other pertinent data and records by the State Fair Employment Practices and Housing Commission, or any other AGENCY of the State of California designated by CALTRANS, for the purpose of any investigation to ascertain compliance with this AGREEMENT. C. This AGREEMENT shall be subject to a pre-award audit prior to execution of the AGREEMENT to ensure AGENCY has an adequate financial management system in place to accumulate and segregate reasonable, allowable and allocable costs. D. CALTRANS, the state auditor, and the Federal Government, (if the PROJECT utilizes federal funds), will have access to all PROJECT-related records held by AGENCY or by any party hired by AGENCY to participate in PROJECT. E. The examination of any records will take place in the offices and locations where said records are generated and/or stored and will be accomplished during reasonable hours of operation. F. Upon completion of the final audit, AGENCY has thirty (30) calendar days to refund or invoice as necessary in order to satisfy the obligation of the audit. City of Palo Alto CIA No. D43CIASCL000X Page 10 of 13 7. DISPUTES A. PARTIES will first attempt to resolve AGREEMENT disputes at the PROJECT team level. If they cannot resolve the dispute themselves, the CALTRANS Chief Environmental Engineer and the executive officer of AGENCY will attempt to negotiate a resolution. B. If PARTIES do not reach a resolution, AGENCY’s legal counsel will initiate mediation. PARTIES agree to participate in mediation in good faith and will share equally in its costs. C. Neither the dispute nor the mediation process relieves PARTIES from full and timely performance of the PROJECT in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT. However, if either PARTY stops fulfilling PROJECT obligations, the other PARTY may seek equitable relief to ensure that the PROJECT continues. D. Except for equitable relief, no PARTY may file a civil complaint until after mediation, or 45 calendar days after filing the written mediation request, whichever occurs first. E. PARTIES will file any civil complaints in the Superior Court of the county in which the CALTRANS district office signatory to this AGREEMENT resides or in the Superior Court of the county in which the PROJECT is physically located. The prevailing PARTY will be entitled to an award of all costs, fees, and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees as a result of litigating a dispute under this AGREEMENT or to enforce the provisions of this article including equitable relief. F. Additional Dispute Remedies. PARTIES maintain the ability to unanimously pursue alternative or additional dispute remedies if a previously selected remedy does not achieve resolution. 8. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES It is expressly understood that this AGREEMENT is an agreement executed by and between two independent governmental entities and is not intended to, and shall not be construed to, create the relationship of agent, servant, employee, partnership, joint venture or association, or any other relationship whatsoever other than that of an independent party. 9. NOTIFICATION OF PARTIES A. AGENCY: Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Compliance Program Manager, e-mail: pamela.boylerodriguez@cityofpaloalto.org, Phone:(650) 329-2421. B. CALTRANS: Anand Maganti, Stormwater Coordinator, e-mail: anand.maganti@dot.ca.gov, Phone:(916) 210-9849. C. All notices herein provided to be given, or which may be given, by either party to the other, shall be deemed to have been fully given when made in writing and received by the PARTIES at their respective addresses: City of Palo Alto Pam Boyle Rodriquez 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, 94303 California Department of Transportation Division of Environmental Analysis - MS 27 City of Palo Alto CIA No. D43CIASCL000X Page 11 of 13 Attention: [Anand Maganti] 1120 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814-5680 City of Palo Alto CIA No. D43CIASCL000X Page 12 of 13 SECTION III ATTACHMENTS The following attachments are incorporated into and are made a part of this AGREEMENT by this reference and attachment. I. AGENCY Resolution, Certification of Approval, order, motion, ordinance or other similar document from the local governing body authorizing execution of the AGREEMENT. II. Scope of Work, Description, Schedule, Location and Budget. SECTION IV- SIGNATURES Signatories may execute this AGREEMENT through individual signature pages provided that each signature is an original. This AGREEMENT is not fully executed until all original signatures are attached. PARTIES are empowered by California Streets and Highways Code (SHC) sections 114 and 130 to enter into this AGREEMENT and have delegated to the undersigned the authority to execute this AGREEMENT on behalf of the respective agencies and covenant to have followed all the necessary legal requirements to validly execute this AGREEMENT. STATE OF CALIFORNIA City of Palo Alto DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Signature: Signature: Print Name: ANAND MAGANTI Print Name: Ed Shikada Title: Stormwater Coordinator Title: City Manager Date: Date: Signature: Print Name: HARDEEP TAKHAR Title: Acting Assistant Chief, Division of Environmental Analysis Date: Signature: : Print Name: PHIL STOLARSKI Title: Chief, Division of Environmental Analysis Date: ATTACHMENT I: City of Palo Resolution 1 ATTACHMENT II SCOPE SUMMARY City of Palo Alto Embarcadero Trash Capture Device Project Introduction The Embarcadero Trash Capture Device Project (Project) is designed to treat a total drainage area of 189.3 acres, which includes 168.8 acres of City of Palo Alto (City) right‐of‐way (ROW) and 20.5 acres of Significant Trash Generating Area (STGA) in CA Department of Transportation (Caltrans) ROW. The City will receive 100% reduction credit for this drainage area, increasing City‐wide trash reduction from 80% to 85%, a significant increase toward the trash reduction permit requirement. Caltrans will also receive compliance credits for trash reduction for the Caltrans drainage area and for providing funding toward this Project. In addition to trash, the Project will also remove PCBs and Mercury Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) pollutants from stormwater runoff. Background Caltrans is required by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) to address trash generated in their right‐of‐way (ROW). Caltrans’ State Stormwater Permit issued by the State Water Board allows Caltrans to partner with local municipalities by providing funding for regional water quality treatment facilities in significant trash generating areas (as identified in the Caltrans Statewide Trash Implementation Plan). Caltrans receives trash reduction compliance credits for contributions to regional projects. The City of Palo Alto (City) is required to comply with the San Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Order R2‐2015‐0049), also known as the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). The MRP outlines various requirements for protecting the City’s storm drain system and local receiving waters from pollutants commonly found in urban stormwater runoff, including trash and other priority pollutants like PCBs and mercury. The MRP requires that the 76 Permittees (including the City) meet the goal of 100 percent trash load reduction, or no adverse impact to receiving waters from trash, by July 1, 2022. This deadline is expected to be extended to July 1, 2025 in the next MRP. In addition, the MRP requires Permittees to address significant PCB and mercury load reductions to the San Francisco Bay each permit term per the Total Maximum Daily Loads adopted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water quality objectives were established in each TMDL to protect beneficial uses of the San Francisco Bay. PCB and mercury concentrations are highly associated with sediments, leading to bioaccumulation and biomagnification along the food chain. Consequently, the consumption of some fish in San Francisco Bay can be a threat to human health given the elevated levels of PCBs and mercury in fish tissue. This TCD will not only capture trash but also reduce PCB and mercury pollutant loads by capturing sediment. Project Details The Project is located in front of the City’s Baylands Golf Links at the end of Embarcadero Road east of Highway 101 (Figures 1 & 2). This location has been preliminarily identified as an adequate site location with limited site constraints, as the City intends to avoid trees, overhead powerlines, and utilities. The contributing drainage area ‐ made up of the following land use classifications: old 2 commercial/City transportation; new urban; open space (section of Baylands Golf Links); and Caltrans transportation (section of Highway 101 and two cloverleafs) ‐ totals 189.3 acres. The total drainage area includes 168.8 acres of City ROW and 20.5 acres of Significant Trash Generating Area (STGA) in CA Department of Transportation (Caltrans) ROW (Figure 3). In addition, this Project will reduce approximately 0.64 grams of PCBs (0.50 grams from the City’s jurisdictional area and 0.14 grams from Caltrans) and 1.76 grams of mercury (1.60 grams from the City and 0.16 grams from Caltrans) from the drainage area1. The proposed Project will consist of installing a large TCD, either a debris separating baffle box (DSBB) or nutrient separating baffle box (NSBB) within the existing City storm drain pipeline located in front of the Golf Links parking lot nearby Embarcadero Road. Both the BioClean DSBB and the OldCastle NSBB devices are considered herein near‐equal products. The devices are approved by the State Water Board as full trash capture and provide 100% capture efficiency. They are rectangular vaults with metal cages to capture trash and sumps with baffles to capture sediment. Both also include hydrocarbon booms to capture floating PCBs and oils. The boxes will be installed in‐line with the storm drain system. Flow will enter the structure; trash will be caught in the cage while sediment will settle in the baffled sump. After passing by the floating hydrocarbon boom, the clean flow will exit the system and continue downstream. Maintenance is performed through hatches or manholes at the top of the unit using a vactor truck. There is potentially high groundwater as the system is consistently partially full; therefore, it is necessary to have slide gates for maintenance. This will allow the device to be maintained without dewatering the entire storm drain system. Due to high water levels, it is assumed dewatering during construction will also be necessary. The Project will require encroachment permits for investigative work, and construction dewatering approval from the City. No environmental permits should be required, as the Project is anticipated to qualify for CEQA Categorical Exemption. 1 Load reduction estimates based on methodology used in Source Control Load Reduction Accounting for Reasonable Assurance Analysis (BASMAA 2020). Load reductions to be confirmed when project commences. 3 Figure 1. Watershed View of TCD Location Figure 2. Up‐Close View of Approximate TCD Location (TCD to be placed in‐line of storm drain system in the grassy area shown in image) 4 Figure 3. Project Drainage Area totals 189.3 acres: 168.8 acres of City ROW and 20.5 acres of Significant Trash Generating Area in Caltrans ROW Cost Estimate The total Project cost for design and construction is estimated to range from $598,000 to $613,000, depending on the type of trash capture device that is installed (to be determined by consulting with pertinent City staff during the design phase) based on additional information obtained during the final design process. Caltrans will fund both the construction and final design phases regardless of which type of trash capture device is installed, with the City of Palo Alto funding the long‐term operations and maintenance (estimated at a total of $272,000 over 50 years). The following planning‐level cost estimate has been prepared through a preliminary cost estimate by consulting firm, Schaaf & Wheeler. These estimates consider the costs associated with design, 5 preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, excavation, shoring, construction dewatering, construction, construction administration and inspections, contingency, bonding, and mobilization. Land acquisition is not necessary for this Project. Cost estimates do not include staff time or any equipment that may be used by the City during the Project. The Project costs are broken down in the next three tables based on design and construction. Table 1 provides a general overview of costs for the final design and construction administration. Tables 2 and 3 provide the conceptual construction costs for both device types (OldCastle NSBB and BioClean DSBB, respectively). There is little difference between the two construction options, and final design will relative costs will be based on market rates at time of construction and bidding. Actual costs may vary from these estimates, as additional information is needed for the final design and construction. Table 1. Overview of Final Design Costs2 Table 2. Conceptual Construction Cost Estimate using Oldcastle's NSBB2 2 Notes: This estimate of construction cost is a professional opinion, based upon the engineer's experience with the design and construction of similar projects. It is prepared only as a guide and is based upon incomplete information. The estimate is subject to change. Schaaf & Wheeler makes no warranty, whether expressed or implied, that the actual costs will not vary from these estimated costs and assumes no liability for such variances. This estimate specifically excludes any costs associated with designing for, handling and disposal of hazardous wastes and contaminated materials. Costs associated with land, right‐of‐way, or easement purchase are not included. Permitting costs are excluded. 6 Table 3. Conceptual Construction Cost Estimate using Bio Clean's DSBB2 7 Project Schedule A detailed Project schedule is included below (Figure 4). It is estimated that design will take approximately six months from kick‐off to Council Approval of the final Bid Set. Construction bidding and award are anticipated to last three months. Construction is estimated to take a total of three months from notice to proceed and occur entirely in the dry season. Figure 4. Project Schedule City of Palo Alto (ID # 12286) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/14/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Contract Amendment with Charles Sowers Studios. LLC for JMZ Artwork Title: Approval of Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number C19173445 With Charles Sowers Studios, LLC to Extend the Term of the Contract Through December 31, 2021 for the Fabr ication and Installation of Artwork at the Junior Museum and Zoo From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve amendment number 1 (Attachment A) to contract C19173445 with Charles Sowers Studios, LLC to extend the term of the contract through December 31, 2021 for the completion of the artwork at the Junior Museum and Zoo. Background The Public Art Program launched an open call to artists for the Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) site in December 2016. The selection panel of key stakeholders met in April 2017 and recommended Charles Sowers as the project artist. Sowers was approved by the Public Art Commission as the project artist on May 18, 2017 and entered into a $10,000 design contract funded by the Art in Public Places Capital Improvement Project (AC- 86017). He met with the design team, toured the JMZ facility, held a public information meeting at the JMZ, and explored various concepts for the site. The feedback from the design team was that the artist should primarily focus on the entry to the building or the approach from Middlefield Road to draw visitors to the site. On October 20, 2017, Sowers met with the design team and key stakeholders to discuss three potential concepts to develop for the Junior Museum and Zoo project. The team agreed that his “pendulum swings” concept was the most compelling and aligned with the JMZ’s science programming as well as drawing curious visitors to the facility. The design team and stakeholders felt strongly that this concept met and exceeded the goals set for the public art element. The Public Art Commission reviewed the concept and unanimously approved the pendulum artwork on November 16, 2017. The artist then developed that concept further, coordinating logistics of integrating artwork with the building in City of Palo Alto Page 2 cooperation with the architect and project engineer. City Council approved contract C19173445 with Charles Sowers Studios, LLC on October 1, 2018 (Staff Report 9573). Discussion Artist Charles Sowers is nearing completion of the artwork at the Junior Museum and Zoo. The pendulums and pendulum frame were installed in 2020. The bumpers, flags, and lockout system were all installed in early 2021. The project was scheduled for completion in 2020, but the timeline and access to materials and equipment was severely impacted due to COVID-19. The final elements of the artwork are being fabricated and the braking system will take time to fine tune and make adjustments. The artists must complete this work and deliver final maintenance information in order to receive his final payment of 20% of the contract amount. An extension of the date is necessary for him to finish the braking system and develop the required maintenance documents and receive his final payment. Timeline The project is expected to be fully completed prior to the opening of the Junior Museum and Zoo in fall 2021 and the maintenance documentation should be submitted to the City by the end of 2021. Resource Impact The recommendation in this report is not anticipated to impact resources, it simply reflects an extension of the current con tract term, 12 months, in alignment with the revised timeline for a fall 2021 facility opening. The funds for the artwork were transferred from the Friends of the Junior Museum and Zoo in October 2018 to the Art in Public Places capital project, AC-86017. The remaining balance of contract C19173445 is programmed in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Proposed Capital Budget, Art in Public Places capital project. There is no change to the contract dollar amount of $157,500. Policy Implications Applicable Comprehensive Plan policies include: Policy L-8.5 Recognize public art and cultural facilities as a community benefit. Encourage the development of new and the enhancement of existing public and private art and cultural facilities throughout Palo Alto. Ensure that su ch projects are compatible with the character and identity of the surrounding neighborhood. Policy C-1.16 Provide arts, science and recreational activities that foster healthy children, youth and teen development. Policy C-4.5 Expand the space available in the community for art exhibits, classes and other cultural activities, studios and galleries and other activities made possible by technical innovation, while maintaining and enhancing natural areas. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Policy C-1.4 Promote City parks, open spaces, recreational facilities, libraries, classes and cultural activities for community members recognizing that these facilities and services build and strengthen community. Stakeholder Engagement Key stakeholders have been involved in the selection process and d evelopment of the artwork. Public meetings were held both with the Public Art Commission and a separate public meeting at the Junior Museum and Zoo to gather feedback. Environmental Review The City Council adopted a resolution approving a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program in accordance with CEQA for the new JMZ project on December 4, 2017 (staff report and action minutes). Attachments: • Attachment A: Contract C19173445 with Charles Sowers Studios, LLC; Amendment #1 Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 1 of 2 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. C19173445 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND CHARLES SOWERS STUDIOS, LLC This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No.C19173445 (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of June 14, 2021, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and CHARLES SOWERS STUDIOS, LLC., a California corporation, located at 732 Montecillo Road, San Rafael, CA 94903 (“ARTIST”). CITY and [CONSULTANT or CONTRACTOR] are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment. R E C I T A L S A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the provision of fabricating and installing original artwork at the Junior Museum and Zoo, as detailed therein. B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract in order to extend the term of the contract by one year, from December 30, 2020 to December 30, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic temporarily delayed work on this project. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree: SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment: a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean Contract No. C19173445 between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated May 14, 2018. b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract. SECTION 2. Section 2. “TERM” of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: “The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through December 30, 2021 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 23 of this Agreement.” SECTION 3. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference. (SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.) DocuSign Envelope ID: AA7F2443-9D54-41E3-AED7-F7B41FABF573 Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 2 of 2 SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney or designee CHARLES SOWERS STUDIOS, LLC. Officer 1 By: Name: Title: Attachments: None DocuSign Envelope ID: AA7F2443-9D54-41E3-AED7-F7B41FABF573 Charles Sowers President City of Palo Alto (ID # 12287) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/14/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Third Quarter Financial Status & Budget Amendment Title: Accept the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Third Quarter Financial Status Report and Approve the FY 2021 Budget Amendment in the General Fund From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative S ervices RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review and: 1) Accept the Third Quarter financial report 2) Amend the FY 2021 Budget Appropriation in the General Fund (2/3 vote required) by: a) Increasing the estimate for Revenue from other Agencies in the amount of $6,850,000; and b) Establishing an appropriation for the American Rescue Program Act of 2021 (ARPA) Reserve in the Non-Departmental Budget. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff brings forward quarterly financial status reports to provide the City Counci l with an update of revenue and expense trends and with information of the City’s overall financial condition. This third quarter report converges with the FY 2022 Budget Process and is one of the many touch points throughout the year that communicates the City’s overall financial condition, identifies trends and any potential adjustments needed to align the City’s revenue resources with the cost of providing services. The focus of this report is third quarter financial results of the General Fund; howeve r, as is typical of these reports, staff has also reviewed Enterprise Funds and Other Funds. Overall, funds are expected to remain within or below budgeted estimates, will all funds projected to end with a positive balance by year end, June 30, 2021. Staff provided a preliminary estimate in early May 2021 to the Finance Committee identifying and approximately $2 to $3.5 million surplus in the General Fund and after reviewing all Q3 data, staff remain optimistic that the General Fund will end with an even larger excess by year end as the local economy shows positive signs in some sectors. This reflects excess funds above targets identified in the FY 2021 Mid-Year Budget review (CMR 11872). While the COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact out City of Palo Alto Page 2 of town travel and hotel activity within the City, loosened social distancing and shelter -in-place directives from the County of Santa Clara have significantly improved local economic activity. As the City and County moves through and adapts through these various phases, the City operations are modified to respond to and best support and serve the community. Adjustmen ts taken in the mid-year review represent that and the City’s ability to expand and contract specific service areas to prioritize community needs. Often, staff continues to find tension in resource availability and demands for extreme flexibility in an environment that requires that services are modified at a nimble pace. The safety of the community and employees are highly considered as this pandemic continues to evolve. BACKGROUND To once again recognize the severity of the public health emergency, its impacts on the City’s financial situation, and hard work by the City Council and staff to navigate through the impacts of the pandemic, in Spring 2020 the City Council directed staff to assume a more conservative revenue estimate to build the FY 2021 budget (CMR 11315). This financial balancing scenario reflected a loss of $39 million in General Fund tax revenues from previously projected levels prior to the onset of the pandemic. As a result of the City Council’s direction, in order to align expenses with lower revenue estimates staff returned with service reductions to prioritize essential services and pare back on discretionary services. More than 60 percent of the General Fund budget funds the workforce that delivers the City’s services every day; staff and resource reductions were unavoidable. The General Fund workforce was reduced by 11 .3 percent, as 83 full time staffing positions (76.5 FTE) and 107 part -time positions (26.18 FTE) were frozen and defunded. These reductions represent an overall 18 percent reduction-in-force that delivers services to the community. As the organization and community moves through the pandemic and resulting financial impacts, more robust financial reporting and information. These updates provide routine opportunities to review services and identify any changes in priorities. In addition, forecasts for FY 2022 and beyond have been discussed with the City Council to assist in providing a longer outlook beyond June 30, 2021 and begin work on planning for FY 2022 and the continued contraction of available resources. Prior staff reports providing various fiscal updates for Council deliberations are below. This does not include information items that have been distributed for quarterly reporting such as investments. • October 19, 2020, City Council (CMR 11596): Preliminary Q1 Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Financial Status Discussion and Potential Direction to Staff on Budget Revisions, Staffing Revisions, and Next Steps in Monitoring, Modeling, and Addressing Recovery Planning Approaches • November 30, 2020, City Council (CMR 11790, meeting video): Study Session on Community and Economic Recovery Strategies and Engagement City of Palo Alto Page 3 • December 15, 2020, Finance Committee (CMR 11844): Review and Recommend That the City Council Accept a Preliminary Forecast for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 and FY 2022 Budget Development Guidelines • December 15, 2020, Finance Committee (CMR 11750): First Quarter FY 2021 Financial Report • January 19, 2021, City Council (CMR 11877): Provide Feedback and Direction on the Community & Economic Recovery Workplan and Approve Budget Amendments in Various Funds • January 25, 2021, City Council (CMR 11808): Update on Status of Capital Improvement Fund and Potential Direction on Prioritization of Projects for the FY 2022 Budget and 2022-2026 Capital Improvement Plan • January 25, 2021, City Council (CMR 11967): Provide Feedback and Direction on the Community & Economic Recovery Workplan Which Includes Four Focus Areas: Managing Through the Pandemic, Community Wellness and Wellbeing, Focused Business Support, and City Initiatives; and recommend Returning with Budget Amendments in Various Funds at the Mid-Year Budget Review • February 8, 2021, City Council (CMR 11954): Review the Potential Financial Scenarios and Direction to Staff on Development of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Budget, Review and Accept the FY 2022 Budget Development Guidelines, and Review and Accept the FY 2022 - 2031 Long Range Financial Forecast • March 1, 2021, City Council (CMR 11872): FY 2021 Mid-Year Budget Review and Approve Budget Amendments in Various Funds; Provide Direction on (a) Potential Rent Forgiveness Programs for City Tenants and (b) Waiver of the Business Registry Certif icate and Downtown Business Improvement District Fees Staff expect to continue these at minimum quarterly updates to the City Council to proactively focus on necessary budget adjustments to realign resources and costs of doing business as restrictions changes and the economic adapts. DISCUSSION This report summarizes the actual financial activity as of the end of the third quarter for the General and Enterprise Funds, March 31, 2021, compared those amounts to the same period of the prior year and to the FY 2021 Adjusted Budget. The General Fund Third Quarter Financial Report (Attachment A) provides a breakdown of revenues by source and expenses by function in the General Fund, with separate columns for Adopted Budget and Adjusted Budget. The Adjusted Budget column includes prior year commitments that were carried forward into this fiscal year and amendments to the FY 2021 Adopted Budget through March 31. Encumbrances and actual expenses for the nine-month period are also reported. Overall, year-end General Fund is expected end the year with a surplus in line with or better than estimates provided to the Finance Committee on May 11th, between $2 million to $3.5 million; with positive economic trends and tracking with consumer activity in recent months, City of Palo Alto Page 4 staff is optimistic that the General Fund will end the year with a greater surplus than conservatively projected. The majority of departments are tracking as expected in the mid-year budget review; any significant variances will be brought forward to the Cit y Council as part of the budgetary year-end close later this calendar year; adjustments for some higher than budgeted expenses are expected offset by reserve for transition costs and some citywide savings. As discussed with the City Council and Finance Committee during budget hearings in May, a large part of this year-end projected surplus is driven by improvements in major tax revenues. The City continues to monitor positive signs in property tax, sales tax, and documentary transfer tax partially offset by lower than expected revenues for transient occupancy tax, charges for services, and permits and license revenues. In addition to these updated revenue and expense estimates, the City has also received its first of two distributions of the American Recovery Program Act of 2021 (ARPA) funds in May 2021. The first distribution totals $6.85 million; the remainder of the City’s $13.7 million allocation will be received in May 2022. These funds are not reflected in the Q3 year to date actuals since they were received after March 31, 2021. Staff recommends that these funds be reserved in the General Fund in alignment with the current Finance Committee recommended FY 2022 budget for City Council consideration and ultimately adoption. This does not reflect new o r additional funds not already factored into the FY 2022 budget. General Fund Third Quarter Financial Status General Fund Revenue Highlights Table 1 highlights the General Fund’s third quarter major revenue sources compared to the prior year’s same quarter. Each quarter’s revenue is expressed as a percentage of the Adjusted Budget for each year. General Fund revenues (excluding operating transfers) for the third quarter totaled $113.8 million, 14.5 percent lower than actuals received the same period in prior year. Actual revenues received through the third quarter are tracking at 66.6 percent of the FY 2021 Adjusted Budget, compared to the FY 2020 actual to budget percentage of 62.5 percent. Shelter-in-Place directives from County of Santa Clara were put into place in late March 2020; impacts resulting from the pandemic significantly impacted FY 2020 fourth quarter revenues. The FY 2020 budget was adjusted in June 2020 to estimate these impacts (CMR 11328). City of Palo Alto Page 5 Table 1: FY 2021 Third Quarter General Fund Revenue (000's) 3rd Quarter Actuals Adjusted Budget % change FY 2021 %FY 2020 % Property Tax 8.8%$53,173 61.5%$50,576 59.4% Sales Tax -20.7%25,030 65.4%36,085 57.2% Charges for Services 0.8%24,414 73.8%30,267 59.0% Transient Occupancy Tax -84.7%4,830 51.8%26,555 61.7% Utility User Tax -9.3%14,080 76.7%17,572 67.8% Permits and Licenses -2.7%8,366 52.4%9,027 49.9% Documentary Transfer Tax 15.9%6,875 97.3%8,100 71.2% All Other Revenue Sources -14.0%34,062 65.4%34,629 74.9% Total Revenue -14.5%$170,830 66.6%$212,811 62.5% 4,384 4,506 $113,755 $133,064 6,689 5,770 22,289 25,931 18,009 17,872 2,500 16,378 10,797 11,908 FY 2021 FY 2020 $32,709 $30,054 16,378 20,645 Property Tax. At the close of third quarter property tax revenue received was $32.7 million, an increase of 8.8 percent over the same period in the prior year. This amount represents property tax is received from the County of Santa Clara during the second, third, and fourth quarters of the calendar year. Compared to the Adjusted Budget, these receipts represent 61.5 percent, 2.1 percent higher than the same period of prior year. The average annual property tax growth over the 10 years has been approximately 6.6 percent. The FY 2021 secured and unsecured property tax assessed values growth rates are 7.6 percent and 12.7 percent, respectively, an average of 7.8 percent. These higher assessed values reflect continued robust commercial and residential real estate markets. Historically, during economic downturn such as recessio n and/or COVID-19, impacts to property tax are delayed a year. FY 2020 actual property tax revenue was $51.1 million which included $3.9 million for Excess Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF)1 distributions from the County of Santa Clara. Though Excess ERAF receipt has steadily grown the last five years, excess ERAF is not considered a permanent local revenue source. In addition to the uncertain amount of ERAF revenue the City is to receive, the State is claiming that five counties (Marin, Napa, S an Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara) are calculating excess ERAF in a way that is contrary to state law where too much property tax revenue is being shifted from schools to other local agencies. Though the final resolution of this dispute is pending, the County of Santa Clara estimates FY 2021 gross excess ERAF for Palo Alto as $5.6 million and has set aside $1.60 million of this as the State dispute settlement amount, totaling a net $3.9 million in estimated Excess ERAF revenues. This is consistent with the City of Palo Alto’s practices to reserve any disputed amounts from prior years. The amount net the litigated disputed amount, is expected to be distributed by the County of Santa Clara and is reflected in current year end projected estimates which are expected to slightly exceed budgeted levels by approximately $1.0 - $1.4 million. 1 ERAF is the fund used to collect and disburse property taxes that are shifted to/from cities, the County, and special districts prior to their reallocation to K-14 school agencies. When the state shifts more local property tax than required to support schools these funds are returned and known as excess ERAF. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Sales Tax. As of the third quarter sales tax revenue have seen significant decline by $4.3 million or 20.7 percent, from the same period last year due to changes in consumer spending habits as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. This only represents seven months’ sales tax activity due to the timing delay in sales tax collection by the State and remittance to the City. The sixth and seventh-month’s payments were estimated advance payments and not based on actual sales tax collection. Actual performance for this fiscal year will not be known until August/September. Considering loosened social restrictions by the County and positive economic and consumer trends over the past few months, the revised outlook for FY 2021 year-end is positive and staff expects revenues will trend above FY 2021 Mid-Year Budget Review estimated receipts by up to $3 million by year end. Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). TOT revenues continue to be the most significantly impacted and reached $2.5 million only through the end of the third quarter, a decrease of 84.7 percent over the prior year. Due to the timing delay in receipts, this represents 7.5 months of TOT receipts. To date, recovery on hotel activity has been minimal and only one of the two Marriott hotels have slowly opened resulting in expected year-end receipts to fall below the FY 2021 Adjusted Budget and FY 2021 Mid-Year Budget Review estimates by approximately $1 million by year end. The open hotels average daily room and occupancy rates, as of March 31, 2021 were $115 per day and 36.1 percent, respectively. For the open hotels, occupancy percentage ranges from 11.7 percent to over 80 percent, however, the higher occupancy was at the expense of a deep decline in average room rates (declines range from 1.8 percent to over 68.0 percent). Year - over-year, daily average room rates decreased by over half, from $280 per day to $115 per day, while the occupancy rate has declined from 74.9 percent to 36.1 percent. Utility User Tax (UUT). Revenue for the quarter ended March 31st totals $10.8 million, a decrease of $1.1 million, or 9.3 percent from the prior year due to lower business consumption of water, gas, electric and electric and telephone services as a result of continued COVID-19 impacts. It is expected that UUT revenues will trend as expected at year -end. Documentary Transfer Tax. Cash receipts total $6.7 million, or 97.3 percent of the FY 2021 Adjusted Budgeted, and are $0.9 million higher than prior year receipts for the same period. This revenue source is volatile since it is highly dependent on sales volume and the mix of commercial and residential sales. For example, in this period there are several large commercial transactions on Page Mill Road and in the Stanford Research Park. The positive outlook of this revenue source remains, as actual receipts continue to show robust real estate sale trends and receipts are expected to exceed FY 2021 Mid-Year Budget Review estimates by an estimated $2 million by year end. This outlook is based on two additional months of actual receipts which continue to show the local residential and commercial real estate sales activity being robust. However, this is revenue is extremely volatile and difficult to predict with certainty. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Charges for Services. Through the first three quarters of FY 2021 is up by $0.14 million, or 0.8 percent of the same period last year, a timing difference for quarterly billing to Stanford University for fire and emergency services did not include $1.9 million in revenue in FY 2020 third quarter results. The FY 2021 Mid-Year Budget Review reflected reduction in budget estimates of $5.1 million in this category due to significant declines in activity, only partially offset by expense savings. In FY 2021, this revenue category is below target by $1.8 million due to: • Paramedic service fees decreased $0.7 million over the same period from last year due to fewer calls for service. • Plan check and inspection fees decreased $0.9 million due to fewer construction activities. • Program and classes decreased $0.9 million due to limited operations caused by COVID - 19 restrictions. • The decreases mentioned above were partially offset by the $0.7 million increase in golf course revenues. All Other Revenue Sources. Cash receipts for the third quarter has decreased $3.6 million or 14.0 percent, from the same period of last year primarily due to the following: • Facility and property rentals decreased $3.3 million due to lower facility rentals a nd number of tenants. The City has continued to follow the Santa Clara County order which has been extended up to June 30, 2021 and allowed tenants to defer payment of rent. • Parking violations decreased $0.66 million due to suspension of parking enforcement. In May 2021, the City received the first half of its total $13.7 million ARPA distribution, or $6.85 million. Staff recommends a corresponding revenue adjustment for this amount, along with an offset to the ARPA Reserve in the General Fund Non-Departmental Budget. The second half of the City’s distribution is expected in May 2022. General Fund Expense Highlights Table 2 highlights General Fund expenses by department for FY 2021 third quarter, compared to the same period of prior year. Each quarter’s expenses are expressed as a percentage of the Adjusted Budget for each year. General Fund expenses for third quarter are tracking as expected; year-to-date expenditures total $13.2 million or 9.5 percent lower than prior year and are tracking at 67 percent of Adjusted Budget which is slightly higher compared to FY 2020. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Table 2: FY 2021 Third Quarter General Fund Expenses (000's) FY 2021 FY 2020 % chg FY 2021 %FY 2020 % Police $30,241 $32,974 -8.3%$40,547 74.6%$45,249 72.9% Fire 26,178 26,859 -2.5%34,735 75.4%35,984 74.6% Community Services 18,929 21,649 -12.6%28,786 65.8%32,517 66.6% Public Works 12,656 12,493 1.3%19,984 63.3%19,983 62.5% Planning & Development Services 11,339 13,575 -16.5%19,612 57.8%22,597 60.1% Library 6,250 7,388 -15.4%8,655 72.2%10,582 69.8% Administrative Services 5,578 5,985 -6.8%8,338 66.9%9,050 66.1% All Other Departments 14,196 17,668 -19.7%26,320 53.9%35,258 50.1% Total Expenses $125,367 $138,591 -9.5%$186,977 67.0%$211,220 65.6% 3rd Quarter Actuals Adjusted Budget In response to COVID-19 pandemic, the City left vacant positions unfilled and reduced various operating expenditures such as travel and training, program and project consultants, and other contractual services. Therefore, departments are expected to end close to budgeted levels, some may exceed slightly due to unforeseen costs or transition costs not adjusted for yet. Staff has proactively planned for this and a reserve of $845,000 remains to address any higher than budgeted expenses by year end. As a service driven organization, the largest expenses are salaries and benefits. Total General Fund salary and benefits expenditures through preliminary of March 2021 are approximately $93.9 million, or 75.6 percent of the $124.2 million Adjusted Budget, compared to $98.3 million in the same period in the prior year. Excluding positions identified for freezes, there a re approximately 40 full-time vacancies in the General Fund which is currently authorized for a staff of 510.91 FTE. Police and Fire The expense budget for the Police and Fire Departments comprise approximately 45 percent of total General Fund expenditure s for the third quarter, which is consistent with prior year trends. The following is a table highlights Police and Fire salaries and overtime for the third quarter. Net over time cost analysis for the Police and Fire Departments can be found in Attachment B. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Table 3: Public Safety Salaries and Overtime Expenses (000's) FY 2021 FY 2020 % chg FY 2021 %FY 2020 % Police - Salaries $12,862 $13,425 -4.2%$17,713 72.6%$19,484 68.9% Police - Overtime 1,028 2,224 -53.8%944 108.9%1,842 120.7% Total Police 13,890 15,649 -11.2%18,657 74.4%21,326 73.4% Fire - Salaries 10,294 10,589 -2.8%13,529 76.1%14,131 74.9% Fire - Overtime 2,118 1,749 21.1%2,971 71.3%2,087 83.8% Total Fire 12,412 12,338 0.6%16,500 75.2%16,218 76.1% Total Public Safety Salaries & Overtime $26,302 $27,987 -6.0%$35,157 74.8%$37,544 74.5% 3rd Quarter YTD Actuals Adjusted Budget Police overtime is over budget as a result of unbudgeted vacancies for leave due to injuries or leave benefits as well as higher than expected requests for services which were subsequently reimbursed. This fiscal year, the Department initiated improved monitoring of overtime resulting in a 53.8 percent lower than prior year. However, the Department expects overtime to exceed budget through the remainder of the fiscal year. In anticipation of potential FY 2022 budget reductions, positions have been held vacant requiring increased usage of overtime to cover needed service delivery. In addition higher than historical workers’ compensation cases has required increase overtime for backfill needs as well. On a combined basis, salaries and overtime are 74.4 percent of budget through the third quarter of the fiscal year. The Department’s net overtime cost is $0.34 million after deducting the reimbursements and salary savings due to vacancies, analysis is included in Attachment B. Fire overtime is 21.1 percent higher than FY 2020 and 71.3 percent of the adjusted budget primarily due to strike team deployment to multiple California wildfires (August Complex, Glass, Fire, CSU, North Complex, Creek Fire and others). Over $1.0 million in reimbursement was recognized for these events in the mid-year budget; $0.3 million was received through March 31st. In addition, the Fire Department has deployed staff to support hospitals overwhelmed by COVID-19 and to assist in vaccination clinics. Fire salaries is 76.1 percent of Adjusted Budget is partially attributable to the extension of the Fire Department’s FY 2021 staff reduction plan to March 2021. Fire has successfully vacated all required positions through attrition as of this report however, the budget was not adjusted for this extension and therefore a technical adjustment will be brought forward at year end to appropriate funds for these additional costs. On a combined basis, salaries and overtime are 75.2 percent of the budget through the end of the third quarter of the fiscal year. The Department’s net overtime cost is $1.7 million after deducting the reimbursements and salary savings due to vacancies, analysis is included in Attachment B. Golf Course Operations City of Palo Alto Page 10 In response to Council inquiries, staff has provided a summary of golf course operations. The following table highlights the City’s golf course revenue and expenditure for the third quarter compared to the same quarter in prior year. Each quarter’s revenue is expressed as a percentage of the Adjusted Budget for each year. Table 4: Third Quarter Golf Course Financials (000's) FY 2021 FY2020 % change FY 2021 %FY2020 % Revenues $3,221 $2,255 42.8%$3,832 84.1%$2,531 89.1% Expenditures Operating Expenses 363 361 0.6%334 108.7%503 71.8% Contract Services 2,073 1,872 10.7%2,824 73.4%2,749 68.1% Debt Expenses 207 203 2.0%374 55.3%370 54.9% Total Expenditure $2,643 $2,436 8.5%$3,532 74.8%$3,622 67.3% Exceess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures $578 ($181)$300 192.7%($1,091) 3rd Quarter Actuals Adjusted Budget As of the end of the third quarter golf course revenues were up 42.8 perce nt, or $0.97 million over the same period a year ago and represent 84.1 percent of the FY 2021 adjusted budget and is offset by increased water usage cost and an increase in golf management cost, as per the City’s contract with the golf course operator, OB Sports. The third quarter ended with an excess of revenues over expenditures of $0.6 million. The FY 2021 revised outlook is expected to reflect an even larger revenue difference between fiscal years due to closure of the golf course in March, April, and May of the prior year during the County’s shelter-in-place order. Upon re-opening during the COVID-19 pandemic, the demand to play rounds of golf soared high resulting in revenues above the FY 2021 Adjusted Budget. Staff forecasts a $4.5million in revenue for FY 2021 in comparison to the $3.8 million Adjusted Budget. Overall, including forecasted increases in water irrigation costs due to dryer months and cost increases for the City’s operator, it is expected that year -end net excess of revenues over expenditures for the golf course will be approximately $0.7 million. Any revenue achieved in excess of the Adjusted Budget is shared with the golf course operator at a split of 80 percent to the City and 20 percent to the operator. Enterprise Funds Although the focus of this report is General Fund activity, staff also reviewed Enterprise Fund and Other Fund activity and trends. Overall, these fund types are trending as expected and no significant changes in estimates are needed are this time. Below a re summaries of activity in the Enterprise Fund as of the quarter ended March 31, 2021. Water Fund decreased $1.2 million, or 12.14 percent, from prior year due increase in operating expenses. The Purchase of Utilities increased $0.6 million or 4 percent in current year City of Palo Alto Page 11 attributable to 4 percent higher consumption. Other expense categories also increased during the year including engineering, operations and maintenance, rent and depreciation expenses. Electric Fund decreased $10.8 million, or 60.25 percent, from prior year due to overall decrease in revenues and increase in expenses. The Sale to Customers decreased $7.0 million due to lower consumption partially offset by $4.3 million increased of Other Non -Operating Revenue, such as Renewable Energy Credit Sales and Carbon Allowance Revenue. The expenses increased through the 3rdquarter by $8.1 million due to increase in electric supply purchases costs as a result of low hydroelectric supply, increase in administrative expenses and increase in spending on electric vehicle programs. Fiber Optics Fund decreased $0.14 million, or 12.34 percent, from prior year due to overall decrease in revenues resulting from lower number of customers caused by the ongoing pandemic. Gas Fund decreased $0.76 million, or 15.22 percent, from prior year due to decrease in revenues as a result of lower consumption and increase in operating expenses. Wastewater Collection Fund decreased $0.84 million, or 52.82 percent, from prior year due to overall decrease in revenues as a result of lower capacity fees and increase in operating expenses such as administrative and general expenses, and depreciation expenses. Wastewater Treatment Fund decreased $2.3 million, or 43.73 percent from prior year due to the decrease in State Revolving Fund Loan cost reimbursement for the Dewatering & Loadout Facility Project. The project was completed and closed in June 2020. Refuse Fund increased $2.8 million, or 175.02 percent, from prior year due to decrease in operating expenses resulting from deferred of reimbursement of costs of waste collection vehicles partially offset by the decrease in revenues for commercial and industrial customers as a result of the ongoing pandemic. Storm Drain Fund increased $0.46 million, or 21.33 percent from prior year due to 2.5 percent rate increase and partially offset by the decrease in operating costs. Airport Fund increased $0.15 million or 39.61 percent from prior year due to increase in tie down and hanger fees. RESOURCE IMPACT As of the end of the third quarter, the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve totals $35.8 million, or 18.2 percent of the Adopted Budget. This is slightly below the City Council’s targeted level of $36.3 million, or $0.6 million, below the 18.5 percent target. As noted above, staff expect the General Fund to end with a surplus in FY 2021, increasing the BSR levels. This assumption has been reviewed as part of the FY 2022 Proposed Budget process, and the City of Palo Alto Page 12 current recommended strategy allocated $2.5 million of the BSR for us e in FY 2022 for the delivery of services. This is expected to leave the BSR at approximately 17 percent, slightly below targeted levels. As noted above, staff is optimistic that the sign of reopening and increased economic activity will have a positive impact on year-end revenues which would assist in bringing the BSR back to target levels of 18.5 percent. The City Council’s COVID-19 Council Reserve, totaling $744,000, is maintained separate from the BSR. As of the publication of this report, the City C ouncil will consider use of this reserve to support the City’s Rent Forgiveness Program on June 7, 2021 (CMR 12234) consistent with its prior direction as part of the FY 2021 Mid-Year Budget Review. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Administrative Services Department staff have coordinated with all departments city-wide, the City Manager’s Office, stakeholders, the County of Santa Clara, and the City’s sales tax consultant, as appropriate, to consider elements to include in the City’s revenue and expense estimates that are discussed and recommended in this report. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This is not a project under Section 21065 for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). . Attachments: • Attachment A: FY 2021 Third Quarter Financial Report • Attachment B: Public Safety Overtime Analysis Q3 2021 ATTACHMENT A CITY OF PALO ALTO GENERAL FUND THIRD QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2021 (in thousands) BUDGET ACTUALS (as of 03/31/2021) Adopted Adjusted Pre % of Adj Categories Budget Budget Encumbr Encumbr Actual Budget* Revenues & Other Sources Sales Tax 20,500 25,030 ‐ ‐ 16,378 65% Property Tax 52,000 53,173 ‐ ‐ 32,709 62% Transient Occupancy Tax 14,900 4,830 ‐ ‐ 2,500 52% Documentary Transfer Tax 4,700 6,875 ‐ ‐ 6,689 97% Utility Users Tax 15,100 14,080 ‐ ‐ 10,797 77% Motor Vehicle Tax, Penalties & Fines 1,925 392 ‐ ‐ 599 153% Charges for Services 25,984 24,414 ‐ ‐ 18,009 74% Permits & Licenses 7,770 8,366 ‐ ‐ 4,384 52% Return on Investment 1,100 1,100 ‐ ‐ 823 75% Rental Income 15,949 15,331 ‐ ‐ 9,548 62% From Other Agencies 2,448 4,580 ‐ ‐ 1,773 39% Charges To Other Funds 11,992 11,992 ‐ ‐ 9,038 75% Other Revenues 674 666 ‐ ‐ 507 76% Total Revenues 175,042 170,830 ‐ ‐ 113,755 67% Operating Transfers‐In 21,359 21,251 ‐ ‐ 15,938 75% Encumbrances and Reappropriation 7,568 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Contribution from Development Services Reserves 500 500 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Sources of Funds 196,901 200,148 ‐ ‐ 129,692 68% Expenditures & Other Uses City Attorney 3,485 3,744 92 441 2,340 77% City Auditor 828 981 40 244 513 81% City Clerk 1,245 1,293 47 79 780 70% City Council 419 509 21 110 220 69% City Manager 3,161 3,562 10 201 2,579 78% Administrative Services 8,362 8,338 22 210 5,578 70% Community Services 28,362 28,786 123 3,359 18,929 78% Fire 33,607 34,735 69 498 26,178 77% Human Resources 3,554 3,622 0 99 2,648 76% Library 8,421 8,655 0 216 6,250 75% Office of Emergency Services 1,356 1,718 135 204 947 75% Office of Transporation 1,904 2,139 0 143 1,479 76% Planning and Development Services 17,386 19,611 154 2,041 11,338 69% Police 40,376 40,547 52 460 30,242 76% Public Works 18,397 19,984 640 2,366 12,656 78% Non‐Departmental 8,237 8,752 93 47 2,690 32% Total Expenditures 179,100 186,977 1,497 10,716 125,367 74% Operating Transfers‐Out 4,334 4,271 ‐ ‐ 3,220 75% Transfer to Infrastructure 13,467 9,001 ‐ ‐ 6,751 75% Total Use of Funds 196,901 200,249 1,497 10,716 135,338 74% Net Change to BSR 0 (101) Budget Amendments in the General Fund Authorized by Council thru 3/31/2021 FY 2020 Reappropriations to FY 2021: CMR 11526 (10/5/20) 0 Small Business Grant Program: CMR 11602 (10/19/20) 0 Institute of Museum & Library Services Grant: CMR 11676 (10/19/20) 0 Private Development Studies: CMR 11662 (11/9/20) 0 Urban Forest Master Plan: CMR 11700( 12/7/20) 0 Automatic Public Toilets Contract: CMR 11843 (2/1/21) (101) Mid‐Year Budget Review: CMR 11872 ( 3/1/21) 0 Total Budget Amendments Authorized by Council (101) FY 2020 Additional Ending Fund Balance: CMR 11880 (1/11/21) 2,826 BSR Balance 33,045 35,770 BSR % of Adopted Total Use of Funds 16.8% 18.2% Attachment B Q3 2019 2020 2021 POLICE DEPARTMENT Overtime Expense Adopted Budget (A)$1,776,500 $1,842,231 $944,186 Modified Budget 1,812,931 1,842,231 944,186 Net Overtime Cost - see below 185,811 441,197 339,258 Variance to Budget 1,627,120 1,401,034 604,928 Overtime Net Cost Actual Expense $2,604,366 $2,566,590 $1,027,516 Less Reimbursements California OES/FEMA (Strike Teams)36,431 - - Stanford Communications 91,001 110,177 52,472 Utilities Communications Reimbursement 46,158 54,086 27,054 Local Agencies (B)12,172 9,329 1,756 Police Service Fees 125,025 205,126 231,817 Total Reimbursements 310,787 378,717 313,099 Less Department Vacancies (A)2,107,768 1,746,677 375,159 Net Overtime Cost $185,811 $441,197 $339,258 Department Vacancies (number of days)7,538 6,192 1,136 Workers' Compensation Cases 24 30 14 Department Disabilities (number of days)217 700 1007 FIRE DEPARTMENT Overtime Expense Adopted Budget (C)$1,911,761 $1,672,872 $1,931,121 Modified Budget (D)2,093,761 2,086,872 2,971,460 Net Overtime Cost - see below 2,403,254 1,831,059 1,666,245 Variance to Budget ($309,493)255,813 1,305,215 Overtime Net Cost Actual Expense $3,047,510 $2,018,548 $2,118,431 Less Reimbursements California OES/FEMA (Strike Teams) 182,000 114,000 304,000 Total Reimbursements 182,000 114,000 304,000 Less Department Vacancies (C)462,256 73,489 148,186 Net Overtime Cost $2,403,254 $1,831,059 $1,666,245 Department Vacancies (number of days)1,229 173 669 Workers' Compensation Cases 26 33 14 Department Disabilities (number of days)343 227 387 NOTES: (A)The FY 2021 Police Department budget was reduced by the equivelant of 11.0 Police Officers (position "freezes") and $900,000 in overtime. (B)Includes Animal Control Services contract with Los Altos and Los Altos Hills. (C)The FY 2021 Fire Department budget was reduced by the equivelant of 8.0 sworn positions (position "freezes"). The overtime budget was increased over the prior year by approximately $200,000 to extend the cross-staffing of Medic 61 one year. (D)The FY 2021 Modified Budget includes overtime adjustments recommended as part of the FY 2021 Mid-Year review for Strike Team reimbursements ($1,040,339) Public Safety Departments Overtime Analysis for Fiscal Years 2019 through 2021 1 Kang, Danielle From:Rice, Danille Sent:Friday, June 11, 2021 7:27 PM To:Council, City; Council Agenda Email Cc:ORG - Clerk's Office; Executive Leadership Team; Boyd, Holly Subject:Council Agenda Consent Questions for June 14: Items 2, 3, and 6 Dear Mayor and Council Members: On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please find below the staff responses to inquiries made by Council Member Cormack and Council Member Tanaka in regard to the June 14, 2021 Council Meeting agenda. Item 2: Contract for FY 2021 Street Resurfacing Project & Budget Amendments Item 3: Approval of FY22 Community Theatre Partnership Agreements Item 6: Third Quarter Financial Status & Budget Amendment Item 2: Contract for FY 2021 Street Resurfacing Project & Budget Amendments (Question provided by Council Member Tanaka) 1. What distinguishes roads with PCIs in different ranges (i.e. 40s vs 60s vs 80s)? Pavement condition index (PCI) ranges from 0 to 100, with 0 representing a failed road and 100 representing a brand‐new road surface. Roads are rated with the following ranges: Failed/Poor with PCI score between 0‐49, At Risk between 50‐59, Fair/Good between 60‐79, and Very Good/Excellent between 80‐100. Segment PCI data is collected by City staff biennially and entered to Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) StreetSaver system. Data collected during the survey includes: cracks, pavement failure areas, raveling/weathering, rutting, etc. 2. Is the average age of the roads in question known? If so, what is it? The average age for the streets in this contract is 72 years. The average years from last major street maintenance (overlay/slurry seal/panel upgrades) is 23 years. 3. What future effects on taxpayers and city budgeting will this project have, if any? Annual street maintenance on streets keeps the streets in good condition and prevents the streets from further degradation. The average PCI for the streets in this contract is 44, well below the City’s average PCI of 84. A key principle in pavement management is that regular resurfacing avoids much more expensive reconstruction that is needed when streets are not resurfaced. This contract will repair and resurface the streets to prevent more costly future repairs. 4. Are there any potential transportation and traffic concerns that could arise from this project? There are no major transportation or traffic concerns. The work will be accomplished using methods to minimize traffic delays during the street construction. 2 Item 2: Contract for FY 2021 Street Resurfacing Project & Budget Amendments (Question provided by Council Member Cormack) 1. The scope of work also includes "Remove the truncated domes and restore the roadway at the intersections of Ross Road and Moreno Avenue, and East Meadow Drive and Ross Road." Can staff please explain what truncated domes are and what restorations will be made at these roundabouts? The improvements proposed at the splitter islands at Ross Road at East Meadow and Moreno are to address concerns/requests from GreenWaste and the Palo Alto Fire Department to remove the river stones in the noses of the splitter islands in order to make them fully mountable so that their vehicles can easily maneuver around the circles. Truncated domes are the tactile warning bumps on curb ramps and other transition surfaces used to notify visually impaired pedestrians that they are moving between pedestrian‐only spaces and spaces with vehicles. In this case, the truncated domes in the islands will be removed and restored with asphalt as the truncated dome placement in the splitter islands could cause confusion for the visually impaired. These modifications were presented at the February 24, 2020 Council meeting. The staff report can be found here. Item 3: Approval of FY22 Community Theatre Partnership Agreements (Question provided by Council Member Cormack) 1. The staff report doesn't clearly indicate what the terms of the original agreements are (although clicking through a few links does provide access to the contracts). Do the three organizations also pay rent or just pass through the two $2 fees per ticket? The Theatre groups do not pay rent for use of the Lucie Stern Community Theatre. A total of $4 per ticket goes to the City. The Patron Facility Use fee of $2 per ticket that was added in FY 2006 goes to the City’s General Fund and is considered to be compensation in lieu of rent. The additional $2 added to ticket prices in 2018 is specifically for facility improvements at the theatre. Item 6: Third Quarter Financial Status & Budget Amendment (Question provided by Council Member Cormack) 1. What are the Police Service fees listed under overtime net cost in attachment B? Police Service Fees in the Q3 Public Safety Overtime Analysis are attributed to special event fees in which the organizer pays an hourly rate for personnel presence, such as Police Officers at Stanford football games or in retail areas. These personnel rates are included in the FY 2021 Adopted Municipal Fee Schedule under the Special Events section in the Police Department. Thank you. Danille Rice Executive Assistant to the City Manager (650) 329‐2105 | danille.rice@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Rice, Danille Sent:Monday, June 14, 2021 1:55 PM To:Council, City; Council Agenda Email Cc:ORG - Clerk's Office; Executive Leadership Team Subject:Council Agenda Consent Questions for June 14: Item 6 Dear Mayor and Council Members: On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please find below the staff responses to inquiries made by Vice Mayor Burt in regard to this evening’s Council Meeting agenda. Item 6: Third Quarter Financial Status & Budget Amendment 1. Based on this report having been provided in the first week of June, will the FY21 Q4 update be available around the first of September? A Q4 report is not produced, final Fiscal Year financial figures are reported out as part of the year‐end report, typically provided in December, including the City’s full audited financials in the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. This reflects a typically extended timeframe for year‐end financial closeout activities, as well as staff capacity for production at this time of year. 2. The second paragraph of the Executive Summary states that “Overall, funds are expected to remain within or below budgeted estimates”. Does this statement refer to the Enterprises Funds and other Funds rather than to the General Fund? This responds to all funds citywide, and overall financials are trending as expected for the various fund types including Enterprise Funds, Special Revenue Funds, and other funds. 3. Staff had previously estimated a General Fund surplus of $2.0‐$3.5M, but more recently stated that they are optimistic that the GF will end up with an even larger excess by FY year‐end. What is the revised estimated range of the General fund surplus? Staff is not certain what the new range could be, as informed speculation based on economic trends and signs was used to determine $2.0‐$3.5M. At most staff would estimate an additional million in excess revenues/expense savings above the previous estimate, but that is a speculative estimate and Staff recommends staying with the current range. Staff expects to provide the preliminary figures (unaudited) in the preliminary Q1 financial report schedules for October 2021. 4. The various tables in the report refer to “Adjusted Budget” amounts in contrast to “Adopted Budget” amounts. To better understand trends, can the dates be included when “Adjusted” budgets were generated? This would be valuable as a routine reporting method. The adjusted budget is reflective of the reporting period that the report covers; for example, if in the Q3 report, the adjusted budget is as of March 31 of that year. 2 Budget adjustments can be made by the City Council at any Council meeting and are posted monthly for reference and consolidated review on the budget monitoring webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Administrative‐ Services/Budget‐Adjustments‐and‐Monitoring. 5. Table 1 “General Fund Revenues” provides valuable comparisons, although the FY21 “Adopted Budget” numbers are not included (they can be found in Attachment A). Can a similar table be provided that includes the initial FY22 “Initial” and “Revised” revenue projections? Staff expect to provide updates to the FY 2022 revenue and expense projections through the quarterly financial status updates during the coming fiscal year (both preliminary and formal quarterly reports). The FY 2022 revenues estimates were provided as part of the FY 2022‐2026 Long Range Financial Forecast and were updated through the proposed budget process with the Finance Committee. At this time staff has not completed a full refresh of the FY 2022 revenues estimates since these discussions in February 2021 through May 2021, and the next estimates are expected no earlier than October 2021 as part of the FY 2022 Preliminary Q1 financial Status report to be considered by Council. Staff also routinely adjust the revenue estimates as part of the Annual Mid‐Year Budget Review, or Q2 financial report which is typically scheduled in the first three months of calendar year 2022. 6. An ERAF property tax issue (pg 5) refers to the County setting aside $1.6M out of $5.6M in disputed revenues to Palo Alto. The report refers to “a net of $3.9M in estimated Excess ERAF revenues”, and that “This is consistent with the City of Palo Alto’s practices to reserve any disputed amounts from prior years”. Does this mean that the entire $5.6M is being reserved by the County and the City? No, the County has been inconsistent in it’s transmittal of excess ERAF funds, some years sending the gross amount and other years sending the net amount of the current dispute between the County and State of California. Regardless of how the amounts have been distributed, the City ensures that any disputed amount of excess ERAF is not recognized as revenues but rather reserved pending the outcome of this dispute. For example, in FY 2021, excess ERAF payments of $3.9 million are expected, this figure is the one staff uses for year‐end projections, and is consistent with the County estimate net of the disputed amount. 7. The section on General Fund Expense Highlights (pg 8) states that “a reserve of $845,000 remains to address any higher than budgeted expenses by year‐end. On June 7, the Council was informed that the additional anticipated increase in the Budget Stabilization reserve was due to higher both higher revenues and lower expenses due in part to vacant positions. Do the latest projections anticipate total GF expenses to be higher than projected or lower than projected and by approximately how much? This reserve ($845,000) for transition costs and any usage of this or liquidation of it has been factored into the year‐end expense estimates for the General Fund. Overall the General Fund is expected to achieve some expense savings by year end as is typical; however, that is the net result of some departments experiencing potentially higher expenses than budgeted appropriations and others achieving savings compared to budgeted appropriations. Departmental estimates are inclusive of any one‐time reserve or allocations of funding and the expected expenses or savings they may yield across all operating departments, including non‐ departmental activities and funds. 3 8. The Police Overtime section and Table 3 (pg 9) state that overtime has increased by ~$1.2M through Fy21 Q3 with continuing high overtime through the year‐end due to vacant positions. How does the extra overtime cost compare to what would have been the cost of filling the vacancies? Overtime has decreased between FY 2020 Q3 and FY 2021 Q3 by $1.2 million, not increased. This decrease may be due to a number of factors including attrition ramps, COVID‐19 impacts, offset by needs for public support for special assignments or ‘events’ such as retail detail support. Staff is unable to complete a calculation in under an hour’s worth of time to determine overtime cost versus full‐ time staffing backfill due to the varying causes for the need of overtime usage. 9. The Electric Fund (pg11) shows that higher expenses were partially offset by $4.3M in revenue from Renewable Energy Credit Sales and Carbon Allowance Revenue. Are these revenues anticipated to continue in similar amounts in future years? How do these revenues impact the net cost of City renewable electricity costs compared to the costs the city would have incurred from non‐renewables? Over the next five years, the Renewable Energy Credit (REC) Exchange Program is expected to yield around $2.5 million to $3 million, and Carbon Allowance Revenues are anticipated to remain at or near $3.0 million annually. The REC Exchange Program is expected to significantly reduce the cost of the City’s electric supply portfolio over the next five to ten years. Since the City’s renewable energy supply costs are all locked in through long‐term power purchase agreements, the REC Exchange Program is how the City can (a) minimize supply costs, (b) remain in compliance with the state’s RPS requirements, and (c) maintain a carbon‐neutral supply portfolio. See Staff Report 11566 (August 2020) approving the REC Exchange Program and its implications for the City’s electric portfolio and supply costs. Thank you. Danille Rice Executive Assistant to the City Manager (650) 329‐2105 | danille.rice@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICES OF THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY June 14, 2021 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Approval of Amendment Number One to Contract Number S20178065 With the OIR Group for Independent Police Auditing Services to Expand the Scope of Services and Increase the Contract Amount by $32,500 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $107,500 Recommendation The Policy and Services Committee and staff recommend that Council approve and authorize the Clerk to execute Amendment Number One to the contract with the Office of Independent Review (OIR Group) for ind ependent police auditing (IPA) services to expand the Scope of Services and increase the contract amount by $32,500 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $107,500 (Attachment A). Background Since 2006, Palo Alto has utilized an independent police auditor t o conduct secondary review of defined investigations of uniformed Police Department personnel and provide related services. Since the inception of the independent police auditing program, the City has contracted with the Office of Independent Review (OIR Group), to provide these services. Michael Gennaco and Stephen Connolly, the principals of OIR Group, provide services to Palo Alto. The City last issued a Request for Proposals for IPA services in 2014. At that time, three firms submitted proposals and the City again selected OIR Group as the most qualified to perform the services. The City and OIR entered into a contract for IPA services through October 2019. When the contract expired in 2019, the City and OIR entered into the current contract, which will expire on January 1, 2023. In November 2020, as part of a series of discussions regarding Police Department procedures, police accountability, and race and equity matters, the Council directed that the IPA’s scope of review be expanded to include review of: •incidents where an officer uses a baton, chemical agent, less-lethal projectile, canine, or Page 2 firearm (in addition to TASER uses, which have been and will continue to be reviewed by the IPA) • incidents resulting in an injury requiring treatment beyond m inor medical care in the field • the Police Department’s handling of Supervisory Inquiry Reports (formerly called Informal Inquiry Reports) (complaints that are sufficiently investigated and resolved through expedited review) In addition, Council directed that changes be made to the schedule of reporting to improve timeliness and accountability and indicated that it will meet publicly with the IPA two times each year. Finally, Council referred to the Policy and Services Committee consideration of whether the IPA’s scope should be further revised to include review of City investigations of uniformed officers arising from internal complaints regarding employee harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in the workplace. The staff report for th e November 2020 Council meeting is CMR 11754, the action minutes are here, and the final minutes are here. Policy and Services considered the Council referral at its meeting on April 13, 2021. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend the City Council direct staff to amend the IPA contract to include employee harassment, retaliation and discrimination claims within the IPA scope, and to research best practices to balance the needs of transparency and public oversight while preserving the anonymity of complainants, witnesses and the subject. The Committee CMR is CMR 12177, the action minutes are here, and the summary minutes are here. Discussion After the Policy and Services meeting in April, staff conferred with the IPA regarding the Committee’s direction to explore best practices to balance the needs of transparency and public oversight while preserving the anonymity of complainants, witnesses and the subject. The IPA assured staff of its commitment to maintain the confidentiality of employees’ identities and reconfirmed that the IPA will work with the City during the review of draft reports to identify and resolve any specific privacy concerns. The attached Contract Amendment implements the following changes: 1. Expands the scope of IPA review to include the following new areas: Page 3 o Incidents where an officer uses a baton, chemical agent, less-lethal projectile, canine, firearm, or any other force, resulting in an injury requir ing treatment beyond minor medical care in the field; o Supervisor Inquiry Investigations (formerly Informal Inquiry Reports); and o Employee complaints of discrimination, harassment or retaliation by a uniformed officer. 2. Amends the timing of reports to implement Council direction that reports be issued two times per year. 3. Provides for OIR to confer with Council two times per year to discuss trends in criminal justice and policing, policy and training matters, and recommendations made by OIR. 4. Allows for Council to request additional performance reviews on special topics, to be compensated by task order. 5. Updates OIR’s rates and adds compensation to account for the additional services. The amendment also reorganizes content for readability, and u pdates procedures to conform to current practice and legal requirements. Michael Gennaco of the OIR Groups is available for Council questions or concerns. Resource Impact The IPA contract is administered through the Clerk’s Office. The proposed Operating Budget for 2022 includes adequate funding for the expanded service level. Policy Implications Approval of this contract furthers Council direction to increase oversight and accountability in policing. Environmental Review Approval of this contract is not a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. No environmental review is required. Page 4 ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A: Amendment One to the Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Michael Gennaco DBA OIR Group for Professional Services (PDF) • Attachment B: Annotated Exhibit A (Scope of Services) with strikeouts and underlines showing changes from prior Scope (PDF) Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney Page 5 Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 1 of 4 AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO CONTRACT NO. S20178065 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MICHAEL GENNACO DBA OIR GROUP This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) to Contract No. S20178065 (the “Contract” as defined below) is entered into as of this _____ day of June, 2021, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and MICHAEL GENNACO DBA OIR GROUP, a sole proprietor, located at 7142 Trask Avenue, Playa Del Rey, CALIFORNIA, 90293 (“CONSULTANT”). CITY and CONSULTANT are referred to collectively as the “Parties” in this Amendment. R E C I T A L S A. The Contract (as defined below) was entered into by and between the Parties hereto for the provision of professional services, as detailed therein. B. The Parties now wish to amend the Contract in order to add additional scope and increase compensation. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the Parties agree: SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Amendment: a. Contract. The term “Contract” shall mean Contract No. S20178065 between CONSULTANT and CITY, dated December 16, 2019. b. Other Terms. Capitalized terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Contract. SECTION 2. Section 1 of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described at Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions conta ined in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. Optional On-Call Provision (This provision only applies if checked and only applies to on-call agreements.) On-Call Services will be authorized by CITY, as needed, with a Task Order assigned and DocuSign Envelope ID: 40D8185C-8CD1-4388-969C-A546BCBBC9C4 Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 2 of 4 approved by CITY’s Project Manager, as identified in Section 13 (“Project Management”). Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit A-1 (“Professional Services Task Order”). Each Task Order shall contain a specific proposed scope of services, schedule of performance and compensation amount, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. To accept a Task Order, CONSULTANT shall sign the Task Order and return it to the Project Manager within the time specified by the Project Manager, and upon acceptance by CITY, the signed Task Order shall become part of this Agreement. The cumulative total compensation due to CONSULTANT for all Task Orders issued under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of Compensation set forth for such services in Section 4 of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for services performed under an authorized Task Order and CITY may elect to, but is not required to, authorize work up to the maximum compensation amount set forth for such services in Section 4. Performance of and payment for any On -Call Services are subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. Additional Services (This provision only applies if checked and only applies to Agreements that specify an amount for Additional Services under Section 4 and Exhibit “C”.) Additional Services (as defined in Section 4, “Not to Exceed Compensation”) will be authorized by CITY, as needed, with a Task Order assigned and approved by CITY’s Project Manager, as identified in Section 13 (“Project Management”). Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit A-1 (“Professional Services Task Order”). Each Task Order shall contain a specific proposed scope of services, schedule of performance and compensation amount, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. To accept a Task Order, CONSULTANT shall sign the Task Order and return it to the Project Manager within the time specified by the Project Manager, and upon acceptance by CITY, the signed Task Order shall become part of this Agreement. The cumulative total compensation to CONSULTANT for all Task Orders issued under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of compensation set forth for Additional Services in Section 4 of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for Additional Services performed under an authorized Task Order and CITY may elect to, but is not required to, authorize Additional Services work up to the maximum compensation amount set forth for such services in Section 4. Performance of and payment for any Additional Services are subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement . SECTION 3. Section 4 of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A” (also referred to herein as the “Basic Services”), and reimbursable expenses (if specified in Exhibit “C”), (“Basic Services”), and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Ninety-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($97,500.00). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including specified reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event Additional Services (defined below) are authorized, the total DocuSign Envelope ID: 40D8185C-8CD1-4388-969C-A546BCBBC9C4 Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 3 of 4 compensation for Basic Services, Additional Services and specified reimbursable expenses shall not exceed One Hundred Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($107,500). The applicable rate schedule is set out at Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES.” Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amounts of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit “A”. SECTION 4. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended or added, as indicated below, to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which is/are hereby incorporated in full into this Amendment and into the Contract by this reference: a. Exhibit “A” entitled “Scope of Services” - AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS. b. Exhibit “B” entitled “Schedule of Performance” - AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS. c. Exhibit “C-1” entitled “Schedule of Rates” - AMENDED, REPLACES PREVIOUS. SECTION 5. Legal Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 6. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are terms of this Amendment and are fully incorporated herein by this reference. (SIGNATURE BLOCK FOLLOWS ON THE NEXT PAGE.) DocuSign Envelope ID: 40D8185C-8CD1-4388-969C-A546BCBBC9C4 Vers.: Aug. 5, 2019 Page 4 of 4 SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO Purchasing Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney MICHAEL GENNACO DBA OIR GROUP Officer 1 By: Name: Title: Officer 2 (Required for Corp. or LLC) By: Name: Title: Attachments: Exhibit “A” entitled “Scope of Services” Exhibit “B” entitled “Schedule of Performance” Exhibit “C-1” entitled “Schedule of Rates” Michael Gennaco DocuSign Envelope ID: 40D8185C-8CD1-4388-969C-A546BCBBC9C4 Principal, OIR Group Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 1 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE of SERVICES Independent Police Auditor Services CONSULTANT shall perform the following services: 1. Complaints by Members of the Public and Internal Affairs Investigations Intake – The CONSULTANT may receive complaints directly from members of the public. The CONSULTANT will forward a summary of the complaint and contact information for the complainant directly to the Department. If the Department received the complaint directly or initiates an internal investigation regarding sworn personnel, they will notify the CONSULTANT within (3) working days about the nature of the allegation(s). The Department and the CONSULTANT will review each complaint by a member of the public/internal investigation to determine whether a criminal component exists and proceed accordingly. Complaints from members of the public shall include Supervisor Inquiry Investigations, which are minor complaints that are sufficiently investigated and resolved through expedited review (formerly Informal Inquiry Reports). Complaints and investigations of internal personnel or human resources matters are not part of these Independent Police Auditor Services. Internal affairs investigations shall include employee complaints of discrimination, harassment or retaliation against uniformed officers, whether investigated by the Police Department, Human Resources Department, or an outside investigator retained by the City. Investigative Plan – As needed, the CONSULTANT will discuss the investigative plan with the Personnel & Training Coordinator and arrange for a mutually convenient way to update CONSULTANT on the progress of the investigation. Review – The CONSULTANT will review each investigation of a complaint by a member of the public and internal affairs investigation to determine thoroughness, objectivity and appropriateness of disposition within (10) working days. Follow-up – After reviewing the completed investigations, the CONSULTANT will confer with the Personnel & Training Coordinator to evaluate results and discuss any suggestions for additional follow-up. Disposition – When all aspects of the investigation are complete, the CONSULTANT will confer with the Police Chief to resolve any issues about the process, the disposition or the recommendations outlined in the investigation. Disposition shall be defined as “Sustained”, “Not Sustained”, “Unfounded” or “Exonerated”. Status and Tracking – The CONSULTANT will track each case through its conclusion to ensure that each investigation is completed in a timely manner. DocuSign Envelope ID: 40D8185C-8CD1-4388-969C-A546BCBBC9C4 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 2 Semi-Annual Reporting – Twice a year, the CONSULTANT will produce a written report to the City Manager and City Council. The report will contain a statistical breakdown of the number of complaints/investigations and any developing trends. The report will also contain the initial allegation(s), the findings and the number and type of recommendations made to the Police Chief. The report will not contain any specific information that would identify the involved officers either internally or externally. CONSULTANT Meetings – If requested by the City, the CONSULTANT will meet with the City Council, City Manager and/or Police Chief in order to discuss any trends. 2. Taser Deployment and Other Reviews The Department will promptly notify the CONSULTANT of each Taser deployment when any of the following occurs, regardless of whether a complaint is filed or the Department initiates an internal affairs investigation: (a) an officer deploys a Taser in an interaction with the public; and (b) an officer uses a baton, chemical agent, less-lethal projectile, canine, firearm or other force resulting in injury requiring treatment beyond minor medical care in the field. Once the Department’s investigation, analysis or report of such occurrence is completed, the CONSULTANT will review the Use of Force investigation related to the use of the Taser for thoroughness, objectivity and appropriateness of disposition. The CONSULTANT will make any recommendations on the investigation and findings. The CONSULTANT may also make recommendations to the Police Chief regarding training and policy modifications. The CONSULTANT will include a brief summary of CONSULTANT’S review of each Taser deployment such occurrence in their semi- annual report including the findings and any recommendations. In addition to CONSULTANT’s review of specific matters as set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, CONSULTANT’s reports shall include a statistical breakdown of the number of complaints/investigations and any developing trends. 3. Timing, Review and Transmittal Publication of Reports Department and CONSULTANT acknowledge that accountability and public trust are served by prompt, accurate and thorough Departmental investigations and CONSULTANT reviews. Department and CONSULTANT also acknowledge that the time required for investigation and review varies depending on the facts and circumstances, including availability of witnesses, investigative resources, complexity, and the existence of collateral proceedings. Department and CONSULTANT commit to use diligence and reasonable efforts to complete investigations, reviews and public reporting in a timely manner. CONSULTANT will produce two reports during each year summarizing its findings and reporting on each investigation and disposition. Effective June 1, 2021, CONSULTANT’S reports will be published as a City Council Information Report in February and August, except upon mutual agreement where unusual circumstances require. By December 1 for the February report, and by June 1 for the August report, CONSULTANT will transmit a Draft Report to the Department containing all matters CONSULTANT has completed since CONSULTANT’S most recent previous report. DocuSign Envelope ID: 40D8185C-8CD1-4388-969C-A546BCBBC9C4 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 3 CITY and CONSULTANT will coordinate and use reasonable efforts ensure the Draft is reviewed and finalized for publication in February and August. CITY reviews are for the purpose of completeness, accuracy, and compliance with law and procedure. CONSULTANT will consider CITY’s comments and will confer with CITY and attempt to reach a consensus. CONSULTANT will have final authority over the contents of the Final Report. If substantial issues arise with any matter, CONSULTANT shall consider pulling that matter for further work and publication in a subsequent report. 4. Meetings with the City Council Beginning in the second half of 2021, CONSULTANT shall meet with the City Council two times per year to discuss trends in criminal justice and policing, policy and training matters, recommendations made by CONSULTANT, and other Council concerns. CONSULTANT’S conferences with Council are not for the purpose of elaborating on published reviews of specific incidents and shall not include discussion of personnel matters prohibited by law. Semi-annual conferences shall be scheduled after publication of the CONSULTANT’S report, according to availability of Council and the CONSULTANT. Council may request that CONSULTANT conduct additional performance reviews on special topics, in light of best practices in the industry. At Council’s request and direction, CONSULTANT shall prepare an estimate of time and cost, subject to approval by the Mayor and City Manager on a Task Order basis and compensated as Additional Services. 5. Compliance with State Law The CONSULTANT will ensure that each and all produce of CONSULTANT’S reports and public comments which comply with the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (“POBR”), California Government Code 3300 et seq., and California laws on peace officer personnel records, California Penal Code 832.7 832.5 et seq. In furtherance of this obligation, CONSULTANT will ensure that reports and public comments do not contain specific information that would identify the involved officers either internally or externally, including names, specific identifying information, factual details, special assignments, reference to single-position assignments, or other indicators that, by themselves or collectively, are likely to lead to disclosure of an officer’s identity. CONSULTANT will provide a draft of the report to the City Attorney’s Office and the Chief of Police of the Palo Alto Police Department at least 14 days prior to its final submission for the purpose of review for compliance with state law. CONSULTANT will consider any suggestions from the City Attorney’s Office and the Chief of Police regarding the information contained in the report. Prior to finalizing each report, it shall be the CONSULTANT’s practice to discuss significant identified problems and recommendations with the Police Department and the City Manager. CONSULTANT will solicit the Police Department’s response to the report’s analysis and attempt to reach a consensus as to solutions. CONSULTANT will document the Department’s investigation into the incident and response to suggested DocuSign Envelope ID: 40D8185C-8CD1-4388-969C-A546BCBBC9C4 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 4 solutions in its reports. 6. Definitions Sustained – There is sufficient credible evidence to believe that the subject officer committed the act charged in the allegation and thereby engaged in misconduct. Not Sustained – The available evidence is insufficient to determine whether the officer did or did not commit misconduct. Unfounded – There is sufficient credible evidence to believe that the subject officer did not commit the alleged act. Exonerated – The subject officer was found to have committed the act alleged but the officer’s actions were determined to be lawful and proper. DocuSign Envelope ID: 40D8185C-8CD1-4388-969C-A546BCBBC9C4 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 5 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE Consultant shall complete reports for calendar year 2018, and thereafter for 2019 and 2020, 2020 and 2021. In calendar year 2021, CONSULTANT shall complete two reports, for publication in approximately March and August 2021, containing all matters completed since the last published report. In calendar year 2022, CONSULTANT shall complete two reports, for publication in approximately February and August 2022, containing all matters completed since the last published report DocuSign Envelope ID: 40D8185C-8CD1-4388-969C-A546BCBBC9C4 EXHIBIT “C-1” SCHEDULE OF RATES Michael Gennaco, $215.00 per hour Stephen Connolly, $190.00$215.00 per hour DocuSign Envelope ID: 40D8185C-8CD1-4388-969C-A546BCBBC9C4 Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: 40D8185C8CD14388969CA546BCBBC9C4 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: OIR Contract S20178065 Amendment One (final).pdf Source Envelope: Document Pages: 10 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 1 Initials: 0 Tricia Hoover AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 Tricia.Hoover@CityofPaloAlto.org IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Record Tracking Status: Original 6/2/2021 6:54:53 AM Holder: Tricia Hoover Tricia.Hoover@CityofPaloAlto.org Location: DocuSign Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Palo Alto Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Michael Gennaco michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com Principal, OIR Group Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 104.174.143.23 Sent: 6/2/2021 6:59:19 AM Viewed: 6/2/2021 8:40:46 AM Signed: 6/2/2021 8:43:19 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Witness Events Signature Timestamp Notary Events Signature Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 6/2/2021 6:59:19 AM Certified Delivered Security Checked 6/2/2021 8:40:46 AM Signing Complete Security Checked 6/2/2021 8:43:19 AM Completed Security Checked 6/2/2021 8:43:19 AM Payment Events Status Timestamps Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 1 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE of SERVICES Independent Police Auditor Services CONSULTANT shall perform the following services: 1. Complaints by Members of the Public and Internal Affairs Investigations Intake – The CONSULTANT may receive complaints directly from members of the public. The CONSULTANT will forward a summary of the complaint and contact information for the complainant directly to the Department. If the Department received the complaint directly or initiates an internal investigation regarding sworn personnel, they will notify the CONSULTANT within (3) working days about the nature of the allegation(s). The Department and the CONSULTANT will review each complaint by a member of the public/internal investigation to determine whether a criminal component exists and proceed accordingly. Complaints from members of the public shall include Supervisor Inquiry Investigations, which are minor complaints that are sufficiently investigated and resolved through expedited review (formerly Informal Inquiry Reports). Complaints and investigations of internal personnel or human resources matters are not part of these Independent Police Auditor Services. Internal affairs investigations shall include employee complaints of discrimination, harassment or retaliation against uniformed officers, whether investigated by the Police Department, Human Resources Department, or an outside investigator retained by the City. Investigative Plan – As needed, the CONSULTANT will discuss the investigative plan with the Personnel & Training Coordinator and arrange for a mutually convenient way to update CONSULTANT on the progress of the investigation. Review – The CONSULTANT will review each investigation of a complaint by a member of the public and internal affairs investigation to determine thoroughness, objectivity and appropriateness of disposition within (10) working days. Follow-up – After reviewing the completed investigations, the CONSULTANT will confer with the Personnel & Training Coordinator to evaluate results and discuss any suggestions for additional follow-up. Disposition – When all aspects of the investigation are complete, the CONSULTANT will confer with the Police Chief to resolve any issues about the process, the disposition or the recommendations outlined in the investigation. Disposition shall be defined as “Sustained”, “Not Sustained”, “Unfounded” or “Exonerated”. Status and Tracking – The CONSULTANT will track each case through its conclusion to ensure that each investigation is completed in a timely manner. Commented [SM1]: New scope: SIIs Commented [SM2]: New scope: discrimination/harassment/retaliation Commented [SM3]: Deleted per IPA as not consistent with practice. Commented [SM4]: Timelines and schedules have been updated and moved into a separate section below. Commented [SM5]: Deleted content consolidated and moved into subsequent sections. Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 2 Semi-Annual Reporting – Twice a year, the CONSULTANT will produce a written report to the City Manager and City Council. The report will contain a statistical breakdown of the number of complaints/investigations and any developing trends. The report will also contain the initial allegation(s), the findings and the number and type of recommendations made to the Police Chief. The report will not contain any specific information that would identify the involved officers either internally or externally. CONSULTANT Meetings – If requested by the City, the CONSULTANT will meet with the City Council, City Manager and/or Police Chief in order to discuss any trends. 2. Taser Deployment and Other Reviews The Department will promptly notify the CONSULTANT of each Taser deployment when any of the following occurs, regardless of whether a complaint is filed or the Department initiates an internal affairs investigation: (a) an officer deploys a Taser in an interaction with the public; and (b) an officer uses a baton, chemical agent, less-lethal projectile, canine, firearm or other force resulting in injury requiring treatment beyond minor medical care in the field. Once the Department’s investigation, analysis or report of such occurrence is completed, the CONSULTANT will review the Use of Force investigation related to the use of the Taser for thoroughness, objectivity and appropriateness of disposition. The CONSULTANT will make any recommendations on the investigation and findings. The CONSULTANT may also make recommendations to the Police Chief regarding training and policy modifications. The CONSULTANT will include a brief summary of CONSULTANT’S review of each Taser deployment such occurrence in their semi- annual report including the findings and any recommendations. In addition to CONSULTANT’s review of specific matters as set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, CONSULTANT’s reports shall include a statistical breakdown of the number of complaints/investigations and any developing trends. 3. Timing, Review and Transmittal Publication of Reports Department and CONSULTANT acknowledge that accountability and public trust are served by prompt, accurate and thorough Departmental investigations and CONSULTANT reviews. Department and CONSULTANT also acknowledge that the time required for investigation and review varies depending on the facts and circumstances, including availability of witnesses, investigative resources, complexity, and the existence of collateral proceedings. Department and CONSULTANT commit to use diligence and reasonable efforts to complete investigations, reviews and public reporting in a timely manner. CONSULTANT will produce two reports during each year summarizing its findings and reporting on each investigation and disposition. Effective June 1, 2021, CONSULTANT’S reports will be published as a City Council Information Report in February and August, except upon mutual agreement where unusual circumstances require. By December 1 for the February report, and by June 1 for the August report, CONSULTANT will transmit a Draft Report to the Department containing all matters CONSULTANT has completed since CONSULTANT’S most recent previous report. Commented [SM6]: New scope: uses of force resulting in injury requiring treatment Commented [SM7]: Restate standard order of work. The IPA’s review comes after the Department’s investigation. Commented [SM8]: Same IPA standard as used in Section 1 (public complaints and IA investigations). Commented [SM9]: New section adding specific requirements on timing of reports. Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 3 CITY and CONSULTANT will coordinate and use reasonable efforts ensure the Draft is reviewed and finalized for publication in February and August. CITY reviews are for the purpose of completeness, accuracy, and compliance with law and procedure. CONSULTANT will consider CITY’s comments and will confer with CITY and attempt to reach a consensus. CONSULTANT will have final authority over the contents of the Final Report. If substantial issues arise with any matter, CONSULTANT shall consider pulling that matter for further work and publication in a subsequent report. 4. Meetings with the City Council Beginning in the second half of 2021, CONSULTANT shall meet with the City Council two times per year to discuss trends in criminal justice and policing, policy and training matters, recommendations made by CONSULTANT, and other Council concerns. CONSULTANT’S conferences with Council are not for the purpose of elaborating on published reviews of specific incidents and shall not include discussion of personnel matters prohibited by law. Semi-annual conferences shall be scheduled after publication of the CONSULTANT’S report, according to availability of Council and the CONSULTANT. Council may request that CONSULTANT conduct additional performance reviews on special topics, in light of best practices in the industry. At Council’s request and direction, CONSULTANT shall prepare an estimate of time and cost, subject to approval by the Mayor and City Manager on a Task Order basis and compensated as Additional Services. 5. Compliance with State Law The CONSULTANT will ensure that each and all produce of CONSULTANT’S reports and public comments which comply with the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (“POBR”), California Government Code 3300 et seq., and California laws on peace officer personnel records, California Penal Code 832.7 832.5 et seq. In furtherance of this obligation, CONSULTANT will ensure that reports and public comments do not contain specific information that would identify the involved officers either internally or externally, including names, specific identifying information, factual details, special assignments, reference to single-position assignments, or other indicators that, by themselves or collectively, are likely to lead to disclosure of an officer’s identity. CONSULTANT will provide a draft of the report to the City Attorney’s Office and the Chief of Police of the Palo Alto Police Department at least 14 days prior to its final submission for the purpose of review for compliance with state law. CONSULTANT will consider any suggestions from the City Attorney’s Office and the Chief of Police regarding the information contained in the report. Prior to finalizing each report, it shall be the CONSULTANT’s practice to discuss significant identified problems and recommendations with the Police Department and the City Manager. CONSULTANT will solicit the Police Department’s response to the report’s analysis and attempt to reach a consensus as to solutions. CONSULTANT will document the Department’s investigation into the incident and response to suggested Commented [SM10]: New section. Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 4 solutions in its reports. 6. Definitions Sustained – There is sufficient credible evidence to believe that the subject officer committed the act charged in the allegation and thereby engaged in misconduct. Not Sustained – The available evidence is insufficient to determine whether the officer did or did not commit misconduct. Unfounded – There is sufficient credible evidence to believe that the subject officer did not commit the alleged act. Exonerated – The subject officer was found to have committed the act alleged but the officer’s actions were determined to be lawful and proper. Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 5 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE Consultant shall complete reports for calendar year 2018, and thereafter for 2019 and 2020, 2020 and 2021. In calendar year 2021, CONSULTANT shall complete two reports, for publication in approximately March and August 2021, containing all matters completed since the last published report. In calendar year 2022, CONSULTANT shall complete two reports, for publication in approximately February and August 2022, containing all matters completed since the last published report. City of Palo Alto (ID # 12271) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/14/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 340 Portage: Interpretation on Nonconforming Uses Title: Request for City Council Interpretation Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.01.025 Related to Nonconforming Uses at the 340 Portage/3200 Park Site. Environmental Analysis: City Council Direction Regarding Interpretation of the Existing Code is not a Project, as Defined in Public Resources Code 21065 From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council provide a formal interpretation of Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) section 18.70.070(b)(2)(E) with respect to nonconforming uses at 3200 Park/340 Portage/Olive Avenue. Executive Summary The subject property at 3200 Park/340 Portage/Olive Avenue is zoned RM-30 (multi-family residential). The RM-30 Zone District allows for residential uses as a permitted use and a limited number of other non-residential uses with a conditional use permit. Most commercial uses (e.g. office, research & development, warehouse, and most retail uses) are not permitted within this zone district. In general, non-conforming uses existing when zoning regulations change are permitted to continue, subject to several restrictions. Restrictions include required termination after a period of 20 to 35 years. PAMC Section 18.70.070(b)(2)(E) provides a site-specific1 exception from this timeline for required termination for 3200 Park/340 Portage/Olive Avenue. 1 Although there are additional structures on the same lot as 3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portag e Avenue/Olive Avenue, staff understands this language to apply only to the specific building (the Cannery) referenced. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Attachment A includes a location map showing the subject building containing nonconforming uses. On February 11, 2021 the property owner, Sobrato Organization, sent a letter to City staff requesting clarification with respect to the allowed non-conforming uses at 340 Portage (Attachment B).2 Staff engaged in several conversations with the property o wner regarding possible interpretations of the site-specific language in the code, which are summarized in an April 22, 2021 letter (Attachment C) and in this report. The Director of Planning and Development Services may issue a formal interpretation of the Zoning Code, which can be appealed to the City Council (PAMC Section 18.01.025). Given the significant public interest in present and future uses of this site, staff believes it is appropriate for the City Council to provide an interpretation of the code. Background On December 11, 1995 Council adopted Ordinance 43143, amending the amortization date for nonconforming uses at 3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage Avenue/Olive Avenue to July 16, 2019 and establishing special requirements related to the continua nce of those uses beyond July 16, 1999 (limiting retail uses to 60,000 square feet and restricting noisy outdoor activities). On November 6, 2006 Council adopted Ordinance 49234, which eliminated a firm termination date but added a requirement to maintain the existing ratio of nonconforming uses in the building. The special requirements limiting retail uses and restricting outdoor noise were not amended. The Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.70.070(b)(2)(E) currently states: “(E) The nonconforming uses of the property at 3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage Avenue/Olive Avenue for retail, research and development, warehouse, and storage uses are permitted in approximately the same ratio of uses existing as of October 16, 2006, subject to the following limitations: (1) retail uses shall not exceed 60,000 square feet, and (2) truck deliveries and other noisy outdoor activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. weekends.” The requirement to maintain the same ratio of uses was added into the motion during the hearing to address at least one councilmember’s concerns regarding the removal of the amortization date and the sentiment that if the nonconforming uses are to remain, they should 2 The letter also highlights a potential internal inconsistency in the code, which requires both that non -conforming uses remain in the same ratio of uses existing as of October 16, 2016 (when there were 98,339 square feet of retail uses) and that retail uses be limited to 60,000 square feet. 3 Ordinance 4314 is available online at: https://tinyurl.com/Ordinance-4314 4 Ordinance 4923 is available online at: https://tinyurl.com/Ordinance-4923 City of Palo Alto Page 3 be similar to those existing.5 Staff had originally proposed to remove the 60,000 square foot limitation on retail uses, but this was also added to the motion during the Council hearing, without discussion of how to address the fact that existing retail uses in the building far exceeded that figure. Staff has reviewed the staff report prepared for the October 16, 2006 hearing and the minutes from the meeting. It appears the purpose of eliminating the amortization date was primarily to allow Fry’s Electronics to continue operating at this location. Fry’s ultimately ceased operation in approximately December 2019 and the space has remained vacant since then. In 2019 (as in 2006), the Fry’s retail space totaled 84,000 sf. The fact that the former Fry’s space has been vacant is significant b ecause PAMC Section 18.70.040(b) provides: “[A] nonconforming use of facilities designed and constructed for nonresidential purposes which is discontinued or abandoned or otherwise ceases operation and use of the site for a period of one year or more shall not be resumed, and all subsequent use of such site and facilities thereon shall conform to this title.” The property owner contends that the Fry’s space should not be considered discontinued or abandoned (see Attachment D). The City’s longstanding practice, however, has been to treat a vacancy lasting one year or more as discontinuance of the use, under PAMC Section 18.70.040, regardless of a property owner’s efforts to lease the space. Therefore, consistent with the City’s long-standing application of Section 18.70.040(b), any subsequent use of the former Fry’s space must conform to the current RM-30 Zoning. The City reminded the property owner that the property was still subject to this requirement in a letter dated March 9, 2020 (Attachment E). One consequence of the discontinuance of the Fry’s retail use is that the potential internal inconsistency in PAMC 18.70.070(b)(2)(E) between the “same ratio” requirement and the retail limitation of 60,000 square feet may now be moot: regardless of how the City interprets the “same ratio” requirement, future retail uses in the building will not exceed 60,000 square feet. Discontinuance of the retail use also means that Council’s interpretation of “same ratio” for the building could impact existing nonconforming uses within the building regardless of whether the property owner chooses to make changes to the existing building . Nonconforming Use Ratios In 2006, the building included nonconforming research & development, retail, and warehouse/storage uses in the following amounts: 5 Minutes of the October 16, 2006 are currently not available online. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Use Square footage (sf) Percentage R&D 123,368 53% Retail 98,339 42% Warehouse 10,000 5% Total 231,707 100% In 2016, the City approved the following uses in the building as a sufficient approximation of the ratios that existed in 2006, and we understand this to be the status of the building as of January 2021 with the exception that the City understands the retail space, which was formerly occupied by Fry’s Electronics, to be vacant: Use Square footage (sf) Percentage R&D 142,744 61% Retail 84,000 36% Warehouse 5,639 3% Total 232,3836 100% Discussion The phrase “in approximately the same ratio of uses existing as of October 16, 2006” provided in Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.70.070(b)(2)(E) is subject to more than one interpretat ion. As noted, given the significant public interest in present and future uses of this site, staff seeks direct guidance from the City Council instead of issuing a Director’s interpretation which can be appealed to the City Council (PAMC Section 18.01.025). Below are two alternative interpretations of this phrase. Alternative 1 This phrase could be interpreted to require that the ratio among the various non-conforming uses remain the same. That is, any non-conforming uses of the building would always be a mix of retail, research & development, and warehouse uses. The property owner would not be allowed to have any retail uses unless there were also research & development and warehouse uses, and vice versa. Under this interpretation, if a particular use were to be abandoned or discontinued, or a portion of the building were to otherwise be demolished, then the remaining, non-conforming square footage of the building would need to be rebalanced to retain the same ratio among the non-conforming uses. As noted in the Applicant’s letter dated May 12, 2021 (Attachment D), this interpretation presents practical and legal contractual 6 The administrative record is not precise on the existing building’s gross floor area. City of Palo Alto Page 5 challenges, potentially requiring termination of existing leases with long-term tenants to rebalance the uses in the building.7 As the non-conforming uses in the 84,000 square foot space formerly occupied by Fry’s Electronics have been discontinued, an interpretation requiring the same ratio among the various non-conforming uses would result in the following distributions using the 2006 and 2016 baselines: Scenario Under Interpretation Alternative 1 Use Square footage (sf) using 2006 ratios Ratio of remaining, non- conforming sf Square footage (sf) using 2016 ratios Ratio of remaining, non- conforming sf R&D 78,285 53% 90,514 61% Retail 62,037* 42% 53,418 36% Warehouse 7,385 5% 4,451 3% Conforming Uses 84,000 N/A 84,000 NA Total 231,707 100% 232,383 100% In this scenario, the discontinued retail use (84,000 sf) must become a conforming use. The remaining portions of the building (147,707 sf or 148,383 sf) would need to retain a mix of the non-conforming uses. (Either the 2006 or 2016 ratio). *Retail uses may not exceed 60,000 sf; therefore, under the precise ratios in 2006 it is unclear how 2,037 sf of retail use could be used. Because the code states “approximately the same ratio” the remaining floor area would likely be allocated toward another existing nonconforming use in this scenario. Alternative 2 The phrase could also be interpreted to require approximately the same ratio of each individual non-conforming use to total square footage of the building (i.e. the discontinuance or removal of one non-conforming use does not affect the remaining nonconforming uses in the building). In this scenario, if a certain use (e.g. retail space) were to revert to a permitted use within the RM-30 Zone District, the other non-conforming uses could be retained but the ratio of th ose uses (i.e. Research & Development and Warehouse) to the overall building would need to remain approximately the same. Although this is somewhat less aligned with the precise language outlined in 18.70.070(b)(2)(E), this interpretation is more consistent with past implementation of the code citywide where the City encourages individual tenant spaces to revert to conforming uses. It also aligns with the City’s goals to reduce nonconforming uses. Specifically, the property owner would likely be disincentivized to bring a portion of the building into conformance if it affects other active nonconforming uses. Allowing acti ve nonconforming 7 If the Council adopts this interpretation, staff would be faced with a difficult issue of enforcement. Most likely, staff would recommend deferring enforcement and any required “rebalancing” unt il existing leases expired. City of Palo Alto Page 6 uses to continue in their same existing square footage, so long as they do not expand, eliminates barriers to bringing portions of the building into conformance with our current code. An interpretation requiring that individual non-conforming uses retain an approximate ratio to overall building square footage would result in the following distribution, using the 2016 baseline: Scenario Under Interpretation Alternative 2 Use Square footage (sf) Ratio of total building sf R&D 142,744 61% Retail 0 0% Warehouse 5,639 3% Conforming Uses 84,000 36% Total 232,383 100% As outlined in the Sobrato Organization’s letter to the City in Attachment D, the property owner agrees with the interpretation in Alternative 2. In this scenario, the current active uses could continue. These uses could not expand. Other Applications Staff acknowledges that there are currently other relevant pending applications and ongoing City efforts related to the subject property. These include the City’s proposed No rth Ventura Coordinated Area Plan efforts as well three applicant-proposed projects: 1) a request for a zoning code amendment to remove the language “in approximately the same ratio of uses existing as of October 16, 2006” from the municipal code; 2) a proposed multi-family residential project on a portion of the subject property, referred to as the 200 Portage Project; and 3) a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide the site into two parcels and for a condominium subdivision for the 91 units proposed at 200 Portage. These other pending projects are not the subject of this staff report and Council should refrain from forming opinions regarding these proposed applications. The purpose of Council’s interpretation is to understand how the current code affects the types and size of uses within the building, as it exists today. However, Council’s interpretation of the code may have implications that relate to these projects; therefore, for informational purposes, Attachment F includes a summary of these ongoing projects. Policy Implications Council’s interpretation of the City’s code with respect to the 3200 Park/340 Portage will provide clear direction to staff and the property owner regarding the allowed uses and size of City of Palo Alto Page 7 such uses in the building. Council’s interpretation of the code would not introduce new language that may have policy implications. Council’s interpretation of the existing code would not result in changes in use in the building. Without a legislative change (e.g. municipal code text amendment), the applicant would not be allowed to expand the square footage of active non-conforming uses in the building. Under Alternative 1, the square footage of active uses would need to be reduced in order to accommodate a future retail tenant. Under Alternat ive 2, active uses could continue with the same square footage restrictions. The building is not subject to the retail preservation ordinance under PAMC Section 18.40.180 because the existing retail use is no longer a conforming use within the RM -30 zone district. The building is within the City’s Annual Office Limit area and Research & Development uses are subject to the annual office cap. Resource Impact Council’s clarification on the interpretation of this code would not have a fiscal impact on the City. Timeline This code interpretation provides immediate clarity to the property owner and staff regarding the allowed mix of nonconforming uses in the building. Staff anticipates that the property owner would utilize the information to inform any future proposals for this property or to otherwise determine if the building is currently in conformance with the code. Stakeholder Engagement The City has received wide range of feedback with respect to the desired future uses of the site as part of the NVCAP process, which are reflected in the proposed NVCAP Alternatives. Environmental Review Council’s interpretation of the existing code does not qualify as a project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act as defined in Public Resources Code 21065. Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: February 11, 2021 Letter from Property Owner to City (PDF) Attachment C: April 22, 2021 Letter from City to Property Owner (PDF) Attachment D: May 12, 2021 Letter to City from Property Owner (PDF) Attachment E: March 9, 2020 Letter from City to Property Owner (PDF) Attachment F: Existing Active Projects Relating to the 340 Portage Property (DOCX) 132-39-071 132-39-043 132-39-042 132-33-033 132-32-034 132-32-033 132-32-028 132-37-044 132-37-042 132-38-046 132-32-026 132-32-025 1 132-33-042 132-33-005 132-33-004 132-33-002 132-33-022 132-33-045 132-33-043 PARKING GARAGE 199.7' 149.7' 65.6' 149.7' 65.7' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 49.9' 150.0' 150.0' 166.4' 3 2 . 5 ' 1 . 9' 108.2' 6.6' 270.2' 100.0' 10.0' 198.3' 100.0' 199.7' 98.9' 71.4' 90.0' 199.7'5 4.7' 26.3' 116.5' 55.4' 116.5' 55.4' 105.0' 25.0' 105.0' 25.0' 55.4' 116.5' 55.4' 116.5'55.4' 116.5' 55.4' 116.5'55.4' 116.5' 55.4' 116.5' 9.8' 69.0' 4.6' 45.4' 78.8' 50.0' 75.0'105.0' 75.0'105.0' 90.0' 550 120.0' 25.0' 4 7 .1 ' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 0' 45.0' 105.0' 50.0' 28.8' 105.0' 28.8' 105.0' 25.0' 105.0' 25.0' 105.0' 78.8' 55.0' 78.8' 55.0' 50.0' 51.6' 3.4'.1'.1'.4' 49.5' 105. 0' 50.0' 50.0' 60 30.0' 47.1' 25.0' 63.0' 139. 6' 50.0' 139. 6' 50.0' 754.2' 119. 7' 50.0' 119. 7' 50.0' 119. 7' 50.0' 119. 7' 50.0' 119. 7' 50.0' 119. 7' 50.0' 119. 7' 50.0' 119. 7' 50.0' 233. 0' 282.3' 116. 5' 151 . 0' 143.4' 50.0' 105.0' 105. 0' 50.0' 55.4' 116. 5' 55.4' 116. 5' 105. 0 50.0' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 137. 6' 158.7' 3 9 . 0' 88.7' 78.0' 7.3' 50.0' 103.2' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 116. 5' 49.2' 49.2' 80.2' 103.2' 79.9' 110.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 116. 5' 49.2' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 4 44.8' 90.0' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 55.3' 65.0' 79.4' 60.3' 79.4' 52.7'95.9' 50.0' 95.9' 51.8' 109. 3' 50.0' 109. 3' 51.1' 119. 7' 50.0' 119.3' 55.3' 105.6' 11 9 .7 50.0' 119. 7' 50.0' 119. 7' 50.6' 119.7' 50.0' 119. 7' 50.0' 119. 7' 50.0' 3 2 .0 ' 1 7 .5' 34.6' 97.9' 165.0' 137.0' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5'50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5'50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5'50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 48.7' 13 45.0' 131345 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5'134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 66.7'90.0' 4.0' 60.0' 54.0' 105. 0' 50.0' 221. 4' 221. 4' 186.2' 186.2' 159.0' 159.0'15 9 . 0' 159.0' 98.0' 98.0'159.0'159.0' 159.0' 159.0' 24.6' 24.6' 77.9' 77.9' 159.0' 159.0' 91.7' 91.7' 134.5' 134.5' 48. 8' 148.7' 51.0' 51.0' 148.7' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 150.0' 150.0' 99.8' 9 199.7' 165.4 85.1 34.6 150.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 149.7' 149.7' 149.7' 115.7' 165.7' 100.0' 50.0' 85.1 199.7' 149.7' 250.0' 98.8' 67.2' 166.4' 166.4' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 250.0' 20.0' 78.5'78.5' 198.4'291.2' 370.9' 188.2' 427.3' 13.9' 56.2' 123.4' 164.9 199.7 109.85' 458.75' 239.70' 150.05' 129.85' 308.64' 129.85' 102.65' 129.85' 102.56 129.85' 205.99' 129.85' 206.05' 478.7' 21.8' 109.8' 19.8' 38.4' 38.4' 15.1' 15.1' 43.1' 47.3' 50.2' 133.3' 49.2' 49.2' 92.2'92.2' 116.5'116.5' 110.8' 78.3' 22.4' 35.9' LAM BERT AVENUE EL CA MINO REAL EL D O R A D O E M E R S O N S T R E E T LA M BERT AVENUE C HESTNUT AVENU E ASH STREET BIR CH STREET BIR CH STREET PARK B O ULEVAR D AL M A ST R E E T ACACIA AVEN UE PORTAGE AVENUE P E NIN S U LA C O R RID O R JOIN T P O W E R S B O A R D RM PF PF RM-30 R-2 G M 20 LM GM (AD) CS (AD) CS This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site abc 3200 Park/340 Portage Building 0' 209' 3200 Park/340 Portage CITY O F PALO A L T O I N C O R P O R A T E D C ALI FO R N I A P a l o A l t o T 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 chodgki, 2021-05-24 13:13:50 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 857 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94133 | 415.364.0000 | lighthousepublicaffairs.com Jonathan Lait Planning Director City of Palo Alto City Hall, 5th Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: 3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage Avenue – Confirmation of Allowed Legal Non- Conforming Uses Dear Jonathan: On behalf of the Sobrato Organization, to support its ongoing marketing and re-tenanting efforts for the above-referenced property (“Property”), this letter requests additional confirmation of the zoning applicable to the Property. The Property is currently zoned RM-30, but is currently developed and has been continuously used for the following allowed non-conforming uses: retail, research and development/office, warehouse and storage uses pursuant to the following property-specific non-conforming use provision, Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.70.070(b)(2)(E) as follows: (E) The nonconforming uses of the property at 3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage Avenue/Olive Avenue for retail, research and development, warehouse, and storage uses are permitted in approximately the same ratio of uses existing as of October 16, 2006, subject to the following limitations: (1) retail uses shall not exceed 60,000 square feet, and (2) truck deliveries and other noisy outdoor activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. weekends. This provision was last amended on October 16, 2006, and Sobrato last obtained a determination from planning on January 19, 2016 its tenant Playground Global. A copy of that approval is enclosed for ease of reference. According to this provision and the 2016 interpretation, we conclude that the owner has the right to re-tenant any part of the vacant space in the Property with any of the following legal nonconforming uses in the square footages that existed as of October 16, 2006, subject to the limitations noted above with respect to maximum retail, truck delivery and noisy outdoor activities. We note that the property included approximately 98,339 sf of retail in 2006. With the 60,000 sf retail maximum, approximately 38,339 sf of the building is therefore unallocated. We conclude that this square footage can be allocated among the remaining allowed uses on an approximately proportional basis on a case-by-case basis. • No more than a maximum of 60,000 sf of retail; • Approximately 123,386 sf of research and development/office; • Approximately 10,000 sf of warehouse and/or storage. LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS 2 We would greatly appreciate your confirmation as soon as possible to facilitate the owner’s re- tenanting efforts. If you have any questions or it would be helpful to discuss by phone, please let me know. Sincerely yours, Steve Emslie Partner, Lighthouse Public Affairs Enclosure Cc: Ed Shikada, City Manager (Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org) Rachael Tanner, Assistant Planning Director (Rachael.Tanner@CityofPaloAlto.org) Tim Steele (tsteele@sobrato.com) Robert Tersini (rtersini@sobrato.com) Use Classification (Zoning): Occupancy Class (Bldg): Maximum Occupancy Load: CITY OF PALO ALTO - BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION 285 HAMILTON AVE. PALO ALTO, CA 94301 APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PURSUANT TO PAfv1C SECTION 16.04.120 & UBC SECTION 109 Application Number 15000-02594 Business Name 1'u41r 6rcaL4 AO 6 L.ob4 �.. Street Address 36.0-.3$p_. , -46c Ave Business Operator .G1-%tS (Pi- vet.4,AJ. Mailing Address Y0 e.. - ; Description of the proposed business (Note: food service establishments require Health Department review prior to Certificate of Occupancy application. Please contact Santa Clara Health Dept to obtain Approval to Operate Certificate.) Date 1 15: Contact Name (:)(1--q% Ylszw-- Suite or Bldg .# Phone # (.05C5-99;0-- 1556 Square Footage of Building / Spacf /A,t tzt . Floor/s Q 2 3 4 5 other Property Owner 31, ,e izgai ,6,Address Iaci N. Oe Avg a 43ivtlgx 2 - Are any tenant improvements currently proposed? Yes }0 No (If yes, a building permit application must be submitted) Is the storage or use of hazardous materials proposed? Yes No - (if yes, the HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CHECKLIST must be completed and attached) NOTE: 1. A one-time fee of $421.00 Is required for the processing of this application, which must be submitted Jn person to the Building inspection Division at the Palo Alto Development Center, 285 Hamilton Avenue, 1st floor.: If the application is approved subsequent to Building and Fire. Department inspections, an official certificate to be posted at the premises will be Issued and mailed to the business operator at the address above. 2. .If the proposed business Is considered a use Intensification with regard to required parking, a site plan of on -site parking may be required to verify parking compliance. • 3. All business signs for exterior building modifications must be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB), For information regarding the ARB pro : please contact the Planning Division at (850) 329.2441. 4, A rmft is re Ired for alterations to the building, plumbing, mechanical, or electrical systems. For Information on necessary permits, please ct the Bu . ing Inspection Division at (650) 329-2498. ignature. 1111.. —. -FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - Receipt# 1 (P4iC / F, � 0+0 �v V � S /1rr't' u' Zone District: PJ 1'1-3,0 Permitter{ or .Conditional use (circle one) CUP # (if applicable) Previous Proposed 00::ccC cA#A4rl{off ,(2-4.9 Review/Inspection Comments: Se•Z A7? ore rk--NrN Department Approvals Required:. Planning Division (329-2441): Fire Department (329-2184): Building Division (329-2496): by / V (,t / date ..Jai Fire e artment staff will perform site inspection Building Division staff will perform site inspection All Department approvals required prior to Issuance of Certificate of.Occupancy. • The S O B R AT O Organization December 23, 2015 Jonathan Lait Assistant Director Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue 5th Floor — City Hall Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Jonathan Lait: Sobrato Development Company, LLC Sobrato Builder's, Incorporated Sobrato Construction Corporation Sobrato Family Holdings, LLC Sobrato Family Foundation 3su� U4-0 Thank you very much for your attention into our new tenant, Playground Global, and their move into existing vacant space at 360 Portage Avenue. The vacant space was last occupied with office space not associated with the Fry's retail operation and a Fry's warehouse, which the warehouse has since been relocated to 230 Portage. The combined space totaling 35,517 sf was vacated prior to March 1, 2015. Pursuant to the provisions of 18.70.070 (E) Non -conforming use — Required Termination, indicates it generally applies to the larger Fry's site (3200 Park Blvd/240 Portage Avenue/Olive Avenue) and allows for retail, research and development, warehouse, and storage in the same approximate ratio of uses existing as of October 16, 2006.1 The following analysis shows that the R&D use proposed by Playground Global will remain consistent with this provision at the approximate overall proportion, and have the same parking demand as the tenant mix in 2006. 360 Portage New Playground Global Lease Area including mezzanine: Portion replacing prior office no parking change 19,063 sf Portion replacing prior warehouse 17,138 sf Total 35,517 sf 360 Portage Playground Global • Lease Area needing tenant mix offset: Net Lease Area needing tenant mix offset 17,138 sf 2,1_30-sf) h% 7 AP p n ve 15,008 sf ar S a ,-t , t (-7 re ce 1 Palo Alto Zoning Code provides that retail square footage is limited to 60,000 sf maximum 10600 N. De Anza Boulevard, Ste. 200, Cupertino, CA 95014-2075 P (408) 446-0700 F (408) 446-0583 www.sobrato.com 360 Portage Parking Demand (Prior Occupancy) Existing Warehouse (17,138 @ 1 per 1,900) 18 spaces 230 Portage conversion (5,000 sf retail 25 spaces to warehouse 5 spaces) 20 spaces Demo 7,000 sf retail service area (5 spaces per 1,000) 35 spaces Total 73 spaces Floor Area Analysis Playground Global R&D Parking Needs (15,008 x 4/1,000) 17-13v -b9-spaces-- Cviseq 6 Playground Global Parking Demand spaces Total Floor Area Changes (Prior Occupancy) 73 spaces Net Parking Demand Change (Reduction of Demand) (1-5' spaces) 1830.070 stipulates that nonconforming uses at the Fry's site be maintained in approximate proportion to the tenant mix in existence in 2006. The following table summarizes tenant ratios in 2006 and the 2015 conditions including Playground.Global's expansion into 360 Portage. Square Footage Comparison 2006 to 2015 Including Playground Global expansion to 360 Portage o Oct 2006 Percentage 2015 Percentage V+ R&D/Office 113,176 sf - 49% 135,315 sf 58% R&D vacant 10,192 sf 4% 7,429 sf 3% Retail2 98,339 sf 42% 84,000 sf 36% Warehouse 10,000 sf 5% 5,639 sf 3% Total 231,707sf 100% 232,383 sf 100% (source: 2006 occupied square footages verified by prior owner WSJ properties letter attached. Sobrato 2015 square footages based on current executed leases) This analysis supports the proposed use as compliant with 18.70.070 and confirms that the proportion of uses retains the same land use intensity as measured by parking demand, which also ensures that Playground Global's use will not create an overflow parking condition. 2 18.70.070(E) limits retail to a maximum of 60,000 sf Once again, thank your for your attention into this matter, Playground Global looks forward to obtaining the necessary interior tenant improvement approvals and moving forward with its tenancy of 360 Portage, Sincerely, Tim Sr. Vice resident Real Estate Development The Sobrato. Organization Cc: Chris Coleman Bruce Leake Andy Rubin Jim Baer Rob Tersini RECEIVING ea 0 d Q w( MR 0 o J CL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2441 CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2441 April 22, 2021 Tim Steele, Sobrato Organization 599 Castro Street, Suite 400 Mountain View, CA 94041 Email: tsteele@sobrato.com RE: 3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage Avenue; Allowed Legal Non-Conforming Uses This is in response to your letter dated February 11, 2021 and our recent conversations regarding allowed non-conforming uses at this property. Non-conforming uses are governed by Chapter 18.70 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). This includes not only PAMC Section 18.70.070, subsection (b)(2)(E), which you cite, regarding required termination of non-conforming uses, but also PAMC sections 18.70.020 through 18.70.060 regarding limitations on expansion, change, discontinuance, facility maintenance and facility replacement with respect to non-conforming uses.1 In particular, it appears that PAMC section 18.70.040, subsection (b), may now be relevant to the subject property. That section provides: “[A] nonconforming use of facilities designed and constructed for nonresidential purposes which is discontinued or abandoned or otherwise ceases operation and use of the site for a period of one year or more shall not be resumed, and all subsequent use of such site and facilities thereon shall conform to this title.” The City understands that approximately 84,000 square feet of the site, which used to house Fry’s Electronics, has now been vacant for more than one year. If so, consistent with the City’s long-standing application of Section 18.70.040(b), any subsequent uses of this space must conform to the current RM-30 zoning. Allowed uses under this zoning are outlined in Table 2 of PAMC Chapter 18.13. The remaining square footage on this site may continue in non-conforming use, but only in accordance with PAMC Section 18.70.070. That section generally provides that non-conforming uses are required to terminate within a certain timeframe based on the type of construction for the building, or within 15 years from the date the use became non-conforming,2 unless a site-specific exception applies. The subject property enjoys a site-specific exception in subsection (b)(2)(E), which currently states: 1 See the attached letter, dated March 9, 2020, from Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang regarding allowed uses on the site. 2 The site was rezoned to RM-30 by Ordinance 4315, which took effect in January 1996. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5440F8E5-BDF6-4493-AF39-A2C9C6B33241 CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2441 “The nonconforming uses of the property at 3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage Avenue/Olive Avenue for retail, research and development, warehouse, and storage uses are permitted in approximately the same ratio of uses existing as of October 16, 2006, subject to the following limitations: (1) retail uses shall not exceed 60,000 square feet, and (2) truck deliveries and other noisy outdoor activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. weekends.” As we have discussed in recent weeks, this language is susceptible to more than one interpretation. In particular, when the square footage devoted to non-conforming uses changes, there is a question about how to interpret the phrase “in approximately the same ratio of uses existing as of October 16, 2006.” This phrase could be interpreted to require that the ratio among the various non-conforming uses remain the same, such that any non-conforming uses of the site would be a mix of retail, R&D/office, and warehouse uses. Alternatively, the phrase could be interpreted, as you suggest in your February 2021 letter, to require approximately the same ratio of each individual non-conforming use to total square footage on the site (i.e. the discontinuance of one non-conforming use does not affect the remaining non- conforming uses on the site). The following tables illustrate these alternative interpretations: Baseline: The City understands that the uses on the site as of 2006 were as follows: Use Square footage (sf) Percentage R&D 123,368 53% Retail 98,339 42% Warehouse 10,000 5% In 2016, the City approved the following uses on the site as a sufficient approximation of the ratios that existed in 2006, and we understand this to be the status of the site as of January 2021: Use Square footage (sf) Percentage R&D 142,744 61% Retail 84,000 36% Warehouse 5,639 3% Alternative 1: As the non-conforming uses in the 84,000 square foot space formerly occupied by Fry’s Electronics have been discontinued, an interpretation requiring the same ratio among the various non-conforming uses would result in the following distribution, using the 2006 baseline: Use Square footage (sf) Percentage of non- conforming sf R&D 79,650 54% DocuSign Envelope ID: 5440F8E5-BDF6-4493-AF39-A2C9C6B33241 CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2441 Retail 60,000 41% Warehouse 7350 5% Conforming Uses 84,000 N/A Alternative 2: By contrast, an interpretation requiring that individual non-conforming uses retain an approximate ratio to overall site square footage would result in the following distribution, using the 2016 baseline: Use Square footage (sf) Percentage of total site sf R&D 142,744 61% Retail 0 0% Warehouse 5,639 3% Conforming Uses 84,000 36% Although staff believe interpretation Alternative 1 is most consistent with the plain language of the code, we acknowledge that it does present significant practical challenges. This interpretation would potentially require termination of existing leases to rebalance the mix of non-conforming uses. Meanwhile, interpretation Alternative 2 is more similar to typical regulation of non-conforming uses, which would allow existing uses to remain, so long as they do not intensify, when a portion of the site converts to a conforming use. In July 2020, you applied for a text amendment to PAMC 18.70.070, subsection (b)(2)(E), seeking to strike the requirement that non-conforming uses remain in the ratios that existed as of October 2006. At your request, staff suspended processing the text amendment following submission of an application for a housing development on part of the site. While staff is processing that housing project, there remains a need for staff to receive direction from the City Council concerning the previously cited code section related to the ratio of non-conforming uses at 340 Portage. Staff has tentatively scheduled this discussion for June 14, 2021. If you have any questions in the interim, please let me know. Sincerely, Jonathan Lait Director of Planning & Development Services DocuSign Envelope ID: 5440F8E5-BDF6-4493-AF39-A2C9C6B33241 Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: 5440F8E5BDF64493AF39A2C9C6B33241 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: 340 Portage (Sobrato) / Nonconforming Use Response Letter Source Envelope: Document Pages: 3 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 1 Initials: 0 Madina Klicheva AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 Madina.Klicheva@CityofPaloAlto.org IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Record Tracking Status: Original 4/22/2021 8:57:18 AM Holder: Madina Klicheva Madina.Klicheva@CityofPaloAlto.org Location: DocuSign Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Palo Alto Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Jonathan Lait Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org Interim Director Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Uploaded Signature Image Using IP Address: 99.88.42.180 Sent: 4/22/2021 9:02:28 AM Viewed: 4/22/2021 10:55:35 AM Signed: 4/22/2021 10:56:33 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Witness Events Signature Timestamp Notary Events Signature Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 4/22/2021 9:02:28 AM Certified Delivered Security Checked 4/22/2021 10:55:35 AM Signing Complete Security Checked 4/22/2021 10:56:33 AM Completed Security Checked 4/22/2021 10:56:33 AM Payment Events Status Timestamps 599 Castro Street, Suite 400 Mountain View, CA 94041 www.sobrato.com May 13th, 2021 Jonathan Lait Director of Planning and Development Services City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave., 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: 3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage Avenue; Allowed Legal Non-Conforming Uses Dear Jonathan, We received your letter dated April 22, 2021 responding to our February 11, 2021 letter and our recent discussions. This letter addresses a few items in your letter, and, if helpful, we remain available to discuss further in preparation for the upcoming June 14, 2021 City Council discussion. 1. Chapter 18.70 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Applies to the Uses. We agree with your finding regarding the applicability of PAMC sections 18.70.020 through 18.70.060 to the existing non-conforming uses (limitations on expansion, change, discontinuance, facility maintenance and facility replacement) in addition to Section 18.70.070(b)(2)(E). We have complied - and will continue to comply with - these sections in the operation and re-tenanting of the site. 2. There Has Been No Discontinuance or Abandonment of the Fry’s Space We must respectfully and strongly disagree with the suggestion in the letter that the space formerly occupied by Fry’s has been “discontinued” or “abandoned” for more than one year within the meaning of PAMC Section 18.70.040, subsection (b). To the contrary, we have remained diligent, active and continuous in our efforts to re-tenant the vacant space during the COVID-19 global pandemic, which has created enormous challenges and affected retail even more than most other types of land use. We note the City adopted a formal 180-day extension of land use entitlements and processing in April 2020, and while it does not apply directly it acknowledges the significant disruptive nature of the pandemic. Our diligent efforts included multiple requests for interpretation (and possible amendment) to assist in these efforts to you and your team, which unfortunately did not result in any clear direction regarding the Fry's space. We were also actively working with brokers and potential tenants, most notably extensive negotiations with Target. Attachment A summarizes the history since before we purchased the property in 2010, and our extensive efforts to re-tenant the former Fry's site. As you know, there is no specific definition of these terms in the PAMC or in any published City policies, and is made on a case by case, factual basis. We believe the facts and circumstances, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, confirm there has been no abandonment or discontinuance. We would appreciate your confirmation that the use has not been abandoned or May 13, 2021 Page 2 discontinued within the meaning of PAMC Section 18.70.040, subsection (b) at your earliest convenience. 3. Alternative 2 Represents the Most Consistent and Practical Interpretation We also appreciate you clearly laying out the City’s two alternative interpretations of PAMC Section 18.70.070(b)(2)(E). For the reasons stated in your letter, we concur that Alternative 1 presents significant practical and legal, contractual challenges and would require termination of existing leases to “rebalance” the site and significantly impact the economic viability of the property. We also concur that Alternative 2 is more similar to typical regulation of multiple different non-conforming uses – particularly those that are within an existing structure – and is how we interpret the ordinance to apply to our particular property. We anticipate submitting applications to relocate certain existing, allowed nonconforming uses within the building to alternate, more suitable locations in the building in the near future. Such changes will be fully consistent with Chapter 18.70, and we look forward to working with you on those efforts. If you need any additional information in preparation for the City Council meeting, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. Sincerely, Tim Steele Cc: Rachel Tanner, City of Palo Alto Claire Raybould, City of Palo Alto Albert Yang, City of Palo Alto Robert Tersini, The Sobrato Organization Steve Emslie, Lighthouse Public Affairs Richard Hackmann, Lighthouse Public Affairs Tamsen Plume, Holland & Knight Genna Yarkin, Holland & Knight May 13, 2021 Page 3 Attachment A • We communicated with the City as part of our purchase due diligence in late 2010, prior to the purchase of the site. The City provided a copy of an economic study of the Fry’s site and identified the 2006 site-specific non-confirming use provision. • We purchased the site in May 2011. • We continued to meet with Curtis Williams-Director of Planning, Amy French-Acting Assistant Director of Planning, Elena Lee-Senior Planner, Thomas Fehrenbach-Economic Development Manager and Steve Emslie-Deputy City Manager to discuss the Cal Ave and Fry’s study. The Planning Director indicated in a public forum the City does not expect Fry’s to occupy the site beyond 2014. • We met with City staff in December of 2012 and 2013 to discuss the California Plan and the City’s consideration of a possible new zoning designation for Fry’s should Fry’s not renew its lease, including CS mixed use. • Fry’s exercised its last 5 year option in December 2013. • We continued active discussions with Planning staff and elected regarding Fry’s lease, reuse of vacated space, the Comp Plan, Housing Element, Office Cap and potential redevelopment. • June 2015, we agreed to contribute to the City’s planning efforts in the area including the Fry’s site. • July 2015, Playground Global requested expanding into some of the surplus Fry’s space. • June 2016, the City provided acknowledgement of the square foot adjustments for the expansion of Playground Global. • May 2017, the Planning Director approached Sobrato to suggest the City would like to reapplying to the VTA/MTC for another Planning Grant for the Fry’s area. Application identified October 2019 as the Project Completion target. • October 2017, we executed a funding agreement with the City for $250,000 towards the NVCAP • Fall 2018, NVCAP process commenced, and we continued to market the Fry’s site in preparation for the end of the lease. • March 2019, we began active discussions with Target to lease the Fry’s space upon their expiration, and communicated this opportunity to City staff. • At the same time, John Sobrato informed the City Council that Sobrato is not interested in redeveloping the site and prefers a continuation of existing uses once Fry’s vacates the site. • During the fall and winter of 2019, we conducted meetings with staff and City Council members to discuss tenanting a portion of Fry’s space with Target. We conducted site visits to show the vacating Fry’s space. We noted that Target would have needed only 30,000 +/-, so we sought feedback and options to re-tenant the remaining as office to support the economics of refurbishing the architecturally valuable space in the existing building. • December 2019, the City Council discussed additional funding for the NVCAP. Sobrato publically reiterated it has no interest or intent to redevelop the site once Fry’s vacates. Several City Council members ask at the time the purpose of the NVCAP if the primary site is not going to redevelop. • Discussions continued with Target throughout 2019 and into 2020. May 13, 2021 Page 4 • February 2020, H&K submitted a letter on Sobrato’s behalf to the City Attorney seeking a zoning determination regarding the uses of the existing building to support marketing and re-tenanting activities, and received a response letter from Albert Yang on March 9, 2020 that confirmed the RM-30 zoning as well as the applicability of PAMC Chapter 18.70, including Section 18.70.070(b)(2)(E). • March 2020, the COVID-19 global pandemic begins and continues through the date of this letter. • July 2020, Sobrato submitted a request for a Zoning Text Amendment for 340 Portage. This letter also discusses the ongoing negotiations with Target at approximately 30,000 sq ft of the vacated Fry’s space and the need for clarity in the applicable non- conforming zoning language to be able to move forward with these discussions. We were made it clear that to afford the required code updates and lease to Target at a market rate, we would need to re-tenant the remaining vacant space as R/D office. • August 2020, Palo Alto Online published an article about Target’s interest in the old Fry’s space, and the City rethinking housing on the site. • September 2020, City staff indicated they would not support the application for a text change - with no specific explanation or alternative presented - and expressed disappointment about not having proposed any housing on the site. Staff also indicated a November or December 2020 tentative date to take text change request to Planning Commission. No hearing was scheduled, and Sobrato finally asked that it be put on hold. At the same time, staff confirmed that the City’s Retail Preservation Ordinance does not apply, but that the Office Cap does • September 2020, Target withdrew from Portage lease discussions. Marketing efforts commenced, but are hampered by the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly notable for retail uses. • February 3, 2021, Sobrato sent a letter through Lighthouse Public Affairs to the City again seeking confirmation of the non-conforming uses of the site submitted to the City to support marketing and re-tenanting efforts in light of Target’s withdrawal and lack of previous responses. The second letter request is the subject of the current discussions. 1 March 9, 2020 Via Electronic Mail Tamsen.plume@hklaw.com Tamsen Plume HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 50 California Street, Suite 2800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Re: 3200 Park Boulevard/ 340 Portage Avenue Dear Ms. Plume, I write in response to your letter of February 12, 2020, seeking conformation of the zoning applicable to the above-referenced property (“Property”). The Property is zoned RM-30 and may be used for any of the uses specified for that district in Section 18.13.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”). The Property is also subject to the non-conforming use provisions of PAMC Chapter 18.70. As you note, pursuant to Section 18.70.070. subd. (b)(2)(E), the Property has not been required to terminate and may continue the following non-conforming uses, subject to certain limitations: retail, research and development, warehouse, and storage. The limitations specific to the Property include: 1) retail uses shall not exceed 60,000 square feet; 2) truck deliveries and other noisy outdoor activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. weekends; and 3) the ratio of non- conforming uses shall remain approximately the same as existed as of October 16, 2006. In addition to the Property-specific limitations provided in Section 18.70.070(b)(2)(E), please note that the Property is subject to the generally-applicable limitations on expansion, change, discontinuance, facility maintenance, and facility replacement provided in Sections 18.70.020 through 18.70.060. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, /s/ Albert S. Yang Albert S. Yang Assistant City Attorney Attachment F: Existing Active Projects Relating to the 340 Portage Property Zoning Code Text Amendment In July 2020 the applicant filed for a Zoning Code Text Amendment to remove the language “in approximately the same ratio of uses existing as of October 16, 2006” and the language “(1) retail uses shall not exceed 60,000 square feet” from the municipal code. The request did not include formal plans for re-tenanting of the space. The request indicated the property owner’s interest in filling 30,000 sf of the retail space with a new retail use and utilizing remaining space for office uses. After reviewing the application and receiving additional information in response to the City’s supplemental information requests, the Director of Planning & Develop ment Services notified the applicant in September that staff intended to recommend denial of the application. This was reiterated in e-mail correspondence with the property owner on November 11, 2020. At the applicant’s request, a hearing has not yet been scheduled, but the application is still on file with the City. The City anticipates that the feedback from this hearing will inform how and if the property owner continues to move forward with this request. 200 Portage Project The applicant has filed an application for a housing project that will cover a portion of the subject property as well as a vesting tentative map to subdivide the property into two resulting parcels as well as for condominium purposes. In order to facilitate this project, the applicant is proposing demolition of a portion of the existing commercial building at the site. The demolition area includes a large portion of the building formally occupied by the Fry’s Electronics retail use. However, nonconforming uses have been reallocated to different spaces within the building; therefore, some of the area to be demolished is currently occupied by Research & Development uses. The initial plans submitted for 200 Portage did not include information on the resulting building, including what portions of the building are to remain and the resulting square footage. However, the applicant has indicated that the total square footage to be demolished is roughly equivalent to the square footage of the vacant retail space. North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan The proposed North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan boundary includes the subject property, which is a large, centrally located area of the plan. The proposed plan presents a range a proposals for the future use of the site. These range from adaptive reuse of the building formally occupied by Fry’s Electronics to scenarios that include redevelopment of the site with housing or mixed-use office and housing. City of Palo Alto (ID # 11930) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/14/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: NVCAP - Review Plan Alternatives Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Recommendation on the Preferred Plan Alternative for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP). The Planning and Transportation Commission and Staff Recommend the City Council Rev iew the NVCAP Alternatives and Select Alternative Number 3B as the Preferred Alternative From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Recommendation: The Planning and Transportation Commission and staff recommend the City Counci l review the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) alternatives, take public comment, and select Alternative #3B as the preferred alternative. Executive Summary: The draft alternatives in this report represent a major milestone in the preparation of the NVCAP. The alternatives synthesize different ways the City Council adopted goals and the Working Group vision can be realized in the plan area. All the alternatives consistently provide opportunities for new housing and ground-floor retail uses, while they vary in the amount of development proposed and the improvements and community benefits provided. The draft alternatives incorporate a substantial amount of input from stakeholders, community members, advisory-bodies, and decision-makers. This includes: • Input provided by the Working Group over 17 meetings held from 2018 to 2020; • Feedback from community members provided at two workshops and online questionnaires; • Feedback from the Planning and Transportation Commission on draft alternatives in April 2020, December 2020, and their recommendation in January and March 2021; • Analyses provided by the City’s competitively-selected consultant team; and • Professional planning experience of City staff and consultants. City of Palo Alto Page 2 This report presents three draft alternatives for the NVCAP for the City Council’s consideration. The Planning and Transportation Commission recommended Alternative #3 (4-2 Suma, Lauing dissenting; one seat vacant). The PTC also recommended modifying the alternative in order to support additional below-market rate housing and open space. This revised alternative is hereafter referred to as “Alternative #3B.” Staff supports this recommendation and encourages Council to consider Alternative #3B. The Council, however, may consider supporting this alternative, another alternative, support a combination of alternatives, or suggest modifications for the recommended alternative. In its deliberations, the Council may consider how well the alternatives meet the goals identified by the City Council in 2018, realize the vision created by the Working Group, and guide development of the area to meet the needs of current and future Palo Altans. Once Council has selected a preferred alternative, the alternative will be further studied and refined. The results of the studies will influence revisions to the alternative, which will then be presented to the PTC and ultimately the City Council. Then the Council will again endorse the preferred plan and environmental review can begin. Finally, the plan and environmental review will be presented for consideration by the PTC and Council for adoption. Background: On March 10, 2021, at their third hearing1 on the NVCAP alternatives, the PTC made a motion to recommend Alternative #3 with modifications, as the preferred NVCAP alternative. The modifications included in the motion were: • Increase Below Market Rate (BMR) requirements to 20% for for-sale projects and add a 15% on-site BMR requirement for rental projects; • Find funds or other means (e.g. modify development standards) to make it feasible to increase the 15% BMR requirement to 20% for rental housing; and • Consider opportunities for additional open space using 5.5 acres as the starting baseline. Alternative #3B responds to the motion and provides the analysis to support increased BMR requirements and the open space opportunities. Planning Area The NVCAP plan area represents a rare opportunity within the city to plan proactively for a transit‐oriented, mixed‐use neighborhood. The NVCAP project area lies within the Ventura neighborhood of Palo Alto. It is comprised of approximately 60 acres, roughly bounded by Page 1PTC Staff Report, 03/10/21: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2021/ptc-3.10-nvcap.pdf City of Palo Alto Page 3 Mill Road, El Camino Real, Lambert Avenue, and the Caltrain tracks, as shown in Figure 1. The plan area is near local and regional destinations including the California Avenue Caltrain Station, California Avenue Business District, and Stanford Research Park. Coordinated Area Plan Recognizing these opportunities, the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2017, called for site specific planning in the North Ventura area. The City secured grant funding in 2017 to initiate the NVCAP project. On March 5, 2018, The City Council adopted seven goals and six objectives (Attachment B). Goals include adding to the City’s supply of multi- family housing, developing a transit- accessible neighborhood with retail services, creating a connected street grid, developing community facilities, and encouraging sustainability. Figure 2 provides a high-level project process and timeline. Currently, the City is in the “Community Engagement and Analysis” phase. City staff and consultants initiated work in 2018 on existing background conditions and extensive community engagement. They prepared initial alternative land use and transportation scenarios in 2019 and 2020. City staff and consultants conducted extensive research and community outreach with the Working Group (WG), stakeholder meetings, and with the community at-large. Next, consultants will prepare technical analyses to evaluate effects of the preferred alternative before preparing the draft CAP and conducting environmental review. Figure 1: NVCAP Area Boundary City of Palo Alto Page 4 Figure 2: Project Process/Timeline Development of Alternatives The feedback from the WG members and public were incorporated into a series of alternatives over the past 1.5 years. The first alternatives were presented in December 2019 and January 2020.2 They were further refined based on initial feedback and presented at the community workshop in February 2020. On April 29, 2020, the PTC reviewed the first draft of alternatives3 during a study session; these are illustrated as a snapshot in Figure 3 and detailed in the footnote. Figure 3: Snapshots of Initial Draft Alternatives (April 2020) Following the PTC meeting, the WG and staff worked over the spring and summer of 2020 to refine the alternatives. During that time, some WG members prepared six plan alternatives4, labeled Alternatives G, K, H, J, L, and M. They were presented and discussed by the WG in the spring of 2020. Following that, a series of WG subcommittee meetings were held to find areas of agreement and disagreement among the members. Three alternatives were developed to reflect as closely as possible the varying preferences of the WG. The results of this collaboration with the WG are reflected in the three alternatives presented herein and illustrated in Attachment A. 2December 5, 2019 Alternatives: www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development- services/north-ventura-cap/9a-draft-plan-alternatives-wg-meeting.pdf 3 Draft alternatives: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=75521&t=65883.06 4 Working Group Developed Alternatives: www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development- services/north-ventura-cap/attachment-a_all-wg-alternatives_3.pdf City of Palo Alto Page 5 Once the City Council selects a preferred alternative, consultants will analyze potential transportation and environmental impacts. This analysis will support any further refinements to the draft plan. City staff expects consultants to develop a draft plan for adoption in 2022. Community Engagement To ensure significant and meaningful community engagement (City Council Objective 4), the City Council appointed a 14-member WG.5 The WG created a vision statement6 for the plan area which is summarized below: The Working Group envisions the plan area to replicate a European square with open plaza, colorful public art, beautiful landscaping with green open spaces and lots of public amenities such as benches, trails, and bike paths. The building designs should fit well within the existing context, between three and six stories, interconnected with pedestrian and bicycle paths. The bustling plaza should have lots of local-serving retail uses such as cafes, small local markets, and theatres, which encourage lively foot traffic. The plan area also should provide diverse housing opportunities, with minimum intrusion from automobile traffic. Over the last two years, City staff and consultants have conducted extensive community outreach and analysis.7 See Attachment C for an extensive list of community outreach activities. Evolving Opportunities and Constraints Throughout the planning process, opportunities and constraints have emerged. The Council may wish to include these factors as they review the alternatives. The opportunities and constraints analysis prepared in 2018, did not include the more recent opportunities and constraints, which include: 1. The COVID-19 global pandemic, which has resulted in a finan cial recession and shift to work-from-home for many Palo Alto and Bay Area employers; 2. The pending approval of the methodology for the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for potentially 6,086 units over an 8-year period. 3. Active interest in development in this neighborhood for a variety of uses and densities, indicating that setting the vision and framework for development under the NVCAP will be important and meaningful. Most notably, the Sobrato Organization submitted an SB330 housing development application for the development of 91 5 The Working Group is comprised of 14 individuals, including residents within the plan area, residents in the Ventura neighborhood, two property owners, and one representative from each of the following boards or commissions: Architectural Review Board; Parks and Recreation Commission; and Planning and Transportation Commission. 6 Working Group’s Full Vision Statement: www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development- services/north-ventura-cap/19-08855_paloalto_p101_visionstatement_11x17.pdf 7 Existing Conditions: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=73918&t=52731.83 City of Palo Alto Page 6 townhomes at “200 Portage.” Additionally, 113 units have been proposed at 2951 El Camino Real using the PHZ zoning tool. These topics are discussed in more detail in Attachment D. Discussion: This section of the report summarizes the draft plan alternatives, including allowed uses, key standards, development potential (e.g., units, jobs, population, open space acres), and methodology. Table 1 compares key characteristics of each alternative. Attachment A illustrates land use, building, height, and open space concepts. The alternatives aim to synthesize the City Council adopted goals for the NVCAP area to offer community members new housing options, transportation connections, community facilities, sustainability, and urban design that support the neighborhood fabric. Table 1: Comparison of Plan Alternatives, by Topic Characteristic Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Alternative #3B Housing Emphasizes townhomes near existing residential; mid-rise residential/mixed-use on corridors and elsewhere in plan area. Range of housing types and affordability levels, including townhomes, mid-rise residential, and mixed-use. Accommodates a range of housing types, affordability levels, including duplexes, six- plexes, townhomes, mid- rise residential, and mixed- use. Height/ Density and Transitions Place higher heights and greater densities on El Camino Real and Page Mill Road, where multifamily and residential mixed-use buildings with ground floor retail would be permitted. Transition between higher density/height areas and existing single-family homes through height transitions. Open Space Parks, pedestrian and/or bike connection, landscape setbacks and buffers Same as Alts 1 & 2, plus woonerfs, creekside amenity and trails. Office Allows existing large- format office floor area to continue. Once demolished, the office space may not be rebuilt. Allows replacement of existing office floor area in new buildings. Allows expansion of existing office floor area. Would allow new, ground-floor, small, professional office (such as dentist, etc.). Retail Would allow ground floor retail. Encourages active-ground floor uses, which can be retail or retail-like. Proposes retail near the Caltrain station and a centralized retail corridor along a portion of Portage Avenue. 340 Portage Maintains the cannery Assumes significant Assumes demolition of the City of Palo Alto Page 7 (Cannery) building and Ash Office Building and allows for 2 possible uses of the buildings: (1) continued use as retail and office space (2) adaptive re- use into housing. Also permits the construction of housing on remaining portions of the parcel, specifically the two remaining surface parking lots on the property.(2) This reflects part of Alternative M's goals in that the cannery building is retained. demolition of the cannery building with retention of the monitor roofs either incorporated into a new building or relocated on site into a new feature. Allows replacement of current office/retail commercial floor area in a new building(s), addition of new multifamily residential uses, and requires parkland dedication. Assumes retention of Ash Office Building. cannery building. Allows expansion of existing amount of office/retail floor area in a new building(s) in addition to new multifamily residential uses. Requires parkland dedication and creek naturalization improvements. Assumes retention of Ash Office Building. 395 Page Mill Rd (Cloudera) Allows multifamily housing at moderate density; however, redevelopment is unlikely if existing office uses cannot be replaced in kind. Allows multifamily housing at moderate density; assumes replacement of existing office floor area in a new building, new multifamily housing, and parkland dedication. Allows multifamily housing at moderate density; assumes expansion of existing office floor area in a new building, neighborhood retail, new multifamily housing, and park/open space dedication. Residential Parking Ratio 1.5 space per bedroom, capped at 2 spaces per unit (existing requirement). 1 space per bedroom, capped at 2 spaces per unit; allowed to unbundle. 1 space per unit; allowed to unbundle. Commercial Parking Ratio Blended standard rate same as Downtown Palo Alto: 1 space per 250 sf. Blended standard rate more progressive than the 1 space per 250 sf used in Downtown. Exempt first 1,500 sf of ground floor commercial floor area from parking requirement. Exempt first 2,000 sf of ground floor commercial floor area from requirement. Exempt first 3,000 sf of ground floor commercial floor area from parking requirement. Potential for Change Anticipates slow to moderate turnover of commercial sites into multifamily and residential mixed use. Anticipates a higher turnover of commercial and industrial sites into retail, office, multifamily and residential mixed use, City of Palo Alto Page 8 given higher office allowances. Potential Benefits Limited community benefits (e.g., park and creek improvements, BMR housing) given low levels of development that may result. Moderate community benefits (e.g., park and creek improvements, BMR housing) given moderate levels of development that result. Highest community benefits (e.g., park and creek improvements, BMR housing) due to projected development. City staff were able to develop three alternatives that synthesize the vision and desires of a range of stakeholders. From Alternative #1 to Alternative #3B, the scenarios offer increasing amounts of residential and commercial development, matched by increasing opportunities for parks, affordable housing, transportation improvements, and other community ben efits. Of the three alternatives, only one, Alternative #3B, is financially feasible according to the project’s consulting economists (see analysis below). While there is a strong desire for affordable housing and open space, these uses do not generate adequate revenue to cover the costs of development. Alternative #3B is the only alternative that matches housing types, parking standards, and allowances for office development to achieve feasibility and generate additional below-market rate units, open space, and other community benefits. Based on the PTC’s approval motion and recommendation, City staff have refined Alternative #3B to add affordable housing requirements and increase the amount of open space provided. Alternative #1 Alternative #1 increases housing capacity, though at more modest levels than the subsequent alternatives. This is achieved through new townhome development near existing single-family homes, and mid-rise apartments and mixed-use residential development on El Camino Real, Portage Avenue, and Lambert Avenue. Over time, this alternative would lead to the elimination of office uses within the NVCAP area. As parcels with office spaces are redeveloped for residential and retail uses, offices would not be replaced. Only small-scale professional offices use would be permitted. The cannery building at 340 Portage would remain with its existing office/retail uses, or could be adaptively reused for housing, as desired by several WG and community members. The office building at 395 Page Mill Rd. would also remain. The requirement to eliminate office uses will likely deter many property owners of office space from redeveloping housing only sites. COVID -19 could make housing uses more desirable, but only time will reveal preferences and development trends. Alternative #1 supports up to 1.9 acres of park space. Compared to subsequent alternatives, Alternative #1 supports less park space. This is both because the number of proposed residents City of Palo Alto Page 9 is fewer and because of reduced redevelopment potential limiting the opportunity to require park land dedication. Alternative #1 Compared to Alternative M Due to continued discussion of “Alternative M” in the broader community, staff would like to discuss that alternative’s similarities to Alternative 1. Alternative 1 most closely reflects “Alternative M”, an alternative developed by 2 WG members and 1 community member. Alternative M, proposes to build 700 affordable housing units using public funds without increasing the density on sites within the plan area. Alternative M also proposed to adaptively re-use the historic cannery building into affordable housing. Over time, Alternative M would seek to eliminate office uses from the plan area. Like all of the alternatives generated by the Working Group membe rs, aspects of alternative M have been incorporated into the three draft alternatives. In particular, Alternative 1 reflects elements of Alternative M. Alternative 1 retains the historic cannery building. This building can either continue its current uses or be adaptively re-used into housing. Alternative 1 also does not permit any new office and would seek to eliminate office uses over time, replacing those uses with housing over retail. Alternative 1 does consider more sites eligible for housing than Alternative M, but far fewer sites than Alternatives 2 or 3B. As staff are seeking a recommendation on the preferred concept, revenue plans are premature at this time, whereas Alternative M proposes to generate a public source for construction of housing. Nevertheless, the Finance Committee of the City Council will discuss overall revenue sources for the City on June 15, 2021. Part of this discussion will include sources that can fund affordable housing. The limited feasibility of Alternative 1, and Alternative M, led to limited support from the PTC. In addition, the limited financial feasibility and limited support from property owners poses serious challenges; if the Council would like to see the plan for the NVCAP be realized, Alternative 1 and M are unlikely to yield that outcome. Additionally, 700 units of housing may not generate the amount of residents and visitors needed to sustain walkable and bikeable retail. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Figure 4: Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Alternative #2 achieves a middle ground of housing and commercial development, compared to the other alternatives. Increased housing capacity is still achieved through mid-rise apartments and mixed-use residential development on El Camino Real and Portage and Lambert Avenues, but also through redevelopment of the two large sites and rezoning of the GM parcels east of Park Blvd. Overall, this alternative retains the current amount of office square footage in the NVCAP area. The cannery building at 340 Portage would be at least partially redevelope d in this scenario to allow for new mid-rise and/or mixed-use residential; no additional office would be permitted. The office use at 395 Page Mill Rd. would also remain, but the square footage could be reconfigured or rebuilt in new facilities to allow sp ace for new mid-rise residential. Alternative #2 supports a mid-range of amenities and community benefits, compared to the two other alternatives, given the amount of development proposed. Alternative #2 is not financially feasible. Strategic Economics’ findings, however, do suggest that modest adjustments in parking and/or ground floor retail could enhance the feasibility of this option. Specifically, requiring one parking space per housing unit significantly enhances the feasibility of Alternative #2. Further adjustments could achieve greater feasibility. Retaining the City of Palo Alto Page 11 office space has received better response to office owners than Alternative #1, though it may not be enough benefit to incentivize development. Figure 5: Alternative #2 Alternative #3B Alternative #3B achieves the greatest amount of housing and commercial development, compared to the other alternatives. Increased housing capacity is achieved in a similar manner to Alternative 2 but provides greater incentives for redevelopment. Specifically, Alternative #3B allows the development of additional office space. The alternative seeks to provide enough additional office space to incentivize landowners to redevelop housing alongside the additional offices. The cannery building at 340 Portage Ave. and the office building at 395 Page Mill Rd. could be demolished, and the office floor area could be increased—if residential uses are built in tandem. This alternative retains the current amount of office square footage in the NVCAP area and allows for an increase in office square footage. Alternative #3B supports the most amenities and community benefits, compared to the two other alternatives, given the amount of development proposed and the fees and exactions that could be assessed. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Based on the PTC’s input, this alternative evolved from a 15% BMR requirement to a 20% BMR requirement. This was the only alternative where the higher BMR threshold was financially feasible in rental projects. Specifically, taller heights and reduced parking requirements allowed for more efficient parking, higher unit yields, and reduced construction costs. It is notable that parking requirements are a key difference between the inclusionary rate for Alternative 2 and 3B, leading towards a higher inclusionary rate being possible for alternative 3B. If the parking requirement of Alternative 2 were lowered to match Alternative 3, the financial feasibility of Alternative 2 increases. Still, staff remain concerned that owners of active office space will not redevelop if additional office space is not allowed. Figure 6: Alternative #3B Constants Across Each Alternative The following items represent constants across each of the alternatives. Although the amounts of affordable housing, parks and open space, and circulation improvements vary across the alternatives, the methods to achieve these outcomes are generally consistent. Affordable Housing – Generating affordable housing is one of the key drivers of the plan and is generally supported by all participants. Though the amount of housing generated differs across the alternatives, each alternative supports affordable housing in similar ways: City of Palo Alto Page 13 1. Bonuses: Creating an NVCAP Height and Density Bonus program, available to 100%, deed-restricted, below-market rate housing and 100% deed-restricted workforce housing. The bonus allows such developments height up to 70 feet, above the 50 -foot maximum elsewhere in the plan area. The bonus is proposed only along El Camino Real or Page Mill Road.8 2. Inclusionary Housing: Requiring 20% below-market rate housing on new development for Alternative #3B, where it is financially feasible to do so (vs. 15% in Alternatives #1 and #2, under the City’s inclusionary housing requirement). The current plan and financial feasibility analysis assume the continuation of existing assessment methods: for-sale units meet the inclusionary housing requirements on-site and rental units would pay a fee in lieu. However, the Council may wish to reconsider this policy for the NVCAP area. Other ways to support affordable housing within the planning area and across the city are described in this report’s Policy Implications section and detailed in Attachment E. Parks & Open Space – Each alternative seeks to maximize open space through a range of initiatives including land dedications, publicly-accessible private open spaces, improvements to Matadero Creek, and use of public and private rights-of-way as linear parks. The alternatives assume 5% to 20% dedications on the medium and largest sites, respectively. There are several ways that the NVCAP can generate these publicly accessible parks and open spaces. These include: • Dedications by a developer/property • Impact fees assessed on new development • Creation of a benefit district and associated assessment • Acquisition by the City • Privately-owned and maintained public open space • Linear spaces such a landscape setbacks and connections (e.g., woonerfs) With the exception of City acquisitions, all of these strategies require contributions from developers and/or property owners. As a result, the more development supported in the plan, the more park space can be attained, as illustrated in Table 3. Transportation & Mobility Improvements - Transportation improvements are consistent across the alternatives, with minor exceptions (see Attachment A). The scenarios, however, with more 8 Recent changes to State Density Bonus Law identify “super” density bonuses that allow up to 80% density bonuses and an additional 3 stories/33 feet for 100% BMR projects (or unlimited density for projects ½-mile of transit). This program may be a more attractive alternative to a City-initiated program unless the City can offer other incentives, such as streamlined review. City of Palo Alto Page 14 development potential provide more funding and increased ridership (as the number of workers and residents increase) to support implementation of many improvements. Commercial Retail – The City Council has expressed a desire for preservation of existing retail and retail like uses through the Retail Protection Ordinance. An additional five feet of building height is proposed for residential mixed-use projects with ground-floor retail across all of the alternatives. This bonus is intended to support ground floor retail and commercial uses, which typically have higher floor-to-ceiling heights. Moreover, retail uses generate lower lease rates compared to office and residential uses. The additional height offers a “bonus” that allows a project to reach five stories in height (four residential stories over parking/retail) that can create a more feasible mixed-use project for the developer, while providing an amenity to the community. Estimating Development Potential of Each Alternative The tables below provide summary statistics for each alternative. Table 2 estimates the number of housing units, commercial square footage, and park and open space area that could be generated by each alternative. These calculations do not reflect the recent SB330 application at 200 Portage, since it is still only a proposed project. Table 3 reports the population, jobs, and other metrics generated as a result of the realistic potential buildout. Alternative 1# yields the lowest amount of new development, while Alternative #3 yields the most; Alternative #2 falls in the middle of the two. Table 2: Potential Development, by Alternative Land Use Existing New Development Alt #1 Alt #2 Alt #3B6 Net New Housing Units 142 Realistic Potential1 - 500 1,170 1,490 Maximum Potential1 - 860 1,620 2,130 Commercial Development (sq. ft.) 853,200 New Office2 - 8,6003 33,3003 126,600 New Retail2 - 7,500 17,600 22,300 Net Change in Commercial4 - -129,100 -14,300 83,800 Parks and Open Space (potential approximate acres) 5 0 1.9 4.8 7.5 # of Potential Redevelopment Sites (Range = Realistic to Maximum Sites Turning Over) n/a 16 to 23 37 to 41 37 to 52 1 Assumes 1,000 to 1,500 sf average unit size City of Palo Alto Page 15 2 Represents new office and retail development that results from redevelopment. At 395 Page Mill Rd. and 340 Portage Ave., existing office floor area is assumed to be replaced on a 1:1 basis in Alternative #2 and higher basis in Alternative #3B; the 1:1 replacement office floor area is excluded from this figures, but net new floor area is included for Alternative #3B. 3 Limited professional office use allowed in new mixed-use development 4 Net change = existing commercial floor area lost due to redevelopment + new commercial floor area 5 Parks and open space estimates based on 3% to 20% of land area on opportunity sites, as a function of the realistic development potential; includes landscaped setbacks, parks, plazas, and creek improvements. 6 Alt #3B represents a revised Alternative #3 based on recommendation from the PTC’s motion to increase the amount of affordable housing required and the amount of open space. Note: This table assumes redevelopment of potential opportunity sites, regardless of any pending development projects. Attachment F lists the development projects approved which could supersede the hypothetical development potential shown here. Source: Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office Data, Realquest.com Data, City of Palo Alto GIST Data, Accela Data, and City of Palo Alto, Planning and Development Services Staff. Table 3: Metrics Based on Realistic Potential Metric Existing New Development Alt #1 Alt #2 Alt #3B Below-Market Rate Housing Units (assumes 15-20% of total)1 23 70 180 300 Residential Population 2 340 1,210 2,840 3,610 Jobs 3 Office Jobs 2,460 30 110 430 Retail Jobs 200 10 30 40 Net Change in Jobs n/a -415 -44 271 Jobs/Housing Ratio (Housing Units Needed to Support New Jobs) n/a 50 180 580 Parks and Open Space (acres/1,000 new residents) 4 0 1.5 1.7 2.1 1 The City requires new for-sale units to locate BMR units on-site; new rental housing pays an impact fee only. Assumes 15% BMR ratio for Alternative #1 and #2 and 20% BMR ratio for Alternative #3B 2 Population estimates based on current household sizes in Palo Alto (2.55 persons/household) from 2014 -2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Assumes 5% vacancy rate of housing units. 3 Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)’s Congestion Management Program (CMP) ratios for the year 201 9. Numbers represent estimates. 4 Parks and open space estimates based on 3% to 20% of land area on opportunity sites, as a function of the realistic development potential; includes landscaped setbacks, parks, plazas, and creek improvements. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Source: 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, City of Palo Alto GIST Data, Accela Data, and City of Palo Alto Planning and Development Services. Opportunity Sites Development will unfold over time in the NVCAP area based on the motivations of individua l property owners and actions by the City (e.g., site acquisitions, incentives). To estimate the development potential in Tables 2 and 3, City staff developed a methodology for potential buildout on “opportunity sites” in the planning area. The realistic opportunity sites are shown in Figure 5 (and described and mapped in detail in Attachment G). Figure 5: Opportunity Sites Financial Feasibility In addition to preferences for one hypothetical alternative over another, it is also important to understand their financial feasibility and whether a private developer is likely to undertake a project within the framework of each alternative . The NVCAP project consultant, Strategic City of Palo Alto Page 17 Economics, has provided a series of analyses testing the feasibility of the current set of alternatives. • Attachment H analyzes the feasibility of alternatives subject to the existing 15% inclusionary housing requirement and concludes that Alternative #3 is the only feasible alternative in terms of the building typologies and community benefits that can be generated by allowing additional office development. • Based on a request by the PTC and the PTC’s motion to recommend Alternative #3, Attachment I analyzes various scenarios that could feasibly allow for an increase in the inclusionary requirement from 15% to 20% in order to generate additional BMR units without hampering the viability of development. It also analyzes factors that would make Alternative #2 feasible, including the amount of public subsidy required to achieve feasibility. These findings by Strategic Economics are detailed in the attachments, referenced in the bullet points above, and summarized below. Strategic Economics identified five feasible housing typologies9 in the NVCAP area in their January 2020 Report and illustrated in Figure 6, below: 1. Townhomes: three-story, attached units with a typical density of 33 du/acre. 2. Low-Rise Greenway: Typically, four stories with linear open space in front, with a typical density of 107 du/acre. 3. Low-Rise Block: Typically, four stories with central open space, with a typical density of 124 du/acre. 4. Low-Rise Block with Neighborhood Serving Commercial: Typically, five stories with interior courtyards and ground-floor retail. Typical density of 147 du/acre. 5. Mid-Rise Block: These can be up to eight stories with an interior courtyard. The style typically steps back above six stories. Typical density of 159 du/acre. 9 The analysis assumes ownership developments include the City’s 15% inclusionary rate and that rental developments pay the in-lieu fee to support development of affordable housing (in the NVCAP or elsewhere in the City). All the proposed typologies are self-parked. City of Palo Alto Page 18 Figure 6: Development Prototypes The eight-story mixed-use prototype (housing with ground floor retail) was generally not feasible nor desired by community members. In general, retail demand and feasibility can be expected to grow in tandem with additional housing/resident ial population. Additional incentives will be needed to support ground-floor retail in a mixed-use configuration. Alternative #3B aims to provide these incentives through modifications to parking requirements and additional building height for buildings with ground-floor commercial uses. Just as the City Council is being asked to weigh the tradeoffs between benefits and impacts, developers go through similar calculations. The benefits to the developer in terms of rents and return on investment need to exceed the cost of development, including the provision of community amenities. Some of the community amenities, such as open space and retail, add value to a project, drawing in customers and potential tenants. However, these and other amenities, add expenses to the project. As Strategic Economics’ reported in January 2020, new office uses can likely contribute more in terms of community benefits than residential or retail, given its higher net value. Across the three alternatives, Strategic Economics concludes in Attachment H that Alternative #3 is the only financially feasible scenario. It allows for more efficient housing types because of City of Palo Alto Page 19 its lower parking requirement and a greater mix of uses, and therefore represents the scenario most likely to deliver community benefits. Based on this finding, the PTC honed its focus on this alternative as the potentially preferred alternative but requested more information about (1) the public subsidy required to make Alternative #2 financially feasible; and (2) whether additional BMR housing (i.e., 20% inclusionary requirement) would be feasible in Alternative #3. This further analysis is summarized in Table 4 and explored in Attachment I, which concluded that: • For-sale condo prototypes, especially townhomes, could support a 20% inclusionary requirement, including deeper levels of affordability (15% for moderate income households and 5% for very low income households). (Not shown in Table 4) • 4-story (40-45 feet) residential only prototypes are unlikely to support more than a 15% inclusionary housing requirement, if parking is located underground. (Second column of Table 4) • 4-story (45 feet) mixed use prototypes (3 stories of rental apartments over ground -floor retail) could support between 15% and 20% inclusionary requ irement if at least a portion of the parking is above-ground in a podium (below-grade adds too much expense and makes the model infeasible). (Third column of Table 4) • 5-story (55 feet) mixed use prototypes (4 stories of rental apartments over ground -floor retail) are more efficient by comparison and could likely support a 20% inclusionary requirement, including 5% for very low income households. Parking is assumed below - grade and in the ground-level podium. (Last column of Table 4) City of Palo Alto Page 20 Table 4: Development Likelihood for Alternative 3B Rental Prototype Options Residential Only Mixed-use Mixed-use 40-45 feet 45 feet 55 feet Yield on Cost per Unit Scenario 1 (15% BMR targeting VLI, LI, Mod) 4.82% 5.11% 5.31% Scenario 2 (15% BMR targeting LI and Mod) 4.89% 5.19% 5.39% Scenario 3 (20% BMR targeting VLI, LI, and Mod) 4.74% 5.03% 5.22% Highly Likely – YOC is 5.25% or higher Somewhat Likely – YOC is over 5.0% Not Likely – Net revenues are positive but YOC is below 5.0% Infeasible – Net revenues are negative Note: Yield on cost (YOC) is measured as the net operating income divided by total development costs. Source: Strategic Economics. The Strategic Economics work highlights the various levers that affect project costs and feasibility and that help make Alternative #3B viable: • Building Height: The additional five feet of height (from 50 to 55 feet) allows for a higher quality retail space while allowing four stories of residential to be built above the first floor, rather than just three stories. • Parking: Reduced residential and commercial parking requirements allow parking to be constructed in a podium above-grade, rather than underground. • Depth of Affordability: It is easier (less expensive) for developers to provide BMR units at Moderate Income levels (and therefore more feasible) compared to Very Low Income levels. However, this affordability level may not desirable to decision -makers and community members. Table 4 and Attachment I explore the effects of different income levels on project feasibility. Policy Implications: This section analyzes the outcomes and relative characteristics of each alternative. Overall, the more development generated, the more opportunities for the City to obtain desired amenities such as below-market rate housing, parks and open space, creek improvements, and neighborhood retail. With new development, however, there may be impacts that need to be mitigated, such as potential displacement, vehicle traffic, and noise. City of Palo Alto Page 21 This section describes preliminary policy strategies that aim to achieve the plan goals while mitigating potential impacts. Tradeoffs and Relationship to City Council Adopted Goals The North Ventura neighborhood has many great attributes that could enable a walkable , amenity-rich, and vibrant transit-oriented neighborhood. Although the neighborhood is close to transit and public facilities, it lacks a significant residential population and retail base , and has gaps in pedestrian and biking infrastructure. To promote walking and biking as the primary means of transportation, and to sustain neighborhood retail and new public open space, the plan area will need walkable destinations and population density that leverage its location near transit and public facilities. An increase in population is necessar y to generate a customer base, impact fees, and new development (which funds off-site public improvements) that can support these community amenities without substantial public subsidy and without the need for vehicles to drive to destinations. In this way, each alternative represents a tradeoff. It comes with a different set of potential impacts and benefits, as illustrated in Figure 7. Alternative #1 would generate the least amount of parkland, affordable housing, and other benefits —without public subsidy—but is likely to be less impactful in terms of changes to noise and traffic. It is also the least feasible, since it does not provide sufficient regulatory changes or incentives to spur redevelopment. Alternative #3 would generate the most opportunities for community benefits, but may have more impacts on the community. It is the only alternative that is likely to be financially feasible since it offers more incentives for redevelopment. Alternative #2 falls in the middle of the two. City of Palo Alto Page 22 Figure 7: Impacts and Benefits, by Alternative Table 4 further illustrates the dynamic of these tradeoffs as they relate to the City Council adopted goals for the NVCAP. Alternative #3 does the best job of adding to the housing supply and improving transportation connections and multi-modal facilities. Alternative #2 is the most successful in balancing the variety of neighborhood and citywide interests. All of the alternatives would be able to achieve sustainability and urban design goals. Notably, this is a subjective exercise based on City staff and consultants’ professional interpretation of the alternatives compared to the City Council’s adopted goals. This table is intended to be illustrative and used for discussion purposes. Table 4: Relationship to City Council Adopted Goals Goal Alt #1 Alt #2 Alt #3B 1. Housing and Land Use: Add to the City’s supply of multifamily housing, including market rate, affordable, “missing middle,” and senior housing in a walkable, mixed use, transit‐accessible neighborhood, with retail and commercial services and possibly start up space, open space, and possibly arts and entertainment uses. ✓ ✓✓ ✓✓✓ City of Palo Alto Page 23 2. Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections: Create and enhance well‐defined connections to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities, including connections to the Caltrain station, Park Boulevard and El Camino Real. ✓ ✓✓ 3. Connected Street Grid: Create a connected street grid, filling in sidewalk gaps and street connections to California Avenue, the Caltrain Station, and El Camino Real where appropriate. ✓ ✓✓ 4. Community Facilities and Infrastructure: Carefully align and integrate development of new community facilities and infrastructure with private development, recognizing both the community’s needs and that such investments can increase the cost of housing. ✓ 5. Balance of Community Interests: Balance community‐wide objectives with the interests of neighborhood residents and minimize displacement of existing residents and small businesses. ✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓ 6. Urban Design, Design Guidelines and Neighborhood Fabric: Develop human‐scale urban design strategies, and design guidelines that strengthen and support the neighborhood fabric. Infill development will respect the scale and character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. Include transition zones to surrounding neighborhoods. ✓ ✓ ✓ 7. Sustainability and the Environment: Protect and enhance the environment, while addressing the principles of sustainability ✓ ✓ ✓ Transportation and Mobility The planning area is expected to see a shift in travel and traffic patterns, as commercial uses are replaced with residential uses. Due to project budget constraints, analysis of potential traffic impacts is not available at this time. Once the City Council selects a preferred alternative, consultants will prepare a detailed Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). The TIA will evaluate potential impacts of the preferred land use program in two ways: traditional intersection level of service (LOS) and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Modeling will evaluate all travel mod es including vehicles, transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. It will compare the project’s impacts to existing conditions and cumulative conditions based on other projects in the city and region. Parks and Open Space Maximizing parks and open space has been a widely shared goal across the WG. The City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan features Policy C-4.6, which provides direction to use the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) Standards as guidelines for locating and developing new parks. At the time of adoption, this policy indicated the park standard to be two acres/1,000 people. 10 10 Policy C-4.6 cites NRPA park standards from the late 1990s: For neighborhood parks, they should be at least two (2) acres in size, although sites as small as ½-acre may be needed as supplementary facilities. The maximum service area radius should be ½-mile. Two acres of neighborhood park land should be provided for each 1,000 people. City of Palo Alto Page 24 In addition to the Comprehensive Plan policy, the 2017 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation Master Plan has Policy 1.B that also references using NRPA standards for developing new parks and provides a four acres/1,000 residents guideline for a ½ mile service area. This standard is more recent than the Comprehensive Plan policy. Notably, none of the alternatives proposed are able to achieve the four acre/1,000 residents goal identified in the Comprehensive Plan and Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan. The WG nearly unanimously supports achieving this ratio. However, t he plan would need to identify five to 14 acres of parkland, under the “realistic” buildout scenarios, to achieve these goals. The operationalizing of this ratio into a development standard may be infeasible, resulting in little to no redevelopment in the plan area. This higher parkland goal is not financially feasible for the City or the developer in this transit-oriented infill locations, when combined with other community benefits, such as below -market rate housing and ground-floor retail. Staff recommend that the NVCAP could require any park fees collected for developments within the planning area be used within ¼ mile of the planning area to support new open spaces close to the new development area. Such land must be located within easy walking or biking distance, and not require residents to cross Page Mill, El Camino Real, or the train tracks. This would generate a source of funds that the City can use to purchase parcels to be developed in public parks. Impacts to Historic Building As part of the initial assessment of the NVCAP project area, staff retained Page and T urnbull to evaluate potential historic resources in the planning area. Currently, there are no properties within the project boundary that are listed in the City of Palo Alto Historic Inventory, the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), or the California Register of Historic Resources (California Register) nor are there any recorded historic districts. Page and Turnbull’s historic resources evaluation (HRE)11 identified one eligible historic resource in the planning area: 340 Portage Avenue, originally constructed as a cannery, and the associated office building at 3201-3205 Ash Street. What appears to be one large building at 340 Portage Avenue is composed of approximately ten buildings that were constructed at various times between 1918 and 1949. The office building on Ash Street is a one-story, wood frame building located to the southeast of the former cannery building. The building appears to have been initially built as a dormitory for the cannery employees sometime between 1918 and 1925 and was moved to its current location in 1940. The HRE concluded that these sites were individually significant under Criterion 1 (Events) 11 Historic Resource Evaluation, 04/2019: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp- development-services/north-ventura-cap/nvcap-historic-reports-340-portage-evaluation.pdf?t=54966.14 City of Palo Alto Page 25 and eligible for listing in the California Register because of their association with the historic cannery industry in Santa Clara Valley, including Palo Alto. The cannery is associated with the Bayside Canning Company, which was owned by a prominent Chinese immigrant, Thomas Foon Chew, and a groundbreaking figure in the canning industry. Mr. Chew was able to make the Bayside Canning Company the third largest fruit and vegetable cannery in the world in the 1920s. Matadero Creek Improvements The Matadero Creek runs through a portion of the NVCAP. This once-natural waterway has been channelized in an open, concrete-channel. The creek, managed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, has limited visibility and currently no public access. Matadero Creek presents an opportunity to return a channelized creek into a naturalized amenity; it could become an asset to the neighborhood instead of an afterthought. Naturalizing, however, is costly and, furthermore, the land is not owned by a public agency and is strictly managed by Valley Water District. Another hardship for major creek improvements is that it is bordered by priv ately owned land on both sides of the Valley Water District 60 -foot easement. This means that any restoration efforts will need to either remain within the creek easement, obtain cooperation and permission of adjacent land owners to use their property, or require acquisition of the adjacent parcels. The City contracted with Wetlands Research Associates (WRA) to evaluate the feasibility of levels of naturalization and improvements to the creek and to develop conceptual designs of the improvements. WRA developed five concepts reflected in the final report, Matadero Creek Renaturalization Conceptual Alternative Analysis12, ranging from naturalization within the easement area to a full naturalization and expansion into Boulware Park. The Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) and WG prefer this latter option (Option #3) as the ultimate aspirational goal. Staff, however, encourage Option #1A that remains within the creek easement, thus preserving land for housing development while also allowing some naturalization. Option #1A is included as part of Alternative #3B in exchange for the allowance of additional office floor area. Implementation of any of the creek opti ons will require additional funding from the City or other sources. Additional background can be found in the meeting staff memo, presentation, and minutes linked below in the footnote.13 12 Creek Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=79219&t=68527.88 13November 5, 2020 - NVCAP Working Group & PRC Joint Meeting: Staff Memo: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=78984&t=45418.2 Presentation: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=79148&t=44134.27 Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=79310&t=45389.68 City of Palo Alto Page 26 Schools The NVCAP does not specifically include provisions for new public school sites. The PAUSD is aware of the area plan being developed, but nothing has been determined regarding impacts at this stage in the process. The analysis for determining educational needs for future residents in the NVCAP will be a considered by PAUSD in conjunction with the needs citywide at an appropriate time in the future. Major Policy Strategies Beyond the land and transportation maps, the NVCAP will include a range of policy measures to support implementation of plan goals and mitigate potential impacts. Attachment E explores an initial set of policy strategies that can be undertaken across the alternatives, including: Generating Affordable Housing: City staff, consultants, and the WG explored various ways to generate market-rate and affordable housing. This includes the following models that leverage private capital, public funds, and commercial development, and tools for fees and assessment districts. Capturing the Value of Upzoning: If the City chooses to increase the height and density allowed in the planning area, it may provide property owners an incentive for redevelopment. This “upzoning” would add value to existing property owners. A key dynamic that the City should consider is how the City benefits from this rezoning and the resulting increase in private property values. Notably, Alternative #3B aims to capture the value of upzoning by requiring additional below-market housing and open space. Anti-Displacement Measures: The trend in Palo Alto is that housing is becoming less available and therefore more expensive. Most redevelopment anticipated in the NVCAP will come at the loss of one-story commercial buildings and renter-occupied single-family housing. The plan will need to include strategies to prevent and mitigate commercial and residential displacement, such as through relocation at comparable rent levels. Attachment E details replacement and relocation assistance requirements in accordance with recent changes in State law. Parking Management: As part of the NVCAP project, ARUP completed a parking occupancy study in Fall 2018 (i.e., pre-COVID) that identified a surplus of parking capacity within the planning area. As the population of workers and residents change as a result of the NVCAP and the end of the pandemic, the City will need to consider strategies to manage parking across the planning area and on individual sites. Placemaking: A sense of place can be instilled by landmarks, signage, iconic buildings, signature trees, active ground floors, nodes of activity, en tries to the planning area, important gathering places, and key uses. Incorporating the history of the 340 Portage cannery into the site should City of Palo Alto Page 27 extend beyond plaques; this history should be a theme that ties public and private spaces together. These and other policy strategies will continue to be refined through preparation of the plan. Industrial Zoned Parcel There are six parcels identified as opportunity sites that have the General Manufacturing (GM) zoning designation. The Comprehensive Plan contem plates allowing multi-family housing on these properties with Light Industrial land use designations, but this allowance is not codified in the Zoning Ordinance. To accommodate residential uses, these sites would need to be rezoned to an appropriate designation or the GM zone district updated to allow for residential uses. On the one hand, these represent larger sites that could generate more units; the railroad -adjacent sites in particular, would have fewer visual impacts on lower-height uses. On the other hand, the City has a limited number of GM-zoned land that allow for light industrial uses. Comprehensive Plan Policy L-5.4 directs maintenance of “the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor areas as diverse business and light industrial districts.” Although this policy specifically refers to areas not within the NVCAP plan area, the decision to eliminate additional GM zoned parcels may not be the desired direction for the City. The Council may want to consider whether the City should retain such properties for R&D and light industrial uses, and the range of job types and wages that such uses typically generate. Resource Impact: The majority of the NVCAP project funding is from the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Priority Development Area grant ($638K). In compliance with the grant requirement, the 15% local funding match ($112K) was achieved with the donation of private funds from the Sobrato Organization. The Sobrato Organization also donated an additional $138K for the environmental review study of the NVCAP. Additional General Funds ($17,700) were used for the historic evaluation by Page and Turnbull and the Matadero Creek analysis by WRA ; and $62K of FY2021 department salary savings was allocated to project management (due to reduced staffing). In 2021, the City was awarded $125K from the Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) grant to support the NVCAP. The funding sources and funds used are listed below: Funding Sources: 1. Caltrans Grant $638,000 2. 15% Matching Donation $112,000 3. CEQA Private Donation $138,000 4. FY2021 Salary Savings $ 62,000 5. General Funds $ 17,700 6. LEAP Grant (2021) $125,000 City of Palo Alto Page 28 Total $1,092,700 Funds Used/Allocated 1. Perkins & Will - funded $889,600 2. Perkins & Will - unfunded $367,000 3. WRA – Creek Analysis $ 89,000 4. Project Management $ 62,000 5. Page & Turnbull – Historic $ 13,200 6. Travel and Meetings $ 15,000 Total $1,435,800 In October 2019, the City Council approved an expanded scope of work for the NVCAP project and contract with the consultant, Perkins & Will. Subsequently, the City Council did not approve the additional funding needed ($367K) for the expanded contract. As summarized above, the project is underfunded by $343K. City staff have made every attempt to complete the essential tasks by eliminating other tasks and/or by doing the work in-house. For example, due to the request for more community engagement, but without sufficient funds, City staff led the WG and outreach meetings from February 2020 until the present. With that said, the City was not able to effectuate an expansion of the project scope. Per the grant agreement, the City must complete this NVCAP project by December 1, 2023 or risk forefeiting the grant funds. In that scenario, the City would need to repay any grant funds expended towards the project ($420K to date). The project funding is insufficient to conduct analyses, study, and fully develop more than one preferred alternative. Staff requests City Council to provide direction on the preferred alternative. That alternative will become the focus of staff and consultant analysis, study, and further refinement. Timeline: After the City Council provides direction on a selected alternative, staff will advise the consultant team to complete additional study and refinement of the alternative, and undergo technical analysis, including a traffic study. Staff will bring back the refined NVCAP to Council for review and endorsement. Following Council direction, the environmental review will begin. Environmental Review: The current action requested of the City Council does not represent a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City anticipates that either an Addendum or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to the Comprehensive Plan Final Environmen tal Impact Report (2017) will be the appropriate level of environmental review for the approval of City of Palo Alto Page 29 the NVCAP. The level of environmental review depends upon plan development. CEQA scoping and analysis will begin next year. The Historic Resources Evaluation (HRE), prepared by Page & Turnbull in 2019, concludes that the 340 Portage site is significant at the local level for its association with the historic Santa Clara County cannery industry. Accordingly, the property is eligible for listing in the Califor nia Register of Historical Resources. As such, the property qualifies as a historic resource for the purposes of review under CEQA. If the NVCAP contemplates demolition of the 340 Portage building, the CEQA document will need to analyze the potential for a significant and unavoidable impact and the City Council would need to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Attachments: Attachment A: Alternative Concepts: Land Use, Transportation, Open Space (PDF) Attachment B: City Council Adopted Goals and Objectives (PDF) Attachment C: Community Outreach Summary (DOCX) Attachment D: Opportunities and Constraints (DOCX) Attachment E: Policy Strategies (DOCX) Attachment F: Development Projects, May 2021 (PDF) Attachment G: Opportunity Sites Methodology (DOCX) Attachment H: Strategic Economics Financial Feasibility Memo, November 2020 (PDF) Attachment I: Strategic Economics Additional BMR Feasibility Memo, May 2021 (PDF) 0'190' 0'190' Alternative 3B New Park Maintain trees & landscaped buffer Expand Office Floor Area Up to 50' w/small ground floor retail New Mid -Rise Residential 50' w/ 70' bonus Height transition down towards Olive Retain Office/ Industrial Designation Six-Plexes Assumes lot consolidation Allow Duplexes Residential/Retail Mixed Use Corridor 50'/70' � 1 c 1 35' 1 N L — — Landscaped Setback Office/Light Industrial w/ Rezone Option Can be redeveloped & rezoned to MFR Creek Restoration & New Park 5 50' Alma Street Park Boulevard 40' Rsh Street 4110 50' 2 • 50' 50' 50'/70' Iw I Office/Industrial Retail Higher Density Mixed Use Lower Density Mixed Use Higher Density Residential Use Lower Density Residential Use Park/Open Space/Plaza El Camino Real 11111111 New Mid -Rise Residential 50' Height Increased residential density (70 du/acre) Creekside improvements required New Mid -Rise Residential 50' with small office & retail Repurpose Victorian office as community building Expand Office Floor Area Up to 50' w/small ground floor retail Demolish 340 Portage Mixed District* Office may remain or be replaced. Additional floor area would be residential *Extra 5' height bonus with ground floor retail Ground Floor Retail El Camino Real Alternative #3 Open Space Concepts New Park Maintain trees & landscaped buffer Pedestrian & Bicycle Connection Other Ground Level Open Space Types of Uses: Plazas, outdoor seating, landscaped setback areas, other landscaping 0.5 acres c c 0) Alma Street Park Boulevard Q 0 Creek Amenity & Trail Chestnut Avenue El Camino Real Park Creek Amenity Creek Path Linear Park/Woonerf Landscape Setback/Buffer Ground Level Open Space 0.4 acres 1 MEL Increased Ground -Level Open Space Reduced lot coverage, increased height. Types of Uses: Plazas, outdoor seating, landscaped setback areas, other landscaping Pocket Park El Camino Real 0'190' North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Project Goals, Objectives, Milestones and Proposed Boundary February 12, 2018 Proposed NVCAP Goals 1. Housing and Land Use Add to the City’s supply of multifamily housing, including market rate, affordable, “missing middle,” and senior housing in a walkable, mixed use, transit-accessible neighborhood, with retail and commercial services, open space, and possibly arts and entertainment uses. 2. Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections Create and enhance well-defined connections to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities, including connections to the Caltrain station, Park Boulevard and El Camino Real. 3. Connected Street Grid Create a connected street grid, filling in sidewalk gaps and street connections to California Avenue, the Caltrain Station, and El Camino Real where appropriate. 4. Community Facilities and Infrastructure Carefully align and integrate development of new community facilities and infrastructure with private development, recognizing both the community’s needs and that such investments can increase the cost of housing. 5. Balance of Community Interests Balance community-wide objectives with the interests of neighborhood residents and minimize displacement of existing residents. 6. Urban Design, Design Guidelines and Neighborhood Fabric Develop human-scale urban design strategies, and design guidelines that strengthen and support the neighborhood fabric. Infill development will respect the scale and character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. Proposed NVCAP Objectives 1. Data Driven Approach: Employ a data-driven approach that considers community desires, market conditions and forecasts, financial feasibility, existing uses and development patterns, development capacity, traffic and travel patterns, historic/cultural and natural resources, need for community facilities (e.g., schools), and other relevant data to inform plan policies. 2. Comprehensive User Friendly Document and Implementation: Create a comprehensive but user-friendly document that identifies the distribution, location and extent of land uses, planning policies, development regulations and design guidelines to enable development and needed infrastructure investments in the project area 3. Guide and Strategy for Staff and Decision Makers: Provide a guide and strategy for staff and decision-makers to bridge the gap between the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and individual development projects in order to streamline future land use and transportation decisions. 4. Meaningful Community Engagement: Enable a process with meaningful opportunities for community engagement, within the defined timeline, and an outcome (the CAP document) that reflects the community’s priorities. 5. Economic Feasibility: A determination of the economic and fiscal feasibility of the plan with specific analysis of market place factors and incentives and disincentives, as well as a cost-benefit analysis of public infrastructure investments and projected economic benefits to the City and community. 6. Environmental: A plan that is protective of public health and a process that complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachment C: Community Engagement City staff and consultants have engaged in a tremendous amount of community outreach, providing numerous opportunities for public engagement and meaningful input. Stakeholders, decision-makers, residents, and other community members have volunteered their time to thoughtfully consider the challenges and opportunities afforded by this project, and contribute to the evolving plan ideas. To date, the outreach program has included the following the following engagement and results: Working Group Meetings Staff and WG members have met regularly since October 2018. As of the preparation of this report, staff has held 17 meetings with the NVCAP WG. The project website (https://www.paloaltonvcap.org/) lists all the meetings, topics, and supporting materials. On October 8, 20201, the WG reviewed and provided feedback on the draft alternatives. The Group provided a wide range of comments, which are summarized below: • Height & density - WG members generally supported height and density increases and bonuses on El Camino Real, south of Acacia, where there are no abutting R-1 parcels. • Transportation - WG members generally supported transportation improvements, including prioritizing bicycle and pedestrian facilities and traffic calming measures. • Parks - WG members supported the large parks, small plazas, and public access and improvements to Matadero Creek, but wanted to see more park land in the plan area. Specifically, the WG wants the City to achieve the 4 acres/1000 residents identified in the masterplan. • Housing - WG members generally expressed support for below-market rate housing; there was mixed support for more market rate housing. • Traffic - Several WG members wanted to understand traffic impacts at greater levels of detail. • Heights and Single Family Homes - Several WG members preferred to retain the City’s building height reductions to 35 feet when commercial zoning districts are adjacent to residential zoning districts—in particular to protect R-1-zoned properties near Olive and Pepper from shadow impacts. • Historic Preservation - Several WG members preferred to retain all or a portion of the cannery building (especially the monitor roofs) at 340 Portage Ave. and wanted to understand the implications of removing the building. • Summary/Preferred Alternative: Five WG members preferred Alternative 2 (with modifications), expressing a desire for more modest expansion of residential uses and minimal new office floor area. Three WG members preferred Alternative 1. One member preferred Alternative 3. Four WG members expressed no preference; and one WG member was unresponsive. 1 October 8, 2020 - WG Meeting: Staff Memo: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=78672&t=79690.16 Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=78775&t=59942.68 Stakeholder Group Meetings Stakeholder groups including property owners, commercial tenants, area residents, Palo Alto Unified School District and affinity groups/advocates (affordable housing representatives, bicycle groups, environmental representatives, etc.) were identified early in the NVCAP process and their input was gathered through a series of six meetings. The summaries of these meetings are available online: https://www.paloaltonvcap.org/stakeholder-meetings. Staff also presented to the Palo Alto Unified School District Committee on December 2018, on February 20, 2020, and on October 15, 2020. Palo Alto Unified School District Board Members indicated an interest to site a new school to serve new families conceived in the draft alternatives. The City is supportive of working together to understand student yield from proposed typologies and suitable sites. During the development and public review of alternatives, City staff have continued discussions with stakeholders, such as property owners and affordable housing advocates to gather their feedback on evolving policy ideas and aspects of the alternatives. Decision Maker Meetings City Council Meetings - Since the initiation of the NVCAP planning work in October 2018, three check-in meetings took place with the City Council. At the March 2019 Town Hall meeting, the City Council received an update on the NVCAP project, the existing conditions analysis, and expanded the scope of the planning process. When presented with a contract for expanded services in August of 2019, the Council approved the amended contract that included the expanded scope. The Council, however, in October 2019 did not approve additional budget to support that scope. Historic Resources Board (HRB) Meeting - An HRB meeting was held in July 2019 (Staff Report # 10499) to review and discuss the Historic Resources Evaluation Report and the property survey, conducted by Page and Turnbull in January 2019. Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) Meetings - The PRC met twice, January 2020 and November 2020, to discuss, provide input, and finally review the final Matadero Creek Renaturalization Conceptual Alternative Analysis. (January Staff Report; November Staff Report) Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) Meetings - The PTC had a Study Session in April 2020 (Staff Report # 10918) to review and comment on the first drafts of the planning alternatives proposed by staff and consultants. The PTC met on December 9, 2020 (Staff Report #11730) and January 13, 2021 to review and debate the alternatives, and requested additional analysis which staff and consultants provided (Staff Responses 1/13/21). At its March 10, 2021 hearing (Staff Report #11991), the PTC recommended Alternative #3 as the preferred alternative (4-2 vote), with two changes: exploring modifications to feasibly increase the amount of below-market rate housing from 15% to 20% and increasing the amount of open space. Other Community Engagement Community Workshops - The first community workshop was held in February 2019 (Meeting info: https://bit.ly/NVCAPworkshopFeb2019). The community feedback helped to frame the basis of the proposed draft plans. The City hosted the second community workshop on February 27, 2020. The workshop solicited input on the three draft plan alternatives and endeavored to identify community priorities on various topics (Presentation: https://bit.ly/NVCAPworkshopFeb2020). Community Surveys - Staff prepared two online community surveys (April 20202 and October 20203) to solicit input from the members of the community. The surveys aimed to reach community members unable to attend the workshops. An online questionnaire on the draft alternatives was created by staff to solicit input from the community at-large in October 2020. About 30 community members responded. The majority of the participants preferred Alternative 3, supporting higher residential densities and heights, allowing small office footprints. There was general agreement on the proposed transportation improvements, and parks and open space proposals. Opinions varied over preservation of the cannery building. Some preferred removal of old cannery building for better and efficient use of the existing space, while others supported partial retention. A link to the responses is provided in the footnote.4 Project Website - To augment the community engagement efforts, the city hosts a robust project website (https://www.paloaltonvcap.org/) that serves as the primary online portal for community engagement. It includes information on project updates, upcoming events, updated summaries of workshops and staff reports. Public Noticing / Mailing List - Notices of all public hearings and WG meetings were published in accordance with the regulations set forth by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and City regulations. Additionally, an extensive emailing list consisting of over 430 interested community members has been developed and maintained by city staff and is used for disseminating information to all interested individuals. 2 April 2020: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=76365&t=68497.3 3 October 2020: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload .aspx?BlobID=79506&t=75708.88 4 Survey Responses: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=79506&t=75708.88 Attachment D: Emerging Opportunities and Constraints Following the preparation of the existing conditions analysis in 2018, several additional opportunities and constraints have emerged. The Council may wish to consider these factors as it reviews the alternatives. COVID-19 Global Pandemic – The COVID-19 global pandemic resulted in a Shelter in Place Order in Santa Clara County on March 17, 2020 . Since that time, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, and California have endured sheltering in place, modest re-openings, renewed closures when COVID-19 transmission and hospitalizations have spiked. Professionals in a number of fields have tried to interpr et the long-term impacts of COVID-19. Three questions that are particularly relevant to the NVCAP: (1) Will employees who can work from home return to their offices? (2) Will the Bay Area population continue to grow? (3) Will the public continue to use Caltrain? While the answers to these questions cannot be completely known, there are indications that employers will explore “hybrid” options that include working from home and office -based work, and that in the long-run the Bay Area population will continue to grow. While the impacts of COVID-19 should certainly be accounted for by the City, in the long-term staff believe that both office and residential uses in Palo Alto—and in North Ventura specifically—will remain desirable. Housing Element Update & 6th Cycle RHNA – Every eight years, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determines how many housing units a region must add to meet projected population growth. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) then develops a methodology to assign the region’s allocation to individual jurisdictions. Based on the preferred methodology developed by ABAG, Palo Alto anticipates an allocation of 6,086 housing units for the 6th RHNA Cycle. The City will need to identify and potential rezone housing opportunity sites throughout Palo Alto to accommodate this target. The current Housing Element identifies 19 housing opportunity sites in the NVCAP, totaling 364 units. Unless permits are issued for housing development on these sites in advance of 2023, these sites cannot be re-used in the Housing Element without significant zoning changes. The Council may consider the NVCAP’s role in providing housing for Palo Altans, and the NVCAP’s role in helping the City meet its legal obligations to identify housing opportunity sites. The 6,086 units must be distributed across Palo Alto in an equitable manner. Nevertheless, the project area presents an opportunity to accommodate some of the projected growth in an area served by rapid commuter transit and located walking and biking distance to significant job centers (e.g., the Research Park and Stanford University). 200 Portage Avenue – On November 18, 2020 the City received a pre-application for the development of townhomes on a portion of the site generally known as 340 Portage (or colloquially as “the Fry’s site”).1 The applicant filed the pre-application under the regulations provided by SB 330. Known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, SB 330 means that: (1) Upon submittal of an application and a payment of the permit processing fee, a housing developer is allowed to “freeze” the applicable fees and development standards that apply to their project while they assemble the rest of the material necessary for a full application submittal. (2) The project must have no more than 5 hearings, including appeal hearings; (3) Cities are prohibited from downzoning certain parcels, adopting new design review standards that are not objective, and cannot issue a moratorium on housing development. On March 31, 2021, the property owner submitted a formal application (within the statutory timeframe required by SB330), with a proposal for 91 for-sale townhomes. The submission of this SB 330 application significantly impacts the NVCAP. While some of the proposed changes that affect 340 Portage could be adopted (as long as they do not downzone the parcel), they may not be realized if the townhomes are built. Furthermore, the proposed requirements for open space and other community benefits may also not be imposed or realized as the development requirements for the 200 Portage are now effectively frozen. Planned Communities – The Palo Alto City Council voted to revive the use of Planned Communities (under a nickname of “Planned Home Zoning”). Proposed PHZs were to include at least 20% deed-restricted Below Market Rate housing units. The primary benefit of the PHZ would be the housing provided. The City Council conducted a pre-screening for a PHZ at 2951 El Camino Real. The proposal included 113 units of housing, 5,000 square feet of office space, 1,000 square feet of retail. The project has not submitted a formal application; and it is unclear at this time if or when the project may advance. 1 More information about SB 330 and 200 Portage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/200-Portage-Avenue Attachment E: Major Policy Strategies Beyond the land and transportation maps, the NVCAP will include a range of policy measures to support implementation of plan goals and mitigate potential impacts. 1. Generating Affordable Housing The Working Group worked at length to explore various ways t o generate affordable housing. Limited Equity Cooperative: A limited equity cooperative is a homeownership model in which residents purchase a share in a development (rather than an individual unit) and commit to resell their share at a price determined by formula. The resale price is often less than the “market price” were the unit not part of the cooperative. The arrangement that maintains affordability at purchase and over the long term. This strategy has been successfully done in New York and in Davis, CA, among other places. Office Conversion: To mandate that office become housing, the City would need to conduct an amortization study and determine the date by which the office use would need to cease. Ceasing office use would not automatically turn the office building into housing; the property owner would need to undertake significant upgrades to the properties in order to convert the existing building to housing or, more likely, demolish the buildings to construct housing. However, this strategy does not provide any funding to support the development of the housing and only provides the required on-site BMR housing as required by the local municipal code. Commercial Linkage Fee: Commercial Linkage Fee (CLF) became effective in Palo Alto in 2017. CLF is a standard tool used by local governments to generate funds for affordable housing and support the development of affordable housing in tandem with new commercial development and associated employment. In this way, new commercial development is theoretically supporting the construction of housing to support additional employees, thereby improving the jobs/housing balance. This fee does not generate BMR housing per se, but would generate BMR housing based on the existing inclusionary housing requirement and can be used to leverage other sources of funding. The NVCAP could also support utilizing funds captured within the NVCAP boundaries on BMR projects within the planning area. Jobs- Housing Linkage Policy: A jobs-housing linkage policy requires that commercial space be matched by the development of housing for the workers associated with the new commercial space. In 2019, the City of Mountain View adopted a Jobs-Housing Linkage Policy as part of the East Whisman Precise Plan, which requires commercial developers to partner with residential developers through a credit system. A planning area-wide policy that requires new housing development to go hand-in-hand with new office development, ensuring that commercial development helps subsidize residential redevelopment. Establish More Housing-Focused Development Standards: Adjusting development standards can decrease the cost of construction, allowing more units to be developed. The City has implemented development standards to encourage more housing development, including BMR units. Staff continues to explore additional development incentives. Some suggested development standards: • Allow for higher housing density and taller building heights, which results in more required market rate units and therefore more BMR units through greater site efficiency and reduced per unit development costs. • Allow for higher office square footage in return for funds to help subsidize BMR units. • Reduce the parking requirement, which reduces the cost of the housing. • Support alternative types of housing that are “affordable by design,” such as: co -living, studios, micro units. Community Land Trust (CLT): A Community Land Trust is an organization that buys residential properties, keeps ownership of the ground beneath the buildings, and then rents or sells the units back to low-income residents. The tenant rents the housing only; the buyer owns the housing only; neither has rights to the underlying land. It’s a strategy that does two things traditional government-subsidized affordable housing does not: it guarantees the property will remain affordable forever, and it gives residents the chance to build equity in their home. There are at least seven operating in the Bay Area, including in Oakland, San Francisco, East Palo Alto and Sonoma County. Deed Restrictions to Cover “Missing Middle” Housing: Deed-restrictions are a mechanism for preserving the long-term affordability of units whose price was reduced to below-market levels through a government or philanthropic subsidy, inclusionary zoning or affordability incentive. Deed restrictions help to safeguard the long-term value to the community of the initial investment in affordable homeownership by limiting any subsequent sales of the home to income-eligible borrowers at an affordable price. Create a Fundraising Program for Housing: The non-profit group Santa Cruz Gives is a holiday fundraising program in Santa Cruz County. Their goal is to create a new network of donors and increase local giving via crowdsourcing to various groups/causes. One program that funds are donated to is Housing Matters; these funds are used for assistance programs and temporary housing. Housing Matters partners with individuals and families to create pathways out of their homelessness into permanent housing. San Francisco recently used this model to leverage private dollars to access other financing in the development of supportive housing. Similarly, Facebook Catalyst Housing Fund is helping developers build, rehabilitate or preserve housing. Through a series of loans and grants, Facebook’s Catalyst Housing Fund is helping developers build, rehabilitate or preserve about 550 units of affordable hou sing near its Menlo Park headquarters—70% of which are reserved for residents in the region’s lowest income brackets. Housing Trust Silicon Valley’s TECH Fund (Tech + Equity + Community + Housing) is an initiative created by Housing Trust Silicon Valley to create opportunities for philanthropists and large Bay Area employers to be part of the affordable housing solution. The fund began in March 2017 with an initial investment from the Cisco Foundation that has since been followed by investments from Grove Foundation, LinkedIn, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Pure Storage and Sobrato Family Foundation. Housing Trust to date has raised $52 million for the TECH Fund to be revolved over the course of a ten-year investment period – at the end of which TECH Fund investors receive a modest return on their investments in addition to the original investment being repaid and, most importantly, having created 10,000 affordable housing opportunities during that time. Business Tax: A business tax could create income to fund local services, infrastructure, programs, and other public needs, including funding affordable housing. Currently, Palo Alto has no business tax. Establish a Special Assessment District Tax to Subsidize an Affordable Housing Development Fund: Special Assessment financing could be a successful economic development tool, targeted to enable development and redevelopment projects as well as leverage other financing tools. A special assessment tax is a surtax levied on property owners to pay f or specific infrastructure projects, but can include development or preservation of affordable housing. The tax is charged only to the owners of property in the neighborhood that will benefit from the project. That neighborhood is called the special assessment district. Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC): This funding provides tax incentives to construct or rehabilitate affordable rental housing for low-income households. The LIHTC subsidizes the acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing for low - and moderate-income tenants. The federal government issues tax credits and State housing agencies then award the credits to private developers of affordable rental housing projects through a competitive process. Developers generally sell the credits to private investors to obtain funding. Once the housing project is placed in service (essentially, made available to tenants), investors can claim the LIHTC over a 10-year period. 2. Value Capture of Upzoning If the City chooses to increase the height and density allowed in the planning area, it may provide property owners an incentive for redevelopment. This “upzoning” would add value to existing property owners that they can monetize by selling the property or redeveloping at greater densities than are currently achievable. A key dynamic that the City should consider is how the City benefits from this rezoning and the resulting increase in private property values. Many Working Group and community members have stated a desire for certain community benefits, such as affordable housing, park space, creek restoration, and neighborhood retail. Some of these amenities add value to a project, drawing in customers and potential tenants. These amenities, however, also add expenses to a developer’s proforma. As Strategic Economics’ reported in January 2020, new office uses can likely contribute more in terms of community benefits than residential or retail, given its higher net value. Finding the balance between requiring enough amenities to meet plan goals and not asking so much that development becomes infeasible is a tricky balance, especially over time as rents and construction costs change. Below are several approaches to generating value and capturing the value for public amenities. Local Density Bonus: Providing additional floor area ratio (FAR), unit density, and/or height can allow a multifamily housing development to provide more housing. The City has implemented a local density bonus program called the Housing Incentive Program (HIP). For 100% affordable projects, it also provides flexibility in development and parking standards. Since the HIP allows more density than is permitted under State Density Bonus Law, it provides a real incentive for applicants. The HIP allows for public and decision-maker input through architectural review. Building on this program, staff propose a NVCAP-specific density program that allows additional height and unit density to 100% affordable housing projects or 100% work -force housing projects. These deed-restricted projects provide housing units to households who cannot find housing they can afford in the marketplace. Projects that are 100% affordable can leverage the up-zoning for public subsidies, grants, and other financial support. Fees and Exactions: The City can set fees and exactions to ensure the plan’s goals for community amenities are funded and implemented as projects are developed. Exactions may include on-site affordable housing requirements (beyond the existing 15% Inclusionary Housing Ordinance) or creek restoration and park dedication requirements. Alternatively, or in addition, the City may assess fees for parks and open space, affordable housing, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and/or other infrastructure. The City would then collect fees into a fund to be implemented through City-initiated projects, as stipulated by the coordinated area plan. Menu of Options: The City could list amenities as a menu of options for developers to choose from. This could provide some flexibility for the applicant, while ensuring that the community and City obtain their desired benefits. Assessment Districts: Property owners may choose to apply a tax assessment on their properties to pool funds toward specific goals and projects, over and above the City’s services. Assessment districts can be set up for a variety of purposes, from retail ameni ties to lighting and parks/landscape maintenance. Services are governed and administered by the property owners, typically as part of a nonprofit association. These districts ensure that funds raised within a specific area are spent within that area. A Green Benefit District (GBD) provides additional maintenance and capital improvements such as parks, open spaces, landscaping, and streetscape beatification, within a designated area. Residential projects that seek approval under streamlined review processes may only be subject to objective standards. As a result, whichever method or methods that the City pursues, requirements must be clear and objective. Exceptions to this would be in the form of development agreements, negotiated agreements typically on large properties with more complex entitlements. 3. Anti-Displacement Measures The trend in Palo Alto, as is the case in most inner bay area cities, is that housing is becoming less available and therefore more expensive because the regional supply has remained relatively static as compared to the high level of regional job growth and increase in high income earners. Without the production of more market-rate and affordable housing units, residents of Palo Alto will be met with further increased housing costs an d decreasing availability. As Strategic Economics’ reported in January 2020, estimated residential rents in the neighborhood for new construction range from $3,850 to $4,675. A household would need to earn a minimum $154,000 to $187,000, respectively, to a fford these rates, based on the 30% rent burden threshold. Most redevelopment anticipated will come at the loss of one-story commercial buildings and renter-occupied single-family housing. El Camino Real and Lambert Avenue, in particular, provide relatively low rent spaces for important neighborhood retail and auto service uses. Some of these uses may be able to relocate elsewhere on El Camino Real, where we can expect vacancies to persist due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on local businesses. Displacement Policies & Displacement Prevention & Mitigation Strategies The City of Palo has a Rental Housing Stabilization Ordinance that describes lease terms and tenant-landlord relations. It does not include rent control provisions nor stipulate reloc ation requirements following demolition of the unit. Senate Bill 330, effective January 2020 through January 2025, includes stipulations for residential tenants that are displaced as a result of a housing development project: • No Net Loss: A housing development that would demolish any existing unit may only be approved if replacement affordable units are provided. • Relocation and Right to Return: Occupants of units slated for demolition shall be granted (1) right to remain in the unit until 6 months before the start of construction; (2) relocation assistance; and (3) a right of first refusal to return once the new unit is constructed. • Replacement of “Protected” Units: Certain affordability conditions must be applied to housing development projects that would demolish any existing “protected” units occupied by renter households, defined as: o affordable units deed-restricted to households earning below 80 percent of AMI, o subject to a local rent control program; o occupied by low-income households earning below 80 percent of AMI. In other words, a developer would need to determine the household income of occupants of the units proposed for demolition and offer a replacement unit with the same number of bedrooms and at a rent affordable at the same or lower income category. Further, the City may consider the following strategies to further prevent or mitigate residential displacement: • Ensure that right to return provisions extended beyond January 2025, if SB330 is not reauthorized • Work with brokers and property owners of Housing Element sites to consider housing development projects • Use affordable housing funds to acquire Housing Element or other opportunity sites in coordination with an affordable housing developer in o rder to develop subsidized housing • Support alternative models of housing development, such as co -living and cooperative housing, that may have fewer in-unit amenities, but provide for affordable housing by design. The City may consider the following strategies to further prevent or mitigate commercial displacement: • Identify vacant commercial tenant spaces on El Camino Real and other nearby commercial locations • Work with commercial brokers and property owners to make a good faith effort to relocate commercial tenants, as a condition of project approval 4. Parking Management As part of the NVCAP project, ARUP completed a parking occupancy study in Fall 2018 (i.e., pre- COVID) that identified a surplus of parking capacity within the planning area.1 On-street parking peaked midday at 63% occupancy, while off-street parking peaked in the afternoons at 43% capacity. ARUP notes that a well-run parking program generally strives for approximately 85% occupancy, ensuring that parking is available, but not underutilized. As the population of workers and residents change as a result of the NVCAP, the City will need to consider strategies to manage parking across the planning area and on individual sites. Possible strategies that are currently in use in Palo Alto or could be applied in the NVCAP area are explored below: Unbundling. Some cities encourage or require rental housing to “unbundle” parking for housing, meaning that parking spaces are leased separately from units. This tool is often used as a way to discourage car ownership or attract tenants that do not own cars. A concern raised by the community with this approach is about potential spillover parking onto the street, since 1 Parking Occupancy Study: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=73918&t=52731.83 tenants may be motivated to parking on the street rather than within the housing complex in order to save on parking fees. Shared Parking. The Zoning Ordinance allows for shared parking on sites with multiple uses and offers an up to 20% reduction in required parking. This intent is to capture parking efficiencies for different uses depending on the time of day. For example, residential uses tend to have maximum demand in the evenings and overnight, while office commercial uses have maximum demand during the work-day. Shared parking reductions are a discretionary request that may require additional transportation demand management (TDM) measures. Parking Assessment Districts. Parking assessment districts allow property owners within a specific area to assess their properties for the purpose of building or maintaining parking facilities. Current parking district regulations create some bias to ward development of non- residential uses over residential uses. For example, non-residential uses have the option of paying into the Downtown Parking Assessment District in-lieu of providing parking on site. Given the high cost of land and the value of off ice lease rates, developers often choose to pay into the District and maximize their leasable area. Residential uses do not have this option. Moreover, the current downtown rate, at $106,171/space, may be too high for a residential developer in the NVCAP to bear. Retail Parking Incentives. It can be challenging for developers to accommodate retail parking requirements within a mixed-use building. Physically, there is competition at the ground -floor for lobby space, parking, mechanical, and refuse; economically, retail parking does not pay for itself given low retail rents. In 2019, the City Council acknowledged this challenge and revised the Zoning Ordinance on CN and CS zoned sites abutting El Camino Real to exempt the first 1,500 square feet of ground-floor retail uses (within a residential mixed-use project) from the vehicle parking requirement. If desired, the City could provide a similar incentive in the NVCAP area. Underground vs. Podium Configurations. Several recent development applications and completed projects have included underground parking in their projects. In part, developers are choosing underground parking, so that they can build leasable space in the 3 or 4 stories of developable area permitted above ground. However, if the NVCAP allows increases in the height limit, developers may choose to locate parking above -ground, in a podium format, as a way to reduce construction costs. Podium construction can provide opportunities for ground - floor retail and courtyard open spaces. But, the City may also want to provide specific standards for the appearance of the garage from the sidewalk, the types of active ground -floor uses. Pictured above, the Maya apartments in Oakland, CA include a podium on the first level, with parking in mechanical lifts. Retail and restaurant uses wrap the parking area and provide active uses at the sidewalk. Mechanical Lifts. Mechanical lifts may be used by developers to meet parking requirements on smaller sites proposing higher density projects. Lifts allow for a doubling (or more) of parking spaces but do require some additional ground -floor height. Lifts are generally acceptable for meeting residential parking requirements, but are not appropriate for ADA spaces, visitors, customers, and other short-term users. Currently, the City allows mechanical lifts. 5. Placemaking A sense of place can be instilled by landmarks, signage, iconic buildings or signature trees, important gathering places, and uses. It is also reinforced by a consistent street wall and the relationship between the public realm and the private building. The more that driveways and parking lots can be located on side or rear streets, the more that the mass of the building or fronting plazas can reinforce the pedestrian experience. Given the historic events and persons associated with 340 Portage, public spaces located on or near the parcel many incorporate cannery-related themes and other placemaking elements that pay homage to Thomas Foon Chew. He was one of the largest cannery owners in the United States and one of the most successful Chinese businesspeople of his era. Incorporating the history into the site can and should extend beyond plaques; this history should be a theme that ties public and private spaces together. Nodes and Entries. How do you know when you have arrived in the NVCAP area? Right now, it is difficult to know that you have arrived in the plan area, because there is a weak sense of place. The most concentrated and dense projects may ultimately define the “center” of North Ventura and provide a sense of place. Understanding the center and designing the uses and interface between the public and private realm will be essential for placemaking. Building Design. Variation is also needed to differentiate the sense of place. This variation can be included in the design of the building with features such as memorable colors, shapes, or materials; a cluster of taller landmark buildings; or an addition of a landmark to the streetscape. The plan will need to balance the need for objective design standards with a placemaking desire for variety, creativity, and visual interest. Active Ground Floor Uses. To fulfill the project goals toward pedestrian- and bicycle-orientation, the experience from the ground-floor needs to be human-scaled and prioritize these modes. For example, parking areas and driveways should be accessed off of side streets, whenever possible. At present, the Retail Preservation Ordinance will require ground -floor uses on El Camino Real and Lambert Avenue to remain as retail or retail like. However, in other parts of the planning area, projects may be 100% residential or 100% office uses. Balancing tenant privacy and desire for visual interest from the sidewalk will be important parts of the implementing zoning standards. Public Spaces and Matadero Creek. Parks, plazas, and other open space will contribute to the identity of the neighborhood. Connecting open spaces from Boulware Park, the future park at 330 Birch St., and potentially the creek could be a signature feature of the neighborhood and make it a unique place for neighbors, workers, and residents citywide. Transportation improvements, such as crosswalks, traffic calming, bicycle facilities and parking will need to be coordinated to ensure safety and convenient access. Integrating public plazas and small and large open spaces as part of redevelopment projects would provide opportunities for public gathering and reinforce the pedestrian experience.2 Tree Replacement. Palo Alto’s trees are one of the highlights of the City’s public realm and identity. As part of the design review process, tree preservation and replacement are determined on a project by project basis and may be a source of community concern. The planning area includes many mature trees: on the street, on private property, and in the two large surface parking lots at 395 Page Mill Rd. and 340 Portage Ave. Having a clear policy for retention and replacement of trees will help protect important trees, maintain the City’s tree canopy and identity, set expectations for future projects, and streamline project review. 2 The City’s consultant, WRA, has completed a study of creek imp rovements concepts and cost estimates: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=79219&t=68527.88 PROJECT TYPE PROJECT ADDRESS NET GAIN OFFICE/R&D and RETAIL NET GAIN DWELLING UNIT YEAR PROJECT DESCRIPTION / STATUS UPDATE (5/4/2021) 1 Residential Development 300 Lambert Avenue 49 2021 (No Formal Application Submitted) Request for pre-Screening application submitted on 5/6/21 for New multi-family residential condominium project with 49 condo units and a below-grade parking garage. The project is pursuing approval for the use of PHZ zoning regulations under the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 2 Mixed Use Project 2951 El Camino Real 6,000 113 2020 (No Formal Application Submitted) Two prescreening applications (one original and second one revision of the original) for Mixed Use project (PHZ) with 113 new residential units submitted on 11/3/2020. No formal application submitted as of 5/4/2021. 3 Residential Development 200 Portage Avenue 0 91 2021 (Project Submitted) Subdivision application for tentative map filed on 4/7/2021 and major ARB review submitted for demo of commercial space and construction of 91 new homes on 3/31/2021. Project under review, a notice of Incomplete sent on 4/30/2021 for the ARB review application. 4 Research and Development (R&D) Building 3241 Park Blvd.3,358 0 2020 (Project Submitted) Major ARB for R&D building submitted on 2/11/2020. Project plans resubmitted and second ARB hearing to be scheduled in June /July 2021. 5 Zoning Text Amendment 340 Portage Avenue 0 0 2020 (Project Submitted) Zoning text amendment submitted on 7/17/2020. Review dependent on City Council's decision of interpreting nonconforming use ratio at the site on 6/14/2021 6 Single Family Homes 295 and 305 Olive Avenue 0 2 SFH with 2 ADUs and 2 JADUs 2020 (Project Submitted) Two separate IR applications for SFH, ADU and JADU approved and project ready to file for Building Permit 7 Mixed Use Project 3265 El Camino Real 275 3 2018 (Project Entitled) Project entitled, but construction has not started yet. List of Projects in the NVCAP Area Council Pre-Screening/No Formal Application Submitted Entitlement Submitted and Under Review Planning Entitlement Issued (Not Under Construction) Page 1 of 2 PROJECT TYPE PROJECT ADDRESS NET GAIN OFFICE/R&D and RETAIL NET GAIN DWELLING UNIT YEAR PROJECT DESCRIPTION / STATUS UPDATE (5/4/2021) 8 Mixed Use Project 3001 El Camino Real (Mikes Bike Site)19,800 44 2018 (Project Entitled) Project entitlement extended by City Council. It will remain valid six months after shelter-in- place ends. 9 Mixed Use Project 3225 El Camino Real (Foot Locker Site)4984 8 2018 (Project Entitled) Project under construction Data Sources: City of Palo Alto's Accela Data and Building Eye Data. Updated on 5/4/2021 Project Under Construction Page 2 of 2 Lamb e rt A ve nu e El Camin Port age Avenue Pep per Avenue Olive Avenue Ac acia Av enue Ash Street Page Mill Road Ash Street Park Boulevard Alma Street PARKING GARAGE 1 3 2 -3 8 -0 4 2 1 3 2 -3 8-0 6 7 1 3 2 -3 8 -0 4 7 1 3 2 -3 8 -0 1 7 1 3 2 -3 8-0 1 8 1 3 2 -3 8 -0 2 2 1 3 2-3 8-0 1 9 1 3 2-3 8-0 2 0 1 3 2-3 8-0 2 1 1 3 2 -3 8 -0 5 6 1 3 2-3 7 -0 2 4 1 3 2-3 7 -0 7 2 1 3 2 -3 7-0 4 9 1 3 2 -3 7-0 4 8 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 4 6 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 4 5 1 3 2-3 7 -0 4 4 1 3 2-3 7-0 5 3 1 3 2 -3 7-0 4 2 1 3 2 -3 8 -0 6 9 1 3 2-3 8-0 7 0 1 3 2 -3 8 -0 6 2 1 3 2-3 8 -0 6 8 1 3 2-3 8-0 4 5 1 3 2 -3 8 -0 4 6 1 3 2 -3 2 -0 4 7 1 3 2-3 2-0 2 6 1 3 2-3 2 -0 2 7 1 3 2-3 2-0 3 7 1 3 2-3 2-0 2 5 1 3 2 -3 2 -0 2 4 1 3 2-3 2 -0 4 3 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 5 5 1 3 2-3 8 -0 7 2 1 3 2 -3 7-0 4 7 1 3 2 -3 8 -0 7 1 1 3 2-3 8-0 5 5 1 3 2-3 8-0 1 1132-3 8-0 4 0 1 3 2 -3 8-0 5 8 1 3 2 -3 8-0 4 1 1 3 2 -3 8 -0 1 3 1 3 2-3 8 -0 5 7 1 3 2 -3 8 -0 4 8 1 3 2 -3 8-0 4 3 1 3 2-3 8-0 6 0 1 3 2-3 8-0 6 1 1 3 2-2 6-0 7 1 1 3 2 -3 7-0 6 4 1 3 2-3 2-0 5 4 1 3 2-3 2 -0 3 4 1 3 2 -3 2-0 3 3 1 3 2 -3 2-0 3 2 1 3 2 -3 2-0 3 1 1 3 2-3 2 -0 3 5 1 3 2 -3 2-0 2 9 1 3 2 -3 2 -0 3 0 1 3 2 -3 2-0 2 8 1 3 2-3 2-0 3 6 1 3 2-3 2-0 4 2 1 3 2-3 2-0 5 3 1 3 2-2 6 -0 7 6 1 3 2 -2 6-0 7 9 1 3 2 -2 6-0 7 8 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 7 3 1 3 2 -3 7-0 0 4 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 0 3 1 3 2 -3 7-0 0 5 1 3 2-3 7-0 0 6 1 3 2-3 7 -0 0 7 1 3 2-3 7 -0 0 8 1 3 2 -3 7-0 1 5 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 6 7 1 3 2-3 7 -0 0 9 1 3 2-3 7 -0 4 1 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 4 0 1 3 2 -3 7-0 3 9 1 3 2 -3 7-0 3 8 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 3 4 1 3 2-3 7-0 2 9 1 3 2 -3 7-0 2 8 1 3 2 -3 7-0 2 7 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 2 6 1 3 2-3 7-0 3 7 1 3 2-3 7-0 3 6 1 3 2-3 7 -0 3 5 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 2 5 1 3 2-3 7 -0 3 0 1 3 2-3 7 -0 5 2 1 3 2-3 7-0 3 3 1 3 2-3 7-0 5 6 1 3 2 -3 7-0 6 3 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 6 2 1 3 2 -3 7-0 6 1 1 3 2-3 7 -0 6 0 1 3 2-3 7-0 5 9 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 5 8 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 6 8 1 3 2-3 7 -0 6 9132-3 7 -0 7 0 1 3 2-3 7 -0 7 1 1 3 2 -3 8 -0 4 2 1 3 2 -3 8-0 6 7 1 3 2 -3 8 -0 4 7 1 3 2 -3 8 -0 1 7 1 3 2 -3 8-0 1 8 1 3 2 -3 8 -0 2 2 1 3 2-3 8-0 1 9 1 3 2-3 8-0 2 0 1 3 2-3 8-0 2 1 1 3 2 -3 8 -0 5 6 1 3 2-3 7 -0 2 4 1 3 2-3 7 -0 7 2 1 3 2 -3 7-0 4 9 1 3 2 -3 7-0 4 8 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 4 6 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 4 5 1 3 2-3 7 -0 4 4 1 3 2-3 7-0 5 3 1 3 2 -3 7-0 4 2 1 3 2 -3 8 -0 6 9 1 3 2-3 8-0 7 0 1 3 2 -3 8 -0 6 2 1 3 2-3 8 -0 6 8 1 3 2-3 8-0 4 5 1 3 2 -3 8 -0 4 6 1 3 2 -3 2 -0 4 7 1 3 2-3 2-0 2 6 1 3 2-3 2 -0 2 7 1 3 2-3 2-0 3 7 1 3 2-3 2-0 2 5 1 3 2 -3 2 -0 2 4 1 3 2-3 2 -0 4 3 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 5 5 1 3 2-3 8 -0 7 2 1 3 2 -3 7-0 4 7 1 3 2 -3 8 -0 7 1 1 3 2-3 8-0 5 5 1 3 2-3 8-0 1 1132-3 8-0 4 0 1 3 2 -3 8-0 5 8 1 3 2 -3 8-0 4 1 1 3 2 -3 8 -0 1 3 1 3 2-3 8 -0 5 7 1 3 2 -3 8 -0 4 8 1 3 2 -3 8-0 4 3 1 3 2-3 8-0 6 0 1 3 2-3 8-0 6 1 1 3 2-2 6-0 7 1 1 3 2 -3 7-0 6 4 1 3 2-3 2-0 5 4 1 3 2-3 2 -0 3 4 1 3 2 -3 2-0 3 3 1 3 2 -3 2-0 3 2 1 3 2 -3 2-0 3 1 1 3 2-3 2 -0 3 5 1 3 2 -3 2-0 2 9 1 3 2 -3 2 -0 3 0 1 3 2 -3 2-0 2 8 1 3 2-3 2-0 3 6 1 3 2-3 2-0 4 2 1 3 2-3 2-0 5 3 1 3 2-2 6 -0 7 6 1 3 2 -2 6-0 7 9 1 3 2 -2 6-0 7 8 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 7 3 1 3 2 -3 7-0 0 4 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 0 3 1 3 2 -3 7-0 0 5 1 3 2-3 7-0 0 6 1 3 2-3 7 -0 0 7 1 3 2-3 7 -0 0 8 1 3 2 -3 7-0 1 5 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 6 7 1 3 2-3 7 -0 0 9 1 3 2-3 7 -0 4 1 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 4 0 1 3 2 -3 7-0 3 9 1 3 2 -3 7-0 3 8 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 3 4 1 3 2-3 7-0 2 9 1 3 2 -3 7-0 2 8 1 3 2 -3 7-0 2 7 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 2 6 1 3 2-3 7-0 3 7 1 3 2-3 7-0 3 6 1 3 2-3 7 -0 3 5 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 2 5 1 3 2-3 7 -0 3 0 1 3 2-3 7 -0 5 2 1 3 2-3 7-0 3 3 1 3 2-3 7-0 5 6 1 3 2 -3 7-0 6 3 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 6 2 1 3 2 -3 7-0 6 1 1 3 2-3 7 -0 6 0 1 3 2-3 7-0 5 9 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 5 8 1 3 2 -3 7 -0 6 8 1 3 2-3 7 -0 6 9132-3 7 -0 7 0 1 3 2-3 7 -0 7 1 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'234' NVCAP Parcels with Active Projects Updated May 7, 2021 CITY O F PALO A L T O I N C O R P O R A T E D C ALI FO R N I A P a l o A l t o T 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 cmoitra, 2021-05-07 11:24:18 NVCAP Parcel Ownership& Potential Sites5 7 21 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 3241 Park Blvd. 200 Portage Av. 295 & 305 Olive Av. 340 Portage Av. 300 Lambert Av. 3265 El Camino Real 3225 El Camino Real 3001-3017 El Camino Real 2951 El Camino Real Attachment G: Opportunity Site Analysis and Development Potential Methodology To estimate the development potential in Tables 2 and 3 in the staff report, City staff and consultants developed a methodology for potential buildout on “opportunity sites” in the planning area. The project team sorted the sites into tiers based on the following characteristics of each parcel: • Tier 1 (most potential): Owner has expressed interest in redevelopment; or parcel is greater than 10,000 sf, and/or contiguous parcels under single ownership exceed 10,000 sf. Shown as redeveloped in Alternatives 1, 2, and 3B. • Tier 2 (moderate potential): Parcels less than 10,000 sf, which require multiple tenant relocations, but contiguous sites under single ownership allows for consolidation and redevelopment on a lot that is greater than 10,000 sf. Shown as redeveloped in Alternatives 2 and 3B. • Tier 3 (least potential): Parcels less than 10,000 sf, parcels which require site acquisition, lot consolidation and/or multiple tenant relocations to achieve a lot that is greater than 10,000 sf. Shown as Alternative 3B only. The opportunity sites do not include parcels that have owner-occupied single-family homes; Santa Clara Valley Water District properties; commercial condos; and parcels that have redeveloped since 2010. The resulting potential development sites, by tier, are illustrated in the map on the following page. STRATEGIC ECONOMICS | 2991 SHATTUCK AVE. BERKELEY, CA. 94705 | 510.647.5291 DRAFT MEMORANDUM To: Clare Campbell, City of Palo Alto From: Sujata Srivastava, Strategic Economics Date: November 17, 2020 Subject: Financial Feasibility of NVCAP Alternatives Introduction This memo summarizes the key financial feasibility findings as they relate to the preliminary land use alternatives for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan. The conclusions presented in this report are based on a financial feasibility analysis that was completed in January 2020. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, rental apartment vacancy rates have increased and rents have declined, but the need for housing is likely to continue growing. Reducing the cost of construction for residential development continues to be important for improving the feasibility of new construction; the overall conclusions from early in 2020 are unchanged. Alternative 3 allows for more efficient housing types and a greater mix of land uses, and is therefore the most viable alternative of the three proposed alternatives, and the most likely to deliver community benefits. Approach to the Analysis Strategic Economics worked closely with the Consultant Team to develop the approach and methodology for the financial feasibility analysis. The following summarizes the steps undertaken in the analysis and the key data sources. Step 1. Develop Residential Prototypes The initial step of the analysis was to create a series of residential prototypes. These are intended to represent ownership and rental development that is likely to occur in the City of Palo Alto in the next three to five years. Strategic Economics worked with the Consultant Team to develop assumptions about the building types, parcel size, density, ground-floor retail, and other factors. The prototypes include townhouses with above-ground podium parking, multifamily condos (medium and higher density), multifamily rental apartments (medium and higher density), and mixed-use multifamily rental apartments with ground-floor retail. Step 2. Collect Key Inputs and Build Pro Forma The financial feasibility of each prototype is measured using a static pro forma model that calculates profitability. The key inputs in the financial feasibility analysis are the revenues (rents/ sales prices), development costs, and land costs. Strategic Economics collected and summarized data on these inputs using the following data sources: 2 • Costar, a commercial real estate database that tracks rental multifamily properties and property transactions. • Interviews with local developers and brokers. • Redfin and Polaris Pacific, real estate firms that collect data on residential sales prices. • Review of pro formas from other projects and clients. Step 3. Calculate Financial Feasibility Once all the assumptions and inputs are added, the pro forma model sums up all development costs, including land costs, hard costs (construction costs), soft costs, and financing costs. The pro forma also adds up the project’s total value. The project’s total value is the sum of the estimated value of the units (i.e. the average per unit sale price for ownership units or the capitalized value of rental units multiplied by the number of units in the project). The project’s profitability, or rate of return, is then calculated by dividing the project’s net revenue (i.e. total value minus total development costs), by total development costs. To understand the feasibility of development, the results are compared to developers’ typical expectation of return. If the developer’s return for a project is within the range of the expected return, the development project is highly likely to be developed. If the return is lower than the market expectation, it is less likely to be built. Financial Feasibility of Alternatives ALTERNATIVE 1 • Townhouse development (up to 30 feet) is the most likely development type to move forward in this alternative, because it can accommodate the required parking in an above-ground parking podium. Townhouse construction is less expensive than multifamily housing, which would need to accommodate the parking underground. Assuming that townhomes are more likely to be for-sale products, they can be expected to contribute approximately 15 percent of units for below-market-rate (BMR) housing, per the City’s existing policy. • Three-story (35 feet) and four-story (50 feet) multifamily condos and apartments are unlikely to be developed in this alternative due to the cost of underground parking to accommodate the parking requirement of one space per bedroom, relative to the number of units that can be achieved on the sites under the proposed height limits. • Feasibility is more challenging for mixed-use multifamily housing because of the increased cost of building the retail space and providing the required parking, which is not usually offset by the modest retail rents that can be achieved from ground-floor retail spaces. • Residential developers are less likely to dedicate parkland rather than paying park fees. This is because the maximum density enabled in this alternative is low, and they would need to maximize the development potential on their sites in order to make projects more financially feasible to develop. The existing park fees are more likely to encourage compact multifamily development. 3 • The lack of new office development in Alternative 1 – combined with the challenging feasibility of multifamily residential development – limits the potential for additional community benefits contributions in the NVCAP area. 4 FIGURE 1: ALTERNATIVE 1 SUMMARY OF FEASIBILITY OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Prototype Townhome (Ownership) 30 feet Multifamily Condos 35 feet Multifamily Rental 35 feet Multifamily Condos 50-70 feet Multifamily Rental 50-70 feet Mixed-Use Multifamily Rental 50-70 feet Description 2-story townhomes with podium parking 3-story condos with underground parking 3-story apartments with underground parking 4 to 6-story condos with underground parking 4 to 6-story apartments with underground parking 4 to 6-story apartments with ground-floor retail and underground parking Total Units 18 56 78 119 170 192 Number of Market Rate Units 15 48 78 101 170 192 Number of BMR Units Required 3 8 0 18 0 0 Average Unit Size (in square feet) 1,600 1,000 780 1,000 700 700 Number of Parking Spaces 36 112 117 238 255 308 Parking Ratio 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 1.6 Market Rate Sales Price / Monthly Rent $1,440K $1,150K $4,290 $1,150K $3,850 $3,850 Development Cost per Unit $1,054K $947K $707K $942K $660K $658K Feasibility/ Likelihood of Development Somewhat likely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Potential Community Benefits Contributions Modest None None None None None Source: Strategic Economics, January 2020. 5 ALTERNATIVE 2 • The results of Alternative 2 are similar to Alternative 1 because there are few differences in the types of residential development envisioned. The slightly higher parking requirement of 1.5 spaces per bedroom would be equivalent to at least 2 spaces per unit for the larger ownership prototypes (townhouses and condominiums), and approximately 1.5 spaces per unit for rental apartments, which are likely to be studios and one-bedrooms. • There is no financial incentive for private developer to demolish the existing office space in the 340 Portage building and convert to multifamily residential, especially if there is also a significant parkland dedication. Currently, the estimated value of the existing office space is approximately $1,400 per square foot (assuming that rents are about $7 per square foot on a triple net basis). The estimated value of a new market-rate rental apartment building would be lower at $1,125 per square foot. A new office development project would be more lucrative than a new rental residential project, generating nearly double the net value per square foot, as shown in the table below. FIGURE 2: COMPARISON OF NET VALUE OF RENTAL HOUSING AND OFFICE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Land Use/ Building Type 35 foot rental apartment with underground parking 2-story office building with structured parking Development Cost (per net sq. ft.) $906 $988 Market Value (per net sq. ft.) $1,125 $1,387 Net Value per sq. ft. $218 $399 Source: Strategic Economics, 2020. • It is not likely that small professional office would support the provision of additional community benefits – small companies and nonprofits are not typically able to afford the rents that are required to support new development. • Overall, Alternative 2 provides very limited potential for community benefits contributions due to the challenging economics for multifamily housing with higher parking requirements, and the marginal feasibility of small professional office space. 6 FIGURE 3: ALTERNATIVE 2 SUMMARY OF FEASIBILITY OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Prototype Townhome (Ownership) 30 feet Multifamily Condos 35 feet Multifamily Rental 35 feet Multifamily Condos 50-70 feet Multifamily Rental 50-70 feet Mixed-Use Multifamily Rental 50-70 feet Description 2-story townhomes with podium parking 3-story condos with underground parking 3-story apartments with underground parking 4 to 6-story condos with underground parking 4 to 6-story apartments with underground parking 4 to 6-story apartments with ground-floor retail and underground parking Total Units 18 56 78 119 170 192 Number of Market Rate Units 15 48 78 101 170 192 Number of BMR Units Required 3 8 0 18 0 0 Average Unit Size (in square feet) 1,600 1,000 780 1,000 700 700 Number of Parking Spaces 36 112 117 238 255 308 Parking Ratio 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 1.6 Market Rate Sales Price / Monthly Rent $1,440K $1,150K $4,290 $1,150K $3,850 $3,850 Development Cost per Unit $1,054K $947K $707K $942K $660K $658K Feasibility /Likelihood of Development Somewhat likely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Potential Community Benefits Contributions Modest None None None None None Source: Strategic Economics, January 2020. 7 ALTERNATIVE 3 • All of the residential prototypes are likely to be financially feasible in this scenario because of the lower parking requirement of one space per unit. The lower ratio is particularly helpful for ownership products, which are more likely to be two-bedroom or three-bedroom units. At this parking ratio with the building heights proposed, the parking could potentially be accommodated on an above-ground podium rather than underground, which would considerably lower construction costs and improve feasibility. • Ownership products (townhouses and condos) could feasibly contribute 15 percent of units at restricted prices for moderate-income households, conforming to the existing policy. • Rental development are more likely to be able to contribute in-lieu fees (current policy) rather than providing units on-site, consistent with the existing policy. • Because the lower parking requirement allows for a more efficient use of space, it is more likely that residential developments in Alternative 3 could contribute a small percentage of land for open space/parks. • Permitting new office development on key opportunity sites, without restrictions on the size or type of office, provides a stronger economic incentive for redevelopment of those properties. As shown in Figure 2 above, office development generates a higher net value than residential uses. For this reason, allowing more office also increases the potential for the provision of community benefits on the sites and in the overall NVCAP area. This includes parkland dedication, creek improvements, commercial linkage fee revenues or land dedication for BMR housing, nonprofit/community spaces, and public realm improvements. 8 FIGURE 4: ALTERNATIVE 3 SUMMARY OF FEASIBILITY OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Prototype Townhome 30 feet Multifamily Condos 35 feet Multifamily Rental 35 feet Multifamily Condos 50-70 feet Multifamily Rental 50-70 feet Mixed-Use Multifamily Rental 50-70 feet Description Two-story townhomes, Smaller-Scale Project 3-story condos with underground parking 3-story apartments with underground parking 4 to 6-story condos with underground parking 4 to 6-story apartments with underground parking 4 to 6-story apartments with ground-floor retail and underground parking Total Units 18 56 78 119 170 192 Number of Market Rate Units 15 48 66 101 144 163 Number of BMR Units Required 3 8 0 18 0 0 Average Unit Size (in square feet) 1,600 1,000 780 1,000 700 700 Number of Parking Spaces 18 56 78 119 170 206 Parking Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 Market Rate Sales Price / Monthly Rent $1,440K $1,150K $4,290 $1,150K $3,850 $3,850 Development Cost per Unit $1,003K $819K $643K $814K $596K $589K Feasibility/ Likelihood of Development Highly Likely Highly Likely Highly Likely Highly Likely Highly Likely Highly Likely Potential Community Benefits Contributions High High Moderate High Moderate Moderate Source: Strategic Economics, January 2020. 9 EFFECTS OF COVID-19 ON HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT It is important to note that the feasibility analysis summarized in this report was conducted in January 2020 prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and does not account for the severe economic impact of the pandemic. There are some indications that the for-sale housing market, especially for single-family homes, has remained strong in the Bay Area. According to Costar data, the average rental rates in Palo Alto have declined by eight percent from the end of 2019 to November 2020. Vacancy rates have also increased from four percent at the end of 2019 to eight percent currently. Some of the reduced demand for market-rate rental housing could be attributed to Stanford University’s decision to limit the number of students on campus during the academic year. While the demand for rental apartments shows some weakness, construction costs continue to rise. Architects and developers report that the cost of lumber has increased by approximately 20 percent in the last year in response to the recent boom in home improvements and renovations. The commercial office market has also been impacted by the pandemic, as most Bay Area firms are unable to operate at full capacity at the office. Available data does not show a significant change in rental rates or vacancy rates because most firms are still on long term leases which have not yet been renegotiated or expired. Many employers are still waiting to make a decision about taking on new commitments for space. A number of large Silicon Valley corporations have announced that they will allow remote working for at least the next six months. Given the uncertainty of the course of the pandemic, real estate developers and brokers are divided on how much the pandemic will alter overall demand after conditions improve enough for Shelter-in-Place restrictions to be removed. There is insufficient data to confidently predict the timing of the recovery from COVID-19, and the long-term outcomes on the demand for market-rate housing or commercial development. The need for housing is likely to continue, especially for workforce and lower-income households. However, it is not clear whether construction and land costs will continue to rise, and whether the demand for market-rate rental housing and office will return to the same levels that existed prior to the pandemic. The feasibility analysis shows that strategies to reduce the cost of construction for multifamily housing (such as parking reductions) and to create incentives for redevelopment will improve the likelihood of new housing development; this will continue to be the case if the demand for market-rate housing takes time to recover. 1 MEMORANDUM To: Jean Eisberg, Lexington Planning Clare Campbell, City of Palo Alto From: Sujata Srivastava and Jesse Brown, Strategic Economics Date: May 10, 2021 Subject: Additional Financial Analysis of NVCAP Housing Alternatives This memo report summarizes additional financial analysis of the preliminary land use alternatives for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan. The findings presented in this report are based on a pro forma analysis that was completed in January 2020 and builds on the conclusions from the “Financial Feasibility of NVCAP Alternatives” memo from November 2020. The previous analysis found that much of the residential development envisioned in Alternatives 1 and 2 were not likely to be financially feasible due to the height limits and parking requirements. However, the residential development types in Alternative 3 had a higher probability of being built and delivering community benefits. The additional analysis described in this memo is meant to address the following questions: If the residential development envisioned in Alternative 2 is infeasible, what is the shortfall, or funding gap? Can residential development projects in Alternative 3 feasibly provide 20% of units at below- market rate rents or sales prices? Key Findings The total funding gap is estimated at $130 million for Alternative 2, assuming that each residential development prototype sets aside 15% of units for BMR households. This funding gap represents the shortfall for multifamily residential development only; it does not include other funding needs for infrastructure, parks, and other community benefits. Alternative 3 has significantly lower development costs per unit for all prototypes, which would allow for ownership developments to set aside 20% of units for BMR households. This alternative can potentially result in a greater percentage of BMR units targeting a mix of moderate (15%) and low (5%) income households. Alternative 3 can potentially provide up to 20% BMR units if parking can be provided in an above- ground parking structure. Shifting some of the parking from an underground structure to an above ground podium significantly reduces the cost of development. A 45-foot mixed-use building with three stories of residential over a podium (Option 2) is somewhat likely to provide between 15% and 20% BMR units. This prototype can provide 15% to 20% BMR units and still achieve a yield on cost (YOC) of above 5.0 percent. However, 2 this rate of return may not be sufficiently high to attract developer interest or to motivate existing property owners to build multifamily rental housing. The 55-foot mixed-use residential development prototype is the most likely to provide 20% BMR units. Out of all the options tested, the 55-foot mixed-use prototype generates the highest yield on cost (return). It is the prototype that has the highest probability of providing 20% BMR units, including 5% units for very low income households. The extra height allows this development prototype to accommodate four stories of residential units above one level of parking podium, in addition to one level of underground parking. As mentioned above, shifting about half of the parking to an above-ground podium lowers development costs significantly. However, accommodating one level of parking on the ground floor (15 feet) and maintaining the same unit count would require an additional five feet of height. Assumptions BUILDING TYPES Drawing on its previous analyses and the parcel buildout assumptions for the NVCAP alternatives, Strategic Economics developed assumptions regarding the building types that would be most likely to be under the proposed height limits. They are described in Figure 1 below. As shown, the buildings in the areas with a 35-foot height limit are most likely to be townhomes, with up to two stories over an above-ground parking podium. Three-story (35 feet) multifamily condos and apartments are unlikely to be developed at this height limit, due to the cost of underground parking relative to the number of units that can be achieved on the sites and the parking requirements. Townhomes in the Peninsula and Silicon Valley markets are usually for-sale products. In the areas with a 50-foot to 70-foot height limit, it is expected that the development would be a blend of 4-story multifamily rental apartments and 4-story condominiums of under 50 feet. The additional height of 20 feet would be applied only for projects that receive the state density bonus or a similar local density bonus program. Based on recent development trends and the ownership of the key parcels designated for higher density multifamily housing, Strategic Economics estimates that 80 percent of these four-story buildings would be rental apartments, and 20 percent would be for-sale condominiums. Under Alternative 2’s maximum buildout assumptions, there could be 1,620 units, including 1,423 multifamily rental apartments, 64 townhomes, and 133 multifamily condominiums. Under Alternative 3’s maximum buildout assumptions, there could be 1,856 multifamily rental apartments, 88 townhomes, and 185 multifamily condominiums. FIGURE 1: MAXIMUM BUILDOUT BY UNIT TYPE FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 AND ALTERNATIVE 3 Prototype Height Limit Tenure Alternative 2 Units Alternative 3 Units Townhomes 35 Feet For-sale 64 88 Multifamily Rental 50-70 Feet Rental 1,423 1,856 Multifamily Condominiums 50-70 Feet For-Sale 133 185 Total Housing Units 1,620 2,129 Source: City of Palo Alto; Strategic Economics. 3 DEVELOPMENT COSTS Residential development costs include land costs, construction (hard) costs, soft costs (including city permits, architectural and engineering, and other fees), and profit. The profit expectations would vary depending on the financing sources specific to each project, but for the purposes of estimating total development costs, Strategic Economics assumed that the minimum profit (return on cost) would be equivalent to 15 percent of the sum of the other development costs. The components of development costs, including profit, are illustrated in Figure 2 below. To be considered financially feasible, the value of a project must be equal to or greater than the total development costs. FIGURE 2: COMPONENTS OF DEVELOPMENT COST Source: Strategic Economics, 2021. Strategic Economics calculated the per-unit development costs by prototype for Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. The value is calculated as the sales price for ownership units and as the capitalized value of the rental units.1 As shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4, the per-unit development costs are higher in Alternative 2 than Alternative 3 because of the amount of parking that is required. In Alternative 2, the parking ratio is 1 The capitalized value for rental housing is calculated as the net operating income divided by the capitalization rate for multifamily properties. Va l u e ( R e n t s / S a l e s P r i c e ) Hard costs and soft costs Land value 4 2.0 spaces per unit for larger units (townhomes and multifamily condos) and 1.5 spaces per unit for more multifamily rental units. In Alternative 3, the parking ratio is 1.0 space per unit for all unit types. FIGURE 3: DEVELOPMENT COST PER UNIT FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 Prototype Townhome Multifamily Condos Multifamily Rental 35 feet Up to 50 feet Up to 50 feet Description 2-story townhomes with podium parking 4-story condos with underground parking 4-story apartments with underground parking Total Units in Prototype 18 119 170 Number of Market Rate Units 15 101 144 Number of BMR Units Required (15%) 3 18 26 Average Unit Size (in square feet) 1,600 1,000 700 Number of Parking Spaces 36 238 255 Parking Ratio (spaces/unit) 2 2 1.5 Development Cost per Unit including Profit $1,212K $1,083K $742K Source: Strategic Economics. FIGURE 4: DEVELOPMENT COST PER UNIT FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 Prototype Townhome Multifamily Condos Multifamily Rental 35 feet Up to 50 feet Up to 50 feet Description 2-story townhomes with podium parking 4-story condos with underground parking 4-story apartments with underground parking Total Units in Prototype 18 119 170 Number of Market Rate Units 14 to 15 95 to 101 136 to 144 Number of BMR Units Required (15-20%) 3 to 4 18 to 24 26 to 34 Average Unit Size (in square feet) 1,600 1,000 700 Number of Parking Spaces 18 119 170 Parking Ratio (spaces/unit) 1 1 1 Development Cost per Unit including Profit $1,153K $936K $668K Source: Strategic Economics. 5 BMR UNITS For Alternative 2, it is assumed that all residential development projects (rental and for-sale) would be required to set aside 15% of the units at below-market rate sales prices or rents. Currently, the City of Palo Alto requires 15% onsite inclusionary units for for-sale projects, and housing impact fees for rental projects. For Alternative 3, Strategic Economics tested the financial feasibility of providing 15% and 20% BMR housing units. For ownership housing, Strategic Economics analyzed the potential for developments to provide 15% BMR units in Scenario 1, which is the current citywide requirement. In Scenario 2, the alternative provides 20% BMR units onsite, including 5% low income and 15% moderate income units. For rental housing, Strategic Economics tested the potential for 15% BMR units onsite with different income targets. Scenario 1 has 15% BMR units with a mix of very low, low, and moderate income units. Scenario 2 also provides 15% BMR units but only for low and moderate income households. Scenario 3 sets aside 20% BMR units for very low, low, and moderate income households. The Alternative 3 BMR scenarios are summarized in Figure 5 below. FIGURE 5: BMR SCENARIOS FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 Prototype Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Townhomes and Multifamily Condominiums 15% Moderate 5% Low 15% Moderate n/a Multifamily Rental 5% Very Low 5% Low 5% Moderate 5% Low 10% Moderate 5% Very Low 5% Low 10% Moderate Source: Strategic Economics. UNIT VALUES The values of the market-rate units and below-market rate units are summarized in Figure 6 below. The weighted average of the units in each prototype under the various BMR scenarios are shown in Figure 7. Scenarios with a higher BMR percentage, or that target lower income categories, have a lower average unit value because of the limits on rents and sales prices for BMR units. 6 FIGURE 6: MAXIMUM SALES PRICES AND RENTS BY UNIT TYPE Townhome Multifamily Condos Multifamily Rental 35 feet Up to 50 feet Up to 50 feet 80% AMI (Low Income) $334,870 $278,724 $2,076 100% AMI (Moderate Income) $450,950 $379,753 $2,643 120% AMI (Moderate Income) $608,172 $516,803 $3,185 Market-Rate $1,440,000 $1,150,000 $3,850 Source: Alta Housing, City of Palo Alto; Strategic Economics. FIGURE 7: WEIGHTED AVERAGE VALUE PER UNIT BY BMR SCENARIO BMR Scenario Townhome Multifamily Condos Multifamily Rental 35 feet Up to 50 feet Up to 50 feet Scenario 1 (15% BMR for ownership targeting Mod, 15% BMR for rental targeting VLI, LI, Mod) $1,234,528 $989,250 $658,754 Scenario 2 (20% BMR for ownership targeting Mod, 15% BMR for rental targeting LI and Mod) $1,182,035 $947,864 $668,150 Scenario 3 (20% BMR for ownership targeting Mod, 20% BMR for rental targeting VLI, LI, and Mod) $1,182,035 $947,864 $647,674 Source: Alta Housing, City of Palo Alto; Strategic Economics. Conclusions ALTERNATIVE 2 In Alternative 2, the total development cost exceeds the value per unit for the multifamily condos and multifamily rental prototypes. The funding gap for the multifamily condos is about $94,000 per unit. The funding gap for multifamily rentals is almost $83,000 per unit. The townhouse prototype is financially feasible. Therefore, in Alternative 2, the likely development response would be to build for- sale townhomes, even in areas that allow for greater height. The total funding gap is estimated at $130 million for Alternative 2, assuming that each residential development prototype sets aside 15% of units for BMR households. This funding gap represents the shortfall for residential development only; it does not include other funding needs for infrastructure, parks, and other community benefits. Because there is a funding gap for multifamily residential building types, there is limited potential for Alternative 2 to provide additional community benefits contributions from residential development in the NVCAP area. 7 FIGURE 8: ESTIMATED FUNDING GAP FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 Alternative 2 Townhome Multifamily Condos Multifamily Rental 35 feet up to 50 feet up to 50 feet Weighted Average Value per Unit $1,234,528 $989,250 $658,754 Development Cost per Unit $1,212,133 $1,083,385 $741,532 Gap per Unit $22,395 ($94,136) ($82,778) Number of Units in Maximum Buildout 64 133 1,423 Funding Gap n/a ($12,520,033) ($117,793,031) Total Funding Gap ($130,313,064) Source: Strategic Economics. ALTERNATIVE 3 Alternative 3 has significantly lower development costs per unit for all prototypes, which would allow for ownership housing to provide 20% BMR units onsite. In Alternative 3, ownership products can potentially provide at least 20% BMR units onsite, targeting a mix of moderate and low income households (Scenario 2). A 4-story rental development project as described above can feasibly provide up to 15% BMR units targeted to a mix of moderate and low income households. A four-story, multifamily rental project as described in Figure 4 has a development cost of $668,000 per unit. In Scenario 1, which would provide 15% of the units to very low income, low income, and moderate income households, the development cost per unit of $668,000 exceeds the average value per unit of $659,000. In Scenario 2, which would provide 15% BMR units to moderate and low income households, the weighted average value per unit of $668,000 is equivalent to the development cost per unit, meaning that the projects would generally “break even” but not generate significant profit. Scenario 3, which would provide 20% BMR units to very low, low, and moderate income households is also infeasible because the cost exceeds the value ($648,000). FIGURE 9: PER UNIT DEVELOPMENT COSTS, BY BMR LEVEL Townhome Multifamily Condos Multifamily Rental 35 feet up to 50 feet up to 50 feet Development Cost per Unit Including Profit $1,153K $936K $668K Weighted Average Value per Unit Scenario 1 (15% BMR for ownership targeting Mod, 15% BMR for rental targeting VLI, LI, Mod) $1,235K $989K $659K Scenario 2 (20% BMR for ownership targeting Mod, 15% BMR for rental targeting LI and Mod) $1,182K $948K $668K Scenario 3 (20% BMR for ownership targeting Mod, 20% BMR for rental targeting VLI, LI, and Mod) $1,182K $948K $648K Source: Strategic Economics. 8 OPTIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 TO PROVIDE 20% BMR UNITS IN RENTAL PROJECTS Strategic Economics did additional feasibility analysis on rental prototypes in Alternative 3 to determine the types of rental development projects that could provide up to 20% BMR units in rental projects, including units for very low income households. Figure 11 summarizes the rental prototype options studied. Option 1: The original prototype tested in Alternative 3 and described in Figure 4 is a 40 to 45-foot, four-story rental apartment building. There is no ground-floor retail, and all of the parking is provided in an underground structure. Option 2: This 50-foot, four-story mixed-use prototype includes 6,400 square feet of ground floor retail and 3 stories of residential units. Rather than accommodating all the parking in an underground structure, this prototype provides half of the parking in an above-ground podium. The first 3,000 square feet of retail is exempted from parking requirements, and the remaining 3,400 square feet has a parking ratio of four spaces per 1,000 square feet. Option 3: This 55-foot mixed-use prototype includes 6,400 square feet of ground-floor retail and four stories of residential units. Like Option 2, this prototype provides a mix of podium and underground parking. Like Option 2, the first 3,000 square feet of retail is exempted from parking requirements, and the remaining 3,400 square feet has a parking ratio of four spaces per 1,000 square feet. For each prototype, Strategic Economics conducted additional pro forma analysis to estimate the probability of development. In this more detailed analysis, the feasibility is defined by the rate of return for the developer, measured as yield on cost. Yield on cost (YOC) is calculated as the net operating income divided by total development costs. YOC is a commonly used metric for assessing the feasibility of rental development projects. For the purposes of this analysis, rental projects that meet or exceed a yield on cost of over 5.25 percent are highly likely to be developed.2 Projects that achieve a return of between 5.0 and 5.25 percent are somewhat likely to be built. Projects with a return of under 5.0 percent may roughly “break even” but are not likely to be developed. Finally, projects that have negative net revenues (costs exceed values) are infeasible. The pro formas for the development options and BMR scenarios are shown in the Appendix of the memo report. The following summarizes the findings of the analysis of the rental prototypes in Alternative 3. Option 1, a residential-only development of 40 to 45 feet, which provides all of its parking underground, is not likely to provide more than 15% BMR units. As shown in Figures 11 and 12, the per-unit development cost for Option 1, excluding profit, is $581,000. None of the potential 2 Developers generally require that projects generate a yield on cost of at least one percentage point above the published capitalization rate for multifamily development. At the end of 2019, the cap rate for multifamily properties in the San José Metropolitan Area was between 4.00 to 4.25% (CBRE Investor’s Cap Rate Survey H2, 2019. 9 scenarios for providing BMR units has a YOC of more than 5.0 percent, and none of them could be reasonably expected to provide a significant number of very low income units. Development costs per unit are much lower for Options 2 and 3 because half of the parking is provided in an above-ground podium. Shifting some of the parking from an underground structure to an above ground podium significantly reduces the cost of development. Option 2 has a per-unit development cost of $547,000, excluding profit. Option 3 has the lowest per-unit development cost at $527,000 (excluding profit). Costs could be further reduced if the parking podium was built to accommodate mechanical stackers, which can accommodate a greater number of cars for a lower average cost per space. A multifamily development project with a podium parking structure and ground-floor commercial retail is financially feasible to build. The ground-floor retail component of the mixed-use prototypes (option 2 and option 3) totals 6,400 square feet. Under the policy proposed for Alternative 3, the first 3,000 square feet of retail is exempted from parking requirements, and the remaining 3,400 square feet has a parking ratio of four spaces per 1,000 square feet. The cost of the required parking (14 spaces in a parking podium) can be accommodated by prototype options 2 and 3. However, if the amount of ground-floor retail was significantly higher, or if the parking requirement were increased, the economics of mixed-use development would be more challenging. Option 2, a mixed-use building with three stories of residential over a podium (45 feet), is somewhat likely to provide between 15% and 20% BMR units. As shown in Figure 12, all of the BMR scenarios generate a YOC of over 5.0 percent. However, this rate of return may not be sufficiently high to attract interest from market-rate or to motivate existing private property owners to build multifamily rental housing. Option 3, a mixed-use building with four stories of residential over a podium (55 feet), is the most likely to provide 20% BMR units, including units for very low income households. Figure 12 shows that this mixed-use prototype generates the highest YOC for all of the BMR scenarios. It is the prototype that has the highest probability of providing 20% BMR units, including 5% of the units for very low income households. Option 3 is the likeliest to be built because it achieves the lowest development cost per unit by substituting a level of underground parking with podium parking and by retaining residential units through shifting the building up one story. As mentioned above, the development costs could be further reduced with the use of mechanical stackers in the parking podium, especially if this eliminated the need for an underground parking level.However, this would require a building height of up to 55 feet in order to accommodate a 15-foot podium and four stories of residential at an average height of 10 feet. 10 FIGURE 10: ALTERNATIVE 3 RENTAL PROTOTYPE OPTIONS Prototype Option 1 Residential Only Option 2 Mixed-use Option 3 Mixed-use 40-45 feet 45 feet up to 55 feet Description 4 story apartments, no retail 4-story apartments with ground floor retail 5-story apartments with ground floor retail Total Units in Prototype 170 160 192 Number of Market Rate Units 136 to 144 128 to 136 153 to 163 Number of BMR Units Required (15-20%) 26 to 34 24 to 32 29 to 39 Average Residential Unit Size (in square feet) 700 700 700 Ground Floor Retail Space (in square feet) 0 6,400 6,400 Number of Parking Spaces 170 174 206 Residential Parking 170 160 192 Commercial Retail Parking 0 14 14 Parking Ratio (spaces/unit) 1.0 1.1 1.1 Development Cost per Unit (excluding profit) (a) $581K $547K $527K (a) Includes land costs, hard costs, soft costs, and financing costs. Profit is not included. Source: Strategic Economics. FIGURE 11: DEVELOPMENT LIKELIHOOD FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 RENTAL PROTOTYPE OPTIONS Prototype Residential Only Mixed-use Mixed-use 40-45 feet 45 feet 55 feet Yield on Cost per Unit Scenario 1 (15% BMR targeting VLI, LI, Mod) 4.82% 5.11% 5.31% Scenario 2 (15% BMR targeting LI and Mod) 4.89% 5.19% 5.39% Scenario 3 (20% BMR targeting VLI, LI, and Mod) 4.74% 5.03% 5.22% Highly Likely – YOC is 5.25% or higher Somewhat Likely – YOC is over 5.0% Not Likely – Net revenues are positive but YOC is below 5.0% Infeasible – Net revenues are negative Note: Yield on cost (YOC) is measured as the net operating income divided by total development costs. Source: Strategic Economics. 11 EFFECTS OF COVID-19 ON HOUSING DEVELOPMENT It is important to note that the feasibility analysis summarized in this report was conducted in January 2020 prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and does not account for the severe economic impact of the pandemic. There are some indications that the for-sale housing market, especially for single-family homes, has remained strong in the Bay Area. According to Costar data, the average rental rates in Palo Alto declined by eight percent from the end of 2019 to November 2020. Vacancy rates have also increased from four percent at the end of 2019 to eight percent at the end of 2020. Some of the reduced demand for market-rate rental housing could be attributed to Stanford University’s decision to limit the number of students on campus during the academic year. While the demand for rental apartments shows some weakness, construction costs continue to rise. Architects and developers report that the cost of lumber has increased by approximately 20 percent in the last year in response to the recent boom in home improvements and renovations. There is insufficient data to confidently predict the timing of the recovery from COVID-19, and the long-term outcomes on the demand for market-rate housing. The need for housing is likely to continue, especially for workforce and lower-income households. However, it is not clear whether construction and land costs will continue to rise, and whether the demand for market-rate multifamily housing will return to the same levels that existed prior to the pandemic. The feasibility analysis shows that strategies to reduce the cost of construction for multifamily housing (such as parking reductions) and to create incentives for redevelopment will improve the likelihood of new housing development; this will continue to be the case if the demand for market-rate housing takes time to recover. 12 APPENDIX FIGURE 12: ALTERNATIVE 3 RENTAL PROTOTYPE OPTION 1: RESIDENTIAL ONLY, 40-45 FEET Prototype Scenario 1 (15% BMR targeting VLI, LI, Mod) Scenario 2 (15% BMR targeting LI and Mod) Scenario 3 (20% BMR targeting VLI, LI, and Mod) Revenues Net Operating Income $4,759,498 $4,827,386 $4,679,441 Residential Net Operating Income $4,759,498 $4,827,386 $4,679,441 Total Capitalized Value $111,988,200 $113,585,550 $110,104,500 per unit $658,754 $668,150 $647,674 Development Costs Land Costs Land cost per sf $275 $275 $275 per unit $88,733 $88,733 $88,733 Hard Costs Site Prep $1,371,333 $1,371,333 $1,371,333 Residential Building Area $42,393,750 $42,393,750 $42,393,750 Retail Building Area (Including TIs) $0 $0 $0 Parking $17,000,000 $17,000,000 $17,000,000 Subtotal Hard Costs $60,765,083 $60,765,083 $60,765,083 per unit $357,442 $357,442 $357,442 per gross residential sf $409 $409 $409 Soft Costs City Permits and Fees $5,371,436 $5,371,436 $5,371,436 Other Soft Costs $12,760,668 $12,760,668 $12,760,668 Subtotal Soft Costs $18,132,103 $18,132,103 $18,132,103 Financing Costs Total Financing Costs $4,733,831 $4,733,831 $4,733,831 Total Development Costs Total Development Costs $98,715,684 $98,715,684 $98,715,684 per unit $580,680 $580,680 $580,680 per gross residential sf $664 $664 $664 Financial Feasibility Net Revenue (a) $13,272,515 $14,869,866 $11,388,815 Yield on Cost (b) 4.82% 4.89% 4.74% (a) Net revenue is the project total capitalized value minus total development costs. (b) Yield on cost is the total project net operating income divided by total development costs. Source: Strategic Economics. 13 FIGURE 13: ALTERNATIVE 3 RENTAL PROTOTYPE OPTION 2: MIXED-USE, 45-FEET Prototype Scenario 1 (15% BMR targeting VLI, LI, Mod) Scenario 2 (15% BMR targeting LI and Mod) Scenario 3 (20% BMR targeting VLI, LI, and Mod) Revenues Net Operating Income $4,479,528 $4,543,422 $4,404,180 Residential Net Operating Income $4,479,528 $4,543,422 $4,404,180 Total Capitalized Value $105,400,658 $106,904,047 $103,627,764 per unit $658,754 $668,150 $647,674 Development Costs Land Costs Land cost per sf $275 $275 $275 per unit $94,571 $94,571 $94,571 Hard Costs Site Prep $1,375,579 $1,375,579 $1,375,579 Residential Building Area $37,552,941 $37,552,941 $37,552,941 Retail Building Area (Including TIs) $1,120,000 $1,120,000 $1,120,000 Parking $12,152,000 $12,152,000 $12,152,000 Subtotal Hard Costs $52,200,520 $52,200,520 $52,200,520 per unit $326,253 $326,253 $326,253 per gross residential sf $396 $396 $396 Soft Costs City Permits and Fees $5,055,469 $5,055,469 $5,055,469 Other Soft Costs $23,722,777 $23,722,777 $23,722,777 Subtotal Soft Costs $28,778,246 $28,778,246 $28,778,246 Financing Costs Total Financing Costs $4,101,250 $4,101,250 $4,101,250 Total Development Costs Total Development Costs $87,586,780 $87,586,780 $87,586,780 per unit $547,417 $547,417 $547,417 per gross residential sf $665 $665 $665 Financial Feasibility Net Revenue (a) $17,813,878 $19,317,267 $16,040,984 Yield on Cost (b) 5.11% 5.19% 5.03% (a) Net revenue is the project total capitalized value minus total development costs. (b) Yield on cost is the total project net operating income divided by total development costs. Source: Strategic Economics. 14 FIGURE 14: ALTERNATIVE 3 RENTAL PROTOTYPE OPTION 3: MIXED-USE, 55-FEET Prototype Scenario 1 (15% BMR targeting VLI, LI, Mod) Scenario 2 (15% BMR targeting LI and Mod) Scenario 3 (20% BMR targeting VLI, LI, and Mod) Revenues Net Operating Income $5,375,434 $5,452,106 $5,285,016 Residential Net Operating Income $5,375,434 $5,452,106 $5,285,016 Total Capitalized Value $126,480,790 $128,284,856 $124,353,317 per unit $658,754 $668,150 $647,674 Development Costs Land Costs Land cost per sf $275 $275 $275 per unit $78,809 $78,809 $78,809 Hard Costs Site Prep $1,375,579 $1,375,579 $1,375,579 Residential Building Area $45,063,529 $45,063,529 $45,063,529 Retail Building Area (Including TIs) $1,120,000 $1,120,000 $1,120,000 Parking $14,392,000 $14,392,000 $14,392,000 Subtotal Hard Costs $61,951,108 $61,951,108 $61,951,108 per unit $322,662 $322,662 $322,662 per gross residential sf $392 $392 $392 Soft Costs City Permits and Fees $6,066,563 $6,066,563 $6,066,563 Other Soft Costs $13,009,733 $13,009,733 $13,009,733 Subtotal Soft Costs $19,076,295 $19,076,295 $19,076,295 Financing Costs Total Financing Costs $4,869,808 $4,869,808 $4,869,808 Total Development Costs Total Development Costs $101,164,644 $101,164,644 $101,164,644 per unit $526,899 $526,899 $526,899 per gross residential sf $640 $640 $640 Financial Feasibility Net Revenue (a) $25,316,146 $27,120,212 $23,188,673 Yield on Cost (b) 5.31% 5.39% 5.22% (a) Net revenue is the project total capitalized value minus total development costs. (b) Yield on cost is the total project net operating income divided by total development costs. Source: Strategic Economics. City of Palo Alto (ID # 12264) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 6/14/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Annual Report for FY 21 Santa Clara County Multi - Jurisdictional Flood Preparedness Awareness Title: Fiscal Year 2021 Annual Evaluation Report for the Santa Clara County Multi -jurisdictional Program for Public Information on Flood Preparednes s and Awareness, and the 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. Executive Summary Palo Alto participates in a regional Program for Public Information (PPI) developed by the participating communities in Santa Clara County on flood risk reduction outreach. The legislative bodies of all participating communities including Palo Alto must review the PPI plan annually to continue receiving Community Rating System (CRS) credit and maintain a CRS rating. The City of Palo Alto has a rating of 6, which correlates to a flood insurance discount of 20% to the property owners who purchase flood insurance policies. Background The CRS is a voluntary program under the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program that allows communities to earn flood insurance premium discounts for their residents and businesses. Communities earn CRS credit points for activities that promote flood risk reduction practices and encourage residents and businesses to purchase 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 has been rated as a Class 6 community since 2017, affording residents and businesses a 20% discount on their flood insurance premiums. The CRS rating was due to a significant effort on flood awareness and floodplain management by the City. Neighboring cities have earned similar CRS ratings (Mountain View – 7, East Palo Alto – 7, Los Altos – 8, Sunnyvale – 7). City of Palo Alto Page 2 The CRS Coordinator’s Manual includes the option to implement a regional Program for Public Information (PPI). Under the PPI, a community or group of communities work together to create and deliver customized and consistent flood risk reduction outreach messages. By disseminating these messages each community earns points that can improve their CRS rating. The number of CRS credit points earned depends on how extensive the implemented program is within each community’s boundaries. City of Palo Alto has earned up to 122 points for its PPI efforts. City of Palo Alto residents and businesses pay $3.5 million (per FEMA data as of November 18, 2020) for flood insurance premiums per year. The total savings from the 20% insurance discount achieved by the City on behalf of its residents due to its CRS participation is approximately $800,000 per year (per FEMA data as of November 18, 2020). Without CRS, the residents and businesses would have paid $4.3 million. Palo Alto participates in the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional program 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 them as needed. A report to FEMA must be submitted annually describing the PPI implementation. The annual report is transmitted to the Council of each participating agency to provide updates on the various flood preparedness and awareness outreach programs that the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional PPI has undertaken for the past year. Discussion The annual report for the 2021 Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional PPI is provided as information for Council. The report highlights the elements of the flood safety outreach programs implemented by the eleven Santa Clara County communities (Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Santa Clara County, and Sunnyvale) that participate with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) in CRS. Valley Water, along with representatives from each of the participating communities, developed the original 2015 PPI and the associated annual report. The committee meets annually to evaluate and approve the PPI. The committee was scheduled to meet in in spring of 2020. However, on March 16, 2020 the County of Santa Clara County Public Health Officer issued a shelter in place order starting March 17, 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, Santa Clara County PPI meetings for the 2020 PPI were cancelled, and the PPI was not presented to legislative bodies in 2020. The attached 2021 report was created based on meetings that occurred on October 29 and December 11, 2020. The final version of the 2021 PPI was presented to and approved by Valley Water’s Board of Directors on April 27, 2021. The worksheet on Appendix A of Attachment A lists the outreach projects, implementing agencies, City of Palo Alto Page 3 and the messages associated with each of the projects ; similarly, Appendix B of Attachment A lists the non-credited CRS outreach projects. Every year, participating communities must present the PPI plan to the legislative bodies to continue receiving CRS credit. Since the report was not presented to the governing bodies in 2020, the last version is from 2019. The 2019 Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional PPI was presented to Council on August 12, 2019 (Staff Report ID# 10495). Staff will continue to provide information to Council on the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional PPI on a yearly basis after the end of each Fiscal Year to achieve the maximum number of CRS credit points and associated flood insurance premium discounts for the community. Stakeholder Engagement The program was discussed and prepared by representative staff from the eleven participating communities. Resource Impact The review and approval of this informational report has no impact on the City’s budget. Maintaining this rating and participation in this program saves the Palo Alto community 20% on flood insurance costs. Environmental Review This is an informational report and not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: • Appendix A: 2021 Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional PPI Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Program for Public Information 2021 (5-Year Plan) April 2021 Prepared by: Santa Clara Valley Water District and Participating County of Santa Clara Communities Attachment A i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ii I.BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 1 II.GOALS ......................................................................................................................... 2 III.PPI COMMITTEE ......................................................................................................... 3 IV.COMMUNITIES’ FLOOD HAZARD AREA .................................................................... 8 a.County of Santa Clara b.Cupertino c.Gilroy d.Los Altos e.Los Altos Hills (town) f.Los Gatos (town) g.Milpitas h.Morgan Hill i.Mountain View j.Palo Alto k.San José l.Santa Clara m.Saratoga n.Sunnyvale V.TARGET AUDIENCES ............................................................................................... 40 VI.OTHER PUBLIC INFORMATION EFFORTS .............................................................. 42 VII.COMMUNICATION STRATEGY, PROJECTS, AND INITIATIVES ............................. 44 VIII.ANNUAL EVALUATION ............................................................................................. 66 IX.FIVE-YEAR PPI REVISIONS ……………………………………………………………… 67 X.ADOPTION ................................................................................................................ 67 XI.REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 67 XII.APPENDIX A: CRS Creditable Outreach and Flood Response Projects by Community (in separate electronic file).......................................................................................... 69 XIII.APPENDIX B: Additional CRS Outreach Projects ...................................................... 78 XIV.APPENDIX C: Past Members of the Santa Clara County 2015 PPI Committee……... 87 XV.APPENDIX D: Definitions of FEMA Flood Zone Designations…………………………. 88 ii List of Abbreviations Abbreviation Description AFN Access and Functional Needs ALERT Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time ARES Amateur Radio Emergency Services CADRE Collaborating Agencies' Disaster Relief Effort CAL Communities at Large CCD Coastal Clean-Up Day CERT Community Emergency Response Team CFM Certified Floodplain Manager CFPW California Flood Preparedness Week CIP Capital Improvement Projects COVID Corona Virus Disease CP Coverage Improvement Plan CPI Coverage Improvement Plan Implementation CPRU Community Project Review Unit CRS Community Rating System CUP City of Cupertino CWM Countywide Mailer DFH Disclosure of Flood Hazard DWR Department of Water Resources ECHO Executive Council of Homeowners EOC Emergency Operations Center ED Earth Day ESV Emergency Services Volunteers FAA Financial Assistance Advice FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FPM Floodplain Manager or Floodplain Mailer FRP Flood Response Preparations GIL City of Gilroy GIS Geographic Information System GF Gilroy Garlic Festival HOA Homeowners Association ISO Insurance Services Office JPA Joint Powers Authority LA City of Los Altos LAH Town of Los Altos Hills LG Town of Los Gatos MS4s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NOAA National Ocean & Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System iii NRCD National River Clean-Up Day OA Operational Area OEM Office of Emergency Management OES Office of Emergency Services O&M Operations & Maintainance OP Outreach Project MCOH Municipal Corporation Open House MIL City of Milpitas MH City of Morgan Hill MV City of Mountain View MVA&WF Mountain View Art & Wine Festival PA City of Palo Alto PE Professional Engineer PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric PPA Property Protection Advice PPI Program for Public Information PPV Protection Advice Provided after a Site Visit PWWCOH Public Works Week Community Open House RACES Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service ReadySCC Ready Santa Clara County REB Real Estate Agent Brochure RL Repetitive Loss SAR City of Saratoga SC City of Santa Clara SCC Santa Clara County SCVURPP Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area SJ City of San José SU City of Sunnyvale TA Target Audience TNL Thursday Night Live TP Town Picnic USACOE United States Army Corps of Engineers USGS United States Geological Survey VW Valley Water WDR Waste Discharge Requirements WEB Flood Protection Website - 1 - I. BACKGROUND Santa Clara County is located at the south end of San Francisco Bay and has come to be known as Silicon Valley. Currently, eleven (11) of the seventeen (17) communities in Santa Clara County participate in the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA), National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), Community Rating System (CRS), a program to provide discounts on flood insurance premiums. Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water), the water management agency for Santa Clara County, participates as one of the few fictitious communities in the nation. This unique arrangement was set up with FEMA in 1998 so participating Santa Clara County CRS communities could take advantage of Valley Water’s point-earning efforts. Essentially, this allows Valley Water’s activities to provide a foundation of points with simplified bookkeeping, since FEMA has already approved the activities through Valley Water’s 5-year verification visits and subsequent annual recertifications. Flooding in Santa Clara County comes from heavy local rainstorms that occur during the winter months of December through March. Occasionally, the rainy season extends into April, but little rain falls between May to October. Valley Water designs and carries out extensive flood protection outreach programs. For example, Valley Water shares social media videos and postings, digital banners, newspaper advertorials, radio, and television/mobile ads targeted by area and language and maintains an extensive website of flood protection information. Communities have augmented Valley Water’s efforts through other efforts targeted within their specific jurisdiction. Until the Program for Public Information (PPI) process started, there had been little discussion between the communities and Valley Water about the effectiveness of these programs and if they contained the most significant messages. Since becoming part of the program, Valley Water has led meetings to educate participating communities floodplain managers and increase participation in CRS. In 2012, Valley Water hosted a 5-day FEMA class on Floodplain Management, to help prepare staff from local cities for the Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM) exam. Based on the high number of participants, it was clear that local communities were interested in working with their counterparts in other communities to understand the CRS program better and maximize their own jurisdiction’s CRS points. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) provides statewide NFIP workshops that are designed to interpret and explain the NFIP regulations and to give an overview of the need for community-based floodplain management. DWR and FEMA conduct workshops for floodplain management agencies, including State and local officials. The workshops allow floodplain management officials to have a greater understanding of FEMA's minimum regulation requirements and how to meet them. Valley Water continues to coordinate with the DWR to ensure these trainings and workshops can be offered locally to our area’s CFMs and floodplain management officials by hosting these events, at a minimum, every other year. The new Program for Public Information (PPI) introduced in the FEMA NFIP CRS Coordinator’s Manual (Edition 2013) was recognized as an excellent project to work on jointly with the CRS communities of Santa Clara County. As stated in the example PPI from Snohomish County, Washington: The Program for Public Information is a planning tool to provide a step-by-step coordinated approach to flood hazard outreach. The PPI can be developed and implemented by a single community or with other communities as a multi- jurisdictional effort. The purpose is the same: to improve communication with citizens, and to provide information about flood hazards, flood safety, flood insurance and ways to protect property and natural floodplain functions to those who can benefit from it. The intent of the CRS program, and the PPI, is to reduce injury to people and damage to property from future floods. Coordination between jurisdictions through a Multi-Jurisdictional Program for Public - 2 - Information further increases efficiency in resources and improves communication with citizens. Additionally, developing a Multi-Jurisdictional PPI in Santa Clara County was a way to earn significant CRS points, which may translate into greater discounts on flood insurance premiums for our policy holders. The Multi-Jurisdictional PPI rewards participants for developing messages that are tailored to local needs. In November 2013, Valley Water proceeded to convene a meeting of all the CRS coordinators in the county to explain the PPI process and gauge interest for developing a Multi-Jurisdictional PPI for Santa Clara County. Although Valley Water offered to host the process and provided staffing, it was understood that for the 2015 PPI development each participating community would be required to: 1) conduct the CRS Self-Assessment; 2) recruit a non-governmental stakeholder; 3) participate in the PPI Committee meetings and 4) bring the PPI to their elected body for approval. With the enthusiastic support of the CRS coordinators, the PPI process was started. In 2015, twelve (12) communities agreed to develop the PPI. These communities were comprised of the ten (10) incorporated cities, County of Santa Clara, and Valley Water. For the original twelve (12) communities, several factors encouraged development of the PPI in 2015. First, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Flood Futures Report, released in November of 2013, took a comprehensive look at flood risk across the entire state. Santa Clara County was listed second in California in two important flood risk categories: most-people-exposed-to-flooding and most-property- exposed-to-flooding. Additionally, the threat of sea-level rise and increases in storm intensity expected from climate change may make flooding more severe locally. Finally, the local Insurance Service Office (ISO) CRS Specialist brought it to Valley Water’s attention as something that would work well with the agency’s role as a fictitious community. The six priority topics of the revised CRS program are essentially best management practices for households but are not necessarily focused on businesses. The major employers of Silicon Valley form a ring around the edge of the bay, located in areas subject to tidal flooding. As sea levels rise due to climate change, these industrial parks will be subject to more frequent flooding. Although the buildings may be designed to withstand floods, issues associated with flooded roads may create problems for thousands of workers getting to and from work. Each person who works in the tidal flooding zone will need to develop emergency plans for getting home before freeways flood, communicate with their families, and take care of them. In Santa Clara County, most of the flood risk to households is from fluvial flooding (creek flooding). Since Santa Clara County is adjacent to San Francisco Bay, tidal and fluvial flooding both pose risks. Historically, fluvial flooding has caused most of the flood damage that has occurred here, but in the future, the risk of tidal flooding is expected to increase due to climate change-induced sea-level rise. The PPI Committee meetings have provided an opportunity for staff from the various cities and Valley Water, who work on CRS regularly, to talk about what the local flood messages really need to say and what aspects of the extensive public outreach plan are already in place and are working well. As electronic forms of communication become more and more a part of daily living, information is expected to be just a few clicks away. The role of local flood professionals is to make sure that the information is in place for people to find when they need it. In the PPI meetings, discussions have occurred as to what makes up that “needed information.” - 3 - II. GOALS The PPI participants share a vision to improve the efficiency of the communities’ collective outreach efforts and to tailor outreach messages better to local needs. The participants also see the PPI as the backbone activity of an ongoing CRS Users Group that will help the local governments maintain or improve their individual CRS ratings by encouraging the purchase of flood insurance and promoting best practices that reduce flood risk. At the beginning of the PPI process, it was recognized that getting the twelve (12) communities to meet all the FEMA requirements for participation would be a challenge. Consequently, the goal was set for the first year’s PPI as getting the process going with as many communities as possible and developing a track record of success. Given that Valley Water has had an extensive public outreach program for many years, the goal was not to increase the size and scope of the program but to tailor the existing programs to be more effective and efficient. Through discussions with stakeholders during the PPI meetings, the PPI process was determined to be a good way to evaluate the existing outreach system and build on what works well. The cities’ staff had good insight about what aspects of Valley Water’s program were well-received with their residents through questions, complaints, and comments they have gotten from the public over the years. The stakeholders shared reactions to various components of past outreach efforts and their effectiveness in conveying the message. Several messages relating to public safety came out of the discussions as messages that need to be stressed. One was to “slow down on wet roads” and the other is “never drive through water.” Even though these are common sense messages, there are accidents every rainy season because some people do not follow them. The lack of personal emergency plans was also seen as an ongoing problem. Although it is easy to prepare these plans, many families do not get around to it until after the emergency has already happened. For the most part, the family emergency plan is the same for a whole range of emergencies. Locally, the most likely emergencies are related to fire, earthquake, or flooding. Another goal that surfaced through the discussions is collaborating with non-governmental organizations like American Red Cross and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), who conduct their own outreach. A few slides will be added to the standard American Red Cross and/or PG&E presentations on flooding and encouraging people to purchase flood insurance. The PPI participants may send speakers with knowledge of flooding to appropriate groups. III. PPI COMMITTEE 2015 PPI Committee FEMA requires that each community provide at least two representatives to the regional PPI Committee, with at least half of the representatives from outside of the local government. Additionally, at least half of the representatives must attend all the meetings of the regional committee. The past 2015 PPI Committee is listed in Appendix C. Each PPI Committee member was asked to share their perspectives on flood information needs and how the existing programs worked. The meetings were organized to follow the example in the FEMA report Developing a Program for Public Information (March 2013) which breaks the process into the following seven (7) steps: - 4 - Step 1: Establish a PPI Committee. Step 2: Assess the community’s public information needs and inventory existing public information and outreach efforts. Step 3: Formulate messages. Step 4: Identify outreach projects to convey the messages. Step 5: Examine other public information initiatives. Step 6: Prepare the PPI document. Step 7: Implement, monitor, and evaluate the program. The process was designed to be accomplished in four meetings to allow time for a wide range of discussions. Between the third and the fourth meeting, a subgroup worked on drafting the PPI for the rest of the committee members to review. The dates were set at the beginning of the process for participants to arrange their schedules accordingly. Even with a lot of lead time, getting participation was challenging. Part of the issue may have been local weather conditions. Severe drought made planning for flood protection seem less relevant than normal. The first stakeholder meeting was held on February 12, 2014. Communities were asked to complete FEMA’s self-assessment before the meeting. The participants got to know each other by sharing the flood risk characteristics and flood insurance statistics identified from the self-assessments. These characteristics were translated into the public information needs (Step 2) and target audiences. Step 3 was started by formulating messages and Step 4 by identifying projects for the PPI. The second meeting was held on March 27, 2014. The information from the previous meeting had been captured in a draft of the PPI worksheet and it was agreed to use this draft worksheet as minutes of the discussion. A presentation was given on the outreach program operated by Valley Water and discussion ensued regarding the effectiveness of these programs based on perceptions of the stakeholders. Significant progress was made on Steps 3, 4, and 5. In addition to outreach projects, the importance of other public information initiatives (Step 5) was discussed. As our society gets more web-based, people expect to find the information they seek at any time day or night within a few clicks. The consensus was that as the flood protection professionals for the county, it is our job to make sure that the information is available on our websites for our residents to find when they need it. The third meeting was held on April 24, 2014. The American Red Cross presented their outreach programs, which are designed for disaster planning in general, not necessarily for flooding disasters. PG&E also briefly presented. This finished Step 2. The PPI worksheet was updated again. During the April meeting, a sub-committee was convened to draft the PPI. Three working meetings were held to work through issues related to the draft. Writing assignments were shared to produce a draft for the full PPI Committee to review. Messages were formulated (Step 3) and outreach projects to convey the messages (Step 4) were identified. The fourth meeting was held on June 26, 2014, to discuss the draft of the PPI and to finish filling out the assignments for the PPI worksheet. Based on the comments received at the meeting, another draft was circulated by email for the PPI stakeholders to approve. 2021 PPI Committee Every five years, the PPI Committee reconvenes to review and revise the PPI document. The 2021 PPI Committee (see Table 1) initially met on February 27, 2020, to update the 2015 PPI; due to sunset in April 2020. The meeting outcomes included: 1) gathering communities’ input on how the 2015 PPI worked in FY20; 2) planning and confirming the PPI messages to finalize the Annual Evaluation Report for FY20 (Year 5), and 3) reviewing and updating the 2015 PPI to develop the 2021 PPI in accordance with the FEMA NFIP CRS Coordinator’s Manual (Edition 2017). - 5 - Shortly after the meeting, on March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued a Proclamation of a State of Emergency in the State of California in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 16, 2020, the County of Santa Clara Public Health Officer issued a legal order directing all residents to shelter-in- place starting March 17, 2020. In compliance with the Public Health Order, all upcoming Santa Clara County PPI Meetings were postponed until further notice. On October 29, 2020, the PPI Committee reconvened virtually to discuss the revisions on the 2015 PPI. It was the consensus of the committee to amend the existing 2015 PPI, rather than create a new document. On December 11, 2020, the PPI Committee met virtually to review the newly drafted 2021 PPI. During the meeting, Valley Water’s 2020-21 Flood Awareness Campaign was discussed, including Valley Water’s Annual Floodplain Mailer. The committee also reviewed the previous year’s 2019-20 Flood Awareness Campaign survey data results. Valley Water shared the ‘Social Media Resource Guide’ available to all Santa Clara County cities and the county. The PPI Committee reviewed the additional outreach projects for Activity 360 - Flood Protection Assistance and outreach projects for Activity 370 - Flood Insurance Promotion. Additionally, the PPI Committee agreed to create two Appendices. Appendix A documents the creditable CRS activities each community will report on during their verification cycle visit and Appendix B documents the non- creditable Activity 330 Outreach Projects conducted in the community. The non-creditable CRS activities are other additional flood preparedness outreach efforts the community undertakes; however, outreach projects identified in Appendix B may be creditable under other CRS activities/element, such as Activity 350, c). Flood protection website (WEB). For the benefit of communities/representatives who were unable to join the PPI meetings scheduled on February 27, 2020, October 29, 2020, or December 11, 2020, Zoom videos of the October and December meetings were shared with PPI Committee members following each meeting. For the 2021 PPI Committee, there are 15 participating communities, 11 (eleven) participating CRS communities and four (4) communities who are showing an interest in applying to become a CRS community. These four communities are the County of Santa Clara, the Town of Los Altos Hills, the Town of Los Gatos, and the City of Saratoga. Stakeholder Definition and Responsibilities According to the FEMA NFIP CRS Coordinator’s Manual (Edition 2017) (page 330-23), “a stakeholder can be any agency, organization, or person (other than the community itself) that supports the message.” For example, a city resident or floodplain resident, business leader, insurance agent, civic group, academia, a non-profit organization, major employers, managers of critical facilities, farmer, landowner, developer, and other participants with no attachment to the local government can be a stakeholder. The responsibilities of a stakeholder are as follows: Annually: 1) Attend Santa Clara County PPI Committee Meetings (internal/external stakeholder) meetings (typically two (2) meetings a year); and 2) Provide input on the development of the Annual Evaluation Report for the PPI. Every Five Years: 1) Provide input on the development of the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Program for Public Information (PPI) with the perspective of a resident/business/organization (typically 2-4 meetings every five (5) years). - 6 - THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK - 7 - Table 1. Members of the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional 2021 PPI Committee Community Local Government Representative and Alternates External Stakeholders County of Santa Clara Chris Freitas, Sr. Civil Engineer Neville R. Pereira, PE, Development Services Manager, Department of Planning and Development, Floodplain Manager Marsha Hovey, CADRE Board Chair Cupertino Chad Mosley, Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer, Public Works Department, Floodplain Manager Jennifer Chu, Senior Civil Engineer Public Works Department Jim Oberhofer, Emergency Coordinator Cupertino ARES/RACES Gilroy Gary Heap, City Engineer Public Works Department Jorge Duran, Senior Civil Engineer, Floodplain Manager Public Works Department Merna Leal, City of Gilroy resident Los Altos Steven Golden, Senior Planner, Floodplain Manager Andrea Trese, Associate Civil Engineer Christopher Wilson, Operations Manager, Los Altos Suburban District, California Water Company Los Altos Hill Carl Cahill, City Manager, Floodplain Manager Nichol Bowersox, Public Works Director/ City Engineer Christine Hoffmann, Assistant Engineer (DPW) Phil Witt, General Manager Purissima Hills Water District Los Gatos WooJae Kim, P.E, Town Engineer Parks and Public Works, Floodplain Manager Annamaria Swardenski, Swardenski Consulting Milpitas Steven Erickson, City Engineer/Engineering Director, Floodplain Manager Kan Xu, Principal Civil Engineer, Engineering Land Development Section Brian Petrovic, Associate Civil Engineer Engineering Land Development Section Elizabeth Koo, Administrative Analyst, Engineering Land Development Section Warren Wettenstein, Chairman of the Economic Development & Trade Commission and President of the Milpitas Chamber Morgan Hill Maria Angeles, Senior Civil Engineer, Floodplain Manager, CFM Charlie Ha, Supervising Civil Engineer Engineering & Utilities Department Swanee Edwards, City of Morgan Hill resident Mountain View Renee Gunn, Senior Civil Engineer, Public Works Department Gabrielle Abdon, Assistant Engineer, CFM Kevin Conant, PG&E Palo Alto Rajeev Hada, Project Engineer, CFM Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, Floodplain Manager Dan Melick, CERT Volunteer City of Palo Alto resident San José Arlene Lew, Principal Engineering Technician Vivian Tom, Senior Transportation Specialist Department of Public Works Development Services Division Shari Carlet, City of San José resident, certified Floodplain Manager Santa Clara Evelyn Liang, Senior Civil Engineer Falguni Amin, Principal Engineer Public Works – Engineering Kevin Moore, Retired City Council member Saratoga David Dorcich, PE, QSP/D, Associate Civil Engineer, Community Development Department, Floodplain Manager Rebecca Gallardo, Real Estate Agent for Intero, a Berkshire Hathaway Affiliate, servicing all areas of the Bay Area Sunnyvale Tamara Davis, Senior Management Analyst Jeff Holzman, Director, Real Estate District Development Google Agnes Veith, City of Sunnyvale resident Valley Water Trisha Howard, Program Administrator Paola Giles, Public Information Representative III Sherilyn Tran, Office of Civic Engagement Unit Manager Nikki Rowe, American Red Cross - 8 - IV. COMMUNITIES’ FLOOD HAZARD AREAS The sections below provide a description of each participating community and their flood hazard areas. In Santa Clara County, careful attention needs to be paid to flood protection for the businesses that make up Silicon Valley. Many of these large employers are located in a ring of office parks near the edge of the San Francisco Bay in areas subject to both fluvial and tidal flooding. This is particularly true for the communities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San José, and Milpitas. Data Sources for Individual Community Sections: Community Description: The introductory community description sections were provided by each community. Population Data: In the below individual city/county pages, the population data were obtained from the US Census Bureau population estimates dated July 1, 2019: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table. Flood Hazard Data: The Flood Hazard Data was provided by each community. Flood Insurance Data: The Flood Insurance Data was provided by the CRS Technical Reviewer, ISO representative Dave Arkens on November 15 and 18, 2020, from the FEMA Community Information System (CIS) database. These estimates are dated as of November 2, 2020. The insurance occupancy zone data indicates residential land use. The insurance flood zone data indicates policies in different flood zones, including non-flood zones. For the definitions of the FEMA flood zone designations in the insurance occupancy and flood zone, please see Appendix D. FEMA Flood Hazard Area Maps: The FEMA Flood Hazard Area Maps were provided by Valley Water’s Geographic Information System (GIS) team through the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) database and are dated as of November 2020. The FIRM is the basis for floodplain management, mitigation, and insurance activities for the NFIP. Insurance applications include enforcement of the mandatory purchase requirement of the Flood Disaster Protection Act, which "... requires the purchase of flood insurance by property owners who are being assisted by Federal programs or by Federally supervised, regulated or insured agencies or institutions in the acquisition or improvement of land facilities located or to be located in identified areas having special flood hazards, " Section 2(b)(4) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. In addition to the identification of SFHAs, the risk zones shown on the FIRMs are the basis for the establishment of premium rates for flood coverage offered through the NFIP. The FIRM Database presents the flood risk information depicted on the FIRM in a digital format suitable for use in electronic mapping applications. The FIRM Database serves to archive the information collected during the Flood Risk Project. - 9 - County of Santa Clara, Unincorporated Areas The County of Santa Clara is located at the south end of San Francisco Bay between Alameda and San Mateo counties. The county has a population of about 1,927,852 residents. There are 13 incorporated cities and two (2) incorporated towns located in Santa Clara County. Most are concentrated in the northern half of the county near San Francisco Bay and these cities are jointly known as Silicon Valley. Gilroy and Morgan Hill are located in the southern half of the county. Santa Clara County also falls in two (2) major watersheds. The northern section flows to San Francisco Bay through Coyote Creek, the Guadalupe River, Stevens Creek, San Francisquito Creek, and a few smaller creeks. The southern section flows to Monterey Bay through the Pajaro River. Although 73 percent of the land is unincorporated or not included within any city; only five (5) percent of the County’s population lives outside of the cities. Most of the unincorporated land is used for agriculture (63 percent), 19 percent is in low-density residential, 17 percent is in parks and open space preserves with about one (1) percent in commercial and industrial uses. Flood Hazard On the FEMA floodplain maps, four (4) Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) zones are identified. They are A, AE, AO, and AH. The number of structures in the SFHA is unknown, but most are included in low-density residential zones except for eight (8) trailer parks in the unincorporated County. Most of the flooding in the unincorporated County occurs along Llagas Creek between Morgan Hill and Gilroy, flowing south to and along the Pajaro River which forms part of the southern boundary of the County. There are levees included in the SFHA and they have been re-certified within the last seven years. Though the county has experienced isolated local flooding events in the last ten years, no events of note have been experienced since the storm events of 1995, 1997, and 1998 (Disaster DR- 1046, DR-1155, and DR-1203, respectively). - 6 - Repetitive Loss Properties The unincorporated section in the areas of County of Santa Clara have three (3) repetitive loss properties. County of Santa Clara Flood Insurance Data (as of 11/02/20) Insurance by Occupancy Insurance by Zone - 7 - City of Cupertino The City of Cupertino is located at the southern end of San Francisco Bay, on the western edge of the Santa Clara Valley. It is approximately ten (10) miles southwest of the Mineta San José International Airport with convenient freeway access via State Route 85 and Interstate 280. The city, home of Apple’s corporate headquarters and De Anza College, has a population of over 59,276 residents and encompasses 11.3 square miles or 7,230 acres. Flood Hazard Under the current FIRMs, the City of Cupertino has 130 structures in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The city’s SFHAs consist solely of designated zones A and AE. Of the total number of structures in the SHFA, 80 percent are single-family (1-4 units), one (1) percent is multi-family (5 or more units), and 19 percent are commercial or non- residential. Several streams run through Cupertino that flow into the San Francisco Bay, including Calabazas Creek, Saratoga Creek, Stevens Creek, Regnart Creek, Heney Creek, Prospect Creek and Permanente Creek. Specific areas that are susceptible to flooding are near Stevens Creek and Heney Creek. The city had experienced flooding around Calabazas Creek in 1998, but flood protection projects completed by Valley Water have decreased the risk of flooding significantly. Repetitive Loss Properties There are currently no repetitive loss properties in the city. The city had one (1) repetitive loss property within its jurisdiction and the property was purchased by the city in 2014. - 8 - City of Cupertino Flood Insurance Data (as of 11/02/20) Insurance by Occupancy Insurance by Zone - 9 - City of Gilroy The City of Gilroy is situated in South Santa Clara County at the crossing of U.S. Highway 101 and State Highway 152. The city is located approximately 16 miles south of San José to Monterey/Day Road on U.S. Route 101 and 19 miles inland from the Pacific Coast. The city has a population of about 59,032 residents and has a total area of 10,340 acres or approximately 16.156 square miles. Approximately seven (7) percent of this area in parks and preserves and another 29 percent consists of agriculture and other open space uses. The remaining area is nearly completely developed, with the predominance of single-family residences. The City of Gilroy has about 19 percent of vacant areas (developable land). Flood Hazard Under the current FIRMs, the City of Gilroy has 96 structures in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The SFHAs are mainly in FEMA designated Zones A, AE, AH, and AO. Of the total structures in the SFHA, 26 percent are single-family (1-4 units), none are multi-family (5 or more units), and four (4) percent are commercial or non-residential. The City of Gilroy receives waters from Lions, Llagas, Uvas, North and South Morey Creek. Specific areas that are susceptible to flooding are around Uvas Creek. The levee on Uvas Creek has been certified by FEMA. The City of Gilroy experienced flooding during the storms of December 14 to 28 in 1955. The heaviest precipitation occurred during the 3- day period ending December 23rd. The 12.9 inches of rain reported in the Gilroy area resulted in the Uvas and Carnadero Creeks creating a flow of 14,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) at U.S. Highway 101. Miller Slough was the principal flood problem in January 1963. A rainfall of 3.21 inches for 24 hours caused severe flooding of Forest Street, Church Street, and Sixth Street, with all the water flowing from Miller Slough. FEMA Flood Hazard Areas Some zone designation areas in Gilroy are being reviewed. Please contact the city’s Floodplain Manager for information regarding the zones that are being reviewed. Repetitive Loss Properties There are no repetitive loss properties in Gilroy. - 16 - City of Gilroy Flood Insurance Data (as of 11/02/20) Insurance by Occupancy Insurance by Zone - 17 - City of Los Altos The City of Los Altos is located at the base of the San Francisco Peninsula, 40 miles south of San Francisco. The approximately 6.3 square-mile city is developed primarily for single-family residential with small businesses , schools , librar ies, and churches . According to the 2019 census, it has a population of 30,089, with a population density of 4,466.8 people per square mile, and an average household size of 2.61 people. Los Altos ' climate is marine-influenced with an average summertime high temperature of 78°F and an average low of 57°F, dropping to an average winter nighttime low temperature of 41°F and an average high of 60°F. Mean annual precipitation ranges from 15 to 22 inches, with most precipitation falli ng from November through March. Precipitation occurs entirely as rainfall. Snowmelt is not a hydrologic process that significantly affects runoff in the city. Flood Hazard Under the current FIRMs, the City of Los Altos has approximately 550 properties in the Spec ial Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). SFHAs are mainly in FEMA designated Zones A, AH, AE and AO . Of the total structures in the SFHA, 99 percent are single-family, and one (1) percent are commercial or non-residential. The city has four (4) creeks: Adobe Creek, Hale Creek, Permanente Creek, and Stevens Creek. Specific areas that are susceptible to flooding are around Adobe, Permanente, and Hale Creeks. Precipitation that falls within the City of Los Altos generates stormwater runoff. This runoff is conveyed in several mostly manmade flood protection systems that discharge to the creeks. Most of these systems do not interact with one another, and potential improvements to one system should not impact the performance of other systems. The total land area withi n the city limits is roughly 6.3 square miles (approximately 4,000 acres). To create a rural aesthetic, many of the streets in Los Altos do not have traditional suburban curb and gutter-lined streets. This layout provides some attenuation before runoff reaches a storm drain inlet. In addition to storm drains, flood protection is provided to the City of Los Altos by Valley Water and its maintenance of our four creeks (Hale, Stevens, Adobe, and Permanente) that convey storm-generated runoff north to the San Francisco Bay. Repetitive Loss Properties There are no repetitive loss properties in the City of Los Altos. - 18 - City of Los Altos Flood Insurance Data (as of 11/02/20) Insurance by Occupancy Insurance by Zone - 19 - Town of Los Altos Hills The Town of Los Altos Hills is a residential community in the northwestern region of Santa Clara County. The Town is located adjacent to the City of Los Altos, 35 miles south of San Francisco, five (5) miles south of Stanford University, and 17 miles north of downtown San Jose. The town encompasses approximately nine (9) square miles and contains primarily single-family residences. According to the 2019 Census Bureau, the population is 8,423 with a population density off 918 people per square mile. There are no commercial or industrial uses within the town limits. As the town has developed over the past 50 years, residents have continued to support the preservation of low-density residential development and the semi-rural character of the community through one-acre zoning, the right to keep horses on private property, and the protection of open space, creek corridors, wildlife habitat, and heritage oak trees. The town has a mild climate with average summertime highs of 78 degrees, and average wintert ime lows of 43 degrees. The town receives approximately 21 inches of rain per year, of which most occurs between November and April. The town does not typically receive any precipitation in the form of snow and does not typically receive any snowmelt runoff. Flood Hazard: The town has six (6) creeks: Adobe Creek, Barron Creek, Deer Creek, Hale Creek, Matadero Creek, and Purissima Creek. Under the current Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), the Town has properties in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) along each of the creeks. SFHAs are shown on the FIRMs as Zone A, V, AE, AO, AH, VE, or AR. The SFHAs included in the town are Zone A and AE. Approximately one (1) percent of structures in the town are located in the one (1) percent annual chance floodplain (SFHAs). Stormwater runoff, which is generated by precipitation within Los Altos Hills, is conveyed either in the manmade storm drain system or allowed to naturally attenuate as overland flow. The storm drain system discharges to the creeks mentioned above. The system is comprised of small, localized systems that do not interact with one another. To maintain the semi-rural character of the town, many of the streets do not contain traditional curb and gutter lined streets. The lack of curb and gutter allows for some natural attenuation of runoff. In addition to the storm drain system, flood protection is provided to the town by Valley Water maintenance of Adobe Creek, Barron Creek, Deer Creek, Hale Creek, Matadero Creek, and Purissima Creek. These creeks convey storm-generated runoff to the San Francisco Bay. Repetitive Loss Properties: There are no repetitive loss properties in the Town of Los Altos Hills. - 20 - Town of Los Altos Hills Flood Insurance Data (as of 11/02/20) Insurance by Occupancy Insurance by Zone - 21 - Town of Los Gatos The Town of Los Gatos is located at the southern end of San Francisco Bay. The town is about 50 miles south of San Francisco. The town has a population of around 30,222 residents and encompasses 7,455 acres or approximately 11.7 square miles. Approximately 58 percent of this area are in residential, three (3) percent in commercial and industrial, two (2) percent in office/research and development, five (5) percent in public/quasi-public, one (1) percent in agricultural, 26 percent in parks and open space, and the remaining in vacant/unassigned areas. Flood Hazard Under the current FIRMs, the Town of Los Gatos has 165 properties in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The SFHAs are mainly in FEMA designated zones A, AE, AH and AO. Of the total properties in the SFHA, 87 percent are 1-4 family residential, less than one (1) percent are multi-family (5 or more families), and the remaining 12 percent are non-residential areas. The town has Ross Creek, Los Gatos Creek, Smith Creek, and San Tomas Aquino Creek. Repetitive Loss Properties The town does not have repetitive loss properties. - 22 - Town of Los Gatos Flood Insurance Data (as of 11/02/20) Insurance by Occupancy Insurance by Zone - 23 - City of Milpitas The City of Milpitas, located at the southern tip of the San Francisco Bay, is a progressive community that is an integral part of the high-tech Silicon Valley. With a diverse resident population of 84,196, Milpitas features quality schools, conveniently located neighborhood parks and shopping centers. Milpitas is often called the “Crossroads of Silicon Valley”, with most of its 8,680 Acres or 13.63 square miles of land situated between two major freeways (I-880 and I-680), State Route 237, and a county expressway. A new light rail line opened for service in 2004 and an extension of the BART subway system is underway. The city encompasses 8,680 acres of land. Approximately 12 percent of this area is in parks and preserves, less than one (1) percent consists of agricultural uses and other open space uses, 31 percent in low-density residential uses, four (4) percent in medium-density residential uses, eight (8) percent in high-density residential use, 12 percent in commercial/educational uses and 17 percent in industrial uses. There are approximately 1,790 acres, or 2.9 square miles, designated for various industrial uses. About 271 acres are vacant and available in parcels ranging from ½ acre to 75 acres. There are eight existing industrial parks and 550 manufacturing plants in Milpitas. Flood Hazard The City of Milpitas manages a floodplain that includes several local and regional creeks that convey stormwater to other jurisdictions, bay lands and marshes of the San Francisco Bay. Calera, Coyote, Penitencia, Berryessa, Los Coches Piedmont, Wrigley/Ford, and Tularcitos Creeks are among the major creeks that receive this stormwater. The City of Milpitas has 3,000 properties and 3,300 structures in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). SFHAs are mainly in FEMA designated zones A, AE, AH, and AO and are located near Calera, Penitencia, Berryessa, Los Coches and Tularcitos Creeks. Repetitive Loss Properties The city does not have repetitive loss properties. - 24 - City of Milpitas Flood Insurance Data (as of 11/02/20) Insurance by Occupancy Insurance by Zone - 25 - City of Morgan Hill The City of Morgan Hill is located within South Santa Clara County between the City of San José and the City of Gilroy; Morgan Hill is about 65 miles south of San Francisco. The city has an approximate population of 45,952 residents with an area of 8,206 acres or approximately 13 square miles, with the following breakdown in land use: a. Commercial 705 acres (10.8 percent) b. Industrial 718 acres (11.0 percent) c. Mixed-Use 238 acres (3.6 percent) d. Open Space 1,328 acres (20.3 percent) e. Public Facilities 301 acres (4.6 percent) f. High-Density Res. (6 to 12 DU/ac.) 242 acres (3.7 percent) g. Medium-Density Res. (up to 7 DU/ac) 744 acres (11.4 percent) h. Low-Density Res. (0 to 4 DU/ac) 2,259 acres (34.6 percent) Flood Hazard Under the current FIRMs, the City of Morgan Hill has approximately 643 structures (as of 2018) in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). SFHAs are mainly in the FEMA designated Zone A, AE, AH, and AO. Of the total structures in the SFHA, 34 percent (221 structures) are low-density residences, 31 percent (197 structures) are medium-density residences, and 15 percent (96 structures) are high-density residences. There is one (1) main creek, West Little Llagas Creek, which runs through the west side of Morgan Hill and flows south; it is along West Little Llagas Creek where residents and commercial properties are susceptible to flooding. West Little Llagas Creek is tributary to Llagas Creek which conveys water to the south to Gilroy and eventually the Monterey Bay. Repetitive Loss Properties The city has four (4) repetitive loss properties with 19 structures in the repetitive loss areas in FEMA designated Zone A, AE, AH, or AO zones. - 26 - City of Morgan Hill Flood Insurance Data (as of 11/02/20) Insurance by Occupancy Insurance by Zone - 27 - City of Mountain View Just over 12 square miles and home to approximately 82,739 residents, while the daytime population exceeds 125,000. The size and population of Mountain View may be modest, yet it has a prominent role on the world stage as the center of innovation for Silicon Valley, being the home to some of the most prominent tech companies in the world as well as hundreds of startups. The vibrant downtown draws people from all over the world to visit its shops and restaurants. The wonderful parks and network of trails delight people of all ages. Mountain View boasts strong safety and public education records and is considered one of the best places to live in the Bay Area. Flood Hazard Under the current FIRMs, the City of Mountain View has 1,139 parcels in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). SFHAs are in FEMA designated Zones A, AE, AH, and AO (1 & 2). Stevens Creek, Permanente Creek, Permanente Diversion Channel, and Hale Creek all flow through the City of Mountain View. The city is also subject to tidal flooding from San Francisco Bay. Repetitive Loss Properties There are no repetitive loss properties in the City of Mountain View. - 28 - City of Mountain View Flood Insurance Data (as of 11/02/20) Insurance by Occupancy Insurance by Zone - 29 - City of Palo Alto The City of Palo Alto is located on the San Francisco Peninsula, at the southern end of San Francisco Bay. The city is 35 miles south of San Francisco and 14 miles north of San José and at the northern edge of Santa Clara County, between the cities of Mountain View and Menlo Park. The city has a population of around 65,364 residents and encompasses 16,627 acres or approximately 26 square miles. Approximately 40 percent of this area is in parks and preserves and another 15 percent consists of agriculture and other open space uses. The remaining area is nearly completely developed, with single-family uses predominating. Less than one (1) percent of the city’s land area consists of vacant, developable land. Flood Hazard Under the current FIRMs, the City of Palo Alto has 4,889 structures in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). SFHAs are mainly in FEMA designated zone A, AE, and AH. Of the total structures in the SFHA, 87 percent are single-family (1-4 units), 11 percent are multi-family (5 or more units), and two (2) percent are commercial or non- residential. The city has four (4) creeks, San Francisquito Creek, Matadero Creek, Adobe Creek, and Barron Creek, that flow to San Francisco Bay. San Francisquito Creek flows into San Francisco Bay, and Matadero Creek, Barron Creek and Adobe Creek flow into 600 acres Palo Alto Flood Basin. The flow of water from the flood basin to the bay passes through eight (8) box culverts controlled by flap gates in the box culverts. Specific areas that are susceptible to flooding are around San Francisquito Creek and San Francisco Bay, where the levees are not built to FEMA standard for a 100- year storm protection. The city had experienced flooding around San Francisquito Creek in 1955 and 1998 when water overtopped the levee and caused immense damage to properties. A Joint Powers Authority was established in the year 2000 to provide flood protection for the San Francisquito Watershed. Repetitive Loss Properties There are five (5) repetitive loss areas in the city and there are 107 building structures on the five (5) repetitive loss areas. - 30 - City of Palo Alto Flood Insurance Data (as of 11/02/20) Insurance by Occupancy Insurance by Zone - 31 - City of San José The City of San José is located at the southern tip of the San Francisco Bay. With a population of 1,021,795 residents. San José is the third-largest city in California. The city encompasses 115,200 acres or approximately 180 square miles. Approximately 17 percent of this area is in parks, agriculture, and other open space uses. Residential use is comprised of 34 percent single- family, two (2) percent two-family, four (4) percent multi-family and one (1) percent mobile homes. Other uses include four (4) percent in commercial, three (3) percent educational, and 10 percent in industrial uses. Flood Hazard Under the current FIRMs, the City of San José has approximately 20,000 structures in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA); 67 percent of these structures are single- family residences (1-4 units), 13 percent are multi-family (5 or more units), and 20 percent are other non-residential uses, including commercial and industrial. These structures are located in FEMA flood zone designations A, AE, AH and AO. There are two (2) main creeks/rivers that flow into the San Francisco Bay, the Coyote Creek, and the Guadalupe River. The areas that flood San José are from the many tributaries that drain into the Coyote Creek and the Guadalupe River. Repetitive Loss Properties The City of San José has six (6) repetitive loss properties with a total of 11 structures. - 32 - City of San José Flood Insurance Data (as of 11/02/20) Insurance by Occupancy Insurance by Zone - 33 - City of Santa Clara The City of Santa Clara is located about 45 miles south of San Francisco. The city encompasses roughly 12,352 acres, or 19.3 square miles, and has a population of approximately 130,365. The city is categorized into areas consisting of approximately 43 percent residential, 27 percent commercial and industrial, 11 percent office/research and development, 11 percent public/quasi-public, and six (6) percent parks and open space, with the remaining area being categorized as vacant/unassigned. Flood Hazard Under the current FIRMs, the City of Santa Clara has 1,012 properties in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). SFHA are mainly in FEMA designated zone A, AE, AH, and AO. Of the total properties in the SFHA, 50 percent are 1-4 family residential, 27 percent are multi-family (5 or more families), and the remaining 23 percent are non-residential areas. The city has four (4) creeks/rivers: Calabazas Creek, Saratoga Creek, San Tomas Aquino Creek, and Guadalupe River. The city has experienced flooding around Calabazas Creek and San Tomas Aquino Creek in 1983, 1986, and 1998 when water overtopped the levees and caused significant damage to properties. Repetitive Loss Properties The city does not have repetitive loss properties. - 35 - City of Santa Clara Flood Insurance Data (as of 11/02/20) Insurance by Occupancy Insurance by Zone - 36 - City of Saratoga The City of Saratoga is located on the west side of the Santa Clara Valley, directly west of San José, in the San Francisco Bay Area. The city is 48 miles south of San Francisco and 14 miles west of San José and at the southwest edge of Santa Clara County, between the cities of Cupertino and Los Gatos. The city has a population of 30,153 residents and encompasses 8,179 acres or approximately 13 square miles. Approximately 40 percent of this area is in parks and preserves, and another 15 percent consists of agriculture and other open space uses. The remaining area is nearly completely developed, with single-family uses predominating. Less than one (1) percent of the city’s land area consists of vacant, developable land. Flood Hazard Under the current FIRMs, the City of Saratoga has 128 structures in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). SFHA are mainly in FEMA designated zone A, AE, and AH. Of the total structures in the SFHA, 98 percent are single-family (1-4 units), and two (2) percent are commercial or non- residential. The city has six (6) creeks: Calabazas, Rodeo, Saratoga, Wildcat, Vasona, and San Tomas. In general, flooding from these creeks has been confined to the relatively narrow flood plain directly adjacent to the creeks. Repetitive Loss Properties There are no repetitive loss properties within the city. - 37 - City of Saratoga Flood Insurance Data (as of 11/02/20) Insurance by Occupancy Insurance by Zone - 38 - City of Sunnyvale The City of Sunnyvale is one of the major cities that make up the Silicon Valley located in the San Francisco Bay Area. It is the second-highest populated city within Santa Clara County, with a population of 152,703. Sunnyvale is bordered by portions of San José to the north, Moffett Federal Airfield to the northwest, Mountain View to the west, Los Altos to the southwest, Cupertino to the south, and Santa Clara to the east. The city’s land area is approximately 22.87 square miles. Of this, 15.47 square miles are considered developable, as follows: 0.3 percent vacant, 54.7 percent residential, 22.4 percent office/industrial, 6.2 percent retail/service, 7.4 percent parks/open space, and 6.2 percent other uses. Flood Hazard Under the current FIRMS, Sunnyvale has 1,270 parcels that lie within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). SFHA’s in Sunnyvale are: Zones A, and V. Approximately 20 percent, or 254 parcels, are zoned for non-residential use. The remaining parcels within the SFHA are primarily single- family (1-4 units) residential (997 parcels), with only 19 parcels being multi-family residential (5+ units). Areas subject to flooding in Sunnyvale are, in general, the northern portion of the city, selected areas flanking the East and West Channels, Calabazas Creek, El Camino Real, and US Highway 101. Both the East and West Channels and Calabazas Creek flow directly into the San Francisco Bay, which abuts the northerly boundary of the city. Repetitive Loss There are no repetitive loss properties within the City of Sunnyvale. - 39 - City of Sunnyvale Flood Insurance Data (as of 11/02/20) Insurance by Occupancy Insurance by Zone - 40 - V. TARGET AUDIENCES The PPI Committee identified several key audiences that can be divided into categories: 1) those who are at risk of flood impacts; and 2) those who are a conduit to those who are at risk of flood impacts or “messengers to other target audiences.” Priority Audiences and Areas: 1. Community at Large The PPI Committee recognized that the entire community that lives and/or works in Santa Clara County is subject to impacts due to flooding. CRS typically focuses on residential flooding; however, in the San Francisco Bay Area, flooding of businesses and roads is also significant. Within the community-at-large, there are several sub-communities: Multi-lingual Communities: Within the community-at-large, there are non-English language speakers and non-US citizens. More than 112 languages are spoken in the Bay Area; however, the top three non-English languages are Spanish, Vietnamese, and Mandarin Chinese. Groups with Special Evacuation Needs: Within the community-at-large, access and functional need individuals require special evacuation support, such as seniors and fixed or low-income residents. These groups are of great concern during a flooding event and would need additional time, resources, and logistics to support them. New Residents, Visitors, and Tourists: Within the community-at-large, there are residents, visitors, and tourists who are new to the area or visiting for a short duration and may be unfamiliar with the hazards specific to this region. They may be unaware of flood risks, the resources available to them, and where to locate them. Additionally, new residents are less likely to be aware of sandbag locations and how to flood-proof a structure. 2. Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Communities The PPI Committee identified several geographic areas that are particularly prone to flooding. This includes areas of Mountain View and Milpitas that are prone to shallow flooding; areas of Mountain View and Palo Alto that are prone to riverine flooding, especially north of Highway 101; areas subject to tidal flooding; Los Altos, near Permanente and Hale creeks; areas of Palo Alto prone to flooding from San Francisquito Creek; flood-prone areas of San José, including Alviso; Morgan Hill, especially the downtown area; the South County corridor between Morgan Hill and the county line. A map of each community SFHA can be found on each community-specific page under Section IV: Communities’ Flood Hazard Areas. Residents and Businesses in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA): The offices of the largest employers of Silicon Valley form a ring around the edge of the San Francisco Bay, located in areas that flood. Consequently, thousands of people - 41 - work in the zone subject to tidal flooding, driving into and out of the tidal zone every day on their way to and from work. Street flooding can impact workers’ commutes. Major thoroughfares can be blocked by flooding, impeding access to residents, schools, hospitals, and workplaces. Those at risk of flood impacts include property owners, renters, and workers. For people who work in the tidal zone, family emergency plans are critical. Individuals should have flood-safe routes identified to get safely out of the tidal flooding zone. For residents who live in the FEMA-designated SFHA, the emergency plan ensures individuals and families are prepared for a flood event. Additionally, it is important for our communities to protect their property by purchasing flood insurance for home and business locations. Most homeowner insurance policies do not cover damage from natural disasters, such as flooding. Therefore, advising residents to purchase flood insurance to cover the contents in their homes is a critical message for this community. Within the SFHA, there are several sub-communities: Low Lying Areas, Along Rivers and Creeks: Within the SFHA, there are low-lying areas along rivers and creeks at risk for flooding. Coastal Communities at Risk for Sea Level Rise/Tsunamis: Within the SFHA, there are coastal communities at risk for sea-level rise and tsunamis. These areas are identified through the base flood elevation. The bayfront cities in Santa Clara County with areas subject to fluvial and tidal flooding are Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San José, and Milpitas. Repetitive Loss (RL) Areas: Within the SFHA, there are a few repetitive loss areas located in the County of Santa Clara and the cities of Morgan Hill, Palo Alto and San José. Additional information on these areas can be found on each community-specific page under Section IV: Communities’ Flood Hazard Areas. 3. Messengers to Other Target Audiences (Organizations and Businesses Serving the Community) Lenders, real estate agencies or boards, developers/contractors, and appraisers all serve as a messenger to people who are at risk of flooding as they provide their respective business service. In addition, organizations or agencies that serve at-risk communities include PG&E, American Red Cross, Emergency Assistance Network (EAN), Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT), neighborhood associations, schools, churches, hospitals, and social services agencies. These messenger organizations and businesses function as another target audience for the PPI. As government agencies work to reduce flood risk, they need to provide these messengers with the best information available and tailor the message to the County of Santa Clara’s needs. In other words, the PPI needs to include training that convey the information that the messengers will need. This will be implemented by presentations to groups, website postings and newsletter - 42 - articles. While all the messages need to be conveyed to messengers from time to time, some messages are more pertinent than others. For instance, lenders need a detailed understanding of flood insurance, but neighborhood associations would be more interested in how to protect people and property from a flood. All these audiences can be reached through a combination of messages from Valley Water, the cities, the county, and the American Red Cross. VI. OTHER PUBLIC INFORMATION EFFORTS To develop an effective PPI, the committee inventoried a broad sample of current initiatives, programs, and training that focus on raising the community’s awareness of local flood hazards and encouraging them to take action that will reduce risks (see Table 2). Outside activity by agencies and organizations in Santa Clara County relating to flood protection generally falls into one of four categories: 1) training and courses; 2) community-based engagement events; 3) traditional and social media messaging, and 4) mailers. Many community events feature at least one agency providing information on disaster preparedness and safety. The information in all four categories is usually provided on websites as well, so it is readily available. Additionally, phone and tablet apps have become particularly popular. The American Red Cross has developed a series of free apps related to disaster awareness such as flood protection, first aid, earthquake, and fire. The content of this messaging usually covers general hazard awareness and safety, with an increasing emphasis on preparedness, planning, and mitigation; however, the information can be applied to flood preparedness and safety. - 43 - Table 2: Other Public Information Efforts Agency/Organization Project/Effort Message American Red Cross Silicon Valley Chapter • Training: Personal preparedness, organizational preparedness. Audience: Adults, Seniors, Youth/Kids. • Community events: Regularly staff booths at community events and company health fairs to provide information about American Red Cross services and preparedness. • Social media messaging: Facebook, Twitter posts with updates on current disaster responses, seasonal tips on safety, preparedness. • Website: Downloadable materials. • Other: Smart device apps. General hazard/disaster awareness, safety, and preparedness. The importance of preparing a family emergency plan. Collaborating Agencies Disaster Relief Effort (CADRE) • Training: Monthly meetings, workshops, annual conference, which include training sessions. • Social media messaging. • Website: http://www.cadresv.org. • Other: Newsletter. Target CBOs, FBOs and nonprofit service providers. Organization disaster readiness and resiliency. Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County • Training: Disaster preparedness workshops. Disaster readiness and preparedness. Community Emergency Response Training (CERT) • Training: Personal preparedness. Disaster readiness and preparedness. Department of Water Resources • Training: Flood manager trainings, workshops, California Flood Preparedness prep meetings (Aug-Oct). • Community events: California Flood Preparedness Week (CFPW) every October. • Social media messaging: Social media toolkits for CFPW, social media messaging. • Website: Downloadable materials, toolkits, tips on flood safety: https://water.ca.gov/What-We- Do/Flood-Preparedness. • Other: YouTube channel. Flood preparedness and safety messaging. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) • Training: Online trainings. • Community events: Community events in partnership with local city/county. • Social media messaging: Facebook, Twitter, social media toolkits, smart device app: FEMA app. • Website: https://www.Ready.gov/floods. • Other: Youth education materials, YouTube channel. Disaster readiness and preparedness. - 44 - NOAA • Training: Online webinars. • Social media messaging: Facebook, Twitter, Smart device app: NOAA Weather Radio. • Website: Downloadable materials: https://www.weather.gov/safety/flood. • Other: Youth education materials, YouTube channel. Flood preparedness and safety messaging. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) • Other: Utility bill inserts, radio safety ads. Safety tips related to winter storms. Santa Clara County Department of Public Health • Website: Downloadable materials: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/phd/hi/phep/Pages/prep- home.aspx. Disaster readiness and preparedness. Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Management • Website: Downloadable materials: https://emergencymanagement.sccgov.org/home. • Other: Smart device app: ReadySCC. Disaster readiness and preparedness. San José Fire Department (Office of Emergency Services) • Training: Personal preparedness. Disaster readiness and preparedness. Silicon Valley Independent Living Center (SVILC) • Training: Personal preparedness. Disaster readiness and preparedness. US Army Corps of Engineers • Training: Online webinars. • Website: Downloadable materials: https://www.usace.army.mil/. • Other: Youth education materials, YouTube channel. Flood preparedness and safety messaging. Valley Water • Training: Virtual Flood Preparedness workshop, covering FEMA SFHA maps, stream gauges tools, community flooding hot spot awareness, flood insurance options, communication plans, emergency kits, and alerts and tips for avoiding floodwaters. • Community events: Flood awareness materials distributed at community fairs and events. • Social media messaging: Extensive multilingual flood awareness campaign with multilingual flood awareness videos and posts on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Nextdoor and YouTube, TV, radio, Pandora, print and digital newspapers, as well as email newsletter. • Website: Flood awareness blogs, videos, links, and preparedness resources available at http://www.valleywater.org/floodready. • Other: Mailers – Multi-lingual mailer with flood preparedness tips and resources distributed to 52,000 homes and 15 cities every winter. Flood preparedness and safety messaging. VII. COMMUNICATION STRATEGY, PROJECTS, AND INITIATIVES The focus of the Multi-Jurisdictional PPI (5-Year Plan) is to encourage flood preparedness best practices for the following key audiences: • The community-at-large; • Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) communities; and • Messengers to other target audiences. - 45 - The committee selected nine (9) topics with messages for each topic that need to be disseminated to the various audiences. The first six (6) are the same as the six (6) priority messages for the CRS program and included several public messages to select from. Three (3) additional topics were added by the committee and include one (1) priority message each (see Table 3). Table 3: CRS Priority Messages Topic Number Topic message Public Message (select one message per topic) TOPIC #1 Know your flood hazard • Know your flood risk • Contact your floodplain manager to find out if your property is in a floodplain • Check if your home or business is in a Special Flood Hazard Area TOPIC #2 Insure your property for your flood hazard • Get flood insurance ahead of time • Insure your property • There is a 30-day waiting period for the policy to take place TOPIC #3 Protect people from the flood hazard • Put your 3-day emergency kit together • Follow evacuation orders • Learn the best route to high ground TOPIC #4 Protect your property from the flood hazard • Protect your home from flood threats • Prepare your home • Sandbags can offer protection against a foot or less of floodwater • Get sandbags before a flood TOPIC #5 Build responsibly • Build responsibly in floodplains • Comply with development requirements • Check with your city/county floodplain manager before you build TOPIC #6 Protect natural floodplain functions • Keep creeks clean and flowing • Keep debris and trash out of our streams • Don’t pollute, dump, or drain anything in creeks Additional Outreach Topic Messages (only one message per topic) TOPIC #7 Develop an emergency plan • Develop an emergency plan TOPIC #8 Download disaster apps • Download disaster emergency apps TOPIC #9 Understand shallow flooding risks––don’t drive through standing water • Understand shallow flooding risks - don’t drive through standing water - 46 - Flood Response Preparation Projects: City of Santa Clara’s Flood Response Program (FRP) provides a road map for city staff in various departments to quickly distribute prescribed messages through several social media outlets before, during, and after a storm event. These messages serve to remind residents to prepare for an impending storm by cleaning up fallen leaves, picking up sandbags from the city, and preparing emergency kits for their household. During a storm or flood event, these messages inform residents how to stay safe. After a storm or a flood, these messages relay essential safety information and provide resources for reporting issues to the city or appropriate agencies. 1. Before a storm/flood: The City of Santa Clara’s Office of Emergency Service notifies all departments whether localized or area-wide flooding is anticipated. The fire Department, Police Department, and the Department of Public Works post their pre-approved messages and informs the City Manager’s Office. 2. During a storm/flood: The City of Santa Clara’s Manager’s Office and the Office of Emergency Services authorize public outreach activities during a flood event when the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is activated. Specifically, for storms, each department posts its pre-approved message that applies to the current situation. In this situation, the City Manager’s Office does not need to give authorization, but they must be informed. 3. After a flood: The City of Santa Clara’s Manager’s Office and Office of Emergency Services authorize public outreach activities following a flood event. Additionally, many of our communities are developing their Flood Response Programs (FRP) message plan. One idea was to develop a regionwide FRP messaging plan (listed as ‘Other New Initiatives’ Item No. 9), which would encompass all the participating communities. - 47 - Table 4: Flood Response Preparation Priority Messages: Topic Message Public Message (can select multiple messages per topic) Messaging Before A Flood TOPIC #1: Know your flood hazard • Your floodplain manager can provide you with flood insurance information and may have a FEMA Elevation Certificate for your property on file. TOPIC #4: Protect your property from the flood hazard • Prepare your house for the storm by gathering building materials like plywood, plastic sheeting, and sandbags. • Follow the sandbag guide to construct barriers to stop floodwater from entering your home. • To further protect your home from localized flooding, make sure to keep the gutter in front of your house clean. TOPIC #6: Protect natural floodplain functions • If you see a storm drain clogged/flooded or tree branches down, please call (number). • Place fallen leaves into your clean green container instead of blowing them onto the street and pick-up litter that can clog up storm drains. TOPIC #7: Develop an emergency plan • Make a family emergency plan and emergency kit for your home and car. • Sign up for AlertSCC. Messaging During A Flood TOPIC #2: Insure your property for your flood hazard • Collect your valuable documents, such as property insurance. • If you need to evacuate, take your property insurance documents and their contact number with you. TOPIC #3: Protect people from the flood hazard • If advised to evacuate, do so immediately. • Turn off utilities at the main switches or valves. • Disconnect electrical appliances. • Do not touch electrical equipment if you are wet or standing in water. • Check city/county website for the most up-to-date information on street closure, current situation, available shelter, and press releases. • Tune to radio stations KCBS (740 AM), KGO (810 AM), and KLIV (1590 AM) for emergency information. TOPIC #9: Understand shallow flooding risks––Don’t drive through standing water • Avoid fast-moving water. • “Turn Around Don’t Drown.” • For puddles, let off the gas, keep the steering wheel straight, and don't slam on the brakes. • Do not drive into flooded areas. - 48 - Messaging After A Flood TOPIC #3: Protect people from the flood hazard • Do not walk in floodwater. • Stay away from a downed power line and report them to Silicon Valley Power’s 24-hour hotline at 408-615-5640. • Return home only when authorities indicate it is safe. • Don't attempt to re-enter your home before then, or you may be at risk of the building collapsing. • Check the city/county website for the most up-to-date information. • Check the city/county website for the most up-to-date information on street closure, current situation, available shelter, and press releases. • Listen for news reports on whether the community's water supply is safe to drink. Check on the city/county website or contact City Water Utility Department at (number) to confirm. TOPIC #5: Build responsibly • Get a permit for flood damage repairs to avoid future damages. The city/county has a permit process to help you get back into your house. TOPIC #6: Protect natural floodplain functions • If you see a storm drain clogged/flooded or tree branches down, please call (number). Outreach Projects: Numerous outreach projects have been carried out over the past several years. Since they match the key audiences and are an effective means to disseminate the nine (9) topic messages, they will continue. Each outreach project includes one or more of the key messages. These projects are also reflected in Appendix A: CRS Creditable Outreach and Flood Response Projects by Community and Appendix B: Additional CRS Outreach Projects by Community (Non-Creditable Activities for Activity 330). 1. Outreach and Flood Response Projects by CRS Community a. County of Santa Clara: The County of Santa Clara’s website includes a Santa Clara County “Storm and Flood Information and Resources” webpage available for all residents in the county: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/opa/Pages/storm.aspx. The storm and flood information page redirects residents to Valley Water’s Flood Ready webpage, National Weather Service, American Red Cross, and www.floodsmart.gov, as useful resources. The County has a Consumer Protection Division’s website that also includes a “Flood Safety Information” webpage. The site redirects residents to Valley Water’s Access Valley Water customer portal for reporting debris in creeks and flood-ready webpage and www.Ready.gov. Additionally, there are multi-language ‘Flood Safety Information’ documents for resident’s use and other resourceful links: https://cpd.sccgov.org/flood-safety-information. Every fall, the County sends annual letters to the properties in the unincorporated section of the county’s mapped repetitive loss areas, as required by FEMA and is a prerequisite for a CRS Class 9. - 49 - As needed, the County’s Office of Emergency Management shares Valley Water’s digital social media resource links during the flood season. The “Floods Follow Fires. Are you Ready?” and “Got Sandbags” messages redirect to Valley Water’s website and all messages are available in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese. Messages are used on social media, short-form newsletter, short-form email, web, and Nextdoor. The County’s Office of Emergency Management’s website has a “Be a Prepared Community Member” webpage that includes emergency preparedness information including, signing up for AlertSCC, making an emergency plan, downloading the ReadySCC App, building an emergency supply kit, packing a go-bag, checking on neighbors, “Do One Thing,” 12-month preparedness calendar, and get CERT trained. https://emergencymanagement.sccgov.org/be-prepared-community- member. The County’s Office of Emergency Management’s website has a “People with Access and Functional Needs (AFN)” webpage that provides resources to help enhance independence and readiness through emergency preparedness: https://emergencymanagement.sccgov.org/people-access-and-functional- needs-afn. b. City of Cupertino: The City of Cupertino publishes annual flood notice in the local newsletter (The Cupertino Scene, a community-wide newsletter) that highlights nine (9) priority topics and is mailed to all residential and commercial properties within Cupertino’s jurisdiction. These notices provide information on flood risks and flood safety and inform property owners on ways to protect themselves and their property. The notice is typically published before or at the beginning of the rainy season (October or November issue). Although there are no longer any repetitive loss properties within the city, the City of Cupertino continues to send annual letters to these properties, highlighting five (5) of the nine (9) priority topics. The letter is typically mailed mid-year. In addition, Valley Water conducts several general and informational outreach projects that distribute materials countywide, highlighting the nine (9) priority topics that Cupertino can take credit for. Some of these outreach materials include their latest Flood Ready campaign brochures and flood kits, FEMA flood-related materials, which have also been distributed at various Cupertino events/facilities. The City of Cupertino recognizes the robust social media campaign led by Valley Water and has linked the city’s main flood preparation webpage, ‘Citizens Preparedness’ to Valley Water’s Flood Ready webpage. The City’s Office of Emergency Services also hosts a “Citizen Preparedness” webpage that includes emergency preparedness - 50 - information for different types of disaster such as floods. The webpage also includes re-directing to Valley Water’s Flood Ready webpage. https://www.cupertino.org/residents/community-services- programs/emergency-services/citizen-preparedness. Cupertino’s Public Works Department and Community Development Department’s Building Division also work closely together to provide Flood Protection Assistance, Property Protection Advice, site visits, and general flood protection assistance to interested community members. Advice and assistance are provided one-on-one, either over the phone, face-to-face at the public counter or through comments related to development review. Site visits, if requested, are also conducted, and scheduled directly with qualified city staff. The city participates in yearly clean-up events: the annual National River Clean-up Day (each May) and Coastal Clean-up Day (each September) and coordinates volunteers. Staff coordinate with Valley Water on both these clean-up efforts. The city also participates in Valley Water’s Adopt- a-Creek Program. On a project-specific basis, the city provides homeowners and business owners of active construction sites a Winter Preparedness notification that informs them that during the winter season, they need to winterize their project(s) site. Certain soil disturbance activities are not allowed during the rainy season. c. City of Gilroy: The City of Gilroy recognizes Valley Water’s Flood Awareness Campaign and has linked the city’s main flood webpage to Valley Water’s Flood Ready webpage. In addition, all the residents in the FEMA designated SFHA receive Valley Water’s annual floodplain mailer. This mailer in kept in a static location at City Hall for residents to pick-up and is also distributed at various events throughout the year. Gilroy participates in two fair/events. The Gilroy Garlic Festival, held typically at the end of July and the city’s Public Works Week Community Open House, held typically in May. Both support promoting PPI topic messages – distributes flood preparedness materials. d. City of Los Altos: Annually, the City of Los Altos sends a letter, along with a “Are You Prepared for a Flood in Your Neighborhood?” brochure, each fall to property owners in the SFHA to inform them their property is within the SFHA, flood risk reduction information, requirements for development standards within the SFHA, availability of flood insurance, and where additional information can be found. The mailer contains information on the following topic messages: • What to do before, during, and after • Recognize the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains • History of flooding in Los Altos • Determine if your property is located in an area subject to flooding - 51 - • Purchase flood insurance • Maintain drainage channels and pipes free of obstruction and debris • Protect your property from flood damage • Know floodplain development standards • Comply with development requirements • Plan for emergencies – Prepare a family disaster plan, make an emergency kit, sign-up for AlertSCC. Also, in the fall, each year, two (2) newspapers ads are published in the ‘Los Altos Town Crier,’ which contain similar information as the “Are You Prepared for a Flood in Your Neighborhood?” brochure including flood insurance information. e. Town of Los Altos Hills: The Town of Los Altos Hills hosts a “Flood Information” webpage on the town’s website. This webpage includes information on the PPI nine topics, including a supporting message. The webpage redirects to the following key resource websites: www.valleywater.org/floodready, www.floodsmart.org, www.ready.gov, and www.weather.gov. The town recognizes Valley Water’s Flood Awareness Campaign and has linked the town’s main flood webpage to Valley Water’s Flood Ready webpage. In addition, all residents in the FEMA designated SFHA receiving Valley Water’s annual floodplain mailer; the mailer in kept at a static location in the town hall for residents to pick-up. The town’s “Our Town” quarterly newsletter (fall issue) includes information on flood preparedness. The newsletter is mailed out town- wide and is also available online on the town’s website. The town participates in annual clean-up events: National River Clean-up Day (each May) and Coastal Clean-up Day (each September) and coordinates volunteers. They coordinate with Valley Water on both these clean-up efforts. The city also participates in Valley Water’s Adopt-a-Creek Program. Annually, the town hosts two events - Earth Day (held in the spring) and the Town Picnic (held late summer). The town distributes various flood preparedness and safety materials at these events, including Valley Water’s annual floodplain mailer and promotional item (e.g., emergency starter kits, Get Flood Ready Emergency Supply Checklist tote bags, etc.). Additionally, Valley Water hosts a table at the Town Picnic event and distributes various flood readiness materials and information (i.e. FEMA flood insurance information, ReadySCC, and American Red Cross Flood apps, AlertSCC, sandbag guidelines, flood protection project- specific notices, FEMA NFIP materials, and preparedness activity/coloring books, etc.) to the public. - 52 - f. Town of Los Gatos: The Town of Los Gatos’ website encourages residents and businesses to purchase flood insurance and redirects visitors to www.floodsmart.gov. The town recognizes Valley Water’s Flood Awareness Campaign and has linked the town’s main flood webpage to Valley Water’s Flood Ready webpage. In addition, all residents in the FEMA designated SFHA receiving Valley Water’s annual floodplain mailer; the mailer in kept at a static location in the town hall for residents to pick-up. g. City of Milpitas: Annually, the City of Milpitas mails out a brochure, “Flood Public Advisory” during the months of December or January to residents and businesses within SFHA and the community at large. The brochure promotes flood safety and flood preparedness messaging, including purchase flood insurance, SFHA, flood warning information, illegal dumping, ongoing flood mitigation projects, the city’s participation in the CRS, elevation certificates, Flood Protection Assistance, permit requirements for floodplain development, floor elevations, substantial improvements, and substantial damage, and provides contact information for a number of flood-related issues. The city’s “Flood Public Advisory” brochure, along with Valley Water’s “Are You Flood Ready?” floodplain mailers are posted in the public libraries and at City Hall. The city offers Flood Protection Assistance, Property Protection Advice and provides in-person flood risk consultation at the front counter. Anyone seeking flood zoning and flood mitigation information, can talk to a Registered Civil Engineer and/or a CFM from the Engineering Department. This service is advertised to the whole city by the ‘Flood Public Advisory’ that is mailed out annually between December-January. An engineer and/or CFM will visit the project site upon request and will provide an analysis report after the visit. A copy of any site visits and analysis report will be kept on file with the city. On a project-specific basis, the city provides contractors a Winter Preparedness notification that informs them that during the winter season, they need to winterize their project(s) site. Certain soil disturbance activities are not allowed during the rainy season. The city participates in annual clean-up events: National River Clean-up Day (each May) and Coastal Clean-up Day (each September) and coordinates volunteers. They coordinate with Valley Water on both these clean-up efforts. The city also participates in Valley Water’s Adopt-a- Creek Program. Year-round, the city distributes at various events the FEMA flood-related publications, including “Myths and Facts about the NFIP” and “Q&A NFIP Handbook” and the front counter area in a brochure rack. The city’s’ website has a “Flood Information” webpage contains information on several of the PPI message topics; the webpage also - 53 - redirects to Valley Water, FEMA, NOAA, www.floodsmart.gov, www.Ready.gov, and USGS webpages. h. City of Morgan Hill: Annually, the City of Morgan Hill sends a citywide “Flood Report” close to or during the start of the rainy season. The report is for residents and businesses to understand the flood hazards in the City of Morgan Hill, to learn what they can do to protect themselves before the next rainy season and to find out about recent and planned improvements being made in the city. The Flood Report varies on PPI priority messages including: • Know Your Flood Risk - Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) - FEMA Flood Map Service Center (redirects to www.msc.fema.gov) - City contact information for flood map requests, flood protection assistance, and other flood-related inquiries - Major Creeks: Llagas, West Little Llagas, Edmundson, Foothill, Paradise, Tennant, Coyote, Maple, and Corralitos Creeks • Build Responsibly - Morgan Hill Municipal Code Chapter 15.80 • SFHA • Recent and Planned Improvements • Keep Debris and Trash Out of Streams – It’s illegal to dump into our creeks; Do Not Dump • Insure Your Property (redirects to www.floodsmart.gov) • Be Prepared Before a Flood - Protect Your Property • Elevation Certificates • Be Prepared During a Flood - Register for AlertSCC - Follow evacuation orders - Stayed tuned (radio or TV) for possible warnings - Avoid floodwaters – “Turn Around Don’t Drown” • 6” of moving water can knock you off your feet • A car can be carried away by just 2′ of water • Develop a Family Emergency Plan - Create a communications plan - Assemble an emergency kit - Keep a minimum 3-day supply of non-perishable food and bottled water • Download Disaster and Emergency Apps - ReadySCC - Red Cross Flood App • Redirects to www.ValleyWater.org/FloodReady From year-to-year, the Flood Report can also include additional messaging based on the current outreach efforts and publicity requirements on city’s CRS activities. - 54 - The city’s website has a “Flood Information” webpage that contains the city’s flooding information, which redirects to their Floodplain Management page and includes a link to the city’s annual “Flood Report.” The webpage redirects to Valley Water’s Flood Ready webpage and also contains FEMA flood information. Each summer, the city sends an annual notice to Repetitive Loss (RL) areas as required by FEMA and is a prerequisite for a CRS Class 9. i. City of Mountain View: The City of Mountain View sends information on flood risk, flood safety, and the importance of buying flood insurance in the Winter version of the city’s newsletter called, “The View.” The city publishes this newsletter bi-annually and is sent to all postal addresses in the City of Mountain View (over 17,000 addresses). The Fall edition of the newsletter includes a “Are You Flood Prepared?” section that provides a wealth of informs the public of flood risks including the nine priority flood messages including: know your flood risk, contact your floodplain manager to find out if your property is in a floodplain, how to insure your property, protect people from the flood hazard by creating a 3-day emergency kite, protect your property with city provided sandbags, build responsibly, protect the natural floodplain by keeping debris and trash out of our streams, develop an emergency plan, download the emergency apps and ‘Turn around don’t drown’ messaging. The city’s “Flood Protection and Insurance Information” webpage also provides information on many of these same topics and also redirects to Valley Water’s webpage and www.floodsmart.gov. Each year, all residents and businesses see these nine priority flood messages again as an insert in their utility bill that arrives between July- September. The city participates in the Mountain View Art & Wine Festival (each September) and Thursday Night Live (months of June and July) and distributes Valley Water’s annual floodplain mailer and the promotional item (e.g., emergency starter kits, Get Flood Ready Emergency Supply Checklist tote bags, etc.). Valley Water also hosts a table at the Mountain View Art & Wine Festival and distributes various flood readiness materials and information (i.e. Valley Water’s floodplain mailer [containing all 9 PPI topic messages], FEMA NFIP flood insurance information, ReadySCC, and American Red Cross flood apps, AlertSCC, sandbag guidelines, flood protection project-specific notices, FEMA NFIP materials, and preparedness activity/coloring books, etc.) to the public. The City of Mountain View does a social media notification about storm preparation for winter storms ahead of time. The notification directs residents to their “Flood Protection and Insurance Information” webpage. The city has also linked the city’s webpage to Valley Water’s Flood Ready webpage. j. City of Palo Alto: Annually, the City of Palo Alto’s “Are You Ready for Winter Storms?’ flyer (aka utility insert) is sent to all residents and - 55 - businesses in the city, in their utility bills in the fall. The flyer contains information on the nine (9) PPI topic messages, including: what to do before, during, and after a storm; prepare family emergency plans and emergency kits; sign up for AlertSCC; bookmark cityofpaloalto.org/storms webpage for up-to-date local storm information; stay powered safely; understand shallow flooding – Turn Around, Don’t Drown; protect your property – know your flood hazard area, insure your property sufficiently, purchase flood insurance; identify flood zone designation; build responsibly; clean out roof gutters, downspouts, landscape inlets and swales; sandbags available/locations; report hazardous material spills and illegal dumping; Do Not Dump; emergency information: flood warning and creek levels; blocked storm drains, mud slides, and fallen trees; sign up to receive text or email notifications of flood conditions; get Red Cross flood app; become an Emergency Services Volunteers (ESV); and other general information including non-emergency; real-time public safety updates are posted on social media accounts on: Twitter, Nextdoor, Facebook, etc. Information on the link to real-time creek monitor page and San Francisquito Creek JPA early flood warning system is also provided. The city distributes various flood preparedness and safety documents, including FEMA NFIP materials for public/policyholders (e.g. Valley Water’s annual floodplain mailer, FEMA’s NFIP Why Do I Need Flood Insurance? Your Homeowners Insurance Does Not Cover Flooding, The Preferred Risk Policy for Homeowners and Renters, etc.). These materials are available at the Public Works Department, the Development Center, and are also made available via the city’s website, “Flood Information and Winter Storm Preparedness” webpage that redirects to ‘Flood Information Documents’ from the City of Palo Alto Library Digital Collection database. These materials are also distributed at the city’s annual events noted below. Annually, the city also sends out a utility announcement, “Anytime it can rain, it can flood. Don’t get caught off-guard.” The announcement includes a link to the city’s flood safety tips webpage at www.cityofpaloalto.org/storms. The announcement is sent once a year during the month of March/April. Messages included are: Valley Waters Flood Safety Tips, purchase flood insurance, prepare a family emergency plan, know the location of neighborhood streams and drainage channels, learn the best route to high ground; protect natural floodplains; protect your home and understand shallow flooding. As required by FEMA and is a prerequisite for a CRS Class 9, the city also sends annual letters to the properties in the city’s mapped repetitive loss areas, highlighting flood safety tips; the letter is typically mailed in the month of August/September. Annually, at the beginning of the flood season (September/October), the city sends out letters to real estate agencies informing them of their responsibility to identify flood hazard areas and to take advantage of the - 56 - Flood Zone Lookup on the city’s website on the Floodplain Management webpage. The city participates in the annual clean-up events: National River Clean- up Day (each May) and Coastal Clean-up Day (each September). They coordinate with Valley Water on both these clean-up efforts. Additionally, the city participates in Valley Water’s Adopt-A-Creek Program. Trash booms are located in Matadero Creek and Adobe Creek. Annually, booms clean-ups are done on an as-needed basis. The city also assesses its hot spots and cleans up the local drainage system on an ongoing basis as part of the city’s operations and maintenance. Each April, city staff host a flood readiness table at the city’s annual Earth Day event and at the City Municipal Corporation Open House held in July. Flood preparedness materials are distributed to the community, including Valley Water’s outreach promotional item (varies from year to year) and their annual floodplain mailer, the city’s “Are You Ready for Winter Storms?” utility insert, the Creekwise mailer/brochure, and runs a slideshow presentation of flood preparedness and protection. Upon request, the city also participates in other fairs and promotes flood readiness. k. City of San José: Annually, at the beginning of the flood season, the City of San José sends an annual flyer to properties in repetitive loss areas typically between September and December as required by FEMA and is a prerequisite for a CRS Class 9. The informs property owners that their property is in a flood-prone area. The flyer also details ways property owners can protect themselves and their property, such as be informed and know your flood risk, how to reduce this risk, how to protect your people and your property, including flood insurance (redirecting to www.floodsmart.gov), build responsibly, and to practice flood safety. The city’s Public Works, Development Services, “Flood Hazard Zones” webpage located here: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your- government/departments/public-works/development-services/floodplain- management, includes information on the following: - Flood Information Public Works staff provides information regarding flood zones, flood insurance, Special Flood Hazard Area regulations, and maintains copies of elevation certificates. The public may also check if their property is in the flood zone by visiting flood hazards zone map. - Flood Hazard Zones The City of San José is a member of the National Flood Insurance Program. Membership in the program allows residents of the City of San José to obtain federally backed mortgages and disaster assistance in the event of floods. In exchange, the city requires new land developments and remodels of existing buildings to - 57 - conform to rules that minimize flood damage. Public Works is responsible for administering this program and providing flood zone information to the citizens of San José. - Re-directs to Valley Water’s Flood Ready webpage for more information about watersheds and historical flooding information. The city also has a link on its website to www.floodsmart.gov for residents to learn more about purchasing flood insurance. The city recognizes Valley Water’s Flood Awareness Campaign and has linked the city’s main flood webpage to Valley Water’s Flood Ready webpage. In addition, all the residents in the FEMA designated SFHA receive Valley Water’s annual floodplain mailer. This mailer is kept in a static location at City Hall for residents to pick-up and is also distributed at various events throughout the year. Annually, at the beginning of the flood season (September–December), the city sends out letters to real estate and insurance agencies and lenders, informing them of their responsibility to identify flood hazard areas and to take advantage of the Flood Zone Lookup on the city’s website on the “Flood Hazard Zones webpage and advises to contact the city for map reading services and elevation certificates on file. The city hosts an annual public safety event, ‘Building Permits and Home Safety Open House,’ typically held in May. Valley Water staff also participates in the city’s annual Pumpkins in the Park’ event, held in October. At both events, there are booths/tables with information/materials that support our PPI topic messages; flood prevention materials are distributed. l. City of Santa Clara: Each fall, the City of Santa Clara mails out a citywide newsletter for residents and businesses, including all addresses in the SFHA, called “Inside Santa Clara.” The fall issues have a “Are You Flood Ready” page that includes all nine (9) CRS key priority messages urging residents and business to purchase flood insurance, learn more about flood from floodsmart.gov, find out their flood zone and flood risk with available services from the city, prepare emergency kits and family emergency plans, sign up for ALERT SCC (the Santa Clara County emergency alert system), download emergency apps “ReadySCC” or the Red Cross Emergency App, make permanent improvements to reduce flood damages with free Flood Protection Assistance, Property Protection Advice service from the city, build responsibly and obtain building permits and elevation certificates in SFHA, protect properties from flood threats with sandbags available from the city, stay safe from shallow flood and flood water while driving or walking – Turn Around, Don’t Drown, keep storm drain inlet and catch basins clear of debris or leaves. The citywide newsletter also provided “How To” information on staying safe during a flood, proper sandbag usage, reporting storm drain blockage, and reporting illegal dumping in/near creeks to reduce flood and pollution risk. The newsletter is mailed to all residential and business addresses in the city. Additional copies of the newsletter are available for display and pick - 58 - up at City Hall, and it can also be accessed online on the city’s website: https://www.santaclaraca.gov/i-want-to/stay-informed/newsroom/city- publications/inside-santa-clara. City staff host a flood readiness table at the city’s annual Art & Wine Festival held each September to display and distribute emergency preparedness kits, Valley Water’s floodplain mailer and flood reporting phone number magnet and provide flood zone look up service. Valley Water also sponsors a table at the festival promoting flood preparedness and distributes various flood readiness materials to the community. During the storm season, the City of Santa Clara publishes social media posts on Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms, focused on safety and urges residents to stay vigilant while walking or driving during heavy rains/storms; reminds them to keep storm drain inlets clear, and advises them to report blocked storm drain inlets. The city’s Office of Emergency Services prepared a pre-flood plan (FRP) for public information projects that will be implemented before, during, and after a storm/flood, as well as identifying who is responsible for posting these messages, what type of events they apply to, what social media platforms to post to and how often. Before a storm/flood, the messages focus on emergency kit, plan, and app-sign-up preparation, and flood damage prevention. During a storm/flood, the messages focus on shallow flood risk, utility safety, and where to find accurate information on evacuation order, shelter, and road closure. After a flood, the messages focus on keeping people safe, reporting issues, where to find accurate information on the current status for drinking water, utility, road closure, evacuation order and shelter, and rebuilding and recovery. The city’s website, “Flood Protection Information” webpage contains valuable information on flood-related topics, such as local flood risk, FEMA flood zones, flood insurance, and flood emergency preparedness, among other things. Many FEMA publications containing a wealth of flood-related information are also available for viewing in hard copy at Santa Clara City Hall or at the City of Santa Clara Central Library: https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-g-z/public- works/engineering/flood-protection. m. City of Saratoga: The City of Saratoga’s website encourages residents/businesses to purchase flood insurance and redirects visitors to www.floodsmart.gov: https://www.saratoga.ca.us/218/Winter-Storms. The City of Saratoga does a social media notification about storm preparation for winter storms ahead of time. The notification directs residents to their “Staying Safe, Winter Storms” webpage. The City of Saratoga has also linked the city’s Winter Storms webpage to Valley Water’s Flood Ready webpage. The City of Saratoga recognizes Valley Water’s Flood Awareness Campaign and has linked the city’s main flood webpage to Valley Water’s Flood Ready webpage. In addition to all residents in the FEMA - 59 - designated SFHA receiving Valley Water’s annual floodplain mailer, the mailer in kept static at the City Hall for residents to pick-up. n. City of Sunnyvale: The City of Sunnyvale sends two (2) mailers and one (1) newsletter article each October. The first mailer/postcard is targeted to all residents and businesses within the SFHA informing them of the requirement to purchase flood insurance and about the automatic 15% discount. The second mailer/postcard is targeted to real estate agents informing them of the client’s responsibility for identification and purchase of flood insurance and the availability of the automatic 15% discount. The City of Sunnyvale’s annual fall “Horizon” newsletter, which come out in October, includes a “Know How to Be Flood Safe” article that promotes flood safety and flood preparedness messaging, including purchasing flood insurance and promotes www.floodsmart.gov, Flood Zone Lookup information, AlertSCC, Do Not Dump, and highlights the city’s website. Additionally, the City of Sunnyvale has permanent “Road May Flood” street signs in areas of the city prone to flooding and promotes the “Flood Zone Look Up” featured on the city’s website. Furthermore, during the rainy season (October-March), the City of Sunnyvale actively posts flood safety and preparedness messaging through the city’s Environmental Services social media platforms (i.e., Facebook and Twitter). o. Valley Water: Valley Water sends an annual multi-language floodplain mailer countywide to all residents and businesses within the SFHA in Santa Clara County. The floodplain mailer is an extensive mailer that includes language on all the nine (9) PPI priority messages, such as contact numbers for mapping services for each of the communities and flood response messaging on what to do before, during, and after a flood. The mailer is sent out each year between November/December to remind residents and businesses in the SFHA of the upcoming rainy season and urges them to prepare beforehand and to purchase flood insurance. An electronic version of the mailer is also available on Valley Water’s website on the flood preparedness page at www.valleywater.org. It should be noted that this is not necessarily a mailer to every creek side owner. Many properties are adjacent to creeks but not in the SFHA and would not receive this mailer. Hard copies of the floodplain mailer are provided to all the cities/county for their use to disseminate at various events (i.e. emergency preparedness fairs, festivals, public meetings, etc.), including keeping the mailer static in lobby areas for visitors to pick-up. Electronic copies are also provided to the CRS communities to post on their websites. Additionally, Valley Water includes flooding messages in an annual multi- language countywide mailer sent to every postal address in the county in - 60 - late October/early November. This is a general mailer whose topics cover the full range of services Valley Water carries out; therefore, topics vary from year to year, but a minimum of six (6) topics are included. The importance of buying flood insurance is always mentioned and the 30-day waiting period for an NFIP policy to go into effect. Every CRS community submits the floodplain and countywide mailers for CRS credit. Annually, Valley Water also distributes and provides each community with a flood promotional item to giveaway to the public at community events. During the year, Valley Water participates in booth duty support at various events and fairs throughout the county, including Valley Water Capital project meetings, or other events, as requested by various organizations. A number of communities pursue Outreach Project (OP) credit under Activity 300 for this activity. Valley Water distributes flood preparedness and awareness outreach materials (e.g., annual floodplain and countywide mailers, FEMA NFIP materials, USACOE Disaster preparedness coloring book, etc.) to the public at various events/fairs throughout the county encouraging the public to “Get Flood Ready.” Valley Water maintains public outreach materials for use before, during and after a flood and safety messaging. The distributed materials cover all of the nine (9) key CRS messages: sandbag guideline and flood protection project(s) information; downloading flood/emergency apps; information to encourage creating a family emergency plan; encourage homeowners, business owners, and renters to purchase of flood insurance ahead of time; prepare emergency kits; to know your flood risk; protecting people and property from flood threats; keeping creeks clean and flowing; avoid floodwaters, and to build responsibly in floodplains. The materials that are distributed include several FEMA publications and Valley Water flood preparedness promotional items which can vary from year to year. Annually, Valley Water Office of Government Relations participates in the below community events during the flood season (from September-May. Note: The below list of events is subject to be amended.): Table 5: Community Events During the Flood Season Month Event September - Santos Car Show (Alviso/San José) - Mountain View Chamber of Commerce Art & Wine Festival (Mountain View) - Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Silicon Valley Fall Festival (Cupertino) - Morgan Hill Chamber of Commerce Taste of Morgan Hill (Morgan Hill) October - Day on the Bay Multicultural Festival (hosted by Santa Clara County) - Day in the Park (hosted by the City of San José, District 8) - Pumpkins in the Park (hosted by Guadalupe River Park Conservancy, San José) - Diwali Festival of Lights (hosted by Cupertino Chamber of Commerce) - Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Silicon Valley Festiv’ALL (sponsored by Valley Water and City of San José) - 61 - November - Annual American Indian Heritage Celebration (hosted by ConXion to Community, San José) December - Santa Visits Alviso (San José) January - South Valley Science Fair (hosted by South Valley Science and Engineering fair, Morgan Hill) - San José Women’s March (hosted by Women’s March Bay Area, San José) February - Valley Medical Center’s Women’s Leadership Policy Summit (hosted by Valley Medical Center Foundation, Saratoga) March - Silicon Valley Leadership Group Regional Economic Forum (hosted by Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Campbell) - Tech Challenge (hosted by The Tech Interactive, San José) - Morgan Hill Wildflower Run (hosted by American Association of University Women, Morgan Hill) April - City of Palo Alto Great Race for Saving Water (hosted by City of Palo Alto) May - Berryessa Annual Art & Wine Festival (hosted by Berryessa Business Association & Bay Area Community Services, San José) - Campbell Chamber of Commerce Boogie on the Avenue (hosted by Campbell Chamber of Commerce, Campbell) - Mushroom Mardi Gras (hosted by Morgan Hill Mushroom Mardi Gras Inc., Morgan Hill) Additionally, throughout the year, there are other countywide events that Valley Water participates in by hosting a table and distributing flood preparedness materials. Valley Water’s “Let’s Talk Water” Speakers Bureau Program provides general presentations to various groups, including Homeowners Associations. The presentations talk about where your water comes from, reviews the history of Valley Water and how we operate. Presenters also discuss our water supply sources for our county, water quality, flood protection, including flood awareness/preparedness, and our creeks and ecosystems. Information is shared on the topic of flood protection includes, a brief description of the CRS program, how to find your flood risk, make your 3-day emergency kit, the importance of purchasing flood insurance, and Valley Water’s ongoing flood protection projects: https://www.valleywater.org/learning-center/lets-talk-water-speakers- bureau. Annually, Valley Water distributes a soft copy of our ‘Flood Safety Tips’ brochure for all SCC CRS communities’ use (print hard copies to distribute at events and/or post of flood preparedness webpages. This brochure covers all nine (9) key priority topics and is also made available on Valley Water’s Flood Ready website. - 62 - 2. Valley Water’s Annual Flood Awareness Media Campaign Annually, Valley Water conducts a flood awareness media campaign, reaching the community at large, including our multi-lingual community, groups with special evacuation needs, new residents, visitors, and tourists. The campaign runs the duration of the rainy season, typically from November to April, and features social media videos and postings on various platforms (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Nextdoor, etc.), digital banners, newspaper advertorials, radio ads, billboards, utility bill inserts for communities to use, communities re-direct to Valley Water’s flood ready website, and television/mobile ads targeting residents who live in flood-prone areas and multilingual ethnic communities. As part of Valley Water’s annual flood awareness campaign, an annual floodplain mailer is sent to all addresses in the County of Santa Clara’s FEMA designated SFHA (see Section 1. Outreach and Flood Response Projects by CRS Community, Item o. Valley Water). Additionally, as needed, Valley Water conducts an outreach campaign targeted to “hot spot” areas (i.e., locations Valley Water has identified as prone to flooding) by engaging in additional outreach with the public, as needed and/or requested. This outreach may include a live or virtual event where residents in hot spot areas receive additional info on how to prepare for a flood event and will include a Board member promoting for residents to purchase flood insurance. An annual ‘Winter Preparedness Emergency Resources Guide’ (postcard/flyer) is mailed to residents and/or businesses who live or are located within hot spot locations. The guide includes the following CRS messages: - ‘Know Your Risk’ by visiting www.msc.fema.gov to see your location on a FEMA SFHA map; - ‘Prepare Your Home’ by downloading emergency apps and monitoring stream levels and finding sandbags locations; and - ‘Get Insured’ by visiting www.floodsmart.gov to find an agent in your areas. - What to do Before, During, and After a Flood. As part of the flood awareness campaign, a ’Get Flood Ready, Social Media and Web Resources Guide’ is provided to each of the communities for their use as part of their outreach efforts. 3. Do Not Dump Program a. Storm Drain Stenciling/Medallion – For more than 20 years, the County of Santa Clara has a program to locate and label all storm drain inlets “Do Not Dump” stencils at storm drains. This program, which helps prevent shallow flooding continues. Several Santa Clara County cities/county and Valley Water participate in the Storm Drain Stenciling Program. b. Cities in Santa Clara County require all developments modifying or constructing new catch basins/storm drains/inlets to stencil the “No Dumping! Flows to Bay.” In addition, some of these cities require all bid documents for capital projects which are modifying or constructing new - 63 - catch basins and require the contractors to install the same stencil. The program is also highlighted on cities’ websites. In South County municipalities (permittees) are subject to the statewide “Phase II” Stormwater Permit: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). The permit became effective July 1, 2013 and remains effective (as amended) until reissued. The last amendment was effective January 1, 2019. The North County municipalities (permittees) are subject to the San Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. The permit was effective January 1, 2016 and was due to expire December 31, 2020 but has been administratively extended. c. The City of Cupertino’s annual flood notices in the local newsletter, ‘The Cupertino Scene,’ contains dumping is illegal messaging and how to report. d. The City of Milpitas’s annual “Flood Public Advisory” annual brochure contains dumping is illegal messaging and how to report. e. The City of Palo Alto’s annual “Are You Ready for Winter Storms?” utility bill insert contains the Do Not Dump and report illegal dumping messages. f. The City of Sunnyvale’s annual fall “Horizon” newsletter includes a “Know How to Be Flood Safe” article that promotes the Do Not Dump message. g. Valley Water places “Do Not Dump” signs by waterways/channels. h. Valley Water lists the Pollution Hotline number in all their Project Notices. 4. Information for Use Before, During, and After a Flood a. Valley Water maintains public outreach materials for use before, during, and after a flood, including safety messages, how to file insurance claims, the need for permits, etc. These materials include several FEMA publications and Valley Water collateral items. Several of these items are also available on our website. Valley Water distributes these outreach materials to the public at various events/fairs throughout the county, at public meetings, with stakeholders (e.g., Second Harvest Food Bank, HOA’s, Fire Departments, etc.) to help disseminate our flood preparedness messaging. These items are also made available upon request to cities/county to distribute within their community. Valley Water’s website includes a ‘Flood Safety Advice: Before, During, and After a Flood’ webpage https://www.valleywater.org/floodready/flood- safety-advice-during-after. - 64 - b. The City of Santa Clara has a plan that outlines flood response activities to carry out before, during, and after a storm/flood. The plan identifies how to disseminate information on social media (i.e., frequency and type of messaging, which media platforms, and who will be responsible for posting the messages). c. The City of Milpitas’ ‘Flood Public Advisory’ annual brochures provide information on what to do before and during a flood. Other Public Information Initiatives The PPI Committee reviewed other public information activities, in addition to outreach projects. Additional credit is available under Activities 340, 350, 360, and 540 if the element is described in the PPI document with specific recommendations on how it should be conducted. Activity 340 (DFH and REB) – Additional credit is provided if the PPI states that real estate agents should (or have agreed to) advise house hunters about the flood hazard and that real estate agents give house hunters a REB brochure. • The City of Morgan Hill mails out during the rainy season an annual newsletter, “Ask Before You Buy: Know Your Flood Risk!”, to local real estate agents that provide homebuyers help to determine the flood risk of the property being purchased. • The City of Palo Alto sends out annual letters to real estate agencies, informing them of their responsibility to identify flood hazard areas and to take advantage of the Flood Zone Lookup on the city’s website on the Floodplain Management webpage at the beginning of the flood season (September/October). • The City of San Jose sends out letters to real estate and insurance agencies and lenders, informing them of their responsibility to identify flood hazard areas and to take advantage of the Flood Zone Lookup on the city’s website on the “Flood Hazard Zones webpage and advises to contact the city for map reading services and elevation certificates on file (September–December). • The City of Sunnyvale sends a mailer/postcard targeted to real estate agents informing them of the client’s responsibility for identification and purchase of flood insurance and the availability of the automatic 15% discount. • Other communities could follow suit and send out the info to real estate agents advising house hunters about flood hazards and advise real estate agents to give house hunters a REB brochure. Activity 350 (WEB1) – Additional bonus credit is provided if the communities website covers the additional priority messages (Topics 7-9) that are listed in the PPI, listed in Table 3: CRS Priority Messages. , • All communities’ website flood protection resources webpage includes language that contains the three additional PPI priority messages noted below: 7. Develop an emergency plan. 8. Download disaster apps. 9. Understand shallowing risks––don’t drive through standing water. - 65 - Activity 360 (PPA, PPV, FAA) – Additional bonus credit is provided if the PPI discusses how the community’s property protection services should be conducted (PPA), discusses site visits as part of the community’s property protection service (PPV), and discusses how the community’s financial assistance advisory service should be conducted (FAA). • The City of Cupertino provides property protection advice, site visits, and general flood protection assistance to interested community members. Advice and assistance are provided one-on-one, either over the phone, face-to-face at the public counter or through comments related to development review. Site visits, if requested, are also conducted and scheduled directly with qualified city staff. This service is advertised to the entire community in their annual flood notices in the local newsletter (The Cupertino Scene, a community-wide newsletter). The notice is typically published before or at the beginning of the rainy season (October or November issue). • The City of Milpitas offers Flood Protection Assistance and provides in-person flood risk consultation at the front counter. Anyone seeking flood zoning and flood mitigation information, can talk to a Registered Civil Engineer and/or a Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM) from the Engineering Department. This service is advertised to the whole city by the ‘Flood Public Advisory’ that is mailed out annually between December-January. An engineer and/or CFM will visit the project site upon request and will provide an analysis report after the visit. A copy of any site visits and analysis report will be kept on file with the city. • The City of Santa Clara provides property protection advice, and general flood protection assistance to interested residents and businesses. Advice and assistance are provided one-on-one by reviewing site plans and site photos, either over the phone, or face-to-face at the permit center counter. Site visits, if requested, are also conducted and scheduled directly with qualified city staff. This service is advertised to the entire community every year in the fall issue of citywide newsletter “Inside Santa Clara”, which typically goes out every September. • Other communities could follow suit and send out the info on how the community’s property protection services should be conducted, including site visits as part of the community’s property protection service and offer the community financial assistance advisory service. Activity 540 (Drainage System Maintenance) – Additional credit is provided if the PPI specifies the message and recommends the best way to disseminate it. • Valley Water’s annual floodplain, countywide mailers and all project notices include messaging on Do Not Dump/Illegal Dumping. All communities comply with the Santa Clara County’s Storm Drain Stenciling/Medallion Program as developments that are modifying or constructing new catch basins/storm drains/inlets are required, per the below-noted permits, to stencil the “No Dumping Flows to Bay.” In addition, some of these cities require all bid documents for capital projects, which are modifying or constructing new catch basins, require the contractors to install the same stencil. The program is also highlighted on cities’ websites. - 66 - - South County municipalities are subject to the statewide “Phase II” NPDES Permit - North County municipalities are subject to the SF Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit Other New Initiatives The PPI committee identified a number of new initiatives: 1. Continue and expand the standardized flood message prepared for each community to include flood messages in utility bills each year, including PG&E. 2. Expand on partnerships with local chambers of commerce to disseminate and share flood preparedness information. 3. Expand on outreach to the Asian and Latino communities who live in flood prone areas. 4. Expand on outreach to “hot spot” flood prone areas by hosting on-site or virtual events. 5. Expand on reaching local homeowners associations (HOA)s and apartment associations (i.e. Executive Council of Homeowners [ECHO]) 6. Expand on reaching residents in marginal and low-income communities through partnering with organizations that reach these communities. (i.e. Second Harvest Food Bank and others) 7. Communities could pursue FEMA Matching Funds Grants for severe Repetitive Loss Areas. 8. Review and expand other public information activities, such as Flood Protection Assistance (Activity 360) and Flood Insurance Promotion (Activity 370). 9. Develop a regionwide Flood Response Program messaging plan. VIII. ANNUAL EVALUATION REPORTS The Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional PPI Committee will meet at least once per year to evaluate the PPI and incorporate any needed revisions. This meeting will be coordinated through the ongoing CRS User’s Group meetings which are expected to occur at least twice a year. The evaluation will cover: • Reviewing projects that were completed. • Evaluation of progress toward outcomes. • Recommendations on projects that have not been completed. • Recommendations for new projects not previously identified. • Target Audience changes; and • Impact of the program during a real flood event if one has occurred. A report will be prepared by Valley Water or through a sub-committee of the PPI Committee for submission with each CRS community’s annual CRS recertification package. During Fiscal Years 2016-19 (Years 1-4), the 2015 PPI Committee met a minimum of twice a year to complete annual evaluation reports for each year. Each community that participated in - 67 - the 2015 PPI sent annual evaluation reports to their respective governing body and included the report as part of their annual recertification submittals. In 2020, the Insurance Services Office (ISO) authorized the exemption of the 2015 PPI Year 5 Annual Evaluation Report, as the Multi-Jurisdictional PPI was scheduled to be updated for its five (5) year revision. IX. FIVE-YEAR REVISIONS Every five (5) years, the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional PPI Committee will meet to review and revise the PPI. At that time, the PPI Committee can decide to draft a new document or an addendum to the existing document that updates the needs assessment and all sections that should be changed based on evaluations of the projects. The PPI is reviewed for CRS credit according to the FEMA NFIP CRS Coordinator’s Manual (Edition 2017) currently in effect, not the version used when the community originally requested this credit. The update can qualify as the annual evaluation report for the year it was prepared. The updated PPI must be adopted following the same process as the adoption of the original document. X. ADOPTION OF THE PPI The Multi-Jurisdictional PPI will be considered fully adopted after it has been approved by the elected body of each of the participating communities. Each CRS community is encouraged to use Valley Water’s Board Agenda Memo so that all the elected officials receive the same information. This saves staff time and resources. When a community develops a PPI as outlined in the FEMA NFIP CRS Coordinator’s Manual (Edition 2017), the PPI must be adopted by the community, through either: • A formal vote by the community’s governing body, or • A formal vote by another body that has the authority and can provide the funding to implement the PPI, such as a flood control district. If this option is used, the PPI document must still be provided to the community’s governing body for informational purposes. In April of 2015, nine (9) of the twelve (12) CRS communities’ governing bodies adopted the original Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional 2015 PPI (5-Year Plan). XI. REFERENCES 1. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6000-2400.html, December 1973. 2. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Developing a Program for Public Information, https://crsresources.org/files/300/developing_a_ppi_for_credit_under_the_crs.pdf , March 2013. 3. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System Coordinator’s Manual, https://crsresources.org/, 2017. - 68 - 4. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Zones, https://www.fema.gov/glossary/flood-zones, July 2020. 5. Flood Insurance Sheets by Occupancy and by Zone provided by ISO, CRS Technical Reviewer, Dave Arkens on November 15 and 18, 2020. 6. Shawnee County, Kansas, Definitions of FEMA Flood Zone Designations, https://snmapmod.snco.us/fmm/document/fema-flood-zone-definitions.pdf. 7. Snohomish County Public Works Surface Water Management, Washington, Snohomish, City of Monroe, City of Sultan: Multi-Jurisdictional Program for Public Information, January 2013. 8. State of California et al, California’s Flood Future: Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risks, November 2013. 9. US Census Bureau: Population Estimates, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table, (V2019), July 1, 2019. 10. Town of Surfside Beach, South Carolina PPI, https://crsresources.org/files/300/surfside_beach_example_ppi.pdf, November 2014. - 78 - APPENDIX B Additional Non-Credited CRS Outreach Projects for Activity 330 by Community Please Note: Some of the below-identified Outreach Projects may be creditable under other CRS activities/element, such as Activity 350, c). Flood protection website (WEB) CRS Community Outreach Projects County of Santa Clara The County’s website includes a “Santa Clara County Storm and Flood Information and Resources” webpage available for all residents in the county. The storm and flood information page redirects residents to Valley Water’s Flood Ready webpage and www.floodsmart.gov as useful resources: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/opa/Pages/storm.aspx. Santa Clara County has a Consumer Protection Division’s website that also includes a “Flood Safety Information” page. The site redirects residents to Valley Water’s Access Valley Water customer portal for reporting debris in creeks: https://cpd.sccgov.org/flood- safety-information. City of Cupertino City staff promotes the use of “Property Information” whenever possible. FIRM information is searchable by property address and easily viewed through the city’s “Property Information” web mapping application, an interactive map that allows public users to view data for any property in Cupertino. Interested community members can access Property Information from the city’s main webpage and immediately find out what flood zone and panel number their property is located in. City of Gilroy The city’s floodplain management regulations comply with Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations that regulates development within the city’s floodplains and meet state and federal minimum standards. Gilroy has a comprehensive Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program that educates residents about disaster preparedness for the hazards, including flooding, that may impact their area and trains them in basic disaster response skills, such as fire safety, light search and rescue, team organization, and disaster medical operations. CERT offers a consistent, nationwide approach to volunteer training and organization that professional responders can rely on during disaster situations, which allows them to focus on more complex tasks. Through CERT, the capabilities to prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters are built and enhanced. CERT volunteers are trained to respond safely, responsibly, and effectively to emergency situations, but they can also support their communities during non-emergency events as well. City of Los Altos City Council adopts a Proclamation California Flood Preparedness Week. At the beginning of the flood season, the city’s Public Information Officer does social media on various platforms (e.g., City Manager community email, Facebook, Nextdoor, Twitter, etc.). The city’s Public Works Department hosts a ‘Flood Zone Information’ webpage on its website: https://www.losaltosca.gov/publicworks/page/flood-zone-information. This page contains information on: • Creeks that run through Los Altos: Adobe Creek, Hale Creek, Permanente Creek, and Stevens Creek and the by-pass near Blach School, which carries overflow - 79 - from Permanente Creek to Stevens Creek. All these creeks may subject property to flooding during periods of heavy storms. • Information for Insurance (redirects to FEMA’s NFIP, www.floodsmart.gov) • Flood zone information • Link to Valley Water’s Flood Protection, Flood Ready resource page and news blogs for various flood-related articles. • Link to Valley Water’s Sign-up for Emergency Alerts (Alert SCC, ReadySCC and American Red Cross Flood App) • FEMA NFIP • FEMA National Flood Hazard Mapping • FEMA Map Service Center Supporting Documents - Santa Clara Valley Water District: Contact Your Floodplain Manager - FEMA: Protecting Building Utilities from Flood Damage - FEMA: Protecting Structures Built on Fill - FEMA: Reducing Damage from Localize Flooding - FEMA: Reducing Flood Risk to Residential Building that Cannot be Elevated - FEMA: Substantial Improvement, Substantial Damage Desk Reference - 2019 PPI Annual Evaluation Report (updated annually) - Mailer to Property Owners – Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) City of Milpitas The city distributes a Winter Preparedness flyer that informs contractors that the winter season will arrive, and they need to winterize their project(s) site. Certain soil disturbance activities are not allowed during the rainy season. The city participates in the annual National River Clean-up (each May) and Coastal Clean- up Day (each September). They coordinate with Valley Water on both these clean-up efforts. Year-round, the City of Milpitas distribute at various events the FEMA flood-related publications, including “Myths and Facts about the NFIP” and “Q&A NFIP Handbook” and the front counter area in a brochure rack. The City of Milpitas’ “Important Flood Hazard Information” webpage contains information on several of the PPI message topics. The webpage also redirects to Valley Water, FEMA, NOAA, www.floodsmart.gov, www.Ready.gov, and USGS webpages: https://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/milpitas/departments/engineering/flood-information/. City of Morgan Hill Citywide weekly newsletter/e-mail blast (called Weekly 411) sent out to subscribers during the rainy season include messages about flood safety, emergency preparedness, emergency Apps: AlertSCC, ReadySCC, and the Red Cross Flood App, sandbags, and flood insurance. The city’s Floodplain Management webpage includes a link to Valley Water’s Flood Ready webpage ALERT System Real-Time Data, as well as a link to FEMA’s Flood Map Service Center: http://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/748/Floodplain-Management. The city participates in National River Cleanup Day and Coastal Cleanup Day. Morgan Hill Creek Cleanup is advertised in the City’s Recreation Activity Guide on the City’s website. Each September, the city declares September as “National Preparedness Month.” The city’s weekly newsletters/e-mail blasts during the month of September include information on how to be prepared throughout the month. - 80 - The city’s Emergency Preparedness webpage has a link to the Department of Homeland Security’s www.Ready.gov website which contains a fillable family emergency communication plan: http://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/133/Emergency-Preparedness. During the rainy season, the city mails out an annual newsletter, “Ask Before You Buy: Know Your Flood Risk!” to local real estate agents which are provided to homebuyers to help determine the flood risk of the property being purchased. The city has links to Valley Water’s “Permits for Working on Valley Water Land or Easement” on the City’s Floodplain Management webpage. Valley Water’s webpage includes a link to the Water Resources Protection Ordinance. The city and/or Valley Water hosts an informational table at the annual city festivals: Mushroom Mardi Gras (each May) and the Taste of Morgan Hill (each September). Flood readiness information is disseminated to the public. City of Mountain View The city’s Public Works Department hosts a “Flood Protection and Insurance Information” webpage on its website: https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/pw/flood_protection.asp. Topics include: Upcoming Storm Season Information Flood Protection – Sand and sandbags available; how to fill a sandbag See Santa Clara Valley Water District’s floodplain mailer Flood Safety Tips (redirects to Valley Water’s Flood Ready webpage) What to do before, during, and after a flood Protection Information Flood Safety Flood Insurance Flood Map Information (redirects to www.floodsmart.gov) Flood Protection Tips Preparing for Winter Storm Season Remove Fallen Leaves Emergency Contact Numbers Obtain Sandbags When Necessary Report Flooding or Standing Water Report Downed Trees and Limbs Do Not Touch Downed Power Lines Prepare at Home – Emergency kits Contact numbers to report power outages or downed power lines Trash capture devices are installed in the storm drains of some of the city’s high generation rate area and we partner with Valley Water on trash removal on the two creeks in the city. City of Palo Alto The City of Palo Alto’s website, Public Works “Creek Monitor” webpage includes real-time creek monitoring on San Francisquito Creek, Matadero Creek, and Adobe Creek. This webpage redirects visitors to the San Francisquito Creek Joint Power Authority (JPA), Flood Early Warning System website. The information on this JPA website updates every 15 minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/creek_monitor/default.asp Additionally, the “Creek Monitor” webpage redirects to the National Weather Service, Palo Alto forecast and radar pages; USGS San Francisquito Creek stream gauge; and the California Nevada River Forecast Center websites: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/creek_monitor/default.asp - 81 - The City of Palo Alto’s “Floodplain Management” webpage provides relevant FEMA information, including Flood Zone Lookup for all interested residents. This page directs visitors to FEMA Elevation Certificate Information; FEMA NFIP; FEMA Technical Bulletins for Construction in the SFHA; Letter of Map Amendment application materials; and City of Palo Alto Development Center, Permits and Applications: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/stormwater/floodzones.asp The City of Palo Alto’s Office of Emergency Services, “Flood Information and Winter Storm Preparedness” webpage contains useful information for flood readiness: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/services/public_safety/flood_information_winter_storms/def ault.asp City of San José The city has a “Flood Emergency Notifications” webpage that includes the following topics: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/news-stories/news/emergency-notifications/flood- emergency-notifications - Emergency public information notifications and updates are provided. - The city's Incident Management Team, a branch of the Emergency Operations Center communicates with Valley Water and the National Weather Service to actively monitor the situation and is ready to respond if conditions change. The city informs residents of significant changes that may cause flooding and ongoing efforts (i.e., Flood Watch or Flood Warnings, creek levels, localized flooding, and downed tree branches). - City field crews respond to routine storm maintenance calls. - Crews from PG&E respond to localized power outages; residents can find the latest information on outages on the PG&E website and their Safety Action Center for preparedness tips and more. - Evacuation Center(s) will open if needed and location(s) will be listed on the city’s social media accounts if an evacuation warning or order is issued. - Expected weather conditions are updated. Residents are advised to stay safe by taking the following precautions: • Monitor the news and follow the City of San José on social media, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram for regular updates • Be ready and tell neighbors to be ready to evacuate, if needed • Protect property with sandbags to route water away from structures • Raise furniture on the first floor to reduce damage if water threatens to enter home • Seniors or mobility impaired: Alert family or friends, so they are prepared to assist should conditions change • Pack a bag with important documents, medicines, spare clothes • Report blocked drains and other storm-related issues at 408-794-1900 • When driving, turn your car around if you encounter water on the road that looks to be 6 inches or deeper—or if you can't tell how deep it is. Be especially cautious at night when it is harder to recognize flood danger. - 82 - - Sandbag Locations within the City of San José are listed. A complete list of sandbag locations can be viewed by visiting: https://www.valleywater.org/sandbags. - Sign up for Text and Email Alerts - Residents are advised to opt in to AlertSCC, the Santa Clara County emergency alert system: http://bit.ly/2BzQxt0. AlertSCC is a free, easy, and confidential way for anyone who lives or works in Santa Clara County to get emergency warnings sent directly to their cell phone, email, or landline. In addition to AlertSCC, the ReadySCC emergency preparedness mobile app is available. - Warming Center – If needed, the City of San José may open warming centers to service the homeless. Additional information can be found on the "Cold Weather Tips for Older Adults" or find a warming center in Santa Clara County. The City of San José has established policies that govern development within north San José as related to flood hazard mitigation and impact avoidance. The objective of the city is to provide consistent policies throughout the area to allow increased development density, protect new structures from flooding, minimize potential increases in flood depths, and ensure consistency with FEMA requirements and the city’s floodplain management ordinance. The city’s Municipal Code, Part 5. 17.08.600 defines the Requirements for Special Flood Hazard Areas: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=66695. The city’s Public Works, Development Services “Flood and General Inquiry” webpage allows for members of the public to submit inquiries on flood-related issues and questions, including flood zones: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments- offices/public-works/development-services/flood-general-inquiry. The city also posts on their webpage the following materials: • Valley Water’s brochure “List of Creeks that are Flood Prone”: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=9371; • Valley Water’s brochure “Prepare for Winter Storms ARE YOU FLOOD-READY”: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=40707. • The American Red Cross Emergency Preparedness Checklist: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=49753. City of Santa Clara The city has an Adopt-A-Spot Program that encourages and supports volunteers to organize clean-up events in the city. The Adopt-A-Spot Program is designed to enable community groups, businesses, churches, schools, and other organizations to play an active role in keeping public spaces clean and beautiful while allowing them to set their own schedule. Information on the program and how to Adopt-A-Spot is posted on the city website. The city organizes volunteers for the National River clean-up event each year and event results of trash collected is posted on the city website. The city has a funded program to install hundreds of new storm drain inlet inserts every year. The city promotes ALERTSCC and ReadySCC on social media and during CERT training courses. - 83 - The city hosts workshops to promote developing family emergency plans and kits. The city publishes a comprehensive and easy to follow guide on putting together an emergency kit and family emergency plan, and it is available on the city website. The City of Santa Clara City Hall and library have a wealth of flood awareness material available for check out or free to take home. Materials include flood awareness coloring books for children, flood insurance information in English and Spanish for residents and businesses, technical information on protecting a building from flood and more. The city posts social media messages including topics on protecting people and property from flood hazard, such as shallow flood danger and proper usage of sandbags and sandbags availability. The city’s Public Works Department has a flood protection webpage on the city’s website: https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-g-z/public-works/engineering/flood- protection. City of Sunnyvale The city hosts a link on its Flood Protection page on how to prevent stormwater pollution: http://www.mywatershedwatch.org/. City staff, through Environmental Services, hosted Coastal Clean-up in Sunnyvale. City staff provided preparedness training/information at Farmer’s Market and instructed people to download emergency and flood apps to stay informed about the latest emergencies and flood updates. Additionally, city staff provides flood safety information and distributes emergency starter kits at the city’s Annual State of the City address. The city’s website promotes: Topics on city’s ‘Flood Protection’ webpage: https://sunnyvale.ca.gov/property/floodprotection/default.htm Prepare for Storms Develop Family Emergency Plan Sign up to receive public safety and weather alerts on your phone Keep gutters free from debris Pick-up free sandbags, available at the city’s Corporation Yard Flood Tips and Resources Find out what to do before, during, and after a flood or storm Get emergency preparedness apps from the Red Cross Download the FEMA app for safety, weather, and shelter information If you see a blocked storm drain, call our 24-hour Sewer and Storm Drain Response Hotline Other Related Topics Report broken limbs or fallen tree Report illegal dumping in storm drains Learn how to prevent stormwater pollution Learn about local improvements to prevent flooding Topics on city’s ‘Emergency Preparedness’ webpage: https://sunnyvale.ca.gov/government/safety/emergency.htm - 84 - - AlertSCC - Follow SunnvaleDPS Twitter feed for local information during an emergency. - Radio 1680AM on your portable or car radio for local information during a disaster. - ReadySCC - Listos California preparedness class, offered by Sunnyvale Emergency Response Volunteers (SERV). - www.Ready.gov The city’s Public Safety Department’s Office of Emergency Services provides training, support, and services to ensure the city is prepared to respond to and recover from the effects of major emergencies. Valley Water Flood Ready webpage: Flood & Safety, Flood Protection Resources https://www.valleywater.org/floodready includes: Valley Water in Your Area tool on website homepage: https://www.valleywater.org/ - Nine Things to Know to Be Flood Ready https://www.valleywater.org/news- events/news-releases/9-things-you-need-know-be-flood-ready - Sign Up for Emergency Alerts: AlertSCC and ReadySCC https://www.valleywater.org/floodready/sign-up-for-emergency-alerts - Sandbags Distribution Sites https://www.valleywater.org/sandbags - ALERT System Real-Time Data - Stream, reservoir, surface water and precipitation gauge data https://www.valleywater.org/your-water/alert-system-real- time-data - Flood Safety Advice: Before, During, and After a Flood https://www.valleywater.org/floodready/flood-safety-advice-during-after - Is Your Home in a Flood Zone? (re-directing to www.floodsmart.gov using https://msc.fema.gov/portal https://www.valleywater.org/floodready/is-your-home- in-a-flood-zone - Report creek blockages, local flooding https://www.valleywater.org/floodready/report-creek-blockages-local-flooding - Flood Insurance (re-directing to www.floodsmart.gov) https://www.valleywater.org/floodready/flood-insurance - Flood Reports - Since 1967, Valley Water staff have prepared reports following instances of severe flooding https://www.valleywater.org/floodready/flood-reports - Stream Maintenance Program https://www.valleywater.org/flooding-safety/stream- maintenance-program - Dam Safety Program https://www.valleywater.org/flooding-safety/dam-safety- program - Climate Change https://www.valleywater.org/your-water/water-supply- planning/climate-change - Levee Safety https://www.valleywater.org/flooding-safety/levee-safety - HEC-2 and HEC-RAS data library https://www.valleywater.org/flooding-safety/hec- 2-and-hec-ras-data-library - Vertical Control Network https://www.valleywater.org/flooding-safety/vertical- control-network - Flood Emergency Action Plans https://www.valleywater.org/flooding-safety/flood- emergency-action-plans - Adopt a Creek Program https://www.valleywater.org/learning-center/adopt-a-creek ▪ Creekwise Mailer – Various communities distribute this mailer at events they host, including fairs. - 85 - https://www.valleywater.org/sites/default/files/CreekWise%202018%20flyer_for .Web%20FINAL%20CORRECT.pdf ▪ Creekside Property Program https://www.valleywater.org/learning- center/healthy-creeks-and-ecosystems/creekside-property-program - National River Cleanup Day https://www.valleywater.org/news- events/events/2019-national-river-cleanup-day - Coastal River Cleanup Day https://www.valleywater.org/news-events/news- releases/volunteer-coastal-cleanup-day-sept-15 - Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Grants and Partnerships Program https://www.valleywater.org/learning-center/safe-clean-water-and-natural-flood- protection-grants-partnerships-program - Let’s Talk Water: Speakers Bureau Program https://www.valleywater.org/learning- center/lets-talk-water-speakers-bureau - Flood Protection projects: Safe, Clean Water, and Natural Flood Protection Program, Priority E: Flood Protection to Homes, Business, Schools, and Highways https://www.valleywater.org/project- updates/safe-clean-water-and-natural-flood-protection-program/priority-e-provide- flood-protection-homes-businesses-schools-and-highways 5-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Chapter 3 – Flood Protection https://www.valleywater.org/how-we-operate/five-year-capital-improvement-program Neighborhood Work Project Notices https://www.valleywater.org/project-updates/in- your-neighborhood/neighborhood-work-notices Every month, staff check the Flood Ready webpage on Valley Water’s website to ensure that it is operational and ensure the content is to up to date. Valley Water Flood Watch map-based tool on the website: https://gis.valleywater.org/SCVWDFloodWatch/ Monitor reservoir, stream, rainfall levels with the ALERT Gauge System Real-Time Data on the website: http://alert.valleywater.org/ Valley Water in Your Area tool on website homepage: https://www.valleywater.org/ Every year before winter, Valley Water Operations & Maintenance crews prepare waterways to help carry floodwaters safely by conducting inspections and maintenance of creeks. Crews remove vegetation and sediment to improve the flow of water. During the rainy season, crews go out during and after storms to clear creeks that we manage of debris and fallen trees that can cause blockage and result in flooding. Valley Water sends thousands of flyers, Project Notices (previously Neighborhood Work Notices) each year to residents and businesses located near a capital or maintenance project site throughout the county. The notices are posted on Valley Water’s website, under the Project Updates webpage. Valley Water is dedicated to keeping residents and businesses informed and safe through its flood protection programs and project. These flyers contain a message to discourage illegal dumping in creeks and advertise a pollution reporting hotline. Valley Water’s Sandbag Guidelines for Homeowners brochures are distributed at various safety events and fairs throughout the county and are available in multiple language. The - 86 - brochures are made available to all cities and the county to distribute. Various sandbag sites are managed by Valley Water and are open from late November through April each season. Certain sites are stocked with filled sandbags, when available, during that period. Additional sites are stocked with sand and empty bags for self-filling. A Sandbag Distribution Sites map is distributed at events/fairs and the map is posted on Valley Water’s webpage. The map also includes information on several other sandbag stations managed by various cities within Santa Clara County. “How to Properly Fill a Sandbag” and “How to Protect Your Home with Sandbag” videos are also posted on Valley Water’s website. Valley Water and Santa Clara County cities/county promote the county’s AlertSCC and ReadySCC (Ready Santa Clara County) emergency app and the American Red Cross flood app. Communities encourage the public to download either/or both apps so that they are prepared and are kept informed before, during and after an event. This information is shared with the public at events/fairs and is included in several of Valley Water’s flyers/mailers. Beginning in approximately June of each year, Valley Water participates in the California Department of Water Resources’ statewide agency coordination calls, leading up to California Flood Preparedness Week (CFPW) held in October annually. Valley Water encourages Santa Clara County cities/county to participate in the State’s CFPW campaign and offer support to the cities/county to promote participation. Each October, Valley Water also executes a resolution declaring the designated week in October as CFPW in Santa Clara County. Valley Water also maintains a Flooding & Safety, Flood Protection Resources webpage on their website: https://www.valleywater.org/floodready. As the flood protection authority for Santa Clara County, flood protection is one of Valley Water’s priorities. This resourceful flood protection webpage provides a wealth of information to the residents and businesses Valley Water serves. Information is provided to the public on flood preparedness, including how to keep their family, property, and business flood safe. Valley Water’s Education Outreach Program reaches close to 19,000 students a year throughout the county. The program offers age-appropriate curriculum on flood preparedness either in a classroom setting or virtual events where students receive information on how to prepare for a flood event. - 87 - APPENDIX C Past Members of the Santa Clara County 2015 PPI Committee Community Local Government Representative and Alternates External Stakeholders County of Santa Clara Chris Freitas Trish Mulvey, CLEAN South Bay Cupertino Chad Mosley, Senior Engineer Winnie Pagan, Associate Civil Engineer Public Works Department Julia Kinst, Neighborhood Block Leader Gilroy Claudia Moran-Garcia, Civil Engineer I Public Works Department Maria Angeles, City Development Engineer, CFM Mark Turner, Chamber of Commerce Los Altos Aida Fairman, PE Associate Civil Engineer Kathleen Gallagher, CSG Consultants, Inc. Frank Navarro, CSG Consultants, Inc. Brandi Garcia, PG&E Pam Perdue, PG&E Milpitas Ahmed Aly, Principal Civil Engineer, CFM Engineering Land Development Section Babak Kaderi, Assistant Civil Engineer Engineering Land Development Section Donna Chiaramonte, State Farm Morgan Hill Charlie Ha, Associate Engineer Public Works Department Sanjar Chakamian, Morgan Hill Downtown Mountain View Renee Gunn, Associate Civil Engineer, CFM Jacqueline Andrews Solomon, Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer, CFM Lydia Kou, Real Estate Agent Erin McKeown, Google Palo Alto Rajeev Hada, Project Engineer, CFM Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division Dan Melick, CERT Volunteer San José Arlene Lew, Floodplain Manager, CFM Department of Public Works Erik Fong, Willow Glen Neighborhood Association Linda Baker, Alain Pinel Realtor Santa Clara Van Truong Falguni Amin, Acting Principal Engineer Public Works - Engineering Kevin Moore, retired City Council member Sunnyvale Jennifer Ng, Senior Civil Engineer Public Works Kerry Haywood, Moffett Park Business Group Valley Water Pat Showalter, Sr. Project Manager Ricardo Barajas, Public Information Rep. II Merna Leal, Project Coordinator Naomi Pease, American Red Cross - 69 - Appendix A CRS Creditable Outreach and Flood Response Projects by CRS Community Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional PPI 2021 Audience 1 Message Outcome Project(s) Proposed to Support the Messages (XX denotes Community acronym, and Outreach Project #) Assignment 2 Schedule 3 Stakeholder Community At Large (CAL) - Multi-lingual Communities - Groups with Special Evacuation Needs - New Residents, Visitors and Tourists Topic 1: Know your flood hazard Message 1A - Know your flood risk Message 1B - Contact your floodplain manager to find out if your property is in a floodplain Message 1C - Check if your home or business is in a Special Flood Hazard Area Topic 2: Insure your property for your flood hazard Message 2A - Get flood insurance ahead of time Message 2B – Insure your property Message 2C – There is a 30-day waiting period for the policy to take place Topic 3: Protect people from the flood hazard Message 3A - Put your 3-day emergency kit together Message 3B - Follow evacuation orders Message 3C – Learn the best route to high ground Topic 4: Protect your property from the flood hazard Message 4A - Protect your property from the flood hazard Message 4B - Prepare your home Message 4C - Sandbags can offer protection against a foot or less of floodwater Message 4E - Get sandbags before a flood Topic 5: Build responsibility Message 5A - Build responsibly in floodplains Message 5B - Comply with development requirements Message 5C - Check with your local floodplain manager before you build Topic 6: Protect natural floodplain functions Message 6A -Keep creeks clean and flowing Message 6B - Keep debris and trash out of our streams Message 6C - Don’t pollute, dump, or drain anything in creeks Topic 7: Develop a Family Emergency Plan Message 7A: Develop an emergency plan Topic 8: Download disaster Apps Message 8A - Download disaster emergency apps Topic 9: Understand shallow flooding risks – don’t drive through standing water Message 9A - Understand shallow flooding risks - don’t drive through standing water FEMA’s message: “Turn Around Don't Drown®.” Educate our community on flood protection and preparedness measures (VW OP #01) Multi-language Countywide Mailer (CWM) to every postal address in Santa Clara County (Topics 1-5 and 7, 8) Valley Water Communications Each late October or November All Santa Clara County CRS Communities (VW OP #02) Distributes a soft copy of our Flood Safety Tips brochure for all SCC CRS communities’ use (print hard copies to distribute at events and/or post of flood preparedness webpages) (Topics 1-9) Valley Water Communications Annually, November/ December All Santa Clara County CRS Communities (CUP OP #03) Flood notice in the local newsletter, “The Cupertino Scene” (Topics 1-9) City of Cupertino Each October or November issue N/A (LA OP #04) Two (2) newspapers ads, in the Los Altos Town Crier (Topics 1-5) City of Los Altos Each fall N/A (LAH OP #05) The town’s “Our Town” quarterly newsletter includes information on flood preparedness. The newsletter is mailed out town-wide and is also available online on the town’s website (Topics TBD during cycle visit) Town of Los Altos Hills Each fall N/A (LAH OP #06) The town distributes various flood preparedness and safety materials at events, including Valley Water’s annual floodplain mailer and promotional item (e.g., emergency starter kits, Get Flood Ready Emergency Supply Checklist tote bags, etc.), FEMA flood insurance information, ReadySCC, and American Red Cross Flood apps, AlertSCC, sandbag guidelines, flood protection project-specific notices, FEMA NFIP materials, and preparedness activity/coloring books, etc.) to the public Town of Los Altos Hills Annually, spring and late summer N/A (MIL OP #07) “Flood Public Advisory” brochure to community at large (Topics 1-6) City of Milpitas Each December or January N/A (MH OP #08) Sends a citywide “Flood Report” brochure (Topics 1-9) City of Morgan Hill Annually, close to or during the start of the rainy season N/A (MV OP #09) Sends “The View” citywide newsletter, Winter version, includes information on flood risk, flood safety, and the importance of buying flood insurance (Topics 1-9) City of Mountain View Fall newsletter edition N/A (MV OP #10) Mails a utility bill insert to all resident and businesses that contains information on flood risk, flood safety, and the importance of buying flood insurance (Topics 9) City of Mountain View Between July - September N/A (PA OP #11) Sends the “Are You Ready for Winter Storms?’ flyer (aka utilities insert) to all residents and businesses in the City, along with their utility bills (Topics 1-9) City of Palo Alto Each Fall N/A (PA OP #12) Sends out utility announcement, “Anytime it can rain, it can flood. Don’t get caught off-guard” (Topics 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 9 – will pursue adding other topic) City of Palo Alto Each March/April N/A (PA OP #13) The city distributes various flood preparedness and safety documents, including FEMA NFIP materials for public/policyholders City of Palo Alto Year Round N/A (SC OP #14) Mails out a citywide newsletter for residents and businesses called “Inside Santa Clara” (Topics 1-9) City of Santa Clara Each fall N/A Educate our community on flood protection and preparedness measures (VW OP #15) Flood Ready webpage: Flood & Safety, Flood Protection Resources, includes floodplain and countywide mailers https://www.valleywater.org/floodready Valley Water Year Round All Santa Clara County CRS Communities 1 Message Topics: Outreach Projects (OP): Topic 1 – Know your flood hazard; Topic 2 – Insure your property for your flood hazard; Topic 3 – Protect people from the flood hazard; Topic 4 – Protect your property from the hazard; Topic 5 – Build responsibly; Topic 6 – Protect natural floodplain functions; Topic 7 – Develop a Family Emergency Plan; Topic 8 – Download disaster Apps; Topic 9 – Understand shallow flooding risks – “Don’t drive through standing water.” Flood Response Preparations (FRP): What to Do Before, During and After a Flood/Storm 2 Each September, all deliverables need to be reported to Valley Water for tracking purposes. 3 A stakeholder can be any agency, organization, or person (other than the community itself) that supports the message. Stakeholders can be: an insurance company that publishes a brochures on flood insurance, even if it is set out at City Hall; a local newspaper that publishes a flood or hurricane season supplement each year; FEMA, if, for example, a FEMA brochure is used as an informational material; schools that implement outreach activities; a local newspaper; a neighborhood or civic association that sponsors and hosts a presentation by a community employee; a utility company that includes pertinent articles in its monthly bills; or presentations made by state or FEMA staff at a Risk Map meeting. - 70 - Appendix A CRS Creditable Outreach and Flood Response Projects by CRS Community Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional PPI 2021 Audience 1 Message Outcome Project(s) Proposed to Support the Messages (XX denotes Community acronym, and Outreach Project #) Assignment 2 Schedule 3 Stakeholder Increase in ‘hits’ on Valley Water and communities Flood Protection Resources webpage ______________________ These website projects are credited under Activity 350 – Flood Protection Information, element c). Flood protection website (WEB), not credited under Activity 330 Note: To receive any WEB credit, the community’s website must meet the following criteria: The community must check the website’s links at least monthly, and fix those that are no longer accurate. At least annually, the community must review the content to ensure that it is still current and pertinent (ALL OP #16) All communities’ website flood protection resources webpage includes language that contains the three additional PPI priority messages noted below: 7. Develop an emergency plan 8. Download disaster apps 9. Understand shallow flooding risks––don’t drive through standing water All Santa Clara County Communities Year Round N/A (SCC OP #17) Hosts a “Storm and Flood Information and Resources” webpage available for all residents in the county, includes re-directing to www.floodsmart.gov https://www.sccgov.org/sites/opa/Pages/storm.aspx Santa Clara County Office of Public Affairs Year Round N/A (SCC OP #18) Hosts a “Flood Safety Information” webpage, includes re-directing to www.valleywater.org/floodready https://cpd.sccgov.org/flood-safety-information Santa Clara County Consumer Protection Division Year Round N/A (SCC OP #19) Hosts a “Be a Prepared Community Member” webpage that includes emergency preparedness information https://emergencymanagement.sccgov.org/be- prepared-community-member Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Management Year Round N/A (SCC OP #20) Hosts a “People with Access and Functional Needs (AFN)” webpage https://emergencymanagement.sccgov.org/people-access-and-functional-needs-afn Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Management Year Round N/A (CUP OP#21) Hosts a “Citizen Preparedness” webpage that includes emergency preparedness information, includes re-directing to Valley Water’s www.valleywater.org/floodready webpage https://www.cupertino.org/residents/community-services-programs/emergency- services/citizen-preparedness City of Cupertino Office of Emergency Services Year Round N/A (GIL OP #22) The city hosts an “Emergency Preparedness” webpage Emergency Preparedness | Gilroy, CA - Official Website (cityofgilroy.org) (listed in Appendix B) City o Gilroy Fire Department Year Round N/A (LA OP #23) The city’s Public Works Department hosts a ‘Flood Zone Information’ webpage on its website (listed in Appendix B) https://www.losaltosca.gov/publicworks/page/flood- zone-information City of Los Altos Public Works Department Year Round N/A (LAH OP #24) The town hosts a “Flood Information” webpage on the town’s website. This webpage includes information on the PPI nine topics, including a supporting message. The webpage redirects to the following key resource websites: www.valleywater.org/floodready, www.floodsmart.org, www.ready.gov, and www.weather.gov Town of Los Altos Hills Year Round N/A (LG OP #25) The town’s website encourages residents and businesses to purchase flood insurance and redirects visitors to www.floodsmart.gov Town of Los Gatos Year Round N/A (MIL OP #26) The city’s’ website has a “Flood Information” webpage that contains information on several of the PPI message topics; the webpage also redirects to Valley Water, FEMA, NOAA, www.floodsmart.gov, www.Ready.gov, and USGS webpages The city’s website also has a “Important Flood Hazard Information” webpage that contains information on several of the PPI message topics; the webpage also redirects to Valley Water, FEMA, NOAA, www.floodsmart.gov (listed in Appendix B) https://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/milpitas/departments/engineering/flood-information/ City of Milpitas Engineering Department Year Round N/A - 71 - Appendix A CRS Creditable Outreach and Flood Response Projects by CRS Community Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional PPI 2021 Audience 1 Message Outcome Project(s) Proposed to Support the Messages (XX denotes Community acronym, and Outreach Project #) Assignment 2 Schedule 3 Stakeholder (MH OP #27) The city’s website has a “Flood Information, Floodplain Management” webpage that contains city’s flooding information which redirects to their Floodplain Management page and includes a link to the city’s annual “Flood Report.” The webpage redirects Valley Water’s flood ready webpage and also contains FEMA flood information http://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/747/Flood-Information Floodplain Management | City of Morgan Hill, CA - Official Website City of Morgan Hill Engineering Land Development Year Round N/A (MH OP #28) The city’s website has a “Emergency Preparedness’ webpage (listed in Appendix B) http://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/133/Emergency-Preparedness City of Morgan Hill Police Department Year Round N/A (MV OP #29) Hosts a “Flood Protection and Insurance Information” webpage on its website (listed in Appendix B) www.mountainview.gov/depts/pw/flood_protection.asp City of Mountain View Public Works Department Year Round N/A (PA OP #30) Hosts a “Floodplain Management” webpage (listed in Appendix B) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/stormwater/floodzones.asp City of Palo Alto Public Works Department Year Round N/A (PA OP #31) Hosts a “Flood Safety Tips” webpage www.cityofpaloalto.org/storms; flood_safe_11-16.cdr (cityofpaloalto.org) City of Palo Alto Public Works Department Year Round N/A (PA OP #32) Hosts a ‘Creek Monitor’ webpage (listed in Appendix B) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/creek_monitor/default.asp City of Palo Alto Public Works Department Year Round N/A (PA OP #33) Hosts a “Flood Information and Winter Storm Preparedness” webpage which contains useful information for flood readiness (listed in Appendix B) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/services/public_safety/flood_information_winter_storms/de fault.asp City of Palo Alto Office of Emergency Services Year Round N/A (SJ OP #34) The city’s webpages includes a “Flood Hazard Zones” webpage which includes information of flood preparedness https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your- government/departments/public-works/development-services/floodplain-management City of San Jose Public Works, Development Services Year Round N/A (SC OP #35) The city’s “Flood Protection Information” webpage contains valuable information on flood related topics https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-g- z/public-works/engineering/flood-protection (also listed in Appendix B) City of Santa Clara Year Round N/A (SAR OP #36) The city’s website encourages residents/businesses to purchase flood insurance and redirects visitors to www.floodsmart.gov City of Saratoga Year Round N/A (SAR OP #37) The city has a “Staying Safe, Winter Storms” webpage. They have also linked the city’s Winter Storms webpage to Valley Water’s Flood Ready webpage https://www.saratoga.ca.us/218/Winter-Storms City of Saratoga Year Round N/A (SUN OP #38) The city has a “Flood Protection” webpage Sunnyvale, CA - Flood Protection (listed in Appendix B) City of Sunnyvale Year Round N/A Topics 1-9 and supporting messages Flood Awareness Media Campaign, including social media Educate our community on flood protection and preparedness measures (VW OP #39) Conducts a flood awareness media campaign, reaching the community at large, including our multi-lingual community. Many of the Santa Clara County CRS Communities recognize Valley Water’s Flood Awareness Campaign and link it on their community’s flood information webpage and re-direct to Valley Water’s Flood Ready webpage (Topics 1-9) Campaign features social media videos and postings on various platforms (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Nextdoor, etc.), digital banners, newspaper advertorials, radio ads, billboards, utility bill inserts for communities to use, communities re-direct to ValleyWater.org/FloodReady and television/mobile ads targeting residents who live in flood- prone areas and multilingual ethnic communities Valley Water Communications Annually, for the duration of the rainy season, typically from November to April All Santa Clara County CRS Communities (VW OP #40) As part of the flood awareness campaign, a ‘Get Flood Ready, Social Media and Web Resources Guide’ is provided to all cities/county in Santa Clara County for their use as part of their outreach efforts Valley Water Upon the completion of the annual FPM All Santa Clara County CRS Communities - 72 - Appendix A CRS Creditable Outreach and Flood Response Projects by CRS Community Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional PPI 2021 Audience 1 Message Outcome Project(s) Proposed to Support the Messages (XX denotes Community acronym, and Outreach Project #) Assignment 2 Schedule 3 Stakeholder (SCC OP #41) Shares Valley Water’s digital social media resource links during the flood season. The “Floods Follow Fires. Are you Ready?” and “Got Sandbags” messages redirect to Valley Water’s website. Messages are used on social media, short form newsletter, short form email, web, and Nextdoor Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Management Year Round N/A (CUP OP #42) Recognizes the robust social media campaign led by Valley Water and has linked the city’s main flood preparation webpage to Valley Water’s Flood Ready webpage City of Cupertino Year Round N/A (GIL OP #43) The city recognizes Valley Water’s Flood Awareness Campaign and has linked the city’s main flood webpage to Valley Water’s Flood Ready webpage City of Gilroy Year Round N/A (LAH OP #44) The town recognizes Valley Water’s Flood Awareness Campaign and has linked the town’s main flood webpage to Valley Water’s Flood Ready webpage Town of Los Altos Hills Year Round N/A (LG OP #45) Recognizes Valley Water’s Flood Awareness Campaign and has linked the Town’s main flood webpage to Valley Water’s Flood Ready webpage Town of Los Gatos Year Round N/A (MV OP #46) The city does a social media notification about storm preparation for winter storms ahead of time. The notification directs residents to their “Flood Protection and Insurance Information” webpage. The city has also linked the city’s webpage to Valley Water’s Flood Ready webpage City of Mountain View Year Round N/A (SC FRP #47) City publishes social media posts, on Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms, focused on safety The city has prepared a pre-flood plan (FRP) for public information projects that will be implemented before, during, and after a storm/flood, as well as identifying who is responsible for posting these messages, what type of events they apply to, what social media platforms to post to and how often City of Santa Clara Office of Emergency Services During the storm season N/A (SJ OP #48) Recognizes Valley Water’s Flood Awareness Campaign and has linked the city’s main flood webpage to Valley Water’s Flood Ready webpage. Keeps Valley Water’s floodplain mailer static location at City Hall for residents to pick-up and is also distributed at various events throughout the year City of San Jose Year Round N/A (SAR OP #49) Recognizes Valley Water’s Flood Awareness Campaign and has linked the city’s main flood webpage to Valley Water’s Flood Ready webpage City of Saratoga Year Round N/A (SAR OP #50) The city does a social media notification about storm preparation for winter storms ahead of time City of Saratoga Year Round N/A (SUN OP #51) The city actively posts flood safety and preparedness messaging through social media platforms (i.e. Facebook and Twitter) City of Sunnyvale Environmental Services During the rainy season (October – March) N/A Topics 1-9 and supporting messages Community Events – Distribute flood preparedness materials to the community Educate our community on flood protection and preparedness measures Increase in ‘hits’ on Valley Water and cities Flood Protection Resources pages and improve Valley Water’s Flood Campaign results Residents less stress during emergencies and better prepared before a flood event (VW OP #52) Copies of Valley Water’s multi-language floodplain mailer are made available to all Santa Clara County CRS Communities to disseminate at various events, including keeping the mailer static in lobby areas for visitors to pick-up. Valley Water attends various communities’ events/fairs throughout the county and disseminates flood readiness materials, including various FEMA flood-related publications and Valley Water flood ready materials (Topics 1– 9) Valley Water Annually, September - May All Santa Clara County CRS Communities (CUP OP #53) Distributes flood readiness outreach materials at various events/ facilities City of Cupertino Year Round, as needed N/A (GIL OP #54) Participates in two fair/events: Gilroy Garlic Festival (GF) and city’s Public Works Week Community Open House (PWWCOH) City of Gilroy End of July (GF) Typically, in May (PWWCOH) N/A - 73 - Appendix A CRS Creditable Outreach and Flood Response Projects by CRS Community Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional PPI 2021 Audience 1 Message Outcome Project(s) Proposed to Support the Messages (XX denotes Community acronym, and Outreach Project #) Assignment 2 Schedule 3 Stakeholder (LAH OP #55) Hosts two events - Earth Day (ED) and the Town Picnic (TP) Town of Los Altos Hills Annually, Spring (ED) and late Summer (TP) N/A (MIL OP #56) Distributes FEMA flood-related publications at various events City of Milpitas Year Round N/A (MV OP #57) The city participates Mountain View Art & Wine Festival (MVA&WF) and Thursday Night Live (TNL) and distributes flood preparedness information City of Mountain View Each September (MVA&WF) Months of June/July (TNL) Valley Water (PA OP #58) Staff hosts a flood readiness table at city’s annual Earth Day (ED) event and at the city Municipal Corporation Open House (MCOH). Upon request, the city also participates in other fairs and promotes flood readiness, including Creekwise mailer/brochure City of Palo Alto Each April (ED) and July (MCOH) Can vary depending on requests made to City to support fairs (SJ OP #59) Staff hosts and participates in the ‘Building Permits and Home Safety Open House.’ The city’s also hosts ‘Pumpkins in the Park’ event which Valley Water staff participates in and promotes flood preparedness City of San Jose Each May and October Valley Water (SC OP #60) City hosts a flood readiness table at the Art & Wine Festival. Valley Water also sponsors a table at the festival promoting flood preparedness and distributes various flood readiness materials to the community City of Santa Clara Each September N/A Topic 3: Protect people from the flood hazard Message 3A - Put your 3-day emergency kit together Message 3B - Follow evacuation orders Message 3C – Learn the best route to high ground Topic 9: Understand shallow flooding risks – don’t drive through standing water Message 9A - Understand shallow flooding risks - don’t drive through standing water FEMA’s message: “Turn Around Don't Drown®.” Less damage due to the floods; improve sandbag distribution Fewer accidents and rescues (SUN OP #61) City has permanent “Road May Flood” street signs in areas of the City prone to flooding and promotes the “Flood Zone Look Up” featured on the city’s website City of Sunnyvale Year Round N/A Topic 4: Protect your property from the flood hazard Message 4A - Protect your property from the flood hazard Message 4B - Prepare your home Message 4C - Sandbags can offer protection against a foot or less of floodwater Message 4E - Get sandbags before a flood Topic 5: Build responsibility Message 5A - Build responsibly in floodplains Message 5B - Comply with development requirements Message 5C - Check with your local floodplain manager before you build Increase in inquires on retrofitting measures. Decrease the number of repairs and elevations without permits. Increase number of repairs with permits Ensure people who are interested in protecting their property from flooding are getting the help they need Keep families safe (CUP OP #62) The city offers Flood Protection Assistance, Property Protection Advice. Staff provides in-person flood risk consultation at the front counter and/or site visits when requested City of Cupertino Year Round N/A (MIL OP # 63) The city offers Flood Protection Assistance, Property Protection Advice and provides in-person flood risk consultation at the front counter City of Milpitas Year Round N/A (SC OP #64) The city offers Flood Protection Assistance, Property Protection Advice City of Santa Clara Year Round N/A Topic 6: Protect natural floodplain functions Message 6A -Keep creeks clean and flowing Message 6B - Keep debris and trash out of our streams Message 6C - Don’t pollute, dump, or drain anything in creeks Cleaner streams and fewer dumping violations Fewer debris blockages during high-flow events Drainage inspectors report fewer calls and a decrease in the amount of trash removed (VW OP #65) “Do Not Dump”/illegal dumping message is sent each year to all Santa Clara County residents in Valley Water’s CWM and FPM Valley Water Communications Each late October or November (CWM) Each November/ December (FPM) All Santa Clara County CRS Communities (VW OP #66) “Do Not Dump” signs placed by waterways/channels Valley Water O&M Year Round N/A (VW OP #67) Lists Pollution Hotline number in all Project Notices Valley Water Communications Year Round N/A - 74 - Appendix A CRS Creditable Outreach and Flood Response Projects by CRS Community Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional PPI 2021 Audience 1 Message Outcome Project(s) Proposed to Support the Messages (XX denotes Community acronym, and Outreach Project #) Assignment 2 Schedule 3 Stakeholder (SCC OP #68) Storm Drain Stenciling/Medallion Program Santa Clara County Year Round All Santa Clara County CRS Communities (SUN OP #69) The city’s “Horizon” newsletter, includes Do Not Dump messaging City of Sunnyvale Annually, fall N/A (ALL OP #70) Developments that are modifying or constructing new catch basins/storm drains/inlets are required, per the below-noted permits, to stencil the “No Dumping! Flows to Bay.” In addition, some of these cities, require all bid documents for capital projects which are modifying or constructing new catch basins, require the contractors to install the same stencil. The program is also highlighted on cities’ websites. ▪ South County municipalities are subject to the statewide “Phase II” NPDES Permit ▪ North County municipalities are subject to the SF Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit All Year Round N/A (CUP OP #71) The city’s annual flood notice in the local newsletter, ‘The Cupertino Scene,’ contains dumping is illegal messaging and how to report City of Cupertino Annually, October - November N/A (CUP OP #72) Participates in clean-up events: the annual National River Clean-up Day (NRCD) and Coastal Clean-Up Day (CCD). They coordinate with Valley Water on both these clean-up efforts. The city also participates in Valley Water’s Adopt-a-Creek Program City of Cupertino Each May (NRCD) and September (CCD) Volunteers Valley Water Stream Stewardship (LAH OP #73) The town participates in annual clean-up events: National River Clean-up Day (each May) and Coastal Clean-up Day (each September) and coordinates volunteers. They coordinate with Valley Water on both these clean-up efforts. The town also participates in Valley Water’s Adopt-a-Creek Program Town of Los Altos Hills Each May (NRCD) and September (CCD) Volunteers Valley Water Stream Stewardship (MIL OP #74) “Flood Public Advisory” brochure contains dumping is illegal messaging and how to report City of Milpitas Each December or January N/A (MIL OP #75) Participates in annual clean-up events: National River Clean-up Day (NRCD) and Coastal Clean-Up Day (CCD). They coordinate with Valley Water on both these clean-up efforts. The city also participates in Valley Water’s Adopt-a-Creek Program City of Milpitas Each May (NRCD) and September (CCD) Volunteers Valley Water Stream Stewardshiip (MH OP #76) “Flood Report” contains message on keeping debris and trash out of streams – Do Not Dump messaging City of Morgan Hill Annually, close to or during the start of the rainy season N/A (PA OP #77) “Are You Ready for Winter Storms?” utilities insert contains the Do Not Dump and report illegal dumping messages City of Palo Alto Each fall N/A (PA OP #78) Utility bill insert includes a ‘Utility Announcement on Flood Safety Tips,’ including Protect natural floodplains - keep rain gutters and drainage channels free of debris City of Palo Alto Annually, March- April N/A (PA OP #79) Participates in annual clean-up events: National River Clean-up Day (NRCD) and Coastal Clean-Up Day (CCD). They coordinate with Valley Water on both these clean-up efforts. Additionally, the city participates in Valley Water’s Adopt-a-Creek Program City of Palo Alto Each May (NRCD) and September (CCD) Volunteers Valley Water Stream Stewardshiip (PA OP #80) Clean-ups of trash booms located in Matadero Creek and Adobe Creek are done annually on an as-needed basis. The city also assesses its hot spots and cleans up the local drainage system on an ongoing basis and part of its operations and maintenance City of Pal Alto Annually, as- needed N/A (SUN OP #81) “Horizon” newsletter includes a “Know How to Be Flood Safe” article that promotes the Do Not Dump message City of Sunnyvale Each October, Fall Edition N/A - 75 - Appendix A CRS Creditable Outreach and Flood Response Projects by CRS Community Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional PPI 2021 Audience 1 Message Outcome Project(s) Proposed to Support the Messages (XX denotes Community acronym, and Outreach Project #) Assignment 2 Schedule 3 Stakeholder Residents and Businesses in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) - Low Lying Areas, Along Rivers and Creeks - Coastal Communities at Risk for Sea Level Rise/Tsunamis - Repetitive Loss (RL) Areas Topic 1: Know your flood hazard Message 1A - Know your flood risk Message 1B - Contact your floodplain manager to find out if your property is in a floodplain Message 1C - Check if your home or business is in a Special Flood Hazard Area Topic 2: Insure your property for your flood hazard Message 2A - Get flood insurance ahead of time Message 2B – Insure your property Message 2C – There is a 30-day waiting period for the policy to take place Topic 3: Protect people from the flood hazard Message 3A - Put your 3-day emergency kit together Message 3B - Follow evacuation orders Message 3C – Learn the best route to high ground Topic 4: Protect your property from the flood hazard Message 4A - Protect your property from the flood hazard Message 4B - Prepare your home Message 4C - Sandbags can offer protection against a foot or less of floodwater Message 4E - Get sandbags before a flood Topic 5: Build responsibility Message 5A - Build responsibly in floodplains Message 5B - Comply with development requirements Message 5C - Check with your local floodplain manager before you build Topic 6: Protect natural floodplain functions Message 6A -Keep creeks clean and flowing Message 6B - Keep debris and trash out of our streams Message 6C - Don’t pollute, dump, or drain anything in creeks Topic 7: Develop a Family Emergency Plan Message 7A: Develop an emergency plan Topic 8: Download disaster Apps Message 8A - Download disaster emergency apps Topic 9: Understand shallow flooding risks – don’t drive through standing water Message 9A - Understand shallow flooding risks - don’t drive through standing water FEMA’s message: “Turn Around Don't Drown®.” Residents/businesses in the SFHA are aware they’re in the SFHA and prepare before floods Increase in number of flood insurance policies in the SFHAs and RLAs in the county in general Prospective buyers understand flood risks Increase number of elevation certificates on file, and structures repaired with permits; decrease the number of repetitive loss increase homes Increase in the number of flood insurance policies with contents coverage (VW OP #82) Multi-language floodplain mailer (FPM) to all residents and businesses within the SFHA in Santa Clara County (Topics 1– 9) Valley Water Each November/ December All (CUP OP #83) Flood notice in the local newsletter, The Cupertino Scene, which reaches residents and businesses in the SFHA (Topics 1-9) City of Cupertino Each October or November issue N/A (LA OP #84) Letter, along with a “Are You Prepared for a Flood in Your Neighborhood?” brochure to property owners in the SFHA (Topics 1-8) City of Los Altos Annually, each fall N/A (LAH OP #85) The town’s “Our Town” quarterly newsletter includes information on flood preparedness. The newsletter is mailed out town-wide and is also available online on the town’s website (Topics TBD during cycle visit) Town of Los Altos Hills Each fall N/A (MIL OP #86) “Flood Public Advisory” brochure to residents and businesses within SFHA (Topics 1-6) City of Milpitas Each December or January N/A (MH OP #87) Sends a citywide “Flood Report” brochure, including to those in the SHFA (Topics 1-9) City of Morgan Hill Annually, close to or during the start of the rainy season N/A (MV OP #88) Sends “The View” citywide newsletter, Winter version, includes information on flood risk, flood safety, and the importance of buying flood insurance (Topics 1-9) City of Mountain View Fall newsletter edition N/A (MV OP #89) Mails a utility bill insert to all resident and businesses that contains information on flood risk, flood safety, and the importance of buying flood insurance (Topics 9) City of Mountain View Between July - September N/A (PA OP #90) Sends the “Are You Ready for Winter Storms?’ flyer (aka utilities mailer) to all residents and businesses in the city, including to those in the SFHA, along with their utility bills (Topics 1-9) City of Palo Alto Each fall N/A (PA OP #91) Sends out utility announcement, “Anytime it can rain, it can flood. Don’t get caught off-guard” (Topics 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 9 – will pursue adding other topic) City of Palo Alto Each March/April N/A (SC OP #92) Mails out a citywide, including all addresses in the SFHA, newsletter for residents and businesses called “Inside Santa Clara” (Topics 1-9) City of Santa Clara Each fall N/A (SUN OP #93) Sends two (2) mailers and one (1) “Horizon” newsletter article “Know How to Be Flood Safe” that promotes flood safety and flood preparedness messaging targeted to all residents and businesses within the SFHA (Topics 2 and 4) City of Sunnyvale Each fall around October N/A (SUN OP #94) Sends mailer to all those in the SFHA (Topics 1-4, and 7) City of Sunnyvale Each October N/A Topic 2: Insure your property for your flood hazard Message 2A - Get flood insurance ahead of time Message 2B – Insure your property Message 2C – There is a 30-day waiting period for the policy to take place Increase in number of flood insurance policies in the SFHAs, RLAs, and in the county in general Prospective buyers understand flood risks Increase in the number of flood insurance policies with contents coverage (SCC OP #95) Sends letters to the properties in the unincorporated section in the areas of the county’s mapped repetitive loss areas Santa Clara County Annually, each fall N/A (CUP OP #96) Continues to send a letter to former repetitive loss properties City of Cupertino Annually, mid- year N/A (MH OP #97) Sends a notice to repetitive loss (RL) areas as required by FEMA City of Morgan Hill Annually, each summer N/A (PA OP #98) Sends letters to the properties in the city’s mapped repetitive loss areas, highlighting flood safety tips City of Palo Alto Annually, typically August - September N/A - 76 - Appendix A CRS Creditable Outreach and Flood Response Projects by CRS Community Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional PPI 2021 Audience 1 Message Outcome Project(s) Proposed to Support the Messages (XX denotes Community acronym, and Outreach Project #) Assignment 2 Schedule 3 Stakeholder (SJ OP #99) Sends letters to the properties in the city’s mapped repetitive loss areas City of San Jose Annually, each typcally between September - December N/A Messengers to Other Target Audiences (Organizations & Businesses Serving the Community) Topic 1: Know your flood hazard Message 1A - Know your flood risk Message 1B - Contact your floodplain manager to find out if your property is in a floodplain Message 1C - Check if your home or business is in a Special Flood Hazard Area Topic 2: Insure your property for your flood hazard Message 2A - Get flood insurance ahead of time Message 2B – Insure your property Message 2C – There is a 30-day waiting period for the policy to take place Topic 3: Protect people from the flood hazard Message 3A - Put your 3-day emergency kit together Message 3B - Follow evacuation orders Message 3C – Learn the best route to high ground Topic 4: Protect your property from the flood hazard Message 4A - Protect your property from the flood hazard Message 4B - Prepare your home Message 4C - Sandbags can offer protection against a foot or less of floodwater Message 4E - Get sandbags before a flood Topic 5: Build responsibility Message 5A - Build responsibly in floodplains Message 5B - Comply with development requirements Message 5C - Check with your local floodplain manager before you build Topic 6: Protect natural floodplain functions Message 6A -Keep creeks clean and flowing Message 6B - Keep debris and trash out of our streams Message 6C - Don’t pollute, dump, or drain anything in creeks Topic 7: Develop a Family Emergency Plan Message 7A: Develop an emergency plan Topic 8: Download disaster Apps Message 8A - Download disaster emergency apps Topic 9: Understand shallow flooding risks – don’t drive through standing water Message 9A - Understand shallow flooding risks - don’t drive through standing water FEMA’s message: “Turn Around Don't Drown®.” Educate our community on flood protection and preparedness measures by working and coordinating with groups who serve as messengers, to people who are at risk of flooding, as they provide their respective business service (VW OP #100) Administers a “Let’s Talk Water” Speakers Bureau Program that customizes presentations to update groups on specific issues provide updates on Valley Water projects, including flood protection projects and to educate residents on existing flood risks as well as provide resources and tips to be flood ready Valley Water Communications Unit On a project- specific basis or as requested Could vary from year-to-year Kiwanis Rotary Clubs Homeowners and Neighborhood Associations Forum Groups Association of Realtors (VW OP #101) Participates in booth duty support at various events and fairs throughout the county, including Valley Water Capital project meetings or other events, as requested by various organizations Valley Water Office of Government Relations Annually. During the flood season (starting in September – May) All Santa Clara County CRS Communities (VW OP #102) Partner with local Second Harvest Food Bank with distributing FEMA and Valley Water flood preparedness materials, including promotional item(s) as available Valley Water CRS Program In October (during CFPW) Second Harvest Food Bank of Silicon Valley (ALL OP #103) Other New Initiatives (as noted in the PPI document) 1. Continue and expand the standardized flood message prepared for each community to include flood messages in utility bills each year, including PG&E. 2. Expand on partnerships with local chambers of commerce to disseminate and share flood preparedness information. 3. Expand on outreach to the Asian and Latino communities who live in flood prone areas. 4. Expand on outreach to “hot spot” flood prone areas by hosting on-site or virtual events. 5. Expand on reaching local homeowners associations (HOA)s and apartment associations (i.e. Executive Council of Homeowners [ECHO]) 6. Expand on reaching residents in marginal and low-income communities through partnering with organizations that reach these communities. (i.e. Second Harvest Food Bank and others) All TBD TBD (CUP OP #104) The city provides a Winter Preparedness notification informing contractors that during the winter season, they need to winterize their project(s) site as certain soil disturbance activities are not allowed during the rainy season City of Cupertino On a project- specific basis Various contractors (MIL OP#105) On a project-specific basis, the city provides contractors a Winter Preparedness notification that informs them that during the winter season, they need to winterize their project(s) site. Certain soil disturbance activities are not allowed during the rainy season City of Milpitas On a project- specific basis Various contractors Topic 2: Insure your property for your flood hazard Message 2A - Get flood insurance ahead of time Message 2B – Insure your property Message 2C – There is a 30-day waiting period for the policy to take place Increase in number of flood insurance policies in the SFHAs and in the county in general Prospective buyers understand flood risks These projects are credited under Activity 340 (DFH and REB) – Additional credit is provided if the PPI states that real estate agents should (or (MH OP #106) The city mails out a newsletter, “Ask Before You Buy: Know Your Flood Risk!” to local real estate agents which are provided to homebuyers to help determine the flood risk of the property being purchased (listed in Appendix B) City of Morgan Hill During the rainy season Real Estate Agencies/Agent (PA OP #107) Sends out letters to real estate agencies informing them of their responsibility to identify flood hazard areas and to take advantage of the Flood Zone Lookup on the city’s website City of Palo Alto Annually, beginning of flood season (September/ October) Real Estate Agencies/Agent - 77 - Appendix A CRS Creditable Outreach and Flood Response Projects by CRS Community Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional PPI 2021 Audience 1 Message Outcome Project(s) Proposed to Support the Messages (XX denotes Community acronym, and Outreach Project #) Assignment 2 Schedule 3 Stakeholder have agreed to) advise house hunters about the flood hazard and that real estate agents give house hunters a REB brochure (SJ OP #108) Sends out letters to real estate and insurance agencies and lenders, informing them of their responsibility to identify flood hazard areas and to take advantage of the Flood Zone Lookup on the city’s website on the “Flood Hazard Zones webpage and advises to contact the city for map reading services and elevation certificates on file City of San Jose At the beginning of the flood season (September – December) Real Estate Agencies/Agent (SUN OP #109) Sends mailer/postcard targeted to real estate agents informing them of the client’s responsibility for identification and purchase of flood insurance and the availability of the automatic 15% discount City of Sunnyvale Each October Real Estate Agencies/Agents Definitions of FEMA Flood Zone Designations Flood zones are geographic areas that the FEMA has defined according to varying levels of flood risk. These zones are depicted on a community's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or Flood Hazard Boundary Map. Each zone reflects the severity or type of flooding in the area. Moderate to Low Risk Areas In communities that participate in the NFIP, flood insurance is available to all property owners and renters in these zones: ZONE DESCRIPTION B and X (shaded) Area of moderate flood hazard, usually the area between the limits of the 100‐ year and 500‐year floods. B Zones are also used to designate base floodplains of lesser hazards, such as areas protected by levees from 100‐year flood, or shallow flooding areas with average depths of less than one foot or drainage areas less than 1 square mile. C and X (unshaded) Area of minimal flood hazard, usually depicted on FIRMs as above the 500‐year flood level. Zone C may have ponding and local drainage problems that don't warrant a detailed study or designation as base floodplain. Zone X is the area determined to be outside the 500‐year flood and protected by levee from 100‐ year flood. High Risk Areas In communities that participate in the NFIP, mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply to all of these zones: ZONE DESCRIPTION A Areas with a 1% annual chance of flooding and a 26% chance of flooding over the life of a 30‐year mortgage. Because detailed analyses are not performed for such areas; no depths or base flood elevations are shown within these zones. AE The base floodplain where base flood elevations are provided. AE Zones are now used on new format FIRMs instead of A1‐A30 Zones. A1‐30 These are known as numbered A Zones (e.g., A7 or A14). This is the base floodplain where the FIRM shows a BFE (old format). AH Areas with a 1% annual chance of shallow flooding, usually in the form of a pond, with an average depth ranging from 1 to 3 feet. These areas have a 26% chance of flooding over the life of a 30‐year mortgage. Base flood elevations derived from detailed analyses are shown at selected intervals within these zones. AO River or stream flood hazard areas, and areas with a 1% or greater chance of shallow flooding each year, usually in the form of sheet flow, with an average depth ranging from 1 to 3 feet. These areas have a 26% chance of flooding over the life of a 30‐year mortgage. Average flood depths derived from detailed analyses are shown within these zones. AR Areas with a temporarily increased flood risk due to the building or restoration of a flood control system (such as a levee or a dam). Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements will apply, but rates will not exceed the rates for unnumbered A zones if the structure is built or restored in compliance with Zone AR floodplain management regulations. A99 Areas with a 1% annual chance of flooding that will be protected by a Federal flood control system where construction has reached specified legal requirements. No depths or base flood elevations are shown within these zones. Appendix D: Definitions of FEMA Flood Zone Designations High Risk Coastal Areas In communities that participate in the NFIP, mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply to all of these zones. ZONE DESCRIPTION V Coastal areas with a 1% or greater chance of flooding and an additional hazard associated with storm waves. These areas have a 26% chance of flooding over the life of a 30‐year mortgage. No base flood elevations are shown within these zones. VE, V1 ‐ 30 Coastal areas with a 1% or greater chance of flooding and an additional hazard associated with storm waves. These areas have a 26% chance of flooding over the life of a 30‐year mortgage. Base flood elevations derived from detailed analyses are shown at selected intervals within these zones. Undetermined Risk Areas ZONE DESCRIPTION D Areas with possible but undetermined flood hazards. No flood hazard analysis has been conducted. Flood insurance rates are commensurate with the uncertainty of the flood risk. From FEMA Map Service Center: http://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/info?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=‐ 1&content=floodZones&title=FEMA%20Flood%20Zone%20Designations -88- City of Palo Alto (ID # 12300) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 6/14/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Storm Water Management Oversight Committee 2021 Memo Title: Storm Water Management Oversight Committee Review of FY 2020 Stormwater Management Fund Expenditures and FY 2022 Stormwater Management Fund Proposed Budget From: City Manager Lead D epartment: Public Works Recommendation This is an informational report only and no Council action is required. Background The Council-appointed Storm Water Management Oversight Committee (Committee) mee ts at least annually to review the year-end expenditures of the Storm Water Management Fund in the previous fiscal year and the proposed operating and capital budgets of the Storm Water Management Fund for the next fiscal year, to ensure their consistencies with the ballot measure approved by property owners in 2017. The Committee prepares a report for each item documenting its findings and submits the report to the City Council each year. Discussion Attachment A is the memo submitted by the Committee presenting the findings from their review of the Fiscal Year 2020 Storm Water Management Fund Expenditures. Attachment B is the memo submitted by the Committee presenting the findings from their review of the tentative Fiscal Year 2022 Storm Water Management Fund Proposed Budget. The memos document the Committee’s findings that the Fiscal Year 2020 expenditures and the Fiscal Year 2022 proposed budget are consistent with the provisions of the 2017 Storm Water Management Fee ballot measure. Stakeholder Engagement The Stormwater Management Fund Fiscal Year 2020 expenditures and Fiscal Year 2022 proposed budget were publicly discussed at Storm Water Management Oversight Committee meetings on February 4, 2021 and April 1, 2021, respectively. During those meetings, the Committee approved the memos attached to this report. The agendas and packets for the CITY OF PALO ALTO City of Palo Alto Page 2 meetings, which include the attachments, are available to the public on the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee page on the City’s website. Attachments: • Attachment A - 2021 Committee Memo on the Review of the FY 2020 Stormwater Management Fund Expenditures • Attachment B - 2021 Committee Memo on the Review of the FY 2022 Stormwater Management Fund Proposed Budget Storm Water Management Oversight Committee MEMORANDUM Date: February 4, 2021 To: Honorable Finance Committee of the Palo Alto City Council From: Members of the Storm Drain Oversight Committee Subject: Review of Fiscal Year 2020 Storm Drainage Fund Expenditures As directed by the City Council, the Committee met to discuss the Fiscal Year 2020 Storm Drainage (Storm Water Management) Fund expenditures on Thursday, February 4, 2021. Prior to the meeting, Public Works staff provided informational materials about the approved 2017 ballot measure and the projects described therein for the Committee’s review. During the meeting, staff presented information and answered questions from the Committee members. It is anticipated that the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2022 will be provided to the Committee members at the next Committee meeting for discussion. We have reviewed the expenditures for Fiscal Year 2020 and compared them with the provisions of the Storm Water Management Fee approved by Palo Alto property owners in 2017. We find that the attached spreadsheet describing the expenditures for Fiscal Year 2020 fairly summarizes the use of the revenue generated by the Storm Water Management Fee and that the expenditures are compatible with the provisions of the ballot measure. The Committee observed that the available funds for innovative green infrastructure were not fully expended. The Committee encourages staff to adjust and promote the innovative programs to achieve the City’s goals for innovative green infrastructure. Attachment: Stormwater Management Program – Fiscal Year 2020 Actual Expenditures Attachment A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Fiscal Year 2020 Actual Expenditures (Amounts in 1000s, as of January 2021) Actual Expenses Adopted Budget Carry Forward Budget Modified Budget (incl. Carry Forward)Actual Expenses Year 2 Year 3 from Year 3 Year 3 2019 2020 FY 2019 2020 2020 Revenue Collected 7,376 7,796 0 7,796 7,706 Fee Revenue 7,195 7,449 0 7,449 7,495 Interest Earnings 126 226 0 226 159 Development Fees & Violation Fines 55 121 0 121 52 Base Components 3,037 5,003 28 5,031 3,947 Base Program (Incl. Water Quality, Flood Control)1,428 2,547 11 2,558 2,072 Storm Drainage Maintenance 1,350 1,507 17 1,524 1,658 Debt Service for Past Capital Project 259 949 0 949 217 Project & Infrastructure 1,663 4,252 1,574 5,701 589 Capital Improvements Program 1,058 2,090 307 2,397 60 Loma Verde Ave Trunk Line Improvements (#1/ SD-19000)45 2,090 296 2,386 60 Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station (SD-13003)1,013 0 11 11 0 Recurring System Repair (SD-06101)182 1,522 1,033 2,555 359 Capital Program Engineering Support 46 135 0 135 164 Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI)376 380 109 489 3 GSI - CIP Design/Construction 330 340 0 340 0 GSI - Consulting Services 46 40 109 149 3 GSI - Other unassigned tasks 0 0 0 0 0 Innovative Project 1 125 125 125 3 Innovative Project - GSI consulting Services 0 100 0 100 0 Innovative Project - Rebates 1 25 0 25 3 Total Expenses 4,700 9,255 1,602 10,732 4,536 Storm Water Management Oversight Committee MEMORANDUM Date: April 1, 2021 To: Honorable Finance Committee of the Palo Alto City Council From: Members of the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee Subject: Review of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2022 Stormwater Management Fund Budget As directed by the City Council, the Committee met to discuss the Fiscal Year 2022 proposed Stormwater Management Fund budget on Thursday, April 1, 2021. Prior to the meeting, Public Works staff provided informational materials about the approved 2017 ballot measure and the proposed budget for the Committee’s review. During the meeting, staff presented information and answered questions from the Committee members. We have reviewed the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2022 and compared it with the provisions of the Storm Water Management Fee approved by Palo Alto property owners in 2017. We find that the attached spreadsheet describing the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2022 fairly describes the relationship between the budget and the ballot measure. Staff and the Committee concur that funding generated by the Storm Water Management Fee will be applied solely to fund the capital improvement projects, green stormwater infrastructure projects, innovative stormwater projects, enhanced maintenance of storm drain system, and storm water quality protection programs specified for implementation in the ballot measure in Fiscal Year 2021. Because funds available for green stormwater infrastructure and innovative projects are not being utilized fully, the Committee supports efforts by staff to continue to identify and promote new projects that meet the goals associated with the ballot measure, such as the proposed Green Stormwater Infrastructure capital improvement project. Attachment: Fiscal Year 2022 Proposed Budget Attachment B STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Fiscal Year 2022 Proposed Budget (Amounts in 1000s, as of March 2021) Adopted Budget Adopted Budget Adopted Budget Adopted Budget Projection Proposed Budget Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 4 Year 5 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2022 Revenue Collected 7,178 7,379 7,796 7,909 7,977 8,025 Fee Revenue 6,927 7,128 7,449 7,635 7,868 7,788 Interest Earnings 130 130 226 153 40 153 Development Fees & Violation Fines 121 120 121 121 69 84 Total Revenue 7,178 7,379 7,796 7,909 7,977 8,025 Base Components 5,209 5,194 5,003 5,284 3,725 5,353 Base Program (Incl. Water Quality, Flood Control)2,776 2,645 2,547 2,712 2,490 2,859 Storm Drainage Maintenance 1,486 1,599 1,507 1,623 1,132 1,544 Debt Service for Past Capital Project 947 949 949 949 103 950 Project & Infrastructure 1,063 3,299 3,566 4,377 4,401 4,336 Capital Improvements Program 0 2,200 2,502 1,871 3,117 1,838 Loma Verde Ave Trunk Line Improvements (#1/ SD-19000)2,200 2,090 2,326 West Bayshore Road Pump Station (#4/ SD-20000)206 167 371 350 Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station (#2/ SD-21000)206 1,655 371 1,488 East Meadow Drive System Upgrades (#7/ SD-22000) West Bayshore Road Trunk Line Improvements (#3/ SD-23000)49 49 Louis Road System Upgrades (#11/ SD-24000) Recurring System Repair (SD-06101)400 412 424 1,822 600 1,822 Capital Program Engineering Support 158 182 135 179 179 171 Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI)380 380 380 380 380 380 GSI - CIP Design/Construction 330 330 340 250 250 110 GSI - Consulting Services 85 50 40 130 72 130 GSI - Other unassigned tasks 15 58 140 Innovative Project 125 125 125 125 125 125 Innovative Project - GSI Consulting Services & Outreach 0 100 100 100 105 100 Innovative Project - Rebates 125 25 25 25 20 25 Total Expenses 6,272 8,493 8,569 9,661 8,126 9,689 Net Impact 907 (1,114)(773)(1,752)(149)(1,664) 3/24/2021