HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-03-15 City Council Agenda Packet
1 03/15/10
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. A binder containing supporting materials is available in the Council
Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting.
Special Meeting
Council Conference Room
March 15, 2010
6:00 PM
ROLL CALL
STUDY SESSION
1. Joint Study Session with the Planning and Transportation Commission
(P&TC) to Discuss Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Issues
ATTACHMENT
7:00 PM or as soon as possible thereafter COUNCIL CHAMBERS
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
2. Proclamation Recognizing the Contributions and Achievements of the
Late Elizabeth T. (Betty) Meltzer
ATTACHMENT
3. Proclamation Welcoming Exchange Students and Chaperones from
Tsuchiura City, Ibaraki, Japan
ATTACHMENT
2 03/15/10
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
4. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Library Advisory
Commission for One Unexpired Term Ending January 31, 2011
ATTACHMENT
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the
right to limit the duration or Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 3, 2010
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
5. Approval of a Contract with Davey Resource Group in the Amount of
$156,894 for Street Tree Inventory – Data Integration and Analysis
CMR 164:10 & ATTACHMENT
6. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) to Accept an American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act Residential Building Retrofit Program Grant Award
on Behalf of the City of Palo Alto and to Enter Into all Necessary and
Related Contracts, Agreements and Amendments
CMR 169:10 & ATTACHMENT
7. Approval of Change of High Speed Rail Subcommittee from Ad Hoc
Committee to Standing Committee
CMR 172:10
3 03/15/10
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
STUDY SESSION
8. Monthly Update on City Activities Related to the California High Speed
Rail Project
CMR 173:10 PUBLIC COMMENT
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the
public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members
of the public have spoken.
OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be
limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker.
ACTION ITEMS
Include: Public Hearings, Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters
9. Approval of Revised Plan for Downtown Weekday Palo Alto Farm Shop
CMR 160:10 & ATTACHMENT
10. Public Hearing: Consider the Approval of Water Supply Assessment for
the Stanford Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement
Project (Item continued from 2/8/10 and 3/8/10)
CMR 141:10 & ATTACHMENT
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).
ADJOURNMENT
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.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PURPOSE:
February 15,2010
Palo Alto City Council
Planning and Transportation Commission
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
includes data/rom 06-07 and 07-08
This report identifies emerging issues that the Planning and Transportation Commission has identified
from the project submittals and other planning data that have come before them in the previous three
years.
These issues serve as the basis for the Planning and Transportation Commission to make
recommendations to the City Council based on current data that may better align our City's land use and
transportation policies and processes with Palo Alto's community values and its governing documents,
including but not limited to the Comprehensive Plan and the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance.
FINDINGS:
Based on the quantity of the projects and type of issues that have come before the Commission over the
last three years,
1) 2006-2007 had the highest number of development projects come before the Commission
2) 2007-2008 had the fewest number of projects and items before the Commission. However, Stanford
came before the Commission 4 times and the issue of supporting Grocery Stores in Palo Alto was part
of three of the items that came before the Commission.
3) 2008-2009 had the highest number of policy and planning related items come before the Commission
4) The top three cumulative types of development project items that came before the Commissioners
identified in the 2006 through the 2009 time period (three years) were:
a) Rezonings: Projects that requested a change to the underlying zoning.
b) Open Space: Projects requesting new and additions to existing structures.
c) Density: Increasing density, particularly housing, in places not near transit corridors and
infrastructure.
5) The top projects that Commissioners identified having the most amount of issues with (8 or more
issues) over the three year time period were:
a) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza)
b) 4249 and 4251 EI Camino Real (Elks)
c) 4329 & 4301 EI Camino Real (Palo Alto Bowl)
d) 3270 W. Bayshore (Classic Communities)
6) The top three cumulative types of policy items that Commissioners identified in the 2006 through the
2009 time period (three years) were:
a) Safety: The City is working through several older projects and trials that had been
initiated in years past to support Traffic Safety issues, and support Bike-able and
Walk-able Neighborhoods.
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 2
b) Open Space: Council driven re-examination of the Open Space zone has revealed significant
differences in the perceived use and appreciation of this area between some of
the area's property owners and the Comprehensive Plan.
c) Hotels: New hotel zoning and several hotel projects have come before the Commission.
ACTIONS:
NEAR-TERM ACTIONS.
The PTC recommends the following actions be considered before the rest because they present
opportunities to reduce or mitigate issues that have potentially greater impacts on the City than others:
1) Resist changing land uses that allow more / new multi-family housing when they are not adjacent to
existing transit nodes. Further study is necessary to understand both how to better balance new multi-
family housing with existing infrastructure and how to align it with the City's ABAG policy that is in
development.
2) Continue to support addition of hotels to drive needed income with minimal peak hour trip
generation.
3) Continue to support retention of neighborhood grocery stores to serve needs to neighborhoods.
LONGER-TERM ACTIONS.
Of the remaining actions, the following present potentially significant impacts, but are likely to be
realized over a longer period of time:
1) Build out of previously approved multi-family housing projects will have long term impacts on the
City infrastructure and services. City needs to quantify these impacts especially in regards to south
Palo Alto impacts, and develop plans to mitigate them. For example as part of East Meadow Circle /
Comp Plan analysis area study, determine the impacts and develop mitigations as part of the area
study.
2) Sufficiency of parking in multi-family projects, especially large units with private garages.
3) Private Streets that do not meet the requirements of public streets.
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 3
ISSUES:
In reviewing the Planning and Transportation Commission's 2008 -2009 actions, the Commissioners
identified the following issues. Below each issue is a list of the project applications and or other items that
appeared before the Commission or are generally known to members of the Commission in the last three
years and support the issue.
HOUSING & DENSITY
1) Density. Density is increasing away from transit corridors and other infrastructure.
a) 940 East Meadow Drive -Vantage (housing v LM) <06
b) 1101 East Meadow Drive -Echelon (housing v LM) <06
c) 901 San Antonio Road (CJL & BUILD) 06-07
d) 3270 W. Bayshore 06-07
e) 4249 and 4251 EI Camino Real (Elks) 06-07 07-08 08-09
:f) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07-08 08-09
g) 2080 Channing A venue (Edgewood Plaza)
h) 488 West Charleston (PA Housing Corp)
08-09
08-09
2) Multi Family Housing. Approvals of Multi Family housing projects in Palo Alto have reduced
substantially over the three year reporting period:
a) 4219 EI Camino -Arbor Real (170 townhrns + 11 SFRs) <06
b) 940 East Meadow Drive -Vantage (76 townhomes) <06
c) 1101 East Meadow Drive -Echelon (75 townhomes) <06
d) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07 -08 08-09
e) 4249 and 4251 EI Camino Real (Elks) 06-07 07-08 08-09
:f) 3270 W. Bayshore 06-07
g) 901 San Antonio Road (CJL & BUILD) 06-07
h) 195 Page Mill Road 06-07
3) Parking. Meeting the letter of the parking requirements for multi-family projects do not appear to be
satisfying the parking demands of multifamily projects especially projects that have large units with
private garages.
a) 940 East Meadow Drive -Vantage <06
b) 1101 East Meadow Drive -Echelon <06
c) 3270 W. Bayshore 06-07
d) 4249 and 4251 EI Camino Real (Elks) 06-07 07-08 08-09
e) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07-08 08-09
:f) 2080 Channing A venue (Edgewood Plaza) 08-09
4) BMR Units. The City's BMR program continues to be supported:
a) 901 San Antonio Road (CJL & BUILD) 06-07
b) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07-08 08-09
c) 2180 EI Camino Real (College Terrace Center) 07-08 08-09
d) 801 Alma Street 08-09
e) 488 West Charleston (P A Housing Corp) 08-09
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 4
5) Private Streets. Private Streets were used in a variety of Multi Family projects:
a) 940 East Meadow Drive -Vantage <06
b) 1101 East Meadow Drive -Echelon <06
c) 3270 W. Bayshore 06-07
d) 4249 and 4251 EI Camino Real (Elks) 06-07 07-08 08-09
e) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07-08 08-09
t) 2080 Channing Avenue (Edgewood Plaza) 08-09
6) Private & Common Open Space. Private & Common Open space is required in multi-family
developments but exceptions are being granted in developments involving BMR units:
a) 4329 & 4301 EI Camino Real (Palo Alto Bowl) 06-07 08-09
b) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07-08 08-09
c) 2180 EI Camino Real (College Terrace Center) 07-08 08-09
d) 801 Alma Street 08-09
e) 488 West Charleston (PA Housing Corp) 08-09
ZONING ISSUES
7) Grocery Stores. The support and availability of neighborhood serving grocery stores remains a
consistent concern:
a) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07-08 08-09
b) 2180 EI Camino Real (College Terrace Center)
c) G Combining District and/or Neighborhood Center Zoning
d) 2080 Channing Avenue (Edgewood Plaza)
8) Open Space. Use and appreciation of open space is evolving:
a) 1525 Arastradero Road 06-07
b) 712 Los Trancos 06-07
c) 3220, 3230, 3208 Alexis Drive 07-08
d) 3000 Alexis Drive (P A Hills Golf and Country Club)
e) Baylands 08-09
t) Byxbee Park 08-09
g) Open Space (OS) 08-09
07-08 08-09
07-08 08-09
08-09
08-09
9) Rezonings. Projects coming before the Commission that have included requests to rezone parcels
have decreased over the past three years:
a) 1525 Arastradero Road 06-07
b) 901 San Antonio Road (CJL & BUILD)
c) 1001 San Antonio Road (Ciardella's)
d) 3981 EI Camino Real 06-07
e) 4233 Middlefield Road (Magnussen's)
t) 725 San Antonio Road 06-07
06-07
06-07
06-07
g) 4329 & 4301 EI Camino Real (Palo Alto Bowl) 06-07
h) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07-08 08-09
i) 2180 EI Camino Real (College Terrace Center)
08-09
07-08 08-09
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 5
10) Hotels. New Hotels are being proposed.
a) Stanford Projects 06-07 07-08 08-09
b) 4329 & 4301 EI Camino Real (Palo Alto Bowl) 06-07 08-09
c) Extended Stay Hotels 08-09
d) Hotel Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Changes 08-09
e) 1700 Embarcadero Road (Ming's) 08-09
11) Erosion of GM&LM Zones. Projects eroding the City's GM & LM zones have reduced in recent
years, although the issue remains a concern and can threaten the viability of these zones in the City's
Southeast comer near San Antonio and Charleston.
a) 940 East Meadow Drive -Vantage <06
b) 1101 East Meadow Drive -Echelon <06
c) 901 San Antonio Road (CJL & BUILD) 06-07
d) 3270 W. Bayshore 06-07
PROCESS ISSUES
12) Site and Design -Process. Site and Design process reviews design elements before planning criteria
are defined.
a) 4249 and 4251 EI Camino Real (Elks)
b) 4329 & 4301 EI Camino Real (Palo Alto Bowl)
c) 810 Los Trancos Road 07 -08
06-07 07-08 08-09
06-07
d) 801 Alma Street 08-09
e) 1129-1137 San Antonio Rd (Google's Children's Center)
08-09
08-09
13) Site and Design Applicability. In years past, several large projects did not go through a public site
and design process:
a) 4219 EI Camino -Arbor Real (170 townhms + 11 SFRs) <06
b) 940 East Meadow Drive -Vantage <06
c) 1101 East Meadow Drive Echelon <06
d) 3270 W. Bayshore 06-07
14) Tentative Map Process. Tentative map process presents different aspects of the same project to the
commission in separate hearings.
a) 3270 W. Bayshore 06-07
b) 4249 and 4251 EI Camino Real (Elks) 06-07 07-08 08-09
c) 433 West Meadow Drive 07-08
d) 200 San Antonio (Toll Brothers / old Hewlett Packard site) 08-09
e) Tentative Map/ARB Process Revisions 08-09
15) PC Process. Some project applications do not offer adequate benefits to the City.
a) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07-08 08-09
b) 2180 EI Camino Real (College Terrace Center) 07-08 08-09
c) 4329 & 4301 EI Camino Real (Palo Alto Bowl) 06-07 08-09
d) 200 San Antonio (Toll Brothers / old Hewlett Packard site) 08-09
16) Capital Improvement Program. Current CIP Process does not meet City'S statutes to include
Commission input; in previous years the Commission's input and input has been solicited by
Commission too late.
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 6
17) Submittal Deadlines. The deadlines for applicant materials submission have not been enforced.
a) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07-08 08-09
18) Design Enhancements, DEE & Variances. Design Enhancements, DEE & Variances exceptions
have been permitted inappropriately.
a) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07-08 08-09
b) 4329 & 4301 EI Camino Real (Palo Alto Bowl) 06-07 08-09
c) 200 San Antonio (Toll Brothers / old Hewlett Packard site) 08-09
d) 801 Alma Street 08-09
e) 278 University Ave. 08-09
t) Exceptions and Variances Study Session 08-09
19) Setbacks. Several projects brought to light the fact that existing setback requirements may be
inadequate to accommodate sidewalk, planting and trees. EI Camino guidelines were applied to
locations not specified in the guidelines.
a) 901 San Antonio Road (ClL & BUILD) 06-07
b) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07-08 08-09
c) 4329 & 4301 EI Camino Real (Palo Alto Bowl) 06-07 08-09
d) 278 University Ave. 08-09
TRENDS & OPPORTUNITIES
20) Demolition. Demolition of existing buildings to allow new development has decreased during the
three year reporting period:
a) 940 East Meadow Dr -Vantage (demo industlcomm)
b) 1101 East Meadow Dr -Echelon (demo indust/comm)
c) 4249 and 4251 EI Camino Real (Elks) 06-07
d) 4329 & 4301 EI Camino Real (Palo Alto Bowl)
e) 901 San Antonio Road (ClL & BUILD) 06-07
t) 3270 W. Bayshore 06-07
21) Opportunities to Improve Traffic Flow.
a) Intersection ofEI Camino and Page Mill
b) On ramp to 101 South from San Antonio Road
c) Bike overpass across 101
<06
<06
07-08 08-09
06-07
22) Bus Service Reductions. VTA continues to reduce bus service for Palo Alto.
08-09
a) Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Community Bus Study 07-08
INFORMATION ITEMS
23) Public amenities/benefits. Public amenitieslbenefits are being supported:
a) 4249 and 4251 EI Camino Real (Elks) 06-07 07-08 08-09
b) 1525 Arastradero Road 06-07
c) 850 Webster Street 06-07
d) 2785/2747 Park Blvd. (Public Safety Building) 07-08 08-09
24) Safety. Traffic Safety, Bike-able and Walk-able Neighborhoods are being supported:
a) College Terrace Traffic Calming Project <06
b) 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) 06-07 07-08 08-09
c) Pepper A venue 07 -08
d) Charleston! Arastradero Road Corridor Project -Arastradero Road 08-09
e) MaybelVDonald Bicycle Boulevard 08-09
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 7
IMPACTS & RECOMMENDATIONS:
These issues have the following likely impacts on the City and Planning and Transportation Commission
makes the following recommendations:
HOUSING & DENSITY
1. DENSITY. DENSITY IS INCREASING AWAY FROM TRANSIT CORRIDORS AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE.
Negative Impact: The community continues to feel the impacts of the projects that were approved in
prior years. All except one of these projects are located in South Palo Alto. Although these projects
individually do not require planning that is in addition to what has been submitted, collectively they
constitute a significant impact on the City's schools and community resources. Further, taken
collectively, they have been planned in ways that conflict with many of the goals of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. For example, some are located not near amenities, such as shopping and
transit that are important to creating walkable neighborhoods and reduCing neighborhood traffic
impacts.
• Recommendation: Develop area planes) to better coordinate and identify criteria that should
structure further development, such as East Meadow Circle/West Bayshore/San Antonio and
CalifomialVentura. Determine where best to locate housing considering impacts and nearby
amenities. Outcomes of this exercise could include, for example, ways of incentivizing desired
types of housing that have lower impacts and discouraging types of housing that have greater
impacts. Use more realistic assumptions about the housing impacts on schools, as preliminary
school district figures show much greater student yield from this housing than was predicted. This
work has been started and is underway.
2. MULTI FAMILY HOUSING. THE BUILD-OUT OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING
PROJECTS HAS CREATED AN IMBALANCE BETWEEN HOUSING AND CITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND
SERVICES.
Positive Impact: Several of the Multi Family Housing projects are also Mixed Use developments.
These projects are rezonings that support the Comprehensive Plan.
• Recommendation: Continue to both support rezonings consistent with Council direction to
develop projects supporting Comprehensive Plan New Urbanism concepts, to ensure provision of
sufficient commercial development to serve residents and support the City's economic health and
continue to monitor the mix of retail, housing, and other uses in mixed use development.
Negative Impact #1: Increases of (he City's housing stock puts pressure on limited resources
including the following:
a) Palo Alto Unified School District (382 of the students in PA USD come from new housing since
2001, which is over 25% of the increased enrollment of 1,478from 2001 to 2008)
b) City's existing infrastructure
c) City's existing public facilities and amenities (parks/libraries etc)
d) City's existing traffic conditions and level of service
e) City's capability to meet ABAG requirements
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 8
• Recommendation: Study these impacts to determine if new or revision to existing City Policies
should be pursued, including:
a) Investigate the quantitative impacts on the City's infrastructure to determine what actions /
policies the City should pursue to mitigate these issues.
b) Work with the PAUSD to better understand and quantifY how these impacts affect their
resources and future planning.
c) Use more realistic assumptions about the housing impacts on schools, as preliminary school
district figures show much greater student yield from this housing than was predicted.
d) Evaluate the impact increased ABAG housing requirements may/will have on the City's
infrastructure and PAUSD's resources and work to find ways to reduce or mitigate these
impacts.
e) Ensure impact fees adequately cover the full cost of identified impacts, particularly as costs
of implementing mitigations increase.
f) IdentifY areas within Palo Alto that are underserved by parks and other amenities, particularly
those areas in which high-density housing developments are occurring or have occurred
recently.
g) Collect and analyze unit sizes and affordability of market rate units, and the impact of unit
size on school student yields.
3. PARKING. MEETING THE LETTER OF THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS DOES
NOT APPEAR TO BE SATISFYING THE PARKING DEMAND OF MULTI F AMIL Y PROJECTS ESPECIALLY
PROJECTS THAT HAVE LARGE UNITS WITH PRIVATE GARAGES.
Negative Impact: parking appears to be overflowing into adjacent neighborhoods.
• Recommendation: Study adequacy of parking requirements for multifamily projects especially
projects with large units and private garages.
4. BMR UNITS: THE CITY'S BMR PROGRAM CONTINUES TO BE SUPPORTED:
Positive Impact: Several of the projects substantially increased the City's housing stock, and
consequentially addressed the City's ABAG BMR housing requirements. Three projects contributed
more than 400 living units.
• Recommendation: Continue to support projects that contribute to a sustainable balance of housing
and jobs in the City.
5. PRIVATE STREETS. PRIVATE STREETS WERE USED IN A VARIETY OF MULTI FAMILY PROJECTS.
Negative Impact: Limited parking, emphasizes the enclave or "gated community" feeling of the
proposed development, contributes to increased density (built floor area).
• Recommendation: Study and propose requirements for when or under what conditions
development projects should be required to meet the City's street requirements. Council has
addressed this issue by adopting the Private Streets initiative.
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 10
• Recommendation: Continue to support zoning that incents hotels that generate Transient
Occupancy Tax. Review projects to evaluate effectiveness of the density incentive. (Note: the
zoning ordinance is being revised so that extended stay hotels are not given a density bonus
without a development agreement.)
11. EROSION OF GM & LM ZONES. PROJECTS ERODING THE CITY'S GM & LM ZONES HAVE REDUCED
IN RECENT YEARS, ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE REMAINS A CONCERN AND CAN THREATEN THE
VIABILITY OF THESE ZONES IN THE CITY'S SOUTHEAST CORNER NEAR SAN ANTONIO AND
CHARLESTON.
Positive Impact: Preservation of these lands for their existing uses.
Recommendation: As part of the area plan for Meadow Circle, study the need for and possible
additional strategies for preservation of GM and LM parcels.
PROCESS ISSUES
12. SITE AND DESIGN -PROCESS. SITE AND DESIGN PROCESS REVIEWS DESIGN ELEMENTS BEFORE
PLANNING CRITERIA ARE DEFINED.
Negative Impact #1: The project approval process sometimes allows too early commitment to project
specifics (e.g., Alma Plaza), involves inappropriate use of DEEs (e.g., 278 University Avenue), or
limits the ability of the PTC to provide specific feedback on projects or to approve them with binding
conditions (e.g., College Terrace Centre).
• Recommendation: Revise the project approval process to enable early imposition of restrictions
but reserve approvals for late in the process when the full scope and impacts of the project are
known. Include in CEQA analyses of projects the cumulative impacts of nearby pending or
anticipated projects. Evaluate how traffic impacts should be determined when there is a new
development replacing one or more buildings that have been partially or completely vacant for an
extended period of time, rather than assuming a hypothetical full occupancy as a baseline.
Negative Impact #2: Current planning application review processes limit the ability for the City to
adequately and comprehensively assess project impacts on the City's resources.
• Recommendation #1: Evaluate current process (including the Tentative Map process) and develop
recommendations that close the process gaps that keep the City from more fully understanding and
addressing the individual and cumulative impacts of larger projects; such as Hyatt, Elks/Summer
Hill, Vantage, and others.
• Recommendation #2: Suggested order of review should be PTC -ARB PTC.
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 11
13. SITE AND DESIGN -ApPLICABILITY. SEVERAL LARGE PROJECTS DID NOT GO THROUGH A PUBLIC SITE
AND DESIGN PROCESS.
Negative Impact: Large projects that have significant impacts on the community are permitted to go
through the approval process without adequate public notice and input. Current planning
application review processes limit the ability for the City to adequately and comprehensively assess
project impacts on the City's resources.
• Recommendation: Study whether or not all large projects should go through the site and design
process and if so, define appropriate criteria to be included in this process, including number of
acres, mixed used square footage, total FAR andlor number of housing units.
14. TENTATIVE MAP PROCESS. TENTATIVE MAP PROCESS PRESENTS DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE SAME
PROJECT TO THE COMMISSION IN SEPARATE HEARINGS.
Negative Impact: process does not allow full project impacts to be revealed and understood.
• Recommendation: Study the Tentative Map Process and develop suggestions that will allow a
more comprehensive understanding of the project's impacts so that the Commission and City can
better address these impacts.
15. PC PROCESS. SOME PROJECT APPLICATIONS DO NOT OFFER ADEQUATE BENEFITS TO THE CITY.
Negative Impact: Lessening the value of the projects that can truly benefit the City.
• Recommendation: Study ways to increase effectiveness of the Planned Community zone. Include
addressing the apparent lack of enforcement of public benefits and conditions of approval in
existing PC's, and require applicants who justifY their projects based on financial
necessity/requirements need to provide financial justification/analysis for review by the
Commission / City.
16. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. CURRENT CIP PROCESS DOES NOT MEET CITY'S STATUTES, AND
PROCESS NEEDS FIXING; PUBLIC AND COMMISSION INPUT; IN PREVIOUS YEARS THE SCOPE OF THE
COMMISSION'S INPUT HAS BEEN TOO NARROW AND INPUT HAS BEEN SOLICITED FROM THE
COMMISSION TOO LATE
Negative Impact: The Commission has not had the required or appropriate opportunities to provide
input into the CIP process.
• Recommendation: Revise CIP process to allow earlier input from the Commission, and also input
that is consistent with statutory requirements. This process has been changed, and
implementation is underway.
17. SUBMITTAL DEADLINES. THE DEADLINES FOR APPLICANT MATERIALS SUBMISSION HAVE NOT BEEN
ENFORCED.
Negative Impact: Projects have substantively changed after review by recommending body, and
without adequate public notice.
• Recommendation: The deadline for applicant materials submission should be enforced. The
deadlines should be adequate for public review by public, staff and reviewing bodies. If
substantive materials are submitted late, after the deadline, and not consistent with the reviewing
body's recommendations then the item should be returned to staff and the reviewing body for
action.
18. DESIGN ENHANCEMENTS, DEE & VARIANCES. EXCEPTIONS HAVE BEEN PERMITTED
INAPPROPRIATEL Y.
Negative Impact: Projects are being approved with inappropriate exceptions.
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 12
• Recommendation: Study and recommend revisions to criteria and purview. This issue is currently
being reviewed by a PTC sub-committee.
19. SETBACKS. SEVERAL PROJECTS BROUGHT TO LIGHT THE FACT THAT EXISTING SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS MAYBE INADEQUATE TO ACCOMMODATE SIDEWALK, PLANTING AND TREES. EL
CAMINO GUIDELINES WERE APPLIED TO LOCATIONS NOT SPECIFIED IN THE GUIDELINES ..
Negative Impact: The pedestrian experience is not optimal, and safety is compromised
• Recommendation: Study the appropriate setback requirements to accommodate adequate trees
and plantings, while permitting for a pleasant and safe pedestrian experience. Also, only apply EI
Camino Guidelines along El Camino. If it is deemed desirable to have additional guidelines for
other corridors, develop and adopt those guidelines, possibly using the El Camino Guidelines as a
modeL
TRENDS & OPPORTUNITIES
20. DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS TO ALLOW NEW DEVELOPMENT.
Unknown Impact: The City has not fully considered the impacts demolition of existing structures has
on its Comprehensive Plan and environment. Should residential demolitions that upgrade housing
stock be allowed when they reduce the availability of smaller, less expensive housing stock? Should
the City require the analysis of multifamily, commercial and other non-residential buildings to
determine their potential for adaptive reuse before allowing their demolition? Is it reasonable that
demolitions account for half of the materials in Palo Alto's waste stream?
• Recommendation: Study the impact the demolition of existing structures has on the City's
Comprehensive Plan and environment, and develop recommended actions. The data that could
support this study includes the following:
o the gain and loss of residential units as a result of redevelopment,
o the comparative costs to the owner/tenant compared to current rates,
o the gain and loss of retail square footage and income to City as a result of redevelopment,
o the comparative cost to retail and neighborhood serving businesses as a result of
redevelopment,
o environmental impacts of demolition, and
o benefit analysis to community of redevelopment for use in policy decision as to
rate/scale/type of redevelopment most beneficial.
21. OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW.
Negative impact: the City has missed or is at risk of missing or delaying several opportunities to work
with Caltrans to improve traffic flow and the bicycle network in Palo Alto.
• Recommendation: Engage Caltrans earlier on the identified opportunities to improve traffic flow
and the bicycle network in Palo Alto
22. Bus SERVICE. VTA CONTINUES TO REDUCE BUS SERVICE FOR PALO ALTO
Negative Impact: Significant reductions in opportunities for residents and visitors to use public
transit and thereby reduce environmental impacts.
• Recommendation: Engage more proactively with VT A to insure the City's bus needs are being
met.
INFORMATION ITEMS
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 13
23. PUBLIC AMENITIES/BENEFITS. PUBLIC AMENITIES/BENEFITS ARE BEING SUPPORTED:
Positive Impact: Public Amenities provide a community benefit.
• Recommendation: Encourage true public benefits for PC developments and in particular the
dedication of more parkland in proportion to population growth.
24. SAFETY. PALO ALTO'S TRAFFIC SAFETY, BIKE-ABLE AND WALK-ABLE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE BEING
SUPPORTED:
Positive Impact: There is continued satisfaction in both the results and the prOcess of integrating the
City's Traffic Control and Calming Projects:
• Recommendation: Continue to support these programs and evaluate their results post-
implementation. Consider improvements to arterial routes that reduce impacts on residential
neighborhoods (such as improvements to northbound EI Camino Real right turns onto Oregon
Expressway, so as to reduce cut-through traffic on Pepper Avenue).
2008 -2009
Planning and Transportation Commission
Annual Report to Council
Appendices
February 15,2010
Appendices
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Comnlission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 15
ANNUAL REPORT TO COUNCIL
Background and Report Purpose:
In 2006 the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recognized several issues:
• That the staff's Comprehensive Plan Update report was overly administrational and not action
oriented in its content and format to influence current policy making;
• That eliminating this report freed up significant staff resources; and
That the rate of change impacting the City's lands was occurring significantly more quickly than
the Comprehensive Planning cycle.
Therefore at its fall 2006 retreat the PTC decided to prepare an annual Planning Commission report to
City Council evaluating development and other projects in Palo Alto that had come before the PTC
occurring over the last year and their impacts on the City. In this way the Report would become a more
effective tool to address demographic changes, technological development and environmental challenges
and more effectively implement the Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
The function of the report is to identify emerging trends in the community, serve as a basis for identifying
issues and making recommendations for the City Council to take actions, and to serve as an annual
repository of critical planning data.
The Commission intends that this report be used to enable better alignment of the City's long term land
use policies and processes with Palo Alto's community values, its governing documents and the evolving
needs of the community.
Process:
For preparing the report the PTC subcommittee has been working with staff to:
1. Identify major projects over the past year 06-07 and compare it to key Comprehensive Plan
policies/programs, and the Palo Alto Zoning Code.
2. Identify the short-and long-term trends and issues resulting from the developmental trend.
3. The following data sources were consulted to perform the analysis for the report, (See the attached
CD for the data, which can also be downloaded at URLxxxxx.)
a. Pertinent school enrollment data from new housing construction;
b. Number of residential building permits issued within this time frame;
c. Number and type (BMR, market rate) of dwelling units approved and entitled through the
planning department within this specified time period;
d. List of multifamily residential projects in the "pipeline," the previous land use, existing zoning
district and type of housing proposed;
e. Number and type of residential demolition permits issued and replacement structures;
f. Transportation data as applicable;
g. Rezoning applications and/or approved rezoning within this specified time period;
h. List of commercial development in the ARB process and commercial development approved by
the ARB within this specified time period;
i. List of commercial building demolition permits issued and list of new commercial building
permits issued (identify gain or loss of commercial square footage);
j. Changes in single-family residences in square footage.
Appendices
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 16
Commissioners:
The Commission is composed of seven members who are not Council Members, officers, or employees of
the City, and who are residents of the City of Palo Alto. Terms are for four years and commence on
August 1. See Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Sections 2.16 and 16.48. Palo Alto residency is a
requirement.
2006 -2007 Commissioners were Karen Holman (Chairman), Lee Lippert (Vice-Chair), Pat Burt, Dan
Garber, Arthur Keller, Paula Sandas, Samir Tuma.
2007 -2008 Commissioners were Karen Holman (Chairman), Daniel Garber (Vice-Chair), Pat Burt*,
Susan Fineberg*, Arthur Keller, Paula Sandas, and Samir Tuma, Lee Lippert.
2008 -2009 Commissioners were Daniel Garber (Chairman), Samir Tuma (Vice-Chair); Susan Fineberg,
Karen Holman, Arthur Keller, Lee Lippert, Fabio Rosati*, Paula Sandas*.
*Indicates that the Commissioner was not on the commission the entire year.
Appendices
February 15,2010
Planning and Transportation Commission
2008-2009 Annual Report to Council
Page 17
ITEMS AND ISSUES
All of the The development projects and policy items from the three fiscal years from 2006 to 2009, that
the Commissioner's identified issues with, are charted in the following spreadsheets.
All of the spreadsheets "roll-up" the items. Meaning if a particular item came before the Commission
more than once over the fiscal year, that item is only shown once. For instance "Stanford Projects" came
before the 2008-09 Commission 4 times but it is only shown once.
Both development project and policy items that came before the commission are on the left, and the
Issues that the Commissioner's identified are at the top. Each year the project or policy item appear before
the Commission, the year is recorded in the columns C, D.& E. The number of issues each items contains
is summed on the right. The number of projects each issue is supported by is shown at the bottom.
Items Sequentially & by Issue.
This chart show the items from 2006-09 and is sorted to show the items sequentially, earliest at the top.
The issues, across the top of the chart, are sorted by assigned number. The chart simply shows how the
items and issues are arrayed over time.
Items HOT List
This chart is sorted to show the items that have the most issues, on top. The issues that have the most
items have been sorts to the left. There for the items and issues that are highest and most left are the
"hottest" items and issues the Commission dealt with.
2006-07 Items
This chart is sorted the same as the HOT List but only includes the items from the 2006-07 fiscal year.
The development projects items and the policy items have also been counted on this sheet.
2007-08 Items
Same as above but for the 2007-08 fiscal year.
2008-09 Items
Same as above but for the 2008-09 fiscal year.
Policy Items
This chart compiles just the policy items from all three years and is sorted the same as the HOT List.
Proj Devel Items
This chart compiles just the project development items from all three years and is sorted the same as the
HOT List.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PROCLAMATION
Recognizing the contributions and achievements of
the late Elizabeth T. (Betty) Meltzer
WHEREAS, Betty Meltzer was born on May 3, 1939 to Anna Rose and Sam Taylor, moved to Palo Alto in 1948,
graduated from Palo Alto High School in 1956 and received her Master's Degree in Education from Stanford University
in 1961; and
WHEREAS, beginning in the mid 1980s, Betty Meltzer co-founded, with Ellen Wyman, Palo Alto Tomorrow, an
organization that successfully promoted sensible growth in downtown Palo Alto; and
WHEREAS, in the early 1990s Betty Meltzer served as a citizen member of the Downtown Urban Design
Committee that originated an overall plan for downtown Palo Alto development emphasizing exciting, attractive and
inviting public spaces and structures; and
WHEREAS, education was one of Betty Meltzer's passions: she taught in the Palo Alto Unified School District for
five years, trained blind people how to read, and for many years tutored Palo Alto elementary school students who had
reading disabilities; and
WHEREAS, Betty Meltzer served on the board of the former Peninsula Conservation Center Foundation (PCCF),
now Acterra, and was especially active in creating the Business Environmental Network that gave awards to
environmentally outstanding businesses; and
WHEREAS, in May 2001, Betty Meltzer received a City of Palo Alto Community Star Award from the
Community Services Department in recognition of her contributions to the community; and
WHEREAS, Betty Meltzer was co-founder and co-chair with Susan Rosenberg of the Trees for El Camino Project
whose mission was to have El Camino Real in Palo Alto become a beautiful, tree-lined thoroughfare that would unite
the adjoining neighborhoods, business districts and educational campuses and which provided funds to the City of Palo
Alto for the planting of hundreds of new trees along El Camino Real; and
WHEREAS, the distinguished life of Betty Meltzer ended on September 29, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on July 13, 2009 the Legislature of the State of California designated the segment of State Highway
Route 82 (El Camino Real) in Palo Alto between Page Mill Road and San Francisquito Creek (the Santa Clara /San
Mateo County line), as the Betty Meltzer Memorial Highway.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Patrick Burt, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council, hereby
recognize, honor and record our appreciation of Elizabeth T. (Betty) Meltzer for her many contributions and
achievements for the betterment of Palo Alto.
Presented: March 2010
______________________________
Patrick Burt
Mayor
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PROCLAMATION
WELCOMING EXCHANGE STUDENTS AND CHAPERONES
FROM
TSUCHIURA CITY, IBARAKI, JAPAN
WHEREAS, the exchange program between middle schools is the foundation of the
Sister Cities program, which attempts to promote international and intercultural
understanding amongst the youth; and
WHEREAS, the two cities have worked together to involve their respective middle
school students and their families in cultural and educational exchanges and special
programs; and
WHEREAS, the opportunity to host Tsuchiura students here and to send Palo Alto
students to Tsuchiura , Japan has proven to be mutually beneficial.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Patrick Burt, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of
the City Council, hereby express our heartfelt welcome to our guests from Tsuchiura City
and record congratulations and the best wishes from the City of Palo Alto, on the
occasion of the visit of Mr. Masahiko Kinoshita, Ms. Hitomi Noguchi and 16 students
(Minami Morimoto, Shota Fujii, Yurie Seki, Daiki Kitajima, Shoko Tanabe, Wataru
Yoshioka, Kana Kuriyama, Daiki Namichi, Maika Takei, Shuichiro Wada, Shiho Kaito,
Nao Tsukahara, Hitomi Tsukamoto, Takehito Murano, Haruka Nagamine, Kazuya
Uchida).
I wish to thank Tsuchiura City for their generosity and hospitality tended toward young
people from Palo Alto for the last 17 years.
Presented March, 2010
______________________________
Patrick Burt
Mayor
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
City of Palo Alto
Ctty.QfJ}:~lQ.AJJQ
Office of the City Clerk
March 15, 2010
SUBJECT: Selection of Candidates to be interviewed for the Library Advisory Commission for
one unexpired term ending January 31, 2011.
Dear Council Members:
Enclosed are four applications submitted for one unexpired term ending January 31, 2011 on
the Library Advisory Commission.
At the Council Meeting on Monday, March 15,2010, the City Council will select the candidates
to be interviewed for the Library Advisory Commission, with the interview date to be
determined. Each Council Member will receive a selection sheet to use for determining who will
be chosen for an interview.
The requested action is for each Council Member to fill out the selection sheet. The City Clerk
will announce the results. Candidates who receive four or more votes will be scheduled for an
interview.
The applicants are as follows:
Name
1. Ramarao Digumarthi
2. Philip Lumish
3. Diane Morin
4. Richard Hackmann
Enclosures
cc: All applicants (without enclosure)
Donna Grider, City Clerk
Diane Jennings, Staff Liaison
Address Phone
3744 Starr King Circle
Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-424-1304
3872 Grove Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-494-3706
1635 EI Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325~ 3830
235 Embarcadero
Palo Alto CA 94301 312-450-4096
i=~ , R~ ]O~~Ta GOnSalve~? ~'
Deputy City Clerk
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2571
650.328.3631 fax
City of Palo Alto
,City Manager's Report
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 5
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: MARCH 15,2010 CMR:164:10
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Approval of a Contract with Davey Resource Group in the Amount of
$156,894 for Street Tree Inventory -Data Integration and Analysis
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the attached
contract with Davey Resource Group, a division of Davey Tree Expert Company, in the amount
of $156,894 for Street Tree Inventory -Data Integration and Analysis, including $136,430 for
basic services and $20,464 for additional services (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
In 2007 Council directed Public Works to develop a Street Tree Master Plan. An accurate tree
inventory is ali integral starting point for producing an effective plan. The City's current
inventory was generated in 1989 with inventory size, tree age, and condition changing over the
years. Also, arboricultural industry standards and technology have gone through many changes
since that time.
In 2007 the City applied for and was awarded a grant from State of California, Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal fire) in the amount of $120,000 with the City providing $39,000
in matching funds. The grant was delayed due to the State of California budget crisis and the
funds were finally released in October 2009. Due to the delay in funding for the grant the Calfrre
extended the project deadline to June 30, 2010.
DISCUSSION
As the urban forest continues to mature and individual properties continue to be developed the
City's trees have become increasingly impacted. The Urban Forest is a valuable asset worth
protecting. Current information will provide City staff the tools to develop a new street tree
management plan to ensure that a healthy, functional, species diverse, multi-aged canopy will be
in place to benefit the community well into the future. A verified geodatabase will provide
readily available point feature information for Public Works and other City departments so that
the tree resource can be protected and enhanced.
The work to be performed under this contract includes: performing a field assessment of tree and
site attributes for approximately 36,000 City street and park trees and updating this information
into the City's TreeKeeper® inventory and work order system; collecting GIS positioning data
CMR: 164: 10 Page lof3
on all the trees; and delivering a geodatabase that contains an updated and corrected version of
the City's street tree inventory. The Consultant will also create an i-Tree Streets Analysis and
Report based on the City tree inventory which will include an analysis of the data collected and
result in a written report that includes the structure, function, value and maintenance needs of the
City's tree resource. Please see Attachment A for the complete scope of services.
SELECTION PROCESS
A notice inviting formal proposals for the work was posted on the City's website and sent to six
contractors on January 21, 2010. The bidding period was 19 calendar days. Proposals were
received from 5 qualified consultants on February 9,2010.
Summary of Solicitation Process
Proposal DescriptionlNumber Street Tree Inventory-Data Integration and Analysisl
RFP#135076
Proposed Length of Project 15 weeks
Number of Proposals Mailed 6
Total Days to Respond to Proposal 19
Pre-proposal Meeting Date None
Number of Company Attendees at N/A
Pre-proposal Meeting
Number of Proposals Received: 5
$3.33-$3.45 per tree
Range of Proposal Amounts
Submitted
An evaluation committee consisting of three Public Works Operations Division staff reviewed
the proposals in their entirety and two Information Technology staff reviewed the portions of the
proposals related to GIS tree locations and data transfer. The committee reviewed each firm's
qualifications and submittals according to criteria identified in the RFP and unanimously selected
Davey Resource Group.
Davey Resource Group provided a well organized and clear proposal that addressed all of our
concerns, including a complete definition of tasks and related costs. They rated highest on all
criteria. They manage our current tree and work inventory system. Because of this they have a
clear understanding of our inventory and work history needs.
The scope of services requested a per tree price based on 31,000 trees which represents
approximately 85% of City trees. Since there is sufficient funding provided by the grant it was
determined that an inventory could include 100% of City trees with an estimated total of 36,000.
Grant guidelines require that this project be completed by June 30, 2010. The City has neither
the personnel nor the GIS expertise to complete this project by the deadline. The consultant has
extensive experience in performing projects of this nature.
CMR:164:10 Page 2 of3
Grant guidelines require that this project be completed by June 30, 2010. The City has neither
the personnel nor the GIS expertise to complete this project by the deadline. The consultant has
extensive experience in perfoIming projects of this nature.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funds for the City match in the amount of $29,000 are available in the FY 2010 Public Works
Operations operating budget. An additional appropriation of $10,000 City match and $120,000
grant amount for a total of $130,000 has been included in the FY 2010 Midyear Budget
Amendment Ordinance (BAO). Subsequent to the approval the final proposal only requires an
additional $7,894 for City match along with $120,000 for the grant for a total of $127,894. The
FY 2010 Midyear adjustments and BAO will come before full Council on April 2, 2010. The
City will be reimbursed up to $120,000 through Grant Agreement 8CA07911 with Cal Fire.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The approval of this contract is consistent with existing City policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Work under this agreement consists of information collection and is categorically exempt from
review under Sectio1115306 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Contract (includes Certification of Nondiscrimination)
Cal Fire Grant Agreement Attachment B:
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR:164:10
4/~ ~~--~------------
2irn<glr£lj~L
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
Page 3 of3
ATTACHMENT A
ClITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135076
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
DA VEY RESOURCE GROUP
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
STREET TREE INVENTORY, DATA INTEGRATION AND ANALYSIS
This AGREEMENT is entered into on this . day of March, 2010, by
and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("CITY"),
and DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP, a Division of The Davey Tree Expert Company, a corporation
in the State of Ohio, located at 1500 North Mantua Street, Kent, OH 44240, with Western Region
Offices at 7627 Morro Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 ("CONSULTANT").
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement.
A. CITY intends to update street tree inventory and GIS points ("Project") and desires to engage
a consultant to perform visual field assessments of City trees and their sites in connection with the
Project ("Services").
B.. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise,
qualifications, and capabilio/, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services.
C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULT ANT to provide the
Services as more fully described in Exhibit "A", attached to and made a part ofthis Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, this
Agreement, the parties agree:
AGREEMENT
SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in
Exhibit "A" in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The
performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY.
SECTION 2. TERM.
DThe term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through
terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.
unless
OR
I2Sl The term ofthis Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through completion ofthe
services in accordance with the Schedule of Performance attached as Exhibit "B" unless termmated
1
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA \jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI35076 Street Tree Inventory Data Integration and Analysis\Contract
C10I35076 DAVEY.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135076
services in accordance with the Schedule of Performance attached as Exhibit "B" unless terminated
earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.
SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of
Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this
Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit "B", attached to and made a part
ofthis Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement
shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner
based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY's
agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages
for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT.
SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to
CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit "A", including both payment
for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Thirty-six
Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Dollars ($l36,430.00). fu the event Additional Services are
authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed One
Hundred Fifty-six Eight Hundred Ninety-four Dollars ($156,894.00). The applicable rates and
schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit "C", entitled "COMPENSATION," which is attached to
and made a part of this Agreement.
Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of
Exhibit "c" . CONSULT ANT 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 in Exhibit "A".
SECTION 5. INVOICES. fu order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly
invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an
identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable
expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT's billing rates (set forth in Exhibit "C"). If applicable, the
invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in
CONSULTANT's payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY . CONSULTANT shall
send all invoices to the City's project manager at the address specified in Section l3 below. The City
will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt.
SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/ST ANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be
performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT's supervision. CONSULTANT represents
that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required
by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services
assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, ifpermitted,
have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications,
insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services.
All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the
2
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP135076 Street Tree Inventory -Data Integration and Analysis\Contract
("lf1l .,,117"; 1>A"J:;V rt~
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135076
professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of
similar know ledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar
circumstances.
SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itselfinformed of and
in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may
affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform
Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all
charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services.
SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and
all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives
notice to CONSULT ANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design
documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors,
omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction ofthe Project.
This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement.
SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works
project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of
design submittaL If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%)
ofthe CITY's stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the CITY
for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations,
and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY.
SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing
the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contractedwith
CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an
independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY.
SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The 'parties agree that the expertise and experience of
CONSULT ANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULT ANT shall not assign or
transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSUL T ANT's obligations
hereunder without the prior written consent ofthe city manager. Consent to one assignment will not
be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval
of the city manager will be void.
SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING.
CONSULT ANT shall not subcontract any portion ofthe work to be performed under this Agreement
without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee.
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any
compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning
compensation. CONSULT ANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a
subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change o,r add sub consultants only with the prior approval of
the city manager or his designee.
3
Professional Services
Rev, January 2009
\\CC-TERRA\jarreoI\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP135076 Street Tree Inventory -Data Integration and Analysis\Contract
ClO135076 DAVEY,doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135076
SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT . CONSULTANT will assign Dana Karcher as
the project director to have supervisory responsibility for the perfonnance, progress, and execution of
the Services and as the project coordinator to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work
on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or
any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the
assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of
the CITY's project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY's request, shall promptly remove personnel
who CITY finds do not perfonn the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present
a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or
property.
The City's project manager is Eric Krebs, Public Works Department, Operations Division, at 3201
East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: 650-496-6905. The project manager will be
CONSULTANT's point of contact with respect to perfonnance, progress and execution of the
Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time.
SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including
without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents,
other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the
exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULT ANT agrees
that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested
in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual
property rights in favor ofthe CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make
any of such materials availab Ie to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of
the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the
work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work.
SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT willpennit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during
the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT's records pertaining to
matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such
records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier tennination of this Agreement.
SECTION 16. INDEMNITY.
D[Option A applies to the following design professionals pursuant to Civil Code Section
2782.8: architects; landscape architects; registered professional engineers and licensed
professional land surveyors.] 16.1. To the fullest extent pennitted by law , CONSULTANT shall
protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and
agents (each an "Indemnified Party") from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of
any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all
costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and
disbursements ("Claims") that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or
willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this
Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party.
4
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA'jjarreo\\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposa]s\RFP\RFP135076 Street Tree Inventory -Data Integration and Analysis\Contract
r'1()1't,()7h nAVPV ..IN'
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C10135076
~[Option B appliestoany consultant who does not qualify as a design professional as defined
in Civil Code Section 2782.8.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted bylaw, CONSULTANT shall
protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and
agents (each an "Indemnified Party") from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of
any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all
costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and
disbursements ("Claims") resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or
nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this
Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party.
16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to
require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active
negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party.
16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT's services and duties by CITY shall not
operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive
the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 17 • WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant,
term, condition or provision ofthis Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not
be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of
any subsequent breach or violation ofthe same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision,
ordinance or law.
SECTION 18. INSURANCE.
18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full
force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D".
CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an
additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies.
18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers
with AM Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to
transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT
retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect
during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional
insured under such policies as required above.
18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently
with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subjectto the approval of CITY's Risk
Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not
be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the
Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification,
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance
are provided to CITY's Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement.
5
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\sAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPl;35076 Street Tree Inventory Data Integration and Analysis\Contract
CIOl35076 DAVEY.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: C10135076
18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be
construed to limit CONSULT ANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions
of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be
obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as
a result of the Services perfonned under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss
arising after the Agreement is tenninated or the tenn has expired.
SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES.
19.1. The city manager may suspend the perfonnance ofthe Services, in whole or in
part, or tenninate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice
thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately
discontinue its perfonnance of the Services.
19 .2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its perfonnance of
the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereofto CITY, but only in the event of a
substantial failure ofperfonnance by CITY.
19.3. Upon such suspension or tennination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the
City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other
data, whether or not completed,prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to
CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will
become the property of CITY.
19.4. Upon such suspension ortennination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid
for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on
or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or tennination; provided,
however, if this Agreement is suspended or tenninated on account ofadefault by CONSULTANT,
CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT's
services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such detennination may be made by
the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of hislher discretion
19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will
operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement.
SECTION 20. NOTICES.
All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by
certified mail, addressed as follows:
To CITY: Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
6
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP135076 Street Tree Inventory -Data Integration and Analysis\Contract
"l
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135076
With a copy to the Purchasing Manager
To CONSULTANT: Attention ofthe project director
at the address of CONSULT ANT recited above
SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has
no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, whicl!. would
conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
21.2. CONSULT ANT further covenants that, in the performance ofthis Agreement,
it will not employ sub consultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT
certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer
or employee of CITY ; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions
ofthe Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California.
21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a "Consultant" as
that term is defined by the Regulations ofthe Fair Political Practices Commission, CONS1JLTANT
shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the
Palo AI!9 Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act.
SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section
2.30.51 0, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this. Agreement, it shall not
discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion,
disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status,
weight or height of such person. CONSULT ANT acknow ledges that it has read and understands the
provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination
Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section
2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING. The City of Palo Alto
is a green business and works to purchase and provide products in an environmentally sustainable
manner. CONSULTANT will use production methods that reduce waste and environmentally toxic
products, as well as have less packaging. CONSULTANT will adhere to the standard that printed
materi~ls will be, at a minimum, printed on 30% post consumer recycled paper with vegetable based
ink. The designer will check with the project manager to discuss the maximum recycled content
paper available for each project. FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) certified paper that is "process
free" is preferred. CONSULTANT will use methods that reduce energy use and thus the carbon
footprint for the development, production and delivery of products. CONSULTANT shall adhere to
the City's Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies as may be amended from time to time.
SECTION 24. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
24.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California.
7
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP135076 Street Tree Inventory· Data Integration and Analysis\Contract
CI0135076 DAVEY.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135076
24.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action
will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of
California.
24.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this
Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that
action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of
legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys' fees paid to third
parties.
24.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the
parties and supersedes all prior negotiations. representations, and contracts. either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
24.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply
to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the
parties.
24.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this
Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
24.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices,
attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any
duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be
deemed to bea part of this Agreement.
24.8. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of
Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a)
at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year,
or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the
fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This Section 24.8 shall take
precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this
Agreement.
24.9. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have
the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
24.10 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement.
8
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA\jarreo!\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPJ35076 Street Tree Inventory. Data Integration and Analysis\Contract
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135076
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties· hereto have by their duly authorized
representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONSULTANT:
DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP
A Division of The Davey Tree Expert Company
_City Manager (Required for contracts over
$85,000)
_Purchasing Manager
.--By:---'-o~~~~_=.....i-""-~'--___ _
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Attachments:
,.EXHIBIT "A":
.. EXHIBIT ''B'':
EXHIBIT "C":
EXHIBIT "C-l"
EXHIBIT "D":
SCOPE OF WORK
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
COMPENSATION
RATE SCHEDULE
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
9
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\cC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOc\sAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI35076 SCree! Tree Inventory -Data Integration and Analysis\Contract
Ct0135076 DAVEY.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135076
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Background:
Purpose and History:
The City of Palo Alto (City) has been awarded a grant from the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to update the City's street tree inventory, verify or
correct existing geocoded tree information and prepare an i-Tree Streets analysis and report.
The City's existing inventory/work order system is TreeKeeper 7.7 (Davey Resource Group).
The current street tree inventory was compiled in 1989 and has been partially updated since that
time. While many of the street trees are properly sited, there is considerable work to be done to
accurately update tree and site conditions.
Site Description:
The project area covers about 10.5 square miles of the flat, urbanized neighborhoods and
commercial districts ofthe City bounded by State Highway 101 on the north and by Foothill
Expressway on the south (see City Area Map, Attached). There are approximately 36,000 City
street or park trees, and vacant tree sites within this area. The trees to be inventoried are sited in
City parks, planting strips between the curb and sidewalk or in the City right of way behind the
sidewalk. In commercial districts, the trees may also be in tree wells. Numerous trees are
located in medians on arterial streets.
The City operates its own utilities and is subject to the California Public Utilities Commission
rules regarding vegetation clearance from the electric system. Presence of overhead utilities is
one of the inventory attributes that will be collected.
Project Goals:
Consultant shall provide services described below that would meet the following City goals:
1) Update the current City tree inventory including tree attributes, site conditions, and
location.
2) Upload this inventory data into the TreeKeeper 7.7 database updating existing records
and adding new records as appropriate.
3) Determine accurate GIS positioning for all inventoried City trees.
4) Create an i-Tree Streets analysis and report based on the City tree inventory.
5) Train City staff on all aspects of the revised and updated inventory. Develop a written
protocol for City staff to periodically update the inventory.
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA\jarreo)\PURCHDOasAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP135076 Street Tree Inventory -Data Integration and Analysis\Contract
C10135076 DAVEY.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135076
Scope of Services:
Task 1 -Perform Field Assessment of City Trees and Gather Attribute and GIS Positioning Data:
With guidance from City Tree staff, Consultant shall perform field assessments of City trees and
their sites in addition to assessing vacant (as defined by City) planting sites. Tree assessment
shall include an evaluation of tree size and health, tree site location, identification of structural
defects, pruning needs and pests. Consultant shall collect all attribute information as defined by
CAL FIRE grant guidelines and additional data requested by the City as outlined in Attachment
C-l.
Consultant shall submit to City a written schedule and systematic approach to inventorying the
City trees by area (see City Area Map, Attached), with identifiable starting and completion
points. Consultant shall start work in Area 2 and complete all field work in that area before
proceeding to the next area of the Consultant's choosing. Only City street trees will be assessed.
Park trees will not be part of this project.
The City will provide:
1. Shape files or geodatabases in California State Plane Zone 3, NAD 83, Survey
feet, containing: .
a. Parcel layer;
b. Planimetric layers including curbs, sidewalks, planting strips, paved edge;
c. Utility features including manhole covers, utility poles (not spatially accurate
in GIS), storm water catch basins and fire hydrants;
d. Address layer (text on point features);
e. Street centerlines;
f. Polygons of tree inventory areas.
2. Text file of legal street names
3. Orthophotos (2005, flown)
4. A shape file or geodatabase containing the existing tree inventory as a point
feature layer. Trees will be geocoded to the nearest address (at minimum). Some
of the trees will be positioned along the street. In addition, some trees will not
appear in the correct polygon until the location is fixed by the consultant.
Task 2 -Prepare Updated Geodatabase:
Consultant shall prepare and deliver a geodatabase that contains an updated and corrected version
of the City's street tree inventory in California State Plane Zone 3, NAD 83, Survey feet.
2
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA\jarreo]\PURCHDOaSAP Bids and Proposa)s\RFP\RFP135076 Street Tree Inventory -Data Integration and Analysis\Contract
£:1011')076 DAVEY.doc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135076
The deliverable shall maintain the existing Tree ID numbers and include all of the above
mentioned updates and corrections and shall include:
1. Verification andlor correction of the placement of the existing street tree inventory
point features to sub-meter accuracy.
2. Addition and deletion of tree point features (Consultant shall provide an explicit
list of Tree ID numbers that are deleted).
3. Verification or addition of required attributes described in Attachments C-1.
Consultant shall meet futemational Society of Arboriculture (ISA) standards when
assessing the trees. Consultant shall upload inventory attribute data into City's
TreeKeeper 7.7 database and integrate with existing data in that database.
Task 3 -i-Tree Streets Analysis and Report
Consultant shall create an i-Tree Streets (version 3.0.6, USDA Forest Service) analysis and report
based on the City tree inventory. This information will be used by the City to evaluate current
benefits, costs and maintenance needs. The consultant shall analyze the data and create a written
report that includes the structure, function, value and maintenance needs of the City's tree
resource:
This task shall be done on a lump sum basis.
Task 4 -Meetings:
Consultant shall include in this proposal milestone meetings, trainings, and demonstrations.
Meetings shall include Consultant's Project Manager at minimum and staff from City Tree
Section, fuformation Technology, and others as needed.
Consultant shall prepare and submit a written agenda for each meeting at least two business days
prior and draft and submit meeting minutes within three business days following each scheduled
meeting.
Meetings will include:
• A pre-project meeting.
• Weekly progress meetings (up to 4 meetings) at the beginning of the project.
• . Milestone meetings (3) at the completion of Tasks 1-3 to review and discuss deliverables;
Consultant's GISIIT staff shall attend in addition to the Project Manager.
END SCOPE OF SERVICES
3
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA \jarreo]\PURCHDOaSAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI35076 Street Tree Inventory -Data Integration and Analysis\Contract
CI0135071i DAVRY.ooc
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135076
EXHIBIT "B"
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall perfonn the Services so as to complete each milestone within the time
specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual
written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is
completed within the tenn of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule
of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed.
Milestones
1. Tree Inventory and Geodatabase Update
2. Meetings
1
Completion (from NTP)
by the date below:
June 30, 2010
June 30, 2010
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA \jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP135076 Street Tree Inventory Data Integration and Anaiysis\Contract
1 7
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135076
EXHIBIT "C"
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULT ANT for professional services performed in
accordance with the terms and conditions ofthis Agreement, and as set forth 'in the budget
schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the rate schedule attached as
exhibit C-I up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services
described in Exhibit ".N' ("Basic Services") and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed One
Hundred Thirty-six Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Dollars ($136,430.00). CONSULTANT
agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount.
In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not
exceed One Hundred Fifty-six Eight Hundred Ninety-four Dollars ($156,894.00). Any work
performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the
maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY.
CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted
below. The CITY's project manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts
between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic
Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $136,430.00 and the total
compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $20,464.00.
BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Task 1 and 2
(Tree inventory and Geodatabase Update)
Task 3
(i.-Tree Streets)
Task 4
(Meetings)
$124,200
$4,500
$7,730
Sub-total Basic Services $136,430
Reimbursable Expenses (included above) $0.00
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $136,430
Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $20,464
Maximum Total Compensation $156,894
1
Professional Services
Rev, January 2009
\\CC-TERRA\jarreol\PURCHDOc\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP135076 Slreet Tree Inventory -Data Integration and Analysis\Contract
rll\1'Hl\7':; nt.\lJ:;v ~~
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135076
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included
within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization
from the CITY. The CONSULT ANT, at the CITY's project manager's request, shall submit a
detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of
effort, and CONSULTANT's proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable
expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-I. The additional services
scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by
the CITY's project manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services.
Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this
Agreement
Work required because the following conditions are not satisfied or are exceeded shall be
considered as additional services:
• More trees to be inventoried
• Additional meetings
2
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA';jarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI35076 Street Tree Inventory Data Integration and Analysis\Contract
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135076
EXHIBIT "C-l"
RATE SCHEDULE
Tree Inventory Rate per tree $3.45
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA\jarreo)\PURCHDOc\sAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPI35076 Slreet Tree Inventory -Data Integration and Analysis\Contract
(,1l11 "H171i IlAVFY tll'll'
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI013507'6
EXHIBIT "D"
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN
AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM
BEST'S KEY RATING OF A·:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. '
AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY'S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW:
MINIMUM LIMITS
REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT EACH
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
WORKER'S COMPENSATION v RY
EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY STATUTORY
BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000
GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING
PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET
CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
LIABILITY COMBINED,
BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 . EACH PERSON $1,000,000 $1,000,000 . EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING
ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON·OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000
BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY $1,000,000 $1,000,000
DAMAGE COMBINED
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING,
ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, .
MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE),
AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1000,000
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE,
SHALLOBT AIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT,
THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULT ANTS, IF ANY, BUT
ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING
AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES.
I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:
A A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN
COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND
B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR
CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.
C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY'S PRIOR APPROVAL.
II. CONT ACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE.
Ill. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO "ADDITIONAL
INSUREDS"
A PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS
AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC· TERRA\iarreol\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFP135076 Street Tree Inventory· Data Integration and Analysis\Contract
~
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO.: CI0135076
INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR TIlE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.
B. CROSS LIABILITY
THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL
NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS
ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF
THE COMPANY UNDER TIllS POLICY.
C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
1. IF TIlE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTIlER
TIlANTHE NON-PA YMENTOFPREMIUM, TIlE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY
AT LEAST A TIlIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE TIlE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
CANCELLATION.
2. IF TIlE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR TIlE NON-PAYMENT
OF PREMIUM, TIlE ISSUING COMP ANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY
WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE TIlE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO:
PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
CITY OF PALO ALTO
P.O. BOX 10250
PALO ALTO, CA 94303
2
Professional Services
Rev. January 2009
\\CC-TERRA \jarreoJ\PURCHDOC\SAP Bids and Proposals\RFP\RFPJ 35076 Street Tree Inventory· Data Integration and Analysis\Contract
r.lOn~071'i nAVFY (loc
,,; ..
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
DATE: MARCH 15, 2010 CMR: 169.10
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) to Accept an American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act Residential Building Retrofit Program Grant
Award on Behalf of the City of Palo Alto and to Enter Into All
Necessary and Related Contracts, Agreements and Amendments
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests that the Council:
1) Adopt the Resolution In Attachment A authorizing Association of Bay Afea
Governments (ABA G) to accept an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Residential Building Retrofit Program grant award on Behalf of the City of Palo Alto
and to enter into all necessary contracts, agreements, and amendments on its behalf to
implement and carry out the projects;
2) Recognize Santa Clara County (SCC) as the lead local implementer for the projects
described in Attachment B for all of the local governments in Santa Clara County;
and
3) Recognize ABAG as the fiscal agent, which will disburse the funds to Santa Clara
County to implement and carry out the projects.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ABAG has been awarded a grant from the California Energy Commission's (CEC) State Energy
Program (SEP) for $10.75 million to fund their proposed "Retrofit Bay Area" program. Santa
Clara County (SCC) passed a resolution on March 2nd to accept this grant funding as the lead
local implementer in the ABAG project. The action requested of Council does not directly grant
CMR: 169:10 Page 1 of5
the city of Palo Alto any funds. Your action however is a prerequisite to any potential funding.
The exact details of the program are not yet available, but the projects will focus on education,
outreach and coordination of other existing related programs. There are no costs to the City of
Palo Alto to participate in this ABAG program or in SCC's effort, and there could potentially be
funds available for which the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department (CPAU) could apply to
develop or enhance current residential retrofit programs. In order to participate in this program,
Council needs to adopt the attached resolution. If the resolution is not adopted, the City will be
unable to participate in any County projects funded by ARRA for this program.
BACKGROUND
The CEC's funded the SEP with $95 million to provide an unprecedented opportunity to develop
and implement a regional community-scale building retrofit program. ABAG, in partnership
with the eight counties and a total of 104 local governments in the San Francisco Bay Area, is
working to present an innovative proposal, "Retrofit Bay Area ", in order to establish the
infrastructure for a market-driven regional residential retrofit program. This self-sustaining
program will stimulate the economy and create jobs while assisting in the transformation of
energy markets in California. Designed for scalability and transferability, this program will
create a model that can be replicated statewide and nationally.
ABAG has been awarded a $10.75 million grant to fund "Retrofit Bay Area ", a region-wide
energy efficiency program with goals to retrofit 17,000 homes (single and multifamily) to
achieve reduction in home energy consumption, while creating home energy retrofit jobs. The
grant includes regional program development, local program development and implementation,
evaluation, and measurement, as well as implementation, administration and reporting of the
installation effort.
ABAG and its grant Steering Committee have agreed to a population-based allocation for each
county-specific program. SCC's budget allocation is $1.9 million. Funds will be released by
ABAG to SCC, as the County is the program implementer for its local jurisdictions. Attachment
B provides a summary description of the "Retrofit Bay Area" program and SCC's role. The
CMR: 169:10 Page 2 of5
/
grant will fund County staffing to implement the program. The CEC and ABAG are working on
their grant agreement, which includes a project description, work statement tasks and milestones,
budget and schedule. After completion of their agreement, ABAG will work with the counties to
form agreements for local implementation funding to be distributed.
The "Retrofit Bay Area" program encompasses the outreach, education and marketing related to
other existing efficiency programs. It compliments another residential effort which the Council
approved on December 14,2009, the CaliforniaFIRST Program, which has also been funded by
the SEP (CMR 449:09). The CaliforniaFIRST Program is a financing program being developed
by California Communities to allow owners of property in participating cities and counties to
finance renewable energy, energy efficiency and water efficiency improvements on their
property. If a property owner chooses to participate, the improvements will be financed by the
issuance of bonds by California Communities. California Communities will levy "contractual
assessments" on the owner's property to repay the portion of the bonds issued to finance the
improvements on that property. "Retrofit Bay Area" will also complement the City of Palo
Alto's Green Building Program by upgrading existing housing stock of participating residents.
RESOURCE IMPACT
If approved, minor staff time may be required to apply for funds, or may be required for
marketing and coordination of county programs, although these efforts are in line with current
staff goals, activities and programs. Resources from the City side will be kept relatively low
because ABAG will accept the grant award from the CEC's SEP funding related to the "Retrofit
Bay Area" Program. SCC will be the lead local implementer for the projects described in
Attachment B for all of the local governments in SCC. ABAG, as fiscal agent, will disburse the
grant funds to SCC to implement and carry out the projects described in Attachment B.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Implementing this financing mechanism will reinforce the City of Palo Alto's policies and goals
to encourage energy efficiency installations and to assist customers in their attempts to use
electricity more effectively. Goals being supported include the City Council Priority,
Page 3 5
"Environmental Protection," the Ten-Year Energy Efficiency Program, and the Climate
Protection Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
With this action, the council will find that the authorization for ABAG to accept an American
Recovery and reinvestment Act grant is not a "project", because it is not an activity which may
cause either a direct physical change in the environment or reasonably foreseeable indirect
physical change in the environment. Santa Clara County will be the lead agency for energy
efficiency projects it undertakes. If implemented by the City of Palo Alto, the energy efficiency
projects described in Exhibit A will be categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to California
Code of Regulations, Title 14, sections 15301 (repairs and minor alterations to existing
facilities), 15302 (replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities), 15306
(information collection), 15308 (actions to protect the environment), 15309 (inspections), and
15322 (training programs) because the projects would develop standards for resource conserving
and energy saving retrofits of existing structures in conformance with existing building codes;
train homeowners, contractors and other building professionals; encourage participation in green
retrofits program; provide rebates for tested and certified retrofit projects; and monitor and
evaluate environmental performance of projects.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) to Accept an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Residential Building Retrofit Program Grant Award on Behalf of the City of Palo
Alto and to Enter Into All necessary and Related contracts, Agreements and
Amendments;
B. Exhibit A. "Retrofit Bay Area" Comprehensive Residential Building Retrofit
Program. Summary of grant proposal slj.bmitted by ABAG to the California Energy
Commission on December 21,2009
PREPARED BY:
Manager, Utilities Marketing Services
CMR: 169:10 Page 4 of5
APPROVED BY:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR: 169:10
~~-:iY::-.
DEBRA VAN DUYNHOVEN
Assistant Director, Utilities Customer
Support Services
Page 5 of5
Attachment A NOT YET APPROVED
Resolution No. ---
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to Accept an
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Residential Building
Retrofit Program Grant Award on Behalf of the City of Palo Alto
and to Enter Into All Necessary and Related Contracts, Agreements
and Amendments
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto ("City") recognizes that it is in the interest of the
local, regional, state, and federal agencies to stimulate the economy; create and retain jobs;
reduce fossil fuel emissions; and reduce total energy usage and improve energy efficiency; and
WHEREAS, the City has committed to an ongoing, coordinated effort to reduce the
emissions that cause global warming, improve air quality, reduce waste, cut energy use and save
money. The City is committed to reducing community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 5%
below its 2005 baseline by 2012 and 15% below the 2005 baseline by 2020; and
WHEREAS, State Energy Program (SEP) funds are available through the California
Energy Commission's SEP Funding Opportunities for grants to eligible local governments for
cost-effective energy efficiency projects; and
WHEREAS, the SEP allows for public agencies or non-profit entities to apply for
funds on behalf of eligible local governments; and
WHEREAS, the City is eligible for SEP funding under the California Energy
Commission's SEP Program; and
WHEREAS, the City has collaborated with the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) to submit a regional application to implement the energy efficiency
projects described in Exhibit A for the purpose of qualifying for SEP funds from the California
Energy Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City has considered the application of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) to the approval of the energy efficiency projects described in Exhibit A;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE,
as follows:
SECTION 1. That in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the City finds that the Council's authorization for ABAG to accept a American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act Retrofit Bay Area Program grant is not a "project", because it is
not an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Santa Clara County will be
the lead agency for energy efficiency projects it undertakes. If implemented by the City of Palo
1
100308 syn 6051116
NOT YET APPROVED
Alto, the energy efficiency projects described in Exhibit A will be categorically exempt from
CEQA pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, sections 15301 (repairs and minor
alterations to existing facilities), 15302 (replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and
facilities), 15306 (information collection), 15308 (actions to protect the environment), 15309
(inspections), and 15322 (training programs) because the projects would develop standards for
resource conserving and energy saving retrofits of existing structures in conformance with
existing· building codes; train homeowners, contractors and other building professionals;
encourage participation in the green retrofit program; provide rebates for tested and certified
retrofit projects; and monitor and evaluate environmental performance of projects.
SECTION 2. The City authorizes ABAG to accept the grant award, on its behalf,
from the California Energy Commission's SEP Funding related to the Retrofit Bay Area
Program.
SECTION 3. The City recognizes the County of Santa Clara as the lead local
implementer for the projects described in Exhibit A for all of the local governments in Santa
Clara County.
SECTION 4. ABAG, as fiscal agent, will disburse the grant funds to Santa Clara
County to implement and carry out the projects described in Exhibit A.
SECTION 5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the
Secretary of California Communities.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
Deputy City Attorney City Manager
Director of Utilities
2
100308 syn 6051116
Attachment B
EXHIBIT A
Retrofit Bay Area
Comprehensive Residential Building Retrofit Program
Summary of grant proposal submitted by ABAG to the California Energy Commission on
December 21, 2009
Description of Proposed Program
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is collaborating with eight Bay Area
counties to establish a comprehensive residential single-family and multifamily building retrofit
program that leverages regional cooperation and funding while enabling autonomy at the local.
level. The proposed ABAG program aligns with local, regional and national goals of promoting
economic vitality through an increase in green jobs, reducing U.S. oil dependency through
increases in energy efficiency and deployment of renewable energy technologies, and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
On behalf of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and
Sonoma Counties, ABAG submitted a proposal to the California Energy Commission's State
Energy Program (SEP) to receive $10.8 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) grant funds administered by the U.S. Department of Energy. This grant program,
known informally as SEP 2 to distinguish it from three other elements of California's SEP
program, runs from February 11,2010 to March 31, 2012. The ARRAISEP 2 grant funds will be
used by ABAG program participants to carry out local and Bay Area-wide consumer outreach
and education campaigns and workforce development activities that will accelerate demand for
home energy retrofits and expand the regional building industry's capacity to delivery high-
quality, cost-effective retrofit services.
To achieve these goals, Retrofit Bay Area has identified a set of three core program objectives:
1. Provide Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing to address the high upfront
cost of retrofits, which enables homeowners to finance energy efficiency retrofits and
renewable energy improvements through assessments paid via their property taxes.
2. Demonstrate more effective marketing and outreach methods to inform and motivate
property owner participation.
3. Streamline participant, contractor, and administration processes to reduce the high
transaction costs and build a quality "green" workforce.
The ABAG program thereby will complement existing and planned local retrofit activities.
Page 1 of2
Program Participants and Roles
Participant Role
Association of Bay Area Governments Fiscal agent and contract administrator
Alameda County (Stop Waste. Org) and Regional tasks and local retrofit program
Sonoma County (Sonoma County implementation
Transportation Authority)
Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Local retrofit program implementation
Mateo, Santa Clara and Solano Counties
Bevilacqua Knight, Inc., Build It Green and Regional and local implementation assistance,
California Building Performance Contractors quality assurance and reporting
Association
Santa Clara County's Role
Santa Clara County (County or SCC) has represented the interests of the County and its cities in
working with ABAG to develop a regional energy program and is working with the cities to
develop a countywide element that will become the SCC Residential Retrofit Program
(SCCRRP). Once grant funding is received, SCC's portion is more than $1,950,000 for the
SCCRRP to implement local efforts to promote energy audits and retrofits for the residential
sector in all the cities and unincorporated areas of the County.
SCC is providing a grant process for nonprofits, businesses, housing agencies, utilities and
consulting firms to provide energy audits to the residential community. The SCCRRP will
consist of a suite of environmental programs and information, including PACE financing options
that will be uniformly packaged, marketed and presented to County constituents. The energy
audits are expected to stimulate interest in comprehensive home retrofits such as added
insulation, weatherization, heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HV AC) upgrades, and
energy efficient appliances, resulting in significant reductions in energy and water consumption.
The nearly $2 million that will be available for the SCCRRP will fund two County staff positions
and various programs. ABAG is seeking to facilitate 17,000 retrofits in the Bay Area during the
grant cycle, with an average of20% energy reduction. Based on the County having 26% of the
population of the eight participating counties, the SCCRRP will aim for 4,359 retrofits. It is
projected that this work will result in 446 new jobs, $1.7 million saved in energy costs for
homeowners, 100 billion reduction of BTU, and $43.8 million spent in the County.
The SCCRRP will not change the permitting or building inspection processes within the County,
and will seek to inform and educate residents on steps that they can take to reduce their energy
consumption and water usage. Residents who participate in the program and have energy audits
performed on their homes will be encouraged to implement the steps recommended by the
energy audit and upgrade their home to be more energy efficient and to consume less water.
Page 2 of2
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 7
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: MARCH 15,2010 CMR:172:10
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
SUBJECT: Approval of Change of High Speed Rail Subcommittee from Ad Hoc
Committee to Standing Committee
RECOMlVIENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve the change of the City Council High Speed Rail
Subcommittee from an Ad Hoc Committee to a Standing Committee.
DISCUSSION
On March 2, 2009, the City Council directed the Mayor to establish an Ad Hoc City Council
High Speed Train Subcommittee to represent Palo Alto in meetings with other Peninsula cities,
regional agencies, and the California High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) working meetings with
City staff. The Subcommittee began with three members and was expanded to four members in
late 2009. Current members include Mayor Burt and Council Members Klein (chair), Price and
Shepherd.
On May 18,2009, the City Council adopted Guiding Principles to provide direction to the City's
High Speed Rail Ad Hoc Committee. The Ad Hoc Committee has been working closely with the
Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC) to develop public outreach and education efforts, monitor,
and evaluate High Speed Rail (HSR) activities, and to explore urban design solutions that
consider community values for the HSR project.
The Ad Hoc Subcommittee has been meeting regularly since March and has now scheduled
meetings on a bi-weekly basis in order to stay informed and monitor High Speed Rail (HSR)
activities. The HSR project is a complex, protracted multi-year (and potentially permanent)
project that will require continued oversight and evaluation by the Subcommittee for the
foreseeable future. Since Ad Hoc Committees are defined as being of short duration, it is
appropriate to transition the Ad Hoc HSR Subcommittee to a new Standing Committee of the
City CounciL
For more related information, see agenda item #8 included in this packet for the HSR monthly
update.
CMR: Page 1 of2
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommendations in this report are consistent with existing Council Procedures and Council
policy direction as stated in the Guiding Principles related to the California High Speed Rail
Project.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Because of the importance of this project and the need for the City to be responsive to new
information released by the HSRA, staff will be preparing a budget proposal for the FY 2010-
2011 operating budget that will document the direct staff costs and non-salary expenses that will
be required to support the City Council and HSR Standing Committee oversight activities.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The recommendations in this report do not constitute a project requiring environmental review
under the California Environmental Quality Act.
ATTACHMENTS
A. GuidingPrinciples
PREPARED BY:
GA ELI NS
APPROVED BY:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR: Page 2 of2
ATTACHMENT A
City Council High Speed Rail Subcommittee
Guiding Principles
Adopted May 18, 2009
The City Council High Speed Rail Subcommittee, consisting of four members, is
designated by the City Council to represent the City in public in meetings with
community groups and stakeholders, when speaking to other public agencies, when
providing written correspondence in advocating for legislation related to high speed rail.
The Subcommittee will have the authority to speak on behalf of the City Council at
hearings on short notice when full City Council discussion at a regularly scheduled
Council meeting is not feasible. In such cases the Subcommittee should be guided by
broad principles that are consistent with existing City Comprehensive Plan and adopted
City Council policies.
In order to ensure consistency with existing City Council positions and policies, the
Subcommittee will be guided by the following principles:
• The City is supportive of efforts to improve accountability and effective
governance of high speed rail planning and operations.
• The City advocates advancing economic feasibility analysis and project financing
options by High Speed Rail Governing Body to implement selected alternatives.
• The Ad Hoc committee will work with peninsula cities coalition to draft
Memorandum of Understanding with Caltrain and HSRA and return to full
Council for review and approval.
• The City understands the opportunity to apply for Federal stimulus funding but is
concerned that enough time is allowed for appropriate analysis, public process,
and decision making.
• The City recognizes that High Speed Rail, if done correctly, has the potential to
minimize adverse impacts and be beneficial to the community.
• While acknowledging that the current direction for the San Jose to San Francisco
High Speed Train project is to use the Caltrain right~of-way as the for the high
speed rail corridor between San Jose and San Francisco, the City is open to and
could support alternative alignments.
• The Ad Hoc Committee will be guided by the City of Palo Alto Scoping
Comments for the California High Speed Rail Authority'S San Francisco to San
Jose High Speed Train (HST) Environmental Impact Report/Environmental
Impact Statement (EIRlEIS).
• The City supports Caltrain electrification and improved commuter rail services
between San Francisco and San Jose. The City supports evaluation of operating
conditions along the Caltrain right-of-way that would be conducive to a hiib speed
rail intercity connection in San Jose, with improved Caltrain commuter rail service
between San Jose and San Francisco.
• The City is supportive of exploring creative urban design and use of context-
sensitive design processes that consider community values in collaborative
community-sensitive planning and for the high speed rail project.
• The Subcommittee shall provide monthly reports to the Council on the activities of
the Peninsula cities Consortium.
• The Subcommittee will meet regularly with community leaders and stakeholders
to inform and involve the larger Palo Alto community in the planning, review,
oversight and decision-making for the San Francisco to San Jose HST project.
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 8
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: MARCH 15,2010 CMR:173:10
REPORT TYPE: STUDY SESSION
SUBJECT: Monthly Update on City Activities Related to the California High Speed Rail
Project
RECOMMENDATION
This report is for infonnation only and no action is required.
BACKGROUND
Since passage of Proposition lA in November 2008, approving funds for the High Speed Rail
connection from Los Angeles to San Francisco, the High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) has
initiated environmental and engineering studies for implementation of the train system statewide.
The HSRA consulting team for the San Francisco to San Jose Project Level Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) began work in early 2009.
On May 18, 2009, the City Council adopted Guiding Principles to provide direction to the City's
High Speed Rail Ad Hoc Committee. The Ad Hoc Committee has been working closely with the
Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC) to develop public outreach and education efforts, monitor,
and evaluate HSR activities, and to explore urban design solutions that consider community
values for the high speed rail project.
On August 3, 2009, the Council approved a transfer of Council Contingency in the amount of
$70,000 to fund the a HSR symposium (or Teach-in) in September, a two-day design workshop
in October and retention of outside expertise to provide peer review and analysis of technical
documents including the HSR project alternatives analysis.
On January 25, 2010, the Council authorized a transfer of $88,000 from the Council Contingency
account to fund the FY 2010 Resources Plan for the Ad Hoc Council HSR Subcommittee for: (1)
additional engineering consultant services for the peer review of the Alternatives Analysis for the
San Francisco to San Jose HSR project, (2) outside expertise for peer review ofHSR ridership,
(3) a Sacramento legislative liaison consultant to represent the City'S interests to the State
Legislature, and (4) a one-day symposium on financing of the HSR alternatives and potential
HSR station in Palo Alto.
CMR: Page 10f6
DISCUSSION
This report provides an update regarding activities related to the High Speed Rail project that
have been undertaken at the State and City levels since the last report in January 2010.
Schedule and Council Reports
The schedule established by High Speed Rail staff and its consultants is extremely unpredictable.
The Council's High Speed Rail Subcommittee and staff monitor closely changes to announced
meetings and other activities, however unanticipated changes frequently occur without much
notice. In an effort to provide as much transparency as possible, staff has arranged to broadcast
HSR Subcommittee meetings and to make recordings available via the City'S website. Regular
broadcasts would supplement twice monthly Subcommittee meetings and monthly Council
updates.
San Francisco to San Jose HST Project Alternatives Analysis
The Alternatives Analysis (AA) Report was scheduled to be completed and ready for circulation
and presentation to the HSRA Board on March 4. However, HSRA delayed its released pending
review of the AA by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and now anticipates the report
will be released on April 1, the next HSRA Board meeting date. However, based on recent
experience with HSRA deadlines, this is a fluid situation, with some uncertainty about the actual
release date.
The AA is an important part of the EIRJEIS as it will incorporate conceptual engineering
information, identify and compare the alternatives, and will explain why some alternatives will
be retained while others will be dropped from further study in the EIRJEIS. The AA evaluation
will be based on planning and engineering at a 2% to 4% level of engineering design. This level
of detail may be enough to understand if an alternative can feasibly be constructed and if the
alternative might encounter significant environmental, community, economic and construction-
related impacts. The AA will describe the alternatives based on alignment and vertical profile,
that is, whether the alignment will be below ground, at-grade, or elevated.
The City has retained the engineering firm Hatch Mott MacDonald to conduct an independent
peer review of technical conclusions in the AA, such as tunneling feasibility and other below
grade options, costs, and railroad operations. Hatch Mott is ready to begin their analysis as soon
as the report is issued. The scope of work includes full technical review and participation in
meetings with the Ad Hoc Committee, City Council and a community meeting.
At the unanimous request of the Ad Hoc Committee, in a letter dated February 24, 2010
(Attachment A), the City has also formally requested that HSRA extend the 45 day comment
period for the AA to a total of 90 days in order to provide adequate time for the Council and
community to fully understand the complexities of the alternatives that are identified in this
major milestone report. During this time, the peer review will be prepared and the City will
schedule two community meetings prior to the City Council finalizing its comments on the
report.
The Ad Hoc Committee further directed staff to request that the HSRA and Peninsula Rail
Program (PRP) post the most up-to-date, accurate right-of-way maps for the Caltrain corridor
CMR: Page 2 of6
and the Caltrain Station Footprint study on their respective websites to infonn the public about
the potential right-of-way implications for the Alternatives Analysis and a potential HSR stop in
Palo Alto (Attachment B).
Status of Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR
In August 2008, a group of petitioners filed a lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court
claiming the Authority's Final Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR (PEIR) violated the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in numerous ways. (Town of Atherton, et aI., v.
California High-Speed Rail Authority, et al). The City'S Amicus Curae Brief in support of the
petitioners (Attachment C) details the City'S position on the deficiencies in the PEIR. In
particular, the brief identifies significant environmental impacts on the Peninsula related to land
use compatibility, noise impacts, vibration, and visual aesthetics that were not properly
identified, analyzed, or mitigated in the PEIR
In August 2009, the Court issued a ruling that the program ErR required reVlSlon and
recirculation in the several areas to comply with CEQA related to the San Jose to Gilroy section
and vibration impacts, etc. On December 3,2009, the Authority approved resolution rescinding
the 2008 certification of the Program EIR and related approvals and directed Authority staff to
prepare the necessary revisions to the EIR and circulate them in accordance with CEQA for
public comment. The Authority will consider the revised PEIR and the entire record of material
before making a new decision to certify the revised Final Program EIR.
The Authority is scheduled to release the revise PEIR on March 11,2010 and initiate the 45 day
comment period. Staff will work with the HSR Council Subcommittee and prepare comments
for Council review and approval in early April.
HSRA Business Plan
The 2009-10 State Budget mandated that the HSRA submit an updated Business Plan to the
Legislature by December 15, 2009. The report updated the cost of the project's Phase 1 into
years of construction dollars (rather than current year dollars) and provided an updated financing
plan that takes into account Proposition lA, ARRA stimulus funding, and other funding sources
that were not known last year. The new Business Plan projects approximately 30% lower system
ridership by 2035, higher construction costs, and higher passenger fares based on 83% of the cost
of air travel rather than 50% cost.
On January 12, 2010, the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) released its initial comments to the
Assembly Transportation Commission on the 2009 Business Plan. The LAO found the report
substantially lacking in detail and cited the lack of infornmtion on risk management, including
the risk of incorrect ridership forecasts and the financial risks associated with a flawed funding
plan. The LAO further found the timelines very general and potentially inconsistent and
identified a potential violation of state law associated with the funding plan.
On February 11, 2010, the Mayor sent a letter (Attachment D) to Senator Simitian,
Assemblyman Ruskin, and six other local state legislators outlining the HSR Subcommittee's
concerns about the Business Plan. The Subcommittee, in conjunction with the Peninsula Cities
Consortium, identified a number of deficiencies and flaws in the Business Plan that need to be
CMR: Page 3 of6
addressed and rectified before the project proceeds further. Those issues relate to the inadequate
and fundamentally flawed ridership study, a questionable financing strategy that relies upon
"hoped for" federal funding, and omits key cost elements in the San Francisco to San Jose
segment, and a grossly deficient risk management· plan. These issues and concerns were
presented by Palo Alto Mayor Burt at the Joint Hearing of the Senate Budget Subcommittee #2
on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy and Transportation, and the Senate
Transportation and Housing Committee on January 21 in Palo Alto.
On March 2, 2010, the LAO released new comments on the HSRA budget for 2010-11 and
recommended reducing or withholding funding for contract funding, capital land acquisition, and
staffing levels requested by the HSRA until further supporting information is provided
(Attachment E).
Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS)
The Peninsula Rail Program adopted Context Sensitive Solutions, a dynamic, two-way
collaborative process, to support the active involvement of Peninsula communities in the
planning and design of California High-Speed Rail and Caltrain 2025 projects.
CSS is a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach that involves all stakeholders to develop a
transportation project that fits its physical setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic, and
environmental resources while maintaining safety and mobility. CSS helps communities,
stakeholders, and project sponsors collaborate to achieve feasible solutions that meet community
and project goals. The process offers an opportunity for the community and the design team to
define key values, priorities, measures of success, and context considerations.
The PRP has prepared a CSS Toolkit which will guide the process, however the release of the
toolkit has also been delayed by HSRA. When the toolkit becomes available, staff will be
reviewing it and working with the CSS stakeholder representatives from Palo Alto to follow the
process.
Ad Hoc HSR Subcommittee Activities
The Council Ad Hoc Committee continues to meet every two weeks and has focused much of its
efforts on working with the other peninsula communities that are potentially impacted by high
speed rail. Mayor Burt has appointed Council Members Klein, Price, and Shepherd to serve with
him on the committee this year.
The HSR project is a multi-year project that will require continuation of the Subcommittee for
the foreseeable future. Since Ad Hoc Committees are defined as being of short duration,
typically one year or less, it is appropriate to transition the Ad Hoc HSR Subcommittee to a new
Standing Committee of the City Council. City Council's agenda tonight (3/15) contains a
consent calendar item (#7) which converts the Subcommittee to a Standing Committee.
Mayor Burt also represents Palo Alto on the Peninsula Cities Consortium (PCC). The PCC
continues to engage various community groups organized around the potential impacts of high
speed rail to coordinate local, statewide, and national legislation. The PCC cities are also
considering jointly sharing costs for technical expertise, as well as considering entering into a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Peninsula Rail Project.
CMR: Page 4 of6
Sacramento Legislative Liaison Update
The City has retained Ravi Mehta of Capitol Advocates to provide legislative liaison and
advocacy services in Sacramento on High Speed Rail issues. Mr. Mehta is tracking all
legislation that directly or indirectly impact the HSR project. Mr. Mehta has provided a
legislative update (Attachment F) on the most recent legislation of concern.
Of particular concern are a series of bills that have been introduced that would exempt projects
selected by the Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency from judicial review pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Since CEQA legislation was enacted into
law in 1970, and required state and local agencies to identify and disclose the significant
environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. CEQA
statutes have assured full public scrutiny and input on the environmental impacts ofprojects and
judicial recourse.
At the direction of the HSR Subcommittee, staff is working with Capitol Advocates to oppose
any legislation which would diminish or circumvent the current protections or in any way create
exemptions from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and court review for major
infrastructure projects each year, including but not limited to the California High Speed Rail
Project. Staff will prepare letters to our local legislators recommending support, opposition or
continued monitoring of each bill.
Next StepslPlaJ:Jl1ed Activities
The schedule for local PCC and City Council meetings is provided as Attachment G.
The next milestones for the Project are:
Issue of Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR -March 11, 201 0
Issue of Alternatives Analysis Report -early April 2010
Draft EIRJEIS -First Quarter of2011
Final EIRIEIS End of2011
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommendations in this report are consistent with existing Council policy direction related
to the California High Speed Rail Project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The recommendations in this report do not constitute a project requiring environmental review
under the California Environmental Quality Act.
ATTACHMENTS
A. February 24,2010 letter to HRSA re Extension of Comment Period for the San Francisco
to San Jose HST Project EIR
B. March 2,2010 letter to HSRA/PRP re Caltrain Corridor Right-of-Way Maps and Station
Footprint Study
C. Amicus Curae Brief
D. February 11,2010 letter to State Legislators re HSR Business Plan
CMR: Page 5 of6
E. Excerpt from March 2,2010 Legislative Analyst's Office 2010-11 Transportation Budget
Analysis
F. Legislative Update Memorandum from Capitol Advocates
G. Letter dated March 3,2010, to Mayor Pat Burt from Peninsula Rail Program
PREPARED BY: ~a...--£<&u..aJ
GAYLE IKENS
APPROVED BY:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR: Page 6 of6
ATTACHMENT A
February 24, 2010
Dominic Spaethling, Regional Manager
California High Speed Rail Authority
925 L Street, Suite 1425
Sacramento, CA 95814
~~J:x Q!_r~<?_M!Q
Office of the City Manager
FAX Transmittal 916-322-0827
Re: Request for Ninety Day Comment Period for San Francisco/San Jose HST Project
Alternatives Analysis
Dear Mr. Spaethling:
The City wishes to thank you and your project team for meeting with the City Council High
Speed Rail Subcommittee and community members on February 9, 2010 regarding the pending
release of the Alternatives Analysis for the San Francisco to San Jose Project EIR/EIS on March
4, 2010. The Subcommittee looks forward to the opportunity to provide input to the California
High Speed Rail Authority on the Alternatives Analysis.
The Subcommittee finds, however, that the limited 45 day comment period is highly constraining
for review and evaluation of such a major report. By unanimous action on February 16, the
Subcommittee voted to request that HSRA extend the comment period by approximately forty-
five (45) days, for a total 90 day comment period. The extended period is necessary to 1) fully
understand the complexities of the alternatives that are identified, and 2) better inform the Palo
Alto community about the content and findings of the Alternatives Analysis, including holding 2
community meetings after the March 15 presentation by HSRA staff to the City Council. The
City believes this outreach will best serve the community of Palo Alto and the HSRA by
providing more cohesive and thoughtful comments on the Alternatives Analysis and its
implications for Palo Alto.
Thankyou for considering this request, and please let us know as soon as possible whether the
deadline wiIl b~ extended. If you or others have questions, please feel free to contact me or City
Manager James Keene.
l:£:L STEVr;:~~~
Deputy City Manager
cc: City Council
Mehdi Morshed, HSRA
Robert Doty, Peninsula Rail Project
James Keene, City Manager
Printed with soy-based iolt-=. no wor'J.., TPrvdpo nan¥f nrnrpssed without chlorine
p.G. Box 10250
PaloAlto,CA 94303
650.329.2563
650.325.5025 fax
ATTACHMENTB
March 2, 20 I 0
Dominic Spaethling, Regional Manager and
California High Speed Rail Authority
925 L Street, Suite 1425
Sacramento, CA 95814
Ci~ of Palo Alto
Office of the City Manager
FAX Transmittal 916-322-0827
. 650-508-6365
Robert Doty, Program Director
Peninsula Rail Program
1250 San Carlos Avenue
San Carlos, CA 94705
Re: Caltrain Corridor Right-of-Way Maps and Station Footprint Study
Dear Mr. Spaeth ling and Mr. Doty:
The City of Palo Alto wishes to thank you for directing us to the link on the Caltrain HSR
Compatibility Blog (http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/) containing the 2007 Caltrain corridor
right-of-way maps. This link has also been posted on the CAARD website.
However, in order to ensure that this information is accurate and valid, we request that the
Peninsula Rail Program (PRP) verify the validity of these maps by posting them officially on the
Caltrain PRP and the California High Speed Rail Project (HSRA) websites. Ifthese are no longer
current, we request that the most up-to-date maps be posted on these websites.
On a related matter, Palo Alto requests that the PRP post the documents related to the Caltrain
Station Footprint Study on its website as well. This infonnation is not available online at the
present time. Although this study only covered San Mateo County stations, it would be valuable
for the City of Palo Alto to review in anticipation of the upcoming HSRA station study for a mid-
peninsula high speed train stop.
Thank you for your attention to these requests and we look forward to a favorable response.
Deputy City Manager
cc: City Council
James Keene, City Manager
HSR Ad Hoc Committee
l/rinted with soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper process~d without ch10rine
P.O Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
6.'30.329.2563
650.325.5025 fax
ATTACHMENT C
I ARTHUR. F. COON (Bar No. 124206)
~cC!l,com .
2 ICRlSTlNA DANIEL LAWSON (Bar No. 221131)
3 ~.WRBGALIA
Exempt from Filing Feu Pursuant to
Government Code. § 6/03
A Professional Law Corporation
4 1331 N. California Blvd., Fifth FJoor
Poat Omce Box 8177
S Walnut Creek, California 94596
. ToJ~e:92S93S 9400
6 FacsJl'oiJe: 925 935 9400
1 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
CITY OF PALO ALTO
~LED/E1tDORSED
'-~~
MAY -1 2009
A J
By: _---J.T_~C=AL:2AU~S~TR~t'IJ:.~'f/--~ ____ ~~=~I~o/=CIU='k~ _____ ~
8
9
10
11
12
13
24
15
16
17
18
19
10
SUPBRIOR COURT OF THB STATE OF CALJPORNIA
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
TOWN OF ATHERTON, a Municipal
Corporation, PLANNING AND
CONSERVATION· LEAGUE, a California
ftoupJOfit co~ration, CITY OF MBNLO .
PARK, •• MuDicipal Co~ration,
TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS
DEPBNSB AND EDUCATION FUND, a
California nonpofit corporation,
CALIPORNIA RAIL POUNDATION, a
California nonprofit corpofllioft. and
SA YRAIL ALLIANCE, • Califomia
nonprofit ~ation, and other similarly
situated entitles,
Petitioners and Plaintiffs,
v.
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL
21 AtmlORlTY, a public entity, and DOES
1-20,
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CO'A'O'0717Uf14U
Respondents and
Defondant$.
~cNo.34-2008-80000022
AMICUS CUIUAE BRIEF OF THE CITY OF
PALO ALTO IN SUPPORT OF
PETITIONERS' VERIFIBD PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT
FOR1NJUNCTIVB AND DECLARATOR.Y B.BLIEF I
BY FAX
Dato Complaint Filed: August 8, 2008
Trial Date: May 29, 2009
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OP THE crrv OF PALO ALTO
,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IN'TRODUCTION .................................................................................. , ••••.•.•...•...................•.. 1
RELBV ANTPBNINSULA ... RELA TED FACTS AND BACKGROUND ......................... 2
.ARGUMENT ..... , ................... , ...................................................... ~ •••••........•. J> .......................... 4
. A. THB SECOND PBIR IS INADEQUATE. AS IT FAILS TO COMPLY
WITH CBQA'S MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR ElKS ......................... 4
1. Program BIRs Must Ct)ver The ·Same General Content as Project
Bma .................... ~ ................................................................................... ~ ....•... 4
2. If An lDad~uate Program BIR Is Certified, Its Inadequacies Wi11
Infect AU PUIuIe Tiers or Bnviromnental Review ..................................... S
B. THE SECOND PBIR's PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS INADEQUATE ............... S
C. THE SBCOND PEIR. DOBS NOT ADEQUATELY IDBNTIFY.
ANALYZB, OR MITIGATB THE PBNlNSULA-RBLATBD
EN'V'mONMBmAL JMPACfS C;>P ~ HST .+ •• , ..................... t •••••••••••••••••• ~ ••••••• 6
I. The Project WiIIlWuIt In Sipificant Land Use Compatibility
hnpacts Not Properly Identified, Analyzed. or Mitipted In the
s.econd PBJR.. .......................................................................... t .. t ............................................. 8
2. . I The Project Willa_ul. In SipificlI1t Noise Impacts Not Properly .
Identified, Analyzod, or Mitigated In The SecondPSIR ............................ 9
3.
4.
The Project Will Result In Sipificant Vibration Impacts Not
PIoperJy Identified, Analyzed, or Mitigated In the Second PEIR ............. I 1
The Project Win R.sult In Sipificant AestbotirJVisual Resources
Impacts Not Properly Identified, Analyzed. or Mitigated In the
Second. PBlR. ••••. ,. .............................................................. , ...••.••.•..••.•........• 11
CONCLUSION ..................... " ......................................... " ..••.••.• , ......................................... " ...... 12
.j.
AMICUS CURIAE BlUm: OF nu~ CITY OF PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
. TABLE OF AUTHORITIU
PaeN>
AI Larson Boal Shop, Inc. v. Bd. 0/ Commissionera 0/ the City o/Long Beach
5 (1993)
18Cal.App .4th 729 .. , ................................................................................................. , .............. 4
6
7
8
9
Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Board 01 Port Comm 'n (2001) .
91 Cal.App.4t111344 ................................. * .................. ~ ................. I ••••••• '"' .......................... ~ •••• ~ •••••••• 10, 11
Co,?, C~~~;dCfft~~.~~~~~~ .. ~~~:.?~ .............................................................................. S. 6
In ,e BtI)",Delta Programmalic EnvironmenlalImpaet Report Coordintlled
10 Proceedings (2008)
43 Cal.4t111143 •.... ,., ............ , ........... , .. ,. ............................................................................................... , .. 7
11
12
13
14
15
16
K08~; &~;~:t fr..~~~!~~.~~~~~ ........................................................................................... S
Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents 0/ the University 0/ California
(1988) . .
47 Cal. 3d 376 ................................................... "' ............................. " ........ , ••..•..••.. , .. " .. , ............................. 4, 7
Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus (1996)
48 Cal.App.4th 182 ......................................................................................... 1 ......................... 7
17 IIAIVIIS
18 PubUo Resources Code
19 Sections 21000 et seq ...... , .. , ....... , ...............................................•...•... t ................................................. 1
. Section 210113.9 ........................ "' .......•..•• , .................................................... ~ ... " ..••..••...•..••••••......• (:)
20'" "Sect jOn 21()9:2.4 ..... ; ••.. · ................................ ~ .••...•..•••.••.. t ............. , ............................................... " •••••• 6
Section 2J093_ subd.(a) ..................................... " ........ ~ ........................ t ••• "" •••••••••• ., •••••••• , .................. 4
21 Section 2100'4. suM (a) ......... : ........... , ................................................................. ., ............................ S
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PDlIBaUTHORITIES
14 Califomia Code of Regulations
Section IS064, subd,. (d)(I) ...... ~ ................. , ................................................. , ..... : ............................. 10
S~tion 15083, suM (b) .................................................................................................... : ........... 6
Section 15086 ............ , ................................................................................................................ , .••.•. 6
Sections 15120 -lS132 •••••..•••••..• , •.•......••••. , ....................................................................................... 4
Section 15125. subd. (d) ....................................................................................................... 8.9
Section 15126.4, subd. (a)(I)(O) ............................................................................................ l2
Section 15143 ......... "'._ .............................. " ..•.... , ................. " .......... , ............................... , ....... 'I> ............ ~ .. 10
Section 15144 ............................ ,. ..................................... , ....................................... _ .... , ......... : ........ " 9, 11
·ii· .
AMICUS CURIAE BlUEr OF THIl CITY OF PALO Al.TO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
fO
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE ~F A!!jORlTIES contm ) hal')
Section 15152, suttd. (b) ................•.•...••.....••.••••..••.••...•..•.•.•.•••.•.....•.•....•..•........•...•....•.•.••..••.••• 7
Section lS16S ................. ~ ............................................................................................................. I
SCction 151·68_ 8UW. (a) •.. , ........................ " ........ " .••.•...•..••...••...•... ,. ............................... t ••••••••••• t1.4
Section ·15169, subc1.(b.)(4) ........ ".'# .... iI! .......................... t ••••••••••••••••••• .,.1> •••••••••••••••••••• , ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 4
Sec:tion 15382 •..•.........••••........ : .......................................... , .......................................................... 10
Section 1.5384 .•.•.....• ~ .................................................... " .. " .......................... ~ ..... ,' ..... It •• 1t ••••••• , •••••••••••• S
COPA\47107\7I1fiMfl -lIi-
AMICUS CURlAB BRIEF OF THB CITY 0' PALO ALTO
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 In 2004, Respondent CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUIHORITY
3 ("CHSRA" or "Respondent'') first attempted to comply with the Califomia Bnvironmental
4 Ql.l8lity Act ("CEQA"; Pub. ResoW'Ce.a Code, f§ 21000 et seq.) through a Draft Systemwide
5 Prosram BlRIEIS (the "2004 PEm!,), which pwported to analyze the significant environmental
6 impacts of a proposed high-speed train system (the "JIST' or "Project"). When legal deficiencies
7 in the 2004 PBJR were identified, instead of correcting those deficiencies, CHSRA took the easy
8 . way out -it simply deleted. the non...compliant sections of the 2004 PBJR. and tabled its
9 consideration of the portion of the Project for which CEQA review was consequently incomplete •
. 10 Then, in an interesting and novel twist on CBQA~s tieringprocess.1 CHSRA
11 directed its staff to prepare a second~ program-level onvironmonta1 impact report (the "Second
12 pBJRt,) to evaluate the previously deleted portions of the Project, and identify a preferred
13 alignment for tbe HST "within the broad corridor betWeen and including the Altamont Pass and
14 the Pacheco Pass ... connecting the San Francisco Bay Area to the Central ValJey and project level
IS studies considering preferred alignment and station locations'" (AR 0OOO209i However, when
16 the draft Second PElR was 11"easOO, careful review of the document revealed that CHSRA had
17 . expanded its scope to include the portion of the HST that would traverse the San Francisco
18 Peninsula (the "Peninsula''). Like the 2004 PE~ the Second PBIR fails to comply with CEQA's
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
mandatory enviromncntal review requirements.
The question presented in, this case is whether CHSRA complied with its
mandatory duty to scrupulously foHow CEQA. Without question. it did not. More detailed
infonnation was available to CHSRA regarding the impacts of the Project on the Peninsula. and it
, AlDicul PALO ALTO caa ODd no legal bub or au.borizatlon In CEQA or .... e CEQA
GuideD ... for tile pnparatlo. of. lecoad, Pl'OJI'a.levei ElK rer tile ..... e project. Section
15168 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that: "A pl'OJl'8lll BIR is an EIR which may be prepared
on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. •. " (14 Cal. Code Regs.,
§ 15 168, subd. (8).) Here, instead of preparing a single program BIR for a series of actions that
can be characteri2ed as _large project~ the CHSRA has spUt the Project into two separate parts,
and has prepared a program BIR. for each separate part. This latctal environmental review
frocess is unauthorized by CEQA. (See also 14 Cal. Code Regs., § lSI6S.)
The Administrative Record prepared by Respondent is cited herein in the fonn "AR Xnnnnnn."
X indicates the section, and nnnnnn indicates the page nwnber.
COPA".,eo1\166S49.l .}.
AMlCUS CURlAB BRIEf OP THE errv OF PALO ALTO
1 was possible for CHSRA to obtain it. This infonnation was absolutely necessary for CHSRA to
2 make a fully informed decision about the environmental consequences of its action.
3 Tile ~DseqlleDees of ano"iIll CHSRA to proceed with the Project based 00 a
4 delicleDt progfa. BfR .re substaatial. Because C.BQA autllorJzes f.ture ovir.melltal
S review to Uer off of program level docllmeDtI, If tbls Court does Dot reqaire Secoad PEIR's
6 defideades to be corretted, those deRcleaeles wJlllDfeet all future levels of eDviroDmeatal
7 review for tbe Project.
8 II. RlLEV ANI PENINSULA-RELATED FACTS AND BACKGROUND
.9 CHSRA prepared md circulated the 2004 PSIR to evaluate three transit system
10 alternatives: (1) a no project alternanve. (2) a highway andaitpOrt expansion alternative, and (3)
11 the HST. (AR B003869.) In response to comments resardinl the adequacy of the 2004 PSIR, "
12, CHSRA deleted an entire section &om the 2004 PBIR.. (petitioners' Openina Brief ("PBtl
), 6: 1 S-
13 18.) This deleted section had defectively evaluated only one route for the HST ,between the
14 CentraJ Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area: the PachecQ Pass alignment. (PB, 6: 6·22.)
15 Instead oftakins the extra time to study any alternative route. CHSRA simply deferred complete
16 enviromnental evaluation oltho Central Valley to San Francisco Bay Area alignment to a later
17 date. (AR 0000209.)
J 8 NotwithstandinS that CBQA docs nQt contemplate the preparation of multiple
19 program*level ElRs for tile same "large project," in 2007 CHSRA prepared and circulated the
20 Second PEIR for the portion of the proposed Project previously deleted from the 2004 PBIR.
21 Consistent witb the direction CHSRA provided at the 'time the 2004 PBIR was
22 certified, and consistent with the Notice of Preparation, many interested parties believed that the
23 limited purpose of the Second PElIt was to evaluate environmental impacts associated with the
24 Pacheco and Altamont Pass aJignments. (AR. G000209.) This belief was confmned by reference
2.5 to the "Bay Area'to Central Valley Conidor" map included as Figure 1.1 ~ 1 in the final Second
26 PEIR. (AR B003870.) Th~ a hatched area between tbe Pacheco and Altamont Passcs was
27 described as the "Possible Alignment Area. tr (Ibid.) This batched area did not oxtend up the
28 Peninsula into the City and County of San Francisco. Notably, even the brief filed by CHSRA
COPAIA'80'1\766849.2
AMICUS CURIAe DRlBF OF nlE CITY OF PALO ALTO
1 evidences a general understanding that the purpose of the Second PEIR was to evaluate
2 environmental impacts associated with the Pacheco and Altamont Pass alignments. (See
3 Respondent's Opposition Brief ("RB''), I! 12--13 ["The Authority used a fll'st~tier, program EIR to
4 focus on the br.~ad differences between the Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass in order to choose
S betWeen them. '1; RB, 4: 16-19 [" ... The Authority directed staff to prepare a new prognun EJR
6 focused on the northern mountain crossing. rr'; RD, 12: 11 .. 12 (pmpose of second program EIR.
7 was 'fto choose the northern mountain crossing to connect the HST between the Bay Area and the
8 Central Valley:'].) When the drift Second PEIR was released., CHSRA held eight public
9 hearinas -none ofwmcb were located in PALO ALTO or other Peninsula cities. (See RB, S: 13 ..
10 14, th. 1.)
11 Upon a close and detailed review of the text of the volwninous Second PEIR., it is
12 . clear its scope is much greater than believed. According to the 8eJf~deseribed "Alternatives"
13 section of the Second PEIR., the document analyzes the environmental impacts associated with
14 «[sJix Unear geograpbic belts or bands being considered for the HST system that connect different
IS pw·ofthe study region." (AR B003898.) One of these "belts or bands·' extends up the
16 Peninsula from the City of San Jose into the City and County of San Francisco. (See AR
17· BOO3934.) Actual station locations on the Peninsula were identified on FiguJ'C 2.5-1, including a
18 potential station within the jurisdictional boundaries ofP ALO ALTO. (AR BOO3940.) The "San
19 Fnmcisco to San Jose'· alignment and station locatioDB options were described in detail as
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"(oUows:
COfA'of710T\166.4' 1
• Cal1rain AJipnent (Shgred .. Use Four .. Track); From San Francisco, this
alipment alternative would follow south along the Caltrain rail alipment
to Dumbarto~ and from there to San Jose. This alisnment assumes that the
HST system would share tracks with Caltrain oommuter trains. The entire
alipment would be gr.ade separated. Station location options would
include a station in the lower level of the proposed new Transbay Transit
Center in San Francisco or a station at 4th and King Streets, a station in
Millbrae to serve SFO, and a station in either Redwood City or Palo Alto.
The Caltrain shared-usc alianment would take advantage-of the existing
rail inftastmQturc and would be mostly at grade.
• I_sbU Ttansit Cm1eri The potential station location would serve ahe
Caltrain sharedwuse alignment. a downtown terminal station.
• 4th and Kins: This potential station location would serve the Caltrain
shared-use four-track alignment as a downtown tennioal station.
.3-
AMICUS CURIAE BRIBF OF THB CITY Of PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• MUlbm: This potential station would SClVe as a connection with SFO.
• Redwood City: 1bis potential station loCation would provide accC8sibility
and serve the population between San Jose and San Francisco,
• Palo AIm: This pOtential station location would provide accessibility and
serve the population between San Jose and San Francisco.
(AR BOO39S3·BOO39S4; see also AR BOO3958.)
Despite receiving nUDlCfOUS letters pointing out that the Second PEIR failed to
comply with many of CEQAts II'l&ndatory requirements, the final Second PEIR was certified by
CHSRA on July 9, 2008. (AR AOOOOO2.)
III. ABGUMENT
A. THE SECOND PElR IS lI!APEOUATI, AS ITFAJLS TO COWLX
WITH ClQA'S MANDATORY RlOYIREMENTS Ji'OR EIRS •.
1. '"&ram Elas MUlt C.ver 'he Sail!! Geller.1 Co.,,,, ••
Despite w.bat CRSRA would have the Court believe, CEQA '. c •• teat
requiremeDts for progrllm ElBa are DO dlffereDt diu CEQA'. eODteDt requtrements for
pIVIJed EIRs. (See 14 Cal. Code Regs., §f 1 S 12() -1 S 132; AI Larson Boat Shop. Inc. v. Bd. of
Commissioners of the City of Long Beach (1993) 18 CaI.App.4th 729, 741 ["All BIRs muSlcover
. the same general content.,,].)3 A program EIR is simply a $pOCiaJ type ofBIR, "which may be
prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. n (14 Cal. Code
Regs., § 15168, subd,(a).) Program .ElRs allow government agencies -such 88 the CHSRA -to
"consider broad paUcy alternatives and program wide mitisation measures .. ,n (14 Cal .. Code
Regs., § IS169, subd.(b)(4).} The purpose of the optional plV&f8II1 EIR process is to simplify
later environmental review, (See Pub. ResoUJCos Code, § 21093, subd.(a); AI Larson Boot Shop.
Inc. v. Bd. of Commissioners of the City of Long Bedch, supra. 18 Cal.App.4th at 741.)
3 While the courts have not detennined whether the Ouidelhiea are ni!gulatory mandates or only
aids in interpretiDB CEQA, " .•. courts should afford great weight to the Guidelines except when a
provision is olearly unauthorized or enoneous under CBQA." (Laurel Heiglltslmprovemetll
Assn. v. Regents of the University ofCalifomkl (1988) 47 CaI.3d 376, 391, fit. 2; sec also
nneyard ArflQ Citizens for Responsible G1'OW11t. Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova. supra, 40
Cal.4th at 428t fn. 5.)
COPAW7SOn7&5I".2 -4-
AMICUS CURIAB BRJB.P OF me CITY Of PALO ALTO
1 2. HAD Inadequate 'rolEam ElK Is CertU1edt Its IDgdeqyasl!s
.'
2 Wig lar". All Future Tiers Of EgyJroPDlFata. RevlllL
3 CEQA contemplates a If tiered" environmental r~view process, whereby agencies
4 can ~opt program EIRs focusia,s on the ''big picture" and can then use streamlined CEQA
S review for future projects that are consistent with the already reviewed biS picture plans. (Koster
6 v. County of San Joaquin (996) 41 Cal.App.4th 29, 36.} Later prepared EIRs fer .p.cllle
7 preject. are exeused from repeating the analysis of the eDvitoamea.lllsDes aDalyzed. .. tb.
S previous prOiram EIR. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21094, subd. <a); 14 Cal. Code Regs., §
9 15384.} By using CEQA's tiered environmental review process, CHSRA can limit fUture, site·
IO specific environmental review by excluding cm:tain issues ftom analysis in later CEQA
11 documents.
12 The importance of a proper CBQA tiering process in this case is paramount.
13 Because future site-specific BIRs wi)) necessarily be more limited in focus than the Second PEIR,
14 and will rely upon the Second PEIR for analysis of certain issues, it is vital that the Second PEIR
1 S . be legally adequate and comply with all of CEQA '8 mandatory requirements. (Se6, e.g., Koster v.
16 County of San Joaquin (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th29, 41-42.) IfCHSRA is to adequately analyze
17 the site-specific environmental consequences of the Project in the future, it must remedy the
18 deficiencies and inadequacies of the Second. PElR, so thosc problems are not allowed to infect
19 future CEQA documents.
20' B. THE pCON» PEIR's Paon;cr DESCRIPTION IS
21 INAPEOVATE.
,
22 "An &(leurate, stable, and finite project description is the sine qua non of an
23 infonnative and legally sufficient BIR.. t. (County olInyo \I, City of Los Angelea (1977) 71
24 Cal.App.3d 18S. 193.) Here, CHSRA (eferred to the Project conrrid.ered in the Second PBIR
25 differently in different parts of the Second PBJR. In fact, CHSRA also referred to th~ Project
26 differently in many of the documents prepared in comection with the Second PBIR.
27 Respondent's counsel also refers to the Project differently throughout its brief. As a result, the
28 Second PEIR's project description is unstable and inadequate.
AMICUS CURIAE 8R1BF OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
1 Pursuant to Resolution No. OS-<> I of CHSRA, the Second PEIR was supposed to
2 . analyze: C' ••• 8 preferred alignment within the broad conidor between and including the Altamont
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Pass and the Pacheco Pass for the HST SyStem segment connecting the San Francisco Bay Area
.'
to the Central Valley ... H (AR GOOO209.) The document that resulted -the Second PBIR ... does
not focus exclusively on this iuue. Instead, the Second PBIR also identifies a specific alignment .
for the HST on the Peninsula., and selects specific station locations on the Peninsula.
The first time a reader of the Second PBIR becomes aware of the true scope of the
project evaluated in the Second PBIR is upon review of the "Alternatives·' chaptor. In that
section, the Peninsula alignment is revealed for the first time. (See AR B003898·AR B0039'77.)
The repeated inconsistencies in describing the project evaluated in the Second PEIR. confused the
pubJic and local agencies. thus vitiating the usefulness of CEQA' s environmental review process.
(CountyofJnyov. CityoluaAngelestsup1'a, 71 Cal.App.3dat 197-198.)
"-
The seneral public was further coDfUaed by the fact that Dot ODe of the seopibl
14 . SessiObS was beld 18 aDy oftbe Pealasula dUes between San Jose ad Sao PraDcIKo. (AR
1S 8000002.) Additional misunderstanding resulted when Dot Obe of the plabDe hearlDII OD the
l(i dnft SKond PEIB was beld OD tbe PeDta.ala. (AR BOOIOS3.) Santa Clara County and all
.7 . Pea •• ul. cities were eODspicaously abseat from the Outr,.eh Before Drift Progn ..
J 8 EIRIEIS process. CHSRA also did not consult· with local agencies located on the Peninsula
19 during the Icoping process. (AR Booms.)
20
2]
22
13
24
2S
26
27
28
c. THE PCQNO,PEIIDON NOT AQEOUATILXWEN1'llf.
ANA!.'DI. OR MITIGATE THE PENINSULA-RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS OF THE HSI.
Respondent flatly contends that it need not fully identify, analyze, or mitigate
significant environmental impacts that the HST will cause on the Peninsula because the Second
• Section 15083 of the CEQA Guidelines suggests that early consultation with local agencies is an
effective way to resolve concerns of affected aaencies. (14 Cal. Code Regs •• § 15013, aubel. (b).)
Further, section 15086 of thoCEQA Ouidelina requires a lead agency to consult with and
request comments on a draft EDt tiom all localaJeBcles which have jurisdiction bylaw with
respect to the project, or which exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the
project, and any city within which the project is located. (14 Cal. Code Rep., § 15086.; see also
Pub. Resourees Code, §f 21083.9, 21092.4/requiring consultation with toca1 agenoies in
cormectioD wi1h taU projects and projects 0 reponal or statewide signi(acance).)
COPA't4,"'I\1I6I49.2 . -6-
AMICUS CURIAB BRIU OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO '
1 PEIR is a progr'ant EIR, Respondent indicates it was "nol ready to tackle [] site-specific issues,"
2 (RB,36: 19) despite that it was ready to approve (and actually did approve) a specific well-
3 defined PeninsulaaIignment, jne1uding specific rail station locations. (See AR AOOOOOl-
4 AOOOOO4.) Contrary to RC8pondent~s unsupported contention that applicable case law permits
S CHSRA to defer proper consideration of environmental impacts if the "level of detail" required to
6 be considered is "overwhelming/' (RB~ 36: 19-20) where speeUle sites bave bee. selected for
7 proposed develOpment. aud wlatre ially ... of eavlroDmeDtal.lmp8etll. bot .. practicable
8 .ad feasible, CEQA wlthout eseeptlcm requires sucla analysts to he cond"cud. (In re Bay-
9 Delta Programmatic, Environmental Impact Rtlpon Coordinattld Proceedings (2008) 43 Cat4th
10 1 t 43, It 73; see also Stanislaus Natural Htlr/lagtl Project v. COURty 0ISton/slous (1996) 48
1 t Cal.App.4tb 182, 199.) Because CHSRA actually selected a Peninsula alignment, and station
12 locations, it was required to fully identify. analyze. and mitigate all Peninsula-related
] 3 environmental impacts from that specific alignment and those specific stationa.
14 Respondents specifically contend that a properly prepared program EIR. contains
15 ''more limited analysis and mitigation·' than a project BIR. (RB,34: IS.) Such limited analysis is
1 ~ not authorized by CEQA or by the CBQA Guidelines. 'Tierml-does Dot .:leus. the lead aleney
17 from adequately aa81yllal reponable foreseeable slpIDeant envJroDme.t.1 effects of the
18 proJect ... •• (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15152. subd. (b).) ··An BIR m1.lSt include detail SUfficient to
19 enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully
20 --the issues raised by the proposed project." (Laurel Heigbtslmprovement Ass 'n v. Regents of the
21 University of California, supra, 47 Cal.3d at 405.)
22 The Second PEm ~ identify the specific location of the proposed HST alons
i3 the Peninsula, and actually identifies station locatiOD8. These are nol simply broad or seneral
24 ffpolicY·decisions, but actual pJans for a specific rail system. The decision made by CHSRA on
25 July 9,2008 was a material step in selectins the Project', Peninsula route and station locations.
26 (AR AOOOOOl.AOOO004.) Because specific sites have been selected for proposed development,
27 and because analysis oftbe environmental impacts associated with the identified sites and
28 . alignment is practicable at this time, CBQA requires Buch analysis to be conducted.
(;OPA\l7101\7Ge •• u ·7·
AMICUS CUlUA6 BIUBP OF TH8 CITY OF PALO ALTO
•
1 1. The PEgl. Will Res,lt la SlgplfieJpt Laad Use «;2lDPatibJljty
2 (mpa. Not PrGperly IcJgtlfled, AIlaJrad, or MIJ'cattd Ip tlJe Semd rlIR.
3 Two Peninsula cities submitted lengthy comments regarding the sipifieant land
• 4 use compatibility impacts that would result from the HST. (See. e.g., AR B006S30, BOO6S17.)
S Notwithstanding these identified land use compatibility impacts, the Second PBIR concluded
6 there would be KJliJh"land use compatibility because the alignment was "[c]ompatible with
7 existina Caltrain corridor!' (AR B004184-B00418S.) Apparently, CHSRA determined that the
8 only issue with respect to land use compatibiHty is whether or not a train already exist. in the
·9 area. CBQAdemands much more.
l() Section 15125(11) oithe CEQA Ouidelinesmandates that: "An Em. shan discuss
11 any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans and regional
12 plans." (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15125, subd.. (d).) Thepu!pose of this discussion is to enable a
13 lead agency to find wa)lS to modify a project to reduce inconsistencies.
14 Remarkably, although the Second PBIR says it includes a discussion of potential
15 inconsistencies with land use plans, no such discussion is actually CODtained in the Second PBIR.
16 (AR 8004164.) Review of the Second PElRreveals that CHSRA only considered the existing
17 land use designations of property within the Peninsula alignmeal and did not consider other
18 glaring incompatibility and inconsistency issues. (AR B004165.) In fact, the Second PEIR' s
19 woefully inadequate land use compatibility discussion for the entire Peninsula alignment is
ZO. . Qantained in the followjpg thrc:e (3) selltences:
.21
22
23
24
25
The San l7ranciaco to Dumbarton alignment altomative would be
hishly compGtlble with existing land US" because it would be
conSIrUcteci primarily within the malin, Caltrain conidor. Grade
separatiODS along tho alisnm_ altomative would entail the
conversion of residential and nonresidential property ... The land use
compatibility for the Dumbadon to San lose aJipment alternative
would be the same as the San Francisco to Dumbarton alipment
alternative.
26 (AR B00419S. emph. added.) This quotation makes clear that CHSRA failed to sufficiently
27 evalUate the impact of applicable land use plans. CBQA does not mefely require an evaluation of
28 whether a project is consistent with existing land uses -CEQA also reCluires aD evaluatioD .f
CO'A .... 71107\'I1I6 ... 9.2 -8-
AMICIJS CURIAE 8R1BF OF 'mE CITY OF PALO ALTO
1 . whether a project Is consisteDt wltb a,pUcable "ad useplR",. (14 Cal Code Regs., § 15125,
2 subd.(d).}
3 For the Peninsula station locations, the Second PEIR's analysis is similarly
4 deficient. (ARB004195.) Again, the Second PBIR answers the question whether the HST is
S consistent with existing land uses at the separate station sites, but faUs entirely to address the
6 additional question CBQA requires to be answered -whether the project is cOnBistent with
7 applicable land use plans. (14.)
8 CHSRA simply ignores that CBQA requires it to "use its best efforts to find out
9 and disclose an that it reasonably can" in its EIR. (14 Cal. Code Rep., § 15144.) Ataminimum,
J 0 CHSRA was required to identify the general and regional plans applicable to the Project on the
11 Peninsula,' and to discuss m inconsistencies between those plana and the Project. CHSRA',
12 failure to include such a discussion in the Second PBIR renders the document useless for
13 infonnational purposes jn this regard, and inadequate under CBQA.
14 Perhaps even more alannjng for the public and Poninsula4 area officials, is the
1 S manner in which tho Second PBIR unlawfully proposes to limit analysis in future, ~ond-ticr,
16 project-specific environmental documents. As set forth on page 3.7 .. 42 of the Second PBIR:
17 "Pro;ect·level review wOIlJd consider consistency with existing and planned land usc,
18 neighborhood access needs, and multi-modal connectivity issues." (ARB004207.) In essenoe,
19 CHSRA reads section 1512S(d) right out oithe CEQA Guidelines. and proposes to limit future
20· -. discussion to onl}rthtee separate land use-relatc.;Hssues, to the -exclusion of all others.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. TIle ProJest Wig Besult 1M Slren._. Noise 'Dapaets Not
Properly IdepdftecL Analvzej(. or Mltlut.d In The!,tpoPd PEIR.
The Second PEIR provides that the proposed Peninsula alignment will "pass
throuSh densely populated areas where there is wgh potential for noise impacts!' (AR 8004 t 17.)
The Second PBIR then leaps to the unsuPPorted conclusion that Peninsula noise impacts wiD be
either "low-level", or "medium-level," (AR B004118.)
S Not one of over 20 .,pUcabIe General ud/or "'08.1 plaDs Is ',"iDeally referenced In
tbe Land Use and Planning, CommuDlties aad Nelghborboods, Property, aDd
Environmental Justice section of the SeeoDd PEIR. (Aft B004164 -8004211.)
COf>AW11O'7\766U9.2 .9.
AMICUS CUIUAIi BlUEf OPTHE CITY OF PALO ALTO
1
2
3
.4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CEQA is not concemed with whe&her a particular environmental impact will bave
an "impact rating,,6 ofHl~w". "medium" or "high." (AR B004101.) CEQA is concerned with
whether a particular impact is significant. (See 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15382 [defining
"significant"].) Aa ElK Is required to provide a complete dlscussloD ad aaaly,ls of aay
IdeDdfted slgnlOeaat eavironmental Impact, regardlell or wlledaer It Is ebaraeterlzed as a
low-level, medium-Ie;vel or Idab-Ievellmpaet (See Berlceley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v.
Board of Port Comm Irs (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th t 344, 1370.)
One of the most extreme impacts of the Project is its noise impact. (AR 8006530.)
The Projcct proposes electrified steel-wheel-on-steel-raiJ train service. running through densely
populated residential conununities, (AR BOO3869.) In some cases, the trains will run within
yards of the bedrooms ot single-family residences, (AR 8006531.) As a direct e"vironmental" ' .
impact ortbe Project, CEQA mandates that the noise impact be fully and properly evaluated and
mitigated. (14 Cal. Code Regs .• § 15064. subd. (d)(l).)
Section t 5143 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that Usignificant effects should be
discussed with emphasis in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence," (14 Cal.
Code Regs. § 15143.) Despite the CHSRA-described "htgb.poteDtJaI for aolse Impacts," on the
Peninsula (AR B004117) the Second PEIR failed to properly identify. analyze, or mitigate the
Project's noise impacts.
The Second PEIR identifies four noise-related thresholds of significance. (AR
800410S.) However. the Second PElR makes no attemptto quantify whether the project will
exceed these identified thresholds of significance on the Peninsula. Instead, the Second PEIR
merely estimates noise levels on a region-wide (the entire San Francisco Bay area) basis. and
makes no attempt to quantify noise levels anticipated on the Peninsula alignment or at the
identified station locations. (AR 8004116.)
Like the deficient land use compatibility analysis, the noise impact analysis for the
entire Peninsula alignment and station locations is contained in three short cooclusory sentences.
(See AR B004118.) Again, CHSRA simply ignores that CEQA requires CHSRA to "use its best
6 "Impact ratin~' has no meaning under CBQA.
COl'A\47801\766149.2 .11).
AMICUS CUJUAE BRffif OF THE CITY OJ! PALO ALTO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18 ,.
19
·_····20-.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can" in its BIR. {14 Cal. Code Regs .• §
15144.} At a minimum. CHSRA should have quantified specific noise impacts to Peninsula
sensitive receptors. CHSRA's failure to include such infomtation in the Second PBIR renders the
. document useless for infonnational purposes, ... d inadequate under CBQA.
3. Th, Protect wln.wIt III SlgUkgl.Vlbratloa Impaoas Not
Properly IdeDdf1ecL Aaalyz", or Mltlnted I. the Second PEI&
CHSRA used the exact same legally deficient approach to vibration impacts as it
did for noise impacts. Again, CHSRA classifies potential vibration impacts according to "levels'"
As explained above, CEQA is not concemed with whether a particular environmental impact will
have an "impact rating" ofulow", "medium" or "high'" (AR B004101.) CEQA is concerned
with whether a particular impact is 8ipifica"t. (Sec Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. V.
Board 0/ Pori Comm ',s, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1370.)
Because the EIR identifies potential vibration impacts as "significant" it is
required to provide a complete discussion and anal~i8 of the potential vibration impacts.
Amicus PALO ALTO is unable to locate any discussion or analyais of the potential vibration
impacts of the HST to the Peninsula cities in the Second PEIR beyond the conclusory statement ,
that there is f'tbe potential for medium to high vibration impacts because of the proximity of
residential structures to the aJipmcnt;' and a diagrammatic reference to the same conelusion in
Figure 3.4·7 oCthe EIR. (AR B004118, 8004132.) The Second PEIR. contains absolutely no
reference to an appendix or other document that would provide supporting data for its eonclusory
vibration detenninations. At a minimum, CHSRA should have attempted to quantifY specific
vibration impacts to the Peninsula. CHSRA's failure to include such infonnation in the Second
PElR renders the doc\UJlent useless for infonnational purposes, and inadequate under CEQA.
4. The. Protect Will ResUlt II Sipille.o! Aest1tedctyl.yal
Besoyrses Impacts Not Properly IcIeDtffted. Alllm!d... or Mitigated 18 the Sec;OIId 'EIRe
As a result of the Second PElR's deficient noise analysis, the Second PEIR
proposes only a single measure to mitigate the CHSRA-described "htl. potential for Roise
impacts", on the Peninsula. (AR 8004117,8004129.) Specifically, the Second PEIR. provides
COP"W'180'M668f'"
AMICUS CURIAe BRIEF OF THB CITY Of PALO ALTO
1 that U[p ]otential noise impacts can be reduced substantial1y by the instaUation of sound bamer
2' walls constructed to shield receivers ftom Irain noise,'· (AR B004129.) Reference to Table 3.4-7
3 in the Second PBIR. indicates that CHSRA expects to install over 45 miles oenoise baniers along
4 the PeninsUla. (AR B004130.) The Second PBIR fails to comply with CEQA because it includes
S absolutely no identification, analysis, ormiti.ation of the poteatially significant impacts or the
6 installation of noise barriers aIon& the Peninsula.
7 As set forth in seotion 1 S 126.4(8)(1 )(D) of the CEQA Guidelines; &6 If a mitigation
8 measure would cause one or more sipiflC88t effects in addition to those that would be caused by
9 the project as proposed, tile effects of the mitigation measure shan be ducused but in less
10 detail than the sipificant effects of the project as proposed." (14 Cal. Code Rep., § 1 S 126.4,
11 subd. (a)(I)(D) [jntemal citations omitted, emph added.])
12 At an absolute minimum, the potentially significant visual and aesthetic impacts
13 should have been identified in the Second PSIR. Because the Second PBIR fails to identify,
14 analyze. or mitipte th8 significant enviromnental effects oilbo noise mitigation measure, the
1 S document is useless for infonnationa1 purposes, and inadequate under CBQA.
16 IV. {(ONCLUSION
17 For the reasons set forth a~ve, the Second PEIR fails to comply with CEQA's
L8 most basic requirement -full disclosure. The deeply fla.wed Second·PEIR fails to inform the
19 public and the decisionmakers of all of the significant environmental impacts of the Project. and
2() is therefore ioadequ~e. Amicus curiae PALO ALTO supports Petitioners' JeqQesl th.8t the Coun
21 grant the petition and i.ssue a writ of mandate ordering CHSRA to rescind its "rtitica1ion of the
22 Second PEIR. and itJ approval ofibe Project
23 Dated: May 1. 2009
24
25
26
27
28
00''''''710''766849.2
Respectfully Submitted,
Mll..LER STARR REGALIA
BY:~~ STJNA DANmL LA Wi iN
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae .
CITY OF PALO ALTO
-12·
AMICUS CUJUAB BRlJiF OF THe CITY OF PAW ALTO
l
:2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
lS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27-
28
PROQFOF Sf-mE
(Town of Atherton, et at v. California 19h-Speed Rail AUlhorily. ef al.,
-Sacramento Superior ~urt. Case No. 34-2008-80000022)
I. Karen Wigylu$, declare:
I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and
not a party to the within action; my business address is 1331 N. California Blvd., Fifth Floor, Post
Office Box 8117. Walnut Creek, CA 94596. On May 1, 2009, 1 served the within documents:
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IN SUPPORT
OF PETITIONERS' VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT 01' MANDATE
AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCDVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
o
o
o
COI'A\47B07\76736l.1
by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set
forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with posta&e thereon
fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Walnut Creek, California addressed as
set forth below. --
by pJacing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express envelope and
affixing a pre·paid air bill. and causini the envelope to be delivered to a Federal
Express agent for next business day delivery.
by personally delivering the documcnt(s) listed above to the person(s) at the
addressees) set forth below.
Stuart M. Flashman
Law Offices of Stuart M. Flashman
5626 Ocean View Drive
Oakland, CA 94618·1533
Tel: S 1 0.6S2.S373
Fax: 5io.6S2.S373
e·maiI: stuflash@aoI.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs and Petitioners
TOWN OF ATHERTON.
PLANNING AND
CONSBRVATION LEAGUE. CITY
OF MENLO PARK.,
TRANSPOR.TATION SOLUTIONS
DEFENSE AND EDUCATION
FUND, CALIFORNIA RAIL
FOUNDATION and BA YRAlL
ALLIANCE
Edmund G. Brown. Jr.
Attomcy Gcnora1 of C.Ufomia
Daniel L. SiegeJ
SupervJIiDs Deputy Attorney General
Christine Sproul
Georsc Spanos
Danao 1. Aitchison
Deputy Attomoys General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P. O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Tel: 916.322.5522
Fax: 916.327.2319
e-mail: christine.sprouJ@doj.ca.gov;
danae.aitchison@doj.ca.gov
Attorney$ for Defendant and
Respondent CALIFORNIA HIGH·
SPBBD RAIL AUTHORITY
1 I am readily familiar with the .finn's practice of collection and processing' .
2
correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal
Service on that same day with postage thereon fuJly ·prepaid in the ordinary courso of business. I
am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if P.C?'taI cancellation
3 . date or postage meter date is more than one day ~er date of deposit for mailing in affi~avit.
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
)9
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
I deelare under .penalty of perjury under the Jaws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and comet. .
Executed on May I, 2009, at Walnut Creek, California.
c
COPA\47l107I767)63 I
·2·
ATTACHMENTD
February 11,2010
Senator Joseph Simitian
State Capitol
Room 2080
Sacramento, CA 95814
Qty qf P~o~to
Office of the Mayor and City Council
RE: 2009 High Speed Rail Business Plan
Dear Senator Simitian:
The Palo Alto City Council Subcommittee for High Speed Rail has reviewed the 2009
Business Plan prepared by the High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA). The Subcommittee,
in conjunction with the Peninsula Cities Consortium, has identified a number of
deficiencies and flaws in the Business Plan that need to be addressed and rectified before
the project proceeds f:Urther. Those issues relate to the inadequate and fundamentally
flawed ridership study, a questionable financing strategy that relies upon "hoped for"
federal funding. and omits key cost elements in the San Francisco to San Jose segment,
and a grossly deficient risk management plan.
These issues and concerns were presented by Palo Alto Mayor Burt at the Joint Hearing
of the Senate Budget Subcommittee #2 on Resources, Environmental Protection and
Energy and Transportation and the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on
January 21 in Palo Alto. As discussed in detail below, the Subcommittee, on behalf of
the Palo Alto City Council is requesting that the Legislature take the following actions
related to HSR financing, governance, and process:
Financing:
• Require HSRA to correct all of the deficiencies in the Business Plan indentified in
the Legislative Analyst's Report.
• Require the HSRA to prepare a sound Investment Grade Ridership Study before
additional funding is released for project engineering
• Require that the Business Plan be rewritten and approved before any further
funding is released for the project engineering.
• Address the deficiencies in the construction budget for the San Francisco to San
Jose segment where key cost elements have been omitted and no funding is
included to address Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS).
Governance:
Printed with soy-based Inks on 100% recycled paper proc_d without chlorine
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2477
650.328.3631 fax
• Mandate that a new HSRA Governing Board of top professionals with mega-
project expertise and full accountability be appointed to manage the High Speed
Rail project.
• Clarify the role of the Peer Review Committee and require quarterly"reports ofthe
Independent Peer Review to the Legislature.
Process/Timeline:
• Mandate that HSRA adopt CSS statewide,
• Work with the Governor to request the federal government to extend the stimulus
funding deadlines to allow for an adequate and thorough CEQAlNEP A process
and successful project planning.
Palo Alto recognizes that the California HST project is crucial for the future of mass
transit in California and will have a long-lasting and far-reaching impact on the State and
City of Palo Alto. It is the most significant project in the history of the Peninsula and
must be designed to minimize impacts and roouce community divisions or barriers.
Colfaboration between the HSRA and local communities is the key to success for the
project
Thank: you for considering these requests and please let us know when you will be able to
incorporate these items into your oversight of the HSR project. If you or others have
questions, please feel free to contact me or Deputy City Manager Steve Emslie at 329-
2354 or steve.emslie@cityofpaloalto.org.
Sincerely,
OJf~-I
PATBURT 1
Mayor
Enclosure
cc: Medhi Morshed, HSRA
Robert Doty, Peninsula Rail Project
City Council
ATTACHMENT E
THE 2010-11 BUDGET
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................................ 3
Background ........................................................................................... 5
Department of Transportation ........................................................... 10
Capital Outlay Support Should Be Based on Workload ............................... 10
Payments for Public-Private Partnerships Problematic ............................... 21
Proposition 1 B Implementation ........................................................... 23
High-Speed Rail Authority ................................................................... 25
Project Development Work Increasing .................................................. 25
Project to Receive Federal Stimulus Funds .............................................. 26
Revised Business Plan an Improvement, but Still Lacks Details .................. 27
Current-Year Progress Difficult to Determine ........................................... 28
2010-11 Budget Proposals .................................................................... 29
TR-2 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
THE 2010-11 BUDGET
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Governor's budget proposes $18 billion in expenditures (mostly from special funds) for
transportation programs in 2010-11. This includes $14 billion for the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), $2 billion for the California Highway Patrol, $958 million for the High-
Speed Rail Authority (HSRAt and $954 million for the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Caltrans
Capital Outlay Support (COS) Program Is Overstaffed. The budget requests about
$2 billion in 2010-11 for COS-staff resources that perform activities to develop and manage
the department's capital construction program. We reviewed Cal trans' COS budget for recent
years and found that the program's budget lacks sufficient workload justification. In order to
gauge the reasonableness of the department's COS requests for staffing and funding, we evalu-
ated the program using several different methods. The cumulative evidence from our review
shows that the program is over-staffed and lacks strong management.
We think major actions are needed to' correct the issues we identify. Specifically, we rec-
ommend that the Legislature:
»-Require Caltrans to provide additional information to justify its annual COS budget
request.
»-Have Caltrans report on the steps it is taking to control its COS costs.
»-Request an audit of the program's time charging practices.
»-Reduce the program's staffing by about 1,500 (and $200 million a year) to align with
actual workload if Caltrans does not provide workload justification for its COS budget
request.
Payments for Public-Private Partnerships Problematic. The Governor requests that
$3.45 billion in future federal transportation funds be appropriated to Caltrans to pay private-
sector firms for costs related to an unspecified number of public-private partnership (P3) agree-
ments. Our review found that the Governor's proposal has several significant problems. Specifi-
cally, we found the following:
»-The proposal does not appear to be permissible under current law, and the types of
agreements contemplated in the Governor's proposal are not eligible to be funded en-
tirely with federal funds. Thus, the proposal is not workable.
»-Details are not available regarding how the majority of the funds (about $2.5 billion)
would be used. However, in the case of the $1 billion project that has been identified,
using a P3 approach may not reduce state costs as Caltrans claims.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE TR-3
TR-4
THE 2010-11 BUDGET
~ The budget requests a "blank check" authority for the Department of Finance to aug-
ment the proposed appropriation without legislative oversight or approval.
We recommend the Legislature reject the request. We further recommend that in revis-
ing its budget requests this spring, the administration ensure that any request for P3 funding is
workable and meets certain criteria.
Proposition 1 B
The budget requests the appropriation of $4.7 billion in Proposition 'I B bond funds to meet
current program needs. Our review indicates, however, that the level of funding requested is
higher than the amount needed based on project schedules. We recommend that the Legisla-
ture direct Caltrans to report on the projects that are planned for allocation through June 2011,
and the associated level of bond funding that would be needed. The budget should be adjusted
accordingly.
High-Speed Rail Authority
Proposition lA, passed by voters in November 2008, authorizes $9 billion for HSRA to
develop and construct a high-speed train system in California. Recently, the authority received
a $2.25 billion award of federal economic stimulus funds to complement the $9 billion in bond
funds available from the state. The massive increase in available funding has increased the de-
velopment work performed by the authority and its contractors. We evaluated HSRA's ability to
measure the project's progress, as well as the authority's budget request, and recommend new
reporting requirements to increase accountability.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
THE 2010-11 BUDGET
Federal Stimulus Funds
Advanced Several Proiects
Chapter 21, Statutes of 2009 (ABX3 20, Bass),
allowed Caltrans to use federal stimulus funds
provided under the ARRA to provide $310 mil-
lion in cash loans to Proposition 1 B projects in
2008-09 and 2009-10. These loans allowed four
state highway projects to proceed to construction
that otherwise would have been delayed due to
the state's difficulties selling bonds. Similarly, sev-
eral local agencies used a portion of their ARRA
funds to advance Proposition 'I B projects
Analyst's Recommendation. In the event that
California receives more federal stimulus funds
for transportation, we recommend the Legislature
enact legislation to authorize additional cash
loans to Proposition 1 B projects, In total, there
are about $600 million in Proposition lB projects
ready to start construction, but that are delayed
due to insufficient bond funding. Of these proj-
ects, Caltrans estimates that $428 million are fed-
erally eligible and could therefore be advanced
if additional federal stimulus funds are provided.
To do so, however, would require the approval
of new state legislation, since the existing author-
ity relates only to federal stimulus funds already
received under ARRA.
HIGH-SPEED RAil AUTHORITY
The High-Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) was
statutorily established to develop a high-speed
rail system in California that links the state's
major population centers, including Sacramento,
the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley,
Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County,
and San Diego. The latest cost estimate for
completion of the first phase of the project, from
San Francisco to Los Angeles and Anaheim via
the Central Valley, is roughly $43 billion. (This
cost estimate reflects the escalated cost of each
portion of the project at the time it is to be built.)
In November 2008, voters approved Proposi-
tion lA, which allows the state to sell $9 billion
in general obligation bonds to partially fund the
development and construction of the high-speed
rail system. The remaining funding for the sys-
tem's construction and operation is anticipated
to come from federal and local governments as
well as the private sector,
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
PRO.IECT DEVELOPMENT
WORK INCREASING
Over the past few years, the development
work for the high-speed rail project has been in-
creasing. As shown in Figure 11 (seenext page),
the authority'S support expenditures have grown
very quickly since 2006-07. This figure includes
the authority'S administration costs as well as the
costs of consulting contracts to plan and develop
the system. These contracts include:
>-Program management, which includes
oversight of all engineering work.
>-Project-level engineering and environ-
mental studies conducted along the cor-
ridors by various contractors.
>-Financial consulting and public-private
partnership development.
>-Technical consulting such as ridership
forecasts and visual simulations.
TR-2S
TR-26
THE 2010-11 BUDGET
Through the current year, nearly all fund-
ing for project development has come from the
state. However, the authority anticipates using
some federal stimulus funding available through
the ARRA to supplement state funds beginning
in 2010-11. Additionally, the current-year budget
authorizes the state to replace state bond fund-
ing with federal funding if allowed by federal law.
Thus, it is possible some of the federal stimulus
funding would be used in the clJrrent year as well.
PROJECT TO RECEIVE FEDERAL
S'rlMULUS FUNDS
The ARRA provides $8 billion nationwide
to fund rail projects, including high-speed rail
development programs. The authority applied
for more than $4.7 billion of the available fund-
ing to be used in three specific corridors as well
as for systemwide planning and environmental
clearance. Though not
Figure 11
the state's current intercity rail program.) The
funding will be available for program develop-
ment and environmental clearance for the entire
first phase of the project, as well as design-build
contracts in four of the project's ten corridors,
including:
>-Los Angeles to Anaheim.
>-Merced to Fresno to Bakersfield.
>-San Francisco to San Jose.
The other corridors were not included in the
grant application because they are not far
enough along in the development process to
meet the ARRA deadlines.
Funding Availability and Expenditure Time-
line. It is unknown at this time when the ARRA
funding will be available or how it will be di-
vided among the various eligible segments of the
required under ARRA,
the state's application
forfunds pledged to
match any ARRA funds
awarded to the high-
speed rail project with
an equal amount of
state monies.
High-Speed Rail Planning Expenditures Growing Rapidly
(In Millions)
Project Awarded
$2.25 Billion. On Janu-
ary 28,2010, the federal
government awarded
California $2.25 billion
toward the development
. of the high-speed rail
system. (California also
received $99 million to
improve and upgrade
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
THE2010 11 BUDGET
project. According to interim guidance released
by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
in June 2009, the money must be obligated by
September 2011 and fully expended by Septem-
ber 2017. According to FRA's interim guidance,
these funds will be considered obligated when
a grant or cooperative agreement between the
federal agency and the state is complete. The
grant agreement will describe project milestones
and what steps must be taken for the state to
access these federal funds. However, because
it is unknown at this time when this agreement
will be reached, there is no way of knowing
when the federal funds will become available for
expenditure.
Bond Funds Will Match Federal Dollars. At
the time of this analysis, it is also unclear how
the authority plans to structure the pledge to
match federal funds with state bond funds. For
example, one way to provide this match would
be to apply one state dollar for every federal dol-
lar spent, whether it is for the purchase of land or
some other service. This would mean that federal
dollars would provide one-half of the funding
for a particular contract or section of right of
way, and the state bond money would fund the
other half of the same expenditure. Alternatively,
the authority could simply apply an equivalent
amount of bond dollars to a particular segment
of the system, regardless of what the particular
expenditure may be. In this case, state funding
may pay for a consulting contract to complete
the environmental work on a section of the
system where an equivalent amount of federal
funding has purchased the right of way. How the
authority plans to use state bond funds to match
ARRA dollars would determine when the state
would have to issue Proposition 1 A bonds as
well as the amount to issue in the budget year.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
Analyst's Recommendation. Because of
the deadlines attached to the ARRA award, it
is imperative that HSRA act expeditiously to
meet federal requirements. In addition, the state
should consider how to most effectively spend
the federal dollars while reducing the debt ser-
vice burden on the state in the near term. There-
fore, we recommend that the authority report at
budget hearings on its plans to meet the ARRA
deadlines. Specifically, the HSRA should discuss
the following:
»0-What restrictions are placed on the fed-
eral funds?
»0-How much of the ARRA funds are avail-
able for each segment or task?
»0-How will the authority structure the
state's match of federal funds?
»0-What steps must be taken in order to
obligate the funds?
»0-How will HSRA ensure that the project
schedule meets the federal obligation
deadline?
REVISED BUSINESS PLAN AN
IMPROVEMENT, BUT STILL LACKS DETAILS
The 2009-10 Budget Act (as amended in July
2009) required the authority to submit to the
Legislature a revised business plan with specific
elements by December 15, 2009. The plan was
submitted on time, and included at least some
discussion of all the required elements. The new
plan is much more informative than the previ-
ous business plan, and contains, among its other
components, descriptions of potential opera-
tional plans and many system details, as well as a
discussion of various funding possibilities avail-
able for the project.
TR-27
TR-28
THE 2010-11 BUDGET
Nonetheless, our review of the plan con-
cludes that the plan's discussion of particular
elements is lacking some important details. Spe-
cifically, the plan lacks discussion of risk manage-
ment, including any detailed description of many
key types of risk or mitigation processes. Also,
there are few deliverables or milestones identi-
fied in the plan against which progress can be
measured. Due to the multiyear nature of a proj-
ect of this size, without clearly defined deadlines
and work to be accomplished, it will be difficult
for the Legislature and the administration to track
progress in any meaningful way.
Analyst's Comments. Chapter 618, Statutes
of 2009 (SB 783, Ashburn), requires the authority
to prepare, publish, adopt, and submit to the Leg-
islature an updated business plan addressing spe-
cific elements no later than January 1, 2012, and
every two years thereafter. We will be reviewing
the submitted plan to ensure compliance with
statutory requirements and identify any improve-
ments that are needed in these documents.
CURRENT-YEAR PROGRESS
DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE
Authority Submitted Program Work Plan
Through 2072-73. The Legislature approved
$139 million to fund continued preliminary plan-
ning of the rail system during 2009-10, including
project-level design and environmental review
for all ten segments of the rail line, program
management services, financial planning, and
development of a new ridership model. In order
to justify the current-year funding level, the au-
thority submitted a Program Summary Report to
the Legislature in July 2009, which described the
authority'S recent and ongoing activities as well
as the expected work to be completed each year
through 2012-13. This multiyear summary is in-
tended to outline the management plan to move
the project through the environmental processes
to construction and revenue service. However,
our analysis indicates there are questions about
how progress on the project is being tracked. We
explain these concerns below.
Actual Progress Does Not Appear to Follow
Work Plan. So that the authority's staff can track
the project's status against the work plan laid
out in the Program Summary Report, the HSRA's
program management consultant provides
monthly status reports on a list of specific tasks
that each have their own due date. However, our
review shows that some of the tasks contained
in recent status reports are inconsistent with
those listed in the work plan. For instance, the
November 2009 status report only provided an
update on one-half of the 160 uncompleted tasks
identified in the work plan, with the remain-
ing tasks deleted or missing. When asked about
these discrepancies, the authority indicated that
some of the tasks might have been combined or
considered unnecessary, but could not defini-
tively explain these changes.
Progress Report of Project-Level Work Plan
Provides No Details. The monthly status reports
submitted to the authority are problematic in an-
other way: they provide only summary informa-
tion on the progress of project-level work being
accomplished by contractors. The work plan lays
out the expected timelines for the particular tasks
to be accomplished each year by each of these
contractors. However, our review indicates that
the monthly reports do not track each contrac-
tor's status against the work plan. Instead, the
reports only summarize the cumulative amount
of time spent on the project by the contractors
collectively. Without more detailed information,
it is hard for the Legislature to determine what
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
THE 2010-11 BUDGET
work is being accomplished by each contractor
in the current year and what work remains to be
done in subsequent years.
Analyst's Recommendation. Multiyear mega
projects such as the high-speed rail project are
susceptible to significant unexpected challenges
in their planning, development, and construc-
tion as well as financing. For example, a 2004
report by the BSA regarding the replacement of
the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge, another
mega project, found that a considerable financial
crisis arose in part due to the project manage-
ment's failure to disclose huge cost overruns as
soon as it was aware of them. Because the state
has committed a significant amount of funding
for the high-speed rail project, it is important that
the Legislature be provided from the outset with
regular updates on the project's progress to avoid
unexpected challenges in the project's develop-
ment.
Therefore, we recommend the Legislature
adopt legislation to require the authority to
submit an annual report that tracks the project's
progress and identifies (1) the expected tasks and
deliverables for the coming year, and
(2) any potential challenges and issues the project
encounters. This information would enable the
Legislature to better assess the authority's budget
request for the subsequent year. The report could
be structured similar to those reqUired for the
oversight of the Bay Bridge replacement project.
Information should include, but not be limited to:
,... A baseline budget, by contract, for capi-
tal and support costs.
,... Expenditures to date, by contract, for
capital and support costs.
,... A comparison of the current or projected
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
schedule and the baseline schedule that
was assumed.
,... A summary of milestones achieved dur-
i ng the previous year.
,... Any issues identified, and actions taken
to address those issues, in the previous
year.
This report should be submitted by Sep-
tember 1 of each year. This date would give the
authority time to compile details of the past fiscal
year, clearly identify current-year deliverables,
and provide an outline of the expected work
plan for the coming budget year.
2010-11 BUDGET PROPOSALS
The Governor's budget requests $958 mil-
lion to fund the authority's activities in 2010-11,
including $375 million in expected federal
economic stimulus funds and $583 million in
Proposition 1A bond funds. The total request
will be used for three purposes. First, $750 mil-
lion is requested for right-of-way assessment and
acquisition. Second, $203 million would go for
consulting contracts to perform system devel-
opment work. Finally, the remaining $5 million
would cover the authority's administrative costs.
We comment on each of these budget proposals
below.
Right-o' .. Way Acquisition
Total Capital Outlay Request Not Needed
in Budget Year. The authority is requesting
$750 million for right-of-way acquisition in the
budget year. At the time the Governor's bud-
get was being prepared, the authority did not
know how much ARRA funding the state would
be awarded or when the federal dollars wou Id
TR-29
TR-30
THE 2010-11 BUDGET
become available. Therefore, the $750 million
request, comprised of $375 million from the
state and an equal amount of federal funds, was
a placeholder amount based on the authority's
best estimate at the time. However, HSRA has
indicated in recent discussions that it would not
need the total amount requested in 2010-11. The
authority now believes it will need no more than
$250 million to begin negotiations with large
landholders.
Analyst's Recommendation. Based on the
authority's updated estimate of the funding
needed for land acquisition, we recommend that
the capital outlay funding level be reduced by
$500 million to provide $250 million in 2010-11.
Furthermore, we recommend the adoption of
budget bill language, similar to the language in
the 2009-10 budget, to authorize the HSRA to
replace state bond funding with federal funding
as it becomes available.
Contract Proposals
Little Justification Provided for Contract
Amounts. In 2010-11, the authority is requesting
$203 million for various contracts. Figure 12 lists
the contracts the HSRA proposes to be funded
in 2010-11, as well as the amounts expended on
these contracts in the prior and current years.
While the general types of proposed contract
work appear reasonable, the authority's budget
requests provide no justification for the specific
amou nts requested for each contract. Also, as
discussed earlier in this analysis, because the
monthly status reports do not indicate whether
the work planned for 2009-10 is actually being
accomplished, the Legislature cannot determine
whether the resources
proposed for 2010-11 are
appropriate and justified.
The authority's fund-
ing requests for consult-
ing contracts contain
little information on the
work to be accomplished
over the budget year, or
about how that work fits
into the total develop-
ment of the system. As
a result, it is unknown
how the amount for each
contract was determined.
This is the same concern
raised in our analysis of
the authority's similar
2009-10 budget requests.
The authority appears no
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
THE 2010 11 BUDGET
more equipped to justify the requested contract
amounts than it was one year ago.
In addition, our review of the budget re-
quests for each of the ten contracts for project-
level planning and environmental review indi-
cates that they are significantly different from the
contract amounts projected for 2010-11 in the
Program Summary Report. Eight of these contract
requests varied by 25 percent or more from the
funding levels projected less than a year ago. The
revised contract amounts could be due to any
number of reasons, such as current-year work
being delayed or future efforts being brought for-
ward to expedite certain segments of the project.
However, the authority has not been able to pro-
vide any explanation for the significant changes
in contract amounts, nor how these amounts
were determined.
Analyst's Recommendation. In regard to the
proposals for contract funding, there is no basis
for the Legislature to determine the appropriate
level of contract funding that should be provided
to the authority for 201 0-11. Accordingly, we
withhold recommendation on the $203 million
request pending receipt of supplemental informa-
tion on the amount of work to be accomplished
in the budget year, by contract, and information
on how each contract fits into the overall devel-
opment of the system.
SlaHing Proposals
Staffing Request Should Tie to a Staffing
Strategy. The authority is also requesting an
increase of $3.5 million and 27 additional staff.
This would bring the total authority staffing to
38.5 positions in 2010-11.
It is clear that as the project progresses the
authority will need to add positions to admin-
ister, monitor, and oversee the growing amount
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
of work conducted by contractors. However, at
the time this analysis was prepared, the authority
was unable to explain how the requested posi-
tions would provide the necessary skill sets to
support the overall development of the project
and why this amount of state staff is needed at
this point in the process. Specifically, the au-
thority has not determined the mix of state and
contracted staff it plans on using to develop the
rail project over time. An independent consultant
hired by the authority concluded (in November
2009) that the current state staff is insufficient for
a project of this size, and recommended a state
managerial structure based on the best practices
of similar programs around the world. However,
the budget request does not provide information
on how the proposed positions fit into the con-
sultant's recommendations. Early identification
of the role of state staff in the project, as well as
a future staffing structure, would have significant
advantages. For example, it would enable the
organization to grow at the necessary speed to
ensure staffing levels coincide with the workload
required to deliver the project.
Additional Exempt Positions Should Be
Statutorily Defined. The requested staff posi-
tions include a chief financial officer, chief
program manager, and three regional managers.
The authority believes that it would not be able
to attract qualified individuals under the state's
current civil service restrictions. Therefore, under
the budget proposal, these positions would be
established administratively as positions ap-
pointed by the Governor and exempt from civil
service requirements. Statute currently grants
the HSRA the authority to appoint an executive
director who is exempt from civil service.
We see merit in the HSRA's proposal to
establish additional exempt positions. The HSRA
TR-31
TR-32
THE 2010-11 BUDGET
would likely need numerous exempt positions
over the next few years in order to bring on vari-
ous staff that have the requisite skills to manage
and oversee the development of the rail project
by specialized contractors. These high-level staff
must have the skills to negotiate with the private
sector to finance, construct, and operate the
system. Defining these positions through statute,
similar to statutesdescribing exempt positions for
other agencies in state government, would give
the Legislature sufficient control over the specific
positions that would be established, the salary
levels, and the assignment of responsibilities of
each position. This would enable the Legislature
Contact Information
Dana Curry Director, Transportation, Business,
and Housing
Jessica Digiambattista Transportation Financing/Highways
to retain some additional oversight of the project,
while making it easier for the authority to hire the
staff necessary to administer the program.
Analyst's Recommendation. We withhold
recommendation on the staffing request until the
authority is able to support the request for ad-
ditional staffing with a strategy that outlines how
to meet the short-and long-term staffing needs
of the organization. The staffing strategy should
include justification for the requested exempt
positions. For the reasons discussed above, we
further recommend that any exempt positions be
defined statutorily.
319-8320 Dana.Curry@lao.ca.gov
319-8363 Jessica.Digiambattista@lao.ca.gov
Eric Thronson Public Transportation/High-Speed Rail! 319*8364
Housing
Eric.Thronson@lao.ca.gov
Russia Chavis Transportation/Business 319*8338 Russia.Chavis@lao.ca.gov
LAO Publications
The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office which provides fiscal and policy information and
advice to the Legislature.
To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an E-mail subscription service,
are available on the LAO's Internet site at www.lao.ca.gov.TheLAOislocatedat925LStreet.Suite 1000,
Sacramento, CA 95814.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
To:
From:
Date:
RE:
ATTACHMENT F
MEMORANDUM
City of Palo Alto -High Speed Rail Committee
Rayi Mehta
March 8, 2010
Legislative Update: Pending legislation that directly or
indirectly impacts the California High Speed Rail Project
The 2010 legislative session is in full swing with over 3,000 new bills introduced. As
anticipated, a significant number of bills affecting High Speed Rail ("HSR") have also
been introduced. These bills range from carving out exemptions to CEQAt to
restructuring the HSR AuthoritYt creating a Department of HSR, providing funding for
HSR workforce trainingt reconstituting the HSR Board membership, authorizing the
HSR Authority to acquire land for rights-of-waYt etc.
Some bills affecting CEQA are spot bills, which merely amend a code section in such
an innocuous way as to be totally non-substantive. Spot bills are introduced to
assure that a germane vehicle will be available at a later date after the deadline has
passed to introduce bills. At that future datet the bill can be amended with more
substance included. These bills will also have to be monitored carefully to ensure
that they do not affect HSR.
A number of CEQA bills were heard in Committee about 10 days ago. These billst
marked SBX because they are deemed urgency bills as part of the Special Legislative
Sessiont were held in the Senate Environment Quality Committee at the request of
the Authors who did not believe they had the votes for passage. Unfortunately, bills
with identical language were also introducedt and we should expect them to be
amended to address some of the concerns raised by Senator Samitian and other
Committee members.
The foregoing are summaries and status of each bill (with the exception of budget
bills) I believe affects HSR. The City should consider taking a formal position of
Supportt Support jf Amendedt Opposet or Monitor for each bill. I can provide more
detailed information as requested. A letter stating the City's position, other than
Monitor, should be sent to the legislature to ensure that the City's offiCial position is
formally recorded.
Legislative Update March 8, 20 I 0
CEQA Legislation
ABX8 37 (Calderon, Charles) Environment: CEQA
Status: 02jllj2010-From printer.
Summary: This Bill would enact the CEQA Litigation Protection Pilot Program of
2010 and would require the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency to select
projects that meet specified requirements from specified regions for each calendar
year between 2010 and 2014. The bill would exempt from judicial review, pursuant
to CEQA, a lead agency's decision to certify the EIR of, or to adopt a mitigated
negative declaration based on an initial study for, the selected projects, a lead
agency's and responsible agency's approval of the selected project, and the
Business, Transportation and Housing Agency' s selection of the projects. The bill
would require the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, by December 31 of
each year, to submit an annual report to the Governor and to the Legislature
summarizing the designation of projects, and the job creation and investment
attributable to the deSignated projects.
AB 1805 (Calderon, Charles) Environment: (CEQA)
Status: 02j25j2010-Referred to Com. on NATURAL RESOURCES & JUDICIARY
Summary: This bill would enact the CEQA Litigation Protection Pilot Program of 2010
and would require the BuSiness, Transportation and Housing Agency to select
projects that meet specified requirements from specified regions for each calendar
year between 2010 and 2014. The bill would exempt from judicial review, pursuant
to CEQA, a lead agency's decision to certify the EIR of, or to adopt a mitigated
negative declaration based on an initial study for, the selected projects, a lead
agency's and responsible agency's approval of the selected project, and the
Business, Transportation and Housing Agency' s selection of the projects. The bill
would require the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, by December 31 of
each year, to submit an annual report to the Governor and to the Legislature
summarizing the designation of projects, and the job creation and investment
attributable to the deSignated projects.
AB 2713 (Knight) Environment: CEQA (Spot Bill)
Status: 02j22j2010-Read first time.
Summary: The (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to
be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report (EIR) on
a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect
on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will
not have that effect. The CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated
negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the
environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there
is no substantial evidence that the project, as reVised, would have a significant effect
on the environment. This bill would make technical, non-substantive changes to the
CEQA.
Legislative Update March 8.20] 0 2
SBX8 42 (Correa) Environment: CEQA
Status: 02j24j2010-Set, first hearing. Held in committee without
recommendation.
Summary: Would enact the CEQA Litigation Protection Pilot Program of 2010 and
would require the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency to select projects
that meet specified requirements from specified regions for each calendar years
between 2010 and 2014. The bill would exempt from judicial review, pursuant to
CEQA, a lead agency's decision to certify the EIR of, or to adopt a mitigated negative
declaration based on an initial study for, the selected projects, a lead agency's and
responsible agency's approval of the selected project, and the Business,
Transportation and Housing Agency's selection of the projects. The bill would require
the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, by December 31 of each year, to
submit an annual report to the Governor and to the Legislature summarizing the
designation of projects, and the job creation and investment attributable to the
designated projects.
SBX8 56 (Hollingsworth) Environmental Quality: CEQA: exemption: critical
infrastructure projects
Status: 02j24j2010-Hearing canceled at the request of author.
Summary: This Bill would exempt from CEQA a critical infrastructure project, which
would include, among other projects, projects funded under the Highway Safety,
Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 or the Disaster
Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006. The bill would provide that this
exemption applies retroactively. Because a permitting agency, which includes a local
agency, would be required to determine the applicability of, and to give notice of,
that exemption, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.
SB 1010 (Correa) Environment: CEQA
Status: 02j18j2010-To Coms. on ENVIRONMENTAL QUAL. and JUDICIARY.
Summary: This Bill would enact the CEQA Litigation Protection Pilot Program of
2010 and would require the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency to select
projects that meet specified requirements from specified regions for each calendar
year between 2010 and 2014. The bill would exempt from judicial review, pursuant
to CEQA, a lead agency's decision to certify the EIR of, or to adopt a mitigated
negative declaration based on an initial study for, the selected projects, a lead
agency's and responsible agency's approval of the selected project, and the
Business, Transportation and Housing Agency' s selection of the projects. The bill
would require the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, by December 31 of
each year, to submit an annual report to the Governor and to the Legislature
summarizing the designation of projects, and the job creation and investment
attributable to the designated projects.
Legislative Update March 8. 2010 3
SB 1012 (Runner) Environmental quality: CEQA (Spot Bill)
Status: 02/18/2010-To Com. on RULES.
Summary: CEQA requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be
prepared by contract, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report
on a project, as defined, that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a
significant effect on the environment, or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds
that the project will not have that effect. This bill would make technical, non-
substantive changes to those provisions.
SB 1195 (Wyland) Environment: CEQA (Spot Bill)
Status: 03/04/2010-To Com. on RULES.
Summary: CEQA requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be
prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report (EIR) on a
project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on
the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not
have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative
declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if
revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial
evidence that the project, as revised, would have a Significant effect on the
environment. This bill would make technical, non-substantive changes to CEQA.
SB 1261 (Ashburn) Environment: CEQA: expedited review (Spot Bill)
Status: 03/04/2010-To Com. on RULES.
Summary: This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation
establishing a fast track environmental review process that maintains current
environmental protection while expediting the review of projects related to green or
renewable industries that will create jobs in the state.
High Speed Rail Legislation
AB 153 (Ma) High-Speed Rail Authority
Status: 07/02/2009-In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the
request of author.
Summary: This Bill would eliminate those contingencies to the exercise of the
Authority's authority and would specify that the Authority constitutes a "governing
body" for the purpose of adopting a resolution of necessity. The bill would authorize
the Authority to employ its own legal staff or contract with other state agencies for
legal services, or both.
AB 289 (Galgiani) High-speed rail
Status: 02/11/2010-Re-referred to Com. on TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING
Summary: Would authorize the Governor to appoint up to 5 deputy directors
exempt from civil service who would serve at the pleasure of the executive director.
Legislative Update March 8, 20 I 0 4
AB 1375 (Galgiani) High-speed rail
Status: 02j11j2010-Referred to Committees. on TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING and
RULES.
Summary: "rhis Bill would revise and recast these provisions by repealing and
reenacting the California High-Speed Train Act. The bill would continue the High-
Speed Rail Authority in existence to make policy decisions relative to implementation
of high-speed rail consistent with Proposition lA. The bill would create the
Department of High-Speed Trains within the Business, Transportation and Housing
Agency, which would implement those policies. "rhe bill would transfer certain of the
existing powers and responsibilities of the authority to the department and would
specify additional powers and duties of the authority and department relative to
implementation of the high-speed rail project, including the annual submission of a
6-year high-speed train capital improvement program and progress report to the
Legislature. The director of the department would be appointed by the Governor,
who would serve at the pleasure of the authority, and the Governor would be
authorized to appoint up to 10 executive employees of the department who would be
exempt from civil service and serve at the pleasure of the director. The bill would
provide for acquisition and disposition by the department of rights-of-way for the
high-speed rail project. The bill would enact other related provisions.
AB 1747 (Galgiani» High-Speed Rail Authority
Status: 02j18j2010-Referred to Com. on TRANSPORTATION.
Summary: Would authorize the authority to consider, to the extent permitted by
federal and state law, the creation of jobs in California when awarding major
contracts or purchasing high-speed trains, as specified.
AB 2121 (Harkey) High-speed rail
Status: 03j04j2010-Referred to Com. on TRANSPORTATION.
Summary: This Bill would reduce the amount of general obligation debt authorized
pursuant to the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st
Century to the amount contracted as of January 1, 2011.
AB 2703 (John A. Perez) Transportation funding
Status: 02j22j2010-Read first time.
Summary: This Bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to
ensure that federal transportation funds received in 2010 are expeditiously awarded
to maximize job retention in California and to ensure robust oversight of those funds.
SBX8 36 (Lowenthal) Federal transportation economic stimulus funds: 2nd
round
Status: 02jl0j2010-Re-referred to Com. on TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING
Summary: This Bill Would require the Department of Transportation to work with
local transportation agencies to develop a list of potential projects that may be
Legislative Update March 8, 2010 5
awarded within a 90-day period of the award to the state of 2nd round federal
transportation economic stimulus funds, The bill would require the department to
submit a monthly status report to the Legislature, as specified, with respect to
certain milestones for expenditure of these funds. The bill would make related
legislative findings and declarations.
58409 (Ducheny) Passenger rail programs: strategic planning
Status: 02/11/2010-To Com. on TRANS.
Summary: Would place the High-Speed Rail Authority within the Business,
Transportation and Housing Agency. The bill would require the 5 members of the
authority appointed by the Governor to be appOinted with the advice and consent of
the Senate. The bill would require the authority to annually submit a funding plan to
the California Transportation Commission for approval, identifying the need for
investments during the fiscal year and the amount of bond sales necessary to
accommodate those investments.
58 455 (Lowenthal) High-speed rail
Status: 07/24/2009-Placed on inactive file on request of Assembly Member Torrico.
Summary: Would provide that the members of the authority appOinted by the
Governor are subject to appointment with the advice and consent of the Senate. The
bill would require the members of the authority, at a scheduled board meeting, to
cause to be prepared an overall project schedule with project delivery milestones on
a quarterly baSiS, and to approve a quarterly contract status report, beginning at the
first board meeting after March 1, 2010. The bill would also require the members of
the authority to approve all contract amendments at a scheduled board meeting.
58 879 (Cox) Construction projects: alternative bidding procedures: design-
build.
Status: 01/21/2010-To Com. on LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Summary: Existing law authorizes counties to use alternative procedures, known as
design-build, for bidding on construction projects in the county in excess of
$2,500,000, in accordance with speCified procedures. Each county that elects to use
the design-build method on a public works project is required to submit a report to
the Legislative Analyst's Office before December 1, 2009, containing a description of
each public works project procured through the design-build process and completed
after November 1, 2004, and before November 1, 2009. Existing law also requires
the Legislative Analyst, on or before January 1, 2010, to report to the Legislature on
the use of the design-build method by counties. This bill would repeal those reporting
provisions.
S8 964 (Alquist) Workforce development program: high-speed rail
Status: 02/18/2010-To Coms. on TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING and EDUCATION.
Summary: Would require the authority to contract with the California Community
Colleges Chancellor'S office to develop a labor market assessment of the workforce
and identify the education and skills needed for high-speed rail, and to develop a
Legislative Update March 8, 2010 6
comprehensive workforce training and certification program or programs to facilitate
the availability of that workforce. The bill would require the authority and the
chancellor's office to form a Jobs Advisory Task Force! as specified, to advise the
authority and the chancellor's office on the establishment and operation of training
and certification programs required to produce an adequate skilled workforce for this
project. The bill would require the labor market assessment to be incorporated into
the authority's biennial revised business plan.
58965 (DeSaulnier) High-speed rail
Status: 02/18/2010-To Com. on TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING
Summary: Would authorize the authority to receive and expend any federal funds
awarded to the authority for the purposes of developing a project or projects along
the high-speed rail network, thereby making an appropriation. The bill would require
the authority to take various actions in that regard. The bill would also require the
authority to submit to the Legislature an expenditure plan for the federal funds
within 30 days of enactment of this act and to submit a progress report on
expenditure of the funds to the Legislature within 180 days of the award of those
funds and annually thereafter. The bitl would make legislative findings and
declarations relative to the award of federal funds to the state under the federal
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for high-speed rail purposes.
S8 1260 (Vee) High-speed rail
Status: 03/04/2010-To Com. on RULES.
Summary: Existing law, the California High-Speed Rail Act, creates the High-Speed
Rail Authority to develop and implement a high-speed rail system in the state, with
specified powers and duties. Existing law! pursuant to the Safe, Reliable High-Speed
Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century, approved by the voters as
Proposition lA at the November 4, 2008, general election, provides for the issuance
of $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds for high-speed rail and related purposes.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to implement
the bond act.
S8 1371 (Lowenthal & Correa) Federal transportation economic stimulus
funds: 2nd round.
Status: 03/04/2010-To Com. on TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING
Summary: Would require the Department of Transportation to work with local
transportation agencies to develop a list of potential projects that may be awarded
within a 90-day period of the award to the state of 2nd round federal transportation
economic stimulus funds. The bill would require the department to submit a monthly
status report to the Legislature! as specified, with respect to certain milestones for
expenditure of these funds. The bill would make related legislative findings and
declarations.
Legislative Update March 8. 2010 7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
March 3, 2010
Mayor Pat Burt
City of Pa 10 Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
ATTACHMENT G
Ilk! lfl MAR -0 PM 12: 18
Subject: Request for Information from City of Palo Alto
Dear Mayor Burt,
PRP-1802-LTO-PAL-00l
Please pardon the inordinate delay in responding to the City of Palo Alto's detailed request for
information submitted to Dominic Spaeth ling bye-mail on January 15,2010. Please know we are in the
process of responding to your request. The Business Plan, Methodology and General requests and
questions have been forwarded to CHSRA Headquarters (Sacramento) and you will receive a response
from them directly.
Below are some answers to the questions which pertain specifically to Caltrain. We will respond to the
other requests and questions related to Engineering and Operations by March 19,2010.
Budget
11. What is the dollar value of using Caltrain right of way for High-Speed Rail? The dollar value for using
the Caltrain right of way for high-speed train service has not yet been determined.
12. Are there plans for re-utilizing the railroad corridor to build developments to pay for the High-Speed
Rail Project. There are currently no plans to reutilize the railroad corridor for development to pay for the
High-Speed Train Project.
13. What are the estimated costs for property values impact, right of way purchase and other
temporary construction easements needed during construction? The cost estimates have not been
completed. This will be part of a future negotiation between the CHSRA and JPB.
Operations
2. What are the latest operational plans for the 2020 or 2035 (whichever is related to the start of HSR
service)? The assumptions for future Caltrain service will be provided under separate cover by March 19,
2010.
4. What is the cost/benefit of operations and costs related to not having compatible equipment in terms
of platform height, width and train sets? No cost/benefit analysis has been done, but the primary issue
of non-compatible equipment between Caltrain and high-speed trains is that they will not be able to
share the same platform edge if level-boarding access is to be provided.
5. What is the cost/benefit of having freight and not having freight? Caltrain receives annual payment
from the freight operator based on gross tonnage. This amount varies each year.
PENINSULA RAIL PROGRAM
799 Seventh Street
San Francisco, CA 94107
~~~ " . ..' HIGH-SPEED RAIL
"J AUTHORITY
Request for Information from City of Palo Alto
March 3, 2010
Page 2
6. What are the restrictions because of freight? There are clearance and gradient requirements that
must be met to preserve utility for freight operations.
7. What are the assumptions related to Union Pacific's rights? Assumptions are based upon the existing
Trackage Rights Agreement between the Union Pacific and JPB.
8. Provide copies of applicable train horn blowing policies for trains passing through stations. There is
no written policy, however, train engineers may use horns at stations at their discretion based on safety
conditions.
9. We want a copy of the final EIR for Caltrain which is missing from all websites. And it should be
posted next to the draft EIR on the Caltrain website. We are working to get the Finol Electrification EIR
posted to the website.
Thank you for your understanding as we seek to continue to provide the highest standard of project
management on this historic project.
CC:
Steve Emslie, City of Palo Alto
Dominic Spaeth ling, CHSRA PMT
Jeffrey Barker, CHSRA
Michelle Bouchard, Caltrain
Doc. Control
PENINSULA RAIL PROGRAM
799 Seventh Street
San Francisco. CA 94107
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office
DATE: MARCH 15, 2010 CMR: 160:10
REPORT TYPE: ACTION
SUBJECT: Approval of Revised Plan for Downtown Weekday Palo Alto FarmShop
RECOMMENDATION
1. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the revised implementation plan for a
Downtown Weekday Palo Alto FarmS hop. This revised plan, as outlined below, does not
require any public funds and requires only minimal oversight or management by City staff, as
directed by the Council last October.
2. Staff recommends that City Council also approve Staff development of a Utility bill insert
advertising all 3 Palo Alto Farmer's Markets, as described below.
BACKGROUND
From April to November in 2009, Capay Valley Growers, in cooperation with the City,
established a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program and farmer's market on King
Plaza, in front of Palo Alto City Hall. The CSA program expanded on an initiative started by
IDEO, a nearby Palo Alto-based company. The CSA consists of subscribers from the
community, nearby offices and city employees, who support a group of growers for weekly
delivery of fruits and vegetables.
The City Manager's Report 195:09, from March 30th, 2009, included the original MeJillorandum
of Understanding with Capay Valley Growers and outlined the details of the pilot program. The
City Manager's Report 405:09, from October 19t\ 2009 described the results of the pilot
program and some of the challenges faced during the pilot program. Primarily, staff found that
the King Plaza location (in front of City Hall) did not drive enough foot traffic to establish a self-
sustaining market. Council was also concerned about the market management costs for the pilot
program and directed staff to find an alternative solution or a volunteer to fill such a role.
The original intent of this pilot program was to provide local, organic produce for the community
and City employees, which is in line with the City's overall goal of sustainability. The Farm
Shop and CSA program also provides the opportunity for the community to connect with farmers
CMR: 160:10 Page 1 of4
and with the process of local food production, enabling a better understanding of the many
benefits of organic, healthy food.
DISCUSSION
Staff worked with the Fann Shop Board in developing a revised implementation plan for the
weekday market to be located at the newly renovated Lytton Plaza. The Farm Shop Board is
made up of representatives from the Downtown Business Improvement District (BID), IDEO,
Capay Valley Growers, and the City as well as advisors to the Board from the Downtown
Farmer's Market and the Palo Alto Institute (PAl).
The Implementation Plan below outlines management and iogistics, development of the market,
advertising/outreach and finances.
1. Market Management and Market Logistics
Staff has done extensive searching for an appropriate volunteer market manager and has found
one who is energetic, resourceful and has excellent credentials. This volunteer market manager
will be primarily supported by Sherry·Bijan, who is the President of BID. Sherry Bijan has been
involved in the development. and management of the downtown farmers market since its
inception.
Staff will also be posting an opportunity for summer interns to help the market manager continue
to develop and manage the market over the summer months.
As the market develops, the fees collected from the farmers may be able to cover the market's
costs, and the market manager position could eventually become a paid position. This provides
the appointed volunteer market manager an entrepreneurial opportunity and an incentive for the
market to grow and be successfuL
As part of the agricultural permit requirements, the market is required to have access to
restrooms during operating hours. As such a local and adjacent business, Pizza-my-Heart has
cordially offered the use of their restrooms as they will be open during the farmer's market
hours.
The attorney's office has reviewed the matter of holding a fanner's market on Lytton Plaza and
has determined that a fanner's market use is allowed on the Plaza if the City is an official
sponsor of the market.
2. Development of the Market
Capay Valley Growers continue to be committed to Palo Alto and to developing a successful
downtown weekday fanner's market. Capay Valley Growers continue to serve about 50 Palo
Altans per week in the Community supported Agriculture (CSA) program and may use this
venue to further engage with those customers.
CMR: 160:10 Page 2
The Farm Shop Board would like to see more farmers participating in this market, and as such,
the volunteer market manager is reaching out to other local farms like Webb Ranch, Hidden
Villa and Full Circle Farms. It is the Board's goal to grow the farm shop to include 3 to 5 local
farms participating on a weekly basis over the next year or two.
The market will be held at Lytton Plaza, initially running from 3-6pm on Wednesday afternoons.
If the number of farms at Lytton Plaza grows to a point that space is no longer available, the
Board has discussed either expanding it to King Plaza or High Street Plaza. The board also
discussed expanding the market hours to 7pm in the summertime.
3. Advertising and outreach
Staff recognizes that one of the challenges faced during the pilot program was the limited
advertising and outreach. As such, IDEO has recommitted their team to help in this endeavor.
IDEO and the Board feel that advertising and outreach need not cost money, but can be done
creatively with significant impact. . The market manager will have primary responsibility for
developing and implementing inexpensive and creative marketing and advertising ideas.
Sherry Bijan from BID will also work with the volunteer market manager in helping them reach
out to the downtown businesses, through BID's network. The Palo Alto Institute
(http://paloaltoinstitute.org) has also offered assistance to help the volunteer market manager in
marketing and outreach, as well as coordination of musicians who will be booked to play without
a fee during market hours.
Staff would also like to commit, if Council approves, to advertising in the Utility bill for all three
of Palo Alto's farmer's markets. The cost of such is approximately $1,200.
4. Finances
The implementation plan is developed so that there is no cost to the City other than the potential
Utility bill insert, which would benefit all three Palo Alto farmer's markets.
The costs of the agriculture permits and inspections, totaling approximately $1,500 annually,
would be initially paid for by the Palo Alto Institute and they would recoup their investment
through the fees charged to the participating farmers. The proposed fees for the farmers would
be $20-25 per 4'x10' table per week. The set up at Lytton Plaza can have up to 10 tables
comfortably, which could mean upwards of $200-$250 revenue per week if other farmers
participate. The new location will initially begin with Capay Valley Growers and will hopefully
expand to include other growers through outreach from the volunteer market manager.
The board decided that it would not be necessary to pay musicians to perform at the new
FarmShop, as they would probably make enough in tips due to the higher traffic in this location.
As mentioned above, the Palo Alto Institute will also help the FarmShop Manager in scheduling
musicians who will not require a stipend.
CMR: 160:10 Page 3 of4
The City would also continue to sell the remainder of the reusable FarmShop bags developed for
the original pilot program, which could help to offset some of the original investment the City
made to the program.
RESOURCE IMPACT
It is staffs goal that this farmer's market becomes self-sustaining with no financial support from
the City. The only potential costs to the City would be for the Utility bill insert as described
above. The intent of the advertising would be to include information about all three of Palo
Alto's farmer's markets, because the goals and objectives of all three markets align with the
goals of the program and the City'S goals of sustain ability and community engagement.
Staff time would be minimized and would include participation in the Farmshop Board meetings
and as a back up to Sherry Bijan, from BID, who will serve as the primary contact for the
volunteer market manager. It is to be noted that since the City is the responsible party for the
County Departments of Public Health and Agriculture permits, a staff person is required to be
"on call" in case of an emergency during market hours. The staff person will be Debra van
Duynhoven and a back up designee will be determined.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Approval of this policy is consistent with current City policies. It also supports the Council's
priorities of Environmental Protection and Civic Engagement for the Common Good.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This report is not a project requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
ATTACHMENTS
1. CMR 405:09 -October 19th, 2009 -Review of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) Pilot
Program at Palo Alto City Hall King Plaza and Make Recommendations for Continuation of the
Program
PREPARED BY:
Debra van Duynhoven
Assistant to the City Managerfor Sustainability
CITY MANAGER APPROV AL: ----r+IC--'----~__A~----lo"----------
CMR: Page 4
Attachment 1
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office
DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2009 CMR: 405:09
REPORT TYPE: ACTION
SUBJECT: Review of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) Pilot Program at Palo
Alto City Hall King Plaza and Make Recommendations for Continuation of
the Program
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) continue to support the Palo Alto Community
Farmshop in downtown Palo Alto; 2) move the program to the newly renovated Lytton Plaza
after the first of the year; and 3) direct staff to revise the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with Capay Valley Growers and return to Council for approval.
BACKGROUND
Over the past 5 months, Capay Valley Growers, in cooperation with the City, established a
Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program and farmer's market at Palo Alto City Hall.
The CSA program expanded on an initiative started by IDEO, a nearby Palo Alto based
company. The CSA consists of subscribers wh'o support a group of growers for weekly delivery
of fruits and vegetables.
The attached report (CMR: 195 :09) describes the original intent and details of the pilot program,
which was launched in April of this year. The original intent was to provide local, organic
produce for the community and City employees, which is in line with the mission of
. sustainability, creating a healthy engaged community. The CSA program also provides the
opportunity for the community to connect with farmers and with the process of local food
production, enabling a better understanding of the many benefits of organic, healthy food.
Staff can build on the lessons and experiences of the last seven months to develop a long-term,
self-sustaining model for a downtown weekday farmer's market. Staff realizes that additional
advertising may have been necessary to bring the community to King Plaza, which on a regular
day does not get a steady flow of foot traffic. Staff also did not anticipate the permit fees and
additional hours for a market manager. Given the timing of the hiring of the Assistant to the City
Manager for Sustainability, staff had to extend the original contract for the Market Manager.
CMR: 405:09 Page 1
Capay Valley Growers have been encouraged by the results so far and are content with the 40-
60 subscribers they have had to the Fannshare program, but would like the sales of the market of
individual produce and products to grow and become more viable. The foot traffic on King
Plaza is variable and currently does not produce high enough volume for this portion of the
program to be self-sustaining.
Capay Valley Growers are committed to this program and are proposing to pay a percent of sales
to the City. Their sales have been about $2,000 per week, about 40% of which are from the CSA
Farmshop program. Capay Valley Growers have agreed to pay a fee to participate in this
program, which is standard for all fanners markets, although the amount varies. Capay Valley
Growers have proposed to pay 5% of gross sales, or approximately $100 per week.
Although the move to Lytton Plaza will make City employees' access less convenient, soon the
new location will broaden the Farmshop's visibility to the community and make the program self
sustaining.
DISCUSSION
Staff has reviewed several options for the Fannshop moving forward. They are:
1. Keep Farmshop at King Plaza
a. Staff has found that City employee participation in the CSA program was not as
high as originally anticipated. Overall, only about 10-20 City employees have
participated in the program. Staff would like to continue providing a benefit to
employees by hosting the market on King Plaza. However, given that the general
market traffic has been lower than anticipated and desired, a location with higher
foot traffic is more desirable.
b. Actual costs for the pilot program have been $24,000. The original budget for the
pilot program was $19,000. These costs include an hourly market manager for
$21,000, pennits and advertising for $1,465, entertainment for $1,440 and
supplies for $95. Again, given the timing of the hiring of the Assistant to the City
Manager for Sustainability, staff had to extend the contract for the market
manager. The original cost estimate for the market manager outlined in the MOU
was between $10,000 and $15,000. Additionally, staff found that the market
manager needed to spend more time on outreach and marketing to draw more
people to King Plaza.
c. Estimated costs for one year for the market to remain at King Plaza would include
pennit and fees, advertising, entertainment and local market organizer totaling
about $10, 800. From the pilot program, staff estimates the penn it and fees at
$800. Advertising is expected to be higher at King Plaza in order to draw the
people to this location. Advertising may include one utility bill insert and 4
newspaper ads totaling $3,200. Entertainment is estimated to be $2,800, which is
twice the actual cost for 6 months. Costs would also include a local market
coordinator, which is estimated at $4,000. However, staff and Capay Valley
Growers will also look at the option of engaging a volunteer market coordinator,
CMR: 405:09 Page 2 5
and this could reduce the City's financial commitment. The market coordinator in
this scenario may be asked to do more outreach and marketing to help draw
people to the market and assist in weekly setup and cleanup, which would
increase their time commitment.
d. Many of the other market management responsibilities would be assumed by the
Assistant to the City Manager for Sustainability. Additional duties that the staff
can take on are coordination with City issues such as permit and fees, budget and
expense reconciliation, advertising as described in (d) above and work with
IDEO, Palo Alto Downtown Business Association and Capay Valley Growers on
low-cost outreach opportunities. Special events coordination would be managed
by the Farmshop Board and Assistant to the City Manager for Sustainability.
2. Move Farmshop to Lytton Plaza upon its re-opening
a. Lytton Plaza is currently going through an extensive renovation. The Plaza could
easily host a small farmer's market program. A weekly farmer's market would
also bring people to the businesses on University A venue and support nearby
businesses. Staff has had a preliminary conversation with the Business
Improvement District about this option and there is interest in exploring it further.
b. The move to Lytton Plaza would most likely occur in January given the schedule
for Lytton Plaza's opening and the Christmas break. Staff recommends that we
keep the Farmshop in King Plaza until the Christmas break.
c. Staff also recommends that the hours be modified for the Lytton Plaza location to
take advantage of lunchtime foot traffic.
d. Estimated for costs for one year for the market at Lytton Plaza would include
permits and fees, advertising and local market organizer totaling about $5,000.
From the pilot program, staff estimates the permit and fees at $800. Costs would
also include a local market coordinator, which is estimated at $3,000. However,
staff and Capay Valley Growers will also look at the option of engaging a
volunteer market coordinator, which could reduce the City's financial
commitment. The duties that would be the responsibility of the market
coordinator would be weekly setup and cleanup activities with Capay Valley
Growers and being present onsite during market hours to assist with any issues.
Advertising may include one utility bill insert and 2 newspaper ads totaling
$2,200. There would be no monetary allowance for musicians in this scenario, as
staff believes that the musicians could gamer enough in tips and donations, due to
the increased foot traffic at this location.
e. Many of the other market management responsibilities would be assumed by the
Assistant to the City Manager for Sustainability. Additional duties that the staff
can take on are coordination with City issues such as permit and fees, budget and
expense reconciliation, advertising as described in (d) above and work with
IDEO, Palo Alto Downtown Business Association and Capay Valley Growers on
CMR: 405:09 Page 3 of5
low-cost outreach opportunities. Special events coordination would be managed
by the Farmshop Board and Assistant to the City Manager for Sustainability.
3. Close Farmshop operations
a. Staff does not recommend this option because the goals and objectives of the
program align with the City's goals of sustainability and community engagement.
If a proposal can be developed to reduce the financial impact to the City as
outlined in Option 2, staff would recommend continuing with the program.
Depending upon Council action, staff will further engage the BID discussions around the Lytton
Plaza option and will return with revisions to the original MOU with Capay Valley Growers.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The resource impact for one year for the option staff suggests (Option 2) would be as follows;
1. Permits and fees -$800
2. One utility bill insert (for all three markets) -$1,200
3. Two newspaper ads (for all three markets) -$1,000
4. Locallabor/market organizer -$3,000
The total resource impact would be $5,000. This does not include the potential 5% fee we could
receive from Capay Valley Growers which could total about $1,200 per year.
Note the intent of the advertising would be to include information about all three of Palo Alto's
farmer's markets, because the goals and objectives of all three markets align with the goals of the
program and the City's goals of sustainability and community engagement.
Again, it is staffs goal that this farmer's market becomes self-sustaining with little to no
financial support from the City. The pilot program was very useful in that it allowed staff to
evaluate the costs and requirements for operating a farmer's market. Overall, staff believes this
was a worthwhile experiment to encourage sustainable goals within a community and with City
staff.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Approval of this policy is consistent with current City policies. It also supports the Council's
priorities of Environmental Protection and Civic Engagement for the Common Good.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This report is not a project requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
CMR: 405:09 Page 4 of5
ATtACHMENTS
CMR: 195:09 -Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding with Capay Valley Growers,
Incorporated, to Operate a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) Pilot Program at Palo Alto
City Hall King Plaza
PREPARED BY:
Debra van Duynhoven
Assistant to the City Manager
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR: 405:09
James Keene
City Manager
Page 5