The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-04-16 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Council Chambers April 16, 2012 5:30 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting. 1 April 16, 2012 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. Call to Order Closed Session Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Pamela Antil, Lalo Perez, David Ramberg, Sandra Blanch, Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray) Employee Organization: Service Employees International Union, (SEIU) Local 521 Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a) 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL CONSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9) Curtner Homes LP v. City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County Case No. 1-10-CV-170151 Special Orders of the Day 3. Proclamation IIMC Municipal Clerks Week - April 29 through May 5, 2012. 4. Appointments for Three Positions on the Public Art Commission for Three Year Terms Ending April 30, 2015 5. Appointment for One Position on the Utilities Advisory Commission for an Unexpired Term Ending June 30, 2013 6. Appointments for Three Positions on the Human Relations Commission for Three Year Terms Ending March 31, 2015 2 April 16, 2012 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 7. Overview of California's Cap-and-Trade Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Impacts on the Operation of Electric and Gas Utilities 8. Update on the Climate Protection Plan - Earth Day Staff Report 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 of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Consent Calendar Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members. 9. Finance Committee Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Modifying the City of Palo Alto Utilities’ Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan’s Strategy Related to the Renewable Portfolio Standard 10.Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for FY 2012 to Appropriate Three Grant Donations: (1) in the Amount of $13,500 from the City and County of San Francisco For the Purchase of a Rapidly Deployable Shelter System, (2) in the Amount of $68,800 From the City and County of San Francisco For the Purchase of a Mobile Emergency Operations Center Support Vehicle, and (3) in the Amount of $57,000 From the Silicon Valley Community Foundation to Promote Widespread Participation by Peninsula Cities in Formulating and Implementing a Best Practices Common Model for Neighborhood Emergency Response Preparedness 11.Adoption of a Resolution Approving the City of Palo Alto Annex to the Santa Clara County Annex to the 2010 Association of Bay Area Governments Local Hazard Mitigation Plan “Taming Natural Disasters” 12.Approval of an Amendment No. One to the Amended and Restated Stewardship Agreement Between The City of Palo Alto and Acterra in the Amount of $54,496 for the Initial year of Services for the Enid W. Pearson Arastradero Preserve 3 April 16, 2012 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 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: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 13.Approval of Retiree Medical Report and Assumption Changes 14.Finance Committee Recommendation Regarding Adoption of Budget Amendment Ordinance Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2012 to Adjust Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures in Accordance with the Recommendations in the Midyear Report 15.Recommendation that Council Adopt the Draft Cubberley Guiding Principles, Confirm the City Manager's Appointments to the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and Review the Conceptual Site Plans Prepared Jointly by the Staff of the PAUSD and City of Palo Alto (continued from 04/09/12) 16.Public Hearing: Adoption of an Ordinance Approving an Amendment to the 1997 Sand Hill Road Development Agreement to Extend Lease on El Camino Park and to Remove Approximately 10.25 Acres of Land (Searsville and Fremont Roads) in Santa Clara County from Special Condition Area B to be Used for Central Energy (Cogeneration) Facility. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the Public are entitled to directly address the City Council/Committee concerning any item that is described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council/Committee on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council/Committee, but it is very helpful. 4 April 16, 2012 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Supplemental Information Standing Committee Meetings Finance Committee Standing Committee 04-17-12 Finance Committee Standing Committee Packets 04-18-12 Regional Housing Mandate Standing Committee 04-19-12 City/School Meeting 04-19-12 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Finance Tentative Agenda Informational Report Storm Drain Oversight Committee Review of FY2011 Storm Drainage Fund Expenditures Public Letters to Council Public Letters to Council Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 CITY OF PALO ALTO PROCLAMATION Municipal Clerks Week April 29, 2012 thru May 5, 2012 WHEREAS, the Office of the City Clerk (Clerk), a time honored and vital part of local government exists throughout the world; and WHEREAS, the Clerk is the oldest position among public servants; and WHEREAS, the Clerk provides the professional link between the citizens, the local governing bodies and agencies of government at other levels; and WHEREAS, Clerks have pledged to be ever mindful of their neutrality and impartiality, rendering equal service to all; and WHEREAS, the Clerk serves as the information center on functions of local government and community; and WHEREAS, Clerks continually strive to improve the administration of the affairs of the Office of the City Clerk through participation in education programs, seminars, workshops and the annual meetings of their state, province, county and international professional organizations; and WHEREAS, it is most appropriate that we recognize the accomplishments of the Office of the City Clerk. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Yiaway Yeh, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council do hereby recognize the week of April 29 through May 5, 2012, as City Clerks Week, and further extend appreciation to our City Clerk, Donna Grider and her staff and to all City Clerks for the vital services they perform and their exemplary dedication to the communities they represent. Presented: April 2012 ______________________________ Yiaway Yeh Mayor CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK April 16, 2012 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Appointments for Three Positions on the Public Art Commission for Three Year Terms Ending April 30, 2015 On Monday, April 16, 2012 the City Council should vote to appoint three terms ending on April 30, 2015. The Candidates interviewed on March 22, 2012. The Candidates are as follows: Richard Ambrose Alena Campagna Harvey Citrin Hemla Makan-Dullabh Vikki Tobak Patricia Walsh Voting will be by paper ballot. Five votes are required to be appointed. The first three candidates that receive at least five votes will be appointed. REPORT PREPARED BY:Ronna Jojola Gonsalves, Deputy City Clerk ATTACHMENTS: ·Ambrose Application (PDF) ·Campagna Application (PDF) ·Citrin Application (PDF) ·Makan-Dullabh Application (PDF) ·Tobak Application (PDF) ·Walsh Application (PDF) Department Head:Donna Grider, City Clerk Updated: 4/11/2012 8:50 AM by Ronna Gonsalves Page 2 CI T.'l°tPALO"AlTO Ck ell Y CL£R h'S OFP{et 12 JAN 26 PI' 5: 2l PUBLIC ART COMMISSION CITY OF PALO ALTO BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION SUBMIT TO: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 Please print or type answers to all questions and place N/A in those areas that do not apply. All fonns must have a digital signature or the applicant must print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. NAME: Ambrose Richard HOME PHONE: Last First RESIDENCE 2716"Del Monte Ave ADDRESS: ~~ __________________________ ~ __ ___ Street EI Cerrito CA 94530 City State Zip Education: BFA, University of Oregon, Studio Art, minor in Art History 1979 MFA, Colorado State University, Studio Art 1981 ------- WORK PHONE: 650-321-3891 CELL PHONE: 304-767-4836 EMAIL: _8xocu_tiv_ed_I,_octo_r@-,-p_ac_lflca_rt_I"_Q_U8_.org_ List relevant training and experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: 27 Years of curatorial experience in collections management and acquisitions (through purchases and donations); exhibition and maintenance of public art collections in Colorado, West Virginia, and California. 1984-2011. Board Member, Pueblo Arts Council (CO),1985-1988. Board Member, Fresno Arts Council (CA), 1990-1993 Vice President, Arts Advocacy, West Virginia 1995-2007, Secured state funding for public art and capital improvements for state·wide arts organizations. Chair, Outdoor Public Art Committee for a 1 million dollar sculpture commission, Clay Center for the Arts and Sciences, Charleston West Virginia, 2006-07. Rocky Mountain Conservatory, Denver CO, Materials Conservation Certificate, 1989. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 • Are you a Palo Alto Resident? • Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? • Are you available and committed to complete the tenn applied for? -• California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? Jfyou answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney be/ore filing this application. Please contact the City Attorney's Office at 650-329-. 2171. • Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? EMPLOYMENT Present or last employer Pacific Art League Name of Company: Occupation: D D [{J D D [lJ D Executive Director f . I ( ) ~ (If retired, indicate former occupation) Signatu<e of Applicant' .~O(, . ~ 'NY ~ Date: _9_-_2_1_-_1_1 _____ _ *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. Bds/Commissions-702-23 9/13/2011 Please Return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 CITY OF PALO ALTO PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Name: Richard Ambrose Date: September 21, 2011 Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? Yes No • Public Art Commission D (Date: _____ ---..1. [ZJ 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Public Art Commission? The Daily Post: D Community Group: D Palo Alto Weekly: D website:DfYeS, Please Identify: ______________ _ Email from City Clerk: D Library Bulletin Board: D Other, Please Specify: Conversation with Ally Richter FlyerlBOOkmark:D 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: As Director of the Pacific Art League for the past 22 months, I have worked with a diverse group of artists, educators, art students, art enthusiasts, donors, and businesses. I am a practicing artist and have works in numerous private and public collections. One of the oldest arts organizations in the bay area, the Pacific Art League has represented excellence in arts education and provided art experiences to people of all ages, cultural interests and artistic skill levels. 4. What is it about the Public Art Commission that interests you? What qualities,experience and expertise would you bring to the Public Art Commission? The Public Art Commission and its collecting programs represents the cultural vision of the community and symbolizes public support for artistic creativity and enrichment. I have served on numerous committees in three states that were responsible for granting funds to artists, and arts organizations. I have also provided leadership in the acquisition of public collections, and development of related educational programs at three museums. I understand the critical role of stewardship and the public trust in maintaining the community's cultural assets. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 5. How would you see your role as board member when recommending policy and working with the Council? Ifit were necessary to change current roles, how would you approach making such changes? 1) engage the entire community to assess their interest in public art and to promote the role of public art throughout the community; 2) ensure that aU policies and decision-making processes are transparent, adhered to and reflect accountability; 3) adopt best aesthetic practices in selecting art that reflects community roots, identity, and cultural enrichment; 4) be proactive in promoting ongoing support for the arts in the community; and, 5) develop a long term strategic plan for the stewardship of the current collection and for future acquisitions. I would view my role as serving at the pleasure of the Public Art Commission and will be responsive to any change or new direction relevant to that role. 6. What are the current issues facing the Public Art Commission? 1) awareness of the Commission's value to the community and its role in engaging and educating the citizens about the city's cultural assets and accessibility; 2) update its mission and list it on the web site. 3) develop a long term strategic plan that defines the Commission's educational goals and objectives, develops a cohesive collection maintenance and conservation plan, and identifies potential sites to display works of art both on a temporarily and/or permanent basis and, 4) create an overall collection conservation plan, that addresses ongoing maintenance issues that includes a list of objects that need immediate conservation and secure adequate funds to implement the conservation process. 7. What are your feelings about Palo Alto's current inventory/collection of Art in Public Places? What suggestions would you have for increasing the availability of more Art in Public Places? I am familiar with the permanent art installations around the community. However I cannot cannot comment on the bulk of the city's collection that is in storage. The 300 plus collection, that are not site specific, are generally not as accessible to the community and many may not have been exhibited for an extensive period.. The permanent works run the gamut of public art reflecting multiple styles, subject matter and representing unique opportunities to integrate art with the architectural or landscape surroundings. My suggestions are: , 1) make the collection more available and accessible to all possible segments of the community; 2) inventory and document the entire collection and have the visual and supporting information on the Commission's web site; 3) partner with local arts organizations, community centers and businesses in the Silicon Valley to showcase the collection; 4) develop a long term acquisition plan based on the strengths and weaknesses of the current collection and 5) determine which works of the eXisting collection should be recommended for de-accessing based on condition, redundancy and/or not renecting the overall quality of the collection. ' 8. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve? 1) develop a short and long term strategiC plan to improve the Commission's stewardship of current and future collections, 2) outline future actions to engage artists in creating art at, or for these potential sites; 3) update its collecting policies to ensure adequate funding for acquisitions, exhibition, and care of the collection; 4) conduct an analysis of the existing collection identifying its strengths and weaknesses; 5) create an acquisition/deaccession plan to strengthen the.coliection; 6) based on available resources become more prudent in collecting art, and 7) make the collection more accessible and have the entire collection on its web site with supporting information. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 I ' City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CONSENT FORM California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. Read the code, and check only ONE option below: [l] I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR D I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address Phone Date J. *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 Gonsalves, Ronna From: Gonsalves, Ronna Sent: Friday, January 20,20123:22 PM To: 'Richard Ambrose' Cc: Gon~~~,Ron~ Subject: RE: Public Art Commission Recruitment Attachments: Ambrose Application DO NOT USE IN PACKET.pdf Hello, l. y Page 1 of2 You are serving in an "unexpired" term. In other words, the commissioner before you resigned before his term was over and you are finishing his term which expires in April. Yes, we can resubmit your application from last year. I will attach your application in case you want to review it. If you are selected to serve again, your term would then be three years beginning on May 1. Thanks for the email and please let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks! Ronna Jojola Gonsalves 650-329-2267 From: Richard Ambrose [mailto:executivedirector@pacificartleague.org] Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 11:55 AM To: Gonsalves, Ronna Cc: DeMarzo, Elise Subject: Re: Public Art Commission Recruitment Hi Ronna, Please clarify my term as Commissioner of the Palo Alto Arts Commission. I thought I was elected to a first three year term this past November. If! was elected to fill a a vacant position that will expire this year, can I resubmit my original application? Thanks, Ric On Thu, Jan 19,2012 at 5:10 PM, Gonsalves, Ronna <Ronna. Gonsalves@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: . Terry, Richard, and Michael, As you are probably aware, your term on the Public Art Commission expires on April 30, 2012. During the next few weeks, we will be advertising and accepting applications for term ending on April 30, 2015. The deadline for receipt of applications for incumbents is 5:30 p.m. on February 9, 112312012 2012. l } Page 2'0£2 \ ) If you wish to apply for the new term, please complete the attached application form so that the Council has up-to-date information or call and request that your current application be reactivated. I need to hear from you prior to the deadline of February 9, 2012. Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Ronna Jojola Gonsalves Deputy City Clerk I City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue I Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2267 I ronna.gonsalves@cityofpaloalto.org I www.cityofpaloalto.org\clerk 1123/2012 €iHY 6F PALO Alf:~M~A SfTY CLERK'S ~FFleE f 2 fEB 14 PH I: 0 I PUBLIC ART COMMISSION CITY OF PALO ALTO BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION SUBMIT TO: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 Please print or type answers to all questions and place N/A in those areas that do not apply. All forms must have a digital signature or the applicant must print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. Atyped signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. NAME: Campagna Alena HOME PHONE: RESIDENCE ADDRESS: Education: WORK. PHONE: CELL PHONE: .EMAIL: Masters of Architecture (M. Arch); University of Califomia at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA -December 1995. Bachelor of Science In Art and Design, specializing in architectural design, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA -June 1991. Spent a semester studying architecture, sculpture, and Italian, Syracuse University's Study Abroad Program, Florence, Italy -Spring 1990 List relevant training and experience, certificates of training, licenses. or professional registration: California State Licensed Architect since 1999. Practicing in Palo Alto since 1996 . . LEED Green Associate since 2010. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 .' Are you a Palo Alto Resident? • Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? • Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? • California state law requires appointed board imd commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, Ii company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the City Attorney's Office at 650-329-. 2171. • Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? EMPLOYMENT· Present or last employer Stoecker & Northway Architects Name of Company: Occupation: D D D .0 D Project Architect· (If retired, indicate former occupation) Signature of Applicant* ---~I:Iifoooo4-';';' :..=== __ '_'_._ .. ,_.,_-_____ _ Date: 2-14-2012 *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 Please Return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton' Avenue Palo Alto, CA94301 650-329-2571 CITY OF PALO ALTO PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Name: Alena Campagna Date: 2-14-2012 Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, ifnecessary, to complete your answers. . Yes No 1: Have you attended the following meeting? • Public Art Commission I t/ I (Date: 2-13-2012 D 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Public Art Commission? The Daily Post: D Connnunity Group: D Palo Alto Weekly: D website:DfYeS, Please Identify: __ . _____________ _ . Email from City Clerk: 0 Library Bulletin Board: D FlyerlBookmark: D Other, Please Specify: ________ --'-________________ _ 3. Describe your involvement in connnunity activities, volunteer and civic organizations: This would be my first foray into community involvement. I am at a point in my life where I have a little more time, and I would like to not only teach my child the importance of participating and giving back to your community, but show him, since actions speak louder than words. 4. What is it about the Public Art Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Public Art Commission? I have always loved art in all forms, taken art classes every year in school through grad school and I am always very pleased when it can be incorporated into one of the buildings I am working on. Being a part of the process that brings art to Palo Alto's public spaces would be an honor. As an architect, I understand space and how to create it. I understand what type of art would be appropriate in a space, how the art itself can create space and how to better protect a piece from vandals or curious hands, if required, by the way you install it. I also understand how the elements can affect different materials over time and the importance of a continual upkeep of the material's finish. . Bds/Commissions -702~23 9/13/2011 5. How would you see your role as board member when recommending policy and working with the Council? If it were necessary to change current roles, how would you approach making such changes? My role would be to provide thoroughly flushed out advice to the Council, presenting the all pros and cons of a policy or action, and to advise the Council what has been successful or unsuccessful with the board or previous policies. I am a consensus builder by nature. I would work with the Council, and if applicable, neighborhood groups, artists, other City departments, etc. to first define the issues and then determine the extent of changes needed. 6. What'arethe current issues facing the Public Art Commission? Prioritizing the maintenance needs of the existing collection and getting the work in contract before the maintenance funds expire in May/June. Digital DNA: The sponsorship of refurbishing it, it's continued maintenance needs, repairing it vs. brand new one, and if it.residing outside is intelligent in the long run. Main Library Art Center Art Project -ongoing progress and community meetings to develop the sculptures' details. 7. What are your feelings about Palo Alto's current inventory/collection of Art in Public Places? What suggestions would you have for increasing the availability of more Art in Public Places? . The collection seems quite varied. I am especially fond of Patrick Dougherty's work Double Take and Greg Brown's many murals. I am a big fan of interactive art, which is well s,uited for a public space. I am looking forward to the new Main Library sculptures; Perhaps expand the 1 % for art concept to include private building projects in key districts like Downtown, Midtown and California Avenue. Either have the money pay into a fund for a larger installation in that district, or allow each business to incorporate something smaller into their own project. Maybe a temporary art exhibition that inv()lves local artists and local businesses teaming together where an artist displays a piece in a local business's window for three weeks, both get exposure from a brochure/map and a percentage of any art sales goes to a public art fund. Could also involve local high school students teaming up with an artist and displaying something they made as well from the process. 8. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve? Ensuring new art pieces are durable and do not fall prey to the same maintenance issues 'or mistakes of others in the existing collection. Ensuring that knowledge base is . preserved, passed on, updated and continually shared between the City entities that commission the art piece and those that maintain it. . Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto,CA 94301 CONSENT FORM California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consentform will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. Read the code, and check only ONE option below: D I give permisSion for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto. City Clerk. OR I II' I I Alena Campagna request that the· City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. clol Stoecker & Northway Architects Inc., 1000 Elwell Ct., Suite 150A, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Address (650) 965-3500 Phone· alena@stoeckerandnorthway.com Email , ~1I 2/14/2012 Signature* Date *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 PUBLIC ART COMMISSION CITY OF PALO ALTO en X OF PALO ALTO. GoA ell ( CLERK'S OFFICE f 2 fEB -8 APi ,: 5 , BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION SUBMIT TO: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 Please print or type answers to all questions and place N/A in those areas that do not apply. All forms must have a digital signature or the applicant must print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. NAME: Citrin Harvey HOME PHONE: 650 327 0829 Last First RESIDENCE 1530 Hamilton Ave ADDRESS:~ __________________ ~ ____________ _ Street Palo Alto CA City State Education: J.D., 1976, Fordham M.E.E., 1965, City University of New York B.M.E.IB.E.E., 1956, City College of New York 94303 Zip WORKPHONE: ____________ __ CELL PHONE: 650 208 8844 EMAIL: citrin@igc.org List relevant training and experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Professional Engineer, 1956 -New York State Bar, 1956 -Federal Bar, 1956 California State Bar, 1988 Pacific Art League -American Society for the Advancement of Chinese Art (Chinese Brush Painting) Palo Alto Cultural Center -Palo Alto Jazz Alliance -HaShirim Chorale Stanford University: English in Action -Jewish Coalition for Literacy -Congregation Beth Am Jewish Community Center -Asian Art Museum -Hiller Aviation Museum DeYoung Museum of Fine Arts -Contemporary Jewish Museum -Neighbors Abroad West Bay Opera Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 • Are you a Palo Alto Resident? • Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? • Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? • California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their fmancial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions ofthe board or commission you are applying for? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the City Attorney's Office at 650-329-.2171. • Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? EMPLOYMENT D [Z] D D o [Z] o Present or last employer Name of Company: Self Occupation: Mediator, Arbitrator, Attorney (Ifretired, indicate former occupation) Signature of Applicant* Date: *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 CITY OF PALO ALTO PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL OUESTIONNAIRE Please Return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 Name: _----=.W-l-b(l,..l,,-LL---"-{..........,~~['_'_'l i=-.lDr~L-,--~ h::.......<--)· Yl---,- Date: ___ --=2-.~(-=:::S=---.:..l_1-___ _ Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? • Public Art Commission Yes D (Date: _____ ---.J.) No [{J 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Public Art Commission? The Daily Post: D Community Group: D Palo Alto Weekly: D website:Dyes, Please Identify: _______________ _ Email from City Clerk: [l] Library Bulletin Board: D FlyerlBOOkmark:D Other, Please Specify: ___________________________ _ 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Pacific Art League American Society for the Advancement of Chinese Art (Chinese Brush Painting) Palo Alto Cultural Center -Palo Alto Jazz Alliance -HaShirim Chorale Adolescent Counseling Service Stanford University: English in Action -Jewish Coalition for Literacy Congregation Beth Am Jewish Community Center -Asian Art Museum -Hiller Aviation Museum DeYoung Museum of Fine Arts -Contemporary Jewish Museum Neighbors Abroad West Bay Opera 4. What is it about the Public Art Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Public Art Commission? Improving the match of art to the aesthetics of the populace. A refined sense of composition, structure, form and color Bds/Comrnissions -702-23 9/13/2011 5. How would you see your role as board member when recommending policy and working with the Council? If it were necessary to change current roles, how would you approach making such changes? Maintain a Negotiation relationship. Consultation and negotiation. 6. What are the current issues facing the Public Art Commission? There is a sense of lack of respect and resentment about choices made and lack of response to public comment. 7. What are your feelings about Palo Alto's current inventory/collection of Art in Public Places? What suggestions would you have for increasing the availability of more Art in Public Places? The most successful and intriguing works are the murals by Greg Brown and the glass bottle house in front of City Hall. Much is advant garde but needs more caution in order to maintain general public appeal. Some tastes are more sophisticated and the Commission must remain sensitive to this. 8. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve? Add more color and grace to public art, Make it more approachable, less static and allow for more human interaction via touch, exploration and reflection. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CONSENT FORM California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone numl;>er of any elected or appOinted official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. Read the code, and check only ONE option below: o I Harve Citrin give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR D I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address Phone Email (fI~ ~_£-_-R_i3!_2-__ Signature* Date *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 PUBLIC ART COMMISSION CITY OF PALO ALTO \ ;' Oli.' Y ~1 eli:' "'.'. I n "'·ll'O. (' .. 11 .. • \ii, -'1. .... v l""l" I ';'i'\ 511 Y CLEHK'S OFFICE BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION SUBMIT TO: Office ofthe City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 Please print or type answers to all questions and place N/A in those areas that do not apply. All forms must have a digital signature or the applicant must print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. NAME: Makan-Dullabh Last RESIDENCE 3974 Duncan Place ADDRESS: Street Palo Alto CA City State Education: Hernia First 94306 Zip HOMrnPHONE: 6505613888 WORK PHONE: NI A ------- CELL PHONE: 6507984168 EMAIL: hemlamd@hotmail.com BA fine arts-University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa-1993 BA (HONS) ceramics, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa-1994 HDE,University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa-1996 List relevant training and experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: 1. Art Educator-Gr1 to Gr12 over a 10 yeCir period. I have taught in Johannesburg, and Pietermaritzburg in South Africa and in Beijing, China. -1996 to 2005 2. Advisor-at the Tatham Art Gallery, Pi.etermaritzburg, South Africa.-1996-1997 3.Art educator at the Northdale Technical Colledge, Pietermartizburg, South Africa-1995 4. Involved in a project to empower women -Shamiana Mughal Tapestry project, Victoria and Albert Museum, London.-1997-1998 4.Taught private lessons in art to Adults and children.1997-2009 • Are you a Palo Alto Resident? • Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? • Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? • California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their [mancial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the City Attorney's Office at 650-329-.2171. • Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? EMPLOYMENT D [lJ D D D [ZJ D Present or last employer Self-7 Rays Healing Center Name of Company: Occupation: Art Advisor! Alternative Therapist (If retired, indicate former occupation) Signature of Applicant* Date: 2/1/2012 *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. Please Return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 CITY OF PALO ALTO PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Name: Hernia Makan-Dullabh Date: February 1 2012 Please print or type your auswers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? Yes No • Public Art Commission D (Date: ______ -.1.) [l] 2. How did you Learn about the vacaucy on the Public Art Commission? The Daily Post: D Community Group: D Palo Alto Weekly: D website:DlfYeS, Please IdentifY: ________________ _ FlyerlBookmark: D Email from City Clerk: D Library Bulletin Board: D Other, Please SpecifY: Trish Collins ----------------------------------------------------- 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer aud civic organizations: We have recently moved to Palo Alto from Johannesburg, South Africa. I am currently involved in volunteering at both my childrens schools. Previously I was involved in many community based activities. 1. An international tapestry project that exhibited at the Victoria and Albert museum, London and then around the world. It is currently on permanent exhibition at the Natal Museum, Pietermartizburg, South Africa. 2.Sunlit Gardens Orphanage-taught art in 1996. 3. CAP (community arts project), taught women sustainable crafts to support themselves and their families financially. My family and I are enjoying Palo Alto and look forward to becoming more involved in the community. 4. What is it about the Public Art Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience aud expertise would you bring to the Public Art Commission? I admire the works of local artists here in California. Palo Alto has such diverse and beautiful public art. As a newcomer,one of the first things that struck me about this city is the richness in available art to educate children with and to appreciate. I would like to be involved in identifying and adding value to the art of Palo Alto. I have been travelling the world since I was 14years old. I have lived in other countries and have experienced art in each of those countries. I believe I would bring in an acculturated perspective on art based on my experiences. \ 5. How would you see your role as board member when recommending policy and working with the Council? If it were necessary to change current roles, how would you approach making such changes? I would discuss the agenda with the appropriate members concerned, to make a decision based on the members consensus. I believe that open, honest discussion would allow for all members to voice their opinions. With regards to the second half of the question, my motto is "change is good for me". Change is something I am extremely familiar with, having lived in 3 countries each with such diverse cultures and in many cities within them. I would approach change as a new way of learning and seeing life. 6. What are the current issues facing the Public Art Commission? As a newcomer I am still learning about the issues facing the Art commission but from what I have observed: a) Creating greater awareness and involving the public more deeply in the arts of the city. b) Making sure that all cultural groups with art to offer are represented ,so that people can identify with and appreciate art. c) Sourcing more funding for art and art installation in parks, outside libraries and on city streets. d) Upkeep and maintenance of already acquired art. e) Art that encourages more exploration and that is more sensory for both impaired people and young people to appreciate. 7. What are your feelings about Palo Alto's current inventory/collection of Art in Public Places? What suggestions would you have for increasing the availability of more Art in Public Places? Palo Alto seems to have a great collection of sculptures,murals and paintings. I, especially see children exploring sculptures in the parks, which leads me to question, why are there not more of them? I would encourage artists to create more tactile, sensory sculptures, painting, murals and other art works so that chlldrens interests are piqued. If we can involve children at an early age, then we create a generation of people that appreciate and create more art. What a wonderful way to feed the soul? My suggestion, would also be to hold more public displays of art, ie; art in the park, sculpture gardens, ceramic exhibitions so that the community can be a part of art appreciation. In this way the city could also gage what kinds of art appeal to their audience and add these to their collection. 8. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve? 1. Create! source more venues to display art at. 2. Have goals in place on funding various sizes of art collections. 3. Encourage a variety of artworks, from as many different artists and diverse backgrounds as possible. 4. Send out flyers and questionnaires in the local papers asking peoples opinions on the kind of artwork they want to see and then implementing this into the arts acquisitions budget 5. Exploring art venues aimed specifically for children. City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CONSENT FORM California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appOinted official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I ./-1 I HernIa give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR D I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address Phone Sig at'tif'e* ?.-(I /20 I ~> D~td *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. _~ . __ . ____ ~1 ___ . ___ _ O+l'f OF PALO A erry CLERK'S J 2 FEB I 4 AM to: II PUBLIC ART COMMISSION CITY OF PALO ALTO BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION SUBMIT TO: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 Please print or type answers to all questions and place N/A in those areas that do not apply. All forms must have a digital signature or the applicant must print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application wiU not be accepted. NAME: Tabak Vikki HOME PHONE: RESIDENCE ADDRESS: Education: Last First WORK PHONE: CELL PHONE: EMAIL: B.A., Politics and Cultural Affairs, New York University, 1998. Graduated Magna Cum Laude. Member of University Honors Society. . Fellow at Center for War, Peace, and the News Media (New York and Moscow) and the New York City Commission to the United Nations. List relevant training and experience, certificates of training. licenses, or professional registration: My professional background is that of an arts journalist. I have covered a range of art and culture-related topics for new outlets including CNN, Bloomberg, CBS, TechTV and Paper Magazine. I currently run an art and design website for kids called Kldulu. The site serves as a gallery and museum guide for art-minded parents as well as covering the latest in artist-designed products, books and fun objects to raise awareness of art and design in kids. As an avid art collector, I collect several artists who have local roots in the Bay Area including Ala Ebtekar (who is also an Arts Professor at Stanford and has his studio on Galifornia Avenue in Palo Alto), Hilary Pecis, and Brigid McCabe. . As both a joumalist and a collector, I have worked closely with art dealers, galleries, art consultants and other art industry leaders. I covered local politics as a political journalist in New Hampshire and am very familiar with the workings of local government as well as its relationship to organizations such as the Public Art Commission. I have also previously worked as a tech journalist and am confident In rnaking inroads with the tech companies of Palo Alto to ensure that art is seen in a variety of venues by the public -The companies of Palo Alto are some of the biggest patrons in the country and are a key factor In advancing art in Palo Alto. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 • Are you a Palo Alto Resident? • Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? • Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? • California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? Jfyou answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the City Attorney's Office at 650-329-.2171. • Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? EMPLOYMENT Present or last employer Kidulu .com Name of Company: _____________ _ Occupation: ~. ----; -:-kflt-· -_ Signature of Applicant* __ ---'~IL-__ -'--_V_'\J__'_ _______ _ D D [Z] D D [lJ o CEO / Journalist (If retired, indicate former occupation) *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 Please Return to: Office ofthe City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 9430 I 650-329-2571 CITY OF PALO ALTO PUBLIC ART COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Name: Vikki Tobak Date: 2/12/2012 Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? Yes No • Public Art Commission D (Date: ______ --..L [Z] 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Public Art Commission? Community Group: D Palo Alto Weekly: D The Daily Post: D website:DlfYeS, Please Identify: ________________ _ Email from City Clerk: D Library Bulletin Board: D FlyerlBookmark: D Other, Please Specify: Amanda Ross is a member and recommended that I apply 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I believe public art can make a community think, children ask questions, and calm a hurried life. It enhances the quality of life by encouraging a heightened sense of place and by introducing people to works of art that can touch them and generations to come. My volunteer work has mostly focused on the art program at my children's school, The Phillips Brooks School in Menlo Park. I have also worked with a non-profit arts organization RxArt which brings modern art to children's hospitals around the country. Every year, the organization puts out a charity coloring book to raise funds and awareness for their cause and, through Kidulu, I have worked to help them promote their cause. Palo Alto is such a unique community -indeed one of the most vibrant cities in California because of the people, the ideas, the businesses, the energy of University Avenue and Stanford. I truly believe Palo Alto can be one of the foremost places for public art in the country. 4. What is it about the Public Art Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Public Art Commission? The creative community in and around Palo A~o as well as its residents has a wonderful sense of identity, diversity and values. I believe Palo Alto's public art should serve as a reflection of this. I am very excited about potentially contributing to Palo Alto's art spaces and promoting a diverse and stimulating cultural environment for the City's reSidents, visitors and employees. I believe my passion for art. organization skills and openness to ideas will greatly benefrt the Public Art Commission. I believe my background as a joumallst will serve to increase awareness about public art in the city, using my public relations knowledge and journalism skills. A city wHh public art is a city that thinks and feels. PubDc art helps green space thrive, enhances roadSides, pedestrian corridors, and community gateways; it demonstrates unquestionable civic and corporate and affirms an educational environment. Specifically I am very excHed about the soon-to-be debuted public art at Mitchell Park Ubrary and Community Center and the piece being created by artist Bruce Beasley. I believe there are so many opportunities to bring art to the public. I regula~y travel to art fairs and events Including Art Basel, Pulse Art Fair and Art MRKT and am always lOOking for new, exciting artists. I hope this passion and enthusiasm will serve the Palo AKa Public Art Commission as well as the citizens of Palo Alto. I also loved the recent public participation in helping create the "Lawn Bowls· installation by artist Judith Selby Lang. The project is a great example of using art to challenge and empower the community while raising awareness for the environment. Furthermore, I am open to new ideas and very easy to work with. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 5. How would you see your role as board member when recommending policy and working with the Council? If it were necessary to change current roles, how would you approach making such changes? I believe strongly in working as a team and being open to all ideas. I am confident that I will take direction from the city's visual, urban design, and planning frameworks, all while having' a great working relationship with the Council. . As mentioned, I was a political reporter for several years and am very comfortable discussing policy and respectfully working with protocols and recommendation. If it were necessary to change current roles, I would do my best to make the transition easy for everyone and do whatever needed to better serve the community. I am a person without ego and am applying for a role on the Commission simply to help Palo Alto have the best public art possible. 6. What are the current issues facing the Public Art Commission? Beyond its enriching personal benefits, public art is a true symbol of a city's maturity. I believe The Public Art Commission has done a great job in producing innovative, thought-provoking projects. The continuing teamwork and discovery of exciting artists and projects is something I would truly enjoy and work hard at. I am well aware of the current issues facing the Commission from maintaining the current collection to the Artist In Residence Program, and the Youth Art Awards to name a few. Palo Alto .is about to embark on the largest public works project to take place in the city in 50 years. This is such an exciting time to be part of the Public Art Commission and to turn these challenges into opportunities. Budget issues are something every city faces but I believe the potential contribution of private interest and support from local companies, institutions and even individuals is something that can set the Palo Alto public art can leverage. 7. What are your feelings about Palo Alto's current inventory/collection of Art in Public Places? What suggestions would you have for increasing the availability of more Art in Public Places? By its presence alone public art can heighten our awareness, question our assumptions, transform a landscape, or express community values. I have long been a fan of public art around Palo Alto, specifically works such as Kaikoo, Digital DNA and Tilted Donut are some of my favorites. I love when I am out with my children and they are mesmerized by the art pieces around the city. Palo Alto is recognized all over the world as a hub of creative ideas and a leading supporter of the arts. As a member of the Public Art CommiSSion, I would love to reach out to world-renowned artists such as Anish Kapoor, Stephan Powers and Richard Serra to bring more high-profile art to the city. I would also like to strengthen The Public Art Commission's relationship to local galleries and institutions. 8. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve? The impact of public art on a community is priceless and immeasurable and once experienced it only appreciates. One specific idea I would like to see come to fruition is increased media attention and dialogue about Palo Alto's public art. This could be done in partnership with many great local institutions such as Ideo, Facebook and Stanford to name a few. Members of the community could learn more about the artists and thought process that went into creating the works and also be able to ask questions and interact with the artists. I am very motivated to engage Bay Area business leaders and entrepreneurs in the Public Art cause. I believe public art is a unifying force and, therefore, another idea might be developing forms of public art that are designed to encourage audience participation in a hands-on way, multi-dimensional way. Commissions such as the grouping of interactive sculptures by artist team Joe O'Connell and Blessing Hancock for the Main Library and Art Center campus is a great example of this. Public art has the power to energize our public spaces, arouse our thinking, and transform the places where we live, work, and play into more welcoming and beautiful environments. I would welcome the opportunity to serve on Palo Alto's Public Art Commission. Thank you for your consideration. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CONSENT FORM California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appOinted official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. Read the code, and check only ONE option below: D I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR c:lI I . V I K.1(.\· /0 b q Kequest that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Appiication prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address :ll> I 0 ~()(,t:.bQ '<:la1 Li 15· J.,(P6 .. 0 8 1 0 Phone Email :L/13/1:L Signature* Date *The applicant must have a digital Signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 PUBLIC ART COMMISSION CITY OF PALO ALTO e ll~ UF P/~L O ~\LTO: •. CA ell Y CLERr\'S OFFICE , 2 FEB -9 PM 12: 03 BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION SUBMIT TO: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 Please print or type answers to all questions and place NIA in those areas that do not apply. All forms must have a digital signature or the applicant must print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. NAME: Walsh Patricia HOME PHONE: Last First RESIDENCE . 3031 Emerson Street ADDRESS: ______ ~--------------------------Street Palo Alto CA 94306 City State Zip Education: ------- WORK PHONE: ________ __ CELL PHONE: 650 862 6776 EMAIL: p.walsh6@gmail.com Master of Science in Arts Administration, Boston University, Boston MA Bachelor of Arts in Studio Art, Plattsburgh State University, Plattsburgh NY Associates in Applied Sciences in Commercial Art, Dutchess Community College, Poughkeepsie NY List. relevant training and experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Americans for the Arts Professional Member 2012 Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 • Are you a Palo Alto Resident? • Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? • Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? • California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, Or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact theCityAttorney's Office at 650-329-.2171. • Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? EMPLOYMENT D [l] D D D [ZJ D Present or last employer Name of Company: City of San Jose -Office of Cultural Affairs / .... ,.. Occupation: Public Art Program Coordinator (If retired, indicate former occupation) . Signature of APPlicant(::::::_"'==t::::=_-=-=~¥ ___ ~=== __ Date: 2/9/2012 *The applicant must have a dig tal s' ure or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 Please Return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 CITY OF PALO ALTO PU5LIC ART COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Name: Patricia Walsh Date: 2/9/2012 Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application .. You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? • Public Art Commission Yes [{] (Date: May 2010 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Public Art Commission? No ) D Community Group:D Palo Alto Weekly: D The Daily Post: D website:DIfYeS, Please Identify: _________ ~ _____ _ Email from City Clerk: D Library Bulletin Board: D FlyerlBookmark: D Other, Please Specify: Recom·mendation from Elise DeMarzo, Public Art Manager 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Am a steering committee for genARTS Silicon Valley since 2009 and am currently the co-chair of thegenARTS Programs sub-committee 4. What is it about the Public Art Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Public Art Commission? I have a strong interest in Public Art and enjoy volunteering for my community. I have been involved with the public art field since 2005 when I interned with the UrbanArts Institute at Massachusetts College of Art & Design, and more recently worked for over three years at the City of San Jose Public Art Program overseeing the public art collection, managing conservation and temporary projects, administering request for qualifications and artist outreach as well as assisting the Program Director with the financial management of the collection and managing the Public Art Committee. In addition I have attended the 2008 International Sculpture Conference and the 2011 Public Art Pre-Conference to gain a broader understanding of the public art field on a national level. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 5. How would you see your role as board member when recommending policy and working with the Council? If it were necessary to change current roles, how would you approach making such changes? My role as board member when recommending policy and working with Council would be as an advocate for the public art within the City of Palo Alto. I will research current and past policy to have a better understanding of the is~ues that are the cause for policy changes. I would approach making changes to current roles by understanding the issues, review the reasons behind the change recommendations and work with staff and Council as necessary to ensure that proper procedures are followed and the change is understood by the general public. 6. What are the current issues facing the Public Art Commission? Some of the current issues facing the Public Art Commission is managing the current collection, overseeing upcoming and current projects, the need for a general master plan for art in public places in both the private and public sector, and a private percent for" art ordinance or city policy. 7. What are your feelings about Palo Alto's current inventory/collection of Art in Public Places? What suggestions would you have for increasing the availability of more Art in Public Places? i think the current Art in Public Places collection has a good representation of local talent. It could,however expand to include more nationally and internationally recognized artists so as to increase the representation of the collection as a whole and to assist in making Palo Alto a larger tourist destination. I feel that the portable collection, which consists of most ofthe collection, is fairly large for a City with a small amount of publiC space and should ,consider ways to either de-accession parts of the current collection or create a loan system-with other municipalities to encourage a larger showing of the collection and still keep with the mission of keeping the collection accessible to the public. 8. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve? The speCific goals that I would like the Public Art Commission achieve is to have a private percent for art ordinance/policy, a financially stable fund specifically for the conservation and maintenance of the current and future collection, and to have a permanent full-time employees specifically for management of theArt in Public Places program. Bds/Commissions -762-23 9/13/2011 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CONSENT FORM California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of . that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I . .f I I Patricia Walsh give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR D I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address Phone 2/9/2012 Date *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 CALIFORNIA CODES GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250-6270: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov 6254.21. (a) No stateor local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual. (b) No person shall knowingly post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official, or of the official's residing spouse or child, on the Internet knowing that person is an elected or appointed official and intending to cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or threatening to cause imminent great bodily harm to that individual, A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor. A violation of this subdivision that leads to the bodily injury of the official, or his or her residing spouse or child, is a misdemeanor or a felony. . (c) (1) (A) No person, business, or association shall publicly post or publicly display on the Internet the home address or telephone number of any elected or aPPOinted official if that official has made a written demand of that person, business, or assoCiation to not disclose his or her home address or telephone number. (B) A written demand made under this paragraph by a state constitutional officer, a mayor, or a Member of the Legislature, a city council, or a board of supervisors shall include a statement describing a threat or fear for the.safety of that official or of ani person residing at the official's home address. (C) A written demand made under this paragraph by an elected official shall be effective for four years, regardless of whether or not the official's term has expired prior to the end of the four-year period. (D) (i) A person, business, or association that receives the written demand of an elected or appointed official pursuant to this paragraph shall remove the official's home address or telephone number from public display on the Internet, including information provided to cellular telephone applications, within 48 hours of delivery of the written demand, and shall continue to ensure that this information is not reposted on the same Internet Web site, subsidiary site, or any other Internet Web site maintained by the recipient of the written demand. (ii) After receiving the elected or appointed official's written demand, the person, b.usiness, or association shall not transfer the appOinted or elected official's home address or telephone number to any other person, business, or association through any other medium . . (iii) Clause (ii) s.hall not be deemed to prohibit a telephone corporation, as defined in Section 234 of the Public Utilities Code, or its affiliate; from transferring the elected or appointed official's home address or telephone number to any person, business, or association, if the transfer is authorized by federal or state law, regulation, order, or tariff, or necessary inthe event of an emergency, or to collect a debt owed by the elected or appointed official to the telephone corporation or its affiliate. (E) For purposes of this paragraph, "publicly post" or "publicly display" means to intentionally communicate or otherwise make available to the general public. (2) An official whose home address or telephone number is made public as a result of a violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action seeking injunctive or declarative relief in any court of competent jurisdiction; If a court finds that a violation has occurred, it may grant injunctive or declarative relief and shall award the official court costs and reasonable attorney's fees. A fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) may be imposed for a violation of the court's order for an injunction or declarative relief obtained pursuant to this paragraph. (3) An elected or appOinted official may deSignate in writing the official's employer, a related governmental entity, or any voluntary professional association of similar officials to act, on behalf of that official, as that official's agent with regard to making a written demand pursuant to this section. A written demand made by an agent pursuant to this paragraph shall include a statement describing a threat or fear for the safety of that official or of any person residing at the official's home address. , (d) (1) No person, buSiness, or association shall soliCit, sell, or trade on the Internet the home address or telephone number of an elected or appOinted official with the intent to cause iri1m·inent great bodily harm to the official or to any person residing at the official's home address. . (2) Notwithstanding any other law, an official whose home address or telephone nUri1ber is solicited, sold, Or traded in Violation of paragraph (1) may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a jury or court finds that a violation has occurred, it shall award dari1ages to that official in an amount up to a maximum of three times the actual dari1ages but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000). (e) An interactive computer service or access software prOVider, as defined in Section 230(f) of Title 47 of the United States Code, shall not be liable under this section unless the service or provider intends to abet or cause iri1minent great bodily harm that is likely to occur Or threatens to cause imminent great bodily harri1 to an elected or appOinted official. (f) For purposes of this section, "elected or appointed official" includes, but is not limited to, all.of the following: (1) State constitutional officers, 2) Members of the Legislature, (3) Judges and court comri1issioners, (4) District attorneys, (5) Public defenders, (6) Members of a city council, (7) Members of a board of supervisors, (8) ApPOintees of the Governor, (9) Appointees of the Legislature, (10) Mayors, (11) City attorneys, (12) Police chiefs and sheriffs; (13) A j:lubliC safety official, as defined in Section 6254.24, (14) State adri1inistrative law judges, (15) Federal judges and federal defenders, (16) Members of the United States Congress and appointees of the President. (g) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude punishment instead under Sections 69, 76, or 422 of the Penal Code, or any other provision of law. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/13/2011 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK April 16, 2012 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Appointment for One Position on the Utilities Advisory Commission for an Unexpired Term Ending June 30, 2013 On Monday, April 16, 2012 the City Council should vote to appoint one term ending on June 30, 2013 to the Utilities Advisory Commission. Two Candidates interviewed on March 22, 2012, one Candidate was not able to interview and submitted a letter to Council. The Candidates are as follows: Garth Hall Mark Harris Walter Loewenstein Two Applicants, Jason Matlof and Stuart Bernstein withdrew their applications on March 22 prior to the interviews. Voting will be by paper ballot. Five votes are required to be appointed. The first three candidates that receive at least five votes will be appointed. REPORT PREPARED BY:Ronna Jojola Gonsalves, Deputy City Clerk ATTACHMENTS: ·Hall Application(PDF) ·Harris Application & Interview Letter (PDF) ·Loewenstein Application (PDF) Department Head:Donna Grider, City Clerk Updated: 4/11/2012 8:42 AM by Ronna Gonsalves Page 2 SUBMIT TO: UTILITIES ADVISOI 1( COMMISSION CITY OF PAl ,0 ALTO BOARD AND COMMISS i:ON APPLICATION Office of the C :ty Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, P 3110 Altai CA 94301 . (650) 329· ~~571 Please print or type answers to all questions and plat I~ N/A in those areas that do not apply. Be sure that you nil o~t the attached supplement and retun it with your signed application. NAME _____ H_a-II __ ~~ _________ G_art_h __ __ WOR.K PH EDUCATION B.Sc Civil Engineering. Univeraity of the Wrl.watel'$rand, South I inca --~--------------------------~ MS, Engineering Planning. stanford University MS, Management Science. Stanford University (Sloan Program Grad SChool of Business) -------------------------------Ph.O. Civil Engineering (Water R~urces), University of the Wi lNatel'$rand . Ust relevant training and experience, certificates of training, IIcensesf or professional registration PaGlfic Gas and Electric Company and PGAe Corporation. 1981-2001: -Director of Power Contracts. '997-1989. Negotiation of ele i:n::;:' 'c:-:power::-:::-:":=tra=nsm=:r:::i$S':"lro=::n:-:an'8=n:-:g::::em=en=ts-::a~nd:r:w~h=o;::-'esa::=r:le-- egyter purchase$/$ales. . -Director Of Reseaidi & Development, 1993-1996. Overaigh 'Of R&D projects in energy efficiency, renewable technologiH, gas transmission. power quality East Bay Municipal Utility DIstrict, 2004-p1'e$8nt ~ water supply contract negotiiilOris and issues resolution .. F 31rtnership development ana administration of jOint water supplY projects. (No identified conflict of interest with City 0 .,Io.:Pag;;Io:::..:A-=Ito=.....U;.:.::til~ities~.)~ ____________ _ Pro .... ional f8gi8tratlon: Professional Engineer. CA No. CSf !i23 -current. • Are you a Palo Alto resident? • Do you have any relatives or memberS of your he .lsehold who are employed by the City ot Palo Alto, who are currer !Iy serving on the City Council, or whQ are board members or C( rnmissloners? • Are you available and committed to completettle term applied for? • California state law requires appOinted board and commission members to fUe a detailed disclosure of their finanCial interl sts, , fair Political Practices CommiSSion, Conflict of lnterest, Form : 1)0.. Do you have an investment in, or do you selVe as an officer or dil {3C;tor at, a company doing business In Palo Alto which you believe Is Ii .ely 1) to engage in business with the City, 2) to provide products or oervices for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the bOl I'd or commiS$ion you are applying tor? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult wi' h the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the I :fty Attomey's OffIce at (6S0) 329-2171 to arrange an apPOintment. • Excluding your principal reSidence, do you own 1'1 ',al property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult wi :h the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the ::Ity Attorney's Office at (650)329-2171 to arrange an appointment. EMPLOYMENT Present or last employer: Name of Company: East Bay Municipal Utility Die !trlct Occupation: Senior Civil Engineer ---.;----...;;;;..-----.. ---icate former OC( upation) Signature of Applicant: ___ ""'----1~ __ h--(. ~ x x x x CITY OF PAI.,O ALTO Utilities Advisor, Commission SURal.Mental QI !llitignnaire Please return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 NAME Garth C. Hall DATE ~_J_an_u_a....:;ry_3_1_, 2_0_1_2 __ Please print or type your answers toe the foll::Jwing questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit add tiona I sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meet "g? . • Utilities Advisory Commission x Date _____ ~ ___ _ 2. How did you learn about the vacancy )n the Utility Advisory Commission? Community Group _ Newspaper ~Id _ Place of Employment _ Utility Bill Stuffer _ City Clerkls ()ffice l Other (Specify) _______ . ____________ _ 3. Describe your involvement in com 'nunity activities, volunteer and civiC: organizations. 1. Board member. Chabot Space and ScienCE Center, 1994-95 2. Boy Scout (CUb) leader, 1998·2001 S. AYSO soccer referee and coach, 1997-200 ~ 4. VICe President, Home Owners Assoeiatian, !..oma Verde Ave (current) 5. Member, Siena Club & National Audubon ~ .)Ciety (current) , ,A~ o CITY OF PAI.O ALTO ~ Utilities Advisol1 Commission Supglemental QJ !;estjonnajre 4. What is it about the Utilities Adviso "If Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience and exp lrtise would you bring to the Utilities Advisory Commission? I am reaclyte volunteer for pUblic seNice nc !, that my children are almost independent. J enjoy coliaboratiDn with other&8imilariy mot ~'ated tD add perspectives. contribute to work products. and resolve issues in the electric. jiBS and water utility world. I find the new demands for conservation. COl!it control. am: lanvironmentalleadel'8hip faced by utilities today to be as challenging as ever. See _hmE (~ for qualities, experience and expertise. 5. How would you see your role as a C I)mmissioner when recommending policy and working with the Counci 'r The UAC has a duty to the Council to provic ;1 independent and objective recommendations on utility strategic plans, power. gas and water lroposed contraots. tariffs. policies and other matters prior to Council action. A well..funotioning UJ .C sh<Nld (a) previae feedback to th .. Utility Director on ~er proPOS9ls. allOWing those proposals to t i~ refined when naceaaary. and (b) reduce the amount of time needed by City Council members to 'eview the details of utility documents supporting recommendations and thus enhance the ov ~rall approval process. 6. What are the current issues that tt ~~ Utilities Advisory Commission will fac::e? _ a) Enhancing serviQe quality (e.g .• commun ;:ation with residents during outages, service reliability). b) Meeting societal goals (e.g., reducing 9n .. nhouse gas emission, waste-tCJoopoWer conversion). c) Ensuring employee and public safety (e.! ., gas distribution system integrity). d) Containing costa and communicating nee IJssary rate increases (e.g" forthcoming SFPUC rate hikes). e) Ensuring adequate long-term affordable ,'upplies of electric power, gas and water f) Enhancing strategies for service recovfjr after emergencies such as earthquakes. 7. If appointed, what specific goals w:.uld you like to see the Utilities Advisory CommiSSion achieve? It's best to frame this response in terms of f !netion and pertorrnance rather than Utilities bUSiness and service 9oal&. I'd like to contr1bute towards. I UAC that: a) does its homework (prepares well) so thi I: meetings are efficient b) is constructive and respectful. reoognlzir;1 the challenges faced by the utility leaders and personnel c) listens well and is insightful &0 that ill; 00 ltributlons and recommendations are useful d) is honest and courageous, so that problE rns are called out for attention fl'Aln when Irs uncomfortable e) is collaborative so that the City Council r )ceives a consensus recommendation whenever possible . f) is creative and encourages ereativlty ame ng utility leaders g) (in balance with the previous point) avoit II offerinQ too many random ideas for City ataff to explore h) is committed. with as few missed meeti" 18 as possible i) ~ a balanced perapective taking into .jccount the interests of all City residents. While the topics calfing for UAC attention v ill somewhat be in flu". I would lilte the UAC to include rEtView5 and recommendations with respec : to demand side management, energy efficiency. renewable energy incentiveslfeecl-in-tarlft's and water conservation incentiveelpolicies. Given the prices trends for power, gas and water, as IfSlI as wastewater collection and treatment. theUAC can contribute positively to CounCil actions to t ;,Ip coain residents' and businesses' cost of energy'. water and wastewater including their Imi!ll!I COi :is to conserve. Attachment to Snppleme Ita! Questionnaire Utilities Mvilory , :~ommillion Garth C. 1 Ian Continuation of Answer to Question 4: What qualities, experience and expertise' Ilould you bring to the Utilities Advisory Commission? Qualities: • Commitment (show UP. prepare WflII, work hard, remain engaged) • Abnity to focus on the key iaaue6 • Strong ability for collaboration '(give and take, pc I'suasion based on fact and rusoning, willingness to compl'l:lmi$e when appropriate, Iii len WEIll, resptlJd cithera, high level of engagement, good balance of spealclng and list, "ning) • Integrity (no personal agenda, serve the City's r ,sidents and ColJncii aa be$t I can) experience: • 26 yurs of utility experience (PG&E, EBMUD) . " primarily e/edfic and water service. • The above 26 years includes senior ,manageme 1t roles in PG&E -electric power contracts, R&D, information technology, program manage llttnt, executive asaistanceto President • Project management and contract negotiation ( 'G&E and EBMUO) • Engineering consulting -primarily application 0 infOrmation techn()logy for international utilities, auditing of utUity operations (3 years) • Familiarity with Brown Ad. and regular process or running public boardlcouncil meetings Expertise: • EconomiC analysis of utility projects • General knowledge of energy efficiency, renfNJIlble, and other infrastructure technologies • Understanding of the science behind technolos les used In electric. gas and water utilities • GeneJill undel'$tanding of the role and practice , of FERC and CPUC in regulating investor- owned utilities such as PG&E • Understanding of Califomia's Independent Sys iltTl Operator functions • Basic understanding of telecommunications tellmology • Application of $ndard cost accounting prlnoip os • Policy development in the context of utility mar atgement ""T'( 0" ' \"1 ',. F PALO ;\lTO " CITY CLERK'S fJFf(ecr 12FE8 -2 AM fJ: 17 UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION CITY OF PALO ALTO BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION SUBMIT TO: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue,Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 Please print or type answers to all questions and place N/A in those areas that do'not apply. Be sure that you ftlloutthe attached supplement and return it with your Ii&!wl application. This application is public record and may be posted to the internet in its entirety. NAME; Harris Mark HOME PHONE; (650) 327-7066 Last First WORK PHONE: N/A RESIDENCE 1417 Dana Avenue ADDRESS: CELL PHONE: (650) 704-0571 Street EMAlL: mrhgoblue@aol.com Palo Alto CA 94301 City State Zip Education: 1 %5-70: SSE, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan -Science Engineering and Seeondruy Teaching Credential in Mathematics and Science, 1972-74; MBA, Stanford University Graduate School of Business, Stanford, California -Maj or in Public Management and Finance List relevant training and experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: List relevant training and experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: From 1974-1988 worked for the CttY ofFalo Alto jn yadOIlS "odes jncludlng Asalstant Director of Utilities. treasqrer aUd fiDaoce directnL Major responsibilities included: lead involvement in the creation of City recycling, conservation, energy services and solar loan orograms. 1988-1993: Director of Utilities, City of Monntain View -ovenaw all aspects of water, wastewater, refuse and streets fupctious. This included preparation of annual operating 3Dd capital budgets. Bds/Commissions -702-23 2/1/2012 • Are you a Palo Alto Resident? • Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently selVing on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? • Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? • California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their fmancial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, F orm700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? . If you answered yes, you may wish to cOTl8ult with the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the City Attorney's Office at 650-329-2171 to arrange an appointment. • Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Aho? EMPLOYMENT Present or last employer The Sequoia Union High School Dis. x x x x Name of Company: Woodside High School Occupation: Math Teacher (retired) (If retired, indicate former occupation) Signature of Applicant Date: February 2,2012 Bds/Commissions -702-23 2/1/2012 Please Return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Name: Mark R. Harris Date: February 1,2012 Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, ifnecessruy, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? Yes No • Utilities Advisory Commission x (Date: Februmy 1. 2012 )- 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission? Community Group: x Palo Alto Weekly: The Daily Post: Email from City Clerk: x Librruy Bulletin Board: FlyerlBookmark: __ Other, Please Specify: Mentioned to me by the Director of Utilities 3; Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I have been intimately involved with Kara, a premier grief support organization located in Palo Alto, since 1980 I served on the board of directors from 1993-2008 and was at times secretary treasurer and president I am currently chair of the advisory committee. I have been a member of the Palo Alto Mediation Program since 2001 and have served as jts co-chair I am CUlTentlv an emeritus member I am a dues paying member of the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association. As a family, we contribute to many local organizations such as the Palo Alto Commubity Fund the PenjnSJlla Open Space Trust Boys and ('-rirIs Club of the PeninSUla and the League to name a few. In the past, I have been aT-ball coach, member of a local service club (Sertoma), seryed on the Duyeneck Site COUDcil Cub Scout den leader Worked on projects for the Stanford Graduate Alumni Consulting Team to assist local non-profit organizations to name a few. Most recently, served on City's Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission. 4. . What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Utilities Advisory Commission? One of the unique and outstanding aspects of Palo Alto (among many) is that we own and operate our own municipal utilities. I Was verv fortunate to work for the Utilities Department for 11 years and the City for 14 I was directly involved in many of the issues facing the Utilities today and was part of the initiation of many of the current efforts. It saddened me to see the gradual erosion of the value of oW" Utilities in the eyes of the Community during the late 80's and 90's. I think the formation of the Utilities Advisory Cgmmission was a big step in the right direction and I get a sense that the current leadership is fully dedicated to reestablishing the premier status ofUti)jties jn the CQIDmlmjty Recently retired from a very rewarding teaching career I would like to be part of the effort to make Palo Alto Utilities the best example of what local control can do to create high value, responsive service that operates in a very business like manner. I have the time, energy and experience to be a contributing member of this effort and would be honored to do so. Bds/Commissions -702-23 2/1/2012 5. 6. What are the current issues facing the Utilities Advisory Commission? There are numerous supply, reliability, environmental and rate issues facing the Utilities Advisory Commission. I believe 2 key issues involve (l) decisions regarding the State of California Cap-and Trade Program and Options regarding the Use of Allowances provided to the Electric Utility and (2) the challenge of preparing Water Customers for the substantial rate increases coming our way over the next several years and how to best mitigate their impacts. In addition, there is the ongoing challenge of keeping customers informed on the very complex issues facing the Utilities and gaining confidence that the Department js strivjng to represent the interests of alJ customers and is responsive to their concerns. 7. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve? For 2011-12, I would like to see a decision on the path to develop and construct a second electricity transmission line into the City. and continued implementation of the· Strategic Plan. In addition. I would like to see rate changes that are understood by residents and businesses and generally acceptable even though some are likely to increase more than would be desjrable -water rates in narticular I am sure that as I become more familiar with Issues facing the Commission, I will see the need for additional goals, particularly for 2012-13 and beyond. Bds/Commissions -702-23 2/1/2012 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CONSENT FORM California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This cons~nt form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. Read the code, and check only ONE option below: --1L I Mark Harris give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. 1417 Dana Avenue Address (650) 327-7066 Phone mrhgohlue Email ,/ February 2. 2012 Sign ture* Date *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. Bds/Commissions -702-23 2/1/2012 1417 Dana Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 327-7066 mrhgoblue@aol.com March 12,2012 '2 rfAR f 2 ~ ~ 6 TO: Mayor Yeh and the Honorable Palo Alto City Council SUBJECT: Interview for Opening on the Utilities Advisory Committee I was pleased to receive an e-mail from the Deputy City Clerk indicating that I had been selected for an interview with the Council for possible appointment to the Utilities Advisory Commission. Unfortunately, I will not be available the evening of March 22 as my wife and I leave for Wenatchee, Washington that morning to attend our youngest son's wedding on March 24. The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) is a community activity I am well qualified for and extremely interested in. As you know, I have just completed a term as a commissioner on the City's Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) and would approach this appointment in the same manner. I have always been a Community volunteer who becomes fully immersed in that effort and contributes more than my fair share to the mission. Often the issues involved are complex and controversial, but I do not shy away from them and often assist in successful resolutions. The UAC is very similar to IBRC in that it involves infrastructure twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. A UAC commissioner must be well versed in a myriad of technical, financial and environmental issues affecting municipal utilities and their importance to the quality of life in Palo Alto. As evident in my application, by training and experience -including 15 years of management experience in local municipal utilities and participation in many of the organizations affecting our utilities - I am well suited to be a commissioner. Although I am not available on March 22, I will make every effort to be accessible to Council members between now and then should you have any questions you would like me to address. This can be done in the form of e-mail dialogue, a phone call or an informal chat over coffee. Please feel free to contact me. Thank you for the opportunity to serve the City. Respectfully submitted, ~/!~ Mark R. Harris From: Raymond Sacchetti <raybac@earthlink.net> Subject: Appreciation Date: January 25,20121 :58:07 PM PST To: Mark Harris <mrhgoblue@aol.col'll> Dear Mark, Now that our job is done and our report is in and the Council has discharged us, I want to write to your personally to say how much I enjoyed working with you. You were among the more multi-faceted members of the Commission. I admired your dedication to the task, your intelligence, your ability to speak your mind without giving offense, and the way you continually dove deep into issues--not just Cubberley, but the PSB, finance, and whatever was vexing a committee, working group, or the commission as a whole. It may take a village to raise a child, but it takes people like you for that village to be all that it ought to be. With best regards, Ray < . ) CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 08 JUN20 AM 10: 54 Board or Commission applying for UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION SUBMIT TO: CITY OF PALO ALTO BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 Please print or type answers to all questions and place Nt A in those areas that do not apply .Be sure that you fill out the attached supplement and return it with yoursjgned application. NAME La c.-.I e",,~ e. ~""'" WQJ +.~,.. HOME PHONE ) ~~ A~ .fORK PHONE RESIDENCE ADDRESS· EDUCATION es-u,.~P~et-S.~J.../ Ifftq E-MAIL List relevant training and experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration C\e .... +e,. L To. N ... :~: ..... ..1. J::I--..44i -rt &9 .t ... ~ .. '1' 't'" 1 \.W' -IW'" ~ l. . , 11-11> ero -<il • Are you a Palo Alto resident? \ / • Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? • Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? • California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, , Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700.. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely 1) to engage il) business with the City, 2) to provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by deCisions of the board or commission you are applying for? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the City Attorney's Office at (650) 329-2171 to arrange an appointment. • Excluding your principal reSidence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the City Attorney's Office at (650) 329-2171 to arrange an appointment. EMPLOYMENT Occupation: Signature of Applicant: / ) \ ) ) j , 4 ,'f ) ) " Please return to: CITY OF PALO ALTO Utilities Advisory Commission Supplemental Questionnaire Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329:-2571 flb P'; I Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended any of the following meetings? 2. 3. • Board/Commission Orientation Session Date ___________ _ • Utilities Advisory Commission Date ___________ _ How did you leam £t the vacancy on the Utility Advisory Commission? Community Group Newspaper Ad.K Place of Employment _ Utility Bill Stuffer _ City Clerk's Office _ Other (Specify) ___________________ _ Describe your involvement in community' activities, volunteer and CIVIC organizations. '. ~ M~oIIV~c.1"" (.\t ....... ).-JL C-\.,.~rU'~o~l l~) ~ c.'~~ NlttJAQr~" ..J ~\~ R!l>loo.... R...,!e.-.v ~ 1'co..\o ll-l+o E~e,..I"~~j t'~'~ f., It oW ; ~ 5 roo >--f-I "f 'f g. . 4. 5. 6. 7. \ ) CITY OF PALO ALTO Utiliti~s Advisory Commission Supplemental Questionnaire ". , ~ y \ ) ) Gonsalves, Ronna From: Sent: Friday, January 27,.20121 :39 PM To: Gonsalves, Ronna Subject: Re: Utilities Advisory Commission MsGonsalves, Page 1 of 1 Thank you for forwarding my past application for possible appointment to the Palo Alto UAC. It is substantially correct for today. Since I filed the application I have consulted to USDOE contractors and participated in advisory reviews for academic and other activities. I note also that I was elected a Fellow in both the American Physical Society and the American Nuclear Society. Please use this note with the earlier paperwork for submittal to the consideration for the interim appointment to the UAC Sincerely, Walter B Loewenstein PhD PE From: Ronna" <Ronna. To: Cc: "Gonsalves, Ronna" <Ronna.Gonsalves@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Fri, January 27,20121:06:21 PM Subject: Utilities Advisory Commission Mr. Loewenstein, Here is the application that I have on file. If you would like me to submit it to Council please confirm. If you would prefer to complete a new application, let me know and I'll send you a blank. Thanks! Ronna Jojola Gonsalves Deputy City Clerk I City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue I Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2267 I ronna.gonsalves@cityofpaloalto.org I www.cityofpaloalto.org\cJerk 1130/2012 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK April 16, 2012 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Appointments for Three Positions on the Human Relations Commission for Three Year Terms Ending March 31, 2015 On Monday, April 16, 2012 the City Council should vote to appoint three terms ending on March 31, 2015 to the Human Relations Commission. Three Candidates interviewed on March 22, 2012. The Candidates are as follows: Ray Bacchetti Theresa Chen Diane Morin Voting will be by paper ballot. Five votes are required to be appointed. The first three candidates that receive at least five votes will be appointed. REPORT PREPARED BY:Ronna Jojola Gonsalves, Deputy City Clerk ATTACHMENTS: ·Bacchetti Application (PDF) ·Chen Application (PDF) ·Morin Application (PDF) Department Head:Donna Grider, City Clerk Updated: 4/11/2012 8:58 AM by Ronna Gonsalves Page 2 ... ,~ '\ / rfa1\hlli~')~~ LH1 .e.A Board or Commission applying for: HUMAN RELATIONS '--YIl"r~5'O Ff{Ct CITY OF PALO ALTO BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION 12 JAN 21 AM \I: 50 SUBMIT TO: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 Please print or type answers to all questions and place N/A in those areas that do not apply. Be sure that you fill out the attached supplement and return it with your signed application. NAME Bacchetti, Ray HOME PHONE 324-7423 WORKPHONE N/A E-MAIL ADDRESSraybac@earthlink.net RESIDENCE ADDRESS 850 Webster St., #700 Street City Palo Alto State CA EDUCATION Rutgers University, B.A. in Business Administration, 1956 Rutgers University, Ed.M. in Philosophy of Education, 1959 Zip Code 94301 Stanford University, Ph.D. in Philosophy of Education and Higher Education, 1968 Stanford University, Stanford Executive Program, Graduate School of Business, 1978 List relevant training and experience, certifIcates of training, licenses,. or professional registration Relevant experience includes service as a board and commission member (palo Alto Unified School District; Foothill-De Aoza Community College District; Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Senior College Accrediting Commission) where duties involved frequent controversial public issues and the need for listening, negotiation, and decision-making. Other relevant experience involved numerous conflict mediation activities while in the Stanford administration. I have no professional training or certification in fields relevant to the ORC. (A short resume is attached.) Are you a Palo Alto resident? Yes Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by-the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? Yes california state law requires appointed board and commission members to fIle a detailed disclosure of their fInancial interests. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely 1) to engage in business with the City,2) to provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be aflilcted by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? No EMPLOYMENT --1 Present or last employer: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2001-20~ Occupation: Scholar in Residence (Now retired) , Signature of Applicant: _________ ~ __ , ) CITY OF PALO ALTO Human Relations Commission Supplemental Questionnaire Please return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 NAME: Ray Bacchetti DATE: December 28, 2007 Please print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended any of the following meetings? • Board/Commission Orientation Session No • Human Relations Commission Yes Date October 14, 2007 2. How did you learn about the vacancy on the Human Relations Commission? Community Group X Newspaper Ad Place of Employment __ _ Utility Bill Stuffer City Clerk's Office __ Other (Specify) ___________________ _ 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations. Having lived in Palo Alto and Stanford for more than 48 years, I have been active in a variety of ways. Most recently: I am a member of the board of PAGE (palo Altans for Government Effectiveness), a group advocating increased civic engagement for the common good; served on the Blue Ribbon Task Force on the Public Safety Building (2006); served in the Restorative Justice Program of Santa Clara County for several years before it ended in 2004, and, beginning in 2007, volunteer in the Palo Alto Police Department. Before that I was elected to the Palo Alto School Board (1978-1983) and the Foothill-De Anza Board of Trustees (1983-1991). In a long career at Stanford (1960-1993), I was involved in many ways in the bringing of diversity to the campus, working through problems of various sorts, and building a sense of community among my administrative colleagues. In foundation work (1993-2001), one of my goals was to make grant-seekers, whether successful or not, feel treated with understanding and respect. 4. What is itaboutthe Human Relations Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Human Relations Commission? The HRC has one of the more difficult roles in our community. Good human relations and what flows from them-trust, respect, the ability to disagree without jeopardizing the possibilities of agreement on other issues at other times-in many ways determines our potential for making good decisions in other areas and for keeping the community's well being topmost in our priorities. That sort of challenge interests me very much. I would bring more experience than expertise from meeting similar challenges in other contexts. Among the values energizing this application are a civic affection for the common good and a desire to have individual voices heard toward that end. Argument, disagreement, debate, and advocacy are important tools when those using them mean to persuade, to teach, to listen, and to reason with the topic in the foreground and the common good as context. The right to be rude and disagreeable is inalienable and most likely to be ineffective. In the short run, the point may be lost; in the long run, our continuing relationships with one another get battered and our willingness to work together shrivels. I am interested in working through the HRC to keep problems from festering, make disagreements productive, and build the sorts of relationships from which good things flow for our community. 5. How would you see your role as a commissioner when recommending policy and working with the Council? The Council-as nine individuals elected to keep Palo Alto civically, socially, and economically healthy-has several contributing commissions and other bodies to enable it to carry out its responsibilities with the best information, perspective, and insight possible. The HRC provides one channel for that advice. I would see my role as a commissioner in contributing that kind of information, perspective, and insight so that Council decisions would, whatever the topic, enhance the community's potential for bringing our best selves to those civic issues we feel strongly about. 6. What are the current issues that the Human Relations Commission will face? Combining issues I think it will face with those I hope it might face, here is my list: o Enhancing the contributions of our multiple diversities, i.e., race, religion, economic, age, gender, sexual orientation, long-timers and new residents, and the like; o Building community and elevating the common good in our civic conversations; o Assisting in the productivity of consequential debates on topics such as housing, economic development, preserving valued community qualities, community cohesion, individual prerogatives, and reconciling needs and aspirations with resources; o Increasing mutual respect and collaboration between City staff and citizens, with particular emphasis on public safety; o Increasing the level of skill and the height of our aspirations for conflict management and resolution, keeping the long term as well as the short term in our 2 sights; D Assessing tendencies toward civic dis-engagement and devising countermeasures; and D Contributing to the resolution of conflicts that come to the HRC's attention. 7. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve? All of the topics in item #6 are part of my answer to this question. Among them these lie nearest to my citizen's heart: matters that enhance our understanding of the common good and our attachment to it, making the City a professionally satisfying place to work, and engaging more of our citizens in civic and nonprofit efforts to enhance Palo Alto and make civic imagination a hallmark of our community. End 3 Ray Bacchetti 850 Webster Street, #700; Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: 650-324-7423 Email: raybac@earthlink.net Prior to retiring in late 2007, Ray served as scholar in residence at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, where he co-directed, with Senior Scholar Tom Ehrlich, the Foundation's Centennial project. A book based on this project that they co-edited was published in October 2006: Reconnecting Foundations and Education: Turning Good Intentions into Educational Capital. His most recent prior position was program officer for K-12 and higher education at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (1993-2001). Prior to that he was vice president for planning and management at Stanford University, which had been his primary employer from 1960. He received his bachelor's and master's degrees from Rutgers University and a Ph.D. in philosophy of education and higher education from Stanford University in 1968. Other professional experience has included administrative posts at the City University of New York and Rutgers University and elementary school teaching. Professional assignments have included membership on the Senior College Commission of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (the accrediting association for California and Hawaii, 1985-92), including a three-year term as chair. He was elected a member of the board of education of the Palo Alto Unified School District (1978-83) and the board of trustees of the Foothill-De Anza Community College District (1983-91), serving from time to time as chair of both boards. He has taught workshops on management in higher education in Australia, England, New Zealand, Singapore, and the U.S. He has consulted in the Every Child a Reader and Writer program for the Noyce Foundation from 2001-03 and the Early College High School program for the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation from 2002-2005. He has also consulted for K-12, collegiate institutions, and philanthropic foundations in the U.S on a variety of topics. Past and current service on boards of directors includes the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative, 1998 to 2004, now called Springboard Schools; Grantmakers for Education, 1995-2000; EdSource, 2000 to the 2007; Developmental Studies Center, 2002 to 2010; the Student Loan Marketing Association (1978-1995); Channing House, 2007 to present, and the Oregon Shakespeare Festival, 2001 to 2011. He has also served on the national advisory board of the Stanford Center for the Comparative Study of Race and Ethnicity and the Alameda County Office of Education Task Force on Charter School Policy. He has volunteered for the Palo Alto Police Department since 2007. In 2007 he was appointed by the City Council to the Palo Alto Human Relations Commission and reappointed in 2009 for a three-year term. In 2008 he was appointed by the Palo Alto Board of Education to the Citizens' Oversight Committee for the school district's $378 million facilities bond issue and elected chair of the Committee for 2009. He was named by A venidas and the Palo Alto Weekly as a 2009 Lifetimes of Achievement honoree. In 2010, he was appointed to the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission by the City Council and served as its co-chair until it completed its work in January 2012. He is married to Carol Bacchetti and they have three children and three grandchildren. January 2012 C\ TY Of PALO ,t\Ll·O. CA CIT Y CU:.Rr\'S ®fFICE \2 JAN 3 \ ~M to! 08 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CONSENT FORM California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or apPointed official onthe Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. Read the code, and check only ONE option below: /' I ~ ~"-~,,h~/'!. give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application Intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address "ro-3J-'1' 7'(";-73 Phone rct-'1 bAL @ e..Q r-J/,./.,.)c. J?e-t. Email gi?,4"-6 t c> Ck"""'7 ~¢I;Z Signature* Date I *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. Bds/Commissions -702-23 1130/2012 CITY OF PALO ALTO ~lY Of PAb9l"~0'7A Q3fTY CLERh v '" F\&'£ 12 fEB -I PH 21 55 BOARD AND COMMISSION INCUMBENT APPLICATION SUBMIT TO: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 Incumbents may use this form to declare their intent to apply for another term in office. BOARD CURRENTLY SERVING ON: --L..H~L{<-!.!m..r..=;fll~n..~R-:.-....='..t1..:..r: .. ~~~' ~ _______ _ NMlli: ___ C~h~e_.~_. ______ -,r.~/ __ te~Y~~~k~ __ _ RESIDENCE ADDRESS:· Last First HOME WORK CEll I am reapplying for the board listed above; please resubmit the most recent application I have on file. I am reapplying for the board listed above; I will update my application and submit it prior to the deadline.· I Will NOT reapply for another term at this time. *Blank applications may be found at www.cityofpaloalto.org Signature of Applicant d-// I d-tJ/..l-Dme: ________ ~ ________ _ Bds/Commissions -702-23 1/28/2012 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CONSENT FORM California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give pennission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR r- ~ I --;her-est!. Ue.ne request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address , (6n) 22-1-sY-s-i Phone Email Signature* Date *The applicant must have a digital Signature or print the application, sign in ink, and deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. Bds/Commissions -702-23 1/28/2012 CITY OF PALO ALTO BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION SUBMIT TO: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 .-:J Please print or type answers to all questions and place Nt A in those areas that do not apply. Be sure that you fill out the attached supplement and return it with your signed application. NAME: Chen Theresa ~~----------~--~~~---------------HOME PHONE: Last First WORK PHONE: ,ffiSIDENCE ADDRESS: CELL PHONE: . EMAIL: Education: Ph.D., University of Rochester, Rochester, New York M.A., University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri B.S., National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan List relevant training and experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Research Scientist, Stanford Uni versi ty, Palo Alto VA Health Care System (volunteer) Adjunct faculty, Notre Dame de Namur University, Belmont, CA Group Leader, Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL cientist, Genentech Inc., South San Francisco, CA • Are you a Palo Alto Resident? • Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? • Are you available and committed to complete the term appliedfor? • California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this appliCatiOn. Please contact the City Attorney's Office at 650-329-2171 to arrange an appointment. • Excludingyour principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles x x of Palo Alto? X If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the City Attorney's Office at 650-329-2171 to arrange an appointment. ~MPLOYMENT Present or last employer x x Biomedical Research Scientist N arne of Company: Stanford University Occupation: University Faculty (If retired, indicate former occupation) Signature of Applicant Date: 0/ tJ-/..J.'V l u Please Return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 CITY OF PALO ALTO HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION .SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Name: Theresa L. Chen Date: 212110 Please print or type yom answers to the following questions and submit with yom completed application. You may submit additional sheets, ifnecessary, to complete yom answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? Yes • Human Relations Commission ~are: __________ -J) 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Human Relations Commission? No X Community Group: __ Palo Alto Weekly: Palo Alto Weekly Online: __ Email from City Clerk:.L Library Bulletin Board: Fogster.com: __ Other, Please Specify: 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I have been actively involving in the Chinese-American community, to serve new immigrants and visiting scholars. I have done the following: 1. Give numerous health-related seminars at Home of the Christ at Cupertino, A Chinese independent Evangelical Church for the past 10 years in various fellowship groups. 2. Work as a volunteer researcher at the Palo Alto VA hospital since 1997 to help visiting scholars, which includes newly arrived students and post-doctoral fellows to accommodate life in the US. 4. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that interests you? What qualitieS, experience and expertise would you bring to the Human Relations Commission? As an immigrant myself, I can relate with a broadly diversified population to understand their needs and ways of living. Not only with Chinese population, I am experienced to handle issues generated from many other ethnic origins. This experience is derived from my job as a faculty member at the Notre Dame de Namm University where student population is quire diversified. I believe with my experience, expertise and enthusiasm, I am able to acComplish my duties at the Human Relations Commission. --------------------------------~------------------------------------- -1- ,. 5. How would you see your role as board member when recommending policy and working with the Council? If it were necessary to change current roles, how would you approach making such changes? I will do a thorough investigation of each situation and recommend a fair and effective policy. This will be fccomPliShed after total understandiJig and careful consideration.. I am VeIY flexible and willingto change when situation requires. 6. What are the current issues facing the Human Relations Commission? I do not know the answer. 7. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve? To serve Palo Alto residents effectively with fair and responsible decisions. -2- HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION CITY OF PALO ALTO BOARD AND COMMISSION APPLICATION SUBMIT TO: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2571 Please print or type answers to all questions and place NI A in those areas that do not apply. Be sure that you fill out the attached supplement and return it with your signed application. NAME: Morin Diane RESIDENCE ADDRESS: Education: ~L~M~'t-----------------F~~-t------------ HOME PHONE: PHONE: PHONE: EMAIL: 1972: B.A. Pomona College, Claremont California. English & International Relations.· 1975: M.A. Univ. of California, Berkeley. Comparative Literature. 1982: J.D. University of San Francisco List relevant training and experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: 1988-1991: District Attorney, Santa Clara County; 2000 to 2009 Training in Mediation (Family & Community), and Collaborative Law. 2002: Certified as Family Law SpeCialist by State Bar/Calif .. Born and raised in Italy, French & US citizen. Have empathy and experience in multi-cultural interactions and am skilled in the use of methods for alternative dispute resolution. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/1/2011 • Are you a Palo Alto Resident? • Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are board members or commissioners? • Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? • California state law requires appointed board and commission members to me a detailed disclosure of theirfmancial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? If you answered yes, you may wish to consult with the City Attorney before filing this application. Please contact the City Attorney's Office at 650-329-2171. • Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto or within two miles of Palo Alto? EMPLOYMENT D D D Presentorlast employer Law Offices of Diane J.N. Morin Name of Company: Attorney/Mediator Occupation: (If retired, indicate former occupation) Signature of Applicant Date: 2/9/2012 Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/1/2011 , Please Return to: Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2571 CITY OF PALO ALTO HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Name: Diane J.N. Morin Date: 219/2012 Please Print or type your answers to the following questions and submit with your completed application. You may submit additional sheets, if necessary, to complete your answers. 1. Have you attended the following meeting? • Human Relations Commission No D Yes I t/ I (Date: 11/12/09 & twic) 2. How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Human Relations Commission? Community Group: D Palo Alto Weekly: D The Daily Post: D Email from City Clerk: 0 Library Bulletin Board: D FlyerlBookmark: 0 Other, Please Specify: I have applied before. 3. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: ~rvU~~~ 4. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Human Relations Commission? Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/1/2011 S. How would you see your role as board member when recommending policy and working with the Council? If it were ne'jSSary to· change current roles, how would you approach making such changes? ~~. ) 6. What are the current issues facing the Human Relations Commission7 k /lM . . ~ 7. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve? Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/1/2011 Supplemental Sheet to Appl~cation of Diane J.N. Morin for: Human Relations Commis~ion of City of Palo Alto February 9. 2012 3. Describer your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I am a member of several court committees relating to my field oflaw Family Law (including Minor's Counsel; Family Law Executive Committee, ADRpanels in both San Mateo and Santa Clara Superior Courts and Collaborative Practice panels in San Mateo and Santa Clara County) These do not impinge directly on Palo Alto, but they ,have helped me networks with some of the people in our community. I have ~een involved in volunteer activities relating to Leadership Palo Alto in the past, and have been very involved in activities related to my child's schools. I am a single par~nt of a 19-* year old daughter, now in college. I have my own business (a law office) in Palo Alto. I have attended some council meetings in the past. 4. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that interests you? What qualities, experience and expertise would you bring to the Human Relations Commission? I am interested in the peaceful resolution of conflict between individuals and groups. I grew up in Rome, Italy, the daughter of a French and U.S. national, and attended an American school in Rome. I came to the U.S. when I wa~ eighteen years old for college. Hence I have great empathy for issues involving bi-cu)tural communication and have always been passionate about multi-lingual and multi- cultural learning. My only daughter speaks Chinese since she began studying the language in middle school (and she IS now concentrating in journalism & Chinese.) 5. How would you see your rale as board member when recommending policy and working with the Council? If it were necessary to change current rales, how would you approach making such changes? I am a facilitator by training and personality. I would try to build consensus after seriously examining the issues presented by the Commission so that we could give the Council information and also present our recommendations persuasively. I am not clear on the meaning of the second question. I act, however, similarly in most situations: (1) gather facts; (2) analyze the facts as objectively as I can; (3) come to a position and attempt to persuasively argue for it while keeping an open ear to the information I receive from others. I 6. What are the current issues facing the Human Relations Commission? The issues I can count, but are not inclusive are: (1) Diversity and intercultUral . communication; (2) public safety; (3) communication between the Council and city staff regarding labor negotiations. 7. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve: See above. I will attempt to add a supplemental document to this one, as I do not have the time to complete it at this time. City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CONSENT FORM California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. Read the code,'and check only ONE option below: D I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the . City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR 01 Diane J.N. Morin request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Law Offices of Diane J.N. Morin, 2211 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306-1533 Address (650) 473-0822 Phone d.morin@sbcglobal.net Email ~ i,lt. ~ 2_19_/20_12 ______ _ Signaturet' . Date *The applicant must have a digital signature or print the application, sign in ink, and . deliver to the City Clerks Office. A typed signature or unsigned application will not be accepted. Bds/Commissions -702-23 9/1/2011 2211 PARK BLVD., PALO ALTO, CA 94306 T (650) 4730822 F (650) 4730812 Ms. Ronna Gonzalves Deputy City Clerk Office of the City Clerk . ~ ~" CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA DIANE J.N. MORIN CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ATIORNEY AT L.AW 5. 'CERTlFlED FAMILY L.AW SPECIAUST 12 FEB lOAM 6: . D.MORIN@SBCGLOBALNET WWW.DIANEMORfNFAMILYI..AW.COM February 8,2012 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Application for Library Advisory Commission, City of Palo Alto Dear Ms. Gonzalves: I enclose my application for a position on the Human Relations Commission. Thank you for your kind direction and attention. Thank you and best regards. Sincerely yours, ~J/l~ DIANE J.N. MORIN • AS CERTIFIED BY THE STATE BAR OF CAUFORNIA BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION City of Palo Alto (ID # 2711) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study SessionMeeting Date: 4/16/2012 April 16, 2012 Page 1 of 3 (ID # 2711) Summary Title: Carbon Cap‐and‐Trade Overview Title: Overview of California’s Cap‐and‐Trade Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Impacts on the Operation of Electric and Gas Utilities From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities This report is provided to the Council as background for the study session when the Regulatory Affairs Manager of the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) will provide an overview of the regulations related to the cap‐and‐trade regulations adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). No Council action is required. Executive Summary The implementation of a cap‐and‐trade program, aimed at reducing California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, will impact the City’s electric utility operations starting in 2013. Under the terms of the cap‐and‐trade regulations adopted by CARB, the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) will be allocated GHG emission allowances (defined as the authorization to emit up to one metric ton of carbon‐dioxide equivalent per allowance). The regulation requires that CPAU utilize the value of these allocated allowances, including proceeds from the sale of the allowances in the auctions conducted by CARB, “exclusively for the benefit of retail [electric] ratepayers” and consistent with the State’s GHG reduction goals. Staff will be seeking Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) and Council direction on utilization of the revenue generated from the sale of the allowances. A detailed description of the state’s overall GHG reduction goals, as adopted by Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32, 2006), and the comparative GHG reduction goals from Palo Alto’s 2007 Climate Protection Plan are presented in Attachment A. Starting in 2015, the City’s gas utility will also fall under the mandate to participate in the cap‐ and‐trade program, but the impact of the program on the gas utility, including any CARB proposal for allocation of allowances to gas utilities, is not known at this time. Discussion In December 2011, CARB issued the final regulation for its cap‐and‐trade program. Under the terms of the regulation, the City’s electrical distribution utility expects to be directly allocated GHG allowances for a seven‐year period starting in year 2013 as shown below in Table 1. April 16, 2012 Page 2 of 3 (ID # 2711) Table 1: CPAU Annual Allowances Allocation for Years 2013 to 2020 Calendar Year: 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Allowance Allocation (metric tons)340,533 336,044 322,284 320,461 324,672 317,776 310,204 310,979 Once allowances are freely distributed, publicly‐owned utilities, such as CPAU, have three options for their use: 1. Place allowances in their compliance accounts to meet compliance obligations for generation plants they operate directly; 2. Place allowances in the compliance account of a Joint Powers Agency or public power utility that generates power on their behalf; or 3. Make the allowances available for auction, using the proceeds of any sale to benefit the customers they serve. Since CPAU’s electric utility does not operate plants that have a compliance obligation, nor does the NCPA operate plants with compliance obligations on CPAU’s behalf, the third option applies and CPAU will sell these allowances into the auctions that CARB will be conducting on a quarterly basis starting in November 2012. The final rules for auction participation still need to be clarified by CARB, but staff estimates that CPAU’s allowances will have a market value of about $5 million per year in calendar year 2013 (assuming a $15/ton allowance auction price). Although the number of allowances allocated to CPAU’s electric utility declines between 2013 and 2020, the allowance value is expected to increase through year 2020, the last year of the regulated period. Although the regulations are not finalized, they may provide CPAU some flexibility in how it participates in CARB’s quarterly auctions (e.g., how many allowances are sold at each auction). Internal controls and procedures will be established to control how to transact in the auctions. Utilization of Proceeds from the Sale of Allowances The regulation for the use of the proceeds from the sale of allowances stipulates the following: “Auction proceeds and allowance value obtained by an electrical distribution utility shall be used exclusively for the benefit of retail ratepayers of each electrical distribution utility, consistent with the goals of AB 32, and may not be used for the benefit of entities or persons other than such ratepayers.” Possible options to utilize the GHG allowance sales proceeds in Palo Alto include: 1. Purchases or investment in renewable resources; 2. Energy efficiency programs; 3. Enhanced incentives for local solar photovoltaic systems; 4. Investment in other carbon reduction activities, including the pursuit of a carbon‐ neutral electric portfolio; 5. Reduction of customers’ electric retail rate; and 6. Rebate to customers. Staff will explore these options to utilize the allowance proceeds within the context of providing April 16, 2012 Page 3 of 3 (ID # 2711) a benefit to electric utility ratepayers, and achieving the goals of AB 32 and the City’s Climate Protection Plan. Staff will seek UAC and Council input on these options in the coming months. Attachments:  Attachment A: AB32 GHG Reduction Goals and Palo Alto’s Climate Protection Plan Goals (PDF) Prepared By: Debra Lloyd, Manager Department Head: Valerie Fong, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager City of Palo Alto (ID # 2473) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study SessionMeeting Date: 4/16/2012 April 16, 2012 Page 1 of 7 (ID # 2473) Summary Title: Update of the Climate Protection Plan Title: Update on the Climate Protection Plan -Earth Day Staff Report From:City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation This is an informational report and requires no Council action. Executive Summary Climate change has become perhaps the most important threat facing the global environment and economy. Locally, the effects of climate change are likely to reduce the availability of hydro generated electricity, increase the incidence of forest fires and extreme weather events, and lead to a rise in sea level, which would impact Palo Alto's shoreline and flood prone areas. The City of Palo Alto (City) took a leadership role in 2007 as one of the first U.S. cities to develop a Climate Protection Plan (CPP). The CPP describes measures that could be taken to reduce the City's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and set GHG reduction goals. This report provides an update on activities and results to date, as well as progress made towards meeting GHG reduction goals set by the Council. The 2012 GHG emissions reduction goal for municipal operations (also called City operations) is 20% below the 2005 baseline levels. The corresponding 2012 GHG emissions reduction goal for the entire community was set at 5% below the 2005 baseline levels. Staff at present estimate that emissions from City operations could be reduced by 27% by the end of 2012, and community emissions could be reduced by 15% by the end of 2012. These projected reductions far exceed the goals set for 2012 and if our projections hold, would meet the 2020 community reduction goal of 15%. These estimated reductions for both City operations and Community emissions will be primarily due to greater purchases of electricity from renewable supplies, participation in the PaloAltoGreen program, lower levels of waste to the landfill and improvements to City facilities, generally related to energy efficiency. There is insufficient data available to assess the change in transportation related emissions since 2005, as a result, the projected emissions from this April 16, 2012 Page 2 of 7 (ID # 2473) sector were held constant.Attachment B and C to this report compare 2005 emissions baseline to staff’s projected GHG emissions for 2012 for both City operations and the community. Staff expects to return to Council a year from now, in April 2013, with actual emission reduction numbers for 2012 and we will be able to confirm if our projections held up. If we have met our 2020 GHG reduction goals, Council may want to discuss whether to increase our 2020 community level GHG reduction goal. Palo Alto’s current community GHG reduction goal of 15% by 2020 is in line with State of California's AB32 legislative goal for 2020. Should Palo Alto adopt a higher reduction goal for the community, it would help lead the way beyond the State- wide goal and toward greater sustainability. Background Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) climate change may result from human activities that change the atmosphere's composition (e.g. through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g. deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification, etc.). The term climate change is often used interchangeably with the term global warming, but according to the National Academy of Sciences, "the phrase 'climate change' is growing in preferred use to 'global warming' because it helps convey that there are [other] changes in addition to rising temperatures." Global warming is commonly referred to as an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface and in the troposphere, which can contribute to changes in global climate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human induced. In common usage, "global warming" often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities. Emissions Reduction Goals The City of Palo Alto's Climate Protection Plan (Attachment A) set greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals that were adopted by Council in 2007. Those goals were; ·Short term goal -by 2009 the City will reduce emissions by 5% from 2005 emissions levels ·Mid term goal -by 2012 the City and Community will reduce emissions by 5% from 2005 emissions levels. ·Long term goal -by 2020 the City and Community will reduce emissions by 15% from 2005 emissions levels In April 2010, staff informed Council that the City’s emissions were reduced by 12%, which exceeded the 2009 reduction goal of 5%. As a result, Council revised the emission reduction goal for City operations to 20% by 2012. In addition to the emission reduction goals, the CPP also had other goals which are outlined in the Discussion section of this report, along with the progress made in achieving those goals. April 16, 2012 Page 3 of 7 (ID # 2473) Cost Benefit Analysis and Budget Implications - The costs of actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are a key component of prioritizing which actions to take in implementing a Climate Protection Plan. The City retained a consultant to develop a cost benefit analysis of the action items discussed in the CPP, which was presented to council on July 21, 2008 (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=12872). While continuing to refer to the analysis, staff expects to pursue an update to the analysis in the coming year and would expect to present results to Council in April of next year. How the Climate Protection Plan fits into Other Environmental and Sustainability Efforts The Climate Protection Plan intersects with and influences many other environmental programs and initiatives. For example, the Zero Waste plan calls for an increase of the diversion rate of several categories of solid waste which will significantly reduce GHG emissions from the community. Another example is the Urban Forest Master Plan, where there are not only benefits from the carbon sequestration properties of an urban canopy, but also from reduced energy costs resulting from strategically located trees that shade buildings. Discussion The City operations and Community are on track to meet and potentially exceed the emission reduction goals set for 2012 (Attachment B and C). The estimated community reduction of 15% is primarily due to an increase in renewable electricity purchases, an increase participation in the volunteer PaloAltoGreen program, and waste and water treatment emission reductions and is illustrated below. Community emissions are broken into different categories that conform to industry standards: ·Direct emissions related to fossil fuels burned on site. This is primarily natural gas combustion in Palo Alto and landfill emissions (also called Scope 1) ·Indirect emissions resulting from the generation of electricity, heating and cooling, or steam generated off site. (Scope 2) ·Emissions from transportation, solid waste disposal, and wastewater treatment (Scope 3) The chart below summarizes the comparative community emission levels in the three categories. The use of natural gas has decreased slightly, primarily as a result of a large commercial natural gas customer leaving town. The electricity emission reduction accounts for the majority of the reduction and is due to greater amount of renewable energy supply. The community’s total purchase of PaloAltoGreen RECs was factored into the community emissions total (as a reduction of 879 lbs of CO2 per REC purchased). Reduction in solid waste accounts for the reduction in the third category. Attachment B provides greater details of these numbers, with 2012 numbers being estimates for the year. April 16, 2012 Page 4 of 7 (ID # 2473) Community GHG Emissions: 2005 vs.2012 (est.) Total: 748,000 to 634,000 MT,reduction of 15%) 160,057 187,744 413,061 94,718 183,338 370,581 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 Direct Emissions (natural gas and landfill) Emissions from Electricity Generation Emissions from Transportation and Solid Waste GH G E m i s s i o n s ( M T / y e a r ) 2005 2012 estimated Note: Staff has calibrated the community totals to reflect weather related differences between 2005 and the projected estimates for 2012. Weather adjustment is primarily related to normalizing the hydro electric supply to an average historic precipitation level. Since 2005 hydro conditions were relatively wetter and 2012 is projected to be a relatively dry, the c emission reduction using actual hydro generation for the community would only be 8.4% compared to the weather adjusted 15% emission reduction outlined in the report and illustrated above. Staff was not able to estimate transportation related emissions at this point, therefore the transportation emissions numbers from 2005 have been brought forward as 2012 estimates for consistency. Staff expects to undertake a transportation emission level assessment this coming year. Staff estimates that City operations will exceed the revised 2012 goal of 20% reduction and that there is the potential of reaching reductions close to 27%, based on a weather adjusted estimate, given current information. Without weather adjustments or accounting for PaloAltoGreen purchases the reduction is estimated at 15% as illustrated in the chart below. The reductions are primarily from improvements in the Water Quality Treatment Plant (WQTP), efficiency measures taken at many facilities including City Hall, the participation in waste management programs, and the greater use of renewable electric supply Improvements at the April 16, 2012 Page 5 of 7 (ID # 2473) Water Quality Treatment Plant were 1) replacing natural gas with landfill gas for the afterburner of the incinerator,2) fine tuning the controls of the compressed air to the aeration tanks, 3) lighting upgrades, 4) installing solar photovoltaic panels and 5) installation of ultraviolet light disinfection to replace chlorination. Staff did not include biogenic sources which are a result of emissions associated with landfill and wastewater sludge incineration and over which we currently have no control. In addition, the comparative totals include the City’s facilities participation in the PaloAltoGreen program. City Operations GHG Emissions: 2005 vs. 2012 (est.) 9,596 661 240 8,951 2,580 5,681 6,249 9 10,370 599 217 11,049 2,049 8,574 6,863 3 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Buildings and Other Facilities Streetlights & Traffic Signals Water Delivery Facilities Wastewater Facilities Vehicle Fleet Power Generation Facilities Solid Waste Facilities Other Processes & Fugitive Annual Municipal GHG Emissionstonsof CO2e (scope 1 and scope 2 only) (Total Non Weather Adjusted Emissions Reduce from 39,725 MT to 33,968 MT,a 15%reduction) 2005 2012 Staff has revised its baseline calculations for City operations emissions to be in line with the current calculation methodology known as the Local Government Operations protocol (LGOP). The LGOP was developed by Air Resources Board (ARB) staff in partnership with the Climate Action Reserve (CAR), The Climate Registry (TCR), and Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI). The LGOP was published in May 2010 and subsequently has become the standard methodology for calculating GHG emissions for Government operations. Even it Staff continued to use the original calculation methodology used in 2007, the City operations emissions would be reduced. In addition to the emission reduction goals, the CPP also had other goals. These goals are tabulated below along with the progress made in achieving those goals. CPP Goals Update on Progress Incorporate carbon reduction into the City's Comprehensive Plan goals to ensure continuity with other City Draft greenhouse gas reduction strategies and sustainability principals will be recommended for incorporation in each element of the amended Comprehensive Plan. Council is April 16, 2012 Page 6 of 7 (ID # 2473) priorities expected to adopt an amended Comprehensive Plan in mid-2013. Explore and evaluate a policy whereby all of the Palo Alto Utilities would become climate neutral and enable customers to choose climate neutrality through various voluntary mechanisms. City developed the nation's top-ranked voluntary renewable energy program PaloAltoGreen and is assessing the potential of a carbon neutral electricity portfolio for all customers. Use this CPP as a springboard for determining GHG reducing actions, and revisit action steps reformulated at least biennially. Staff is committed to continually reviewing and revising the CPP actions to continue to lead in environmental sustainability. Maintain and report GHG inventories on a regular basis Staff has compiled and reported on annual municipal operations GHG emissions inventory to national registries (CCAR, TCR) since 2005. Staff is also internally using the Hara Emissions Management System to consolidate and track municipal GHG emissions. Promote participation by Palo Alto businesses in inventory efforts Staff will continue to be active in CCAR, SSV (Sustainable Silicon Valley), JVSV (Joint Venture Silicon Valley), SVLG (Silicon Valley Leadership Group) or other organizations. This includes participation by joint action agencies and vendors with which Palo Alto interacts (Northern California Power Agency, Palo Alto Solid Waste Collection and hauling agreements, etc.) A more detailed list of accomplishment is provided in Attachment D. This attachment is formatted in a manner similar to the original CPP so the reader can easily relate to the sections and programs discussed in 2007. Attachment D summarizes many of the City’s sustainability efforts, and includes the following sections. 1.Utilities; 2.Sustainable Purchasing; 3.Transportation and Sustainable Land Use; 4.Green Building; 5.Zero Waste; 6.Education and Motivation. April 16, 2012 Page 7 of 7 (ID # 2473) This attachment outlines actions taken to reduce emissions from City and community GHG sources along with a review of existing programs and potential actions or new programs that could be undertaken in the future. Attachment A is a summary of the original Climate Protection Plan. The original plan can be found on the City’s website (2007 CPP). Attachments B and C are tables that compare 2005 emissions baseline to staff’s projected emissions for 2012 for both City operations and the community. Future vision for the Climate Protection Plan To establish itself as a recognized leader in environmental sustainability, the City should continue to implement the Climate Protection Plan along with revisions to incorporate new programs including plans around adaptation to climate change. Staff plans to continue its effort to promote a carbon neutral electric portfolio and to review opportunities to collaborate with the Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) team and incorporate the values relating to the carbon sequestration properties of our urban forest. Staff is also reviewing the opportunity to have the Climate Protection Plan certified for CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) compliance so that the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) process for development in Palo Alto could be streamlined. Finally, transportation-related emissions are under review and a consultant is expected to be engaged to help establish more rigorous protocols for calculating baseline and future transportation-related emissions. Attachments: ·Attachment A -Summary of Climate Protection Plan (DOC) ·Attachment B -Community Emissions (PDF) ·Attachment C -City Operations Emissions (PDF) ·Attachment D (DOC) Prepared By:Debra van Duynhoven, Department Head:James Keene, City Manager City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Attachment A Page 1 of 3 Summary Description of the 2007 Climate Protection Plan (Note: Emission estimates updated since 2007 and is reflected in the body of the report) In December 2007 Council approved a Climate Protection Plan (CPP) that set a short, medium, and long term goals to reduce City operations and community greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These goals were: 1.Short Term Goal: By 2009, the City Operations will reduce emissions by 5% from 2005 emission levels for a total reduction of 3,266 metric tons of CO2. 2.Medium Term Goal: By 2012 the City Operations and Community will reduce emissions by 5% from 2005 emissions level for a total reduction of 29,702 metric tons of CO2. 3.Long Term Goals: By 2020, the City Operations and Community will reduce emissions by 15% of 2005 levels, equal to 119,140 metric tons of CO2, and bring the community in line with State emission reduction goals. Outlined below in Figure 1 and Figure 2 are the City’s and Community’s GHG emissions profiles, as outlined in the 2007 CPP. The City’s emissions of 65,329 Metric Tons of CO2e (MT CO2e) and the community’s emissions of 728,720 MT CO2e combined is equivalent to approximately 14 tonnes per resident. Electricity and natural gas related emissions account for approximately 40% of the 793,621 MT CO2e total municipal plus community emissions. (Note: the natural gas leakage estimate has since been substantially revised downwards, from 19,358 MT CO2e to 4,717 MTCO2e.) Figure 1: Municipal (City Operations) GHG Emission Sources in 2005 (65,329 MT CO2e) Source: Climate Protection Plan: December 2007 Note: Natural gas leakage numbers were updated with more accurate numbers since 2007 that resulted in considerable reduction in leakage estimates. Attachment A Page 2 of 3 Figure 2: Community GHG Emission Sources in 2005 (726,720 MT CO2e) Source: Climate Protection Plan: December 2007 B. Short Term GHG Reduction Goals The City operations undertook a number of departmental level initiatives to meet the goal to reduce municipal GHG emissions by 5% at the end of 2009. Utilities energy efficiency and conservation programs were integral part of this effort. The initiative was classified under five main categories: employee education, electricity conservation and efficiency upgrades, paper use reduction, commute reduction, and waste reduction. A revised 2005 benchmark of 29,364 MT CO2e was established. This lower benchmark down from 65, 329 MT, figure 1 above) reflects the reduced estimate for natural gas leakage and biogenic emissions from the waste water treatment plant because the facility serves other cities too and Palo Alto has minimal control over those emissions. In April 2010, staff reported to Council that municipal GHG emissions declined by 11% in 2009 relative to the revised baseline year of 2005 (excluding employee commute estimates) (CMR: 194:10). Emissions were down from 29,364 MT CO2e to 25,518 MT CO2e. The principle contributors to this reduction are outlined below: ·Major upgrades and process improvements at the water quality plant, accounted for 75% of the reduction o Replace natural gas used in the biosolids incinerator emission control equipment with landfill gas that had previously been burned in a flare o Improve aeration system and replace air diffusers o Install more efficient motors and lighting fixtures ·Upgrade building systems and fixtures o Lighting fixture upgrades at the Elwell Court building o Reduced lighting levels at selected locations o City hall upgrades: motors, boilers, HVAC system Attachment A Page 3 of 3 C. Measurement and Reporting of GHG Emissions In order to meet the long term GHG reductions, which is the difference between the 2005 GHG estimates and the 2020 emissions, a robust and consistent measurement methodology needs to be established. The 2007 CPP estimates for 2005 emission were based on the ICLEI methodologies prevailing at that time. These methodologies are being revised and updated, and considerable research has gone it to measurement and quantifying techniques over the past few years. Staff is following those measurement methodologies and coalescing our initial estimates with the new ones to develop a more robust baseline GHG estimate for 2005 in order to more accurately measure the change the emission since then. This is a continuous process and staff will have a more definitive update to Council in 2013. Utilities staff have developed a robust understanding of GHG measurement techniques for utility operations by participating in the voluntary GHG emissions reporting program since 2006. The City reported its municipal GHG emissions estimates to the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) from 2005 to 2009 and to the Climate Registry (TCR) in 2010. The graph below is for illustrative purposes, to show how the measurement of all six GHG gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6) is important, and how the actual emissions associated with the City’s electricity supply varies widely with the hydro electricity generation in the electric supply portfolio. As an example, year 2006 and 2010 were very wet and the City got a lot more hydroelectric supply, replacing market purchases (primarily consisting of natural gas based electricity supply) which the City otherwise would have purchased. It also includes methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) from fugitive and process emissions which the City began reporting in 2008. Figure 3: Municipal Operations GHG Emission Sources, 2005-2010 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Mu n i c i p a l E m i s s i o n s ( T o n n e s C O 2 e ) ATTACHMENT B City of Palo Alto GHG Emissions Summary COMMUNITY EMISSIONS All Units in Metric Tonnes of CO2e 2005 Data 2005 CO2e 2012 Data estimates 2012 estimated CO2e Notes Scope 1 Emissions Natural Gas Use 31,374,970 therms 159,989 30,642,287 therms 154,444 1 Natural Gas Distribution Leakage 4,717 4,718 Palo Alto Landfill Fugitive Emissions 6,811 6,248 2 Palo Alto Landfill Gas Flaring (biogenic) 144,681 Mcf LFG 5,853 7,554 3 Wastewater Stationary Combustion 1,792 6,543 dry tons incinerated 1,792 4 Wastewater Process Emissions 1,953 1,953 5 Wastewater Sludge Incineration (biogenic) 10,374 6,543 dry tons incinerated 10,374 6 Scope 2 Emissions Electricity - total 996,091,198 146,227 1,015,981,512 133,410 Hydro Supply 548,759,598 0 417,028,611 0 Renewables Supply 49,980,000 0 188,571,259 0 Brown Power Supply 397,351,600 158,427 410,381,643 163,623 Renewable Energy Credits (PAG) 30,600,755 (12,201) 75,776,000 (30,213) 7 Scope 2 Emissions -- Weather Adjusted Electricity - total 996,091,198 160,057 1,015,981,512 94,718 Hydro Supply 514,072,516 0 514,072,516 0 Renewables Supply 49,980,000 0 188,571,259 0 Brown Power Supply 432,038,682 172,257 313,337,737 124,930 Renewable Energy Credits (PAG) 30,600,755 (12,201)75,776,000 (30,213) Scope 3 Emissions Commute within town 671 671 8 Commute into Palo Alto 38,918 38,918 8 Commute from Palo Alto 9,563 9,563 8 Non Commute Travel 217,348 217,348 8 Palo Alto Air Travel 66,900 66,900 8 Life Cycle Emissions From Annual Total Waste Placed in Landfills 69,491 24,823 32,434 11,586 9 Landfilling of Recyclable Materials Paper 9,955 31,299 4,646 14,608 9 Plastic 2,236 3,307 1,044 1,543 9 Plastic Bags 306 518 143 242 9 Glass 1,147 321 535 150 9 Aluminum Cans 113 1,537 53 717 9 Mixed Metal 2,373 11,274 1,108 5,262 9 Concrete 1,383 14 645 7 9 Wood 2,670 6,568 1,246 3,066 9 Total (biogenic excluded)734,550 673,146 Total (weather-adjusted, biogenic excluded) 748,380 634,453 reduction of 15.22% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Emission related to transportation have not been revised for 2012 Based on ratio of 2011 to 2005 tons landfilled 2012 estimate is number reported to TCR for 2010 and represents N2O emissions from incineration of biosolids; RWQCP natural 2012 estimate is number reported to TCR for 2010 and represents N2O emissions from biological treatment process and from 2012 estimate is number reported to TCR for 2010 and represents biogenic emissions from incineration of biosolids at RWQCP; 2012 estimate is from the 2011 PAG sales total Notes Total Citywide NG sales (not including COBUG use or CNG use) * 5.306 kg CO2 per therm 2012 estimate is number reported to TCR for 2010; calculated using total captured landfill gas, actual methane percentage, and assumed 75% capture rate. 2005 estimate has been revised to reflect current methodologies. 2012 estimate is number reported to TCR for 2010 and represents biogenic emissions from flaring of landfill gas and burning landfill ATTACHMENT C City of Palo Alto GHG Emissions Summary MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS based upon the TCR/LGOP reporting All Units in Metric Tonnes of CO2e Buildings and Other Facilities 2005 2012 estimate * Scope 1 CO2e Stationary Combustion 3,524 2,615 Fugitive Emissions 5,163 5,116 Total Direct Emissions 8,686 7,731 Direct Biogenic Emissions Stationary Combustion 0 0 Total Direct Biogenic Emissions 00 Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 1,684 1,865 Purchased Steam 0 0 Purchased Heating 0 0 Purchased Cooling 0 0 Total Indirect Emissions 1,684 1,865 Streetlights and Traffic Signals Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 599 661 Purchased Steam 0 0 Purchased Heating 0 0 Purchased Cooling 0 0 Total Indirect Emissions 599 661 Water Delivery Facilities Scope 1 Stationary Combustion 1 1 Total Direct Emissions 11 Direct Biogenic Emissions Stationary Combustion 0 0 Total Direct Biogenic Emissions 00 Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 216 239 Purchased Steam 0 0 Purchased Heating 0 0 Purchased Cooling 0 0 Total Indirect Emissions 216 239 Wastewater Facilities Scope 1 Stationary Combustion 6,419 4,333 Process Emissions 1,953 1,953 Fugitive Emissions 0 0 Total Direct Emissions 8,502 6,416 Direct Biogenic Emissions Stationary Combustion 10,374 9,621 Total Direct Biogenic Emissions 10,374 9,621 Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 2,547 2,535 Purchased Steam 0 0 Purchased Heating 0 0 Purchased Cooling 0 0 Total Indirect Emissions 2,547 2,535 Vehicle Fleet Scope 1 Mobile Combustion 2,047 2,578 Fugitive Emissions 2 2 Stationary Combustion 0 0 Total Direct Emissions 2,049 2,580 ATTACHMENT C Direct Biogenic Emissions Mobile Combustion 1 0 Stationary Combustion 0 0 Total Direct Biogenic Emissions 10 Scope 2 Purchased Electricity for EVs 0 0 Total Indirect Emissions 00 Power Generation Facilities Scope 1 Stationary Combustion 0 0 Process Emissions 0 0 Fugitive Emissions 0 0 Total Direct Emissions 00 Direct Biogenic Emissions Stationary Combustion 0 0 Total Direct Biogenic Emissions 00 Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 8,574 5,681 Purchased Steam 0 0 Purchased Heating 0 0 Purchased Cooling 0 0 Total Indirect Emissions 8,574 5,681 Solid Waste Facilities Scope 1 Stationary Combustion 35 26 Process Emissions 0 0 Fugitive Emissions 6,811 6,204 Total Direct Emissions 6,846 6,231 Direct Biogenic Emissions Stationary Combustion (flaring)5,853 7,554 Total Direct Biogenic Emissions 5,853 7,554 Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 17 19 Purchased Steam 0 0 Purchased Heating 0 0 Purchased Cooling 0 0 Total Indirect Emissions 17 19 Other Processes & Fugitive Emissions Scope 1 Process Emissions 3 9 Fugitive Emissions 0 0 Total Direct Emissions 39 TOTAL EMISSIONS - 2005 Weather adjusted Weather adjusted Scope 1 26,088 26,088 22,968 22,968 Direct Biogenic Emissions 16,228 16,228 17,175 17,175 Scope 2 13,637 16,329 11,000 11,487 TOTAL 55,953 58,645 51,143 51,630 TOTAL NON-BIOGENIC 39,725 42,417 33,968 34,455 Weather adjusted total non biogenic 42,417 34,455 19% reduction PAG purchases (municipal) (RECs)0 8,988 PAG purchases (municipal) (tonnes)0 3,584 Total GHG comparision**42,417 30,872 27% reduction * Estimate is using 2009 numbers we publicly reported ** Total** GHGs includes reductions associated with PAG purchases and only non-biogenic, weather adjusted estimates. Attachment D Page 1 of 15 Attachment D includes the following sections; 1.Utilities; 2.Sustainable Purchasing; 3.Transportation and Sustainable Land Use; 4.Green Building; 5.Zero Waste; 6.Education and Motivation. Each section of Attachment D corresponds to the sections in the original CPP. In each section, Staff has evaluated actions for reducing emissions from City and Community GHG sources. To the extent possible, Staff has reviewed existing programs, described results and the potential actions or programs that will help reach future goals. 1. Utilities Considerable progress has been made through the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) programs to reduce the carbon emissions associated with community electricity and gas usage since 2005. The tables below illustrate CPAU programs that are projected to reduce electric supply related emissions by 41%, and natural gas supply related emissions by 7%, from 2005 levels by the end of 2012. Increases in the renewable electric supply, as well as increased participation in the PaloAltoGreen program, energy efficiency and conservation programs were the principal drivers for this reduction. The City’s electricity usage has remained generally flat since 2005, but is expected to increase in 2012 primarily due to a large commercial customer moving computer server operations into Palo Alto. Natural gas usage has dropped due to energy savings and because a large commercial customer wound down its operations in Palo Alto. Estimated Electricity Consumption Related Emissions & Impact of Utilities’ Programs Metric Tons of CO2per year Reference Year 2005 Emissions 160,000 Changes in Emissions since 2005: Efficiency & Conservation Programs: 2.7% savings (11,000) Incremental local solar PV Installation: 2,560 kW (1,500) Increase in Renewable Energy Supply: from 5% to 19%(55,000) Increase Palo Alto Green Participation: from 3% to 8%(18,000) Economic Activity Related Load Growth: principally commercial 20,000 Projected Year 2012 Emissions (59% of 2005 Emissions)95,000 Estimated Natural Gas Consumption Related Emissions & Impact of Utilities Programs Metric Tons of CO2per year Reference Year 2005 Emissions 167,000 Changes in Emissions since 2005: Efficiency & Conservation Programs: 1.3% savings (2,100) Incremental local solar hot water systems: 34 systems (38) Distribution pipeline related leakage reduction 0 Economic Activity Related Load Decline: principally commercial (9,500) Projected Year 2012 Emissions (93% of 2005 Emissions)155,000 Attachment D Page 2 of 15 State and federal agencies continue to tighten appliance efficiency standards and code requirements leading to additional energy savings for the community. These savings are in the baseline beyond those the City is allowed to count in meeting the established gas and electric long-term energy efficiency goals. CPAU continues to aggressively pursue those goals and expects to achieve an additional 4% to 5% savings of both electricity and natural gas usage. CPAU also expects to increase the renewable supply from 20% of the City’s electricity sales in 2011 to at least 33% by 2015. The renewable supply goal is expected to be achieved within the 0.5¢/kWh electric retail rate impact measure approved by Council. Beyond the 33% renewable supply goal, there is interest in the community to have a 100% carbon neutral electric supply portfolio. A carbon neutral electric supply portfolio would reduce the carbon emissions of the electric portfolio from 160,000 metric tons (MT) in 2005 (and 95,000 MT in 2012) to zero. Since electricity accounted for 19% of the community’s entire emissions in 2005, a carbon neutral electric supply portfolio alone would result in a 19% reduction in community emissions. Energy Efficiency and Conservation Program Achievements The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) has made considerable progress since 2005 in reducing the community’s use of electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency (EE) and conservation programs. The current annual impact electric efficiency and conservation gains attained through CPAU programs from 2005 through Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 is 27,573 megawatt-hours per year (MWh/year) or 2.7% of annual load, as illustrated in Table B1 below. This has resulted in an emission reduction of 10,992 MT. As shown in Table B2, natural gas EE savings achieved since 2005 total 498,938 therms, or 1.5% of annual natural gas load, which translates into emission reductions of 2,647 MT. Table B1: Electricity Efficiency and Conservation Savings and GHG Reductions Year Annual EE Savings Goals Added Savings (MWh/yr) Added Savings Achieved (% of load) Past & Present Savings Achieved (MWh/yr) Past & Present GHG Reductions (MT/yr) FY 2006 na 1,877 0.19%1,877 748 FY 2007 na 4,711 0.48%6,587 2,626 FY 2008 0.25%4,399 0.44%10,986 4,380 FY 2009 0.28%4,668 0.47%15,654 6,2540 FY 2010 0.31%5,270 0.55%20,924 8,341 FY 2011 0.60%6,650 0.70%27,573 10,992 FY 2012 0.65%n/a n/a n/a n/a Table B2: Natural Gas Efficiency and Conservation Savings and GHG Reductions Year Annual Savings Goals Added Savings (therms/yr) Added Savings Achieved (% of load) Past and Present Savings Achieved (therms/yr) Past and Present GHG Reductions (MT/yr) FY 2006 n/a 24,429 0.08%24,429 130 FY 2007 n/a 16,050 0.05%40,479 215 FY 2008 0.25%35,237 0.11%75,716 402 FY 2009 0.28%146,028 0.48%221,744 1,177 FY 2010 0.32%107,993 0.40%329,737 1,750 FY 2011 0.40%169,198 0.55%498,935 2,647 FY 2012 0.45%n/a n/a n/a n/a In addition, water efficiency and conservation programs have achieved more than 1.5% reduction in water consumption since 2005, but these savings has minimal impact on City’s carbon footprint. A Demand Side Management (DSM)program includes renewable energy, energy and water Attachment D Page 3 of 15 efficiency, as well as energy and water conservation. Some of the specific programs include direct installation of efficiency measures for low income customers, rebates for installation of efficient appliances and equipment, education programs, residential energy use audits, home energy reports, commercial customer programs by end use and type of business class, green building construction program, and many others. The DSM Program Report for FY 2011 can be found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=29871 Increasing Renewable Energy Supply The City’s renewable energy supply share has increased from less than 5% in 2005 to close to 20% in 2012. Participation in the voluntary PaloAltoGreen program has also increased from 3% to 8% of electric load during the same period. This has reduced the reliance on fossil fuel based electric supplies share considerably. The chart below illustrates this progress. Comparative Electricity Supply Sources: 2005 & Projection for 2012 (normalized to average hydro conditions1) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 2 Hydro Supply Renewables - RPS Palo Alto Green Market/Brown Supply Year 2005 Year 2012 Utilities Plans for the Coming Years (2012 to 2020) CPAU expects to continue to aggressively pursue energy efficiency and conservation opportunities, as well as to support the Planning and Community Development Department in encouraging green buildings and permitting processes. These programs are expected to reduce electricity and natural gas usage by an additional 4 to 5% by 2020. Staff expects to update the 10-year energy efficiency goals for the period 2014 to 2023 and will seek Council approval of these updated goals in early 2013. The City’s renewable energy supply (RPS) is projected to increase from 20% in 2012 to 33% by 2015. This RPS will increase even further if the community chooses to pursue a carbon neutral portfolio for electricity. By the end of the calendar year, staff plans to recommend a way to reach a carbon neutral electric portfolio. 1 Hydro supply varies widely each year, but on average supply approximately 50% of the electricity needs. For comparative purposes and to measure progress towards meeting long term GHG reduction goals, average hydro supply is assumed. Attachment D Page 4 of 15 CPAU continues to encourage local solar electric or photovoltaic (PV) resource investments through rebates and guaranteed energy buy-back program in the Palo Alto CLEAN program approved by Council in March 2012. The PaloAltoGreen program also continues to support local PV resources by buying PV Renewable Energy Credits (RECs), but the PaloAltoGreen program may be transformed as the community pursues a carbon neutral electric portfolio strategy. Staff is also re-evaluating the role local energy storage could play in meeting peak electricity demand, firming-up PV resource output, and its potential to enhanced local reliability. This assessment is expected to be provided to Council in fall 2012. In addition, staff is developing a Residential Electric Vehicle (EV) Time-Of-Use rate for a pilot program to encourage late night and early morning charging at single family homes. Charging EVs during peak use times could impact local distribution transformers and require expensive upgrades. Charging EVs at night and in the early morning reduces the cost to purchase electricity as well as the probability of having to upgrade local transformers. Using EVs instead of internal combustion engines for vehicles will reduce community GHG emissions. Based on California Energy Commission (CEC) projections, Palo Alto may have 3,000 to 10,000 residential and commute cars charging in the City by 2020, which would reduce community GHG emissions by 1.5% to 5% by 2020. However, EVs are expected to increase community electrical energy load by 1% to 2%. Many new and enhanced energy efficiency programs for all customer groups have been developed in the past few years by CPAU. Among these new programs are the Keep Your Cool program for commercial kitchens and coolers, the Labs Energy Efficiency Program and the Home Energy Reports for residents. All CPAU DSM programs are designed to assist customers in using energy and water resources more wisely and positively. In particular, the Home Energy Reports use information gleaned from social psychology studies to help influence behavior into more sustainable patterns. This research has shown that many people are more likely to change behaviors if they are aware that others act in a different way. The reports provide residents with comparative household energy usage data to help these customers understand when their use is higher than others, as well as to provide information and tips on how to reduce electric and natural gas consumption and bills. In addition to these new programs, CPAU is also planning a 200 home pilot to provide hourly energy and water usage data in near real time to volunteer customers. This will be accomplished by installing smart meters and associated home energy use monitoring and control equipment, thus allowing customers to be knowledgeable about their consumption patterns and opportunities available to use energy and water more efficiently. Staff expects to finalize the design of the pilot and seek Council’s approval of the pilot this summer. The implementation of a cap-and-trade program, aimed at reducing California’s GHG emissions, will impact the City’s electric utility operations starting in 2013 and gas utility operations starting in 2015. Under the terms of the cap-and-trade regulations adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), CPAU will be allocated GHG emission allowances. The regulation requires that CPAU sell these allowances in the auctions conducted by CARB and utilize the auction sale proceeds “exclusively for the benefit of retail [electric] ratepayers” and consistent with the State’s GHG reduction goals. Staff will be seeking Council direction on utilization of the revenue generated from the sale of the allowances this summer. 2. Sustainable Purchasing Products and services acquired by the City will have emissions impact during their manufacture, distribution, use, and disposal. Incorporating environmental performance criteria into City expenditures can have a significant impact on climate protection, as well as supporting other sustainability policies and programs such as Zero Waste, green building, and pollution Attachment D Page 5 of 15 prevention. The City’s purchase of environmentally preferable products and services, in conjunction with the environmental purchasing efforts of other Bay Area or State Public Agencies, has impacts beyond City operations. The City has the potential to stimulate market demand and further expand access to these products and services. Many purchases that are environmentally preferable are also fiscally preferable because of less material use (e.g., paper when copiers and printers are set to duplex), reduced maintenance (e.g., structural pest control which relies on long-lasting structural repairs instead of expensive automatic monthly spraying or other chemical control), and direct costs, (e.g., remanufactured toner cartridges, which when specified correctly cost approximately 30-60% less per copy than new cartridges). Other cost savings can be seen by reduced-risk products that decrease potential harm to users or the environment and reduced disposal and end-of-life costs. The City’s Climate Protection Plan authorized the implementation of a green purchasing program in 2007. Since that time the City has adopted a Green Purchasing Policy which supports existing environmental policies and Council direction to reduce GHG, pesticides, mercury and achieve Zero Waste and pollution prevention goals. The following products and services have been purchased with green purchasing criteria: ·Copiers and printers ordered by the City’s Information Technology Services (IT) are purchased with duplex capability and are preset to provide that function before they are deployed for use. Printers with a duplex function are replacing older models that are phased out from use. Through these efforts an initial assessment in 2010 (based on 2009 use) indicated a 15% reduction in paper use and annual savings of approximately $7,000 in paper costs. This number has not yet been revised to reflect more recent paper purchases; ·EPEAT Gold™ standards for computer and monitor purchases are required by IT. EPEAT criteria reflect several categories of environmental attributes that cover the full lifecycle of electronic products including the reduction or elimination of environmentally sensitive materials, material selection, design for end of life, energy conservation, corporate performance and packaging; ·Low-mercury fluorescent lighting; ·Discontinued use of hand soaps containing triclosan–an anti-bacterial product associated with water quality and potential human health issues; ·Structural pest control requiring the rigorous EcoWise Certification (Palo Alto was the first to require this certification) and additional requirements for local reporting and bee protection. Spray insecticides and poison rodenticides are no longer used at any City facility; ·Bay-Friendly landscaping standards in landscape maintenance contracts which includes use of locally-sourced mulches, OMRI certified organic fertilizers and other measures that reduce waste; ·GreenSeal™ Certified products for use by the City’s custodial contractor. These products place an emphasis on reduced-toxicity and higher recycled content (these same standards for City staff use will be explored in the coming months); ·Requirements for out-sourced printing services to require increased amount of recycled- content paper and vegetable-based inks. All utility inserts are now printed on 100% post- consumer content paper; ·Discontinued purchase of expanded foam foodware and plastic bags by staff or for use at City-sponsored events; ·Purchase of a drinking water station to replace the use of single use bottles at City events; ·In select contracts, additional evaluation points are given to those companies that are Certified as a Bay Area Green Business; Attachment D Page 6 of 15 ·Boilerplate language in Purchasing contract Terms and Conditions has been revised to require extended producer responsibility, disallow the use of expanded foam plastics as packaging material, and standards for energy and water efficiency and Zero Waste; ·Two life cycle costing workshops have been held by Utilities for key accounts and staff. Additional workshops are planned for the future as needed; ·The City of Palo Alto received the 2011 Green California Summit and Exposition Award for Leadership in Green Purchasing and is considered a regional leader on this front. In addition to the purchase of greener services and goods, green purchasing policies are now required to obtain grant funding from some public agencies. In 2011, the City received a $250,000 grant from CalRecycle for street maintenance. The grant required a green purchasing policy to be eligible for funding. Although the City has made good strides on its green purchasing program, the very limited staff time available to run this program has not allowed for a detailed quantification of how these efforts contribute to the City’s GHG reduction, Zero Waste and other environmental goals. The general understanding is, however, that less waste results in less energy use in the manufacture, transport and disposal of an item. Less energy use from energy-efficient products directly results in less GHG. Next Steps: Green purchasing projects are selected to align with existing City policies, Council directives and regulatory requirements. 2012-15 projects include: ·Supply Chain Plastics Reduction Project. This project led by Public Works-Watershed Protection is being done in partnership with the cities of Sunnyvale, San Jose and Santa Monica. This effort requires the elimination of expanded foam plastics, e.g., StyrofoamÔ from secondary and shipping packaging and broader efforts to minimize overall packaging (right-sized boxes) while continuing to ensure product protection. While the City currently has this requirement listed in its purchase order Terms and Conditions from a green purchasing effort two years ago, the language is being revised and vendor outreach will be conducted to ensure knowledge of the requirement; ·Greening the purchase of Office Supplies (currently underway); ·Greening the purchase of custodial products; ·Reissuing and revising standards as needed for contracts and services that have already been greened and are due to be released again for bids or proposals; ·Continuing to integrate City environmental policies with Purchasing procedures and processes and refining these as the program evolves so that expectations for best value and price are congruent with city environmental goals. 3. Transportation and Sustainable Land Use On a global basis, transportation and land use continues to represent one of the largest contributors to Greenhouse Gas emissions. In Palo Alto, original estimates for emissions related to transportation comprised 40% of the community’s emissions. The City of Palo Alto’s policies are highly supportive of reducing vehicle use, particularly single-occupancy vehicle use, for commuting or other trips. The Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Capital Improvements Program direct the City to develop projects and programs to facilitate pedestrian and transit-oriented development, safer and more convenient pedestrian and bicycle travel, particularly related to school routes, traffic calming for safety of drivers and other road users, and facilitation of greater use of Caltrain, buses, and shuttles. In general, every single-vehicle auto trip diverted to another mode reduces greenhouse gas emissions. The City has also encouraged and facilitated the use of low emission, including all-electric, vehicles. Staff is working on many programs to enable a reduction of such emissions, as described below. Attachment D Page 7 of 15 Short and Medium Term Goals from 2008-2011 ·Develop land use patterns that reduce travel-related emissions by supporting pedestrian, bicycle and transit use ·Achieve 15% bicycle mode split for local work commutes (and 5% for all commutes) by 2020. ·Reduce and/or offset community travel-related emissions by 5% ·Coordinate with Green Building efforts to ensure compatibility between built environment and sustainable land use initiatives ·Reduce emissions by an additional 10% by 2015 ·Increase Caltrain and other transit use by 25% by 2015 ·Provide annual reporting of transit and TDM effectiveness ·Increase Electric Vehicle (EV) infrastructure How did we do on short and medium term actions? 1.Facilitate and enhance potential for mixed-use development. Several mixed use developments were approved through the entitlement process from 2008- 2011, though Site and Design or Planned Community review are typically required and can lengthen the review process and increase uncertainty for applicants. .Some of the mixed use projects of significance include: ·901 San Antonio Road (Campus for Jewish Life): incorporates senior ownership housing, low-income senior housing, market rate townhomes with a daycare center, a health club, a community theater,and other facilities near a major intersection at San Antonio Road and Charleston Road. Construction is completed and occupied. ·2180 El Camino Real (College Terrace Center): approximately 30,000 square feet of office space, a small grocery store and other retail, and 8 below-market rate rental units; in building review, expect construction to commence in spring of 2012. ·1445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza): a grocery store and other retail space with 14 below- market rate rental housing units above the grocery store and 37 single-family homes immediately to the rear of the site. Commercial and BMR units are under construction, and other residential expected to commence later in 2012. ·1080 Channing Avenue (Edgewood Plaza): a grocery store, other retail space, and 10 single-family homes. Approved by Council with anticipated construction start in spring of 2012. ·102 University Circle: two stories of office and retail space, with four residential units on the third and fourth floors. Construction completed and occupied. ·420 Cambridge Avenue: retail/office first floor with two floors (4 units) of housing above. Construction completed and partially occupied. ·2350 Birch Street: ground floor office with 8 residential units above. Zoning approved but final design review pending. ·A handful of smaller projects on El Camino Real or downtown include 2-3 stories of office/commercial space with one or two residential units above. ·195 Page Mill Road (Hohbach): 84 rental units above 50,000 square feet of office/R&D. Pending final action. 2.Zone for Mixed Use and Higher Density Around Transit Stations The City has adopted Pedestrian-Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) zoning near the Attachment D Page 8 of 15 California Avenue station. Existing zoning allows for mixed use and higher density around the downtown transit station, though parking remains an obstacle to successful projects. Two mixed use PTOD projects noted above have been approved (and one constructed) in the California Avenue PTOD area, and a third (195 Page Mill Road) is pending. The 102 University Circle project provides a mix of uses downtown, and high density housing near the downtown Caltrain station was approved (and is under construction) for 50 affordable housing units at 801 Alma Street. Another high density affordable housing project was approved and constructed at 488 W. Charleston Road, which is proximate to a future Bus Rapid Transit stop on El Camino Real. 3.Reduce Parking Needs for New Development Several significant projects employed reductions in parking spaces allowed by the City’s zoning for projects that are proximate to transit, provide effective transportation demand management (TDM) measures, exhibit a mix of residential and commercial uses, or provide for affordable housing. . Most of the projects noted above have taken advantage of one or more of those parking reductions. Staff has worked to increase use of existing garages through the City’s parking permit program, from 60% use to 80% use, and is working with a Downtown Parking Study Group to consider potential residential permit parking strategies. Staff is also evaluating the use of attendant parking and/or “stackers” to facilitate increased parking lot or garage capacity to minimize the space devoted to parking 4.Require Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Programs Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs have been proposed and approved in recent years for several projects, including 901 San Antonio, 2380 El Camino Real, 1601 California Avenue (Facebook, since departed), 3401 Hillview (VMWare) and the pending 355 Alma Street (Lytton Gateway). TDM programs have included such measures as providing transit passes (such as Caltrain “Go-Pass”) for building occupants, Zip Cars or similar rentals, bike share programs, and/or vanpool or carpool priority, etc. TDM programs are required whenever parking reductions are requested or where required as environmental mitigation. The programs typically specify performance objectives, and monitoring information is provided for a minimum of two years or longer depending on mitigation thresholds of a TDM program, 5. Develop Monitoring Programs for Transit Use and TDM Effectiveness The City is developing a database of TDM programs in order to gain better information about the types of programs used and their effectiveness, specifically the degree to which drive-alone travel is reduced. Baseline information is typically required of an applicant, and monitoring reports are to be submitted at regular intervals. To date, the projects with adopted programs either have not existed long enough to assess effectiveness or have not been constructed so measures are not yet implemented. One exception was the Facebook site, where ride-alone travel by employees was reduced to about 60% through a variety of company-sponsored bus shuttles, provision of GoPasses to staff, bike sharing, and TDM information measures. 6. Implement Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Zoning in Downtown The City has not yet adopted a Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development zoning district in the vicinity of the University Avenue Caltrain Station. Existing zoning does, however, allow for substantial intensity and mixed use development, but solutions to parking costs and impacts need to be evaluated prior to further encouraging downtown density. Potential high intensity development, including special zoning, for the City’s Intermodal Transit Center on University Avenue, is in the initial stages of consideration on the property between the train depot and El Camino Real. Attachment D Page 9 of 15 7.Develop Comprehensive Plan Programs to Support Increased Density near Transit. The City’s Comprehensive Plan currently identifies areas around the City’s two transit station as appropriate for higher density and mixed use development. A Comprehensive Plan update will look at additional land use and transportation implementation strategies for increased housing density. The California Avenue-Ventura/Fry’s area plan is underway and will address potential density options in that pedestrian and transit-oriented area. The City’s Housing Element is in draft form and will focus housing options on areas near transit stations or corridors. 8. Modify Zoning Ordinance to Require Pricing Strategies to Reduce Parking The City has not modified its ordinances to attach pricing strategies to parking. This issue will be part of the consideration for the downtown and California Avenue parking studies now underway and in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan Update. 9. Develop Plans for Transportation Improvements around California Avenue Caltrain Station The City has developed a concept for streetscape improvements along California Avenue to provide for a “complete street” approach benefiting all modes of travel, enhancing pedestrian and bicycle safety, and enhancing the aesthetics of the streetscape. Plans are scheduled for completion in the fall and construction would begin in 2013 pending grant-funding allocations. The City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan designates Park Boulevard as a key facility providing access to California Avenue and the train station. Implementation of the Bicycle Boulevard will begin in 2012.The California Avenue-Ventura/Fry’s area concept plan will also address land use, transportation improvements for the surrounding area, though their implementation timeframe is uncertain. 10. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and Infrastructure a.Bicycle Plan and Programs: The City of Palo Alto is currently a designated Gold Level Bicycle Friendly City by the League of American Bicyclists, with bicycle use comprising an estimated 7%of commute trips to and from the city. The City’s new Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan recommends a policy to double that rate by 2020 through aggressive implementation of the Plan. The City Council is scheduled to consider adoption of the new Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan in May 2012. This Plan is intended to enhance the use of bicycles for commuter, convenience, and recreational uses, with a goal of becoming a “Platinum” Bicycle Friendly Community during the next evaluation in 2015. Part of the Plan will include establishing baseline bicycle usage data and automated monitoring to provide updated bicycle use information, which will assist with calculations of emissions reductions. The Plan objectives and other anticipated programs include: ·Increasing bike boulevard mileage from 4.0 existing to 22.2 miles ·Increasing bike lane mileage from 41.6 existing to 44.3 miles ·Initiating new Enhanced Bikeways facilities such as “cycle tracks” with a target of up to 16.2 miles of new facilities ·Initiating a bike share program, beginning in Summer 2012 with 100 bicycles at up to one dozen sites throughout Downtown Palo Alto, Stanford University, and the California Avenue Caltrain Station ·Expanding bike parking “corrals”from the existing 6 downtown sites to approximately two dozen over the next two years. b.Safe Routes to School: On March 1, 2012, the City initiated an expansion of its highly successful Safe Routes to School program, thanks to a two year grant from the Vehicle Emission Reductions Based at Schools (VERBS) program of the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority.This grant provides funding for a broad range of efforts to reduce auto congestion and increase greener school commute choices, including comprehensive Attachment D Page 10 of 15 Walk and Roll to School maps for every PAUSD school, updated and expanded bicycle safety education for students and parents, and school-level promotions of walking, biking, taking the bus/shuttle, and carpooling to/from school. The VERBS grant will also fund the installation of automated bicycle and pedestrian counters near each school, which will allow the City to monitor seasonal trends in school commute choices.The program evaluation incorporated into the grant will include GHG reduction calculations for Palo Alto's Safe Routes to School program, based on a regional methodology now being developed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The tables below demonstrate the dramatic growth in cycling to PAUSD secondary schools since 2005, a very different picture than in virtually any other city in the state or nation: PAUSD High Schools Student population Bikes % Biking Fall 2005 3450 580 16.8% Fall 2011 3740 1410 37.8% Increase +290 +830 +21.0% PAUSD Middle Schools Student population Bikes % Biking Fall 2005 2420 830 34.5% Fall 2011 2680 1350 50.4% Increase +260 +520 +15.9% 11. Transit Use and Enhancements The City sponsors and jointly funds the Crosstown Shuttle and Embarcadero Shuttle, providing transit service to students, seniors and others in areas not served by other public transportation. The number of riders on the City’s shuttles has decreased somewhat (from 137,825 riders in FY2010 to 118,455 riders in FY2011) over the past year, due to cuts in funding that resulted in the Crosstown shuttle being served on an hourly basis, rather than twice per hour. Use of Caltrain, however, has increased substantially over the past year and over the past four years, with weekday ridership increasing from 4,589 average weekday boardings in 2008 to 4,796 average weekday boardings in 2010 and to 5,501 average weekday boardings in 2011, an increase of 20%during that period. The ridership increase is already approaching the Climate Protection Plan goal of 25% increase by 2015. 12. Electric Vehicle Infrastructure The City has taken steps to facilitate the implementation of infrastructure, particularly charging stations, for electric vehicles (EVs). In the past year, five charging stations have been installed in City garages, with an additional six charging stations approved or pending approval through the development process. Charging stations are also incorporated into requirements for a couple of recent development proposals. 13. Traffic Calming Projects and Programs In efforts to preserve residential streets from regional and commute traffic, the City implements traffic calming projects at neighborhood requests, which may include treatments such as speed humps and speed tables. Traffic calming projects also include roadway reconfiguration projects to introduce landscape island treatments, pedestrian refuge islands, and improved neighborhood access. Several projects are currently active or were completed during the 2011-12 fiscal year including: ·Charleston/Arastradero –Trial Restriping Project (El Camino Real to Gunn High School) - Active ·Greer Road (Oregon Expressway to Embarcadero Road) -Active Attachment D Page 11 of 15 ·College Terrace (Various Streets) -Complete ·N California Avenue (Middlefield Road to Embarcadero Road) -Complete Long Term Goals (2012-2020) •Reduce emissions by an additional 10% by 2020 •Increase Caltrain and other transit use by an additional 50% by 2020 •Convert discretionary in-town vehicle trips into walking and bicycling trips to help reduce transportation-related GHG emissions by 15% by 2020 What is Planned for Long Term Actions? 1. Evaluate Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Zoning Intensity, Including Along El Camino Real The City’s Comprehensive Plan update will include a recommendation for study of the south El Camino Real Corridor, and the Housing Element will focus new housing development in and offer recommendations for increased density near transit stations and along El Camino Real. Staff also expects recommendations about appropriate locations for some increase in height to accommodate housing, and for parking solutions for greater intensity in development downtown. 2. Develop Intermodal Transit Center and High-Density Public Transportation on Demand Project The City is currently studying a planning and design proposal for the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center site to ensure a) connectivity between downtown and the Stanford Shopping Center and beyond, b) improvements to the transit flow through the Center and to University Avenue and El Camino Real, and c) a public component (theater, plaza, activity zone) to function with the private office and other uses on the site . The project is proceeding as a partnership between the City, Stanford, VTA, and a private developer. 3. Implement Grand Boulevard Improvement Strategies for El Camino Real In 2011, the City of Palo Alto implemented an initial Grand Boulevard Initiative project at the Stanford Avenue and El Camino Real intersection to improve the aesthetics of the intersection and to enhance safety for bicyclists and pedestrians, many of whom are students crossing to and from school. The California Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project will also provide an upgraded link from El Camino to the Caltrain station. Other projects are being contemplated for future grant funding and implementation, such as at Charleston/Arastradero and El Camino Real. The City staff is coordinating with adjacent cities in a study of the boulevard and necessary infrastructure to serve future development. The City’s Rail Corridor Study draft suggests improved connectivity at several points across El Camino Real and identifies the El Camino Way area as a potential neighborhood center node for future detailed analysis. 4. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The City’s plans and programs for El Camino Real, the Rail Corridor, downtown, California Avenue, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan will help to gain certification of the City’s Climate Protection Plan in order to streamline preparation of CEQA documents with respect to cumulative Green House Gases. Infill development around transit as part of adopted plans will also help minimize traffic and air quality analyses otherwise needed for CEQA compliance. Green Building The City’s Green Building Program was initiated in 2003 with requirements for Green Building checklists at early stages (Architectural Review) of an application to ensure an integrated Attachment D Page 12 of 15 approach for projects. In 2007, zoning ordinance changes outlined voluntary compliance criteria, followed in 2008 by a Green Building ordinance requiring Green Point Rated (Build It Green) compliance for residential projects and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver level compliance for non-residential projects meeting certain size thresholds. The City of Palo Alto established itself as a national leader for its progressive, high-level program for a new generation of efficient buildings in Palo Alto, which are environmentally responsible and healthy places in which to live and work. Following the 2008 ordinance, City staff has recommended updates to the ordinance to Council each year, including addition of Home Energy Rating System (HERS) requirements for existing buildings, among other requirements. In 2011, with the State’s adoption of the CalGreen building codes, the City’s local amendments to CalGreen required a higher level (Tier 2) compliance as mandatory (approximately LEED Silver level plus 15% additional energy efficiency for buildings beyond Title 24 requirements.The City has most recently become the nation’s first city to pilot LEED for Neighborhoods as a voluntary program, intended to measure the success of a project in meeting community goals for walkability, access to transit, provision of mixed uses and services, and open space design, etc. Short and Medium Term Actions Update (2007-2011) •Leadership and Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) “Silver” certification or equivalency was required in 2007 for new City buildings and new private buildings over 5,000 sf; increased energy efficiency 15% beyond state mandatory level; •Between 2007 and 2009, the program went from voluntary to mandatory and including both residential and commercial development; •Staff continues to work with Utilities staff on publicizing energy efficiency and solar rebate programs; •A Sustainability Planner was hired to implement program within Current Planning section; •New single-family residential construction is required to attain a minimum level of green building compliance (70 GPR points, with increasing points required for larger homes, etc.). •Compliance levels have been monitored through December 2011. ·The California Energy Code (CalGreen) was adopted by reference in 2010,with local amendments for higher “tiered” levels of increased energy efficiency and thresholds. The City has monitored its progress with annual updates to the codes through 2011, including annual tracking of the numbers and square footage of completed green building projects as well as the number of LEED and Green Point Rated certifications and point ratings achieved. In FY 2011, the Department processed 961 permit applications under the Green Building Program, an increase of approximately 73 percent from the previous year.In FY 2011, 82 percent of survey respondents rated the City of Palo Alto “good” or “excellent” on water and energy preservation. The Green Building Program has influenced over $187 million of project valuation and 1,249,758 square feet of “green” construction, and it is estimated that a little over 2,000 people are either working or living in green buildings throughout the City. Prior to the City’s ordinance, as few as six green building projects were on record throughout the City. At the end of FY 2011,over 240 had been completed or were under construction. Projects are using one of the following standards: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), Build It Green GreenPoint Rated (GPR), or the California Green Building Code with locally adopted enhanced measures (CALGreen). In FY 2011, the Department rolled out two additional sustainability initiatives. The Department is conducting the first LEED-ND pilot program (LEED for Neighborhood Development) in the nation for assessing a development site’s ability to qualify as a sustainable neighborhood project, including features that reduce dependence on automobile use, increase walkability, and Attachment D Page 13 of 15 encourage healthy living. The Department also rolled out energy use disclosure requirements for existing buildings undergoing small renovation work to better understand the existing buildings’ current performance and areas where education, policy, and programs can be influential in reducing usage. FY 2011 Statistics ·Green Building permit applications processed: 961 ·Green Building valuations subject to mandatory regulations: $187,725,366 ·Green Building square feet subject to mandatory regulations: 1,249,748 square feet ·Energy savings: 3,399 kBtu/yr ·Water reduction: 2,119,485 gallons ·Waste diversion from landfill:) 28,177 tons ·CO2 emissions reduction: 2,818 tons Zero Waste The community’s Zero Waste goals of achieving 73 percent diversion by 2011 and striving to reach Zero Waste (virtual elimination of waste to landfills) by 2021 have a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The Climate Protection Plan considered three types of greenhouse gas emissions related to solid waste: 1.Fugitive emissions of landfill gas from the Palo Alto Landfill that are not captured and flared by the landfill gas control systems, thereby releasing methane into the atmosphere. These emissions are calendar year-based and are calculated using measured volumes of landfill gas flared and assuming a capture rate percentage for the control systems. 2.Life cycle fugitive emissions of landfill gas that are not captured and flared by landfill gas control systems, thereby releasing methane into the atmosphere. These emissions were calculated using an ICLEI’s Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP) software. Inputs to the software are the total tons of Palo Alto solid waste landfilled and the amounts of paper products, food waste, plant debris, and wood/textiles in the landfilled waste. 3.Emissions from landfilling of recyclable materials, where failure to recycle the materials results in emissions from manufacturing using virgin materials that are greater than the emissions that would have resulted from recycling the materials. These emissions were calculated using the total tonnage of Palo Alto solid waste landfilled, the results of a 2006 Palo Alto Waste Composition Study, and US EPA emissions factors. A total of 69,491 tons of Palo Alto solid waste was sent to landfills in 2005. The most recent landfill tonnage figures from the State of California indicate that the landfilled tonnage in 2011 totaled 32,434 tons, a decrease of 53 percent. The 2010 State of California annual report provides a Palo Alto per capita disposal rate, in pounds per person per day, which is equivalent to a diversion percentage of 80 percent. Palo Alto has exceeded its goal of 73 percent diversion by 2011. A primary factor responsible for the decrease in landfilled waste from Palo Alto is the new Zero Waste services that are included in the collection and processing contract with GreenWaste of Palo Alto. GreenWaste’s new services in July 2009 included a program for collecting and composting commercial food waste and compostables, an increase in the materials collected through the single stream recycling program, sending all construction and demolition debris boxes for processing and recycling, and increased efforts to improve commercial sector participation in the recycling and composting programs. Other factors in the decrease include Palo Alto’s Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling and Reuse Ordinance, Zero Waste program outreach on recycling and waste prevention, and the economic downturn. Attachment D Page 14 of 15 The table below provides a comparison between the solid waste-related greenhouse gas emissions estimates for 2005 and 2011. Emissions Source 2005 Emissions (metric tonnes) 2011 Emissions (metric tonnes) Difference (metric tonnes) Difference (percent) Palo Alto landfill fugitive emissions 6,811 6,2482 -563 -8% Life cycle fugitive emissions 24,823 11,586 -13,237 -53% Landfilling of recyclable materials 54,838 25,595 -29,243 -53% Total 86,472 43,429 -43,043 -50% The Palo Alto landfill fugitive emissions figure for 2010 was calculated using the volume of landfill gas captured by the landfill gas controls system and assuming a 75 percent capture rate. Life cycle fugitive emissions and landfilling of recyclable materials emissions for 2011 have been calculated using the ratio of waste landfilled in 2011 to waste landfilled in 2005. There are several factors that may introduce error into the estimates for life cycle fugitive and landfilling of recyclable materials. The 2005 estimates relied on a 2006 Waste Composition Study, and the method used for the 2011 estimate assumes that the composition of Palo Alto’s waste has not changed since that study.However, it should be expected that the factors responsible for the decrease in Palo Alto’s landfilled waste tonnage, such as the Construction and Demolition program and the commercial compostables program, also affected the composition of the waste. A new Waste Characterization Study is currently being planned for completion in FY 2013. Another factor to consider is that the 2005 baseline emissions for solid waste did not include calculating emissions from the PASCO collection fleet, or from processing activities such as SMaRT Station operation and composting. The commercial compostables program involves additional vehicle routes for collecting the compostable materials, as well as composting of the materials at Z-Best in Gilroy. Emissions from these activities would be expected to offset some of the reduction in emissions that result from the commercial compostables materials being diverted from landfill disposal. Staff intends to develop greenhouse gas emissions estimates for solid waste collection and processing activities during FY 2013. 6. Education and Motivation The threat and risks associated with Climate Change requires not only the government to require or incent more sustainable behaviors to protect our resources and environment, but climate change will also necessitate behavior changes that can not be mandated or required. For that to happen, the City needs to engage and empower the Community to understand what it may mean to become more sustainable in their everyday choices. Staff collaborates with the community on many levels and on many projects to promote sustainable behaviors. This report highlights two 2 US EPA’s greenhouse gas mandatory reporting program requires that landfill gas fugitive emissions be calculated and reported using two different methods. One method uses the volume of landfill gas captured by the control system and assumes a standard capture rate, resulting in estimated emissions of 24,570 metric tonnes. The other method uses the total tons of waste that have been placed in the landfill since 1960 to calculate a theoretical total amount of landfill gas that the landfill would produce. It then subtracts the amount of landfill gas captured by the control systems from the total theoretical value and assumes that this remaining volume of landfill gas was released to the atmosphere. This method estimates Palo Alto landfill fugitive emissions for 2010 to be 58,143 metric tonnes. Both of these numbers have been reported to US EPA. For the purpose of the Climate Protection Plan goals, staff is using the methodology specified by The Climate Registry, which results in the fugitive emissions number reported here. The number reported is for 2010, which is the most recent estimate available. Attachment D Page 15 of 15 areas of collaboration with include the Community Environmental Action Partnership (CEAP) and the Cool City Challenge. Internally, staff has formed a Green Team who also has engaged many departments on various projects and activities, including design thinking exercises at IDEO, hand-on practice to upgrade irrigation controls, the design and execution of a demonstration garden and “green bag” lunch series on sustainable topics. Community Environmental Action Partnership (CEAP) Community Environmental Action Partnership (CEAP) was formed with the mandate to collaborate on important environmental issues, including climate protection. It is CEAP’s mission to bring together various segments of our community to share knowledge, build understanding, leverage resources and both create and employ innovative environmental solutions. CEAP was formed as a result of the recommendations made by the Green Ribbon Task Force and the City of Palo Alto’s Climate Protection Plan, CEAP has now become a network of informed community members lead by segment leaders (“liaisons”) who use the hub and spoke model to engage to the community. CEAP is where ideas and solutions to our environmental issues are discussed, communicated and implemented. Cool City Challenge The City of Palo Alto has been approached to participate in a grass-roots, community lead program called the Cool City Challenge (Challenge)which is in the preliminary stages of development, including fundraising. This program is being lead by David Gershon, an internationally recognized expert with a proven track record in community-based behavior change, who is also the author of the “Low Carbon Diet” and “Social Change 2.0”. The goal for the Challenge is to scale up a system, based upon the “Low Carbon Diet” model, of small, neighborhood based action groups of 5-8 neighbors each to achieve dramatic carbon reduction, vibrant livability and green prosperity. The program could start in three early adopter American cities (Palo Alto, Davis and Sonoma, CA) and three neighborhoods in Sao Paulo, Brazil of comparable size to the American cities. The ultimate objective of the Challenge is to widely disseminate the lessons learned and tools developed through the first participating cities. If the City chooses to participate, the City of Palo Alto would also have the opportunity to become a model city and highlight many of our programs through published case studies and in a documentary film that is being developed as part of the Challenge. The project is intriguing, but there are many policy questions we will need to explore as part of any decision to participate. City of Palo Alto (ID # 2710) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/16/2012 April 16, 2012 Page 1 of 5 (ID # 2710) Summary Title: Modification of Renewable Portfolio Standard Title: Finance Committee Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Modifying the City of Palo Alto Utilities’ Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan’s Strategy Related to the Renewable Portfolio Standard From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff and the Finance Committee recommend that the Council adopt a resolution approving the proposed modifications to the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) strategy related to the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), to read as follows: Reduce the carbon intensity of the electric portfolio by acquiring renewable energy supplies by: a. Pursuing a minimum level of renewable purchases of at least 33% of retail sales by 2015 with the following attributes: i. The contracts for investment in renewable resources shall not exceed 30 years in term. ii. Pursue only renewable resources deemed to be eligible by the California Energy Commission (CEC). iii. Evaluate use of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to meet RPS. b. Ensuring that the retail rate impact for renewable purchases does not exceed 0.5 ¢/kWh on average; and c. Performing an ongoing evaluation of the Palo Alto Clean Local Energy Accessible Now (CLEAN) program. The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommends that the Council approve the different version of paragraph a of the LEAP strategy related to RPS to read as follows: Reduce the carbon intensity of the electric portfolio by acquiring renewable energy supplies by: a. Pursuing a minimum level of renewable purchases of at least 33%, with a target of 40%, of retail sales by 2015 with the following attributes: i. The contracts for investment in renewable resources shall not exceed 30 years in term. April 16, 2012 Page 2 of 5 (ID # 2710) ii. Pursue only renewable resources deemed to be eligible by the California Energy Commission (CEC). iii. Evaluate use of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to meet RPS. b. Ensuring that the retail rate impact for renewable purchases does not exceed 0.5 ¢/kWh on average; and c. Evaluating a Feed-In Tariff (FIT). Additionally, the Finance Committee recommends that the Council adopt a goal to achieve a 100% Clean Electricity portfolio. Executive Summary The City’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) is to supply 33% of the City’s electric needs with renewable energy by 2015. However, the City’s RPS policy needs to be slightly modified to be consistent with State law and to clarify whether the 33% target is a minimum, or whether the City should pursue the maximum amount of RPS resources that can be procured within the 0.5 cents per kilowatt-hour (¢/kWh) rate impact limit. The changes recommended by staff and the Finance Committee are shown in bold italics in the table below. Comparison of Existing and Proposed LEAP Strategy Related to RPS Existing LEAP Strategy #3 Proposed LEAP Strategy #3 Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Reduce the carbon intensity of the electric portfolio by acquiring renewable energy supplies by: a) Pursuing a target level of renewable purchases of 33% by 2015 with the following attributes: i) The contracts for investment in renewable resources shall not exceed 30 years in term. ii) Pursue only renewable resources deemed to be eligible by the California Energy Commission (CEC). iii) Evaluate use of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to meet RPS. b) Ensuring that the retail rate impact for renewable purchases does not exceed 0.5 ¢/kWh on average; and c) Evaluating a Feed-In Tariff (FIT). Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Reduce the carbon intensity of the electric portfolio by acquiring renewable energy supplies by: a) Pursuing a minimum level of renewable purchases of at least 33% of retail sales by 2015 with the following attributes: i) The contracts for investment in renewable resources shall not exceed 30 years in term. ii) Pursue only renewable resources deemed to be eligible by the California Energy Commission (CEC). iii) Evaluate use of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to meet RPS. b) Ensuring that the retail rate impact for renewable purchases does not exceed 0.5 ¢/kWh on average; and c) Performing an ongoing evaluation of the Palo Alto Clean Local Energy Accessible Now (CLEAN) program. April 16, 2012 Page 3 of 5 (ID # 2710) LEAP was last updated in March 2012 when Council adopted a resolution to modify a LEAP strategy related to the City’s study of energy storage systems (Staff Report #2581). The revised LEAP, with the proposed changes included, is provided in Attachment B. Finance Committee Review and Recommendation On March 20, 2012, the Finance Committee considered the recommendation from staff and the UAC to make a change to the RPS strategy in LEAP as highlighted below: LEAP Strategy #3 – Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Reduce the carbon intensity of the electric portfolio by acquiring renewable energy supplies by: a. Pursuing a minimum target level of renewable purchases of at least 33%, with a target of 40%, of retail sales by 2015 with the following attributes: (1) The contracts for investment in renewable resources shall not exceed 30 years in term. (2) Pursue only renewable resources deemed to be eligible by the California Energy Commission (CEC). (3) Evaluate use of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to meet RPS. b. Ensuring that the retail rate impact for renewable purchases does not exceed 0.5 ¢/kWh on average; and c. Evaluating a Feed-In Tariff (FIT). The changes were recommended to clarify that RPS resources should be procured beyond the 33% RPS target level, but not more than can be procured with the rate impact limit of 0.5 ¢/kWh, and that the 33% RPS minimum target is based on retail sales. The Finance Committee discussed the recommended changes and generally supported the recommendations, with a modification to remove the identification of a 40% RPS target and to update the reference to a Feed-in Tariff. The Finance Committee discussed each recommendation found in the Finance Committee report (Attachment C, Staff Report #2515): 1. The current LEAP strategy is unclear whether the RPS target is based on retail sales or purchase volume. Before the State’s RPS law that applies to Palo Alto was adopted, Palo Alto’s practice was to use purchase volume in calculating its RPS level, but the law stipulates retail sales as the basis. The Finance Committee agreed with staff and the UAC to use retail sales as the basis, consistent with State law. 2. The State’s RPS law includes interim compliance periods, but staff recommends not complicating the City’s RPS strategy with compliance periods and the Finance Committee agreed. Meeting the City’s internal RPS target will ensure that it will not be out of compliance with the State law’s interim compliance period targets. 3. Staff and the UAC recommend modifications to the RPS strategy to clarify that the goal is to procure at least 33%, but not to exceed the 0.5 ¢/kWh rate impact limitation. The Finance Committee agreed, but voted not to include a 40% RPS target level. April 16, 2012 Page 4 of 5 (ID # 2710) 4. The City must comply with the State’s RPS law’s restrictions on the use of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), but staff does not recommend adding any additional guidelines on the use of RECs. The Finance Committee agreed with staff’s recommendation. 5. The City must comply with the restrictions on the types of renewable resources that can be used for compliance with the State’s RPS law, but staff does not recommend establishing any additional local requirements on the use of renewable resources to meet its RPS targets. The Finance Committee agreed with staff’s recommendation. The Finance Committee unanimously (4-0) recommended Council modify the LEAP Strategy related to RPS as shown in the following table: Existing LEAP Strategy #3 Finance Committee Recommendation Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Reduce the carbon intensity of the electric portfolio by acquiring renewable energy supplies by: a) Pursuing a target level of renewable purchases of 33% by 2015 with the following attributes: … Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Reduce the carbon intensity of the electric portfolio by acquiring renewable energy supplies by: a) Pursuing a minimum level of renewable purchases of at least 33% of retail sales by 2015 with the following attributes: … The Finance Committee then discussed another aspect of the RPS strategy that referred to “evaluating a Feed-In Tariff (FIT).” The Finance Committee clarified that the Council had already approved the first year of the Palo Alto CLEAN program and that it was their understanding that the program would be reviewed and updated annually. Staff confirmed this understanding. Thus, the Finance Committee stated that the RPS strategy needed to be updated since the CLEAN program and rate had already been evaluated and that it should be evaluated on an ongoing basis. The Finance Committee unanimously (4-0) recommended Council modify the LEAP Strategy related to RPS further as shown in the following table: Existing LEAP Strategy #3 Finance Committee Recommendation Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Reduce the carbon intensity of the electric portfolio by acquiring renewable energy supplies by: … c) Evaluating a Feed-In Tariff (FIT) Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Reduce the carbon intensity of the electric portfolio by acquiring renewable energy supplies by: … c) Performing an ongoing evaluation of the Palo Alto Clean Local Energy Accessible Now (CLEAN) program. April 16, 2012 Page 5 of 5 (ID # 2710) Additionally, the Finance Committee discussed how the RPS fits with a policy to achieve a carbon neutral electric portfolio and how the voluntary 100% renewable PaloAltoGreen program could fit into a carbon neutral, or “Clean Electricity”, portfolio. The Finance Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the Council adopt a 100% Clean Electricity portfolio policy. Attachment D contains the draft excerpted minutes from the March 20, 2012 Finance Committee meeting. Resource Impact Adoption of the proposed modifications to LEAP would change the way staff calculates the City’s Renewable Portfolio Standard level – shifting from the practice of using the City’s total purchase volume in the calculation to using the City’s total retail sales volume. This change in practice would result in the need to procure approximately 12,000 MWh less renewable energy per year, which staff estimates would save the City approximately $0.25 million per year. Policy Implications The proposed policy is compliant with state law and meets the minimum RPS requirements of Senate Bill (SB) X1 2 on an accelerated pace. The proposed RPS policy would modify the LEAP Strategy related to RPS by adding clarity, but would not change the general policy direction. Environmental Review Support of staff’s recommendation to approve the proposed modifications to the LEAP Strategy related to RPS does not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution Approving RPS Policy Modifications (PDF) Attachment B: Modified Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (PDF) Attachment C: March 20, 2012 Finance Committee Staff Report (ID#2515) (PDF) Attachment D: March 20, 2012 Finance Committee Meeting Draft Excerpt Minutes (PDF) Prepared By: James Stack, Resource Planner Department Head: Valerie Fong, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager *Not Yet Approved* 1 120406 dm 6051710 Resolution No. ______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving Modifications to the City of Palo Alto Utilities’ Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) Strategy Related to the Renewable Portfolio Standard WHEREAS, the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) is a strategic planning document focused on how the City of Palo Alto’s Utilities Department (CPAU) can successfully balance environmental and economic sustainability as it provides electric service to CPAU customers; and WHEREAS, staff presented the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan to the Utilities Advisory Commission at its November 2, 2011 meeting, and the UAC voted 5 to 2 (with Commissioners Waldfogel and Barry opposed) to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed modification to LEAP related to the strategy related to the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS); and WHEREAS, Council approved the Palo Alto CLEAN Program (Clean Local Energy Accessible Now [a solar feed-in tariff ]) in accordance with the LEAP Implementation Plan Goal #9 at its March 5, 2012 meeting (Staff Report 2548); and WHEREAS, Council adopted modifications to the LEAP Implementation Plan Items 7 and 21 to asses the needs for energy storage related to the electrical system at its March 19, 2012 meeting (Staff Report 2581); and WHEREAS, staff presented the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan to the Finance Committee at its March 20, 2012 meeting, and the Finance Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve proposed modifications to the Strategy related to the Renewable Portfolio Standard (Staff Report 2515). NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The Council hereby adopts the resolution approving modifications to the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) Objectives, Strategies, and Implementation Plan related to the Renewable Portfolio Standard to read as follows: Reduce the carbon intensity of the electric portfolio by acquiring renewable energy supplies by: a. Pursuing a minimum level of renewable purchases of at least 33% of retail sales by 2015 with the following attributes: *Not Yet Approved* 2 120406 dm 6051710 i. The contracts for investment in renewable resources shall not exceed 30 years in term. ii. Pursue only renewable resources deemed to be eligible by the California Energy Commission (CEC). iii. Evaluate use of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to meet RPS. b. Ensuring that the retail rate impact for renewable purchases does not exceed 0.5 ¢/kWh on average; and c. Performing an ongoing evaluation of the Palo Alto Clean Local Energy Accessible Now (CLEAN) program. SECTION 2. The Council finds that any revenue derived from the authorized adoption enumerated herein shall be used only for the purpose set forth in Article VII, Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto. SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not constitute a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore, no environmental assessment is required. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: _________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ___________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Director of Utilities ___________________________ Director of Administrative Services Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan Approved March 7, 2011 (Resolution No. 9152) Modified by Council March 19, 2012 (Staff Report No. 2581) Proposed Modifications April 16, 2012 (Staff Report No. 2710) LEAP Objectives: 1. Meet customer electricity needs through the acquisition of least total cost energy and demand resources including an assessment of the environmental costs and benefits 2. Manage supply portfolio cost uncertainty to meet rate and reserve objectives. 3. Enhance supply reliability to meet City and customer needs by pursuing opportunities including transmission system upgrades and local generation. LEAP Strategies and Implementation Plan Steps: 1. Resource Acquisition – Pursue the least total cost resources including an assessment of environmental costs and benefits to meet the City’s needs in the long term by: a. Evaluating each potential resource on an equal basis by evaluating rate impacts and establishing costs and values for location, time of day and year, carbon, value of renewable supplies and any secondary benefits attributed to the resource; and b. Including all resources – conventional energy, local and remote renewable energy supplies, energy efficiency, cogeneration, and demand reduction – in the evaluation. Implementation Plan Items for Strategy #1 – Resource Acquisition Estimated Completion 1. Adjust planning and portfolio models to include an integrated and least cost planning perspective which evaluates demand and supply side resources in an integrated manner and includes time of delivery, locational and environmental costs and benefits. Dec. 2010 2. Evaluate the impacts of energy efficiency, demand reductions and electric vehicle penetration in Palo Alto in the annual development of the electric load forecast. Dec. 2010 2. Electric Energy Efficiency and Demand Reduction – Fund programs that maximize the deployment of cost-effective, reliable and feasible energy efficiency and demand reduction opportunities as the highest priority resources by: a. Every three years, preparing a ten-year energy efficiency plan that identifies all cost- effective energy efficiency opportunities; b. Using the cost of long-term renewable energy resources adjusted for time of day factors and location as the avoided cost when evaluating cost effectiveness of energy efficiency measures; c. Designing and making energy efficiency programs available to all customers; and d. Considering the impacts (costs, benefits and GHG emissions) of substituting electricity-using appliances for natural gas-using appliances and vice versa in the ten- year energy efficiency plan. Implementation Plan Items for Strategy #2 – Electric Energy Efficiency and Demand Reduction Estimated Completion 3. Provide quarterly updates on electric efficiency program achievements including tracking against 10-Year Energy Efficiency goals to the UAC and annual updates to the City Council. quarterly 4. Develop Energy Efficiency Implementation Plan for the 2010 10-Year Electric EE Plan addressing certain items identified in the May 2010 Council Colleagues Memo and identification of resources and funding needed to achieve EE goals. Apr. 2011 5. Evaluate fuel switching energy efficiency measures and include them, if cost- effective, in the Electric and Gas EE Implementation Plans. Feb. 2011 6. Develop a pilot Demand Response Program for large commercial industrial customers for implementation in summer 2011. Apr. 2011 7. Assess the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of using current and potential thermal energy storage (TES) systems to shift load from on-peak periods to off-peak periods, for use in a demand response program, or for meeting any energy storage needs. Coordinate with task 21 to develop targets, if appropriate. Sep. 2011 3. Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) – Reduce the carbon intensity of the electric portfolio by acquiring renewable energy supplies by: a. Pursuing a minimum level of renewable purchases of at least 33% of retail sales by 2015 with the following attributes: i. The contracts for investment in renewable resources shall not exceed 30 years in term. ii. Pursue only renewable resources deemed to be eligible by the California Energy Commission (CEC). iii. Evaluate use of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to meet RPS. b. Ensuring that the retail rate impact for renewable purchases does not exceed 0.5 ¢/kWh on average; and c. Performing an ongoing evaluation of the Palo Alto Clean Local Energy Accessible Now (CLEAN) program. Proposed Implementation Plan Items for Strategy #3 – Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Estimated Completion 8. Fully integrate the effects on energy efficiency in the long-term electric load forecast. Nov. 2010 9. Evaluate the merits of implementing a feed-in-tariff (FIT) and the potential to meet RPS goals through local renewable resources. Jan. 2011 10. Seek UAC recommendation and Council approval of the policy elements of a FIT to encourage local renewable resource projects. May 2011 Proposed Implementation Plan Items for Strategy #3 – Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Estimated Completion 11. Continue working with NCPA to identify opportunities, including joint- ownership, for developing qualifying renewable resources. On-going 12. Evaluate the use of renewable energy credits (REC) to meet a portion of the City’s RPS goal and/or greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and monitor the regulations and requirements regarding the use of RECs to meet RPS goals. On-going 13. Evaluate a proposed geothermal project being considered by NCPA, including a pre-pay option and the benefit, costs, and risks of a pre-pay structure. June 2011 14. Conduct a Request for Proposal for eligible renewable resources including RECs and evaluate alternative renewable resource technologies and contracting mechanisms. RFP in June 2011 4. Local Generation – Promote and facilitate the deployment of cost-effective local resources by: a. Using the renewable market price referent (MPR) adjusted for time of day factors and location as the avoided cost when evaluating cost effectiveness of local resources; b. Considering energy delivery cost uncertainty and strategic value options when evaluating opportunities; c. Evaluating a Feed-in-Tariff to promote locally sited renewable resources; d. Evaluating cost-effective energy storage resources; and e. Evaluating the feasibility of developing a 25 to 50 MW generating facility connect to the City’s distribution system. Proposed Implementation Plan Items for Strategy #4 – Local Generation Estimated Completion 15. Provide an update of past local generation feasibility studies and actions to UAC and Council Dec. 2010 16. Assess the potential for and feasibility of small local distributed and non- distributed, renewable and cogeneration projects, including using a FIT to encourage these projects. Jan. 2011 17. Assess the potential, benefits and costs of developing and/or joint ownership of a 25 to 50 MW gas-fired power plant located in or near Palo Alto to meet load, reliability and local capacity needs. Jun. 2011 18. Evaluate the City’s PLUG-In Program to encourage cogeneration including rules, regulations, and buy back rates and recommend modifications as needed. Dec. 2011 19. Following receiving Council direction from Implementation Plan Initiative #10, develop a FIT proposal including rate, rules, regulations, standard contract form and limits. To be determined 20. Assess the economics and potential of the anaerobic digester as a local generation resource for CPAU Sep. 2011 Proposed Implementation Plan Items for Strategy #4 – Local Generation Estimated Completion 21. Assess the need for and value of energy storage to support local renewable distributed generation resources. Determine any appropriate energy storage targets to be achieved by December 31, 2016, and December 31, 2021. Report back to the Council regarding what procurement targets, if any, are deemed to be appropriate so that the Council may adopt such procurement targets, if determined to be appropriate, by October 1, 2014. Jun. 2012 5. Climate Protection – Reduce the electric portfolio’s carbon intensity by: a. Supporting the City municipal government’s climate protection goals; b. Promoting the use of technologies (e.g. incentives for cogeneration systems, promotion of EVs, in-home energy displays) and programs that will reduce the community’s carbon footprint at a cost of up to the City’s value of carbon; c. Continuing to offer a renewable resource-based retail rate for all customers who want to voluntarily select an increased content of non-hydro renewable energy; and. d. Evaluating quantitative goals for possible future implementation. Proposed Implementation Plan Items for Strategy #5 – Climate Protection Estimated Completion 22. Promote the City’s Plug-in program to encourage development of cogeneration systems. On-going 23. Analyze electric vehicle (EV) charging patterns and evaluate rates to incent nighttime EV charging. Jun. 2011 24. Meet AB32 mandated annual reporting requirements to California Air Resources Board on annual volumes of electricity purchases by resource. Annually, next in Jun. 2011 25. Track and report annually on 6 major greenhouse gas emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6, HFCs, PFCs) for all of the City’s municipal operations and calculate electric portfolio’s overall emissions coefficients (lbs of CO2, CH4, and N2O per MWh of purchases). Annually, next in Sep. 2011 26. Evaluate the costs, benefits and impacts of the implementation of an electric portfolio carbon neutral policy and the setting of quantitative goals (e.g. carbon intensity, total GHG emissions). Jan. 2012 27. Evaluate PaloAltoGreen program design and recommend modifications, as appropriate, including constructing PaloAltoGreen to assist in meeting Renewable Portfolio Standard goals. Jun. 2012 6. Hydro Resource Management – Actively monitor and manage cost uncertainty related to variations in hydroelectric supply and maximize value of hydro resources by: a. Planning for an average hydro year on a long-term basis; b. Utilizing cost effective hydro resource management products; and c. Implementing opportunities to maximize benefits and reduce costs of the Western Base Resource and Calaveras hydroelectric resources. Proposed Implementation Plan Items for Strategy #6 – Hydro Resource Management Estimated Completion 28. Evaluate potential rate adjustment mechanisms that would adjust electric rates based on hydrologic year type and develop a recommendation for a rate. Apr. 2011 29. Assess the value related to Palo Alto’s participation in the CAISO’s Metered Subsystem Agreement and the use of the Calaveras hydroelectric project for load following. On-going 30. Identify long-term opportunities to maximize the value of the Calaveras hydroelectric project as an energy storage resource. On-going 31. Work with NCPA to seek opportunities to increase the efficiency of the Calaveras hydroelectric project and implement operational value maximizing strategies. On-going 7. Market Price Exposure Management – Actively monitor and manage operational, counterparty and wholesale energy price risk in the short-term (up to three to five years) by: a. Maintaining an adequate pool of creditworthy suppliers; and b. Diversifying supply purchases across commitment date, start date, duration, suppliers and pricing terms in alignment with rate stability objectives and reserve guideline. Proposed Implementation Plan Items for Strategy #7 – Market Price Exposure Management Estimated Completion 32. Evaluate a block purchase of up to 25 MW to meet base load needs for Jan- Mar and Nov-Dec for a term of up to 5 years. Feb. 2011 33. Conduct an RFP for new electric master agreement counterparties. Dec. 2011 34. Explore opportunities with NCPA, other municipal utilities and/or third party suppliers to reduce scheduling and/or operating costs. On-going 35. Continue to implement a 3-year laddering strategy to manage market price uncertainty. On-going 8. Transmission and Reliability – Pursue the reliability of supply at fair and reasonable transmission and delivery costs by: a. Actively participating through collaborative efforts with other entities, in local, regional, statewide and federal regulatory and legislative forums; b. Participating in transmission and reliability market design forums to ensure that adopted market designs result in adequate reliability, workably competitive markets and equitable cost allocation; c. Evaluating interconnection options to the City to increase service reliability and lower delivery costs; and d. Exploring transmission opportunities and strategies to meet long-term renewable portfolio objectives beyond 2020. Proposed Implementation Plan Items for Strategy #8 – Transmission and Reliability Estimated Completion 36. Investigate transmission connection voltage upgrade from 115 to 230 kV, and the potential for a transmission reliability connection to west side. On-going 37. Explore transmission opportunities and strategies to meet long-term renewable portfolio objectives beyond 2020. On-going 38. Evaluate joint efforts for power plant ownership opportunities or long-term agreements to meet the City’s Resource Adequacy Program requirements. On-going City of Palo Alto (ID # 2515) Finance Committee Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 3/20/2012 March 20, 2012 Page 1 of 7 (ID # 2515) Summary Title: Modification of Renewable Portfolio Standard Title: Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Modifying the City of Palo Alto Utilities’ Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan’s Renewable Portfolio Standard Strategy From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that the Finance Committee recommend that Council adopt a resolution approving the proposed modifications to the Long- term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) related to the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), to read as follows: Reduce the carbon intensity of the electric portfolio by acquiring renewable energy supplies by: a. Pursuing a minimum level of renewable purchases of at least 33%, with a target of 40%, of retail sales by 2015 with the following attributes: i. The contracts for investment in renewable resources shall not exceed 30 years in term. ii. Pursue only renewable resources deemed to be eligible by the California Energy Commission (CEC). iii. Evaluate use of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to meet RPS. b. Ensuring that the retail rate impact for renewable purchases does not exceed 0.5 ¢/kWh on average; and c. Evaluating a Feed-In Tariff (FIT) Executive Summary The City’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) is to supply 33% of the City’s electric needs with renewable energy by 2015. However, the City’s RPS policy needs to be slightly modified to be consistent with State law and to clarify whether the 33% target is a minimum, or whether the City should pursue the maximum amount of RPS resources that can be procured within the 0.5 cents per kilowatt-hour (¢/kWh) rate impact limit. The recommended changes are shown in bold italics in Table 1. March 20, 2012 Page 2 of 7 (ID # 2515) Table 1: Comparison of Existing and Proposed LEAP Strategy Related to RPS Existing LEAP Strategy #3 Proposed LEAP Strategy #3 Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Reduce the carbon intensity of the electric portfolio by acquiring renewable energy supplies by: a) Pursuing a target level of renewable purchases of 33% by 2015 with the following attributes: i) The contracts for investment in renewable resources shall not exceed 30 years in term. ii) Pursue only renewable resources deemed to be eligible by the California Energy Commission (CEC). iii) Evaluate use of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to meet RPS. b) Ensuring that the retail rate impact for renewable purchases does not exceed 0.5 ¢/kWh on average; and c) Evaluating a Feed-In Tariff (FIT) Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Reduce the carbon intensity of the electric portfolio by acquiring renewable energy supplies by: a) Pursuing a minimum level of renewable purchases of at least 33%, with a target of 40%, of retail sales by 2015 with the following attributes: i) The contracts for investment in renewable resources shall not exceed 30 years in term. ii) Pursue only renewable resources deemed to be eligible by the California Energy Commission (CEC). iii) Evaluate use of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to meet RPS. b) Ensuring that the retail rate impact for renewable purchases does not exceed 0.5 ¢/kWh on average; and; and c) Evaluating a Feed-In Tariff (FIT) In this report, staff discusses several possible alternative RPS policy options. Even if the options are not recommended at this time, they may be considered further if the City develops a plan to achieve carbon neutrality for the electric portfolio. Background In April 2011, Senate Bill X1-2 (SB X1-2) extended the state’s RPS mandate to 33% by 2020 for all utilities including the City. All California utilities are now required to meet the new RPS goals of supplying 20% of their retails sales volume with renewable energy for the 2011 through 2013 period, supplying at least 25% by the end of 2016, and at least 33% by the end of 2020 (and continuing every year thereafter). SB X1-2 further establishes three different categories or “buckets” of renewable energy products and sets limits on the degree to which a utility can rely on some categories to fulfill their RPS requirements. (The City’s current RPS policy does not make such a distinction.) The first category (“Bucket 1”), the state’s preferred one, consists of resources located in California that deliver energy and environmental attributes to the purchaser as they are generated. All of the City’s currently operating or contracted RPS resources fall into the Bucket 1 category. “Bucket 2” resources are located out of state and deliver energy and an equal volume of renewable attributes to the purchaser on different timing schedules to ease scheduling burdens. “Bucket 3” resources deliver only the environmental attributes, or Renewable Energy March 20, 2012 Page 3 of 7 (ID # 2515) Certificates (RECs),1 and not the associated energy to the purchaser. Bucket 3 resources are the state’s least preferred variety, but they are also the least expensive. The new law—through Public Utilities Code section 399.30(a)—specifically applies to publicly- owned utilities (POUs) like the City. Although the City’s current RPS target is more aggressive than the state’s requirements, the state RPS law requires the City to formally adopt enforcement language that recognizes certain elements of the new RPS law. In December 2011, Council approved an RPS enforcement program describing how the City will enforce its RPS program in compliance with state law (Staff Report 2225). The approved enforcement program mirrored the minimum requirements of SB X1-2 in order to minimize the chances of incurring state-imposed penalties. However, the enforcement program is intended only for compliance with state law, and does not preclude the City’s adoption of more stringent RPS goals, such as it currently has. Palo Alto’s Progress toward Meeting RPS Goals The City uses California’s definition of qualifying renewable resources, which excludes large hydroelectric plants exceeding 30 megawatts. Projects located outside of California are considered qualifying resources, provided that they are located in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council region (i.e., in the western U.S.) and began operating no earlier than January 1, 2005. The City Council has approved long-term contracts for nine in-state renewable resources. Five of these resources are currently delivering renewable energy to the City and four are in the permitting process. The nine contracts are expected to provide energy equal to about 28% of the City’s retail sales volume by 2014. The retail rate impact for the nine committed contracts is about 0.22 ¢/kWh, or a bit less than half of the allowed rate impact. If new renewable energy contracts are executed at current costs for renewable energy, staff estimates that an RPS level of about 35% can be achieved without exceeding the 0.5 ¢/kWh rate impact limit. Discussion The adoption of a statewide 33% RPS mandate presents the City with the opportunity to bring its RPS policy more in line with the structure and details of the state policy, as well as to consider a number of other potential changes. Some of these policy questions are addressed below. An RPS Target Based on Retail Sales Volume or Purchase Volume? The state law’s RPS target levels are expressed as a percentage of a Load Serving Entity’s (LSE) retail sales volume (as opposed to its purchase volume), whereas Palo Alto’s current RPS policy language is unclear as to whether the target is 33% of retail sales or 33% of total purchases. 1 Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), also known as renewable energy credits, green certificates, green tags, or tradable renewable certificates, represent the environmental attributes of the power produced from renewable energy projects and can be sold separately from the electricity commodity. One REC is associated with each MWh of renewable energy generated by registered generation facilities. March 20, 2012 Page 4 of 7 (ID # 2515) Because of distribution system losses and other factors, the volume of an LSE’s retail sales is slightly less than the volume of its total purchases. Therefore, a slightly smaller volume of renewable energy is required to meet a target expressed as 33% of retail sales than is required to meet a target expressed as 33% of energy purchases. For consistency with the state requirement and regular and customer reporting requirements, staff recommends clarifying the City’s RPS goal to be 33% of retail sales. Set Compliance Period Targets? Given that SB X1-2 includes three compliance periods with unique RPS procurement levels, the question naturally arises whether the City should adopt interim compliance period targets to align its RPS policy more closely with the state law. However, the City’s RPS supply already exceeds the statewide RPS requirement for the 2011-2013 compliance period, and assuming the City achieves its 33% by 2015 RPS target, it will have exceeded the statewide requirements for the second and third compliance periods. Thus, staff feels there is no reason to make the City’s RPS policy more complicated by adding interim RPS targets. RPS Procurement Limited by Reaching the Rate Impact Limit or the RPS Target? The current language in the City’s RPS policy—pursuing “a target level of renewable purchases of 33% by 2015” while “*e+nsuring that the retail rate impact for renewable purchases does not exceed 0.5 ¢/kWh on average”—is unclear as to what should happen when the 33% RPS target is reached if the total average rate impact is less than 0.5 ¢/kWh. Should the City cease procurement efforts once the 33% RPS target is achieved, or should it continue to procure additional renewable energy until the rate impact limit is reached? Although the language could be interpreted either way, staff suggests that the 33% RPS level is a target, not a limit, while the 0.5 ¢/kWh rate impact value is clearly a limit and, thus, should be the governing restraint. Staff recommends modifying the RPS policy language to clarify that the goal is to procure at least 33% of its retail sales volume from renewable energy sources, with the 0.5 ¢/kWh rate impact limit serving as the overall restraint on the City’s RPS procurement efforts. Council Members have made a similar point over the past year. Change the Rate Impact Limit? Staff recommends retaining the rate impact limit in its current form, with the 0.5 ¢/kWh rate impact level serving as the restraint on renewable energy purchases. The RPS enforcement policy adopted by Council in December 2011, uses the existing rate impact limit as the cost containment provision for SB X1-2. The cost containment provision is useful to avoid being penalized by state regulators in the event that high renewable premiums would interfere with reaching the state RPS targets by the state deadlines. Establish Guidelines on Use of Renewable Energy Certificates? With the creation of the three renewable energy “bucket” categories under SB X1-2, the City has the opportunity to establish its own guidelines on the use of these various types of RPS March 20, 2012 Page 5 of 7 (ID # 2515) products for meeting its own RPS target. SB X1-2 allows, but significantly limits, the amount of Bucket 2 and 3 resources a utility may count towards its procurement requirements. The City could take a “gold standard” approach and require that all of its RPS supply be from Bucket 1. Or it could make it official policy to use Bucket 3 RECs only for contingency situations (e.g., if there is a long-term outage at one of its contracted renewable resources, or a delay in the start- up of a contracted resource). Staff recommends preserving operational flexibility by not adopting any guidelines that further restrict the use of Bucket 2 or Bucket 3 resources for compliance beyond the constraints established by SB X1-2. Establish Local Requirements for Renewable Resource Buckets? The City could choose a policy establishing requirements to meet its RPS policy by designating minimum and/or maximum amounts of Bucket 1, Bucket 2, or Bucket 3 renewable resources. While the City must comply with SB X1-2, the City could adopt additional requirements. The City’s committed renewable resources compared to SB X1-2’s procurement requirements are illustrated in the figure below. Since all of the City’s currently contracted RPS supply consists of Bucket 1 renewable resources, the City expects to easily comply with SB X1-2’s minimum procurement requirements. SB X1-2 Compliance Requirements vs. CPAU Portfolio 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 GW h p e r Y e a r CPAU Committed Resources SB X1-2 Bucket 1 Minimum SB X1-2 Bucket 3 Maximum CPAU RPS Goal SB X1-2 Requirements Because of the limits imposed on the use of Bucket 3 renewables for RPS compliance, the incremental price (above the price of “brown” energy) for Bucket 1 resources (in-state bundled March 20, 2012 Page 6 of 7 (ID # 2515) energy and RECs) is significantly greater than the price of Bucket 3 resources (RECs with no associated energy). Currently prices are approximately $40/MWh for Bucket 1 RECs (premium over brown power) versus $5/MWh for Bucket 3 RECs. Rather than establish a new policy on the use of the different categories of renewable resources to achieve the RPS goal, staff recommends addressing this issue in the upcoming discussion of the pursuit of a carbon-neutral electric portfolio. A plan to achieve carbon neutrality will explore the question of which resources should be used for that goal and will provide clarity on the distinction between RPS, carbon reduction, and electric portfolio carbon neutrality goals. Commission Review and Recommendation Staff presented its recommendation to the UAC at its November 2, 2011, meeting. The UAC supported staff’s recommendations, with modifications, and moved to recommend Council approval of the following: LEAP Strategy #3 – Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Reduce the carbon intensity of the electric portfolio by acquiring renewable energy supplies by: a. Pursuing a minimum target level of renewable purchases of at least 33%, with a target of 40%, of retail sales by 2015 with the following attributes: (1) The contracts for investment in renewable resources shall not exceed 30 years in term. (2) Pursue only renewable resources deemed to be eligible by the California Energy Commission (CEC). (3) Evaluate use of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to meet RPS. b. Ensuring that the retail rate impact for renewable purchases does not exceed 0.5 ¢/kWh on average; and c. Evaluating a Feed-In Tariff (FIT) The motion carried by a vote of 4-2 with Vice Chair Berry and Commissioner Waldfogel opposed. Commissioner Waldfogel stated that he opposed the motion since he believes that the entire 0.5 ¢/kWh rate impact limit does not need to be spent on renewables and it could be put to better use for efficiency, other ways to reduce GHG emissions, or simply reduced rate impact. Vice Chair Berry said that he agreed with Commissioner Waldfogel. Attachment B contains the minutes from the November 2, 2011, UAC meeting. Resource Impact Adoption of the proposed modifications to LEAP is not expected to result in costs in excess of the previously adopted 0.5 ¢/kWh rate impact limit. Policy Implications The proposed policy is compliant with state law and goes beyond the minimum RPS requirements of SB X1-2. The proposed RPS policy would modify the LEAP Strategy related to RPS by adding clarity, but would not change the general policy direction. March 20, 2012 Page 7 of 7 (ID # 2515) Environmental Review Support of staff’s recommendation to approve the proposed modifications to the LEAP Strategy related to RPS does not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution Approving RPS Policy Modifications (PDF) Attachment B: FINAL UAC Minutes of November 2, 2011 (PDF) Prepared By: James Stack, Resource Planner Department Head: Valerie Fong, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Not Yet Approved 1 120224 dm 6051679 Resolution No. ______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving Modifications to the City of Palo Alto Utilities’ Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan’s Renewable Portfolio Standard Strategy WHEREAS, the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) is a strategic planning document focused on how the City of Palo Alto’s Utilities Department (CPAU) can successfully balance environmental and economic sustainability as it provides electric service to CPAU customers; and WHEREAS, staff presented the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan to the Utilities Advisory Commission at its November 2, 2011 meeting, and the UAC voted 5 to 2 (with Commissioners Waldfogel and Barry opposed) to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed modification to Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan’s (LEAP) Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) strategy; and WHEREAS, staff presented the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan to the Finance Committee at its March 6, 2012 meeting, and the Finance Committee voted x to y to recommend that the City Council approve proposed modifications to the LEAP’s RPS strategy. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The Council hereby adopts the resolution approving modifications to the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan’s (LEAP) Renewable Portfolio Standard strategy to read as follows: Reduce the carbon intensity of the electric portfolio by acquiring renewable energy supplies by: a.Pursuing a minimum target level of renewable purchases of at least 33%, with a target of 40%, of retail sales by 2015 with the following attributes: i.The contracts for investment in renewable resources shall not exceed 30 years in term. ii.Pursue only renewable resources deemed to be eligible by the California Energy Commission (CEC). iii.Evaluate use of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to meet RPS. b.Ensuring that the retail rate impact for renewable purchases does not exceed 0.5 ¢/kWh on average; and c.Evaluating a Feed-In Tariff (FIT). ATTACHMENT A Not Yet Approved 2 120224 dm 6051679 SECTION 2. The Council finds that any revenue derived from the authorized adoption enumerated herein shall be used only for the purpose set forth in Article VII, Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto. SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not constitute a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore, no environmental assessment is required. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ___________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Director of Utilities ___________________________ Director of Administrative Services FINAL UTILITIES ADVISORY COIVIIVIISSIOI~ MEETING MINUTES OF I~OVEIVIBER 2, 2011 CALL TO ORDER Chair Foster called to order at 7:05 pm the meeting of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC). Present: Commissioners Berry, Cook, Foster, Keller, Melton and Waldfogel Absent: Council Member Liaison Scharff and Commissioner Eglash ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The minutes from the October 5, 2011 UAC meeting were approved as presented. AGENDA REVIEW No changes. REPORTS FROM COMMISSION MEETING/EVENTS Commissioner Melton reported that he attended the ground breaking ceremony for the new emergency storage reservoir at EI Camino Park and was thankful that work was finally beginning on that project. UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT In the absence of Director Valerie Fong, Assistant Director Jane Ratchye delivered an oral report on the following items: 1. Marketing and Efficiency Program Update -Staff proposed amending contracts with Ecology Action to add funding for the Right Lights+ program and with OPOWER to continue the program for one year beyond its original end date of May 2012. Both programs have had good energy efficiency results, and the Right Lights+ program had reserved nearly all of its annual funding in the first two years of the program with more businesses lined up to participate in lighting and sensor retrofits. On November 1, the Finance Committee unanimously recommended approval of the amendments. 2. Residential Programs -The LED holiday light exchange will continue again this year in December. Residents will be encouraged to exchange a working strand of incandescent holiday lights for a strand of colored or white LED holiday lights. The new residential LED lighting rebate will begin in January with a contest to find the "ugliesf' lighting in Palo Alto. The winning participant will get up to $400 in free LED lights. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: December 7, 2011 Page 1 016 3. PG&E Pipeline Testing Update -We have verified with PG&E that the "first segmenf' of the T-30 transmission pipeline (along Page Mill Road up to Foothill Expressway) passed its test last Sunday without incident. The second and final segment of the T -30 pipeline is scheduled for testing tomorrow (Nov 3) and assuming it completes without incident, the PG&E testing in Palo Alto will then be finished. All thaI will remain is for PG&E to "tie-in" the lines back into the transmission system and restore the various test sites to their previous condition (fill holes, repave, etc.)--scheduled to be done by November 111h. 4. Visitors from Hunan Province, China (Oct 19) -Utilities staff hosted 25 top managers from various government agencies within the Hunan Province who wanted to learn about how to operate successful sustainability programs, particularly in the area of providing utilities services. Staff made presentations and answered questions about our Climate Protection Plan, our renewable resources portfolio and purchase strategies and our energy and water efficiency programs for all customer classes. Special kudos to Dixon Yee from our UMS group wiho is fluent in Mandarin and translated beautifully. 5. Feed-in Tariff Program Documents Made Public -The preliminary program documents for the feed- in tariff program have been made public on the City's website at www,cityofpaloalto,orgIRenewableFIT. The City has received questions and comments from several solar vendors and other organizations. Staff has also been raising awareness about the program with potential host customers, 6. RPS Enforcement Program -California's new RPS law (Senate Bill XI-2) applies, for the first time, to municipal utilities like Palo Alto in addition to investor owned utilities. With respect to the enforcement of the law, S8 XI-2 requires that "[t]he governing board of the local publicly owned electric utility shall adopt a program for the enforcement of this article on or before January 1, 2012," In order to meet this deadline, staff plans to request Council approval in December 2011 of an enforcement program that contains pro forma language on how the City will enforce its RPS regulations. The enforcement provisions will comply with the state law, but will not necessarily be the same as the RPS strategy adopted in the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP). 7. Update on Utilities Emerging Technology Demonstration Program -The City Manager requested that the program reviewed by the UAC in October be reviewed by the Policy and Services Committee on November 29. Council will review in December or January and staff plans to move forward with implementation by February. 8. Halloween, Utilities Style -Utilities staff participated in the City Hall Halloween Contest with a group costume featuring electric transmission lines and renewable resources (solar, wind and hydroelectric), The project, which was completed on a budget of $25 (not from ratepayers!) using reused and recycled materials, demonstrated how Utilities always works as a team to identify the lowest cost options! 9. Large Customer Load Growth -We recently learned of HP's plans to move several of its operations from other areas of California to re-occupy several of its buildings on its Palo Alto campus and to build a data center here in an existing building on its campus, The re-occupation may amount to 3 MW of Utilities AdvisolY Commission Minutes Approved on: December 7, 2011 Page 2 of 6 returning load (about 1.5% of our energy load). The data center may build up to 8 MW of new load in an existing building and add 7-12% to our energy load over the next 3 years. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS ITEM 1: ACTION: Update of Palo Alto Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Policy Resource Planner Dr. Jim Stack presented a summary of the written report, focusing on the policy options for making adjustments to the Long-term Electric Acquisition (LEAP) strategy that concerns the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in light of the new state RPS law. Commissioner Keller asked if the City will have difficulties meeting the 33% RPS goal in the future-when some existing contracts expire-under the rate impact limit, and whether there is an opportunity to save money now and use it later. Stack noted that the rate impact limit is an annual limit and that "banking" is not allowed with the rate impact limit budget. Commissioner Cook asked for clarification on what is meant by "short-term" REC purchases? Stack responded that any REC purchases would be intended to fill a short-term gap-up to about three years-in the event that some resources would not come on line as planned or experience long-term outages. Commissioner Cook noted that the state law allows utilities to establish reasonable cost containment mechanisms and asked whether the 0.5 ¢/kWh rate impact limit would serve as Palo Alto's cost containment measure? Stack answered that it would. Commissioner Cook stated that his preference would be to pick a more aggressive RPS target than 33%, especially if it could be achieved within the existing rate impact limit, and that perhaps a 40% target would be appropriate. Commissioner Waldfogel noted that the UAC is about to review the City's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions policy, and that we should consider capping the RPS level at 33% and using the balance of the money to taking a leadership position in reducing GHG emissions, going beyond what the state requires us to do. Commissioner Melton noted that all of our renewable energy is currenlly in Bucket 1, but inquired about PaloAltoGreen RECs and whether they can be counted towards the RPS requirements. Stack and Ratchye responded that the RECs purchased for PaloAltoGreen are not CEC-certified RECs, so they would not be eligible for RPS compliance. Also, those RECs would not be eligible for RPS compliance even if they were CEC-certified because they're part of a voluntary program. Commissioner Melton noted that the $20 million staff identified as potential revenue from selling or swapping excess bucket 1 resources is a lot of money and that if staff was planning to recommend against pursuing this strategy, it should beef up its case for passing up this opportunity when going before Finance Committee. Chair Foster asked what could be done with the revenue from selling excess bucket 1 resources. Ratchye responded that the money would stay in the electric fund, but could be used for any purpose in the electric fund. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: December 7, 2011 Page 3 of 6 Commissioner Waldfogel commented that striving for a higher RPS goal made sense when the 33% goal was set, but now we've achieved our goal so perhaps we can use the remaining money for other goals such as GHG emission reductions or energy efficiency and stake out a leadership position there. Commissioner Melton commented that the idea of increasing the RPS goal to 40% has been floated at the state level and asked whether there was any support in Sacramento for that idea. Stack responded that the 40% goal was mentioned in the governor's signing statement for SB XI-2, but the idea doesn't seem to have taken off yet. Commissioner Melton noted that in an average year the supply portfolio is roughly 50% hydro and if we had a 40% RPS he wonders whether that is too much of the portfolio to have locked in. Stack responded that there will be less and less room for market purchases as we buy more long-term resources, particularly in wet years. He also noted that this will mean we will be net sellers in more months and buy less energy in the spot markets. But he noted that this just means we'll have a greater level of market price risk. Chair Foster asked about how we should balance spending more on efficiency vs. RPS vs. any other program. Ratchye responded that the information to compare the costs or benefits of those alternatives has yet to be provided to the UAC and that staff will be back next month with more information on the other alternatives in the context of a discussion on whether to pursue a carbon-neutral electric portfolio. Commissioner Waldfogel suggested approving staff recommendations numbers 1 (retail sales), 3 (interim targets), and 4 (bucket sale/swap). (Referring to recommendation numbers in the presentation, not the report.) Chair Foster indicated that the proposed language needs to clarify which limit takes precedence: the rate impact limit OR the 33% RPS level. Chair Foster noted that the language will be interpreted to mean that 33% is a minimum RPS level and staff will continue pursuing new renewables until the 0.5 cent limit has been reached. Ratchye confirmed that this was the intent of staffs proposed language, but would prefer that the language be as clear as possible. Vice Chair Berry stated his belief that the current policy language sets the 0.5 cent rate impact limit, but does not direct staff to use all of that money. He indicated that H is the customers' money, and there is not a clear reason why all of the money needs to be spent. Commissioner Melton said that the right policy decision is to recommend a 33% floor and a 0.5 cent limit, retaining the ambiguity about what to do once the 33% level is reached if there is still additional money to be spent under the rate impact IimH. Commissioner Keller asked what would happen if the 33% target cannot be met without exceeding the rate impact limit. Ratchye responded that at that point the Council could choose to stop pursuing additional renewables-because the 0.5 cent rate impact limit is the City's cost containment measure-or approve additional funds to be spent to achieve the 33% level. Commissioner Waldfogel asked what the impact is of not mentioning policy update #5 (selling or swapping bucket 1 resources) -can staff do this type of transaction, or are they prohibited? Ratchye responded that staff can not currently do this type of transaction without receiving approval to do so from the Council. Commissioner Melton said he does not think we need to address something staff can't currently do. Ratchye also indicated that while staff does not currently intend to pursue this type of transaction, there is Commission Minutes Approved on: December 7, 2011 Page 4 016 nothing precluding it from considering such transactions. Vice Chair Berry indicated that these potential transactions may make sense to do, so we should not limit staff from acting on these opportunities. Ratchye offered that staff return with further discussion of this topic in the ccntext of the scheduled report for the UAC's December meeting on whether or not to pursue a carbon-neutral electric portfolio. Chair Foster said he is not in favor of selling or swapping bucket 1 resources, but thinks there is interest from members of the UAC to have more discussion on that topic. Vice Chair Berry said that this option may not work for a variety of reasons, but that it cculd be beneficial and we should examine that in more detail since there is significant money on the table for this. He would like to see the possibilities laid out in detail, with numbers presented. Commissioner Melton agreed with Vice Chair Berry, saying that while staff has indicated it does not think it should pursue these opportunities he wants to understand the options in more depth. Chair Foster said he thinks there is consensus on the desire to have this issue brought back to the UAC for further discussion in the future. ACTION: Commissioner Melton moved the staff recommendation. Chair Foster seccnded the molion. Chair Foster offered an amendment to add "with a target of 40%" to provide clarity that the direction is to get as much renewable energy as possible under the 0.5 cent/kWh rate impact limit Commissioner Melton accepted the amendment. The motion is that the UAC recommend that Council approve the proposed modifications to the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) related to Strategy number three, Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), to read as follows: Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Reduce the carbon intensity of the electric portfolio by acquiring renewable energy supplies by: a. Pursuing a minimum target level of renewable purchases of at least 33%, with a target of 40%, of retail sales by 2015 with the following attributes: (1) The ccntracts for investrnentin renewable resources shall not exceed 30 years in term. (2) Pursue only renewable resources deemed to be eligible by the Califomia Energy Commission (CEC). (3) Evaluate use of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to meet RPS. b. Ensuring that the retail rate impact for renewable purchases does not exceed 0.5 ¢/kWh on average; and c. Evaluating a Feed-In Tariff (FIT) The motion carried by a vote of 4-2 with Vice Chair Berry and Commissioner Waldfogel opposed. Commissioner Waldfogel stated that he opposed the motion since he believes that the entire 0.5 cent rate impact limit does not need to be spent on renewables and it cculd be put to better use for efficiency, other ways to reduce GHG emissions, or simply reduced rate impact. Vice Chair Berry said that he agreed with Commissioner Waldfogel. ITEM 2: PRESENTATION: Preliminary Results From Fall 2011 Renewable Energy Project Request Proposals Resource Planner Dr. Jim Stack presented a high-level summary of the responses received to the City's Request for Proposals (RFP) for renewable energy supplies. Chair Foster indicated that he does not reccmmend pursuing additional landfill gas (LFG) projects due to difficulties getting the last ones approved by Council. He also asked how the different technologies Utilities Advisory CommiSsion Minutes Approved on: December 7, 2011 Page 5 016 compared with each other on cost. Stack responded that solar prices have fallen significantly since staff's last renewable energy RFP two years ago -previously solar had been the most expensive technology, but in this RFP the solar and wind proposals were the least expensive ones, Commissioner Melton inquired about the size of the solar projects that were proposed, Stack responded that most solar projects that were proposed were around 20 MW size, but some were proposals of small pieces of larger projects, Vice Chair Berry asked whether any proposals were for local solar projects, Stack responded that there were no proposals for projects located in Palo Alto, but there were a couple of projects located in the Bay Area. Commissioner Waldfogel commented that this is amazing feedback from the market. He also asked whether this information would be used in evaluating a carbon emissions policy. Ratchye responded that one way of getting to a carbon neutral portfolio is through additional purchases of renewables, so this information will be used to estimate the cost of carbon reduction measures that are based on increased use of renewable energy, Ratchye noted that staff's proposed Feed-in-Tariff rate is value-based and one component of the value assessment is the cost of renewable energy, so these results will cause staff's Feed-in-Tariff rate proposal to be lower than the one initially presented to the UAC. Chair Foster asked when staff plans to come back to the UAC with the next step in this process, Stack responded that, depending how contract negotiations go, staff could return to the UAC as early as April or May with contracts ready for approval. ITEM 3: ACTION: Potential Topic's) for Discussion at Future UAC ACTION: None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None. Meeting adjourned at9:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Marites Ward City of Palo Alto Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: December 7, 2011 Page60f6 FINANCE COMMITTEE DRAFT EXCERPT Meeting March 20, 2012 2. Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Modifying the City of Palo Alto Utilities’ Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan’s Renewable Portfolio Standard Strategy Resource Planner Jim Stack spoke regarding the City’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) policy, which is part of the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP). He said that staff was seeking clarity on the policy because the City is close to meeting its 33% RPS target and staff needs to know when to end its efforts to acquire more renewable energy resources. He also noted that last year the state passed its own 33% RPS law, and that for the sake of simplicity staff want to consider bringing one aspect of the City’s RPS policy into conformance with the state’s policy. He described the City’s progress in meeting its RPS target year by year and how much farther it has to go to meet the target. He noted that the City also expects to receive some additional energy not shown on the graph related to the Palo Alto CLEAN local solar program and from responses to its recent Request for Proposals (RFP) for renewable energy projects. He then described some of the main elements of the City’s RPS policy: a single target of 33% by 2015 and a 0.5 cent per kWh rate impact limit. But he noted that it was unclear whether staff should cease its procurement efforts upon reaching the 33% RPS level, or upon reaching the 0.5 cent per kWh rate impact limit. He then described some of the elements of the state’s 33% RPS law, including the three multi-year compliance periods and targets, the fact that the RPS level is expressed as a percentage of retail sales volume rather than the volume of purchases, and that the state defines three categories or buckets of renewable energy resources –- which the City does not do. He then addressed the main point of clarification that staff was seeking: whether staff should end its procurement efforts upon reaching the 33% RPS level, or upon reaching the 0.5 cent per kWh rate impact limit. He noted that based on current market Council Member Prices, staff believes they can achieve an RPS level of between 36% and 40% by 2015 within the 0.5 cent per kWh rate impact limit. He then said that staff and the UAC recommends that the RPS policy be clarified to state that the 0.5 cent rate impact limit is the dominant limit, and that staff should attempt to go above and beyond the 33% RPS level until reaching that limit. He noted that they feel that the 33% RPS level is a target, not a limit, whereas the 0.5 cent/kWh rate impact value is clearly a limit and should serve as the governing constraint on our RPS procurement efforts. He also said that staff and the UAC recommend clarifying that the City’s RPS level targets be expressed as a percentage of retail sales volume, as with the state RPS mandate language. He noted the importance of not having two different sets of numbers floating around – one number for internal RPS accounting based on total purchase volume, and another number based on total retail sales volume is reported to the state. He noted that the difference between the two numbers is small enough that it wouldn’t make much of a difference in terms of staff’s actions. He then showed a comparison of the existing RPS policy language and the language recommended by staff and the UAC. He then discussed some of the possible policy changes that staff and the UAC considered but did not recommend making. These included the establishment of compliance periods and interim RPS targets and the establishment of restrictions or guidelines on the use of different types of renewable energy resources. Chair Shepherd introduced Jon Foster, the chair of the UAC, who noted that the UAC supported staff’s recommendation. Vice Mayor Scharff asked why the decision on whether to go above 33% RPS is necessary right now. Utilities Director Valerie Fong noted that staff has been evaluating responses to its RFP which look attractive, and accepting some of them would put us over the 33% level. She also noted that staff plans to issue another RFP for renewable energy and we expect to be in a position again where we could get above the 33% level within the 0.5 cent per kWh limit. Vice Mayor Scharff asked about the timing of the next RFP. Mr. Stack said that staff expects to bring a contract from the previous RFP to Council in the next few months, and to release a new RFP in about a month, with the contracts resulting from that RFP expected to be ready for Council’s review in the fall. Vice Mayor Scharff said that the staff report said that the City could get to a 35% RPS level within the rate impact level, but that now they are saying that 36% to 40% is possible, and asked about the discrepancy. Mr. Stack said that the staff report was written before the Council Member Prices from the recent RFP had been known, and that the market Council Member Price of renewables has fallen recently and was lower than expected. Vice Mayor Scharff asked about the definition of the term “carbon neutral,” which was used in the staff report. Ms. Fong noted that the exact definition has not been determined yet, and that that topic needed to be discussed with the UAC and Council. Chair Shepherd asked which resources are not considered eligible for the RPS. Ms. Fong noted that large hydro and nuclear resources are carbon neutral but are not deemed RPS eligible by the state. Vice Mayor Scharff asked whether we should focus on carbon neutral resources and not limit ourselves to RPS eligible resources only. Ms. Fong noted that there is a benefit to having a more diverse supply portfolio, and the portfolio already has a large amount of hydro resources in it. Council Member Price noted that she would like to see a definition of carbon neutrality, as that term is being used frequently. She also asked for clarification on what a Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) is and how it’s different from renewable energy. UAC Chair Foster described three different categories of energy resources – “brown” energy resources that emit carbon, non-carbon emitting resources that are not considered renewable (such as large hydro), and RPS-eligible renewable energy resources. He noted that RECs represent the renewable energy attributes of energy that someone else is using. The utility buying the REC in a paper transaction gets to count the REC towards its RPS targets. Council Member Price then asked for clarification on the rationale on including the “target of 40%” language in the RPS policy. Mr. Stack noted that the Governor has recently talked about raising the state’s RPS target from 33% to 40%. He also pointed out that renewable energy Council Member Prices have fallen recently, and in the next RFP there may be proposals that would put the City over its 33% target and staff would like to have the flexibility to accept those attractive offers. Chair Shepherd asked about the timeline for the carbon neutrality discussion. Utilities Assistant Director Jane Ratchye responded that the first part of the carbon neutral policy -- the discussion on whether there is support for developing a carbon neutral plan -- will go to Council in April. Then staff will develop the plan and bring it to the UAC in October, to the Finance Committee in November, and to Council in December. This part will describe how and when the City will try to achieve carbon neutrality. She also noted that the current discussion focuses on a policy, and does not give staff the authority to execute any contracts; the Council still has the ability to reject contracts that staff brings to them. She said that the purpose of seeking policy direction right now on the issue of stopping at 33% or going beyond it was important because staff does not want to bring contracts to Council that are rejected because Council does not want to go beyond 33%. Council Member Burt asked what portion of the City’s portfolio currently consists of landfill gas resources, which he says are not carbon neutral even though they are defined by the state to be renewable. He suggested abandoning the term “carbon neutral” in favor of the term “clean energy” which include all sustainable energy resources, including large hydro and all state-defined renewable resources. He also suggested avoiding a debate about the “embedded energy” in various types of energy resources. He then asked about the definition of “Bucket 1” renewable resources -- whether it represented the renewable energy resources that the City has typically purchased, or whether it could include sales of RECs without energy. Mr. Stack replied that it referred to renewable energy resources like the ones the City has purchased to date and did not include RECs without energy associated with them. Council Member Burt asked about the difference between retail sales and purchases, and which method the City has generally used in the past. Mr. Stack responded that the numbers cited in the staff report are expressed as a percentage of retail sales volumes. Ms. Ratchye added that in the past, staff has generally used total purchases as the basis of its RPS calculation. Council Member Burt said that this point was not clear in the staff report and should be clarified in the report that goes to Council. He noted that the City’s past practice of using purchases as the basis of the RPS calculation under- credits the City’s renewable procurement efforts. He then asked what the difference is between total retail sales volumes and total purchase volumes. Mr. Stack responded that retail sales volumes are typically 3% to 5% lower than its total purchase volume, so a target expressed as 33% of retail sales requires the City to purchase about one percentage point less renewable energy than a target expressed as 33% of total purchases. Council Member Burt then asked about how Palo Alto is doing in comparison to other utilities on reaching the 33% RPS target. UAC Chair Foster responded that the three investor owned utilities (IOUs) are at roughly the 20% level, as is Palo Alto right now. Ms. Fong noted that the other municipal utilities in California are all over the map with respect to meeting the 33% RPS goal -- some are at less than 10% RPS, others are at higher levels than Palo Alto. Council Member Burt asked what the City’s original RPS goal was, when the 0.5 cent per kWh goal was established. Mr. Stack responded that in 2002 the City adopted a goal of 20% RPS by 2015, and adopted the 0.5 cent per kWh rate impact limit at the same time. Council Member Burt said that the City should communicate that it has achieved its original 20% RPS goal and done so way under budget. He noted that it is a great achievement that we think it’s possible that we can get to 36% to 40% RPS level within the original budget amount, and we should communicate that. Council Member Burt then asked what would happen to the City’s Feed-in Tariff program if the whole 0.5 cent per kWh rate impact limit for renewables is used up. He said that under the current RPS policy the Feed-in Tariff program would be killed off if the whole rate impact limit is used up. He suggested either reserving a portion of the 0.5 cent rate impact limit for the FIT or approving an increase in the rate impact limit above the 0.5 cent level. Ms. Ratchye noted that the FIT is an RPS resource and it would have to be counted in the rate impact calculation, but that it is a much smaller volume than most long-term contracts the City expects to enter into so it would have a very small impact on the overall rate impact of renewables. Council Member Burt suggested that when staff presents a chart showing the City’s year-by-year progress towards its RPS target, it should also present some scenarios for future renewable procurement efforts. He then asked what percentage of the City’s resources are hydroelectric resources. Mr. Stack responded that about 50% of the City’s total electric portfolio in an average year is from hydroelectric resources. Council Member Burt then noted that the City’s PaloAltoGreen sales represent 6 to 7% of total sales. He pointed out that this program is a REC sales program -- a point which he said had not been made clear to customers. He said that staff has omitted these REC purchases from their discussion of the City’s renewable procurement achievements, but that they are helping the City to get closer to a carbon neutral or clean energy portfolio. Ms. Ratchye responded that as the City’s electric portfolio gets closer to being carbon neutral, the PaloAltoGreen program will get harder to market, so part of the carbon neutral plan will include a discussion on what to do with this program and whether to have a successor program. Council Member Burt pointed out that there are a lot of folks in the community who are willing to pay a little more to do something for the environment. He then noted that two of the UAC commissioners -- Commissioners Waldfogel and Berry -- suggested that the City should not go beyond 33% RPS but rather look at other things to do with the money, like efficiency. But he noted that the City’s efficiency investments do not come out of the 0.5 cent renewable rate impact allocation, so he suggested that the City could do more on efficiency and still go beyond the 33% RPS level. He asked staff whether their calculations of RPS potential included the City’s target of getting 7.2% load reduction by the end of the decade through efficiency programs. Mr. Stack responded that they did include these efficiency projections. Council Member Burt then inquired about the City’s existing brown energy contracts, and whether they would limit the City’s ability to procure more renewables. Ms. Ratchye responded that the City does have some existing short-term brown energy contracts, but only they only go out about 18 months so they wouldn’t limit any long-term procurement efforts. Council Member Burt then said that he would prefer to only use RECs for contingency purposes. He said that they are a less preferred and somewhat contentious resource, and that if the City can achieve its goals through less ambiguous methods it should do so. Chair Shepherd asked staff how committed the state is to maintaining landfill gas based electricity in its definition of renewable energy. Ms. Fong responded that the state defined landfill gas energy as renewable because it does reduce the amount of emissions coming out of landfills and that it hasn’t suggested changing its definition of landfill gas as a renewable resource. Chair Shepherd then asked if any environmental groups were lobbying lawmakers to change the definition of renewable resources to exclude landfill gas. UAC Chair Foster responded that when the City considered several landfill gas contracts a year or two ago, the local Sierra club expressed its opposition to this type of resource, but he said he wasn’t aware of any state level lobbying efforts to change the renewable energy definition. Chair Shepherd indicated that when the carbon neutral plan gets to Council, she would like to see an indication of the risk that the resource definitions would change in the future, and how the City would respond to such a change. UAC Chair Foster predicted that the rules would not change, but that if they did they would not change retroactively. He then predicted that given all of the discussions that Council has had about landfill gas, staff will not be bringing any landfill gas contracts to Council anytime soon. Chair Shepherd asked for staff’s prediction about what would happen to the renewables market now that the whole state has to go out and get to the 33% RPS level -- would there be enough resources for everyone, and would there be any economies of scale that might drive Council Member Prices down in the future? Ms. Fong responded that there was no way of knowing, but that the Council Member Prices in the recent renewable energy RFP were lower than anticipated. And she noted that given the “cliff” -- the dropoff in the City’s renewable energy commitments starting around 2020 -- staff considered now to be a good time to start filling in that gap with more long-term contracts. Chair Shepherd then noted that VTA has gone energy independent through rooftop solar at their yards, and asked whether the City has considered doing anything like that. Ms. Ratchye responded that this was a General Fund issue, and that Facilities staff would have to evaluate this option and determine whether they have the money to do this. Council Member Price asked whether the City has a policy requiring new civic buildings to have solar panels installed or be LEED certified. Ms. Fong responded that she was not aware of any such policy. Chair Shepherd asked about the City’s Innovation Fund that is starting in 2015, and whether that could help the City fund RPS projects. Ms. Fong replied that the 2015 deadline applies to the Electric Special Projects fund, which was formerly known as the Calaveras Reserve Fund, and that the Innovation Fund was a separate pilot program. Chair Shepherd asked if the City could fund any of its own renewable projects through the Electric Special Projects fund. Ms. Fong replied that this was possible, although there were other projects that could also be funded through that money, such as a transmission project. Vice Mayor Scharff noted that the only requirement for the use of the Electric Special Projects fund is that the funds be used to benefit the City’s electric ratepayers. Chair Shepherd asked whether the City is being proactive in looking for projects to spend these funds on, or whether it was being passive and waiting for industry to come forward with projects through the CLEAN program. Ms. Fong responded that we’re not currently looking proactively for renewables projects to do within the City because staff does not believe such projects would be economical for the City -- that the cost of such projects would not be able to beat the cost of larger scale projects done through long-term contracts. Vice Mayor Scharff asked how big a 25 MW solar project is in terms of land area. Mr. Stack responded that the rule of thumb is that solar projects occupy about 10 acres of land per 1 MW of capacity. Vice Mayor Scharff then asked for clarification on the discussion the UAC had with staff about selling some of its renewable portfolio. UAC Chair Foster responded that all of the City’s current renewable resources are defined as Bucket 1 resources by the state, but that the state allows utilities to use Bucket 3 resources as well as Bucket 1. So Palo Alto could theoretically sell some of its in-state Bucket 1 resources for $40 and then buy some cheaper out-of-state Bucket 3 resources to meet its RPS targets. Vice Mayor Scharff then suggested that the successor to the PaloAltoGreen program could be a program allowing people to pay a premium to buy local Feed-in Tariff generated energy. He said he thinks that would be a program that the City could sell to people. Ms. Fong responded that she thought it’s a great idea and staff would consider it. Vice Mayor Scharff said that he would like to see a plan to reach 100% clean energy and that he thinks they should vote right now to recommend that the City go with clean energy and drop the term carbon neutrality. Ms. Fong responded that she does not think this topic was on the agenda. Vice Mayor Scharff replied that of course it was on the agenda. And he said that he would like to move forward towards a clean portfolio quickly -- that he thinks we should have a goal of having a clean portfolio by sometime in 2013. He suggested replacing the phrase “with a target of 40%” from the RPS policy language proposed by staff and the UAC with “with a target of a clean portfolio by 2013.” He asked whether this would give clear direction to staff. Ms. Fong said that staff still needs direction on the definition of “clean.” Vice Mayor Scharff responded that he thinks the definition should be non carbon emitting resources –- carbon neutral, or carbon free. Council Member Burt then asked what would happen to the portion of the City’s existing renewable portfolio that would not qualify under that definition. Vice Mayor Scharff responded that the definition then should be state- defined renewables plus carbon free resources. Council Member Burt noted that with long-term contracts, often the projects don’t come online right away. And if the goal is a clean portfolio in 2013, the City may have signed contracts for resources in 2013 that don’t come online right then. He also noted that it was important not to sign a blank check in pursuing this goal. Vice Mayor Scharff said he thinks that the target should be achieved within the existing 0.5 cent rate impact limit. Council Member Burt said he does not think that the goal is achievable within the existing 0.5 cent rate impact limit, and he does not want to give staff unachievable direction. He said that if the City were to transition the PaloAltoGreen program to a program that purchases local solar energy, then this energy and perhaps the Palo Alto CLEAN energy could be defined as being outside of the 0.5 cent rate impact limit calculation. Ms. Ratchye cautioned against trying to design the PaloAltoGreen successor program at this meeting. She also noted that if these customers were to buy 100% of their energy from local solar projects it would cost a lot more than they are currently paying for PaloAltoGreen. Council Member Burt said that moving forward, he agrees with Vice Mayor Scharff that the current discussion of the City’s RPS strategy should be expanded to cover the clean energy portfolio goal. He said that he does not expect this to be the last discussion they have on this subject. He said that there are issues related to this subject that go beyond technical matters and he thinks the committee should recommend that the Mayor appoint an ad hoc committee comprised of two Council members, two UAC members, and staff working together on this plan. He thinks this arrangement would provide a valuable feedback loop that would be missing from the staff proposal to bring a plan to Council for approval at the end of the year. He suggested that the committee should recommend tonight that the Council adopt the clean energy portfolio goal as policy, and that the mayor appoint an ad hoc committee to work with staff on developing the parameters of the plan. Chair Shepherd asked whether this work should be done by an ad hoc committee or by a sub-committee of the Finance Committee. Council Member Burt said he thinks that if they can go far enough tonight to make a recommendation to Council that they should do that as a whole committee. Or if they needed more time to consider that recommendation to Council then Chair Shepherd could appoint a sub-committee of the Finance Committee to work on that before coming back to the Finance Committee before coming to a recommendation. But he said that they would not be able to get through all of the layers of consideration brought up by staff tonight. And since there are a number of members of Council and the UAC who have a lot of experience in this area, it makes sense to have a focus group of both of those groups working with staff to come up with a better product. Chair Shepherd stated that it was her preference to flush it out among the Finance Committee and then go to Council with the idea of the ad hoc committee if they think it has to go that far after working with staff and the UAC. Council Member Price said she thinks that some things that Council Member Burt said make sense, but that it sounds like they are still unclear on basic definitions and there are so many layers to this subject that need to be more clearly understood. She said she understands that there is strong technical and political interest in moving on this, but that it seems like it’s not a systematic approach to move directly to an ad hoc committee or a sub- committee right now. Chair Shepherd said that with respect to definitions, there are arguments in the environmental community and there are definitions from the state, and that they simply need to decide on their own what definitions to use. Council Member Burt said that he thinks they should attempt to take this at the high level to Council and get Council support, and then figure out how to flesh it out. And if the Mayor appoints two members or three members – it could be members of this Committee or from outside it. Chair Shepherd expressed concern that there are already two ad hoc committees, and also pointed out there there is a nimbleness possible within the Finance Committee. Council Member Burt noted that this subject is a particular area of focus and expertise, and that the members of the Finance Committee are not necessarily the same as the subset of the Council that has interest and background in this area. Vice Mayor Scharff asked staff what kind of contract they were planning to bring to Council. Mr. Stack responded that staff was in negotiations on a 20 MW solar project in California that would deliver 50 GWh per year to the City. Council Member Burt asked what percentage of the City’s total load that represented. Mr. Stack responded that it was about 5%. Council Member Burt then said that he thinks there are two subjects that were being discussed. First, the direction that staff was seeking on the issue of the RPS target. And second, the recommendation on broader policy question about the clean portfolio. Council Member Price suggested a colleague’s memo. Council Member Burt said that wasn’t necessary; that that was the work of the committee. Vice Mayor Scharff said that he would like to first go through staff’s questions and make motions to answer their questions. He said that the first question to address was whether the RPS goal should be expressed as a percentage of retail sales. Chair Shepherd said that all of the staff’s recommendations come down to the red highlighted language shown in one of the staff presentation slides. Council Member Burt then said that there are some topics being discussed in the body of the report, and then there were some recommendations on the cover. Vice Mayor Scharff said that, regarding the recommendations on the cover, he was not sure what was meant by “evaluating a Feed-in Tariff.” Ms. Ratchye pointed out the language highlighted and shown in red were the only items that staff and the UAC were recommending changing. Chair Shepherd said that she would like to also consider the idea of transitioning away from the term “feed-in tariff” and toward “Palo Alto CLEAN” even for this document. And she said that the concept of “evaluating” the feed-in tariff should be changed to “continuously evaluating” the Palo Alto CLEAN program since it already exists and will be continuously updated every year. Council Member Burt said that he agreed that since the program was already launched, evaluating the program no longer applied, and the idea should be expressed as “an ongoing evaluation of the Palo Alto CLEAN program.” He then suggested addressing some of the questions posed in the staff report that were not addressed in the recommendations section. He suggested taking them as separate motions. MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff, that we pursue a minimum level of renewable purchases of at least 33% of retail sales by 2015 -- deliberately omitting the term “with a target of 40%” from the language. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Chair Shepherd, to change the feed-in tariff evaluation language in part c of the RPS policy to “on-going evaluation of the Palo Alto CLEAN program.” MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Council Member Burt then said since those were the only actual changes to the LEAP strategy language he did not think the other topics needed motions in order to discuss them. The other committee members agreed. Council Member Burt brought up the question of adopting interim compliance period targets. Chair Shepherd noted that the staff recommendation was to not make the City’s RPS policy more complicated by adopting any interim targets. She said that she agreed with that recommendation. The other committee members said that they agreed with that as well. Chair Shepherd then moved to the next section, on the question of having the 33% RPS level being a target, not a limit. She and Council Member Burt noted that this point had been covered in their earlier motion. Chair Shepherd then moved to the next section, which covered the recommendation to not change the rate impact limit. Council Member Burt noted that when the Council considers the 100% clean energy portfolio issue they may want to change that limit but it was not necessary to do so right now. The other committee members agreed with the staff recommendation and not to change the rate impact limit. Council Member Burt then moved to make it policy that the City only use Bucket 3 RECs for contingency situations. Vice Mayor Scharff responded that he thinks the City should hold off on that because they want to decide first on how to get to the 100% clean energy portfolio first and retain maximum flexibility at this point on which resources to use. Council Member Burt then asked staff for clarification on whether they would ever buy Bucket 3 RECs without Council authorization at this point. Ms. Fong responded that they only buy RECs for PaloAltoGreen. Ms. Ratchye noted that the current RPS language could be interpreted to mean that if there is any authority left under the 0.5 cent rate impact limit, staff should go out and spend it on RECs in order to achieve the maximum possible RPS level. And so it might be good to be explicit about whether staff should be able to buy RECs. Vice Mayor Scharff said that he would support a motion stating that staff should not buy RECs without coming to Council first for authorization. MOTION: Council Member Burt moved that “pending broader policy determinations it is not the policy of the LEAP program to purchase RECs to fulfill the RPS.” Ms. Fong noted that in the event the City is short of its legal RPS requirement, staff might come to the Council seeking authorization to buy short-term RECs in order to fulfill its legal requirements. In response to that comment, Council Member Burt then added “other than for contingency situations” to his motion. He then summarized his motion: “Pending broader policy, it is not part of the Palo Alto LEAP program to purchase California Bucket 3 RECs other than for necessary compliance contingency situations.” Chair Shepherd said that she had a question about the motion. Council Member Burt said that they should see if there was a second for the motion before entertaining questions about it. He then read the motion in full again. There was no second. Chair Shepherd said that this question might be the sort of issue that would be best addressed by a sub-committee of the Finance Committee, working with the UAC and staff in developing a clean energy portfolio. Council Member Burt responded that he thinks this is something that they should be addressing tonight, establishing what the LEAP is right now while acknowledging that they are looking at making modifications to it in light of broader policy recommendations. Chair Shepherd pointed out that they have time to consider this issue later, given that the City is not close to being out of compliance with state requirements any time soon. Vice Mayor Scharff asked for clarification from staff on whether they would come to Council for approval prior to making a REC purchase if it’s not a compliance issue. Ms. Ratchye responded that if the City needed to buy short-term RECs for compliance reasons, one way they could do that would be to bring master agreements to the Council -- as was recently done for the PaloAltoGreen program. At that point, under the current municipal code authority, staff could make purchases of RECs for up to three year terms without coming to Council for further approval. Vice Mayor Scharff said that his question is whether staff would ever buy RECs if they were already over 33% RPS, and if not there was no need to make the restriction on the use of RECs that Council Member Burt proposed. Chair Shepherd said that one of the take-aways she has had from this conversation tonight is that there some issues -- such as this one -- that they need to delve into more deeply in a different forum. Council Member Price said that she agreed with Chair Shepherd that this subject could be better addressed in another forum, given that it was not an issue that would hamstring staff in the next three to six months if it was not addressed tonight. She then asked for clarification on the timeline for bringing forward the definition of the clean energy portfolio. Ms. Ratchye responded that staff would be bringing forward the first part of the discussion, about whether or not to even develop a carbon neutral plan, to Council in April. Council Member Price asked how the conversation tonight would impact what staff thought it was going to do. Ms. Fong responded that staff still planned to ask Council in April for approval to move forward on developing a carbon neutral or clean portfolio plan. Assuming Council approves, then staff would consider all of this conversation as they developed the plan. Council Member Burt said that his understanding was that staff was planning to go forward to ask Council whether they should adopt a clean energy plan, while Vice Mayor Scharff was suggesting a motion to go ahead and move forward with such a plan. MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Price, that the Finance Committee recommend to Council to move forward with a 100% clean electricity portfolio. Council Member Burt said that whereas staff was planning to ask Council whether they should look into the issue, the Committee was planning to recommend to go ahead and look into it. He then pointed out that there was a process question as to how to go forward with the consideration of the issue. He then noted that there may be a legal question if they decided to have the four members of the Finance Committee considering the issue and then an additional member from outside the Committee joining as part of the ad hoc sub-committee. He said they may need the City Attorney’s advice on whether that would be a Brown Act problem. Vice Mayor Scharff said that he thinks they should keep the discussion at the Finance Committee level for now. He pointed out that they could invite members of the UAC to come to certain meetings to discuss the issue, and they could hold more meetings if necessary. Chair Shepherd said that she would prefer that the discussion occur off-line for now, because she was concerned about the amount of time the Finance Committee would have to focus on the issue given the upcoming budget related meetings. Council Member Burt pointed out that there was an odd element to the open meeting law that says that if two members of a sub-committee meet with one of the other commissions, then by definition that must be an open meeting. Chair Shepherd suggested that they ask the UAC to come forward and guide the Committee members on this issue. Vice Mayor Scharff responded that that type of arrangement would not be nimble enough. He suggested having a couple of UAC commissioners come to a Finance Committee meeting to meet with them. Council Member Burt pointed out that this subject was fairly complex and required a good amount of background, and if the discussion was to take place at the Finance Committee level it might make sense to meet with staff to get a tutorial on these issues so that all of the Committee members would be on the same playing field. Chair Shepherd asked if there were any additional comments on the motion that was on the floor. Ms. Fong clarified that the motion was to recommend to Council that we move forward with a 100% clean electricity portfolio. Vice Mayor Scharff said he would like to add the word “average” to the motion language. Ms. Fong replied that details like that would be worked out afterward. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Vice Mayor Scharff then commented that he would like to explore his idea on transitioning the PaloAltoGreen and have staff work on it. Ms. Fong responded that staff was already planning to come back to Council with a discussion on the future of that program. City of Palo Alto (ID # 2532) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/16/2012 April 16, 2012 Page 1 of 4 (ID # 2532) Summary Title: Adoption of BAO for UASI and SVCF Grants Title: Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for FY 2012 to Appropriate Three Grant Donations: (1) in the Amount of $13,500 from the City and County of San Francisco For the Purchase of a Rapidly Deployable Shelter System, (2) in the Amount of $68,800 From the City and County of San Francisco For the Purchase of a Mobile Emergency Operations Center Support Vehicle, and (3) in the Amount of $57,000 From the Silicon Valley Community Foundation to Promote Widespread Participation by Peninsula Cities in Formulating and Implementing a Best Practices Common Model for Neighborhood Emergency Response Preparedness From: City Manager Lead Department: Fire Recommendation Adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance to Accept and Appropriate Three Grant Donations: (1) in the Amount of $13,500 from the City and County of San Francisco (the designated Approval Authority for Department of Homeland Security Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants) for the purchase of a rapidly deployable shelter system, (2) in the Amount of 68,800 from the City and County of San Francisco (the designated Approval Authority for Department of Homeland Security Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants) for the purchase of a Mobile Emergency Operations Center Support Vehicle, and (3) in the Amount of $57,000 from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation to promote widespread participation by Peninsula cities in formulating and implementing a best practices common model for neighborhood emergency response preparedness. Background In 2011, staff received two grants from the Bay Area Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) and an additional grant from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. These gifts help fill critical emergency preparedness and disaster response needs. April 16, 2012 Page 2 of 4 (ID # 2532) Discussion The first grant from UASI is in the amount of $13,500 for the purchase of a rapidly deployable shelter system. This shelter system will provide a space for key personnel to work, either at an Incident Command Post (ICP) or deployed near the Mobile Emergency Operations Center (MEOC). The second grant from UASI is in the amount of $68,800 for a MEOC Support Vehicle. In 2010, the City acquired the MEOC vehicle, which functions as a regional asset and a command post during large scale events, both planned and unplanned. The proposed support vehicle will be equipped with specialized radio, communications, and computer equipment, and other gear that will be installed or kept on board to ensure rapid deployment capabilities in an emergency. The total cost of this vehicle will be approximately $104,000; existing OES resources will be used for the remainder of the vehicle cost. The MEOC Support Vehicle (MSV) is an essential acquisition to support the Mobile Emergency Operations Center (MEOC) which the City is obligated to deploy for 1) City emergencies and events and 2) to comply with our regional obligations as a condition of the grants that supported the purchase of the MEOC. The MEOC requires a support vehicle to: 1) transport support staff (EOC Personnel, Dispatchers): the MEOC can only carry a driver and one passenger: If we do not have the MSV, the City would need to send additional vehicles to deployments. 2) carry or have installed certain specialized radio, communications, and other equipment that will not fit practicably in the MEOC or in other vehicles 3) tow solar array generators, trailers containing EOC and emergency supplies 4) facilitate EOC or Command Post operations in areas where the MEOC cannot be driven; e.g. Foothills (missing child call-out) or where a forward operating position is required The MSV will also support the deployment of equipment and supplies from our new Emergency Operations Staging Areas (EOSAs). The MSV will also support critical back-up radio, telecommunications, and data network infrastructure. For example, if we experienced the failure of radio repeaters, the MSV could be driven to a high-ground location and implement a April 16, 2012 Page 3 of 4 (ID # 2532) back-up repeater function. Some of these systems can tie into the MEOC or operate independently. The City does not currently have a suitable vehicle capable of handling the special needs of the MEOC Support Vehicle. The grant funding awarded by UASI will expire on 01/31/2013 and requires the City take delivery of the vehicle in December 2012. Due to the substantial lead time to customize this vehicle, it is critical that Palo Alto begin the acquisition process now to ensure adequate time for delivery. The purchase of this vehicle will be exempt from the City’s standard competitive bid process pursuant to PAMC section 2.30.360(b), however it will be conducted through the federal government’s General Services Administration’s (GSA) Schedule 23 V, Vehicular Multiple Award Schedule (VMAS) Federal Supply Group 42, Fire Fighting, Rescue and Safety Equipment Program. GSA Schedule contracts are competitively bid and negotiated with the intent of achieving the contractor’s “most favored customer” pricing/discounts. Advantages to purchasing through the GSA Schedule include: Schedule contracts offer a wide selection of state-of- the-art equipment and supplies; GSA has determined prices under the Schedule contracts to be fair and reasonable; Schedule contracts have been awarded in compliance with all laws and regulations; and administrative time and costs are significantly reduced. The grant from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation is in the amount of $57,000 and is to promote widespread participation by Peninsula cities in formulating and implementing a best practices common model for neighborhood emergency response preparedness. The grant funds will primarily be used to hire an outside consult to conduct emergency preparedness drills and develop documentation for emergency response preparedness. Resource Impact Staff is requesting approval of a BAO in the amount of $139,300; this will have no net impact on the Vehicle Replacement Fund Reserve, Infrastructure Reserve, or Budget Stabilization Reserve balances due to received grant funding. Maintenance costs for the MEOC Support Vehicle are anticipated at approximately $5,000 per year and will be included in future proposed budgets. April 16, 2012 Page 4 of 4 (ID # 2532) In summary, the City has been awarded three Grant Donations: (1) $13,500 for the purchase of a rapidly deployable shelter system, (2) $68,800 for the purchase of a MEOC Support Vehicle, and (3) $57,000 to promote widespread participation by Peninsula cities in formulating and implementing a best practices common model for neighborhood emergency response preparedness. The remaining $35,200 required to purchase the MEOC Support Vehicle will be provided from the existing Office of Emergency Services contract services budget. Policy Implications This recommendation is consistent with existing policies and supports the existing Council priority of Emergency Preparedness. Environmental Review Adjusting the budget to account for these grants is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and no further environmental review is necessary. Attachments: Attachment A - Sole Source (PDF) Attachment B - BAO - OES Grant Funding (PDF) Attachment C - FY2009 UASI Grant Funds November 1-2011 - signed (PDF) Attachment D - FY2010 UASI Grant Funds April 1-2011 - signed (PDF) Attachment E - Foundation Grant (PDF) Prepared By: Ken Dueker, Director of Emergency Services Department Head: Dennis Burns, Police Chief City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Date of Request: February 13, 2012 To: Adrian Brown Buyer or Contracts Administrator Ken Dueker, Director Office of Emergency Services From: (Requestor) (Department/Division) Request for the purchase of: Mobile Emergency Operations Center (MEOC) Support Vehicle (MSV) - Prime Mover Requested supplier/vendor, if known: LDV, Inc. Vendor Address: 180 Industrial Drive Burlington, WI 53105 Vendor Contact: Rick Zinnen Vendor Phone: 800-558-5986 Purchase Requisition #: Total EstimatedCost : $104,000 JUSTIFICATION: Justification must include the following: 1. A description of the unique need that necessitates a sole source or single source purchase, a product standardization request, or other type of exemption from competitive solicitation. 2. A statement describing the actions taken by the department during the search for the project or service. (e.g. which other product or service reviewed) 3. Any reviews, reports, or specifications prepared by the department during the research for available products or services. 4. Expected Term of contract. (e.g. Month Begin/End Year: Month/ Year) PROVIDE YOUR JUSTIFICATION HERE: Description of Need: The Mobile Emergency Operations Center (MEOC) was built by this vendor and delivered in 2010. The MEOC Support Vehicle requires 1) customization of certain systems to interface with the MEOC, 2) will be purchased off of the GSA Schedule through LDV, and 3) far exceeds the typical Prime Mover specification, due to extensive customization. The MEOC requires a support vehicle to: 1) transport support staff (EOC Personnel, Dispatchers): the MEOC can only carry a driver and one passenger: I2) carry or have installed certain specialized radio, communications, and other equipment that will not fit practicably in the MEOC or in other vehicles 3) tow solar array generators, trailers containing EOC and emergency supplies The grant requires delivery in Dec. 2012. The MSV will also support the deployment of equipment and supplies from our new Emergency Operations Staging Areas (EOSAs). The MSV will also support critical back-up radio, telecommunications, and data network infrastructure. For example, if we experienced the failure of radio repeaters, the MSV could be driven to a high-ground location and implement a back-up repeater function. Some of these systems can tie into the MEOC or operate independently. Search Statement: We researched other Prime Mover vehicles, for example, the Santa Clara Sheriff vehicle (also obtained on a grant), and found that such specifications did not meet the requirements to support the MEOC. Search Reviews: We have the SCSO Prime Mover spec on file, along with one from PAFD from 2006. Contract Term: April 1, 2011 – January 31, 2013 FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE APPROVAL PROCESS: After filling out your Request, please follow these instructions: 1. The departmental approval shall be obtained by sending this Request (filled out by requestor) as an attachment via email to the Department Head, who approves by typing the words: “Request Approved”. (Any approvals required prior to this step shall be obtained at the Department Head’s discretion and are not required as an attachment to the email.) 2. The Department Head then forwards the same email directly to the Buyer or Contract Manager assigned to the purchase requisition. (See name at top of form.) 3. The Buyer or Contract Manager will obtain Purchasing Manager and City Manager approvals prior to processing the Request. ORDINANCE NO. XXXX ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATION OF $13,500 FOR SUPPLIES AND $57,00 FOR CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES, AND $104,000 FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NUMBER VR-11000 SCHEDULED VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 20, 2011 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2012; and B. The Office of Emergency Services was expanded in Fiscal Year 2012 in an effort to provide an increased level of service and dedication to Emergency Preparedness. C. A rapidly deployable shelter system is needed to provide space for key personnel to work, and serve as an Incident Command Post or be deployed in addition to the Mobile Emergency Operations Center. D. An outside consultant is needed to conduct emergency preparedness drills and develop documentation for emergency response preparedness. E. A support vehicle is needed to expand emergency response capabilities and enable the City of Palo Alto to comply with obligations attached to the purchase of the Mobile Emergency Operations Center. The estimated cost for this vehicle is $104,000, which will be partially funded through a grant. F. Grant funding is available for the majority of the expenses, and additional expenses will be covered by the Office of Emergency Services avoiding any impact to the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve. G. The City of Palo Alto Office of Emergency Services received two grants from the Bay Area Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) totaling Eighty Two Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($82,300) to cover the entire cost of the rapidly deployable shelter system, and subsidize the cost of the Mobile Emergency Operations Center support vehicle. H. The City of Palo Alto Office of Emergency Services received a grant in the amount of $57,000 from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation to cover the cost of conducting emergency preparedness drills and to develop documentation for emergency response preparedness. I. The appropriation of funds for the purchase of the Mobile Emergency Operations Center support vehicle is a one-time event, and in future year maintenance cost will be provided from the Office of Emergency Service budget. J. The Fleet Review Committee (FRC) approved the purchase of the Mobile Emergency Operations Center support vehicle on March 26, 2012 with the requirement that the Office of Emergency Service cover all future maintenance and operations costs. K. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2012 budget as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2. Grant revenue totaling One Hundred Thirty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($139,300) is hereby received, and is appropriated to the Office of Emergency Services operating budget. SECTION 3. The amount of Sixty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($68,800) in grant funding and Thirty Five Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($35,200) from the Office of Emergency Services operating budget in the General Fund is hereby transferred to the Vehicle Replacement Fund. This total amount of One Hundred Four Thousand Dollars ($104,000)is appropriated to CIP Project Number VR-11000. SECTION 4. The transaction above will have no impact on the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve. SECTION 5. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance. SECTION 6. The actions taken in this ordinance do not constitute a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SECTION 7. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Senior Assistant City Attorney Public Safety Chief Director of Administrative Services AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND THE CITY OF PALO ALTO FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF FY 2009 UASI GRANT FUNDS THIS AGREEMENT is made this NOVEMBER 1, 2011, in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO ("PALO ALTO ") and the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation ("San Francisco" or "City"), In Its capacHy as fiscal agent for the UASI Approval Authority, as defined below, acting by and through San Francisco's Department of Emergency Management ("DEM"), RECITALS WHEREAS, The United States Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") consolidated the separate San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco Urban Areas into a combined Bay Area Urban Area ("UASI Region") for the purpose of application for and distribution of federal Urban Areas Security Initiative ("UASI") Program grant funds; and WHEREAS, The Bay Area UASI Region Approval Authority ("Approval Authority") was established as the Urban Area Working Group ("UAWG") for the UASI Region, to provide overall governance of the homeland security program across the UASI Region, to coordinate development and Implementation of all UASI Program Initiatives, and to ensure compliance with all UASI Program requirements; and WHEREAS, The UASI General Manager is responsible for implementing and managing the policy and program decisions of the Approval Authority, directing the work of the UASI Management Team personnel, and performing other duties as determined and directed by the Approval Authority, and WHEREAS, San Francisco has been deSignated as the grantee for UASI funds granted by the DHS through the California Emergency Management Agency (CaIEMA) to the UASI Region, with responsibility to establish procedures and execute sub grant agreements for the distribution of UASI Program grant funds to jurisdictions selected by the Approval Authority to receive grant funding; and WHEREAS, San Francisco has been deSignated to serve as the Fiscal Agent for the Approval Authority, and to establish procedures and provide all financial services for distribution of UASI Program grant funds within the UASI Region; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to grant distribution decisions by the Approval Authority, the UASI Management Team has asked San Francisco to distribute a portion of the regional UASI grant funds to PALO ALTO on the terms and conditions set forth herein; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants contained in this Agreement and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: FY09 UASI -PALO ALTO Page 1 of19 NOVEMBER 1,2011 ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS 1.1 Specific Terms. Unless the context requires otherwise, the following capitalized terms (whether singular or plural) shall have the meanings set forth below: (a) "ADA" shall mean the Americans with Disabilities Act (including all rules and regulations there under) and all other applicable federal, state and local disability rights legislation, as the same may be amended, modified or supplemented from time to time. (b) "Authorized Expenditures" shall mean expenditures for those purposes identified and budgeted In Appendix A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. (c) "Event of Default" Shall have the meaning set forth in Section 7.1. (d) "Fiscal Quarter" shall mean each period of three calendar months commencing on July 1, October 1, January 1, and April 1, respectively. (e) "Grant Funds" shall mean any and all funds allocated or disbursed to PALO AL TO under this Agreement. (f) "Grant Plan" shall mean the plans, performances, events, exhibitions, . acquisitions or other activities or matter described in Appendix A, and any budget attached hereto as part of Appendix A. (g) "Indemnified Parties" shall mean: (i) San Francisco, including DEM and all commissions, departments, agencies, and other subdivisions of San Francisco; (ii) San Francisco's elected officials, directors, officers, employees, agents, successors, and assigns; and (iii) all persons or entities acting on behalf of the foregoing. (h) "Losses" shall mean any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, claims, actions, suits, judgments, fees, expenses and costs of whatsoever kind and nature (including legal fees and expenses and costs of inVestigation, of prosecuting or defending any Loss described above) whether or not such Loss be founded or unfounded, of whatsoever kind and nature. (i) "Reimbursement Reguest" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3.1 O(a). 1.2 Additional Tenms. The terms "as directed," "as required" or "as permitted" and similar terms shall refer to the direction, requirement, or permission of City. The terms "sufficient," "necessary" or "proper" and similar terms shall mean sufficient, necessary or proper in the sole judgment of City. The terms "approval," "acceptable" or "satisfactory" or similar terms shall mean approved by, or acceptable to, or satisfactory to City. The terms "include," "included" or "including" and similar terms shall be deemed to be followed by the words ''without limitation." The use of the term "subcontractor," "successor" or "assign" herein refers only to a subcontractor ("sub grantee"), successor or assign expressly permitted under Article 8. 1.3 References to this Agreement. References to this Agreement include: (a) any and all appendices, exhibits, schedules, attachments hereto; (b) any and all statutes, ordinances, regulations or other documents expressly incorporated by reference herein; and (c) any and all amendments, modifications or supplements hereto made in accordance with Section 10.2. FY 09 UASI -PALO ALTO Page 2 of 19 NOVEMBER 1, 2011 References to articles, sections, subsections or appendices refer to articles, sections or subsections of or appendices to this Agreement, unless otherwise expressly stated. Terms such as "hereunder," herein or "hereto" refer to this Agreement as a whole. 1 A Reference to laws. Any reference in this Agreement to a federal or state statute, regulation, executive order, requirement, policy, guide, guideline or instruction shall mean that statute, regulation, executive order, requirement, policy, guide, guideline or instruction as is currently in effect and as may be amended, modified or supplemented from time to time. ARTICLE 2 ALLOCATION AND CERTIFICATION OF GRANT FUNDS; LIMITATIONS ON SAN FRANCISCO'S OBLIGATIONS 2.1 Risk of Non-Allocation of Grant Funds. This Agreement is subject to all federal and state grant requirements and guidelines, including DHS and CalEMA requirements, guidelines and instructions, decision-making of the CalEMA and the Approval Authority, and to the extent applicable the budget and fiscal provisions of the San Francisco Charter. The Approval Authority shall have no obligation to allocate or direct disbursement of funds for this Agreement in lieu of allocations for new or other agreements. PALO ALTO acknowledges that grant decisions are subject to the discretion of the CalEMA and Approval Authority. PALO ALTO assumes ali risk of possible non-allocation of funds, and such assumption is part of the consideration for this Agreement. 2.2 Certification of Controller; Guaranteed Maximum Costs. No funds shall be available under this Agreement until prior written authorization certified by the San Francisco Controller. In addition, as set forth In Section 21.19 of the San Francisco Administrative Code: (a) San Francisco's obligations hereunder shall not at any time exceed the amount approved by the Approval Authority and certified by the Controller for the purpose and period stated in such certification. (b) Except as may be provided by San Francisco ordinances goveming emergency conditions, San Francisco and its employees and officers, and the UASI Management Team and its personnel, are not authorized to request PALO ALTO to perform services or to provide materials, eqUipment and supplies that would result in PALO ALTO performing services or providing materials, equipment and supplies that are beyond the scope of the services, materials, equipment and supplies specified in this Agreement unless this Agreement is amended in writing and approved as required by law to authorize the additional services. materials, equipment or supplies. San Francisco is not required to pay PALO ALTO for services, materials, equipment or supplies that are provided by PALO ALTO that are beyond the scope of the services, materials, equipment and supplies agreed upon herein and which were not approved by a written amendment to this Agreement having been lawfully executed by San Francisco. (c) San Francisco and its employees and officers, and the UASI Management Team and its personnel, are not authorized to offer or promise to PALO ALTO additional funding for this Agreement that would exceed the maximum amount of funding provided for herein. Additional funding for this Agreement in excess of the maximum provided herein shall require lawful approval and certification by the Controller. San Francisco is not required to honor any offered or promised additional funding that exceeds the maximum provided in this Agreement that requires lawful approval and certification of the Controller when the lawful approval and certification by the Controller has not been obtained. FY 09 UASI-PALO ALTO Page 3 of 19 NOVEMBER 1, 2011 (d) The Controller is not authorized to make payments on any agreement for which funds have not been certified as available in the budget or by supplemental appropriation. 2.3 SUPERSEDURE OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS. IN THE EVENT OF ANY CONFLICT SElWEEN ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE 2 AND ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT, THE APPLICATION DOCUMENTS OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENT OR COMMUNICATION RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT, THE TERMS OF THIS ARTICLE 2 SHALL GOVERN. ARTICLE 3 PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT 3.1 Duration of Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on NOVEMBER 1. 2011, and shall end at 11 :59 p.m. San Francisco time on APRIL 15, 2012. 3.2 Maximum Amount of Funds. In no event shall the amount of Grant Funds disbursed hereunder exceed THIRTEEN THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($13,500). 3.3 Use of Funds. PALO ALTO shall use the Grant Funds received under this Agreement for the purposes and in the amounts set forth in the Grant Plan, and shall obtain the prior written approval of the UASI Management Team before transferring expenditures within the Grant Plan. 3.4 Grant Assurances; Cooperation with Monitoring. (a) PALO ALTO shall comply wHh all Grant Assurances included in Appendix S, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. PALO ALTO shall require all sub grantees, contractors and other entities receiving Grant Funds through or from PALO ALTO to execute a copy of the Grant Assurances, and shall ensure that they comply with those Grant Assurances. (b) PALO ALTO shall promptly comply with all standards, specifications and formats of San Francisco and the UASI Management Team, as they may from time to time exist, related to evaluation, planning and monitoring of the Grant Plan and compliance with this Agreement. PALO ALTO shall cooperate in good faith with San Francisco and the UASI Management Team in any evaluation, inspection, planning or monitoring activities conducted or authorized by San Francisco or the UASI Management Team. 3.5 Administrative, Programmatic and Financial Management Reguirements. PALO ALTO shall establish and maintain administrative, programmatic and financial management systems and records in accordance with federal and State of Califomia requirements. This provision requires, at a minimum, that PALO ALTO comply with the following non-exclusive list of regulations commonly applicable to DHS grants, as applicable to this Agreement and the Grant Plan: (a) Administrative Requirements: 1. 44 CFR Part 13, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments; 2. 2 CFR Part 215, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations (OMB Circular A-11 0) FY 09 UASI -PALO ALTO Page 4 of 19 NOVEMBER 1,2011 (b) Cost Principles: 1. 2 CFR Part 225. Cost Principles for State. Local. and Indian Tribal Governments (OMB Circular A-87); 2. 2 CFR Part 22. Cost Principles for Educational Institutions (OMB Circular A-21); 3. 2 CFR Part 230. Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations (OMB Circular A-122); and 4. Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). Part 31.2 Contract Principles and Procedures, Contracts with Commercial Organizations. (c) Audit Requirements: 1.0MB Circular A-133. Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non- . Profit Organizations. 3.6 Technology Requirements. (a) National Information Exchange Model ("NIEMH). PALO ALTO shall use the latest NIEM specifications and guidelines regarding the use of Extensible Markup Language ("XML") for all awards of Grant Funds; (b) Geospatial Guidance. PALO ALTO is encouraged to use Geospatial technologies, which can capture, store, analyze, transmit and/or display location-based infonnation (I.e., infonnation linked to a latitude and longitude), and to align any geospacial activities with the guidance available on the FEMA website; (c) Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating Policies. Any information technology system funded or supported by Grant Funds shall comply with 28 CFR Part 23, Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating Policies, If applicable. 3.7 Procurement Requirements. PALO ALTO Shall follow its own procurement requirements as long as those requirements comply with all applicable federal and State of California statutes, regulations, reqUirements, policies, guides, guidelines and instructions. 3.8 Subqrantee and Contractor Requirements. (a) PALO ALTO shall ensure and independently verify that any sub grantee, contractor or other entity receiving Grant Funds through or from PALO AL TO is not debarred or suspended, or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in federal assistance programs, under Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, as implemented at 44 CFR Part 17. PALO ALTO shall maintain proof of this verification in its files. PALO ALTO shall establish procedures for the effective use of the List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement or Nonprocurement Programs, to assure that it does not provide Grant Funds to excluded parties. PALO ALTO shall also establish procedures to provide for effective use and/or dissemination of the list to assure that its grantees and sub grantees, including contractors, at any tier do not make awards in violation of the non-procurement debarment and suspension common rule. (b) PALO ALTO shall ensure that any sub grantee, contractor or other entity receiving Grant Funds through or from PALO ALTO complies with the requirements of 44 CFR Part 18, New Restrictions on Lobbying; and FY 09 UASI -PALO ALTO Page 5 of 19 NOVEMBER 1,2011 (c) PALO ALTO shall ensure that any sub grantee, contractor or other entity receiving Grant Funds through or from PALO ALTO complies with the requirements of 44 CFR Part 17, Government-wide Requirements for a Drug-Free Workplace (Grants). 3.9 Monitoring Grant Performance. City and the UASI Management Team are both authorized to perform periodic reviews of PALO ALTO's performance under this Agreement, to ensure that the Grant Plan goals, objectives, performance requirements, timelines, milestone completion, budgets and other criteria are being met. Monitoring may involve on-site visits, inspection of records, and verifications of grant activities. These reviews may include, but are not limited to: (a) Evaluating eligibility of expenditures; (b) Comparing actual grant actiVITies to those approved by the Approval Authority and specified in the Grant Plan; (c) Ensuring that any advances have been deposited in an interest bearing account and disbursed in accordance with applicable guidelines; and (d) Confirming compliance with: Grant Assurances; infomnation provided on performance reports and payment requests; and needs and threat assessments and strategies. PALO ALTO is responsible for monitoring and auditing the grant activities of any of PALO ALTO's subgrantee, including mandatory on-site verffication visits. 3.10 Disbursement Procedures. San Francisco shall disburse Grant Funds to PALO ALTO as follows: (a) PALO ALTO shall submit to the UASI Management Team, in the manner specified for notices pursuant to Article 9, a document ("Reimbursement Request") substantially in the form attached as Appendix C, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. The UASI Management Team shall serve as the primary contact for PALO ALTO regarding any Reimbursement Request. (b) The UASI Management Team will review all Reimbursement Requests for compliance with this Agreement and all applicable guidelines and requirements. The UASI Management Team will return to PALO ALTO any Reimbursement Request that is submitted and not approved by the UASI Management Team, with a brief statement of the reason for the rejection of the Reimbursement Request. (c) The UASI Management Team will submit any Reimbursement Request that is approved by the UASI Management Team to OEM. City shall review the Reimbursement Request for compliance with this Agreement and all applicable guidelines and requirements. City shall return to the UASI Management Team any Reimbursement Request that is not approved by City, with a brief explanation of the reason for the rejection of the Reimbursement Request. (d) If a rejection relates only to a portion of the expenditures itemized in any Reimbursement Request, City shall have no obligation to disburse any Grant Funds for any other expenditures ITemized in such Reimbursement Request unless and until PALO ALTO submits a Reimbursement Request that is in all respects acceptable to the UASI Management Team and to CITY. FY 09 UASI -PALO ALTO Page 6 of 19 NOVEMBER 1,2011 (e) For Reimbursement Requests approved by both the UASI Management Team and City, City shall disburse Grant Funds by check payable to PALO ALTO, sent via U.S. mail in accordance with Article 9. unless City otherwise agrees in writing. in its sole discretion. City shall make disbursements of Grant Funds no more than once during each FISCAL QUARTER. (f) If PALO ALTO is not in compliance with any provision of this Agreement. City may withhold disbursement of Grant Funds until PALO ALTO has taken corrective action and currently compiles with all terms and conditions of the Agreement. 3.11 Disallowance. PALO ALTO agrees that if it claims or receives reimbursement from City for an expenditure that is later disallowed by the State of California or the federal government. PALO ALTO shall promptly refund the disallowed amount to City upon City's request. At its option, City may offset all or any portion of the disallowed amount against any other payment due to PALO ALTO hereunder. Any such offset with respect to a portion of the disallowed amount shall not release PALO ALTO from PALO ALTO's obligation hereunder to refund the remainder of the disallowed amount. 3.12 Deadline for Final Requests for Reimbursement. All requests for reimbursements must be submitted by March 30, 2012. unless an earlier deadline Is set In Appendix A. 3.13 Sustalnability. Grant Funded programs that contain continuing personnel and operating expenses, over and above planning and Implementation costs, must be sustained once the Grant Funding ends. By executing this Agreement, PALO ALTO acknowledges its responsibility and agrees to sustain continuing programs beyond the Grant Funding period. PALO ALTO acknowledges and agrees that this sustalnability requirement is a material term of the Agreement. 3.14 Sustain ability of Intelligence Gathering Activities. Grant Funds used to hire new staff and/or contractor positions to serve as Intelligence analysts will be allocated only for a total of two years. If PALO ALTO participates in the Northem California Regional Intelligence Center ("NCRIC") or uses Grant Funds for new Intelligence analyst positions, PALO ALTO shall be responsible for supporting Its share of the sustainment costs for the NCRIC or the analysts after the initial two-year period from non-federal funding sources. By executing this Agreement. PALO ALTO certifies that if it partiCipates in the NCRIC or otherwise creates new intelligence analyst positions with Grant Funds, it shall sustain operational funds for NCRIC or the new pOSitions after the initial two years from non-federal funds. PALO ALTO acknowledges that this certification is a material term of the Agreement. 3.15 EHP Requirements. (a) Grant Funded projects must comply with the federal Environmental and Historic Preservation ("EHP") program. PALO ALTO shall not initiate any project with the potential to impact environmental or historic properties or resources until CalEMA and FEMA have completed EHP reviews and approved the project. Examples of projects that may impact EHP resources include: communications towers, physical security enhancements, new construction, and modifications to buildings. structures and objects that are 50 years old or greater. PALO ALTO shall notify the UASI Management Team of any project that may require an EHP review. PALO ALTO agrees to provide detailed project information to FEMA, CaIEMA andfor the UASI Management Team, to cooperate fully In the review, and to prepare any documents requested for the review. PALO ALTO shall comply with all conditions placed on the project as the result of the EHP review, and implement any treatment or mitigation measures deemed necessary to FY 09 UASI-PALO ALTO Page 7 of 19 NOVEMBER 1. 2011 address potential adverse impacts. With prior approval of the UASI Management Team, PALO ALTO may use Grant Funds toward the costs of preparing documents and/or implementing treatment or mitigation measures. Any change to the approved project scope of work will require re-evaluation for compliance with EHP requirements. If ground disturbing activities occur during project implementation, PALO ALTO shall notify the UASI Management Team and ensure monitOring of ground disturbance. If any potential archeological resources are discovered, PALO ALTO shall immediately cease construction in that area and notify the UASI Management Team, which will notify the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office. (b) Any construction or other project that PALO ALTO initiates without the necessary EHP review and approval will not be eligible for reimbursement. Failure of PALO ALTO to meet federal, State, and local EHP reqUirements, obtain applicable permits, or comply with any conditions that may be placed on the project as the result of FEMA's and/or CaIEMA's EHP review will result in the denial of reimbursement requests. 3.16 National Energy Conservation Policy and Energy Policy Acts. PALO ALTO shall comply with the following requirements: (a) Grant Funds may not be used in contravention of the Federal buildings performance and reporting requirements of Executive Order 13123, part 3 of Title V of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 USC §8251 at seq.), or Subtitle A of Title I of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; and (b) Grant Funds may not be used in contravention of Section 303 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 USC §13212). ARTICLE 4 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS; AUDITS 4.1 Regular Reports. PALO ALTO shall provide, in a prompt and timely manner, financial, operational and other reports, as requested by the UASI Management Team or by City, in form and substance satisfactory to the UASI Management Team or City. Such reports, including any copies, shall be submitted on recycled paper and printed on double-sided pages, to the maximum extent possible. 4.2 Notification of Defaults or Changes in Circumstances. PALO ALTO shall notify the UASI Management Team and City immediately of (a) any Event of Default or event that, with the passage of time, would constitute an Event of Default; (b) any change of circumstances that would cause any of the representations or warranties contained in Article 5 to be false or misleading at any time during the term of this Agreement; and (c) any change of circumstances or events that would cause PALO ALTO to be out of compliance with the Grant Assurances in Appendix B. 4.3 Books and Records. PALO ALTO shall establish and maintain accurate files and records of all aspects of the Grant Plan and the matters funded in whole or in part with Grant Funds during the term of this Agreement. Without limiting the scope of the foregoing, PALO AL TO shall establish and maintain accurate financial books and accounting records relating to Authorized Expenditures and to Grant Funds received and expended under this Agreement, together with all invoices, documents, payrolls, time records and other data related to the matters covered by this Agreement, whether funded in whole or in part with Grant Funds. PALO ALTO shall maintain all of the files, records, books, invoices, documents, payrolls and other data required to be maintained under this Section in a readily accessible location and condition FY 09 UASI -PALO ALTO Page 8 of 19 NOVEMBER 1,2011 for a period of not less than five (5) years after final disbursement under this Agreement or until any final audit has been fully completed, whichever is later. 4.4 Inspection and Audit. PALO ALTO shall make available to the UASI Management Team and to City, and to UASI Management Team and City employees and authorized representatives, during regular business hours all of the files, records, books, invoices, documents, payrolls and other data required to be established and maintained by PALO ALTO under Section 4.3. PALO ALTO shall permit the UASI Management Team and City, and to UASI Management Team and City employees and authorized representatives to inspect, audit, examine and make excerpts and transcripts from any of the foregoing, The rights of the UASI Management Team and City pursuant to this Section shall remain in effect so long as PALO ALTO has the obligation to maintain such files, records, books, invoices, documents, payrolls and other data under this Article 4. ARTICLE 5 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES PALO ALTO represents and warrants each of the follOwing as olthe date of this Agreement and at all times throughout the term of this Agreement: 5.1 No Misstatements. No document furnished or to be furnished by PALO ALTO to the UASI Management Team or to City in connection with this Agreement, any Reimbursement Request or any other document relating to any of the foregoing, contains or will contain any untrue statement of material fact or omits or will omit a material fact necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading, under the circumstances under which any such statement shall have been made. 5.2 Eligibility to Receive Federal Funds. By executing this Agreement, PALO ALTO certifies that it is not suspended, debarred or otherwise excluded from participation in federal assistance programs, as required by Executive Order 12549 and implemented at 44 CFR Part 17. PALO ALTO acknowledges that this certification of eligibility to receive federal funds is a material term of the Agreement. 5.3 NIMS Compliance, To be eligible to receive Grant Funds, PALO ALTO must meet National Incident Management System ("NIMS") compliance requirements, and report full NIMS compliance via the National Incident Management System Capability Assessment Support Tool ("NIMSCAST"). By executing this Agreement, PALO ALTO certifies that it is in full NIMS compliance. PALO ALTO acknowledges that this certification is a material term of the Agreement. ARTICLE 6 INDEMNIFICATION AND GENERAL LIABILITY 6.1 Indemnification. PALO ALTO shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless each of the Indemnified Parties from and against any and all Losses arising from, in connection with or caused by PALO ALTO's performance of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) a material breach of this Agreement by PALO ALTO; (b) a material breach of any reprasentation or warranty of PALO ALTO contained in this Agreement; (c) any personal injury or death caused, directly or indirectly, by any act or omission of PALO ALTO or its employees, sub grantees or agents; (d) any loss of or damage to property caused, directly or indirectly, by any act or omission of PALO ALTO or its employees, sub grantees or agents; (e) the use, misuse or failure of any equipment or facility used by PALO ALTO, or by any of its employees, FY 09 UASI -PALO ALTO Page 9 of 19 NOVEMBER 1, 2011 sub grantees or agents, regardless of whether such equipment or facility is furnished, rented or loaned to PALO ALTO by an Indemnified Party; (f) any tax, fee, assessment or other charge for which PALO ALTO is responsible under Section 10.4; or (g) any infringement of patent rights, copyright, trade secret or any other proprietary right or trademark of any person or entity in consequence of the use by any Indemnified Party of any goods or services furnished to such Indemnified Party in connection with this Agreement The foregoing indemnity shall include, without limitation, reasonable fees of attorneys, consultants and experts and related costs and San Francisco's costs of investigating any claims against San Francisco. 6.2 Duty to Defend: Notice of Loss. PALO ALTO acknowledges and agrees that its obligation to defend the Indemnified Parties under Section 6.1: (a) is an immediate obligation, independent of its other obligations hereunder; (b) applies to any Loss which actually or potentially falls within the scope of Section 6.1, regardless of whether the allegations asserted in connection with such Loss are or may be groundless, false orfreudulent; and (c) arises at the time the Loss is tendered to PALO ALTO by the Indemnified Party and continues at all times thereafter. The Indemnified Party shall give PALO ALTO prompt notice of any Loss under Section 6.1 and PALO ALTO shall have the right to defend, settle and compromise any such Loss; provided, however, that the Indemnified Party shall have the right to retain its own counsel at the expense of PALO ALTO if representation of such Indemnified Party by the counsel retained by PALO ALTO would be inappropriate due to conflicts of interest between such Indemnified Party and PALO ALTO. An Indemnified Party's failure to notify PALO ALTO promptly of any Loss shall not relieve PALO ALTO of any liability to such Indemnified Party pursuant to Section 6.1, unless such failure materially impairs PALO ALTO's ability to defend such Loss. PALO ALTO shall seek the Indemnified Party's prior written consent to settle or compromise any Loss if PALO ALTO contends that such Indemnified Party shares in liability with respect thereto. 6.3 Incidental and Consequential Damages. Losses covered under this Article 6 shall include any and all inCidental and consequential damages resulting in whole or in part from PALO ALTO's acts or omissions. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver or limitation of any rights that any Indemnified Party may have under applicable law with respect to such damages. 6.4 LIMITATION ON LIABILITY OF SAN FRANCISCO. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF GRANT FUNDS ACTUALLY DISBURSED HEREUNDER. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION CONTAINED IN THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENT OR COMMUNICATION RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT, IN NO EVENT SHALL CITY BE LIABLE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ANY CLAIM IS BASED ON CONTRACT OR TORT, FOR ANY SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT, THE GRANT FUNDS, THE GRANT PLAN OR ANY ACTIVITIES PERFORMED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT. ARTICLE 7 EVENTS OF DEFAULT AND REMEDIES; TERMINAll0N FOR CONVENIENCE 7.1 Events of Default. The occurrence of anyone or more of the following events shall constitute an "Event of Default" under this Agreement: (a) False Statement. Any statement, representation, certification or warranty contained in this Agreement, in any Reimbursement Request, or in any other document FY 09 UASI -PALO ALTO Page 10 of 19 NOVEMBER 1, 2011 submitted to the UASI Management Team or to City under this Agreement is found by the UASI Management Team or by City to be false or misleading. (b) Failure to Perform Other Covenants. PALO ALTO fails to perform or breaches any provision or ccvenant of this Agreement to be performed or observed by PALO ALTO as and when performance or observance is due and such failure or breach ccntinues for a period of ten (10) days after the date on which such performance or observance is due. (c) Failure to Comply with Applicable Laws. PALO ALTO fails to perform or breaches any of the terms or provisions of Article 12. (d) . Voluntary Insolvency. PALO ALTO (i) is generally not paying its debts as they become due, (ii) files, or consents by answer or otherwise to the filing against it of,a petition for relief or reorganization or arrangement or any other petition in bankruptcy or for liquidation or to take advantage of any bankruptcy, insolvency or other debtors' relief law of any jurisdiction, (iii) makes an assignment for the benefit of its creditors, (Iv) ccnsents to the appointment of a custodian, receiver, trustee or other officer with similar powers of PALO ALTO or of any substantial part of PALO ALTO's property or (v) takes action for the purpose of any of the foregoing. (e) Involuntary Insolvency. Without ccnsent by PALO ALTO, a ccurt or government authority enters an order. and such order is not vacated within ten (10) days. (I) appointing a custodian. receiver, trustee or other officer with similar powers with respect to PALO ALTO or with respect to any substantial part of PALO ALTO's property, (ii) constituting an order for relief or approving a petition for relief or reorganization or arrangement or any other petition in bankruptcy or for liquidation or to take advantage of any bankruptcy. insolvency or other debtors' relief law of any jurisdiction or (iii) ordering the dissolution, winding-up or liquidation of PALO ALTO. 7.2 Remedies upon Event of Default. Upon and during the continuance of an Event of Default. City may do any of the following, individually or in combination with any other remedy: (a) Termination. City may terminate this Agreement by giving a written termination notice to PALO ALTO and, on the date specified in such notice, this Agreement shall terminate and all rights of PALO ALTO hereunder shall be extinguished. In the event of such termination, City will pay PALO ALTO for Authorized Expenditures in any Reimbursement Request that was submitted and approved by the UASI Management Team and by City prior to the date of termination specified in such notice. (b) Withholding of Grant Funds. City may withhold ali or any portion of Grant Funds not yet disbursed hereunder. regardless of whether PALO ALTO has previously submitted a Reimbursement Request or whether the UASI Management Team and/or City has approved the disbursement of the Grant Funds requested in any Reimbursement Request. Any Grant Funds withheld pursuant to this Section and subsequently disbursed to PALO ALTO after cure of applicable Events of Default shall be disbursed without interest. (c) Return of Grant Funds. City may demand the immediate return of any previously disbursed Grant Funds that have been claimed or expended by PALO ALTO in breach of the terms of this Agreement, together with interest thereon from the date of disbursement at the maximum rate permitted under applicable law. 7.3 Termination for Convenience. FY 09 UASI-PALO ALTO Page 11 of 19 NOVEMBER 1,2011 (a) City shall have the option, in its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement, at any time during the term hereof, for convenience and without cause. City shall exercise this option by givingPALO ALTO written notice of termination. The notice shall specify the date on which termination shall become effective. (b) Upon receipt of the notice, PALO ALTO shall commence and perform, with diligence, all actions necessary on the part of PALO ALTO to effect the termination of this Agreement on the date specified by City and to minimize the liability of PALO ALTO and City to third parties as a result of termination. All such actions shall be subject to the prior approval of the UASI Management Team. (c) Within 30 days after the specified termination date, PALO ALTO shall submit to the UASI Management Team an invoice for all Authorized Expenses incurred through the termination date. For Authorized Expenses incurred after receipt of the notice of termination, City will only reimburse PALO ALTO if the Authorized Expenses received prior approval from the UASI Management Team as specified in subparagraph (b). (d) In no event shall City be liable for costs incurred by PALO ALTO or any of its subcontractors or sub grantees after the termination date specified by City. (e) City's payment obligation under this Section shall survive termination of this Agreement. 7.4 Remedies Nonexclusive. Each of the remedies provided for in this Agreement may be exercised individually or in combination with any other remedy available hereunder or under appliceble laws, rules and regulations. The remedies contained herein are in addition to all other remedies available to City at law or in equity by statute or otherwise and the exercise of any such remedy shall not preclude or in any way be deemed to waive any other remedy. ARTICLES ASSIGNMENTS 8.1 No Assignment by PALO ALTO. PALO ALTO shall not, either directly or indirectly, assign, transfer, hypothecate, subcontract or delegate all or any portion of this Agreement or any rights, duties or obligations of PALO ALTO hereunder without the prior written consent of City; provided, however, that any subcontracts specificelly referenced in Appendix A shall not require the consent of City. This Agreement shall not, nor shall any interest herein, be assignable as to the interest of PALO ALTO involuntarily or by operation of law without the prior written consent of City. A change of ownership or control of PALO ALTO or a sale or transfer of substantially all of the assets of PALO ALTO shall be deemed an assignment for purposes of this Agreement. 8.2 Agreement Made in Violation ofthls Article. Any agreement made in violation of Section 8.1 shall confer no rights on any person or entity and shall automatically be null and void. 8.3 PALO ALTO Retains Responsibility. PALO ALTO shall in all events remain liable for the performance by any assignee, sub grantee or contractor of all of the covenants, terms and conditions in this Agreement. FY 09 UASI-PALO ALTO Page 12 of 19 NOVEMBER 1, 2011 ARTICLE 9 NOTICES AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS 9.1 Requirements. Unless otherwise specifically provided herein, all notices, consents, directions, approvals, instructions, requests and other communications hereunder shall be in writing, shall be addressed to the person and address set forth below and shall be (a) deposited in the U.S. mail, first class, certified with return receipt requested and with appropriate postage, (b) hand delivered or (c) sent via facsimile (if a facsimile number is provided below): If to San Francisco: San Francisco Department of Emergency Management 1011 Turk Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Attn: Anne Kronenberg, Executive Director Facsimile No.: (415) 558-3864 If to the UASI Management Team: VAS I Management Team 10 Lombard Street, Suite 410 San Francisco, CA 94111 Attn: Teresa Serata, Director of Strategy and Compliance Facsimile No.: (415) 705-8513 If to PALO ALTO: Palo Alto Police Department 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Dennis Burns, Police Chief Facsimile No.: (650) 671-2132 9.2 Effective Date. All communications sent in accordance with Section 9.1 shall become effective on the date of receipt. Such date of receipt shall be determined by: (a) if mailed, the return receipt, completed by the U.S. postal service; (b) if sent via hand delivery, a receipt executed by a duly authorized agent of the party to whom the notice was sent; or (c) if sent via facsimile, the date of telephonic confirmation of receipt by a duly authorized agent of the party to whom the notice was sent or, if such confirmation is not reasonably practicable, the date indicated in the facsimile machine transmission report of the party giving such notice. 9.3 Change of Address. From time to time any party hereto may designate a new address or recipient for notice for purposes of this Article 9 by written notice to the other party and the UASI Management Team. ARTICLE 10 MISCELLANEOUS 10.1 No Waiver. No waiver by San Francisco of any default or breach of this Agreement shall be implied from any failure by the UASI Management Team or San Francisco to take action on account of such default if such default persists or is repeated. No express waiver by San Francisco shall affect any default other than the default specified in the waiver and shall be FY 09 UASI -PALO ALTO Page 130/19 NOVEMBER 1,2011 operative only for the time and to the extent therein stated. Waivers by San Francisco of any covenant, term or condition contained herein shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same covenant, tenn or condHion. The consent or approval by the UASI Management Team or San Francisco of any action requiring further consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the consent or approval to or of any subsequent similar act. 10.2 Modification. This Agreement may not be modified, nor may compliance with any of its terms be waived, except by written instrument executed and approved in the same manner as this Agreement. 10.3 Governing law; Venue. The formation, interpretetion and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, without regard to its conflict of laws principles. Venue for all litigation relative to the formation, interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be in San Francisco. 10.4 PALO ALTO to Pay All Taxes. PALO ALTO shall pay to the appropriate governmental authority, as and when due, any and all taxes, fees, assessments or other governmental charges, including possessory interest taxes and California sales and use taxes, levied upon or in connection with this Agreement, the Grant Plan, the Grant Funds or any of the activities contemplated by this Agreement. 10.5 Headings. All article and section headings and captions contained in this Agreement are for reference only and shall not be considered in construing this Agreement. 10.6 Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth the entire Agreement between' the parties, and supersedes all other oral or written provisions. The following Appendices are attached to and a part of this Agreement: • Appendix A, Authorized Expenditures • Appendix B, Grant Assurances • Appendix C, Fonn of Funding Request 10.7 Certified Resolution of Signatory Authority. Upon request of San Francisco, PALO AL TO shall deliver to San Francisco a copy of the corporate resolution(s) authorizing the execution, delivery and perfonnance of this Agreement, certified as true, accurate and complete by the appropriate authorized representative of PALO ALTO. 10.8 Severability. Should the application of any provision of this Agreement to any particular facts or circumstances be found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, then (a) the validity of other provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected or impeired thereby, and (b) such provision shall be enforced to the maximum extent possible so as to effect the intent of the parties and shall be reformed without further action by the parties to the extent necessary to make such provision valid and enforceable. 10.0 Syccessors; No Third-Partv Beneficiaries. Subject to the terms of Article 8, the tenns of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their successors and assigns. Nothing in this Agreement, whether express or implied, shall be construed to give any person or entity (other than the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns and, in the case of Article 6, the Indemnified Parties) any legal or equitable right, remedy or claim under or in respect of this Agreement or any covenants, conditions or provisions contained herein. FY 09 UASI-PALO ALTO Page 14 of 19 NOVEMBER 1, 2011 10.10 Survival of Terms. The obligations of PALO ALTO and the terms of the following provisions of this Agreement shall survive and continue following expiration or termination of this Agreement: Sections 4.3 and 4.4, Article 6, this Article 10, and the Grant Assurances of Appendix B. 10.11 Further Assurances. From and after the date of this Agreement, PALO ALTO agrees to do such things, perform such acts, and make, execute, acknowledge and deliver such documents as may be reasonably necessary or proper and usual to complete the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and to carry out the purpose of this Agreement in accordance with this Agreement. ARTICLE 11 INSURANCE 11,1 Types and Amounts of Coverage. Without limiting PALO ALTO's liability pursuant to Article 6 of this Agreement, PALO ALTO shall maintain in force, during the full term of the Agreement, insurance in the following amounts and coverages: (a) Workers' Compensation, in statutory amounts, with Employers' Liability Limns not less than $1,000,000 each accident, injury, or illness; and (b) Commercial General Liability Insurance wHh limits not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence Combined Single Limit for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including Contractual Liability, Personal Injury, Products and Completed Operations; and (c) Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence Combined Single Limit for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including Owned, Non-Owned and Hired auto coverage, as applicable. 11.2 Additional Reguirements for General and Automobile Coverage, Commercial General Liability and Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance policies must be endorsed to provide: (a) Name as Additional Insured the Cny and County of San Francisco, its Officers, Agents, and Employees. (b) That such policies are primary insurance to any other insurance available to the Additional Insureds, with respect to any claims arising out of this Agreement, and that Insurance applies separately to each Insured against whom claim Is made or suit is brought. 11.3 Additional Requirements Regarding Workers' Compensation. Regarding Workers' Compensation, PALO ALTO hereby agrees to waive subrogation wihich any Insurer of PALO ALTO may acquire from PALO ALTO by virtue of the payment of any loss. PALO ALTO agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation. The Workers' Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City for all work performed by the PALO ALTO, its employees, agents and subcontractors. 11.4 AdClitional Regulrements for All Policies. All policies shall provide thirty days' advance written notice to the City of reduction or nonrenewal of coverages or cancellation of coverages for FY 09 UASI -PALO ALTO Page 15 of 19 NOVEMBER 1,2011 any reason. Notices shall be sent to the City address in Article 9, Notices and Other Communications. 11.5 Required Post-Expiration Coverage. Should any of the required insurance be provided ur'ider a claims-made form, PALO ALTO shall maintain such coverage continuously throughout the term of this Agreement and, without lapse, for a period of three years beyond the expiration of this Agreement, to the effect that, should oocurrences during the Agreement term give rise to claims made after expiration of the Agreement, such claims shall be covered by such claims- made policies. 11.6 General Annual Aggregate Limit/Inclusion of Claims Investigation or Legal Defense Costs. Should any of the required insurance be provided under a form of coverage that includes a general annual aggregate limit or provides that claims investigation or legal defense costs be included in such general annual aggregate limit, such general annual aggregate limit shall be double the occurrence or claims limits specified above . . 11.7 Lapse in Insurance. Should any required insurance lapse during the term of this Agreement, requests for reimbursement originating after such lapse may not be processed, in the City's sale discretion, until the City receives satisfactory evidence of reinstated coverage as required by this Agreement, effective as of the lapse date. If insurance is not reinstated, the City may, at its sale option, terminate this Agreement effective on the date of such lapse of insurance. 11.8 Evidence of Insurance. Before commencing any operations or expending any Grant Funds under this Agreement, PALO ALTO shall furnish to City certificates of insurance and additional insured policy endorsements with insurers with ratings comparable to A-, VIII or higher, that are authorized to do business in the State of California, and that are satisfactory to City, in form evidencing all coverages set forth above. Failure to maintain insurance shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement. 11.9 Effect of Approval. Approval of the insurance by City shall not relieve or decrease the liability of PALO ALTO hereunder. 11.10 Insurance for Subcontractors and Evidence of this Insurance. If a subcontractor or sub grantee will be used to complete any portion of this Agreement, PALO ALTO shall ensure that the subcontractor or sub grantee shall provide all necessary insurance and shall name the City and County of San FranCisco, its officers, agents and employees and the PALO ALTO as additional insureds. 11.11 Authority to Self-Insure. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude PALO ALTO from seff-insuring all or part of the insurance raquirement in this Article. However, PALO ALTO shall provide proof of self-insurance, in a form acceptable to San Francisco, in the amounts of each line of self-insurance. ARTICLE 12 COMPLIANCE 12.1 Nondiscrimination. In the performance of this Agreement, PALO ALTO agrees not to discriminate against any employee, San Francisco employee working with PALO ALTO or any sub grantee of PALO ALTO, applicant for employment with PALO ALTO or sub grantee of PALO ALTO, or against any person seeking aocommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, services, or membership in all business, social, or other establishments or organizations, on the basis of the fact or perception of a person's race, color, creed, religion, national origin, ancestry, FY 09 UASI -PALO ALTO Page 16 of 19 NOVEMBER 1, 2011 age, height, weight, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, domestic partner status, marital status, disability or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome or HIV status (AI DS/HIV status), or association with members of such protected classes, or in retaliation for opposition to discrimination against such classes. 12.2 Conflict of Interest. Through its execution of this Agreement, PALO ALTO acknowledges that it is familiar with the provisions of Section 87100 et seq. and Section 1090 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California, and certifies that it does not know of any facts which constitutes a violation of said provisions and agrees that it will immediately notify City if it becomes aware of any such fact during the term of this Agreement. 12.3. Compliance with ADA. PALO ALTO acknowledges that, pursuant to the ADA, programs, services and other activities provided by a public entity to the public, whether directly or through a grantee or contractor, must be accessible to the disabled public. PALO ALTO shall not discriminate against any person protected under the ADA in connection witih all or any portion of the Grant Plan and shall comply at all times with the provisions of the ADA. 12.4 Prohibition on Political Activity with City Funds. In accordance with San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 12.G, PALO ALTO may not partlcipata in, support, or attempt to influence any political campaign for a candidate or for a ballot measure (collectively, "Political Activity") in the performance of the services provided under this Agreement. PALO ALTO agrees to comply with San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 12.G and any implementing rules and regulations promulgated by San Francisco's Controller. The terms and provisions of Chapter 12.G are incorporated herein by this reference. In the event Contractor violates tihe provisions of this section, San Francisco may, in addition to any otiher rights or remedies available hereunder, (i) terminate this Agreement, and (ii) prohibit PALO ALTO from bidding on or receiving any new City contract for a period of two (2) years. The Controller will not consider PALO ALTO's use of profit as a violation of this section. 12.5 Submitting False Claims; Monetary Penalties. Pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code §21.35, any contractor, subcontractor or consultant who submits a false cfaim shall be liable to the City for the statutory penalties set forth in tihat section. The text of Section 21.35, along with the entire San Francisco Administrative Code is available on the web at http://www.municode.comILfbraryfclientCodePage.aspx?clientID=4201. A contractor, subcontractor or consultant will be deemed to have submitted a false claim to the City if the contractor, subcontractor or consultant: (a) knowingly presents or causes to be presented to an officer or employee of the City a false claim or request for payment or approval; (b) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used a false record or statement to get a false claim paid or approved by the City; (c) conspires to defraud the City by getting a false claim allowed or paid by the City; (d) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used a false record or . statement to conceal, avoid, or decrease an obligation to payor transmit money or property to the City; or (e) is a beneficiary of an inadvertent submission of a false claim to the City, subsequently discovers tihe falsity of the claim, and fails to disclose the false cfaim to tihe City within a reasonable time after discovery of the false claim FY 09 UASI -PALO ALTO Page 17 of 19 NOVEMBER 1 , 2011 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the date first specified herein. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO: CITY OF PALO ALTO: SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT By: ANNE KRONENBERG EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Approved as to Form: Dennis J. Herrera City Attorney By: -~~~"7":-:-C--=-""----Katharine Hobin Porter Deputy City Attorney ~L~MM-CJ Jf>I ESKEENE \~TY MANAGER Federal Tax 10 #: 94-6000389 CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE APPROVED AS TO FORM SIGNATURE;~ -- DATE: zhjU):"L FY 09 UASI-PALO ALTO Page 18 of 19 NOVEMBER 1,2011 Appendix A -Authorized Expenditures and TImelines ENTITY: PALO ALTO T olal allocation to b e soent on the ollowlno so ution areas: f I . UASI Project Solution Deliverable i--" .. Title Area Proaram Descriotlon Dates Amount. __ ! ! Funding used to purchase equipment in Project E CBRNE Detection Equipment and Response I order to enhance the Mobile Emergency Operations Center's (MEOC) ability to serve as an EOC, Rapidly deployable shelter system - AEL#: 19S5-00·SHEL Equipment must be purchased and installed by 0212912012. Reimbursement for equipment purchases requires: • An approved EHP memo, if required. • As allowable under Federal guidelines, procurement of equipment must follow local policies and procedures for competitive purchasing. • At a minimum, more than one quote or bid must be obtained, unless a sole source is justified. If sole source approval is needed, PALO ALTO must ransmit the r uest to the UASI t eq for request to the State. • Prior to reimbursement, PALO ALTO must submit all invoices. AEL numbers, and a list of all equipment I D numbers and the deployed locations. • All reimbursement requests must be i-___ -r-___ +--=submitted b not later than 3130/12. TOTAL ALLOCATION : 212912012 $13,500 NOTTO EXCEED: $13,500 • All requests for reimbursements must be submitted by March 30, 2012, unless an earlier deadline is set In this Appendix. • Authorized expenditures must fall into one of the following categories: Planning, Organization, Equipment, Training, or Exercises. Descriptions of authorized expenditures are in the following documents: FY 09 UASI-PALO ALTO A·1 NOVEMBER 1,2011 • FY 2009 Homeland Security Grant Program, Guidance and Application Kit dated November, 2008: http://www.ohs.ca.govlpdflFY09 Fed Guidance.pdf • California Supplement to Federal Program Guidance and Application Kit: http://www.ohs.ca.govlpdfIFY09 HSGP Supplement Guidance final. pdf • Authorized Equipment List: www.rkb.us • Office of Justice Programs Financial and Administrative Guide for Grants: http://www.ojp.usdoj.govlfinancialguidel • Any equipment purchased under this Agreement must match the UASI 2009 Grant Application Worlcbook. Any modlncation to the inventory list in that Worlcbook must receive prior written approval from by the Bay Area UASI Program Manager. • No Management and Administration expenses are allowed. unless expressly identified and authorized in this Appendix. • Sustainablfltv requirements may apply to some or all of the grant funded proiects or programs authorized in this Appendix. See Agreement, 1I1l3.13. 3.14. • All EHP documentation must be submitted and approved prior to any expenditure of funds requiring EHP submission. FY 09 UASI-PALO ALTO A-2 NOVEMBER 1, 2011 Appendix B·· Grant Assurances Name of Jurisdiction: CITY OF PALO ALTO Name of Authorized Agent: Dennis Burns. Chief of Police Address: 275 Forest Avenue City: Palo Alto State: _-",C,,-,A,--_ Zip Code: 94301 Telephone Number: (650) 329-2301 Fax Number: (650)617-3120 E-Mail Address: Dennis.Bums@citvofpaloalto.org As the duly authorized representative of the City of PALO ALTO, I certify that PALO ALTO: 1. Has the legal authority to apply for Federal assistance and has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure proper planning, management and completion of the grant provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and sUb-granted through the State of California, California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA). 2. Will assure that grant funds are used for allowable, fair, and reasonable costs only and will not be transferred between programs (State Homeland Security Program, Urban Area Security Initiative, Citizen Corps Program, and Metropolitan Medical Response System) or fiscal years. 3. Will comply with any cost sharing commitments included in the FY09 Investment Justifications submitted to DHS/FEMAICal EMA, where applicable. 4. Will give the Federal government, the General Accounting Office, the Comptroller General of the United States, the State of Califomia, through any authorized representative, access to, and the right to examine, all paper or electronic records, books, or documents related to the award; and will establish a proper accounting system in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards and/or awarding agency directives. 5. Agrees that funds utilized to establish or enhance State and Local fusion centers must support the development of a statewide fusion process that corresponds with the Global Justice/Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) Fusion Center Guidelines and achievement of a baseline level of capability as defined by the Fusion Capability Planning Tool. 6. Will provide progress reports, and other such information as may be required by the awarding agency, including the Initial Strategy Implementation Plan (ISIP) within 45 (forty- five) days ofthe award, and update via the Grant Reporting Tool (GRT) twice each year. 7. Will initiate and complete the work within the applicable time frame after receipt of approval from Cal EMA. 8. Will maintain procedures to minimize the time elapsing between the award of funds and the disbursement of funds. FY 09 UASI-PALO ALTO B-1 NOVEMBER 1,2011 Initials: fJ!2t1:> 9. Will comply with all provisions of DHS/FEMA's codified regulation 44, including Part 13, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments, including the peyment of interest earned on advances. 10. Will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their positions for a purpose that constitutes, or presents the appearance of, personal or organizational conflict of interest, or personal gain for themselves or others, particularly those with whom they have family, business, or other ties, 11. Agrees that, to the extent contractors or subcontractors are utilized, grantees and sub grantees shall use small, minority, women-owned. or disadvantaged business concerns and contractors or subcontractors to the extent practicable. 12. Will notify Cal EMA of any developments that have a significant impact on award- supported activities, including changes to key program staff, 13. Will comply, if applicable, with the Lead-Based Paint POisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 4801 et seq.) which prohibits the use of lead based paint in construction or rehabilitation of residence structures. 14, Understands and agrees that Federal funds will not be used, directly or indirectly, to support the enactment, repeal, modification or adoption of any law, regulation, or policy, at any level of government, without the express prior written approval from DHS/FEMAICaI EMA 15. Will comply with all Federal Statutes relating to Civil Rights and Nondiscrimination. These include, but are hot limited to; a. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L 88-352), as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin. b. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1683 and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender. c. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. § 794), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicaps. d. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42 U,S,C, §§ 6101-6107), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age. e. The Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (P.L 92-255), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse. f. The Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (P.L 91-616). as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or alcoholism. g. §§ 523 and 527 of the Public Health Service Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. 290 dd-3 and 290 ee-3), as amended, relating to confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records, h. Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination in the sale. rental or financing of housing. i. Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 7. 16, and 19 relating to nondiscrim ination. j. The requirements on any other nondiscrimination provisions in the specific statute(s) under which the application for Federal assistance is being made. FY 09 UASI-PALO ALTO B-2 NOVEMBER 1,2011 Initials: J;t/3 (;:; k. In the event that a Federal or State court or Federal or State administrative agency makes a finding of discrimination after a due process hearing on the grounds or race, color, religion, national origin. gender, or disability against a recipient of funds, will forward a copy of the finding to the Office of Civil Rights, Office of Justice Programs. I. Will provide an Equal Employment OpportunHy Plan, if applicable, to the Department 6fJiiSlice Office of Civil Rights within 60 days of grant award ... m. Will comply, and assure the compliance of all its sub grantees and contractors, with the nondiscrimination requirements and all other provisions of the current edition of the Office of Justice Programs Financial and Administrative Guide for Grants, M7100.1. 16. Will comply with the requirements of Titles II and III of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. § 4601 et seq. [P.L. 91- 646]), which provides for fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced or whose property is acquired as a result of Federal or Federally assisted programs. These requirements apply to all interested in real property acquired for project purposes regardless of Federal participation in purchases. Will also comply with Title 44 CFR, Part 25, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federal and Federally-assisted programs. 17. Will comply, if applicable, with the flood insurance purchase requirements of Section 102(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234), which requires recipients in a special flood hazard area to partiCipate in the program and to purchase flood insurance if the total cost of insurable construction and acquisition is ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or more. 18. Will comply with all applicable Federal, State. and Local environmental and historical preservation (EHP) requirements. Failure to meet Federal, State, and Local EHP requirements and obtain applicable permits may jeopardize Federal funding. Will comply with all conditions placed on any project as the result of the EHP review; any change to the scope of wo~ of a project will require reevaluation of compliance with these EHP requirements. 19. Agrees not to undertake any project having the potential to impact the EHP resources without the prior written approval of DHSIFEMAICal EMA, including, but not limited to, communications towers, physical security enhancements, new construction and modifications to buildings that are fifty (50) years old or more. Any construction related activities initiated prior to full EHP review will result in a noncompliance finding. If ground- disturbing activities occur during the project implementation, the recipient must ensure monitoring of the disturbance. If any potential archeological resources are discovered, the recipient will immediately cease activity in that area and notify DHSIFEMAIGaI EMA and the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office. 20. Will ensure that the facilities under its ownership, lease or supervision, which shall be utilized in the accomplishment of this project, are not on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPAs) List of Violating Facilities, and will notify Gal EMA and the Federal Grantor agency of the receipt of any communication from the Director of the EPA Office of Federal Activities indicating jf a facility to be used in the project is under consideration for listing by the EPA. FY 09 UASI -PALO ALTO B·3 NOVEMBER 1, 2011 Initials: ~ 21. Will provide any information requested by DHS/FEMAICal EMA to ensure compliance with applicable laws, including the following: a. Institution of environmental quality control measures under the National Environmental Policy Act, National Historical Preservation Act, Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act, Endangered Species Act, and ExecuTIve Orders on Floodplains (11lJff8j,Wetiafids (11990) and Environmental Justice (E012898) arid Erivlfonmenlal Quality (E011514). b. Notification of violating facilities pursuant to EO 11738. c. Assurance of project consistency with the approved state management program developed under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq.). d. Conformity of Federal actions to State (Clean Air) Implementation Plans under Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act of 1955, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 7401 at seq.). e. Protection of underground sources of drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended, (P.L. 93-523). f. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). California Public Resources Code Sections 21080-21098. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 Section 15000-15007. g. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1271 et.seq.) related to protecting components or potential components of the national wild and scenic rivers system. h. Applicable provisions of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) dated October 19, 1982 (16 USC 3501 et seq.) which prohibits the expenditure of most new Federal funds within the units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System. 22. Will comply with Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) requirements as stated in the Califomia Emergency Services Act, Government Code, Chapter 7 of Division 1 of Tille 2, Section 8607.1 (e) and CCR ntle 19, Sections 2445, 2446, 2447, and 2448. 23. Agrees that all publications created or published with funding under this grant shall prominently contain the following statement: "This document was prepared under a grant from FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate, U. S. Department of Homeland Security. Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of FEMA 's Grant Programs Directorate or the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. "The recipient also agrees that, when practicable, any equipment purchased with grant funding shall be prominently marked as follows: "Purchased with funds provided by the U. S. Department of Homeland Security." 24. Acknowledges that DHSIFEMA reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable licanse to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and authorize others to use, for Federal government purposes: a) the copyright in any work developed under an award or sub- award; and b) any rights of copyright to which a reCipient or sub-recipient purchases ownership with Federal support. 25. The reCipient agrees to consult with DHSIFEMAICal EMA regarding the allocation of any patent rights that arise from, or are purchased with, this funding. 26. Has requested through the State of California, Federal financial assistance to be used to perform eligible work approved in the submitted application for Federal aSSistance and FY 09 UASI -PALO ALTO B-4 NOVEMBER 1,2011 Initials: M!? after the receipt of Federal financial assistance, through the State of California, agrees to the following: a. Promptly return to the State of California all the funds received which exceed the approved, actual expenditures as accepted by the Federal or State government. b. In the event the approved amount of the grant is reduced, the reimbursement applicable to theamourit of the reduction will be promptly refunded to .the State of California. c. Separately account for interest earned on grant funds, and will return all interest earned, in excess of $100 per Federal Fiscal Year. 27. Will comply with the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. Sections 4728- 4763) relating to prescribed standards for merit systems for programs funded under one of the nineteen statutes or regulations specified in Appendix A of OPM's Standards for a Merit System of Personnel Administration (5 C.F.R. 900, Subpart F). 28. Will comply with provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. Sections 1501-1508 and 7324- 7328) which limit the political activities of employees whose principal employment activities are funded in whole or in part with Federal funds. 29. Will comply, if applicable, with P.L. 93-348 regarding the protection of human subjects involved in research, development, and related activities supported by this award of assistance. 30. Will comply. if applicable, with the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (P. L 89-544, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) pertaining to the care, handling, and treatment of wamn blooded animals held for research, teaching, or other activities supported by this award of assistance. 31. Will comply with the minimum wage and maximum hour provisions of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 201). as they apply to employees of Institutions of higher education, hospitals, and other non-profit organizations. 32. Will comply, as applicable, with the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. Section 276a to 276a-7), the Copeland Act (40 U.S.C. Section 276c and 18 U.S.C. Sections 874). and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. Sections 327-333), regarding labor standards for Federally assisted construction sub-agreements. 33. Agrees that: a. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the making of any Federal grant, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal grant or cooperative agreement. b. If any other funds than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or an employee of Congress, or employee of a Member of COngress in connection with the Federal grant or cooperative FY 09 UASI-PALO ALTO 8-5 NOVEMBER 1, 2011 Initials: .~ agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submH Standard Form LLL, "Disclosure of Lobbying Activities," in accordance with its instructions. c. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all sub awards at all tiers including subgrants, contracts under grants and cooperative agreements, and subcontract(s) and that all sub recipients 'shall ceftifYanadisclose accordingly. . .. , d. This certificetion is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who faUs to file the required certificetion shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. 34. Agrees that eqUipment acquired or obtained with grant funds: a. Will be made available pursuant to applicable terms of the Califomia Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement in consuHation with representatives of the various fire, emergency medicel, hazardous materials response services, and law enforcement agencies within the jurisdiction of the applicant, and deployed with personnel trained in the use of such equipment in a manner consistent with the Galifomia Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Plan or the Califomia Fire Services and Rescue Mutual Aid Plan. b. Is consistent with needs as identified in the State Homeland Security Strategy and will be deployed in conformance with that Strategy. 35. Agrees that funds awarded under this grant will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not supplant (replace) non-Federal funds. 36. Will comply with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, policies, guidelines and requirements, including OMB Circulars A 102 and A-133, E.O. 12372 and the current Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements. Will also comply with Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 66 and 70, that govem the application, acceptance and use of Federal funds for Federally assisted projects. 37. Will comply with Subtitle A, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 1990. 38. Agrees to cooperate with any assessments, national evaluation efforts, or information or data collection requests, including, but not limited to, the provision of any information required for the assessment or evaluation of any ~ctivities within this agreement. 39. Will comply with all provisions of 2 CFR, including: Part 215 Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations (OMB Circular A-11 0); Part 225 Cost Principles for State, Locel and Indian Tribal Governments (OMB Circular A-8?); Part 220 Cost Principles for Educational Institutions (OMB Circular A-21); Part 230 Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations (OMB Circular A-122). 40. Will comply with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), part 31.2 Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, Contracts with Commercial Organizations. FY 09 UASI -PALO ALTO B-6 NOVEMBER 1,2011 11 f) D.. In~ials: _(I:JI_IO/ 41. Will comply with the financial and administrative requirements set forth in the current edition of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) Financial Guide and the current DHS Financial Management Guide. 42. Agrees that all allocations and use of funds under this grant will be in accordance with the . FY2009 HOmeland Security Grant Program Guidance and Application Kit. and the . Califomia Supplement to the FY 2009 Homeland Security Grant Program Guidance and Application Kit All allocations and use of funds under this grant will be in accordance with the Allocations, and use of grant funding must support the goals and objectives included in the State andlor Urban Area Homeland Security Strategies as well as the investments identified in the Investment Justifications which were submitted as part of the California FY2009 Homeland Security Grant Program application. Further, use of FY09 funds is limited to those investments included in the California FY091nvestment Justifications submitted to DHS/FEMNCal EMA and evaluated through the peer review process. 43. Will not make any award or permit any award (subgrant or contract) to any party which is debarred or suspended or is otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs under Executive Order 12549 and 12689, "Debarment and Suspension". 44. As required by Executive Order 12549, Debarment and Suspension, and implemented at 44 CFR Part 17, for prospective participants in primary covered transactions, a. The applicant certifies that it and its principals: i. Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, sentenced to a denial of Federal benefits by a State or Federal court, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency. ii. Have not within a three-year period preceding this application been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property. iii. Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1 )(b) of this certification; and have not within a three-year period preceding this application had one or more public transactions (Federal, State, or local) terminated for cause or defauH; and b. Where the applicant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, he or she shall attach an explanation to this application. 45. Agrees to comply with the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, and certifies that it will or will continue to provide a drug-free workplace by: a. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition. b. Establishing an on-gOing drug-free awareness program to inform employees about: i. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; FY 09 UASI-PALO ALTO B-7 NOVEMBER 1, 2011 IniliaIS:~ ii. The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; iii. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and iv. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace. -·-c.~MaKlng Itareqairementthat each employee to be engagEldin the performancel:fttre- grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph (a). d. Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (a) that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee will: i. Abide by the terms of the statement; and Ii. Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace no later than five calendar days after such conviction. e. Notifying the agency, in writing, within 10 calendar days after receiving notice under subparagraph (d)(2) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must provide notice, including position titie, to: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs AnN: Control Desk 633 Indiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20531 Notice shall include the identification number(s) of each affected grant. f. Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under subparagraph (d)(2), with respect to any employee who is so convicted. i. Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or ii. Requiring such employee to partiCipate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency. g. Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). 46. Will comply with all applicable requirements of all other Federal laws, executive orders, regulations, program and administrative requirements, policies and any other requirements governing this program. 47. Understands that failure to comply with any of the above assurances may result in suspension, termination. or reduction of grant funds. FY09 UASI-PALO ALTO B-8 NOVEMBER 1,2011 'r\ fI D. Initials: _t;)t_Lf./ The undersigned represents that he/she is authorized by the above named PALO ALTO to enter into this agreement for and on behalf of the sai~ PA~ . _ Si!;Jn_a_ture~_AuthorizedAgent: ~ ... _____ ---- Printed Name of Authorized Agent __ -"'D"'e"'nn"'is"'--"B"'Uw.rn"'s ___ -.-_t-____ _ Title: Chief of Police Date:_...::2-=II-~tt.4-Jj;r...:/:..-·'2----=-___ _ FY 09 UASI -PALO ALTO B-9 NOVEMBER 1. 2011 /I. f)J)., Initials: _~_ Appendix C -Form of Reimbursement Request ____ ,2011 UASI Management Team 10 Lombard Street, Suite 410 San Francisco, CA 94111 REIMBURSEMENT REqUEST Re: FY 09 UASI Grant Reimbursement Request Pursuant to Section 3,10 of the Agreement Between the City and County of San Francisco and the City of Palo Alto for the Distribution of FY 2009 UASI Grant Funds (the "Agreement"), dated November 1, 2011, between the City of Palo Alto ("PALO ALTO") and the City and County of San Francisco, PALO ALTO hereby raquests reimbursement as follows: Total Amou nt of Reimbursement Requested in this $, _____ _ Request: Maximum Amount of Funds Specified in Section 3,2 olthe Agreement: $ _____ _ Total of All Funds Disbursed Prior to this Request: $'---____ _ PALO ALTO certnies that: (a) The total amount of funds requested pursuant to this Funding Request will be used to reimburse PALO ALTO for Authorized Expenditures, which expenditures are set forth on the attached Schedule 1, to which are attached true and correct copies of all required documentation of such expenditures, (b) After giving effect to the disbursement requested pursuant to this Reimbursement Request, the Funds disbursed as of the date of this disbursement will not exceed the maximum amount set forth in Section 3.2 of the Agraement, or the not to exceed amounts specified in Appendix A for specific projects and programs. (c) The representations, warranties and certffications made in the Agreement are true and correct in all material respects as if made on the date hereof, and PALO ALTO is in compliance with all Grant Assurances in Appendix B; FY 09 UASI -PALO ALTO C-1 NOVEMBER 1, 2011 (d) No Event of Default has occurred and is continuing; and (e) The undersigned is an officer of PALO ALTO authorized to execute this Reimbu!~ernent Request on behalf of PALO ALTO. Signature of Authorized Agent Printed Name of Authorized Agent: Title: ')1, It ;~ Cl1:..eJ: FY 09 UASI -PALO ALTO C-2 NOVEMBER 1, 2011 SCHEDULE 1 TO REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT The following is an itemized Jist of Authorized Expenditures for which reimbursement is l'equest6a: The following are attached as part of this Schedule 1: (i) An invoice for each item of expenditure for which reimbursement is requested; (ii) The front and the back of canceled checks or other written evidence documenting the payment of each invoice; (iii) For expenditures which are wages or salaries, payroll registers containing a detailed breakdown of earnings and with holdings, together with both sides of canceled payroll checks evidencing payment thereof (unless payment has been made electronically). FY 09 UASI-PALO ALTO C-3 NOVEMBER 1, 2011 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND THE CITY OF PALO ALTO FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF FY 2010 UASI GRANT FUNDS THIS AGREEMENT is made this APRIL 1,2011, in the City and County of San Francisco, State of Califomia, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO ("PALO ALTO") and the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation ("San Francisco" or "City"), in its capacity as fiscal agent for the Approval Author"y, as defined below, acting by and through the San Francisco Department of Emergency Management ("OEM"), RECITALS WHEREAS, The United States Department of Homeland Secur~ ("DHS") consolidated the separate San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco Urban Areas into a combined Bay Area Urban Area ("UASI Region") for the purpose of application for and allocation and distribution of federal Urban Areas Security Initiative ("UASI") program grant funds; and WHEREAS, The Bay Area Urban Area Approval Authority ("Approval Authority") was established as the Urban Area Working Group ("UAWG") for the UASI Region, to provide overall governance of the homeland security grant program across the UASI Region, to coordinate development and implementation of all UASI program initiatives, and to ensure compliance with all UASI program requirements; and ' WHEREAS, The UASI General Manager is responsible for implernenting and managing the policy and program decisions of the Approval Authority, directing the work of the UASI Management Team personnel, and performing other duties as deterrnined and directed by the Approval Authority, and WHEREAS, San Francisco has been deSignated as the grantee for UASI funds granted by the DHS through the California Emergency Management Agency ("CaIEMA") to the UASI Region, with responsibility to establish procedures and execute subgrant agreements for the distribution of UASI program grant funds to jurisdictions selected by the Approval Authority to receive grant funding; and WHEREAS, San Francisco has been designated to serve as the fiscal agent for the Approval Authority, and to establish procedures and provide all financial services for distribution of UASI program grant funds within the UASI Region; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to grant allocation decisions by the Approval Authority, the UASI Management Team has asked San Francisco to distribute a portion ofthe regional UASI grant funds to PALO ALTO on the terms and conditions set forth herein; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants contained in this Agreement and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: FY 10 UASI -PALO ALTO Page 1 of 21 April 1, 2011 ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS 1.1 Specific Tenns. Unless the context requires otherwise, the following capitalized terms (whether singular or plural) shall have the meanings set forth belOW: (a) "ADA" shall mean the Americans with Disabilities Act (including all rules and regulations there under) and all other applicable federal, state and local disability rights legislation, as the same may be amended, modified or supplemented from time to time. (b) "Authorized Expenditures" shall mean expenditures for those purposes identified and budgeted in Appendix A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. (c) "Event of Default" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 7.1. (d) "Fiscal Quarter" shall mean each period of three calendar months commencing on July 1, October 1, January 1, and April 1 , respectively. (e) "Grant Funds" shall mean any and all funds allocated or disbursed to PALO ALTO under this Agreement. (f) "Grant Plan" shall mean the plans, performances, events, exhibitions, acquisitions or other activities or matter, and the budget and requirements, described in Appendix A. If PALO ALTO requests any modification to the Grant Plan, PALO ALTO shall submit a written request to the UASI General Manager with the following information: Scope of change requested, reason for change, proposed plan for change, summary of approved and requested modifications to the Grant Plan, and any necessary approvals in support of change (e.g., EHP). (g) "Indemnified Parties" shall mean: (i) San Francisco, including all commissions, departments including DEM, agencies, and other subdivisions of San Francisco; (Ii) San Francisco's elected officials, directors, ofiicers, employees, agents, successors, and assigns; and (iii) all persons or entities acting on behalf of the foregoing. (h) "Losses" shall mean any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, claims, actions, suits, judgments, fees, expenses and costs of whatsoever kind and nature (including legal fees and expenses and costs of investigation, of prosecuting or defending any Loss described above) whether or not such Loss be founded or unfounded, of whatsoever kind and nature. (i) "Reimbursement Request" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3.1 O(a). 1.2 Additional Tenns. The terms "as directed," "as required" or "as permitted" and similar terms shall refer to the direction, requirement, or permission of Cny. The terms "sufficient," "necessary" or "proper" and similar terms shall mean sufficient, necessary or proper in the sole judgment of City. The terms "approval," "acceptable" or "satisfactory" or similar terms shall mean approved by, or acceptable or satisfactory to, City. The terms "include," "included" or "including" and similar terms shall be deemed to be followed by the words "without limitation." The use of the term "subcontractor," "subgrantee," "successor" or "assign" herein refers only to a subcontractor, subgrantee, successor or assign expressly permitted under Article 8. FY 10 UASI-PALOALTO Page 2 of 21 April 1, 2011 1.3 References to this Agreement. References to this Agreement include: (a) any and all appendices, exhibits, schedules, and attachments hereto; (b) any and all statutes, ordinances, regulations or other documents expressly Incorporated by reference herein; and (c) any and all amendments, modifications or supplements hereto made in accordance with Section 10.2. References to articles, sections, subsections or appendices refer to articles, sections or subsections of or appendices to this Agreement, unless otherwise expressly stated. Terms such as "hereunder," herein or "hereto" refer to this Agreement as a whole. 1.4 Reference to laws. Any reference in this Agreement to a federal or state statute, regulation, executive order, requirement, policy, guide, guideline, information bulletin, or instruction shall mean that statute, regulation, executive order, reqUirement, policy, guide, guideline, information bulletin, or instruction as is currently in effect and as may be amended, mOdified or supplemented from time to time. ARTICLE 2 ALLOCATION AND CERTIFICATION OF GRANT FUNDS; LIMITATIONS ON SAN FRANCISCO'S OBLIGAll0NS 2.1 Risk of Non-Allocation of Grant Funds. This Agreement is subject to all federal and state grant requirements and guidelines, including DHS and CalEMA reqUirements, guidelines, information bulletins, and instructions, the decision-making of the CalEMA and the Approval Author"y, the terms and conditions of the grant award; the approved application, and to the extent applicable the budget and fiscal prOVisions of the San Frencisco Charter. The Approval Authority shall have no obligation to allocate or direct disbursement of funds for this Agreement in lieu of allocations for new or other agreements. PALO ALTO acknowledges and agrees that grant decisions are subject to the discretion of the CalEMAand Approval Authority. Further, PALO ALTO acknowledges and agrees that the City shall have no obligation to disburse grant funds to PALO ALTO until City and PALO ALTO have fully and finally executed this Agreement. PALO ALTO acknowledges and agrees that if it takes any action, informal or formal, to appropriate, encumber or expend Grant Funds before final allocation decisions by CalEMA and the Approval Authority, and before this Agreement is fully and finally executed, it assumes all risk of possible non-allocation or non-reimbursement of funds, and such acknowledgement and agreement is part of the consideration of this Agreement. 2.2 Certification of Controller; Guaranteed Maximum Costs. No funds shall be available under this Agreement until prior written authorization certified by the San Francisco Controller. In addition, as set forth in Section 21.19 of the San Francisco Administrative Code: (a) San Francisco's obligations hereunder shall not at any time exceed the amount approved in the grant award and/or by the Approval Authority, and certified by the Controller for the purpose and period stated in such certification. (b) Except as may be provided by San Francisco ordinances governing emergency conditions, San Francisco and its employees and officers, and the UASI Management Team and its personnel, are not authorized to request PALO ALTO to perform services or to provide materials, equipment and supplies that would result in PALO ALTO performing services or providing materials, equipment and supplies that are beyond the scope of the services, materials, equipment and supplies specified in this Agreement, unless this Agreement is amended in writing and approved as required by law to authorize the additional services, materials, equipment or supplies. San Francisco is not required to pay PALO ALTO for services, materials, equipment or supplies that are provided by PALO ALTO that are beyond the scope of the services, materials, equipment and supplies agreed upon herein and which were FY 10 UASI -PALO ALTO Page 3 of 21 April 1, 2011 not approved by a written amendment to this Agreement having been lawfully executed by San Francisco. (.:) San Francisco and its employees and officers, and the UASI Management Team and its personnel, are not authorized to offer or promise to PALO ALTO additional funding for this Agreement that would exceed the maximum amount of funding provided for herein. Additional funding for this Agreement in excess of the maximum provided herein shall require lawful approval and certification by the Controller. San Francisco is not required to honor any offered or promised additional funding that exceeds the maximum provided in this Agreement that requires lawful approval and certification of the Controller when the lawful approval and certification by the Controller has not been obtained. (d) The Controller is not authorized to make payments on any agreement for which funds have not been certified as available in the budget or by supplemental appropriation. 2.3 SUPERSEDURE OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS. IN THE EVENT OF ANY CONFLICT BETWEEN ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE 2 AND ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT, THE APPLICATION DOCUMENTS OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENT OR COMMUNICATION RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT, THE TERMS OF THIS ARTICLE 2 SHALL GOVERN. ARTICLE 3 PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT 3.1 Duration of Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on APRIL 1, 2011 and shall end at 11:59 p.m. San Francisco time on FEBRUARY 28,2013. 3.2 Maximum Amount of Funds. In no event shall the amount of Grant Funds disbursed hereunder exceed SIXTY EIGHT THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED DOLLARS ($68,800). The City will not automatically transfer Grant Funds to PALO ALTO upon execution of this Agreement. PALO ALTO must submit a Reimbursement Request under Section 3.10 of this Agreement, approved by the UASI ManagementTeam and City, before the City will disburse Grant Funds to PALO ALTO. 3.3 Use of Funds. (a) General Requirements. PALO ALTO shall use the Grant Funds received under this Agreement for the purposes and in the amounts set forth in the Grant Plan. PALO ALTO shall not use or expend Grant Funds for any other purpose, including but not limited to, for matching funds for other federal grants/cooperative agreements, lobbying or intervention in federal regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings, or to sue the federal government or any other government entity. PALO ALTO shall not permit any federal employee to receive Grant Funds. (b) Modification of Grant Plan. Under Section 1.1 (f) of this Agreement, PALO ALTO may submit a written request to modify the Grant Plan. PALO ALTO shall not appropriate, encumber or expend any additional or reallocated Grant Funds pursuant to such a request for modification until (1) the General Manager or designee has provided written approval for the request and (2) the parties have finally executed a modification of this Agreement under Section 10.2, to reflect the modified Grant Plan. In addition, if the modification request requires approval from the Approval Authority and/or CaIEMA, as determined by the General Manager, PALO ALTO shall not appropriate, encumber or expend any additional or reallocated Grant Funds FY 10 UASI-PALO ALTO Page 4 of 21 April 1, 2011 pursuant to the modification request without approval from the Approval Authority and/or CaIEMA. (c) No Supplanting. PALO ALTO shall use Grant Funds to supplement existing funds, and not replace (supplant) funds that have been appropriated for the same purpose. (d) Obligations. PALO ALTO must expend Grant Funds in a timely manner consistent with the grant milestones, guidance and assurances; and make satisfactory progress toward the goals, objectives, milestones and deliverables in this Agreement. 3.4 Grant Assurances; Other Requirements; Cooperation with Monitoring. (a) PALO ALTO shall comply with all Grant Assurances included in Appendix B, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. PALO ALTO shall require all subgrantees, contractors and other entities receiving Grant Funds through or from PALO ALTO to execute a copy of the Grant Assurances, and shall ensure that they comply with those Grant Assurances. (b) In addition to complying with all Grant Assurances, PALO ALTO shall comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, executive orders, reqUirements, policies, guides, guidelines, information bulletins, CalEMA grant management memos, and instructions; the terms and conditions of the grant award; the approved application, and any conditions imposed by CalEMA or the Approval Authority. PALO ALTO shall require and ensure that all subgrantees, contractors and other entities receiving Grant Funds through or from PALO ALTO comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, executive orders, requirements, policies, guides, guidelines, information bulletins, CalEMA grant management memos, and instructions; the terms and conditions of the grant award; the approved application, and any conditions imposed by CalEMA or the Approval Authority. (cl PALO ALTO shall promptly comply with all standards, specifications and formats of San Francisco and the UASI Management Team, as they may from time to time exist, related to evaluation, planning and monitoring of the Grant Plan and compliance with this Agreement. PALO ALTO shall cooperate in good faith with San Francisco and the UASI Management Team in any evaluation, inspection, planning or monitoring activities conducted or authorized by DHS, CaIEMA, San Francisco or the UASI Management Team. For ensuring compliance with non- supplanting requirements, upon request by City or the UASI Management Team', PALO ALTO shall supply documentation certifying that a reduction of non-federal resources occurred for reasons other than the receipt or expected receipt of Grant Funds. 3.5 Administrative, Programmatic and Financial Management Requirements. PALO ALTO shall establish and maintain administrative, programmatiC and financial management systams and records in accordance with federal and State of California requirements. This provision requires, at a minimum, that PALO ALTO comply with the following non-exclusive list of regulations commonly applicable to DHS grants, as applicable to this Agreement and the Grant Plan: (a) Administrative Requirements; 1. 44 CFR Part 13, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments; and 2. 2 CFR Part 215, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non- Profit Organizations (formerly OMB Circular A-110). FY 10 UASI-PALO ALTO Page 5 of 21 April 1, 2011 (b) Cost Principles: 1. 2 CFR Part 225, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments (formerly OMB Circular A-87); 2. 2 CFR Part 220, Cost Principles for Educational Institutions (formerly OMB Circular A-21); 3. 2 CFR Part 230, Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations (formerly OMB Circular A-122); and 4. Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), Part 31.2 Contract Principles and Procedures, Contracts with Commercial Organizations. (c) Audit Requirements: 1.0MB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations. 3.6 Technology Requirements. (a) National Information Exchange Model ("NIEM"). PALO ALTO shall use the latest NIEM specifications and guidelines regarding the use of Extensible Markup Language ("XML") for all awards of Grant Funds. (b) Geospatial Guidance. PALO ALTO is encouraged to use Geospatial technologies, which can capture, store, analyze, transmit andlor display location-based information (Le., information linked to a latitude and longitude), and to align any geospacial activities with the guidance available on the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") website. (c) Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating Policies. Any information technology system funded or supported by Grant Funds shall comply with 28 CFR Part 23, Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating Policies, if applicable. (d) PALO ALTO is encouraged to use the DHS guidance in Best Practices for Government Use of CCTV: Implementing the Fair Information Practice Principles, if Grant Funds are used to purchase or install closed circuit television (CCTV) systems or to support operational CCTV systems. 3.7 Procurement Requirements. (a) General Requirements. PALO ALTO shall follow its own procurement requirements as long as those requirements comply with all applicable federal and State of California statutes, regulations, requirements, policies, guides, guidelines and instructions. (b) Specific Purchases. If PALO ALTO is using Grant Funds to purchase interoperable communication equipment, PALO ALTO shall consult DHS's SAFECOM's coordinated grant guidance, which outlines standards and equipment information to enhance interoperable communication. If PALO ALTO is using Grant Funds to acquire critical emergency supplies, prior to expending any Grant Funds, PALO ALTO shall submit to the UASI Management Team for approval by CalEMA a viable inventory management plan, an effective distribution strategy, sustainment costs for such an effort, and logistics expertise to avoid situations where funds are wasted because supplies are rendered ineffective due to lack of planning. FY 10 UASI-PALO ALTO Page 6 of 21 April 1, 2011 (c) Bond requirement. PALO ALTO shalf obtain a performance bond for any equipment items over $250.000 or any vehicle. aircraft or watercraft financed with Grant Funds. 3.8 Subgrantee and Contractor Requirements. (a) PALO ALTO shall ensure and independently verify that any subgrantee, contractor or other entity receiving Grant Funds through or from PALO ALTO is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise eXcluded from or ineligible for participation in federal assistance programs, under Executive Orders 12549 and 12689. as implemented at 44 CFRPart 17. PALO ALTO shall obtain documentation of eligibility before disbursing Grant Funds to any subgrantee, contractor or other entity. PALO ALTO shall maintain documentary proof of this verification in its files. PALO ALTO shall establish procedures for the effective use of the "Excluded Parties List System," to assure that H does not provide Grant Funds to excluded parties. PALO ALTO shalf also establish procedures to provide for effective use and/or dissemination of the list to assure that its grantees and subgrantees, including contractors. at any tier do not make awards in violation of the non-procurement debarment and suspension common rule. (b) PALO ALTO shalf ensure that any subgrantee, contractor or other entity receiving Grant Funds through or from PALO ALTO complies with the requirements of 44 CFR Part 18, New Restrictions on Lobbying; and (c) PALO ALTO shall ensure that any subgrantee. contractor or other entity receiving Grant Funds through or from PALO ALTO complies with the requirements of 44 CFR Part 17, Government-wide Requirements for a Drug-Free Workplace (Grants). 3.9 Monitoring Grant Performance. (a) City and the UASI Management Team are both authorized to perform periodic monitoring reviews of PALO ALTO's performance under this Agreement. to ensure that the Grant Plan goals. objectives, performance requirements, timelines, milestone completion, budgets and other criteria are being met. Programmatic monitoring may include the Regional Federal Preparedness Coordinators, or other federal or state personnel, when appropriate. Monitoring may involve a combination of desk-based reviews and on-site monitoring visits, inspection of records, and verifications of grant activities. These reviews will involve a review and analysis of the financial, programmatic, performance and administrative issues relative to each program and will identify areas where technical assistance and other support may be needed. The reViews may include, but are not limited to: 1. Evaluating eligibility of expenditures; 2. Comparing actual grant activities to those approved by the Approval Authority and specified in the Grant Plan; 3. Ensuring that any advances have been deposited in an interest bearing account and disbursed in accordance with applicable guidelines; and 4. Confirming compliance with: Grant Assurances; information provided on performance reports and payment requests; and needs and threat assessments and strategies. (b) PALO ALTO is responsible for monitoring and auditing the grant activities of any subgrantee, contractor or other entity receiving Grant Funds through or from PALO ALTO. This requirement includes but is not limited to mandatory on-site verification visits. FY 10 UASI-PALO ALTO Page 7 of 21 April 1. 2011 (c) If after any monitoring review, the DHS or CalEMA makes findings that require a Corrective Action Plan by PALO ALTO, the City shall place a hold on all Reimbursement Requests from PALO ALTO until the findings are reSOlved. 3.10 Disbursement Procedures. San Francisco shall disburse Grant Funds to PALO ALTO as follows: (a) PALO ALTO shall submltto the UASI ManagementTeam, In the manner specified for notices pursuant to Article 9, a document ("Relmbursement Request") substantially In the fomn attached as Appendix C, attached hereto and Incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. The UASI Management Team shall serve as the primary contact for PALO ALTO regarding any Reimbursement Request. (b) The UASI Management Team will review ali Reimbursement Requests for compliance with this Agreement and all applicable guidelines and requirements. The UASI Management Team will return to PALO ALTO any Reimbursement Request that is submitted and not approved by the UASi Management Team, with a brief statement of the reason for the rejection of the Reimbursement Request. (c) The UASI Management Team will submit any Reimbursement Request that is approved by the UASI Management Team to DEM. City through OEM shall review the Reimbursement Request for compliance with this Agreement and all applicable guidelines and requirements. City shall return to the UASI Management Team any Reimbursement Request that is not approved by City, with a brief explanation of the reason for the rejection of the Reimbursement Request. (d) If a rejection relates only to a portion of the expenditures Itemized In any Reimbursement Request, City shall have no obligation to disburse any Grant Funds for any other expenditures Itemized In such Reimbursement Request unless and until PALO ALTO submits a Reimbursement Request that Is In all respects acceptable to the UASI Management Team and to City. (e) For Reimbursement Requests approved by both the UASI Management Team and City, City shall disburse Grant Funds by check payable to PALO ALTO, sent via U.S. mall In accordance with Article 9, unless City otherwise agrees in writing, In Its sole discretion. City shall make disbursements of Grant Funds no more than once during each FISCAL QUARTER. (f) If PALO ALTO is not in compliance with any provision of this Agreement, City may withhold disbursement of Grant Funds until PALO ALTO has taken corrective action and currently complies with all terms and conditions of the Agreement. 3.11 Disallowance. PALO ALTO agrees that if it claims or receives reimbursement from City for an expenditure that is later disallowed by the State of California or the federal government, PALO ALTO shall promptly refund the disallowed amount to City upon City's written request At its option, City may offset all or any portion of the disallowed amount against any other payment due to PALO ALTO hereunder or under any other Agreement with PALO ALTO. Any such offset with respect to a portion of the disallowed amount shall not release PALO ALTO from PALO AL TO's obligation hereunder to refund the remainder of the disallowed amount. 3.12 Sustainabilitv. Grant Funded programs that contain continuing personnel and operating expenses, over and above planning and Implementation costs, must be sustained once the Grant Funding ends. By executing this Agreement, PALO ALTO acknowledges Its responsibility FY 10 UASI-PALO ALTO Page 6 of 21 April 1, 2011 and agrees to sustain continuing programs beyond the Grant Funding period. PALO ALTO acknowledges and agrees that this sustainability requirement is a material term of the Agreement. 3.13 EHP Requirements. (a) Grant Funded projects must comply with the federal Environmental and Historic Preservation ("EHP") program. PALO ALTO shall not initiate any project with the potential to impact environmental or historic properties or resources until CalEMA and FEMA have completed EHP reviews and approved the project. Examples of projects that may impact EHP resources include: communications towers, physical security enhancements, new construction, and modifications to buildings, structures and objects that are 50 years old or greater. PALO AL TO shall notify the UASI Management Team of any project that may require an EHP review. PALO ALTO agrees to provide detailed project infomnation to FEMA, CalEMA and/or the UASI Management Team, to cooperate fully in the review, and to prepare any documents requested for the review. PALO ALTO shall comply with all conditions placed on the project as the resuH of the EHP review, and implement any treatment or mitigation measures deemed necessary to address potential adverse Impacts. With prior approval of the UASI Management Team, PALO ALTO may use Grant Funds toward the costs of preparing documents and/or implementing treatment or mitigation measures. Any change to the approved project scope of work will require re-evaluation for compliance with EHP requirements. If ground disturbing activities occur during project implementation, PALO ALTO shall notify the UASI Management Team and ensure monitoring of ground disturbance. If any potential archeological resources are discovered, PALO ALTO shall immediately cease construction in that area and notify the UASI Management Team, which will notify the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office. If PALO ALTO is using Grant Funds for a communication tower project, PALO ALTO shall complete its Federal Communication Commission ("FCC") EHP process before preparing its CalEMAfFEMA EHP materials, and shall include the FCC EHP materials in the CalEMAfFEMA submission. (b) Any construction or other project that PALO ALTO initiates without the necessary EHP review and approval will not be eligible for reimbursement. Failure of PALO ALTO to meet federal, State, and local EHP reqUirements, obtain applicable pemnits, or comply with any conditions that may be placed on the project as the result of FEMA's and/or CalEMA's EHP review will result in the denial of Reimbursement Requests. 3.14 National Energy Conservation Policy and Enerqy Policy Acts. PALO ALTO shall comply with the following requirements: (a) Grant Funds may not be used in contravention of the Federal buildings perfomnance and reporting requirements of Executive Order 13123, part 3 of Title V of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 USC §8251 et seq.), or Subtitle A of Title I of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; and (b) Grant Funds may not be used in contravention of Section 303 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 USC §13212). 3.15 Royalty-Free License. PALO ALTO understands and agrees that FEMA reserves a royalty-free, non-exclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish or otherwise use, and authorize others to use, for federal government purposes: (a) the copyright in any work developed using Grant Funds; and (b) any rights of copyright that PALO ALTO purchases or acquires using Grant Funds. PALO ALTO shall consult with the UASI Management Team and FY 10 UASI -PALO ALTO Page 9 of 21 Aprl11,2011 FEMA regarding the allocation of any patent rights that arise from, or are purchased with, Grant Funds, 3,16 Publication Statements, PALO ALTO shall ensure that all publications created or developed under this Agreement prominently contain the following statement: "This document was prepared under a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agencies Grant Programs Directorate (FEMNGPD) within the US Department of Homeland Security, POints of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official posHion or policies of FEMNGPD or the US Department of Homeland· Security," ARTICLE 4 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS; AUDITS 4,1 Regular Reports, PALO ALTO shall provide, in a prompt and timely manner, financial, operational and other reports, as requested by the UASI Management Team or by City, in form and substance satisfactory to the UASI Management Team or City, Such reports, including any copies, shall be submitted on recycled paper and printed on double-sided pages, to the maximum extent possible, 4,2 Notification of Defaults or Changes in Circumstances, PALO ALTO shall notify the UASI Management Team and City immediately of (a) any Event of Default or event that, with the passage of time, would constitute an Event of Default; (b) any change of circumstances that would cause any of the representations or warranties contained in Article 5 to be false or misleading at any time during the term of this Agreement; and (c) any change of circumstances or events that would cause PALO ALTO to be out of compliance with the Grant Assurances in Appendix B, 4,3 Books and Records. PALO ALTO shall establish and maintain accurate files and records of all aspects of the Grant Plan and the matters funded in whole or in part with Grant Funds, WHhout limiting the scope of the foregoing, PALO ALTO shall establish and maintain accurate financial books and accounting records relating to Authorized Expenditures and to Grant Funds received and expended under this Agreement, together with all invoices, documents, payrolls, time records and other data related to the matters covered by this Agreement, whether funded in whole or in parl with Grant Funds. PALO ALTO shall maintain all of the files, records, books, invoices, documents, payrolls and other data required to be maintained under this Section in a readily accessible location and condition for a period of not less than five (5) years after expiration of this Agreement or until any final audit by CalEMA has been fully completed, whichever is later. 4.4 Inspection and Audit. PALO ALTO shall make available to the UASI Management Team and to City, and to UASi ManagementTeam and City employees and authorized representatives, during regular business hours, all of the files, records, books, invoices, documents, payrolls and other data required to be established and maintained by PALO ALTO under Section 4.3, and allow access and the right to examine those items. PALO ALTO shall permit the UASI Management Team and City, and UASI Management Team and City employees and authorized representatives, to inspect, audit, examine and make excerpts and transcripts from any of the foregoing. The rights of the UASI Management Team and City pursuant to this Section shall remain in effect so long as PALO ALTO has the obligation to maintain such files, records, books, invoices, documents, payrolls and other data under this Article 4, The DHS, the Comptroller General of the United States or designee, and CalEMA FY 10 UASI-PALO ALTO Page 10 of 21 April 1, 2011 shall have the same inspection and audit rights as the City and UASI Management Team. PALO ALTO shall cooperate with any federal or state audit. 4.5 Audit Report. If the amount specified in Section 3.2 of this agreement is $500,000 or more, PALO ALTO shall submit an organization-wide financial and compliance audit report. The audit must be performed in accordance with GAO's Government Auditing Standards. and OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit Organizations. PALO ALTO shall submit its audit report to the UASI Management Team no later than six months after the end of PALO ALTO's fiscal year. ARTICLE 5 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES PALO ALTO represents and warrants each of the following as of the date of this Agreement and at all times throughout the term of this Agreement: 5.1 No Misstatements. No document furnished or to be furnished by PALO ALTO to the UASI Management Team or to City in connection with this Agreement, any Reimbursement Request or any other document relating to any of the foregoing, contains or will contain any untrue statement of matarial fact or omits or will omit a material fact necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading, under the circumstances under which any such statement shall have been made. 5.2 Eligibility to Receive Federal Funds. By executing this Agreement, PALO ALTO certifies that it is eligible to receive federal funds, and specifically certifies as follows: (a) PALO ALTO is not suspended, debarred or otherwise excluded from partiCipation in federal assistance programs, as required by Executive Order 12549 and 12689, "Debarment and Suspension" and implemented at 44 CFR Part 17. (b) PALO ALTO complies with 31 U.S.C. §1352, Limitation on use of appropriated funds to influence federal contracting and financial transactions, as implemented at 44 CFR Part 18 and 6 CFR Part 9. (cl PALO ALTO complies with the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, as amended, 41 U.S.C. §701 et seq., as implemented in 44 CFR Part 17, and will continue 10 provide a drug- free workplace as required under that Act and implementing regulations. (d) PALO ALTO is not delinquent in Ihe repayment of any federal debt. See OMB Circular A-129, PALO ALTO acknowledges that these certifications of eligibility to receive federal funds are material terms of the Agreement. 5.3 NIMSCompliance. To be eligible to receive Grant Funds, PALO ALTO must meet National Incident Management System ("NIMS") compliance requirements, and report full NIMS compliance via the National Incident Management System Capability Assessment Support Tool ("NIMSCAST"). By executing this Agreement, PALO ALTO certifies that it is in full NIMS compliance, and that it has reported that compliance via the NIMSCAST. PALO ALTO shall provide documentation of its NIMS compliance to the UASI Management Team. PALO ALTO acknowledges that this certification is a material term of the Agreement. FY 10 UASI-PALO ALTO Page 11 of 21 April 1, 2011 ARTICLE 6 INDEMNIFICATION AND GENERAL LIABILITY 6.1 Indemnification, PALO ALTO shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless each of the Indemnified Parties from and against any and all Losses arising from, in connection with or caused by PALO ALTO's performance of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) a material breach of this Agreement by PALO ALTO: (b) a material breach of any representation or warranty of PALO ALTO contained in this Agreement; (c) any personal injury or death caused, directly or indirectly, by any act or omission of PALO ALTO or its employees, subgrantees or agents; (d) any loss of or damage to property caused, direcUy or indirectly, by any act or omission of PALO ALTO or its employees, subgrantees or agents; (e) the use, misuse or failure of any equipment or facility used by PALO ALTO, or by any of its employees, subgrantees or agents, regardless of whether such equipment or facility is furnished, rented or loaned to PALO ALTO by an Indemnified Party; (f) any tax, fee, assessment or other charge for which PALO ALTO is responsible under Section 10.4; or (g) any infringement of patent rights, copyright, trade secret or any other proprietary right or trademaril of any person or entity in consequence of the use by any Indemnified Party of any goods or services furnished to such Indernnified Party in connection with this Agreement The foregoing indemnity shall include, without limitation, reasonable fees of attorneys, consultants and experts and related costs and San Francisco's costs of investigating any claims against San FranciSCO, 6,2 Duty to Defend; Notice of Loss, PALO ALTO acknowledges and agrees that its obligation to defend the Indemnified Parties under Section 6,1: (a) is an immediate obligation, independent of its other obligations hereunder; (b) applies to any Loss which actually or potentially falls within the scope of Section 6.1, regardless of whether the allegations asserted in connection with such Loss are or may be groundless, false or fraudulent; and (c) arises at the time the Loss is tendered to PALO ALTO by the Indemnified Party and continues at all times thereafter, The Indemnified Party shall give PALO ALTO prompt notice of any Loss under Section 6.1 and PALO ALTO shall have the right to defend, settle and compromise any such Loss; provided, however, that the Indemnified Party shall have the right to retain its own counsel at the expense of PALO ALTO if representation of such Indemnified Party by the counsel retained by PALO ALTO would be inappropriate due to conflicts of interest between such Indemnified Party and PALO ALTO. An Indemnified Party's failure to notify PALO ALTO prompUy of any Loss shall not relieve PALO ALTO of any liability to such Indemnified Party pursuant to Section 6.1, unless such failure materially impairs PALO ALTO's ability to defend such Loss, PALO ALTO shall seek the Indemnified Party's prior written consent to settle or compromise any Loss if PALO ALTO contends that such Indemnified Party shares in liability with respect thereto, 6,3 InCidental and Consequential Damages, Losses covered under this Article 6 shall include any and all incidental and consequential damages resulting in whole or in part from PALO ALTO's acts or omissions. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver or limitation of any rights that any Indemnified Party may have under applicable law with respect to such damages, 6.4 LIMITATION ON LIABILITY OF SAN FRANCISCO. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF GRANT FUNDS ACTUALLY DISBURSED HEREUNDER. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION CONTAINED IN THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENT OR COMMUNICATION RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT, IN NO EVENT SHALL CITY BE LIABLE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ANY CLAIM IS BASED ON CONTRACT OR TORT, FOR ANY SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, FY 10 UASI -PALO ALTO Page 120121 April 1,2011 ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT, THE GRANT FUNDS, THE GRANT PLAN OR ANY ACTIVITIES PERFORMED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT. ARTICLE 7 EVENTS OF DEFAULT AND REMEDIES; TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE 7.1 Events of Default. The occurrence of anyone or more of the following events shall constitute an "Event of Default" under this Agreement: (a) False Statement. Any statement, representation, certification or warranty contained in this Agreement, in any Reimbursement Request, or in any other document submitted to the UASI Management Team or to City under this Agreement is found by the UASI Management Team or by City to be false or misleading. (b) Failure to Perform Other Covenants. PALO ALTO fails to perform or breaches any provision or covenant of this Agreement to be performed or observed by PALO ALTO as and when performance or observance is due and such failure or breach continues for a period often (10) days after the date on which such performance or observance is due. (c) Failure to Comply with Applicable Laws. PALO ALTO fails to perform or breaches any of the terms or provisions of Article 12. (d) Voluntary Insolvency. PALO ALTO (i) is generally not paying its debts as they become due, (ii) files, or consents by answer or otherwise to the filing against it of, a petition for relief or reorganization or arrangement or any other petition in bankruptcy or for liquidation or to take advantage of any bankruptcy, insolvency or other debtors' relief law of any jurisdiction, (iii) makes an assignment for the benefit of its creditors, (iv) consents to the appointment of a custodian, receiver, trustee or other officer with similar powers of PALO ALTO or of any substantial part of PALO ALTO's property or (v) takes action for the purpose of any of the foregoing. (e) Involuntary Insolvency. Without consent by PALO ALTO, a court or government authority enters an order, and such order is not vacated within ten (10) days, (i) appointing a custodian, receiver, trustee or other officer with similar powers with respect to PALO ALTO or with respect to any substantial part of PALO ALTO's property, (ii) constituting an order for relief or approving a petition for relief or reorganization or arrangement or any other petition in bankruptcy or for liquidation or to take advantage of any bankruptcy, insolvency or other debtors' relief law of any jurisdiction or (iii) ordering the dissolution, winding-up or liquidation of PALO ALTO. 7.2 Remedies upon Event of Default. Upon and during the continuance of an Event of Default, City may do any of the following, individually or in combination with any other remedy: (a) Termination. City may terminate this Agreement by giving a written termination notice to PALO ALTO and, on the date specified in such notice, this Agreement shall terminate and all rights of PALO ALTO hereunder shall be extinguished. In the event of such termination, City will pay PALO ALTO for Authorized Expenditures in any Reimbursement Request tha,t was submitted and approved by the UASI Management Team and by City prior to the date of termination specified in such notice. FY 10 UASI -PALO ALTO Page 13 of 21 April 1,2011 (b) Withholding of Grant Funds. City may withhold all or any portion of Grant Funds not yet disbursed hereunder, regardless of whether PALO ALTO has previously submitted a Reimbursement Request or whether the UASI Management Team and/or City has approved the disbursement of the Grant Funds requested in any Reimbursement Request. Any Grant Funds withheld pursuant to this Section and subsequently disbursed to PALO ALTO after cure of applicable Events of Default shall be disbursed without interest. (c) Return of Grant Funds. City may demand the immediate retum of any previously disbursed Grant Funds that have been claimed or expended by PALO ALTO in breach of the terms of this Agreement, together with interest thereon from the date of disbursement at the maximum rate permitted under applicable law. 7.3 Termination for Convenience. (a) City shall have the option, in its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement, at any time during the term hereof, for convenience and without cause. City shall exercise this option by giving PALO ALTO written notice of tenmination. The notice shall specify the date on which lenminalion shall become effective. (b) Upon receipt of the notice, PALO ALTO shall commence and perform, with diligence, all actions necessary on the part of PALO ALTO to effect the termination of this Agreement on the date speCified by City and to minimize the liability of PALO ALTO and City to third parties as a result of termination. All such actions shall be subject to the prior approval of the UASI Management Team. (c) Within 30 days after the specified termination date, PALO ALTO shall submit to the UASI Management Team an invoice for all Authorized Expenses incurred through the termination date. For Authorized Expenses incurred after receipt of the notice of tenmination, City will only reimburse PALO ALTO if the Authorized Expenses received prior approval from the UASI Management Team as specified in subparagraph (b). (d) In no event shall City be liable for costs incurred by PALO ALTO or any of its contractors or subgrantees after the tenmination date specified by City. (e) City's payment obligation under this Section shall survive termination of this Agreement. 7.4 Remedies Nonexclusive. Each of the remedies provided for in this Agreement may be exercised individually or in combination with any other remedy available hereunder or under applicable laws, rules and regulations. The remedies contained herein are in addition to all other remedies available to City at law or in equity by statute or otherwise and the exercise of any such remedy shall not preclude or in any way be deemed to waive any other remedy. ARTICLES ASSIGNMENTS 8.1 No Assignment by PALO ALTO. PALO ALTO shall not, either directly or indirectly, assign, transfer, hypothecate, subcontract or delegate all or any portion of this Agreement or any rights, duties or obligations of PALO ALTO hereunder without the prior written consent ot the UASI Management Team; provided, however, that any contractor or subgrantee specifically referenced in Appendix A shall not require the consent of Management Team. This Agreement shall not, nor shall any interest herein, be assignable as to the interest of PALO ALTO FY 10 UASI-PALO ALTO Page 14 of 21 April 1,2011 involuntarily or by operation of law without the prior written consent of City. A change of ownership or control of PALO ALTO or a sale or transfer of substantially all of the assets of PALO ALTO shall be deemed an assignment for purposes of this Agreement. 8.2 Agreement Made in Violation of this Article. Any agreement made in violation of Section 8.1 shall confer no rights on any person or entity and shall automatically be null and void. 8.3 PALO ALTO Retains Responsibility. PALO ALTO shall in all events remain liable for the performance by any subgrantee contractor, or assignee of all of the covenants, terms and conditions in this Agreement ARTICLE 9 NOTICES AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS 9.1 Requirements. Unless otherwise specifically provided herein, all notices, consents, directions, approvals, instructions, requests and other communications hereunder shall be in writing, shall be addressed to the person and address set forth below and shall be (a) deposited in the U.S. mail, first class, certified with return receipt requested and with appropriate pestage, (b) hand delivered or (c) sent via facsimile (if a facsimile number is provided below): If to San Francisco: San Francisco Department of Emergency Management 1011 Turk Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Attn: Anne Kronenberg, Executive Director Facsimile No.: (415) 558-3864 If to the UASI Management Team: UASI ManagementTeam 10 Lombard Street, Suite 410 San Francisco, CA 94111 Attn: Teresa Serata, Director of Strategy and Compliance Facsimile No.: (415) 705-8513 If to PALO ALTO: Palo Alto Police Department 275 Forest Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Dennis Burns, Police Chief Facsimile No.: (650) 671-2132 9.2 Effective Date. All communications sent In accordance with Section 9.1 shall become effective on the date of receipt Such date of receipt shall be determined by: (a) if mailed, the return receipt, completed by the U.S. pestal service; (b) if sent via hand delivery, a receipt executed by a duly authorized agent of the party to whom the notice was sent; or (c) if sent via facslrnile, the date of telephonic confirmation of receipt by a duly authOrized agent of the party to FY 10 UASI -PALO ALTO Page 15 of21 April 1, 2011 whom the notice was sent or, if such confirmation is not reasonably practicable, the date indicated in the facsimile machine transmission report of the party giving such notice. 9.3 Change of Address. From time to time any party hereto may deSignate a new address or recipient for notice for purposes of this Article 9 by written notice to the other party and the UASI Management Team. ARTICLE 10 MISCELLANEOUS 10.1 No Waiver. No waiver by San Francisco of any default or breach of this Agreement shall be implied from any failure by the UASI Management Team or San Francisco to take action on account of such default if such default persists or is repeated. No express waiver by San Francisco shall affect any default other than the default specified in the waiver and shall be operative only for the time and to the extent therein stated. Waivers by San Francisco of any covenant, term or condition contained herein shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same covenant, term or condition. The consent or approval by the UASI Management Team or San Francisco of any action requiring further consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the consent or approval to or of any subsequent similar act. 10.2 Modification. This Agreement may not be modified, nor may compliance with any of its terms be waived, except by written instrument executed and approved in the same manner as this Agreement. 10.3 Governing Law; Venue. The formation, interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, without regard to its conflict of laws principles. Venue for all litigation relative to the formation, interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be in San Francisco. 10.4 PALO ALTO to Pay All Taxes. PALO ALTO shall pay to the appropriate governmental authority, as and when due, any and all taxes, fees, assessments or other governmental charges, including possessory interest taxes and California sales and use taxes, levied upon or in connection with this Agreement, the Grant Plan, the Grant Funds or any of the activities contemplated by this Agreement. 10.5 Headings. All article and section headings and captions contained in this Agreement are for reference only and shall not be considered in construing this Agreement. 10.6 Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth the entire Agreement between the parties, and suparsedes ali other oral or written provisions. The following Appendices are attached to and a part of this Agreement: • Appendix A, Authorized Expenditures • Appendix B, Grant Assurances • Appendix C, Form of Funding Request 10.7 Certified Resolution of Signatory Authority. Upon request of San Francisco, PALO ALTO shall deliver to San Francisco a copy of the corporate resolution(s) authorizing the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement, certified as true, accurate and complete by the appropriate authorized representative of PALO ALTO. FY 10 UASI-PALO ALTO Page 16 of 21 April 1,2011 10.8 Severabllltv. Should the application of any provision of this Agreement to any particular facts or circumstances be found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, then (a) the validny of other provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected or impaired thereby, and (b) such provision shall be enforced to the maximum extent possible so as to effect the intent of the parties and shall be reformed without further action by the parties to the extent necessary to make such provision valid and enforceable. 10.9 Successors; No Third-Party Beneficiaries. Subject to the terms of Article 8, the terms of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their successors and assigns. Nothing in this Agreement, whether express or implied, shall be construed to give any person or entity (other than the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns and, in the case of Arlicle 6, the Indemnified Parties) any legal or equitable right, remedy or claim under or in respect of this Agreement or any covenants, conditions or provisions contained herein. 10.10 Survival of Tenms. The obligations of PALO ALTO and the terms of the following provisions of this Agreement shall survive and continue following expiration or termination of this Agreement: Sections 4.3 and 4.4, Article 6, this Article 10, and the Grent Assurances of Appendix B. 10.11 Further Assurances. From and after the date of this Agreement, PALO ALTO agrees to do such things, perform such acts, and make, execute, acknowledge and deliver such documents as may be reasonably necessary or proper and usual to complete the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and to carry out the purpose of this Agreement in accordance with this Agreement. ARTICLE 11 INSURANCE 11.1 Types and Amounts of Coverage. Without limiting PALO ALTO's liability pursuant to Article 6 of this Agreement, PALO ALTO shall maintain in force, during the full term of the Agreement, insurance in the following amounts and coverages: (a) Workers' Compensation, in statutory amounts, with Employers' Liability Limits not less than $1,000,000 each accident, injury, or illness; and (b) Commercial General Liability Insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence Combined Single Limit for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including Contractual Liability, Personal Injury, Products and Completed Operations; and (c) Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence Combined Single Limit for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including Owned, Non-Owned and Hired auto coverage, as applicable. 11.2 Additional Requirements for General and Automobile Coveraqe. Commercial General Liability and Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance policies must be endorsed to provide: (a) Name as Additional Insured the City and County of San Francisco, its Officers, Agents, and Employees. FY 10 UASI -PALO ALTO Page 17 of 21 April 1, 2011 (b) That such policies are primary insurance to any other insurance available to the Additional Insureds, with respect to any claims arising out of this Agreement, and that insurance applies separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought. 11.3 Additional Requirements Regarding Workers' Compensation. Regarding Workers' Compensation, PALO ALTO hereby agrees to waive subrogation which any insurer of PALO AL TO may acquire from PALO ALTO by virtue of the payment of any loss. PALO ALTO agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation. The Workers' Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City for all work perfomned by the PALO ALTO, its employees, agents and subcontractors. 11.4 Additional Requirements for All Policies. All policies shall provide thirty days' advance written notice to the City of reduction or nonrenewal of coverages or cancellation of coverages for any reason. Notices shall be sent to the City address in Article 9, Notices and Other COmmunications. 11.5 Reguired Post-Expiration Coverage. ShOUld any of the required insurance be provided under a claims-made fomn, PALO ALTO shall maintain such coverage continuously throughout the term of this Agreement and, without lapse, for a period of three years beyond the expiration of this Agreement, to the effect that, should occurrences during the Agreement term give rise to claims made after expiration of the Agreement, such claims shall be covered by such claims- made policies. 11.6 General Annual Aggregate Limit/Inclusion of Claims Investigation or Legal Defense Costs. Should any of the required insurance be provided under a form of coverage that includes a general annual aggregate limit or provides that claims investigation or legal defense costs be included in such general annual aggregate limit, such general annual aggregate limit shall be double the occurrence or claims limits specified above. 11.7 Lapse in Insurance. Should any required insurance lapse during the term of this Agreement, requests for reimbursement originating after such lapse may not be processed, in the City's sole discretion, until the City receives satisfactory evidence of reinstated coverage as required by this Agreement, effective as of the lapse date. If insuranca is not reinstated, the City may, at its sole option, temninate this Agreement effective on the date of such lapse of insurance. 11.8 Evidence of Insurance. Before commencing any operations or expending any Grant Funds under this Agreement, PALO ALTO shall furnish to City certificates of insurance and additional insured policy endorsements with insurers with ratings comparable to A-, VIII or higher, that are authorized to do business in the State of California, and that are satisfactory to City, in form evidencing all coverages set forth above. Failure to maintain insurance shall constHute a material breach of this Agreement. 11.9 Effect of Approval. Approval of the insurance by City shall not relieve or decrease the liability of PALO ALTO hereunder. 11.10 Insurance for Subcontractors and Evidence of this Insurance. If a subcontractor or subgrantee will be used to complete any portion of this Agreement, PALO ALTO shall ensure that the subcontractor or subgrantee shall provide all necessary Insurance and Shall name the City and County of San Francisco, its officers, agents and employees and the PALO ALTO as additional insureds. FY 10 UASI -PALO ALTO Page 18 of 21 April 1, 2011 11,11 Authority to Self-Insure, Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude PALO ALTO from self-insuring all or part of the insurance requirement in this Article, However, PALO ALTO shall provide proof of self-insurance, in a form acceptable to Sl3n Francisco, in the amounts of each line of self-insurance, ARTICLE 12 COMPLIANCE 12,1 Nondiscrimination, In the performance of this Agreement, PALO ALTO agrees not to discriminate against any employee, San Francisco employee working with PALO ALTO or any sUbgrantee of PALO ALTO, applicant for employment with PALO ALTO or subgrantee of PALO AL TO, or against any person seeking accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, services, or membership in all business, social, or other establishments or organizations, on the baSis of the fact or perception of a person's race, color, creed, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, height, weight, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, domestic partner status, marital status, disability or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome or HIV status (AIDs/HIV status), or association with members of such protected classes, or in retaliation for opposition to discrimination against such classes, 12,2 Conflict of Interest. Through its execution of this Agreement, PALO ALTO acknowledges that it is familiar with the provisions of Section 87100 et seq, and Section 1090 et seq, of the Government Code of the State of California, and certifies that it does not know of any facts which constitutes a violation of said provisions and agrees that it will immediately notify City if it becomes aware of any such fact during the term of this Agreement. 12,3 Compliance with ADA, PALO ALTO acknowledges that, pursuant to the ADA, programs, services and other activities provided by a public entity to the public, whether directly or through a grantee or contractor, must be accessible to the disabled public, PALO ALTO shall not discriminate against any person protected under the ADA in connection with all or any portion of the Grant Plan and shall comply at all times with the provisions of the ADA, 12.4 Prohibition on Political Activity with City Funds, In accordance with San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 12,G, PALO ALTO may not participate in, support, or attempt to influence any political campaign for a candidate or for a ballo! measure (collectively, "Political Activity") in the performance of the selvices provided under this Agreement PALO ALTO agrees to comply with San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 12,G and any implementing rules and regulations promulgated by San Francisco's Controller, The terms and provisions of Chapter 12,G are incorporated herein by this reference, In the event Contractor violates the provisions of this section, San FranCisco may, in addition to any other rights or remedies available hereunder, (i) terminate this Agreement, and (ii) prohibit PALO ALTO from bidding on or receiving any new City contract for a period of two (2) years, The Controller will not conSider PALO ALTO's use of profit as a violation of this section, 12,5 Submitting False Claims; Monetary Penalties, Pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code §21 ,35, any contractor, subcontractor or consultant who submits a false claim shall be liable to the City for the statutory penalties set forth in that section, The text of Section 21,35, along with the entire San Francisco Administrative Code is available on the web at http://www.municode.com/Library/clientCodePage.aspx?clientID=4201, A contractor, subcontractor or consultant will be deemed to have submitted a false claim to the City if the contractor, subcontractor or consultant: (a) knowingly presents or causes to be presented to an officer or employee of the City a false claim or request for payment or approval; (b) knOWingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used a false record or statement to get a false claim paid FY 10 UASI -PALO ALTO Page 19 of 21 April 1, 2011 or approved by the City; (c) conspires to defraud the City by getting a false claim allowed or paid by the City; (d) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used a false record or statement to conceal, avoid, or decrease an obligation to payor transmit money or property to the City; or (e) is a beneficiary of an inadvertent submission of a false claim to the City, subsequently discovers the falsity of the claim, and fails to disclose the false claim to the City wilhin a reasonable lime after discovery of the false claim FY 10 UASI-PALO ALTO Page 20 of 21 April 1, 2011 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the date first specified herein. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO: SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT By: ANNE KRONENBERG EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Approved as to Form: Dennis J. Herrera City Attorney By: ~~~~~~~ __ ~ __ __ Katharine Hobin Porter Deputy City Attorney CITY OF PALO ALTO: ev~B .~~~~ {\.tlJ- f JAMES KEENE VCITY MANAGER Federal Tax 10 #: 946000389 Approved as to Form: City Attorney FY 10 UASI -PALO ALTO Page 21 of 21 April 1, 2011 Appendix A-Authorized Expenditures and Tlmelines ENTITY: PALO ALTO Total UASI Project Project D CBRNE to be on the solution areas: Solution AEL# 12TR-OO-MOVR Reimbursement for equipment purchases require: • A Performance Bond is required for this project • As allowable under Federal guidelines, procurement of equipment must follow local policies and procedures for competitive Deliverable E· t purchasing. 1213112012 qUip men • At a minimum, more than one quote or bid must be obtained, unless a sole source is justified. if sole source approval Is needed, PALO ALTO must transmit the request to the UASI for requestto the State. • Prior to reimbursement, PALO ALTO must submit all Invoices, AEL numbers and a list of all eqUipment , ID numbers and the deployed locations. • Final deadline to submit a Reimbursement Request is 01/31/2013. • Proiect Contact: PAPD TOTAL ALLOCATION Not to Exceed: $68,800 NOT TO EXCEED: $68,800 • All requests for reimbursements must be submitted by JANUARY 31, 2013, unless an earlier deadline is set in this Appendix, • Authorized expenditures must fall into one of the following categories: Planning, Organization, Equipment, Training, or Exercises, Descriptions of authorized expenditures are in the following documents: FY 10 UASI-PALO ALTO A-1 April 1, 2011 • FY 2010 Homeland Security Grant Program, Guidance and Application Kit dated December, 2009: http://www.fema.qovlpdf/govemmentlqrantl20101fy10 hsgp kit.pdf • California Supplement to Federal Program Guidance and Application Kit: http://www.calema.ca.qov/WebPage/oeswebsite.nsfiClientOESFileUbrarylHomeland%2 OSecurltv%20Files/$fi/eIFY10HSGPSupp/ernentGuidance.pdf • Authorized Equipment List: www.rkb.us • Office of Justice Programs Financial and Administrative Guide for Grants: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov!financialguide/ • Any equipment purchased under this Agreement must match the UASI2010 Grant Application Workbook. Any modification to the inventory list in that Workbook must receive prior written approval from by the Bay Area UASI Program Manager. Subrecipents shall mark all eqUipment purchased with grant funds with the following statement; "Purchased with funds provided by the US DHS." • No Management and Administration expenses are allowed, unless expressly identified and authorized In this Appendix. • Sustainability requirements may apply to some or all of the grant funded proJects or programs authorized In this Appendix. See Agreement, 113.12. • All EHP documentation must be submitted and approved prior to any expenditure of funds requiring EHP submission. FY10 UASI-PALO ALTO A-2 April 1. 2011 Appendix B·· Grant Assurances Name of Jurisdiction: CITY OF PALO ALTO Name of Authorized Agent: _...!D~e<!.n!!Cn!!:iiS!..1B~u~rn!..!sS!.... _____________ _ Address: 275 Forest Ave City: PALO ALTO State: California Zip Code: -"94""3"'0'-'1 ___ _ Telephone Number: ""16"'5"'-0)/.-'3""2'-"9"'-2"'3"'0-'-1 _______________ _ Fax Number: (650) 617·3120 E-Mail Address: Dennis.Burns@cityofpaloalto.org As the duly authorized representative of the PALO ALTO, I certify that PALO ALTO: 1. Will assure that grant funds will support efforts related to providing an integreted mechanism to enhance,the coordination of national priority efforts to prevent, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters and other emergencies. 2. Has the legal authority to apply for Federal assistance and has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure proper planning, management and completion of the grant provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and SUb-granted through the State of California, California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA). 3. Will assure that grant funds are used for allowable, fair, and reasonable costs only and will not be transferred between grant programs (for example: State Homeland Security Program, Urban Area Security Initiative, Citizen Corps Program, and Metropolitan Medical Response System) or fiscal years. 4. Will comply with any cost sharing commitments included in the FY2010 Investment Justifications submitted to DHS/FEMAlCal EMA, where applicable. 5. Will give the Federal govemment, the General Accounting Office, the Comptroller General of the United States, the State of California, the Office of Inspector General, through any authorized representative, access to, and the right to examine, all paper or electronic records, books, or documents related to the award; and will establish a proper accounting system in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards and/or awarding agency directives. 6. Agrees that funds utilized to establish or enhance State and Local fusion centers must support the development of a statewide fusion process that corresponds with the Global Justice/Homeland Security AdviSOry Council (HSAC) Fusion Center Guidelines, follow the Federal and State approved privacy policies, and achieve (at a minimum) baseline level of capability as defined by the Fusion Capability Planning T col. 7. Will provide progress reports, and other such information as may be required by the awarding agency, including the Initial Strategy Implementation Plan (ISIP) within 45 (forty- five) days of the award, and update via the Grant Reporting Tool (GRT) twice each year. FY 10 UASI-PALO ALTO B-1 APRIL 1,2011 l1itials I7i!P' 8. Will initiate and complete the work within the applicable time frame after receipt of approval from Cal EMA. 9. Will maintain procedures to minimize the time elapsing between the award of funds and the disbursement of funds. 10. Will comply with all provisions of DHSIFEMA's codified regulation 44, Part 13, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments, including the payrnent of interest earned on advances. 11. Will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their positions for a purpose that constitutes, or presents the appearance of, personal or organizational conflict of interest, or personal gain for themselves or others, particularly those with whom they have family, business, or other ties. 12. Understands and agrees that Federal funds will not be used, directly or indirectly, to support the enactment, repeal, modification or adoption of any law, regulation, or policy, at any level of government, without the express prior written approval from DHSIFEMAICal EMA 13. Agrees that, to the extent contractors or subcontractors are utilized, will use small, minority- owned, women-owned, or disadvantaged business concerns and contractors or subcontractors to the extent practicable. 14. Will notify Cal EMA of any developments that have a Significant impact on award-supported activities, including changes to key program staff. 15. Will comply, if applicable, with the Lead-BaSed Paint POisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 4801 et seq.) which prohibHs the use of lead based paint in construction or rehabilitation of structures. 16. Will comply with all Federal and State Statues relating to Civil Rights and Nondiscrimination. These include, but are not limited to: a. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352), as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin. b. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. §§ 1681- 1683 and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender. c. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. § 794), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicaps. d. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6107), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age. e. The Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-255), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse. f. The Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-616), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or alcoholism. g. §§ 523 and 527 of the Public Health Service Act of 1912 (42 U.s.C. 290 dd-3 and 290 ee-3), as amended, relating to confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records. h. Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination in the sale, rental or financing of housing. FY 10 UASI-PALO ALTO B-2 APRIL 1,2011 Initials Afll3 i. Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 7,16, and 19 relating to nondiscrimination. j. The requirements on any other nondiscrimination provisions in the specific statute(s) under which the application for Federal assistance is being made. k. Will, in the event that a Federal or State court or Federal or State administrative agency makes a finding of discrimination after a due process hearing on the grounds or race, color, religion, national origin, gender, or disability against a recipient of funds, the reCipient will forward a copy of the finding to the Office of Civil Rights, Office of Justice Programs. /. Will provide an Equal Employment Opportunity Plan, if applicable, to the Department of Justice Office of Civil Rights within 60 days of grant award. m. Will comply, and assure the compliance of all its subgrantees and contractors, with the nondiscrimination requirements and all other provisions of the current edition of the Office of Justice Programs Financial and Administrative Guide for Grants, M7100.1. 17. Will comply with the requirements of Titles II and III of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. § 4601 at seq. [P.L 91-646]) which provides for fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced or whose property is acquired as a resuH of Federal or Federally assisted programs. These requirements apply to all interested in real property acquired for project purposes regardless of Federal participation in purchases. Will also comply with Title 44 CFR, Part 25, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federal and Federally-assisted programs. 18. Will comply, if applicable, with the flood insurance purchase requirements of Section 1 02(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L 93-234) which requires recipients in a special flood hazard area to participate in the program and to purchase flood insurance if the total cost of insurable construction and acquisition is ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or more. 19. Will comply with all applicable Federal, State, and Local environmental and historical preservation (EHP) requirements. Failure to meet Federal. State, and Local EHP . requirements and obtain applicable permits may jeopardize Federal funding. Will comply with all conditions placed on any project as the result of the EHP review; any change to the scope of work of a project will require reevaluation of compliance with these EHP requirements. 20. Agrees not to undertake any project having the potential to Impact the EHP resources without the prior written approval of DHSfFEMAfCal EMA, including, but not limited to, ground disturbance, construction, modification to any structure, physical security enhancements, communications towers, and purchase and/or use of any sonar eqUipment. The subgrantee must comply with all conditions placed on the project as a result of the EHP review. Any construction· related activities initiated without the necessary EHP review and approval will result in a noncompliance finding, and may not be eligible for reimbursement with DHS/FEMAfCal EMA funding. Any change to the scope of work will require re-evaluation of compliance with the EHP. If ground-disturbing activities occur during the project implementation, the subgrantee must ensure monitoring of the disturbance. If any potential archeological resources are discovered, the subgrantee will immediately cease activity in that area and notify DHS/FEMNCal EMA and the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office. 21. Will ensure that the facilities under its ownership, lease or supervision, which shall be utilized in the accomplishment of this project, are not on the Environmental Protection FY 10 UASI -PALO ALTO 8-3 APRIL 1, 2011 Initials ~ Agency's (EPAs) List of Violating Facilities, and will notify Cal EMA and the Federal Grantor agency of the receipt of any communication from the Director of the EPA Office of Federal Activities indicating if a facility to be used in the project is under consideration for listing by the EPA. 22. Will provide any information requested by DHS/FEMAICal EMA to ensure compliance with applicable laws, including the following: a. Institution of environmental quality control measures under the National Environmental Policy Act, National Historical Preservation Act, Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act, Endangered Species Act, and Executive Orders on Floodplains (11988), Wetlands (11990) and Environmental Justice (E012898) and Environmental Quality (E011514). b. Notification of violating facilities pursuant to EO 11738. c. Assurance of project consistency with the approved state management program developed under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq.). d. Conformity of Federal actions to State (Clean Air) Implementation Plans under Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act of 1955, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.). e. Protection of underground sources of drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended, (p.L 93-523). f. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). California Public Resources Code Sections 21080-21098. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 Section 15000-15007. g. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1271 et.seq.) related to protecting components or potential components of the national wild and scenic rivers system. h. Applicable provisions of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) dated October 19, 1982 (16 USC 3501 et seq.) which prohibits the expenditure of most new Federal funds within the units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System. 23. Will comply with Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) requirements as stated in the California Emergency Services Act, Government Code, Chapter 7 of Division 1 otTitie 2, Section 8607.1 (e) and CCR Title 19, Sections 2445, 2446,2447, and 2448. 24. Agrees that all publications created or published with funding under this grant shall prominently contain the following statement: This document was prepared under a grant from FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate, U.S. Deparlment of Homeland Security. Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of FEMA 's Grant Programs Directorate or the U. S. Deparlment of Homeland Security H The recipient also agrees that, when practicable, any equipment purchased with grant funding shall be prominently marked as follows: "Purchased with funds provided by the U.S. Deparlment of Homeland Security." 25. Acknowledges that DHSIFEMA reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and authorize others to use, for Federal govemment purposes: a) the copyright in any work developed under an award or sub-award; and b) any rights of copyright to which a recipient or SUb-recipient purchases ownership with Federel support. 26. The recipient agrees to consult with DHS/FEMAiCal EMA regarding the allocation of any patent rights that arise from, or are purchased with, this funding. FY 10 UASI-PALO ALTO B-4 APRIL 1, 2011 27. Has requested through the State of California, Federal financial assistance to be used to perform eligible work approved in the submitted application for Federal assistance and after the receipt of Federal financial assistance, through the State of California, agrees to the following: a. Promptly return to the State of California all the funds received which exceed the approved, actual expenditures as accepted by the Federal or State govemment. b. In the event the approved amount of the grant is reduced, the reimbursement applicable to the amount of the reduction will be promptly refu nded to the State of California. c. Separately account for interest eamed on grant funds, and will return all interest earned, in excess of $100 per Federal Fiscal Year. 28. Will comply with the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. Sections 4728- 4763) relating to prescribed standards for merit systems for programs funded under one of the nineteen statutes or regulations specified in Appendix A of OPM's Standards for a Merit System of Personnel Administration (5 C.F.R. 900, Subpart F). 29. Will comply wHh provisions of the Hatch Act(5 U.S.C. Sections 1501-1508 and 7324- 7328) which limit the political activities of employees whose principal employment activities are funded in whole or in part with Federal funds. 30. Will comply, if applicable, with P.L. 93-348 regarding the protection of human subjects involved in research, development, and related activities supported by this award of assistance. 31. Will comply, if applicable, with the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (P. L. 89-544, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) pertaining to the care, handling, and treatment of warm blooded animals held for research, teaching, or other activities supported by this award of assistance. 32. Will comply with the minimum wage and maximum hour provisions of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 201), as they apply to employees of institutions of higher education, hospitals, and other non-profit organizations. 33. Will comply, as applicable, with the provisions ofthe Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. Section 276a to 276a-7), the Copeland Act (40 U.S.C. Section 276c and 18 U.S.C. Sections 874), and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. Sections 327-333), regarding labor standards for Federally-assisted construction sub-agreements. 34. Agrees that: a. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the making of any Federal grant, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal grant or cooperative agreement. b. If any other funds than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or an employee of Congress, or employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the Federal grant or cooperative agreement, the FY 10 UASI -PALO ALTO 8-5 APRIL 1,2011 undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form lll, "Disclosure of lobbying Activities," in accordance with its instructions. c. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all sub awards at all tiers including 5ubgrants, contracts under grants and ccoperative agreements, and subcontract(s) and that all sub recipients shall certify and disclose accordingly, d. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code, Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. 35. Agrees that equipment acquired or obtained with grant fundS: a. Will be made available pursuant to applicable temns of the California Disaster and Civil Defense Masler Mutual Aid Agreement in consultation with representatives of the various fire, emergency medical, hazardous materials response services, and law enforcement agencies within the jurisdiction of the applicant, and deployed with personnel trained in the use of such equipment in a manner consistent with the California law Enforcement Mutual Aid Plan or the California Fire Services and Rescue Mutual Aid Plan. b. Is consistent with needs as identified in the State Homeland Security Strategy and will be deployed in conformance with that Strategy. 36. Agrees that funds awarded under this grant will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not supplant (replace) non-Federal funds. 37. Will comply with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, pOliCies, guidelines and requirements. including OMB Circulars A102 and A-133, E.O. 12372 and the current Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements. 38. Will comply with all provisions of 2 CFR, including: Part 215 Unifomn Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations (OMB Circular A-11 0); Part 225 Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments (OMB Circular A-8?); Part 220 Cost Principles for Educational Institutions (OMB Circular A-21); Part 230 Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations (OMB Circular A-122). 39. Will comply with Subtitle A, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 1990. 40. Agrees to cooperate with any assessments, national evaluation efforts, or information or data collection requests, including, but not limited to, the provision of any Information required for the assessment or evaluation of any activities within this agreement. 41. Will comply with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), part 31.2 Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, Contracts with Commercial Organizations. 42. Will comply with the financial and administrative requirements set forth in the current edition of the DHS Financial Management Guide. FY 10 UASI-PALO ALTO B-6 APRIL 1,2011 Inida1, f:J{!I3 (c) The representations, warranties and certifications made in the Agreement are true and correct in all material respects as if made on the date hereof, and PALO ALTO is in compliance with all Grant Assurances in Appendix B of the Agreement; (d) No Event of Default has occurred and is continuing; and (e) The undersigned is an officer of PALO ALTO authorized to execute this Reimbursement Request on behalf of PALO ALTO. FY 10 UASI-PALO ALTO C-2 APRIL 1, 2011 SCHEDULE 1 TO REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT The following is an itemized list of Authorized Expenditures for which reimbursement is requested: The following are attached as part of this Schedule 1: (i) An invoice for each item of expenditure for which reimbursement is requested; (ii) The front and the back of canceled checks or other written evidence documenting the payment of each invoice; (iii) For expenditures which are wages or salaries, payroll registers containing a detailed breakdown of earnings and withholdings, together with both sides of canceled payroll checks evidencing payment thereof (unless payment has been made electronically). FY 10 UASI -PALO ALTO C-3 APRIL 1, 2011 John S. and James L. Knight Foundation Endowment February 10, 2012 Mr. Kenneth Dueker Director of Office of Emergency Services City of Palo Alto 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301-3226 Dear Mr. Dueker: At the recommendation of Judith Kleinberg, we are pleased to award City of Palo Alto a grant of $57,000.00 from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation Endowment, an advised fund of Silicon Valley Community Foundation. This grant is to promote widespead participation by Peninsula cities in formulating and implementing a best practices common model for neighborhood emergency response preparedness. Please sign, date, and return the attached grant agreement to the attention of the person at the address listed on the grant agreement as soon as possible. Once we receive the signed agreement, we will fot\Vard the payment to you. The foundation will reguire a detailed report on tlie project's impact on the participants and tlic community. A final report form is enclosed. On belialf of Jolin S. andJames L. Knight Foundation Endowment and Silicon Valley Community Foundation, we appreciate tlie work of your organization and are pleased to support your efforts. Sincerely, D. Lea Rauscher Director, Grants, Gifts and Compliance Grant #: 2012-94758 (3566) Grant Number: 2012-94758 Grantee Name: Grantee Contact: Foundation Staff: Silicon Valley COmmunity Foundation Grant Agreement Amount: 157,000.00 City of Palo i'.lto lYIr. Kenneth Dueker City of Palo Alto 275 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301-3226 Date: 2/10/2012 Email: Kenneth.dueker@cityofpaloalto,org Richard Lee Grants Associate Silicon VaUey Community Foundation 2440 West EI Camino Real, Suite 300 Mountain View, CA 94040-1498 Phone: 650.450.5437 Fax: 650.450.5401 Email: RYLee@siliconvalleycforg Grant Purpose: to promote ",~despead participation by Peninsula cities in formulating ""d implementing a best practices common model for neighborhood emergency response preparedness Grant Period: February 15,2012 to February 15,2013 Please note that the grant period is one year, regardless of project completion date, Grunt #: 2012.94758((:\566)) I Anticipated Project Outcomes: Outmme Outcome Indicators # 1 Ensure widespread participation by • Four communities attend area-wide Peninsula cities in formulating and workshop (including Palo Alto and implementing a best practices cOlnlnon Burling"me) ; model for neighborhood preparedness • Palo Alto and Burlingame hold functional or full-scale exercises designed after workshop; other communities invited to participate or observe. 2 Cojjaborate ,,~th Red Cross, Citizen • COlnlnon language developed and org Corps and other groups to define best charts that are shared with responders practices for the neighborhood layer from other agencies in California; • Templates designed for educational handouts and neighborhood directories; • Enhanced communication strategies implemented with citizens, including latest technology and social media; • Incentives provided that inspire volunteets to get prepared and events that recognize volunteers; • 1\ ceded Equipment purchased, including: vests, helmets) radios, radio antennas, emergency caches 3 Develop afield ~jde for neighborhood • Completed field guide available as a emergency volunteers to use during public document I disasters Publish best practice report and share ... ~~ .... 4 • Report produced and distributed to all widely particiDatinQ' "roUDS ..... _--- Reporting Requirements Silicon Valley Community Foundation requires progress reports at specified dates. PI,rm /lole that fUtlire grO/lt "quests will not be ronsidmd if a g1'tJlllee hajfai/,d 10 SIIbmil a nJquind report. Please submit the following report(s) using the fortn( s) enclosed: Interim reporr Due: July 15,2012 Final report: Due: April 01, 2013 Gmnt # 2012·94758((3566)) l'ayment Schedule: This grant ",'ill be paid in two instalhnents: upon receipt of signed grant agreement and upon receipt of the completed interim report. All payments outlined in this agreement are subject to available assets in the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation Endowment at Silicon Valley Community Foundation. Hold Harmless Grantee hereby urevocably and uncontlitionally agrees, to the fulleS{ extem permitted by law, to defend, iodelnnify and hold harmless the community foundation, its officers, ditectors, ttustees, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses and expenses (including reasonable attotney's fees) ditectly, inditectly, wholly or partially arising from or in connection with the grant, the application of funds furnished pursuant to the grant, the program or project funded or financed by the grant or in any way relating to the subject of this Agreement. This paragraph shall survive tlie termination of this Agreement. Acknowledgement of Grant Support: Please acknowledge Silicon Valley Community Foundation's support of your program in publications such as newsletters, program activity announcements and in all media coverage. \Ve suggest you use the following wording: "This project has been made possible in part by a grant from the 94758, an advised fund of Silicon Valley Community Foundation." By signing below City of Palo Alto acknowledges that this grant agreement is a contract with Silicon Valley Community Foundation for the purposes stated in the agreement. Please inform the community foundation if there are dlanges in agency personnel who are important to the administration of the grant, or if the grant funds cannot be expended for the pUlpose or in the time period described in the proposal. Grantee may not use the funds in any way other than as described in the proposal unless the grantee receives written permission from the communit), foundation. Grantee shall repay to Silicon Valley Community Foundation any portion of the amount granted that is not used for the purpose of this grant. If funds remain at the end of the grant period, grantee must contact the community foundation staff person noted above. Accepted on behalf of City of Palo Alto by: a te t be signed b xecutive Director, President or Board President) Title Printed or Typed Name Date Please sign and retum allllages of the original grant agreement to the address above. Grant #: 2012-94758((3566) City of Palo Alto (ID # 2529) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 4/16/2012 April 16, 2012 Page 1 of 3 (ID # 2529) Summary Title: Reso Approving ABAG Rpt-Natural Disasters Title: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the City of Palo Alto Annex to the Santa Clara County Annex to the 2010 Association of Bay Area Governments Local Hazard Mitigation Plan “Taming Natural Disasters” From: City Manager Lead Department: Fire Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt a Resolution approving the City of Palo Alto Annex to the Santa Clara County, CA Annex to the 2010 Association of Bay Area Governments Local Hazard Mitigation Plan “Taming Natural Disasters.” Background The Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA) requires all cities, counties, and special districts to have adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to receive disaster mitigation funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The DMA provides that a local agency may adopt a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan or participate in the preparation of and adopt a Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) received funds from FEMA to serve as the lead agency in the creation of a Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan for the nine-county Bay Area. With participation from the City of Palo Alto and other local agencies, ABAG created an umbrella Hazard Mitigation Plan entitled “Taming Natural Disasters.” In 2005, the City of Palo Alto adopted an Annex to the 2005 ABAG Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. In 2010, ABAG announced that all jurisdictions in Santa Clara County would annex their LHMPs to the County LHMP, which would, in turn, annex to the ABAG LHMP. Discussion The City's LHMP Annex (attached) was updated in 2011 through the regional planning process coordinated by ABAG and the local planning process April 16, 2012 Page 2 of 3 (ID # 2529) coordinated by Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Services. In addition, the City of Palo Alto notified residents and businesses of the hazard mitigation planning process by distributing promotional announcements regarding the public opportunity to respond to an online survey. The LHMP planning process not only helps local areas identify hazards, but also provides a regional framework for understanding risk and interdependencies. Such a process is either required or recommended as a best practice in emergency management. Resource Impact Participating in the ABAG regional plan is far more cost effective than creating a stand-alone, Palo Alto-specific LHMP and does not obligate the City to any financial commitment. In addition, having a plan is necessary to receive certain types of grant funding. Policy Implications This recommendation is consistent with existing policies and supports the existing Council priority of Emergency Preparedness. Environmental Review Approval of the City of Palo Alto Annex to the County LHMP is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061 because it can be seen with certainty that the annex will have a significant effect on the environment. The annex is designed to minimize damage that might result from natural disasters. Potential mitigation actions identified in the Annex are not required; if and when the City decides to pursue such actions appropriate environmental review will be completed. Attachments: Attachment A - Resolution (PDF) Attachment B - Final Mitigation Plan - PA 040412 (PDF) Prepared By: Ken Dueker, Director of Emergency Services April 16, 2012 Page 3 of 3 (ID # 2529) Department Head: Dennis Burns, Police Chief City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager * NOT YET APPROVED * 120222 sh 8261827 1 Resolution No. _____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Annex to the Santa Clara County, CA Annex to the 2010 Association of Bay Area Governments Local Hazard Mitigation Plan “Taming Natural Disasters” WHEREAS, the Bay Area is subject to various earthquake-related hazards such as ground shaking, liquefaction, landsliding, fault surface rupture, and tsunamis; and WHEREAS, the Bay Area is subject to various weather-related hazards including wildfires, floods, and landslides; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto recognizes that disasters do not recognize city, county, or special district boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto seeks to maintain and enhance both a disaster- resistant City of Palo Alto and region by reducing the potential loss of life, property damage, and environmental degradation from natural disasters, while accelerating economic recovery from those disasters; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto is committed to increasing the disaster resistance of the infrastructure, health, housing, economy, government services, education, environment, and land use systems in the City of Palo Alto, as well as in the Bay Area as a whole; and WHEREAS, the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires all cities, counties, and special districts to have adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to receive disaster mitigation funding from FEMA; and WHEREAS, ABAG has approved and adopted the ABAG report Taming Natural Disasters as the multi-jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. That the City of Palo Alto adopts, and adapts with its local annex, this multi-jurisdictional plan as its Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. // // // * NOT YET APPROVED * 120222 sh 8261827 2 SECTION 2. That the City of Palo Alto commits to continuing to take those actions and initiating further actions, as deemed appropriate by its City Council, officers, and employees, identified in the City of Palo Alto Annex of that multi-jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan by proposing to adopt the mitigation strategies listed therein as part of the Natural Resources Element of its 2020 Comprehensive Plan. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Sr. Deputy City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Fire Chief _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-1 Contents Section 18 City of Palo Alto ........................................................................................................ 18-3 18.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 18-3 18.2 Internal Planning Process ................................................................................................ 18-11 18.3 Capability Assessment ..................................................................................................... 18-20 18.3.1 Mitigation Progress .................................................................................................. 18-20 18.3.2 Staff and Organizational Capabilities ...................................................................... 18-20 18.3.3 National Flood Insurance Program .......................................................................... 18-32 18.3.4 Resource List: .......................................................................................................... 18-34 18.4 Vulnerability Assessment ................................................................................................ 18-34 18.4.1 Critical Facilities ...................................................................................................... 18-34 18.4.2 Exposure Analysis .................................................................................................... 18-36 18.5 Mitigation Actions ........................................................................................................... 18-56 18.5.1 Primary Concerns ..................................................................................................... 18-56 18.5.2 Mitigation Actions ................................................................................................... 18-56 18.6 Plan Maintenance............................................................................................................. 18-58 18.6.1 Monitoring, evaluating, updating the plan ............................................................... 18-58 18.6.2 Point of Contact ....................................................................................................... 18-58 18.7 City of Palo Alto Appendix ............................................................................................. 18-59 18.7.1 Palo Alto Attachment 1: Palo Alto Outreach Materials ........................................... 18-59 18.7.2 Palo Alto Attachment 2: Repetitive Loss Letter ...................................................... 18-61 18.7.3 Palo Alto Attachment 3: Palo Alto Exposure Analysis ........................................... 18-63 Figure 18-1: Inventory of Soft-First Story Multi-Family Dwellings-City of Palo Alto ................. 18-45 Table 18-1: Hazards of Most Concern ............................................................................................ 18-12 Table 18-2: Items Readily Available to Respondents ..................................................................... 18-13 Table 18-3: Adequate Homeowners Insurance ............................................................................... 18-16 Table 18-4: Earthquake Insurance .................................................................................................. 18-16 Table 18-5: Flood Insurance ........................................................................................................... 18-16 Table 18-6: Property Changes to Reduce Damage from Hazards .................................................. 18-17 Table 18-7: Place of Work in Hazard Areas ................................................................................... 18-17 Table 18-8: Key Departments in the City of Palo Alto ................................................................... 18-21 Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-2 Table 18-9: Technical Capability Matrix ........................................................................................ 18-22 Table 18-10: Financing Mechanisms .............................................................................................. 18-25 Table 18-11: Availability of Ordinances that Support Hazard Mitigation ..................................... 18-31 Table 18-12: City of Palo Alto Critical Facilities ........................................................................... 18-34 Table 18-13: Critical Facilities at risk to Sea Level Rise ............................................................... 18-52 Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-3 SECTION 18 CITY OF PALO ALTO 18.1 INTRODUCTION This City of Palo Alto Annex serves as an annex to the Santa Clara County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan which is an annex to the 2010 Association of Bay Area Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Taming Natural Disasters. Pursuant to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, a signed adoption resolution confirms the City Council adopted this annex. This annex is an update to the City’s annex to the 2005 Association of Bay Area Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Taming Natural Disasters, as adopted on December 12, 2005. Part of the metropolitan San Francisco Bay Area and the Silicon Valley, Palo Alto is located within Santa Clara County and borders San Mateo County. The City’s boundaries extend from San Francisco Bay on the east to the Skyline Ridge of the coastal mountains on the west, with Menlo Park to the north, and Mountain View to the south. The City encompasses an area of approximately 26 square miles, of which one-third is open space. The city shares its borders with East Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Portola Valley, and portions of unincorporated San Mateo County and Santa Clara County (including the unincorporated areas of Cupertino and Saragota in the foothills). It is named after a redwood tree called El Palo Alto. The city includes portions of Stanford University and its affiliates, is headquarters to a number of Silicon Valley high-technology companies, including Hewlett-Packard, VMware, Tesla Motors, and IDEO, and has served as an incubator to several other high-technology companies, such as Google, Facebook, Logitech, Intuit, Sun Microsystems, and PayPal. As of the 2010 census, the City had a total population of 64,403 residents. A blend of business and residential neighborhoods, anchored by a vibrant downtown, defines Palo Alto’s unique character. A charming mixture of old and new, Palo Alto’s tree-lined streets and historic buildings reflect its California heritage. At the same time, Palo Alto is recognized worldwide as a leader in cutting-edge development, as a quintessential part of Silicon Valley. Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-4 Utilities Unlike surrounding communities, electric, water, gas and wastewater service within city limits are provided by the City of Palo Alto. A minor exception is a rural portion of the city limits in the foothills area, west of Interstate 280, which gets gas and electric service from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). The Water, Gas and Wastewater Division (WGW) operates water, gas, and wastewater distribution networks within the city limits. Natural gas is purchased from third parties and delivered to Palo Alto via PG&E's gas transmission pipeline network. The city operates gas meters and the distribution pipelines. Water is supplied by the San Francisco Public Utility Commission’s Hetch Hetchy system through 5 interconnection points. Emergency water is available through interconnects to adjacent systems and through wells located within the City limits. The City operates its own electric power distribution network and telemetry cable network. The City is connected to PG&E's electric transmission system, which brings power from several sources to the City. Palo Alto is a member of a joint powers authority (the Northern California Power Agency), which cooperatively generates electricity for government power providers such as the Cities of Santa Clara, Lodi, Lompoc, Alameda and Healdsburg. Transportation Palo Alto is served by two major freeways, Highway 101, and Interstate 280, and is traversed by the Peninsula’s main north-south boulevard, El Camino Real (SR 82). The city is also served indirectly by State Route 84, which traverses the Dumbarton Bridge to the north. Palo Alto has only one major cross-town arterial, Page Mill Road / Oregon Expressway, which completely connects the two freeways. Palo Alto is served by Palo Alto Airport of Santa Clara County (KPAO), one of the busiest single-runway general aviation airports in the country. In addition to private pilot use, the Airport is a refueling and service hub for air ambulance helicopters such as Life Flight and CalStar and is also used for patient transport and related support for Stanford Hospital, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, and other such charitable or medical entities. Train service is available via Caltrain, with service between San Francisco and San Jose and extending to Gilroy. Caltrain has two regular stops in Palo Alto, one at University Avenue (local and express), and the other at California Avenue (local only). A third, the Stanford station, located beside Alma Street at Embarcadero Road, is used to provide special services for Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-5 occasional sports events (generally football) at Stanford Stadium. The University Avenue stop is the second most popular (behind 4th and King in San Francisco) on Caltrain's entire line. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) provides primary bus service through Palo Alto with service to the south bay and Silicon Valley. The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides service to San Mateo County to the north. The Stanford University Free Shuttle (Marguerite) provides a supplementary bus service to and from the campus, and the Palo Alto Free Shuttle (Crosstown and Embarcadero), which circulates frequently, and provides service to major points in Palo Alto, including the main library, downtown, the Municipal Golf Course, the Caltrain University Ave Station, and both high schools. Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-6 This page intentionally left blank. Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-7 Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-8 Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-9 This page left blank pending the 2012 resolution. Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-10 This page left blank pending the 2012 resolution. Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-11 18.2 INTERNAL PLANNING PROCESS The City of Palo Alto participated in the regional planning process coordinated by ABAG and the local planning process coordinated by Santa Clara County OES as noted in Section 3 of this plan. Kenneth Dueker, J.D., Director, Emergency Services for the City of Palo Alto, assumed management of this internal process, subsequent to numerous retirements and staff changes in the city during the drafting of this plan. The City of Palo Alto’s internal planning team included the following individuals: Steve Emslie, Deputy City Manager, City Manager's Office Linda Clerkson, Public Information Officer, City Manager's Office Dennis Burns, Police Chief and Interim Fire Chief Mark Venable, A/Assistant Chief, Palo Alto Police Department Charles Cullen, Director of Technical Services, Palo Alto Police Department Catherine Capriles, A/Deputy Chief, Palo Alto Fire Department Curtis Williams, Director, Planning Community & Environment Dept. Larry Perlin, Chief Building Official, Planning Community & Environment Dept. Steven Turner, Planning Manager, Planning Community & Environment Dept. Valerie Fong, Director, City of Palo Alto Utilities Dept. Dean Batchelor, Assistant Director, Ops., City of Palo Alto Utilities Dept. Tom Kaiser, Safety & Security Coord., City of Palo Alto Utilities Department Tomm Marshall, Assistant Director, Engineering, City of Palo Alto Utilities Dept. Jane Ratchye, Assistant Director, Resource Management, City of Palo Alto Utilities Dept. Greg Betts, Director, Community Services Department Mike Sartor, Director, Public Works Dept. James Allen, Manager, Wastewater Quality Plant, Public Works Dept. Paul Dornell, Management Spec., Public Works Dept. Phil Bobel, Interim Assistant Director, Public Works Dept. Joe Teresi, Sr. Eng., Public Works Dept. (flood and drainage) Melissa Tronquet, Sr. Deputy Attorney, City Attorney’s Office Public Outreach The City of Palo Alto notified residents and businesses of the hazard mitigation planning process by distributing promotional announcements regarding the public opportunity to respond to the online survey discussed in Section 3.2.6. A copy of the survey is included in County Attachment 7: Survey Outreach Materials, found in Section 9.7. The following media was utilized: • Press Release distributed to all local media • City Website (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org) • Email to 700 city Emergency Services Volunteers (incl. former volunteers) Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-12 Copies of these outreach announcements are included in Section 18.7, Palo Alto Attachment 1: Palo Alto Outreach Materials. Survey Results On November 1, 2010, the Local Planning Team released an online survey to solicit public input regarding concerns for hazard risk. The Local Planning Team also used this survey to gauge the level of public preparedness for emergencies. The survey responses received from the City of Palo Alto residents are summarized below: 1. 50 out of 541 survey respondents were from the City of Palo Alto. 2. Respondents were asked which five hazards, out of the 31 hazards the LPT identified, are of most concern to their neighborhood or home. Below are responses from the City of Palo Alto (in order of most responses): Table 18-1: Hazards of Most Concern Hazard Number of Responses Infrastructure: Water System Disruption (no potable water) 40 Earthquake: Ground Shaking 37 Infrastructure: Electrical System Disruption (no power) 32 Infrastructure: Energy System Disruption (no gas) 18 Flood 17 Infrastructure: Transportation Disruption (blocked roads / failed bridges) 16 Infrastructure: Wastewater System Disruption (sewer backup) 15 Hazardous Materials Spills (chemical/biological) 13 Infrastructure: Telecommunication System Disruption (no phone / cell service) 11 Additional Hazard * 10 Earthquake: Liquefaction 9 Disease and Outbreak 8 Drought 6 Earthquake: Surface Rupture 5 Wildfire 5 Solar Storm 2 Agricultural Pests and Diseases 1 Delta Levee Failure 1 Expansive Soils 1 Heat (extreme heat) 1 Land Subsidence (soil compaction due to subsurface water removal) 1 Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-13 Hazard Number of Responses Wind (high winds) 1 Bay Area Silting 0 Dam Failure 0 Earthquake: Landslides 0 Freeze 0 Hailstorm 0 Landslide and Debris flow 0 Thunder/Lightning Storms 0 Tornado 0 Tsunami 0 Volcano 0 * Respondents noted the following additional hazards: Sea level rise, hazardous materials spills and toxic fume releases caused by earthquakes, lack of street light, speeding vehicles, terrorism, EPA levee failure, urban fire, and the releases of toxic chemicals from businesses in town 3. Respondents were asked if a severe hazard event occurred today, such that all services were cut off from their home and they were unable to leave or access a store for 72 hours, which items they would have readily available. Below is a summary of responses from the City of Palo Alto respondents: Table 18-2: Items Readily Available to Respondents Item that is Readily Available Responses Flashlight (with batteries) 50 First Aid Kit 46 Blanket(s) 45 Canned / Non-perishable Foods (ready to eat) 44 Portable AM/FM Radio (solar powered, hand crank,or batteries) 44 Potable Water (3 gallons per person) 40 Extra Medications 36 Cash 35 Handheld "Walkie-Talkie" Radios (with batteries) 29 What else is in your emergency kit? * 24 Important Family Photos/Documentation in a water and fire proof container 21 * Respondents noted the following additional items in their emergency kits: tools, fuel, tarps, tents, sleeping bags, plastic sheeting and a staple gun to cover broken windows, camping gear, gloves, hard hat, shovel, wire, tree cutters, water purification tablets, filter masks, cooking supplies, fire extinguisher, Amateur (ham) radio, propane stove, generator, shoes, clothes, matches, gas shutoff Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-14 tool, safety glasses, flares, candles, ARES/RACES Go Kit, rope, garbage bags, duct tape, cooking coals, standard military issued survival kit, flash drive with important photos and documents, paper and pens, books, extra old cell phones, and family/emergency contact list 4. Respondents were asked if they were familiar with the special needs of their neighbors in the event of a disaster situation. • 29, or 60.4% of respondents, answered that they are not familiar with the special needs of their neighbors. • 19, or 39.6% of respondents, answered that they are familiar with the special needs of their neighbors. 5. Respondents were asked if they are trained members of their Community Emergency Response Team (CERT). • 35, or 71.4% of respondents indicated that they are part of CERT. • 2, or 4.1% of respondents, indicated that they are not part of CERT, but would like to learn more about CERT. • 12, or 24.5% of respondents, indicated that they are not part of CERT and are not interested in being a trained CERT member. • 1 respondent skipped this question. Respondents were asked to share why they are a trained CERT member or why they are not part of CERT. The received responses are listed below: • First responders focus on the big problems that only they can address. CERT attempts to fill the gap by training and equipping residents to safely respond to less intensive emergencies where the professionals are too overwhelmed to respond. • We live in earthquake country. • I am a member of CERT so that I am aware and informed and so I can contribute to helping my neighbors. • To be prepared for a disaster and to help my neighbors and community • CERT, to give back to the community and build personal skills • Helps meet a critical need • I was trained in CERT many years ago and I have forgotten a lot • Not part because I am already overwhelmed with family responsibilities. • My husband is a CERT HAM radio member • I have limited time, but I have received advanced first aid training and have participated in the amateur radio emergency communications program. • In April 2007, we had a power outage at 10pm. Ten of our neighbors went running around trying to find out what happened. We decided after the power outage cause was known that we should get prepared. At a safety fair, we signed up for CERT training (CERT). • To be knowledgeable, prepared, and assist myself and others in the event of an emergency • CERT is not the best use of citizen’s time for training. I am trained in Personal Emergency Preparedness (PEP) and I am SEMS/NEMS trained. Citizens should be trained to take care of themselves and neighbors for 72 hours and not be utilized to assist first responders. Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-15 6. Respondents were asked what the most important thing local government can do to help communities be more prepared for a disaster. The following summarizes the 34 responses received: • Promote emergency preparedness and ensure that citizens have water and food for 72 hours and have an emergency plan for their family • Invest in infrastructure resiliency • Seismic strengthening of infrastructure • Citizen and City training/education and exercises (drills) • City Emergency Communication • Promote emergency awareness (through events and mailings) • Create a disaster plan and make sure communities within City know of plan • Create a Block Coordinator Program and identify block captains to carryout emergency response plans • Help coordinate CERT, PAN, CERT, and other organizations in Palo Alto • Fund and support CERT and CERT programs • Create stockpiles (food, water, etc) in case of emergency • Encourage police/fire/utilities personnel to live in Palo Alto or within 5 miles • Regionalize EOC operations for local agencies and give the lead to the Santa Clara County Fire department 7. Respondents were asked if they live in an apartment building or home with a living space above a garage or parking area. • 43 or 87.8% of respondents indicated that they do not live in an apartment or home with living space above a garage or parking area. • 6, or 12.2% of respondents, indicated that they do live in an apartment building or home with living space above a garage or parking area. • One respondent skipped this question. Those respondents who indicated that they do live in an apartment building or home with living space above the garage or parking area were asked to describe their level of concern for the building to collapse in a large earthquake event. 1 respondent indicated “Extremely Concerned”, 6 indicated “Moderate Concern”, and 1 respondent indicated “Very Little Concern”. 8. Respondents who are homeowners were asked if they have adequate homeowners insurance to cover the hazards that could impact their home. Below is a summary of responses: Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-16 Table 18-3: Adequate Homeowners Insurance Answer Responses Yes, my insurance coverage should be adequate 30 No, I don't believe my insurance coverage would be adequate for a major disaster 14 Unsure 4 I do not have an insurance policy 0 Not applicable, I rent my current residence 2 9. Respondents were asked if they have earthquake insurance. Below is a summary of responses: Table 18-4: Earthquake Insurance Answer Responses Yes, I own my home and have earthquake insurance. 23 Yes, I rent my home and have earthquake insurance. 0 No, but I am interested in reviewing earthquake insurance options. 1 No, earthquake insurance is too expensive. 22 No, I do not need earthquake insurance. 1 10. Respondents were asked if they have flood insurance. Below is a summary of responses: Table 18-5: Flood Insurance Answer Responses Yes, I own my home and have flood insurance. 11 Yes, I rent my home and have flood insurance. 0 No, but I am interested in reviewing flood insurance options. 2 No, I do not need flood insurance 33 11. Respondents indicated the following as additional insurance listed for their home or property: • Comprehensive insurance • Renter’s insurance • Fire • Umbrella liability • Theft • Homeowners • Worker’s compensation insurance 12. Respondents were asked what they are doing to their property or within their home to reduce future damage from the hazards identified above. Below is a summary of responses: Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-17 Table 18-6: Property Changes to Reduce Damage from Hazards Property Mitigation Responses Roof retrofit using fire resistant material 20 Seismic retrofit of the structure and/or foundation 18 Other * 10 Defensible space landscaping (clear vegetation around house to reduce wildfire risk) 9 Installed backflow prevention device(s) 7 Strengthened openings to reduce high hazard wind risk 7 House elevation or first floor modification to prevent flood damage 3 *The responses to “Other” were: “Re-enforcing foundation attachments and cripple walls”, “seismic inspection of house”, “Cabinets bolted to walls and frame of house bolted to foundation”, and “home has been checked for structure in earthquakes, do not have flood issues, may purchase a propane generator.” 13. Respondents were asked if they work in Santa Clara County. • 27, or 54% of respondents, indicated that they do work in Santa Clara County. • 23, or 46% of respondents, indicated that they do not work in Santa Clara County. 14. Respondents were asked if their place of work is in an area susceptible to natural hazards. Below is a list of natural hazards and responses from survey respondents: Table 18-7: Place of Work in Hazard Areas Natural Hazard Response Earthquake fault zone 15 I don't know 9 Liquefaction zone 8 Other * 6 High-risk flood zone 5 Wildland urban interface (wildfire risk area) 3 Landslide risk area 0 * The responses to “Other” were: “It’s a commercial zone with many hazards and chemicals”, “not employed”, and “retired” 15. Respondents were asked if their employer has a plan for disaster recovery in place. • 20, or 58.8% of respondents, indicated that their employer does have a disaster recovery plan in place. • 8, or 23.5% of the respondents, indicated that their employer does not have a disaster recovery plan in place. • 6 respondents were unsure if their employer has a disaster recovery plan in place. Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-18 • 16 respondents skipped this question. 16. Respondents were asked if their employer has a workforce communications plan to implement following a disaster so they may contact their employees. • 15, or 45.5% of respondents indicated that their employer does have a workforce communications plan. • 12, or 36.4% of respondents indicated that their employer does not have a workforce communications plan. • 6, or 18.2% of respondents indicated that they are unsure if their employer has a workforce communications plan. • 17 respondents skipped this question. 17. Respondents were asked to list any studies that they are aware of being conducted within their community or the county regarding the risk to future hazard events. 7 respondents replied to this question. These answers are summarized below. 43 respondents skipped this question. • Earthquake and ground shake study • Flood, creeks, and levees • Pandemic • CERT risk assessment inventories • USGS study of 7.0 earthquake, 60% chance in the next 30 years • Emergency potable water locations • Most vulnerable buildings 18. Respondents were asked what recommendations they have for Santa Clara County and the incorporated cities to improve identification, prioritization, and implementation of actions intended to reduce future damage and increase resiliency. The following recommendations were received: • Improve and harden all critical lifeline infrastructure: water delivery, communications, roads and bridges, hospitals and clinics, health and sanitation services. • Require local companies to have minimum disaster preparedness plans in place • Require retrofit over a period of time of soft story/unsafe buildings (mostly apartments in Palo Alto) • Encourage the Water District to improve infrastructure • Inspect older homes to see if they should be updated to meet current earthquake codes • Inventory critical infrastructure • Create a plan for CERT/CERT to observe infrastructure to save first responders for higher value work during an emergency • Provide retrofit assistance (loans) • Educate and train citizens through CERT or BPC Program 19. Respondents were asked to recommend any companies or local associations that should be involved in the Santa Clara County hazard mitigation planning process. The recommended Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-19 organizations are listed below and were given the opportunity to review the draft plan as noted in the following section. • NASA Ames • Barron Park Association 20. Respondents were asked if they would like to review and comment on a draft of their jurisdictions annex to the Multi-Jurisdictional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. • 17, or 45.9% of respondents said they would like to review and comment on the draft plan. • 20, or 54.1% of respondents said they would not like to review and comment on the plan draft. • 13 respondents skipped this question. 14 respondents who said they would like to review and comment on the draft plan included their contact information and were given the opportunity to review the draft plan as noted in the following section. 21. Respondents were asked to provide any additional comments/suggestions/questions. The responses are summarized below: • Each city needs a disaster plan and implementation by communication with the local neighborhoods of that City. It is essential that the plan be in-place and ready to go when the disaster hits. • I live near an industrial area and there is no coordination between the emergency response programs at those companies and those in the neighborhood • More public reminders about disaster procedures in the community, more practice drills. Post and communicate information regarding what to keep on hand, when to replace the items, etc. Provide discounted emergency preparedness items that are recommended. Provide training for HAM radio. Basically, make it cheap and easy for people to get what they need to have on hand! • I would love to understand what the contingency plan is for the breaking of the Hetch Hetchy pipeline which I understand from the maps crosses several fault lines. I would also love to understand what planning is in place for a wide outbreak of disease. Review Opportunities A review draft of this plan was submitted to Cal EMA on August 16, 2011, and subsequently forwarded to FEMA for review and comment regarding compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. During this time the review draft was available for public review on the websites of the Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Services and the Association of Bay Area Governments. No comments were received on the review draft, other than one from a community member in response to the City Council's initial attempt to adopt the resolution in March 2012. Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-20 On March 5, 2012, the Palo Alto City Council requested minor edits to the review draft prior to adopting the plan. Those edits have been incorporated. 18.3 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT 18.3.1 Mitigation Progress The City’s primary objective is to protect human life through corrective action and measures to mitigate the risks, to the extent practicable, identified in the plan. New mitigation actions the City of Palo Alto has identified are discussed in Section 18.5. 18.3.1.1 Completed projects In the past 5 years, electrical, mechanical, and information system upgrades have been made to a number of city buildings, making their occupants better able to deal with emergency situations. Seismic improvements have been completed on two libraries. Street resurfacing and traffic light improvements have been made, allowing for better response to emergencies and more robust evacuation routes. A new storm water pump station was constructed adjacent to San Francisquito Creek downstream of Highway 101 in 2007. Operation of the pump station decreases the likelihood of street flooding in a 1,250-acre area of northeastern Palo Alto. 18.3.1.2 Current projects Currently, a project is underway to rebuild Mitchell Park Library and Mitchell Park Community Center. The resulting buildings will be better able to withstand earthquakes and other emergencies. Upgrades, which will make seismic and other improvements to the Main Library and the Arts Center, are in the design phase. Electrical and mechanical upgrades are being made to City Hall and will be completed in the summer of 2011. The City has formed an Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) tasked with identifying critical buildings, facilities, and related resources in need of improvement.1 The Public Safety Building is one of their current projects. 18.3.2 Staff and Organizational Capabilities 18.3.2.1 Departmental Responsibilities 1 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/infrastructure_blue_ribbon_commission.asp Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-21 The City of Palo Alto operates several departments with capabilities for implementing hazard mitigation strategies. These departments and their roles and responsibilities are summarized in the following table. Table 18-8: Key Departments in the City of Palo Alto Key Departments in the City of Palo Alto (alphabetical order) Departments Community Services Department The Community Services Department operates the Cubberley Community Center along with various parks and other facilities, many of which are identified for use as shelters, evacuation points or have other functions in a disaster. Further, the CSD Open Space Rangers are trained in wildland firefighting and also support the Police Department in patrolling parks and the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Fire Department The City of Palo Alto Fire Department provides services to the city and to Stanford University. The large number of high-technology businesses and the Stanford University campus increase the daytime population to over twice the residential baseline population. The Fire Marshal and fire inspector staff perform plan checks and other such functions to maintain the safety of buildings, as well as certain special events. Planning and Community Environment Department Building Division The mission of the Building Division is to ensure construction quality by reviewing construction plans for conformance to building codes, permit processing, and inspecting projects while under construction. Planning Section The Planning Section provides staff support for the Planning & Transportation Commission, the Architectural Review Board, the Historic Resources Board, and administers the City's housing programs as well as preparing and monitoring the Comprehensive Plan and providing long-range planning studies. This division also processes applications for planning entitlements. Code Enforcement Program The Code Enforcement Program promotes maintaining a safe and desirable living and working environment. We help improve the quality of our community Police Department The Palo Alto Police Department is committed to providing exceptional public safety services and taking a leadership role in building community partnerships. The Police Department is responsible for maintaining a core asset for emergency operations: the Communications Center, which provides dispatch for Palo Alto Police Department, the Stanford Department Public Safety (DPS) police, the Palo Alto Fire Department, as well as other government channels. This center serves as the 911 Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for the Palo Alto and Stanford communities. Public Works Department The Public Works Department is responsible for the approval, construction, maintenance and management of Palo Alto's public facilities, streets, sidewalks, street trees; parking lots and storm drains. The Public Works Department is also responsible for the administration and operation of the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant; and administration of the National Flood Insurance Program. In Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-22 addition, Public Works maintains the entire City fleet with full equipment replacement, preventative maintenance and fueling. Utilities Department The Utilities Department is responsible for the approval, construction, maintenance and management of Palo Alto's public electric, fiber, water, gas, and wastewater collection facilities. The Utilities Department is also responsible for the maintenance and operation of the street light and traffic signal programs. In addition to having the responsibility for the infrastructure, the Utilities Department purchases all of the water, gas and electricity commodities used within the City. With a clear hazard mitigation strategy, as outlined in this Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the City’s departments are able to implement their ongoing policies and programs with consideration of the identified hazard risks. In addition, these departments become aware of priority mitigation actions and can offer resources (financial or staffing) to assist with the implementation of those actions. 18.3.2.2 Technical Capability For a successful mitigation program, it is necessary to have a diverse breadth of staff and technical capabilities. Planners, engineers, building inspectors, emergency managers, floodplain managers, people familiar with Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and grant writers are all essential to implementing mitigation actions. The following table summarizes the staffing capabilities available within the City of Palo Alto. Table 18-9: Technical Capability Matrix Technical Capability Matrix Land Use Planners Planning Section Emergency manager Office of Emergency Services Civil or Building Engineers Building Division Floodplain manager Public Works Staff knowledgeable about hazards Public Works, Community Services, Utilities, Police, Fire GIS staff Information Technology (IT) Dept. Grant writers OES, Public Works, Utilities, Police, Fire (no full-time, however) Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-23 18.3.2.3 Fiscal Capability The following summarizes Palo Alto’s fiscal capabilities in terms of the City’s financial resources and allocated spending. Property Tax and Charges for Services are the primary sources of Palo Alto’s financial resources. The City has allocated the majority of financial resources to Police, Fire and Community Services. These three categories are all relevant for implementing hazard mitigation actions. In Utilities, the city collects, through our rates charged to customers, funds for maintaining or our improving our infrastructure and to fund our reserves in the event of damage or failure to key components of our infrastructure (such as a major water reservoir, or damage to electric substation equipment.) Utilities maintains Emergency Plant Replacement Reserves for each fund (electric, gas, water, wastewater collection, and fiber) that can be used to repair or replace key infrastructure components up to the City’s insurance deductible amount (currently, $1 million). Additionally, Utilities has bond financed the $33 million emergency water supply project to increase the City’s water storage volume, groundwater supplies, and pumping capacities for emergency response purposes. Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-24 Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-25 Table 18-10: Financing Mechanisms Financing Mechanisms Sa l e s T a x Pr o p e r t y T a x Tr a n s i e n t O c c u p a n c y Ta x Ut i l i t y U s e r s T a x Ot h e r T a x e s a n d Fi n e s Ch a r g e s f o r S e r v i c e s Pe r m i t s a n d L i c e n s e s Re t u r n o n I n v e s t m e n t Re n t a l I n c o m e Fr o m o t h e r a g e n c i e s Ch a r g e s t o O t h e r Fu n d s Ot h e r R e v e n u e TO T A L R E V E N U E S Op e r a t i n g T r a n s f e r s - In TO T A L S O U R C E OF F U N DS 18 , 2 1 8 25 , 9 0 7 7, 0 2 1 11 , 4 2 9 5, 8 6 8 19 , 9 5 0 4, 4 9 2 1, 6 4 6 13 , 7 1 6 15 6 10 , 6 2 2 1, 4 9 1 12 0 , 5 1 6 18 , 6 8 4 13 9 , 2 0 0 18.3.2.4 Policy or Program Capability The City of Palo Alto has several plans and ordinances in place which provide ample opportunities for implementing the hazard mitigation strategy outlined in this plan. 18.3.2.4.1 Summary of Plans that Support Hazard Mitigation Emergency Operations Plan The Palo Alto Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), dated 2007, identifies the City’s emergency planning, organization, and response policies and procedures. The EOP also addresses the integration and coordination with other governmental levels and volunteer agencies when required. It is meant to be considered as a preparedness document, intended to be read and understood before Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-26 an emergency occurs. The major purposes of the plan are to distinguish who is in charge, to ensure essential jobs are accomplished, to provide for the continuity of government, to help citizens and City staff understand the City’s emergency organization, to provide guidance for disaster education and training, and to provide for the proper transfer of command during an emergency. The Plan consists of two parts: the Basic Plan and the Annexes. The Basic Plan outlines how the City of Palo Alto fulfills its mandated requirements for emergency management. It addresses how the City will respond to disaster emergencies, from preparation through recovery. A hazard analysis and matrix are included in the plan. The responsibilities of each department are identified in the matrices, which are based on each identified hazard. Although the EOP lists several natural and man-made hazards that have the potential to affect Palo Alto, the City has focused its disaster planning efforts on nine of these hazards: earthquake, hazardous materials incident, flooding/dam failure/severe winter storm, wildland fires, urban fires, terrorism/nuclear attack/act of war, airplane accident, and public health/pandemic. Maps of hazard areas are included in the Plan. One flood mitigation strategy that the City has implemented includes installing creek monitoring devices to ensure the most accurate and up-to-date information regarding potential flooding is made available. These devices provide creek level information. The images generated from the data can be monitored by residents though the City’s website. City staff also monitor weather information to receive advance warning and prepare for upcoming storms. Another flood mitigation strategy described in this Plan is the seismic upgrading of the Boronda Lake dam. Mitigation strategies for wildland and urban fires are also described in the Plan. Fire department response times, staffing and service levels, water supply, public education, code enforcement, and funding are the significant fire safety policy issues. Efforts to establish an emergency water supply system are underway and the system should be in place and operational in 2012. The emergency water supply project will provide Palo Alto with a self-sustaining emergency water supply. The Basic Plan section of the EOP prescribes four phases of emergencies and disasters: Preparedness, Prevention, Response, and Recovery. Preparedness: Preparedness entails any actions taken in advance of an emergency/disaster to develop operational capabilities and help communities respond to and recover from a disaster. Such measures include the construction and equipping of EOCs with warning and communications systems, recruitment and training of emergency management personnel, development of plans, procedures, arrangements, and agreements, and drill exercises of personnel and systems. Training for emergency response should be scheduled and conducted on an ongoing basis. Mitigation/Prevention: Mitigation efforts include making adjustments to zoning variances, the building code, and reviewing mitigation plans, seismic safety elements, and other land use planning techniques. Within declared areas, management of non-profit special districts and the Palo Alto Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-27 Office of Emergency Services are responsible for identifying future projects that will substantially reduce the risk of future damage, hardship, loss, or suffering from a disaster. Identification of these projects occurs through updates to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Response: The City’s emergency response efforts follow the NIMS/SEMS based organization structure. The activation of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) occurs during this phase. Alerts to the public also occur during this phase. Alerts can be conducted through the City’s Emergency Services website, through phone and e-mail lists, and through radio and broadcast stations. Recovery: Recovery refers to those measures undertaken by an entity following a disaster that will return all systems (utilities, phones, government offices, etc.) to normal levels of service. Short term recovery includes debris removal, utility restoration, health services, and the abatement and demolition of hazardous structures. Long term recovery includes hazard mitigation activities, reconstruction of public facilities, and improved EOP and land use planning, and the effective integration of mitigation strategies into recovery planning operations. The annexes contain details and supporting information on how Palo Alto will implement its emergency preparedness, response, and recovery operations. Operational checklists by emergency organization function, a Council Procedures Guide, hazard response checklists, and Palo Alto’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan are each given their own location in the annexes. State, County, and City organizational charts, hazard emergency evacuation maps, a glossary of key definitions and acronyms, and sample proclamations and ordinances are also included. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan is the primary tool for guiding the future development of the City. On a daily basis the City is faced with choices about growth, housing, transportation, neighborhood improvement, and service delivery. A Comprehensive Plan provides a guide for making these choices by describing long-term goals for the City's future as well as policies to guide day-to-day decisions. The 1998-2010 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) is the current document that guides land use decision in the City. City staff is preparing an amendment to the Comp Plan that, once adopted by City Council, will extend the current document through at least 2020. Discussions of local hazards, including goals, policies and programs to address these hazards, are contained within the Natural Resources, Land Use and Housing Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-28 Natural Resources Element Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials are handled and stored on a number of properties in Palo Alto, primarily in the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore corridor, the University Avenue/Downtown Area, the South of Forest Area, and at Stanford Research Park. The City will continue to work towards remediation of contaminated sites and will prevent future contamination by following Best Management Practices. Palo Alto will also continue City permitting procedures for commercial and industrial storage, use, and handling of hazardous materials. Presently, to obtain a City permit requires the verification that the facility meets applicable City code requirements for the storage and handling of hazardous materials. Earthquake Past land use decisions in Palo Alto have not always taken hazards into consideration. Moreover, older buildings and infrastructure reflect the construction and engineering standards of their era, which in most cases fall short of current standards for seismic safety. As a result, a significant portion of the City would be at risk in the event of a major earthquake. The greatest hazards are associated with fault rupture and groundshaking, although liquefaction hazards are significant in the area east of Highway 101 due to the porous nature and high water content of the soil. Landslides, a hazard that is common in the foothills of Palo Alto, may result from heavy rain, erosion, removal of vegetation, or human activities. Settlement and subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal has historically been a problem in South and East Palo Alto, but has been largely halted by groundwater recharge efforts and reduced pumping. Seismically-induced flooding is a hazard due to the possibility of dam failure at Felt Lake, Searsville Lake, and Lagunita Reservoir, and the potential for levee failure near the Bay. To help mitigate the damages that may result from a potential earthquake, Palo Alto will strictly enforce uniform building code seismic safety restrictions and provide incentives for seismic retrofits of structures in the University Avenue/Downtown area. The City will also allow development rights achieved through seismic upgrading of specified sites to be transferred to designated eligible receiver sites. Some parts of Palo Alto are at greater risk in a natural disaster than others. These areas could be zoned or otherwise regulated to reduce their development potential and require detailed geologic and engineering studies prior to development. The City already requires geologic and soils investigations for development southwest of Interstate 280. Similar requirements should be explored in other areas of the City prone to high geologic hazards. Flooding Flood hazards, including saltwater flooding from the Bay and freshwater flooding from creeks overflowing their banks, are also likely to occur in Palo Alto. The City would like to minimize exposure to flood hazards by adequately reviewing proposed development in flood prone areas and Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-29 by implementing the requirements of FEMA relating to construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas, as illustrated on Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Another policy the City would like to establish includes creating a standardized process for upgrading and evaluating the impacts of development on the City’s storm drain system. Fire It is the City’s goal to minimize exposure to wildland and urban fire hazards through rapid emergency response, a sufficient water supply, a proactive fire code enforcement, public education programs, and adequate emergency management preparation. Wildfires are primarily associated with homes built in the foothills. Fire hazard prevention in this area can be achieved through low-density zoning, design reviews of development, and vegetation management. Emergency Management Palo Alto minimizes exposure to all hazards through emergency management planning. As part of the preparedness process, various locations throughout the City are designated for shelter and emergency operations. Palo Alto also encourages public education that strongly encourages each household in the City to be prepared to be self-sufficient for at least 72 hours (2 weeks, preferred) after a major earthquake. The city has partnered with the Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN) organization to develop a Personal Preparedness 90-minute training for the general public, largely modeled on existing FEMA and Red Cross curricula. PAN's Block Preparedness Coordinator Program, in conjunction with the City's Emergency Services Volunteer Program (which includes ARES/RACES and CERT), works with the City to prepare residents and businesses for all hazards, ranging from crime to earthquakes. The City has held two annual citywide exercises, called Quakeville, to bolster these efforts. Neighborhood Watch and crime prevention are included in the BPC program. Land Use Element The amount of urban land in Palo Alto in 2010 will remain essentially the same as it was when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1998, with growth occurring through infill and redevelopment. New non-residential growth will be limited (a limit of 3,257,900 square feet for commercial development), as well as the growth of Stanford University and the Lands Within the Airport Influence Area. Palo Alto would like to promote more mixed-use development, similar to the South of Forest Area (SOFA). It is the City’s goal to retain undeveloped land west of the Foothill Expressway, west of the Junipero Serra, and in the baylands northeast of Highway 101 as open space. Palo Alto recognizes that utility and other City infrastructure improvements need to be carefully designed to minimize negative environmental impacts. This applies throughout the City with special attention given to the baylands and foothills, where improvements should generally be located as Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-30 close as possible to access roads. The City should also continue with the undergrounding of utility wires. Housing Element The Housing Element is prepared to ensure that the population of Palo Alto has access to safe and affordable housing. To promote safe housing, the City has a housing code inspection and enforcement program. The City also enacts development regulations that encourage retention and rehabilitation of historic residential buildings, older multifamily buildings, and smaller single family residences. The City believes it is critical to use the development review process as a way to reduce exposure to hazards for new housing projects. The design and operation of new projects in risk-prone areas must consider relevant geologic, seismic, flood, and fire hazards. Floodplain Management Ordinance In an effort to reduce the risk of loss of life, health, and property due to periodic flood inundation, the In an effort to reduce the risk of loss of life, health, and property due to periodic flood inundation, the City of Palo Alto has adopted a Flood Hazard Regulations Ordinance, Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.52. The ordinance is designed to minimize loss of life, damage to private land development, public facilities and utilities, the need for rescue and relief efforts, business interruptions, and future blighted areas caused by flooding. The ordinance also ensures that property owners construct new and substantially-improved buildings in the Special Flood Hazard Area in a manner that protect the improvements from flood damage. The City Engineer is responsible for enforcing this ordinance. To reduce flood losses, the ordinance includes methods and provisions to control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and protective barriers; to control filling, grading, dredging and other development that can increase flood damage; to regulate the construction of flood barriers which can divert flood waters or increase flood hazards in other areas; and to require that uses vulnerable to floods be protected against flood damage at the time of their construction. One of the provisions of this ordinance is that a development permit must be obtained before any construction or development begins and that certain construction standards such as; anchoring, building with flood resistant materials, and elevating and floodproofing, are required within an area of special flood hazard. The ordinance also enforces that new and replacement water and sanitary sewage systems should be designed to minimize flood water infiltration and discharge into flood waters. Standards are also included for subdivisions, manufactured homes, and recreational vehicles. Since floodways are extremely hazardous, no new development is permitted to be constructed in these areas unless certification by a professional engineer or architect is provided demonstrating that the development will not increase base flood elevations. This ordinance also has special regulations for new development within a coastal high hazard area. These regulations ensure that new construction is located on the landward side of the reach of mean high tide, the space below the lowest floor is free Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-31 of obstructions or constructed with breakaway walls and is not used for human habitation, there is no manmade alteration of sand dunes, and that fill is not used as structural support of a building. 18.3.2.4.2 Summary of Ordinances that Support Hazard Mitigation Table 18-11: Availability of Ordinances that Support Hazard Mitigation Availability of Ordinances that Support Hazard Mitigation Ju r i s d i c t i o n Fl o o d Pl a i n Ma n a g e m e n t Or d i n a n c e Zo n i n g Or d i n a n c e Su b d i v i s i o n Or d i n a n c e Po s t -di sa s t e r Re d / R e c . Or d i n a n c e Bu i l d i n g C o d e Fi r e C o d e Na t i o n a l Fl o o d In s u r a n c e Pr o g r a m NF I P Co m m u n i t y Ra t i n g S y s t e m City of Palo Alto Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes The City of Palo Alto identified several ordinances and policies currently utilized for hazard mitigation in the matrix of regional mitigation strategies prepared by ABAG as part of the 2010 plan update. Below is a summary of these key ordinances and policies. Flood Plain and NFIP: Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.52, Flood Hazard Regulations, was adopted by the City in order to comply with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and federal regulations. The ordinance is designed to minimize loss of life, damage to private land development, public facilities and utilities, the need for rescue and relief efforts, business interruptions, and future blighted areas caused by flooding. The ordinance also ensures that property owners construct new and substantially-improved buildings in the Special Flood Hazard Area in a manner that protect the improvements from flood damage. Zoning: The zoning ordinance includes floodplain regulations, special requirements for hazardous waste facilities, instructions on the permit and approval process, and requirements for nonconforming uses. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$ fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca Fire: Fire prevention in Palo Alto is regulated by the California and International Fire Code. Both of these codes have been adopted by the City. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$ fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-32 18.3.3 National Flood Insurance Program For decades, the national response to flood disasters was simply to provide disaster relief to flood victims. Funded by citizen tax dollars, this approach failed to reduce losses and didn't provide a way to cover the damage costs of all flood victims. To compound the problem, the public generally couldn't buy flood coverage from insurance companies, because private insurance companies consider floods too costly to insure. In the face of mounting flood losses and escalating costs of disaster relief to U.S. taxpayers, Congress established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The goals of the program are to reduce future flood damage through floodplain management, and to provide people with flood insurance. Community participation in the NFIP is voluntary. The City of Palo Alto has participated in the National Flood Insurance Program since 1974. All residents of the City are eligible to purchase federal flood insurance. The City continues to maintain full compliance with the NFIP. Since the previously-approved Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) converted the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City of Palo Alto from a paper format to a digital format and converted the vertical datum from NGVD29 to NAVD88. No new properties were added to the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) as a result of the map update. City staff has imported the digital floodplain map data into the City's Geographic Information System (GIS). City staff continues to regulate development activity in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) in order to ensure that new construction and substantial improvements are constructed with their lowest floor at or above the Base Flood Elevation. The City's flood hazard regulations are contained in Chapter 16.52 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. In order to facilitate the enforcement of the flood hazard regulations, City staff has incorporated FEMA's digital floodplain data into its Geographic Information System (GIS). This has resulted in more accurate identification of the properties located within the Special Flood Hazard Area and the Base Flood Elevations associated with those properties. The City of Palo Alto continues to implement its floodplain management program and is in good standing with the Region IX Office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The City received good evaluations during audits conducted on its floodplain management program and for its participation in the Community Rating System in 2010. The primary hurdle to effectively implementing the regulatory elements of the National Flood Insurance Program is public education and gaining public recognition of flood risk. Staff conducts public outreach on flood preparedness and provides adequate resources to answer public inquiries and to review land development applications in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-33 18.3.3.1 Community Rating System (CRS) The CRS is a voluntary part of the National Flood Insurance Program that seeks to coordinate all flood-related activities, reduce flood losses, facilitate accurate insurance rating, and promote public awareness of flood insurance by creating incentives for a community to go beyond minimum floodplain management requirements. The incentives are in the form of insurance premium discounts. CRS ratings are on a 10-point scale (from 10 to 1, with 1 being the best rating), with residents of the community who live within FEMA’s Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) receiving a 5% reduction in flood insurance rates for every Class improvement in the community’s CRS rating. The City of Palo Alto joined the Community Rating System in October 1991 and has a current class rating of 7. Properties within FEMA’s Special Flood Hazard Areas in Palo Alto receive a 15% reduction in flood insurance rates. Properties outside the SFHA within Palo Alto receive a 5% discount in flood insurance rates. 18.3.3.2 Repetitive Loss Properties The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) insures properties against flooding losses in the Bay Area through the National Flood Insurance Program. (http://www.fema.gov/about/programs/nfip/index.shtm) As part of the process to reduce or eliminate repetitive flooding to structures across the United States, FEMA has developed an official Repetitive Loss Strategy. The purpose behind the national strategy is to identify, catalog, and propose mitigation measures to reduce flood losses to the relatively few number of structures that absorb the majority of the premium dollars from the national flood insurance fund. A repetitive loss property is defined by FEMA as “a property for which two or more National Flood Insurance Program losses of at least $1,000 each have been paid within any 10- year period since 1978.” The City of Palo Alto has five repetitive flood loss properties. The following is a table summarizing repetitive losses in the City. City and County Total Payments ($) Average Payment ($) Losses Properties Properties (as of 2004) Palo Alto 692,067.82 40,709.87 17 5 6 Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-34 There are 5 Repetitive Loss Properties in the City of Palo Alto, as listed below: 1020 Amarillo Avenue, Single-family residential 438 Chaucer Street, Single-family residential 419 Palm Street, Single-family residential 1141 Colorado Avenue , Multi-family residential 2023 E. Bayshore Road, Commercial In order to minimize the flood risk to these properties, the City of Palo Alto annually sends a letter to the property owner of each Repetitive Loss Property educating the owner as to their flood risk and potential actions that they can take to reduce their risk of flood damages. The letter can be found in Palo Alto Attachment 2: Repetitive Loss Letter. Source: http://quake.abag.ca.gov/mitigation/floodloss/ 18.3.4 Resource List: Documents used in the assembly of this Capability Assessment include: City website, FY11 Proposed Operating Budget, Capital Improvements Budget, Comprehensive Plan, Floodplain Management Ordinance, and Capital Improvements Plan. 18.4 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 18.4.1 Critical Facilities During the development of this 2011 annex, the City identified numerous critical facilities and provided this list to ABAG in participation with the regional planning process. A summary listing of these facilities is shown in Table 18-12. Table 18-12: City of Palo Alto Critical Facilities Facility Name Address Critical Function Montebello Reservoir 1250 Montebello Rd Potable Water Reservoir Corte Madera Reservoir 1521 Arastradero Rd Potable Water Reservoir Corte Madera Booster St 1521 Arastradero Rd Potable Water Booster St Cubberley Comm Ctr 4000 Middlefield Shelter Fire Station #4 3600 Middlefield Rd Fire Station Adobe Pump Station 1196 East Meadow Dr Storm Water Pump Station Park Blvd. Substation 3291 Park Blvd Electric Substation Gas Station 2 Alma & Colorado Natural Gas Station Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-35 Facility Name Address Critical Function Colorado Substation 1040 Colorado Ave Electric Utility Matadero Pump Station* 1082 Colorado Storm Water Pump Station Fire Station #1 301 Alma Street Fire Station Quarry Substation 281 Quarry Rd Electric Substation City Hall 250 Hamilton Ave OFFICE Airport Pump Station 1925 Embarcadero Rd Storm Water Pump Station Utility Engineering 1007 Elwell Ct Recovery Colorado Pump Station 2999 W Bayshore Rd, Storm Water Pump Station Water Quality Control Plant 2501 Embarcadero Way Regional Wastewater Treatment Utility Control Center 3241 East Bayshore Similar to Utility EOC Gas Station 4 3241 East Bayshore Natural Gas Station Municipal Services Ctr 3201 East Bayshore Rd Recovery Gas Station 3 1961 Old Page Mill Rd Natural Gas Station Fire Station #8 3300 Page Mill Rd Fire Station (Seasonal) Quarry Booster Station 1961 Page Mill Rd. Potable Water Booster St Park Reservoir 3640 Page Mill Rd Potable Water Reservoir Park Booster Station 3640 Page Mill Rd Potable Water Booster St Boronda Reservoir 2962 Page Mill Rd Potable Water Reservoir Maybell Substation 527 Maybell Electric Substation California Turnout 500 California Potable Water/Fluoride Hansen Way Substation 950 Hansen Way Electric Substation Embarcadero Pump Station 1199 Alma Storm Water Pump Station Gas Station 1 1735 Embarcadero Natural Gas Station Development Center 285 Hamilton Ave Recovery San Francisquito Pump Station* 2027 East Bayshore Road Storm Water Pump Station University Pump Station 97 University Ave Storm Water Pump Station Sand Hill Turnout 50 El Camino Real Potable Water/Fluoride Police Station 275 Forest Ave PD/EOC/Comm Center Fire Station #5 600 Arastradero Rd Fire Station Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-36 Facility Name Address Critical Function Arastradero Turnout 694 Arastradero Potable Water/Fluoride Mayfield Reservoir 1711 Stanford Ave Potable Water Reservoir Mayfield Booster Station 1711 Stanford Ave Potable Water Booster St Fire Station #2 2675 Hanover St Fire Station Hanover Substation 3350 Hanover Electric Substation Dahl Reservoir 3920 Page Mill Rd Potable Water Reservoir Dahl Booster Station 3920 Page Mill Rd Potable Water Booster St Fire Station #6 711 Sierra St, Stanford Univ Fire Station Page Mill Turnout 1899 Page Mill Rd Potable Water/Fluoride Boronda Booster Station 3570 Page Mill Rd Potable Water Booster St Fire Station #3 799 Embarcadero Fire Station Hopkins Substation 1350 Hopkins Electric Substation Fire Station #7 2575 Sand Hill Rd. SLAC Fire Station Lytton Turnout 315 El Camino Real Potable Water/Fluoride This list of critical facilities and available information for them is available digitally in an excel spreadsheet from the City. A complete printing of the critical facilities data is included in Palo Alto Attachment 3: Palo Alto Exposure Analysis. *These facilities (San Francisquito Creek and Matedero Creek pumping stations) were added to the critical facilities list during final review of this draft and after the completion of the exposure analysis. These facilities should be added to the GIS mapping for inclusion in future exposure analyses and updates to this plan. 18.4.2 Exposure Analysis Exposure analyses are used to quantify assets which are “exposed” to risk. This is the first step towards understanding the complete value of assets at risk to identified hazards. This section includes an exposure analysis (discussion of assets at risk) for the profiled hazards in Section 4. Overlay analyses (using GIS) were conducted for the mappable hazards such as wildfire, flood, and the earthquake related hazards. These analyses compare the location of the critical facilities with the mapped hazard area (i.e. floodplains, wildfire threat zones, shaking potential areas, etc.) and result in a listing of which facilities are at most risk to which hazard. Not all hazards are mappable and some hazards, such as drought, are equally likely throughout the entire County. For these hazards, a general exposure summary is presented in Section 18.4.2.1. Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-37 18.4.2.1 General Exposure ABAG’s website (http://quake.abag.ca.gov/mitigation/landuse/) presents the results of the regional exposure analysis through a searchable online database. Users can view the summaries of land use and infrastructure exposed to the mappable hazards. This section presents the general summary of land use and infrastructure in the City of Palo Alto. These should be considered at risk to the hazards of equal likelihood throughout the entire County geography (i.e. drought, extreme heat, thunderstorm, etc). Acre totals are rounded. JURISDICTION: COUNTY: HAZARD: BASIS: Palo Alto Santa Clara Land Use Existing Land Use, 2005 using 2009 hazard mapping Total Acres TOTAL RESIDENTIAL LAND [excluding mixed use]: 3,952 1 unit/1-5 acre lot (Rural Residential) 207 1-3 units/acre 826 3-8 units/acre 2,395 >8 units/acre 524 Mobile Home Parks 1 TOTAL MIXED RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL: 23 Within a Land Area 0 Within a Building 0 Mixture of Above or Unknown 23 TOTAL MIXED COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL: 6 TOTAL INDUSTRIAL [excluding mixed]: 394 Light Industrial 50 Heavy Industrial 254 Salvage/Recyling, Mixture or Unknown 61 Food Processing, Warehousing 29 TOTAL MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE: 1,683 Roads, Highway and Related Facilities 1,523 Rail Stations, Yards and Related Facilities 17 Airports 120 Ports 0 Power Facilities 3 Municipal Wastewater Facilities 0 Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-38 Municipal Water Supply Facilities 0 Communication Facilities 19 Infrastructure--Other, Unknown 0 TOTAL MILITARY: 3 Military Residential 0 Military Hospital 3 Military Communications 0 Military Airport or Port 0 General Military 0 Open Military Lands 0 Closed Military Facilities 0 TOTAL COMMERCIAL/SERVICES [excluding mixed]: 1,552 Subtotal-Commercial: 1,042 Retail/Wholesale 282 Research/Office 660 Comm. Outdoor Recreation 17 Other, Mixture or Unknown 83 Subtotal-Education: 243 Educational Offices and Day Care 4 Elementary/Secondary 208 Colleges/Universities 28 Stadium Facilities 0 University Housing 0 Day Care Facilities 4 Subtotal-Hospitals and Health Care 177 Trauma Center Hospitals 58 Community or Local Hospitals 117 Surgery Centers 0 State Prisons 0 State Mental Health Facilities 0 Clinics and Long-Term Care 3 Subtotal-Public Institutions: 89 Convention Centers 0 Sports Stadiums 0 Churches/Synagogues/Other 67 City Halls/County Administration 4 Local Jails 0 Local Police/Fire/Emergency 3 Other-Comm. Centers/Libraries 14 2,237 Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-39 TOTAL URBAN OPEN: Golf Courses 329 Racetracks 0 Campgrounds and Other 41 Cemeteries 72 Parks 1,650 Vacant--Cleared for Redevelopment 0 Vacant--Undeveloped 102 Mixed Urban Open, Including Parks 43 TOTAL AGRICULTURE: 0 Cropland and Pasture 0 Orchards/Groves/Vineyards 0 Greenhouses 0 Confined Feeding 0 Farmsteads and Inactive 0 TOTAL RANGELAND: 3,925 Herbaceous Range 2,942 Shrub and Brush 109 Mixed Range 875 TOTAL WETLANDS [Based on USGS Mapping]: 422 Forested 0 Non-Forested 363 Salt Evaporators 60 Wetlands--Unknown 0 TOTAL FOREST LAND: 1,049 Deciduous 51 Evergreen 812 Mixed Forest 186 TOTAL SPARSELY VEGETATED: 9 Beaches 0 Other Sand 0 Bare Rock 2 Mines/Quarries 6 Transitional--Landfills 0 Transitional--Other 0 Transitional--Mixture 0 Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-40 Mixed Sparsely Vegetated 0 ========= Total Acres TOTAL URBAN LAND: 9,849 TOTAL NON-URBAN LAND: 5,406 GRAND TOTAL: 15,255 Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, 2009. Note: Because of independent rounding, subcategories may not add to totals. JURISDICTION: COUNTY: HAZARD: BASIS: Palo Alto Santa Clara Land Use Existing Infrastructure, 2009 Total Miles ROADS: 258 Interstate Highway 5 Primary US/State Highway 10 Secondary State/Co Highway 57 Local Road 169 Misc Ramp/Road 18 TRANSIT: 4 Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) 0 Amtrak 0 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) 0 Caltrain 4 San Francisco Muni Metro 0 Santa Clara VTA 0 RAIL: 5 All Railroads 5 PIPELINES: 226 Pipelines Under Roads 226 ========= Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-41 Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, 2009. Miles of pipeline is an approximation based on miles of road within water service area boundaries and does not include major aqueducts. Miles of pipeline is miles of water pipelines. Miles of sewer pipelines should be approximately the same. Note: Because of independent rounding, subcategories may not add to totals. 18.4.2.2 Critical Facilities Exposure by Hazard ABAG’s website (http://quake.abag.ca.gov/mitigation/cf2010/) presents the results of the regional facilities exposure analysis through a searchable online database. Users can view the summaries of how many facilities are exposed to the mappable hazards by category: health care facilities, schools, critical facilities, and bridges/interchanges. For the purposes of developing a City specific mitigation strategy, this section identifies which of the City’s critical facilities are located in the mapped hazard areas. The complete results from ABAG’s exposure analysis are available digitally in an excel spreadsheet from the City. A complete printing of these results is included in Palo Attachment 3: Palo Alto Exposure Analysis. Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-42 18.4.2.2.1 Earthquake Related Hazards Ground Shaking Source: CA Department of Conservation Critical Facility Peak Acceleration (%G) Perceived Shaking Potential Damage Instrumen tal Intensity Bldg Insured Value Contents Insured Value Corte Madera Reservoir 135 Extreme Very Heavy X+ Corte Madera Booster St 135 Extreme Very Heavy X+ Fire Station #7 135 Extreme Very Heavy X+ Park Blvd. Substation 125 Extreme Very Heavy X+ Gas Station 2 125 Extreme Very X+ Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-43 Critical Facility Peak Acceleration (%G) Perceived Shaking Potential Damage Instrumen tal Intensity Bldg Insured Value Contents Insured Value Heavy Mayfield Reservoir 125 Extreme Very Heavy X+ Mayfield Booster Station 125 Extreme Very Heavy X+ Lytton Turnout 125 Extreme Very Heavy X+ Montebello Reservoir 115 Violent Heavy IX Cubberley Comm Ctr 115 Violent Heavy IX Fire Station #4 115 Violent Heavy IX $369,480 $38,474 San Francisquito Pump Station 115 Violent Heavy IX Colorado Substation 115 Violent Heavy IX Matadero Pump Station 115 Violent Heavy IX Fire Station #1 115 Violent Heavy IX $1,357,26 8 $137,484 Quarry Substation 115 Violent Heavy IX Utility Engineering 115 Violent Heavy IX Colorado Pump Station 115 Violent Heavy IX Water Quality Control Plant 115 Violent Heavy IX Utility Control Center 115 Violent Heavy IX Gas Station 4 115 Violent Heavy IX Municipal Services Ctr 115 Violent Heavy IX $7,295,08 1 $1,843,113 Gas Station 3 115 Violent Heavy IX Fire Station #8 115 Violent Heavy IX $121,279 $19,133 Park Reservoir 115 Violent Heavy IX Park Booster Station 115 Violent Heavy IX Boronda 115 Violent Heavy IX Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-44 Critical Facility Peak Acceleration (%G) Perceived Shaking Potential Damage Instrumen tal Intensity Bldg Insured Value Contents Insured Value Reservoir Maybell Substation 115 Violent Heavy IX California Turnout 115 Violent Heavy IX Hansen Way Substation 115 Violent Heavy IX Embarcadero Pump Station 115 Violent Heavy IX Gas Station 1 115 Violent Heavy IX Development Center 115 Violent Heavy IX University Pump Station 115 Violent Heavy IX Sand Hill Turnout 115 Violent Heavy IX Police Station 115 Violent Heavy IX Fire Station #5 115 Violent Heavy IX $434,301 $41,925 Fire Station #2 115 Violent Heavy IX $1,107,29 0 $107,164 Hanover Substation 115 Violent Heavy IX Dahl Reservoir 115 Violent Heavy IX Dahl Booster Station 115 Violent Heavy IX Fire Station #6 115 Violent Heavy IX Boronda Booster Station 115 Violent Heavy IX Adobe Pump Station 105 Violent Heavy IX Airport Pump Station 105 Violent Heavy IX Quarry Booster Station 105 Violent Heavy IX Page Mill Turnout 105 Violent Heavy IX Fire Station #3 105 Violent Heavy IX $383,804 $39,938 Hopkins Substation 105 Violent Heavy IX Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-45 Critical Facility Peak Acceleration (%G) Perceived Shaking Potential Damage Instrumen tal Intensity Bldg Insured Value Contents Insured Value Arastradero Turnout 95 Violent Heavy IX Soft Story Multi-Family Dwellings In 2003, the Collaborative for Disaster Mitigation at San Jose State University completed an “Inventory of Soft-First Story Multi-Family Dwellings in Santa Clara County”. At that time, the City of Palo Alto had 130 soft-first story multi-family buildings including 1,263 residential units housing 3,158 occupants. Figure 18-1 below identifies the locations of these buildings. Refer to the City's Comprehensive Plan and building regulations regarding unreinforced masonry buildings. Figure 18-1: Inventory of Soft-First Story Multi-Family Dwellings-City of Palo Alto Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-46 Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Source: Santa Clara Planning Office Critical Facility Liquefaction Hazard Zone Bldg Insured Value Contents Insured Value Airport Pump Station Very High Utility Engineering Very High Colorado Pump Station Very High Water Quality Control Plant Very High Utility Control Center Very High Gas Station 4 Very High Municipal Services Ctr Very High $7,295,081 $1,843,113 Cubberley Comm Ctr High Fire Station #4 High $369,480 $38,474 San Francisquito High Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-47 Critical Facility Liquefaction Hazard Zone Bldg Insured Value Contents Insured Value Pump Station Adobe Pump Station High Matadero Pump Station Surface Rupture Source: CA Geological Survey, State of CA Department of Conservation There are no critical facilities located in a fault rupture hazard zone in Palo Alto, CA. Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-48 Earthquake Induced Landslides Source: Santa Clara Planning Office, CA State Department of Conservation Critical Facility Within Landslide Hazard Zone Bldg Insured Value Contents Insured Value Montebello Reservoir Yes Quarry Booster Station Yes Page Mill Turnout Yes 18.4.2.2.2 Infrastructure Failure Palo Alto does not have any additional unique concerns or vulnerabilities regarding the hazard of infrastructure failure as presented in Section 4. Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-49 18.4.2.2.3 Wildfire Source: CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Critical Facility Fire Hazard Zone Bldg Insured Value Contents Insured Value Montebello Reservoir High Corte Madera Reservoir High Corte Madera Booster St High Park Reservoir High Park Booster Station High Boronda Booster Station High Fire Station #8 High $121,279 $19,133 Boronda Reservoir High Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-50 Critical Facility Fire Hazard Zone Bldg Insured Value Contents Insured Value Quarry Booster Station High Page Mill Turnout High Airport Pump Station High 18.4.2.2.4 Flooding Source: FEMA- Santa Clara County DFIRM, 2009 Critical Facility Flood Zone (% annual chance) BLDG Insured Value Contents Insured Value Adobe Pump Station 1% Utility Engineering 1% Colorado Pump Station 1% Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-51 Critical Facility Flood Zone (% annual chance) BLDG Insured Value Contents Insured Value Water Quality Control Plant 1% Utility Control Center 1% Gas Station 4 1% Municipal Services Center 1% $7,295,081 $1,843,113 Matadero Pump Station 1% Airport Pump Station 1% San Francisquito Pump Station 1% Montebello Reservoir .2% Corte Madera Reservoir .2% Corte Madera Booster St .2% Cubberley Comm Ctr .2% Fire Station #4 .2% $369,480 $38,474 Park Blvd Substation .2% Gas Station 2 .2% Colorado Substation .2% Matadero Pump Station .2% Fire Station #1 .2% $1,357,268 $137,484 Quarry Substation .2% Maybell Substation .2% California Turnout .2% Hansen Way Substation .2% Embarcadero Pump Station .2% Gas Station 1 .2% Development Center .2% University Pump Station .2% Sand Hill Turnout .2% Police Station .2% Fire Station #5 .2% $434,301 $41,925 Arastradero Turnout .2% Fire Station #2 .2% $1,107,290 $107,164 Hanover Substation .2% Dahl Reservoir .2% Dahl Booster Station .2% Page Mill Turnout .2% Boronda Booster Station .2% Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-52 Critical Facility Flood Zone (% annual chance) BLDG Insured Value Contents Insured Value Fire Station #3 .2% $383,804 $39,938 Hopkins Substation .2% Fire Station #7 .2% Lytton Turnout .2% Sea Level Rise Several facilities may be impacted by sea level rise as shown in Table 18-13. Table 18-13: Critical Facilities at risk to Sea Level Rise Facility Name Address 16 inch rise 55 inch rise Adobe Pump Station 1196 East Meadow Dr X X Airport Pump Station 1925 Embarcadero Rd X Utility Engineering 1007 Elwell Ct X X Matadero Pump Station 1082 Colorado Ave. X X San Francisquito Pump Station 2027 East Bayshore Rd. X X Colorado Pump Station 2999 W Bayshore Rd, X X Water Quality Control Plant 2501 Embarcadero Way X X Utility Control Center 3241 East Bayshore X Gas Station 4 3241 East Bayshore X Municipal Services Ctr 3201 East Bayshore Rd X 18.4.2.2.5 Drought All populations, facilities, and assets are equally at risk to impact from drought. The City of Palo Alto does not have any unique concerns regarding the hazard of drought as presented in Section 4. 18.4.2.2.6 Solar Storm All populations, facilities, and assets are equally at risk to impact from solar storm events. The City of Palo Alto does not have any unique concerns regarding the hazard of solar storm as presented in Section 4. Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-53 18.4.2.2.7 Dam Failure Source: ABAG, 1995. Dam data from State of California Office of Emergency Services Critical Facility Dam Failure Inundation Area Bldg Insured Value Contents Insured Value Fire Station #3 2 $383,804 $39,938 Hopkins Substation 2 Colorado Substation 1 Colorado Pump Station 1 Matadero Pump Station 1 San Francisquito Pump Station 1 Fire Station #1 1 $1,357,268 $137,484 Quarry Substation 1 Airport Pump Station 1 Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-54 Critical Facility Dam Failure Inundation Area Bldg Insured Value Contents Insured Value Water Quality Control Plant 1 Municipal Services Center 1 $7,295,081 $1,843,113 Embarcadero Pump Station 1 Gas Station 1 1 Development Center 1 University Pump Station 1 Sand Hill Turnout 1 Police Station 1 Fire Station #7 1 Lytton Turnout 1 18.4.2.2.8 Disease Outbreak All populations, facilities, and assets are equally at risk to impact from disease outbreak. The City of Palo Alto does not have any unique concerns regarding the hazard of disease outbreak as presented in Section 4. 18.4.2.2.9 Freeze All populations, facilities, and assets are equally at risk to impact from freeze occurrences. The City of Palo Alto does not have any unique concerns regarding the hazard of freeze as presented in Section 4. 18.4.2.2.10 Wind All populations, facilities, and assets are equally at risk to impact from high winds. The City of Palo Alto does not have any unique concerns regarding the hazard of wind as presented in Section 4. 18.4.2.2.11 Heat All populations, facilities, and assets are equally at risk to impact from extreme heat events. The City of Palo Alto does not have any unique concerns regarding the hazard of heat as presented in Section 4. Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-55 18.4.2.2.12 Agricultural Pest The City of Palo Alto does not have any unique concerns regarding the hazard of agricultural pest as presented in Section 4. 18.4.2.2.13 Thunder and Lightning All populations, facilities, and assets are equally at risk to impact from thunder and lightning events. The City of Palo Alto does not have any unique concerns regarding the hazard of thunder and lightning as presented in Section 4. 18.4.2.2.14 Siltation – Bay Area The City of Palo Alto has ordinances and an inspection program that require the use of appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) (particularly during construction activities) to control the amount of sediment in storm water runoff in order to prevent siltation in local creeks and the Bay. Based upon the effectiveness of these existing ongoing programs, creek/Bay siltation is not a significant issue for the City of Palo Alto. 18.4.2.2.15 Tornado All populations, facilities, and assets are equally at risk to impact from tornado occurrences. The City of Palo Alto does not have any unique concerns regarding the hazard of tornado as presented in Section 4. 18.4.2.2.16 Hazardous Materials Hazardous Materials spills are not of particular concern to the City of Palo Alto. 18.4.2.2.17 Landslide and Debris Flow Landslide and Debris Flow is not of particular concern to the City of Palo Alto. 18.4.2.2.18 Other Hazards Land Subsidence is not of particular concern to the City of Palo Alto. Expansive Soils are not of particular concern to the City of Palo Alto. Hailstorms are not of particular concern to the City of Palo Alto. Tsunami is not a hazard of concern for the City of Palo Alto. Volcano eruptions are not a hazard of concern for the City of Palo Alto. Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-56 18.5 MITIGATION ACTIONS 18.5.1 Primary Concerns Based on the exposure analysis, the most critical facilities are exposed to potential ground shaking. Almost all of the critical facilities are at risk to flooding with several in potential dam inundation areas. Several are exposed to liquefaction risk and a few are located in a landslide hazard zone. Several critical facilities are located in a wildfire threat zone. 18.5.2 Mitigation Actions The City of Palo Alto incorporates by reference herewith the Mitigation Priorities and Actions identified in Chapter 7 and elsewhere in the Santa Clara County LHMP. This section adds some further steps of relevance to the Palo Alto area. As identified above, the city’s essential facilities and infrastructure are at risk. To mitigate the potential loss of the Civic Center (City Hall) complex, which houses the Police Department, the Fire Department, the 911 Dispatch Center, the legacy Emergency Operations Center, and other essential operations, the Palo Alto Police Department acquired and has now deployed a Mobile Emergency Operations Center (MEOC) vehicle, capable of sustaining 911 PSAP, Dispatch, EOC, and other command functions for a sustained period, even with the loss of the Civic Center. However, the need to replace critical infrastructure and facilities, such as the public safety building, remains. To further and more completely understand the risk to city facilities and the general built infrastructure, the city plans to seek grant funding and other sources of funds to conduct comprehensive, all-hazards risk and vulnerability assessments, including Hazus, through a process known as Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA). The city plans to include crime and terrorism risks (homeland security) in this process, which is consistent with the National Response Framework. The city plans to seek grant funding and is spending current budget on mitigation measures in the foothills Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), both for fire as well as law enforcement missions. In any major disaster, communications is always among the top issues discussed in the after action report. The city is beginning work on exploring new off-the-grid (solar powered, etc.) data communications systems and related technologies that would 1) support the continuity of key government functions and 2) would also tie-in community entities (businesses, neighborhoods, NGOs). Augmentation of existing GIS and computer aided dispatch (CAD) systems are also envisioned. In addition to technological interoperability, the city also is supporting human and organizational cooperation and coordination through some novel structures. For example, the Palo Alto/Stanford Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-57 Citizen Corps Council (CCC)2 has been established to represent diverse stakeholders and to ensure each entity has a role to play in all phases of emergency management. In addition, the city, in partnership with the Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN) organization, developed the Block Preparedness Coordinator Program to link each neighborhood with the city’s Incident Command System.3 Utilities is currently undertaking two initiatives to address threats posed by natural or manmade disasters. To improve the chances of maintaining adequate water supply and ensuring fire fighting capabilities following a major earthquake, the city has added two new wells and will be performing seismic upgrades to its existing reservoirs, rehabilitating 5 existing wells, and is building a new 3.5 million gallon reservoir in El Camino Park. The City is also negotiating with PG&E and other parties to establish an additional electric transmission feed to the city. Existing connections to the city are vulnerable to being impacted by aircraft from the local airport. The new electric transmission feed will provide an alternate source in case the existing connections are interrupted. Utilities maintains Emergency Response Plans for its electric, gas, water and wastewater functions. These plans will be implemented in case of an emergency event to mitigate the impacts of the event and to begin the recovery efforts. The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA), which has authority over the San Francisquito Creek, is a government agency formed in 1999 by the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District and San Mateo County Flood Control District. The JPA, in partnership with the US Army Corps of Engineers, is developing a comprehensive flood control plan for San Francisquito Creek to minimize the risk of flooding. The plan will also identify potential improvements to protect Palo Alto and surrounding communities from the risk of tidal flooding from San Francisco Bay, including the impacts of future sea level rise. 2 www.cityofpaloalto.org/ccc 3 www.paneighborhoods.org/ep Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-58 18.6 PLAN MAINTENANCE 18.6.1 Monitoring, evaluating, updating the plan The City of Palo Alto Office of Emergency Services will be responsible for ensuring that this annex is monitored on an on-going basis. However, the major disasters affecting Palo Alto’s community, legal changes, notices from ABAG (as the lead agency in this process), notices from Santa Clara County (lead agency for the County-wide Annex), and other triggers will be used as well. Finally, the Annex will be a discussion/work item on the City’s Emergency Operations Center agenda each year, and department heads and other emergency preparedness staff, who serve in the City’s Emergency Operations Center, will focus on evaluating the Annex in light of technological and political changes that may occur during the year or other significant events. This group, in collaboration with Santa Clara County, will be responsible for determining if the plan should be updated. The City of Palo Alto is committed to reviewing and updating this plan annex at least once every five years, as required by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The City’s OES will contact ABAG four years after this plan is approved to ensure that ABAG plans to undertake the plan update process. If so, the City plans to participate in the multi-jurisdictional plan. If ABAG is unwilling or unable to act as the lead agency in the multi-jurisdictional effort, other agencies will be contacted, including the Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Services. The jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should continue to work together on updating this multi-jurisdictional plan. The public will continue to be involved whenever the plan is updated and as appropriate during the monitoring and evaluation process. Prior to adoption of updates, the City will provide the opportunity for the public to comment on the updates. A public notice will be published prior to the meeting to announce the comment period and meeting logistics. Moreover, the City will engage stakeholders in community emergency planning through the Palo Alto/Stanford Citizen Corps Council (CCC). 18.6.2 Point of Contact Comments or suggestions regarding this plan may be submitted at any time to Kenneth Dueker, J.D., Director, Emergency Services: kenneth.dueker@cityofpaloalto.org or 650.617.3100 x1281. City of Palo Alto: EOC 275 Forest Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301 Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-59 18.7 CITY OF PALO ALTO APPENDIX 18.7.1 Palo Alto Attachment 1: Palo Alto Outreach Materials The City of Palo Alto notified residents and businesses of the hazard mitigation planning process by distributing promotional announcements regarding the public opportunity to respond to the online survey. This attachment includes those outreach materials. TEXT VERSION SEARCH FOR: LIVING IN PALO ALTO BUSINESS IN PALO ALTO VISITING PALO ALTO ENVIRONMENTIN PALO ALTO ARTS, PARKS& RECREATION KNOW ZONE CITY DEPARTMENTS EMERGENCYINFORMATION This Month in Palo Alto [more] Press Releases City to Host Two Community Meetings for Input on Remaining Eucalyptus Trees near Children's Play Area at Eleanor Pardee Park City to Adjust Development Center Hours to Reinvent Work Processes Interim Coordinator Hired to Manage City's Office of Emergency Services New "Faces" for Palo Alto’s FREE Shuttle Buses to be Unveiled November 22 Public Cautioned About Robberies Library Advisory Commission Meeting 9/80 Friday City Council HSR Committee Meeting CHSRA Board Meeting Household Hazardous Waste Day City Council Meeting Finance Committee Meeting 3788 people have read what 546 have written on Open City Hall. READ MORE NEWS FOCUS Meeting on December 1 - Consulting Arborist Evaluates Ten Eucalyptus Trees at Eleanor Pardee Park Several recommendations are made, including the eventual removal of the remaining ten mature eucalyptus trees. [more] City Staff Investigates Tree Trimming by Contractor on California Avenue Trimming done to remove eye-level branch hazards to pedestrians on the street and sidewalks. [more] Change in Hours for Development Center on December 1 Learn more about the Development Center's Blueprint for Enhanced Service [more] City Working with Santa Clara County to update Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Please take a few moments to complete the brief survey at www.surveymonkey.com/s/2010SCCHMP. [more] Be Prepared for Winter Storms There are currently no weather-related emergencies in Palo Alto. [more] New "Faces" for Palo Alto’s FREE Shuttle Buses Unveiled on November 22 Creative design effort led by former Mayor will promote awareness and ridership. [more] December 11 - Holiday photos with Santa Claws! Make holiday memories with your pet on Saturday, December 11. ( View PDF ) [more] Update on HSR Activities Current information about Palo Alto and the High Speed Rail Project. [more] November 22 - 24: Expect Traffic Delays on Embarcardero at E. Bayshore The right turn lane on northbound Embarcadero at East Bayshore will be closed during utility work, 9AM - 4PM. [more] Quick Links Select a Destination What's New BUDGET - Adopted FY 2011 HIGH SPEED RAIL PROJECT Library Facility Projects Project Safety Net Rail Corridor Task Force Stanford Medical Center Project City Government Agendas/Minutes/Reports for Committees/Boards/Commissions City Council and Mayor CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS - AGENDAS/MINUTES/WEBCASTS City Manager's Reports City Meetings Schedule Comprehensive Plan and Amendment Council Priorities/PA "See-It" Site Municipal Code OPEN CITY HALL Phone Directory Other Resources CREEK MONITOR Employment Family Resources Foothills Fire Camera at Station 8 Online Services Purchasing/Current Solicitations Sign-up Now - AlertSCC for Emergency Notifications Page 1 of 2City of Palo Alto Website - Home Page 11/24/2010http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/default.asp TEXT VERSION SEARCH FOR: Home Living in Palo Alto Business in Palo Alto Visiting Palo Alto Environment in Palo Alto Arts, Parks & Recreation Know Zone Departments Emergency Information Previous Page City Working with Santa Clara County to update Local Hazard Mitigation Plan The City of Palo Alto is collaborating with Santa Clara County to update our local hazard mitigation plan. This plan outlines mechanisms for increasing our community’s resiliency to natural hazard events (earthquake, flood, wildfire, etc.). Hazard Mitigation is defined as “sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property form natural, human-caused, and technological hazards and their effects.” Our Update local hazard mitigation plan will be an annex to the regional plan titled “Taming Natural Disasters: Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area.” Your feedback is critical to increasing local resiliency. Please take a few moments to complete the brief survey at www.surveymonkey.com/s/2010SCCHMP. (The survey will be available online through Friday, December 3, 2010.) Please encourage your neighbors and friends in Santa Clara County and incorporated cities to complete the brief online survey. If you have any questions regarding the survey or opportunities to participate in the plan update, you may contact Corinne Bartshire at 510-834-3326 or cbartshire@dewberry.com. We sincerely appreciate your time and cooperation in helping our community become more resilient. Thank you for your participation. Acceptable Use Policy Accessibility Your Privacy Site Map Search Engine A-Z Index Comment Form Missing Content City of Palo Alto City Hall - 250 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 | Main Telephone Number 650-329-2100 8am-5pm M-Th, Alt Fridays Page 1 of 1City of Palo Alto Website - City Working with Santa Clara County to update Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 11/24/2010http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1692&TargetID=268 Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-61 18.7.2 Palo Alto Attachment 2: Repetitive Loss Letter A letter sent to residents who live in repetitive loss areas that describes ways to mitigate flood and damages to their properties. December 7, 2010 Name Address Palo Alto, CA Dear: The City of Palo Alto is participating in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) flood insurance Community Rating System (CRS). The CRS is a program whereby owners of property in a community receive a reduction in flood insurance premiums based on community actions which have the potential to reduce the financial risk of the federal flood insurance program. Based upon the City's participation in the CRS, all holders of flood insurance policies in Palo Alto receive a discount of fifteen percent off the standard premiums, effective October 1, 2001. One of the community actions required under the CRS program is an evaluation of any properties classified as "repetitive loss" because more than one claim for flood damages has been paid on the property. Your property is one such repetitive loss property within the City of Palo Alto. FEMA has suggested that we contact you to encourage you to take steps to protect the structure from flood damage, such as raising the house so that the lowest floor is above the predicted flood level. As you know from past experiences, flooding poses a genuine threat to your property. If you are interested, a number of government publications describing various flood protection techniques have been placed in the reference section of the Main Library at 1213 Newell Road near Embarcadero Road. Since flood insurance may not cover all of your damages in a flood, you may find it cost-effective to implement some of these protective measures. You may be interested to know that the Santa Clara Valley Water District maintains a stockpile of filled sandbags for public use during each winter season at a site adjacent to the Palo Alto Airport terminal building at the end of Embarcadero Road. For further information and to receive helpful flood preparedness tips, you may call the District at (408) 265-2600. The City of Palo Alto maintains a stockpile of sand and empty bags at Mitchell Park, 600 E. Meadow Drive. In addition, personnel from the City and the Santa Clara Valley Water District may be available to respond to flooding incidents affecting your property, dependent upon other emergency needs. City maintenance personnel can be reached at 496-6974 (after hours and weekends, call 329-2413). Santa Clara Valley Water District maintenance personnel can be contacted at (408) 265-2600. Please find enclosed some Public Works Engineering publications which may be of interest to you. Your property lies within one of the FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Areas. We suggest that you take note of the requirements pertaining to Substantial Improvement. If the structure on your property is replaced or substantially improved, the lowest floor will be required to be elevated above the projected base flood elevation. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to call Public Works Engineering at 329-2295. Sincerely, Joe Teresi Senior Engineer Engineering Division Enclosures: “Is Your House in a Flood Zone?” “Special Building Requirements for Residential Structures in a Special Flood Hazard Area” "Flood Zone Descriptions" "Things You Should Know About Flood Insurance" File 47702.9210 Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan April 4, 2012 Page | 18-63 18.7.3 Palo Alto Attachment 3: Palo Alto Exposure Analysis This list includes all information on Palo Alto’s critical facilities and identifies which of the City’s critical facilities are located in the mapped hazard areas. City of Palo Alto Exposure Analysis ID Critical Facility Address Type Occupancy Own/Lease Structure Type 1 Adobe Pump Station 1196 East Meadow Dr Storm Water Pump Station N/A own N/A 2 Airport Pump Station 1925 Embarcadero Rd Storm Water Pump Station N/A own N/A 3 Utility Engineering 1007 Elwell Ct Recovery N/A lease PC1 (TU) 4 Colorado Pump Station 2999 W Bayshore Rd,Storm Water Pump Station N/A own N/A 5 Water Quality Control Plant 2501 Embarcadero Regional Plant N/A own WTP 6 Utility Control Center 3241 East Bayshore Similar to Utility EOC N/A own Wood-frame building > 5,000 SQFT 7 Gas Station 4 3241 East Bayshore Natural Gas Station N/A N/A N/A 8 Municipal Services Ctr 3201 East Bayshore Rd Recovery N/A own PC1 (TU) 9 Montebello Reservoir 1250 Montebello Rd Potable Water Reservoir N/A N/A N/A 10 Corte Madera Reservoir 1521 Arastradero Rd Potable Water Reservoir N/A N/A N/A 11 Corte Madera Booster St 1521 Arastradero Rd Potable Water Booster St N/A N/A N/A 12 Cubberley Comm Ctr 4000 Middlefield Shelter N/A lease RM2 13 Fire Station #4 3600 Middlefield Rd Fire Station N/A own Light wood-frame building <= 5,000 SQFT 14 Park Blvd. Substation 3291 Park Blvd Electric Substation N/A own Substation 15 Gas Station 2 Alma & Colorado Natural Gas Station N/A N/A N/A 16 Colorado Distribution 1040 Colorado Ave Electric Utility N/A own N/A 17 Matadero Pump Station 1082 Colorado Storm Water Pump Station N/A own N/A 18 Fire Station #1 301 Alma Street Fire Station N/A own RM2 19 Quarry Substation 281 Quarry Rd Electric Substation N/A own Substation 20 City Hall 250 Hamilton Ave OFFICE N/A own C1 21 Gas Station 3 1961 Old Page Mill Rd Natural Gas Station N/A N/A N/A 22 Fire Station #8 3300 Page Mill Rd Fire Station (Seasonal)N/A own Light wood-frame building <= 5,000 SQFT 23 Quarry Booster Station 1961 Page Mill Rd.Potable Water Booster St N/A N/A N/A 24 Park Reservoir 3640 Page Mill Rd Potable Water Reservoir N/A N/A N/A 25 Park Booster Station 3640 Page Mill Rd Potable Water Booster St N/A N/A N/A 26 Boronda Reservoir 2962 Page Mill Rd Potable Water Reservoir N/A N/A N/A 27 Maybell Substation 527 Maybell Electric Substation N/A own Substation 28 California Turnout 500 California Potable Water/Fluoride N/A N/A N/A 29 Hansen Way Substation 950 Hansen Way Electric Substation N/A own Substation 30 Embarcadero Pump Station 1199 Alma Storm Water Pump Station N/A own N/A 31 Gas Station 1 1735 Embarcadero Natural Gas Station N/A N/A N/A 32 Development Center 285 Hamilton Ave Recovery N/A lease C1 33 University Pump Station 97 University Ave Storm Water Pump Station N/A own N/A 34 Sand Hill Turnout 50 El Camino Real Potable Water/Fluoride N/A N/A N/A 35 Police Station 275 Forest Ave PD/EOC/Comm Center N/A own C1 36 Fire Station #5 600 Arastradero Rd Fire Station N/A own Light wood-frame building <= 5,000 SQFT 37 Arastradero Turnout 694 Arastradero Potable Water/Fluoride N/A N/A N/A 38 Mayfield Reservoir 1711 Stanford Ave Potable Water Reservoir N/A N/A N/A 39 Mayfield Booster Station 1711 Stanford Ave Potable Water Booster St N/A N/A N/A 40 Fire Station #2 2675 Hanover St Fire Station N/A own RM2 41 Hanover Substation 3350 Hanover Electric Substation N/A own Substation 42 Dahl Reservoir 3920 Page Mill Rd Potable Water Reservoir N/A N/A N/A 43 Dahl Booster Station 3920 Page Mill Rd Potable Water Booster St N/A N/A N/A Page 1 City of Palo Alto Exposure Analysis ID Critical Facility Address Type Occupancy Own/Lease Structure Type 44 Fire Station #6 711 Sierra St, Stanford Univ Fire Station N/A own N/A 45 Page Mill Turnout 1899 Page Mill Rd Potable Water/Fluoride N/A N/A N/A 46 Boronda Booster Station 3570 Page Mill Rd Potable Water Booster St N/A N/A N/A 47 Fire Station #3 799 Embarcadero Fire Station N/A own Light wood-frame building <= 5,000 SQFT 48 Hopkins Substation 1350 Hopkins Electric Substation N/A own Substation 49 Fire Station #7 2575 Sand Hill Rd. SLAC Fire Station N/A own N/A 50 Lytton Turnout 315 El Camino Real Potable Water/Fluoride N/A N/A N/A ID Critical Facility Structure Information Irregularities- Plan View Irregularities- Vertical Structural Assessment Retrofit 1 Adobe Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Airport Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 Utility Engineering N/A N/A No N/A N/A 4 Colorado Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 Water Quality Control Plant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6 Utility Control Center N/A No No N/A N/A 7 Gas Station 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8 Municipal Services Ctr N/A N/A N/A N/A Added exterior bracing 9 Montebello Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10 Corte Madera Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11 Corte Madera Booster St N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 Cubberley Comm Ctr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 13 Fire Station #4 N/A No N/A Scheduled for Replacement N/A 14 Park Blvd. Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15 Gas Station 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 16 Colorado Distribution N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 17 Matadero Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 18 Fire Station #1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 19 Quarry Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 20 City Hall N/A High Rise No N/A Added shear walls & steel bracing 21 Gas Station 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 22 Fire Station #8 N/A No N/A N/A N/A 23 Quarry Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 24 Park Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 25 Park Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 26 Boronda Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 27 Maybell Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 28 California Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 29 Hansen Way Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 30 Embarcadero Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 31 Gas Station 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 32 Development Center N/A Soft Story N/A N/A N/A 33 University Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Page 2 City of Palo Alto Exposure Analysis ID Critical Facility Structure Information Irregularities- Plan View Irregularities- Vertical Structural Assessment Retrofit 34 Sand Hill Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 35 Police Station Attached to Council Chamber N/A No N/A Added shear walls & steel bracing 36 Fire Station #5 N/A No N/A N/A N/A 37 Arastradero Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 38 Mayfield Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 39 Mayfield Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 40 Fire Station #2 N/A No N/A N/A N/A 41 Hanover Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 42 Dahl Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 43 Dahl Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 44 Fire Station #6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 45 Page Mill Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 46 Boronda Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 47 Fire Station #3 N/A No N/A Scheduled for Replacement N/A 48 Hopkins Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 49 Fire Station #7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 50 Lytton Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ID Critical Facility Anchored Equipment Alternate Power Sprinklers Roof Material Year Built 1 Adobe Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Airport Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 Utility Engineering N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 Colorado Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 Water Quality Control Plant N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6 Utility Control Center no yes yes Tar/gravel 1987 7 Gas Station 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8 Municipal Services Ctr no yes yes Tar 1966 9 Montebello Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10 Corte Madera Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11 Corte Madera Booster St N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 Cubberley Comm Ctr N/A no N/A N/A N/A 13 Fire Station #4 no yes no Wood Shingle 1954 14 Park Blvd. Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15 Gas Station 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 16 Colorado Distribution N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 17 Matadero Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 18 Fire Station #1 no yes no Tar 1965 19 Quarry Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 20 City Hall yes yes yes tar 1970 21 Gas Station 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Page 3 City of Palo Alto Exposure Analysis ID Critical Facility Anchored Equipment Alternate Power Sprinklers Roof Material Year Built 22 Fire Station #8 no no yes Asphalt Shingle 1986 23 Quarry Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 24 Park Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 25 Park Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 26 Boronda Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 27 Maybell Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 28 California Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 29 Hansen Way Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 30 Embarcadero Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 31 Gas Station 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 32 Development Center N/A N/A N/A Tar N/A 33 University Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 34 Sand Hill Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 35 Police Station yes yes yes tar 1970 36 Fire Station #5 no yes no Tar 1962 37 Arastradero Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 38 Mayfield Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 39 Mayfield Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 40 Fire Station #2 no yes no Tar 1965 41 Hanover Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 42 Dahl Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 43 Dahl Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 44 Fire Station #6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 45 Page Mill Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 46 Boronda Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 47 Fire Station #3 no yes no Tar 1942 48 Hopkins Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 49 Fire Station #7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 50 Lytton Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ID Critical Facility Stories Capacity Bldg Insured Value Contents Insured Value 1 Adobe Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Airport Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 Utility Engineering N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 Colorado Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 Water Quality Control Plant N/A N/A N/A N/A 6 Utility Control Center 1 5488 N/A N/A 7 Gas Station 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 8 Municipal Services Ctr N/A 71097 7295081 1843113 9 Montebello Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A 10 Corte Madera Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A Page 4 City of Palo Alto Exposure Analysis ID Critical Facility Stories Capacity Bldg Insured Value Contents Insured Value 11 Corte Madera Booster St N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 Cubberley Comm Ctr N/A N/A N/A N/A 13 Fire Station #4 1 2659 369480 38474 14 Park Blvd. Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A 15 Gas Station 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 16 Colorado Distribution N/A N/A N/A N/A 17 Matadero Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A 18 Fire Station #1 2 13800 1357268 137484 19 Quarry Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A 20 City Hall N/A 356401 58861650 8942789 21 Gas Station 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 22 Fire Station #8 1 1451 121279 19133 23 Quarry Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A 24 Park Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A 25 Park Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A 26 Boronda Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A 27 Maybell Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A 28 California Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A 29 Hansen Way Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A 30 Embarcadero Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A 31 Gas Station 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 32 Development Center N/A N/A N/A N/A 33 University Pump Station N/A N/A N/A N/A 34 Sand Hill Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A 35 Police Station N/A N/A N/A N/A 36 Fire Station #5 1 3666 434301 41925 37 Arastradero Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A 38 Mayfield Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A 39 Mayfield Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A 40 Fire Station #2 1 8131 1107290 107164 41 Hanover Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A 42 Dahl Reservoir N/A N/A N/A N/A 43 Dahl Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A 44 Fire Station #6 2 N/A N/A N/A 45 Page Mill Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A 46 Boronda Booster Station N/A N/A N/A N/A 47 Fire Station #3 1 3032 383804 39938 48 Hopkins Substation N/A N/A N/A N/A 49 Fire Station #7 N/A N/A N/A N/A 50 Lytton Turnout N/A N/A N/A N/A Page 5 City of Palo Alto Exposure Analysis ID Critical Facility # of Dams Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Threat Wildfire Threat FEMA Flood Zone Tsunami 1 Adobe Pump Station 0 Fire-threatened area Moderate 100 Year Not Affected 2 Airport Pump Station 1 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 100 Year with Velocity Hazard (wave action)Not Affected 3 Utility Engineering 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 100 Year Not Affected 4 Colorado Pump Station 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 100 Year Not Affected 5 Water Quality Control Plant 1 Fire-threatened area Moderate 100 Year Not Affected 6 Utility Control Center 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 100 Year Not Affected 7 Gas Station 4 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 100 Year Not Affected 8 Municipal Services Ctr 1 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 100 Year Not Affected 9 Montebello Reservoir 0 Outside WUI hazard area Little/No 500 Year Not Affected 10 Corte Madera Reservoir 0 Fire-threatened area High 500 Year Not Affected 11 Corte Madera Booster St 0 Fire-threatened area High 500 Year Not Affected 12 Cubberley Comm Ctr 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 13 Fire Station #4 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 14 Park Blvd. Substation 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 15 Gas Station 2 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 16 Colorado Distribution 1 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 17 Matadero Pump Station 1 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 18 Fire Station #1 1 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 19 Quarry Substation 1 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 20 City Hall 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 100 Year Not Affected 21 Gas Station 3 0 Outside WUI hazard area High Undetermined Not Affected 22 Fire Station #8 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate Undetermined Not Affected 23 Quarry Booster Station 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate Undetermined Not Affected 24 Park Reservoir 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate Undetermined Not Affected 25 Park Booster Station 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate Undetermined Not Affected 26 Boronda Reservoir 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate Undetermined Not Affected 27 Maybell Substation 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 28 California Turnout 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 29 Hansen Way Substation 0 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 30 Embarcadero Pump Station 1 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 31 Gas Station 1 1 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 32 Development Center 1 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 33 University Pump Station 1 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 34 Sand Hill Turnout 1 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 35 Police Station 1 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 36 Fire Station #5 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 37 Arastradero Turnout 0 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 38 Mayfield Reservoir 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate Undetermined Not Affected 39 Mayfield Booster Station 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate Undetermined Not Affected Page 6 City of Palo Alto Exposure Analysis ID Critical Facility # of Dams Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Threat Wildfire Threat FEMA Flood Zone Tsunami 40 Fire Station #2 0 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 41 Hanover Substation 0 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 42 Dahl Reservoir 0 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 43 Dahl Booster Station 0 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 44 Fire Station #6 0 Fire-threatened area Moderate Undetermined Not Affected 45 Page Mill Turnout 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 46 Boronda Booster Station 0 Outside WUI hazard area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 47 Fire Station #3 2 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 48 Hopkins Substation 2 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 49 Fire Station #7 1 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected 50 Lytton Turnout 1 Fire-threatened area Moderate 500 Year Not Affected ID Critical Facility Existing Landslide Areas EQ-Induced Landslide EQ Shake Potential Liquefaction Susceptibility EQ-Induced Liquefaction 1 Adobe Pump Station Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 55 Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Zone 2 Airport Pump Station Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 75 Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Zone 3 Utility Engineering Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 75 Very High Liquefaction Hazard Zone 4 Colorado Pump Station Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 75 Very High Liquefaction Hazard Zone 5 Water Quality Control Plant Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 75 Very High Liquefaction Hazard Zone 6 Utility Control Center Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 75 Very High Liquefaction Hazard Zone 7 Gas Station 4 Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 75 Very High Liquefaction Hazard Zone 8 Municipal Services Ctr Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 75 Very High Liquefaction Hazard Zone 9 Montebello Reservoir Few Landslides Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 75 Very Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 10 Corte Madera Reservoir Few Landslides Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 75 Very Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 11 Corte Madera Booster St Few Landslides Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 75 Very Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 12 Cubberley Comm Ctr Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 55 Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Zone 13 Fire Station #4 Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 55 Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Zone 14 Park Blvd. Substation Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 55 Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Zone 15 Gas Station 2 Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 55 Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Zone 16 Colorado Distribution Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 55 Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Zone 17 Matadero Pump Station Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 55 Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Zone 18 Fire Station #1 Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 55 Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Zone 19 Quarry Substation Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 55 Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Zone 20 City Hall Surficial Deposits Mapping in Progress 85 Moderate Mapping in Progress 21 Gas Station 3 Few Landslides Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Very Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 22 Fire Station #8 Few Landslides Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Very Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 23 Quarry Booster Station Few Landslides Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Very Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 24 Park Reservoir Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Very Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 25 Park Booster Station Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Very Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 26 Boronda Reservoir Mostly Landslide Area Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Very Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 27 Maybell Substation Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Moderate Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 28 California Turnout Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Moderate Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 29 Hansen Way Substation Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Moderate Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone Page 7 City of Palo Alto Exposure Analysis ID Critical Facility Existing Landslide Areas EQ-Induced Landslide EQ Shake Potential Liquefaction Susceptibility EQ-Induced Liquefaction 30 Embarcadero Pump Station Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Moderate Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 31 Gas Station 1 Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Moderate Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 32 Development Center Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Moderate Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 33 University Pump Station Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Moderate Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 34 Sand Hill Turnout Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Moderate Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 35 Police Station Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Moderate Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 36 Fire Station #5 Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 37 Arastradero Turnout Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 38 Mayfield Reservoir Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 39 Mayfield Booster Station Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 40 Fire Station #2 Few Landslides Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 41 Hanover Substation Few Landslides Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 42 Dahl Reservoir Few Landslides Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 43 Dahl Booster Station Few Landslides Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 44 Fire Station #6 Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 45 Page Mill Turnout Few Landslides Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 46 Boronda Booster Station Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Very Low Outside of CGS Liquefaction Zone 47 Fire Station #3 Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Zone 48 Hopkins Substation Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 65 Moderate Liquefaction Hazard Zone 49 Fire Station #7 Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 75 Very High Liquefaction Hazard Zone 50 Lytton Turnout Surficial Deposits Outside of CGS Landslide Zone 55 Very High Liquefaction Hazard Zone ID Critical Facility Sea Level Risk 16"Sea Level Rise 55" 1 Adobe Pump Station Affected Affected 2 Airport Pump Station Not Affected Affected 3 Utility Engineering Affected Affected 4 Colorado Pump Station Affected Affected 5 Water Quality Control Plant Affected Affected 6 Utility Control Center Not Affected Affected 7 Gas Station 4 Not Affected Affected 8 Municipal Services Ctr Not Affected Affected 9 Montebello Reservoir Not Affected Not Affected 10 Corte Madera Reservoir Not Affected Not Affected 11 Corte Madera Booster St Not Affected Not Affected 12 Cubberley Comm Ctr Not Affected Not Affected 13 Fire Station #4 Not Affected Not Affected 14 Park Blvd. Substation Not Affected Not Affected 15 Gas Station 2 Not Affected Not Affected 16 Colorado Distribution Not Affected Not Affected 17 Matadero Pump Station Not Affected Not Affected 18 Fire Station #1 Not Affected Not Affected 19 Quarry Substation Not Affected Not Affected 20 City Hall Not Affected Not Affected Page 8 City of Palo Alto Exposure Analysis ID Critical Facility Sea Level Risk 16"Sea Level Rise 55" 21 Gas Station 3 Not Affected Not Affected 22 Fire Station #8 Not Affected Not Affected 23 Quarry Booster Station Not Affected Not Affected 24 Park Reservoir Not Affected Not Affected 25 Park Booster Station Not Affected Not Affected 26 Boronda Reservoir Not Affected Not Affected 27 Maybell Substation Not Affected Not Affected 28 California Turnout Not Affected Not Affected 29 Hansen Way Substation Not Affected Not Affected 30 Embarcadero Pump Station Not Affected Not Affected 31 Gas Station 1 Not Affected Not Affected 32 Development Center Not Affected Not Affected 33 University Pump Station Not Affected Not Affected 34 Sand Hill Turnout Not Affected Not Affected 35 Police Station Not Affected Not Affected 36 Fire Station #5 Not Affected Not Affected 37 Arastradero Turnout Not Affected Not Affected 38 Mayfield Reservoir Not Affected Not Affected 39 Mayfield Booster Station Not Affected Not Affected 40 Fire Station #2 Not Affected Not Affected 41 Hanover Substation Not Affected Not Affected 42 Dahl Reservoir Not Affected Not Affected 43 Dahl Booster Station Not Affected Not Affected 44 Fire Station #6 Not Affected Not Affected 45 Page Mill Turnout Not Affected Not Affected 46 Boronda Booster Station Not Affected Not Affected 47 Fire Station #3 Not Affected Not Affected 48 Hopkins Substation Not Affected Not Affected 49 Fire Station #7 Not Affected Not Affected 50 Lytton Turnout Not Affected Not Affected Page 9 City of Palo Alto (ID # 2688) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/16/2012 April 16, 2012 Page 1 of 4 (ID # 2688) Summary Title: Acterra Stewardship Agreement Title: Approval of an Amendment No. One to the Amended and Restated Stewardship Agreement Between The City of Palo Alto and Acterra in the Amount of $54,496 for the Initial year of Services for the Enid W. Pearson Arastradero Preserve From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve the renewal of the City’s agreement with Acterra, for stewardship services at the Enid W. Pearson Arastradero Preserve, for an additional term of five years and approve the compensation of $56,149.42 for the 1st year of the extension. (Attachment A) Executive Summary In 1996, the City initiated a stewardship agreement with Acterra (formerly known as Bay Area Action) for habitat restoration and environmental education at the Enid W. Pearson Arastradero Preserve. The approved 2007 agreement renewal included a clause providing for the renewal of the agreement for an additional five‐year period if the performance of the steward was satisfactory. Acterra has continued to meet and exceed the goals of the Pearson Arastradero Preserve Management Plan (See Attachment A‐ Exhibit C). Therefore, staff recommends renewing the agreement for an additional five year period. Background On March 11, 1996, Council adopted a five‐point plan for the management of the Enid W. Pearson Arastradero Preserve (Preserve), and gave direction to staff to explore opportunities for leveraging City resources to ensure future maintenance and oversight of the natural resources of the Preserve. This direction included: 1. Explore the possibility of a public/private stewardship agreement; 2. The removal of all existing building structures (house site, cottage and barn); April 16, 2012 Page 2 of 4 (ID # 2688) 3. Restoration of habitat in the areas where the structures were located; 4. Explore the potential for a new modest facility as an educational gateway to the Preserve; 5. Create a mechanism to allow funding for some or all elements of the Preserve Management Plan. On May 13, 1996, Council approved the Arastradero Preserve project work plan (CMR:253:96). One element of the work plan addressed the development of the concept of a public/private partnership for stewardship of the Preserve. On November 12, 1996, Council approved the Arastradero Preserve Management Plan and the concept of a stewardship agreement (CMR:423:96). At its April 28, 1997 meeting, Council approved a five‐year contract with Bay Area Action to act as the steward of the Preserve and to implement action steps of the Arastradero Management Plan (CMR:199:97). The approved agreement included a clause providing for the renewal of the agreement for an additional five‐year period if the performance of the steward was satisfactory. In 2000, Bay Area Action merged with the Peninsula Conservation Center Foundation to become a new organization named Acterra. On July 5, 2002, Council approved the extension of the Stewardship agreement with Acterra for another five year period. Discussion On October 1, 2007, Council approved a reinstated contract with Acterra to act as the steward of the Preserve and to continue action steps of the Arastradero Management Plan (CMR: 374:07). The approved agreement included a clause (Section 3.2 of the 2007 Acterra Stewardship Agreement‐ Attachment A) providing for the renewal of the agreement for an additional five‐year period if the performance of the steward was satisfactory. Since April 28, 1997 Acterra has provided stewardship services and continues to meet and exceed goals of the Preserve Management Plan. Acterra Accomplishments 2007‐2011 April 16, 2012 Page 3 of 4 (ID # 2688) Over the past five years, Acterra has continued to meet or exceeded their annual Work Plan objectives in terms of volunteer hours donated, habitat restoration, invasive plant management and removal, education and community outreach. Annually Acterra coordinates over 1,000 volunteers from local schools, scout groups, and corporate and community organizations that typically donate more than 4,000 hours to the stewardship of Pearson‐Arastradero Preserve. Highlights of Acterra’s accomplishments include:  Habitat restoration on preserve sites including the Pearson‐Arastradero Riparian Corridor, Gateway Facility area native planting, entryway trails corridor and many other preserve “hotspots.” Planting of these restoration sites have been accomplished using plants propagated at Acterra’s Native Plant Nursery in Foothills Park.  Invasive plant management and removal including species of thistles, teasel, hemlock, stinkwort, medusaehead, and goatgrass. Removal and controlling techniques include timed mowing in conjunction with City Rangers, hand pulling, sheet mulching, soil solarization and scything.  Monitoring of Acterra planted trees, shrubs and grasses to improve restoration techniques and monitoring of selected noxious weeds in order to evaluate the effectiveness of various control methods and spread of invasive species.  Education and community outreach through restoration workdays, high school adopt‐a‐plot program, student research and internships, interpretive hikes and annual habitation restoration conferences. Resource Impact An allocation of $56,149.42 for the first year of the renewed five‐year stewardship agreement with Acterra, including basic restoration activities, is included in the City’s Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Operating Budget to be submitted to City Council on April 30, 2012. Upon adoption of the General Fund budget, staff will encumber the first year allocation amount for Acterra stewardship services at the Enid W. Pearson Arastradero Preserve. The agreement includes a provision under Section 2.5 that the amount of compensation will be negotiated by the City and Acterra on or before December 1 of 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, respectively, and that the compensation shall be based on an adjustment factor reflected in the Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers for the San Francisco‐Oakland‐San Jose MSA. Fiscal Year 2012‐13 will be considered the base year for purposes of April 16, 2012 Page 4 of 4 (ID # 2688) the adjustment calculation. Acterra proposes to continue utilizing donations, grant funding and money obtained through fundraisers to significantly augment funds from the City for stewardship expenses. Policy Implications The proposal to have a nonprofit organization continue to serve as the Preserve steward to assist the City in the accomplishment of the goals of the Management Plan is consistent with the public/private partnership policy. Environmental Review The Stewardship Agreement represents a continuation of the same use of existing facilities; therefore, it carries a Class I facility exemption under Section 15301 of CEQA. Prepared By: Daren Anderson, Department Head: Greg Betts, Director, Community Services City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager City of Palo Alto (ID # 2655) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 4/16/2012 April 16, 2012 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 2655) Summary Title: Approval Retiree Medical Title: Approval of Retiree Medical Report and Assumption Changes From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Finance Committee recommendation to accept the retiree medical actuarial study with changes to amortization method, asset smoothing, and actuarial load, but keep the 7.75 discount rate assumption in 2012. For fiscal 2013, staff recommends accepting all Finance-Committee recommended changes, including the discount rate changing from 7.25 to 7.61 percent to match the highest CalPERS discount rate option. Council Review and Recommendation On February 28 the Finance Committee discussed the retiree medical actuarial report and options for changing certain assumptions impacting the liability valuation amount (Attachment A). The discussion was the follow-up to Council direction on January 30 (Attachment A) to consider options for reducing the ARC in FY2012 and to include reductions in the FY2012 midyear budget. Minutes of the February 28 discussion are provided in Attachment B. John Bartel, of Bartel and Associates, presented eight options for reducing the ARC to the Finance Committee on February 28. The entire list of options is included in Attachment A. The Finance Committee voted to approve options 1-3 for reducing the ARC in FY2012. The impact of these changes is shown in the table below. Assumption Reduction in ARC ($ millions) in FY2012 1) Amortization Method $0.3 2) Asset Smoothing $0.3 3) Actuarial Load $0.3 Original ARC $13.5 Revised ARC $12.5 April 16, 2012 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 2655) For FY2012 only options 1-3 have flexibility to be adjusted and reduce the citywide ARC by $.9 million or approximately $.6 million for the General Fund. Options 4-8 would have a major caveat comment from Bartel and Associates that could result in a negative impact from the external financial audit. In FY2013 the ARC is $14.2 million. It is estimated that it will be reduced by $1.4 million citywide (or approximately by $1. million in the General Fund) with the assumption changes for an estimated revised ARC of $12.8 million in FY2013. This assumes roughly the same savings from the assumption changes in FY2012 carried over to FY2013 in addition to the assumption change to the discount rate. With Council approval staff will ask Bartel and Associates to revise the actuarial study for FY2013 since we only have an estimate based on FY2012 changes. This will include any changes from newly negotiated labor agreements. For FY2012, the Finance Committee decided to consider if the City should fund the additional $1.7 million in the ARC from the budget stabilization reserve during the FY2013 budget discussions in May. Depending on where projected revenues materialize the draw on reserve potentially could be less as some of the key revenues are showing slightly higher trends. Staff will present a funding plan for FY2013 during the proposed budget Finance Committee hearings in May. Environmental Impact This is not a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments: Attachment A: ID# 2578 02-28-12 (PDF) Attachment B: Excerpt Minutes from February 28, 2012 (PDF) Prepared By: David Ramberg, Assistant Director Department Head: Lalo Perez, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager City of Palo Alto (ID # 2578) Finance Committee Staff Report Report Type:Meeting Date: 2/28/2012 February 28, 2012 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 2578) Summary Title: Retiree Medical Discussion Title: Retiree Medical Discussion From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation Staff recommends that the Finance Committee: Review, discuss and provide feedback on the attached additional retiree medical actuarial valuation analysis (see Attachment C). Council Review and Recommendation On January 30 the City Council discussed the retiree medical actuarial report (Attachment A). Minutes for the meeting are attached to this report (Attachment B). The City Council did not act to change their decision from November 28, 2011 accepting the updated retiree medical actuarial study. The Council directed staff to return to the Finance Committee with additional analysis from the City’s consultant, Bartel and Associates. The analysis is attached to this report (Attachment C). As directed by the Council, the analysis focuses on different levels of the annual required contribution (ARC) for the nine different assumption levels as outlined in the report. Due to the time necessary to prepare the analysis, staff and John Bartel will be presenting the information to the Finance Committee in discussion format at the Finance Committee meeting on February 28. Attachments: Attachment A: CMR ID# 2432 (PDF) Attachment B: Excerpt from the January 30, 2012 Council Minutes (PDF) Attachement C: Additional Retiree Medical Analysis - Bartel and Associates (PDF) February 28, 2012 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 2578) Prepared By:David Ramberg, Assistant Director Department Head:Lalo Perez, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager City of Palo Alto (ID # 2432) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 1/30/2012 January 30, 2012 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 2432) Summary Title: Retiree Medical Discussion Title: Retiree Medical Actuarial Report Discussion From:City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: ·Review, discuss and provide feedback on the attached actuarial valuation results (see Attachment A). Council Review and Recommendations On November 28, 2011, Council approved staff’s recommendation to review and accept the updated retiree medical actuarial study with valuation dates as of January 1 and June 30, 2011. The actuarial study results are required by the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 45, Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Post Employment Benefits other Than Pensions. Included in their approval, Council directed staff to schedule a Council meeting, prior to the midyear budget, with the actuarial consultant who prepared the retiree medical actuarial study, Bartel and Associates. The meeting is scheduled for January 30, 2012. Council requested the meeting in order to have an in-depth discussion on several of the assumptions included in the actuarial study and its conclusions. Among the assumptions up for discussion are the “closed amortization period” (versus “open”) and the assumed rate of return on investments going forward and the medical trend assumptions. A listing of all assumptions appears in Attachment A. Council asked for the investment rate of return in the California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) for the City’s trust investment since its inception in March 2008. The rate of return (money-weighted) for the City’s trust investment for the period March 17, 2008 through June 30, 2011 is 3.62 percent. The rate of return (time-weighted) for the CERBT, overall, for the period of June 1, 2007 (trust inception) through June 30, 2011 is 1.24 percent. Attached to this memo are the related staff reports from the Finance Committee discussion on October 18, 2011 and the Council discussion on November 28, 2011. January 30, 2012 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 2432) Attachments: ·Attachment A: Retiree Medical Report (ID 2345)(PDF) ·Attachment B: Excerpt from Finance Committee meeting of November 28, 2011 (PDF) Prepared By:David Ramberg, Assistant Director Department Head:Lalo Perez, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager City of Palo Alto (ID # 2345) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/28/2011 November 28, 2011 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 2345) Summary Title: City Council to Approve Retiree Medical Title: Finance Committee Recommendation that the Council Approve and Accept the Updated Retiree Medical Actuarial Study From:City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation The Finance Committee recommends that the Council approve and accept the updated retiree medical actuarial study (Attachment A). Committee Review and Recommendations On October 18, 2011, the Finance Committee voted unanimously to accept staff’s recommendation to review and accept the updated retiree medical actuarial study with valuation dates as of January 1 and June 30, 2011. The actuarial study results are required by the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 45, Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Post Employment Benefits Other Than Pensions. The updated study results in an increase of $3.8 million (39%) in the City’s retiree medical liability between 2009 and 2011. The result is that the City’s cost for retiree medical goes from $9.8 million to $13.6 million annually. The reasons for the cost increase are based on changes to actuarial assumptions and demographic changes and other changes as discussed in detail in Attachment A. Staff will provide funding recommendations as part of the FY2012 mid-year budget process and as part of the FY2013 proposed budget. In addition, staff will include the revised costs in the long range financial forecast, which will be presented to the Finance Committee in early 2012. Attachments: ·Attachment A: Retiree Medical Study (PDF) ·Attachment B: Finance Committee minutes 10/18/2011 (PDF) ·Attachment C: Staff Presentation (PDF) ·Attachment D: At places memo (PDF) November 28, 2011 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 2345) Prepared By:David Ramberg, Assistant Director Department Head:Lalo Perez, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager City of Palo Alto (ID # 2180) Finance Committee Staff Report Report Type:Meeting Date: 10/18/2011 October 18, 2011 Page 1 of 5 (ID # 2180) Council Priority: City Finances Summary Title: Retiree Medical Study Title: Review and Acceptance of Updated Retiree Medical Actuarial Study - Valuation Date January 1, 2011 and Valuation Date June 30, 2011 From:City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides the City Council with the actuarial study results required by the Government Accounting Standards Board's (GASB) Statement No. 45, Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Post Employment Benefits Other Than Pensions. The results of the study as compared to the 2009 study show a fairly dramatic increase in Citywide costs. See Attachment B, slide 31 for a summary of the study results. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council review and approve the attached actuarial valuation results (see Attachment A). BACKGROUND Per GASB Statement No. 45, beginning in Fiscal Year 2008, like other governmental entities, the City of Palo Alto was required to recognize in its financial statements any unfunded, earned retiree medical costs including those for current active employees. GASB 45 also requires the City to complete an actuarial study on a biennial basis, to determine the retiree medical liability and how much the City should be setting aside each year to fund that liability, the annual required contribution (ARC). In Fiscal Year 2008, the City established an irrevocable trust with California Employers Retirees Benefit Trust (CERBT) for retiree medical benefits. In Fiscal Year 2008, the City transferred $33.8 million to the trust. As of January 1, 2011, the trust was valued at $40.2 million, and as of June 30, 2011, it was valued at $44.8 million. Of course, recent market volatility may have a downward effect on future figures, not included in this study. DISCUSSION 2 Packet Pg. 38 October 18, 2011 Page 2 of 5 (ID # 2180) Bartel and Associates completed an actuarial valuation for the City on October 11, 2011 with two valuation dates: January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2011. The reason for the two valuation dates goes back to a new regulation pertaining to members of the CERBT (trust). All the City’s past valuations have used a January 1 valuation date. However, beginning FY 2012, members of the CERBT are required by GASB 57 to switch to a common valuation date of June 30. Therefore for this study only, the City opted to utilize both the January 1 and June 30 valuation dates. The January 1, 2011 valuation determines the Actuarially Required Contribution (ARC) for FY 2012; the June 30, 2011 valuation determines the ARC for FY 2013 and FY 2014. January 1, 2011 Valuation Date The actuarial study using a valuation date of January 1, 2011 valued the City's unfunded retiree medical liability at $134.7 million, compared to the unfunded liability of $105.0 million on January 1, 2009 –a 28% increase. The Annual Required Contribution (ARC) associated with the January 1, 2011 valuation is $13.6 million for Fiscal Year 2012. This is an increase of $3.8 million (39%) over the ARC of $9.8 million associated with the January 1, 2009 valuation. The dramatic increase in the City’s retiree medical liability between the 2009 and 2011 studies is attributable to several differences in assumptions used by the respective actuarial firms (Milliman and Associates performed the 2009 study, and Bartel and Associates performed the current study). Those differences are as follows (Attachment A, page 7 also summarizes the assumption changes and their impact on the City’s liability): 1.New CalPERS “Decrements.” The most recent CalPERS experience study –which gathers demographic information throughout the state –noted increasing lifespans of retirees, decreasing average retirement age, and other factors, all of which increase the City’s projected unfunded liability by approximately $8 million. 2.Recent Spike in Palo Alto Retirements –as cost-sharing and wage freezes have been implemented, many people have accelerated their retirement plans. There were more than the projected retirements between 2009 and 2011. All of the retirements since the last study added $2.7 million to the City’s unfunded liability. 3.Medical Trend Assumptions –The table below shows the difference in medical premium growth rates assumed in the respective studies. Milliman assumed a slow but steady increase in rates ranging from 6.5% in the early years and settling at 5.85% from 2018 on. On the other hand, Bartel assumes that the rate of increase will be more front- loaded, starting at 9% and settling to 5% per year starting in 2021. Cumulative increases assumed in the more recent report are higher than those assumed in 2009. (See Attachment B, slide 10 for a comparison of specific medical trend assumptions in the two studies, and Attachment C for PERS Medical Plan rate changes 2002-2012.) This added $4.8 million to the City’s unfunded liability. 2 Packet Pg. 39 October 18, 2011 Page 3 of 5 (ID # 2180) 4.“Actuarial Load”–This is a 2% premium applied to assumed costs based on the premise that PERS Preferred Provider (PPO) Medical Plan premiums have been increasing at a slower rate than have claim costs. PERS has been funding the difference from reserves, but Bartel believes that eventually rate increases will need to bounce upward to more evenly match the increased costs. This anticipated “bounce” adds $3.4 million to the City’s unfunded liability. 5.Cost Sharing by Miscellaneous Group –This change in benefits was implemented after the 2009 study and caused the City’s unfunded liability to decrease by $14.2 million. Note that the impact of any public safety group concessions is not included in this study. 6.Migration of Retirees to More Expensive Medical Plans –While 13% of actives are enrolled in PERS PPO plans, that percentage rises to 32% for retirees under 65, and to 54% of retirees over 65. This seems to be due to the increased portability of the PPO plans for retirees who move out of the area. The last study may not have recognized this trend, which adds $7.7 million to the City’s unfunded liability. (See Attachment B, slide 7 for enrollment statistics for active and retired employees.) 7.Asset Smoothing –Bartel recommends smoothing gains and losses in the trust balance over 5 years, to avoid volatility in the City’s ARC. For example, the year-end 2010 Trust balance was $40.2 million, an increase of 26% over the year-end 2009 balance of $32.0 million. With asset smoothing, the actuarial value of the trust assets for year-end 2010 would be $35.3 million, since that 26% gain is spread over the next five years. By saving some of the market gain for subsequent years when there may be losses, the City assumed an additional $4.6 million in unfunded liability. 8.Closed Amortization Period –Rather than continually “re-up” the 30-year amortization period, which would never actually completely pay off the liability, Bartel recommends amortizing over the remaining 28 years of the 30-year period beginning 2009. The impact of this change on the City’s unfunded liability is included in that of the Demographic and Other Factors discussed below. 9.Demographic and Other Factors –These are ways in which the City's actual experience differs from what is assumed in the CalPERS experience study. For example, to the extent that City employees retire earlier or later than average, or go out on disability more or less than the statewide average, this affects the liability. In our case these factors add $12.4 million to our unfunded liability. (See Attachment B, slide 5 for statistics on active and retired employees included in the study.) The General Fund’s share of the citywide ARC totals approximately $9.5 million annually for FY 2012, an increase of $2.7 million from the amount budgeted for FY 2012 based on the January 1, 2009 valuation. That amount can be funded from the CERBT trust, if needed. Staff will provide more precise figures for the General Fund portion by the October 18 Finance Committee meeting. (See Attachment D: Results by Fund.) 2 Packet Pg. 40 October 18, 2011 Page 4 of 5 (ID # 2180) June 30, 2011 Valuation Date The actuarial study using a valuation date of June 30, 2011 valued the City's unfunded liability at $139.7 million, which is an increase of $5.0 million over the January 1 valuation date. The ARC associated with this valuation is $14.4 million for Fiscal Year 2013, and projected at $14.8 million for 2014. (Again, see Attachment B, slide 31.) The $0.8 million jump in the ARC between FY 2012 and FY 2013 is primarily due to the decrease in assumed discount rate from 7.75% to 7.25%. The reasons for the respective discount rate assumptions are: The January 1, 2011 valuation assumed a discount rate of 7.75% as mandated by CERBT. Beginning Fiscal Year 2013, CERBT requires that each member agency employ a discount rate no higher than 7.61%, as applicable to its selected asset allocation. The trust offers three possible asset allocations, of which Option 1 –the City’s chosen option -has the highest projected yield. CERBT’s expected return over a 20-year period for Option 1 Asset Classifications is 7.61%, with a 50% confidence limit. Bartel recommends dropping the assumed rate to 7.25% to achieve a 60% confidence limit. The General Fund portion of the FY 2013 and FY 2014 ARCs is $10.0 million and $10.3 million, respectively. Again, staff will provide more precise figures for the General Fund portion of the FY 2013 and 2014 ARCs by the October 18 Council meeting. RESOURCE IMPACT The FY 2012 budget allocated $9.8 million towards the ARC for all funds, but this amount was an estimate before the actuarial study was completed. The ARC contained in the actuarial study was $13.6 million, representing an increase of $3.8 million across all City funds. The General Fund portion of the increase is $2.3 million for FY 2012, which may be drawn from the trust, if needed. Future years’ ARC funding will need to be incorporated into those years’ budgets. Staff will provide funding recommendations during the Mid-Year or FY 2013 proposed budget process. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The action recommended is not a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments: ·-a:Attachment A: Executive Summary (PDF) ·-b:Attachment B: Revised Preliminary Results (PDF) ·-c:Attachment C: 2002-2012 PEMHCA Premiums (PDF) ·-d:Attachment D: Results by Fund (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 41 October 18, 2011 Page 5 of 5 (ID # 2180) Prepared By:Nancy Nagel, Senior Financial Analyst Department Head:Lalo Perez, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager 2 Packet Pg. 42 City of Palo Alto Retiree Healthcare Plan January 1, 2011 & June 30, 2011 Actuarial Valuations Executive Summary October 11, 2011 Bartel Associates, LLC 411 Borel Avenue, Suite 101 San Mateo, California 94402 Phone: 650-377-1600 Email: jbartel@bartel-associates.com 2.a Packet Pg. 43 -: A t t a c h m e n t A : E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) O:\Clients\City of Palo Alto\OPEB\2011 val\Reports\BA PaloAltoCi 11-10-11 OPEB 6-30-11 Valuation Executive Summary.doc 2.a Packet Pg. 44 -: A t t a c h m e n t A : E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) City of Palo Alto Retiree Healthcare Plan January 1, 2011 & June 30, 2011 Actuarial Valuations Executive Summary October 11, 2011 Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 45 (GASB 45), “Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions” provides standards for the financial reporting of the City’s Retiree Healthcare Plan. The City implemented GASB 45 for the 2007/08 fiscal year. The January 1, 2011 actuarial valuation provides the financial reporting information for the City’s 2011/12 fiscal year and the June 30, 2011 actuarial valuation provides the financial reporting information for the City’s 2012/13 and 2013/14 fiscal years. VALUATION RESULTS Participants: The same participant data was used to prepare both the January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2011 actuarial valuations. A summary of this data as of June 30, 2011 is: Participants 6/30/11  Actives  Number 923  Average Age 44.7  Average City Service 10.8  Average PERS Service 13.7  Average Pay $86,007  Total Payroll (000’s) $79,384  Retirees  Number 860  Average Age 67.0  Average Retirement Age 55.5 Plan Assets: Assets must be set aside in a trust that cannot legally be used for any purpose other than to pay retiree healthcare benefits in order to be considered plan assets for GASB 45 purposes. The City's retiree healthcare plan is currently funded with the CalPERS Trust (CERBT). The City began prefunding the plan’s obligations during 2007/08. The City’s intention is to fund the full ARC each year. Investment gains and losses relative to the assumed net rate of return are spread over a 5- year period by using an Actuarial Value of Assets rather than the Market Value of Assets to determine the plan’s costs and funded status. This helps smooth any volatility in the Market Value of Assets and provides an element of stability for the plan expense and City contributions. The Actuarial Value of Assets is kept within a corridor of 80% to 120% of the Market Value to make sure it does not diverge significantly from the Market Value of Assets. The Market Value of Assets was $40,213,000 and the Actuarial Value of assets was $35,294,000 on January 1, 2011. The Market Value of Assets was $44,774,000 and the Actuarial Value of assets was $40,222,000 on June 30, 2011. The following table shows how the Market Value of Assets changed through 6/30/11 and is projected to change during 2011/12. 2.a Packet Pg. 45 -: A t t a c h m e n t A : E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) City of Palo Alto Retiree Healthcare Plan January 1, 2011 & June 30, 2011 Actuarial Valuations Executive Summary Page 2 October 11, 2011 Plan Assets (Amounts in 000’s) 2009 2010 1/1/11- 6/30/11 Projected 2011/12  Market Value at Beginning of Year $ 24,616 $ 32,042 $ 40,213 $ 44,774  Contributions 700 3,532 2,448 5,165  Benefit Payments - - - -  Administrative Expenses (23) (34) (41) -  Investment Earnings 6,749 4,674 2,155 3,246  Market Value at End of Year 32,042 40,213 44,774 53,185  Actuarial Value at End of Year 35,294 40,222 49,279  Annualized Investment Return  Market Value 26.9% 13.7% 5.3% 7.3%  Actuarial Value 11.6% 11.9% 7.0% 9.7% Funded Status: A plan’s funded status is measured by comparing the Actuarial Accrued Liability (see definitions and assumptions section below) with Plan Assets. A plan is considered funded when Plan Assets equal the Actuarial Accrued Liability. As the City’s retiree healthcare plan had not been funded prior to GASB 45 implementation in 2007/08, the City established a contribution policy that would fund benefits as earned for each future year and would fund the Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability over a 30-year period. GASB 45 requires the discount rate used to determine the present value of future benefit payments be based on the source of funds used to pay the benefits. This is the expected long-term net earnings rate on plan assets for funded plans and the expected long-term net earnings rate on an agency’s investment fund for unfunded plans. A 7.75% and 7.25% discount rate was used for the City’s January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2011 valuations, respectively, representing the long-term expected net return for the CERBT. See page 5 in the Definitions and Assumptions Section for a discussion of the discount rates used in the valuations. The plan was approximately 21% funded as of January 1, 2011, and 22% funded as of June 30, 2011: 1/1/11 Valuation 6/30/11 Valuation Funded Status (Amounts in 000’s) 7.75% Discount Rate 7.25% Discount Rate  Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL)  Actives $ 51,179 $ 57,479  Retirees 118,800 122,444  Total 169,979 179,923  Actuarial Value of Plan Assets (AVA) 35,294 40,222  Unfunded AAL (UAAL) 134,685 139,701  Funded Percentage (AVA/AAL) 21% 22% Annual Required Contribution (ARC): The Annual Required Contribution is the Normal Cost plus an amortization payment toward the Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability. The Normal Cost is the value of benefits allocated to the current fiscal year for service worked during that year. The Unfunded Liability is 2.a Packet Pg. 46 -: A t t a c h m e n t A : E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) City of Palo Alto Retiree Healthcare Plan January 1, 2011 & June 30, 2011 Actuarial Valuations Executive Summary Page 3 October 11, 2011 amortized as a level percent of payroll over a period of 28 years as of June 30, 2011 (27 years remaining as of June 30, 2012). The City’s Annual Required Contributions for 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14 are as follows: 7.75% 7.25% Annual Required Contribution (Amounts in 000’s) 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14  Normal Cost $ 4,937 $ 5,609 $ 5,791  Unfunded Liability Amortization 8,666 8,769 9,054  Annual Required Contribution 13,603 14,378 14,845  Estimated Payroll 80,664 83,285 85,992  ARC as a % of Payroll 16.9% 17.3% 17.3%  Amortization Period 28 Yrs 27 Yrs 26 Yrs Net OPEB Obligation (NOO): The City’s Net OPEB Obligation is the historical difference since GASB 45 implementation between actual contributions made and Annual Required Contributions. Benefits paid for current retirees directly from City assets are considered contributions. The Net OPEB Obligation would be zero for an agency that always contributed the Annual Required Contributions. An agency that contributed more than the ARC would have a Net OPEB Asset (NOA). Annual OPEB Cost (AOC): The Annual OPEB Cost is the plan’s fiscal year expense. It is equal to the Annual Required Contribution plus expected interest on the Net OPEB Obligation less an amortization of the Net OPEB Obligation. It is different from the Annual Required Contribution because the Annual Required Contribution may include a provision for amounts not yet funded that have been expensed in prior Annual OPEB Costs. The Annual OPEB Cost equals the Annual Required Contribution when the Net OPEB Obligation at the beginning of the year is zero. 7.75% 7.25% Annual OPEB Cost (Amounts in 000’s) 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14  Annual Required Contribution $ 13,603 $ 14,378 $ 14,845  Interest on Net OPEB Obligation (1,781) (1,687) (1,705)  Amortization of Net OPEB Obligation 1,483 1,451 1,498  Annual OPEB Cost 13,305 14,141 14,638  Amortization Period 28 Yrs 27 Yrs 26 Yrs The City’s expected Net OPEB Obligations for 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14 are: 7.75% 7.25% Estimated Net OPEB Obligation (Amounts in 000’s) 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14  Net OPEB Obligation (Asset) at Begin. of Yr $ (22,977) $ (23,275) $ (23,511)  Annual OPEB Cost 13,305 14,141 14,638  Estimated Contributions 13,603 14,378 14,845  Net OPEB Obligation (Asset) at End of Yr (23,275) (23,511) (23,718) The City’s actual June 30, 2012, June 20, 2013 and June 30, 2014 Net OPEB Obligations will differ from those shown above because actual contributions may differ from those estimated. 2.a Packet Pg. 47 -: A t t a c h m e n t A : E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) City of Palo Alto Retiree Healthcare Plan January 1, 2011 & June 30, 2011 Actuarial Valuations Executive Summary Page 4 October 11, 2011 Projection: The following table shows the projected Net OPEB Obligation, Annual Required Contribution, Annual OPEB Contribution, and City Contribution (including benefit payments paid directly by the City) over the next 10 years. Full ARC Pre-Funding Projection 7.25% Discount Rate1 (Amounts in 000’s) Contribution Fiscal Year Ending Begin Year NOO ARC Annual OPEB Cost (AOC) Benefit Pmts Pre- Funding Total Contrib Payroll Contrib % of Payroll 2012 $(22,977) $13,603 $13,305 $8,438 $5,165 $13,603 $80,664 16.9% 2013 (23,275) 14,378 14,141 8,988 5,390 14,378 83,285 17.3% 2014 (23,511) 14,845 14,638 9,986 4,859 14,845 85,992 17.3% 2015 (23,718) 15,327 15,155 10,929 4,398 15,327 88,787 17.3% 2016 (23,891) 15,825 15,690 11,945 3,880 15,825 91,672 17.3% 2017 (24,026) 16,340 16,247 12,940 3,400 16,340 94,652 17.3% 2018 (24,119) 16,871 16,825 13,832 3,039 16,871 97,728 17.3% 2019 (24,165) 17,419 17,425 14,692 2,727 17,419 100,904 17.3% 2020 (24,159) 17,985 18,049 15,574 2,412 17,985 104,183 17.3% 2021 (24,095) 18,570 18,697 16,460 2,110 18,570 107,569 17.3% DEFINITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS Present Value of Benefits: When an actuary prepares an actuarial valuation, he or she first gathers participant data (active employees, retirees, and beneficiaries) as of the valuation date. Using this data and appropriate actuarial assumptions, the actuary projects the future benefit payments. The actuarial assumptions estimate when employees will retire, terminate, die or become disabled, as well as salary increases, inflation, and net investment earnings. The expected future benefit payments are discounted back to the valuation date using the expected net investment return or discount rate. This discounted value is the Present Value of Benefits. It represents the funds the plan needs as of the valuation date to pay all expected future benefits if all assumptions are realized and no additional contributions are made by the City. The City’s January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2011 Present Value of Benefits were $204.3 million and $219.2 million, respectively. Actuarial Accrued Liability: The Actuarial Accrued Liability is the portion of the Present Value of Benefits that has been allocated to prior service through the valuation date. The City’s January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2011 Actuarial Accrued Liabilities were $170.0 million and $179.9 million, respectively Normal Cost: The Normal Cost is the portion of the Present Value of Benefits allocated to the current fiscal year. The plan’s Normal Costs for the 2011/12 and 2012/13 fiscal years are $4.9 million and $5.6 million, respectively. 1 Fiscal year ending 2012 based on prior valuation with 7.75% discount rate. 2.a Packet Pg. 48 -: A t t a c h m e n t A : E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) City of Palo Alto Retiree Healthcare Plan January 1, 2011 & June 30, 2011 Actuarial Valuations Executive Summary Page 5 October 11, 2011 Actuarial Cost Method: The actuarial cost method determines how benefits are allocated to each year of service. It has no effect on the Present Value of Benefits but has significant effect on the Actuarial Accrued Liability and Normal Cost. The City’s January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2011 retiree healthcare valuations were prepared using the Entry Age Normal cost method. Under the Entry Age Normal cost method, the Plan’s Normal Cost is developed as a level percent of payroll over the participants’ working lifetimes. Actuarial Assumptions: Under GASB 45, an actuary must follow current actuarial standards of practice. These standards generally call for the use of explicit assumptions which means that each individual assumption must represent the actuary's best estimate for that assumption. For the January 1, 2011 valuation, a discount rate of 7.75% was used, as required by CalPERS for plans funded in the CERBT. In March 2011, the CalPERS’ Board approved the following changes to the CERBT:  created 3 different asset allocation strategies, each with different expected returns and volatility,  revised the discount rate assumption from a mandated rate (7.75%) to provide agencies and their actuaries with the flexibility to select the discount rate (up to a maximum rate based on the selected asset allocation). For each investment option, CalPERS’ maximum discount rate is the median return2, with lower rates also being acceptable. The following table shows CERBT target asset allocation strategies and CalPERS maximum discount rates: Option 1 Option 2 Option 3  Asset Allocation  Global Equity 66.0% 50.1% 31.6%  Global Real Estate 8.0% 8.0% 8.0%  Commodities 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%  Inflation Linked Bonds 5.0% 15.0% 15.0%  U.S. Nominal Bonds 18.0% 23.9% 42.4%  Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%  Maximum Discount Rate 7.61% 7.06% 6.39% Bartel Associates recommends a lower discount rate than the maximum to build in some level of conservatism, so the assumption is expected to be realized (or exceeded) approximately 55% to 60% of the time. This results in the following discount rates: Option 1 Option 2 Option 3  ≈60% Realization 7.00% 6.50% 6.00%  ≈55% Realization 7.25% 6.75% 6.25% For the June 30, 2011 actuarial valuation, the City chose the Option 1 asset allocation strategy, and agreed that it would be prudent to build in a margin for conservatism when choosing a discount rate. The discount rate for the June 30, 2011 valuation is 7.25%, which represents an estimated 55% confidence level that actual future returns will be at least that high. The change in discount rate from 7.75% to 7.25% between 2 The median return represents the return at which ½ of the returns are expected to be higher and ½ lower. 2.a Packet Pg. 49 -: A t t a c h m e n t A : E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) City of Palo Alto Retiree Healthcare Plan January 1, 2011 & June 30, 2011 Actuarial Valuations Executive Summary Page 6 October 11, 2011 these two valuations results in a $10.6 million actuarial loss. The January 1, 2009 Milliman valuation used actual premiums for 2009, and then used a healthcare inflation rate of 6.5% from 2010-2014, 6.0% from 2015-2017, and 5.85% for each year thereafter. In the January 1, 2011 valuation, actual premiums were used for 2011 and 2012. The healthcare inflation rate for non- Medicare eligible participants starts at 9.0% (the increase in 2013 premiums over 2012 premiums) and grades down to 5% after 8 years. The healthcare inflation rate for Medicare eligible participants starts 0.4% higher and also grades down to 5% after 8 years. This change in medical trend leads to a $4.8 million increase in the Actuarial Accrued Liability. This is partially offset by a $3.9 million gain, because of the difference between actual 2011 and 2012 premiums and projected 2011 and 2012 premiums from the January 1, 2009 valuation. A 2% load was added in the January 1, 2011 valuation, to take into account that recent PEMHCA PPO premium increases are believed to be below per capita claims increases. This load results in a $3.4 million increase in the Actuarial Accrued Liability. Retirement, disability, termination, and mortality assumptions were changed from the CalPERS 97-02 Experience Study in the January 1, 2009 valuation to the CalPERS 97-07 Experience Study in the January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2011 valuations. This change results in a $7.9 million increase in the Actuarial Accrued Liability. Another key January 1, 2011 valuation assumption change is the assumed medical plan at retirement. We believe the 2009 valuation assumed each active participant remained in the same plan at retirement and Medicare eligibility (at age 65). The January 1, 2011 valuation assumes percentages, as shown below, based upon actual participation of current retirees, which differs substantially from the participation of current actives. This change increased the Actuarial Accrued Liability by approximately $7.7 million. Medical Plan at Retirement Miscellaneous Safety <65 65+ <65 65+ Blue Shield 35% 20% 35% 20% Kaiser 25% 25% 25% 25% PERS Choice 30% 20% 20% 20% PERSCare 10% 35% 10% 35% PORAC 0% 0% 10% 0% A final key assumption change between the January 1, 2009 valuation and the January 1, 2011 valuation is the Medicare eligibility rate. The 2011 valuation assumes 80% of Miscellaneous actives and 90% of Safety actives hired prior to 4/1/86 will be eligible for Medicare, and all actives hired after 4/1/86 will be eligible for Medicare. Similarly, 90% of current retirees under the age of 65 are assumed to be eligible for Medicare. These assumptions produce an approximate increase in the Actuarial Accrued Liability of $2.6 million. The City’s introduction of sharing of future premium cost increases for Management/Confidential, SEIU and UMPAPA for those retiring after April 1, 2011 has led to a $14.1 million decrease in the Actuarial Accrued Liability. The following table shows changes, actual and expected, from the January 1, 2009 valuation to the January 1, 2011 valuation and, subsequently to the June 30, 2011 valuation: 2.a Packet Pg. 50 -: A t t a c h m e n t A : E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) City of Palo Alto Retiree Healthcare Plan January 1, 2011 & June 30, 2011 Actuarial Valuations Executive Summary Page 7 October 11, 2011 Changes From January 1, 2009 Valuation to January 1, 2011 Valuation AAL (AVA) UAAL  Actual 1/1/09 $129,661 $(24,616) $105,045  Expected 6/30/11 150,971 (42,322) 108,649  Assumption Changes  Medical Trend 4,840 4,840  New CalPERS Decrements 7,916 7,916  Actuarial Load 3,421 3,421  Medical Plan at Retirement 7,740 7,740  Medicare Eligibility 2,625 2,625  Asset Smoothing 4,552 4,552  Contribution Loss (2,452) (2,452)  Plan Change – Cost Sharing (14,194) (14,194)  Experience (Gains)/Losses  Caps/Premiums < Expected (3,917) (3,917)  New Retirees 2,700 2,700  Demographic & Other 12,383 - 12,383  Total (Gain)/Loss 23,514 2,100 25,614  Projected 6/30/11 174,485 (40,222) 134,263 Changes From January 1, 2011 Valuation to June 30, 2011 Valuation AAL (AVA) UAAL  Actual 1/1/11 $169,979 $(35,294) $134,685  Projected 6/30/11 174,485 (40,222) 134,263  Expected 6/30/12 182,840 (49,279) 133,561  Assumption Changes  Discount Rate 10,613 10,613  Experience (Gains)/Losses  Demographic & Other (3,510) (3,510)  Total (Gain)/Loss 7,103 - 7,103  Projected 6/30/12 189,943 (49,279) 140,663 2.a Packet Pg. 51 -: A t t a c h m e n t A : E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) City of Palo Alto Retiree Healthcare Plan January 1, 2011 & June 30, 2011 Actuarial Valuations Executive Summary Page 8 October 11, 2011 RETIREE HEALTHCARE BENEFITS  Eligibility  Retire directly from the City under CalPERS (age 50 and 5 years of CalPERS service or disability)  Retiree Medical (Hired<1/1/043)  Retired < 1/1/074  Full employee premium and percentage of dependent premium (90% in 2011, 95% in 2012, 100% in 2013+)  Retired > 1/1/074  Same as above but premium limited to 2nd most expensive Basic medical plan in the Bay Area Region  For non-Safety – Mgmt/Conf, SEIU and UMPAPA Retired > 4/1/115, all premium increases starting 1/1/11 shared evenly between City and employee, up to 10%  Retiree Medical (Hired>1/1/046)  Vesting schedule (based on all CalPERS Service)7: Years of Service % < 10 0% 10 50% ↓ ↓ > 20 100%  Vesting applies to 100/90 formula amounts: 2011 2012 Single $ 542 $ 566 2-Party 1,030 1,074 Family 1,326 1,382  Police and Fire with 20 years City service – do not need to retire directly from City  For Mgmt/Conf, SEIU and UMPAPA Retired > 4/1/118, all premium increases starting in 1/1/11 shared evenly between City and employee, up to 10%  Dental, Vision & Life  None 3 1/1/05 for SEIU and 1/1/06 for PAPOA 4 1/1/08 for PAPOA 5 2/1/10 for SEIU 6 1/1/05 for SEIU and 1/1/06 for PAPOA 7 Minimum 5 years City Service. 100% vested for disability retirement 8 2/1/10 for SEIU 2.a Packet Pg. 52 -: A t t a c h m e n t A : E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) City of Palo Alto Retiree Healthcare Plan January 1, 2011 & June 30, 2011 Actuarial Valuations Executive Summary Page 9 October 11, 2011  Surviving Spouse Benefit  100% of retiree benefit continues to surviving spouse if retiree elects CalPERS survivor allowance  Benefit Changes from Prior Valuation  New Benefit Provision: cost sharing of future premium increases for Mgmt/Conf, SEIU and UMPAPA retiring after 4/1/2011 2.a Packet Pg. 53 -: A t t a c h m e n t A : E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) CITY OF PALO ALTO RETIREE HEALTHCARE PLAN January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2011 GASB 45 Actuarial Valuations Revised Preliminary Results Presented by John E. Bartel, President Prepared by Deanna Van Valer, Assistant Vice President & Actuary Adam Zimmerer, Actuarial Analyst Bartel Associates, LLC October 11, 2011 Agenda O:\Clients\City of Palo Alto\OPEB\2011 val\Reports\BA PaloAltoCi 11-10-11 OPEB 6-30-11 Revised Preliminary Val Results.doc Topic Page Benefit Summary 1 Participant Statistics 5 Actuarial Assumptions Highlights 9 Actuarial Methods 15 Assets 17 Results – January 1, 2011 Valuation 19 Results – June 30, 2011 Valuation 29 CERBT Investment Options 41 Bartel Associates GASB 45 Database 43 Other Issues 46 Exhibits 48 2.b Packet Pg. 54 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 1 BENEFIT SUMMARY  Eligibility  Retire directly from the City under CalPERS (age 50 and 5 years of CalPERS service or disability)  Medical Provider  CalPERS health plans (PEMHCA)  Non-Safety PEMHCA resolution provides only for PEMHCA minimum (additional benefits paid by City)  Retiree Medical (Hired<1/1/041)  Retired < 1/1/072  Full employee premium and percentage of dependent premium (90% in 2011, 95% in 2012, 100% in 2013+)  Retired > 1/1/072  Same as above but premium limited to 2nd most expensive Basic medical plan in the Bay Area Region  For non-Safety – Mgmt/Conf, SEIU and UMPAPA Retired > 4/1/113, all premium increases starting 1/1/11 shared evenly between City and employee, up to 10% 1 1/1/05 for SEIU and 1/1/06 for PAPOA 2 1/1/08 for PAPOA 3 2/1/10 for SEIU October 11, 2011 2 BENEFIT SUMMARY  Retiree Medical (Hired>1/1/044)  Vesting schedule (based on all CalPERS Service)5: Years of Service % < 10 0% 10 50% ↓ ↓ > 20 100%  Vesting applies to 100/90 formula amounts: 2011 2012 Single $ 542 $ 566 2-Party 1,030 1,074 Family 1,326 1,382  Police and Fire with 20 years City service – do not need to retire directly from City  For Mgmt/Conf, SEIU and UMPAPA Retired > 4/1/116, all premium increases starting in 1/1/11 shared evenly between City and employee, up to 10% 4 1/1/05 for SEIU and 1/1/06 for PAPOA 5 Minimum 5 years City Service. 100% vested for disability retirement 6 2/1/10 for SEIU 2.b Packet Pg. 55 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 3 BENEFIT SUMMARY  Dental, Vision & Life  None  Surviving Spouse Benefit  100% of retiree benefit continues to surviving spouse if retiree elects CalPERS survivor allowance  Benefit Changes from Prior Valuation  New Benefit Provision: cost sharing of future premium increases for Mgmt/Conf, SEIU and UMPAPA retiring after 4/1/2011  Pay-As-You- Go ($000s)  FY 2011/12 (Est) $8,142  FY 2010/11 $6,216  FY 2009/10 $5,519  FY 2008/09 $5,204  FY 2007/08 $4,646 October 11, 2011 4 BENEFIT SUMMARY  Implied Subsidy  Non-Medicare eligible retirees pay active rates instead of actual cost  Active employee premiums subsidize retiree cost Single Retiree Medical Cost 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Age Mo n t h l y C o s t PremiumMale CostFemale Cost  GASB 45 includes active “implied subsidy” with retiree cost  Community rated plans not required to value implied subsidy  PEMHCA is a community rated plan for most employers  Valuation does not include an implied subsidy 2.b Packet Pg. 56 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 5 PARTICIPANT STATISTICS Participant Statistics June 30, 2011 7 1 retiree with missing birth date assumed to retire at average retirement age 8 Excludes 3 retirees with missing retirement date Miscellaneous Police Fire Total  Actives  Count 737 82 104 923  Average Age 45.7 38.2 43.4 44.7  Average City Service 10.4 10.8 14.0 10.8  Average PERS Service 13.8 11.4 15.0 13.7  Average Salary $78,762 $117,924 $112,185 $86,007  Total Salary (000’s) $58,047 $9,670 $11,667 $79,384  Retirees:  Count 659 87 114 860  Average Age7 67.5 63.0 67.2 67.0  Average Retirement Age8 57.2 47.9 52.1 55.5 October 11, 2011 6 PARTICIPANT STATISTICS Participant Statistics9 January 1, 2009 9 From 1/1/09 Milliman report Miscellaneous Police Fire Total  Actives  Count n/a n/a n/a 955  Average Age n/a n/a n/a 45.3  Average City Service n/a n/a n/a 11.2  Average Salary n/a n/a n/a $103,602  Total Salary (000’s) n/a n/a n/a $98,940  Retirees:  Count n/a n/a n/a 710  Average Age n/a n/a n/a 67.2  Average Retirement Age n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.b Packet Pg. 57 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 7 PARTICIPANT STATISTICS Medical Plan Participation Non-Waived Participants Retirees Medical Plan Actives < 65 ≥ 65 Total Blue Shield 44% 34% 21% 27% Blue Shield NetValue 0% 0% 0% 0% Kaiser 34% 25% 24% 25% PERS Choice 13% 21% 18% 19% PERSCare 0% 11% 36% 25% PORAC 9% 10% 1% 5% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% October 11, 2011 8 PARTICIPANT STATISTICS This page intentionally blank 2.b Packet Pg. 58 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 9 ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS HIGHLIGHTS January 1, 2009 Valuation10 January 1, 2011 & June 30, 2011 Valuations  Valuation Date  January 1, 2009  Fiscal Years 2009/10 & 2010/11 ARCs (end of year)  January 1, 2011  Fiscal Year 2011/12 ARC (end of year)  June 30, 2011  Fiscal Years 2012/13 & 2013/14 ARCs (end of year)  Funding Policy  Full Pre-funding through CalPERS trust (CERBT)  Same  Discount Rate  7.75%  1/1/11 – 7.75%  6/30/11 – 7.25%  Payroll Increases  Aggregate Increases – 3.25%  Merit Increases – CalPERS 1997-2002 Experience Study  Aggregate Increases – 3.25%  Merit Increases – CalPERS 1997-2007 Experience Study 10 From 1/1/09 Milliman report October 11, 2011 10 ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS HIGHLIGHTS January 1, 2009 Valuation10 January 1, 2011 & June 30, 2011 Valuations  Medical Trend Year Increase from Prior Year 2009 Premiums 2010 6.50% 2011 6.50% 2012 6.50% 2013 6.50% 2014 6.50% 2015 6.00% 2016 6.00% 2017 6.00% 2018+ 5.85% Increase from Prior Year Year Non-Medicare Medicare 2009 n/a 2010 n/a 2011 Premiums 2012 Premiums 2013 9.0% 9.4% 2014 8.5% 8.9% 2015 8.0% 8.3% 2016 7.5% 7.8% ↓ ↓ 2021+ 5.0% 5.0% 2.b Packet Pg. 59 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 11 ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS HIGHLIGHTS January 1, 2009 Valuation10 January 1, 2011 & June 30, 2011 Valuations  Actuarial Load  n/a  2.0% load  PEMHCA PPO premium increases below per capita claims increases  Retirement, Mortality, Termination, Disability  CalPERS 1997-2002 Experience Study Misc Fire Police Benefit 2.7%@55 3%@50 3%@50  CalPERS 1997-2007 Experience Study Misc Fire Police Benefit 2.7%@55 3%@50 3%@50 2%@6011 ERA 57.5 54.5 54.0  Participation at Retirement  n/a  DOH < 1/1/04: 100%  DOH > 1/1/04: 95%  Employees with cost sharing: reduce above %’s by 5% 11 Applies to employees hired after July 17, 2010 October 11, 2011 12 ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS HIGHLIGHTS January 1, 2009 Valuation10 January 1, 2011 & June 30, 2011 Valuations  Medical Plan at Retirement  n/a  Miscellaneous: <65 65+ Blue Shield 35% 20% Kaiser 25% 25% PERS Choice 30% 20% PERSCare 10% 35%  Safety: <65 65+ Blue Shield 35% 20% Kaiser 25% 25% PERS Choice 20% 20% PERSCare 10% 35% PORAC 10% 0% 2.b Packet Pg. 60 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 13 ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS HIGHLIGHTS January 1, 2009 Valuation10 January 1, 2011 & June 30, 2011 Valuations  Medicare Eligible Rate  n/a  Actives hired < 4/1/86:  Miscellaneous – 80%  Safety – 90%  Actives hired > 4/1/86: 100%  Retirees < 65: 90%  Everyone eligible for Medicare will elect Part B coverage  Missing PERS Group  n/a  Retirees missing PERS group assumed to be Misc unless fund designates Police or Fire October 11, 2011 14 ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS HIGHLIGHTS This page intentionally blank 2.b Packet Pg. 61 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 15 ACTUARIAL METHODS Method January 1, 2009 Valuation12 January 1, 2011 & June 30, 2011 Valuations  Cost Method  Entry Age Normal Level % of Pay  Same  Unfunded Liability Amortization  30 years open period  28 years (closed period) Fresh Start for total 6/30/2011 UAAL (27 years remaining on 6/30/12)  15 years (closed period) for future gains and losses  Maximum 30-year combined period 12 From 1/1/09 report by Milliman. October 11, 2011 16 ACTUARIAL METHODS Method January 1, 2009 Valuation12 January 1, 2011 & June 30, 2011 Valuations  Actuarial Value of Assets  Market Value of Assets  Investment gains and losses spread over a 5-year rolling period  Not less than 80% nor more than 120% of market value  Same as CalPERS, but shorter period  Implied Subsidy  Employer cost for allowing retirees to participate at active rates  Community rated plans are not required to value an implied subsidy if active rates are independent of number of retirees  PEMHCA is a community rated plan for most employers  Valuation does not include an implied subsidy 2.b Packet Pg. 62 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 17 ASSETS Market Value of Plan Assets (amounts in 000’s) 2009 2010 1/1/11- 6/30/11 Projected 2011/12  MVA (Beg. of Year) $ 24,616 $ 32,042 $ 40,213 $ 44,774  Contributions 700 3,532 2,448 5,165  Benefit Payments13 - - - -  Admin. Expenses (23) (34) (41) -  Investment Return 6,749 4,674 2,155 3,24614  MVA (End of Year) 32,042 40,213 44,774 53,185  Approx. Annual Return 26.9% 13.7% 5.3% 7.3% 13 Benefit Payments made outside of trust by City. Refer to Slide 3 for fiscal year amounts. 14 Investment return based on 7.25% net of expenses October 11, 2011 18 ASSETS Actuarial Value of Plan Assets (amounts in 000’s) 2009 2010 1/1/11- 6/30/11 Projected 2011/12  AVA (Beg. of Year) $ 24,616 $ 28,209 $ 35,294 $ 40,222  Contributions 700 3,532 2,448 5,165  Benefit Payments15 - - - -  Exp. Inv. Return 1,935 2,323 1,342 2,916  Exp. AVA (End of Year) 27,251 34,064 39,084 48,303  Preliminary AVA 28,209 35,294 40,222 49,279  Min AVA (80% MVA) 25,633 32,170 35,819 42,548  Max AVA (120% MVA) 38,450 48,255 53,729 63,822  AVA (End of Year) 28,209 35,294 40,222 49,279  Approx. Annual Return 11.6% 11.9% 7.0% 9.7% 15 Benefit Payments made outside of trust by City. Refer to Slide 3 for fiscal year amounts. 2.b Packet Pg. 63 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 19 RESULTS – JANUARY 1, 2011 VALUATION Funded Status – 7.75% Discount Rate (Amounts in 000’s) 1/1/0916 1/1/11 Projected 6/30/11  Present Value of Benefits  Actives $ 78,831 $ 85,476  Retirees 78,384 118,800  Total 157,215 204,276  Actuarial Accrued Liability  Actives 51,277 51,179  Retirees 78,384 118,800  Total 129,661 169,979 $ 174,485  Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) 24,616 35,294 40,222  Unfunded AAL 105,045 134,685 134,263  Funded Ratio 19% 21%  Normal Cost 3,478 4,937  Pay-As-You-Go Cost 6,075 8,438 16 From 1/1/09 report by Milliman. October 11, 2011 20 RESULTS – JANUARY 1, 2011 VALUATION Actuarial Gain/Loss – 7.75% Discount Rate (000’s Omitted) AAL (AVA) UAAL  Actual 1/1/09 $129,661 $(24,616) $105,045  Expected 6/30/11 150,971 (42,322) 108,649  Assumption Changes  Medical Trend 4,840 4,840  New CalPERS Decrements 7,916 7,916  Actuarial Load 3,421 3,421  Medical Plan at Retirement 7,740 7,740  Medicare Eligibility 2,625 2,625  Asset Smoothing 4,552 4,552  Contribution Loss (2,452) (2,452)  Plan Change – Cost Sharing (14,194) (14,194)  Experience (Gains)/Losses  Caps/Premiums < Expected (3,917) (3,917)  New Retirees 2,700 2,700  Demographic & Other 12,383 - 12,383  Total (Gain)/Loss 23,514 2,100 25,614  Projected 6/30/11 174,485 (40,222) 134,263 2.b Packet Pg. 64 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 21 RESULTS – JANUARY 1, 2011 VALUATION Annual Required Contribution (ARC) – 7.75% Discount Rate (Amounts in 000’s) 1/1/09 Valuation 1/1/11 Valuation Annual Required Contribution 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12  ARC - $  Normal Cost $ 3,478 $ 3,591 $ 4,937  UAAL Amortization 6,308 6,757 8,666  Total 9,786 10,348 13,603  Projected Payroll 98,940 102,156 80,664  ARC - % Pay  Normal Cost 3.5% 3.5% 6.1%  UAAL Amortization 6.4% 6.6% 10.7%  Total 9.9% 10.1% 16.9% October 11, 2011 22 RESULTS – JANUARY 1, 2011 VALUATION Estimated Net OPEB Obligation (NOO) Illustration – 7.75% Discount Rate (Amounts in 000’s) Estimated Net OPEB Obligation (Asset) CAFR 2009/10 Estimate 2010/11 Estimate 2011/12  NOO at Beginning of Year $(26,352) $(23,242) $(22,977)  Annual OPEB Cost  Annual Required Contribution 9,786 10,349 13,603  Interest on NOO (2,042) (1,801) (1,781)  NOO Adjustment 2,585 2,213 1,483  Annual OPEB Cost 10,329 10,760 13,306  Contributions  Benefit Payments Outside Trust17 5,519 6,216 8,438  Trust Funding 1,70018 4,280 5,165  Total Contributions 7,219 10,496 13,603  NOO at End of Year (23,242) (22,977) (23,275) 17 Estimated cash payments shown for years after 2010/11. Actual cash payments should be used for OPEB footnote. 18 Shortly after year end, the City contributed another $1.832 million to the trust 2.b Packet Pg. 65 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 23 RESULTS – JANUARY 1, 2011 VALUATION Amortization Bases – 7.75% Discount Rate (000’s Omitted) 1/1/2009 Valuation 1/1/2011 Valuation 6/30/2009 6/30/2010 6/30/2011  Outstanding Balance  2009 UAAL $ 105,045 $ 106,878 $ n/a  2010 Gains & Losses - 2,567 n/a  2011 Fresh Start UAAL - - 134,263  Total 105,045 109,445 134,263 October 11, 2011 24 RESULTS – JANUARY 1, 2011 VALUATION Amortization Payments – 7.75% Discount Rate (000’s Omitted) 1/1/2009 Valuation 1/1/2011 Valuation 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12  Amortization Payment - $  2009 UAAL19 $ 6,308 $ 6,513 $ n/a  2010 Gains & Losses - 244 n/a  2011 Fresh Start UAAL20 - - 8,666  Total 6,308 6,757 8,666 19 Amortized over 30 years beginning 2009/10 20 Amortized over 28 years beginning 2011/12 2.b Packet Pg. 66 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 25 RESULTS – JANUARY 1, 2011 VALUATION Actuarial Obligations – 7.75% Discount Rate January 1, 2011 (Amounts in 000’s) Benefits < Age 65 Benefits > Age 65 Total  Present Value of Benefits  Actives $ 45,464 $ 40,013 $ 85,476  Retirees 37,577 81,223 118,800  Total 83,041 121,236 204,276  Actuarial Accrued Liability  Actives 26,106 25,074 51,179  Retirees 37,577 81,223 118,800  Total 63,683 106,297 169,979  Normal Cost 2,711 2,226 4,937 October 11, 2011 26 RESULTS – JANUARY 1, 2011 VALUATION This page intentionally blank 2.b Packet Pg. 67 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 27 RESULTS – JANUARY 1, 2011 VALUATION Actuarial Obligations – 7.75% Discount Rate January 1, 2011 (Amounts in 000’s) Misc Police Fire Total  Present Value of Benefits  Actives $ 54,725 $ 12,832 $ 17,919 $ 85,476  Retirees 86,109 14,722 17,969 118,800  Total 140,834 27,554 35,888 204,276  Actuarial Accrued Liability  Actives 33,204 6,496 11,479 51,179  Retirees 86,109 14,722 17,969 118,800  Total 119,313 21,218 29,448 169,979  Actuarial Value of Assets21 24,774 4,406 6,114 35,294  Unfunded AAL 94,539 16,812 23,334 134,685  Normal Cost 3,381 719 836 4,937  Pay-As-You-Go Cost 6,285 935 1,218 8,438 21 Allocated in proportion to the Actuarial Accrued Liability. October 11, 2011 28 RESULTS – JANUARY 1, 2011 VALUATION Annual Required Contribution (ARC) – 7.75% Discount Rate 2011/12 Fiscal Year (Amounts in 000’s) Misc Police Fire Total  ARC - $  Normal Cost $ 3,381 $ 719 $ 836 $ 4,937  UAAL Amortization22 6,072 1,087 1,507 8,666  ARC 9,453 1,807 2,344 13,603  Projected Payroll 58,983 9,826 11,855 80,664  ARC - %  Normal Cost 5.7% 7.3% 7.1% 6.1%  UAAL Amortization 10.3% 11.1% 12.7% 10.7%  ARC 16.0% 18.4% 19.8% 16.9% 22 Allocated in proportion to the Actuarial Accrued Liability. 2.b Packet Pg. 68 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 29 RESULTS – JUNE 30, 2011 VALUATION Actuarial Obligations (Amounts in 000’s) 1/1/11 Valuation 6/30/11 Valuation 1/1/11 Projected 6/30/11 6/30/11 Projected 6/30/12 7.75% 7.25%  Present Value of Benefits  Actives $ 85,476 $ 96,769  Retirees 118,800 122,444  Total 204,276 219,213  Actuarial Accrued Liability  Actives 51,179 57,479  Retirees 118,800 122,444  Total 169,979 $ 174,485 179,923 $ 189,943  Actuarial Value of Assets 35,294 40,222 40,222 49,279  Unfunded AAL 134,685 134,263 139,701 140,663  Funded Ratio 21% 22%  Normal Cost 4,937 5,609  Pay-As-You-Go Cost 8,438 9,986 October 11, 2011 30 RESULTS – JUNE 30, 2011 VALUATION Actuarial Gain/Loss (000’s Omitted) AAL (AVA) UAAL  Actual 1/1/11 $169,979 $(35,294) $134,685  Projected 6/30/11 174,485 (40,222) 134,263  Expected 6/30/12 182,840 (49,279) 133,561  Assumption Changes  Discount Rate 10,613 10,613  Experience (Gains)/Losses  Demographic & Other (3,510) (3,510)  Total (Gain)/Loss 7,103 - 7,103  Projected 6/30/12 189,943 (49,279) 140,663 2.b Packet Pg. 69 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 31 RESULTS – JUNE 30, 2011 VALUATION Annual Required Contribution (ARC) (Amounts in 000’s) 1/1/11 Valuation 6/30/11 Valuation Annual Required Contribution 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 7.75% 7.25%  ARC - $  Normal Cost $ 4,937 $ 5,609 $ 5,791  UAAL Amortization 8,666 8,769 9,054  Total 13,603 14,378 14,845  Projected Payroll 80,664 83,285 85,992  ARC - %Pay  Normal Cost 6.1% 6.7% 6.7%  UAAL Amortization 10.7% 10.6%10.6%  Total 16.9% 17.3% 17.3% October 11, 2011 32 RESULTS – JUNE 30, 2011 VALUATION This page intentionally blank 2.b Packet Pg. 70 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 33 RESULTS – JUNE 30, 2011 VALUATION Amortization Bases (000’s Omitted) 1/1/2011 Valuation 6/30/2011 Valuation 6/30/2011 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 7.75% 7.25%  Outstanding Balance  2011 Fresh Start UAAL $ 134,263 $ 140,663 $ 142,093  Total 134,263 140,663 142,093 October 11, 2011 34 RESULTS – JUNE 30, 2011 VALUATION Amortization Payments (000’s Omitted) 1/1/2011 Valuation 6/30/2011 Valuation 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 7.75% 7.25%  Amortization Payment - $  2011 Fresh Start UAAL23 $ 8,666 $ 8,769 $ 9,054  Total 8,666 8,769 9,054 23 Amortized over 28 years beginning 2011/12 2.b Packet Pg. 71 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 35 RESULTS – JUNE 30, 2011 VALUATION Estimated Net OPEB Obligation (NOO) Illustration (Amounts in 000’s) 1/1/11 Valuation 6/30/11 Valuation Estimated Net OPEB Obligation (Asset) Estimate 2011/12 Estimate 2012/13 Estimate 2013/14  NOO at Beginning of Year $(22,977) $(23,275) $(23,511)  Annual OPEB Cost  Annual Required Contribution 13,603 14,378 14,845  Interest on NOO (1,781) (1,687) (1,705)  NOO Adjustment 1,483 1,451 1,498  Annual OPEB Cost 13,305 14,141 14,638  Contributions  Benefit Payments Outside Trust24 8,438 8,988 9,986  Trust Funding 5,165 5,390 4,859  Total Contributions 13,603 14,378 14,845  NOO at End of Year (23,275) (23,511) (23,718) 24 Estimated cash payments shown for all years. Actual cash payments should be used for OPEB footnote. October 11, 2011 36 RESULTS – JUNE 30, 2011 VALUATION Estimated Full ARC Funding Projection – 7.25% Discount Rate25 (Amounts in 000’s) Contribution Fiscal Year End Begin Year NOO ARC Annual OPEB Cost (AOC) Benefit Pmts Pre- Funding Total Contrib Pay Contrib % of Payroll 2012 $(22,977) $13,603 $13,305 $8,438 $5,165 $13,603 $80,664 16.9% 2013 (23,275) 14,378 14,141 8,988 5,390 14,378 83,285 17.3% 2014 (23,511) 14,845 14,638 9,986 4,859 14,845 85,992 17.3% 2015 (23,718) 15,327 15,155 10,929 4,398 15,327 88,787 17.3% 2016 (23,891) 15,825 15,690 11,945 3,880 15,825 91,672 17.3% 2017 (24,026) 16,340 16,247 12,940 3,400 16,340 94,652 17.3% 2018 (24,119) 16,871 16,825 13,832 3,039 16,871 97,728 17.3% 2019 (24,165) 17,419 17,425 14,692 2,727 17,419 100,904 17.3% 2020 (24,159) 17,985 18,049 15,574 2,412 17,985 104,183 17.3% 2021 (24,095) 18,570 18,697 16,460 2,110 18,570 107,569 17.3% 25 Fiscal year ending 2012 based on prior valuation with 7.75% discount rate. 2.b Packet Pg. 72 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 37 RESULTS – JUNE 30, 2011 VALUATION Actuarial Obligations – 7.25% Discount Rate June 30, 2011 (Amounts in 000’s) Benefits < Age 65 Benefits > Age 65 Total  Present Value of Benefits  Actives $ 49,568 $ 47,201 $ 96,769  Retirees 36,082 86,361 122,444  Total 85,650 133,562 219,213  Actuarial Accrued Liability  Actives 28,139 29,340 57,479  Retirees 36,082 86,361 122,444  Total 64,221 115,701 179,923  Normal Cost 2,978 2,631 5,609 October 11, 2011 38 RESULTS – JUNE 30, 2011 VALUATION Actuarial Obligations – 7.25% Discount Rate June 30, 2011 (Amounts in 000’s) Misc Police Fire Total  Present Value of Benefits  Actives $ 61,777 $ 14,823 $ 20,168 $ 96,769  Retirees 88,563 15,240 18,641 122,444  Total 150,340 30,063 38,809 219,213  Actuarial Accrued Liability  Actives 37,268 7,445 12,766 57,479  Retirees 88,563 15,240 18,641 122,444  Total 125,831 22,685 31,407 179,923  Actuarial Value of Assets26 28,129 5,071 7,021 40,222  Unfunded AAL 97,702 17,614 24,386 139,701  Normal Cost 3,823 825 960 5,609  Pay-As-You-Go Cost 7,385 1,132 1,469 9,986 26 Allocated in proportion to the Actuarial Accrued Liability. 2.b Packet Pg. 73 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 39 RESULTS – JUNE 30, 2011 VALUATION Annual Required Contribution (ARC) – 7.25% Discount Rate 2012/13 Fiscal Year (Amounts in 000’s) Misc Police Fire Total  ARC - $  Normal Cost $ 3,823 $ 825 $ 960 $ 5,609  UAAL Amortization27 6,111 1,116 1,541 8,769  ARC 9,934 1,941 2,501 14,378  Projected Payroll 60,900 10,145 12,240 83,285  ARC - %  Normal Cost 6.3% 8.1% 7.8% 6.7%  UAAL Amortization 10.0% 11.0% 12.6% 10.5%  ARC 16.3% 19.1% 20.4% 17.3% 27 Allocated in proportion to the Actuarial Accrued Liability. October 11, 2011 40 RESULTS – JUNE 30, 2011 VALUATION This page intentionally blank 2.b Packet Pg. 74 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 41 CERBT INVESTMENT OPTIONS  Additional CERBT asset allocations and revised discount rate assumption  Agency selects one option effective July 1, 2011  Target asset allocations Asset Classifications Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Global Equity 66.0% 50.1% 31.6% US Nominal Bonds 18.0% 23.9% 42.4% REIT's 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% U.S. Inflation Linked Bonds 5.0% 15.0% 15.0% Commodities 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%  CalPERS reported expected returns (20 year period): Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 75% Confidence Limit28 5.80% 5.60% 5.25% 50% Confidence Limit 7.61% 7.06% 6.39% 25% Confidence Limit 9.43% 8.52% 7.47% Standard Deviation 11.73% 9.46% 7.27% 28 Confidence Limits – Actual Return will exceed the given rate with indicated probabilities, rates vary by year. October 11, 2011 42 CERBT INVESTMENT OPTIONS  CalPERS discount rate development:  1st 10 year expected returns – based on asset advisors 10 year projections  Significantly higher returns assumed after 10 years  based on long term historical returns  implies actuarial losses in 1st 10 years  achievable?  Requirement that discount rate cannot be greater than 50% confidence limit rate  Bartel Associates Recommendation: select rate at 55% or 60% confidence limit Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 55% Confidence Limit Discount Rate 7.25% 6.75% 6.25% Maximum Discount Rate 7.61% 7.06% 6.39% Margin for Adverse Deviation (0.36%) (0.31%) (0.14%) 60% Confidence Limit Discount Rate 7.00% 6.50% 6.00% Maximum Discount Rate 7.61% 7.06% 6.39% Margin for Adverse Deviation (0.61%) (0.56%) (0.39%) 2.b Packet Pg. 75 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 43 BARTEL ASSOCIATES GASB 45 DATABASE 50% of 90% of 100% ofresults results results are are arewithin within within this this thisrange range range 0th Percentile GASB 45 50th Percentile 100th Percentile Sample Percentile Graph Retiree Medical Benefits Comparison 95th Percentile 5th Percentile 75th Percentile 25th Percentile 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% Pe r c e n t o f P a y October 11, 2011 44 BARTEL ASSOCIATES GASB 45 DATABASE Miscellaneous NC ARC NC ARC 95th Percentile 11.7% 31.4%11.9% 32.2% 75th Percentile 7.5% 19.4%7.0% 20.5% 50th Percentile 3.6% 8.9%2.9% 10.2% 25th Percentile 1.3% 3.3%1.4% 3.6% 5th Percentile 0.6% 1.3%0.7% 1.8% Percent of Pay 6.3% 16.3%8.0% 19.9% Percentile 67% 67%82% 73% Safety Discount Rate = 7.25%, Amortization Period = 27 Years GASB 45 Retiree Medical Benefits Comparison Normal Cost & Annual Required Contribution -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Pe r c e n t o f P a y 2.b Packet Pg. 76 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 45 BARTEL ASSOCIATES GASB 45 DATABASE 95th Percentile 251%275% 75th Percentile 151%166% 50th Percentile 74%87% 25th Percentile 23%28% 5th Percentile 8%12% Percent of Pay 207%242% Percentile 89%92% Miscellaneous Safety Discount Rate = 7.25% GASB 45 Retiree Medical Benefits Comparison Actuarial Accrued Liability 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 350% 400% 450% 500% Pe r c e n t o f P a y October 11, 2011 46 OTHER ISSUES  GASB Pension Accounting  Exposure Draft for pension accounting changes issued 7/8/2011:  Usually the last public document issued before issuing final statement  Similar views expected for OPEB  Comment deadline 9/30/11  Likely effective for 2013/14 fiscal year  Major issues:  Unfunded liability on balance sheet  Lower discount rate if funding less than ARC  Immediate recognition of:  Service & Interest Cost  Benefit changes  Inactive gains/losses & assumption changes  Deferred recognition of:  Active gains/losses & assumption changes, over (future working lifetime) closed period  Asset gains/losses, over 5 years  Entry age normal cost method  National Health Care Reform – Too early to know impact 2.b Packet Pg. 77 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 47 OTHER ISSUES  Timing:  Present preliminary results September 26, 2011  Present revised preliminary results October 11, 2011 October 11, 2011 48 EXHIBITS Topic Page Premiums E- 1 Data Summary E- 3 Actuarial Assumptions E-29 Definitions E-36 2.b Packet Pg. 78 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 E-1 PREMIUMS 2011 PEMHCA Monthly Premiums Bay Area Non-Medicare Eligible Medicare Eligible Medical Plan Single 2-Party Family Single 2-Party Family Blue Shield $675.51 $1,351.02 $1,756.33 $337.88 $675.76 $1,013.64 Blue Shield NetValue 581.24 1,162.48 1,511.22 337.88 675.76 1,013.64 Kaiser 568.99 1,137.98 1,479.37 282.30 564.60 846.90 PERS Choice 563.40 1,126.80 1,464.84 375.88 751.76 1,127.64 PERS Select 492.68 985.36 1,280.97 375.88 751.76 1,127.64 PERSCare 893.95 1,787.90 2,324.27 433.66 867.32 1,300.98 PORAC 527.00 987.00 1,254.00 418.00 833.00 1,331.00 October 11, 2011 E-2 PREMIUMS 2012 PEMHCA Monthly Premiums Bay Area Non-Medicare Eligible Medicare Eligible Medical Plan Single 2-Party Family Single 2-Party Family Blue Shield Access+ $711.10 $1,422.20 $1,848.86 $337.99 $675.98 $1,013.97 Blue Shield NetValue 611.59 1,223.18 1,590.13 337.99 675.98 1,013.97 Kaiser 610.44 1,220.88 1,587.14 277.81 555.62 833.43 PERS Choice 574.15 1,148.30 1,492.79 383.44 766.88 1,150.32 PERS Select 487.39 974.78 1,267.21 383.44 766.88 1,150.32 PERSCare 1,029.23 2,058.46 2,676.00 432.43 864.86 1,297.29 PORAC 556.00 1,041.00 1,323.00 418.00 833.00 1,331.00 2.b Packet Pg. 79 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 E-3 DATA SUMMARY Active Medical Coverage Bay Area Plans Medical Plan Single 2-Party Family Waived Total Blue Shield 90 68 210 - 368 Blue Shield NetValue 2 1 1 - 4 Kaiser 74 65 151 - 290 PERS Choice 22 39 47 - 108 PERSCare - - 1 - 1 PORAC 12 7 54 - 73 Waived - - - 79 79 Total 200 180 464 79 923 October 11, 2011 E-4 DATA SUMMARY Retiree Medical Coverage - Under Age 65 Plan Region Single 2-Party Family Total Bay Area 48 42 25 115 Los Angeles 1 - - 1 Northern CA - 1 1 2 Sacramento 4 3 1 8 Blue Shield Southern CA - 1 - 1 Bay Area 37 26 11 74 Northern CA 2 1 3 6 Out of State - 5 1 6 Sacramento 3 3 - 6 Kaiser Southern CA 2 1 1 4 Bay Area 22 19 7 48 Northern CA 3 2 - 5 Out of State 7 13 2 22 Sacramento 1 - - 1 PERS Choice Southern CA 2 - - 2 Bay Area 11 5 2 18 Northern CA 1 2 - 3 Out of State 13 2 - 15 Sacramento 2 - 1 3 PERSCare Southern CA 1 - - 1 PORAC 10 14 12 36 Total 170 140 67 377 2.b Packet Pg. 80 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 E-5 DATA SUMMARY Retiree Medical Coverage - Over Age 65 Plan Region Single 2-Party Family Total Bay Area 53 40 2 95 Northern CA - 2 - 2 Sacramento 1 - - 1 Blue Shield Southern CA 2 3 - 5 Blue Shield NetValue Southern CA 1 - - 1 Bay Area 44 42 6 92 Northern CA 2 2 - 4 Out of State 4 3 - 7 Sacramento 6 6 1 13 Kaiser Southern CA 1 - - 1 Bay Area 14 21 - 35 Los Angeles 1 - - 1 Northern CA 3 5 1 9 Out of State 12 17 2 31 Sacramento 1 3 - 4 PERS Choice Southern CA 4 1 - 5 Bay Area 47 34 - 81 Northern CA 9 7 - 16 Out of State 41 19 2 62 Sacramento 3 4 - 7 PERSCare Southern CA 5 3 - 8 PORAC 1 1 1 3 Total 255 213 15 483 October 11, 2011 E-6 DATA SUMMARY Medical Plan Participation Non-Waived Participants Retirees Medical Plan Actives < 65 ≥ 65 Total Blue Shield 44% 34% 21% 27% Blue Shield NetValue 0% 0% 0% 0% Kaiser 34% 25% 24% 25% PERS Choice 13% 21% 18% 19% PERSCare 0% 11% 36% 25% PORAC 9% 10% 1% 5% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 2.b Packet Pg. 81 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 E-7 DATA SUMMARY Retiree Medical Coverage by Age Group Miscellaneous Age Single 2-Party Family Total Under 50 2 - 2 4 50-54 20 17 8 45 55-59 55 38 17 110 60-64 61 62 14 137 65-69 58 68 5 131 70-74 55 41 1 97 75-79 32 23 - 55 80-84 24 15 1 40 Over 85 28 12 - 40 Total 335 276 48 659 Average Age 68.7 67.4 59.5 67.5 October 11, 2011 E-8 DATA SUMMARY Retiree Age Distribution Miscellaneous 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 <50 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 ≥85 Age Nu m b e r 2.b Packet Pg. 82 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 E-9 DATA SUMMARY Retiree Medical Coverage by Age Group Police Age Single 2-Party Family Total Under 50 5 3 1 9 50-54 6 3 4 13 55-59 8 5 4 17 60-64 8 6 2 16 65-69 6 3 1 10 70-74 5 1 - 6 75-79 4 2 - 6 80-84 4 4 - 8 Over 85 2 - - 2 Total 48 27 12 87 Average Age 64.8 62.7 56.5 63.0 October 11, 2011 E-10 DATA SUMMARY Retiree Age Distribution Police 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 <50 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 ≥85 Age Nu m b e r 2.b Packet Pg. 83 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 E-11 DATA SUMMARY Retiree Medical Coverage by Age Group Fire Age Single 2-Party Family Total Under 50 1 1 3 5 50-54 1 2 10 13 55-59 5 2 4 11 60-64 7 8 3 18 65-69 4 8 2 14 70-74 11 16 - 27 75-79 5 8 - 13 80-84 4 4 - 8 Over 85 4 1 - 5 Total 42 50 22 114 Average Age 70.6 69.8 55.0 67.2 October 11, 2011 E-12 DATA SUMMARY Retiree Age Distribution Fire 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 <50 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 ≥85 Age Nu m b e r 2.b Packet Pg. 84 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 E-13 DATA SUMMARY Actives by Age and Service Miscellaneous City Service Age < 1 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 ≥ 25 Total < 25 1 2 1 - - - - 4 25-29 9 22 11 2 - - - 44 30-34 7 39 23 16 4 - - 89 35-39 6 25 25 23 3 - - 82 40-44 3 24 21 31 14 3 - 96 45-49 4 31 17 46 34 23 5 160 50-54 7 20 23 31 23 15 14 133 55-59 1 13 11 25 11 10 4 75 60-64 - 8 4 13 8 7 - 40 ≥ 65 - - 2 3 4 1 4 14 Total 38 184 138 190 101 59 27 737 October 11, 2011 E-14 DATA SUMMARY This page intentionally blank 2.b Packet Pg. 85 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 E-15 DATA SUMMARY Active Age Distribution Miscellaneous 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 <25 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-65 ≥65 Age Nu m b e r October 11, 2011 E-16 DATA SUMMARY Active Service Distribution Miscellaneous 0 50 100 150 200 250 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >25 Service Nu m b e r 2.b Packet Pg. 86 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 E-17 DATA SUMMARY Actives by Age and Service Police City Service Age < 1 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 ≥ 25 Total < 25 - 2 - - - - - 2 25-29 1 6 2 - - - - 9 30-34 1 10 9 1 - - - 21 35-39 - 3 6 7 2 1 - 19 40-44 - - 3 1 4 1 - 9 45-49 - - 1 2 6 4 4 17 50-54 - 1 1 1 - 1 1 5 55-59 - - - - - - - - 60-64 - - - - - - - - ≥ 65 - - - - - - - - Total 2 22 22 12 12 7 5 82 October 11, 2011 E-18 DATA SUMMARY This page intentionally blank 2.b Packet Pg. 87 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 E-19 DATA SUMMARY Active Age Distribution Police 0 5 10 15 20 25 <25 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-65 ≥65 Age Nu m b e r October 11, 2011 E-20 DATA SUMMARY Active Service Distribution Police 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >25 Service Nu m b e r 2.b Packet Pg. 88 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 E-21 DATA SUMMARY Actives by Age and Service Fire City Service Age < 1 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 ≥ 25 Total < 25 1 2 - - - - - 3 25-29 - 3 2 - - - - 5 30-34 2 3 4 - - - - 9 35-39 - 4 4 10 1 - - 19 40-44 - - 4 9 3 1 - 17 45-49 - 1 4 7 6 13 2 33 50-54 - - - 2 - 5 7 14 55-59 - - - 1 - - 1 2 60-64 - - - - - 1 1 2 ≥ 65 - - - - - - - - Total 3 13 18 29 10 20 11 104 October 11, 2011 E-22 DATA SUMMARY This page intentionally blank 2.b Packet Pg. 89 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 E-23 DATA SUMMARY Active Age Distribution Fire 0 5 10 15 20 25 <25 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-65 ≥65 Age Nu m b e r October 11, 2011 E-24 DATA SUMMARY Active Service Distribution Fire 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >25 Service Nu m b e r 2.b Packet Pg. 90 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 E-25 DATA SUMMARY Actives by Age and Service Total City Service Age < 1 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 ≥ 25 Total < 25 2 6 1 - - - - 9 25-29 10 31 15 2 - - - 58 30-34 10 52 36 17 4 - - 119 35-39 6 32 35 40 6 1 - 120 40-44 3 24 28 41 21 5 - 122 45-49 4 32 22 55 46 40 11 210 50-54 7 21 24 34 23 21 22 152 55-59 1 13 11 26 11 10 5 77 60-64 - 8 4 13 8 8 1 42 ≥ 65 - - 2 3 4 1 4 14 Total 43 219 178 231 123 86 43 923 October 11, 2011 E-26 DATA SUMMARY This page intentionally blank 2.b Packet Pg. 91 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 E-27 DATA SUMMARY Active Age Distribution Total 0 50 100 150 200 250 <25 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-65 ≥65 Age Nu m b e r October 11, 2011 E-28 DATA SUMMARY Active Service Distribution Total 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >25 Service Nu m b e r 2.b Packet Pg. 92 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 E-29 ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS January 1, 2009 Valuation29 January 1, 2011 & June 30, 2011 Valuations  Valuation Date  January 1, 2009  Fiscal Years 2009/10 & 2010/11 ARCs (end of year)  January 1, 2011  Fiscal Year 2011/12 ARC (end of year)  June 30, 2011  Fiscal Years 2012/13 & 2013/14 ARCs (end of year)  Funding Policy  Full Pre-funding through CalPERS trust (CERBT)  Same  General Inflation  3.00%  Same  Discount Rate  7.75%  1/1/11 – 7.75%  6/30/11 – 7.25% 29 From 1/1/09 Milliman report October 11, 2011 E-30 ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS January 1, 2009 Valuation29 January 1, 2011 & June 30, 2011 Valuations  Payroll Increases  Aggregate Increases – 3.25%  Merit Increases – CalPERS 1997-2002 Experience Study  Aggregate Increases – 3.25%  Merit Increases – CalPERS 1997-2007 Experience Study  Medical Trend Year Increase from Prior Year 2009 Premiums 2010 6.50% 2011 6.50% 2012 6.50% 2013 6.50% 2014 6.50% 2015 6.00% 2016 6.00% 2017 6.00% 2018+ 5.85% Increase from Prior Year Year Non-Medicare Medicare 2009 n/a 2010 n/a 2011 Premiums 2012 Premiums 2013 9.0% 9.4% 2014 8.5% 8.9% 2015 8.0% 8.3% 2016 7.5% 7.8% 2017 7.0% 7.2% 2018 6.5% 6.7% 2019 6.0% 6.1% 2020 5.5% 5.6% 2021+ 5.0% 5.0% 2.b Packet Pg. 93 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 E-31 ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS January 1, 2009 Valuation29 January 1, 2011 & June 30, 2011 Valuations  Actuarial Load  n/a  2.0% load  PEMHCA PPO premium increases below per capita claims increases  Mortality, Termination, Disability  CalPERS 1997-2002 Experience Study  CalPERS 1997-2007 Experience Study  Retirement  CalPERS 1997-2002 Experience Study Misc Fire Police Benefit 2.7%@55 3%@50 3%@50  CalPERS 1997-2007 Experience Study Misc Fire Police Benefit 2.7%@55 3%@50 3%@50 2%@6030 ERA 57.5 54.5 54.0 30 Applies to employees hired after July 17, 2010 October 11, 2011 E-32 ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS January 1, 2009 Valuation29 January 1, 2011 & June 30, 2011 Valuations  Participation at Retirement  n/a  Hired < 1/1/04: 100%  Hired > 1/1/04: 95%  Employees with cost sharing: reduce above %’s by 5%  Medical Plan at Retirement  n/a  Miscellaneous: <65 65+ Blue Shield 35% 20% Kaiser 25% 25% PERS Choice 30% 20% PERSCare 10% 35%  Safety: <65 65+ Blue Shield 35% 20% Kaiser 25% 25% PERS Choice 20% 20% PERSCare 10% 35% PORAC 10% 0% 2.b Packet Pg. 94 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 E-33 ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS January 1, 2009 Valuation29 January 1, 2011 & June 30, 2011 Valuations  Medicare Eligible Rate  n/a  Actives hired < 4/1/86:  Miscellaneous – 80%  Safety – 90%  Actives hired > 4/1/86: 100%  Retirees < 65: 90%  Everyone eligible for Medicare will elect Part B coverage  Spousal Coverage at Retirement  Actives: 60%  Retirees: based on current elections  Currently covered: based on current elections  Currently waived: 80%  Family Coverage at Retirement  Actives: 18% until age 65  Retirees: based on current elections until age 65  Actives  Misc : 10% until age 65  Safety : 20% until age 65  Retirees: based on current elections until age 65 October 11, 2011 E-34 ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS January 1, 2009 Valuation29 January 1, 2011 & June 30, 2011 Valuations  Missing PERS Group  n/a  Retirees missing PERS group assumed to be Misc unless fund designates Police or Fire  Missing Bargaining Unit  n/a  Retirees missing bargaining unit assumed to be SEIU unless fund designates Police (PAPOA) or Fire (IAFF)  Missing Department  n/a  Retirees missing department assumed to be 80% GF, 10% Elec, and 10% WWT  Missing Fund  n/a  People assumed to be 80% GF from above assumption placed in “Unknown” Fund  Surviving Spouse Participation  n/a  100% 2.b Packet Pg. 95 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 E-35 ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS January 1, 2009 Valuation29 January 1, 2011 & June 30, 2011 Valuations  Spouse Age  Actives – Males 3 years older than females  Retirees – Males 3 years older than females if spouse birth date not available  Same  Future New Participants  None – Closed Group  Same October 11, 2011 E-36 DEFINITIONS  GASB 45 Accrual Accounting  Project future employer-provided benefit cash flows for current active employees and current retirees  Discount projected cash flow to valuation date using discount rate (assumed return on assets used to pay benefits) and other actuarial assumptions to determine present value of projected future benefits (PVB)  Allocate PVB to past, current, and future periods using the actuarial cost method  Actuarial cost method used for this valuation is the Entry Age Normal Cost method which determines Normal Cost as a level percentage of payroll (same method used by CalPERS)  Normal Cost is amount allocated to current fiscal year  Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) is amount allocated to prior service with employer  Unfunded AAL (UAAL) is AAL less plan assets pre-funded in a segregated and restricted trust  PayGo Cost  Cash subsidy is the pay-as-you-go employer benefit payments for retirees  Implied subsidy is the difference between the actual cost of retiree benefits and retiree premiums subsidized by active employee premiums 2.b Packet Pg. 96 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) October 11, 2011 E-37 DEFINITIONS Present Value of Benefits Present Value of Benefits (With Plan Assets) Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Future Normal Costs Normal Cost Assets Present Value of Benefits (Without Plan Assets) Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability Future Normal Costs Normal Cost October 11, 2011 E-38 DEFINITIONS  Annual Required Contribution (ARC)  “Required contribution” for the current period including:  Normal Cost  Amortization of: - Initial UAAL - AAL for plan, assumption, and method changes - Experience gains/losses (difference between expected and actual) - Contribution gains/losses (difference between ARC and contributions)  ARC in excess of pay-as-you-go costs not required to be funded  Net OPEB Obligation (NOO)  Net OPEB Obligation is the accumulated amounts expensed but not funded  Net OPEB Asset if amounts funded exceed those expensed  Annual OPEB Cost (AOC)  Expense for the current period including:  ARC  Interest on NOO  Adjustment of NOO  NOO adjustment prevents double counting of expense since ARCs include an amortization of prior contribution gains/losses previously expensed 2.b Packet Pg. 97 -: A t t a c h m e n t B : R e v i s e d P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) Blue Shield 23.35% 17.95% 23.71% 9.11%13.80%10.06% 5.19% 2.99% 17.01% 5.27% 12.62% Blue Shield NetValue 3.61% 0.98% 16.17% 5.22% 6.34% Kaiser 23.33% 17.83% 16.13% 9.78%10.73%9.16% 7.99% 4.77% 6.84% 7.28% 11.25% PERS Choice 18.88% 18.04% 5.82% 9.43%12.50%6.00% 0.00% 5.44% 10.74% 1.91% 8.71% PERS Select -3.00% 4.80% 3.74% -1.07% 1.06% PERSCare 22.05% -0.59% 13.80% 9.76%13.09%-2.56% 0.00% 15.78% 2.97% 15.13% 8.65% WHA 15.00% 34.23% 15.00% 9.80%11.80%16.86% PORAC 21.25% 9.91% 1.65% 0.00%9.97%2.99% 6.99% 0.00% 8.88% 5.50% 6.55% Blue Shield 4.00% 17.95% -10.06% -0.45% 11.33% 7.05% 0.00% -12.27% 12.80% 0.03% 2.62% Blue Shield NetValue 0.00% -1.68% 12.80% 0.03% 2.63% Kaiser 55.60% 31.90% -11.19% -10.13% 32.52% -5.63% 2.49% 6.50% -5.38% -1.59% 7.61% Kaiser/OOS 13.21% 36.39% 8.96% -19.53% 29.43% 9.89% 6.75% 0.16% 11.11% 3.40% 8.99% PERS Choice 5.08% -1.40% -8.53% 15.18% 6.12% 2.15% 0.00% 2.00% 5.56% 2.01% 2.66% PERS Select 0.00% 2.00% 5.56% 2.01% 2.37% PERSCare 5.92% -1.16% -13.91% 20.01% 7.05% 8.86% 0.00% 1.48% 5.62% -0.28% 3.02% PORAC 21.30% 5.42% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -9.33% 7.03% 10.00% 15.15% 0.00% 4.63% WHA 12.08% 55.09% 0.00% -1.00% 7.00%12.99% Medicare - All Regions Percent Change Percent Change Percent Change Percent Change Percent Change Percent Change Percent Change Percent Change Percent Change 2011-12 Percent Change Bay Area CalPERS 2002-2012 Health Premiums - Regional 2003-04 Percent Change 2004-05 Percent Change Average per year increase Medicare Percent Change 2009-10 Percent Change 2010-11 Percent Change 2007-08 Percent Change 2008-09 Percent Change 2005-06 Percent Change 2006-07 Percent Change Basic 2002-03 Percent Change 2. c Pa c k e t P g . 9 8 -: Attachment C: 2002-2012 PEMHCA Premiums (2180 : Retiree Medical Study) October 12, 2011 1 RESULTS BY FUND Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) (Amounts in 000’s) January 1, 2009 January 1, 2011 June 30, 2011 7.75% 7.75% 7.25%  CIP $ 1,564 $ 2,409 $ 2,572  Elec1,2 13,214 16,325 17,225  Gas1 4,589 6,227 6,668  GF3 91,488 118,946 125,564  ISF - Technology 2,226 2,079 2,257  ISF - Vehicle 1,225 1,411 1,510  Refuse 3,063 4,931 5,256  Storm Drain 494 1,478 1,565  Water1 4,673 5,189 5,539  WWC1 2,013 2,103 2,313  WWT 5,112 8,881 9,454  Total 129,661 169,979 179,923 1 Assets for Fiber Optics Fund appropriated to Elec due to no Fiber Optics employees in data 2 AAL for UTL employees allocated to Elec, Gas, Water, and WWC in proportion to each Fund’s AAL 3 Assets for Printing & Mailing Fund appropriated to GF due to no Printing & Mailing employees in data October 12, 2011 2 RESULTS BY FUND Annual Required Contribution (ARC) (Amounts in 000’s) 1/1/09 Valuation 1/1/11 Valuation 6/30/11 Valuation Annual Required Contribution 2009/10 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 7.75% 7.75% 7.25%  CIP $ 142 $ 220 $ 237 $ 245  Elec1,2 953 1,164 1,235 1,275  Gas1 344 390 515 532  GF3 6825 9,510 10,018 10,344  ISF - Technology 214 229 245 253  ISF - Vehicle 95 126 132 136  Refuse 245 402 420 434  Storm Drain 36 112 118 121  Water1 386 428 464 479  WWC1 169 200 223 230  WWT 377 730 771 796  Total 9,786 13,603 14,378 14,845 2.d Packet Pg. 99 -: A t t a c h m e n t D : R e s u l t s b y F u n d ( 2 1 8 0 : R e t i r e e M e d i c a l S t u d y ) Excerpt from Finance Committee minutes of October 18, 2011. 2. Review and Acceptance of Updated Retiree Medical Actuarial Study – Valuation Date January 1, 2011 and Valuation Date June 30, 2011 Director of Administrative Services, Lalo Perez stated in 2008 Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) required governmental entities to value the benefits of medical plans to determine the liability; the City complied in January of 2009. It was required every two-years to complete a refresh of the value. The presentation showed the differences between the 2009 value of the benefit to the 2011 refresh. The major difference was in the retirees where it went from $78,384,000 to $118,800,000. The positive piece of the information was the assets being set aside had increased and the City’s earning had risen. The assets went from $24.6 million in 2009 to $35.3 million in 2011 bringing the unfunded liability for retiree medical for the full organization to $135 million. Public Employee Retiree Service (PERS) had added the flexibility for the City to select a regular return. After discussions internally and with Bartel Associates, Inc. it was determined a 7.25 discount rate was the rate for the City to use going forward for the Fiscal Years (FY) 2013 and 2014. By following that recommendation it changed the future Annual Required Contribution (ARC) from $13.6 to $14.4 million, approximately $775,000 more for FY13 and if the same rate of assumption was maintained there would be an additional $467,000 for FY14. John Bartel, Bartel Associates, LLC addressed the Actuarial Accrual Liability (AAL) number which was $130 million and the expectation should be for the AAL to grow from one valuation to the next because there were services being rendered and as they were rendered it changed the numbers. He explained if there had been no changes in the assumption and there had been no gains and losses the expected AAL would have been $151 million. Assumptions were thought of future changes for what may occur and no matter how good of an actuarial firm the City hired they did not determine the cost of the plan. The cost of the plan was determined based on the benefits paid, offset by investment earnings received in the Trust and increased by expenses. He reviewed the actuarial gains and losses comparing the 2009 results to the 2011 results and explained the increase. Mr. Perez stated in selecting Bartel and Associates, LLC. as the actuarial firm for the City, Staff had send out a list serve inquiry and the majority of the responses from other agencies for who they had completed their reports were Bartel and Associates, LLC. He spoke to the changes made by the present and prior Council with respect to the longer term benefits; 1) there was a longer vesting period with retiree medical so an employee hired post January 2004 needed 20 years to achieve the 90 percent and 2) for the Public Employee Retirement Service (PERS) Care Family Health Plan the City was not paying 100 percent which was significant since the annual cost was $24,000 for someone with family coverage. In order to mitigate the future costs the City could negotiate with the bargaining units or the other option was to utilize the funds set aside in the Trust to assist paying the difference. Staff hoped to return in early calendar year 2012 to provide recommendations. City Manager, James Keene announced the main action Staff was recommending to the Finance Committee was to set the methodology on the liability and the ARC. The next item on the agenda was a discussion of the 2012 budget and the implications on finances; he felt the two issues were directly linked. In the last actuarial valuation there was a $105 million unfunded liability and currently it was at $134 million even though there was a strong financial performance activity on the assets. He asked if there was a net increase of assets over the last two years. Mr. Perez stated yes there was a net increase in assets. He clarified the firm made a recommendation and the City accepted to smooth out the assumptions of the values of the assets going forward. Mr. Keene asked if the methodology had not been changed would the valuation of the unfunded liability been less in 2009. Mr. Bartel stated if no assumption changes were made then the unfunded liability would have been $109 million. Mr. Perez said Staff was aware from the Council feedback that Bartel felt the assumption of 6 and 6.5 percent for medical cost increases was not sufficient. Mr. Keene asked for confirmation that the unfunded liability would continue to rise even if there were solid investment performances. Mr. Bartel agreed. Council Member Shepherd asked if a large group of employees retired in a short timeframe caused a “bubble” which exacerbated the position, when would there be an “un-bubble” as it were. Mr. Keene clarified if there were no new hires there could be an “un- bubble” but the City needed to replace employees so that was not a probable scenario. He said people were living longer which created a greater long-term cost. Council Member Shepherd saw the mass retirement as a cause and effect of the City’s position to increase the cost of employee contribution to healthcare and what she was asking was would there be a softening effect. Mr. Bartel clarified the firm reviewed the City’s employment population and calculated their age with years vested. He said in considering the data the remaining population who did not retire with the early retirement package were not far from regular retirement. If the City were to split the active liability in half, that would reduce the actuarial liability by $25 million. The liability for retirees themselves was $119 million. Chair Scharff asked when the unfunded liability payment was due. Mr. Bartel said that liability was being paid off over a period of 28 years. The goal was to ensure there were sufficient funds to make the benefits payment but there was no requirement that the payment be made early; it would be prudent to do so if there were the ability but it was not required. Council Member Yeh asked why the firm created a closed amortization period of 30 years. Mr. Bartel clarified the 30 year timeframe was in the prior firm’s valuation, although the accounting standard recommended not using a period longer than 30 years. It appeared the previous firm was using a rolling 30 year formula but in doing that the City would never pay off the debt. The City’s policy was to payoff the unfunded liability which was a good fiscal policy and in that model there needed to be an end date so the lower the ARC the less of the unfunded liability was paid off. Mr. Keene asked if nothing changed over the next 28 years and the City made the ARC payments as identified, at the end of the 28 years there would be no unfunded liability. Mr. Bartel said that it did not mean there would not be a required contribution but yes, there would not be an unfunded liability. Council Member Schmid confirmed the formula of applying the health retiree benefits to current employees had three parts; 1) prepaying for the liability he or she would have in the future, 2) past retirement payments, and 3) a portion of the payment would be put off because in the future his or her payment may be higher. Two parts were positive and one negative so he asked how the firm would recommend allocation of shares for each part. Mr. Bartel stated none of the numbers included any payment for current active medical costs today; the formula was for their retirement. The belief was the City was taking into account that the portion of the premiums being paid for the current employee after retirement would be substantially higher than what was being paid today. Council Member Schmid stated within the demographics the actuary firm had built-in an assumption people would compete in the labor market for 28 years prior to retiring. Mr. Bartel disagreed and stated what was being said was when the City reviewed their population they made an assumption of how long they would be working for the City. The formula was to take the pension plan in conjunction with a generous retiree medical plan which took you to an expected retirement age based on Palo Alto’s demographic. He explained to a large degree the employees at 2.7 had an expected retirement age of 57 based on the demographic. Council Member Schmid asked when a payment was made during the current year was the payment based on an assumption of the number of years of service the employee would have when they retired. Mr. Bartel clarified for the active employees the City may be making payments on their unfunded liability after they had retired. Council Member Schmid asked if the City was adequately providing for those who were currently working. Mr. Bartel said the sooner the unfunded liability was paid off, the better off the City would be. Council Member Schmid asked what the City should be paying for current employees. Mr. Bartel said for example, if Palo Alto had the funds and if they were able to accommodate it he suggested paying off the unfunded liability closer to a twelve year amortization. Council Member Schmid asked if the firm was assuming the employees were going to be working for 25 years why was the City making payments on the basis of 28 years. Mr. Bartel stated if the City had been pre-funding the retirement medical obligation since it began there would not be a term of 28 years. He felt the City would not run out of funds by following the 28 year plan. Council Member Schmid was concerned that over the past two years the unfunded liability had taken a large jump because assumptions were made of the demographics. He said the asset market value between 2008 and 2011 the total increased by 10 percent but the actuarial value did not increase at all over the same four year period. The projected 2012 value had a substantial growth in asset except it was already the first quarter and the value was at minus 20 percent. Mr. Bartel stated that was correct. Council Member Schmid said if the assumption was a growth of 7.25 rate of return; he asked where the 7.25 came from. He mentioned the Federal Government announced they were going to be driving the bond market as close to 1 to 2 percent as possible for the next two years and global equities were going up and down with no trend of a solid upward momentum. Council Member Shepherd said Palo Alto had a 50 percent confident rating and she asked how a 90 percent confident rating would affect the numbers. Mr. Bartel confirmed if the confident rating rose to 90 percent the number would rise to approximately 4 percent. He stated the firm received their numbers through looking to outside investment advisors and asset classifications then perform statistic projections. He agreed a rate return of 7.25 in the short term was not achievable which was why he explained asset smoothing was so important. Council Member Schmid was concerned about the smoothing process being represented. Mr. Bartel believed the 50 percent confidence level was close to the 7.61 rate of return but he preferred to air on the conservative side and brought it down to 7.25. Council Member Schmid felt Council should be able to speak to the employees he needed to provide realistic numbers. Mr. Bartel asked what discount rates Council Member Schmid felt should be used. Council Member Schmid stated 7.25; given the current asset allocation was much too high for the amount of risk. Mr. Bartel said the goal should be to asses the type of risk the City was willing to take and setting the discount rate at that level. Council Member Yeh asked the status of legislation to fund the unfunded liability. Mr. Bartel clarified the City would issue their financial statements in compliance with GASB who had a pension exposure draft and although it was not required to place the pension unfunded liability on the financial statement it was clearly the most efficient way to accomplish an accurate accounting. The exposure draft should be issued by the end of 2012. Council Member Yeh asked what the impact of monitoring would be and if Palo Alto changed their methodology would their funded percentage be reduced. Mr. Bartel agreed, the more conservative the assumptions for discount rates the lower the funded percentage would be. Council Member Yeh asked where the rating agencies would go with that type of system. Mr. Bartel said in speaking with the rating agencies if there was a modest liability and the City was doing nothing it would not affect the agencies rating but if there was a valuable promise and the City was not acting on it the rating agency would react. Council Member Yeh said if GASB did not come out with a prescribed methodology and each city was using different assumptions that would become confusing. Mr. Bartel was told by GASB that the actuaries had a standard of practice and the outside auditors would review their work for reasonableness. His concern was the outside auditors may not be knowledgeable enough in those standards to perform an adequate review. Council Member Yeh noted a higher level of comfort with a higher level of conservativeness but his concern was being more conservative may position Palo Alto in a manner that could hurt the City externally. Mr. Bartel stated his recommendation was to set t he discount rate for the ARC which would also be the discount rate for the financial statements. That left room to use a different rate for internal purposes. He felt the concern over the discount rate was not limited to Other Post Employee Benefit (OPEB), it was part in parcel to the CalPERS pension. Council Member Yeh said when there was only a closed amortization period and new retirees entered the system it created an understated unfunded liability because the new retires had not been included. Mr. Bartel clarified his valuation had anticipated that and noted the level percentage of pay making a negative amortization which meant there was a negative amortization period until the level of amortization was below 20 years. Council Member Yeh said there had been contributions to the Trust since 2008 and asked to what extend had it been spent down. Mr. Perez stated the Trust had risen to $44.8 million and the majority of the increases were from earnings. Council Member Yeh noted he had seen the contributions listing in the Staff Report but his question was whether the City had made the contributions or were they from the structural reforms. Mr. Bartel said they were City contributions. Vice Mayor Yeh asked whether or not to use the Trust Fund to pay a portion of the increased costs. Mr. Perez noted that was one option to be considered, another option would be budget reductions or increased revenues. Vice Mayor Yeh reiterated the actuary had mentioned with a 30 year amortization the City would not run out of funds. He asked if the funds being refereed to were Trust Funds. Mr. Bartel clarified the City was making their benefit payments for retirees and putting funds aside with the intent of making the benefits payments from the Trust at a future time. The expectation was the City would reach a point in approximately 15 years where there were sufficient funds to be able to expend fewer monies by making the benefits payments out of the Trust. Vice Mayor Yeh asked how much City contribution needed to be added to the Trust in order to achieve the 5.65. If the goal was to continue with the closed amortization and achieve the goal of using the Trust in 15 years, he did not want to run out of funds. Mr. Perez stated the key was to be able to make the payments so there were no funds drawn from the Trust. Mr. Keene asked for clarification that the employee contributions for healthcare were dedicated to the unfunded liability. Mr. Perez stated that was correct. Vice Mayor Yeh asked if that area would be a separate line item in the future. Mr. Perez noted it would be listed in the report under contributions. Council Member Shepherd commented on how the City was placing good faith in the Irrevocable Coffers Trust that sound investment choices were being made with the contributions being placed through them. She noted she was not comfortable with the investment choices. Her preference would be having the City put aside the funds utilizing the mechanisms currently in place for earning interest. She noted the assumptions did not reflect the adjustments from safety units or what might be coming forward with the other bargaining units. Mr. Bartel assured the Committee the rate of return would absolutely not be 7.25. Council Member Shepherd said it would be less. Mr. Bartel clarified he was uncertain what the percentage rate would be in the short run however not many of their clients were comfortable with how CalPERS had been investing. Council Member Shepherd said they had not changed their manner of thinking on investment strategy during the changing financial crisis. Mr. Bartel disagreed and clarified there were elements that CalPERS had changed but some they had not. In the California Employers Retirees Benefit Trust (CERBT) there were two elements that were in the Pension Trust and they did not invest in specific real estate. Council Member Shepherd understood those points but argued their strategy of investment in the global market place, where they placed the bulk of their funds, had not changed. Mr. Bartel suggested they review what the CalPERS investment staff was doing today, if anything, that was different from their prior practices. CalPERS had a long run of Chief Investment Officer (CIO) turn over until they hired Joe Dear a few years ago who focused on long-term investments and shifted the method of their investment strategy. Council Member Shepherd was familiar with Mr. Dear but did not feel there had been a significant shift in strategy since his arrival. She recommended using the information as a tool during labor negotiations. Chair Scharff agreed and noted it affected how retirees were viewed and whether or not they could switch to a more expensive plan. Council Member Yeh asked if Staff was reviewing the determined funding recommendations for the current year, for example whether the additions to the net increase in the ARC should be funded through the Trust or not. Mr. Perez said the Staff was returning during the Mid-Year to show the Committee where the City was and recommend a decision at that time. Mr. Keene said the increased payment needing to be made was for FY 2012, the next item on the agenda was on the budget update where there was a recommendation relating to drawing down the Budget Stabilization Reserve because of the over collection of revenues but that did not factor in any additional savings from public safety. Council Member Yeh expressed the information was helpful and asked about the increase of employee contributions and whether there Staff had a process in mind. Mr. Keene agreed with the general statement of Mr. Perez regarding trends that the City had been consistently making with the bargaining units and that he was discussing the equity/parity across the bargaining units but that the contributions would be escalating as time moved forward. The goal was to have all of the units making the same contribution on healthcare. MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member XXX that the Finance Committee accept the Retiree Healthcare Plan January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2011 GASB 45 Actuarial Valuations Revised Preliminary Results and that Staff provide information on an Option to include a 7 percent Discount Rate and move the allocation period to 25 years. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh that the Finance Committee accept the Retiree Healthcare Plan January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2011 GASB 45 Actuarial Valuations Revised Preliminary Results. Council Member Shepherd requested the structural changes from the Police and Fire units be included in the report. Council Member Yeh noted the retiree medical benefits were not a two year issue and changes needed to be incorporated into the report being distributed as new information arose. He felt if there were feedback throughout the process it would be more helpful to show different methodologies. Mr. Bartel clarified the modification of the amortization period did not require a new process, his firm would take the unfunded liability and re-run the information with a different number of years to reflect the new amortization date. Chair Scharff asked if Mr. Bartel was saying it would not cost the City any further expense to re-run the information. Mr. Bartel clarified the alteration of the discount rate to 7 percent would require the firm to complete additional work. He noted in order of magnitude if they ran a 7 percent discount rate and reviewed a different amortization period those fees would be between $1,500 to $2,000 on the outset. Where the amortization change itself would take approximately 2 hours and cost up to $500. Council Member Yeh said the current amortization period was an industry standard of 30 years so he would not want the City’s formal actuarial study to reflect something different. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 October 18, 2011 Finance Committee Meeting #2180 Retiree Medical Valuation Study 2 Actuarial Liability 2009 - 11 FUNDED STATUS – 7.75% DISCOUNT RATE (Amounts in 000’s) 1/1/09 1/1/11 Projected 6/30/11 Present Value of Benefits • Actives • Retirees • Total $ 78,831 78,384 157,215 $ 85,476 118,800 204,276 Actuarial Accrued Liability • Actives • Retirees • Total Actuarial Value of Assets (AVA) Unfunded AAL 51,277 78,384 129,661 24,616 105,045 51,179 118,800 169,979 35,294 134,685 174,485 40,222 134,263 Annual Required Contribution (ARC) 9,786 13,603 Net Increase in ARC 3,817 3 Annual Required Contribution FY 2012, 2013 and 2014 4 Assumption Changes 2009-11 5 Cost Mitigation Efforts 1.Longer vesting period for retiree medical for post-1/2004 hires 2.Highest-cost medical plan no longer paid 100% by City, since 2007 3.Miscellaneous group employees ramping up to 10% medical premium cost-sharing, effective 4/1/11 4.Firefighters will contribute 10% of medical premiums, effective 10/31/11 – -- NOT INCLUDED IN THIS ACTUARIAL STUDY -- 6 Next Steps 1.Continue negotiating with Safety bargaining units 2.Determine funding recommendations for current year may include drawing from CERBT trust 3.Determine funding recommendations for FY 2013 and 2014 may include increasing employee contributions November 28, 2011 Item 3a Excerpt 3a. (Former No. 2) Finance Committee Recommendation that the Council Approve and Accept the Updated Retiree Medical Actuarial Study. Council Member Klein stated his opinion that the dollar value of the item should have excluded it from the Consent Calendar. He asked Staff to discuss for the benefit of the public why there was a need for a new actuary firm. He said there were recommendations from the actuary which were accepted by the Finance Committee that he did not agree with. Not all of the choices should be conservative. An over funded City could lead to an under funded community which could have a negative financial impact by making the community less desirable. He appreciated the caution being taken over the past few years and warned balance was necessary for a thriving community. Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services expressed Staff had intended to continue the use of Milliman, Inc. (Milliman) to conduct the updated actuarial study. When it became evident the City needed to have a firm act as an expert witness in the Binding Arbitration hearing Milliman informed Staff it would not be in their best interest to participate because of work they performed work for the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). The new firm chosen, Bartel Associates, LLC (Bartel) was recommended by CalPERS and they were willing to participate in the Binding Arbitration. James Keene, City Manager added the firm was well recognized across the state and for a period of time were the leading actuarial experts. Council Member Klein asked if the previous firm had completed any work on the project prior to transferring out. Mr. Perez recognized they had completed some partial work. Council Member Klein noted John Bartel had completed the actuarial study differently than Milliman had in the past. He asked whether Milliman would have made the same changes during this update. For example with the medical trend assumptions; Bartel’s assumptions were the rates would start high and end low which added $4.8 million to the City’s unfunded liability where Millimans’ started at 6.5 percent and ended at 5.85 percent. Mr. Perez stated Staff would worked with Milliman’s staff to adjust their low rate. Comments from Council indicated Long Term Projects rates should be aligned to recent. Council Member Klein asked if there were other incidents that could be questioned. Mr. Perez confirmed there were and explained that CalPERS made changes to the demographics every couple of years and so Milliman did not have the information prior to their departure. An additional factor noticed by Bartel was the employees hired prior to 1986 were not required to contribute to Medicare. If it were determined those Staff members were not covered by Medicare, the City was responsible for the full cost not just the Medicare cost. Milliman had a rolling 30 year amortization but with Bartel it was a 28 year closed end amortization and the last difference was the rate of return assumptions because CalPERS had made changes. Council Member Klein asked the cost difference between the closed amortization period versus the open. Council Member Scharff noted the Staff discussion regarding the differences between open and closed amortization was on packet page 175. Mr. Perez stated he did not recall the number but would review the report and let Council know when the information was ready. Council Member Klein said it was a basic actuarial decision and he was certain Milliman maintained the open 30 year deliberately. His concern was if the rolling period was working for the City what was the benefit to locking in a close date. Mr. Perez said that by moving to the 28 year closed end recommendation by the end of the time the cost would only be for the current employees. The rolling was as if each year the loan was being extended with no reduction. Council Member Klein said Staff told Council two years ago the model being used was accurate and now the new model was the accurate one. Mr. Perez clarified two years ago was the first time Staff had experienced the program and after review and alterations they felt the proposed program was a better fit for the City. Mr. Keene said the program was meant to be a mix of the goals Council wished to achieve. With any actuarial there was discretion for the City to focus on the mix of assumptions they expected Staff to include. Vice Mayor Yeh said the Finance Committee had discussed the new rules Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) had implemented and the need to report what the liability was versus the need to fund the liability. He asked what steps had been taken with the different bodies that require the entity fund the liability. The closed end methodology would have a large impact on the steps towards repayment but there was a higher burden within a limited timeframe versus re-upping with the rolling methodology. He said it would be helpful to know if that was a direction GASB or legislation was going in. Mr. Perez acknowledged there was a draft in process but nothing had been released for review. His understanding was most agencies with significant amounts were experiencing difficulty in addressing the liability. His concern for Palo Alto would be because of the changes made he was not clear how the rating agencies would view the City not funding irregardless of GASB’s ruling. His secondary concern was the liability amount was beginning to match the General Fund. Vice Mayor Yeh asked if it would be possible to have an actuary calculate through both methodologies. Mr. Perez stated it was possible. It would add to the cost, but Staff would comply with Council’s direction. Mr. Keene shared his thoughts about having an unfunded liability. Good financial management would be to reduce or eliminate unfunded liabilities. He clarified either methodology would allow for modifications to accommodate different goals. There were time constrains as far as what assumptions Palo Alto was using to report to CalPERS prior to the end of the 2011 calendar year. Council Member Klein said the language used by Staff throughout the report indicated the City was going to fund the Annual Required Contribution (ARC) and it was his understanding that was included in the make-up of the budget. Mr. Perez agreed that was how Staff had approached the funding plan for Mid-Year. There was a $4.3 million place holder for safety group concessions; he noted not all of them would be met in the given timeframe. Council Member Klein clarified his concern was with the ARC and the policy had been to fund the full ARC. Mr. Perez confirmed that had been Staff’s recommendation. Council Member Klein noted it had been addressed that fully funding the ARC was not a requirement by GASB at this time. Mr. Perez stated that was correct, the report read that it was an annual requirement but in fact it was not. Council Member Klein was concerned that with the change in direction it was not City Staff but an outside entity that had placed a burden on the budget. Mr. Keene informed the Council the City was in the position to not accept the actuarial assumptions. He said there was sound advice in Mr. Bartel’s recommendations. He agreed the elimination of unfunded liabilities over time was the best way to approach the debt situation. He acknowledged if the proposed assumptions were approved by Council, Staff would return later in the year with recommendations to fund the additional costs in the current budget year for the ARC. Council Member Klein asked if the FY12-13 budget would be prepared in a similar manner. Mr. Perez stated yes. Council Member Klein asked for clarity on the interest rate assumption, he was not quite clear from the wording in the report. On page 114 there was notification of an $800,000 jump in the ARC between FY12 and FY13 because of the decrease in the discount rate from 7.75 percent to 7.25 percent but the next paragraph indicated the PERS Trust offered three possible asset allocations. Number one was the City’s chosen option as the highest yield of 7.61 percent. Mr. Bartel recommended dropping this to 7.25 percent. He asked if Staff had accepted Mr. Bartel’s interest rate assumption recommendation. Mr. Perez replied yes. In FY12 Staff was using 7.75 percent. For FY13 was where the PERS Trust options became relevant. Staff was accepting the 7.61 percent with a margin for adverse deviation which dropped the rate to 7.25 percent. Council Member Klein asked if Staff was aware of what Milliman would have recommended in the same situation. Mr. Perez stated no. Council Member Klein mentioned the conservative approach was costing an excess of $800,000 when Staff could have used the 7.61 percent without incident. Mr. Perez noted if the 7.75 percent had been used there would have been a $580,000 difference in the annual payment. Council Member Klein accepted the report but noted there were implications he was not accept because Staff was being overly cautious. MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to approve and accept the Updated Retiree Medical Actuarial Study. Vice Mayor Yeh was aware when there was significant change in methodology there would be a robust discussion but having a Mid-Year check-in provided the opportunity to understand the true fiscal impacts. Mr. Keene recommended the Council meet with Mr. Bartel prior to the budget process. Council Member Schmid felt Mr. Bartel’s assumptions were realistic and noted healthcare costs were rising annually. He acknowledged past Council decisions had passed liability obligations on to the present. He said it was unfortunate the increased revenue generated was being obligated to fund the ARC payment rather than salaries or other obligations. He believed the 30 year timeframe was based on the assumption most workers in the system would work for 30 years. He supported the acceptance of the Bartel recommendation. Council Member Scharff understood the difference between a retiree paying off a debt when they would no longer be generating income while the City would continue to do so. He agreed it was a positive public policy to payoff the assumptions with a closed end. He asked what the impact was if the present assumptions were not accurate. Mr. Perez said the liability would continue to grow. Council Member Scharff asked what impact the continued growth of the liability would have on the City. Mr. Perez said there would be an increase in the calculation of the payments, if the amount was significant enough to impact the City the concern was with the rating agencies. Council Member Scharff asked why the public safety concessions were not included in the assumptions while the miscellaneous category was and with that there was $14.2 million saved. He asked if during Mid- Year the public safety would be included. He believed if the City was not going to fully fund the ARC they were better off using the assumptions that would lower the amount. Mr. Perez agreed in concept it made sense to use the assumptions with a lower amount if the full ARC was not being funded. Council Member Scharff stated he supported the Motion. Council Member Shepherd had concerns with the CalPERS 50 percent confidence rate of return. She believed Palo Alto was within the norms of other municipalities so when the reporting occurred to the public, it appeared conservative although she felt for the 28 year period it needed to be reviewed. She was aware without the concessions from fire or police each time Council reviewed the assumptions it would change with the added concessions. She asked if the City would be able to cash flow the payoff with the period of the financial picture. With continued employee retiring there was a need to continue the funding. She noted her support for the Motion. Council Member Burt asked why the item was on the Consent Calendar. Mr. Keene had thought with the Finance Committee approving the item unanimously it would suffice being on the Consent Calendar. He understood if an item passed unanimously but might be contentious it should not be placed under Consent. Council Member Burt said the subjective criteria was either contentiousness or high consequence. He said $1 million was a high enough consequence and this item was $29 million. He asked for clarity of future criteria for potential policy changes. He noted the concern of the new actuary being too conservative but mentioned the previous actuary understated the liability. He said the difference in the actuarial studies was the public safety groups from $29 million to $43 million. He asked if his interpretation was accurate. Mr. Perez believed that was correct. If there was not a positive of $14 million because of the miscellaneous group the liability would have been $44 million. Council Member Burt shared his concern with the City relying too heavily on an actuary study when they could be varied. His attention was drawn when Milliman refused to be an expert witness because of their association with the Fire Union. Mr. Perez noted it was not the City’s Fire Union but rather the National Fire Fighters Union. Council Member Burt was disturbed that they would disengage their relationship with the City because of the relationship with the Union. He noted one factor to be aware of was the decreased age of retirement and the second was the spike in Palo Alto retirements which altered different elements of liabilities. He noticed the PERS PPO premiums had been increasing at 2 percent annually less than what appeared to be the actual underline costs. Mr. Perez explained the premiums had increased 7 percent while the claims had increased 10 percent. It was recommended by Bartel to adjust the 2 percent differential because the conjecture was the amounts would catch up. PERS was using reserves from the PPO plans to cover the differences, the recommendation was to prepare the City for the true bill. Council Member Burt said that was an indication that PERS was understating the cost. This raised the concern of whether Palo Alto could trust the information coming from PERS. He acknowledged Palo Alto was one of the few City’s confronting the situation head on but there maintained a large unfunded liability. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that Staff is to schedule a meeting with Mr. Bartel and full Council prior to the Finance Committee Mid-Year Review. Council Member Holman said this level of impact to the budget deserved enlightened discussions. Council Member Klein said Staff’s intention was to fund the full ARC each year which had been City policy. The recent spike to Palo Alto retirements was referred to as a short term occurrence although the actuary did not believe that to be true. Mr. Perez said the actuary requested trending data. The current data was available in the report but was not sufficient for their purposes. Council Member Klein could not see how the level of retirement trends could continue. Mr. Perez clarified the changes made in 2004 to the retirement packages altered to implosion of retirement costs from those who were hired prior and could retire earlier. Council Member Klein said because of the economic trends in the country the national reports indicate a later in life retirement rather than the information presented in the report. Council Member Shepherd asked with the current Motion if the ARC would be funded next year. Mr. Keene said Staff was intending to bring forth during Mid-Year a budget recommendation to fund the ARC in FY12 and unless directed otherwise, the FY2013 budget would begin in spring also funding the ARC. Council Member Shepherd asked if the decision was to not fund the ARC if there would be a discussion. Mr. Perez stated the FY2012 had approximately $10 million to fund the ARC which was adopted by Council previously. The discussion was to return with a recommendation to increase the amount to match the actuarial study recommendation. The payment was not made until the end of the year so Council could direct Staff not to make a payment. Council Member Shepherd asked if the payment was due at the end of the calendar year or fiscal year. Mr. Keene confirmed the fiscal year, June 30, 2012. Council Member Price asked what the average rate of return had been from CalPERS assumptions over the past 5 years. Mr. Perez said the CalPERS Trust had been up and down, he did not have current numbers in percentages. He noted in January of 2011 it was 18 percent and as of September 30, 2011 there was a significant decrease in the portfolio which was at $44 million and dropped by $5 million. He declared Staff would have the historic percentages when they returned. Council Member Price felt the information would be helpful for the past few years and the assumptions moving forward. Council Member Schmid noted the report showed half of the current active employees were in the age range of 45 to 54 which indicated a steady stream of retirements. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 01/30/2012 Excerpt Minutes from the January 30, 2012 Council Minutes 8. Retirement Medical Actuarial Report Discussion. Director of Administrative Services, Lalo Perez announced the item was previously brought before Council on November 28, 2011 where they determined it should be returned with the Actuarial Consultant available to answer questions. Although the Council had accepted the Staff recommendation during the previous meeting, Staff informed them they were in a position to make changes to the assumptions as they felt necessary during the presentation by the Consultant. President, Bartel Associates, LLC, John Bartel gave a presentation to explain the process of how the actuarial assumptions came to be. Initially there were two valuations prepared, January 2009 and 2011 which determined the end of Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Required Contribution (ARC) albeit the contribution was not a requirement. The key number to pay attention to was the Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL); the value of benefits do to service that had already been rendered. If the assumptions were met the amount presented should be considered as the amount of assets that should be set aside. The Actuarial Accrued Liability for active employees dropped modestly from $51.3 million to $50.2 million while there was a large increase for those who were no longer rendering service went from $78.4 million to $119 million; therefore, the total liability went from $130 million to $169 million. The presentation was broken out into assumption changes, plan changes, and gains and losses. He explained the Actuarial Load item was the review of the increase to the CalPERS premiums; that had not been keeping pace from one year to the next with their claims. CalPERS had been pulling funds from their reserves to mitigate their premium increases. It was discovered that people were opting into more expensive Medical Plans at retirement, which increased the assumption numbers by $2.6 million. The two items that decreased the liability were the cost sharing and the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). The Un-funded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) of $134 million represented the distance the City was from its AAL. The UAAL was rolled over on June 30, 2011 to be added to the FY11/12 ARC in the amount of $8,597,000 to equal a 28-year amortization of the original number which was for a 30-year amortization. He noted if the City was pre-funding an obligation there should be a period where that amount was being paid off over. He mentioned if the City was to continue the pattern of an open or rolling amortization in the current FY the ARC would be lower and there would be a cash flow but 30-years from now the Un-funded Liability would not be paid off and in fact the Un-funded Liability would be higher than today. 2 01/30/2012 Mr. Perez clarified if the City switched to a 30-year open amortization for FY12 the reduction in the ARC would be $280,000 or $196,000 for the General Fund. For FY13, the number would be $470,000 city wide or $329,000 for the General Fund. The Rate of Return discussed in November for FY12 was 7.75 percent and for FY13 and forward there were three choices; the highest rate available was 7.61 percent, 7.06 percent, and 6.39 percent. Staff had recommended the City use 7.61 percent with an adjustment for adverse deviation which lowered the percentage to 7.25 which was the return used for FY13. If the number used remained at 7.61 percent the ARC would be $570,000 city wide with the General Fund being $399,000; 70 percent of the contribution was a General Fund obligation. If there was a change to a 30-year rolling amortization with a higher rate of return assumption of 7.61 percent it would lower the General Fund annual required obligation by $728,000. The experience with the Trust since its inception in March of 2008 through December of 2011 the Rate of Return was 3.62 percent to the positive. Staff intended to return to Council at Mid- Year for a discussion on options to fully fund the ARC and to locate solutions to fund the ARC on an ongoing basis beginning with FY13 which meant increasing the budget by $3.7 million city wide or $2.3 in the General Fund in FY12 and an additional $800,000 city wide or $500,000 for the General Fund. Council Member Klein made note that the non-required ARC was absorbing ten percent of the budget which appeared to be freezing out expenditures that may be better for the health of the community long-term. He asked if the goal of the Consultant was to choose the most conservative assumption. Mr. Bartel said that was incorrect. The information his Firm provided was their educated speculation, they did not feel the assumptions provided were the most conservative but were not the most aggressive either. He noted CalPERS selected the ranges and the Firm had a choice from their provided percentages. CalPERS had a significant amount of equity invested in the Global Equity market which was volatile. Council Member Klein asked if there was a standard in the Actuarial Field as to which amortization approach was approved or required. Mr. Bartel said some Actuaries had used the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) accounting standard as the out of bounds marker for the minimum contribution that could be paid, if that was the approach taken from an accrual stand point there should not be an amortization period longer than 30-years. He believed if a client was pre-funding and they had a goal of paying their un-funded liability off, using an open or rolling amortization period did not meet that objective. If the objective was to pay the minimum that the GASB accounting standard allowed without worry 3 01/30/2012 whether the unfunded liability was paid off, an open or rolling amortization was sufficient. Council Member Klein had concerns with the Bartel Associates not recognizing there may be an un-bubble as it were with the number of employees not retiring appose to the high number of retirees over the past few years. Mr. Bartel expressed his understanding of the un-bubble was when the City ended up with far fewer people eligible to retire. Council Member Klein said if the information was acknowledged in the report that was sufficient. Mr. Bartel requested the Council review the presentation where the active liability was shown from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2011 the rate of retirement did not impact the people who had already retired, it only impacted the active liability where the un-bubble was partially reflected by the number of active liability being lower because there were a lot of people who retired in the short-run. His Firms’ calculations reflected CalPERS experience in terms of how people will retire. Council Member Klein asked how the CalPERS experience was reflective of the City of Palo Alto experience. Mr. Bartel clarified Palo Alto’s non-safety employees had retired on average at age 57, while the CalPERS rate of retirement being used for the current active employees had future employees expected to retire slightly above age 58. Therefore his Firm consistently believed the Experience Analysis CalPERS had completed, which was specifically related to CalPERS Public Agencies with their pension formulas. Council Member Klein asked how the factors related since the non-safety employees were now at a two percent at age 60. Mr. Bartel said the Palo Alto non-safety employees did not have two percent at age 60. Council Member Klein clarified the incoming employees were brought in at two percent at age 60. Mr. Bartel said the two percent at age 60 only applied to employees hired after a certain date. They would need to use the rate of retirement associated with the formula that people had so the formula of a retirement age of 58 would be closer to 60 or 61 with two percent at 60. He noted until 4 01/30/2012 the employees were hired under the calculation they were not taken into consideration in the valuation. Council Member Klein said if the Actuarial Report was performed every two years and the Firm reviewed long-term, in ten years most of the employees would be at two percent at 60. Mr. Bartel said how the City achieved the factors would be based on how the employees were hired. His experience with second tiers was it would take approximately ten years for the agency to make up half of the population. For now the employees who had not been hired had no impact on the un- funded liability. Council Member Shepherd asked if Mr. Bartel felt the Milliman firm would have stayed at the 7.75 percent rate on discount. Mr. Bartel said they would have had to drop to 7.61 percent for the June 30, 2011 since it was the cap. Council Member Shepherd asked when the five year averaging was compiled with respect to asset smoothing. She had seen the measurement between 2009 and 2010 and clearly 2009 was a low point for savings and portfolios. Mr. Bartel said the Firm settled on a five year asset smoothing period after reviewing economic cycles and the CalPERS rate of return cycles which ranged between a three to five year span. When the Firm reviewed the CalPERS 15-year pension smoothing system there was a fear the length of time would mask a large systematic adjustment. The reason the firm settled on a five year asset smoothing cycle was because it was a long enough period to see an economic flux without being so long there was a masking occurring. Council Member Shepherd asked if there was recognition of the 2009 financial crisis. Mr. Bartel said what was occurring was the difference between what was expected and actual and bringing those amounts in 20 percent each year. Well over half of the 2009 downturn was in the June 30, 2011 valuation especially since the investment return was offset by good investment returns. The goal was to not inflate the contribution rate up if there was a volatile market as well as it was not recommended to lower fears if the investment market rose. Council Member Shepherd asked what the risk would be if Council chose to make a change to the five year asset averaging by either funding or not funding the AAL. 5 01/30/2012 Mr. Bartel said Council needed to look at the difference between the market value and the actuarial value which was the compromise between the smoothing and not. On June 30, 2011 the City had a market value of $44.8 million and the actuarial value being used to set the rate was $40 million. There were approximately ten percent of the assets not included so a $4 million change in the un-funded liability might increase the ARC by $500,000. Using smoothing for actuarial value of assets understated the contribution at the expense of smoothing, similarly if the investment return was particularly good it might overstate in a good investment years. Council Member Shepherd said there was an $8 million difference between 2008 and 2010. Mr. Bartel acknowledged that was correct. Council Member Shepherd asked why there was a $12 million change between 2009 and 2011. Mr. Bartel said the investment return for the City because of the timing of when the contribution was placed was consistently good. The $4 million difference was being used as an actuarial value below the market value so they were overstating the contribution by the $250,000. Council Member Burt said the newly hired non-public safety employees were coming in on a two tier retirement program of two percent at 60. Mr. Bartel mentioned those employees did not have an impact on the current actuarial discussion. He asked if in ten years half of the City’s employees were at two percent at 60, they would be in the equation to a fairly significant degree. So if the actuarial was looking into the future at a 30-year horizon, he asked how they would not impact the equation. Mr. Bartel said there was more than a 30-year horizon. For example, if the valuation was completed the day before the employee change was effective that valuation would determine an un-funded liability using no one in the new tier. However, if the valuation occurred the day after the benefit changed, and there were employees hired under the tier benefit program, the un-funded liability for those new employees and the actuarial liability would be zero. The un-funded liability did not change because there were new employees being hired, what would change was the normal cost component of the ARC. Council Member Burt asked for a scenario in ten years where half of the newly hired employees were at two percent at 60 retired at age 58 while the other half at age 63. He asked if it was correct to state those who retire at 6 01/30/2012 age 63, had attached to them less un-funded liability than those who retired at age 58. Mr. Bartel stated no. The scenario would be the employees retiring at age 63 had a lower actuarial liability. Although the retiree medical benefits may not have changes, they would begin drawing those benefits later than the earlier retirements. Council Member Burt said the period in which the City was paying the full amount for the employee before they were eligible for Medicare was significantly shorter. Mr. Bartel said that was correct so the employee’s liability would be lower on a per capita basis and their normal cost rate would be lower on a per capita basis. Council Member Burt asked if that was reflected in the fixed closed amortization rate. Mr. Bartel clarified the fixed closed amortization had no impact on the second tier employees. The fixed closed amortization had to do with the un- funded liability for employees in the first tier and that number would not change because of the second tier employees. Council Member Burt asked if the City moved forward with an open amortization rate, presumably that dollar amount would decline as far as the contribution based upon the change in the employee retirement age. Mr. Bartel stated no. If there was an un-funded liability and the funding policy was to pay the normal cost plus some amortization of the un-funded liability, the amortization on the un-funded liability was not being driven by the accrual for the new employees. It was not being driven by the normal cost because the policy was paying the normal cost. The topic of discussion was how the un-funded liability was being paid, none of which was due to the employees in the new tier. As time went on, the only way the new employees would impact the liability was one of two ways 1) if the City did not contribute to the normal cost for the new employees then they would contribute to a higher un-funded liability or 2) if the City thought the new employees were going to retire at age 61 but in actuality they retired at age 58 then the normal cost for the new employees would be too high or too low. Council Member Burt asked what the assumptions of the Firm were when they informed the City, if they did not move forward with the fixed close rate, at the outset they would be paying less than interest. He asked for confirmation that in ten years there was an expectation the annual payment 7 01/30/2012 would be reduced as a result of a rolling amortization that reflected a later retirement date. Mr. Bartel said in actuality the normal cost would be lower although that was not the amortization component. To clarify, whether the City accepted an open or closed amortization rate the new tier employees had little to no impact on the current amortization number; the impact would be on the Rate of Accrual not the payment on the un-funded liability. Council Member Burt said there were two alternatives presented the fixed closed amortization and the open rolling amortization. He asked why there was not an alternative based upon the interest. Mr. Bartel said the Firm had the information for a third alternative although since the majority of their clients amortized the un-funded liability as a level percentage of pay they did not include it. An amortization that was a level percentage of pay with a 7.50 percent investment return assumption on a 30-year amortization, the first year would be approximately six percent on the balance. Interest would accrue at 7.50 and the payment was six percent of the balance leaving a negative amortization until the City was below 20 years on the 30-year amortization period. Council Member Burt said with the fixed closed amortization the probability to be paid-off the liability was high within the 30-year period and an open rolling amortization was basically a reverse mortgage with the City paying less than the interest. Assuming there would always be an interest payment, Palo Alto did not want to go further into debt they wanted to pay more interest amount without necessarily taking on the principal. He asked why that was not an option. Mr. Bartel said the numbers would roughly be 7.75 percent of the un-funded liability of approximately $134 million. With that option the payment grew from $8.4 million to $10 million and there would be a contribution decrease as a percentage of pay. Council Member Burt said he would be interested in reviewing that option in more detail as an alternative. Vice Mayor Scharff asked for clarification on the process where the money was placed in a Trust account, then the money was taken to pay the Retiree Medical on a cash flow basis as it became due. Mr. Bartel confirmed yes, that was the current process. Vice Mayor Scharff asked how much would be owed for the current year, on a cash flow basis. 8 01/30/2012 Mr. Bartel said for FY11/12 the amount would be approximately $8.4 million if the City was only paying the benefits due to retirees. Vice Mayor Scharff said prior to the Actuarial Study the City was looking at paying $9.4 million and now it was $13.3 million but on a pure cash flow basis it would be at $8.4 million. Mr. Bartel said that was correct. Vice Mayor Scharff said on a cash basis there would have been an additional $1 million paid off. Mr. Bartel stated yes. Vice Mayor Scharff said the current recommendation was to pay off an additional $4 million. Mr. Bartel said yes. Vice Mayor Scharff said the Actuarial Study was a snapshot with changed assumptions which was compiled ever two-years. He asked if the suggestion was in two-years things would remain as is with the City paying the $13.3 million with no changes. Mr. Bartel noted reality interfered with what the Actuary expected to occur. Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the City did not pay the amount would they still be fine on a cash flow basis. Mr. Bartel agreed. Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the City would still be paying down on the amount if they continued to pay the $9 million as previously recommended. Mr. Bartel said yes. Vice Mayor Scharff said there was no obligation to pay more than $9 million. Mr. Bartel clarified there was no legal requirement to pay a higher amount. With that being said, the un-funded liability was due in large part because there were employees who were no longer working for the City. Vice Mayor Scharff noted soon the City would be paying more people to not work in the City than to work. 9 01/30/2012 Mr. Bartel said that was true. Vice Mayor Scharff said for example if the $3.8 million was not paid towards the un-funded liability it could be paid towards infrastructure. Mr. Bartel said yes. Vice Mayor Scharff said there were a number of un-funded liabilities throughout the City that drew a limited amount of money. The goal to pay off a funded amount was because of a future lack of income, a City did not retire, posing the argument of paying interest only. He understood not adding amounts for the future employees to pay although it was the past employees who did not pay off their portion that the present employees being dealt with. Mr. Bartel said that was an appropriate policy question. To the extent if it were possible to return to when Palo Alto initiated the Retiree Medical Benefit and set aside the cost of service each year, that would be generationally equitable. Unfortunately, going back was not an option; therefore, as an Actuary the recommendation was to set aside more than the cost of service for two reasons 1) there was a large number of retirees and the City was obligated to make those payments and 2) there was a large un-funded liability so setting money aside provided the advantage of future benefits being paid by interest rather than cash. Vice Mayor Scharff said the $14 million reduction came about because of the 90/10 cost sharing change in the medical plan. Mr. Bartel said that was correct. Vice Mayor Scharff said if the plan change went to 80/20 there would be an additional $14 million reduction. Mr. Bartel said he could not say the answer was yes. Hypothetically speaking he said the answer was yes. Vice Mayor Scharff said the City Council received different requests for cash, he asked why the Retire Medical Benefits trumped the other requests. The increase from $9 million to $14 million was not easily absorbed and the additional funds could be spent elsewhere. Mr. Bartel stated he was not qualified to respond on why one item was of a higher importance than another. Mr. Perez said an area of concern discussed in the Municipal Finance Groups was the eventual review by the Credit Rating Agencies in terms of the 10 01/30/2012 outstanding liability and how they were addressed. Yes, it was possible to not fund the liability fully and only pay the retiree obligation although there will come a time where the rating agencies will consider the liability. Vice Mayor Scharff said as long as the appropriate assumptions were chosen the ARC will show fully funded. He asked the amount of money that could be saved staying within the boundaries of the assumptions. Mr. Perez said if there were changes made to a 30-year amortization and the 7.61 percent rate of assumption there could be a savings of $860,000. Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the funds were being taken from the Reserves since the concessions were not received. Mr. Perez agreed that was a possibility. Vice Mayor Scharff noted taking funds from one Reserve to add to another Reserve provided less flexibility. Mr. Perez confirmed that would be the scenario for 2012 but Staff was not suggesting the same approach for 2013. Council Member Schmid said the question for the Actuary was what was the clear and true picture of costs and obligations. There was a recommended option outlined in the Actuarial Report that the City accept a discount rate of 7.25 percent although staying under Option 1 raised the confidence level of achievement and yet it maintained the same set of asset distributions. Mr. Bartel said that was correct. Council Member Schmid asked how long it took for an Actuarial Assessment to catch up with structural changes. As an Actuary the position was to have the City assume a greater risk although as a City, it was required to assume all final risk. His concern was staying with Option 1 was pushing more of the investments into a Hedge Fund scenario where risks had been exaggerated over the past few years. Mr. Bartel stated the Firm was not recommending Investment Option 1, 2, or 3. Council Member Schmid said there was a recommendation for Option 1. Mr. Bartel clarified if there was an incident where Option 1 was identified it was in error, he clearly noted the Firm was not investment advisors. 11 01/30/2012 Council Member Schmid read from the Council packet where Bartel and Associates had recommended select rate 55 percent confidence limit under Option 1. Mr. Bartel clarified the confidence level was noted for each Option but no single Option was recommended. Council Member Schmid asked how an Actuary could assist the City to understand when there was a structural change rather than a general cycle. Mr. Bartel said based on what the Investment Advisors were saying which was currently; if you were to invest more aggressively the volatility of the contribution and assets would be greater. He explained the volatility mattered when there was a large amount of assets relative to the payroll. It mattered less in the short run, particularly when the assets were smaller relative to the payroll. Council Member Schmid said the discussion at hand was on past obligations the City needed to pay off. Mr. Bartel answered yes. Council Member Schmid questioned the information saying the City was paying two times the amount for previous employees and the number was growing. Mr. Bartel acknowledged the growth and noted the expectation was the growth pattern would not be to the scope of the recent past. Council Member Schmid said it was important to be open with the community to provide them with what the City’s obligations were so there was an understanding of when items needed to be given up. Mr. Bartel agreed and said for that reason the percentage of the confidence level was recommended for the discount rate. Council Member Schmid asked for confirmation the Firm was recommending the 55 or 60 percent confidence level but were not recommending Option 1, 2, or 3. Mr. Bartel said that was correct. Council Member Schmid said the report indicated many people switched medical plans to PERSCare at the age of 65. He asked if that was where the $7.7 million came from. 12 01/30/2012 Mr. Bartel said according to the study performed Palo Alto had no active employees under the PERSCare medical plan. There were 11 percent of the retirees in PERSCare that were not yet Medicare eligible. Council Member Schmid said there was a contract that said the City would pay the second most expensive medical plan; therefore if retirees moved into PERSCare the City would not pay. Mr. Perez confirmed that contract was effective January 2007 and forward so any employee who retired prior to that date was eligible to shift into PERSCare at the City’s expense. Mayor Yeh said a question had been raised as cities began to see the liability eat into a higher percentage of their total budget his thought was what GASB would do beyond requiring cities to disclose what their liability was. He knew if there was a draft of GASB requiring cities to disclose their liability he asked what the timeframe would be for that information and how serious that development might be coming from them. From a legal perspective what type of authority did GASB have to draft that type of requirement. Mr. Bartel said if Mayor Yeh was referring to the Pension Disclosure Exposure Draft which did not require the City to fund it but it did require them to place on their city wide financial statement the pension un-funded liability. He had been told by GASB staff they would be following-up on the requirements and the Draft would be final by June 30, 2012. He said it would be effective for Palo Alto on their FY12/13 budget so when the June 30, 2013 financial statement was completed he believed the un-funded liability would appear on the pension side. GASB was following-up the Draft project with an Other Post Employee Benefit (OPEB) standard. Mayor Yeh asked when the Firm looked at the majority of cities’ financial situations what were the projections for what the implications the liability might cause besides the rating agencies downgrading cities. Would GASB acknowledge and accept cities filing for bankruptcy or would they request them to issue OPEB or Pension Obligation Bonds to meet their liability. Mr. Bartel said all of the rating agencies were aware of cities un-funded liabilities because they read the financial statements so he did not believe there would be a dramatic effect unless there was an agency not adequately setting money aside. Mayor Yeh said he was aware the rating agencies had gone under scrutiny for making their criteria more transparent as far as how they reach the rating for the different entities. He asked if there was knowledge as to what municipalities could anticipate once their transparency was affected. 13 01/30/2012 Mr. Perez acknowledged there had been concern amongst the financial groups and they had met with the rating agencies themselves without clarity. Part of the issue for the rating agencies to create a fixed pattern was the different cities were inconsistent with their liabilities and offered benefits where Palo Alto was on the upper end. Mayor Yeh said the process appeared as through there was a grading curve created and those who were closest to the 50 percent received an A. Mr. Perez noted many of the municipalities were on different reporting cycles and it was mentioned having a majority on the same reporting cycle created a smoother comparison for the rating agencies. Mayor Yeh suggested adding a separate line item to the budget process reflective of the health of the ARC showing where the City was in paying down the un-funded liability. Having the information readily available to Council would provide flexibility in decision making with the competing priorities requesting funds. Mr. Bartel noted the recommendation and understood there should be a range and a projection of how the un-funded liability would react as time passed. Mayor Yeh agreed on the understanding and noted as the valuation was completed every two years it could be a continuous update reflective of market performance. Council Member Klein asked why the interest rate remained the same on the liabilities as it did with the investments. As time went on and a person wished to reduce their payments they would refinance the loan and reduce the interest rate. Mr. Bartel rephrased the question for accuracy; as there was an un-funded liability of $133 million, if that amount could be borrowed at five percent, would the City not be better of borrowing the money at five percent giving it to CalPERS and have them earn their higher rate of return so the City was only paying five percent on the debt. Council Member Klein said that was one way of looking at the situation but not what he was referring to. His thought was moving forward using a number other than what was suggested by the Firm of 7.6 percent for the annual payment at what rate of interest would the debt increase. Mr. Bartel said the 7.6 percent was based on a lost opportunity. 14 01/30/2012 Council Member Klein asked why they could not consider the 7.6 percent as an unrealistically high number on the liability in the same manner as a bank earned money on the arbitrage. Mr. Bartel clarified when a discount rate was being used whether it was at 7.25 percent or 7.61 percent and the decision was to contribute $1 million less it was looked upon as a lost opportunity to earn that percentage of interest. If there was a thousand dollars owed annually it was discounted and if money was contributed the question was how much was needed to reach the thousand dollars so the investment return needed to be used in both directions. Council Member Klein disagreed with the mathematics because people frequently borrowed at one rate and received an investment return at a different rate. Mr. Bartel said if money was borrowed at a lower rate of return, contributed the money to CalPERS and expected to receive a higher rate of return was considered an interest arbitrage. He understood there was a chance the City may come out ahead in that situation; however, there was no certainty. Council Member Klein stated he was not suggesting the City borrow their full debt amount but rather borrow on a year to year basis. Mr. Bartel asked who the lender would be. Council Member Klein was not certain who the lender would be. Mr. Bartel said the lender mattered because if the City was not making their contribution to the plan but borrowing from the plan it did not make financial sense. Council Member Klein corrected he believed he would be borrowing the money from the recipients or the beneficiaries of the plan not the plan itself. Mr. Bartel stated by borrowing from the plan what was happening was the amount being borrowed was not earning the highest interest rate. Council Member Klein disagreed, he felt borrowing the money and using the arbitrage method would benefit the plan. Mr. Bartel said any money not contributed to the plan or borrowed from the plan was not earning interest under the plan. Council Member Klein said he would be earning interest because the money would be invested. 15 01/30/2012 Mr. Bartel gave an example of the City owing $1 million each year from today. The valuation valued the $1 million discounted at 7.25 percent making its actual value $930,000. There were two choices 1) put $930,000 into CalPERS today or 2) put $1 million into CalPERS one year from today. Either of those options would earn the City the 7.25 percent interest. His understanding of the recommendation by Council Member Klein was the City was not going to contribute the $930,000 and was going to pay 4 percent interest on $130,000 and somehow that transaction would accumulate to $1 million. Council Member Klein presented the situation as the City owed $1 million; the question was how much would that $1 million grow to in a year at 7 percent and why was it not calculated in the same manner as when an individual borrowed money from a bank. Mr. Bartel said the misunderstanding was the money was not being borrowed from anyone, so the analogy did not work. The reality was the City was borrowing money from the plan and the plan was saying if you want to use an expected return of four percent than the un-funded liability would be substantially higher because there was going to be less interest earned. Council Member Klein said there the bank was a potential lender. Mr. Bartel said that was correct, or there was someone who would loan the City the money at a reasonable interest rate. Council Member Klein was aware with the City’s current credit rating an amount of money could be borrowed at a four to four and a half percent. The benchmark was if it was necessary to borrow money, it was possible to do so at an amount substantially less than the discount rate being used. Mr. Bartel noted four percent was a tax advantaged interest rate so if there was money borrowed against the debt he did not believe it could be at a tax advantaged rate and the City could not receive the arbitrage unless they actually borrowed money from a lender. The caveat was if the money was borrowed and contributed to CalPERS there would be a significantly greater than zero risk that CalPERS investments would earn less than what was being paid on the debt service. Council Member Klein agreed there would always be a risk with arbitrage. Mr. Bartel said the issue became whether the risk was an appropriate one for the City and the taxpayers to take. 16 01/30/2012 Council Member Holman said as the City looked forward at increased medical costs and rates of returns that were less than they use to be she asked how municipalities would not be forced to look at addressing retiree benefits. Mr. Perez acknowledged Staff needed to continue to review ways in which to reduce the expense. In reviewing the trend data it took from 2002 to 2008 for the City to double the medical payment for current city wide health care without the additional cost to pension. He agreed that route was not sustainable and he noted the national average according to the Kaiser Study http://ehbs.kff.org/, in terms of employer/employee cost sharing was 70/30 whereas Palo Alto was achieving a 95/5 for miscellaneous and 90/10 for fire fighters. He added there was a significant reduction in cost when PERSCare was eliminated for the equation. Council Member Holman felt it was important for the pubic to be informed that any changes in the cost of healthcare was not without difficulty and there were limitations the City had to abide by. Council Member Shepherd noted healthcare was an untained field as to how municipalities were explaining and handling their un-funded liabilities. She was interested in a better understanding of how to roll out the liability a little longer in order for the City to be more frugal with its cash flow. She was aware there was $34,000 placed in the CalPERS Irrevocable Trust and asked if those funds would always belong to Palo Alto. Mr. Perez said the City would carry the risk of investment but the funds would remain the property of Palo Alto. The funds could be pulled out by the City at any time as well as added to in the future. Council Member Shepherd asked how much medical plan flexibility was available at retirement or was it scripted when employees were hired. Mr. Perez said his understanding was there could not be changes made to current retirees, for those hired after 2004 where there had been changes made those such as the vesting period and PERSCare was not an option unless the employee chose to pay the difference out of pocket. Mr. Bartel corrected the Firm was not saying the City could not change it for current employees they were saying they were not expecting Palo Alto to make that change to the benefits. City Attorney, Molly Stump noted the retiree medical issue was an area still in its infancy although the California Supreme Court issued a decision late 2011 clarifying benefits to retirees could be vested dependant upon the language in the various agreements, facts, and circumstances in which the employees received their benefits. The courts left open for discussion to 17 01/30/2012 some degree the question of medical benefits to be paid upon retirement to current employees. Robert Moss expressed his initial reaction to the amount of money the City was committed to spend for healthcare which was only a portion to the total cost of retirement. The un-funded liabilities depended in large part on assumptions, which tended to be adjustable and the manner in which CalPERS invested the funds. He predicted there would be a rise in healthcare costs of approximately 6.5 percent annually except with programs such as Kaiser so he suggested capping cost the City was willing to pay thereby reducing the overhead cost and swaying employees to accept the lower cost medical plan. Council Member Espinosa said Me. Bartel had mentioned if his Firm was to have a conference with the Milliman Actuarial Firm there would be similarities in the manner in which the assumptions were reached. He asked for clarification on the areas where Milliman would disagree with the Bartel Firm. Mr. Bartel believed Milliman would agree with his Firms’ assessment of the Confidence Level although he supposed in their report they would have used a 7.61 percent for the discount. He suspected they would disagree with the medical trend numbers but he expected they would have matched the new CalPERS demographics numbers, and they would have agreed with what as being said with respect to the $3.4 million actuarial load but it was unlikely they would have implemented the assumption. There was no doubt if they looked closely at the demographics of the medical plan at retirement they would agree with the change similarly to the Medical eligibility. They clearly had a different view on the amortization where they would have accepted a rolling 30-year. Council Member Espinosa asked how the presented information was being teed up back to Staff across the City and to retirees assisting them in understanding the broader context of the challenges the City was facing. Mr. Perez said Staff had presented the City Manger with draft presentation slides regarding a similar discussion. There had been questions on how the un-funded liability grew to the extent it had and as he had mentioned earlier it doubled in a matter of four years. It was important to have the discussion regarding the pension and healthcare, how those rising costs affected the budget and the consequences to the services offered throughout the City. City Manager, James Keene said over the past couple of year Staff had been shown charts reflective of the trajectory of the increases. 18 01/30/2012 Mayor Yeh asked for confirmation that absent any Council action Staff would be returning at Mid-Year with a Budget Amendment Ordinance to increase funding the ARC by $2.3 million for the General Fund and potentially $1.5 million for the Enterprise Fund. However, if Council wished to take action the options were 1) accepting the minimum resulting in growth in the un-funded liability, 2) to hold the un-funded liability steady, or 3) 30-year closed amortization. Mr. Keene mentioned there was a schedule action at the Mid-Year although technically the adjustments did not need to be reconciled until before the end of the Fiscal Year. He explained no matter the Motion provided during the meeting or at the Mid-year Council had some flexibility after the fact. Mr. Bartel wanted to ensure the Council had clarity whether a 28 or a 27- year amortization would be paying in the initial period less than interest meaning on an interest only option the City ended up paying more. Mayor Yeh said in preparation for the Mid-Year and the budget decisions it would be helpful if the Council received the data numbers indicated from the Milliman low to the Bartel high with the spread in between. Mr. Bartel asked for clarification if the question was how much work would be required to supply those numbers. Mayor Yeh clarified his interest was to receive a definite number and its meaning if the Council chose the interest only option. Mr. Bartel said his Firm could provide any of those calculations but he was still uncertain as to what was being requested. He noted the numbers provided to the Council and City Staff in the presentation were the Firm’s best estimations for the liability and contribution and they did not think in terms of minimum or maximum. He mentioned if the City paid interest on the un-funded liability the ARC would be higher than what was being presented. In the range of order it could be considered the Milliman minimum or the Bartel best guess and the no-negative amortization as being an upper limit on the short term contribution. Council Member Klein was troubled by Council considering Motions considering neither the agenda nor the Staff memo requested one. Ms. Stump stated Council had a fare amount of flexibility in the term providing feedback. Mayor Yeh clarified there was leeway for a Motion as long as it stayed within confine of the discussion. 19 01/30/2012 Ms. Stump agreed the parameters having been laid out were appropriate to be included in a Motion. Council Member Klein felt there was not fair notice given to the public or Council itself to make a decision on the numbers involved. Mayor Yeh noted his position was for Staff to return with more analysis and not to take a firm position. Ms. Stump said her advise was predicated the Motion being a request for additional information and not for Council to be making a decision or adjustment to the ARC itself. MOTION: Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to direct Staff to return additional analysis conducted with the consultant for the different levels of the ARC contributions for the nine different assumption areas for the February 28, 2012 Finance Committee. Council Member Shepherd understood there was no boiler plate to the assumptions and liabilities although it was being worked on and she hoped in time there would be a smoother manner in which to go about making these decisions. She felt it was important to have the ranges brought back prior to the Mid-Year. Council Member Schmid asked for clarification on the Motion; it was for Staff to return to Council with variations. Mayor Yeh stated the Motion was for Staff to work with the Consultant to achieve the costs for the additional analysis. Council Member Schmid said the value of the report before them and the discussion during the meeting was having an independent Actuary inform the Council on what his considered opinion was on what Palo A lot may face in the future. He wanted to ensure the Motion was not requesting any modification of the independent report. Mr. Perez agreed the report had been previously approved by the Council and the work being brought back to the Council was in addition to and not an alteration to the report from the independent Consultant. Council Member Schmid said if Council did not agree with the numbers, it was something that should be stated publicly and work with the employees and public about the consequences. Vice Mayor Scharff asked for clarification on the Motion language “working with the Consultant for costs for additional analysis.” His interpretation of 20 01/30/2012 the Motion was returning to Council with additional analysis not costs for additional analysis. Mayor Yeh clarified there would be a cost associated with the additional analysis so the Motion should be corrected to read: to have Staff return with costs for additional analysis conducted with the Consultant. Mr. Bartel said the Mayor had suggested for future valuations to include a range of contributions, he agreed and recommended that should be done in conjunction with the impact that range would have on future un-funded liability. He asked if that information was the intended information being requested or were the ranges being sought strictly for the range of ARC. Mayor Yeh said his desire was what type and amount of information could be compiled by February 28, 2012. Mr. Bartel explained both models with the ranges could be turned around by February 28th. Vice Mayor Scharff felt the Motion should read as followed: to have Staff return with a band of costs setting forth the different assumptions to fund the ARC. Mayor Yeh concurred that was the intent of the Motion. Vice Mayor Scharff understood Council was receiving the additional information because they wanted to make a determination on how much to fund the ARC; if there was a determination there should be a report to reflect the decision. Council’s decision to fund should be based on the best information provided on the assumptions. If the Motion was for additional analysis without a final report to reflect the decision that came from the additional information he did not see the necessity of the additional information. Mr. Bartel said if Council requested his Firm to prepare a report using the 7.61 percent discount rate, he would inform then that would not be his recommendation although 7.61 percent was not out of the range of reasonableness in assumptions. His interpretation of the Motion was not a change in acceptance of the report but a request for more information so the Council could make a future decision as to whether or not to rescind the acceptance and request the report be redone. Vice Mayor Scharff said if a decision was made to rescind the acceptance of the report based on the additional information that would lead to redoing the report. He noted his understanding of the Bond Rating was the report was reviewed to verify it matched up with the contribution. 21 01/30/2012 Ms. Stump clarified rescinding the report was not on the agenda and would not be an appropriate action during this meeting. Council Member Burt asked for clarification if the City chose the option of the full payment of the interest then initial annual payment would exceed the initial alternative payment if the City was paying down the principal. Mr. Bartel clarified the 28-year amortization had no payment on the principal amount; the payment effecting the principal began once there was less than 20-years remaining on the amortization. Council Member Burt said the dollar amount the City would pay in the initial years would actually be higher if they switched to the interest only alternative rather than if the City was paying down the principal on a 28- year amortization. Mr. Bartel stated yes but there was no payment going towards the principal for a minimum of eight years on a 28-year amortization. Council Member Klein said there were more than three options since there was no required payment amount. The Actuary recommended three options for the Council but those were not the only options available. He thought the information requested in the Motion was included in the report and Staff merely needed to extract it and enter it into a separate sheet. Mr. Bartel noted the impact on the ARC was not included in the report. The report covered the impact on the un-funded liability. Council Member Klein believed he heard several numbers discussed throughout the meeting regarding what would lower the ARC. Mr. Perez said that was correct. Staff had derived numbers outside of the report they had received from Mr. Bartel such as the 30-year open amortization. Council Member Klein argued the numbers were readily available if they had been discussed in the meeting so his confusion was why the report needed to be re-written. He requested a small report showing the five or so differences in the dollar amounts with the ARC. Mr. Bartel said the clarification he needed was whether Council wanted to know in addition to the difference in the ARC what the impact in the un- funded liability would be as time went by. 22 01/30/2012 Mayor Yeh clarified the value of having the additional information was the Council would have a greater certainty of the impact on the un-funded liability within the two-year timeframe before the next Actuary Report produced. There was practical decision to be made at a mid year point and a budget being prepared for the upcoming Fiscal Year. Ultimately he was confident in the decision made met GASB requirements. The reason the interest only options was provided was because it was a policy goal of keeping the un-funded liability at a constant. The question was did the interest only payments achieve that goal or were there other payment streams that would not surpass it. Mr. Bartel agreed the interest only payment method did achieve that goal. If under the current amortization method, the un-funded liability will be growing over the next 28 years or the next eight years and only then would it begin to decline. If the policy goal was to not heave un-funded liability grow, the answer would be over the next eight years using the 28-year amortization method would be contrary to the policy. Mayor Yeh agreed, with the explanation it did not make sense to include the interest only method. The two numbers in question were 1) the low at $9.8 million which was what had been formerly budgeted for the contribution for the FY12 as recommended by the Milliman Group versus 2) the $9.8 million plus the $2.3 million under the new actuarial analysis, that was the band and both were GASB compliant. As Council Member Klein noted as long as there was a range of numbers the Council could make their decision. Mr. Perez was aware the $9.8 million needed to be higher to fund the ARC but the question was to what degree. Mayor Yeh said if Staff knew the $9.8 million was not sufficiently high was Council comfortable as a body to choose a number that Staff was now currently planning to bring back. He recommended changing the language of the Motion to: for Staff to bring back to the Mid-Year budget meeting the Staff recommendation and allow Council to pick out the assumptions they did not wish to include at that point. Mr. Perez noted Mr. Bartel had said he had presented his level of recommendation and did not recommend a change. Vice Mayor Scharff felt the current Motion provided the framework for an intellectual decision. He agreed with a brief report with the additional numbers would be sufficient unless Staff believed there would be more needed to meet with the Bond Council to explain how they arrived at the numbers. 23 01/30/2012 Mr. Perez said the steps being outlined did not reflect concern with respect to the rating agencies. If the Council were to make substantive changes then there may be cause to revisit. Council Member Shepherd it appeared to her that each one of the differentials from the Milliman Report had a value for the ARC that could be easily distributed to review the out of pocket expense. Council Member Schmid asked Staff to provide the truest, most straightforward response to what was the City’s liability on future medical benefits. Mr. Perez said in order to reach the truest number he would take the actuarial load, which could be lowered a couple of percentages, Mr. Bartel may not be comfortable lowering it more than two percent. Mr. Bartel may say on actuarial load there was no movement, on some other number he may say I could conceive a slight change and supply the range and what it would do to both the ARC and the long-term liability. That was the type of scenario Staff believed they could return to Council by the 28th of February in a short report. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Price absent Retiree Healthcare Plan January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2011 GASB 45 Actuarial Valuations Follow-up Analysis Presented by John E. Bartel Prepared by Deanna Van Valer Adam Zimmerer Bartel Associates, LLC February 28, 2012 22/28/12 Background Review Items: Without Major Caveat May include minor caveat, for example: “Rolling amortization period meets GASB 45 accounting standards but does not meet a funding policy requiring unfunded liability be paid off.” With Major Caveat “Assumption selected by City. Bartel Associates believes assumption is not appropriate.” Contribution Rate Impact: Results are all relative to: 2011/12 ARC of $13.478 million 2012/13 ARC of $14.242 million Results are not additive and may be different if multiple selections are made 32/28/12 Methods & Assumptions Without Major Caveat 7.25%7.61% 2012/134. Discount Rate 2% Load for PEMHCA no Load 2011/123. Actuarial Load 5 Year recognition Market Value 2011/122. Asset Smoothing Fixed (28 Years) YearDescriptionItem Rolling (30 Years) 2011/121. Amortization Method 42/28/12 Methods & Assumptions With Major Caveat YearDescriptionItem 80-90% Eligible 100% Eligible 2011/128. Medicare Eligibility Experience Based No Change at Retirement 2011/127. Medical Plan at Retirement IncorporateDo not Incorporate 2011/126. CalPERS’ Experience Study 9%/9.4% for 2013 Grading to 5% in 2021 & Beyond 6.5% for 2009 Grading to 5.85% in 2018 & Beyond 2011/125. Medical Trend 52/28/12 Methods & Assumptions Without Caveat 0.5 2012/134. Discount Rate 0.3 2011/123. Actuarial Load 0.3 2011/122. Asset Smoothing Year Reduction in ARC if Assumption/Method Not ChangedItem $ 0.3 million 2011/121. Amortization Method 62/28/12 Methods & Assumptions With Caveat 0.2 2011/128. Medicare Eligibility 0.8 2011/127. Medical Plan at Retirement 0.9 2011/126. CalPERS’ Experience Study Year Reduction in ARC if Assumption/Method Not ChangedItem $ 0.3 million 2011/125. Medical Trend FINANCE COMMITTEE DRAFT EXCERPT Special Meeting February 28, 2012 1. Retiree Medical Discussion Lalo Perez, Administrative Services Director said per the Finance Committee direction Staff returned with Bartel Associates to have a discussion around eight of the amortization methods and assumptions. John Bartel, President, Bartel Associates, LLC, explained his firm had separated out the eight items into categories they would be willing to change without a major caveat. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2011/12 Annual Required Contribution (ARC) was currently at $13.5 million which was a large increase from the prior year of $3.7 million. The FY12/13 ARC was anticipated to be $14.2 million representative of a $700,000 increase over FY11/12. The first four items of the amortization method were 1) changing from a 28 year fixed to a 30 year rolling amortization period which would impact FY11/12, 2) elimination of asset smoothing and going to a market value of assets which would impact the FY11/12, 3) a 2 percent load because of CalPERS increasing premiums at a lower rate than claims were growing, and 4) the discount rate which impacted the FY12/13 which was currently recommended at 7.25 percent and the maximum discount rate accepted by California Employees’ Retirement Trust (CEBRT) was 7.61 percent. The remaining four items were healthcare trends; 1) if Bartel used the same trend as Milliman, Bartel would caveat that as being selected by the City which would impact FY11/12, 2) if the CalPERS experience Study which reflected the demographic changes and improvements on mortality was not incorporated it would impact FY11/12, 3) retirees were selecting the higher cost medical plan but there was no recognition of that information in the prior study, and 4) there was no Medicare eligibility recognition in the prior study that some of the employees were not paying into Medicare and may not be eligible. To summarize the points in order of magnitude; 1) extending the amortization period and going to a rolling amortization period would reduce the FY11/12 ARC by $300,000, 2) asset smoothing would reduce the ARC $300,000, 3) elimination of the actuarial load reduced the ARC an additional $300,000, 4) changing the discount rate would reduce the ARC $500,000 but not until FY12/13, 5) the healthcare trend change would reduce the ARC by $300,000, 6) the CalPERS Experience Study would reduce it by $900,000, 7) the medical plan at retirement $800,000, and 8) the Medicare eligibility by $200,000. Council Member Price asked, of the items listed the amortization, asset smoothing, actuarial load, and discount rate, if they could be used in combination. Mr. Bartel clarified the recommendation was for the City to use what had been presented in the report. He recognized that the City may not agree with all of their recommendations. If the City chose to not accept their recommendations as they were, the first four items could be used in combination. If the City chose to select a change among the first four items the changes would be within the range of reasonableness of actuarial methods and assumptions. The remaining four items could be thought of as being outside the range of reasonableness for what Bartel would choose for actuarial assumptions. Chair Shepherd asked if the previous actuarial, Milliman, had presented their recommendations in the same manner or was Bartel more aggressive. Mr. Perez mentioned items 6 through 8 were probably not feasible. With respect to the contrast, the discount rate was not a good comparison since at the time of Milliman’s representation the rate was given without choice; the smoothing was not an option at that time either, but the rolling 30 year amortization was the method Milliman was using. Vice Mayor Scharff said Bartel was suggesting a discount rate of 7.25 percent. Mr. Bartel answered yes. Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the City chose the 7.61 percent discount rate would that affect the FY12/13 but not the FY11/12. Mr. Bartel stated that was correct. Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the decision needed to be made now or was there time to wait a year to gather more information. Mr. Perez felt obtaining additional information prior to finalizing a discount rate decision was a good option. When the Mid-Year was brought before the Council for the FY12 ARC the discount rate could be incorporated in the discussion. When the proposed FY13 budget was brought before Council in May of 2012 the dialogue for the discount rate for that year should be discussed. Vice Mayor Scharff asked what the thought process was between the 7.61 percent versus the 7.25 percent. Mr. Bartel encouraged the Finance Committee to think of the 7.61 percent as a 50 percent confidence level for an extended period of time. Given the known information there should be an expectation that over the next 20 years CalPERS might earn 7.61 percent. He noted his firm was recommending a confidence level that was higher than 50 percent for two reasons 1) the current investment market expectations in the short run were below 7.61 percent and 2) they preferred a higher confidence level of 55 or 60 percent because bad news had a heavier weight than good news. His firm believed setting the rate below what was expected might mitigate the negative. Vice Mayor Scharff asked to confirm the difference with the discount rate for FY13. Mr. Bartel said the difference was $500,000. Vice Mayor Scharff asked why the report mentioned a difference of $.7 million additional. He wanted to know if that was all four items combined for FY13. Mr. Bartel said there was a component of the $700,000 that was the normal dollar increase because the contribution and the amortization were designed to be an increasing dollar amount, a level percentage of pay using CalPERS 3.25 aggregate payroll. The normal expected dollar increase was calculated to be $400,000. Council Member Burt said on slide 6 the title seemed convoluted “Reduction in ARC if Assumption/Method was not Changed”. Mr. Bartel said the attempt was to signify if the Milliman assumption was maintained and the City did not accept Bartel’s recommendations for a change. Council Member Burt said his confusion was Bartel used the word change under two opposing Council questions. Mr. Bartel clarified the Milliman report used methods and assumptions that were under the left hand column of the slide presentation numbers 4 and 5. The only exception to that information was item 4. Council Member Burt suggested the Finance Committee members re- label slide 6 to reflect a better description which would be Impact of Bartel Changes. Mr. Bartel agreed the changed title would be accurate. Chair Shepherd asked for a better understanding of the expectation of a form of standardization in the upcoming years for assumptions analysis where all cities would be looking at the same type of assumption. Mr. Bartel did not believe that would be the case. There would continue to be different actuarial firms with different ideas of what would happen in the future. Mr. Perez said one standard was that all agencies would be required to report in the same time period which was June 30 of each year. Chair Shepherd said the purpose of the exercise was to achieve a good estimate as to the real amount of money the City should have for the retirees. Mr. Bartel explained the nature of an Actuarial was to have a highly educated process to estimate the best case scenario for their client in their future. In reviewing items 1 through 4, number 1 had no impact on the liability it had to do with how the City was paying off the un- funded liability. Chair Shepherd said she was unaware that not all employees paid into Medicare. Mr. Perez said paying into Medicare was not mandated for employees hired prior to April of 1986. Mr. Bartel noted prior to that date people were not required to pay into Medicare and those who were not continued to not pay into the fund. Chair Shepherd said those who did not pay into Medicare had no government safety net. Mr. Bartel explained an individual who did not pay Medicare through the City may have paid into Medicare through another job or had a Medicare eligible spouse. In looking at the retirees over the age of 65 he felt the assumption of 80 to 90 percent of the employees being eligible was fairly accurate. Vice Mayor Scharff asked if Mr. Bartel surveyed the City of Palo Alto employees to achieve the assumption of 80 to 90 percent. Mr. Bartel said one of the challenges he faced was for the City’s retirees who were currently Medicare eligible, he could not be certain what their hire dates were. Based on the eligibility for retirement there were assumptions made by his firm on who was hired prior to April 1986. Vice Mayor Scharff clarified the firm reviewed the current retirees over the age of 65. Mr. Bartel replied yes, over the age of 65 who were not receiving Medicare. Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the assumption made was they were not receiving Medicare because they were not eligible. Mr. Bartel answered yes because their expectation was if someone was eligible for Medicare under the CalPERS system they participated mandatorily. Vice Mayor Scharff asked what was used to determine the 80 to 90 percent assumption. Mr. Bartel said they used 80 to 90 depending on whether the employee was safety or miscellaneous. They used 80 percent for safety and 90 percent for miscellaneous. Vice Mayor Scharff said if the firm used the numbers from the actual retirees there should be a real number to work with. Mr. Bartel agreed they had data for the current retirees over the age of 65 who were currently receiving Medicare benefits or not. Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the firm had the exact number of retirees who were and were not on Medicare why the assumption was 80 to 90 and not an exact figure. Mr. Bartel said because the actual number was slightly higher than the 80 to 90 percent but of the retirees over the age of 65 they believed not all of them were hired before April 1986. He chose to be conservative relative to the actual calculation to account for those retirees hired after April 1986. Vice Mayor Scharff thought the ARC dealt with future retirees and not those who were already receiving benefits. Mr. Bartel said it was important to understand that ARC did two things, the sum of the normal cost for current employees and the amortization of the un-funded liabilities. The un-funded liabilities included the liability for current retirees. It was also important to understand the assumption had no impact on the current retirees who were over the age of 65 because the firm knew whether they were eligible for Medicare or not. The assumption was only necessary for the retirees or active employees who had not yet made the Medicare eligibility age. Vice Mayor Scharff clarified the goal was to review employees who no longer worked for the City but were not 65 years of age. Mr. Bartel corrected the assumption applied to both the current employees that were hired before April 1986 and those employees and retirees who were not yet 65 years of age. Council Member Burt asked if the assumptions being made for current employees were different from the known existing retirees. Mr. Bartel said he was breaking existing retirees into two groups. One group was already Medicare eligible. There was no assumption for them because the firm already knew their eligibility status. However, active employees whose hire date was known were different. The firm assumed everyone hired after April 1986 would be Medicare eligible and only a percentage of those hired after that date would be Medicare eligible. MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to recommend to Council to change (items 1-4) amortization method, asset smoothing, actuarial load, and put off the issue of the discount rate to 2013. Vice Mayor Scharff said initially he supported the fixed 28 year amortization method but the more he thought about it there was no logical reason to pay off the un-funded liability. The current un-funded liability was built up by previous generations and he did not see the equity in the current generation bearing the burden on the budget which in fact affected employee salaries, infrastructure needs, and services. He felt the City was fine with the asset smoothing and actuarial load as it was before and the change was too large too quick. Council Member Burt summarized out a $3.6 million recommendation it was being suggested that $2.7 million be adopted. He said the consensus on the discount rate with the ten year horizon was the City would not hit the 7.25 percent. The following decade it would rise back up so much that it would cover the net from the prior decade. This recommendation was based on optimism. Council Member Price supported the Motion and appreciated further discussion of the discount rate be deferred because there needed to be a better understanding. Chair Shepherd felt item 8; the Medicare eligibility at $200,000, should have been included in the first four items. With the amortization method there was room for change without huge impact. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Chair Shepherd asked if the Finance Committee decision would be in the Council Consent Calendar. Mr. Perez said Staff may want to incorporate it into the Mid-Year discussion which would be an Action Item. Chair Shepherd asked for the General Fund percentage. Mr. Perez said $1.96 million or 70 percent. City of Palo Alto (ID # 2652) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 4/16/2012 April 16, 2012 Page 1 of 6 (ID # 2652) Summary Title: FY2012 Midyear BAO Title: Finance Committee Recommendation Regarding Adoption of Budget Amendment Ordinance Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2012 to Adjust Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures in Accordance with the Recommendations in the Midyear Report From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation Staff and the Finance Committee recommend that Council: 1) Adopt Budget Amendment Ordinance, (Attachment A) which includes: a) Proposed midyear adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget for the General Fund, Enterprise Funds, Special Revenue Funds, Internal Service Funds, and Capital Improvement Fund (Exhibit 1) b) Fiscal Year 2012 Midyear CIP Adjustments (Exhibit 2) c) Amendments to the Fiscal Year 2012 Table of Organization (Exhibit 3) d) Establishment of the Special Revenue Fund for Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement payments 2) Adopt Resolution (Attachment B) amending the 2010-2011 Compensation Plan for Management and Professional adopted by Resolution No. 9156 to change the titles of four positions and to add one new position Executive Summary The documents attached summarize changes to the City’s financial position and outline changes to the Fiscal Year 2012 Adopted Budget necessary during the normal course of business. Where possible, budget changes are held until the midyear report is presented to Council in an effort to consolidate information and streamline the Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) process. Staff summarizes the recommended changes to the Fiscal Year 2012 Adopted Budget as part of the normal course of business through December 31, 2011. With the exception of the change to the retiree medical actuarial required contribution (ARC) assumptions that impact the holding of certain assumptions constant, the Finance Committee recommends going forward with the midyear adjustments as listed in Attachment 2. The Committee also recommends suspending drawing from reserves to fund the ARC in FY 2012 until the Committee can review the financial balance in the General Fund near the fiscal year April 16, 2012 Page 2 of 6 (ID # 2652) end timeframe in April or May. The annual ARC payment is normally sent every July. The updated actuary study is scheduled to be reviewed separately by the City Council on April 16, 2012. Committee Review and Recommendation On February 28, 2012, the Finance Committee reviewed the Fiscal Year 2012 Adjusted Budget- Second Quarter Financial Results, Midyear Amendments and Capital Improvement Program Status. The mid-year report reviewed by the Finance Committee is attached (Attachment C). The Committee recommends changes to the assumptions used in the City’s most recent retiree health benefits actuarial study, discussed below. Accordingly, the proposed BAO (Attachment A) and related exhibits have been updated for this report. The Committee requested that a number of items be incorporated into staff’s future quarterly financial status reports. The Finance Committee has directed staff to use clear terminology when referring to the City’s budget gap. It was noted that if a particular fund has adequate reserves, that use of the term “deficit” should be avoided when referring to a fund’s budget shortfall. Distinction between “deficit” and “budget gap” will be noted in future staff reports and presentations. In addition to using clear terminology in staff reports and presentations, the Committee requested more meaningful descriptions for CIP activity. Staff will keep note of this when compiling future project status reports and describing CIP budget adjustments. Finally, the Committee requested a summary of fund balances be incorporated into the CMR text. This summary is shown in Table 2 in the Citywide Reserve Balances section of this report. Retiree Health Benefits The Finance Committee reviewed the City’s latest retiree medical actuarial required contribution (ARC) on February 28, 2012 (CMR:2578). The retiree medical recommendation and discussion will be presented to Council on April 16 (CMR:2655). The Committee recommended holding certain assumptions constant between the last and most recent valuation. These assumptions include methodologies for amortization, asset smoothing, and actuarial load. Holding these assumptions constant results in a $0.9 million citywide cost avoidance in the midyear budget, of which the General Fund portion is $0.6 million. Table 1 shows the cost avoidance across the City’s major fund groups. April 16, 2012 Page 3 of 6 (ID # 2652) Previous Cost Assumptions Revised Avoidance General Fund $9,406 $8,776 $630 Capital 220 205 15 Enterprise 3,426 3,196 230 Internal Service 355 332 23 Citywide $13,407 $12,509 $898 Table 1: Retiree Medical ARC Cost Avoidance Chart 1 shows the FY 2012 midyear increase in ARC over the City’s major fund groups. These figures include the $0.9 million cost avoidance that result from holding the above assumptions constant with the previous actuarial study. General Fund Table 2 summarizes major revenue and expenditure adjustments in the General Fund. These figures incorporate the cost savings of the retiree medical ARC as previously discussed. Staff recommends a $2.3 million Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) draw as a result of not obtaining the full $3.4 million in Public Safety concessions that was built into the FY 2012 adopted budget. The second contributor of the midyear shortfall is the $1.7 million increase in retiree medical ARC. April 16, 2012 Page 4 of 6 (ID # 2652) Table 2: Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Midyear Adjustments Proposed Midyear Adjustments Revenue Increases $1,731 Department Expense Requests $441 Replenish Contingency Account 150 Council Directed or Obligated Expense San Francisquito Flood Control Study $25 Development Center - 2nd floor rent 125 Retiree Medical OPEB 1,700 1,850 Public Safety Concessions Included in Adopted Budget 3,413 Negotiated Concessions (IAFF)(1,042) Concessions Not Achieved 2,371 Reduce loan to Refuse Fund (625) 4,187 Midyear Gap (2,455) Adopted Budget Surplus 144 Proposed Midyear Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) Draw ($2,311) Citywide Reserve Balances The Committee requested a summary of the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) and the Enterprise Rate Stabilization Reserves (RSR). April 16, 2012 Page 5 of 6 (ID # 2652) General Fund BSR $27,770 Electric Fund Supply RSR 54,678 Distribution RSR 11,573 $66,251 Fiber Optics Fund RSR $10,130 Gas Fund Supply RSR 1,688 Distribution RSR 17,001 $18,689 Wastewater Collection Fund RSR $6,593 Water Fund RSR $12,716 Refuse Fund RSR ($4,478)* Storm Drainage Fund RSR $1,721 Wastewater Treatment Fund RSR $7,213 Airport Fund RSR ($295)** Table 3: Midyear Reserve Balance * Refuse Fund RSR: total fund balance is negative due to $6.1 million landfill post-closure liability accounting entry requirement. ** Airport Fund RSR: the General Fund will loan funds to the Airport Fund to continue airport transition from County. Resource Impact Adoption of the attached ordinance will allow for adjustments to the FY 2012 budget, along with amendments to the Table of Organization and General Fund CIP projects. With the approval of this ordinance, the projected ending balance of the General Fund BSR is $27.8 million. There is a decrease of $2.3 million to the BSR balance which results in a BSR level of 18.97 percent of adopted expenditures. If Council decides not to send the additional $1.7 million retiree medical ARC, the BSR draw will decrease to $0.6 million. With the inclusion of Information Technology midyear requests, the Technology Fund reserve is decreased by $0.8 million, which lowers the Technology Fund reserve to $0.7 million. Staff has made revenue and expense estimates for the remainder of the year but results could vary and have further impacts to the BSR. Workers’ comp, general liability, and overtime costs are areas of continued concern. Staff is monitoring these costs citywide and in the General Fund. April 16, 2012 Page 6 of 6 (ID # 2652) The Capital Fund Infrastructure Reserve (IR) is projected to end with a balance of $4.5 million, an increase of $1.5 million. The ending RSR for all Enterprise Funds increased by $17 million. Policy Implications These recommendations are consistent with existing City policies. Environmental Review This is not a project under Section 21065 for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: Attachment A - Budget Amendment Ordinance (PDF) Attachment A, Exhibit 1 - Midyear Financial Reports and Proposed Budget Adjustments (PDF) Attachment A, Exhibit 2 - Midyear CIP Adjustments (PDF) Attachment A, Exhibit 2A - Guardrail Repair (PDF) Attachment A, Exhibit 2B - In-Ground Lifts (PDF) Attachment A, Exhibit 3 - Amendments to Table of Organization (PDF) Attachment B - Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the 2010-2011 Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Adopted by Resolution No. 9156 (PDF) Attachment C - Midyear CMR #2371 to Finance Committee (PDF) Prepared By: Sherry Nikzat, Senior Financial Anlyst Department Head: Lalo Perez, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Page 1 of 4 Attachment A ORDINANCE NO. XXXX ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 TO ADJUST BUDGETED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE MIDYEAR REPORT The City Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 20, 2011 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2012, including a Table of Organization describing the staffing for each department; and B. After reviewing the current budgeted revenues and expenditures for fiscal year 2012, adjustments to the budget are recommended to more accurately reflect year-end projections; and C. Various staffing adjustments require an amendment to the Table of Organization including the title change from Chief Budget Officer to Director, Office of Management and Budget; title change from Budget Officer to Principal Financial Analyst; add 1.0 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Senior Financial Analyst; add 1.0 FTE Development Center Manager; add 3.0 FTE Development Center Project Coordinator III; add 1.0 FTE Development Services Director; add 1.0 FTE Plans Examiner; add 1.0 FTE Information Technology Security Manager; and D. On July 11, 2011 (CMR #1858), the Council adopted Ordinance 5124 approving a Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (“Stanford Development Agreement”); and E. City Council authorization is needed to establish a Stanford Development Agreement Special Revenue Fund, and to amend the fiscal year 2012 budget to plan for revenue associated with and appropriate funds in accordance with the Stanford Development Agreement; and F. City Council authorization is needed to amend the fiscal year 2012 budget as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2. The General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve is hereby decreased by the sum of Two Million Nine Hundred Forty Two Dollars ($2,311,000), as described in Exhibit 1. As a result Page 2 of 4 of this change, the Budget Stabilization Reserve will change to $27,770,000. SECTION 3. The Capital Fund Infrastructure Reserve is hereby increased by the sum of One Million Four Hundred Fifty Six Thousand Dollars ($1,471,000), as described in Exhibit 1. As a result of this change, the Infrastructure Reserve will change to $4,486,000. SECTION 4. The Supply Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Electric Fund is hereby increased by the sum of Four Million Nine Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars ($4,936,000) as described in Exhibit 1. SECTION 5. The Distribution Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Electric Fund is hereby increased by the sum of Two Million Two Hundred Sixty Six Thousand Dollars ($2,337,000) as described in Exhibit 1. SECTION 6. The Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Fiber Optics Fund is hereby increased by the sum of Eleven Thousand Dollars ($11,000) as described in Exhibit 1. SECTION 7. The Supply Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Gas Fund is hereby decreased by the sum of Seven Million One Hundred Three Thousand Dollars ($7,100,000) as described in Exhibit 1. SECTION 8. The Distribution Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Gas Fund is hereby increased by the sum of Nine Million Five Hundred Eighty One Thousand Dollars ($9,605,000) as described in Exhibit 1. SECTION 9. The Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Wastewater Collection Fund is hereby increased by the sum of One Million Nine Hundred Seventy Two Thousand Dollars ($1,986,000) as described in Exhibit 1. SECTION 10. The Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Water Fund is hereby increased by the sum of Five Million Four Hundred Fifty Six Thousand Dollars ($5,485,000) as described in Exhibit 1. SECTION 11. The Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Refuse Fund is hereby increased by the sum of Four Hundred Eighty Five Thousand Dollars ($512,000) as described in Exhibit 1. SECTION 12. The Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Storm Drainage Fund is hereby decreased by the sum of Seventeen Thousand Dollars ($10,000) as described in Exhibit 1. SECTION 13. The Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Wastewater Treatment Fund is hereby decreased by the sum of Three Hundred Twenty Seven Dollars ($278,000) as described in Exhibit 1. Page 3 of 4 SECTION 14. The reserve balance in the Airport Fund is hereby decreased by the sum of One Hundred Seventy Seven Thousand Dollars ($177,000) as described in Exhibit 1. SECTION 15. Adjustments to other funds are made as shown in Exhibit 1. These changes impact Special Revenue, Internal Service, and Other Funds Reserves as indicated in Exhibit 1. SECTION 16: The Stanford Development Agreement Special Revenue fund is hereby established to account for all financial transactions relating to the Stanford Development Agreement. SECTION 17: The Fund Balance in the Stanford Development Agreement Fund is hereby increased by the sum of Twenty One Million One Hundred Ninety Five Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($21,195,000) as described in Exhibit 1. SECTION 18. Adjustments to decrease or increase amounts allocated to various Capital Improvement Projects are made as shown in Exhibit 2. These changes impact the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve and the Infrastructure Reserve and are reflected in the adjustments as shown in Exhibit 1. SECTION 19. The Table of Organization is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in Exhibit 3, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. These changes impact Reserves and are accounted for in the changes shown in Exhibit 1. SECTION 20. As specified in Section 2.28.080 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance. SECTION 21. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds that this midyear adjustment is not a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. Capital improvement projects described in this ordinance will be assessed individually as appropriate. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: Page 4 of 4 ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Sr. Asst. City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Admin. Services Attachment A, Exhibit 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2012 MIDYEAR FINANCIAL REPORT GENERAL FUND (in thousands) BUDGET ACTUALS (as of December 31, 2011) Adopted Adjusted Midyear Midyear Pre % Midyr Categories Budget Budget Budget Changes Encumbr Encumbr Actual Budget Revenues & Other Sources Sales Tax 20,246 20,246 21,594 1,348 ‐ ‐ 7,755 36% Property Tax 26,052 26,052 25,989 (63) ‐ ‐ 9,376 36% Transient Occupancy Tax 8,204 8,204 8,674 470 ‐ ‐ 4,123 48% Utility Users Tax 10,859 10,859 10,677 (182) ‐ ‐ 5,455 51% Documentary Transfer Tax 4,269 4,269 4,769 500 ‐ ‐ 1,927 40% Motor Vehicle Tax, Penalties, Fines 2,330 2,330 2,156 (174) ‐ ‐ 1,054 49% Charges for Services 21,841 22,737 22,576 (161) ‐ ‐ 9,592 42% Permits & Licenses 5,778 6,399 6,479 80 ‐ ‐ 3,341 52% Return on Investment 1,318 1,318 974 (344) ‐ ‐ 618 63% Rental Income 13,914 13,914 13,914 ‐ ‐ 6,998 50% From Other Agencies 155 155 174 19 ‐ ‐ 37 21% Charges To Other Funds 10,505 10,505 10,505 ‐ ‐ 5,224 50% Other Revenues (1) 1,427 1,943 2,136 193 ‐ ‐ 21,687 1015% Total Revenues (2) 126,898 128,931 130,617 1,686 ‐ ‐ 77,187 59% Operating Transfers‐In 19,606 19,606 19,651 45 ‐ ‐ 9,512 48% Encumbrances and Reappropriation 3,887 3,887 ‐ ‐ ‐ From Infrastructure Reserve ‐ ‐ Total Sources of Funds 146,504 152,424 154,155 1,731 ‐ ‐ 86,699 58% Expenditures & Other Uses City Attorney 2,355 3,009 3,016 7 ‐ 593 1,329 64% City Auditor 1,006 1,140 1,110 (30) ‐ 55 524 52% City Clerk 1,479 1,492 1,518 26 ‐ 10 829 55% City Council 319 328 423 95 ‐ 1 160 38% City Manager 2,512 2,718 2,681 (37) 94 54 1,275 53% Administrative Services 6,514 6,694 7,057 363 69 162 3,245 49% Community Services 20,711 21,176 21,578 402 69 2,383 10,316 59% Fire 29,780 30,154 29,980 (174) 110 390 14,695 51% Human Resources 2,919 3,013 3,050 37 1 112 1,323 47% Library 6,944 7,672 7,815 143 25 350 3,356 48% Planning and Community Environment 10,021 12,218 12,479 261 430 889 4,731 48% Police 31,918 32,192 33,011 819 20 676 16,311 52% Public Works 13,007 13,984 14,419 435 146 1,032 6,306 52% Non‐Departmental 5,038 4,841 7,307 2,466 ‐ ‐ 4,416 60% Total Expenditures 134,523 140,631 145,442 4,811 964 6,707 68,816 53% Operating Transfers‐Out 11,837 13,087 12,462 (625) ‐ ‐ 5,914 47% Total Uses of Funds 146,360 153,718 157,904 4,186 964 6,707 74,730 52% Net Surplus/(Deficit) 144 (1,295) (3,750) (2,455) Budget Amendments Authorized by Council: ATT ‐ Add'l legal counsel 185 185 NON‐DEPT ‐ Loan to Refuse Fund 1,250 1,250 LIB ‐ Foundation donation (3)‐ ‐ PCE Development Center 4 4 Total Augmentations Authorized by Council ‐ 1,439 1,439 ‐ Net Surplus/(Deficit) After BAOs 144 144 (2,311) (2,455) Proposed Midyear Drawdown 2,311 2,942 Net Surplus/(Deficit) After BSR Drawdown 144 144 0 487 BSR Balance 31,520 30,081 27,770 BSR % of Total Use of Funds 21.54% 20.55% 18.97% (1) Actual includes payment of $20.8 million from Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Development Agreement. (2) Total revenues excluding SUMC are $56.4 million. (3) $500,000 donation and expenditures nets to zero (see BAO 5137) Page 1 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 ACTUALS Adopted Adjusted Midyear Midyear Pre- % of Budget Budget Budget Changes Encumbr Encumbr Actual Midyear Budget Sources of Funds Net Sales 109,963 109,963 111,033 1,070 - - 59,452 54% Interest Income 4,014 4,014 4,014 - - - 1,937 48% Other Income 11,230 11,230 10,843 (387) - - 3,725 34% Reapprop/Encumbrances - 15,493 15,493 - - - 0% Total Sources 125,207 140,700 141,383 683 - - 65,114 52%** Uses of Funds Utility Purchases 69,846 69,964 63,754 (6,210) 25 83 29,555 47% Salaries & Benefits 11,079 11,083 11,181 98 - - 5,321 48% Contract Services 4,306 5,747 5,747 - 77 2,834 1,320 74% Supplies and Materials 811 843 843 - - 64 321 46% Facility and Equipment Purchases 75 75 75 - - - - 0% General Expenses 4,070 4,799 6,746 1,947 286 942 1,292 37% Rent and Leases 3,939 3,939 3,939 - - - 1,921 49% Allocated Charges 8,344 8,344 8,378 34 - - 3,664 44% Debt Service 8,966 8,966 8,966 - - - 4,431 49% Subtotal 111,436 113,760 109,629 (4,131) 388 3,923 47,825 48% Equity Transfer 11,587 11,587 11,587 - - - 5,793 50% Operating Transfers Out 299 298 298 - - - 150 50% Capital Improvement Program 8,685 22,404 19,945 (2,459) 4,083 1,844 4,863 54% Total Uses 132,007 148,049 141,459 (6,590) 4,471 5,767 58,631 49% Net To (From) Reserves (6,800) (7,349) (76) 7,273 Beginning Reserves 111,971 127,069 127,069 - Projected Ending Reserves 105,171 119,720 126,993 7,273 ** Excludes encumbrances and reappropriation BUDGET (as of 12-31-11) CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2012 MIDYEAR BUDGET SUMMARY ELECTRIC FUND (in thousands of dollars) Page 2 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 ACTUALS Adopted Adjusted Midyear Midyear Pre- % of Budget Budget Budget Changes Encumbr Encumbr Actual Midyear Budget Sources of Funds Net Sales 2,609 2,609 2,609 - - - 1,507 58% Interest Income 310 310 310 - - - 169 55% Other Income 740 740 740 - Reapprop/Encumbrances 805 805 - Total Sources 3,659 4,464 4,464 - - - 1,676 46%** Uses of Funds Salaries & Benefits 928 928 915 (13) - - 403 44% Contract Services 158 242 242 - - 97 53 62% Supplies and Materials 18 18 18 - - - - 0% General Expenses 25 25 25 - - - - 0% Rent and Leases 27 27 27 - - - 14 51% Allocated Charges 405 405 407 2 - - 187 46% Subtotal 1,561 1,645 1,634 (11) - 97 656 46% Operating Transfers Out 9 9 9 - - - 5 51% Capital Improvement Program 500 1,221 1,221 - - 300 104 33% Total Uses 2,070 2,875 2,864 (11) - 397 765 41% Net To (From) Reserves 1,589 1,589 1,600 11 Beginning Reserves 10,406 11,130 11,130 Projected Ending Reserves 11,995 12,719 12,730 11 ** Excludes encumbrances and reappropriation BUDGET (as of 12-31-11) CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2012 MIDYEAR BUDGET SUMMARY FIBER OPTICS FUND (in thousands of dollars) Page 3 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 ACTUALS Adopted Adjusted Midyear Midyear Pre- % of Budget Budget Budget Changes Encumbr Encumbr Actual Midyear Budget Sources of Funds Net Sales 42,013 42,013 42,013 - - - 17,059 41% Interest Income 948 948 948 - - - 441 47% Other Income 1,871 1,871 1,790 (81) - - 250 14% Reapprop/Encumbrances 16,848 16,848 - - - - - Total Sources 44,832 61,680 61,599 (81) - - 17,751 40%** Uses of Funds Utility Purchases 19,397 19,397 18,497 (900) 1,351 6,440 5,508 72% Salaries & Benefits 4,635 4,635 4,633 (2) - - 2,104 45% Contract Services 4,850 5,333 5,333 - 36 4,313 495 91% Supplies and Materials 465 497 497 - - 142 206 70% Facility and Equipment Purchases 63 63 63 - - 28 8 57% General Expenses 914 966 966 - 245 192 231 69% Rent and Leases 341 340 340 - - - 156 46% Allocated Charges 3,910 3,910 4,046 136 - - 1,688 42% Debt Service 948 948 948 - - - 21 2% Subtotal 35,523 36,089 35,323 (766) 1,631 11,114 10,418 66% Equity Transfer 6,006 6,006 6,006 - - - 3,003 50% Operating Transfers Out 170 170 170 - - - 102 60% Capital Improvement Program 7,821 24,153 22,335 (1,818) 119 5,120 2,483 35% Total Uses 49,520 66,418 63,834 (2,584) 1,750 16,234 16,006 53% Net To (From) Reserves (4,688) (4,738) (2,235) 2,503 Beginning Reserves 15,215 17,188 17,188 - Projected Ending Reserves 10,527 12,450 14,953 2,503 CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2012 MIDYEAR BUDGET SUMMARY GAS FUND (in thousands of dollars) BUDGET (as of 12-31-11) ** Excludes encumbrances and reappropriation Page 4 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 ACTUALS Adopted Adjusted Midyear Midyear Pre- % of Budget Budget Budget Changes Encumbr Encumbr Actual Midyear Budget Sources of Funds Net Sales 14,485 14,485 14,485 - - - 7,391 51% Interest Income 480 480 480 - - - 228 47% Other Income 904 904 904 - - - 650 72% Reapprop/Encumbrances 10,224 10,224 - - - - Total Sources 15,869 26,093 26,093 - - - 8,268 52%** Uses of Funds Utility Purchases 7,954 7,954 7,954 - - - 3,977 50% Salaries & Benefits 2,074 2,074 2,081 7 - - 989 48% Contract Services 178 241 241 - - 153 50 84% Supplies and Materials 222 245 245 - - 104 139 99% Facility and Equipment Purchases 1 1 1 - - 1 - 138% General Expenses 78 78 78 - - - 23 30% Rent and Leases 202 202 202 - - - 71 35% Allocated Charges 1,958 1,956 1,815 (141) - - 640 35% Debt Service 129 129 129 - - - - 0% Subtotal 12,796 12,880 12,746 (134) - 258 5,888 48% Operating Transfers Out 88 88 88 - - - 61 69% Capital Improvement Program 4,274 14,414 12,562 (1,852) 682 874 1,435 24% Total Uses 17,158 27,382 25,396 (1,986) 682 1,133 7,384 36% Net To (From) Reserves (1,289) (1,289) 697 1,986 Beginning Reserves 6,850 6,896 6,896 - Projected Ending Reserves 5,561 5,607 7,593 1,986 CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2012 MIDYEAR BUDGET SUMMARY WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND (in thousands of dollars) BUDGET (as of 12-31-11) ** Excludes encumbrances and reappropriation Page 5 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 ACTUALS Adopted Adjusted Midyear Midyear Pre- % of Budget Budget Budget Changes Encumbr Encumbr Actual Midyear Budget Sources of Funds Net Sales 29,366 29,366 29,366 - - - 16,349 56% Interest Income 971 971 971 - - - 122 13% Other Income 2,859 2,859 2,859 - - - 1,180 41% Reapprop/Encumbrances 42,128 42,128 - - Total Sources 33,196 75,324 75,324 - - - 17,651 53%** Uses of Funds Utility Purchases 15,774 15,774 15,774 - - 8,665 6,739 98% Salaries & Benefits 5,339 5,339 5,335 (4) - - 2,711 51% Contract Services 740 959 959 - 11 451 175 66% Supplies and Materials 461 481 481 - - 146 312 95% Facility and Equipment Purchases 8 8 8 - - 1 1 21% General Expense 435 457 457 - - 11 141 33% Rents and Leases 2,896 2,895 2,895 - 640 - 1,119 61% Allocated Charges 3,116 3,116 3,130 14 - - 1,188 38% Debt Service 3,338 3,338 3,338 - - - 737 22% Subtotal 32,107 32,367 32,377 10 651 9,274 13,123 71% Equity Transfer - - - - - - - - Operating Transfers Out 104 104 104 - - - 52 50% Capital Improvement Program 4,369 46,261 40,766 (5,495) 5,218 22,655 2,467 66% Total Uses 36,580 78,732 73,247 (5,485) 5,868 31,929 15,642 68% Net To (From) Reserves (3,384) (3,408) 2,077 5,485 Beginning Reserves 19,496 11,639 11,639 - Projected Ending Reserves 16,112 8,231 13,716 5,485 ** Excludes encumbrances and reappropriation CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2012 MIDYEAR BUDGET SUMMARY WATER FUND (in thousands of dollars) BUDGET (as of 12-31-11) Page 6 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 ACTUALS Adopted Adjusted Midyear Midyear Pre- % of Budget Budget Budget Changes Encumbr Encumbr Actual Midyear Budget Sources of Funds Net Sales 23,947 26,134 26,134 - - - 13,319 51% Interest Income 301 301 301 - - - 112 37% Other Income 3,952 5,202 4,710 (492) - - 2,105 45% Reapprop/Encumbrances 3,656 3,656 - Total Sources 28,200 35,293 34,801 (492) - - 15,536 50%** Uses of Funds GreenWaste Hauling Contract 13,000 12,807 12,807 - - 6 5,054 40% Salaries and Benefits 4,060 3,938 4,003 65 - - 1,919 48% Contract Services 6,058 7,054 7,187 133 310 1,359 2,770 62% Supplies and Materials 141 142 142 - - 8 29 26% Facility and Equipment Purchases 10 10 10 - - - - 0% General Expenses 227 229 229 - - 4 577 254% Rents and Leases 4,298 4,300 4,300 - - 10 2,144 50% Allocated Charges 3,255 3,254 3,254 - - - 1,662 51% Debt Service 623 623 623 - 0% Subtotal 31,672 32,357 32,555 198 310 1,387 14,155 49% Operating Transfers Out 74 74 74 - - - 37 50% Capital Improvement Program 6,246 8,902 7,701 (1,201) 275 324 417 13% Total Uses 37,992 41,333 40,330 (1,003) 585 1,711 14,610 41% Net (From) Landfill Closure Liab (6,100) (6,100) (6,100) - Net To (From) Reserves (3,692) 60 571 511 Beginning Reserves (4,627) (4,384) (4,384) - Projected Ending Reserves (8,319) (4,324) (3,813) 511 CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2012 MIDYEAR BUDGET SUMMARY REFUSE FUND (in thousands of dollars) BUDGET (as of 12-31-11) ** Excludes encumbrances and reappropriation Page 7 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 ACTUALS Adopted Adjusted Midyear Midyear Pre- % of Budget Budget Budget Changes Encumbr Encumbr Actual Midyear Budget Sources of Funds Net Sales 5,536 5,536 5,536 - - - 2,890 52% Interest Income 148 148 148 - - - 82 55% Other Income 130 130 130 - - - 1 1% Reapprop/Encumbrances 3,398 3,398 - - Total Sources 5,814 9,212 9,212 - - - 2,972 51%** Uses of Funds Salaries and Benefits 1,005 1,005 1,070 65 - - 442 41% Contract Services 373 434 434 - 89 63 193 79% Supplies and Materials 103 109 109 - - 15 36 47% Facility and Equipment Purchases 8 8 8 - - - 2 30% General Expenses 15 486 486 - - - 213 44% Rents and Leases 6 6 6 - - - - 0% Allocated Charges 606 606 606 - - - 260 43% Debt Service 950 950 950 - - - - 0% Subtotal 3,066 3,604 3,669 65 89 78 1,146 36% Operating Transfers Out 18 18 18 - - - 9 51% Capital Improvement Program 2,639 5,499 5,444 (55) 87 582 1,303 36% Total Uses 5,723 9,121 9,131 10 176 660 2,458 36% Net Surplus (Deficit) 91 91 81 (10) Beginning Reserves 245 1,640 1,640 - Projected Ending Reserves 336 1,731 1,721 (10) CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2012 MIDYEAR BUDGET SUMMARY STORM DRAINAGE FUND (in thousands of dollars) BUDGET (as of 12-31-11) ** Excludes encumbrances and reappropriation Page 8 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 ACTUALS Adopted Adjusted Midyear Midyear Pre- % of Budget Budget Budget Changes Encumbr Encumbr Actual Midyear Budget Sources of Funds Net Sales 12,566 12,566 12,566 - - - 10,270 82% Interest Income 499 499 499 - - - 220 44% Other Income 8,016 8,016 8,016 - - - 71 1% Reapprop/Encumbrances 10,499 10,499 - Total Sources 21,081 31,580 31,580 - - - 10,561 50%** Uses of Funds Salaries and Benefits 9,509 9,509 9,787 278 - - 4,386 45% Contract Services 1,877 2,734 2,734 - 167 1,489 512 79% Supplies and Materials 1,422 1,645 1,645 - 53 435 716 73% Facility and Equipment Purchases 10 10 10 - - - - 0% General Expenses 411 411 411 - - - 193 47% Rents and Leases - - - - - - - 0% Allocated Charges 4,709 4,709 4,709 - - - 2,441 52% Debt Service 818 818 818 - - - - 0% Subtotal 18,756 19,836 20,114 278 220 1,925 8,248 52% Operating Transfers Out 105 105 105 - - - 53 50% Capital Improvement Program 56 9,475 9,475 - 963 1,566 484 32% Total Uses 18,917 29,416 29,694 278 1,183 3,490 8,785 45% Net To (From) Reserves 2,164 2,164 1,886 (278) Beginning Reserves 3,401 5,327 5,327 - Projected Ending Reserves 5,565 7,491 7,213 (278) ** Excludes encumbrances and reappropriation CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2012 MIDYEAR BUDGET SUMMARY WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND (in thousands of dollars) BUDGET (as of 12-31-11) Page 9 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 ACTUALS Adopted Adjusted Midyear Midyear Pre- % of Budget Budget Budget Changes Encumbr Encumbr Actual Midyear Budget Sources of Funds Net Sales - - - - - - - 0% Interest Income - - - - - - - 0% Other Income - - - - - - - 0% Reapprop/Encumbrances - - - Total Sources - - - - - - - 0%** Uses of Funds Salaries and Benefits - - - - - - - 0% Contract Services - - 177 177 - - - 0% Supplies and Materials - - - - - - - 0% Facility and Equipment Purchases - - - - - - - 0% General Expenses - - - - - - - 0% Rents and Leases - - - - - - - 0% Allocated Charges - - - - - - - 0% Debt Service - - - - - - - 0% Subtotal - - 177 177 - - - 0% Operating Transfers Out - - - - - - - 0% Capital Improvement Program - - - - - - - 0% Total Uses - - 177 177 - - - 0% Net To (From) Reserves - - (177) (177) Beginning Reserves (118) (118) (118) - Projected Ending Reserves (118) (118) (295) (177) ** Excludes encumbrances and reappropriation CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2012 MIDYEAR BUDGET SUMMARY AIRPORT FUND (in thousands of dollars) BUDGET (as of 12-31-11) Page 10 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 General Fund Midyear Detail Changes Fiscal Year 2012 Dept. Cost Center Comm Item Category Description Expense Revenue Totals FY 2012 Adopted Budget ‐ Contribution to BSR 144,339 NON Loan to Refuse Fund (repaid in FY 2013) 1,250,000 (1,250,000) ATT Add'l outside council binding arbitration 185,000 (185,000) PCE Various ‐ Economic Development Blue Print 1,520,426 1,516,000 (4,426) LIB Donation from Library Foundation 515,000 515,000 ‐ Year‐to‐Date Draw from BSR (1,439,426) Change to BSR Before Proposed Midyear Budget BSR Beginning Balance 31,520,339 Year‐to‐Date BSR Draw (1,439,426) BSR Balance Before Proposed Midyear Adjustments 30,080,913 Above/(below) 15% guideline 8,126,913 Above/(below) 18.5% guideline 3,004,313 Percent of Adopted Expenditures 20.55% Revenue Changes NON 10200000 18xxx Sales Taxes Sales Tax increase 1,348,000 NON 10200000 11xxx Property Tax Property Tax decrease (63,000) NON 10200000 11850 Transient Occupancy Tax TOT increase 470,000 NON 10300000 118xx Utility Users Tax UUT decrease (182,000) NON 10200000 11800 Documentary Transfer Tax Doc Trans Tax increase 500,000 NON 1020000 11090 Other Taxes and Fines Vehicle License Fee reduction (174,000) NON 10200000 16010 Return on Investments Interest Income decrease (344,000) CSD 80020810 13420 Charges for Services Additional ticket sales revenue 30,000 CSD 80020810 13480 Charges for Services Class registration revenue due to increased activity 15,000 CSD 80060710 13500 Charges for Services Reduced Golf revenues (75,000) CSD 80020115 18010 Other Revenue Donations for Children's studio programs from Palo Alto Arts Center Foundation to reimburse temp salaries 29,800 FIR/PD Various 12520 Charges for Services Stanford Fire FY 2011 budget to actual charges ‐ increase 153,486 FIR 75xxxxxx 12520 Charges for Services Stanford Fire Revenue loss due to IAFF concessions (315,726) FIR 75030008 13090 Charges for Services Paramedic Service Fee 100,000 PWD 50040006 19390 Permits and Licenses Increase in GF street cut fee revenue 50,400 Subtotal Various Revenues 1,542,960 Expense Changes Contingency Reimbursements NON 10200000 37020 General Expense Council Contingency reimbursement for High Speed Rail 125,000 NON 10200000 37070 General Expense Replenish Innovation Contingency Fund for November 2011 election costs 24,733 Subtotal ‐ Contingency Reimbursements 149,733 ‐ Council Directed or Obligated Expense CSD 80060710 31990 Contract Services San Francisquito flood control 25,000 NON Various 3037x Salary & Benefits Increase in retiree medical OPEB cost 1,700,000 FIR Various Various Salary & Benefits Negotiated IAFF Salary & Benefits reduction (1,042,000) PCE 60030001 34990 Rents & Leases Second floor Development Center rent ‐ reimbursement to PCE 125,100 Subtotal ‐ Council Directed or Obligated Expense 808,100 ‐ Department Requests Page 11 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 General Fund Midyear Detail Changes Fiscal Year 2012 Dept. Cost Center Comm Item Category Description Expense Revenue Totals City Clerk's Office CLK 12030005 31210 Contract Services Minutes transcription 7,000 CLK 12010001 32080 Supplies and Materials Records storage for historical documents 4,500 Subtotal ‐ City Clerk 11,500 ‐ City Manager's Office CMO 11010001 30010 Salary & Benefits 0.5 FTE Management Analyst moved to IT (30,374) Subtotal ‐ City Manager (30,374) ‐ Administrative Services Department ASD Various 30030 Salary & Benefits Temps, reclassifications, one additional Senior Financial Analyst, FTE shifted from IT 77,371 ASD 40010001 31990 Contract Services Add'l funding Development Impact Fee, budget book 28,420 ASD 40010001 31290 Contract Services CalCard replacement project. Funded by transfer from the Technology Fund. 24,900 24,900 ASD 40060002 35600 Facilities & Equipment Computer for budget book production 3,810 Subtotal ‐ Administrative Services 134,501 24,900 Community Services Department CSD 80010001 30010 Salary & Benefits Reclass 1.0 FTE Mgr, Arts to Asst Director 25,828 CSD 80020115 30030 Salary & Benefits Temp salaries for children's studio classes offset by donations from Palo Alto Arts Council Foundation 8,200 8,200 80020414 31080 Contract Services Community funded concerts, expenses offset by donations 2,000 2,000 CSD 80020112 31990 Contract Services Exhibitions ‐ costs offset by Arts Council donations 7,051 7,051 CSD 80040003 31990 Contract Services Downtown Streets Team, reimbursed by Downtown Parking Permit Fund 20,000 20,000 CSD Various Various Various Dance in Schools and Children's Theater, fully funded by donations, PAUSD 89,730 89,730 CSD 80020810 33480 General Expense Reduction in special event expenses with corresponding reduction in revenues (64,888) (69,000) Subtotal ‐ Community Services 87,921 57,981 Fire Department FIR 75030004 30030 Salary & Benefits Temporary assistance with inspections, more than fully reimbursed by increased revenue 10,000 30,000 FIR 75040002 32990 Supplies & Materials Student materials for JFA, offset by revenue 8,000 8,000 Subtotal ‐ Fire 18,000 38,000 Library Department LIB 84010001 31990 Contract Services Strategic plan development from previous grant funds 6,300 LIB 84010001 32010 Supplies & Materials Supplies funded by Eureka! grant, Friends of the Public Library donation, Gordon Biersch donation 12,400 12,400 Subtotal ‐ Library 18,700 12,400 Planning and Community Environment Dept PCE 60030002 31990 Contract Services BMI Digital image scanning 31,350 Subtotal ‐ Planning & Community Environment 31,350 ‐ Police Department POL 70020002 30030 Salary & Benefits Reimbursable expenses for Urban Shield 43,838 43,838 POL Various Various Communications Until Leader training hosted by PAPD and reimbursed 11,061 11,061 Page 12 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 General Fund Midyear Detail Changes Fiscal Year 2012 Dept. Cost Center Comm Item Category Description Expense Revenue Totals Subtotal ‐ Police 54,899 54,899 Public Works Department PWD Various 30010 Salary & Benefits Reallocate 1.1 FTE from Enterprise and Other Funds to the General Fund 30,189 PWD 50020305 31270 Contract services Canopy contract 44,500 PWD 50040005 31990 Contract services IBRC editor/consultant and related expenses 15,000 PWD 50020120 32310 Supplies and Materials Asphalt and pothole supplies 25,000 Subtotal ‐ Public Works 114,689 ‐ Non‐Departmental NON 10200000 30010 Salaries & Benefits Reduction of placeholder ‐ Public Safety concessions not achieved 3,412,539 NON 10200000 40550 Transfer Out Reduce loan to Refuse Fund (625,000) Subtotal ‐ Non‐Departmental 2,787,539 ‐ Subtotal ‐ Midyear Decision Items 3,228,725 188,180 SUBTOTAL ‐ EXPENSE AND REVENUE 4,186,558 1,731,140 NET GENERAL FUND MIDYEAR ADJUSTMENTS (2,455,418) SURPLUS ‐ ADOPTED BUDGET 144,373 PROPOSED MIDYEAR BSR DRAW (2,311,045) Change to BSR After Proposed Midyear Budget BSR Balance 30,080,913 Proposed Midyear BSR Draw (2,311,045) Revised BSR Balance 27,769,868 Above/(below) 15% guideline 5,815,868 Above/(below) 18.5% guideline 693,268 Percent of Adopted Expenditures 18.97% Page 13 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 Enterprise Funds Midyear Detail Changes Fiscal Year 2012 Dept. Cost Center Comm Item Category Description Expense Revenue Electric Fund Operating Budget Utilities 20000030 17800 Net Sales Surplus Energy Rev 1,070,000 Utilities 20040102 18870 Other Revenue Reduce revenue CVP O&M Loan Repay (387,000) Utilities 20040105 33115 General Expense Carryforward unused amount for Energy Financing program from FY 2011 1,800,000 Utilities 20040104 33120 General Expense Carryforward unused amount for Energy Financing program from FY 2011 200,000 Utilities 20040102 33150 General Expense Decrease in joint agency debt service with NCPA due to lower than expected costs (53,000) Utilities 20040102 36090 Utility Purchase Lower than expected costs, deferred payments for Crazy Horse and San Joaquin projects (6,210,000) Utilities Various 39100 Allocated Charges Allocation for organizational assessment 33,906 Utilities Various 3037X Salary & Benefits Increase in retiree medical OPEB cost 98,000 Total Operating Budget (4,131,094) 683,000 Capital Budget Utilities 20020201 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP EL‐89028 Electric Customer Connections due to revised estimates (1,000,000) Utilities 20020202 38790 Project Expense To close CIP EL‐08002 E. Meadow/Alma/Loma 4/12kV Conversion and to return balance to reserve (414,014) Utilities 20020202 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP EL‐11008 Rebuild Underground District 19 due to reduction in project scope (400,000) Utilities 20020202 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP EL‐89038 Substation Protection Improvements due to revised estimates (300,000) Utilities 20020202 38790 Project Expense To close CIP EL‐04014 Automated Meter Reading System and to return balance to reserve (255,194) Utilities 20020403 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP EL‐89031 Communications System Improvements due to revised estimates (200,000) Utilities 20020202 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP EL‐89044 Substation Facility Improvements due to revised estimates (200,000) Utilities 20020202 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP EL‐11002 St. Francis Oregon 4/12kV Conversion which is being deferred six years due to other high priority projects (50,000) Utilities 20020202 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP EL‐11000 Seale/Waverley 4/12kV Conversion which is being deferred six years due to other high priority projects (40,000) Utilities 20020202 38790 Project Expense Increase CIP EL‐11004 Hewlett Subdivision Rebuild Los Trancos due to higher than original cost estimates 400,000 Total Capital Budget (2,459,208) ‐ Net Electric Fund Midyear Adjustments (6,590,302) 683,000 RESERVE IMPACT ‐ ELECTRIC SUPPLY RSR 4,936,028 RESERVE IMPACT ‐ ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION RSR 2,337,274 Fiber Optics Fund Operating Budget Utilities 20000081 39100 Allocated Charges Allocation for organizational assessment 2,094 Utilities Various 3037X Salary & Benefits Decrease in retiree medical OPEB cost (13,000) Net Fiber Optics Fund Midyear Adjustments (10,906) ‐ RESERVE IMPACT ‐ FIBER OPTICS RSR 10,906 Page 14 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 Enterprise Funds Midyear Detail Changes Fiscal Year 2012 Dept. Cost Center Comm Item Category Description Expense Revenue Gas Fund Operating Budget Utilities 20040202 36040 Utility Purchase Reduction due to lower than budgeted market prices. (1,300,000) Utilities 20040202 36070 Utility Purchase Increase due to higher than budgeted expected PG&E Pipeline safety charge 400,000 Utilities 20000051 39100 Allocated Charges Allocation for organizational assessment 15,935 Utilities 20000050 20XXX/4 0XXX Operating Transfer In/Out Transfer from gas supply rate stabilization to gas distribution rate stabilization reserve to align with guidelines 8,000,000 8,000,000 Utilities 20000040 19620 Charges to Other Funds Decrease in sales to Vehicle Fund and decrease in commodity (80,532) (80,532) Utilities 20020802 39390 Allocated Charges Increase street cut fees for gas main replacement projects scheduled to be completed by Q4 200,400 Utilities Various 3037X Salary & Benefits Increase in retiree medical OPEB cost (2,000) Total Operating Budget 7,233,803 7,919,468 Capital Budget Utilities 20020802 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP GS‐03009 System Extensions‐ Unreimbursed due to revised estimates (480,000) Utilities 20020802 38790 Project Expense Close CIP GS‐05002 Gas Main Replacement ‐ Project 15 and to return balance to reserve (111,216) Utilities 20020802 38790 Project Expense Close CIP GS‐06001 Gas Main Replacement ‐ Project 16 and to return balance to reserve (49,716) Utilities 20020802 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP GS‐11002 Gas System Improvements due to revised estimates (100,000) Utilities 20020801 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP GS‐80017 Gas System Extensions due to revised estimates (935,000) Utilities 20020802 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP GS‐80019 Gas Meters and Regulators due to revised estimates (142,159) Total Capital Budget (1,818,091) ‐ Net Gas Fund Midyear Adjustments 5,415,712 7,919,468 RESERVE IMPACT ‐ GAS SUPPLY RSR (7,100,922) RESERVE IMPACT ‐ GAS DISTRIBUTION RSR 9,604,678 Wastewater Collection Fund Operating Budget Utilities 20000071 39100 Allocated Charges Allocation for organizational assessment 8,848 Utilities 20021202 39390 Allocated Charges Reduce street cut fees due to delays in wastewater collection rehabilitation projects. (150,000) Utilities Various 3037X Salary & Benefits Increase in retiree medical OPEB cost 7,000 Total Operating Budget (134,152) ‐ Capital Budget Utilities 20021202 38780 Project Expense Close CIP WC‐02002 Wastewater Collection System Rehab/Aug. Project 15 and to return balance to reserve (55,760) Utilities 20021202 38780 Project Expense Close CIP WC‐04002 Wastewater Collection System Rehab/Aug. Project 17 and to return balance to reserve (150,000) Utilities 20021202 38780 Project Expense Decrease CIP WC‐05003 Wastewater Collection System Rehab/Aug. Project 18 due to revised estimates (173,183) Page 15 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 Enterprise Funds Midyear Detail Changes Fiscal Year 2012 Dept. Cost Center Comm Item Category Description Expense Revenue Utilities 20021202 38780 Project Expense Close CIP WC‐06003 Wastewater Collection System Rehab/Aug. Project 19 and to return balance to reserve (137,637) Utilities 20021202 38780 Project Expense Decrease CIP WC‐15002 Wastewater System Improvements due to revised estimates (275,000) Utilities 20021201 38780 Project Expense Decrease CIP WC‐80020 Sewer System Extensions due to revised estimates (625,000) Utilities 20021202 38780 Project Expense Decrease CIP WC‐99013 Sewer Lateral/Manhole Rehab/Replacement due to revised estimates (435,000) Total Capital Budget (1,851,580) ‐ Net Wastewater Collection Fund Midyear Adjustments (1,985,732) ‐ RESERVE IMPACT ‐ WASTEWATER COLLECTION RSR 1,985,732 Water Fund Operating Budget Utilities 20000061 39100 Allocated Charges Allocation for organizational assessment 14,217 Utilities Various 3037X Salary & Benefits Increase in retiree medical OPEB cost (4,000) Total Operating Budget 10,217 ‐ Capital Budget Utilities 20021002 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP WS‐07000 Water Regulation System Improvements due to revised estimates (600,000) Utilities 20021002 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP WS‐08002 Emergency Water Supply Project due to revised estimates (3,200,000) Utilities 20021002 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP WS‐11003 Water Distribution System Improvements due to revised estimates (130,000) Utilities 20021002 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP WS‐11004 Water Supply System Improvements due to revised estimates (125,000) Utilities 20021001 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP WS‐80013 Water System Extensions due to revised estimates (300,000) Utilities 20021002 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP WS‐80014 Water Service Hydrant Replacement due to revised estimates (500,000) Utilities 20021002 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP WS‐80015 Water Meters due to revised estimates (640,000) Net Water Fund Midyear Adjustments (5,495,000) ‐ Net Water Fund Midyear Adjustments (5,484,783) ‐ RESERVE IMPACT ‐ WATER RSR 5,484,783 Refuse Fund Operating Budget PWD 50050101 30010 Salary & Benefits Reduce 1.0 FTE Admin Assoc. II (24,765) PWD 50050101 30010 Salary & Benefits Reduce 0.5 FTE Asst. Dir. Public Works (28,826) PWD Various 3037X Salary & Benefits Increase in retiree medical OPEB cost 118,000 PWD 50050411 31260 Contract services Increase ‐ IMPEC. Reimbursed by Univ. Ave. Parking Fund. 63,280 63,280 PWD 50050411 31270 Contract services Increase Downtown Streets Team Univ. Ave. Parking Fund 69,888 69,888 PWD 50050001 20110 Transfer In Decrease loan from General Fund (625,000) Total Operating Budget 197,576 (491,832) Capital Budget Page 16 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 Enterprise Funds Midyear Detail Changes Fiscal Year 2012 Dept. Cost Center Comm Item Category Description Expense Revenue PWD 50050201 38790 JL Project Expense Reduce CIP RF‐07001 due to permanent closure of the Recycling Center, return to Refuse Fund.(879,473) PWD 50050201 38790 JL Project Expense Close CIP RF‐09003. New receptacles not preferred, return to Refuse Fund.(321,843) Total Capital Budget (1,201,316) ‐ Net Refuse Fund Midyear Adjustments (1,003,740) (491,832) RESERVE IMPACT ‐ REFUSE FUND RSR 511,908 Storm Drainage Fund Operating Budget PWD 50070320 30010 Salary & Benefits Decrease 0.05 FTE Admin Associate II (1,238) PWD 50070320 30010 Salary & Benefits Decrease 0.05 FTE Management Analyst (1,725) PWD 50070320 30010 Salary & Benefits Increase 0.05 FTE Asst. Dir. Public Works 2,883 PWD Various 3037X Salary & Benefits Increase in retiree medical OPEB cost 65,000 Total Operating Budget 64,920 ‐ Capital Budget PWD 50070201 38790 Project Expense Close CIP SD‐08101 Alma Street Storm Drain Improvements, return balance to reserve (55,117) Total Capital Budget (55,117) ‐ Net Storm Drainage Fund Midyear Adjustments 9,803 ‐ RESERVE IMPACT ‐ STORM DRAINAGE RSR (9,803) Wastewater Treatment Fund Operating Budget PWD Various 3037X Salary & Benefits Increase in retiree medical OPEB cost 278,000 Total Operating Budget 278,000 ‐ Net Wastewater Treatment Fund Midyear Adjustments 278,000 ‐ RESERVE IMPACT ‐ STORM DRAINAGE RSR (278,000) Airport Fund PWD 53000000 30010 Salary & Benefits City staff oversight 1,433 PWD 53000000 31010 Contract Services Contract for legal services 25,000 PWD 53000000 31990 Contract Services Contracts for groundwater sampling and monitoring 151,001 Net Airport Fund Midyear Adjustments 177,434 ‐ RESERVE IMPACT ‐ AIRPORT FUND (177,434) Utilities Administration Admin 20000002 19100 Charges to Other Funds Increase in Utilities administration reimbursement from Utilities Funds 75,000 Admin 20010001 31990 Contract Services Increase for Utilities Organizational Assessment 75,000 Admin Various 3037X Salary & Benefits Decrease in retiree medical OPEB cost (4,000) (4,000) Net Utilities Administration Fund Midyear Adjustments 71,000 71,000 RESERVE IMPACT ‐ Page 17 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 Internal Service Funds Midyear Detail Changes Fiscal Year 2012 Dept. Cost Center Comm Item Category Description Expense Revenue Technology Fund Operating Budget IT 30010003 30010 Salary & Benefits CIO salary, decrease in 0.32 ASD FTE, add 1.0 FTE Information Technology Security Manager, move 0.5 FTE from CMO 185,425 IT 30040003 31230 Contract Services Additional Licenses for Utilities 123,050 IT 30040003 31230 Contract Services Non‐emergency notification system 10,000 IT 30040002 31230 Contract Services City's internet/intranet design 80,000 IT 30040003 31230 Contract Services Questica purchase 85,000 IT 30040003 31230 Contract Services Employee Selection ‐ Neoga 10,000 IT 30030003 31290 Contract Services Computer room UPS 2,400 IT 30050002 31290 Contract Services Panaya ‐ Automates the applying of SAP service packs. 65,000 IT 30040003 31290 Contract Services Internet connectivity 21,335 IT 30040003 31290 Contract Services Utility Blackboard Software License 55,000 IT 30030003 31290 Contract Services SAP Backend 13,000 IT 30040003 31290 Contract Services Minute Traq software maintenance 11,040 IT 30040003 31290 Contract Services Move Geodessy TE‐02015 maint. from CIP 45,000 IT 30010003 31990 Contract services Recruitment costs 25,000 IT 30010002 33060 General Expense Subscription professional services 7,600 IT 30030002 35040 Facilities & Equipment Universal Power Supply repair 32,760 IT 30030002 35040 Facilities & Equipment Increase wireless connectivity at City locations 81,000 IT Various 3037X Salary & Benefits Increase in retiree medical OPEB cost (13,000) IT 30050002 40xxx Transfer Out CAL‐Card maintenance support, transferred to ASD budget (24,900) Total Operating Budget 814,710 ‐ Capital Budget IT 30060002 38790 Project Expense Close CIP TE‐00021 New Phone System, transfer to CIP TE‐00010 Telephone System Replacement (174,285) IT 30060002 38790 Project Expense Increase CIP TE‐00010 to include transfer from TE‐ 00021 174,285 IT 30060002 38790 Project Expense Close CIP TE‐01006 Enterprise Backup Solutions, transfer the amount to CIP TE‐01012 IT Disaster Recovery (68,626) IT 30060002 38790 Project Expense Increase CIP TE‐01012 to include transfer from TE‐ 01006 68,626 IT 30060003 38790 Project Expense Close CIP TE‐8000 Library Technology Plan, return balance to reserves (18,766) IT 30060003 38790 Project Expense Close CIP TE‐08002 Electronic Patient Care Report and return balance to reserves (35,055) Total Capital Budget (53,821) ‐ Net Technology Fund Midyear Adjustments 760,889 ‐ RESERVE IMPACT (760,889) Vehicle Replacement Fund Operating Budget PWD 50471003 30010 Salary & Benefits Reallocate 0.50 FTE to Vehicle Replacement from other funds 23,037 PWD 50080303 31250 Contract Services Repairs of hoist, generators, equipment. CARB permit renewals, tire work, accident repairs.100,000 PWD 50080301 32060 Supplies & Materials Asset Works Fleet Training.10,000 PWD 50080302 34050 Rents & Leases Rental expenses due to increasing repairs 25,000 Page 18 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 Internal Service Funds Midyear Detail Changes Fiscal Year 2012 PWD 50080310 39620 Allocated Charges Compressed natural gas sales decreased due to fleet reduction.(80,532) PWD Various 3037X Salary & Benefits Increase in retiree medical OPEB cost 18,000 Total Operating Budget 95,505 ‐ Capital Budget PWD 50080401 38790 Project Expense Establish CIP VR‐12001 Replacement of In‐Ground Vehicle Lifts at Municipal Services Center 50,000 PWD 50080402 38790 Project Expense Increase VR‐07002 Diesel Truck Engine Emissions Retrofit for vehicle #4410‐leaf packer truck used in street sweeping.50,000 PWD 50080402 38790 Project Expense Increase VR‐11000 Vehicle Replacements for the replacement of vehicle #8790‐Utilities rodding truck.175,000 Total Capital Budget 275,000 ‐ Net Vehicle Replacement Fund Midyear Adjustments 370,505 ‐ RESERVE IMPACT (370,505) Printing & Mailing Fund Operating Budget ASD Various Various Salary & Benefits Decrease in retiree medical OPEB cost (28,000) Net Printing & Mailing Fund Midyear Adjustments (28,000) ‐ RESERVE IMPACT 28,000 General Benefits Fund Operating Budget NON 68700000 Various Salary & Benefits Net benefits savings from IAFF concessions (143,000) (143,000) Net General Benefits Fund Midyear Adjustments (143,000) (143,000) RESERVE IMPACT ‐ Retiree Medical Fund Operating Budget NON 69400000 Various Salary & Benefits Increase in retiree medical OPEB cost 3,176,000 3,176,000 Net Retiree Medical Fund Midyear Adjustments 3,176,000 3,176,000 RESERVE IMPACT ‐ Page 19 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 Special Revenue Funds Midyear Detail Changes FY 2012 Dept.Cost Center Comm Item Category Description Expense Revenue Law Enforcement Services Fund POL 70248003 15370 From Other Agencies COPS grant 104,944 POL 70248003 35070 Facilities & Equipment COPS funded grant materials (104,944) Net Midyear Adjustments (104,944) 104,944 NET LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES MIDYEAR ADJUSTMENT - University Avenue Parking Permit Revenue Fund NON 23600000 40xxx Operating Transfer Out Downtown Streets Team, increased cleaning 133,168 NON 23600000 40xxx Operating Transfer Out Downtown Streets Team charged to CSD, reimbursed by Downtown Parking Permit Fund 20,000 Net Midyear Adjustments 153,168 - NET UNIVERSITY AVENUE PARKING PERMITS MIDYEAR ADJUSTMENT 153,168 Housing in-lieu Residential Fund PCE 602330002 33460 General Expense Transfer In from Housing in-lieu Commercial to cover housing loans 600,000 600,000 Net Midyear Adjustments 600,000 600,000 NET HOUSING IN-LIEU RESIDENTIAL MIDYEAR ADJUSTMENT - Housing in-lieu Commercial Fund NON 23400000 40xxx Transfer Out Transfer funds to residential housing in-lieu to cover housing loans 600,000 Net Midyear Adjustments 600,000 - NET HOUSING IN-LIEU COMMERCIAL MIDYEAR ADJUSTMENT - Stanford Department Agreement Fund NON 80260010 18110 Other Revenue Community Health & Safety 4,000,000 NON 26000000 18110 Other Revenue Operating Deficit 2,417,000 NON 60260010 18110 Other Revenue Intermodel Transit 2,250,000 NON 60260020 18110 Other Revenue Quarry Road Improvements 400,000 NON 60260030 18110 Other Revenue Neighborhoods & Communities & Affordable Housing 7,733,333 NON 60260040 18110 Other Revenue Climate Change 4,000,000 NON 26000000 18110 Return on Investment Interest income 459,984 NON 80260010 30030 Salary & Benefits Project Safety Net coordinator 45,000 NON 80260010 32070 General Expense Supplies associated with Project Safety Net 20,000 Net Midyear Adjustments 65,000 21,260,317 NET STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER MIDYEAR ADJUSTMENT 21,195,317 Page 20 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 General Fund CIP Detail Midyear Changes Fiscal Year 2012 Dept.Cost Center Comm Item Category Description Expense Revenue General Fund Capital Improvement Fund ASD 404710002 38790 Project Expense Reduce CIP AS-10001 Sustainability, return to Infrastructure Reserve (300,000) PCE 60471005 38790 Project Expense Close CIP PL-06002 Comprehensive Parking Signage Plan and return balance to reserves. This project was replaced with PL-12000 Transportation and Parking Improvements.(423,687) PCE 60471006 38790 Project Expense Close CIP PL-11004 Alma Street- Traffic Improvement, return balance to reserves. This was part of a partnership project with Caltrain to provide improvements along the rail corridor. Caltrain will use grant-funds initially set aside for this project to implement preemption improvements instead of intersection improvements. Therefore, project should be closed.(699,000) PCE 60471001 38790 Project Expense Close CIP PL-98013 School Commute Safety Improvements and return balance to reserves. This project was replaced with PL-00026 Safe Routes to School.(102,488) PWD 50471011 18020 Contract Services CIP PE-86070 Street Maint. Program for structural engineering to investigate guardrail damage. Costs reimbursed by motorist's insurance.10,000 10,000 PWD 50471010 31040 Contract Services NEW Alma Street/University Avenue Bridge Guardrail Repair - PE-12009 Repair of guardrail due to vehicular accident Alma & University 110,000 110,000 PWD 50471003 30010 Salary & Benefits Reallocate 0.05 FTE from Capital to various PW Funds. Nets to an budget increase due to level of job classification 446 Various Various 3037X Salary & Benefits Increase in OPEB retiree medical ARC 54,000 (1,350,729) 120,000 NET CIP MIDYEAR ADJUSTMENTS 1,470,729 SUBTOTAL - EXPENSE AND REVENUE Page 21 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 2 Project Funding Title Number Revenue Expense Source Comments ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS Street Maintenance PE-86070 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Property damage revenue For structural engineering consultant services to investigate the extent of the damage to the guardrail on the University Ave. overpass at Alma that was damaged by intoxicated driver. Costs to be reimbursed by driver's insurance. Alma Street/University Avenue Bridge Guardrail Repair (New Project) ( Exhibit B-1) PE-12009 $ 110,000 $ 110,000 Property damage revenue To repair the guardrail on the University Ave. overpass at Alma that was damaged by intoxicated driver. Costs to be reimbursed by driver's insurance. Total $ 110,000 $ 110,000 REDUCTION IN APPROPRIATIONS/TO CLOSE PROJECTS Alma Street- Traffic Signal Improvements PL-11004 $ (699,000) Infrastructure Reserve To close project and return balance to reserve School Commute Safety Improvements PL-98013 $ (102,488) Infrastructure Reserve To close project and return balance to reserve Comprehensive Parking Signage Plan PL-06002 $ (423,687) Infrastructure Reserve To close project and return balance to reserve Sustainability Contingency AS-10001 $ (300,000) Infrastructure Reserve To reduce appropriation due to lower expected activity Total $ (1,525,175) TOTAL GENERAL FUND CIP MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS $ 110,000 $ (1,415,175) ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS Hewlett Subdivision Rebuild Los Trancos EL-11004 $ 400,000 Electric Fund RSR The final design to rebuild the electric system in the Hewlett Subdivision (in the western foothills) came in at a higher cost. A large part of the cost will be turning it into a loop configuration, requiring a several hundred foot bore, plus utility switches. Total $ - $ 400,000 REDUCTION IN APPROPRIATIONS/TO CLOSE PROJECTS Electric Customer Connections EL-89028 $ (1,000,000) Electric Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates E. Meadow/Alma/Loma 4/12kV Conversion EL-08002 $ (414,014) Electric Fund Distribution RSR To close project and return balance to reserve Rebuild Underground District 19 EL-11008 $ (400,000) Electric Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to reduction in project scope Substation Protection Improvements EL-89038 $ (300,000) Electric Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Automated Meter Reading System EL-04014 $ (255,194) Electric Fund Distribution RSR To close project and return balance to reserve Communications System Improvements EL-89031 $ (200,000) Electric Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Substation Facility Improvements EL-89044 $ (200,000) Electric Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates St. Francis Oregon 4/12kV Conversion EL-11002 $ (50,000) Electric Fund Distribution RSR Project has been deferred out six years due to other high priority projects Seale/Waverley 4/12kV Conversion EL-11000 $ (40,000) Electric Fund Distribution RSR Project has been deferred out six years due to other high priority projects Total $ - $ (2,859,208) FY 2012 CIP Mid-Year Adjustments CAPITAL PROJECT FUND ELECTRIC FUND Page 1 of 3 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 2 Project Funding Title Number Revenue Expense Source Comments FY 2012 CIP Mid-Year Adjustments TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND CIP MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS $ - $ (2,459,208) REDUCTION IN APPROPRIATIONS/TO CLOSE PROJECTS System Extensions- Unreimbursed GS-03009 $ (480,000) Gas Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Gas Main Replacement - Project 15 GS-05002 $ (111,216) Gas Fund Distribution RSR To close project and return balance to reserve Gas Main Replacement - Project 16 GS-06001 $ (49,716) Gas Fund Distribution RSR To close project and return balance to reserve Gas System Improvements GS-11002 $ (100,000) Gas Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Gas System Extensions GS-80017 $ (935,000) Gas Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Gas Meters and Regulators GS-80019 $ (142,159) Gas Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates TOTAL GAS FUND CIP MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS -$ (1,818,091)$ REDUCTION IN APPROPRIATIONS/TO CLOSE PROJECTS Water Regulation System Improvements WS-07000 $ (600,000) Water Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Emergency Water Supply Project WS-08002 $ (3,200,000) Utility Revenue Bonds Decrease due to revised estimates Water Distribution System Improvements WS-11003 $ (130,000) Water Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Water Supply System Improvements WS-11004 $ (125,000) Water Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Water System Extensions WS-80013 $ (300,000) Water Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Water Service Hydrant Replacement WS-80014 $ (500,000) Water Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Water Meters WS-80015 $ (640,000) Water Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates TOTAL WATER FUND CIP MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS (5,495,000)$ REDUCTION IN APPROPRIATIONS/TO CLOSE PROJECTS Wastewater Collection System Rehab/Aug. Project 15 WC-02002 $ (55,760) Wastewater Collection Fund RSR To close project and return balance to reserve Wastewater Collection System Rehab/Aug. Project 17 WC-04002 $ (150,000) Wastewater Collection Fund RSR To close project and return balance to reserve Wastewater Collection System Rehab/Aug. Project 18 WC-05003 $ (173,183) Wastewater Collection Fund RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Wastewater Collection System Rehab/Aug. Project 19 WC-06003 $ (137,637) Wastewater Collection Fund RSR To close project and return balance to reserve Wastewater System Improvements WC-15002 $ (275,000) Wastewater Collection Fund RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Sewer System Extensions WC-80020 $ (625,000) Wastewater Collection Fund RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Sewer Lateral/Manhole Rehab/Replacement WC-99013 $ (435,000) Wastewater Collection Fund RSR Decrease due to revised estimates TOTAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND CIP MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS -$ (1,851,580)$ REDUCTION IN APPROPRIATIONS/TO CLOSE PROJECTS GAS FUND WATER FUND WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND REFUSE FUND Page 2 of 3 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 2 Project Funding Title Number Revenue Expense Source Comments FY 2012 CIP Mid-Year Adjustments Relocation of Landfill Facilities RF-07001 $ (879,473) Storm Drainage Fund RSR To reduce project scope due to permanent closure of Recycling Center Recycling in Business Districts RF-09003 $ (321,843) Storm Drainage Fund RSR To close project and return balance to reserve; receptacles under consideration not preferable TOTAL REFUSE FUND CIP MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS -$ (1,201,316)$ REDUCTION IN APPROPRIATIONS/TO CLOSE PROJECTS Alma Street Storm Drainage Improvement SD-08101 $ (55,117) Storm Drainage Fund RSR To close project and return balance to reserve TOTAL STORM DRAINAGE FUND CIP MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS -$ (55,117)$ ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS Replacement of In-Ground Vehicle Lifts at the Municipal Services Center (New Project) (Exhibit B-2) VR-12001 $ 50,000 Vehicle Replacement Fund Replacement of seven in-ground vehicle lifts at Municipal Services Center Diesel Truck Engine Emissions Retrofit VR-07002 $ 50,000 Vehicle Replacement Fund Retrofit of vehicle #4410- leaf packer truck used in street sweeping; diesel particulate filter required to meet regulations of California Air Resources Board Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacements VR-11000 $ 175,000 Vehicle Replacement Fund Replacement of vehicle #8790- Utilities rodding truck TOTAL VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND CIP MID- YEAR ADJUSTMENTS 275,000$ TRANSFERS/REDUCTION IN APPROPRIATIONS/TO CLOSE PROJECTS New Phone System TE-00021 (174,285)$ Technology Fund and various Enterprise Funds To close project and transfer appropriation to TE- 00010 (Telephone System Replacement) Telephone System Replacement TE-00010 174,285$ Technology Fund and various Enterprise Funds Transfer from TE-00021 (New Phone System) Enterprise Backup Solution TE-01006 (68,626)$ Technology Fund and various Enterprise Funds To close project and transfer appropriation to TE- 01012 (IT Disaster Recovery) IT Disaster Recovery TE-01012 68,626$ Technology Fund and various Enterprise Funds Transfer from TE-01006 (Enterprise Backup Solution) Library Technology Plan TE-08000 (18,766)$ Technology Fund and various Enterprise Funds To close project and return balance to reserves Electronic Patient Care TE-08002 (35,055)$ Technology Fund and various Enterprise Funds To close project and return balance to reserves TOTAL TECHNOLOGY FUND CIP MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS (53,821)$ VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND TECHNOLOGY FUND STORM DRAINAGE FUND Page 3 of 3 4/8/2012 City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012 PO-12001Curb and Gutter Repairs ALMA STREET/UNIVERSITY AVENUE BRIDGE GUARDRAIL REPAIR (PE-12009)- NEW CIP FACTS: • New • Project Status: Design • Timeline: FY 2012 • Managing Department: Public Works • Comprehensive Plan: None • Potential Board/Commission Review: none IMPACT ANALYSIS: • Environmental: Exempt from CEQA under Sec- tion 15302. • Design Elements: The replacment guardrail will match the appearance and functionality of the existing guardrail. • Operating: None Description: This project will repair a portion of the guardrail on the Alma street/University Avenue bridge that was damaged during a vehicular accident at the site in early 2011. The replacement guardrail will match the appearance and functionality of the existing guardrail. Justification: The guardrail must be replaced for public health and safety reasons in order to prevent vehicles from falling off the roadway down a vertical drop-off onto a street and sidewalk area below. Supplemental Information: A structural engineering consultant is currently designing the guardrail repairs to ensure that the replacement guardrail will restore the level of protection provided by the original installation. FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding Pre-Design Costs Design Costs Construction Costs $110,000 $110,000 Other Total Budget Request $110,000 $110,000 Revenues: Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve Exhibit B-1 City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012 VR-15000Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacements EVALUATION AND REPLACEMENT OF IN-GROUND VEHICLE LIFTS AT THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES CENTER (VR-12001)/&8 FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding Pre-Design Costs Design Costs Construction Costs Other $50,000 $350,000 $400,000 Total Budget Request $50,000 $350,000 $400,000 Revenues: Source of Funds:Vehicle Replacement Fund CIP FACTS: • New • Project Status: Other • Timeline: FY 201-201 • Overall Project Completion: 0% • Percent Spent: 0.00% • Managing Department: Public Works • Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-26, Program N-41 • Potential Board/Commission Review: None IMPACT ANALYSIS: • Environmental: This project is categorically exempt from CEQA under section 15301. • Design Elements: None • Operating: This project XJMMHFOFSBUF POHPJOH NBJOUFnance costs. • Telecommunications: None Description: This project will involve the evaluation and possible replacement of seven (7) in-ground vehicle lifts at the Municipal Services Center (MSC) Vehicle Maintenance Facility. Justification: The seven in-ground vehicle lifts at the MSC Vehicle Maintenance Facility are between 25 and 35 years old. Major components such as the lift cylinders and in-ground oil piping are beginning to deteriorate. in addition, the pits in which the lift mechanisms are located are cracking, which is allowing a large amount of groundwater infiltration. The groundwater is being contamination with oil from the leaking hoists which must be processed as hazardous waste. Supplemental Information: This project will be conducted in two phases. In the first phase, staff will contract with a vehicle maintenance facility design firm to evaluate our vehicle lift requirements. The design firm will work with staff to determine if the existing lifts can be overhauled and restored to efficient and environmentally sound operation, or if they should be replaced. If a determination is made that the lifts should be replaced, the design firm will make reommendations regarding appropriate replacements. Vehicle lifting technology has improved greatly since the original hoists were installed. If the lifts were replaced, they could be replaced by electric versions which would pose no potential for environmental contamination. The second phase of this project would involve the demolition of the existing lifts, and the purchase and installation of new lifts. PRIOR YEARS PY Budget $0 PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0 Exhibit B-2 Attachment A, Exhibit 3 FY 2011 Adjusted Budget FY 2012 Adopted Budget FY 2012 Mid‐ Year Budget Change FY 2012 Adjusted Budget GENERAL FUND City Manager Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Administrative Associate I 1.50 0.50 ‐ 0.50 Administrative Associate II ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Administrative Associate III ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Management Analyst (1)0.50 0.50 (0.50) ‐ Assistant City Manager/Chief Operating Officer 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Assistant to City Manager 1.50 1.55 ‐ 1.55 City Manager 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Communications Manager 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Deputy City Manager 0.50 0.50 ‐ 0.50 Executive Assistant to the City Manager 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Manager, Communications ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Manager, Economic Devlpmt & Redevlpmt ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Senior Management Analyst ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total City Manager 9.00 10.05 (0.50) 9.55 Footnote: (1) Reallocate 0.50 FTE Management Analyst from City Manager's Office to Technology Fund Administrative Services Department Accountant 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Accounting Specialist 7.00 7.00 ‐ 7.00 Accounting Specialist ‐ Lead 5.00 5.00 ‐ 5.00 Administrative Assistant (4)0.93 0.93 0.07 1.00 Administrative Associate III ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Assistant Director, Administrative Services (5)0.60 1.50 0.10 1.60 Assistant Storekeeper ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Business Analyst ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Buyer 1.95 1.95 ‐ 1.95 Director, Office of Management and Budget (1)‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Contracts Administrator 1.40 1.40 ‐ 1.40 Deputy Director, Administrative Services 0.80 ‐ ‐ ‐ Director, ASD/Chief Financial Officer (6)0.50 0.50 0.15 0.65 Table of Organization Page 1 of 11 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 3 FY 2011 Adjusted Budget FY 2012 Adopted Budget FY 2012 Mid‐ Year Budget Change FY 2012 Adjusted Budget Table of Organization Graphic Designer 1.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ Manager, Accounting 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Manager, Budget 1.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ Manager, Purchasing/Contract Administrator 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Manager, Real Property 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Payroll Analyst 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Principal Financial Analyst (2)‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Real Property Analyst ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Real Property Agent ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Senior Accountant 3.00 3.00 ‐ 3.00 Senior Business Analyst ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Senior Financial Analyst (3)5.81 4.91 1.00 5.91 Senior Buyer ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Staff Secretary ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Storekeeper ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Storekeeper ‐ Lead 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Warehouse Supervisor 0.50 0.50 ‐ 0.50 Total Administrative Services 37.49 37.69 1.32 39.01 Footnote: (1) Title change from Chief Budget Officer to Director, Office of Management and Budget (2) Title change from Budget Officer to Principal Financial Analyst (3) Add 1.00 FTE Senior Financial Analyst (4) Reallocate 0.07 FTE Administrative Assistant from Information Technology Fund (5) Reallocate 0.10 FTE Assistant Director, Administrative Services from Technology Fund (6) Reallocate 0.15 FTE Director, Administrative Services from Technology Fund Community Services Department Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Administrative Associate I ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Administrative Associate III 0.75 0.75 ‐ 0.75 Administrator Special Events ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Arts and Culture Division Manager 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Assistant Director CSD (1)‐ ‐ 1.00 1.00 Building Serviceperson 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Building Serviceperson ‐ Lead 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Page 2 of 11 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 3 FY 2011 Adjusted Budget FY 2012 Adopted Budget FY 2012 Mid‐ Year Budget Change FY 2012 Adjusted Budget Table of Organization Community Services Senior Program Manager 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Community Services Superintendent 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Coordinator, Child Care ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Coordinator, Recreation Programs 4.50 4.00 ‐ 4.00 Cubberley Center and Human Svc Div Mgr ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Director, Community Services 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Division Manager, Golf & Parks ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Division Manager, Recreation & Golf 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Division Manager, Rec and Youth Sciences ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Golf Course Equipment Mechanic ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Golf Course Maintenance Person ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Inspector, Field Services 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Jr. Museum & Zoo Lead Educator 2.25 2.25 ‐ 2.25 Jr. Museum & Zoo Lead Instructor ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Management Assistant 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Manager, Arts (1)2.00 2.00 (1.00) 1.00 Open Space and Parks Division Manager 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Park Maintenance Lead 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Park Maintenance Person 6.00 6.00 ‐ 6.00 Park Ranger 5.00 5.00 ‐ 5.00 Parks and Open Space Assistant ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Parks Crew ‐ Lead 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Producer Arts/Science Programs 12.00 12.00 ‐ 12.00 Program Assistant I 7.50 7.50 ‐ 7.50 Program Assistant II 3.00 3.00 ‐ 3.00 Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Senior Ranger ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Sprinkler System Repairer 4.00 4.00 ‐ 4.00 Superintendent, Parks 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Supervisor, Open Space 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Supervisor, Parks 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Supervisor, Recreation Program 4.00 4.00 ‐ 4.00 Theater Specialist 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Volunteer Coordinator 0.50 0.50 ‐ 0.50 Total Community Services 74.50 74.00 ‐ 74.00 Page 3 of 11 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 3 FY 2011 Adjusted Budget FY 2012 Adopted Budget FY 2012 Mid‐ Year Budget Change FY 2012 Adjusted Budget Table of Organization Footnote: (1) Reclass 1.00 FTE Manager, Arts to Assistant Director CSD Planning and Community Environment Department Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Administrative Associate I 1.00 1.50 ‐ 1.50 Administrative Associate II 3.80 3.80 ‐ 3.80 Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Administrator, Planning & Comm Envir 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Assistant Building Official 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Assistant Director, Planning & Comm Envir ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Assistant Engineer ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Assistant to City Manager 0.05 ‐ ‐ ‐ Associate Engineer 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Building Inspector 4.00 4.00 ‐ 4.00 Building Inspector Specialist 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Building/Planning Technician 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Chief Building Official 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Chief Planning and Transportation Official 1.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ Chief Transportation Officer ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Chief Transportation Official 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 City Traffic Engineer ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Code Enforcement Officer 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Coordinator, Transp Sys Mgmt 0.50 0.50 ‐ 0.50 Deputy City Manager 0.50 0.50 ‐ 0.50 Development Center Manager (1)‐ ‐ 1.00 1.00 Development Center Project Coordinator III (4)‐ ‐ 3.00 3.00 Development Services Director (2)‐ ‐ 1.00 1.00 Director, Planning and Comm Envir 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Engineer 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Engineering Technician II 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Manager, Economic Resources ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Manager, Economic Devlpmt & Redevlpmt 1.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ Manager, Planning 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Managing Arborist ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Permit Specialist ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Planner 5.75 5.75 ‐ 5.75 Page 4 of 11 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 3 FY 2011 Adjusted Budget FY 2012 Adopted Budget FY 2012 Mid‐ Year Budget Change FY 2012 Adjusted Budget Table of Organization Plan Checking Engineer 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Plans Examiner (3)‐ ‐ 1.00 1.00 Planning Arborist 1.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ Project Engineer 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Senior Planner 5.00 5.00 ‐ 5.00 Supervisor, Building Inspection 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Transportation Manager ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Transportation Project Manager ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Planning and Community Environment 44.60 43.05 6.00 49.05 Footnote: (1) Add 1.00 FTE Development Center Manager (2) Add 1.00 FTE Development Services Director (3) Add 1.00 FTE Plans Examiner (4) Add 3.00 FTE Development Project Coordinator III Public Works Department Accountant 0.02 0.02 ‐ 0.02 Accounting Specialist 0.04 0.04 ‐ 0.04 Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Administrative Associate I 1.70 0.70 ‐ 0.70 Administrative Associate II (1)1.80 1.80 1.05 2.85 Administrative Associate III ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Assistant Director Public Works (5)1.10 1.10 0.20 1.30 Associate Engineer 0.10 0.10 ‐ 0.10 Building Serviceperson 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Building Serviceperson ‐ Lead 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Coordinator, Public Works Projects ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Deputy Director, Public Works Operations ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Director, Public Works/City Engineer 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Electrician 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Engineer 0.30 0.30 ‐ 0.30 Engineering Technician III 3.30 3.30 ‐ 3.30 Equipment Operator 3.46 3.46 ‐ 3.46 Equipment Parts Technician ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Page 5 of 11 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 3 FY 2011 Adjusted Budget FY 2012 Adopted Budget FY 2012 Mid‐ Year Budget Change FY 2012 Adjusted Budget Table of Organization Facilities Assistant ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Facilities Carpenter 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Facilities Electrician ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Facilities Maintenance ‐ Lead 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Facilities Mechanic 6.00 6.00 ‐ 6.00 Facilities Painter 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Heavy Equipment Operator 1.90 1.90 ‐ 1.90 Heavy Equipment Operator ‐ Lead 0.85 0.85 ‐ 0.85 Inspector, Field Services 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Instrument Electrician ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Management Analyst (2)‐ 0.55 (0.15) 0.40 Manager, Facilities Maintenance 0.80 ‐ ‐ ‐ Manager, Maintenance Operations 0.12 1.72 ‐ 1.72 Managing Arborist 1.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ Planning Arborist ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Project Engineer 0.20 0.20 ‐ 0.20 Project Manager 1.75 0.75 ‐ 0.75 Senior Accountant 0.02 0.02 ‐ 0.02 Senior Engineer (3)0.20 0.20 0.90 1.10 Senior Financial Analyst 0.16 0.16 ‐ 0.16 Senior Management Analyst 0.90 0.90 ‐ 0.90 Senior Project Manager (4)1.00 1.00 (0.90) 0.10 Superintendent, Public Works Operations 0.60 ‐ ‐ ‐ Supervising Project Engineer ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Supervisor, Building Services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Supervisor, Facilities Management 1.95 ‐ ‐ ‐ Supervisor, Inspec/Surveying, Public Works 0.80 0.80 ‐ 0.80 Surveying Assistant 0.78 0.78 ‐ 0.78 Surveyor, Public Works 0.78 0.78 ‐ 0.78 Traffic Control Maintainer ‐ Lead 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Traffic Control Maintenance I 1.94 1.94 ‐ 1.94 Traffic Control Maintenance II 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Tree Maintenance Assistant ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Tree Maintenance Specialist 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Tree Trimmer/Line Clearer 7.00 7.00 ‐ 7.00 Tree Trimmer/Line Clearer Assistant ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Tree Trimmer/Line Clearer ‐ Lead 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Page 6 of 11 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 3 FY 2011 Adjusted Budget FY 2012 Adopted Budget FY 2012 Mid‐ Year Budget Change FY 2012 Adjusted Budget Table of Organization Urban Forester ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Total Public Works 58.57 56.37 1.10 57.47 Footnote: (2) Reallocate 0.15 FTE Management Analyst to Vehicle Replacement Fund (3) Reallocate 0.90 FTE Senior Engineer from Capital Fund (4) Reallocate 0.90 Senior Project Manager to Capital Fund (5) Reallocate 0.20 FTE Assistant Director Public Works from Enterprise Funds ‐ Public Works ENTERPRISE FUNDS Public Works Department Refuse, Storm Drainage and Wastewater Treatment Accountant 0.23 0.23 ‐ 0.23 Accounting Specialist 0.46 0.46 ‐ 0.46 Administrative Associate II (1)3.20 3.20 (1.05) 2.15 Administrator, Refuse 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Assistant Director, Public Works (2), (3)0.75 0.75 (0.45) 0.30 Assistant Director, Environmental Services ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Assistant Plant Manager ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Assistant to City Manager 0.10 0.10 ‐ 0.10 Asst Manager, Water Quality Control Plant 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Associate Engineer 3.30 3.30 ‐ 3.30 Associate Planner 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Business Analyst 1.13 0.13 ‐ 0.13 Buyer 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Chemist 3.00 3.00 ‐ 3.00 Coordinator Environmental Protection ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Coordinator, PW Projects ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Coordinator Recycling ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Coordinator Zero Waste 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal 0.08 0.08 ‐ 0.08 Electrician 3.00 3.00 ‐ 3.00 Electrician ‐ Lead 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 (1) Reallocate 1.05 FTE Administrative Associate II from Enterprise Fund ‐ Public Works ‐ 0.05 FTE from Storm Drainage Fund and 1.0 FTE from Refuse Fund Page 7 of 11 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 3 FY 2011 Adjusted Budget FY 2012 Adopted Budget FY 2012 Mid‐ Year Budget Change FY 2012 Adjusted Budget Table of Organization Engineer 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Engineering Technician I ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Engineering Technician III 1.40 1.40 ‐ 1.40 Environmental Specialist 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Equipment Operator 0.54 0.54 ‐ 0.54 Executive Assistant 2.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ Hazardous Materials Inspector 0.04 0.04 ‐ 0.04 Hazardous Materials Specialist ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Heavy Equipment Operator 5.90 5.90 ‐ 5.90 Heavy Equipment Operator ‐ Lead 3.15 3.15 ‐ 3.15 Industrial Waste Assistant Inspector 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Industrial Waste Inspector 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Industrial Waste Investigator 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Laboratory Tech, Water Quality Control Plant 2.50 2.50 ‐ 2.50 Landfill Technician 1.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ Maintenance Mechanic 7.00 7.00 ‐ 7.00 Management Analyst (4)‐ 1.20 (0.05) 1.15 Manager, Environmental Compliance 1.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ Manager, Environmental Control Program 3.00 3.00 ‐ 3.00 Manager, Laboratory Services 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Manager, Maintenance Operations 1.38 1.38 ‐ 1.38 Manager, Solid Waste 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Manager, Water Quality Control Plant 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Program Assistant I 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Program Assistant II 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Program Analyst ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Project Engineer 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Refuse Disposal Attendant 4.00 4.00 ‐ 4.00 Senior Accountant 0.23 0.23 ‐ 0.23 Senior Chemist 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Senior Engineer 2.75 2.25 ‐ 2.25 Senior Financial Analyst 0.16 0.16 ‐ 0.16 Senior Industrial Waste Inspector ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Senior Management Analyst 0.10 0.10 ‐ 0.10 Senior Mechanic, Water Quality Control 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Senior Operator, Water Quality Control 6.00 6.00 ‐ 6.00 Senior Technologist 0.13 1.13 ‐ 1.13 Page 8 of 11 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 3 FY 2011 Adjusted Budget FY 2012 Adopted Budget FY 2012 Mid‐ Year Budget Change FY 2012 Adjusted Budget Table of Organization Storekeeper 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Street Maintenance Assistant 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Street Sweeper Operator 7.00 7.00 ‐ 7.00 Street Sweeper Operator ‐ Lead ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Superintendent, Public Works Operations 0.20 ‐ ‐ ‐ Supervisor, Public Works 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Supervisor, Water Quality Control Operations 5.00 3.00 ‐ 3.00 Surveying Assistant 0.11 0.11 ‐ 0.11 Surveyor, Public Works 0.11 0.11 ‐ 0.11 Technologist ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Traffic Control Maintenance I 0.06 0.06 ‐ 0.06 Truck Driver ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Water Quality Control Plant Operator I ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Water Quality Control Plant Operator II 16.00 17.00 ‐ 17.00 Water Quality Control Plant Operator Trainee ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Watershed Protection Mgr ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Total Public Works ‐ Enterprise 115.01 114.51 (1.55) 112.96 Footnote: (4) Reallocate 0.05 FTE Management Analyst from Storm Drainage Fund to Vehicle Replacement Fund OTHER FUNDS Vehicle Replacement Fund Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Assistant Director, Public Works (1)‐ ‐ 0.25 0.25 Assistant Fleet Manager 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Equipment Maintenance Service Person 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Fleet Manager 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Fleet Services Coordinator 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Management Analyst (2)‐ ‐ 0.25 0.25 Mobile Service Technician 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 (1) Reallocate 1.05 FTE Administrative Associate II from Storm Drainage Fund (0.05 FTE) and Refuse Fund (1.0 FTE) to the General Fund. (2) Reallocate 0.5 FTE Assistant Director Public Works from Refuse Fund to Vehicle Replacement Fund (0.25) and to the General Fund (0.2 FTE) (3) Reallocate 0.05 FTE Assistant Director Public Works from Refuse Fund to Storm Drainage Fund. Nets with Note (2) above. Page 9 of 11 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 3 FY 2011 Adjusted Budget FY 2012 Adopted Budget FY 2012 Mid‐ Year Budget Change FY 2012 Adjusted Budget Table of Organization Motor Equipment Mechanic I ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Motor Equipment Mechanic II 7.00 7.00 ‐ 7.00 Motor Equipment Mechanic ‐ Lead ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Project Engineer ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Senior Engineer ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Senior Financial Analyst 0.08 0.08 ‐ 0.08 Senior Fleet Services Coordinator 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Total Vehicle Replacement 16.08 16.08 0.50 16.58 Footnote: (1) Reallocate 0.25 FTE Assistant Director Public Works from Enterprise Funds ‐ Public Works Capital Administrative Associate I 0.80 0.80 ‐ 0.80 Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Assistant Director, Public Works 0.15 0.15 0.15 Associate Engineer 0.60 0.60 ‐ 0.60 Cement Finisher 3.00 3.00 ‐ 3.00 Cement Finisher ‐ Lead 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Contracts Administrator 0.60 0.60 ‐ 0.60 Engineer 2.70 2.70 ‐ 2.70 Engineering Technician III 2.30 2.30 ‐ 2.30 Heavy Equipment Operator 0.20 0.20 ‐ 0.20 Management Analyst (1)1.00 1.25 (0.05) 1.20 Manager, Facilities Maintenance 0.20 ‐ ‐ ‐ Manager, Maintenance Operations 0.50 0.90 ‐ 0.90 Landscape Architect Park Planner 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Program Assistant I 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Project Engineer 3.80 3.80 ‐ 3.80 Project Manager 0.50 0.50 ‐ 0.50 Senior Engineer (3)2.05 2.55 (0.90) 1.65 Senior Financial Analyst 0.60 0.60 ‐ 0.60 Senior Project Manager (2)‐ ‐ 0.90 0.90 Superintendent, Public Works Operations 0.20 ‐ ‐ ‐ (2) Reallocate 0.25 FTE Management Analyst from General Fund (0.15 FTE), Storm Drainage Fund (0.05 FTE) and Capital (0.05 FTE) Page 10 of 11 4/8/2012 Attachment A, Exhibit 3 FY 2011 Adjusted Budget FY 2012 Adopted Budget FY 2012 Mid‐ Year Budget Change FY 2012 Adjusted Budget Table of Organization Supervisor, Facilities Management 0.05 ‐ ‐ ‐ Supervisor, Inspection/Surv Public Works 0.20 0.20 ‐ 0.20 Surveying Assistant 0.11 0.11 ‐ 0.11 Surveyor, Public Works 0.11 0.11 ‐ 0.11 Total Capital 23.67 24.37 (0.05) 24.32 Footnote: (1) Reallocate 0.05 FTE Management Analyst to Vehicle Replacement Fund (2) Reallocate 0.9 FTE Senior Project Manager from General Fund (3) Reallocate 0.9 FTE Senior Engineer to General Fund Technology Administrative Assistant (1)0.07 1.07 (0.07) 1.00 Administrative Associate II 1.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ Administrative Associate III 0.04 ‐ ‐ ‐ Assistant Director, Administrative Services (2)0.40 0.40 (0.10) 0.30 Business Analyst 0.90 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Dir of Information Technology/Chief Info Officer 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Desktop Technician 5.00 5.00 ‐ 5.00 Director, Administrative Services (3)0.35 0.35 (0.15) 0.20 Management Analyst (4)‐ 0.50 0.50 1.00 Manager, Information Technology 3.00 3.00 ‐ 3.00 Information Technology Security Manager (5)‐ ‐ 1.00 1.00 Senior Business Analyst 1.80 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Senior Technologist 13.00 13.00 ‐ 13.00 Senior Financial Analyst 0.09 0.09 ‐ 0.09 Technologist 4.00 3.00 ‐ 3.00 Total Technology 30.65 30.41 1.18 31.59 Footnote: (1) Reallocate 0.07 FTE Administrative Assistant from Information Technology Fund to General Fund‐ASD (2) Reallocate 0.10 FTE Assistant Director, Administrative Services from Technology Fund to General Fund‐ASD (3) Reallocate 0.15 FTE Director, Administrative Services from Technology Fund to General Fund‐ASD (4) Reallocate 0.5 FTE Management Analyst from General Fund‐City Manager's Office (5) Add 1.0 FTE Security Manager Page 11 of 11 4/8/2012 Attachment B ** NOT YET APPROVED ** 1 Resolution No. ______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the 2010-2011 Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Adopted by Resolution No. 9156 to Change the Titles of Four Positions and to Add One New Position The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the 2010-2011 Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel, adopted by Resolution No. 9156, is hereby amended to change the titles of four positions and add one new position, as set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, effective with the pay period including February 28, 2012. SECTION 2. The Director of Administrative Services is authorized to implement the amended Compensation Plan as set forth in Section 1. SECTION 3. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ______________________________ Sr. Deputy City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services ____________________________ Director of Human Resources Attachment B ** NOT YET APPROVED ** 2 EXHIBIT A Management/Professional Compensation Plan Changes – Effective February 28, 2012 Job Code Classification Title Grade Code Control Point Approx. Annual Hourly 49 Director, Office of Management and Budget (title and compensation change from Chief Budget Officer) TBD 12,624 151,488 72.83 2003 Principal Financial Analyst (title change from Budget Officer) 35 8,989 107,869 51.86 126 Assistant Director, Community Services (title change from Arts & Culture Division Manager) TBD 12,112 145,350 69.88 107 Assistant City Manager / Chief Operating Officer (title change from Assistant City Manager / Chief Operations Officer) 14 16,619 199,430 95.88 TBD Information Technology Security Manager (new position) TBD 10,348 124,176 59.70 City of Palo Alto (ID # 2371) Finance Committee Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 2/28/2012 February 28, 2012 Page 1 of 37 (ID # 2371) Summary Title: FY 2012 Midyer BAO Title: Finance Committee Recommendation Regarding Adoption of Budget Amendment Ordinance Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2012 to Adjust Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures in Accordance with the Recommendations in the Midyear Report From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation Staff recommends the Finance Committee recommend to the City Council adoption of: 1)Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) (Attachment 1) which includes: a)Proposed midyear adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget for the General Fund, Enterprise Funds, Special Revenue Funds, Internal Service Funds, and Capital Improvement Projects Fund (Exhibit A) b)Fiscal Year 2012 Midyear CIP Adjustments (Exhibit B) c)Amendments to the Fiscal Year 2012 Table of Organization (Exhibit C) d)Establishment of Special Revenue Fund for Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement payments 2)Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the 2010-2011 Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Adopted by Resolution No. 9156 to Change the Titles of Four Positions and Add One New Position (Attachment 6) The following are attached as informational items; no action is required on these items: 1)General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project Expenditures for Fiscal February 28, 2012 Page 2 of 37 (ID # 2371) Years 2008-2012 (Attachment 2) 2)Fiscal Year 2012 Midyear Capital Improvement Program Projects Status report (Attachment 3) 3)Continuous Capital Projects Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 (Attachment 4) 4)Graph depicting General Fund Transfers to Infrastructure Reserve for Fiscal Years 2008-2017 (Attachment 5) 5)Police and Fire Departments Overtime Analysis for Fiscal Years 2007 - 2011 with Fiscal Year 2012 Data through January 12, 2012 (Attachment 7) Executive Summary The documents attached summarize and outline changes to the City’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget. As revenues and expenditures may vary from the original budget plan, changes become necessary. These require amendments to department budgets which Council must review and deny or approve. Midyear adjustments result in a $2.9 million drawdown from the Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR). It reflects midyear revenue increase of $1.7 million and a $4.8 million increase in expenses. Subsequent to the FY 2012 budget adoption, Council has approved BAOs totaling $1.4 million from the BSR. The BSR balance after proposed midyear adjustments will be $27.1 million, or 18.54 percent of adopted expenditures. This falls within the City’s General Fund Reserve Policy of a minimum of 15 percent and maximum of 20 percent of General Fund operating expenditures. Background This report summarizes changes to the Fiscal Year 2012 Adopted Budget resulting from financial activity through December 31, 2011. Where possible, budget changes are held until the midyear report is presented to Council in an effort to consolidate information and streamline the BAO process. This report is organized by fund with a primary focus on major changes in the General Fund. Financial results and midyear changes for the Enterprise, Internal Service, and Special Revenue Funds are also included in this report. Adjustments, as well as all fund summaries, are included in Attachment 1, Exhibit A. The Midyear CIP Program Project Status report (Attachment 3) provides the Finance Committee with information on the status of the City’s CIP projects as of December 31, 2011. February 28, 2012 Page 3 of 37 (ID # 2371) Discussion Retiree Health Benefits In January 2012, staff presented to Council an updated retiree medical actuarial study with valuation dates as of January 1 and June 30, 2011 (CMR #2432). The actuarial study results are required by Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement no. 45, Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Post-Employment Benefits Other Than Pensions. The updated study results, presented to City Council in January 2012, increases the City’s retiree medical actuarial required contribution (ARC) to $13.4 million, a 39 percent increase between the 2009 and 2011 actuarial studies. Included in the revised ARC is an assumed savings of $0.1 million resulting from recent concessions with the International Fire Fighters Association (IAFF). Details for the cost increase and actuarial assumptions can be found in CMR’s #2432, #2345, and #2180. Citywide, $10.2 million is budgeted in FY 2012 towards the City’s ARC. As a result of the 2011 study, the midyear budget impact is $3.2 million. The General Fund budget impact is $2.3 million, or a 32 percent increase. The following chart depicts the ARC increase by fund type. General Fund February 28, 2012 Page 4 of 37 (ID # 2371) Midyear Financial Report The second quarter shows positive revenue results for the General Fund. The discussion under General Fund Revenue provides detail of the $1.7 million of revenue improvements; a 3.8 percent combined increase in Sales, Property, Transient Occupancy, and Documentary Transfer Taxes. Table 1 summarizes major revenue and expenditure adjustments in the General Fund. Detail for these changes can be found in Attachment 1, Exhibit A. Table 1: Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Midyear Adjustments Proposed Midyear Adjustments Revenue Increases $1,731 Department Expense Requests $441 Replenish Contingency Account 150 Council Directed or Obligated Expense San Francisquito Flood Control Study $25 Development Center - 2nd floor rent 125 Retiree Medical ARC 2,330 2,480 Public Safety Concessions Included in Adopted Budget 3,413 Negotiated Concessions (IAFF)(1,042) Concessions Not Achieved 2,371 Reduce loan to Refuse Fund (625) 4,817 Midyear Gap (3,085) Adopted Budget Surplus 144 Proposed Midyear BSR Draw ($2,941) The General Fund closed FY 2011 with a BSR balance of $31.4 million or 21.4% of FY 2012 Adopted Budget expenditures (CMR #2285). At midyear, a $1.7 million revenue improvement is expected, which is offset by a $4.8 million expense increase. As listed in Table 1, the expense increase includes $0.4 million in department requests, $0.2 million to replenish contingent accounts, $2.5 million in Council directed or obligated expense, $2.3 million to bridge the budget offset February 28, 2012 Page 5 of 37 (ID # 2371) included in the adopted budget related to unrealized Public Safety concessions, and a $0.6 million reduction in the loan to the Refuse Fund. Staff proposes a $2.9 million BSR draw to close the midyear deficit. The main drivers of the midyear deficit are the $2.3 million increase in retiree medical ARC and concessions not achieved from the City’s Public Safety labor groups, totaling $2.4 million. The FY 2012 Adopted Budget included an offset totaling $3.4 million for Public Safety Concessions to be achieved in Fall 2011. Staff successfully negotiated $1.04 million in concessions from the International Fire Fighters’ Association (IAFF) (CMR #2191) and has provided the Finance Committee with an update of the FY 2012 budget in Fall 2011 (CMR #2104). As of midyear, the remaining balance of Public Safety concessions is $2.4 million and it is highly unlikely that the Police Officers Association concessions will be achieved by this fiscal year end. The net impact of the proposed midyear changes, including staff’s proposed BSR draw, results in a projected year-end BSR balance of $27.1 million, or 18.54 percent of the FY 2012 Adopted Budget. The graphic below illustrates the midyear impact of budget increases proposed at midyear. Had staff achieved the full Public Safety Concessions of $3.4 million and was not obligated to fund an additional $2.3 million of OPEB retiree medical ARC, the General Fund would not need to draw from the BSR at midyear. Instead, there February 28, 2012 Page 6 of 37 (ID # 2371) would be a midyear contribution of $1.8 million to the BSR, resulting in a $31.7 million BSR balance, or 21.7 percent of the FY 2012 Adopted Budget. General Fund Revenue Sales Tax FY 2012 sales tax revenue is estimated at $21.6 million, an increase of $1.4 million above the Adopted FY 2012 budget. The increase is due to stronger sales tax performance in the third calendar year quarter and indications of strong retail sales in the fourth quarter. Projected target is in line with Sales Tax Consultant’s estimate. Property Tax FY 2012 property tax revenue is projected at $25.9 million, $63 thousand below the Adopted FY 2012 budget, and represents a $0.3 million or 1.2 percent increase over FY 2011 actual receipts. Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) is using a 2% growth assumption for the next five years. The City uses the Santa Clara of County’s forecast which takes into consideration property tax billings, assessment appeals resolution, and reassessments due to ownership change and/or new construction. The FY 2012 midyear decline is attributed to the Santa Clara of County increasing the property tax collection administrative fee by approximately 20 percent from the prior year due to costs associated with a new Tax Collection and Apportionment system. Property tax revenue changes tend to lag behind those in more economically sensitive revenue sources such as sales and TOT. The full impact of recent rise in median home-sales in Palo Alto will be reflected in the FY 2013 property tax revenues. Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) The FY 2012 TOT revenues are projected to reach $8.7 million, an increase of $0.47 million from the Adopted FY 2012 budget and $0.59 million above FY 2011 revenues. With strong receipts from existing establishments, the TOT rebounded in FY 2011 after two years of declines, with a 17.8 percent increase over the prior year’s actual receipts. The first six months of FY 2012 receipts were 22.7 percent higher than the prior year for the same period. Utility Users’ Tax (UUT) UUT revenues are expected to be $10.7 million, $0.18 million or 1.7 percent below Adopted FY 2012 budget. Utility-generated UUT revenues are 1.4 percent higher than those in FY 2011, while telephone-generated revenues are expected February 28, 2012 Page 7 of 37 (ID # 2371) to be 9.5 percent lower. The decline in land lines as well as changes in the billing practices of the providers is the main driver for the drop in telephone-generated UUT revenue. Since Federal law prohibits cities from imposing UUT on internet service and carriers typically bundle service plans, it makes it difficult to segregate taxable and non-taxable services. In addition, the popularity of data plans and the introduction of 4G service have resulted in a shift of billing plans. This results in lower UUT tax on cell phone service. Documentary Transfer Tax FY 2012 revenues are projected at $4.8 million, $0.5 million or 11.7 percent above Adopted FY 2012 budget and $0.4 million or 7.7 percent below FY 2011 revenues. This revenue source is challenging to forecast accurately, since it is highly dependent on sales volume and the mix of commercial and residential property sales. For example, in FY 2011, 17 large transactions, or 1.9 percent of all transactions, accounted for two-thirds of the $1.5 million growth. The FY 2012 forecast is based on recent revenue trends and the real estate market outlook. Motor Vehicle Tax, Penalties, and Fines Vehicle-in-Lieu Fee (VLF) is projected to be $0.2 million lower than the adopted budget. As part of FY 2012 state budget adoption, Senate Bill 89 eliminated the allocation of VLF to cities and counties. According to the League of California Cities, we should expect zero VLF revenue in subsequent years unless there is a change in the law. The elimination of VLF revenue results in a 7.5 percent decrease in Other Taxes and Fines. Charges for Services Total proposed midyear changes in this category total a net revenue decrease of $0.2 million. Prior to midyear, revenue in this category was increased $0.9 million as part of the Development Center Blue Print Process (CMR #2364). This revenue improvement was offset with additional costs in the Center Development. The midyear report includes another $0.1 million increases in activity at the Center Development. February 28, 2012 Page 8 of 37 (ID # 2371) Midyear changes also include a net $99 thousand revenue decrease in the Community Services Department due to: $30 thousand increase in ticket sales revenue $15 thousand increase due to increased class registrations $75 thousand decrease in golf green fee revenue $69 thousand decrease in special event revenue. In previous years, funding was collected from Children’s Theatre members for special events and travel. The department section below notes loss of this revenue results in a budget reduction in the department. The City is reimbursed for Fire Services provided to Stanford University. Although the Public Safety Departments (Police and Fire) will be recovering $0.2 million in FY 2011 year end charges from Stanford, the City expects a $0.3 million decline in revenue from Stanford due to salary and benefits from International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) concessions (CMR #2191). The net change to Charges for Services resulting from the Stanford Fire contract is a $0.1 million decrease. Finally, staff projects an additional $0.1 million in paramedic service fees to align this year’s budget with historical trends over the previous three fiscal years. Permits and Licenses The year-to-date revenue increase in this category is $0.7 million, of which an $80 thousand increase is proposed in the midyear budget. As noted in the Development Center Blue Print Process staff report (CMR #2364), a robust level of development activity has resulted in increased Permits and Licenses revenue. Due to this increased activity, the budget for Permit and License revenue was increased $0.6 million in December as part of the implementation of the Development Center Blueprint Process. In line with increased development activity, staff recommends a midyear revenue increase of $50 thousand in street cut fees. In addition, the Fire Department anticipates a $30 thousand revenue improvement for Hazardous Materials permits. Return on Investment As higher yielding maturing investments continue to be reinvested in a historically low interest rate environment, interest income levels are expected to continue the declining trend of the past three years. General Fund FY 2012 interest income February 28, 2012 Page 9 of 37 (ID # 2371) is projected to be $1.0 million, a decline of $0.34 million below the Adopted FY 2012 budget. From Other Agencies Staff proposes a $19 thousand revenue increase at midyear. Community Services received $7 thousand in donations from the Arts Council to support exhibits and the Library Department received $12 thousand in various grants and donations. Other Revenue The City has received various donations to support General Fund programs, resulting in a midyear increase of $0.2 million. The corresponding budget augmentations are listed in the department sections below: Community Services Department o $30 thousand from the Palo Alto Arts Center Foundation to support operations of the Center Art o $8 thousand from the Palo Alto Arts Council to support hourly staff o $2 thousand in various donations to support community concerts o $80 thousand from the Friends of the Children’s Theater to support the Children’s Theatre o $10 thousand from the School District Unified Palo Alto to support the Dance in Schools program Fire Department o $8 thousand reimbursement from the City of San Mateo for participation in student Academy Fire Joint. The department is requesting a budget augmentation as noted in the department section below. Police Department o $44 thousand reimbursement for participation in the Urban Shield exercise o $11 thousand reimbursement for hosting the Communications Until Leader training program Prior to midyear, the City received a donation from the Palo Alto Library Foundation. A BAO was approved by Council in December 2011 (CMR #2258). The donation was for $0.5 million and was used to purchase and process books, DVDs and other library collection materials for the new Mitchell Park Library. Operating Transfers In The General Fund will receive reimbursements from the following funds for February 28, 2012 Page 10 of 37 (ID # 2371) providing certain services: Technology Fund: $25 thousand to the Administrative Services Department for CalCard maintenance and support University Avenue Parking District: $20 thousand to the Community Service Department for work with the Downtown Streets Team General Fund Expense Overtime Analysis Administrative Services has used 74 percent of its annual overtime budget, compared to 33 percent the same time prior year. Overtime usage was driven by the Accounting and Revenue Collections Divisions, primarily as a result of covering for staff vacancies, vacations, and extra staff hours needed for the annual external audit process. Second, the FLSA designation of the Accountant job classification has moved from exempt to non-exempt, therefore earning overtime pay. The department will review its overtime budget and assess during the next budget process. The Fire Department has used 90 percent of its annual overtime budget, compared to 113 percent the same time prior year. Currently, there are 28 shift personnel positions that require backfill ($0.83 million) due to 20 vacancies in the Fire Department, seven additional employees working temporary assignments and one employee on disability. As a result of recent negotiations with IAFF, the department is submitting a proposal to the Policy and Services Committee in February 28, 2012 Page 11 of 37 (ID # 2371) March to make operational changes that will result in an estimated savings of $1.8 million in overtime. It is expected that these cost saving changes will take effect in FY 2013. Part of the proposal is to staff Medic 2 with staff that is not on overtime and to brown out Engine 2. In addition, the Fire Department has recently hired seven new employees that will alleviate some of the overtime created by vacancies. Additional overtime factors include Medic 1 staffing ($0.11 million), vacation leave ($0.16 million), and sick leave ($0.08 million). Stanford Football Standby created 210 hours of overtime, resulting in approximately $15 thousand in overtime costs. This expense is reimbursed through the Stanford Fire agreement at a rate of 30.3 percent and reported as department revenue. The Police Department has used 87 percent of its annual overtime budget, compared to 75 percent the same time prior year. The main factors contributing to overtime were staffing shortages due to disability leave, vacancies in patrol and the 9-1-1 dispatch center, and providing traffic control at numerous special events (Stanford football and soccer games, Echelon Bike Challenge). The Department has filled the vacancies in the dispatch center in mid-December. The Department receives partial reimbursement from Stanford (16 percent) and the Utilities Department (approximately 8.2 percent) for dispatch services, and from neighboring cities for animal control and care services. Traffic control services at Stanford football games and other events are partially offset by reimbursements from the University and other organizations. Last quarter, under reimbursable Federal grants from Homeland Security, the Department participated in Urban Shield ’11, an exercise to assess law enforcement’s ability to effectively manage large-scale natural and man-made incidents. The Public Works Department has used 81 percent of its annual overtime budget, compared to 83 percent the same time the prior year. Overtime decreased from last year due to a legal determination in the spring removing some employees from Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) non-exempt status, department reorganization, and the filling of vacant positions. Overtime this fiscal year has primarily been in the Facilities and Trees work groups during summer months. Factors affecting overtime costs were: retirements; facilities and tree projects inaccessible during normal business hours; vacant facilities positions; emergency tree removal; and, increased projects in the summer, like Pardee Park Eucalyptus February 28, 2012 Page 12 of 37 (ID # 2371) tree removal and Greer Park plantings, scheduled on weekends to include community participation. Contingency Accounts The City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney Offices have contingency accounts. A non-departmental Innovation Contingency was created in Fiscal Year 2012. The changes and balances in those accounts are discussed below. City Council Contingency The midyear report includes a replenishment of $0.13 million to this account related to expenses for legislative advocacy services for the High Speed Rail. Council approved a staff report (CMR #2395) in December, 2011 to fund the contract with the Council Contingency Fund to be replenished at midyear. In addition, an amount of $2,460 will be charged to the Council Contingency budget to reimburse the costs of the iPads purchased for Council members. The summary of changes to the Council Contingency account is shown below: February 28, 2012 Page 13 of 37 (ID # 2371) Table 2: City Council Contingency Account Date Description Amount 7/1/2011 City Council's Contingency Beg. Balance $250,000 7/1/2011 Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) Admin funds, as directed by Finance Committee 5/12/11 and adopted by Council 6/20/11.(27,761) 7/1/2011 Funding for RFP for combined Palo Alto Gran Fondo, Echelon Challenge Relay, and Taste of Palo Alto event authorized by Council on 5/16/11. (40,000) 12/19/20 11 Legislative Advocacy Services for High Speed Rail (125,000) 2/22/201 2 iPads for City Council (2,460) Total Amount Used (195,221) Midyear reimbursement 125,000 Council Contingency Balance after midyear reimbursement $179,779 City Manager Contingency The account had a beginning balance of $0.25 million in FY 2012, and has a balance of $0.24 million as of this report. Funding has been used for: $10 thousand to cover a portion of the funding for the RFP for combined Palo Alto Gran Fondo, Echelon Challenge Relay, and Taste of Palo Alto event. This was approved by Council on May 16, 2011. City Attorney Contingency The account had a beginning balance of $0.125 million in FY 2012, and retains the same balance as of this report. February 28, 2012 Page 14 of 37 (ID # 2371) Innovation Contingency An innovation contingency was created as part of the FY 2012 budget to provide seed money for developing ideas to improve efficiencies in City services. The beginning balance of the contingency was $0.1 million. Year-to-date, staff has used the Innovation Contingency for the following: $30 thousand for labor negotiations support $25 thousand for November 2011 election costs which staff is requesting to replenish at midyear. Department Budget Adjustments The General Fund department text refers to details of budget augmentations included in the midyear report. As previously noted, the General Fund portion of the retiree medical ARC is $2.3 million which is allocated to the General Fund departments as follows: This section describes the augmentations to department budgets recommended in the midyear report. City Clerk’s Office The City Clerk is requesting $12 thousand to cover historical records storage and minute transcription. City Manager’s Office The City Manager’s Office is transferring 0.5 FTE Management Analyst to the IT February 28, 2012 Page 15 of 37 (ID # 2371) Department resulting in a $30 thousand decrease in salaries and benefits. Administrative Services The department is requesting a $0.1 million augmentation, of which $25 thousand is reimbursed by the Technology Fund. $77 thousand for temporary salaries, reclassification of a Chief Budget Officer to Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), addition of 1.0 FTE Senior Financial Analyst for OMB, and reallocation of administrative support related partial FTE from the Technology Fund to the General Fund. $28 thousand for additional funding for two contracts: the Development Impact Fee Study; and the budget book assembly contract. $25 thousand for the CalCard replacement project. ASD is now managing this project; the project was originally budgeted in the Technology Fund. $4 thousand in technology purchases, including hardware and software, to support graphic applications to publish various financial and budgetary documents. Community Services Department (CSD) The Community Services Department is requesting a net $0.1 million thousand budget augmentation. Of this additional expense, $25 thousand is Council directed, $106 thousand is funded by donations, and $20 thousand is reimbursed by the Parking District. The department’s proposal includes: $25 thousand for contract/consulting funding to assist staff in evaluating financial impacts of the San Francisquito Creek Flood Control Project. This cost was directed by Council in December 2011 (CMR #2355). $26 thousand to reclassify 1 FTE Manager, Arts to Assistant Director of CSD; as a result of a reorganization more administrative duties have been shifted to this position. $8 thousand for hourly staff to conduct children’s studio classes. This additional expense is funded by a donation from the Palo Alto Arts Council Foundation. $2 thousand for community funded concerts. Funding for the concerts is provided by various donations. $7 thousand for exhibits, funded by donations by the Arts Council $20 thousand related to work with the Downtown Streets Team. This cost is reimbursed by University Avenue Parking District Fund. February 28, 2012 Page 16 of 37 (ID # 2371) $80 thousand augmentation to support the Children’s Theatre. These costs are fully offset by donations and contribution from the Friends of the Children’s Theatre. February 28, 2012 Page 17 of 37 (ID # 2371) $10 thousand augmentation to support the Dance in Schools Program. This additional cost is offset by donations from the School District Unified Palo Alto. $65 thousand reduction in special events and travel due to lack of funding from participants of the Children’s Theatre. Fire Negotiations with IAFF resulted in a $1.04 million savings in salary and benefits (CMR #2191). As noted in Charges for Services revenue, these savings will reduce Stanford fire services billing by $0.3 million resulting from reduced salary and benefit expense. The department proposes the following budget augmentations: $10 thousand in temporary salary for assistance with fire inspections. This request is offset by $30 thousand in anticipated Hazardous Material permit revenue. This results in a net $20 thousand to General Fund. $8 thousand increase for Joint Fire Academy student materials and supplies for the Academy Fire Joint. This cost is fully offset by a reimbursement from the City of San Mateo. Library The Library Department is requesting a $19 thousand budget augmentation of which $12 thousand is reimbursed by grants and donations. The remaining $7 thousand is for the development of department’s strategic plan which is funded by a State Grant that was received in prior fiscal year. Planning and Community Environment The Development Center Blue Print Process Plan (CMR #2364), increased the department’s budget by $1.2 million. Year-to-date budget augmentations for this department total $1.4 million, of which $0.16 million is requested at midyear. $31 thousand to continue the digital image scanning of plans. $0.13 million for rental costs of the second floor of the Center Development, as approved by Council in December 2011 (CMR 2389). Police The Police Department requests a $55 thousand budget augmentation which is fully offset by reimbursements by other agencies for Urban Shield exercises ($44 thousand) and Communication Unit Leader training ($11 thousand). Public Works Public Works is requesting $0.11 million to cover additional expenses: February 28, 2012 Page 18 of 37 (ID # 2371) $30 thousand for the reallocation of 1.1 FTE from Enterprise Funds to the General Fund. An analysis of these positions determined that these positions are properly charged to the General Fund. $45 thousand for the Canopy contract that has been previously covered by the Utilities Department. Going forward, Public Works will be covering this portion of the contract since Utilities department is not receiving any direct benefit. $15 thousand to cover expenses for the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission’s (IBRC) consultant. $25 thousand for supplies for asphalt and pothole repairs. To improve conditions and extend the life of streets, Public Works has adopted a preventive maintenance program by fixing minor street problems before they become problematic. This results in the need for more materials. Operating Transfers Out In FY2012, Council approved a $1.3 million loan from the General Fund to the Refuse Fund (CMR #1937). Staff proposes a reduction of $625 thousand for this loan as Refuse Fund is performing financially better than expected. Enterprise Funds The Fiscal Year 2012 Midyear Budget Summaries (Attachment 1, Exhibit A) provide a financial update of the Enterprise Funds at midyear. The details of changes related to the Enterprise Fund Capital Improvement Program are also discussed later in this report. City’s Enterprise Funds midyear adjustments are discussed below. Electric Fund Net reserve addition: $7.2 million OPEB ARC Impact: $0.2 million Electric commodity purchases are reduced by $6.21 million due to lower than expected costs and the deferral of $2.85 million to FY 2013 for pre-payment of interconnection costs related to renewable energy sources. Electric Fund revenues are projected to be higher by $1.07 million due to surplus energy revenues. The increase is a result of last year’s heavy rains. Higher river flows led to more water available for power generation by the City’s hydroelectric resources. During some months and times of day, because of the additional February 28, 2012 Page 19 of 37 (ID # 2371) power from hydro sources, the City had more power available than was required to serve its customers, and the excess was sold to other energy providers through the California Independent System Operator’s day-ahead and real-time markets, as well as through bilateral contracts with energy marketers. A $2.0 million amount is added for the Energy Efficiency Financing Program. This amount was inadvertently not carry forward to FY 2012 budget. Approved by Council in December, 2009, the Energy Efficiency Financing Program encourages small commercial customers to install energy efficient equipment. An additional $0.4 million will be added to CIP project EL-11004 to cover capital expenditures for the rebuild of the underground electric distribution system in the Hewlett subdivision along Los Trancos Road. The project was originally approved for $0.4 million as part of the FY 2011 Capital Budget. The final design to rebuild the system has come in at a higher cost. The system is now over 40 years old, and the project will configure the system into a loop, requiring a several hundred foot bore, plus utility switches. Various capital projects within the Electric Fund are either reduced due to revised estimates, or are completed and closed (see Attachment 1, Exhibit B). As a result, $2.86 million is returned to Electric Fund reserves. Gas Fund Net reserve addition: $2.5 million OPEB ARC Impact: $24 thousand Street cut fee expense for Gas Main Replacement Project 18 is increased by $0.2 million based on revised estimates. This project is scheduled for completion by the fourth quarter of FY 2012. Gas commodity purchases are reduced by $1.3 million due to lower than expected market prices. Gas commodity transmission expenses are increased by $0.4 million due to higher than anticipated PG&E pipeline safety charges. Various capital projects within the Gas Fund are either reduced due to revised estimates, or are completed and closed (see Attachment 1, Exhibit B). As a result, $1.82 million is returned to Gas Fund reserves. February 28, 2012 Page 20 of 37 (ID # 2371) Also in the Gas Fund, $8.0 million is moved from the Gas Supply Stabilization Reserve to the Gas Distribution Stabilization Reserve to align balances with reserve guidelines. The reserve balances are out of alignment because gas distribution costs have increased and gas supply costs have decreased, while no overall rate change has been needed for the last two fiscal years. Wastewater Collection Fund Net reserve addition: $2.0 million OPEB ARC Impact: $21 thousand Street cut fee expense is decreased by $0.15 million due to delays in wastewater collection system rehabilitation projects. Various capital projects within the Wastewater Collection Fund are either reduced due to revised estimates, or are completed and closed (see Attachment 1, Exhibit B). As a result, $1.85 million is returned to Wastewater Collection Fund reserves. Water Fund Net reserve addition: $5.5 million OPEB ARC Impact: $25 thousand Various capital projects within the Water Fund are reduced due to revised estimates (see Attachment 1, Exhibit B). As a result, $5.5 million is returned to Water Fund reserves. Refuse Fund Net reserve addition: $1.1 million OPEB ARC Impact: $0.1 million CIP expense is reduced by $1.2 million due to the closure of landfill site and the closing of the Recycling in Business Districts CIP. A total net $80 thousand in the operating budget is due to reimbursable contract increases and reallocation of FTEs to General Fund. Storm Drainage Fund Net reserve reduction: $17 thousand OPEB ARC Impact: $72 thousand February 28, 2012 Page 21 of 37 (ID # 2371) The Storm Drainage Fund is proposing budget decrease of $72 due to the reallocation of staff time. Based on a review by Public Works, it was determined that staff allocations should be updated to correctly reflect the areas in which staff time is dedicated. The capital program decreased $55 thousand due to closure of the Alma Street Storm Drain Improvement Project. Wastewater Treatment Fund Net reserve reduction: $0.3 million OPEB ARC Impact: $0.3 million There was no other revenue or expense adjustment in midyear. Airport Fund Net reserve reduction: $0.18 million OPEB ARC Impact: $0 Salaries and contract services expense of $0.18 million from FY 2011 are added back to the FY 2012 budget. This appropriates the remaining balance of the loan from the General Fund to the Airport Fund, resulting in no impact to the General Fund. It includes budgeting for contracted legal services and groundwater monitoring as well as minimal city staff services. Contract services expense is increased by $75 thousand for an organizational assessment of the Utilities Department and a $4 thousand decrease retiree OPEB costs. Expenses within the Utilities Administration Fund are reimbursed by the Electric, Gas, Water, Wastewater Collection, and Fiber Optics Funds. Internal Service Funds Information Technology Information Technology became a department at the beginning of this fiscal year. As the year progressed, the department hired a Chief Information Officer and transitioned out of Administrative Services. The midyear request includes costs associated with that change and the accumulation of unexpected costs borne by the department so far this year. These costs of $0.8 million include: $185 thousand for Salaries and Benefit changes. This sum is derived from February 28, 2012 Page 22 of 37 (ID # 2371) reduced support needed from Administrative Services, the reallocation of 0.5 FTE from the City Manager’s office back to Information Technology, the addition of an IT Information Security Manager, and increased budget to reflect the salary and benefits of the Chief Information Officer. $0.12 million for additional licensing for Utilities. $0.4 million for contract services to cover applications purchases, connectivity projects, maintenance of the MinuteTraq software used for preparation and review of City Council and Commission reports, and recruitment costs borne earlier in the year. $33 thousand for emergency repair of the Universal Power Supply. $81 thousand to increase internet connectivity at City locations. Vehicle Replacement Fund The Vehicle Replacement Fund requests a budget increase of $104 thousand. Budget adjustments are noted below: $10 thousand for training on the Asset Works Fleet software application $25 thousand for increased rental expenses while fleet repair is underway $0.1 million for various equipment repairs and costs A reduction of $80 thousand in compressed natural gas charges due to a reduced fleet $23 thousand due to reallocation of 0.50 FTE from other funds $26 thousand increase in retiree OPEB costs General Benefits Fund As a result of IAFF concessions, the General Benefits Fund is budget reduced by $143 thousand at midyear. Special Revenue Funds COPS Grants The Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) funding is provided through the state, and can often be mistaken for the federal grant funding of the same title. This funding has been in place since 1997 as part of the California State Budget Act, and is intended to fill the need for additional resources at the local level to ensure public safety. A percentage of the funds are allocated to counties and cities, based upon population, for law enforcement services. Funds must supplement existing services and cannot be used to supplant any existing funds. February 28, 2012 Page 23 of 37 (ID # 2371) Each county is required to continue the operation of a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) to receive the State funds and the county’s Supplemental Law Enforcement Oversight Committee (SLEOC) must approve each agency’s proposal for the use of the funds. Prior to sending the proposal to the SLEOC, the bill requires that each city approve the Police Department’s request for expenditure of funds. Each city is also required to deposit the funds into a separate SLESF so that these funds are not intermingled with General Fund dollars. The funds must be expended within two years after receipt. The City of Palo Alto is currently in compliance with all of these requirements. In FY 2012, the City has received an allocation of $0.1 million in COPS grant funding. CMR #2320 outlined the following uses for this funding: property and evidence room storage improvements, traffic accident reconstruction equipment and software, replacement two-way crisis communication system, replacement less lethal launchers, infrared radar binoculars, portable radio transmitter, and digital cameras. The associated budget adjustments are included in the midyear report. University Avenue Downtown Parking District Fund Transfers out from the fund are requested to reimburse other funds for the following: $70 thousand charged to the Refuse Fund for the Downtown Streets Team contract for downtown debris cleanup $63 thousand charged to the Refuse Fund for garage steam cleaning services $20 thousand to cover costs charged to the Community Services Department for the Downtown Streets Team counseling services. Housing in-Lieu Funds A transfer of $0.6 million is being requested from the Commercial Housing in-Lieu Fund to the Residential Housing in-Lieu Fund. The transfer will allow Residential Housing in-Lieu funds to be used to cover an appropriate portion of the Council- approved $1.5 million loan to 801 Alma Family Housing L.P. for new construction (CMR #1352). This will free up Residential Housing in-Lieu Fund money to fund the City’s annual commitment to the Housing Trust Fund of Santa Clara County and other residential housing activities. February 28, 2012 Page 24 of 37 (ID # 2371) Stanford Development Agreement Special Revenue Fund In July 2011, Council adopted an ordinance (Number 5124) to approve a development agreement between the City and Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, and the Board of Trustees of the University Junior Stanford Leland. The City is required to maintain separate accounts for each activity related to this agreement. Staff proposes to set-up a Stanford Development Agreement Special Revenue Fund to account for the following areas: Community Health and Safety Program Climate Change Fund Operating Deficit Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and Communities, and Affordable Housing Intermodal Transit Opticom Systems Quarry Road The special revenue fund will offer a reporting mechanism for activities related to the use of the dollars as required by the development agreement. A new section will be added to the FY 2013 budget that will show planned activity and fund balance. In FY 2012, $21 million in funding from Stanford was deposited in the General Fund. The attached BAO (Attachment 1, Exhibit A) includes a transfer of $21 million from the General Fund to the new special revenue fund. Future funding will be deposited directly into the special revenue fund. Staff will schedule meetings with Council to obtain policy directions on the use of funds. Capital Improvement Program Adjustments to the City’s 2012 Capital Improvement Plan are noted in Exhibit A, with specific project adjustments described in Exhibit B. All of the CIP changes fall into three basic categories: 1) projects requiring additional appropriations: 2) projects having reductions in appropriations; and 3) projects with other adjustments such as transfer of funding between projects, closing completed projects or creating new projects. It should be noted that the midyear report does not include any recommendations to implement recommendations proposed by February 28, 2012 Page 25 of 37 (ID # 2371) the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC). Highlights of CIP changes are as follows: General Fund Alma Street/University Avenue Bridge Guardrail Repair - CIP PE-12009 This is a new project with funding of $0.11 million. The purpose of the project is to repair a portion of the guardrail on the Alma Street/University Avenue bridge that was damaged during a vehicular accident at University Avenue overpass at Alma Street. The damage was caused by an intoxicated driver. The replacement guardrail will match the appearance and functionality of the existing guardrail. Costs are to be reimbursed by the driver's insurance. (See Attachment 1, Exhibit B-1) Alma Street – Traffic Signal Improvements - PL-11004 Reduce funding by $0.7 million and close project. This project was originally established as part of a partnership project with Caltrain to provide improvements along the rail corridor. However, Caltrain will be taking the grant funds initially set aside for this project to implement preemption improvements instead of intersection improvements. Therefore, this project will be closed. The funds will be returned to the Infrastructure Reserve. School Commute Safety Improvements - PL-98013 Reduce funding by $0.10 million and close project. This project was replaced with CIP PL-00026 Safe Routes to School. The funds will be returned to the Infrastructure Reserve. Comprehensive Parking Signage Plan - PL-06002 Reduce funding by $0.42 million and close project. This project was replaced with CIP PL-12000 Transportation and Parking Improvements. The funds will be returned to the Infrastructure Reserve. Sustainability Contingency- AS-10001 Reduce funding by $0.3 million due to lower than expected activity. The project was originally approved for $0.4 million as part of the FY 2010 Capital Budget. The project provides funding for elements of General Fund CIP projects which support the City’s sustainability policy. The appropriation set aside for this project has not been utilized. The funds will be returned to the Infrastructure Reserve, with $0.1 million remaining in the project. February 28, 2012 Page 26 of 37 (ID # 2371) Enterprise Funds Electric Fund Hewlett Subdivision Rebuild Los Trancos Road- CIP EL-11004 Increase funding by $0.4 million for the rebuild of the underground electric distribution system in the Hewlett subdivision along Los Trancos Road. The project was originally approved for $0.4 million as part of the FY 2011 Capital Budget. The final design to rebuild the system has come in at a higher cost. The system is now over 40 years old, and the project will configure the system into a loop, requiring a several hundred foot bore, plus utility switches. The $0.4 million funding will come from the Electric Fund Distribution Rate Stabilization Reserve (RSR) Electric Customer Connections - EL-89028 Reduce funding by $1.0 million due to revised estimates. This amount will be returned to the Electric Fund Distribution RSR. E. Meadow/Alma/Loma 4/12kV Conversion - EL-08002 Reduce funding by $0.41 million to close the project and return the balance to the Electric Fund Distribution RSR. Rebuild Underground District 19 - EL-11008 Reduce funding by $0.4 million due to reduction in project scope. This amount will be returned to the Electric Fund Distribution RSR. Substation Protection Improvements - EL-89038 Reduce funding by $0.3 million due to revised estimates. This amount will be returned to the Electric Fund Distribution RSR. Automated Meter Reading System - EL-04014 Reduce funding by $0.26 million to close the project and return the balance to the Electric Fund Distribution RSR. Communications System Improvements - EL-89031 Reduce funding by $0.2 million due to revised estimates. This amount will be returned to the Electric Fund Distribution RSR. February 28, 2012 Page 27 of 37 (ID # 2371) Substation Facility Improvements - EL-89044 Reduce funding by $0.2 million due to revised estimates. This amount will be returned to the Electric Fund Distribution RSR. St. Francis/Oregon 4/12kV Conversion - EL-11002 Reduce funding by $50 thousand due to deferral of project for six years in light of other high priority projects. This amount will be returned to the Electric Fund Distribution RSR. Seale/Waverley 4/12kV Conversion - EL-11000 Reduce funding by $40 thousand due to deferral of project for six years in light of other high priority projects. This amount will be returned to the Electric Fund Distribution RSR. Gas Fund System Extensions-Unreimbursed - GS-03009 Reduce funding by $0.48 million due to revised estimates. This amount will be returned to the Gas Fund Distribution RSR. Gas Main Replacement-Project 15 - GS-05002 Reduce funding by $0.11 million to close the project and return the balance to the Gas Fund Distribution RSR. Gas Main Replacement-Project 16 - GS-06001 Reduce funding by $50 thousand to close the project and return the balance to the Gas Fund Distribution RSR. Gas System Improvements - GS-11002 Reduce funding by $0.1 million due to revised estimates. This amount will be returned to the Gas Fund Distribution RSR. Gas System Extensions - GS-80017 Reduce funding by $0.94 million due to revised estimates. This amount will be returned to the Gas Fund Distribution RSR. Gas Meters and Regulators - GS-80019 Reduce funding by $0.14 million due to revised estimates. This amount will be returned to the Gas Fund Distribution RSR. February 28, 2012 Page 28 of 37 (ID # 2371) Wastewater Collection Fund Wastewater Collection System Rehab/Aug. Project 15 – WC-02002 Reduce funding by $56 thousand to close the project and return the balance to the Wastewater Collection Fund RSR. Wastewater Collection System Rehab/Aug. Project 17 – WC-04002 Reduce funding by $0.15 million to close the project and return the balance to the Wastewater Collection Fund RSR. Wastewater Collection System Rehab/Aug. Project 18 – WC-05003 Reduce funding by $0.17 million due to revised estimates. This amount will be returned to the Wastewater Collection Fund RSR. Wastewater Collection System Rehab/Aug. Project 19 – WC-06003 Reduce funding by $0.14 million to close the project and return the balance to the Wastewater Collection Fund RSR. Wastewater System Improvements – WC-15002 Reduce funding by $0.28 million due to revised estimates. This amount will be returned to the Wastewater Collection Fund RSR. Sewer System Extensions – WC-80020 Reduce funding by $0.62 million due to revised estimates. This amount will be returned to the Wastewater Collection Fund RSR. Sewer Lateral/Manhole Rehab/Replacement – WC-99013 Reduce funding by $0.44 million due to revised estimates. This amount will be returned to the Wastewater Collection Fund RSR. Water Fund Water Regulation System Improvements – WS-07000 Reduce funding by $0.6 million due to revised estimates. This amount will be returned to the Water Fund RSR. Emergency Water Supply Project – WS-08002 Reduce funding by $3.2 million due to revised estimates. This amount will be returned to the Water Fund RSR, and then be used in FY 2013 for CIP WS-09000 Seismic Water Tank Valve. February 28, 2012 Page 29 of 37 (ID # 2371) Water Distribution System Improvements – WS-11003 Reduce funding by $0.13 million due to revised estimates. This amount will be returned to the Water Fund RSR. Water Supply System Improvements – WS-11004 Reduce funding by $0.12 million due to revised estimates. This amount will be returned to the Water Fund RSR. Water System Extensions – WS-80013 Reduce funding by $0.3 million due to revised estimates. This amount will be returned to the Water Fund RSR. Water Service Hydrant Replacement – WS-80014 Reduce funding by $0.5 million due to revised estimates. This amount will be returned to the Water Fund RSR. Water Meters – WS-80015 Reduce funding by $0.64 million due to revised estimates. This amount will be returned to the Water Fund RSR. Refuse Fund Relocation of Landfill Facilities – RF-07001 Reduce funding by $0.88 million due to reduction in project scope. This amount will be returned to the Refuse Fund RSR. Recycling in Business Districts – RF-09003 Reduce funding by $0.32 million due to a lack of financial resources in the Refuse Fund and a determination that new receptacles under consideration were not preferable to those currently in use. This amount will be returned to the Refuse Fund RSR. Storm Drainage Fund Alma Street Storm Drain Improvements – SD-08101 Reduce funding by $55 thousand to close the project and return the balance to the Storm Drainage Fund RSR. February 28, 2012 Page 30 of 37 (ID # 2371) Internal Service Funds Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund Replacement of In-Ground Vehicle Lifts at the Municipal Services Center- CIP VR- 12001 This is a new project with funding of $50 thousand. The seven in-ground vehicle lifts at the Municipal Services Center are between 25 and 35 years old. While staff has been able to keep the lifts in safe operating condition through maintenance, major components such as the lift cylinders and in-ground oil piping are beginning to deteriorate. In addition, the pits in which the lift mechanisms are located are cracking, which is allowing a large amount of groundwater infiltration. This infiltration requires frequent pumping and since the groundwater is contaminated with oil from the leaking hoists, the water must be processed as hazardous waste. (Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund: $50 thousand reserve funding.) (See Attachment 1, Exhibit B-2) Diesel Truck Engine Emissions Retrofit- CIP VR-07002 Increase funding by $50 thousand for the retrofit of vehicle 4410- leaf packer truck used in street sweeping. The California Air Resources Board requires the installation of best available control technology, also known as diesel particulate filters, on medium duty and heavy duty diesel-powered vehicles. (Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund: $50 thousand reserve funding.) Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacements - VR-11000 Increase funding by $0.18 million for replacement of Utilities rodding truck- vehicle #8790. This rodding truck is for cleaning/cutting small diameter roots in sanitary sewer laterals. The purchase will include all ancillary equipment required to access mains and to cut and retrieve roots that cause expensive backups. Due to the large population of trees in Palo Alto, roots in the sanitary sewer system is a widespread problem. Regular hydro flushing of mains will not eliminate or rid the mains of roots, which if allowed to continue to grow, will eventually choke off flow in the main and cause backups into homes and businesses. This new rodding truck will facilitate the removal of roots and thereby backups in the system. (Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund: $0.18 million reserve funding.) February 28, 2012 Page 31 of 37 (ID # 2371) Technology Fund New Phone System – TE-00021 Reduce funding by $0.17 million to close the project and transfer the amount to CIP TE-00010 Telephone System Replacement. Enterprise Backup Solution – TE-01006 Reduce funding by $69 thousand to close the project and transfer the amount to CIP TE-01012 IT Disaster Recovery. Library Technology Plan – TE-08000 Reduce funding by $19 thousand to close the project and return the balance to the Technology Fund reserve. Electronic Patient Care Report – TE-08002 Reduce funding by $35 thousand to close the project and return the balance to the Technology Fund reserve. Fiscal Year 2012 Midyear Capital Improvement Program Projects Status Report This report provides the Finance Committee with information on the status of the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects as of December 31, 2011. The following graph summarizes all General Fund projects by project category and provides five years of actual expenditures. Information about individual projects within each project category is provided in Attachment 2. February 28, 2012 Page 32 of 37 (ID # 2371) In the attached matrix (Attachment 3), the City departments have submitted information on their projects and commented on any issues that might cause a change in the scope or timing of the projects. The report is intended to update Council on the progress of all CIP projects opened at the beginning of FY 2012, and on those that were added or completed during the fiscal year. The matrix categorizes CIP projects into minor projects (projects that can be completed within a one-year period) and multi-year projects (projects that have multi-year budgets and/or complex implementation schedules with identifiable phases). The project status portion of the matrix identifies the phase of the project as of December 31, 2011 and illustrates how much progress was made. February 28, 2012 Page 33 of 37 (ID # 2371) Three distinct phases are utilized, as follows: Phase Activities Pre-Design Preparation of a feasibility study; Development of a master plan; Definition of a project scope; or Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report Design Hiring a design consultant; Completion of project design; Soliciting bids or proposals Construction Acquisition of major equipment; Installation; Implementation of a project In the attached matrix (Attachment 3), projects are listed by department for the General Fund and by fund for the Enterprise and Internal Service Funds. The matrix also includes information on the total budget of the project from inception; available budget as of the beginning of the fiscal year; fiscal year expenditures, contingencies, and encumbrances through December 31st; remaining balance in the project budget as of midyear; and the percentage of completion for the project. The matrix does not include “continuous” projects. These projects, such as water meter replacement, have no definitive beginning or end dates and receive ongoing funding to reflect continuing replacement cycles or commitments. Continuous projects are listed by responsible department and fund and include five years of actual expenditures including the current fiscal year through December 31, 2011 (Attachment 4). Table of Organization Changes The proposed adjustments to the Table of Organization (Exhibit C) include the following: General Fund City Manager’s Office o Reallocate 0.5 FTE Management Analyst to the Technology Fund Administrative Services Department February 28, 2012 Page 34 of 37 (ID # 2371) o Title change from Chief Budget Officer to Director, Office of Management and Budget o Title change from Budget Officer to Principal Financial Analyst o Add 1.00 FTE Senior Financial Analyst o Reallocate 0.07 FTE Administrative Assistant from Technology Fund o Reallocate 0.1 FTE Assistant Director, Administrative Services from Technology Fund o Reallocate 0.15 FTE Director, Administrative Services from Technology Fund Community Services Department o Reclassify 1.0 FTE Manager, Arts to Assistant Director, CSD Planning and Community Environment (see Development Center Blue Print CMR #2364) o Add 1.0 Center Development FTE Manager o Add 3.0 Center Development FTE Project Coordinator III o Add 1.0 FTE Development Services Director o Add 1.0 FTE Plans Examiner Public Works Department o Reallocate 1.0 FTE Administrative Associate II from Refuse Fund o Reallocate 0.05 FTE Administrative Associate II from Storm Drain Fund o Reallocate 0.2 FTE Assistant Director from Refuse Fund o Reallocate 0.9 FTE Senior Engineer from Capital Fund o Reallocate 0.15 FTE Management Analyst to Vehicle Replacement Fund o Reallocate 0.9 FTE Senior Project Manager to Capital Fund Enterprise Funds Public Works o Reallocate 1.05 FTE Administrative Associate II from the Storm Drainage Fund (0.05 FTE) and Refuse Fund (1.0 FTE) to the General Fund o Reallocate 0.5 FTE Assistant Director from Refuse Fund to Vehicle Replacement (0.25 FTE) and the General Fund (0.2 FTE) o Reallocate 0.05 FTE Assistant Director from Refuse Fund to Storm Drainage Fund February 28, 2012 Page 35 of 37 (ID # 2371) o Reallocate 0.05 FTE Management Analyst form the Storm Drainage Fund to the Vehicle Replacement Fund Other Funds Vehicle Replacement Fund o Reallocate 0.25 FTE Assistant Director from Refuse Fund o Reallocate 0.25 FTE Management Analyst from General Fund (0.15 FTE), Storm Drainage Fund (0.05 FTE), and Capital (0.05 FTE) Capital Fund o Reallocate 0.05 FTE Management Analyst to Vehicle Replacement Fund o Reallocate 0.9 FTE Senior Project Manager from General Fund o Reallocate 0.9 FTE Senior Engineer to General Fund Technology Fund o Reallocate 0.07 FTE Administrative Assistant to General Fund-ASD o Reallocate 0.10 FTE Assistant Director, Administrative Services to General Fund-ASD o Reallocate 0.15 FTE Director, Administrative Services to General Fund-ASD o Reallocate 0.50 FTE Management Analyst from General Fund-City Manager’s Office o Add 1.00 FTE Information Technology Security Manager Resource Impact Adoption of the attached ordinance will allow for adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2012 budget, along with amendments to the Table of Organization, and General Fund CIP projects. With the approval of this ordinance, the projected ending balance of the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve is $27.1 million. There is a decrease of $2.9 million to the BSR balance which results in a BSR level of 18.54 percent of adopted expenditures. With the inclusion of Information Technology midyear requests, the Technology Fund reserve is decreased by $0.8 million. Staff has made revenue and expense estimates for the remainder of the year but results could vary and have further impacts to the BSR. Workers’ comp, general liability, and overtime costs are areas of continued concern; staff is continually monitoring these costs citywide and in the General Fund. February 28, 2012 Page 36 of 37 (ID # 2371) The Capital Fund Infrastructure Reserve is projected to end with a balance of $4.5 million, an increase of $1.5 million. The projected ending Rate Stabilization Reserve total for all Enterprise funds increases by $17.0 million. Policy Implications These recommendations are consistent with existing City policies. Environmental Assessment This is not a project under Section 21065 for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: -:Attachment 1 - Budget Amendment Ordinance (PDF) -:Attachment 1, Exhibit A - Midyear Financial Reports and Proposed Budget Adjustments (PDF) -:Attachment 1, Exhibit B - Midyear CIP Adjustments (PDF) -:Attachment 1, Exhibit B-1 - Guardrail Repair (PDF) -:Attachment 1, Exhibit B-2 - In-Ground Lifts (PDF) -:Attachment 1, Exhibit C - Amendments to Table of Organization (PDF) -:Attachment 2 - General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 (PDF) -:Attachment 3 - Fiscal Year 2012 Mid-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects Status (PDF) -:Attachment 4 - Continuous Capital Projects Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 (PDF) -:Attachment 5 - General Fund Transfers to Infrastructure Reserve for Fiscal Years 2008- 2017 (PDF) -:Attachment 6 - Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the 2010- 2011 Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Adopted by Resolution No. 9156 (PDF) -:Attachment 7 - Public Safety Overtime Analysis for Fiscal Years 2007-2011 with Fiscal Year 2012 Data through December 31, 2011 (PDF) Prepared By:Sherry Nikzat, Senior Financial Anlyst Department Head:Lalo Perez, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ February 28, 2012 Page 37 of 37 (ID # 2371) James Keene, City Manager Page 1 of 4 Attachment 1 ORDINANCE NO. XXXX ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 TO ADJUST BUDGETED REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE MIDYEAR REPORT The City Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 20, 2011 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2012, including a Table of Organization describing the staffing for each department; and B. After reviewing the current budgeted revenues and expenditures for fiscal year 2012, adjustments to the budget are recommended to more accurately reflect year-end projections; and C. Various staffing adjustments require an amendment to the Table of Organization including the title change from Chief Budget Officer to Director, Office of Management and Budget; title change from Budget Officer to Principal Financial Analyst; add 1.0 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Senior Financial Analyst; add 1.0 FTE Development Center Manager; add 3.0 FTE Development Center Project Coordinator III; add 1.0 FTE Development Services Director; add 1.0 FTE Plans Examiner; add 1.0 FTE Information Technology Security Manager; and D. On July 11, 2011 (CMR #1858), the Council adopted Ordinance 5124 approving a Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (“Stanford Development Agreement”); and E. City Council authorization is needed to establish a Stanford Development Agreement Special Revenue Fund, and to amend the fiscal year 2012 budget to plan for revenue associated with and appropriate funds in accordance with the Stanford Development Agreement; and F. City Council authorization is needed to amend the fiscal year 2012 budget as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2. The General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve is hereby decreased by the sum of Two Million Nine Hundred Forty Two Dollars ($2,942,000), as described in Exhibit A. As a result Page 2 of 4 of this change, the Budget Stabilization Reserve will change to $27,139,000. SECTION 3. The Capital Fund Infrastructure Reserve is hereby increased by the sum of One Million Four Hundred Fifty Six Thousand Dollars ($1,456,000), as described in Exhibit A. As a result of this change, the Infrastructure Reserve will change to $4,501,000. SECTION 4. The Supply Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Electric Fund is hereby increased by the sum of Four Million Nine Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars ($4,930,000) as described in Exhibit A. SECTION 5. The Distribution Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Electric Fund is hereby increased by the sum of Two Million Two Hundred Sixty Six Thousand Dollars ($2,266,000) as described in Exhibit A. SECTION 6. The Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Fiber Optics Fund is hereby increased by the sum of Eleven Thousand Dollars ($11,000) as described in Exhibit A. SECTION 7. The Supply Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Gas Fund is hereby decreased by the sum of Seven Million One Hundred Three Thousand Dollars ($7,103,000) as described in Exhibit A. SECTION 8. The Distribution Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Gas Fund is hereby increased by the sum of Nine Million Five Hundred Eighty One Thousand Dollars ($9,581,000) as described in Exhibit A. SECTION 9. The Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Wastewater Collection Fund is hereby increased by the sum of One Million Nine Hundred Seventy Two Thousand Dollars ($1,972,000) as described in Exhibit A. SECTION 10. The Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Water Fund is hereby increased by the sum of Five Million Four Hundred Fifty Six Thousand Dollars ($5,456,000) as described in Exhibit A. SECTION 11. The Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Refuse Fund is hereby increased by the sum of Four Hundred Eighty Five Thousand Dollars ($485,000) as described in Exhibit A. SECTION 12. The Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Storm Drainage Fund is hereby decreased by the sum of Seventeen Thousand Dollars ($17,000) as described in Exhibit A. SECTION 13. The Rate Stabilization Reserve in the Wastewater Treatment Fund is hereby decreased by the sum of Three Hundred Twenty Seven Dollars ($327,000) as described in Exhibit A. Page 3 of 4 SECTION 14. The reserve balance in the Airport Fund is hereby decreased by the sum of One Hundred Seventy Seven Thousand Dollars ($177,000) as described in Exhibit A. SECTION 15. Adjustments to other funds are made as shown in Exhibit A. These changes impact Special Revenue, Internal Service, and Other Funds Reserves as indicated in Exhibit A. SECTION 16: The Stanford Development Agreement Special Revenue fund is hereby established to account for all financial transactions relating to the Stanford Development Agreement. SECTION 17: The Fund Balance in the Stanford Development Agreement Fund is hereby increased by the sum of Twenty One Million One Hundred Ninety Five Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($21,195,000) as described in Exhibit A. SECTION 18. Adjustments to decrease or increase amounts allocated to various Capital Improvement Projects are made as shown in Exhibit B. These changes impact the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve and the Infrastructure Reserve and are reflected in the adjustments as shown in Exhibit A. SECTION 19. The Table of Organization is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in Exhibit C, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. These changes impact Reserves and are accounted for in the changes shown in Exhibit A. SECTION 20. As specified in Section 2.28.080 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance. SECTION 21. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds that this midyear adjustment is not a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. Capital improvement projects described in this ordinance will be assessed individually as appropriate. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: Page 4 of 4 ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Sr. Asst. City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Admin. Services Attachment 1, Exhibit A CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2012 MIDYEAR FINANCIAL REPORT GENERAL FUND (in thousands) BUDGET ACTUALS (as of December 31, 2011) Adopted Adjusted Midyear Midyear Pre % Midyr Categories Budget Budget Budget Changes Encumbr Encumbr Actual Budget Revenues & Other Sources Sales Tax 20,246 20,246 21,594 1,348 ‐ ‐ 7,755 36% Property Tax 26,052 26,052 25,989 (63) ‐ ‐ 9,376 36% Transient Occupancy Tax 8,204 8,204 8,674 470 ‐ ‐ 4,123 48% Utility Users Tax 10,859 10,859 10,677 (182) ‐ ‐ 5,455 51% Documentary Transfer Tax 4,269 4,269 4,769 500 ‐ ‐ 1,927 40% Motor Vehicle Tax, Penalties, Fines 2,330 2,330 2,156 (174) ‐ ‐ 1,054 49% Charges for Services 21,841 22,737 22,576 (161) ‐ ‐ 9,592 42% Permits & Licenses 5,778 6,399 6,479 80 ‐ ‐ 3,341 52% Return on Investment 1,318 1,318 974 (344) ‐ ‐ 618 63% Rental Income 13,914 13,914 13,914 ‐ ‐ 6,998 50% From Other Agencies 155 155 174 19 ‐ ‐ 37 21% Charges To Other Funds 10,505 10,505 10,505 ‐ ‐ 5,224 50% Other Revenues (1) 1,427 1,943 2,136 193 ‐ ‐ 21,687 1015% Total Revenues (2) 126,898 128,931 130,617 1,686 ‐ ‐ 77,187 59% Operating Transfers‐In 19,606 19,606 19,651 45 ‐ ‐ 9,512 48% Encumbrances and Reappropriation 3,887 3,887 ‐ ‐ ‐ From Infrastructure Reserve ‐ ‐ Total Sources of Funds 146,504 152,424 154,155 1,731 ‐ ‐ 86,699 58% Expenditures & Other Uses City Attorney 2,355 3,009 3,026 17 ‐ 593 1,329 64% City Auditor 1,006 1,140 1,110 (30) ‐ 55 524 52% City Clerk 1,479 1,492 1,524 32 ‐ 10 829 55% City Council 319 328 433 105 ‐ 1 160 37% City Manager 2,512 2,718 2,691 (27) 94 54 1,275 53% Administrative Services 6,514 6,694 7,099 405 69 162 3,245 49% Community Services 20,711 21,176 21,642 466 69 2,383 10,316 59% Fire 29,780 30,154 30,148 (6) 110 390 14,695 50% Human Resources 2,919 3,013 3,065 52 1 112 1,323 47% Library 6,944 7,672 7,846 174 25 350 3,356 48% Planning and Community Environment 10,021 12,218 12,519 301 430 889 4,731 48% Police 31,918 32,192 33,188 996 20 676 16,311 51% Public Works 13,007 13,984 14,477 493 146 1,032 6,306 52% Non‐Departmental 5,038 4,841 7,307 2,466 ‐ ‐ 4,416 60% Total Expenditures 134,523 140,631 146,073 5,442 964 6,707 68,816 52% Operating Transfers‐Out 11,837 13,087 12,462 (625) ‐ ‐ 5,914 47% Total Uses of Funds 146,360 153,718 158,535 4,817 964 6,707 74,730 52% Net Surplus/(Deficit) 144 (1,295) (4,381) (3,086) Budget Amendments Authorized by Council: ATT ‐ Add'l legal counsel 185 185 NON‐DEPT ‐ Loan to Refuse Fund 1,250 1,250 LIB ‐ Foundation donation (3)‐ ‐ PCE Development Center 4 4 Total Augmentations Authorized by Council ‐ 1,439 1,439 ‐ Net Surplus/(Deficit) After BAOs 144 144 (2,942) (3,086) Proposed Midyear Drawdown 2,942 2,942 Net Surplus/(Deficit) After BSR Drawdown 144 144 0 (144) BSR Balance 31,520 30,081 27,139 BSR % of Total Use of Funds 21.54% 20.55% 18.54% (1) Actual includes payment of $20.8 million from Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Development Agreement. (2) Total revenues excluding SUMC are $56.4 million. (3) $500,000 donation and expenditures nets to zero (see BAO 5137) Page 1 2/21/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit A ACTUALS Adopted Adjusted Midyear Midyear Pre- % of Budget Budget Budget Changes Encumbr Encumbr Actual Midyear Budget Sources of Funds Net Sales 109,963 109,963 111,033 1,070 - - 59,452 54% Interest Income 4,014 4,014 4,014 - - - 1,937 48% Other Income 11,230 11,230 10,843 (387) - - 3,725 34% Reapprop/Encumbrances - 15,493 15,493 - - - 0% Total Sources 125,207 140,700 141,383 683 - - 65,114 52%** Uses of Funds Utility Purchases 69,846 69,964 63,754 (6,210) 25 83 29,555 47% Salaries & Benefits 11,079 11,083 11,259 176 - - 5,321 47% Contract Services 4,306 5,747 5,747 - 77 2,834 1,320 74% Supplies and Materials 811 843 843 - - 64 321 46% Facility and Equipment Purchases 75 75 75 - - - - 0% General Expenses 4,070 4,799 6,746 1,947 286 942 1,292 37% Rent and Leases 3,939 3,939 3,939 - - - 1,921 49% Allocated Charges 8,344 8,344 8,378 34 - - 3,664 44% Debt Service 8,966 8,966 8,966 - - - 4,431 49% Subtotal 111,436 113,760 109,707 (4,053) 388 3,923 47,825 48% Equity Transfer 11,587 11,587 11,587 - - - 5,793 50% Operating Transfers Out 299 298 298 - - - 150 50% Capital Improvement Program 8,685 22,404 19,945 (2,459) 4,083 1,844 4,863 54% Total Uses 132,007 148,049 141,537 (6,512) 4,471 5,767 58,631 49% Net To (From) Reserves (6,800) (7,349) (154) 7,195 Beginning Reserves 111,971 127,069 127,069 - Projected Ending Reserves 105,171 119,720 126,915 7,195 ** Excludes encumbrances and reappropriation BUDGET (as of 12-31-11) CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2012 MIDYEAR BUDGET SUMMARY ELECTRIC FUND (in thousands of dollars) Page 2 2/21/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit A ACTUALS Adopted Adjusted Midyear Midyear Pre- % of Budget Budget Budget Changes Encumbr Encumbr Actual Midyear Budget Sources of Funds Net Sales 2,609 2,609 2,609 - - - 1,507 58% Interest Income 310 310 310 - - - 169 55% Other Income 740 740 740 - Reapprop/Encumbrances 805 805 - Total Sources 3,659 4,464 4,464 - - - 1,676 46%** Uses of Funds Salaries & Benefits 928 928 915 (13) - - 403 44% Contract Services 158 242 242 - - 97 53 62% Supplies and Materials 18 18 18 - - - - 0% General Expenses 25 25 25 - - - - 0% Rent and Leases 27 27 27 - - - 14 51% Allocated Charges 405 405 407 2 - - 187 46% Subtotal 1,561 1,645 1,634 (11) - 97 656 46% Operating Transfers Out 9 9 9 - - - 5 51% Capital Improvement Program 500 1,221 1,221 - - 300 104 33% Total Uses 2,070 2,875 2,864 (11) - 397 765 41% Net To (From) Reserves 1,589 1,589 1,600 11 Beginning Reserves 10,406 11,130 11,130 Projected Ending Reserves 11,995 12,719 12,730 11 ** Excludes encumbrances and reappropriation BUDGET (as of 12-31-11) CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2012 MIDYEAR BUDGET SUMMARY FIBER OPTICS FUND (in thousands of dollars) Page 3 2/21/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit A ACTUALS Adopted Adjusted Midyear Midyear Pre- % of Budget Budget Budget Changes Encumbr Encumbr Actual Midyear Budget Sources of Funds Net Sales 42,013 42,013 42,013 - - - 17,059 41% Interest Income 948 948 948 - - - 441 47% Other Income 1,871 1,871 1,790 (81) - - 250 14% Reapprop/Encumbrances 16,848 16,848 - - - - - Total Sources 44,832 61,680 61,599 (81) - - 17,751 40%** Uses of Funds Utility Purchases 19,397 19,397 18,497 (900) 1,351 6,440 5,508 72% Salaries & Benefits 4,635 4,635 4,659 24 - - 2,104 45% Contract Services 4,850 5,333 5,333 - 36 4,313 495 91% Supplies and Materials 465 497 497 - - 142 206 70% Facility and Equipment Purchases 63 63 63 - - 28 8 57% General Expenses 914 966 966 - 245 192 231 69% Rent and Leases 341 340 340 - - - 156 46% Allocated Charges 3,910 3,910 4,046 136 - - 1,688 42% Debt Service 948 948 948 - - - 21 2% Subtotal 35,523 36,089 35,349 (740) 1,631 11,114 10,418 66% Equity Transfer 6,006 6,006 6,006 - - - 3,003 50% Operating Transfers Out 170 170 170 - - - 102 60% Capital Improvement Program 7,821 24,153 22,335 (1,818) 119 5,120 2,483 35% Total Uses 49,520 66,418 63,860 (2,558) 1,750 16,234 16,006 53% Net To (From) Reserves (4,688) (4,738) (2,261) 2,477 Beginning Reserves 15,215 17,188 17,188 - Projected Ending Reserves 10,527 12,450 14,927 2,477 CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2012 MIDYEAR BUDGET SUMMARY GAS FUND (in thousands of dollars) BUDGET (as of 12-31-11) ** Excludes encumbrances and reappropriation Page 4 2/21/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit A ACTUALS Adopted Adjusted Midyear Midyear Pre- % of Budget Budget Budget Changes Encumbr Encumbr Actual Midyear Budget Sources of Funds Net Sales 14,485 14,485 14,485 - - - 7,391 51% Interest Income 480 480 480 - - - 228 47% Other Income 904 904 904 - - - 650 72% Reapprop/Encumbrances 10,224 10,224 - - - - Total Sources 15,869 26,093 26,093 - - - 8,268 52%** Uses of Funds Utility Purchases 7,954 7,954 7,954 - - - 3,977 50% Salaries & Benefits 2,074 2,074 2,095 21 - - 989 47% Contract Services 178 241 241 - - 153 50 84% Supplies and Materials 222 245 245 - - 104 139 99% Facility and Equipment Purchases 1 1 1 - - 1 - 138% General Expenses 78 78 78 - - - 23 30% Rent and Leases 202 202 202 - - - 71 35% Allocated Charges 1,958 1,956 1,815 (141) - - 640 35% Debt Service 129 129 129 - - - - 0% Subtotal 12,796 12,880 12,760 (120) - 258 5,888 48% Operating Transfers Out 88 88 88 - - - 61 69% Capital Improvement Program 4,274 14,414 12,562 (1,852) 682 874 1,435 24% Total Uses 17,158 27,382 25,410 (1,972) 682 1,133 7,384 36% Net To (From) Reserves (1,289) (1,289) 683 1,972 Beginning Reserves 6,850 6,896 6,896 - Projected Ending Reserves 5,561 5,607 7,579 1,972 CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2012 MIDYEAR BUDGET SUMMARY WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND (in thousands of dollars) BUDGET (as of 12-31-11) ** Excludes encumbrances and reappropriation Page 5 2/21/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit A ACTUALS Adopted Adjusted Midyear Midyear Pre-% of Budget Budget Budget Changes Encumbr Encumbr Actual Midyear Budget Sources of Funds Net Sales 29,366 29,366 29,366 - - - 16,349 56% Interest Income 971 971 971 - - - 122 13% Other Income 2,859 2,859 2,859 - - - 1,180 41% Reapprop/Encumbrances 42,128 42,128 - - Total Sources 33,196 75,324 75,324 - - - 17,651 53%** Uses of Funds Utility Purchases 15,774 15,774 15,774 - - 8,665 6,739 98% Salaries & Benefits 5,339 5,339 5,364 25 - - 2,711 51% Contract Services 740 959 959 - 11 451 175 66% Supplies and Materials 461 481 481 - - 146 312 95% Facility and Equipment Purchases 8 8 8 - - 1 1 21% General Expense 435 457 457 - - 11 141 33% Rents and Leases 2,896 2,895 2,895 - 640 - 1,119 61% Allocated Charges 3,116 3,116 3,130 14 - - 1,188 38% Debt Service 3,338 3,338 3,338 - - - 737 22% Subtotal 32,107 32,367 32,406 39 651 9,274 13,123 71% Equity Transfer - - - - - - - - Operating Transfers Out 104 104 104 - - - 52 50% Capital Improvement Program 4,369 46,261 40,766 (5,495) 5,218 22,655 2,467 66% Total Uses 36,580 78,732 73,276 (5,456) 5,868 31,929 15,642 68% Net To (From) Reserves (3,384) (3,408) 2,048 5,456 Beginning Reserves 19,496 11,639 11,639 - Projected Ending Reserves 16,112 8,231 13,687 5,456 ** Excludes encumbrances and reappropriation CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2012 MIDYEAR BUDGET SUMMARY WATER FUND (in thousands of dollars) BUDGET (as of 12-31-11) Page 6 3/13/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit A ACTUALS Adopted Adjusted Midyear Midyear Pre- % of Budget Budget Budget Changes Encumbr Encumbr Actual Midyear Budget Sources of Funds Net Sales 23,947 26,134 26,134 - - - 13,319 51% Interest Income 301 301 301 - - - 112 37% Other Income 3,952 5,202 4,710 (492) - - 2,105 45% Reapprop/Encumbrances 3,656 3,656 - Total Sources 28,200 35,293 34,801 (492) - - 15,536 50%** Uses of Funds GreenWaste Hauling Contract 13,000 12,807 12,807 - - 6 5,054 40% Salaries and Benefits 4,060 3,938 4,030 92 - - 1,919 48% Contract Services 6,058 7,054 7,187 133 310 1,359 2,770 62% Supplies and Materials 141 142 142 - - 8 29 26% Facility and Equipment Purchases 10 10 10 - - - - 0% General Expenses 227 229 229 - - 4 577 254% Rents and Leases 4,298 4,300 4,300 - - 10 2,144 50% Allocated Charges 3,255 3,254 3,254 - - - 1,662 51% Debt Service 623 623 623 - 0% Subtotal 31,672 32,357 32,582 225 310 1,387 14,155 49% Operating Transfers Out 74 74 74 - - - 37 50% Capital Improvement Program 6,246 8,902 7,701 (1,201) 275 324 417 13% Total Uses 37,992 41,333 40,357 (976) 585 1,711 14,610 41% Net (From) Landfill Closure Liab (6,100) (6,100) (6,100) - Net To (From) Reserves (3,692) 60 544 484 Beginning Reserves (4,627) (4,384) (4,384) - Projected Ending Reserves (8,319) (4,324) (3,840) 484 CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2012 MIDYEAR BUDGET SUMMARY REFUSE FUND (in thousands of dollars) BUDGET (as of 12-31-11) ** Excludes encumbrances and reappropriation Page 7 2/21/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit A ACTUALS Adopted Adjusted Midyear Midyear Pre- % of Budget Budget Budget Changes Encumbr Encumbr Actual Midyear Budget Sources of Funds Net Sales 5,536 5,536 5,536 - - - 2,890 52% Interest Income 148 148 148 - - - 82 55% Other Income 130 130 130 - - - 1 1% Reapprop/Encumbrances 3,398 3,398 - - Total Sources 5,814 9,212 9,212 - - - 2,972 51%** Uses of Funds Salaries and Benefits 1,005 1,005 1,077 72 - - 442 41% Contract Services 373 434 434 - 89 63 193 79% Supplies and Materials 103 109 109 - - 15 36 47% Facility and Equipment Purchases 8 8 8 - - - 2 30% General Expenses 15 486 486 - - - 213 44% Rents and Leases 6 6 6 - - - - 0% Allocated Charges 606 606 606 - - - 260 43% Debt Service 950 950 950 - - - - 0% Subtotal 3,066 3,604 3,676 72 89 78 1,146 36% Operating Transfers Out 18 18 18 - - - 9 51% Capital Improvement Program 2,639 5,499 5,444 (55) 87 582 1,303 36% Total Uses 5,723 9,121 9,138 17 176 660 2,458 36% Net Surplus (Deficit) 91 91 74 (17) Beginning Reserves 245 1,640 1,640 - Projected Ending Reserves 336 1,731 1,714 (17) CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2012 MIDYEAR BUDGET SUMMARY STORM DRAINAGE FUND (in thousands of dollars) BUDGET (as of 12-31-11) ** Excludes encumbrances and reappropriation Page 8 2/21/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit A ACTUALS Adopted Adjusted Midyear Midyear Pre- % of Budget Budget Budget Changes Encumbr Encumbr Actual Midyear Budget Sources of Funds Net Sales 12,566 12,566 12,566 - - - 10,270 82% Interest Income 499 499 499 - - - 220 44% Other Income 8,016 8,016 8,016 - - - 71 1% Reapprop/Encumbrances 10,499 10,499 - Total Sources 21,081 31,580 31,580 - - - 10,561 50%** Uses of Funds Salaries and Benefits 9,509 9,509 9,836 327 - - 4,386 45% Contract Services 1,877 2,734 2,734 - 167 1,489 512 79% Supplies and Materials 1,422 1,645 1,645 - 53 435 716 73% Facility and Equipment Purchases 10 10 10 - - - - 0% General Expenses 411 411 411 - - - 193 47% Rents and Leases - - - - - - - 0% Allocated Charges 4,709 4,709 4,709 - - - 2,441 52% Debt Service 818 818 818 - - - - 0% Subtotal 18,756 19,836 20,163 327 220 1,925 8,248 52% Operating Transfers Out 105 105 105 - - - 53 50% Capital Improvement Program 56 9,475 9,475 - 963 1,566 484 32% Total Uses 18,917 29,416 29,743 327 1,183 3,490 8,785 45% Net To (From) Reserves 2,164 2,164 1,837 (327) Beginning Reserves 3,401 5,327 5,327 - Projected Ending Reserves 5,565 7,491 7,164 (327) ** Excludes encumbrances and reappropriation CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2012 MIDYEAR BUDGET SUMMARY WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND (in thousands of dollars) BUDGET (as of 12-31-11) Page 9 2/21/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit A ACTUALS Adopted Adjusted Midyear Midyear Pre- % of Budget Budget Budget Changes Encumbr Encumbr Actual Midyear Budget Sources of Funds Net Sales - - - - - - - 0% Interest Income - - - - - - - 0% Other Income - - - - - - - 0% Reapprop/Encumbrances - - - Total Sources - - - - - - - 0%** Uses of Funds Salaries and Benefits - - - - - - - 0% Contract Services - - 177 177 - - - 0% Supplies and Materials - - - - - - - 0% Facility and Equipment Purchases - - - - - - - 0% General Expenses - - - - - - - 0% Rents and Leases - - - - - - - 0% Allocated Charges - - - - - - - 0% Debt Service - - - - - - - 0% Subtotal - - 177 177 - - - 0% Operating Transfers Out - - - - - - - 0% Capital Improvement Program - - - - - - - 0% Total Uses - - 177 177 - - - 0% Net To (From) Reserves - - (177) (177) Beginning Reserves (118) (118) (118) - Projected Ending Reserves (118) (118) (295) (177) ** Excludes encumbrances and reappropriation CITY OF PALO ALTO FISCAL YEAR 2012 MIDYEAR BUDGET SUMMARY AIRPORT FUND (in thousands of dollars) BUDGET (as of 12-31-11) Page 10 2/21/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit A General Fund Midyear Detail Changes Fiscal Year 2012 Dept. Cost Center Comm Item Category Description Expense Revenue Totals FY 2012 Adopted Budget ‐ Contribution to BSR 144,339 NON Loan to Refuse Fund (repaid in FY 2013) 1,250,000 (1,250,000) ATT Add'l outside council binding arbitration 185,000 (185,000) PCE Various ‐ Economic Development Blue Print 1,520,426 1,516,000 (4,426) LIB Donation from Library Foundation 515,000 515,000 ‐ Year‐to‐Date Draw from BSR (1,439,426) Change to BSR Before Proposed Midyear Budget BSR Beginning Balance 31,520,339 Year‐to‐Date BSR Draw (1,439,426) BSR Balance Before Proposed Midyear Adjustments 30,080,913 Above/(below) 15% guideline 8,126,913 Above/(below) 18.5% guideline 3,004,313 Percent of Adopted Expenditures 20.55% Revenue Changes NON 10200000 18xxx Sales Taxes Sales Tax increase 1,348,000 NON 10200000 11xxx Property Tax Property Tax decrease (63,000) NON 10200000 11850 Transient Occupancy Tax TOT increase 470,000 NON 10300000 118xx Utility Users Tax UUT decrease (182,000) NON 10200000 11800 Documentary Transfer Tax Doc Trans Tax increase 500,000 NON 1020000 11090 Other Taxes and Fines Vehicle License Fee reduction (174,000) NON 10200000 16010 Return on Investments Interest Income decrease (344,000) CSD 80020810 13420 Charges for Services Additional ticket sales revenue 30,000 CSD 80020810 13480 Charges for Services Class registration revenue due to increased activity 15,000 CSD 80060710 13500 Charges for Services Reduced Golf revenues (75,000) CSD 80020115 18010 Other Revenue Donations for Children's studio programs from Palo Alto Arts Center Foundation to reimburse temp salaries 29,800 FIR/PD Various 12520 Charges for Services Stanford Fire FY 2011 budget to actual charges ‐ increase 153,486 FIR 75xxxxxx 12520 Charges for Services Stanford Fire Revenue loss due to IAFF concessions (315,726) FIR 75030008 13090 Charges for Services Paramedic Service Fee 100,000 PWD 50040006 19390 Permits and Licenses Increase in GF street cut fee revenue 50,400 Subtotal Various Revenues 1,542,960 Expense Changes Contingency Reimbursements NON 10200000 37020 General Expense Council Contingency reimbursement for High Speed Rail 125,000 NON 10200000 37070 General Expense Replenish Innovation Contingency Fund for November 2011 election costs 24,733 Subtotal ‐ Contingency Reimbursements 149,733 ‐ Council Directed or Obligated Expense CSD 80060710 31990 Contract Services San Francisquito flood control 25,000 NON Various 3037x Salary & Benefits Increase in retiree medical OPEB cost 2,330,000 FIR Various Various Salary & Benefits Negotiated IAFF Salary & Benefits reduction (1,042,000) PCE 60030001 34990 Rents & Leases Second floor Development Center rent ‐ reimbursement to PCE 125,100 Subtotal ‐ Council Directed or Obligated Expense 1,438,100 ‐ Department Requests Page 11 3/14/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit A General Fund Midyear Detail Changes Fiscal Year 2012 Dept. Cost Center Comm Item Category Description Expense Revenue Totals City Clerk's Office CLK 12030005 31210 Contract Services Minutes transcription 7,000 CLK 12010001 32080 Supplies and Materials Records storage for historical documents 4,500 Subtotal ‐ City Clerk 11,500 ‐ City Manager's Office CMO 11010001 30010 Salary & Benefits 0.5 FTE Management Analyst moved to IT (30,374) Subtotal ‐ City Manager (30,374) ‐ Administrative Services Department ASD Various 30030 Salary & Benefits Temps, reclassifications, one additional Senior Financial Analyst, FTE shifted from IT 77,371 ASD 40010001 31990 Contract Services Add'l funding Development Impact Fee, budget book 28,420 ASD 40010001 31290 Contract Services CalCard replacement project. Funded by transfer from the Technology Fund. 24,900 24,900 ASD 40060002 35600 Facilities & Equipment Computer for budget book production 3,810 Subtotal ‐ Administrative Services 134,501 24,900 Community Services Department CSD 80010001 30010 Salary & Benefits Reclass 1.0 FTE Mgr, Arts to Asst Director 25,828 CSD 80020115 30030 Salary & Benefits Temp salaries for children's studio classes offset by donations from Palo Alto Arts Council Foundation 8,200 8,200 80020414 31080 Contract Services Community funded concerts, expenses offset by donations 2,000 2,000 CSD 80020112 31990 Contract Services Exhibitions ‐ costs offset by Arts Council donations 7,051 7,051 CSD 80040003 31990 Contract Services Downtown Streets Team, reimbursed by Downtown Parking Permit Fund 20,000 20,000 CSD Various Various Various Dance in Schools and Children's Theater, fully funded by donations, PAUSD 89,730 89,730 CSD 80020810 33480 General Expense Reduction in special event expenses with corresponding reduction in revenues (64,888) (69,000) Subtotal ‐ Community Services 87,921 57,981 Fire Department FIR 75030004 30030 Salary & Benefits Temporary assistance with inspections, more than fully reimbursed by increased revenue 10,000 30,000 FIR 75040002 32990 Supplies & Materials Student materials for JFA, offset by revenue 8,000 8,000 Subtotal ‐ Fire 18,000 38,000 Library Department LIB 84010001 31990 Contract Services Strategic plan development from previous grant funds 6,300 LIB 84010001 32010 Supplies & Materials Supplies funded by Eureka! grant, Friends of the Public Library donation, Gordon Biersch donation 12,400 12,400 Subtotal ‐ Library 18,700 12,400 Planning and Community Environment Dept PCE 60030002 31990 Contract Services BMI Digital image scanning 31,350 Subtotal ‐ Planning & Community Environment 31,350 ‐ Police Department POL 70020002 30030 Salary & Benefits Reimbursable expenses for Urban Shield 43,838 43,838 POL Various Various Communications Until Leader training hosted by PAPD and reimbursed 11,061 11,061 Page 12 3/14/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit A General Fund Midyear Detail Changes Fiscal Year 2012 Dept. Cost Center Comm Item Category Description Expense Revenue Totals Subtotal ‐ Police 54,899 54,899 Public Works Department PWD Various 30010 Salary & Benefits Reallocate 1.1 FTE from Enterprise and Other Funds to the General Fund 30,189 PWD 50020305 31270 Contract services Canopy contract 44,500 PWD 50040005 31990 Contract services IBRC editor/consultant and related expenses 15,000 PWD 50020120 32310 Supplies and Materials Asphalt and pothole supplies 25,000 Subtotal ‐ Public Works 114,689 ‐ Non‐Departmental NON 10200000 30010 Salaries & Benefits Reduction of placeholder ‐ Public Safety concessions not achieved 3,412,539 NON 10200000 40550 Transfer Out Reduce loan to Refuse Fund (625,000) Subtotal ‐ Non‐Departmental 2,787,539 ‐ Subtotal ‐ Midyear Decision Items 3,228,725 188,180 SUBTOTAL ‐ EXPENSE AND REVENUE 4,816,558 1,731,140 NET GENERAL FUND MIDYEAR ADJUSTMENTS (3,085,418) SURPLUS ‐ ADOPTED BUDGET 144,373 PROPOSED MIDYEAR BSR DRAW (2,941,045) Change to BSR After Proposed Midyear Budget BSR Balance 30,080,913 Proposed Midyear BSR Draw (2,941,045) Revised BSR Balance 27,139,868 Above/(below) 15% guideline 5,185,868 Above/(below) 18.5% guideline 63,268 Percent of Adopted Expenditures 18.54% Page 13 3/14/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit A Enterprise Funds Midyear Detail Changes Fiscal Year 2012 Dept. Cost Center Comm Item Category Description Expense Revenue Electric Fund Operating Budget Utilities 20000030 17800 Net Sales Surplus Energy Rev 1,070,000 Utilities 20040102 18870 Other Revenue Reduce revenue CVP O&M Loan Repay (387,000) Utilities 20040105 33115 General Expense Carryforward unused amount for Energy Financing program from FY 2011 1,800,000 Utilities 20040104 33120 General Expense Carryforward unused amount for Energy Financing program from FY 2011 200,000 Utilities 20040102 33150 General Expense Decrease in joint agency debt service with NCPA due to lower than expected costs (53,000) Utilities 20040102 36090 Utility Purchase Lower than expected costs, deferred payments for Crazy Horse and San Joaquin projects (6,210,000) Utilities Various 39100 Allocated Charges Allocation for organizational assessment 33,906 Utilities Various 3037X Salary & Benefits Increase in retiree medical OPEB cost 176,000 Total Operating Budget (4,053,094) 683,000 Capital Budget Utilities 20020201 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP EL‐89028 Electric Customer Connections due to revised estimates (1,000,000) Utilities 20020202 38790 Project Expense To close CIP EL‐08002 E. Meadow/Alma/Loma 4/12kV Conversion and to return balance to reserve (414,014) Utilities 20020202 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP EL‐11008 Rebuild Underground District 19 due to reduction in project scope (400,000) Utilities 20020202 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP EL‐89038 Substation Protection Improvements due to revised estimates (300,000) Utilities 20020202 38790 Project Expense To close CIP EL‐04014 Automated Meter Reading System and to return balance to reserve (255,194) Utilities 20020403 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP EL‐89031 Communications System Improvements due to revised estimates (200,000) Utilities 20020202 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP EL‐89044 Substation Facility Improvements due to revised estimates (200,000) Utilities 20020202 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP EL‐11002 St. Francis Oregon 4/12kV Conversion which is being deferred six years due to other high priority projects (50,000) Utilities 20020202 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP EL‐11000 Seale/Waverley 4/12kV Conversion which is being deferred six years due to other high priority projects (40,000) Utilities 20020202 38790 Project Expense Increase CIP EL‐11004 Hewlett Subdivision Rebuild Los Trancos due to higher than original cost estimates 400,000 Total Capital Budget (2,459,208) ‐ Net Electric Fund Midyear Adjustments (6,512,302) 683,000 RESERVE IMPACT ‐ ELECTRIC SUPPLY RSR 4,929,788 RESERVE IMPACT ‐ ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION RSR 2,265,514 Fiber Optics Fund Operating Budget Utilities 20000081 39100 Allocated Charges Allocation for organizational assessment 2,094 Utilities Various 3037X Salary & Benefits Decrease in retiree medical OPEB cost (13,000) Net Fiber Optics Fund Midyear Adjustments (10,906) ‐ RESERVE IMPACT ‐ FIBER OPTICS RSR 10,906 Page 14 3/14/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit A Enterprise Funds Midyear Detail Changes Fiscal Year 2012 Dept. Cost Center Comm Item Category Description Expense Revenue Gas Fund Operating Budget Utilities 20040202 36040 Utility Purchase Reduction due to lower than budgeted market prices. (1,300,000) Utilities 20040202 36070 Utility Purchase Increase due to higher than budgeted expected PG&E Pipeline safety charge 400,000 Utilities 20000051 39100 Allocated Charges Allocation for organizational assessment 15,935 Utilities 20000050 20XXX/4 0XXX Operating Transfer In/Out Transfer from gas supply rate stabilization to gas distribution rate stabilization reserve to align with guidelines 8,000,000 8,000,000 Utilities 20000040 19620 Charges to Other Funds Decrease in sales to Vehicle Fund and decrease in commodity (80,532) (80,532) Utilities 20020802 39390 Allocated Charges Increase street cut fees for gas main replacement projects scheduled to be completed by Q4 200,400 Utilities Various 3037X Salary & Benefits Increase in retiree medical OPEB cost 24,000 Total Operating Budget 7,259,803 7,919,468 Capital Budget Utilities 20020802 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP GS‐03009 System Extensions‐ Unreimbursed due to revised estimates (480,000) Utilities 20020802 38790 Project Expense Close CIP GS‐05002 Gas Main Replacement ‐ Project 15 and to return balance to reserve (111,216) Utilities 20020802 38790 Project Expense Close CIP GS‐06001 Gas Main Replacement ‐ Project 16 and to return balance to reserve (49,716) Utilities 20020802 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP GS‐11002 Gas System Improvements due to revised estimates (100,000) Utilities 20020801 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP GS‐80017 Gas System Extensions due to revised estimates (935,000) Utilities 20020802 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP GS‐80019 Gas Meters and Regulators due to revised estimates (142,159) Total Capital Budget (1,818,091) ‐ Net Gas Fund Midyear Adjustments 5,441,712 7,919,468 RESERVE IMPACT ‐ GAS SUPPLY RSR (7,103,002) RESERVE IMPACT ‐ GAS DISTRIBUTION RSR 9,580,758 Wastewater Collection Fund Operating Budget Utilities 20000071 39100 Allocated Charges Allocation for organizational assessment 8,848 Utilities 20021202 39390 Allocated Charges Reduce street cut fees due to delays in wastewater collection rehabilitation projects. (150,000) Utilities Various 3037X Salary & Benefits Increase in retiree medical OPEB cost 21,000 Total Operating Budget (120,152) ‐ Capital Budget Utilities 20021202 38780 Project Expense Close CIP WC‐02002 Wastewater Collection System Rehab/Aug. Project 15 and to return balance to reserve (55,760) Utilities 20021202 38780 Project Expense Close CIP WC‐04002 Wastewater Collection System Rehab/Aug. Project 17 and to return balance to reserve (150,000) Utilities 20021202 38780 Project Expense Decrease CIP WC‐05003 Wastewater Collection System Rehab/Aug. Project 18 due to revised estimates (173,183) Page 15 3/14/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit A Enterprise Funds Midyear Detail Changes Fiscal Year 2012 Dept. Cost Center Comm Item Category Description Expense Revenue Utilities 20021202 38780 Project Expense Close CIP WC‐06003 Wastewater Collection System Rehab/Aug. Project 19 and to return balance to reserve (137,637) Utilities 20021202 38780 Project Expense Decrease CIP WC‐15002 Wastewater System Improvements due to revised estimates (275,000) Utilities 20021201 38780 Project Expense Decrease CIP WC‐80020 Sewer System Extensions due to revised estimates (625,000) Utilities 20021202 38780 Project Expense Decrease CIP WC‐99013 Sewer Lateral/Manhole Rehab/Replacement due to revised estimates (435,000) Total Capital Budget (1,851,580) ‐ Net Wastewater Collection Fund Midyear Adjustments (1,971,732) ‐ RESERVE IMPACT ‐ WASTEWATER COLLECTION RSR 1,971,732 Water Fund Operating Budget Utilities 20000061 39100 Allocated Charges Allocation for organizational assessment 14,217 Utilities Various 3037X Salary & Benefits Increase in retiree medical OPEB cost 25,000 Total Operating Budget 39,217 ‐ Capital Budget Utilities 20021002 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP WS‐07000 Water Regulation System Improvements due to revised estimates (600,000) Utilities 20021002 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP WS‐08002 Emergency Water Supply Project due to revised estimates (3,200,000) Utilities 20021002 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP WS‐11003 Water Distribution System Improvements due to revised estimates (130,000) Utilities 20021002 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP WS‐11004 Water Supply System Improvements due to revised estimates (125,000) Utilities 20021001 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP WS‐80013 Water System Extensions due to revised estimates (300,000) Utilities 20021002 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP WS‐80014 Water Service Hydrant Replacement due to revised estimates (500,000) Utilities 20021002 38790 Project Expense Decrease CIP WS‐80015 Water Meters due to revised estimates (640,000) Net Water Fund Midyear Adjustments (5,495,000) ‐ Net Water Fund Midyear Adjustments (5,455,783) ‐ RESERVE IMPACT ‐ WATER RSR 5,455,783 Refuse Fund Operating Budget PWD 50050101 30010 Salary & Benefits Reduce 1.0 FTE Admin Assoc. II (24,765) PWD 50050101 30010 Salary & Benefits Reduce 0.5 FTE Asst. Dir. Public Works (28,826) PWD Various 3037X Salary & Benefits Increase in retiree medical OPEB cost 145,000 PWD 50050411 31260 Contract services Increase ‐ IMPEC. Reimbursed by Univ. Ave. Parking Fund. 63,280 63,280 PWD 50050411 31270 Contract services Increase Downtown Streets Team Univ. Ave. Parking Fund 69,888 69,888 PWD 50050001 20110 Transfer In Decrease loan from General Fund (625,000) Total Operating Budget 224,576 (491,832) Capital Budget Page 16 3/14/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit A Enterprise Funds Midyear Detail Changes Fiscal Year 2012 Dept. Cost Center Comm Item Category Description Expense Revenue PWD 50050201 38790 JL Project Expense Reduce CIP RF‐07001 due to permanent closure of the Recycling Center, return to Refuse Fund.(879,473) PWD 50050201 38790 JL Project Expense Close CIP RF‐09003. New receptacles not preferred, return to Refuse Fund.(321,843) Total Capital Budget (1,201,316) ‐ Net Refuse Fund Midyear Adjustments (976,740) (491,832) RESERVE IMPACT ‐ REFUSE FUND RSR 484,908 Storm Drainage Fund Operating Budget PWD 50070320 30010 Salary & Benefits Decrease 0.05 FTE Admin Associate II (1,238) PWD 50070320 30010 Salary & Benefits Decrease 0.05 FTE Management Analyst (1,725) PWD 50070320 30010 Salary & Benefits Increase 0.05 FTE Asst. Dir. Public Works 2,883 PWD Various 3037X Salary & Benefits Increase in retiree medical OPEB cost 72,000 Total Operating Budget 71,920 ‐ Capital Budget PWD 50070201 38790 Project Expense Close CIP SD‐08101 Alma Street Storm Drain Improvements, return balance to reserve (55,117) Total Capital Budget (55,117) ‐ Net Storm Drainage Fund Midyear Adjustments 16,803 ‐ RESERVE IMPACT ‐ STORM DRAINAGE RSR (16,803) Wastewater Treatment Fund Operating Budget PWD Various 3037X Salary & Benefits Increase in retiree medical OPEB cost 327,000 Total Operating Budget 327,000 ‐ Net Wastewater Treatment Fund Midyear Adjustments 327,000 ‐ RESERVE IMPACT ‐ STORM DRAINAGE RSR (327,000) Airport Fund PWD 53000000 30010 Salary & Benefits City staff oversight 1,433 PWD 53000000 31010 Contract Services Contract for legal services 25,000 PWD 53000000 31990 Contract Services Contracts for groundwater sampling and monitoring 151,001 Net Airport Fund Midyear Adjustments 177,434 ‐ RESERVE IMPACT ‐ AIRPORT FUND (177,434) Utilities Administration Admin 20000002 19100 Charges to Other Funds Increase in Utilities administration reimbursement from Utilities Funds 75,000 Admin 20010001 31990 Contract Services Increase for Utilities Organizational Assessment 75,000 Admin Various 3037X Salary & Benefits Decrease in retiree medical OPEB cost (4,000) (4,000) Net Utilities Administration Fund Midyear Adjustments 71,000 71,000 RESERVE IMPACT ‐ Page 17 3/14/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit A Internal Service Funds Midyear Detail Changes Fiscal Year 2012 Dept. Cost Center Comm Item Category Description Expense Revenue Technology Fund Operating Budget IT 30010003 30010 Salary & Benefits CIO salary, decrease in 0.32 ASD FTE, add 1.0 FTE Information Technology Security Manager, move 0.5 FTE from CMO 185,425 IT 30040003 31230 Contract Services Additional Licenses for Utilities 123,050 IT 30040003 31230 Contract Services Non‐emergency notification system 10,000 IT 30040002 31230 Contract Services City's internet/intranet design 80,000 IT 30040003 31230 Contract Services Questica purchase 85,000 IT 30040003 31230 Contract Services Employee Selection ‐ Neoga 10,000 IT 30030003 31290 Contract Services Computer room UPS 2,400 IT 30050002 31290 Contract Services Panaya ‐ Automates the applying of SAP service packs. 65,000 IT 30040003 31290 Contract Services Internet connectivity 21,335 IT 30040003 31290 Contract Services Utility Blackboard Software License 55,000 IT 30030003 31290 Contract Services SAP Backend 13,000 IT 30040003 31290 Contract Services Minute Traq software maintenance 11,040 IT 30040003 31290 Contract Services Move Geodessy TE‐02015 maint. from CIP 45,000 IT 30010003 31990 Contract services Recruitment costs 25,000 IT 30010002 33060 General Expense Subscription professional services 7,600 IT 30030002 35040 Facilities & Equipment Universal Power Supply repair 32,760 IT 30030002 35040 Facilities & Equipment Increase wireless connectivity at City locations 81,000 IT Various 3037X Salary & Benefits Increase in retiree medical OPEB cost 2,000 IT 30050002 40xxx Transfer Out CAL‐Card maintenance support, transferred to ASD budget (24,900) Total Operating Budget 829,710 ‐ Capital Budget IT 30060002 38790 Project Expense Close CIP TE‐00021 New Phone System, transfer to CIP TE‐00010 Telephone System Replacement (174,285) IT 30060002 38790 Project Expense Increase CIP TE‐00010 to include transfer from TE‐ 00021 174,285 IT 30060002 38790 Project Expense Close CIP TE‐01006 Enterprise Backup Solutions, transfer the amount to CIP TE‐01012 IT Disaster Recovery (68,626) IT 30060002 38790 Project Expense Increase CIP TE‐01012 to include transfer from TE‐ 01006 68,626 IT 30060003 38790 Project Expense Close CIP TE‐8000 Library Technology Plan, return balance to reserves (18,766) IT 30060003 38790 Project Expense Close CIP TE‐08002 Electronic Patient Care Report and return balance to reserves (35,055) Total Capital Budget (53,821) ‐ Net Technology Fund Midyear Adjustments 775,889 ‐ RESERVE IMPACT (775,889) Vehicle Replacement Fund Operating Budget PWD 50471003 30010 Salary & Benefits Reallocate 0.50 FTE to Vehicle Replacement from other funds 23,037 PWD 50080303 31250 Contract Services Repairs of hoist, generators, equipment. CARB permit renewals, tire work, accident repairs.100,000 PWD 50080301 32060 Supplies & Materials Asset Works Fleet Training.10,000 PWD 50080302 34050 Rents & Leases Rental expenses due to increasing repairs 25,000 Page 18 3/14/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit A Internal Service Funds Midyear Detail Changes Fiscal Year 2012 PWD 50080310 39620 Allocated Charges Compressed natural gas sales decreased due to fleet reduction.(80,532) PWD Various 3037X Salary & Benefits Increase in retiree medical OPEB cost 26,000 Total Operating Budget 103,505 ‐ Capital Budget PWD 50080401 38790 Project Expense Establish CIP VR‐12001 Replacement of In‐Ground Vehicle Lifts at Municipal Services Center 50,000 PWD 50080402 38790 Project Expense Increase VR‐07002 Diesel Truck Engine Emissions Retrofit for vehicle #4410‐leaf packer truck used in street sweeping.50,000 PWD 50080402 38790 Project Expense Increase VR‐11000 Vehicle Replacements for the replacement of vehicle #8790‐Utilities rodding truck.175,000 Total Capital Budget 275,000 ‐ Net Vehicle Replacement Fund Midyear Adjustments 378,505 ‐ RESERVE IMPACT (378,505) Printing & Mailing Fund Operating Budget ASD Various Various Salary & Benefits Decrease in retiree medical OPEB cost (28,000) Net Printing & Mailing Fund Midyear Adjustments (28,000) ‐ RESERVE IMPACT 28,000 General Benefits Fund Operating Budget NON 68700000 Various Salary & Benefits Net benefits savings from IAFF concessions (143,000) (143,000) Net General Benefits Fund Midyear Adjustments (143,000) (143,000) RESERVE IMPACT ‐ Retiree Medical Fund Operating Budget NON 69400000 Various Salary & Benefits Increase in retiree medical OPEB cost 3,176,000 3,176,000 Net Retiree Medical Fund Midyear Adjustments 3,176,000 3,176,000 RESERVE IMPACT ‐ Page 19 3/14/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit A Special Revenue Funds Midyear Detail Changes FY 2012 Dept.Cost Center Comm Item Category Description Expense Revenue Law Enforcement Services Fund POL 70248003 15370 From Other Agencies COPS grant 104,944 POL 70248003 35070 Facilities & Equipment COPS funded grant materials (104,944) Net Midyear Adjustments (104,944) 104,944 NET LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES MIDYEAR ADJUSTMENT - University Avenue Parking Permit Revenue Fund NON 23600000 40xxx Operating Transfer Out Downtown Streets Team, increased cleaning 133,168 NON 23600000 40xxx Operating Transfer Out Downtown Streets Team charged to CSD, reimbursed by Downtown Parking Permit Fund 20,000 Net Midyear Adjustments 153,168 - NET UNIVERSITY AVENUE PARKING PERMITS MIDYEAR ADJUSTMENT 153,168 Housing in-lieu Residential Fund PCE 602330002 33460 General Expense Transfer In from Housing in-lieu Commercial to cover housing loans 600,000 600,000 Net Midyear Adjustments 600,000 600,000 NET HOUSING IN-LIEU RESIDENTIAL MIDYEAR ADJUSTMENT - Housing in-lieu Commercial Fund NON 23400000 40xxx Transfer Out Transfer funds to residential housing in-lieu to cover housing loans 600,000 Net Midyear Adjustments 600,000 - NET HOUSING IN-LIEU COMMERCIAL MIDYEAR ADJUSTMENT - Stanford Department Agreement Fund NON 80260010 18110 Other Revenue Community Health & Safety 4,000,000 NON 26000000 18110 Other Revenue Operating Deficit 2,417,000 NON 60260010 18110 Other Revenue Intermodel Transit 2,250,000 NON 60260020 18110 Other Revenue Quarry Road Improvements 400,000 NON 60260030 18110 Other Revenue Neighborhoods & Communities & Affordable Housing 7,733,333 NON 60260040 18110 Other Revenue Climate Change 4,000,000 NON 26000000 18110 Return on Investment Interest income 459,984 NON 80260010 30030 Salary & Benefits Project Safety Net coordinator 45,000 NON 80260010 32070 General Expense Supplies associated with Project Safety Net 20,000 Net Midyear Adjustments 65,000 21,260,317 NET STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER MIDYEAR ADJUSTMENT 21,195,317 Page 20 2/21/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit A General Fund CIP Detail Midyear Changes Fiscal Year 2012 Dept.Cost Center Comm Item Category Description Expense Revenue General Fund Capital Improvement Fund ASD 404710002 38790 Project Expense Reduce CIP AS-10001 Sustainability, return to Infrastructure Reserve (300,000) PCE 60471005 38790 Project Expense Close CIP PL-06002 Comprehensive Parking Signage Plan and return balance to reserves. This project was replaced with PL-12000 Transportation and Parking Improvements.(423,687) PCE 60471006 38790 Project Expense Close CIP PL-11004 Alma Street- Traffic Improvement, return balance to reserves. This was part of a partnership project with Caltrain to provide improvements along the rail corridor. Caltrain will use grant-funds initially set aside for this project to implement preemption improvements instead of intersection improvements. Therefore, project should be closed.(699,000) PCE 60471001 38790 Project Expense Close CIP PL-98013 School Commute Safety Improvements and return balance to reserves. This project was replaced with PL-00026 Safe Routes to School.(102,488) PWD 50471011 18020 Contract Services CIP PE-86070 Street Maint. Program for structural engineering to investigate guardrail damage. Costs reimbursed by motorist's insurance.10,000 10,000 PWD 50471010 31040 Contract Services NEW Alma Street/University Avenue Bridge Guardrail Repair - PE-12009 Repair of guardrail due to vehicular accident Alma & University 110,000 110,000 PWD 50471003 30010 Salary & Benefits Reallocate 0.05 FTE from Capital to various PW Funds. Nets to an budget increase due to level of job classification 446 Various Various 3037X Salary & Benefits Increase in OPEB retiree medical ARC 69,000 (1,335,729) 120,000 NET CIP MIDYEAR ADJUSTMENTS 1,455,729 SUBTOTAL - EXPENSE AND REVENUE Page 21 2/21/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit B Project Funding Title Number Revenue Expense Source Comments ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS Street Maintenance PE-86070 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Property damage revenue For structural engineering consultant services to investigate the extent of the damage to the guardrail on the University Ave. overpass at Alma that was damaged by intoxicated driver. Costs to be reimbursed by driver's insurance. Alma Street/University Avenue Bridge Guardrail Repair (New Project) ( Exhibit B-1) PE-12009 $ 110,000 $ 110,000 Property damage revenue To repair the guardrail on the University Ave. overpass at Alma that was damaged by intoxicated driver. Costs to be reimbursed by driver's insurance. Total $ 110,000 $ 110,000 REDUCTION IN APPROPRIATIONS/TO CLOSE PROJECTS Alma Street- Traffic Signal Improvements PL-11004 $ (699,000) Infrastructure Reserve To close project and return balance to reserve School Commute Safety Improvements PL-98013 $ (102,488) Infrastructure Reserve To close project and return balance to reserve Comprehensive Parking Signage Plan PL-06002 $ (423,687) Infrastructure Reserve To close project and return balance to reserve Sustainability Contingency AS-10001 $ (300,000) Infrastructure Reserve To reduce appropriation due to lower expected activity Total $ (1,525,175) TOTAL GENERAL FUND CIP MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS $ 110,000 $ (1,415,175) ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS Hewlett Subdivision Rebuild Los Trancos EL-11004 $ 400,000 Electric Fund RSR The final design to rebuild the electric system in the Hewlett Subdivision (in the western foothills) came in at a higher cost. A large part of the cost will be turning it into a loop configuration, requiring a several hundred foot bore, plus utility switches. Total $ - $ 400,000 REDUCTION IN APPROPRIATIONS/TO CLOSE PROJECTS Electric Customer Connections EL-89028 $ (1,000,000) Electric Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates E. Meadow/Alma/Loma 4/12kV Conversion EL-08002 $ (414,014) Electric Fund Distribution RSR To close project and return balance to reserve Rebuild Underground District 19 EL-11008 $ (400,000) Electric Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to reduction in project scope Substation Protection Improvements EL-89038 $ (300,000) Electric Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Automated Meter Reading System EL-04014 $ (255,194) Electric Fund Distribution RSR To close project and return balance to reserve Communications System Improvements EL-89031 $ (200,000) Electric Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Substation Facility Improvements EL-89044 $ (200,000) Electric Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates St. Francis Oregon 4/12kV Conversion EL-11002 $ (50,000) Electric Fund Distribution RSR Project has been deferred out six years due to other high priority projects Seale/Waverley 4/12kV Conversion EL-11000 $ (40,000) Electric Fund Distribution RSR Project has been deferred out six years due to other high priority projects Total $ - $ (2,859,208) FY 2012 CIP Mid-Year Adjustments CAPITAL PROJECT FUND ELECTRIC FUND Page 1 of 3 2/21/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit B Project Funding Title Number Revenue Expense Source Comments FY 2012 CIP Mid-Year Adjustments TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND CIP MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS $ - $ (2,459,208) REDUCTION IN APPROPRIATIONS/TO CLOSE PROJECTS System Extensions- Unreimbursed GS-03009 $ (480,000) Gas Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Gas Main Replacement - Project 15 GS-05002 $ (111,216) Gas Fund Distribution RSR To close project and return balance to reserve Gas Main Replacement - Project 16 GS-06001 $ (49,716) Gas Fund Distribution RSR To close project and return balance to reserve Gas System Improvements GS-11002 $ (100,000) Gas Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Gas System Extensions GS-80017 $ (935,000) Gas Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Gas Meters and Regulators GS-80019 $ (142,159) Gas Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates TOTAL GAS FUND CIP MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS -$ (1,818,091)$ REDUCTION IN APPROPRIATIONS/TO CLOSE PROJECTS Water Regulation System Improvements WS-07000 $ (600,000) Water Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Emergency Water Supply Project WS-08002 $ (3,200,000) Utility Revenue Bonds Decrease due to revised estimates Water Distribution System Improvements WS-11003 $ (130,000) Water Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Water Supply System Improvements WS-11004 $ (125,000) Water Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Water System Extensions WS-80013 $ (300,000) Water Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Water Service Hydrant Replacement WS-80014 $ (500,000) Water Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Water Meters WS-80015 $ (640,000) Water Fund Distribution RSR Decrease due to revised estimates TOTAL WATER FUND CIP MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS (5,495,000)$ REDUCTION IN APPROPRIATIONS/TO CLOSE PROJECTS Wastewater Collection System Rehab/Aug. Project 15 WC-02002 $ (55,760) Wastewater Collection Fund RSR To close project and return balance to reserve Wastewater Collection System Rehab/Aug. Project 17 WC-04002 $ (150,000) Wastewater Collection Fund RSR To close project and return balance to reserve Wastewater Collection System Rehab/Aug. Project 18 WC-05003 $ (173,183) Wastewater Collection Fund RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Wastewater Collection System Rehab/Aug. Project 19 WC-06003 $ (137,637) Wastewater Collection Fund RSR To close project and return balance to reserve Wastewater System Improvements WC-15002 $ (275,000) Wastewater Collection Fund RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Sewer System Extensions WC-80020 $ (625,000) Wastewater Collection Fund RSR Decrease due to revised estimates Sewer Lateral/Manhole Rehab/Replacement WC-99013 $ (435,000) Wastewater Collection Fund RSR Decrease due to revised estimates TOTAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND CIP MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS -$ (1,851,580)$ GAS FUND WATER FUND WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND Page 2 of 3 2/21/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit B Project Funding Title Number Revenue Expense Source Comments FY 2012 CIP Mid-Year Adjustments REDUCTION IN APPROPRIATIONS/TO CLOSE PROJECTS Relocation of Landfill Facilities RF-07001 $ (879,473) Storm Drainage Fund RSR To reduce project scope due to permanent closure of Recycling Center Recycling in Business Districts RF-09003 $ (321,843) Storm Drainage Fund RSR To close project and return balance to reserve; receptacles under consideration not preferable TOTAL REFUSE FUND CIP MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS -$ (1,201,316)$ REDUCTION IN APPROPRIATIONS/TO CLOSE PROJECTS Alma Street Storm Drainage Improvement SD-08101 $ (55,117) Storm Drainage Fund RSR To close project and return balance to reserve TOTAL STORM DRAINAGE FUND CIP MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS -$ (55,117)$ ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS Replacement of In-Ground Vehicle Lifts at the Municipal Services Center (New Project) (Exhibit B-2) VR-12001 $ 50,000 Vehicle Replacement Fund Replacement of seven in-ground vehicle lifts at Municipal Services Center Diesel Truck Engine Emissions Retrofit VR-07002 $ 50,000 Vehicle Replacement Fund Retrofit of vehicle #4410- leaf packer truck used in street sweeping; diesel particulate filter required to meet regulations of California Air Resources Board Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacements VR-11000 $ 175,000 Vehicle Replacement Fund Replacement of vehicle #8790- Utilities rodding truck TOTAL VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND CIP MID- YEAR ADJUSTMENTS 275,000$ TRANSFERS/REDUCTION IN APPROPRIATIONS/TO CLOSE PROJECTS New Phone System TE-00021 (174,285)$ Technology Fund and various Enterprise Funds To close project and transfer appropriation to TE- 00010 (Telephone System Replacement) Telephone System Replacement TE-00010 174,285$ Technology Fund and various Enterprise Funds Transfer from TE-00021 (New Phone System) Enterprise Backup Solution TE-01006 (68,626)$ Technology Fund and various Enterprise Funds To close project and transfer appropriation to TE- 01012 (IT Disaster Recovery) IT Disaster Recovery TE-01012 68,626$ Technology Fund and various Enterprise Funds Transfer from TE-01006 (Enterprise Backup Solution) Library Technology Plan TE-08000 (18,766)$ Technology Fund and various Enterprise Funds To close project and return balance to reserves Electronic Patient Care TE-08002 (35,055)$ Technology Fund and various Enterprise Funds To close project and return balance to reserves TOTAL TECHNOLOGY FUND CIP MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS (53,821)$ VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND TECHNOLOGY FUND STORM DRAINAGE FUND REFUSE FUND Page 3 of 3 2/21/2012 City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012 PO-12001Curb and Gutter Repairs ALMA STREET/UNIVERSITY AVENUE BRIDGE GUARDRAIL REPAIR (PE-12009)- NEW CIP FACTS: • New • Project Status: Design • Timeline: FY 2012 • Managing Department: Public Works • Comprehensive Plan: None • Potential Board/Commission Review: none IMPACT ANALYSIS: • Environmental: Exempt from CEQA under Sec- tion 15302. • Design Elements: The replacment guardrail will match the appearance and functionality of the existing guardrail. • Operating: None Description: This project will repair a portion of the guardrail on the Alma street/University Avenue bridge that was damaged during a vehicular accident at the site in early 2011. The replacement guardrail will match the appearance and functionality of the existing guardrail. Justification: The guardrail must be replaced for public health and safety reasons in order to prevent vehicles from falling off the roadway down a vertical drop-off onto a street and sidewalk area below. Supplemental Information: A structural engineering consultant is currently designing the guardrail repairs to ensure that the replacement guardrail will restore the level of protection provided by the original installation. FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding Pre-Design Costs Design Costs Construction Costs $110,000 $110,000 Other Total Budget Request $110,000 $110,000 Revenues: Source of Funds:Infrastructure Reserve Exhibit B-1 City of Palo Alto Capital Budget FY 2012 VR-15000Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacements EVALUATION AND REPLACEMENT OF IN-GROUND VEHICLE LIFTS AT THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES CENTER (VR-12001)/&8 FUTURE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Total Funding Pre-Design Costs Design Costs Construction Costs Other $50,000 $350,000 $400,000 Total Budget Request $50,000 $350,000 $400,000 Revenues: Source of Funds:Vehicle Replacement Fund CIP FACTS: • New • Project Status: Other • Timeline: FY 201-201 • Overall Project Completion: 0% • Percent Spent: 0.00% • Managing Department: Public Works • Comprehensive Plan: Policy N-26, Program N-41 • Potential Board/Commission Review: None IMPACT ANALYSIS: • Environmental: This project is categorically exempt from CEQA under section 15301. • Design Elements: None • Operating: This project XJMMHFOFSBUF POHPJOH NBJOUFnance costs. • Telecommunications: None Description: This project will involve the evaluation and possible replacement of seven (7) in-ground vehicle lifts at the Municipal Services Center (MSC) Vehicle Maintenance Facility. Justification: The seven in-ground vehicle lifts at the MSC Vehicle Maintenance Facility are between 25 and 35 years old. Major components such as the lift cylinders and in-ground oil piping are beginning to deteriorate. in addition, the pits in which the lift mechanisms are located are cracking, which is allowing a large amount of groundwater infiltration. The groundwater is being contamination with oil from the leaking hoists which must be processed as hazardous waste. Supplemental Information: This project will be conducted in two phases. In the first phase, staff will contract with a vehicle maintenance facility design firm to evaluate our vehicle lift requirements. The design firm will work with staff to determine if the existing lifts can be overhauled and restored to efficient and environmentally sound operation, or if they should be replaced. If a determination is made that the lifts should be replaced, the design firm will make reommendations regarding appropriate replacements. Vehicle lifting technology has improved greatly since the original hoists were installed. If the lifts were replaced, they could be replaced by electric versions which would pose no potential for environmental contamination. The second phase of this project would involve the demolition of the existing lifts, and the purchase and installation of new lifts. PRIOR YEARS PY Budget $0 PY Actuals as of 12/31/2010 0 Exhibit B-2 Attachment 1, Exhibit C FY 2011 Adjusted Budget FY 2012 Adopted Budget FY 2012 Mid‐ Year Budget Change FY 2012 Adjusted Budget GENERAL FUND City Manager Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Administrative Associate I 1.50 0.50 ‐ 0.50 Administrative Associate II ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Administrative Associate III ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Management Analyst (1)0.50 0.50 (0.50) ‐ Assistant City Manager/Chief Operating Officer 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Assistant to City Manager 1.50 1.55 ‐ 1.55 City Manager 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Communications Manager 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Deputy City Manager 0.50 0.50 ‐ 0.50 Executive Assistant to the City Manager 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Manager, Communications ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Manager, Economic Devlpmt & Redevlpmt ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Senior Management Analyst ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total City Manager 9.00 10.05 (0.50) 9.55 Footnote: (1) Reallocate 0.50 FTE Management Analyst from City Manager's Office to Technology Fund Administrative Services Department Accountant 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Accounting Specialist 7.00 7.00 ‐ 7.00 Accounting Specialist ‐ Lead 5.00 5.00 ‐ 5.00 Administrative Assistant (4)0.93 0.93 0.07 1.00 Administrative Associate III ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Assistant Director, Administrative Services (5)0.60 1.50 0.10 1.60 Assistant Storekeeper ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Business Analyst ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Buyer 1.95 1.95 ‐ 1.95 Director, Office of Management and Budget (1)‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Contracts Administrator 1.40 1.40 ‐ 1.40 Deputy Director, Administrative Services 0.80 ‐ ‐ ‐ Director, ASD/Chief Financial Officer (6)0.50 0.50 0.15 0.65 Table of Organization Page 1 of 11 2/16/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit C FY 2011 Adjusted Budget FY 2012 Adopted Budget FY 2012 Mid‐ Year Budget Change FY 2012 Adjusted Budget Table of Organization Graphic Designer 1.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ Manager, Accounting 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Manager, Budget 1.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ Manager, Purchasing/Contract Administrator 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Manager, Real Property 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Payroll Analyst 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Principal Financial Analyst (2)‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Real Property Analyst ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Real Property Agent ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Senior Accountant 3.00 3.00 ‐ 3.00 Senior Business Analyst ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Senior Financial Analyst (3)5.81 4.91 1.00 5.91 Senior Buyer ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Staff Secretary ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Storekeeper ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Storekeeper ‐ Lead 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Warehouse Supervisor 0.50 0.50 ‐ 0.50 Total Administrative Services 37.49 37.69 1.32 39.01 Footnote: (1) Title change from Chief Budget Officer to Director, Office of Management and Budget (2) Title change from Budget Officer to Principal Financial Analyst (3) Add 1.00 FTE Senior Financial Analyst (4) Reallocate 0.07 FTE Administrative Assistant from Information Technology Fund (5) Reallocate 0.10 FTE Assistant Director, Administrative Services from Technology Fund (6) Reallocate 0.15 FTE Director, Administrative Services from Technology Fund Community Services Department Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Administrative Associate I ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Administrative Associate III 0.75 0.75 ‐ 0.75 Administrator Special Events ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Arts and Culture Division Manager 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Assistant Director CSD (1)‐ ‐ 1.00 1.00 Building Serviceperson 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Building Serviceperson ‐ Lead 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Page 2 of 11 2/16/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit C FY 2011 Adjusted Budget FY 2012 Adopted Budget FY 2012 Mid‐ Year Budget Change FY 2012 Adjusted Budget Table of Organization Community Services Senior Program Manager 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Community Services Superintendent 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Coordinator, Child Care ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Coordinator, Recreation Programs 4.50 4.00 ‐ 4.00 Cubberley Center and Human Svc Div Mgr ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Director, Community Services 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Division Manager, Golf & Parks ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Division Manager, Recreation & Golf 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Division Manager, Rec and Youth Sciences ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Golf Course Equipment Mechanic ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Golf Course Maintenance Person ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Inspector, Field Services 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Jr. Museum & Zoo Lead Educator 2.25 2.25 ‐ 2.25 Jr. Museum & Zoo Lead Instructor ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Management Assistant 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Manager, Arts (1)2.00 2.00 (1.00) 1.00 Open Space and Parks Division Manager 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Park Maintenance Lead 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Park Maintenance Person 6.00 6.00 ‐ 6.00 Park Ranger 5.00 5.00 ‐ 5.00 Parks and Open Space Assistant ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Parks Crew ‐ Lead 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Producer Arts/Science Programs 12.00 12.00 ‐ 12.00 Program Assistant I 7.50 7.50 ‐ 7.50 Program Assistant II 3.00 3.00 ‐ 3.00 Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Senior Ranger ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Sprinkler System Repairer 4.00 4.00 ‐ 4.00 Superintendent, Parks 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Supervisor, Open Space 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Supervisor, Parks 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Supervisor, Recreation Program 4.00 4.00 ‐ 4.00 Theater Specialist 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Volunteer Coordinator 0.50 0.50 ‐ 0.50 Total Community Services 74.50 74.00 ‐ 74.00 Page 3 of 11 2/16/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit C FY 2011 Adjusted Budget FY 2012 Adopted Budget FY 2012 Mid‐ Year Budget Change FY 2012 Adjusted Budget Table of Organization Footnote: (1) Reclass 1.00 FTE Manager, Arts to Assistant Director CSD Planning and Community Environment Department Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Administrative Associate I 1.00 1.50 ‐ 1.50 Administrative Associate II 3.80 3.80 ‐ 3.80 Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Administrator, Planning & Comm Envir 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Assistant Building Official 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Assistant Director, Planning & Comm Envir ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Assistant Engineer ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Assistant to City Manager 0.05 ‐ ‐ ‐ Associate Engineer 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Building Inspector 4.00 4.00 ‐ 4.00 Building Inspector Specialist 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Building/Planning Technician 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Chief Building Official 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Chief Planning and Transportation Official 1.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ Chief Transportation Officer ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Chief Transportation Official 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 City Traffic Engineer ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Code Enforcement Officer 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Coordinator, Transp Sys Mgmt 0.50 0.50 ‐ 0.50 Deputy City Manager 0.50 0.50 ‐ 0.50 Development Center Manager (1)‐ ‐ 1.00 1.00 Development Center Project Coordinator III (4)‐ ‐ 3.00 3.00 Development Services Director (2)‐ ‐ 1.00 1.00 Director, Planning and Comm Envir 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Engineer 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Engineering Technician II 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Manager, Economic Resources ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Manager, Economic Devlpmt & Redevlpmt 1.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ Manager, Planning 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Managing Arborist ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Permit Specialist ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Planner 5.75 5.75 ‐ 5.75 Page 4 of 11 2/16/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit C FY 2011 Adjusted Budget FY 2012 Adopted Budget FY 2012 Mid‐ Year Budget Change FY 2012 Adjusted Budget Table of Organization Plan Checking Engineer 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Plans Examiner (3)‐ ‐ 1.00 1.00 Planning Arborist 1.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ Project Engineer 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Senior Planner 5.00 5.00 ‐ 5.00 Supervisor, Building Inspection 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Transportation Manager ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Transportation Project Manager ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Planning and Community Environment 44.60 43.05 6.00 49.05 Footnote: (1) Add 1.00 FTE Development Center Manager (2) Add 1.00 FTE Development Services Director (3) Add 1.00 FTE Plans Examiner (4) Add 3.00 FTE Development Project Coordinator III Public Works Department Accountant 0.02 0.02 ‐ 0.02 Accounting Specialist 0.04 0.04 ‐ 0.04 Administrative Assistant 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Administrative Associate I 1.70 0.70 ‐ 0.70 Administrative Associate II (1)1.80 1.80 1.05 2.85 Administrative Associate III ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Assistant Director Public Works (5)1.10 1.10 0.20 1.30 Associate Engineer 0.10 0.10 ‐ 0.10 Building Serviceperson 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Building Serviceperson ‐ Lead 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Coordinator, Public Works Projects ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Deputy Director, Public Works Operations ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Director, Public Works/City Engineer 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Electrician 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Engineer 0.30 0.30 ‐ 0.30 Engineering Technician III 3.30 3.30 ‐ 3.30 Equipment Operator 3.46 3.46 ‐ 3.46 Equipment Parts Technician ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Page 5 of 11 2/16/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit C FY 2011 Adjusted Budget FY 2012 Adopted Budget FY 2012 Mid‐ Year Budget Change FY 2012 Adjusted Budget Table of Organization Facilities Assistant ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Facilities Carpenter 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Facilities Electrician ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Facilities Maintenance ‐ Lead 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Facilities Mechanic 6.00 6.00 ‐ 6.00 Facilities Painter 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Heavy Equipment Operator 1.90 1.90 ‐ 1.90 Heavy Equipment Operator ‐ Lead 0.85 0.85 ‐ 0.85 Inspector, Field Services 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Instrument Electrician ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Management Analyst (2)‐ 0.55 (0.15) 0.40 Manager, Facilities Maintenance 0.80 ‐ ‐ ‐ Manager, Maintenance Operations 0.12 1.72 ‐ 1.72 Managing Arborist 1.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ Planning Arborist ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Project Engineer 0.20 0.20 ‐ 0.20 Project Manager 1.75 0.75 ‐ 0.75 Senior Accountant 0.02 0.02 ‐ 0.02 Senior Engineer (3)0.20 0.20 0.90 1.10 Senior Financial Analyst 0.16 0.16 ‐ 0.16 Senior Management Analyst 0.90 0.90 ‐ 0.90 Senior Project Manager (4)1.00 1.00 (0.90) 0.10 Superintendent, Public Works Operations 0.60 ‐ ‐ ‐ Supervising Project Engineer ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Supervisor, Building Services ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Supervisor, Facilities Management 1.95 ‐ ‐ ‐ Supervisor, Inspec/Surveying, Public Works 0.80 0.80 ‐ 0.80 Surveying Assistant 0.78 0.78 ‐ 0.78 Surveyor, Public Works 0.78 0.78 ‐ 0.78 Traffic Control Maintainer ‐ Lead 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Traffic Control Maintenance I 1.94 1.94 ‐ 1.94 Traffic Control Maintenance II 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Tree Maintenance Assistant ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Tree Maintenance Specialist 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Tree Trimmer/Line Clearer 7.00 7.00 ‐ 7.00 Tree Trimmer/Line Clearer Assistant ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Tree Trimmer/Line Clearer ‐ Lead 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Page 6 of 11 2/16/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit C FY 2011 Adjusted Budget FY 2012 Adopted Budget FY 2012 Mid‐ Year Budget Change FY 2012 Adjusted Budget Table of Organization Urban Forester ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Total Public Works 58.57 56.37 1.10 57.47 Footnote: (2) Reallocate 0.15 FTE Management Analyst to Vehicle Replacement Fund (3) Reallocate 0.90 FTE Senior Engineer from Capital Fund (4) Reallocate 0.90 Senior Project Manager to Capital Fund (5) Reallocate 0.20 FTE Assistant Director Public Works from Enterprise Funds ‐ Public Works ENTERPRISE FUNDS Public Works Department Refuse, Storm Drainage and Wastewater Treatment Accountant 0.23 0.23 ‐ 0.23 Accounting Specialist 0.46 0.46 ‐ 0.46 Administrative Associate II (1)3.20 3.20 (1.05) 2.15 Administrator, Refuse 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Assistant Director, Public Works (2), (3)0.75 0.75 (0.45) 0.30 Assistant Director, Environmental Services ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Assistant Plant Manager ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Assistant to City Manager 0.10 0.10 ‐ 0.10 Asst Manager, Water Quality Control Plant 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Associate Engineer 3.30 3.30 ‐ 3.30 Associate Planner 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Business Analyst 1.13 0.13 ‐ 0.13 Buyer 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Chemist 3.00 3.00 ‐ 3.00 Coordinator Environmental Protection ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Coordinator, PW Projects ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Coordinator Recycling ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Coordinator Zero Waste 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal 0.08 0.08 ‐ 0.08 Electrician 3.00 3.00 ‐ 3.00 Electrician ‐ Lead 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 (1) Reallocate 1.05 FTE Administrative Associate II from Enterprise Fund ‐ Public Works ‐ 0.05 FTE from Storm Drainage Fund and 1.0 FTE from Refuse Fund Page 7 of 11 2/16/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit C FY 2011 Adjusted Budget FY 2012 Adopted Budget FY 2012 Mid‐ Year Budget Change FY 2012 Adjusted Budget Table of Organization Engineer 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Engineering Technician I ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Engineering Technician III 1.40 1.40 ‐ 1.40 Environmental Specialist 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Equipment Operator 0.54 0.54 ‐ 0.54 Executive Assistant 2.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ Hazardous Materials Inspector 0.04 0.04 ‐ 0.04 Hazardous Materials Specialist ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Heavy Equipment Operator 5.90 5.90 ‐ 5.90 Heavy Equipment Operator ‐ Lead 3.15 3.15 ‐ 3.15 Industrial Waste Assistant Inspector 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Industrial Waste Inspector 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Industrial Waste Investigator 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Laboratory Tech, Water Quality Control Plant 2.50 2.50 ‐ 2.50 Landfill Technician 1.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ Maintenance Mechanic 7.00 7.00 ‐ 7.00 Management Analyst (4)‐ 1.20 (0.05) 1.15 Manager, Environmental Compliance 1.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ Manager, Environmental Control Program 3.00 3.00 ‐ 3.00 Manager, Laboratory Services 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Manager, Maintenance Operations 1.38 1.38 ‐ 1.38 Manager, Solid Waste 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Manager, Water Quality Control Plant 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Program Assistant I 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Program Assistant II 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Program Analyst ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Project Engineer 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Refuse Disposal Attendant 4.00 4.00 ‐ 4.00 Senior Accountant 0.23 0.23 ‐ 0.23 Senior Chemist 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Senior Engineer 2.75 2.25 ‐ 2.25 Senior Financial Analyst 0.16 0.16 ‐ 0.16 Senior Industrial Waste Inspector ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Senior Management Analyst 0.10 0.10 ‐ 0.10 Senior Mechanic, Water Quality Control 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Senior Operator, Water Quality Control 6.00 6.00 ‐ 6.00 Senior Technologist 0.13 1.13 ‐ 1.13 Page 8 of 11 2/16/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit C FY 2011 Adjusted Budget FY 2012 Adopted Budget FY 2012 Mid‐ Year Budget Change FY 2012 Adjusted Budget Table of Organization Storekeeper 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Street Maintenance Assistant 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Street Sweeper Operator 7.00 7.00 ‐ 7.00 Street Sweeper Operator ‐ Lead ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Superintendent, Public Works Operations 0.20 ‐ ‐ ‐ Supervisor, Public Works 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Supervisor, Water Quality Control Operations 5.00 3.00 ‐ 3.00 Surveying Assistant 0.11 0.11 ‐ 0.11 Surveyor, Public Works 0.11 0.11 ‐ 0.11 Technologist ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Traffic Control Maintenance I 0.06 0.06 ‐ 0.06 Truck Driver ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Water Quality Control Plant Operator I ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Water Quality Control Plant Operator II 16.00 17.00 ‐ 17.00 Water Quality Control Plant Operator Trainee ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Watershed Protection Mgr ‐ 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Total Public Works ‐ Enterprise 115.01 114.51 (1.55) 112.96 Footnote: (4) Reallocate 0.05 FTE Management Analyst from Storm Drainage Fund to Vehicle Replacement Fund OTHER FUNDS Vehicle Replacement Fund Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Assistant Director, Public Works (1)‐ ‐ 0.25 0.25 Assistant Fleet Manager 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Equipment Maintenance Service Person 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Fleet Manager 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Fleet Services Coordinator 2.00 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Management Analyst (2)‐ ‐ 0.25 0.25 Mobile Service Technician 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 (1) Reallocate 1.05 FTE Administrative Associate II from Storm Drainage Fund (0.05 FTE) and Refuse Fund (1.0 FTE) to the General Fund. (2) Reallocate 0.5 FTE Assistant Director Public Works from Refuse Fund to Vehicle Replacement Fund (0.25) and to the General Fund (0.2 FTE) (3) Reallocate 0.05 FTE Assistant Director Public Works from Refuse Fund to Storm Drainage Fund. Nets with Note (2) above. Page 9 of 11 2/16/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit C FY 2011 Adjusted Budget FY 2012 Adopted Budget FY 2012 Mid‐ Year Budget Change FY 2012 Adjusted Budget Table of Organization Motor Equipment Mechanic I ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Motor Equipment Mechanic II 7.00 7.00 ‐ 7.00 Motor Equipment Mechanic ‐ Lead ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Project Engineer ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Senior Engineer ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Senior Financial Analyst 0.08 0.08 ‐ 0.08 Senior Fleet Services Coordinator 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Total Vehicle Replacement 16.08 16.08 0.50 16.58 Footnote: (1) Reallocate 0.25 FTE Assistant Director Public Works from Enterprise Funds ‐ Public Works Capital Administrative Associate I 0.80 0.80 ‐ 0.80 Administrative Associate III 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Assistant Director, Public Works 0.15 0.15 0.15 Associate Engineer 0.60 0.60 ‐ 0.60 Cement Finisher 3.00 3.00 ‐ 3.00 Cement Finisher ‐ Lead 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Contracts Administrator 0.60 0.60 ‐ 0.60 Engineer 2.70 2.70 ‐ 2.70 Engineering Technician III 2.30 2.30 ‐ 2.30 Heavy Equipment Operator 0.20 0.20 ‐ 0.20 Management Analyst (1)1.00 1.25 (0.05) 1.20 Manager, Facilities Maintenance 0.20 ‐ ‐ ‐ Manager, Maintenance Operations 0.50 0.90 ‐ 0.90 Landscape Architect Park Planner 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Program Assistant I 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Project Engineer 3.80 3.80 ‐ 3.80 Project Manager 0.50 0.50 ‐ 0.50 Senior Engineer (3)2.05 2.55 (0.90) 1.65 Senior Financial Analyst 0.60 0.60 ‐ 0.60 Senior Project Manager (2)‐ ‐ 0.90 0.90 Superintendent, Public Works Operations 0.20 ‐ ‐ ‐ (2) Reallocate 0.25 FTE Management Analyst from General Fund (0.15 FTE), Storm Drainage Fund (0.05 FTE) and Capital (0.05 FTE) Page 10 of 11 2/16/2012 Attachment 1, Exhibit C FY 2011 Adjusted Budget FY 2012 Adopted Budget FY 2012 Mid‐ Year Budget Change FY 2012 Adjusted Budget Table of Organization Supervisor, Facilities Management 0.05 ‐ ‐ ‐ Supervisor, Inspection/Surv Public Works 0.20 0.20 ‐ 0.20 Surveying Assistant 0.11 0.11 ‐ 0.11 Surveyor, Public Works 0.11 0.11 ‐ 0.11 Total Capital 23.67 24.37 (0.05) 24.32 Footnote: (1) Reallocate 0.05 FTE Management Analyst to Vehicle Replacement Fund (2) Reallocate 0.9 FTE Senior Project Manager from General Fund (3) Reallocate 0.9 FTE Senior Engineer to General Fund Technology Administrative Assistant (1)0.07 1.07 (0.07) 1.00 Administrative Associate II 1.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ Administrative Associate III 0.04 ‐ ‐ ‐ Assistant Director, Administrative Services (2)0.40 0.40 (0.10) 0.30 Business Analyst 0.90 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Dir of Information Technology/Chief Info Officer 1.00 1.00 ‐ 1.00 Desktop Technician 5.00 5.00 ‐ 5.00 Director, Administrative Services (3)0.35 0.35 (0.15) 0.20 Management Analyst (4)‐ 0.50 0.50 1.00 Manager, Information Technology 3.00 3.00 ‐ 3.00 Information Technology Security Manager (5)‐ ‐ 1.00 1.00 Senior Business Analyst 1.80 2.00 ‐ 2.00 Senior Technologist 13.00 13.00 ‐ 13.00 Senior Financial Analyst 0.09 0.09 ‐ 0.09 Technologist 4.00 3.00 ‐ 3.00 Total Technology 30.65 30.41 1.18 31.59 Footnote: (1) Reallocate 0.07 FTE Administrative Assistant from Information Technology Fund to General Fund‐ASD (2) Reallocate 0.10 FTE Assistant Director, Administrative Services from Technology Fund to General Fund‐ASD (3) Reallocate 0.15 FTE Director, Administrative Services from Technology Fund to General Fund‐ASD (4) Reallocate 0.5 FTE Management Analyst from General Fund‐City Manager's Office (5) Add 1.0 FTE Security Manager Page 11 of 11 2/16/2012 Attachment 2 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Project Project Project Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Number Title Category AC-09001 Children's Theatre Replacement and Expansion Buildings and Facilities AC-09002 Community Theatre Sound System Replacement Buildings and Facilities CA-01014 Community Services Facilities Lighting Enhancements Buildings and Facilities $30,760 $3,663 CC-09001 Dimmer Replacement and Lighting System Buildings and Facilities $995 $7,611 $1,395 CC-10000 Replacement of Cubberley Gym B Bleachers Buildings and Facilities 6,739 29,495 CC-11000 Cubberley Gym Activity Room Buildings and Facilities 58,041 FD-08001 Fire Station #6 Improvements Buildings and Facilities 8,061 48,110 271 OS-07003 Foothills Park Maintenance Building Rehabilitation Buildings and Facilities 30,442 249,933 General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 Page 1 of 20 2/16/2012 Attachment 2 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Project Project Project Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Number Title Category General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 PE-04010 Children's Library Improvements & Expansion Buildings and Facilities 813,189 58,561 PE-04011 Cambridge Parking Structure Improvements Buildings and Facilities 287,034 PE-04012 Mitchell Park Library & Community Center Improvements Buildings and Facilities 1,162,429 179,071 123 PE-04014 Animal Shelter Expansion & Renovation Buildings and Facilities 144,610 762,057 61,539 PE-05002 Main Library Space Reconfiguration Buildings and Facilities 34,838 PE-05010 College Terrace Library Improvements Buildings and Facilities 273,077 337,154 1,545,763 846,020 90 PE-06001 San Antonio Bridge Structural Repairs & Maintenance Buildings and Facilities 2,338 494 82,782 PE-08005 Municipal Service Center Resurfacing Buildings and Facilities 11,323 752,021 326,898 Page 2 of 20 2/16/2012 Attachment 2 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Project Project Project Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Number Title Category General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 PE-09003 City Facility Parking Lot Maintenance Buildings and Facilities 51,098 PE-09005 Downtown Library Improvements Buildings and Facilities 78,162 562,707 3,133,576 539,403 PE-09006 Mitchell Park Library & Community Center (New Construction) Buildings and Facilities 509,024 3,278,486 10,381,000 9,361,780 PE-09010 Library & Community Center Temporary Facilities Buildings and Facilities 28,866 518,623 110,020 168 PE-10002 Ventura Community Center and Park Buildings and Facilities 13,283 5,103 PE-11000 Main Library New Construction and Improvements Buildings and Facilities 792,913 673,519 PE-11012 Temporary Main Library Buildings and Facilities 36,960 PE-89004 Yacht Harbor Improvements Buildings and Facilities 7,080 21,584 Page 3 of 20 2/16/2012 Attachment 2 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Project Project Project Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Number Title Category General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 PE-98020 Public Safety Building Buildings and Facilities 1,093,208 1,000,414 175,289 30,910 1,192 PE-95030 Downtown Parking Structure Buildings and Facilities 91,576 155 469 PF-00006 Roofing Replacement Buildings and Facilities 256,831 21,073 251,344 104,617 187,673 PF-01002 Civic Center Infrastructure Improvements Buildings and Facilities 106,643 4,915,782 1,344,006 3,803,962 1,395,044 PF-01003 Building Systems Improvements Buildings and Facilities 34,304 114,152 36,098 74,876 6,920 PF-01004 Fire Station Improvements Buildings and Facilities 232,168 575,700 237,018 394 PF-01005 Lucie Stern Community Center Improvements Buildings and Facilities 980 PF-02022 Facility Interior Finishes Buildings and Facilities 65,797 47,116 11,076 23,874 229,944 Page 4 of 20 2/16/2012 Attachment 2 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Project Project Project Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Number Title Category General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 PF-04000 Security System Improvements Buildings and Facilities 5,983 8,903 3,581 PF-04001 General Building Study Buildings and Facilities 170,312 PF-04010 Cubberley Mechanical & Electrical Upgrades Buildings and Facilities 165,456 5,218 9,369 PF-05002 Municipal Service Center Renovation Buildings and Facilities 18,316 12,057 3,530 12,176 PF-05003 Foothills Park Interpretive Center Improvements Buildings and Facilities 1,290 12,897 115,911 PF-06002 Ventura Buildings' Improvements Buildings and Facilities PF-06003 Cubberley Community Center Fire Alarm System Buildings and Facilities 648,988 70,949 PF-06004 Cubberley Restroom Renovation Buildings and Facilities 27,422 2,666 Page 5 of 20 2/16/2012 Attachment 2 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Project Project Project Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Number Title Category General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 PF-07000 Art Center Electrical & Mechanical Upgrades Buildings and Facilities 52,063 132,737 234,143 543,877 1,509,937 PF-07001 ADA Compliance - Cubberley Community Center Buildings and Facilities 37,815 13,512 205,388 PF-07003 Children's Theatre Fire/Life Safety Upgrade Buildings and Facilities 32,980 7,592 6,150 60 PF-07011 Roth Building Maintenance Buildings and Facilities 17,909 1,931 3,729 PF-08000 Art Center Kiln Hood Replacement Buildings and Facilities 10,076 60,654 14,570 PF-09000 Children's Theatre Improvements Buildings and Facilities PF-09002 Lucie Stern Community Center and Theatre Exterior Paint Buildings and Facilities 4,510 90,816 PF-10000 Civic Center Chiller Drive Replacement Buildings and Facilities 72,380 Page 6 of 20 2/16/2012 Attachment 2 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Project Project Project Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Number Title Category General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 PF-10001 Rinconada Pool Plaster Buildings and Facilities 117,756 PF-10002 Lot "J" Cowper/Webster Structural Repairs Buildings and Facilities 23,682 15,260 25,776 PF-12005 Council Conference Room Renovations Buildings and Facilities 600 PF-93009 ADA Compliance Buildings and Facilities 49,955 121,617 235,410 9,994 167,537 Total Buildings and Facilities $5,888,480 $10,082,066 $9,311,891 $20,250,843 $14,313,047 AC-86017 Art in Public Places Land and Land Improvements $64,410 $21,556 $17,256 $77,956 $5,371 AS-08000 Acquisition of Los Altos Treatment Plant Land and Land Improvements 2,590,061 2,306,958 2,252,250 AS-09000 City of Palo Alto Municipal Airport Transition Project Land and Land Improvements 39,075 67,775 4,050 Page 7 of 20 2/16/2012 Attachment 2 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Project Project Project Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Number Title Category General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 PE-09004 Los Altos Treatment Plant Master Plan Study Land and Land Improvements 135,905 15,468 16,278 Total Land and Land Improvements $2,654,471 $2,503,494 $2,352,749 $98,284 $5,371 AS-10001 Sustainability Contingency Miscellaneous FD-09001 Fire Apparatus Equipment Replacement Miscellaneous $48,352 $261,283 FD-09002 Jaws of Life Hurst Tool Replacement Miscellaneous 60,905 FD-12000 ALS EKG Monitor Replacement Miscellaneous LB-11000 Furniture & Technology for Measure N Project Miscellaneous $28,124 $174,931 LB-94018 Library Automation Service Miscellaneous $5,026 732 Page 8 of 20 2/16/2012 Attachment 2 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Project Project Project Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Number Title Category General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 PE-12002 Tree Wells - University Avenue Irrigation Miscellaneous 7,472 PD-04010 Fire Portable Radio Replacement Miscellaneous 112,526 PD-07001 SWAT Van Replacement Miscellaneous 203,193 PD-08000 Crime Scene Evidence Collection Vehicle Miscellaneous 174,201 6,039 PD-93012 Fire Communications Computer Systems Miscellaneous 6,812 PD-99013 Police Records Management System Miscellaneous 31,307 PF-12004 Citywide Backflow Preventer Installations Miscellaneous PL-02023 Master Schematic Design Miscellaneous 2,090 Page 9 of 20 2/16/2012 Attachment 2 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Project Project Project Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Number Title Category General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 PO-10002 Downtown Tree Grates Miscellaneous 29,879 8,136 PO-12002 LATP Site Development Preparation & Security Miscellaneous 8,636 Total Miscellaneous $360,954 $109,989 $291,162 $210,461 $197,078 FD-05000 Sixteen (16) ALS Monitors Non-Infrastructure Management Plan $214,734 $62,650 $434 PD-07000 Mobile Command Vehicle Non-Infrastructure Management Plan 695,337 PE-05001 Photovoltaic Design and Installations Non-Infrastructure Management Plan 2,184,597 325,978 $6,448 PE-07011 Library Service Model Analysis Non-Infrastructure Management Plan 1,478 PG-08001 Golf Course Driving Range Turf & Netting Non-Infrastructure Management Plan 511,921 Page 10 of 20 2/16/2012 Attachment 2 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Project Project Project Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Number Title Category General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 PL-05002 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan Non-Infrastructure Management Plan 32,076 193,613 26,988 PL-06001 Adobe Creek Bicycle Bridge Replacement Non-Infrastructure Management Plan 4,184 PL-06002 Comprehensive Parking Signage Plan Non-Infrastructure Management Plan 43,470 3,843 PL-06005 Installation of Ticket Machines Non-Infrastructure Management Plan 33,994 2,250 Total Non-Infrastructure Management Plan $2,977,322 $440,010 $6,448 $889,384 $30,831 AC-10000 Junior Museum & Zoo New Bobcat Habitat Parks and Open Space $101,790 $23,210 AC-12001 Junior Museum & Zoo Perimeter Fence and Footpath Parks and Open Space OS-00001 Open Space Trails and Amenities Parks and Open Space $257,594 $123,193 97,766 47,473 105,498 Page 11 of 20 2/16/2012 Attachment 2 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Project Project Project Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Number Title Category General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 OS-00002 Open Space Lakes & Ponds Maintenance Parks and Open Space 41,462 35,909 63,263 54,097 4,460 OS-07000 Foothills Park Road Improvements Parks and Open Space 225,000 25,000 150,000 OS-07002 Foothills Park Interpretive Center & Open Space Maintenance Yard Parking Parks and Open Space 258,253 2,302 OS-09001 Off-Road Pathway Resurfacing and Repair Parks and Open Space 25,463 24,719 22 OS-09002 Baylands Emergency Access Levee Repair Parks and Open Space PE-00110 College Terrace Park Improvements Parks and Open Space 97,998 154,927 522 PE-05300 Arastradero Preserve Gateway Parks and Open Space 1,519 9,156 PE-06004 Bowden Park Improvements Parks and Open Space 876 Page 12 of 20 2/16/2012 Attachment 2 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Project Project Project Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Number Title Category General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 PE-06005 University Avenue Gateway Landscaping Improvements Parks and Open Space 27,324 166,612 6,709 1,479 197 PE-06007 Park Restroom Installation Parks and Open Space 13,042 41,134 100,096 224,048 30,589 PE-06008 Johnson Park Improvements Parks and Open Space 8,648 PE-07002 Hoover Park Improvements Parks and Open Space 696,240 67,053 PE-07003 Ramos Park Improvements Parks and Open Space 458,628 PE-07005 California Avenue Improvements Parks and Open Space 64,985 49,900 465,324 53,810 PE-07006 Boulware Park Improvements Parks and Open Space 298,717 3,799 PE-07007 Cubberley Turf Renovation Parks and Open Space 190,950 969,963 131 Page 13 of 20 2/16/2012 Attachment 2 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Project Project Project Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Number Title Category General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 PE-07009 Baylands Athletic Center Fencing, Dugout & Trailhead Parking Parks and Open Space 241,891 46,164 PE-08002 Peers Park Improvements Parks and Open Space 250,622 301,383 PE-08004 Lytton Plaza Renovation Parks and Open Space 23,530 725,733 2,545 10,375 PE-09002 Greer Park Phase IV Parks and Open Space 1,134 168,231 515,091 925,076 139,115 PE-12003 Rinconada Park Master Plan & Design Parks and Open Space 11,410 PE-12012 Eleanor Pardee Park Improvements Parks and Open Space 4,818 PE-12013 Magical Bridge Playground Parks and Open Space 4,871 PE-98003 Mitchell Park Facilities Parks and Open Space 196,655 24,962 Page 14 of 20 2/16/2012 Attachment 2 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Project Project Project Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Number Title Category General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 PF-12001 Parks and PWD Trees Work Space Improvements Parks and Open Space 384 PG-00010 Park Facilities Improvements Parks and Open Space 1,361 PG-04010 Stanford/Palo Alto Community Playing Field Parks and Open Space 2,050 869 PG-06001 Tennis and Basketball Court Resurfacing Parks and Open Space 46,881 107,117 100,159 77,512 51,843 PG-06003 Benches, Signage, Fencing, Walkways, and Perimeter Landscaping Parks and Open Space 76,788 85,766 73,480 118,366 23,894 PG-07000 Heritage Park Playground Parks and Open Space 243,546 PG-07700 Golf Course Irrigation Pump, Motors & Control Panel Replacement Parks and Open Space 63,315 PG-09002 Park and Open Space Emergency Repairs Parks and Open Space 73,190 50,883 147,651 27,822 Page 15 of 20 2/16/2012 Attachment 2 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Project Project Project Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Number Title Category General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 PG-09003 Park Maintenance Shop Remodel Parks and Open Space 402 2,858 55,414 2,244 PG-11000 Hopkins Park Improvements Parks and Open Space PG-11001 Cogswell Plaza Improvements Parks and Open Space PG-11002 Monroe Park Improvements Parks and Open Space PG-11003 Scott Park Improvements Parks and Open Space PG-12001 Stanford / Palo Alto Playing Field Netting Parks and Open Space PG-12002 Golf Course Tree Maintenance Parks and Open Space PG-12004 Sarah Wallis Park Improvements Parks and Open Space Page 16 of 20 2/16/2012 Attachment 2 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Project Project Project Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Number Title Category General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 PG-12005 Relocate Power Poles for Soccer Field Parks and Open Space PG-12006 Magical Bridge Playground Parks and Open Space 5,082 PG-98001 School Site Irrigation Parks and Open Space 57,268 4,596 161,399 Total Parks and Open Space $3,630,436 $1,732,969 $3,459,755 $1,730,681 $572,755 PE-00104 San Antonio Road Median Improvements Streets and Sidewalks $153,112 $743,106 $239,404 $142,556 $55,166 PE-00105 Embarcadero Road Median Improvements Streets and Sidewalks 1,191 PE-01013 El Camino Median Landscape Streets and Sidewalks 73,655 4,525 PE-06006 Alma Street Landscape Improvements Streets and Sidewalks 16,576 40,901 26,371 Page 17 of 20 2/16/2012 Attachment 2 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Project Project Project Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Number Title Category General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 PE-10006 Bridge Rail, Abutment, and Deck Repair Streets and Sidewalks 167,062 PE-11011 Highway 101 Pedestrian / Bicycle Overcrossing Streets and Sidewalks 36,385 194,020 38,743 PE-12011 Newell Road Bridge / San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Streets and Sidewalks 10,310 PE-86070 Street Improvements (Street Improvement Fund) Streets and Sidewalks 3,368,496 3,702,381 3,658,566 5,110,791 2,082,717 PL-00026 Safe Routes to School Streets and Sidewalks 105,802 30,000 20,750 82,450 PL-04010 Bicycle Transportation Plan Implementation Project Streets and Sidewalks 44,483 30,000 80,862 80,091 PL-05003 College Terrace Traffic Calming Streets and Sidewalks 17,088 545 PL-05030 Traffic Signal Upgrades Streets and Sidewalks 35,908 39,983 279,590 183,141 144,935 Page 18 of 20 2/16/2012 Attachment 2 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Project Project Project Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Number Title Category General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 PL-07002 El Camino Real/ Stanford Intersection Streets and Sidewalks 2,490 4,790 247,112 389,853 PL-11001 Dinah SummerHill Pedestrian/Bicycle Path Streets and Sidewalks 96,211 PL-11002 California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Streets and Sidewalks 141 PL-11003 Palo Alto Traffic Signal Central System Streets and Sidewalks 35,528 PL-11004 Alma Street Traffic Signal Improvements Streets and Sidewalks PL-12000 Transporation and Parking Improvements Streets and Sidewalks 2,600 PL-98013 School Commute Safety Improvements (SIF) Streets and Sidewalks 2,490 6,170 PO-05054 Street lights Improvements Streets and Sidewalks 11,814 15,970 40,430 159,070 34,239 Page 19 of 20 2/16/2012 Attachment 2 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Project Project Project Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Number Title Category General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 PO-11000 Sign Reflectivity Upgrade Streets and Sidewalks PO-11001 Thermoplastic Lane Marking and Striping Streets and Sidewalks 29,639 33,252 PO-12000 Wilkie Way Bridge Deck Replacement Streets and Sidewalks PO-12001 Curb and Gutter Repairs Streets and Sidewalks PO-12003 Foothills Fire Management Streets and Sidewalks PO-89003 Sidewalk Improvements Streets and Sidewalks 2,030,796 1,675,527 1,341,916 1,211,917 482,272 Total Streets and Sidewalks $5,858,921 $6,227,373 $5,855,059 $7,421,556 $3,532,980 Page 20 of 20 2/16/2012 Attachment 3 Total Budget FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Estimated Project Project Project From Available Expenditures Labor Contingencies Encumbrances Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Adjustments Balance Complete Status Date Comments AS-09000 City of Palo Alto Municipal Airport Transition Project Land and Land Improvements $130,000 $19,100 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $14,100 N/A Ongoing This CIP will be moved to the Airport Fund once these funds have been used. AS-08000 Acquisition of Los Altos Treatment Plant Land and Land Improvements $7,223,394 $74,124 $0 $0 $0 $0 $74,124 100% Complete Remaining balance to be returned to Infrastructure Reserve. Balance was carried forward to FY 2012. At mid- year it should be closed out. AS-10001 Sustainability Contingency Miscellaneous $400,000 $400,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 0% Pre-Design TBD No projects have been identified to date that require contingency funds. The funds are available for capital projects where additional funds would allow the effort to be completed in a more sustainable fashion. Of the $400,000 remaining balance, $300,000 will be returned to Infrastructure Reserve. MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS GENERAL FUND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT MINOR PROJECTS Page 1 of 33 Attachment 3 Total Budget FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Estimated Project Project Project From Available Expenditures Labor Contingencies Encumbrances Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Adjustments Balance Complete Status Date Comments AC-09001 Children's Theatre Replacement and Expansion Buildings and Facilities $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 0% Pre-Design Jun 12 Needs assessment has been completed. Staff preparing Requests for Proposal. AC-09002 Community Theater Sound System Replacement Buildings and Facilities $200,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 0% Pre-Design Jun 12 Needs assessment has been completed. Staff preparing Requests for Proposal. AC-12001 Junior Museum & Zoo Perimeter Fence and Footpath Parks and Open Space $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 0% Pre-Design Sep 12 Staff to complete design and then project to go out to bid. CC-09001 Dimmer Replacement and Lighting System Buildings and Facilities $152,821 $144,215 $1,395 $0 $0 $9,815 $133,005 13% Design Dec 12 Project has been delayed as it will now be a design-and-build contract. CC-10000 Replacement of Cubberley Gym B Bleachers Buildings and Facilities $36,234 $29,495 $29,495 $0 $0 $0 $0 100% Complete Project completed and to be closed. CC-11000 Cubberley Gym Activity Room Buildings and Facilities $63,398 $5,357 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,357 100% Complete Project completed and to be closed. Remaining balance to be returned to Infrastructure Reserve at mid year. OS-09002 Baylands Emergency Access Levee Repair Parks and Open Space $175,000 $175,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $175,000 0% Pre-Design Dec 12 Survey work for levee done by Public Works Engineering. Tentative construction in 2012 in conjunction with JPA project. PG-09003 Park Maintenance Shop Remodel Parks and Open Space $159,096 $100,423 $2,244 $0 $0 $1 $98,178 38% Design TBD Since there is common shared space, this project will now be designed and constructed in- house by Public Works Facilities Management in conjunction with the Tree Division. PG-11000 Hopkins Park Improvements Parks and Open Space $95,000 $95,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $95,000 0% Design TBD Staff in initial planning and development of scope of contract. FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS GENERAL FUND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT MINOR PROJECTS Page 2 of 33 Attachment 3 Total Budget FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Estimated Project Project Project From Available Expenditures Labor Contingencies Encumbrances Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Adjustments Balance Complete Status Date Comments FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS GENERAL FUND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT PG-11001 Cogswell Plaza Improvements Parks and Open Space $150,000 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $145,000 3% Design Oct 12 Staff in initial planning and development of scope of contract. PG-11002 Monroe Park Improvements Parks and Open Space $250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 0% Pre-Design TBD Staff in initial planning and development of scope of contract. PG-11003 Scott Park Improvements Parks and Open Space $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 0% Design TBD Staff in initial planning and development of scope of contract. PG-12001 Stanford / Palo Alto Playing Field Netting Parks and Open Space $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 0% Design TBD Staff in initial planning and development of scope of contract. PG-12002 Golf Course Tree Maintenance Parks and Open Space $75,000 $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 0% Design TBD Staff in initial planning and development of scope of contract. PG-12004 Sarah Wallis Park Improvements Parks and Open Space $65,000 $65,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $65,000 0% Pre-Design TBD Staff in initial planning and development of scope of contract. PG-12005 Relocate Power Poles for Soccer Field Parks and Open Space $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 0% Design TBD Project on hold pending staff land evaluation. PG-12006 Magical Bridge Playground Parks and Open Space $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $5,082 $0 $0 $0 $1,294,918 0% Design TBD Contractor selected. Staff in initial planning and development of scope of contract. Project to be taken over by Public Works (PE- 12013). OS-00001 Open Space Trails & Amenities Parks and Open Space $2,025,720 $333,014 $105,498 $0 $0 $17,300 $210,216 Ongoing Various trail improvements at Arastradero, Foothills Park, and Baylands. Three-year contract has been awarded. MINOR PROJECTS Page 3 of 33 Attachment 3 Total Budget FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Estimated Project Project Project From Available Expenditures Labor Contingencies Encumbrances Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Adjustments Balance Complete Status Date Comments FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS GENERAL FUND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT OS-00002 Open Space Lakes & Ponds Maintenance Parks and Open Space $442,183 $35,694 $4,460 $0 $0 $0 $31,234 Ongoing Three year contract has been awarded. Overage due to unforeseen work at Boronda Lake and future work to be adjusted and scaled back to cover costs of unforeseen maintenance. OS-07000 Foothills Park Road Improvements Parks and Open Space $525,000 $275,000 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $125,000 Ongoing Work will now be done in- house by Public Works Engineering or combined with their paving contracts. This is anticipated to result in future cost savings to address current overage. OS-09001 Off-Road Pathway Resurfacing and Repair Parks and Open Space $180,668 $130,486 $22 $0 $0 $3,845 $126,619 30% Ongoing Work will now be done in- house by Public Works Engineering or combined with their paving contracts. Construction scheduled for Spring/Summer of 2012. PG-06001 Tennis & Basketball Court Resurfacing Parks and Open Space $526,443 $55,939 $51,843 $0 $0 $0 $4,096 99% Ongoing Cubberley Community Center Tennis courts 1-6 completed Nov 11. PG-06003 Benches, Signage, Fencing, Walkways, and Perimeter Landscaping Parks and Open Space $675,668 $215,112 $23,894 $0 $0 $17,651 $173,567 74% Ongoing Projects Completed in FY 2011 - Site Amenities: Refinished benches at 9/11 Memorial Grove. Greer Park. Signage: 9/11 Memorial Grove. Design for Directional signage (Lucie Stern) Surface Repairs: 9/11 Memorial Grove DG pathway repairs. Fence Repairs: Hopkins Tennis court fence, Hale Well Site fence. MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS Page 4 of 33 Attachment 3 Total Budget FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Estimated Project Project Project From Available Expenditures Labor Contingencies Encumbrances Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Adjustments Balance Complete Status Date Comments FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS GENERAL FUND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT PG-09002 Park and Open Space Emergency Repairs Parks and Open Space $357,761 $86,037 $27,822 $0 $0 $12,817 $45,398 Ongoing Projects completed in FY 2011: Bol Park double bay swing and new powder-coated metal structure replacement of rotting wooden structure. El Camino Park: Repair of chainlink fence. Briones Park: Rubber surface repair to playground. Hoover Park: Fence repair at tennis courts. Rinconada & Weisshaar Park: Tennis court tripping hazard surface repairs. Stanford Palo Alto Playing Fields: Artificial turf repairs. Page 5 of 33 Attachment 3 Total Budget FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Estimated Project Project Project From Available Expenditures Labor Contingencies Encumbrances Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Adjustments Balance Complete Status Date Comments FD-12000 ALS EKG Monitor Replacement Miscellaneous $180,000 $180,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $180,000 0% Ongoing Jun 12 The Fire Department is doing in-house evaluation of various on-loan models as part of the City bid process policy & procedure. MINOR PROJECTS FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS GENERAL FUND FIRE DEPARTMENT Page 6 of 33 Attachment 3 Total Budget FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Estimated Project Project Project From Available Expenditures Labor Contingencies Encumbrances Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Adjustments Balance Complete Status Date Comments LB-11000 Furniture & Technology for Library Measure N Project Miscellaneous $4,800,000 $4,771,876 $174,931 $0 $0 $413 $4,596,532 4% Ongoing Mar 15 Project activity is being coordinated with the construction schedule of the remaining two facility projects: Mitchell Park Library & Community Center, and Main Library. MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS GENERAL FUND LIBRARY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Page 7 of 33 Attachment 3 Total Budget FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Estimated Project Project Project From Available Expenditures Labor Contingencies Encumbrances Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Adjustments Balance Complete Status Date Comments PL-05002 Charleston/ Arastradero Corridor Plan Non- Infrastructure Management Plan $1,211,890 $237,493 $26,988 $0 $0 $1,501 $209,004 83% Construction Jun 12 Installation of the Arastradero Road Trial Restriping Project between El Camino Real and Gunn High School was completed in Sep 10. Additional improvements including traffic signal modification at Coulombe Drive and installation of enhanced pedestrian crosswalk at Clemo Drive were delayed into 2011 and improvements in response to community input were added including installation of speed signs at Hubbart Street and minor restriping corrections. Council approved an extension of the trial restriping project through Jun 12 due to Gunn High School modifying their bell schedule for the 2011-12 school year. Monitoring of project is ongoing. PL-05003 College Terrace Traffic Calming Streets and Sidewalks $217,484 $74,055 $0 $0 $0 $1 $74,054 66% Complete Mar 12 A second phase traffic calming project on and along College Avenue, including median island chokers and traffic circles at Yale Street, have received positive support from the community. The community voted in support of permanent retention of the traffic calming treatments and Council approved the retention. PL-06005 Installation of Ticket Machines Non- Infrastructure Management Plan $94,900 $38,578 $0 $0 $0 $0 $38,578 Ongoing Installation of the initial ticket machines is complete and revenues from the machine show active use by the community. Additional ticket machines were requested by the Chamber and staff is considering alternative locations. FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS GENERAL FUND PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT MINOR PROJECTS Page 8 of 33 Attachment 3 Total Budget FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Estimated Project Project Project From Available Expenditures Labor Contingencies Encumbrances Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Adjustments Balance Complete Status Date Comments FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS GENERAL FUND PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT PL-07002 El Camino Real/ Stanford Intersection Streets and Sidewalks $1,872,003 $1,635,581 $389,853 $0 $0 $171,521 $1,074,207 43% Construction Feb 12 Construction of the El Camino Real & Stanford Avenue intersection improvements was completed in Oct 11. Final punchlist improvements requested by Caltrans will be complete by Feb 12. PL-11001 Dinah SummerHill Pedestrian Bicycle Path Streets and Sidewalks $300,000 $300,000 $96,211 $0 $0 $104,835 $98,954 67% Design Dec 12 This project is funded by the Summerhill Homes project and the City is responsible for the design and construction of a trail path to connect Wilkie Way with their development. A preliminary design is complete and staff will begin the community outreach process in Mar 12. PL-00026 Local and Neighborhood Collector Street Traffic Calming Program (SIF) ("Safe Routes To Schools") Streets and Sidewalks $1,167,000 $627,752 $82,450 $0 $0 $0 $545,302 Ongoing This ongoing CIP implements traffic calming improvements along Residential Arterial Streets and also funds the development of Safe Routes to School Programs and Projects at schools. PL-04010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation Project Streets and Sidewalks $341,149 $171,804 $80,091 $0 $0 $29,518 $62,195 Ongoing This ongoing CIP implements project recommendations from the City's Bike Transportation Plan. Active projects include an update of the Bike Transportation Plan and include a new Pedestrian section. Other active projects include bike rack deployments, bike route signage deployment, and the design of bike boulevard facilities. MINOR PROJECTS MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS Page 9 of 33 Attachment 3 Total Budget FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Estimated Project Project Project From Available Expenditures Labor Contingencies Encumbrances Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Adjustments Balance Complete Status Date Comments FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS GENERAL FUND PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT PL-06002 Comprehensive Parking Signage Plan Non- Infrastructure Management Plan $475,000 $427,530 $3,843 $0 $0 $0 $423,687 Complete The installation of color zone signage was completed in 2008. Current projects include hiring of a new Parking Manager to identify parking improvement strategies. This CIP will be closed eventually and remaining funds transferred to a new CIP entitled Transportation and Parking Improvements. PL-11002 California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Streets and Sidewalks $1,725,200 $1,725,200 $141 $0 $0 $0 $1,725,059 0% Design Jun 13 Staff hired RBF Consulting to manage the design phase of the project. Design will continue through Summer 2012 with Bid/Award in Fall 2012. PL-11003 Palo Alto Traffic Signal Central System Streets and Sidewalks $400,000 $364,472 $0 $0 $0 $0 $364,472 9% Design Dec 12 Staff is in the process of completing the necessary Caltrans Local Assistance documents to authorize the expenditure of funds for the project. PL-11004 Alma Street Traffic Signal Improvements Streets and Sidewalks $699,000 $699,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $694,000 1% Pending N/A Staff is recommending the closure of this CIP as part of the mid-year CIP budget process. Grants allocated for the project by Caltrain are no longer available. PL-12000 Transportation and Parking Improvements Streets and Sidewalks $750,000 $750,000 $2,600 $0 $0 $85,600 $661,800 12% Ongoing N/A This CIP funds miscellaneous parking programs, studies and transportation projects. PL-98013 School Commute Safety Improvements (SIF) Streets and Sidewalks $150,000 $102,489 $0 $0 $0 $1 $102,488 100% Complete This CIP will be closed and funds transferred to a new CIP entitled Safe Routes to School (PL-00026) that is partially grant-funded. MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS Page 10 of 33 Attachment 3 Total Budget FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Estimated Project Project Project From Available Expenditures Labor Contingencies Encumbrances Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Adjustments Balance Complete Status Date Comments PE-06005 University Avenue Gateway Landscaping Improvements Parks and Open Space $240,480 $4,212 $197 $0 $0 $1 $4,014 98% Complete Mar 12 Remaining balance to be used on irrigation repairs. PE-07005 California Avenue Improvements Parks and Open Space $754,305 $40,285 $0 $0 $0 $34,570 $5,715 99% Planning is the lead division in the designing phase with separate project number. Technically closed. PE-08004 Lytton Plaza Renovation Parks and Open Space $793,142 $43,879 $10,375 $0 $0 $0 $33,504 96% Construction Jun 12 CSD is still working with the Friends of Lytton Plaza on open items. (Upgrade on sight FFE) PE-09002 Greer Park Phase IV Parks and Open Space $2,032,251 $222,718 $41,073 $0 $98,042 $9,384 $74,219 96% Construction Jun 12 Keep open during Warranty Phase. Still waiting for the final as-built drawing. PE-11011 Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Streets and Sidewalks $499,806 $269,401 $31,863 $0 $6,880 $1,036 $229,622 54% Design Jun 13 Ongoing. Staff presented the feasibility study to Council. Council directed staff to explore design competition. Staff is going back to Council to amend design contract for next phase of the project. PE-12002 Tree Wells - University Avenue Irrigation Miscellaneous $100,000 $100,000 $7,472 $0 $0 $0 $92,528 7% Design Mar 12 Design (90%) phase is near completion. Construction expected to begin in mid March. PE-12003 Rinconada Park Master Plan & Design Parks and Open Space $150,000 $150,000 $11,410 $0 $0 $0 $138,590 8% Design Jan 13 Design to begin spring 2012. PE-12004 Municipal Services Center Facilities Study Miscellaneous $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 0% On hold for further IBRC recommendations. FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MINOR PROJECTS Page 11 of 33 Attachment 3 Total Budget FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Estimated Project Project Project From Available Expenditures Labor Contingencies Encumbrances Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Adjustments Balance Complete Status Date Comments FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PE-12013 Magical Bridge Playground Parks and Open Space $0 $0 $4,871 $0 $0 $0 ($4,871)Design Mar 12 Design to begin spring 2012. Project assumed from CSD. Budget of $1,300,000 will be moved from the CSD project (PG- 12006) to this project at mid-year. PF-04000 Security System Improvements Buildings and Facilities $275,000 $59,768 $0 $0 $0 $1 $59,767 78% Construction Dec 12 Work will be completed by Dec 2012 pending staff resources. PF-06004 Cubberley Restroom Renovation Buildings and Facilities $327,422 $300,000 $2,666 $0 $0 $1 $297,333 9% Pre-Design Dec 12 Work will be completed by Dec 12 pending staff resources. Design is 85% complete. PF-07003 Children's Theatre Fire/Life Safety Upgrade Buildings and Facilities $278,549 $231,580 $60 $0 $0 $0 $231,520 17% Design Project will be completed in FY 2012. PF-07011 Roth Building Maintenance Buildings and Facilities $424,395 $259,781 $0 $0 $0 $0 $259,781 39% Ongoing Oct 12 All initial work completed. Ongoing work is for maintenance and repairs. PF-10002 Lot "J" Cowper/Webster Structural Repairs Buildings and Facilities $582,299 $543,356 $25,776 $0 $0 $20,954 $496,626 15% Design Oct 12 Status: ARB Design Review PF-12001 Parks and PWD Trees Work Space Improvements Parks and Open Space $375,000 $375,000 $384 $0 $0 $0 $374,616 0% Design Dec 12 Work will be completed by Dec 12 pending staff resources. Design completed. PF-12004 Citywide Backflow Preventer Installations Miscellaneous $250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 0% Design Jun 12 Currently identifying meters that still need backflows installed. PF-12005 Council Conference Room Renovations Buildings and Facilities $125,000 $125,000 $600 $0 $0 $0 $124,400 0% Design Aug 12 Staff held consultant interviews. Council's award of contract expected in Mar 12. PO-10002 Downtown Tree Grates Miscellaneous $300,000 $261,985 $0 $0 $0 $0 $261,985 13% Construction Dec 15 Ongoing. Project is being done in conjunction with PO-89003 and tree replacement schedule. MINOR PROJECTS Page 12 of 33 Attachment 3 Total Budget FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Estimated Project Project Project From Available Expenditures Labor Contingencies Encumbrances Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Adjustments Balance Complete Status Date Comments FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PO-12000 Wilkie Way Bridge Deck Replacement Streets and Sidewalks $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 0% Design Jun 12 Replacement deck tiles are being evaluated for suitability. PO-12001 Curb and Gutter Repairs Streets and Sidewalks $250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 0% Construction Sep 12 Contract awarded on December 5, 2011. Notice to Proceed on January 23, 2012. PO-12002 LATP Site Development Preparation & Security Miscellaneous $250,000 $250,000 $8,636 $0 $0 $0 $241,364 3% Design Nov 12 Preparing scope of work for demo, remediation, and wetland permitting work. Security fence repaired via minor contract. PO-12003 Foothills Fire Management Streets and Sidewalks $200,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $12,265 $187,735 6% Ongoing Jun 17 Initial clearing to 30 feet is being handled this spring. Ongoing maintenance will be needed. PE-00104 San Antonio Road Median Improvements Streets and Sidewalks $2,195,007 $730,391 $55,166 $0 $0 $817,869 ($142,644)Construction Nov 12 Project is currently in Phase II: Tree removal/replacement, landscaping improvements, contaminated soil removal, street lights conduit replacement. A Budget Amendment Ordinance was submitted to Council in Oct 11 to increase funding for this project by $205,400 for FY 2012. Funds will come from Infrastructure Reserve. PE-05010 College Terrace Library Improvements Buildings and Facilities $3,723,874 $220,505 $90 $0 $0 $9,773 $210,642 94% Construction Jun 12 Construction began FY 2010. PWE staff is still working with Library staff on open items. PE-06006 Alma Street Landscape Improvements Streets and Sidewalks $131,934 $18,841 $0 $0 $0 $1 $18,840 86% Construction Jun 12 Replanting of plants in progress. PE-06007 Park Restroom Installation Parks and Open Space $927,029 $548,710 $30,589 $0 $0 $14,224 $503,897 46% Design Jul 12 Annual Restroom CIP - Briones Park Restroom design phase. MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS Page 13 of 33 Attachment 3 Total Budget FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Estimated Project Project Project From Available Expenditures Labor Contingencies Encumbrances Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Adjustments Balance Complete Status Date Comments FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PE-09003 City Facility Parking Lot Maintenance Buildings and Facilities $430,000 $430,000 $51,098 $0 $0 $248,902 $130,000 70% Ongoing This is an annual project. Funding will be used for repaving the Cubberley Parking lot. PE-09005 Downtown Library Improvements Buildings and Facilities $5,524,772 $1,750,326 $488,537 $0 $50,866 $245,312 $965,611 83% Construction Sep 12 Construction will be completed in FY 2012 but project should remain open until warranty period is over. PE-09006 Mitchell Park Library & Community Center (New Construction) Buildings and Facilities $49,743,741 $35,575,231 $8,957,675 $0 $404,012 $15,721,688 $10,491,856 79% Construction Aug 12 Construction began Jun 10. Project is 60% complete. PE-09010 Library & Community Center Temporary Facilities Buildings and Facilities $792,770 $135,261 $168 $0 $0 $25,772 $109,321 86% Construction Dec 14 After final invoices are received, project should remain open until warranty period is over. Demobilization when Main Library has opened. PE-10002 Ventura Community Center and Park Buildings and Facilities $371,913 $358,630 $5,103 $0 $0 $0 $353,527 5% Design Apr 12 Project is in the design phase and is 60% completed. PE-11000 Main Library New Construction and Improvements Buildings and Facilities $18,076,718 $17,283,805 $673,519 $0 $0 $574,711 $16,035,575 11% Design Jul 12 Currently have completed 60% of design phase. Construction expected to begin Jul 12. PE-11012 Temporary Main Library Buildings and Facilities $500,000 $500,000 $36,960 $0 $0 $351,432 $111,608 78% Construction Sep 12 Construction will begin in FY 2012. PE-12011 Newell Road Bridge / San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Streets and Sidewalks $360,000 $360,000 $10,310 $0 $0 $0 $349,690 3% Design Mar 12 Received proposal from consultants, awaiting Caltrans approval for an increase in grant funding. PE-12012 Eleanor Pardee Park Improvements Parks and Open Space $674,000 $674,000 $4,818 $0 $0 $0 $669,182 1% Design Apr 12 Design will be completed in Apr 12. MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS Page 14 of 33 Attachment 3 Total Budget FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Estimated Project Project Project From Available Expenditures Labor Contingencies Encumbrances Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Adjustments Balance Complete Status Date Comments FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS GENERAL FUND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PE-98020 Public Safety Building Buildings and Facilities $4,291,838 $101,703 $1,192 $0 $0 $2 $100,509 98% Design TBD Project currently on hold. PF-01002 Civic Center Infrastructure Improvements Buildings and Facilities $15,970,506 $2,558,882 $1,390,008 $0 $5,036 $974,931 $188,907 99% Construction May 12 Roof improvements finished. Civic Center Improvements are in the punch-list stage. PF-04010 Cubberley Mechanical & Electrical Upgrades Buildings and Facilities $1,614,695 $36,562 $0 $0 $0 $0 $36,562 98% Design TBD Project on hold due to staff vacancy and lack of capital funds. Construction phase to be rescheduled for a later fiscal year. PF-05002 Municipal Service Center Renovation Buildings and Facilities $873,251 $681,764 $0 $0 $0 $0 $681,764 22% Design Jun 13 Project on hold per City Manager. PF-05003 Foothills Park Interpretive Center Improvements Buildings and Facilities $342,289 $208,611 $114,082 $0 $1,829 $31,885 $60,815 82% Construction Dec 12 Roof complete. HVAC, electrical, and lighting efficiency remaining. PF-06002 Ventura Buildings Improvements Buildings and Facilities $90,000 $90,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $90,000 0% Pre-Design TBD Developing scope of work. PF-07000 Art Center Electrical & Mechanical Upgrades Buildings and Facilities $8,145,197 $7,182,377 $1,479,542 $0 $30,395 $5,248,878 $423,562 95% Construction May 12 Currently under construction. PF-09000 Children's Theater Improvements Buildings and Facilities $200,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 0% Pre-Design TBD Project has not started. PO-11000 Sign Reflectivity Upgrade Streets and Sidewalks $150,000 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 0% Pre-Design Dec 17 Contract award for inventory and initial assessment is tentatively scheduled for January 23, 2012. PO-11001 Thermoplastic Lane Marking & Striping Streets and Sidewalks $350,000 $320,361 $33,252 $0 $0 $97,000 $190,109 46% Ongoing Jun 17 Initial backlog was done in conjunction with PE-86070. First annual contract completed in Sep 11. MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS Page 15 of 33 Attachment 3 FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS TECHNOLOGY FUND Total Budget FY 2012 Budget Estimated Project Project Project From Available FY 2012 Labor FY 2012 FY 2012 Remaining Percent Project Completion Comments INTERNAL SERVICE FUND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT TE-01006 Enterprise Backup Solution Minor $70,000 $68,627 $0 $0 $0 $1 $68,626 2% Complete This project is identified as a possible additional funding source for the Telephone System Replacement Project. TE-01012 IT Disaster Recovery Plan Minor $510,000 $509,711 $0 $0 $0 $1 $509,710 0% Construction Jun 12 A draft disaster recovery plan has been completed. Planning SAP Windows server backup strategy. TE-05003 Internet Site Upgrade Minor $240,000 $42,262 $0 $0 $0 $0 $42,262 82% Construction Jun 12 The portion of the contract dealing with the intranet will be finalized after the revision to the Internet. TE-07002 Police Auto- Citation System Minor $125,000 $67,191 $0 $0 $0 $0 $67,191 46% Construction Dec 11 System is up and running. Remaining budget will be used to finalize additional hardware needs. TE-08000 Library Technology Plan Minor $75,000 $18,766 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,766 75% Complete This project is identified as a possible additional funding source for the Telephone System Replacement Project. TE-08003 Fire Radio Communications Equipment Minor $102,000 $7,179 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,179 93% Complete This project is identified as a possible additional funding source for the Telephone System Replacement Project. TE-08004 Fire Mobile Data Computer Minor $250,000 $69,199 $0 $0 $0 $1 $69,198 72% Complete This project is identified as a possible additional funding source for the Telephone System Replacement Project. TE-09000 Public Safety Computer-Aided Dispatch Replacement Minor $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,300,000 0% Pre-design Dec 12 Contract is under negotiations. TE-11001 Library Computer System Software Minor $350,000 $350,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $350,000 0% Pre-design Dec 12 Currently developing requirements. TE-11002 Police Mobile In- Car Video System Replacement Minor $310,000 $310,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $310,000 0% Pre-design Jun 12 Currently developing requirements. MINOR PROJECTS Page 16 of 33 Attachment 3 FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS TECHNOLOGY FUND Total Budget FY 2012 Budget Estimated Project Project Project From Available FY 2012 Labor FY 2012 FY 2012 Remaining Percent Project Completion Comments INTERNAL SERVICE FUND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT TE-11003 Recurring Credit Card Payment Minor $150,000 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 0% Pre-design Jun 13 Currently developing requirements. TE-95016 Permit Information Tracking System Multi-Year $980,050 $176,648 $0 $0 $0 $84,631 $92,017 91% Construction Jun 13 Accela Customer Access and possibly additional module implementation. TE-02013 Institutional Network (I-Net) Multi-Year $1,000,000 $604,122 $19,500 $0 $0 $5,350 $579,272 42% Construction Jun 13 All major facilities in the City have been connected via fiber optic cable. This CIP needs to be kept open until all phases have been complete. Fiber Optic Cable is just one phase. TE-07006 SAP Continuous Improvement Project Multi-Year $8,898,680 $95,694 $0 $0 $0 $0 $95,694 99% Complete This project is identified as a possible additional funding source for the Telephone System Replacement Project. TE-99010 Acquisition of New Computers Multi-Year $362,350 $217,599 $32,784 $0 $0 $0 $184,815 49% Construction Jun 13 This is an ongoing project for the acquisition of new computers. TE-00010 / TE-00021 Telephone System Replacement Multi-Year $2,646,587 $2,616,598 $46,465 $0 $0 $2,116,954 $453,179 83% Pre-design Jul 12 Project Management vendor selected. Preparing to go out to bid for cabling, networking, and phone system. TE-02015 Citywide GIS Data, Infrastructure and Applications Multi-Year $2,228,954 $390,207 $62,688 $0 $0 $117,016 $210,503 91% Construction Dec 12 Performing application upgrade and modifications. TE-05000 Radio Infrastructure Replacement Multi-Year $2,565,980 $1,948,160 $141,842 $0 $0 $75,383 $1,730,935 33% Pre-design Dec 16 This is a County-wide project. Awaiting project initiation from County. MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS Page 17 of 33 Attachment 3 FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS TECHNOLOGY FUND Total Budget FY 2012 Budget Estimated Project Project Project From Available FY 2012 Labor FY 2012 FY 2012 Remaining Percent Project Completion Comments INTERNAL SERVICE FUND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT TE-06001 Library Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Implementation Multi-Year $595,000 $467,607 $59,164 $0 $0 $62,248 $346,195 42% Construction Nov 13 The intent is to carry this funding over to FY 2012, add funding, and utilize for implementation per the upcoming Library Technology Plan. RFID implementation is being coordinated with the Library Construction /Remodeling Projects. TE-07000 Enterprise Application Infrastructure Upgrade Multi-Year $2,297,000 $554,000 $0 $0 $0 $41,408 $512,592 78% Construction Jun 12 $250K needs to be reserved for Application Maintenance Fund to pay for the Sierra contract. TE-08002 Electric Patient Care Report Multi-Year $85,000 $35,057 $0 $0 $0 $2 $35,055 59% Complete This project is identified as a possible additional funding source for the Telephone System Replacement Project. TE-10000 Collections Software Multi-Year $111,800 $105,908 $71,365 $0 $0 $7,643 $26,900 76% Complete TE-10001 Utility Customer Billing System Multi-Year $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 0% Pre-design Jul 12 Currently developing requirements. TE-11005 Implementation of Restructured Tiered Rates on Bills Multi-Year $200,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 0% Pre-design Jul 13 Currently developing requirements. TE-12001 Development Center Blueprint Multi-Year $935,600 $935,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $935,600 0% Pre-design Dec 12 Currently developing requirements. MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS Page 18 of 33 Attachment 3 Total Budget FY 2012 Budget Estimated Project Project Project From Available FY 2012 Labor FY 2012 FY 2012 Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Expenditures Adjustments* Contingencies Encumbrances Balance Complete Status Date Comments VR-01001 MSC Fuel Storage Tank /Svc Island Replacement Minor $2,609,597 $111,195 $23,355 $0 $0 $15,073 $72,767 97% Complete Project is complete and will be closed. Funds will be returned to funding source. VR-06801 Replace City-Wide Fuel Transaction and Inventory Management System Minor $285,000 $136,062 $25,884 $0 $0 $57,666 $52,512 82% Ongoing Feb 12 System has been installed at two sites; site preparation in progress at remaining sites. VR-07001 Automated Motor Pool Reservation and Vehicle Key Management System Minor $125,000 $98,398 $0 $0 $0 $86,946 $11,452 91% Ongoing Mar 12 Installations in progress at MSC-C, Civic Center and Elwell Court. VR-09000 Vehicle Replacement Minor $2,575,000 $474,712 $0 $0 $0 $278,039 $196,673 92% Ongoing Feb 12 Awaiting delivery of one vehicle. Delivery has been delayed due to quality control issues. VR-11000 Vehicle Replacement Minor $826,569 $651,217 $459,985 $0 $0 $358,766 ($167,534) 120% Ongoing Jun 12 Awaiting purchase and delivery of several vehicles. VR-04010 Vehicle Maintenance Facility Upgrades Multi-Year $561,733 $262,860 $0 $0 $0 $4 $262,856 53% Ongoing Jun 12 Ongoing, specifications need to be written for next phase of upgrades. VR-07002 Diesel Truck Engine Emissions Retrofits Multi-Year $796,488 $247,279 $0 $0 $0 $194,700 $52,579 93% Ongoing Jan 12 Ongoing, retrofits in progress. FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS INTERNAL SERVICE FUND VEHICLE REPLACEMENT AND MAINTENANCE FUND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MINOR PROJECTS MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS Page 19 of 33 Attachment 3 Total Budget FY 2012 Budget Estimated Project Project Project From Available FY 2012 Labor FY 2012 FY 2012 Remaining Percent Project Completion FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS INTERNAL SERVICE FUND VEHICLE REPLACEMENT AND MAINTENANCE FUND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT VR-92006 Fuel Tank Storage/Upgrade Multi-Year $236,182 $149,519 $9,019 $0 $0 $147,108 ($6,608) 103% Design Mar 12 This is a design-build project. MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS Page 20 of 33 Attachment 3 Total Budget FY 2012 Budget Estimated Project Project Project From Available FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Expenditures Contingencies Encumbrances Balance Complete Status Date Comments EL-04010 Foothills System Rebuild Minor $850,064 $102,802 $0 $0 $0 $102,802 88% Pre-design Dec 12 Some preliminary design and scoping work has been done. No additional work at this time due to understaffed situation. EL-09004 W. Charleston/Wilkie Way to South City Limit 4/12 kV Conversion Minor $507,556 $96,324 $4,429 $0 $0 $91,895 82% Design Jun 12 Out to Bid for construction in Mar 12. EL-10008 Advanced Metering Infrastructure System Minor $310,911 $255,545 $352 $0 $0 $255,193 18% Pre-design Ongoing Phase 1 of 3 completed. EL-11001 Torreya Court Rebuild Minor $100,397 $96,025 $2,956 $0 $0 $93,069 7% Design Jun 12 Design completed. Contract documents being drawn up. EL-11004 Hewlett Subdivision Rebuild Los Trancos Minor $400,970 $390,297 $25,238 $0 $2,358 $362,701 10% Design Jun 12 Design completed. Contract documents being drawn up. EL-11006 Rebuild UG District 18 Minor $350,147 $348,531 $6,086 $0 $0 $342,445 2% Dec 12 No work started due to staff vacancies. EL-11016 Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Minor $135,083 $135,083 $17,696 $0 $1,851 $115,536 14% Design Dec 12 Work in progress. EL-12002 Hanover 22 - Transformer Replacement Minor $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $800,000 $200,000 80% Design Jun 13 Transformer specification completed. Procurement and detailed installation design next. MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS ENTERPRISE FUND MINOR PROJECTS ELECTRIC FUND UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Page 21 of 33 Attachment 3 Total Budget FY 2012 Budget Estimated Project Project Project From Available FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Expenditures Contingencies Encumbrances Balance Complete Status Date Comments FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS ENTERPRISE FUND ELECTRIC FUND UTILITIES DEPARTMENT EL-02010 SCADA System Upgrades Multi-Year $912,213 $243,023 $0 $0 $0 $243,023 73% Design and Construction Ongoing This project involves upgrading the Supervisory Control & Data Acquisitions (SCADA) Portal and Master computer software and operating systems . EL-04012 Utility Site Security Improvements Multi-Year $908,854 $518,614 $8,790 $0 $184,406 $325,418 50% Design & Construction Dec 12 Construction completed at Colorado Substation and Boranda Reservoir. Design completed for Corte Madera Booster/Reservoir, Quarry Booster, and Boronda Booster. EL-04014 Automated Meter Reading System Multi-Year $1,334,099 $296,157 $0 $0 $2 $296,155 78% Complete Pilot is completed, except for ongoing maintenance of installed system. Staff is analyzing installation and will use information during Smart Grid Feasibility Study (EL-10008). EL-05000 El Camino Underground Rebuild Multi-Year $1,620,339 $185,671 $17,429 $0 $0 $168,242 90% Design and Construction Jun 12 Portions of this project have been completed in conjunction with new business in the area of El Camino Real between Charleston and San Antonio roads. Construction Estimate package in progress. EL-11008 Rebuild UG District 19 Multi-Year $561,061 $507,130 $0 $0 $0 $507,130 10% Design Sep 12 Substructure installation completed. Cable design in progress. EL-06000 Park Blvd. 4/12kV Conversion Multi-Year $386,579 $9,973 $0 $0 $0 $9,973 97% Construction Mar 12 Final construction phase in progress. EL-06001 230 KV Electric Intertie Multi-Year $503,109 $95,955 $9,070 $0 $0 $86,885 83% Pre-design Ongoing Stanford Utilities has expressed interest in Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) - Quarry Road Substation 60kV tie. Preliminary power flow and feasibility study complete, interconnection at Quarry Substation appears feasible. Working with Stanford and DOE to encourage SLAC participation in this project. Page 22 of 33 Attachment 3 Total Budget FY 2012 Budget Estimated Project Project Project From Available FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Expenditures Contingencies Encumbrances Balance Complete Status Date Comments FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS ENTERPRISE FUND ELECTRIC FUND UTILITIES DEPARTMENT EL-06002 Underground District 45 Multi-Year $3,607,743 $309,393 $68,500 $0 $2 $240,891 60% Construction Mar 12 Line construction and Customer connections in progress. EL-06003 Utility Control Center Upgrades Multi-Year $500,000 $7,989 $0 $0 $0 $7,989 98% Pre-design Ongoing Ergonomic and visual improvements for performance to operator environment. EL-08000 E. Charleston 4/12kV Conversion Multi-Year $653,255 $592,650 $50,032 $0 $7,740 $534,878 18% Design Mar 12 In design. EL-08002 E. Meadow/Alma/Loma 4/12kV Conversion Multi-Year $1,171,079 $414,014 $0 $0 $0 $414,014 65% Complete Project will be closed at mid-year and balance returned to reserves. EL-09000 Middlefield Underground Rebuild Multi-Year $625,786 $625,786 $87 $0 $0 $625,699 0% Design Jun 12 Engineering design completed. Estimating in progress. EL-09002 Middlefield/Colorado 4/12 kV Conversion Multi-Year $323,313 $59,485 $19,485 $0 $0 $40,000 88% Design Jun 12 Design completed. Contract documents being drawn up. EL-09003 Rebuild UG District 17 (Downtown) Multi-Year $1,225,238 $756,457 $4,825 $0 $0 $751,632 60% Construction Jun 12 Substructure complete. Line construction begins Jun 12. MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS Page 23 of 33 Attachment 3 Total Budget FY 2012 Budget Estimated Project Project Project From Available FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Expenditures Contingencies Encumbrances Balance Complete Status Date Comments FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS ENTERPRISE FUND ELECTRIC FUND UTILITIES DEPARTMENT EL-10006 Rebuild UG District 24 Multi-Year $1,344,620 $1,017,856 $38,134 $0 $0 $979,722 27% Design Jun 12 Substructure installation complete. Electrical design work in progress. EL-10009 Street Light System Conversion Project Multi-Year $2,204,162 $1,735,240 $6,990 $0 $1,289,858 $438,392 80% Ongoing Dec 12 In procurement phase. EL-11000 Seale/Waverley 4/12 kV Conversion Multi-Year $40,000 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 0% Jun 13 No work started due to staff vacancies. EL-11002 St. Francis/Oregon/Amarillo /Louis 4/12 kV Conversion Multi-Year $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 0% Jun 13 No work started due to staff vacancies. EL-11003 Rebuild UG District 15 Multi-Year $80,348 $76,522 $2,280 $0 $2,012 $72,230 10% Jun 13 No work started due to staff vacancies. EL-11007 Rebuild Greenhouse Condo Area Multi-Year $501,091 $486,665 $53,090 $0 $10,121 $423,454 15% Construction Jul 12 Construction in progress. EL-11010 UG District 47 - Middlefield, Homer Avenue, Webster Street and Addison Avenue Multi-Year $1,651,331 $1,636,686 $4,276 $0 $0 $1,632,410 1% Design Dec 13 Preliminary design work started . EL-11014 Smart Grid Technology Installation Multi-Year $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 0% Design Jan 17 Pilot Project: Design in progress. Implemenetation upon feedback by Council. EL-11015 Reconductor 60kV Overhead Transmission System with ACCR conductor Multi-Year $1,151,535 $1,134,655 $72,261 $0 $1,000,001 $62,393 95% Design Jun 14 Engineering and estimating in progress. Phase 2 and half of phase 3 out to Bid. MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS Page 24 of 33 Attachment 3 Total Budget FY 2012 Budget Estimated Project Project Project From Available FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Expenditures Contingencies Encumbrances Balance Complete Status Date Comments FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS ENTERPRISE FUND ELECTRIC FUND UTILITIES DEPARTMENT EL-12001 UG District 46 - Charleston/El Camino Real Multi-Year $150,000 $150,000 $47,019 $0 $0 $102,981 31% Pre-design TBD Page 25 of 33 Attachment 3FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS Total Budget FY 2012 Budget Estimated Project Project Project From Available FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Expenditures Contingencies Encumbrances Balance Complete Status Date Comments GS-08000 Gas Station 2 Rebuild Minor $207,007 $203,584 $74,186 $0 $0 $129,398 95% Construction Jun 12 Regulator installed and operational. Completing record drawings. GS-09000 Gas Station 1 Rebuild Minor $201,000 $200,485 $74,186 $0 $0 $126,299 75% Design Jun 12 Design effort ongoing. Unit to ship by May 12. GS-10000 Gas Station 3 Rebuild Minor $207,007 $206,931 $0 $0 $205,000 $1,931 10% Design May 12 Design effort ongoing. Unit to ship by Apr 12. GS-10002 General Shop Tooling Minor $66,129 $13,195 $0 $0 $9,605 $3,590 100% Complete Equipment purchased and installed. GS-10003 Cathodic Current Interrupters Minor $300,007 $299,931 $0 $0 $287,065 $12,866 25% Construction Apr 12 Installation should be complete by Apr 12. GS-10004 Automating Test Station Minor $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $18,019 $81,981 25% Construction Apr 12 Installation should be complete by Apr 12. GS-11001 Gas Station 4 Rebuild Minor $337,000 $337,000 $122,667 $0 $0 $214,333 10% Design Apr 12 Design effort ongoing. Unit to ship by Feb 12. ENTERPRISE FUND MINOR PROJECTS GAS FUND UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Page 26 of 33 Attachment 3FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS Total Budget FY 2012 Budget Estimated Project Project Project From Available FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Expenditures Contingencies Encumbrances Balance Complete Status Date Comments ENTERPRISE FUND GAS FUND UTILITIES DEPARTMENT GS-01019 Global Positioning System Multi-Year $381,062 $118,248 $23,852 $0 $14,724 $79,672 79% Construction Jun 12 Integrating field data into mapping system. Defining additional equipment needs. GS-08011 GMR - Project 18 Multi-Year $5,983,874 $4,795,301 $345,216 $120,293 $24,760 $4,305,032 25% Construction Jun 12 Ongoing construction. Project estimated completion in Jun 12. GS-09002 GMR - Project 19 Multi-Year $6,285,168 $6,234,703 $565,506 $0 $953,052 $4,716,145 25% Design Jul 13 Remaining portion of GMR 19 to be combined with GMR 20. Combined project design phase completion scheduled for May 12. GS-10001 GMR - Project 20 Multi-Year $6,614,014 $6,613,863 $0 $0 $0 $6,613,863 0% Design Jul 13 Design phase started Dec 11 and includes portions of GMR 19 to create a combined project GMR 19 and 20. Project out to Bid Jul 12. GS-11000 GMR - Project 21 Multi-Year $457,000 $457,000 $0 $0 $0 $457,000 0% Design Jul 13 Design phase started Dec 11 and will be included portions of GMR 19 to create a combined project GMR 19, 20 and 21. Project out to Bid Jul 12. GS-11002 Gas System Improvements Multi-Year $395,000 $378,500 $1,470 $0 $46,668 $330,362 16% Ongoing This project addresses ongoing capital system improvements. GS-12001 GMR - Project 22 Multi-Year $468,000 $468,000 $0 $0 $0 $468,000 0% Design Jun 14 Construction funds to be delayed until FY 2014. MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS Page 27 of 33 Attachment 3 Total Budget FY 2012 Budget Estimated Project Project Project From Available FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Expenditures Contingencies Encumbrances Balance Complete Status Date Comments WS-09000 Seismic Water Tank Valve Minor $3,500,000 $3,478,715 $0 $0 $0 $3,478,715 1% Construction Jul 15 Final report completed in Nov 10. Construction to start Jan 12. WS-11001 Vacuum Excavation Equipment Minor $275,000 $275,000 $0 $0 $0 $275,000 0% Pre-Design Jul 12 Working with fleet to create specification. WS-07000 Water Regulation Station Improvements Multi-Year $1,070,000 $959,579 $0 $0 $0 $959,579 10% Construction Jul 15 Construction to start Jan 12. WS-07001 Water Recycling Facilities Multi-Year $1,100,152 $704,583 $91,555 $0 $3,903 $609,125 45% Pre-Design Jun 16 Preparing Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Construction to be completed in 2016. WS-07004 Water System Portable Emergency Generators Multi-Year $466,000 $208,833 $0 $0 $1 $208,832 55% Construction May 12 Quotes received exceeding available funds. Staff considering options. WS-08001 Water Reservoir Coating Improvements Multi-Year $2,050,491 $1,871,089 $0 $0 $0 $1,871,089 9% Construction Jul 15 Construction to start Jan 12. WS-08002 Emergency Water Supply Project Multi-Year $40,440,049 $29,114,787 $1,403,692 $515,250 $15,499,337 $11,696,508 71% Construction Dec 12 El Camino reservoir construction underway. Mayfield pump station construction underway. WS-08017 WMR - Project 22 Multi-Year $3,164,469 $154,770 $0 $0 $0 $154,770 95% Complete FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS ENTERPRISE FUND MINOR PROJECTS WATER FUND UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Page 28 of 33 Attachment 3 Total Budget FY 2012 Budget Estimated Project Project Project From Available FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Expenditures Contingencies Encumbrances Balance Complete Status Date Comments FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS ENTERPRISE FUND WATER FUND UTILITIES DEPARTMENT WS-09001 WMR - Project 23 Multi-Year $3,120,999 $2,136,145 $56,055 $0 $2,085,290 ($5,200) 0% Construction Dec 12 Design completed Dec 11. Construction to start Mar 12. Negative balance due to over- encumbrance of $95K but has been corrected as of Jan 12. WS-10001 WMR - Project 24 Multi-Year $3,253,142 $3,127,551 $39,740 $0 $3,098,415 ($10,604) 0% Construction Dec 12 Design completed Dec 11. Construction to start Mar 12. Negative balance due to over- encumbrance of $50K but has been corrected as of Jan 12. WS-11000 WMR - Project 25 Multi-Year $292,000 $292,000 $0 $0 $0 $292,000 100% Design Mar 14 Project construction to start Jul 13 and will be combined with WMR 26. WS-11003 Water Distribution System Improvements Multi-Year $410,623 $359,771 $9,909 $0 $11,667 $338,195 18% Ongoing TBD This project addresses ongoing capital distribution system improvements. WS-11004 Water System Supply Improvements Multi-Year $406,993 $396,069 $52,103 $0 $7,245 $336,721 17% Ongoing TBD This project addresses ongoing capital supply system improvements. WS-12001 WMR - Project 26 Multi-Year $305,000 $305,000 $0 $0 $0 $305,000 0% Pre-Design Mar 14 Project design to start Jul 12 and will be combined with WMR 25. MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS Page 29 of 33 Attachment 3FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS Total Budget FY 2012 Budget Estimated Project Project Project From Available FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Expenditures Contingencies Encumbrances Balance Complete Status Date Comments WC-09002 Root Treatment, Sediment and Dewatering Container Minor $60,064 $59,636 $0 $0 $0 $59,636 1% Pre-design N/A Changing conditions no longer allow for this container and this project should be cancelled. WC-11000 WC Reh/Aug. Prj 24 Multi-Year $3,119,500 $3,119,500 $0 $0 $0 $3,119,500 0% Pre-design Sep 13 This project will also include the WC Reh/Aug Prj 25 and the design effort will start May 12 with construction complete by Sep 13. WC-12001 WC Reh/Aug. Prj 25 Multi-Year $300,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 0% Pre-design Jun 14 This project will also include the WC Reh/Aug Prj 26 and the design effort will start Sep 12 with construction complete by Jun 14. WC-12002 WW Lateral Pipe Bursting Machine Multi-Year $33,000 $33,000 $25,426 $0 $0 $7,574 100% Complete Equipment purchased. Project to be closed at year-end. WC-15002 Wastewater System Improvements Multi-Year $408,315 $383,198 $52,328 $0 $6,667 $324,203 21% Ongoing TBD This project addresses ongoing capital system improvements. MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS ENTERPRISE FUND WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND UTILITIES DEPARTMENT MINOR PROJECTS Page 30 of 33 Attachment 3 ENTERPRISE FUND REFUSE FUND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Total Budget FY 2012 Budget Estimated Project Project Project From Available FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Expenditures Contingencies Encumbrances Balance Complete Status Date Comments RF-09003 Recycling in Business District Minor $325,000 $325,000 $3,156 $0 $0 $321,844 5% Project cancelled. RF-09004 LATP Site Development Preparation Minor $200,000 $23,421 $2,072 $0 $20,817 $532 100% Complete Consultant's environmental risk assessment for cleanup of site was approved by regulatory agency for Areas A and B. Existing funds in balance will be released. RF-10002 Flare Relocation Project Minor $700,000 $621,207 $14,001 $0 $27,099 $580,107 17% Construction Sep 12 Design and permitting is 100% complete. Bids received in November exceeded available budget, so a re-Bid is planned in Spring 2012 along with allocation of additional funding. RF-07001 Relocation of Landfill Facilities Multi-Year $1,500,291 $1,156,174 $29,927 $0 $49,686 $1,076,561 28% Design Feb 13 The relocation of the Recycling Center has been cancelled. Improvements to the permanent Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) facility at the end of Embarcadero Way on the wastewater treatment plant property are proceeding. Final design and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for the project is now in progress. RF-10003 Drying Beds, Material Storage and Transfer Area Multi-Year $122,700 $75,000 $21,969 $0 $2,197 $50,834 59% Construction Nov 12 Additional material storage bunkers have been constructed at the MSC. Drying beds currently located on the 10 acres that was subject to Measure E are to be relocated inside the RWQCP. RF-11001 Landfill Closure Multi-Year $6,700,000 $6,645,199 $363,929 $523 $499,154 $5,781,593 14% Construction Jan 13 Construction is nearly complete for the undergrounding of environmental control systems in the closed sections of the landfill and installing the remaining gas and leachate wells required by permit. A design contract for the Phase IIC cap and closure will be awarded soon with the additional funds scheduled for FY 2012. FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS MINOR PROJECTS Page 31 of 33 Attachment 3FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS Total Budget FY 2012 Budget Estimated Project Project Project From Available FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Expenditures Contingencies Encumbrances Balance Complete Status Date Comments SD-08101 Alma Street Storm Drain Improvements Minor $803,622 $55,117 $0 $0 $1 $55,116 100% Closed Project has been closed and balance returned to reserves at mid-year. SD-06102 San Francisquito Creek Storm Water Pump Station Multi-Year $6,384,088 $76,360 $20,733 $0 $27,111 $28,516 100% Complete Jun 19 Required mitigation monitoring for 10 years (through FY 2019) is the only remaining task. SD-06104 Connect Clara Drive Storm Drains to Matadero Pump Station Multi-Year $953,480 $1 $0 $0 $0 $1 0% Design May 14 Project design is being performed by in- house staff. New construction funding has been programmed for FY 2014. SD-10101 Southgate Neighborhood Storm Drain Improvements Multi-Year $143,000 $143,000 $14,194 $0 $140,000 ($11,194) 100% Design May 13 Project will be in design phase in 2012 and construction phase in Summer 2013. Project is not over expended. Negative balance is due to staff salaries charges for which additional budget will be added at year-end. SD-11101 Channing Avenue/Lincoln Avenue Storm Drain Improvements Multi-Year $3,700,526 $3,126,737 $1,082,007 $0 $398,486 $1,646,244 56% Design May 12 Phase 1 complete. Phase 2 in design. Construction scheduled for Summer 2012. ENTERPRISE FUND STORM DRAINAGE FUND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS MINOR PROJECTS Page 32 of 33 Attachment 3FY 2012 MID-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS STATUS Total Budget FY 2012 Budget Estimated Project Project Project From Available FY 2012 FY 2012 FY 2012 Remaining Percent Project Completion Number Title Category Inception Budget Expenditures Contingencies Encumbrances Balance Complete Status Date Comments WQ-10001 Plant Master Plan Minor $981,266 $616,383 $307,582 $0 $265,088 $43,713 96% Pre-Design Jun 12 Project on schedule. Stakeholder meetings commenced. Alternatives being developed. WQ-04011 Facility Condition Assessment and Retrofit Multi-Year $4,300,000 $2,543,961 $28,444 $0 $933,852 $1,581,665 0% Design Jun 12 Ongoing retrofit projects. WQ-06014 Disinfection Facility Improvement Program Multi-Year $20,469,469 $2,623,085 $359,901 $1,518 $699,625 $1,562,041 99% Complete Jun 12 Project complete. Startup complete. Warranty phase of project ENTERPRISE FUND WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MULTI-YEAR PROJECTS MINOR PROJECTS Page 33 of 33 Attachment 4 Project Category Department/Fund Project Title FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Community Services : Land & Land Improvements AC-86017 Art in Public Places $64,410 $21,556 $17,256 $77,956 $5,371 Planning & Community Environment : Streets & Sidewalks PL-05030 Traffic Signal Upgrades 35,908 39,983 278,187 183,141 144,936 Public Works - General Fund : Streets & Sidewalks PE-86070 Street Improvements (Street Improvement Fund)3,368,496 3,702,381 3,323,063 4,710,791 2,082,717 Building & Facilities PF-00006 Roofing Replacement 256,831 21,073 227,495 104,617 187,673 Building & Facilities PF-01003 Building Systems Improvements 34,304 114,152 36,053 74,876 6,920 Building & Facilities PF-02022 Facility Interior Finishes 65,797 47,116 11,076 23,874 229,944 Building & Facilities PF-93009 ADA Compliance 49,955 121,617 216,133 9,994 167,537 Streets & Sidewalks PO-05054 Street lights Improvements 11,814 15,970 32,976 159,070 34,239 Streets & Sidewalks PO-89003 Sidewalk Improvements 2,030,796 1,675,527 952,503 1,611,917 482,272 Public Works - Storm Drainage Fund : SD-06101 Storm Drain System Replacement 675,832 445,582 81,878 488,793 242,488 Public Works - Wastewater Treatment Fund : WQ-80021 RWQCP Plant Equipment Replacement 1,156,156 2,544,261 403,293 66,916 236,987 WQ-80022 RWQCP System Flow Metering 0 56,245 0 28,468 0 Electric Fund : EL-02011 Electric Utility GIS 83,546 39,414 188,231 321,713 108,072 EL-06005 Fiber Optics Ring System Improvements 112,435 58,124 5,531 0 0 EL-06006 Fiber Optics Customer Design and Connection Services 134,498 195,808 17,203 0 0 EL-89028 Electric Customer Connections 1,982,607 1,467,233 1,702,232 1,882,242 633,194 EL-89031 Communications System Improvements $50,458 $21,784 $0 $3,501 $0 EL-89038 Substation Protection Improvements 423,904 94,411 133,185 129,086 59,646 EL-89044 Substation Facility Improvements 7,147 93,735 3,133 148,871 74,247 EL-98003 Electric Distribution System Reconstruction and Improvements 2,260,973 1,265,486 1,330,082 1,608,521 1,034,407 Fiber Optics Fund : FO-10000 Fiber Optic Customer Connections 0 0 68,373 88,061 8,627 FO-10001 Fiber Optic Network System Improvements 0 0 34,614 327,736 21,676 Continuous Capital Projects Five Years of Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 Page 1 of 2 2/16/2012 Attachment 4 Project Category Department/Fund Project Title FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Continuous Capital Projects Five Years of Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008-2012 Gas Fund : GS-02013 GS-03007 Directional Boring Equipment 63 59,410 0 162 20,160 GS-03002 GS-04003 GS-05002 Gas Main Replacements 433,894 38,121 87,706 86,159 31,556 GS-03008 Polyethylene Fusion Equipment Replacement 0 35,650 0 444 0 GS-03009 System Extensions-Unreimbursed 115 12,000 4,005 7,718 0 GS-06001 Gas Main Replacements, GMR-Project 16 2,256,296 2,423,677 89,180 127,056 0 GS-07002 Gas Main Replacements, GMR-Project 17 614,485 912,018 3,681,252 211,515 90,945 GS-80017 Gas System Extensions 609,566 356,666 347,412 471,001 119,788 GS-80019 Gas Meters and Regulators 272,386 244,129 313,598 294,191 87,457 Wastewater Collection Fund: WC-02002 WC-03003 WC-04002 Sewer System Rehabilitation and Augmentation, Project 15,16 and 17 1,394,506 8,840 27,141 122,870 19,968 WC-05003 WC-06003 WC-07004 Sewer System Rehabilitation and Augmentation, Project 18,19 and 20 1,378,862 2,154,931 1,761,725 94,468 39,229 WC-08012 WC-09001 WC-10002 Sewer System Rehabilitation and Augmentation, Project 21,22 and 23 126 285,858 543,313 1,928,374 419,207 WC-80020 Sewer System Extensions 561,620 370,253 251,152 224,066 30,792 WC-99013 Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation 116,173 48,227 168,722 378,841 148,433 Water Fund : WS-02003 Water Main Replacements, Project 16 4,629 19,695 0 0 0 WS-02014 Water-Gas Wastewater utilities GIS Data 0 33 204,583 289,694 18,966 WS-06002 Water Main Replacements, Project 20 1,830,359 93,554 349 10,821 0 WS-07003 Water Main Replacements, Project 21 57,923 226,559 1,383,427 1,432,826 0 WS-80013 Water System Extensions 400,152 295,194 285,945 258,968 111,615 WS-80014 Service and Hydrant Replacements 58,212 104,951 43,538 44,232 9,344 WS-80015 Water Meters 127,109 14,712 2,298 0 0 Page 2 of 2 2/16/2012 Attachment 5 Amount Transferred to Infrastructure Amount Returned to General Fund Net Amount Fiscal Year $(000) $(000) $(000) 2008 $11,807 $117 $11,690 2009 $14,648 a $14,648 2010 $9,900 $3,243 $6,657 2011 $9,857 $9,857 2012 $10,978 $10,978 2013 $10,978 $10,978 2014 $11,334 $11,334 2015 $11,788 $11,788 2016 $12,288 $12,288 2017 $12,818 $12,818 Total $116,396 $3,360 $113,036 Notes: a. Includes funding for the Public Safety Building $3,437K Sources: FY 2008 through FY 2012 are actual amounts FY 2013 through FY 2017 based on Long Range Financial Forecast $11,690 $14,648 $6,657 $9,857 $10,978 $10,978 $11,334 $11,788$12,288 $12,818 $5,000 $7,000 $9,000 $11,000 $13,000 $15,000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 $0 0 0 Fiscal Year General Fund Transfers to Infrastructure Reserve for Fiscal Years 2008-2017 Page 1 of 1 2/16/2012 Attachment 6 ** NOT YET APPROVED ** 1 Resolution No. ______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the 2010-2011 Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Adopted by Resolution No. 9156 to Change the Titles of Four Positions and to Add One New Position The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the 2010-2011 Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel, adopted by Resolution No. 9156, is hereby amended to change the titles of four positions and add one new position, as set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, effective with the pay period including February 28, 2012. SECTION 2. The Director of Administrative Services is authorized to implement the amended Compensation Plan as set forth in Section 1. SECTION 3. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ______________________________ Sr. Deputy City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services ____________________________ Director of Human Resources Attachment 6 ** NOT YET APPROVED ** 2 EXHIBIT A Management/Professional Compensation Plan Changes – Effective February 28, 2012 Job Code Classification Title Grade Code Control Point Approx. Annual Hourly 49 Director, Office of Management and Budget (title and compensation change from Chief Budget Officer) TBD 12,624 151,488 72.83 2003 Principal Financial Analyst (title change from Budget Officer) 35 8,989 107,869 51.86 126 Assistant Director, Community Services (title change from Arts & Culture Division Manager) TBD 12,112 145,350 69.88 107 Assistant City Manager / Chief Operating Officer (title change from Assistant City Manager / Chief Operations Officer) 14 16,619 199,430 95.88 TBD Information Technology Security Manager (new position) TBD 10,348 124,176 59.70 Attachment 7 Public Safety Departments Overtime Analysis for Fiscal Years 2007 through 2012 thru 12/31 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 POLICE DEPARTMENT Overtime Expense Original Budget $1,015,620 $1,036,815 $999,900 $999,900 $967,900 $967,900 Current Budget 1,074,399 1,071,005 1,016,900 1,071,662 1,224,349 967,900 Net Overtime Cost - see below 1,025,718 1,096,894 886,568 932,960 314,790 188,976 Remaining Budget $48,681 ($25,889) $130,332 $138,702 $909,559 $778,924 Overtime Net Cost Actual Expense $1,785,657 $2,009,542 $1,665,842 $1,466,226 $1,454,999 $846,238 Less Reimbursements Stanford Communications 39,342 65,079 42,160 58,070 58,157 28,509 Utilities Communications Reimbursement 22,130 36,607 23,715 33,242 36,348 17,818 Local Agencies (A)36,457 41,770 37,413 33,930 31,230 15,337 State Grants (B)63,344 4,672 10,998 22,306 70,816 - Police Service Fees 43,218 67,390 53,812 42,085 80,350 78,808 Other 12,447 18,157 15,982 3,830 32,517 35,235 Total Reimbursements 216,938 233,675 184,080 193,463 309,417 175,707 Less Department Vacancies 543,001 678,973 595,194 339,803 830,792 481,555 Net Overtime Cost $1,025,718 $1,096,894 $886,568 $932,960 $314,790 $188,976 Department Vacancies (number of days)2,280 2,766 2,402 1,368 3,222 1,885 FIRE DEPARTMENT Overtime Expense Original Budget $1,032,674 $892,674 $1,017,674 $1,017,674 $1,017,674 $2,265,074 Current Budget 1,032,674 996,674 1,353,058 1,017,674 1,627,674 2,265,074 Net Overtime Cost - see below 737,768 863,442 416,610 1,334,452 776,226 862,676 Remaining Budget $294,906 $133,232 $936,448 ($316,778) $851,448 $1,402,398 Overtime Net Cost Actual Expense $1,860,757 $1,744,076 $1,591,261 $2,675,515 $2,237,356 $2,037,172 Less Reimbursements Stanford Fire Services (D)563,809 528,455 482,152 810,681 677,919 617,263 Cal-Fire/FEMA (Strike Teams) 85,531 140,224 453,619 64,760 State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) (C)40,897 10,164 4,342 10,647 5,968 11,722 Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) 1,150 11158 Fire Service Fees 55,055 29,688 Other 2,100 2,300 Total Reimbursements 690,237 679,993 940,113 886,088 752,200 660,973 Less Department Vacancies 432,752 200,641 234,538 454,975 708,930 513,523 Net Overtime Cost $737,768 $863,442 $416,610 $1,334,452 $776,226 $862,676 Department Vacancies (number of days)1,740 810 780 1,455 2,280 1,702 NOTES: (A)Includes Animal Services contract with Los Altos, Mountain View and Los Altos Hills. (B)State Office of Traffic Safety and ABC grants. (C) Included in the SHSGP and UASI reimbursements is a small amount of per diem reimbursement. Reimbursement from U.S. Department of Homeland Security for HazMat Continuing Challenge Training Conference (Sep 2009) (D)Stanford reimburses 30.3% of Fire expenditures. Page 1 of 1 2/16/2012 Attachment D FINANCE COMMITTEE DRAFT EXCERPT Special Meeting February 28, 2012 Finance Committee Recommendation Regarding Adoption of Budget Amendment Ordinance Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 2012 to Adjust Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures in Accordance with the Recommendations in the Midyear Report. Director, Office of Management and Budget, Rob Braulik gave a brief presentation indicating the net gap for FY12 at Mid-Year was just over $3 million dollars. The revenue increases were highlighted on pages 166 and 167 of the Staff Report. The expense increases were highlighted on page 197, which is Attachment 1, Exhibit A of the report. The second slide referred to proposed adjustments. Chair Shepherd stated that the real Actuarial Required Contribution (ARC) should be a little under $2 million. She recommended that the Council go with those numbers with the understanding that the changes would be made. Mr. Braulik, continuing with the presentation, stated that the department requests at Mid-Year totaled just over $400,000, as indicated on pages 172 to 174 of the report. He explained that there were three departments with larger increases as a component of the $400,000. The Administrative Services Department (ASD) had a new position. The Community Service Department (CSD) had a position reclassification and minor revenue decreases. Public Works had reallocations of positions and new asphalt materials that needed to be purchased. He stated a reduction to the Refuse Fund was highlighted on page 197 and Attachment 1. The original loan put into the FY12 budget was $1.25 million. The Public Works Department identified that it did not need the entire $1.25 million, but would ask for half of it and may not need the $625,000 either. Public Works requested that it remain a position in the budget for FY12 until June 30th. He said that the Retiree ARC General Fund impact was $2.3 million and was a substantial reason for the Mid- Year adjustment. Mr. Braulik said that Council directed contingency replenishment of about $300,000 was highlighted on page 207. A majority of increases mid-year changes were because of the Retiree Medical ARC and the Public Safety Group Concessions, which have yet to be achieved. The unachieved concessions were from the Police Department, as the Council reached agreement with the Fire Department previously. Prior to that action, the proposal was for approximately $3 million He said that the Retiree ARC went up $2.3 million and the revenues increased $1.7 million, therefore the ARC increase alone took up the entire revenue increase. Director of Administrative Services, Lalo Perez said expenditures increased more than the revenues. He stated the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) communicated to all agencies in the program via a circular letter dated February 17, 2012 that the Pension and Healthcare Benefit Committee would have a meeting on March 13, 2012 to consider changes to the actual economic exemptions for the program. Specifically, the Healthcare Benefit Committee indicated it would revisit the real discount rate. Currently that rate is at 4.75% and inflation is 3%, for a total of a 7.75% rate of return assumption. The third component was the wage inflation. He stated the Pension and Healthcare Benefit Committee would reconsider the position or assumption of the three pieces. Inflation was 3% and last reviewed in 2004. The real wage inflation assumption was currently at .25% and last reviewed in 1998. The real discount rate assumption was last reviewed in March 2010. He voiced a concern that a quarter of a percent decrease in the real discount rate and the price inflation rate combined with a quarter percent increase in the wage inflation was projected to have an increase in the CalPERS contribution for the employer rate in the miscellaneous plan group of 4 to 5% of payroll. For the Public Safety Group it would be7 to 8%. He said it is unclear if this is a firm recommendation or just a review, but it would have to go from a committee to the board. Mr. Keene asked if those were the changes the Health Care Benefit Committee was recommending. Mr. Perez said they were the recommendations Staff would make to the board for their consideration. Mr. Keene asked for confirmation that the recommended changes were for a quarter percent change in each of those three measures. Mr. Perez indicated that was correct. He said that he had questions he planned to ask the Chief Actuary for CalPERS as the changes were significant; with the preliminary numbers between $3 and $5 million for the City of Palo Alto. He said he asked John Bartel of Bartel and Associates, LLC, the City’s Actuarial firm, if he had heard about the changes under consideration. Mr. Bartel told him he had and that they are also considering removing the smoothing. He reminded the Committee that the 2008 losses were smoothed over approximately three years allowing for a lower payment. With respect to healthcare, he said for forecasting purposes they used 10%. He expressed concern about the commercial property taxes but was hopeful for improvement. He stated that in a short amount of time the City would have a better idea of how successful the holiday season sales had been. The projected increases in the water rates would be available from San Francisco on March 6, 2012; and they may be a 20% increase. These increase could have an impact on the golf course and parks going forward. He stated the City had not increased money for infrastructure, which was a pending discussion. Mr. Braulik said the Enterprise Funds had a Retiree ARC impact of $.8 million which was shown on page 163 of the Staff Report. He stated that on page 203 of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) portion of the Staff Report there were two adjustments; the closure of the recycling center and with the elimination of the business district receptacles program. He discussed $1.8 million and $200,000 that would carry forward for the Energy Financing Program related to the Electric Fund and listed on page 210. He explained General Fund revenues were tracked at 59% of total revenues and without Stanford they were tracking about 42%. Additionally General Fund expenses were tracked at about 52% of total expenditures so they were right in line with projections. The General Fund CIP projects listed in the packets were almost exclusively close outs with the exception of the new Alma Street Avenue Bridge guardrail. ASD and Human Resources Staff worked with the insurer of the motorist who hit the guardrail to get that completely funded by insurance money. He stated that on page 217, there was almost $1.5 million based on close outs and adjustments going back to the infrastructure reserve listed on that page. He indicated he would not go into depth on reallocations as there was a listing on the back of the document. Mr. Perez recommended starting with the General Fund. He said that Table 1, the Retiree Medical ARC showed $2.3 million; it was $1.7 million as a result of the Finance Committee assumption changes that reduced $6.3 million from the prior number. The Mid-Year draw was $2,941. He asked the Committee to approve $441,000 in department expense requests and replenish the Contingency Account. He said it appeared that the Public Safety Group concessions were not going to be met for the year. Mr. Keene asked if he meant the full Public Safety Group concessions. Mr. Perez said that was correct. The Firefighters contribution of $1 million was included for the fiscal year. He said that if the full Public Safety Group concessions of $2.371 were made, the budget would be balanced, but that has not happened. He asked the Committee to consider a drawdown of reserves of $2.3 million. Vice Mayor Scharff asked what would happen if the ARC payment was made the following year. He requested confirmation that if there had been the Public Safety Group concessions there would not be a budget shortage. He said that it seemed they were taking money out of the BSR which was a non-committed reserve and putting it in a committed reserve. This a policy decision on $1.7 million. He asked if deferring the payment one year would have any effect on the City’s bond rating. Mr. Perez said from a finance perspective he would not be concerned if the transfer was postponed for one year, but would be concerned if it was in multiple years. He said that he asked Mr. Bartel about an agency not making its contributions and having immediate issues and Mr. Bartel had not heard of that. The rating agencies were favorable to those addressing their ARC and reflect that in the results. Mr. Keene said he wanted to demonstrate dedication to good planning and consistency and make the ARC contribution. Drawing from the reserve would not go below the reserve policies and the ARC contribution was on behalf of all the employees in the General fund so it would send a signal to them that there was a deferral for a year against an obligation that ultimately the City wanted to make. Vice Mayor Scharff said he was looking at the Long Range Financial Forecast and he believed the discussions were related as there are deficits for the foreseeable future on those issues. He disagreed with the alternative scenario and believed that for infrastructure to catch up and keep up it must be in the budget. It was a policy decision to not fund infrastructure or to fully fund the ARC this year. This was a longer discussion that must include revenue. He stated he was concerned about using the BSR, which was a flexible account, to put $1.7 million into the ARC. Committing too early and funding the ARC now meant there were big choices to make on the Long Range Financial Forecast and infrastructure needs. Limiting options was imprudent. Chair Shepherd confirmed that sending the money over to CalPERS was irrevocable. She stated that it stayed with the City and could not be disposed of. Mr. Perez stated that was correct. He said that the monies were sent to CalPERS by July each year. The Committee could tell them to come back closer to year-end to make the call on sending the money. Once the money was sent, it would be irrevocable. Council Member Price said although it was conceivable that they could defer the payment, she questioned if they would be opening themselves to potential challenge by employees. Mr. Perez clarified that the required retiree medical premiums would be paid. He said the rest was not due yet which was why not funding it for a year was not a problem. It would be funded moving forward. Council Member Price questioned if the employees would be notified of the City’s decision. Mr. Perez said yes. Mr. Keene said employees would not be told each individual situation but they would be told the facts. He said the reason to call this out was to more tightly draw the connection between hidden cost increases to benefits and wages. Council Member Burt asked about the Document Transfer Tax. Mr. Braulik said it was on packet page 207. There was an increase of $500,000 shown. Assistant Director, Administrative Services, Joe Saccio explained the scale hid the actual increases so what Mr. Braulik referred to a moment ago was the appropriate document to look at. He said the sales were there, but the difference between what was in the Adopted Budget and in the Mid-Year was not apparent because of the scale. Council Member Burt asked which of the sets of bars included the Document Transfer Tax. Mr. Saccio said they are not there. Council Member Burt asked how much the Document Transfer Tax was projected to be for the year. Mr. Saccio stated it was increased from $4,269,000 to $4,769,000. Council Member Burt said that historically the Document Transfer Tax had been more variable than many other income categories and compared to the Motor Vehicle Tax, it was both a larger absolute dollar amount and a more variable one. He stated it should be tracked more closely. Mr. Perez said the City Manager had asked him about the Document Transfer Tax before the presentation started and agreed it should be tracked more closely. Council Member Burt confirmed it increased from $4.2 to $4.7 million. Mr. Saccio said that was correct. Council Member Burt recalled that when the Committee last had this discussion they discussed trend lines. He said similarly to the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), there were market forces that make changes understandable and predicable to some degree. He wanted to make sure the numbers were being analyzed in a meaningful way. He said the Committee discussed this subject and its volatility two years ago. He indicated it concerned him that the Committee was not monitoring it the way he felt they should. He requested an explanation of the non-departmental increase from $4.8 million on the Adjusted Budget to $7.3 at Mid-Year. Mr. Braulik stated that the difference was the Public Safety Group concessions yet to be achieved. Council Member Burt questioned why the Public Safety Group concessions were not labeled departmental. Mr. Perez said they were used as placeholders as the negotiations were still in the preliminary stages. Council Member Burt said the CIP additional handout contained information that addressed items he wanted a better understanding of. In Attachment 1, Exhibit B, pages 218 – 220, under “comments” there were good explanations that helped the Committee understand what had happened. The new handout appears to have meaningful explanations such as “the project hasn’t started.” Without the new information, he said he did not understand what had caused most of the CIP changes. Chair Shepherd pointed out that they were looking at the General Fund, not the CIP changes. Council Member Burt said that if the CIP’s that were for the General Fund CIP were a different discussion he could wait. Chair Shepherd suggested they continue the conversation on the General Fund, versus CIP’s. She said there was a request to use the BSR. She said that she wanted to stay on the current discussion to avoid confusion. Council Member Burt requested an explanation regarding how changes in the CIP expenditures for the year affects the General Fund. Mr. Perez said there could be an increase from the General Fund Operating Budget side if a project exceeded budget and required an additional contribution which was then attributed to the General Fund. Council Member Burt said that in a strict accounting sense using money from the BSR to balance the budget creates a deficit. He voiced concern that the public would feel mislead if there was a deficit that the Committee called a balanced budget. Mr. Perez thought that was an excellent point. He agreed the City would not want to operate in a negative position and fund it from the reserves. He stated that he had gone on the record pushing the organization to stay within the guidelines of the Council for the reserve which was 15% to 20% of the operating budget with an 18.5% target. He explained that the last fiscal year had better than expected revenues. There was a significant increase in large properties changing hands and that attributed to a significant increase in Document Transfer Tax. He explained that last year he suggested to the Committee that it consider leaving the excess money in the reserve in anticipation of it being needed in this fiscal year if all the Public Safety Group concessions were not achieved. He said that this was not a normal operating mode; this was a unique situation that must be made to work. He agreed with Council Member Burt that the City should not “live off the savings account.” Council Member Burt stated that the Committee must communicate in clear terms. With respect to Council Member Scharff’s proposal regarding the ARC he believed there were a number of benefits and risks. He praised Council Member Scharff’s points about the issue of discretion, but indicated he was tending to not favor leaving it in the BSR for the reasons the City Manager articulated. He said that the massive cost increases must be identified when they happen and categorized correctly even though the consequence could be having less latitude. Chair Shepherd expressed concern over what kind of deficit the City really had. She said that a loan to the Refuse Fund was not an expense and that there was a smaller current year deficit than normal because half of that loan was brought in. She pointed out that the numbers worked out to almost exactly the concessions requested of the Public Safety workers. She stressed the importance of community understanding that there was a thoughtful process behind the budget. She said the Committee must identify its methods and the reason for the deficit. She stated that next year the deficit would increase because of the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) material and the work CalPERS was doing on healthcare and pensions. She said decisions and increases on healthcare and pensions could be game changers for the City of Palo Alto. She expressed interest in bookmarking some of these items, such as the concept of not paying the ARC this year. She suggested putting it up for discussion at a later time and giving more thought to the changes to be made to the employee funds. Further, she wanted to understand the opinions of the State Government and the League of California Cities on the issue. Mr. Keene confirmed that if the Committee ended up without a majority vote on an item it would go into what they would call the parking lot so that it can be discussed at a later point. He said Mr. Perez had mentioned earlier that there was still the time to make a decision on the ARC. He said the Committee took a chance by counting on receiving the approximately $4 million between the revenues and expenditures with the cost savings from the Public Safety Group concessions. He said that Chair Shepherd pointed out that the $2.3 million from the Police Public Safety Group was the amount of the current gap. He said that since the recession began there have been significant cost increases. The City has paid essentially 100% of the estimated 50% or higher healthcare cost increase to employees, which was a hidden cost. He said they had the same issue with pension cost increases, which could be about the 7 – 8%. He expressed concern about the close to 50% increases in employer pension costs since the recession began. He stated these items were outside the realm of awareness of the employees despite their significance. He recommended maintaining the City’s strong financial management, but indicated he understood the alternative. Vice Mayor Scharff said Mr. Bartel’s information was based on a series of assumptions and was a snapshot. He gave the example that going to 90/10 pay on medical would save $40 million. He stated that going with 15/85 would mean there would be no new ARC payment. He said that at 13% there would probably not be an increase in the ARC payment and that going to 20% would save another $14 million. He stated that at $1.7 million, it would not be bad fiscal management not to pay because it was a snapshot. He said that the current system was unsustainable with possible $5 million increases in pension and the over 50% increase in medical retirement during the recession. He said these items have dominated the budget and that was why the Long Range Financial Forecast showed deficits. He understood that the employees felt like they were not getting raises. He called it the “worst of both worlds” as employees were not being compensated more and did not recognize the huge increases because nothing felt any different. He said this was a huge conundrum that must be dealt with over time and that there must be a strategy. He stated the Committee needed to go to the full Council before making a decision on the ARC payment. He questioned if it was going into the parking lot, or if a Motion would be made at a 2 – 2 vote. Chair Shepherd said the Committee could accept the report without any direction regarding funding the ARC. She said that it must be clear to the community that if a value added tax was needed to pay for infrastructure the tax would be exclusively for infrastructure. She stressed the need for creating a methodology for paying for pension, medical, retiree, and other items while leaving room in the budget for infrastructure. Mr. Keene encouraged the Committee to make a recommendation on the General Fund portion of the Mid-Year. He said there were a number of other items that they needed the Committee’s recommendation on to take forward to the Council. He suggested the Committee make a Motion with one of the alternatives. MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to recommend to the City Council to adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) for the proposed midyear adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget for the General Fund without making the BSR transfer to the ARC. Vice Mayor Scharff stated it was important to retain flexibility and that he did not see an advantage to taking money out of one contingency fund and putting it in another fund. If it was being paid from the budget rather than being removed from reserves he would feel differently. Paying from the reserves was not a sound fiscal practice to balance the budget. The budget was not balanced as the $4.3 million in concessions had not been achieved. As there was no consequence to the City in delaying the contribution, flexibility should be maintained. He stated this was not a long term solution, but there were budget decisions to be made about how to move forward in the future. Paying the ARC would limit the options in a way that was not useful. Chair Shepherd said her biggest concern was how a discount rate was selected by the vote of a board. She considered paying the ARC as the possibility that with a 50% confidence rate with they would be able to succeed with their investments. Because there were funds in the BSR, the City would not be out of balance on anything. She stated she wanted the full Council to have a conversation about these items so that there was a clear path going forward. The conversation may include discussing limiting the services provided or running them more effectively and efficiently. Mr. Keene clarified that he did not believe that the Motion as stated represented bad fiscal management for the City. His concern was to stand with the set financial management policies and have some explicit Council decisions that related to the policy framework. The budget discussion for Fiscal Year 2013 had competing needs and if the ARC contribution was suspended the amount of time would need to be discussed. The recommendation would be to pay the missed year back and keep pace with the ARC. He indicated that $2.3 million could be very helpful to the Council the following year’s budget was discussed. Council Member Price stated she would not support the Motion as stated. It was important to look at the context and what other cities did. They also needed to understand the implications and the defensibility of not funding the ARC. She stated the BSR was for this type of action. The preparation of the budget and the way it was described to the community had improved over the years. She believed the community would understand why the reserve would be used in this manner. She asked for an explanation of the adjustments proposed in terms of reclassification and adjustments within ASD. Mr. Perez explained they added a Senior Financial Analyst position in response to requests by Council, IBRC, PTC, and others. The changes and requests for further exploration of revenues had been challenging with the resources his department had. The Senior Financial Analyst was a resource he requested so he could also accommodate some f the needs for the labor negotiations. He anticipated the City budget would have a deficit for the next three or four years, particularly with the addition of the IBRC recommendations. The changes were starting with the Operating Budget this year and would continue with the Capital Budget next year. He stated Staff understood the need to continue to learn and to provide the information in a format that was understandable. Council Member Price said she had questions regarding the Cost of Services Study and overtime costs. Mr. Perez said it was appropriate to discuss those items with the Long Range Financial Forecast. Council Member Burt requested clarification on the Motion. Mr. Perez stated they had tentatively scheduled this to go to Council on April 9, 2012. If the Committee wanted to incorporate a motion to include a delay in payment to CalPERS, there was time to return at a later date in the process. Council Member Burt requested clarification of the date. Mr. Perez said it would be April9, 2012. The Council and Staff would have to select a date in early June to have the discussion. Mr. Keene said it needed to be with budget wrap up with the Council. Council Member Burt asked that if it came to the Council and the Committee had not made a final decision on transferring funds to the ARC for FY12, it would go back to the Finance Committee for the final decision. Mr. Keene restated that the Motion was to forward the recommendations on the General Fund Budget with the exception of the recommendation to fund the ARC from the BSR. He said if the Motion passed, it would go to the Council for consideration and the Council then had the option to consider different alternatives. He acknowledged it was possible that the Council could agree with the Motion not transfer money from the BSR to the ARC this year. He said this could be amended or reconsidered during the budget process even if the Council did approve it. Council Member Burt said that was what the prior discussion was about. Later the Committee would have additional information on the CalPERS action and some additional visibility before having to make the final decision on the Fiscal Year 2012 budget which was whether or not to transfer the ARC from the BSR. He said that if the recommendation to Council was to approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance and not make the transfer to the ARC from the BSR immediately, but return the matter for discussion to the Finance Committee prior to closure of Fiscal Year 2012 he would support it. Mr. Perez suggested May to the Finance Committee to allow time to return to the Council in June. Council Member Burt requested the May time line be incorporated into the Motion. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER TO during the budget discussion with the FC there would be a discussion with the FC in the May timeframe for determination to transfer the BSR to the ARC. Council Member Price clarified that further discussion of this item would take place at a later date. Mr. Perez agreed. He said that he was bringing the City Attorney into the discussion to review the labor agreements and to determine if there was any commitment that would not be met as a result of the delayed funding. Mr. Keene stated that they would ensure any decisions made by the Council would be in compliance. Some of the questions could be answered in time for the Council Meeting. The Motion would adopt the General Fund recommendations and suspend the ARC payment gap with the transfer from the BSR with the understanding that during the budget discussions that begin in May the Finance Committee would revisit the issue in the context of the whole budget. The Committee may not make the decision until June because of how the sessions fall, but Staff would bring it to the Committee in May because that was when budget discussions begin. City Attorney, Molly Stump stated that there were no issues with respect to the commitments that have been made to employees and retirees, as those benefits that have been promised would be paid. What the Committee was contemplating was suspending the prefunding activity that it has engaged in for a number of years for this particular one year period of time. Chair Shepherd asked Mr. Perez to confirm that this was the Mid-Year adjustment for which they have had a third party review. The City was making the ARC payment; it was just not making this change in the ARC adjustment. Mr. Perez stated the City was not making the full ARC payment based on the Finance Committee potential recommendation. Chair Shepherd stated the $1.7 million plus of the ARC payment was being held back currently. Mr. Perez stated this had been done in the past. Ms. Stump clarified that the requirement under the law was to complete and adopt the study as the Committee had done, and the amounts need to be publicly reported. The amounts do not have to be fully funded as the funding was a policy decision for the Council. Council Member Burt stated it was important to clarify that context. What the Committee was discussing was to not immediately fund the change in the actuarial method. What occurred was that when the City went from using one actuary to another the new actuary recommended a significant increase in the funding. The Finance Committee was not immediately implementing that increase, but was accepting the recommendation. Mr. Perez indicated that was a fair characterization. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 4-0 Chair Shepherd announced the Committee would move on to FY12 Mid-Year CIP adjustments. Mr. Braulik stated there were two new CIP adjustments, as identified in Exhibit B1 and B2, pages 221 - 222 of the packet. One was the Alma Street University replacement which would be paid for by insurance funds and the second was the replacement of in-ground vehicle lifts at the Municipal Services Center (MSC), to be paid for through the vehicle replacement fund. The remaining CIP’s for the Enterprise Funds were identified on page 218 – 220 of the packet. He stated they would work on the descriptions to ensure they would be better in the future. Most items were close outs. Chair Shepherd clarified that close outs meant the project was completed and the budget was not spent. Council Member Burt asked where the reserve balances for the two different CIP’s was listed. Mr. Braulik stated they were not listed. Council Member Burt said that when he totaled the adjustments on the General Fund it showed that they expended about $4.3 million less than budgeted and in the Enterprise Funds the number was around $10 million. He stated those were significant numbers and questioned why expenditures were so much less than budgeted. He also questioned what was happening on a trend standpoint. Mr. Perez stated the reserve balances after the changes were about $4.5 million dollars in the Infrastructure Reserve General Fund. Council Member Burt asked if without this adjustment it would have been just about zeroed out. Mr. Perez stated that they have been trending approximately $20 million for the General Fund Infrastructure. Council Member Burt clarified that was $20 million expenditure and $20 million budgeted. Mr. Perez stated that was correct. It was a combination of budgeted amounts and carryovers, so it was convoluted because some projects were completed over multiple years. The trend had been consistent because the transfer amount had been consistent. No positions had been added. If infrastructure funding were increased it would probably create a capacity issue. Council Member Burt stated that was acceptable and directed attention to page 218, Attachment 1, Exhibit B to discuss the $4.3 million budgeted but not spent. He said that he had added the Electric Fund portion so the numbers were actually less on the General Fund and more on the Enterprise Fund. He said it was $1.4 million on the General Fund and almost $13 million on the Enterprise Fund. He asked if the Committee was discussing the Enterprise Fund in this item as well as the General Fund as they were both aspects of the CIP. Mr. Perez stated the Enterprise Fund could be included in the discussion or broken up. Senior Management Analyst, Utilities Department, David Yuan said they asked all the project managers to scrutinize their CIP budgets this year. He stated that as Director Perez mentioned some projects were continuous and had been accumulating. The managers were asked to only budget what they could accomplish this year and release the rest back into the reserves. Council Member Burt confirmed that Mr. Yuan meant Fiscal Year 2012. Mr. Yuan said that was correct but that some of these budgets would come back in subsequent years. Council Member Burt stated that it was his recollection that this was a typical occurrence to have budgeted amounts that were not expended in the CIP. Mr. Yuan agreed and said they were trying to keep it more accurate on a year to year basis. Council Member Price questioned the “Sustainability Contingency” AS1001, listed on page 218. She said that sustainability was a Council priority and requested clarification as to why there was a $.3 million reduction due to “lower than expected activity.” Mr. Perez explained that the Council approved a contingency fund they could tap into as long as it met the criteria of sustainability. This reduction did not mean that they were not spending on sustainability it simply meant that they did not need the extra funds for unexpected expenses given there were only a few months left in the fiscal year. MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to recommend to the Council to adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) which includes Capital Improvement Projects Fund and Fiscal Year 2012 Midyear CIP Adjustments. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Mr. Keene said that there were a number of funds listed on 1A. He indicated Chair Shepherd took action on the General Fund Operating Budget, and on the CIP’s Project Fund and then on Item B on the CIP Mid-Year adjustments. He indicated that he believed there was still action on the Enterprise Funds, the Special Revenue Funds and the Internal Service Funds. Council Member Burt asked about the $13 million budgeted and not expended as listed on pages 218 – 220. Mr. Keene said they had just discussed the General Fund and the Capital Projects Fund, which were at the top of page 218. He said they had also discussed the Electric, Gas, Water, Wastewater on the next page. Mr. Keene stated he wanted to look at the Enterprise Fund CIP adjustments for 2012, which were on pages 218 and 219. He noted there were many reductions and questioned why the funds were returned in February. Mr. Yuan said the managers of the projects were asked to scrutinize and release whatever budget they could not use by the end of the fiscal year and add it into the budget for subsequent years. Council Member Burt asked if this was a one-time event. Mr. Yuan said that it was. Chair Shepherd indicated she had a question regarding the Refuse Fund and the returned $879,000. She said the comments indicated this was a reduction in project scope due to permanent closure of the Recycling Center. She questioned if this was because the Recycling Center was not being relocated. Mr. Yuan stated that the reduction was related to capital and not related to the loan. Director of Public Works, Mike Sartor said Council Member Shepherd was correct. This was because there was money scheduled to relocate the Recycling Center and they were directed to close it so they no longer needed the funds. Chair Shepherd stated that she noticed the Electric Fund item of $400,000. She said it appeared that they under budgeted the project by half and asked if it was the design rebuild for the Hewlett substation in the foothills. Mr. Yuan stated it was and explained the project had a change in scope because they had to do some configuration to do a primary back tie to the subdivision. This expanded the scope from what was originally planned. MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to recommend to the City Council to adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) proposed midyear adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget for the enterprise funds, capital improvements. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Chair Shepherd instructed the Committee to refer to packet page number 198, page 2 of Attachment 1, and look at the Mid-Year adjustments for the Electric Fund and Fiber Optics Fund. Mr. Keene suggested the Committee do this by an exception basis. He said it would be appropriate to move all three of the Enterprise Funds, Special Revenue Funds, and Internal Service Funds as one motion or all of the Enterprise Funds together unless there was an exception. He said that the Committee could also go through each page and make a motion. Chair Shepherd stated this was for their actual budgets for operations as opposed to the Capital Improvements. MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Price to recommend to the City Council to adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) proposed midyear adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget for the enterprise funds, special revenue funds, Internal service Funds. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Chair Shepherd said these were the organizational changes as outlined in Exhibit C, Amendments to the FY12. Mr. Keene stated that the Committee had essentially already made these changes by approving the changes in the Operating Budgets of the different funds. MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Price to recommend to the City Council to adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) proposed midyear adjustments to the midyear adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Organization changes. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Chair Shepherd said the next item was the establishment of revenue for the Stanford Development Agreement. Mr. Perez explained Staff was trying to segregate it and have it in a dedicated fund so it was easily tracked and visible. He explained the funds were broken down into the categories they were placed in so they would report within those categories what was called internal orders for Staff to track time. He explained it was a time tracking activity which would report the amount that was allocated versus what was spent. Staff would then return to the City Council to get policy direction or establish parameters on the use of the funds at a later date. MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to recommend to the City Council to adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) for the Establishment of Special Revenue Fund for Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement payments. Council Member Price stated this made sense procedurally and that they were grateful for the discussions with Stanford and the stakeholders involved in the development of this agreement. Chair Shepherd asked Staff to explain the status of the collection of the funds. She said she had heard that some of the funds have trickled in and some have come in big chunks. Mr. Perez said that was correct and that the Council had given some direction already, Project Safety Net for example. He said that there would be a couple of other items that would come in front of the City Council. He has spoken with Steve Emslie the Deputy City Manager regarding timing. Staff anticipated it would be after the budget process. Mr. Keene stated that when the report returns to Council it would actually include the amounts received to date under the development agreement. Mr. Perez said the second payment was expected in approximately July after the permits were pulled. Chair Shepherd wanted to know how flexible the funds were. She said these were specifically proscribed monies that were for categorical improvements to our community which cannot be transferred to other ideas of what we want to spend or pay toward deficits. She asked for confirmation that the funds were specific for what their use and purpose was in the development agreement. Mr. Keene said that they were, but there was varying degrees of specificity amongst the different categories in the development agreement. Council had some discretion within each of the categories as to how the funds were spent. There was some language that indicated how the City would consult with Stanford, but the Council really had the authority within these areas as specified to make the decisions. He gave the example of the Sustainability Fund. Chair Shepherd said she wanted to make sure the community was clear that this was for specific agendas and not for expanding other programs. Council Member Price questioned if this would come back to the City Council for direction and policy decisions that had to be made. She assumed that some percentage of the money was administrative, but asked if there would be a Staff report on the discretionary items after the budget adoption. Mr. Keene said there would be. Staff’s view was they would not expend any of this money until Council made decisions as to how the money would be spent. To date the Project Safety Net funding was the only decision the Council has explicitly made regarding the allocation of the funds. These were one time monies that the City was receiving so the Council has always expressed that it wanted to be sure to invest the money in such a way that leverages as much long term benefit to the City as possible. Even when the Council made decisions on Project Safety Net it was very clear to talk about how it wanted to use the funding to jumpstart something that could leverage receipt of other monies to keep it going on its own. Council Member Price recalled that in the case of Project Safety Net the item first went to Policy and Services then to Finance then it went to the City Council. She asked if this was what they anticipate doing or if it would depend on the nature of the item. Mr. Keene stated it would vary with the item. Staff may bring a small item directly to the City Council shortly. Chair Shepherd said this was not a BSR fund. This was actual CIP’s that go into the community to support the extra people entering the community that the hospital was going to be serving. She called for a vote. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Chair Shepherd said the next item was a Resolution by the Council of the City of Palo Alto to amend compensation plans for the Management and Professional group. There were four positions and one added position that require changes in language. Mr. Keene said the Committee had again essentially dealt with this in its prior decisions or the issue was just a title change with no budget or funding change. He said they separately adopt this Management Professional Compensation Plan and need the Committee to make the amendment. The information was listed on page 262. Council Member Scharff requested an explanation of each change and of what the budget impacted. Mr. Keene stated there was an increase in this that was included in the budget from the position of Chief Budget Officer. It had been renamed and the salary was increased because they had not been able to attract and keep candidates in this position over the past couple of years. It needed to be treated as an assistant director position. Council Member Scharff asked what the grade code meant. Mr. Perez said that they were tied into the compensation tables. Council Member Scharff asked about the control point and noted that the City had not hired for the position yet. Mr. Keene said Mr. Braulik was in a contract position. Council Member Scharff asked if the City would hire out for this position. Mr. Keene said that the position needs to be filled. Council Member Scharff asked if the City was creating a new position of Director of Office of Management and Budget and hiring outside for that position. Mr. Keene stated that he was not saying they were going out, but that they need to have this position. Mr. Braulik was on contract and he was filling this position currently. Council Member Scharff confirmed that it would be a permanent position. Mr. Keene said that was correct. Council Member Scharff said his understanding of the control point was that you can pay 20% over or 20% under. Mr. Keene said it was 25% under and 20% over. However, anything over essentially requires the City Manager’s approval. Council Member Scharff asked how the control point was set. Mr. Keene first, positions were ranked vertically in the organization based upon a number of factors such as complexity of work and responsibility. That provided the relationship of one position to the next and created the spacing instruction. There were many formulas used in personnel practices but the main principle was equal pay for equal work based on the level of work. That set the value of the job in the organization. Jobs were also surveyed in the marketplace. Council Member Scharff questioned the title change of the Principal Financial Analyst. Mr. Perez stated the title change was due to additional responsibilities added to the position. The Director of OMB would focus on more city wide processes and the Principal Financial Analyst would focus on the operations. Council Member Scharff asked what the previous control point was for the Budget Officer. Mr. Perez stated it was roughly $9,000 less, so about $98,000. Council Member Scharff asked what the thought process was behind the Assistant Director of Community Services title change. Mr. Keene said there had been a Parks Division, a Recreation Division, and there was a vacant position of Arts and Culture Division Manager. Staff felt there were capable managers in the Arts and Culture area. Eliminating the Division Manager and having an Assistant Director of the whole Community Services area was a better decision. He said that he was sure there was a slight pay increase from the Division Manager to the Assistant Director. The next item had no salary change it was just adding /Chief Operating Officer to the Assistant City Manager slot. Council Member Scharff asked what that title change meant. Mr. Keene said that he assigned direct oversight to the Assistant City Manager necessitating a title change. Additionally they were renaming a number of positions with more corporate language. He said that they added Chief Financial Officer to the title Director of Administrative Services as it was clearer to the public in a community like Palo Alto what these roles were if corporate language was used. MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the 2010-2011 Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Adopted by Resolution No. 9156 to Change the Titles of Four Positions and Add One New Position. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 City of Palo Alto (ID # 2759) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Agenda Meeting Date: 4/16/2012 April 16, 2012 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 2759) Summary Title: Cubberley Guiding Principles Title: Recommendation to Adopt Revised Draft Cubberley Guiding Principles From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the revised draft Cubberley Guiding Principles. Staff will also provide an update on the City Manager’s appointments to the Community Advisory Committee, and will be prepared to respond to questions regarding the conceptual site plans prepared jointly by the staff at the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and the City of Palo Alto. Background The City Council considered staff’s recommendations on the Cubberley Guiding Principles at its meeting on April 9, 2011. At its meeting, Council modified the principles as reflected in the attachment to this item. The City Council directed staff to make these changes to the Guiding Principles pursuant to the discussion and continue the item to its April 16, 2012 Council meeting. Discussion The purpose of this memorandum is to provide to the City Council the revised draft Cubberley Guiding Principles based on the direction provided to staff at the April 9, 2012 City Council meeting. Attachment A provides a revised draft of the Guiding Principles with tracked changes. As new information becomes available, staff will update the City Manager’s appointments to the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and will April 16, 2012 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 2759) provide an updated roster to the City Council at the April 16, 2012 meeting. Staff would like to reiterate that the site plans are conceptual drafts and are intended to present alternatives as a starting point for subsequent discussions with the CAC. At the meeting on April 9, 2012, the City Council discussed how to reconcile the Council’s adoption of the Cubberley Guiding Principles with similar actions by the PAUSD. Staff intends to provide a recommendation to the City Council about this alignment for your consideration and approval on April 16, 2012. As the City Council knows, our intent is to initiate the first meeting with the CAC in early May. It is the goal to have the Cubberley Guiding Principles approved both by the City Council and the PAUSD in advance of this first meeting. Attachments: Attachment A: Cubberley Guiding Principles Revised (PDF) Attachment B: April 9, 2012 Cubberley Staff Report (PDF) Prepared By: Sheila Tucker, Assistant to the City Manager Department Head: James Keene, City Manager City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Attachment A [1] Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri), 10pt DRAFT City Council Cubberley Policy Advisory Committee City Manager Community Advisory Committee Guiding Principles Adopted April 9, 2012 April 16, 2012 The Cubberley Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) consists of two Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Board members appointed by the School Board President and three City Council members appointed by the Mayor. The PAC shall be the primary advisor to the Council and the School Board on issues related to the lease and possible re-use or joint use of the Cubberley campus. The Cubberley Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) is appointed by the City Manager and shall represent a broad cross section of Cubberley, neighborhoods, Schools and city-wide representatives. The CAC shall review Cubberley background and history and provide the PAC with community input including but not limited to possible re-use scenarios, alternative lease arrangements, site plan configurations, possible funding plans, identification of joint use opportunities and compatibility standards. In order to ensure consistency with existing City Council positions and policies, both the PAC and the CAC will be guided by the following principles: 1. The Committees shall maintain open and transparent processes at all times. Members of the public shall be invited to all meetings. The meetings are to be recorded and minutes completed. (Costs of minutes to be cost-shared with theCity and PAUSD). 2. Documents, architectural drawings and other written communication provided to the Committees shall be made available to the general public as soon as possible. 3. The City and PAUSD areis supportive of Cubberley remaining a major cultural, educational and non-profit resource very important to the community’s health and vitality. 4. The City and PAUSD seeks to work cooperatively with PAUSD to explore all practical means to jointly re-use the Cubberley campus for both educational and community services. 5. The City and PAUSD recognizes that both entities have significant financial interests in the Cubberley campus which should be evaluated as equal priorities. open and sympathetic to the interests of the other party. Formatted: Top: 0.88", Bottom: 0.69" Formatted: Font: Not Bold Attachment A [2] Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri), 10pt 6. Both The City and PAUSD and the City have ownership interests in portions of the campus: PAUSD owns 27 acres and the City owns 8 acres. The parties may consider relocation of its ownership interests within the site to facilitate optimal site layout and efficiency. 7. To the extent possible, facility planning, architectural design, economic analysis or other expert service costs should be shared equally between the City and PAUSD for 2012-2013. 8. While the Policy Advisory Committee planning should occur as cooperatively as possible, the City Council representatives and the PAUSD Boardmembers will retain independent recommending authority should consensus not be reached. 9. School quality and capacity is a significant City-wide issue considered essential to the maintenance of educational opportunities and excellence, and the overall health and well-being of our community. 10. The types of Cubberley programs enrich the community and criteria should be developed to prioritize and/or retain existing uses as well as assess prospective new uses. offered by the City and its contractors and sub-tenants at Cubberley enrich the community and should be preserved and enhanced wherever possible. 11. The City and PAUSD recognizes the potential to re-use the site as a joint City/PAUSD facility could result in stronger educational and cultural programs provided more efficiently. 12. The City Council representatives on the Policy Advisory Committee shall report, not less often than bi-monthly, provide regular reports to the full Council on Cubberley planning activities. 13. The City and PAUSD should work to continue community access to Cubberley to the extent possible. Recreation facilities provided at the Cubberley campus produce important services benefitting the community at large. 14. The residential neighborhoods surrounding Cubberley are significant factors in determining the compatibility of possible building changes on the Cubberley campus. 15. Transportation issues and access to and within Cubberley shall be considered in evaluating possible re-use options including improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities. City of Palo Alto (ID # 2736) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 4/9/2012 April 09, 2012 Page 1 of 5 (ID # 2736) Summary Title: Cubberley Guiding Principles Title: Recommendation that Council Adopt the Draft Cubberley Guiding Principles, Accept the City Manager’s Appointments to the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and Review the Conceptual Site Plans Prepared Jointly by the Staff of the PAUSD and City of Palo Alto From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt the draft Cubberley Guiding Principles, accept the City Manager’s appointments to the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and review the conceptual site plans prepared jointly by the staff of the PAUSD and City of Palo Alto. Executive Summary In November of 2011, the City Council established a process and timeline to engage the community in a discussion regarding the future of Cubberley. The timeline anticipated achieving a group consensus on a vision for the future of the Cubberley site one year prior to the City’s current lease expiration in 2014. The process included by the end of 2013 (the City’s lease terminates in 2014) forming three groups: the Technical Advisory Committee made up of top executive staff of School District and the City; a Community Advisory Committee to be appointed jointly by the City Manager (with recommendations from the School Superintendent); and a Policy Advisory Committee composed of three Councilmembers (Yeh, Shepherd and Klein) and two School Board members (Mitchell and Townsend). The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met the first three months of this year to establish baseline information regarding school enrollment and facility needs. April 09, 2012 Page 2 of 5 (ID # 2736) The TAC worked jointly to produce a set of conceptual site plans showing several Cubberley re-use alternatives. These concepts are intended to solicit Council comments in advance of discussion by the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) scheduled to begin meeting in early May. The Council’s action in November 2011 scheduled the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) to begin meetings shortly after the CAC was up and running (in June 2012). The Council also requested a CAC report to the full Council in October 2012. The Council’s November action also requested that staff return to Council with a set of Guiding Principles for use by the PAC and CAC during their discussions. The Guiding Principles to reflect community values of transparency ensuring that the public is invited to meetings and offered opportunities to interact with both groups. In addition, the Guiding Principles set up very broad objectives to clarify that the process is intended to be collaboration between the City and the School district emphasizing joint use of the facilities where possible. Cubberley is a significant element of the City’s complete infrastructure needs. Both the on-going maintenance and the anticipated capital improvements are estimated to be an excess of $10 million over the next four years. The work the City and School District are doing to plan for the future community and educational needs will be important factors for the Council and community to understand as our infrastructure backlog is quantified. Background and Discussion In establishing the Cubberley process and timeline, the City Council raised the following issues (see Excerpt Minutes attached) in its discussions: Brown Act Because the PAC is a standing committee of the Council and the School Board configured to last longer than 6 months, it will be subject to the Brown Act. Primarily, this means its meetings will have regular agendas posted 72 hours prior to regular scheduled meetings and 24 hours prior to special meetings. Minutes and staff reports will be attached to agendas and made available to the public at or prior to meetings. Because the CAC is appointed by the City Manager, it is not a standing committee of the Council and therefore not technically subject to the Brown Act. The April 09, 2012 Page 3 of 5 (ID # 2736) Council, however, directed that the CAC function to the extent possible as if Brown Act regulations applied to meeting agendas. This means that agendas and written materials would be made available to the public at or prior to meetings. Members of the public would be invited to attend meetings and would be given time to address the CAC. Guiding Principles Staff prepared the attached draft principles to guide both the PAC and the CAC over the course of their discussions. The intent is to establish both committees as fully transparent and publically accessible groups. Because the CAC is appointed by the City Manager and not a Council standing committee, it would not technically fall under the Brown Act. The Guiding Principles make it clear that the CAC’s business would always be open to the public who would have opportunity to interact with the CAC on a regular basis at their publically noticed meetings. Process and Timeline The City’s Cubberley lease expires in December 2014. At that time, the lease may be extended an additional 5 years upon mutual consent of the City and the District. The City’s schedule assumes providing the District notice of its intentions regarding renewal of the lease at the end of 2013 to provide the District with one year’s notice prior to the lease expiration. The Council and PAUSD process focuses on reaching a consensus on whether to renew by the end of 2012. This would leave much of 2013 for the City and the District to work through lease renewal discussions prior to the un-official Cubberley December 2013 extension notification deadline. Council also directed that the PAC begin meeting shortly after the CAC was up and running in June 2012. Council envisioned the PAC and the CAC’s work running roughly parallel enabling regular communication between the two groups prior to the Council and School Board decision making. The City Council directed that the CAC provide at least one status report to the full Council in October 2012. Technical Advisory Committee Status and Conceptual Options City and District staff established the conceptual baseline school growth needs based on District growth projections. The square footages used in the conceptual site plans equate to one additional elementary school (500 student), one middle school (600 student) and a small (500 student) High School. The conceptual plans show the elementary school located on the 525 San Antonio property, which was April 09, 2012 Page 4 of 5 (ID # 2736) recently purchased by the District and outside of the Cubberley area. Option 1 shows the Middle and High School developed stand alone and independent of any city community uses. Subsequent Options show increased use of joint facilities such as gym, theater and studio/classroom spaces. Joint use reduces overall development and parking needs as well as a lower total construction cost. The preliminary options developed jointly with PAUSD and their architect should be considered conceptual drafts intended to present alternative for subsequent discussions. The options only provide some high level detail as to a foundation and starting point for the Cubberley vision process. Connectivity The City Council directed that the CAC mission include addressing the connectivity of school sites in the general vicinity of Cubberley and requested that a member of the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) be made a CAC member. Staff has reached out to PABAC which is still deliberating on who the representative will be. The CAC’s discussions regarding connectivity will be a part of the CAC’s conceptual site planning review. Planning and Transportation Role The Council deferred the role of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) in the Cubberley decision making process. While the Council may decide to proactively involve the PTC during or after the CAC completes its work, staff will include a PTC liaison on the CAC to provide consistency when the Council engages the PTC over the course of the CAC and PAC discussions later this year. Timeline As discussed above, the CAC and PAC are scheduled to meet over the course of 2012 concluding its recommendations to Council in early 2013. This timeline allows the Council to engage in lease negotiations with the School District two years prior to the expiration of the lease in 2014. The timeline anticipates a decision on the lease by the end of 2013 providing a one year notice period if either party decides to not exercise the 5 year option to extend the lease. Environmental Review Environmental review will be required for any project anticipated for Cubberley. The anticipated discussion of conceptual plans, however, will not require April 09, 2012 Page 5 of 5 (ID # 2736) environmental review. Once there is agreement and the project is no longer speculative, environmental review will be required. Attachments: Attachment A: Draft Guiding Principles (DOCX) Attachment B: Cubberley Community Advisory Panel (PDF) Attachment C: Cubberley Site Options (PDF) Attachment D: 11-01-11 Cubberley Excerpt Minutes (PDF) Prepared By: Steve Emslie, Deputy City Manager Department Head: James Keene, City Manager City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Attachment A DRAFT City Council Cubberley Policy Advisory Committee City Manager Community Advisory Committee Guiding Principles Adopted April 9, 2012 The Cubberley Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) consists of two Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Board members appointed by the School Board President and three City Council members appointed by the Mayor. The PAC shall be the primary advisor to the Council and the School Board on issues related to the lease and possible re-use or joint use of the Cubberley campus. The Cubberley Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) is appointed by the City Manager and shall represent a broad cross section of Cubberley, neighborhoods, Schools and city- wide representatives. The CAC shall review Cubberley background and history and provide the PAC with community input including but not limited to possible re-use scenarios, alternative lease arrangements, site plan configurations, possible funding plans, identification of joint use opportunities and compatibility standards. In order to ensure consistency with existing City Council positions and policies, both the PAC and the CAC will be guided by the following principles: 1. The Committees shall maintain open and transparent processes at all times. Members of the public shall be invited to all meetings. 2. Documents, architectural drawings and other written communication provided to the Committees shall be made available to the general public as soon as possible. 3. The City is supportive of Cubberley remaining a major cultural, educational and non-profit resource very important to the community’s health and vitality. 4. The City seeks to work cooperatively with PAUSD to explore all practical means to jointly re-use the Cubberley campus for both educational and community services. 5. The City recognizes that both entities have significant financial interests in the Cubberley campus which should be evaluated as equal priorities. Attachment A 6. Both PAUSD and the City have ownership interests in portions of the campus: PAUSD owns 27 acres and the City owns 8 acres. The parties may consider relocation of its ownership interests within the site to facilitate optimal site layout and efficiency. 7. To the extent possible, facility planning, architectural design, economic analysis or other expert service costs should be shared equally between the City and PAUSD. 8. While the Policy Advisory Committee planning should occur as cooperatively as possible, the City Council representatives and the PAUSD Boardmembers will retain independent recommending authority should consensus not be reached. 9. School capacity is a significant City-wide issue considered essential to the overall health and well-being of our community. 10. The types of programs offered by the City and its contractors and sub- tenants at Cubberley enrich the community and should be preserved and enhanced wherever possible. 11. The City recognizes the potential to re-use the site as a joint City/PAUSD facility could result in stronger educational and cultural programs provided more efficiently. 12. The City Council representatives on the Policy Advisory Committee shall provide regular reports to the full Council on Cubberley planning activities. 13. Recreation facilities provided at the Cubberley campus produce important services benefitting the community at large. 14. The residential neighborhoods surrounding Cubberley are significant factors in determining the compatibility of possible building changes on the Cubberley campus. 15. Transportation issues and access to Cubberley shall be considered in evaluating possible re-use options including improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Cubberley Community Advisory Panel Group First Name Last Name Neighborhoods Fair Meadow Tom Vican Walnut Grove Tom Crystal Green Meadow Lanie Wheeler Charleston Gardens Jean Wilcox Midtown Sheri Furman PAN Ken Allen Commercial Retail Charleston Plaza Tenant Village Properties Damian Cono PTA's Fairmeadow Elementary Claire Kirner JLS Middle School John Markevitch Gunn High School Tracy Stevens Palo Alto High School Susan Bailey Cubberley Tenants Child Care Rachel Samoff Artist Lessa Bouchard Non Profit ‐Cardiac Therapy Jerry August FOPAL Jim Schmidt Park and Rec Commission TBD after next Parks & Rec Meeting 4/24 PT&C Greg Tanaka Acterra Michael Clossen PABAC TBD after next Parks & Rec Meeting City School Traffic Safety Penny Ellson Recreation and Sports League Soft Ball Mike Cobb Other TBD 3 DRAFT 20 12 -03-23 NOT FOR puauc DISTRIBUTION flJ) CITY OF ~; PALO ALTO Cubberley Community Center Current Facilities vs. Master Plan Program 4 Attachment D EXCERPT MINUTES Special Meeting November 1, 2011 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:03 P.M. Present: Burt, Espinosa, Holman, Klein, Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd, Yeh Absent: Price ACTION ITEMS 6. Staff Recommendation for a Process and Timeline Addressing the City’s and Palo Alto Unified School District’s (PAUSD) Interest in the Cubberley Campus and Adjacent Properties. City Manager, James Keene stated that the Staff had been working with the Palo Alto Unified School District’s (PAUSD) School Superintendent on a proposal regarding the School District’s interest and plans for the Cubberley site. The proposal had two components: 1) to focus during calendar year 2012, alternatives on issues leading to joint recommendations on plans, and calendar year 2013 on lease renewal issues, and 2) to layout during the first year, a recommended process on how to work through issues related to site planning. Deputy City Manager, Stephen Emslie clarified that Staff Report ID#2249 had indicated that Council had directed Staff to setup a special recreation fund when the rental income from the City’s payments to the District no longer was required. He said the direction was for consideration only. Herb Borock said it would be helpful to obtain a history of the payments the City made to the School District for the past 25-years for the Cubberley site as well as the City Improvement Program (CIP) expenditures. The information would help the Council in their decision to move forward on a lease renewal and the covenant to not develop Attachment D at other sites. Additionally, the public may want to see the information. Council Member Klein asked who would be appointing the members for the Community Advisory Committee (CAC). Mr. Emslie stated that Staff envisioned for the School Board Members and City Staff to work together in appointing a panel of members. Council Member Klein stated it would be a Staff appointed committee and not subject to the Brown Act. Mr. Emslie said that was correct but the Brown Act rules could be adopted if the Council desired. Council Member Klein asked if the list of community organizations was meant to be exclusive or welcoming of more. Mr. Emslie said it was welcoming of more. Council Member Klein stated that the role of the CAC would be to work on issues at the same time as the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC). He asked how that would work. Mr. Emslie stated Staff envisioned the meetings to be driven by site planning and architectural issues of how the campus could be shared. One committee could react on a proposal and provide input to the other. The PAC could send issues and questions to the CAC to explore. The two committees would run in parallel and blend together. City Manager Keene stated that the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) would work independently. Once the PAC and CAC were up and running, a decision could be made on how things should be staged or sequenced. MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to direct Staff to form a: 1. Collaborative PAUSD and City Process Timeline on Cubberley. An initial 14 month process which anticipates reaching City and PAUSD consensus on a Cubberley Master Plan by the end of 2012. Such Master Plan may include alternative scenarios. Attachment D 2. A Technical Advisory Committee to be established, co-chaired by the City Manager and Superintendent, focusing on developing the technical foundations for eventual policy decision making. TAC members would also include City departmental representatives including Community Services, Administrative Services, Planning, Attorney’s Office and Public Works, and their PAUSD counterparts. 3. A Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) is proposed to be comprised of two PAUSD Board Members and three City Council Members appointed by the Mayor and Board President. 4. Community Advisory Committee (CAC) will be a cross section group of community stakeholders (15-20 members). FURTHERMORE, that the Ventura and Greendell school sites and connectivity issues shall be included in the study; that the representatives of the Chamber, PACC and one or more environmental organizations should be included as part of the CAC; that the CAC commence meeting in February or March 2012 and report to the PAC no later than October 15, 2012 which shall commence its discussions on receipt of the CAC report; the CAC be appointed by City and PAUSD staff and not be covered by the Brown Act although its processes shall be transparent and similar to the Brown Act. Council Member Klein raised concerns regarding the effectiveness of two committees working in parallel. He preferred the traditional practice for committees to work in accordance to a timeline, report back to the Council, and in this instance to the School District as well, and then move forward. Council Member Shepherd asked that the Greendale School site be included in the planning process. She asked how transparency would work without Brown Act rules. Mr. Keene said Staff would look at options to keep the Council and the community well informed through communication and a webpage. Council Member Shepherd stated she did not want decisions to be made behind closed doors. Mr. Keene stated that Guiding Principles would need to be established on how the process would work and how business would be conducted. Attachment D Council Member Shepherd asked about the 8-acres. She said the city owned them and the community does not consider them part of the public school portion of the Cubberley. She said this may limit development prospects and asked how quickly that issue could be addressed. Mr. Keene stated that could take place during the initial period when the TAC assembled statistical information and programming needs. Council Member Shepherd said she felt the Motion was even-handed and placed the School District and the City on a level for input and exploration of the site. She noted that the 8-acres were obtained by the City 10-years ago to build something such as a community center. This process was a fresh way of looking at the site. She hoped that the School Board and the City would articulate on what public education could look like and to work through the community center inspired at that location. She expressed the need for transparency as the process moved forward. Council Member Schmid raised concerns regarding moving forward on setting up committees without a clear sense on what they would be working on. He felt the focus of attention should be clarified prior to voting. The City was dealing with a lease and a covenant to not develop. He stated the document covered three issues: the City’s lease at the Cubberley site; an agreement to not develop other school properties in town, and to have City-sponsored child-care at each campus. He asked what the Committee’s involvement would be in these issues. He spoke of the $7 million payments from the City that had been divided between the three aspects of the lease and covenant and asked if the Committees would be dealing with these issues. Mr. Keene stated that was not the intent. The proposed process was to separate the planning and land use demands from the lease and covenant discussions. Staff and the Council would revisit the process after land use scenarios were developed to help with the lease and covenant issues in calendar year 2013. Council Member Schmid stated that Greendale was a pre-school, an elementary school, and day-care located on the property and asked how the City would address the School District’s needs since they conflicted with City issues. Mr. Keene stated it would be difficult to address those issues at this point. A clear understanding would need to be made on what the Attachment D drivers and implications were which would be part of alternative scenarios. Council Member Schmid said it was important to have a clear understanding of what was being done during the first year prior to moving forward. He said the Staff Report noted that the School District was asked to update their school population predictions. He noted that the Housing Element was 4-years overdue; the City had not given public notice of how many houses would be built by 2014, and was in the process of committing to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process regarding a 25-year growth rate that could bring the Palo Alto’s population to 80,000. He said it would be difficult for the School District to come up with a plan without an idea of what the City’s long-term forecast was for the community. The City should have a clear statement on the City’s current Housing Element and what the City was going to do with the future RHNA allocations before the technical processes begin. Mr. Keene agreed with the challenges outlined by Council Member Schmid. He said Staff anticipated having scenarios rather than a plan during the first year. He said implications could be made if the City was fortunate to see the future numbers in growth by March 2012. He felt the City should use alternative assumptions rather than hold up the scenario planning process if those numbers were not reached. Council Member Schmid noted the PAC would consist of three Council Members and two Board Members. He raised concerns regarding the statement “PAC’s mission to forward a recommendation.” He asked if the Council had the right to say that the Committee had a majority that would forward a recommendation. He felt there should be some sensitivity to the School District and to consider the PAC’s mission to reach consensus or to have both sides agree to a recommendation. Mr. Keene said the Staff report noted that Staff viewed the Council and the Board Members to be intermediaries between Staff and the governing bodies. Staff did not see the Board Members having authority to make decisions on behalf of the governing bodies. They were to keep the lines of communications open and flowing. There was a need for mutual interest and consensus between the School District, the City, and stakeholders in order for the process to work correctly. Council Member Schmid suggested changing the verbiage from “a recommendation” to “joint recommendation.” Attachment D Council Member Shepherd stated it was her understanding there could be a conflict if a member lived within a certain radius of the site. She asked for the City Attorney to clarify the issue. City Attorney, Molly Stump a process could be established to not have conflict issues. If the Council used the procedure to setup a multi- member body that doesn’t trigger the Brown Act it did not mean you had to have closed meetings. Council Member Holman said the meetings should be disseminated to groups and publicly noticed. She did not want to see a website developed where citizens would need to check daily to see if a meeting was scheduled for the following day. She asked if the Maker of the Motion had accepted to include the Greendale School site in the planning process. Mr. Keene confirmed that it was accepted. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add the Bicycle Advisory Committee to the list of representatives. Council Member Holman noted that the PAC was expected to report back to the Council and the Board but was not identified as a systematic process. She favored a more iterative process. She suggested that PAC report out to the City Council and the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC), who would comment on the progress as the process moved forward. Mr. Keene stated that Staff envisioned issues to unfold as the process moved forward. The PAC would report back to their governing bodies with periodic updates to the Council. He said a specific date had not yet been determined to appoint the PAC and that the Council may want to wait until there was feedback from the community. Council Member Holman stated that the Staff Report noted that Staff envisioned the PAC to work under the Guiding Principles adopted by the Council and the School District. She asked where the Guiding Principles were. Mr. Keene stated there should be a process or period when the Guiding Principles would be adopted as the group was formed and opened to any input from the Council. He said Staff could move forward and Attachment D setup the CAC if the Motion passed. The first order of business would be to structure the Guiding Principles. Council Member Holman stated that the project was enormous for Palo Alto. The process needed to be well thought-out, transparent, and done correctly. She wanted to make clear that the 8-acres at the Cubberley site was not referred to as “the 8-acres”. “The 8-acres” described a specific piece of land that contained irregular boundaries around buildings and would not allow flexibility to swap pieces with the School District during the planning phase. Mr. Keene stated that Staff would be obligated to come back to the Council for direction on how to work through any technical issues. Council Member Holman asked that Charleston Plaza and Green Meadow neighborhood be included for planning purposes. AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XXX to include Charleston Plaza and the Green Meadow neighborhood as part of the land-use planning component. AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Holman stated she hoped that the Green Meadow neighborhood would be heard by the CAC for good connectivity to the school site. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER for the sake of clarity that the PAC shall report out regularly and systematically to the City Council. Council Member Holman asked that the P&TC have an active role in land use planning. The site had many issues that included horizontal mixed use, site planning on site, connectivity issues with commercial development and residential neighborhood. To add the P&TC only made common sense. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the Planning and Transportation Commission have an active role in land-use planning to be determined at a future date. Attachment D Council Member Burt asked Staff how they would integrate the P&TC into the process with their normal role as an advising body to the Council. Mr. Keene stated that Staff could not say at this point what the alternatives, scenarios, and plans would be at the end of the year. He preferred an approach where the Staff would report back to the Council and for the Council to give direction that the issue was at an appropriate stage for the P&TC to handle. Council Member Burt asked if the item would be coming back to the Council after scenarios and plans were determined. Mr. Keene said yes. Council Member Burt stated that would be the appropriate time for Staff to provide the Council with better guidance of what was being proposed for the P&TC’s role. Mr. Keene said he would like to get the TAC started as soon as possible and for Staff to return to the Council in January 2012 for direction. Council Member Burt stated that the P&TC was alluded to as one of the Commissions under the CAC. The P&TC was an advisory body in terms of land use and transportation and suggested that Staff consider having the P&TC’s role under the PAC. He clarified the suggestion was not a Motion or a recommendation but as a suggestion for consideration. Council Member Klein stated he was not in favor of the process and felt it was overkill. He said the matter was not a land use issue and ran the risk of annoying the School Board. The District was not subjected to the City’s land use planning and the P&TC was not experienced in planning school sites. The School District did not have a P&TC and one of the goals was to run in parallel in terms of processes. There would be a great deal of negotiations between the City and the School District with regard to finances, ownerships, and decision-making. He felt two P&TC members would be sufficient for the CAC. Council Member Shepherd stated the matter was focused on the shape of the property for the School District’s use and what the City would keep for the Community Center. That would be a task for the TAC Attachment D group. She felt the only way the P&TC could help with the task was to have borders and boundary issues. She was in favor of Council Member Burt’s concept to go to the P&TC deliberatively as issues come up. Council Member Holman said there would be a point in time when Staff would determine the P&TC’s involvement. She spoke of interconnectivity issues and how they related on and offsite, which was more reason for the P&TC to get involved. She did not want to develop an insular site or one without good pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. The goal was not to interfere but to supplement the School District. Council Member Burt said there were eight City acres that would be repurposed or redeveloped with more intensification in use, which would pull the P&TC into the project. Connectivity should be considered and that transportation elements and connectivity issues required P&TC’s involvement. Council Member Shepherd stated safe routes to schools had its own values and would be part of the project. Council Member Scharff did not disagree with the P&TC getting involved, but raised concerns of what the project would look like. He felt the discussion should take place in March 2012 after the TAC had a chance to narrow down the issues. He understood the comments made by Council Member Burt and Holman; however, the School District was not under the P&TC in developing a school site. He advised looking at the project with caution and felt the discussion was premature. Council Member Schmid raised concerns regarding the process being set up for a six-month period of time with a TAC made up of Staff, the CAC appointed by Staff, and a PAC that would report to the Council and the School District at some point. He asked when the public would have the opportunity to become engaged. He stated the PT&C would bring focus to the community on certain issues. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add “to be determined at a future date” regarding the Planning and Transportation Commission’s active role. Attachment D Council Member Burt asked if Mr. Keene was describing Guiding Principles that were process based and not outcome based. Mr. Keene said they were process based. Council Member Burt stated the Guiding Principles were self-governing rules as opposed to predetermining outcomes at a higher level. Mr. Keene said that was correct. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER the meetings will be open to the public and posted on the internet where feasible, advanced information will be available to the public, and outcomes from the meetings be available to the public Council Member Scharff asked if Council Member Burt was asking for Senses Meeting Minutes. Council Member Burt said no. He clarified that outcomes from meetings should be summarized and made available to the public. Council Member Schmid asked if “open” meant open communication from the public. Council Member Burt said it meant open for participation at the meetings and that participation needed to be addressed in the Guiding Principle. Council Member Shepherd asked to include “meetings to be publically noticed.” Council Member Burt said that was a formality with legal ramifications. Council Member Shepherd asked how can “meetings publically noticed” be included. Ms. Stump stated the Council could decide if you want to have a public notice requirement. There was balance was between providing formal notice for the public, and decreasing flexibility. She suggested that when the meeting time was set it shall be posted on the internet to let the public know about the meeting. Council Member Shepherd stated to include “open to the public and posted on the internet where feasible.” Attachment D Council Member Burt said that was acceptable. Vice Mayor Yeh asked if there was a mechanism where people could subscribe or opt to be notified of different City activities. Mr. Keene stated that Staff would review vehicles and ways to inform the public. He said consensus and agreements needed to be built in for the project to work. The public needed to be informed, be knowledgeable, and involved in order for that to happen. Staff will bring back a communication plan. Mayor Espinosa stated that the public now had the ability to sign up to receive information on regular basis via e-mail. The feature would be enhanced when the new website rolled out in the New Year. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND THE SECONDER to add “and connectivity issues shall be” to the Motion as a study component. Vice Mayor Yeh stated he was in favor of the process and the capability to engage in communication with all stakeholder groups. He said the City had a relationship and a partnership with the School District to not create an environment with surprises. He supported the Motion. Council Member Scharff felt the process would work once the TAC convened and narrow down the issues in reaching agreements. It was important to stay on track and meet the March 2012 target date to establish the foundation for the CAC. Mr. Keene stated it was an issue for the TAC to have City Staff and the School District on the same page in terms of requirements and could mean having to bring in outside assistance to make that happen. The School District’s Superintendent had agreed to cost-sharing if assistance was needed. Mayor Espinosa stated that the Council would want the City to develop a process in partnering with the School District to come up with a comprehensive and a long-term plan and to be transparent and inclusive. Council Member Schmid said his understanding was that the Cubberley contract expired at the end of 2014 and a 12-month notice needed to be given by either party setting a hard deadline for 2013 for Attachment D conclusion. He raised concerns of the CAC working on its own for six months and felt it would be beneficial to have overlap with the PAC. AMENDMENT: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member XXX that the Policy Advisory Commission would start in June with opportunity for interactions with Community Advisory Commission AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the PAC will start in June 2012 and receive a report from the CAC midway through the CAC meeting period. Council Member Holman noted that Council Member Klein had requested to add Acterra to the process and did not see that added. Council Member Klein stated the language was changed and added the verbiage “one or more environmental organizations.” Council Member Holman asked if the Guiding Principles would come to Council for adoption. Mr. Keene said yes, with a caveat that there was another party in the process and amendments and clarifications would be made as the process unfolds. Council Member Holman stated the Motion had many parts. She asked that the Motion be added to the Staff report that comes back to the Council for quick reference and clarity. Mr. Keene said that could be done. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Price Absent City of Palo Alto (ID # 2687) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 4/16/2012 April 16, 2012 Page 1 of 6 (ID # 2687) Summary Title: Sand Hill Road Development Agreement Amendment Title: Public Hearing: Adoption of an Ordinance Approving an Amendment to the 1997 Sand Hill Road Development Agreement to Extend Lease on El Camino Park and to Remove Approximately 10.25 Acres of Land (Searsville and Fremont Roads) in Santa Clara County from Special Condition Area B to be Used for Central Energy. (Cogeneration) Facility. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that Council approve the attached Ordinance (Attachment A) approving the proposed amendment to the 1997 Sand Hill Road Development Agreement to remove a 10.25-acre site from the 139-acre Special Condition Area B within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County, and to extend the lease of the 10.74-acre El Camino Park, from June 30, 2033, to June 30, 2042 (Attachment B). Executive Summary The Ordinance for Council approval amends an existing Development Agreement to enable the City to extend an existing lease with Leland Stanford Junior University (Stanford) of 10.74 acres of dedicated parkland known as El Camino Park until the year 2042, a nine year extension. The amendment would also allow for removal of a 10.25 acre piece of land within the County’s jurisdiction from “Area B” in the Agreement. Stanford would then pursue an application to the County for development of a Central Energy Facility (cogeneration plant) within Area B. Background April 16, 2012 Page 2 of 6 (ID # 2687) In 1997 the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University entered into the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement (Development Agreement) concerning Sand Hill Road Projects, including Stanford West Apartments; Stanford West Senior Housing; Stanford Shopping Center Expansion; a collection of various roadway improvements; and the creation and annexation of a small parcel of property created by the relocation of Pasteur Drive at Sand Hill Road. The 1997 Sand Hill Road Development Agreement has been amended on two previous occasions, in 2001 and 2003. Area B Area B is located in Santa Clara County and is comprised of 139 acres that the Development Agreement refers to as “Special Condition Area B.” The property is within the permitting jurisdiction of Santa Clara County and is regulated under the County’s 2000 Stanford Community Plan and General Use Permit (GUP). Although the area is within the County, the Development Agreement between Stanford and the City of Palo Alto addresses these parcels. The proposed application is to remove a 10.25-acre area from Area B (shown on Attachment B). The Development Agreement currently prohibits development in a portion of Area B (including the proposed area) until December 31, 2020, except for academic and recreational fields (including the golf course) and associated support facilities and housing. El Camino Park The City of Palo Alto has an existing lease with Stanford for the use of El Camino Park. The current lease, which covers an area of approximately 10.74 acres (including the area of the El Palo Alto redwood tree on the north side of Palo Alto Avenue), expires in June 2033. In June 2011, the City Council directed staff to pursue a long-term lease with Stanford for El Camino Park beyond the current expiration date. The 1997 Development Agreement extended the El Camino Park and Depot leases from 2013 to 2033, removed the City from the MacArthur Park and Red Cross leases, and allowed the City the right to terminate, in 2013, the Depot lease. Planning and Transportation Commission Review The Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed the proposed amendment in a public hearing on March 14, 2012, and voted 5-0-1 April 16, 2012 Page 3 of 6 (ID # 2687) (Commissioner Tuma not participating due to a conflict of interest) in support of the proposed amendment as recommended by staff and set forth in the attached ordinance, subject to a condition restricting the early use of the land removed from the Special Condition Area B to a new cogeneration power plant. The applicant had stated during the hearing that the area to be removed from Area B is the preferred site for the energy plant and therefore stated no objection to the condition. Attachment B incorporates the additional condition recommended by the Commission. The Commissioners understood that the extension of the El Camino Park lease was consistent with Council’s prior direction and would be beneficial for Palo Alto. One public speaker presented his opinion that the Council should be encouraged to wait on the action until a project is filed with the County of Santa Clara for the development of Area B, and asked the Commission to be aware of other pending and potential projects adjacent to the El Camino Park. The applicant noted that the County application and review process would be lengthy and costly and there would be no reason to proceed without certainty about the requested amendment. A citizen’s letter to the Commission regarding the loss of a former bike path through the County Area B due to installation of Stanford’s golf practice area was noted by a Commissioner, and the applicant addessed this topic, stating that the relocated bike path is a longer, less direct path, but that the request would be considered. The Commission’s staff report and minutes are included as Attachments C and D, respectively, to this Council report. Discussion The City received an application from Stanford University to execute an amendment to the 1997 Sand Hill Road Development Agreement Section 65868 of the California Government Code and section 8(b) of Palo Alto Resolution No. 6597 (Mar. 9, 1987) provide that a development agreement may be amended by mutual consent of the parties to the agreement. A Development Agreement or amendment thereof requires review and public hearing by the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council. April 16, 2012 Page 4 of 6 (ID # 2687) The subject Property is located within the portion of Area B where the Development Agreement currently allows housing. Except for this small piece of land, the Development Agreement already allows development on the Property, and the requested amendment to the Development Agreement would change only the type of development that is allowed under the Agreement – from housing to “academic and support uses.” The requested amendment to the Development Agreement would allow Stanford to accelerate the development of academic and support uses in advance of the December 31, 2020 date. The Property lies within the Academic Growth Boundary and the Academic Campus land use designation of the Community Plan and GUP, which allows the development of academic facilities and support uses. The housing commitments of those plans remain in place. Removal of the Property from Area B would not result in any changes to either the Community Plan or GUP, which both would continue to apply to the Property. By removing the Property from Area B, the City is not approving or authorizing any development on the Property; such development will remain subject to County review and approval. Stanford University is considering this site for a new energy center to replace the campus’ Cardinal Cogeneration energy facility. The new energy center is an important part of Stanford’s long-range Energy and Climate Plan, which is designed to increase energy efficiency while reducing the environmental impacts associated with supplying energy to the Stanford campus. Stanford is still in the planning process and has not yet proposed a specific project for the County’s approval. The energy facility is not part of this application and is not part of the Commission’s review. El Camino Park The City leases land from Stanford along El Camino Real that is improved with El Camino Park and other facilities. In June 2011, the City Council, while discussing improvements to the ball field, directed staff to see if Stanford would consider extending the lease on El Camino Park. The current lease expires in June 2033. Stanford is proposing that in exchange for releasing approximately 10-acres from Area B nine years early (currently the restriction is until 2020), they will extend the approximately 10-acre El Camino Real Park lease nine years, from 2033 to 2042. April 16, 2012 Page 5 of 6 (ID # 2687) Timeline The applicant submitted the request for the amendment on February 2, 2012. The Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed and recommended the amendment in a public hearing on March 14, 2012. Resource Impact This amendment will not have a financial impact on the City, other than to assure that the lease cost to the City for El Camino Park will remain negligible for another nine years. The Development Agreement Amendment review is a cost-recovery application process such that staff and consultant resources expended during the process are covered by the applicant. Any economic benefits or costs of the Energy Facility accrue to the County and Stanford. Policy Implications Extension of the El Camino Park lease is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with recent Council direction to pursue such an extension. Environmental Review The County of Santa Clara certified an Environmental Impact Report in December 2000 for the Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit (GUP). The GUP EIR is a program-level EIR that addresses the impacts of developing Stanford’s lands within the Academic Growth Boundary (AGB) established by the County's Community Plan. The City's approval of the proposed amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts than were disclosed and evaluated in the GUP EIR because the City's approval would not change any of the terms and conditions of the Community Plan and GUP that govern development of the 10-acre site, which have been evaluated in the GUP EIR. At most, the City's approval would merely accelerate the development of academic support uses on the 10-acre site, but still in a manner consistent with the Community Plan and the GUP. Environmental review for the Energy Facility will be conducted by Santa Clara County as part of the entitlement process. Attachments: Attachment A: Ordinance for the 3rd Amendment to Sand Hill Rd Development Agreement (PDF) April 16, 2012 Page 6 of 6 (ID # 2687) Attachment B: Amendment to Sand Hill Road Development Agreement (PDF) Attachment C: March 14, 2012 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report (PDF) Attachment D: March 14, 2012 Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes (PDF) Prepared By:Amy French, Current Planning Manager Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Not Yet Approved 120325 jb 0130938 1 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving The Third Amendment to the Development Agreement Between the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University and the City of Palo Alto Dated August 14, 1997 The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Recitals. A. The City of Palo Alto (City) and Stanford are parties to a certain Development Agreement dated August 14, 1997 (the "Sand Hill Road Development Agreement" or "Agreement"), concerning the Sand Hill Road Projects, which include, as described in Paragraph l(k) of the Agreement, the Stanford West Apartment Project; the Stanford West Senior Housing Project; the Stanford Shopping Center Expansion Project; a collection of various roadway improvements, including widening and extension of Sand Hill Road, widening and improvement of Quarry Road, construction of a new Vineyard Lane, extension of Palo Road, extension of Stockfarm Road, and related roadway improvements; and the creation and annexation of a small parcel of property created by the relocation of Pasteur Drive at Sand Hill Road. B. Section 65868 of the California Government Code and section 8(b) of Palo Alto Resolution No. 6597 (Mar. 9, 1987) provide that a development agreement may be amended by mutual consent of the parties to the agreement. C. Pursuant to these provisions, paragraph 11 of the Agreement provides that the City and Stanford may amend the Agreement from time to time by mutual consent. D. Paragraph 6(i) of the Agreement provides that until December 31, 2020, Stanford shall not develop the approximately 139-acre parcel known as Special Condition Area B ("Area B"), as defined by the 1989 General Use Permit issued by Santa Clara County (the "County") for the Stanford campus, except for academic and recreational fields (including the golf course) and associated support facilities; provided that the Agreement allows Stanford to propose and construct faculty, staff or student housing within a specified portion of Area B regardless of the December 2020 date. Exhibit H-3 to the Agreement contained a map that depicted Area B. E. In April 2001, the City and Stanford executed a First Amendment to the Agreement ("First Amendment"). The First Amendment revised Area B to exchange restrictions on portions of Area B such that (i) development would be precluded until December 31, 2020 on a 13-acre area that previously had been slated for the near-term development of housing under the original Agreement in 1997, and (ii) development of housing would be permitted on another, adjacent 13- acre area that had been restricted under the original Agreement until December 31, 2020. Exhibit B (dated Apr. 9, 2001) to the First Amendment amended Exhibit H-3 to the Agreement in order to show the revised boundaries of the housing development areas within Area B. F. Subsequently, in 2003, the City and Stanford executed a Second Amendment to the Agreement ("Second Amendment"). This Second Amendment was intended to implement the First Amendment, by defining more precisely the boundary between that portion of Area B Not Yet Approved 120325 jb 0130938 2 where development was restricted until December 31, 2020, and that portion of Area B where the development of housing was permitted regardless of the December 31, 2020 date. To that end, the Second Amendment included a legal description and an accompanying plat map. G. The property that is the subject of this Amendment consists of approximately 10.25 acres of land. This 10.25-acre area will be referred to as the "Property." This Amendment removes the Property from Area B. Except for a small sliver of this land in the northwest comer of the Property, the Property is within that portion of Area B that is contemplated for development of housing under the Agreement (as amended by the First and Second Amendments). H. Area B is owned by Stanford and is located within the land use jurisdiction of the County. I. In December 2000, the County approved the Stanford Community Plan (the "Community Plan") and a new General Use Permit (the "2000 GUP") for the Stanford campus, which established an Academic Growth Boundary and permitted the development of 2,035,000 net new square feet of academic facilities and academic support uses on the campus within that boundary on lands within the "Academic Campus" land use designation. J. In approving the Community Plan and the 2000 GUP, the County in December 2000 certified, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), a Final Environmental Impact Report (the "2000 GUP EIR") that evaluated at a program-level the environmental impacts from the maximum level of development on the Stanford campus that would be allowed under the Community Plan and the 2000 GUP. K. The 2000 GUP contains detailed procedures for evaluating individual, site specific building projects that Stanford proposes to build on the campus to implement the Community Plan and the 2000 GUP. L. The entirety of the Property is located within the Academic Growth Boundary on lands designated for Academic Campus uses, and therefore may be developed for academic and support uses under the Community Plan, 2000 GUP, and 2000 GUP EIR approved by the County. M. Stanford wishes to submit an application to the County to develop the Property as a new energy center that is anticipated to increase energy efficiency while reducing several of the environmental impacts associated with supplying energy to the campus, including greenhouse gas emissions. N. The precise footprint, design, and operational characteristics of the new energy center have not yet been determined. At such time when Stanford submits an application to the County to develop the Property, the County will review the application based on the 2000 GUP EIR and will conduct any further environmental analysis that may be required under CEQA, in accordance with the site-specific project review procedures contained in the 2000 GUP. O. By removing the Property from Area B, the City is not approving or authorizing any development on the Property; such development will remain subject to County review and approval. Not Yet Approved 120325 jb 0130938 3 P. The City leases land from Stanford along El Camino Real that is improved with El Camino Park and other facilities; this lease will be referred to as the "El Camino Park Lease." Q. The City wishes to extend the term of the El Camino Park Lease, and Stanford has agreed to a nine-year extension of the El Camino Park Lease, conditioned upon approval of this Amendment. R. The City's Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council have given notice of intention to consider this Amendment and have conducted public hearings on the Amendment. SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council finds and determines that: A. Notice of intention to consider the development agreement has been given pursuant to Government Code section 65867. B. The City’s Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council have given notice of intention to consider this Agreement, have conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to Government Code section 65867 and City’s Resolution No. 6597, and the City Council has found that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with City’s Comprehensive Plan, as amended. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby approves the Third Amendment to the Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City. SECTION 4. The City Clerk is directed to cause a copy of the development agreement to be recorded with the County Recorder not later than ten (10) days after it becomes effective. SECTION 5. The County of Santa Clara certified an Environmental Impact Report in December 2000 for the Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit (GUP). The City's approval of the proposed amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts than were disclosed and evaluated in the GUP EIR because the City's approval would not change any of the terms and conditions of the Community Plan and GUP that govern development of the 10-acre site, which have been evaluated in the GUP EIR. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first (31st) day after its adoption. INTRODUCED: Not Yet Approved 120325 jb 0130938 4 PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: __________________________ __________________________ City Clerk Mayor __________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager __________________________ __________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment 120308 jb 0130941 This document is recorded for the benefit of the City of Palo Alto and is entitled to be recorded free of charge in accordance with Section 6103 of the Government Code. After Recordation, mail to: Office of the City Attorney City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE SAND HILL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Third Amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement is entered into as of this ______ day of ______, 2012, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered city of the State of California (the "City"), and THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of California ("Stanford"). RECITALS This THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE SAND HILL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Amendment") is entered into on the basis of the following facts, understandings and intentions of the parties: A. The City and Stanford are parties to a certain Development Agreement dated August 14, 1997 (the "Sand Hill Road Development Agreement" or "Agreement"), concerning the Sand Hill Road Projects, which include, as described in Paragraph 1(k) of the Agreement, the Stanford West Apartment Project; the Stanford West Senior Housing Project; the Stanford Shopping Center Expansion Project; a collection of various roadway improvements, including widening and extension of Sand Hill Road, widening and improvement of Quarry Road, construction of a new Vineyard Lane, extension of Palo Road, extension of Stockfarm Road, and related roadway improvements; and the creation and annexation of a small parcel of property created by the relocation of Pasteur Drive at Sand Hill Road. B. Section 65868 of the California Government Code and section 8(b) of Palo Alto Resolution No. 6597 (Mar. 9, 1987) provide that a development agreement may be amended by mutual consent of the parties to the agreement. C. Pursuant to these provisions, paragraph 11 of the Agreement provides that the City and Stanford may amend the Agreement from time to time by mutual consent. 120308 jb 0130941 D. Paragraph 6(i) of the Agreement provides that until December 31, 2020, Stanford shall not develop the approximately 139-acre parcel known as Special Condition Area B ("Area B"), as defined by the 1989 General Use Permit issued by Santa Clara County (the "County") for the Stanford campus, except for academic and recreational fields (including the golf course) and associated support facilities; provided that the Agreement allows Stanford to propose and construct faculty, staff or student housing within a specified portion of Area B regardless of the December 2020 date. Exhibit H-3 to the Agreement contained a map that depicted Area B. E. In April 2001, the City and Stanford executed a First Amendment to the Agreement ("First Amendment"). The First Amendment revised Area B to exchange restrictions on portions of Area B such that (i) development would be precluded until December 31, 2020 on a 13-acre area that previously had been slated for the near-term development of housing under the original Agreement in 1997, and (ii) development of housing would be permitted on another, adjacent 13-acre area that had been restricted under the original Agreement until December 31, 2020. Exhibit B (dated Apr. 9, 2001) to the First Amendment amended Exhibit H-3 to the Agreement in order to show the revised boundaries of the housing development areas within Area B. F. Subsequently, in 2003, the City and Stanford executed a Second Amendment to the Agreement ("Second Amendment"). This Second Amendment was intended to implement the First Amendment, by defining more precisely the boundary between that portion of Area B where development was restricted until December 31, 2020, and that portion of Area B where the development of housing was permitted regardless of the December 31, 2020 date. To that end, the Second Amendment included a legal description and an accompanying plat map. G. The property that is the subject of this Amendment consists of approximately 10.25 acres of land. This 10.25-acre area will be referred to as the "Property." This Amendment removes the Property from Area B. Except for a small sliver of this land in the northwest corner of the Property, the Property is within that portion of Area B that is contemplated for development of housing under the Agreement (as amended by the First and Second Amendments). H. Area B is owned by Stanford and is located within the land use jurisdiction of the County. I. In December 2000, the County approved the Stanford Community Plan (the "Community Plan") and a new General Use Permit (the "2000 GUP") for the Stanford campus, which established an Academic Growth Boundary and permitted the development of 2,035,000 net new square feet of academic facilities and academic support uses on the campus within that boundary on lands within the "Academic Campus" land use designation. J. In approving the Community Plan and the 2000 GUP, the County in December 2000 certified, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), a Final Environmental Impact Report (the "2000 GUP EIR") that evaluated at a program-level the environmental impacts from the maximum level of development on the Stanford campus that would be allowed under the Community Plan and the 2000 GUP. 120308 jb 0130941 K. The 2000 GUP contains detailed procedures for evaluating individual, site- specific building projects that Stanford proposes to build on the campus to implement the Community Plan and the 2000 GUP. L. The entirety of the Property is located within the Academic Growth Boundary on lands designated for Academic Campus uses, and therefore may be developed for academic and support uses under the Community Plan, 2000 GUP, and 2000 GUP EIR approved by the County. M. Stanford wishes to submit an application to the County to develop the Property as a new energy center that is anticipated to increase energy efficiency while reducing several of the environmental impacts associated with supplying energy to the campus, including greenhouse gas emissions. N. The precise footprint, design, and operational characteristics of the new energy center have not yet been determined. At such time when Stanford submits an application to the County to develop the Property, the County will review the application based on the 2000 GUP EIR and will conduct any further environmental analysis that may be required under CEQA, in accordance with the site-specific project review procedures contained in the 2000 GUP. O. By removing the Property from Area B, the City is not approving or authorizing any development on the Property; such development will remain subject to County review and approval. P. The City leases land from Stanford along El Camino Real that is improved with El Camino Park and other facilities; this lease will be referred to as the "El Camino Park Lease." Q. The City wishes to extend the term of the El Camino Park Lease, and Stanford has agreed to a nine-year extension of the El Camino Park Lease, conditioned upon approval of this Amendment. R. The City's Planning Commission and City Council have given notice of intention to consider this Amendment and have conducted public hearings on the Amendment. S. The City has found that the terms and conditions of this Amendment are fair, just and reasonable, and provide benefits to the City. T. This Amendment is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare needs of the residents of the City and the surrounding region. The City has determined that the Amendment represents a reasonable balancing of the competing interests of the affected region. U. This Amendment will bind future City Councils to the terms and obligations specified in the Amendment. V. After review by City staff, its Planning Commission, and the City Council, the City has found that: 120308 jb 0130941 a. The provisions of this Amendment and its purposes are consistent with the goals, policies, programs and standards specified in the City's Comprehensive Plan; b. This Amendment will help attain important economic, social, environmental and planning goals of the City and enhances and protects the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City and the surrounding region; c. This Amendment will allow Stanford to apply to the County for development of a new campus energy center on the Property, which, if approved by the County, is anticipated to reduce the air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions and water use associated with supplying the Stanford campus with energy. d. This Amendment will also provide for a nine-year extension of the term of the El Camino Park Lease, thereby providing valuable recreational and open space benefits to the residents of the City and the surrounding region. e. This Amendment will otherwise achieve the goals and purposes for which the Development Agreement Act was enacted. PROVISIONS NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. The Property is removed from Area B and is no longer subject to the provisions of Paragraph 6(i) of the Agreement, provided, however, that until December 31, 2020, Stanford may utilize the Property only for the preparation, construction, and operation of a new energy center and associated uses. 2. A revised legal description and an accompanying map depicting the entirety of Area B, as modified by this Amendment, are provided in Exhibit A to this Amendment. Revised legal descriptions and an accompanying map for those portions of Area B that are contemplated for the development of housing under the Agreement, as modified by this Amendment, are provided in Exhibits A-1, A-2 & A-3 to this Amendment 3. Exhibit B to this Amendment revises Exhibit H-3 to the Agreement – as previously amended by Exhibit B (dated Apr. 9, 2001) to the First Amendment – in order to show the location and boundaries of the Property; the location and the changes to the boundaries of Area B; and the location and the changes to the boundaries of those portions of Area B that are contemplated for the development of housing under the Agreement. 4. The provisions of Paragraph 6(i) will continue to apply to all other parts of Area B with the exception of the Property. 5. The parties shall execute the sixth amendment to the El Camino Park Lease to extend the lease term for a period of nine years, from June 30, 2033 to June 30, 2042. The sixth 120308 jb 0130941 amendment to the El Camino Park Lease is attached to this Amendment as Exhibit C. The sixth amendment to the El Camino Park Lease will become effective within 45 days after the final passage of the ordinance approving this Amendment if that ordinance is not submitted to a referendum. If that ordinance is submitted to a referendum, the sixth amendment to the El Camino Park Lease will become effective only if the referendum approves the ordinance. 6. All other provisions of the Agreement continue to apply and are not affected by this Amendment. 7. The following exhibits are attached to this Amendment and are incorporated herein: Exhibit A: Legal Description and Map of Revised Area B Exhibits A-1, A-2 & A-3: Legal Descriptions and Map of Area B Housing Parcels Exhibit B: Amended Exhibit H-3 to Sand Hill Road Development Agreement Exhibit C: Sixth Amendment to El Camino Park Lease (including Exhibits 1, 2 & 3) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by the parties as of the day and year first above written. ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF PALO ALTO Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney APPROVED: City Manager APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Director of Planning and Community Environment STANFORD The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University By: Its: 120308 jb 0130939 ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ) County of ____________________ ) On ____________________ before me, ____________________ (insert here name and title of the officer), personally appeared ____________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature: ____________________ Place Notary Seal Above 120308 jb 0130941 EXHIBITS A, A-I, A-2 & A-3 TO THIRD AMENDMENT TO 1997 SAND HILL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ~Bkr ENGINW!51 SUJlVlYORS I PLANNtl!> EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description REVISED AREA B (For Development Agreement) January 25,2012 BKF No. 20126007 Page 1 of 3 Real property in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: Being a portion of the lands of The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of California, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the southeasterly line of Sand Hill Road, as said Road is described in that certain Easement for street and roadway purposes, from The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University to the City of Palo Alto, recorded June 7,2002, under Document No. 16304199, Official Records of Santa Clara County, said point being also the northwesterly terminus of that certain Academic Growth Boundary line, described as Area "B" Housing Site Boundary in the Second Amendment to Development Agreement between City of Palo Alto and The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, recorded December 23, 2003, under Document No. 17544858, Official Records of said County; Thence leaving said point and along said southeasterly line of Sand Hill Road, South 41 °10'12" West, 206.35 feet to the most southerly comer of said Road as described in said Easement for street and roadway purposes (Doc. 16304199), said comer being also a point in the center line of San Francisquito Creek; Thence leaving said comer and along said center line of San Francisquito Creek, southeasterly, 1780 feet more or less to the general n0I1herly line of Junipero Serra Boulevard; Thence along said general northerly line of Junipero Serra Boulevard, easterly, 2681 feet more or less to the general westerly line of Campus Drive West; Thence along said general westerly line of Campus Drive West, nOltherly, 1769 feet more or less to the intersection with the northwesterly prolongation of the center line of Santa Teresa Street; Thence leaving said general westerly line of Campus Drive West, NOIth 77°03'50" West, 767 feet more or less to the general center of Fremont Road; Thence along said general center of Fremont Road, southwesterly, 413 feet more or less to said Academic Growth Boundary line; Thence along said Academic Growth Boundary line, the following three (3) courses: I) North 3 t °56'17" West, 277.02 feet; 2) North 40°47'55" West, 401.92 feet; 3) North 79°57'36" West, 310.20 feet; Legal Description REVISED AREA B Page 2 of3 Thence leaving said Academic Growth Boundary line, the following fourteen (14) courses: 1) North 15°57'00" East, 4 J 6.28 feel; 2) South 74°03'00" East, 158.21 feet; 3) North 01 °26'58" East, 654.16 feet; 4) North 76°5J '57" East, 29.76 feet; 5) North 82°30'J5" East, 37.03 feet; 6) North 89°01 '45" East, 57.00 feet; 7) South 87°40'43" East, 7] .54 feet; 8) South 83°25'05" East, 50.57 feet; 9) South 7]028' 16" East, 44.53 feet; J 0) South 77°J 6'32" Easl, 61.40 feet; 11) South 7]059'19" East, 46.42 feet; 12) South 79°]4'57" East, 77.68 feet; 13) South 87°52'44" East, 26.10 feet; 14) North 87°34'10" East, 25.93 feet to the general westerly Jine of Oak Road; Thence along said general westerly line of Oak Road, 1248 feet more or less; Thence leaving said general westerly line of Oak Road, NOlih 34°23' J 7" East, 527feet more or less to the southwesterly line of Pasteur Drive, as said line is described in said Easement for street and roadway purposes (Doc. No. 16304199); Thence along said southwesterly line of Pasteur Drive, the following four (4) courses: I) North 73°53'49" West, 302.39 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the right, having a Radius of 200.00 feet; 2) Northwesterly along said curve, through a central Angle of 28°26'12", for an arc Length of 99.26 feet; 3) North 45°27'37" West, 51.43 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the left, having a Radius of 40.00 feet; 4) Northwesterly along said curve, through a central Angle of 86°12'45", for an arc Length of 60.19 feet to said southeasterly line of Sand Hill Road; Thence along said southeasterly line of Sand Hill Road, the following three (3) courses: 1) South 48°19'38" West, 2720.87 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the left, having a Radius of 537.00 feet; 2) Southwesterly along said curve, through a central Angle of 07°09'26", for a arc Length of 67.08 feet; 3) South 41 °10' 12" West, 49.41 feet to the point of BEGINNING. As shown on map entitled "Revised Area E" attached hereto and made a part hereof. This description was prepared by me or under my direct supervision. BKF Engineers -J~ John Koroyan, P.L.S. License expires 12-31-2013 A' -7;f1J. tt;, t ()/"Z- Dated Legal Description REVISED AREA B Page 3 of3 Legend Academic Growth Boundary Revised Special Condition Area B. Development precluded - -until December 31,2020, except recreation and academic fields and associated support uses. Housing allowed as shown. Revised Area B Golf Course Bkf ENGINEEJlSJ SUIIVEYOR$l J>LAHN~RS EXHIDIT "A·1" Legal Descrl.ption AREA B HOUSING PARCEL 1 (For Development Agreement) January 25,2012 BKF No. 20126007 Page 1 of 2 Real propelty in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: Being a portion of the lands of The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southeasterly line of Sand Hill Road, as said Road is described in that certain Easement for street and roadway purposes, from The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University to the City of Palo Alto, recorded June 7, 2002, under Document No. 16304199, Official Records of Santa Clara County, said point being also the northwesterly terminus of that certain Academic Growth Boundary line, described as Area "B" Housing Site Boundary in the Second Amendment to Development Agreement between City of Palo Alto and The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, recorded December 23, 2003, under Document No. 17544858. Official Records of said County; Thence leaving said southeasterly line of Sand Hill Road and along said Academic Growth Boundary line, the following six (6) courseS: 1) South 09°03'59" East, 12.50 feet; 2) South 04°05'08" East, 28.07 feet; 3) South 00°53'30" West, 32.13 feet; 4) South 05°39'44" East, 54.84 feet; 5) North 86°01 ' 41" East, 98.98 feet; 6) North 89°30'34" East. 80.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Thence leaving said point and continuing along said Academic Growth Boundary line, the following two (2) courses: I) South 02°36'42" West, 262.32 feet; 2) South 79°57'36" East, 449.80 feet; Thence leaving said Academic Growth Boundary line, the following three (3) courses: I) North 15°57'00" East, 372.72 feet; 2) North 89°26'31" West, 532.36 feet; 3) South 02°36'42" West, 23.12 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description. As shown on map entitled "Area B Housing" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Legal Description AREA B HOUSING PARCEL I Page 2 of2 This description was prepared by me or under my direct supervision. BKF Engineers -frf- John Koroyan, P.L.. . No. 8883 License expires 12-31-2013 ~#J, ?5; ~ rz- Dated ~~Bk" J ..• ' . -. EHGINEtRSJ SURVEYORS I PLANNERS EXHIBIT "A-2" Legal Description AREA B HOUSING PARCEL 2 (For Development Agreement) January 25, 2012 BKF No. 20126007 Page 1 of 2 Real property in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: Being a portion of the lands of The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southeasterly line of Sand Hill Road, as said Road is described in that certain Easement for street and roadway purposes, from The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University to the City of Palo Alto, recorded June 7,2002, under Document No. 16304199, Official Records of Santa Clara County, said point being also the northwesterly terminus of that certain Academic Growth Boundary line, described as Area "B" Housing Site Boundary in the Second Amendment to Development Agreement between City of Palo Alto and The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, recorded December 23, 2003, under Document No. 17544858, Official Records of said County; Thence leaving said southeasterly line of Sand Hill Road and along said Academic Growth Boundary line, the following ten (10) courses: 1) South 09°03'59" East, 12.50 feet; 2) South 04°05'08" East, 28 .07 feet; 3) South 00°53'30" West, 32.13 feet; 4) South 05°39'44" East, 54.84 feet; 5) North 86°01' 41" East, 98.98 feet; 6) North 89°30'34" East, 80.00 feet; 7) South 02°36'42" West, 262.32 feet; 8) South 79°57'36" East, 760.00 feet; 9) South 40°47'55" East, 401.92 feet; 10) South 31°56']7" East, 277.02 feet to a point in the general center of Fremont Road, said point being also the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this descri,ption; Thence leaving said point and continuing along said Academic Growth Boundary line, the following four (4) courses: I) South 31 °56' J 7" East, 55.13 feet; 2) South 77°45' 58" East, 220.52 feet; 3) South 33°07'55" East, 694.32 feet; 4) South 09°] 9' 46" West, 122.63 feet; Thence leaving said Academic Growth Boundary line, the following six (6) courses: 1) South 04°48' 14" West, 29.85 feet; 2) South 17°56'09" West, 176.98 feet; 3) South 11 °23'48" West, 169.60 feet; 4) South 06°07'09" West, 149.98 feet; 5) South 06°10' 13" West, 93.04 feet; Legal Description AREA B HOUSING PARCEL 2 Page 2 of2 6) South 06°56' 54" West, 117 feet more or less to the general northerly line of Junipero SelTa Boulevard; Thence along said general nOitherly line of Junipero Serra Boulevard, easterly, 178 feet more or less to the general westerly line of Campus Drive West; Thence along said general westerly line of Campus Drive West, northerly, 1769 feet more or less to the intersection with the n0l1hwesterly prolongation of the center line of Santa Teresa Street; Thence leaving said general westerly line of Campus Drive West, North 77°03' 50" West, 767 feet more or less to the general center of Fremont Road; Thence along said general center of Fremont Road, Soutllwesterly, 413 feet more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description. As shown on map entitled "Area B Housing" attached hereto and made a prut hereof. This description was prepared by me or under my direct supervision. BKF Engineers -v~~~ John Koroyan, P.L.S. No. 8883 License expires 12-31-2013 Jd.~. 2~ 1..0/2- Dated ~BkF WGINE£1lSI SURVEYORS / PLANNERS EXHffiIT "A-3" Legal Description AREA B HOUSING PARCEL 3 (For Development Agreement) January 25, 2012 BKF No. 20126007 Page I of 2 Real property in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. described as follows: Being a portion of the lands of The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southeasterly line of Sand Hill Road, as said Road is described in that celtain Easement for street and roadway purposes, from The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University to the City of Palo Alto, recorded June 7, 2002, under Document No. 16304199, Official Records of Santa Clara County, said point being also the northwesterly terminus of that certain Academic Growth Boundary line, described as Area "B" Housing Site Boundary in the Second Amendment to Development Agreement between City of Palo Alto and The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, recorded December 23, 2003, under Document No. 17544858, Official Records of said County; Thence leaving said southeasterly line of Sand Hill Road and along said Academic Growth Boundary line, the following ten (10) courses: I) South 09°03' 59" East, 12.50 feet; 2) South 04°05'08" East, 28.07 feet; 3) South 00°53' 30" West, 32.l3 feet; 4) South 05°39'44" East, 54.84 feet; 5) North 86°01'41" East, 98.98 feet; 6) North 89°30'34" East, 80.00 feet; 7) South 02°36'42" West, 262.32 feet; 8) South 79°57'36" East, 760.00 feet; 9) South 40°47'55" East, 401.92 feet; 10) South 3] °56'17" East, 332.15 feet; Thence leaving said Academic Growth Boundary line and along the general easterly line of Fremont Road, South 15°45'59" West, 212.04 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this descIiption; Thence leaving said point and continuing along said general easterly line of Fremont Road, the following seven (7) courses: I) . South 40°45'55" West, J 81.65 feet; 2) South Irl7'45" West, 199.01 feet; 3) South 14°57'16" West, 179.39 feet; 4) South 14°12'32" West, 237.09 feet; 5) South 14°36'45" West, 214.05 feet; 6) South 14°32'43" West, 119.45 feet; Legal Description AREA B HOUSING PARCEL 3 Page 2 of2 7) South 14°35'20" West, 58 feet more or less to the general northerly line of Junipero Serra Boulevard; Thence along said general northerly line of Junipero Serra Boulevard, easterly, 711 feet more or less; Thence leaving said general nOitherly line of Junipero Serra Boulevard, the following eleven (11) courses: 1) North 04°01 '52" West, 160.67 feet; 2) North 01 °50'47" East, 201.73 feet; 3) North 24°32'54" West, 119.l4 feet; 4) NOith 04°54'33" West, 122.70 feet; 5) North 13°13'20" East, 89.63 feet; 6) North 06°28'36" West, 150.71 feet; 7) North 16°20'47" West, ]03.04 feet; 8) North 33°13'44" West, 77.56 feet; 9) North 17°53' 17" West, 66.31 feet; 10) North 44°34'03" West, l53.38 feet; 11) North 19°57'59" West, 94.41 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description. As shown on map entitled "Area B Housing" attached hereto and made a part hereof. This description was prepared by me or under my direct supervision. BKF Engineers -!~f:zo~ License expires 12-31-2013 .Jt9IJ, '2~ "'2P/Z- Dated Legend -- · Growth Boundary Academic Golf Course 500 I 120308 jb 0130941 EXHIBIT B TO THIRD AMENDMENT TO 1997 SAND HILL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Revision to Sand Hill Road Development Agreement Special Condition Area B Amended Exhibit H-3 Legend Academic Growth Boundary Revised Special Condition Area B. Development precluded - -until December 31, 2020, except recreation and academic fields and associated support uses. Housing allowed as shown. Golf Course Revised Area B Boundary and Property to be Removed from Arear B 120308 jb 0130941 EXHIBIT C TO THIRD AMENDMENT TO 1997 SAND HILL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 120308 jb 0130941 This document is recorded for the benefit of the City of Palo Alto and is entitled to be recorded free of charge in accordance with Section 6103 of the Government Code. After Recordation, mail to: Office of the City Attorney City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 SIXTH AMENDMENT TO LEASE This Sixth Amendment to Lease (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of ____________, 2012 by and between the BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of California (“Lessor”), and the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California municipal corporation (“Lessee”) in the following factual context: A. Lessor and Lessee are the parties to that certain lease dated as of June 10. 1915, as amended by five previous amendments, dated June 29, 1971, February 26, 1973, March 31, 1981, July 31, 1981 and January 18, 2000 respectively (as amended, the “Lease”), pursuant to which Lessee leases from Lessor that certain real property more particularly described in the Lease (the “Premises”). Capitalized terms used in this Amendment without definition shall have the meanings set forth in the Lease. B. Lessor and Lessee now desire to, among other things, further amend the Lease to correct the legal description of the Premises, extend the term of the Lease, and modify the rent provisions with respect to a portion of the Premises. NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree to amend the Lease as follows: 1. Modification of Legal Description of Premises. The parties acknowledge that the legal description of the Premises as set forth in the Lease is inaccurate in certain respects. Specifically, the Lease, as amended on January 18, 2000, depicts those portions of the Premises that constitute the "Park" and those portions of the Premises that constitute the "Depot." However, there is a conflict in the exhibits to the Lease in that a small strip of land is depicted as part of the "Park" on Exhibit H-2 to the Lease (as that exhibit was amended on January 18, 2000), but this small strip of land is not included as part of the "Park" in the legal description of the Premises (as that description was amended on January 18, 2000). The parties desire to correct this discrepancy in accordance with their prior intention to include this small strip of land as part of the "Park." To that end, the correct description of the Premises, which hereby amends all prior legal descriptions, plats and other maps, consists of the following: (a) the Premises, as more particularly described on the attached Exhibit 1; (b) that portion of the Premises more particularly 120308 jb 0130941 described on the attached Exhibit 2 (the “Park Parcel”); and (c) that portion of the Premises more particularly described on the attached Exhibit 3 (the "Depot Parcel"). 2. Extension of Lease Term. The term of the Lease as to the Park Parcel only is hereby extended to June 30, 2042. Such extension shall not apply to the Depot Parcel. The term of the Lease as to the Depot Parcel only shall expire on June 30. 2033, unless Lessee terminates the Lease as to the Depot Parcel as provided in Section 2 of the Fifth Amendment to Lease dated as of January 18, 2000. 3. Depot Rent. The agreements stated in this paragraph shall apply notwithstanding the terms and conditions of Section II of the Fourth Amendment to Lease dated as of July 31, 1981 (the “Fourth Amendment”). Lessor and Lessee hereby agree that the rent for the Depot Parcel to be paid on September 28, 2012 shall be in the amount of $160,000 (the “2012 Rent”). Lessor and Lessee further agree that, in the event Lessee elects not to exercise its option to terminate the Lease as to the Depot Parcel as of February 26, 2013, the rent for the Depot Parcel to be paid on September 28, 2013 shall be based on the 2012 Rent, as adjusted based on the increase, if any, between the Consumer Price Index published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose Area, All Urban Consumers, All Items) (“CPI”) in effect as of September 2012 and the CPI in effect as of September 2013 (the “2013 Rent”). Lessor and Lessee further agree that, in the event Lessee elects not to exercise its option to terminate the Lease as to the Depot Parcel as of February 26, 2013, the rent adjustment next due pursuant to the Fourth Amendment for the lease year commencing on July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015 shall be made in accordance with the Fourth Amendment, and the 2012 Rent and 2013 Rent shall not be the basis for such adjustment. Lessor and Lessee further agree that, in the event Lessee elects to exercise its option to terminate the Lease as of February 26, 2013, the 2013 Rent shall be pro-rated through February 26, 2013, but Lessee will not be obligated to pay any portion of the pro-rated 2013 Rent to Lessor, provided that the sublessee of the Depot Parcel pays the full amount of the 2013 Rent directly to Lessor. 4. Grant of Easement. Lessor and Lessee are the parties to that certain Grant of Reservoir Easements dated as of January 20, 2009 and recorded January 29, 2009 as Document No. 20114059 in the Official Records of Santa Clara County, California (the “Reservoir Easement”), pursuant to which Lessor granted to Lessee certain easements in connection with Lessee’s development of a reservoir underneath a portion of the Park Parcel. In addition to the easements granted pursuant to the Reservoir Easement, Lessee has identified the need for an additional access easement across the Depot Parcel (the “Access Easement”) that was not included in the Reservoir Easement. Lessee has indicated that it will require this Access Easement once the Lease expires as to the Depot Parcel, or if the Lease is terminated as to the Depot Parcel before that time. Lessor and Lessee hereby agree that they will execute the Access Easement, substantially in the form of the attached Exhibit 4, prior to the expiration or termination of the Lease as to the Depot Parcel, whichever occurs first. 5. Effect of Amendment. As modified by this Amendment, the Lease shall remain in full force and effect. 6. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which together shall constitute one original of the Lease. 120308 jb 0130941 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lessor and Lessee have executed this Lease as of the date first above written. LESSOR: THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY By: Its: LESSEE: CITY OF PALO ALTO, a municipal corporation ____________________________ Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney APPROVED: __________________________ City Manager 120308 jb 0130939 ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ) County of ____________________ ) On ____________________ before me, ____________________ (insert here name and title of the officer), personally appeared ____________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature: ____________________ Place Notary Seal Above ~B kf ENGINEERS! SURVEYORS ' PLAlmEJtS Park Parcell EXHffiITl Legal Description PARK & DEPOT PARCELS March 5,2012 BKF No. 20126006 Page I of 7 Real property in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara. State of California, described as follows: Being a portion of the lands of The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of California, described as follows: Being also a portion of the lands described as EI Camino Park, in that cellain Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto on February 26, 1973 by Resolution No. 4709, recorded February 28. 1973 in Book 257 at Page 281, Official Records of Santa Clara County and the lands described in that certain Director's Deed (Quitclaim), from State of California to The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, recorded March 29, 2004 as Document No. 17686571, Official Records of said County, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the most westerly comer of the Palo Alto Station Grounds, as said Station Grounds is described in that certain Easement from Leland Stanford to Southern Pacific Railroad Company, dated November 23. 1892 and recorded October 28,1915 in Volume 435 of Deeds at Page 244, Records of Santa Clara County, said comer being also the most northerly comer of the lands described as Parcel No.2 in that certain Sublease between City of PaJo Alto, a municipal corporation of the State of California and Southern Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation, recorded October 30, 1939 in Book 951 at Page 580, Official Records of Santa Clara County; Thence leaving said comer and along the general southwesterly line of said Parcel' No.2 (951 O.R. 580), the following two (2) courses and distances: l) South 16°12'28" East, 143.13 feet; 2) South 50°40'30" East, 136.47 feet to the most northerly comer of that certain parcel of land described in that certain Assignment and Assumption of Sublease, between the City of Palo Alto and The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, recorded February 28.2000 as Document No. 15163824, Official Records of Santa Clara County; Thence leaving said comer and along the northwesterly and southwesterly lines of said Sublease (Doc. 15163824), the following two (2) courses and distances: 1) South 39°19'30" West, 120.00 feet; 2) South 50Q40'30" East, 200.00 feet to the northwesterly line of that certain parcel of land described in that certain Assignment and Assumption of Sublease. between the City of Palo Alto and The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, recorded February 28,2000 as Document No. 15163822, Official Records of said County; Thence along said northwesterly line and the southwesterly lines of said Sublease (Doc. 15163822) the following two (2) courses and distances: I) SOLlth 39'>19'30~' West . 15 .00 feet; Legal Description EXHlB1T I -PARK & DEPCT PARCELS Page 2 of7 2) South 50°40'.10" East. 329.02 fecI 10 a point on the northwesterly line of University Avenue, said point being also the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave to the southeaSL having a Radius of 68.00 feet, from the ccnter of said curve a radial line bears North 81 °58'07" V,lest; Thence along said northwesterly line of University Avenue, the following two (2) courses and distimces: I) Southwesterly, along said curve, through a central Angle of 05 v 54'25", for all arc Length of 7.0 I feet to the heginning of a reverse curve, concave to the l1orthwe~t, having a Radius of 33.40 feet , from the center of said curve a radial line bears South SrS2'3T East; 2) SOllthwesterly, along said curve, through a central Angle of 78°21 '21 ", for an arc Length of 45 .68 feet to the northeasterly line orE] Camino Real, being also SlaLe Highway 82; Thence along said llorthca~terly line of El Camino Real, the following eight (8) courses and distances: I) North 50°11 '43" \Vest, 566.13 feet: 2) North 41 "18'51" West, 80.45 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave to the south\\'cst, having a Radius (If 1333 ,00 feet, from the center of said curve a radial line bears North 48° 17 '29" East; 3) Northwesterly, along said curve, through a central Angle ofOW'24'00", for an arc Length of 195.43 feet; 4) North 50"06' J I" West, 171.20 feel: 5) North 44°57'30" West, 898.73 feet; 6) North 40° 14' 44" West, 151.00 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the right, having a Radius of 102.00 feet; 7) Northwesterly, along said curve,through a central Angle of 16°19'30",for an arc Length of 29.06 feet to the beginning of a compound curve, concave to the ~outheasl, having a Radius of 12.00 feet, from the center of said curve a radial I ine bears South 66"04' 46" West; 8) NOl1heasterly, along said curve. through a central Angle of 90°08' 53". for an arc Length of 18.88 feet to a point on the southerly line of Palo Alto A venue, said southerly line is described in that certain exception parcel for said EI Camino Park per Resolution No. 4709 (2:17 O.R. 281), said point being al~o the beginning of a compound curve, concave to the southeast, having a Radius of 182.00 feet, from the center of said curve II radial line bears North 23 °46 '21" West, said point being also hereafter referred to as Point "A"; Thence along said southerly line of Palo Alto Avenue, the following three (3) courses and distances: 1) Easterly along said curve. through a central Angle of 16°34'46", for an arc Length of 52.66 feet; 2) North 82°48'25" East, 64.12 feet; 3) North 8S n41 '34" East, 154.45 feet to the southwesterly line of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company right of way: Legal Description EXHIBIT I -PARK & DEPOT PARCELS Page 3 of 7 Thence along said southwesterly line of Southern Pacific Railroad Company right of way, South 50°40'30" East, 514.64 fect to the most westerly comer of the land~ described as Parcel No. J in that ceJtain Sublease between City of Palo Alto. a municipal corporation of the State of California and Southern Pacific Rai Iroad Company. a corporation. recorded October 30. 1939 in Book 951 at Page 580. Official Records of said CoullIy; Thence leaving said comer and along the southwesterly line of said Parcel No.1 (951 O.R. 580). South 45°54' 41 " East, 602.08 feet to the northwesterly line of the lands described as Parcel I A in that certain Quitclaim Deed from Southern Pacific Transportation Company. 11 Delaware corporation 10 The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. recorded August 7, 1981 ill Book G263 at Page 298, Official Records of said County; Thence along said n0l1hwesterly line of said Parcel I A (G263 O.R. 298). South 39°19' 30" West, 60.00 feel to the point of HEG1NNING, Containing an area of9.714 acres, more or less. Being also AssC-';sor' s Parcel Number 120-31-009 per Roll Year 2011-20 J 2. Park Parcel 2 Real properly in the City of PaJo Alto, COlll1ty of Santa Clara. State of CaJifomia, described as follows: Being a portion of the lands of The Board of Tmstees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, a hody having corporate powers under the law~ of the State of California. de~cribed as follows: Being also the lands described as Parcel No. I in that certain Sublease between City of Palo Alto. a municipal corporation of the State of California and Southern Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation, recorded October 30, 1939 in Book 951 at Page 580, Official Records of Santa Clara County. more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the most southerly corner of said Parcel No. I (951 O.R. 580); Thence leaving said corner and along the southeasterly line of said Lands, North 39° 19'30" East, 50.00 feet to a point on the southwesterly line of Southern Pacific Railroad Company right of way, said point being also the most easterly comer of said Parcel No. J; Thence leaving said corner and along said southwesterJy line of Southern Pacific Railroad Company right of way, North 50°40'30" West, 600.00 feet to the most westerly corner of said Parcel No. I; Thence leaving said corner and along the southwesterly line of ~aid Parcel No. I (95 I O.R. 580). South 45°54' 41" East. 602.08 feet to the point of BEGINNING. Containing an area of 0.344 acres. more or less. Being al~o Assessor's Parcel Number 120-31-008 rer Roll Year 20 I 1-2012. Park Parcel 3 Legal Description EXHIBIT I -PARK & DEPOT PARCELS Page 4 of 7 Real property in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described :t!' follows: Being a portion of the lands of The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, a body huving corporate powers under the laws of the State of California, described as follows: Being also a portion of the lnnds described a~ EI Camino Park, in that ce11ain Resolution pa<;sed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto on Febmary 26, 1973 by Resolution No. 4709, recorded Febmary 28, 1973 in Book 257 at Page 281, Official Records of Santa Clara County, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the point hereinabove referred to as Point "A"; Thence leaving said point and along the northeasterly line of EI Camino Real, being also State Highwl1}' 82, North 30°09'09" West. 85 .53 feel to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Thence leaving said point and along said northeasterly line of EJ Cnmino Real. the following two (2) courses and distances: I) North 50°29' 4 I" We~t, 123.49 feet; 2) North 48°30'Or West, 69.11 feet to the center line of San Fr:mcisquito Creek; Thence along said center line of San Francisquito Creek, the following two (2) courses and distances: 1) South 84"S5'30" East, 164.52 feet; 2) North 63°32'30" East, 77.21 fect to the southwc8terly line of Southern Pacific Railroad Company right of way; Thence along said southwesterly line of Southern Pacific Railroad Company right of way, the following two (2) courses and distances: I) Soulh 50°33' 41" East, 7.93 feet; 2) South 50°40' 30" East, 196.25 feet to lhe northerly line of Palo Alto A venue, said northerly line is described in that certain exception parcel for said EI Camino Park per Resolution No. 4709 (257 OK 281); Thence along ~aid northerly line of Palo Alto Avenue, the following 1""'0 (2) courses and distances: 1) South 85°41' 34" v.,lesl. 192.22 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the right, having J Radius of 382.00 feet; 2) Westerly, along said curve. through a central Angle of 07°50'22", for an arc Length of 51.27 feel (0 (he TRlJE POlNT OF BEGINNING of this dc:o;cription. Containing an area of 0.69 I acres, more or les~. Being also Assessor's Parcel Number 120-31-001 per Roll Year 2011-2012. Depot Parcel A Legal Description EXHlBlT J -PARK & DEPOT PARCELS Page 5 of7 Real prOpeJ1y in the City of Palo Alto, COllnty of Santa Clara. State of California, described as follows: Being a portion of the lands of The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, a body having corporate powers under the laws of tile State of CaJifomia. described as follows: Being also the lunds described as Parcel 1 A in that certain Quitclaim Deed from Southern Pacific Transportation Company, a Delaware corporation to The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Unjver~ity, recorded Augu~t 7, 1981 in Book G263 al Page 298, Official Records of Santa Clara County and the lands described as Parcel No.2 in that certain Sublease between City of Palo Alto, a municipal corporation of the Stale of California and Sou(hern Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation, recorded October 30, 1939 in Book 95) at Page 580, Official Records of said County, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point of intersection between the center line of University Avenue and the southwesterly line of the Palo Alto StatiOl) Grounds. as said Station Grounds is described in that certain Easement frorn Leland Stanford to Southem Pacific Railroad Company. dated November D. 1892 and recorded October 28, 1915 in Volume 435 of Deeds at Page 244, Records of Santa Clara County; Thence leaving said point and along: said southwesterly line of said Palo Alto Station Grounds, North 50"40'30" West. 112.08 feet to a point on the northwesterly line of said University AVellue, ~aid point being also the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave to the southeast, having a Radius of 300.00 feet, from the center of said curve a radial line bears North 28°45'32" West, said point being also the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Thence leaving said point and along the general nOr1hwesterly line of said University Avenue, the following two (2) courses and dislances: 3) Northeasterly, along said curve, through a cenlral Angle of 1]°55'52", for an arc Length of 62.47 feci to the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave to the sOllthwest, having a Radius of 189.00 feel, from the center of said curve a radial line bears North 13°18'04" East; 4) Southeasterly. along said curve, through a central Angle of 10°55'44", for all arc Length of 36.05 feet to a point. said point being at the illlersection of a line drawn 50.00 feet northwesterl)', right angle measurement, from said center line of University Avenue; Thence leaving said point and parallel with said cenler line of University Avenue, North 39°59' 30" East, 2.24 feet to the most easterly comer of said Parcell A (G263 O. R. 298); Thence leaving said corner and along the nOl1heasterly line of said Parcell A, North 50°40'30" West, 847.79 feet to the most northerly comer of said Parcel I A (G263 O.R. 298); Thence leaving said corner ant! along the northwesterly line of said Parcell A. South 39°19'30" West, 70.00 feet to the most northerly corner of said Parcel No.2 (951 O.R. 580), said corner being also the most westerly corner of said Palo Alto Station Grounds (435 Deeds 244); Legal Description EXHlBlT 1 -PARK & DEPOT PARCELS Page 6 of7 Thencc leaving said corner and along the gelleral southwesterly linc of said Parcel NO.2 (951 0.1<.580), the following fi\c (5) courses and distances: I) SOUTh 16°12'28" East, 143.13 feet; 2) South 50"40' 30" East. 420.98 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the left, having a Radius of 13.64 feet; 3) Northeasterly. along sCiid curve, through a central Angle of 90°00'00", for an arc Length of 21.43 feet to the beginning of l:I reverse curve, concave to the southeast, having a Radius of 13.64 feel, from the center of said curve a radial line bears North 50°40'30" West; 4) Southeasterly. along said curve, through a central Angle of 90"00'00", for an arc Length of 21.43 feer; 5) South 50°40' 30" Ea"t, 202.67 feet to a point on said northwesterly line of said University Avenue, said point beillg also the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave to the southeast, having a Radius of 300.00 feet, frol11 the center of said curve a radial line bears North 39°28'48" West; Thence northeasterly and along said northwesterly line of said University A venue, along said curve, through a central Angle of 10°43' 16", for an arc Length of 50.14 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGII\'NING of this description. Containing an area of 2.488 acres, more or less. Being also Assessor's Parcel Number 120-31-021 per Roll Year 2011-2012. Depot Parcel B Real property in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: Being a portion of the lands of The Board of Tmsrees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, a body having corporate power~ under the laws of the State of Cajifol11ia, described as follows: Being also the lands described as Parcel I B in that certain Quitclaim Deed from Sourhel11 Pacific Transportation Company. a Delaware corporation to The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, recorded August 7, 1981 ill Book G263 at Page 298, Official Records of Santa Clara County, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point of intersection between the center line of University Avenue and the :;outhwesterly line of the Palo Alto Station Grounds, as said Station Grounds is desclibed in that certain Easement from Leland Stanford to Southern Pacific Railroad Company, dated November 23, 1892 and recorded October 28, 1915 in Volume 435 of Deeds at Page 244, Records of Santa Clara County; Thence leaving said point and along said southwesterly line of said Palo Alto Station Grounds, South 50°40' 3~'' East, 113.68 feet to a point on the southeasterly line of said UniverSity Avenue. said point being also the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Legal Description EXHIBIT I -PARK & DEPOT PARCELS Page 7 of7 Thl!nce leaving said point and along the soulhwe~{erly line of said Parcel 1 B (G263 O.R. 298). said line being also the nOJtheasterly line of Parcel 2 of Lot 38, as shown on that certain map entitled "Survey of Lots 37 and 38. Stanford University Lands. Palo Alto. California", dated August 1955, Sheet 2 of 2, prepared by Lawrence G. Blian, Civil Engineer. South 50°40'30" East, 16J .50 feet to the most southerly corner of said Parcel I B: Thence leaving said northeasterly line of Parcel 2 of Lot 38, NOlth 39° 19'30" East, 76.00 feet to the most easterly corner of said Parcel I B; Thence leaving said comer and along the general northeasterly line of said Parcel I B (G263 o.R. 298), the following three (3) courses and distances: I) North 50°40'30" West, 94.50 feet; 2) South 39°19'30" West, 26.00 feet; 3) North 50°40'30" West, 95.74 feet to a poim on said southeasterly line of said University Avenue, said point being also the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave to the northwest, having a Radius of 380.00 feet, from the center of &aid curve a radial line bears South 84°55' 18" East; Thence southwesterly, along said curve, through a central Angle of 08°42'16", for an arc Length of 57.73 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description. Containing an area of 0.257 acres, more or less. Being also Assessor's Parcel Number 120-32-012 per Roll Year 2011-2012. Park Parcels 1,2 & 3; and Depot Parcels A & B, as shown on plat entitled "EXHmIT 1" attached hereto and made a part hereof. This description was prepared by me or under my direct supervision. BKF Engineers ~~A John Koroyan, P.L.S. License expires 12-31-2013 Dated LEGEND 0 100 200 400 POINT OF BEGINNING I I---I I----~I P.D.B. T.P.D.B. TRUE: POINT OF BEGINNING I ~ ALMA STREET (SCALE IN FEET) . ~ ~ .----........: Ui ~ ~ UNIVERSITY A 'IE. UNDERPASS PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD (FORMERL Y SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAlLROAD COMPANY) \i~./ T.P.O.B. FOR-) 'Jf> /' DEPOT PARC£L B DEPOT PARCEL A P.D.B. I I ?'O':' i.~") 0.257 ACR£S:/; N50'40'30"W 847.79' ~ I r. /' L27 APN 120-.12-012 NJ. ~\~ I I ' l29 len I~ DEPOT PARCEl. A -~?!!1!!"w if ..L' ..L '1X ~ I~ APN 120-.12-023 2..48B ACRES:f: \R) ".... -l ..,g~~~_",-______ _ APN 120-31-021 '!> L23 . ~O/'-L24 ~L25 , • , (J' \'%.).. S50'40 30 E 420.98 :*~ ~ ~ .-. kI T.P.O.B. FOR L2 (,\ \~ \~I (;;::i DEPOT PARCEL B 4J RED CROSS MacARTHUR PARK LEASE: ~~ \($). Q:: ~ I.Li PARK PARCEL 1 ~ LEASE DOC. 15163822 ~,$-LLi LiJ PARCEl. 2 OF LOT .18 (fj 9.714 ACRES± DOC. 1516.3824 III APN 120-31-010 ~ I ~ ~:s APN 120-J2-006 APN 120-31-009 -J ?J jY.;Q <: ~ L4 S50·40'30·£ J2g.02'/1~ \Z-·I ~;:j ~ LINE TABLE CJ .~( L6 ,-' N5011'43 W 566.13' I UNE BEARING LENGTH ~/1!? £L CAMINO R,'~ L1 51612'28"£ 143.1J' 1"-/ 'C (STATE HIGHWAY af)AL .r~/ L2 S50'40'.10"[ 1J6.47' --,-..... -~,_ Jrf.' ~ LJ 539"9'30"W 120.00' ., $' ~ L4 550'40'30"[ 200.00' "'-~ "/ L5 5J9"19'30"W 15.00' o L6 N4t1B'5'''W 80.45' It: CURVE: TABL£ LlI 5J9"19'30·W 60.00' )... L20 N50'4Q'30"W 112.08' ~ CURVE RADIUS DEl. TA LENGTH ~ C1 68.00' 05'54'25" 7.01' L21 NJ9'59'JO"£ 2.24' ~ C2 33.40' 78'27'21" 45.68' L22 5J9.,9'30-W 70.00' ;:j x.~ .1!!!E. SII L2J 550'40'30"£ 202.67' O .".<" '.?'" CJ 1J33.00' 08'24'00" 195.43' c,"<,~ <".... L24 550'40'30"[ 11J.68' ::; JOHN ~ C10 300.00' 11'55'52" 62,47' L25 S50'4(J'JO"E 161.50' Cl1 189.00' 10'55'44" J6.05' ~ KOROYAN L.. C12 13.64' 90'00'00· 21.43' L26 N3919'30"[ 76.00' J" CT3 ' 13.64' 90'00'00" 21.43' L27 N50'4Q'30"W 94.50' C14 JOO.OO' 10'43'16" 56.14' L2B 5J919'.10·W 26.00' C15 J80.00' 08'42"6" 57.73' L29 N50'4Q'30"W 95.74' I PALO ALTO. SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CAUf'ORNIA K: \SUR12\126006\DWG\PLA1S\PARK de DEPOT PARCELS PLAT.dwg Bkf _II rw".- 1650 TECHNOLOGY ORNE SUITE 650 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 408-467 -9100 406-467-9199 (FAX) L.1O NJ919'JO"[ 50.00' EXHIBIT "1" PLA T TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRJPllON ~ Subject PARK AND DEPQT PARCELS LANDS OF LELAND ST ANF'ORD JUN I OR UN I V , Job No. 20126006 By JG Date 03-05-12 Chkd. JVK SHEET 1 OF 3 0 100 200 400 ::,: 'C( (SCALE IN FEET) ~ :> ~ .q: 'C( ~ I:: :c=: ~ ~ ~ ..q;: ~ J: lLJ -.I ALMA STREET P£NINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD (FORMERL Y SOUTHERN PACIFIC PARK PARCEL 2 RAILROAD COMPANY) 0,3# ACR£S± --. .-N50'40'30"W 500.00' APN 120-31-008 ... -=~~zae:==~~~~;;;;~~~::~~~~~~::~~N~50~~~0~~~0~"~W~B~4~7~.7~9~'~~ __ ===-~ "'> 545"54'41 E 602.08 ..... DEPOT PARCEL A _N.J9 "28'4IrW ~ P.O.B. FOR 2.488 ACRES± (RJ -'"'\ IJ..j PARK PARCEL 2 APN 120-31-021 ~ v,":>'R=o....,.,;;;;; ............. iJII VI P.O.B. FOR 550"40'30"E 420.9B' PARK PARC£L 1 """==z!OO:=L2~~';;;";;=-"";';;;iBiiii=r-""'~v'''V W PARK PARCEL 1 RED CROSS MacARTHUR PARK LEASE (fj 9.714 ACRES:!: :J LEASE DOC. 15163B22 APN 120-31-009 DOC. 15163824 10 APN 120-JI-01O L7 STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS DELTA LENGTH C3 13.3.3.00' OB'2·f.'OO" 195.43' C10 JOO.OO' 11'55'52" 62.47' C72 1J.64· 90'00'00· 21.43' CI3 13.64' 90iJO'OO" 21.4.3' C14 JOO.OO' 10'43'16" 55.14' LEGEND P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING -..l L4 550'40'30·£ 329.02' N50il'4J"W 566.1.3' £L CAMINO R£ (STAl[' HIGHWAY B2)AL rp---___ UN£ TABLE UNE BEARING LENGTH L1 516'12'28"£ 143.1.3' L2 S50'4Q'30M£ 136.47' L3 53919'JO"W 120.00' L4 550'40'30·£ 200.00' L5 539i9'30·W 15.00' L6 N41iB'Sl"W 80AS' L7 N50'06'J1·W 177.20' L11 S39i9'30·W 60.00' l2J . 550'40'30"£ 202.67' LJO N39i9'30"E 50.00' .~/ til ~/ ~~ ~~ ~/ .... ..... ttl Vi ~ ~ PALO ALTO, 5ANTA CLARA COUNTY. CAUFORNIA EXHIBI T "1" K: \SUR12\126006\DWG\PLATS\PARK de DEPOT PARCELS PLAT.dwg 1650 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE SUITE 650 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 408-467 -9100 408-467-9199 (FAX) PLA T TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION Subject PARK AND DEPOT PARCELS LANDS orLEIANDSTANFORD JUNIOR UNIV, Job No. 20126006 By JG Date 03-05-12 Chkd, JVK SHEET 2 OF 3 ---IE CURVE: TABLE ~ \ z CURVE RADIUS DEL TA LENGTH ~ ~ \0 8 ...... C6 102.00' 1619'30· 29.06' 0 fl:: I-.-\..)«-1<_ 12.00' 90V8'S.3" 18.8B' 0 Q. \ '<t fl:: .... C7 CB C9 182.00' 16'34'46" 52.66' \::! 3 \3 dO .382.00' 07'50'22· 52.27' ~ ~ ~ « ~ Z I 'Z<' § "" 0l}j e <3 ~/ "'-, <. R/'~ Q.. ~/t I ~ __________________ ~ irr PARK PARCEL J 0.691 ACRES± ALMA STREET APN 120-.31-001 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POYtf:RS BOARD I rFORMERL Y SOUTHERN PAClnc RAILROAD COMPANY) I L17 PARK PARCEl. 1 9.714 ACRES± APN 120-.31-009 --.. - ~ I-~ Vj T.P.O.B. FOR N44'S730 W 436.48' VI ~;;'~L8~~~ __ ~~~~~~~~ __________ ~~ PARK PARCeL 3 £L CAMINO -------f--------____ -r-----________ ~(~:A:T:£~H~IGH~W~A~yR~8~~~A=L~ __________ ___ Qj ~ STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER LEGEND 'C ;J :t: ~ ~ T,P.O.B. TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING (SCALE IN FEET) PALO ALTO. SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CAUFORNIA K:\5UR12\126006\DWG\PLATS\PARK & DEPOT PARCELS PLAT.dwg 1650 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE SUITE 650 SAN JOSE, CA 951 10 408-467-9100 408-467-9199 (FAX) 400 UNE La L9 L10 L12 L1.3 L14 U5 U6 U7 UB L19 LINE TABLE BEARING LENGTH N4-014'44"W 151.00' NB2 '48'25 "E 64.12' N85'41'J4"E 154.45' N.301J9'09·W 85.53' N50"29'41·W 12J.49' N48'JO'02·W 69.11' SB4'5S'.30u£ 164.52' N6J',32'30"£ 77.21' 550'3,3'41 N£ 7.9J' 550'40'.30·£ 196.25' S8S'41'J4uW 192.22' EXHIBIT "1 II PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION subb'ect PARK AND DEPOT PARCELS LAN S OF LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIV, Job No. 20126006 By JG Dote 03-05-12 Chkd, JVK SHEET :3 OF 3 ~B F ENGIIIEUS; SURVEYORS ! PLAHNfftS Park Parcell EXHIBIT 2 Legal Description PARK PARCELS March 5, 2012 BKF No. 20126006 Page 1 of 5 Real property in the City of Palo Alto, County of Sania Clara, State of California, described as follows: Being a portion of the lands of The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of California. described as follows: Being also a portion of the lands described as El Camino Park. in that certain Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto on February 26. 1973 by Resolution No. 4709. recorded February 28, 1973 in Book 257 at Page 281. Official Records of Santa Clara County and the lands described in that certain Director's Deed (Quitclaim), from State of Califomia to The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. recorded March 29. 2004 as Document No. 17686571, Official Records of said County, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the most westerly corner of the Palo Alto Station Grounds, as said Station Grounds is described in that certain Easement from Leland Stanford to Southern Pacific Railroad Company. dated November 23,1892 and recorded October 28,1915 in Volume 435 of Deeds at Page 244, Records of Santa Clara County, said comer being also the most northerly comer of the lands desclibed as Parcel No.2 in that certain Sublease between City of Palo Alto, a municipal corporation of the State of California and Southern Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation, recorded October 30, 1939 in Book 951 at Page 580, Official Records of Santa Clara County; Thence leaving said comer and along the general southwesterly line of said Parcel No. 2 (951 O.R. 580), the following two (2) courses and distances: 1) South 16°12'28" East, 143.13 feet; 2) South 50°40'30" East, 136.47 feet to the most northerly comer of that certain parcel of land descLibed in that certain Assignment and Assumption of Sublease. between the City of Palo Alto and The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, recorded February 28.2000 as Document No. J 5163824, Official Records of Santa Clara County; Thence leaving said comer and along the northwesterly and southwesterly lines of said Sublease (Doc. 15163824), the following two (2) courses and distances: 1) South 39°19'30" West, 120.00 feet; 2) South 50°40'30" East, 200.00 feet to the northwesterly line of that certain parcel of land described in that certain Assignment and Assumption of Sublease, between the City of Palo Alto and The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, recorded February 28, 2000 as Document No. 15163822, Official Records of said County; Thence along said northwesterly line and the southwesterly lines of said Sublease (Doc. 15163822) the following two (2) courses and distances: I) South 39° 19' 30" West. 15.00 feet: Legal Description EXHIBIT 2 -PARK PARCELS Page 2 of 5 2) South 50°40'30" East. 329.02 feet to a point on the nOl1llwesterly linc of University Avenue, said point heing also the beginning of a non-tangent CllJ'YC, concave to the southeast. having a Radius of 68.00 feet, from the center of said curve a radial line bears North 8J °58'07" \Vest; Thence along said northwesterly line of University Avenue, the following two (2) COurses and dblance~: J) Southwesterly, along said ClIrve, through a centra) Angle of 05"54 '25", for an arc Length of 7.01 feet to the beginning of a reverse curve, concave to the northwest, having a Radius of :'3.40 feet, from the center of said curve a radial line bears South 87°52'32" East; 2) Southwesterly, along said curve, through () central Angle of 78°21 '21 ", for an arc Length of 45 .68 feet to the northeasterly line of EI Camino Real, being also State Highway 82; Thence along said northeasterly line of PI Camino Real, the following eight (8) courses and distances: 1) North 50"11 '43" West, 56613 feet; 1) North 41°18'5J" West, 80,45 fcet to the beginning of a non-tangent curvc, concave to the southwest. having a Radius of 13.13 .00 feet, from the center of said curve a radial line bears North 48° 17'29" East: 3) Northwesterly, along said curve. through il central Angle of 08°24'00", for an arc Length of 195 .43 feet; 4) North 50°06'31" West, 171.20 feet; 5) North 44°57'30" West, 898.73 feet; 6) North 40°14'44" Wcst, 151.00 feet to Ihe beginning of a tangent curve 10 the right , having a Radius of 102.00 feet; 7) Northwt:sterly, along said curve, through a central Angle of 16° 19' 30", for an arc Length of 29.06 feet to the beginning of a compound curve, concave to the southea~t, having a Radius of 12.00 feet, from the center of said curve a radial line bears South 66"04'46" West; 8) Northeasterly, along said curve, through a central Angle of 90u08'53", for an arc Length of 18.88 feet to (J point on the southerly line of Palo Alto Avenue, said southerly line is described in that certain exception parcel for said EI Camino Park per Resolution No, 4709 (257 O.R. 28]), said point being ~lIso the beginning of a compound curve, concave to the southeast. having a Radius of 182.00 feet, from the center of said curve a radial line bears North 23"46' 21 " West, said poi nt bei ng also hereafter refen-cd to as Point "A"; Thence along said southerly line of Palo Alto Avenue, the following three (3) courses and distances: 1) Easterly along said curve, through a centra! Angle of 16°34'46", for an arc Length of 52.66 feet ; 2) North 82°48'25" East, 64.12 feet; 3) North ~5°41 ' 34" East, 154.45 feet to the southwesterly line of the Southern PacifIC Railroad Company right of way; Legnl Description EXHIBIT 2 -PARK PARCELS Page 3 of 5 Thence along said southwesterly line of Southern Pacific Railroau Company right of way. SOUlh 50"40'30" East, 514.64 feet (0 the most westerly corner of the lands described as Parcel No.1 in that certain Sublease between City of Palo Alto, a municipal corporation of the State of Califomia and Southern Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation. recorded October 30, 1939 in Book 951 at Page 580, Orfil:ial Records of said Coullty; Thence leaving said corner and along the southwesterly line of said Parcel No.1 (95 I O.R 580), South 45°54'41" East, 602.08 feet to the northwesterly line of the lands de~crjbed as Parcel IA in that certain Quitclaim Deed from Southern Pacific Transportation Company, a Delaware corporation to The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, recorded August 7, 1981 in Book G263 at Page 298, Official Records of said County; Thence along said nOJ1hwestcrly line of said Parcel 1 A (G263 O.R. 298), South 39° 19' 30" West, 60.00 feet to the pOInt of BEGINNING. Containing an area of 9.714 acres, more or le~s. Beillg also Assessor's Parcel Number 120-31-009 per Roll Year 2011-2012. Park Parcel 2 Real property in the City of Pillo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: Being a portion of the lands of The Board of Trustee$ of the Leland Stanford Junior University, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of California, described as follows: Being also the lands described as Parcel No.1 in that certain Sublease between City of Palo Alto, a municipal corporation of the State of California and Southern Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation, recorded October 30, 1939 in Book 951 at Page 580, Official Records of Santa Clara County, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the most southerly comer of said Parcel No.1 (951 O.R. 580); Thence leaving said comer and along the southeasterly line of said Lands, North 39°19'30" East, 50.00 feet to a point on the~outhwesterly line of Southern Pacific Railroad Company right of way, said point being also the most easterly corner of said Parcel No. I; Thence leaving said comer and along said southwesterly line of Southern Pacific Railroad Company right of way, North 50°40'30" West, 600,00 fet:! to the most westerly comer of said Parcel No.1; Thence leaving said corner and along the southwesterly line of said Parcel No.1 (951 O.R. 580), South 45°54'41" East, 602.08 feet to the point of BEGINNING. Containing an area of 0.344 acres, more or less. Being also Assessor's Parcel Number 120-31-008 per Roll Year 2011-2012. Park Parcel :I Legal Description EXHlBIT 2 -PARK PARCELS Puge <.\ of 5 Real property in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: Being a portion of the lands of The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, a body having corporate power~ under (he laws of the State of California, described as follows: Being all'o a portion of the lands described as El Camino Park, in thai cel1ain Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council o[ the City of Palo A Ito on FeblUary 26, 1973 by Resolution No. 4709, recorded February 28. 1973 in Book 257 at Page 281, Official Records of Santa Clara County. more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the point hereinabove referred to as Point "A"; Tnence leaving said point and along the northeasterly line of EI Camino Real, being also State Highway 82, North 30"09'09" Wesl , 85.53 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Thence leaving said point and along said northeasterly line of EI Camino Real, the following I wo (2) courses and distances: 1) North 50c 29' 41" VI.'esl, 123.49 feet; 2) North 48"30'02" West, 69.11 fect to the center line of San Francisquito Creek; Thence along said center line of San Francisquito Creek, the following two (2) courses and distances: 1) South 84c 55'30" East, 164.52 feet; 2) North 63"32'30" East, 77.21 feet to the southwe~terly line of Southem Pacific Railroad Company right of way; Thence along said southwesterly line of Southem Pacific Railroad Company right of way, the following two (2) courses and distances: I) SOllth 50°33'41" East, 7.93 feet; 2) South 50"40' 30" East, 196.25 feet to the northerly line of Palo Alto Avenue, said northerly line is described in that cel1ain exception parcel for said EI Camino Park per Resolution No. 4709 (257 O.R. 281); Thence along said northerly line of Palo Alto A venue, the following two (2) courses and distances: I) South 85 n 41 '34" West, 192.22 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve 10 the right, having a Radius of 382.00 feet; 2) Weslerly, along said curve, through a central Angle of 07°50'22", for an arc Length of 52.27 fect to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING 01 this description. Containing an area of 0.691 acres, more or less. Being also Assessor's Parcel Number 120-31-001 per Roll Year 2011-2012. Legal Descliption EXHIBIT 2 -PARK PARCELS Page 5 of 5 Park Parcels 1, 2 and 3, as shown on plat entitled "EXHIBIT 2" attached hereto and made a part hereof. This description was prepared by me or under my direct supervision. BKF Engineers J~) John Karoyan, P.L.S. License expires 12-31-2013 Dated LEGEND T.P.O.B. 'TRUE POINT OF" BEGINNING :> ----------,~r__-------____, l: l&J ~ l&J N50'4O'JO"W 600.00' C"I 545'54'-4"-£ 602.08' I-P.O.B. FOR 4J PARK PARCEL 2 ~ (jj ALMA STREET PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PARK PARCEL 2 (F"ORMERL Y SOUTHERN PACIFlC 0.344 ACRES:I: RAILROAD COMPANY) APN 120-31-008 L2 DEPOT PARCEL APN 120-31-021 ttl (j) PARK PARCEL 1 9.714 ACRES± APN 120-31-009 RED CROSS LEASE DOC. 15163824 MacARTHUR PARK LEASE DOC. 15163822 APN 120-31-010 898.7']' L7 L6 ~J-____ L4 N50'l1 43·W 566.13' EL CAMINO R£ (STAT£ HIGHWAY 82) AL UNE TABLE CURVE TABLE UNE BfA RING L1 516'2'28"£ L2 550'40'30"£ LJ S39i9'30"W L4-550'40'30·£ L5 S39i9'30"W L6 N41'lB'S1·W L7 N50"05'Jl"W Ll1 SJ9'19'lO"W L20 NJ919'30"E PALO ALTO, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CAUFORNIA K:\SUR12\126006\DWG\PLATS\BALLPARK PLAT.dwg _f"'iL'_"~ , 650 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE SUITE 650 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 408-467-9100 408-467-9199 (FAX) LENGTH lof.J.13' 136.47' 120.00' 200.00' 15.00' BO,4S' 171.20' 60.00' 50.00' CURVE RADIUS DELTA LENGTH C1 58.00' 05'54'25" 7.01' C2 ll.40· 78'21'21" 45.68' CJ 1333.00' 08'24'00· 195.43' o 100 200 400 I ]a I ! (SCALE IN FEET) EXHIBI T "2" PLA T TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION Sub I eet PARK PARCELS 1, 2 AND 3 LANDs OF LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR~·-U-N-IV-, Job No. 20126006 By JG Date 03=05-12 Chkd. JYK SHEET 1 OF 2 LEGEND P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING PARK PARCEL J 0,691 ACRES± ~ APN 120-31-001 \." ALMA STREET PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POYo£RS BOARD (FORMERL Y SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY) 550'40'30"£ 514.64' -..-N50'40'30"W 600.00' PARK PARCEL 1 9.714 ACR£5± APN 120-31-009 I-~ ~ .---------------~~~~~7Y----~--~J~~ T.P.O.B. FOR ~ N44 '57'30 W 898.73' (fj ----(----___ PARK PARCEL 3 £L CAMINO R jr----------------____________ ~(~~~A~n~HJ~G:HW~A~Y~B~f'~)A~L~ ______ __ STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER LINE TABLE CURVE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH CURVE RADIUS DELTA LENGTH LB N4-0'14'4-4"W 151.00' CS 102,00' 16'19'30· 29.06' L9 NB2'48'25"£ 64.12' 07 12,00' 90'08'53" 7B.SS' ltD NB5'41'J4"£ 154.45' CB 182,00' 16'34'4-6" 52.66' L12 N30"09'09"W B5.53' CS! 382,00' 07'50'22" 52.27' L13 N50'29'41·W 123.49' L 14 N4B'JO'02"W 69.11' L1S 584'55'30"£ 164.52' U6 N6Y32'JO·£ 77.21' 0 100 200 400 L17 S50'33'41"£ 7.93' ~ I I LtB 550'40'30"'£ 196.25' ilbR_.-. L19 S85'41'J4"W 192.22' I PALO ALTO, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA K: \SUR12\125006\DWG\PLA TS\BALLPARK PLAT.dwg '650 TECHNOLOGY DRIVE SUITE 650 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 408-467-9100 408-467-9199 (FAX) (SCALE IN FEET) EXHIBIT "2" PLA T TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION Subject PAR~ PARCELS 1.2 AND 3 LANDS OF LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIV, Job No. 20126006 By JG Date 03--05-12 Chkd. JVK SHEET 2 OF 2 ~Bkf ENGINEERS' SURVEYORS' PLAIIN£R5 Depot Parcel A EXHIBIT 3 Legal Description DEPOT PARCELS March 5,2012 BKF No. 20126006 Page I of 3 Real property in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: Being a portion of the lands of The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of California, described as follows: Being also the lands described as Parcell A in that certain Quitclaim Deed from Southern Pacific Transportation Company, a Delaware corporation to The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, recorded August 7,198] in Book G263 at Page 298, Official Records of Santa Clara County and the lands described as Parcel No.2 in that certain Sublease between City of Palo Alto, a municipal corporation of the State of California and Southern Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation, recorded October 30, 1939 in Book 951 at Page 580, Official Records of said County, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point of intersection between tile center line of University Avenue and the southwesterly line of the Palo Alto Station Grounds, as said Station Grounds is described in that certain Easement from Leland Stanford 10 Southern Pacific Railroad Company, dated November 23, 1892 and recorded October 28, 19) 5 in Volume 435 of Deeds at Page 244, Records of Santa Clara County; Thence leaving said point and along said southwesterly line of said Palo Alto Station Grounds, North 50°40'30" West, 1] 2.08 feet to a point on the northwesterly line of said University A venue, said point being also the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave to the southeast, having a Radius of 300.00 feet, from the center of said curve a radial line bears North 28°45'32" West, said point being also the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of litis description; Thence leaving said point and along the general northwesterly line of said University Avenue, the following two (2) courses and distances: 1) Northeasterly, along said curve, through a central Angle of 11 °55' 52", for an arc Length of 62.47 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave to the southwest, having a Radius of ) 89.00 feet, from the center of said curve a radial line bears North 13°) 8'04" East; 2) Southeasterly, along said curve, through a central Angle of 10°55'44", for an arc Length of 36.05 feet to a point, said point being at the intersection of a line drawn 50.00 feet northwesterly, right angle measurement, from said center line of University Avenue; Thence leaving said point and parallel with said center line of University Avenue, North 39°59'30" East, 2.24 feet to the most easterly corner of said Parcell A (G263 O.R. 298); Thence leaving said corner and along the northeasterly line of said Parcel I A, North 50°40'30" West, 847.79 feet to the most northerly corner of said Parcell A (G263 O.R. 298); Legal Description EXHIRTT .~ -DEPOT PARCELS Page 2 of 3 Thence leaving said comer and along the northwesterly line of said Parcel I A, South 39° 19' 30" West, 70.00 feet to the most northerly corner of said Parcel No.2 (95 I O.R. 580), said corner being also the most westerly comer of said Palo Alto Station Grounds (435 Deeds 244); Thence leaving said corner and along the general southwesterly line of said Parcel No.2 (951 O.R. 580), the following five (5) courses and distance~: I) South 16°12'28" East, 143.13 feet; 2) South 50°40'30" East, 420.98 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the left, having a Radius of 13.64 feet; 3) N0I1heasterly, along said curve, through a central Angle of 90"00'00", for an afC Length of 21.4:1 feet 10 the beginning of a reverse curve, concave to the southeast, having a Radius of 13.64 feet, from the center of said curve a radial line bears North 50°40' 30" West; 4} Southeasterly, along said curve, through a central Angle of 90°00'00", for an arc Length of 21.43 feet; 5) South 50°40'30" East, 202.67 feet to a point on said northwesterly line of said University Avenue, said point being also the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave to the southeast, having a Radius of 300.00 feet, from the center of said curve a fildial line hears North 39°28'48" Wesl; Thence northeasterly and along ~aid northwesterly line of said University A venue, along said curve, through a central Angle of 10°43'16", for an arc Length of 56.14 fect to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this de~cription. Containing an area of 2.488 acres, more or less, Being also Assessor's Parcel Number 120-31-021 per Roll Year 2011-2012. Depot Parcel B Real property in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: Being a portion of the lands of The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of California, desclibed as follows: Being also the lands described as Parcel IB in that certain Quitclaim Deed from Southem Pacific Transportation Company, a Delaware corporation to The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, recorded August 7, J 981 in Book G263 at Page 298, Official Record~ of Santa Clara County, more purticu larl y de!-icribed as follows: Beginning at a poinl of intersection between the center line of University Avenue and the southwesterly line of the Palo AllO Station Groullds, as said Station Grounds is described in that certain Easement from Leland Stanford to Southern Pacific Railroad Company, dated November 23, J 892 and recorded October 28, 1915 in Volume 435 of Deei'll' at Page 244, Records of Santa Clara County; Legal Description EXH1BIT 3 -DEPOT PARCELS Page 3 of 3 Thence leaving said point and along said southwesterly line of said Palo Alto Station Grounds, South 50°40'30" East, 113.68 feet to a point on the southeasterly line of said University Avenue, said point being also the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Thence leaving said point and along the southwesterly line of said Parcel ) B (0263 O.R. 298), said line being also the northeasterly line of Parcel 2 of Lot 38, as shown on that certain map entitled "Survey of Lots 37 and 38, Stanford University Lands, Palo Alto, Califomia", dated August 1955, Sheet 2 of 2, prepared by Lawrence O. Brian, Civil Engineer, South 50°40'30" East, 161 .50 feet to the most southerl y corner of said Parcel J B; Thence leaving !iaid northeasterly line of Parcel 2 of Lot 38, North 39° 19' 30" East, 76.00 feet to the most easterly comer of said Parcel I B; Thence leaving said corner and along the general northeasterly line of said Parcell B (G263 O.R. 298), the following three (3) courses and distances: I) North 50°40'30" West, 94.50 feet; 2) South 39°) 9' 30" West, 26.00 feet; 3) North 50°40' 30" West. 95.74 feet to a point on said southeasterly line of said University A venue, said point being also the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave to the northwest, having a Radius of 380.00 feet, from the center of said curve a radial line bears South 84°55'18" East; Thence southwesterly. along said curve, through a central Angle of 08°42'16", for an arc Length of 57.73 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description. Containing an area of 0.257 acres, more or less. Being also Assessor's Parcel Number 120-32-0) 2 per Roll Year 20 11-2012. Depot Parcels A and B, as shown on plat entitled "EXHIBIT 3" attached hereto and made a part hereof. This description was prepared by me or under my direct supervision. BKF Engineers John Koroyan, P.L.S. License expires 12-31-2013 ;11 A-Il.CJf 5> J "t 0 /'2 , Dated LEGEND P.D.B. POINT OF BEGINNING T.P.D.B. TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING :> ~~----------------, I:: l&J ~ l&J ALMA STREET PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POMJ?S BOARD (FORMERL Y SOUTHERN PACIF1G RAILROAD COMPANY) ... 1\'<'86 ..-~~j-< .. N50'40'30·W 847.79' (R) '" 11- DEPOT PARCEL A IV. \.. ~ 2.488 ACRES± -;;r£.~48 .. w ..... APN 120-31-021 h (R) 1.5 -l1 550'40'30"£ 420.98' C/i;+:-_ ..... __ ~rIItI "'-----..--R-""" ..... CR-O .. S-S ..... -.....;'..c;> T.P.O.B. FOR r:.'LEAs£ DEPOT PARCEL A PARK PARCEl... APN 120-31-009 DOC. 15163824 MacARTHUR PARK LEASE DOC. J5163822 APN 120-31-010 cL CAMINO R (STATE HIGHWAY 82.~AL NIVCRSITY AVE. UNDERPASS DEPOT PARCEL B 0.257 ACRES± APN 120-32-012 APN 120-32-023 PARca 2 OF LOT .1B APN 120-32-006 CURVE: TABL£ LINE TABLE CURVE: RADIUS DELTA LENGTH Cl 300.00' 11'55'52" C2 789.00' 10'55'44" C.1 103.64' 90'00'00· G4 13.64' 90'00'00· C5 0300.00' 10'4.1'16" CB 0380.00' 08'42'16" o 100 200 400 I " ! (SCALE IN FEET) PALO AL TO, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CAUFORNIA K: \5UR12\126006\DWG\PLA75\D£POT PLA T.dwg 62.47' 36.05' 21.43' 21.43' 56.14' 57.7J' UNE L1 L2 L.1 L4- L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 LtD Ll1 1650 TECHNOLOGY ORNE SUITE 650 _'.SIUm- SAN JOSE, CA 951 10 408-467-9100 408-467-9199 (FAX) BEARING 550'40'30"E N.19'59'JO"E SJ919'30·W 51612'28"£ 550'40'30"£ 550'40'30"£ 550'40'30"£ NJ919'30"£ N50'40'30"W S3919'30"W N50'40'30"W LENGTH 112.08' 2.24' 70.00' 143.13' 202.67' 113.68' 161.50' 76.00' 94.50' 26.00' 95,74' EXHIBIT "3" PLA T TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL D£SCRIPTION Subject DEPOT PARCELS A AND B LANDS OF LELAND STANFORD JUNIQR UNIV, Job No. 20126006 By JG Dote 03-05-12 Chkd. JVK SHEET 1 OF 1 120308 jb 0130941 EXHIBIT 4 This document is recorded for the benefit of the City of Palo Alto and is entitled to be recorded free of charge in accordance with Section 6103 of the Government Code. After Recordation, mail to: Office Of The City Attorney City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 GRANT OF ACCESS EASEMENT For good and valuable consideration, receipts and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of California (“Grantor”), hereby grants to the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered city and municipal corporation (“Grantee”), an easement, as further defined below, in, on, under, along and across the real property of Grantor, as more particularly described in Exhibit ___ attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Parcel”), for the purpose of accessing facilities related to the operation, inspection, maintenance, repair, and replacement an underground water storage and distribution system located on the Parcel. In furtherance of the foregoing, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Grant of Easement. Grantor HEREBY GRANTS to Grantee an easement for ingress to and egress from the Parcel in the area more particularly described in Exhibit ___ and depicted in Exhibit ___ each of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Easement Area”). 2. Reservation of Grantor’s Rights. Subject to Grantee’s rights under that certain lease dated June 10, 1915, as amended by that certain Amendment to Lease dated June 29, 1971, and by that certain Second Amendment to Lease dated February 26, 1973, and by that certain Third Amendment to Lease dated March 31, 1981, and by that certain Fourth Lease Amendment dated July 31, 1981, and by that certain Fifth Amendment to Lease dated January 1, 2000 (collectively, the “Lease”), Grantor reserves the right to use the Easement Area for any purposes which will not interfere with Grantee’s full enjoyment of the rights hereby granted; provided that Grantor shall not erect or construct any building or other structure, drill or operate any well, plant any trees or construct any fence that will interfere with Grantee’s access to and egress from the Easement Area. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Grantee agrees and acknowledges that upon the expiration or earlier termination of the Lease, Grantor may pave the Easement Area and use it for vehicular access, parking and pedestrian walkways. After the 120308 jb 0130941 expiration or earlier termination of the Lease, Grantee shall not make any use of the surface of the Parcel that interferes with Grantor’s use of the Parcel. 3. Incorporation of Prior Grant of Easements. Grantor and Grantee hereby agree that the provisions of Section 2(b), and Sections 5 through 15 of that certain Grant of Easements recorded January 29, 2009 as Document No. 20114059 of the Official Records of Santa Clara County, California are incorporated herein by this reference and shall apply to the Easement Area and this Grant of Access Easement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and Grantee have duly executed this Grant of Reservoir Easements as of this ____ day of ______________, 2012. GRANTOR: THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, a body having corporate powers within the laws of the State of California By: Its: GRANTEE: CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered city and municipal corporation By: City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM By: City Attorney 120308 jb 0130939 ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ) County of ____________________ ) On ____________________ before me, ____________________ (insert here name and title of the officer), personally appeared ____________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature: ____________________ Place Notary Seal Above 120308 jb 0130939 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE This is to certify that the interest in real property created by the Grant of Access Easement dated _____________, 2012, by THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, as Grantor, to the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered city and municipal corporation as Grantee, is hereby accepted by order of the City Council by the undersigned officer or agent on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. 4434, of the City of Palo Alto adopted on March 15, 1971, and the Grantee consents to recordation thereof by this duly authorized officer. Dated: _______________, 2012 CITY OF PALO ALTO By: ________________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: City Attorney TO: FROM: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Whitney McNair, Consultant DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: March 14,2012 SuBJECT: Amendment to 1997 Sand Hill Road Development Agreement RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend City Council approval of the proposed amendment to the 1997 Sand Hill Road Development Agreement (Attachment B). BACKGROLTND In 1997 the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University entered into the 1997 Sand Hill Road Development Agreement (Development Agreement) concerning Sand Hill Road Projects, including Stanford West Apartments; Stanford West Senior Housing; Stanford Shopping Center Expansion; a collection of various roadway improvements; and the creation and annexatiol1 of a small parcel of property created by the relocation of Pasteur Drive at Sand Hill Road. Area B is located in Santa Clara County and is comprised of 139-acres that the Developmehf Agreement refers to as "Special Condition Area B." The property is within the permitting jurisdiction of Santa Clara County and is regulated under the County's 2000 Stanford Community Plan and General Use Permit (GlTP). Although the area is within the County,the Development Agreement between Stanford and the City of Palo Alto incorporates these parcels. Theproposed application is to remove a 10.2S-acre area from Area B (Attachment C). The Development Agreement prohibits development in a portion of Area B (including the proposed area) until December 31, 2020, except for academic and recreational fields (including the golf course) and associated support facilities .. City of Palo Alto Page 1 The City of Palo Alto has an existing lease with Stanford for the use of EI Camino Park. The current lease expires in June 2033. In June 2011, the City Council directed staff to pursue a long- term lease with Stanford for EI Camino Park beyond the current expiration date. (Attachment E), The 1997 Sand Hill Road Development Agreement has been amended on two previous occasions, in 2001 and 2003. DISCUSSION The City received an application from Stanford University to execute an amendment to the 1997 Sand Hill Road Development Agreement (Attachment D). Section 65868 of the California Government Code and section 8(b) of Palo Alto Resolution No. 6597 (Mar. 9, 1987), provide that a development agreement may be amended by mutual consent of the parties to the agreement. The application is to remove a 10.25-acre site from Special Condition Area B, and to extend the lease of the approximately 10-acre EI Camino Park, from June 30,2033, to June 30,2042 (Attachment C). Except for a snlall piece of land located in the northwest conler of Area B proposed for removal from the Development Agreement, the Property is located within the portion of Area B where the Development Agreement currently allows housing. Except for this small piece of land, the City of Palo Alto already has approved development on the Property, and the requested amendment to the Development Agreement would change only the type of developnlent that is allowed under the Agreement -from housing to academic and support uses. With respect to the small piece of land that is within the non-housing portion of Area B, the requested amendment to the Development Agreement would merely allow Stanford to accelerate the development of academic and support uses in advance of the December 31, 2020 date. The Property is within the Academic Growth Boundary and the Academic Campus land use designation, which allows the development of academic facilities and support uses. Removal of the Property from Area B would not result in any changes to either the Community Plan or GlJP, which both would continue to apply to the Property in full force. By removing the Property from Area B, the City is not approving or authorizing any development on the Property; such development will remain subject to County review and approval. Stanford University is considering this site for a new energy center to replace the campus' Cardinal Cogeneration energy facility. The new energy center is an inlportant part of Stanford's long-range Energy and Climate Plan, which is designed to increase energy efficiency while reducing the environmental impacts associated with supplying energy to the Stanford campus. Stanford is still in the planning process and has not yet proposed a specific project for the County's approval. The energy facility is not part of this application and is not part of the Commission's review. The City leases land from Stanford along EI Camino Real that is improved with EI Camino Park City of Palo Alto Page 2 and other facilities. In June 2011, the City Council, while discussing improvenlents to the ball field, directed staff to see if Stanford would consider extending the lease on EI Camino Park (Attachment E). The current lease expires in June 2033. Stanford is proposing that in exchange for releasing approximately 10-acres from Area B nine years early (currently the restriction is until 2020), they will extend the approximately 10-acre EI Camino Real Park lease nine years, from 2033 to 2042. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Extension of the EI Camino Park lease is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with recent Council direction to pursue such an extension. RESOURCE IMPACT: This amendment will not have a financial impact on the City. TIMELINE The City Council is scheduled to review this application at their meeting of April 9, 2012. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The County of Santa Clara certified an Environmental Impact Report in December 2000 for the Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit (GUP). The GUP EIR is a program-level EIR that addresses the impacts of developing Stanford's lands within the Academic Growth Boundary (AGB) established by the County's Conlmunity Plan. The City's approval of the proposed amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts than were disclosed and evaluatedin the GUP EIR because the City's approval would not change any of the terms and conditions of the Community Plan and GUP that govemdevelopment of the 10-acre site, which have been evaluated in the GUP EIR. At most, the City's approval would merely accelerate the development of academic support uses on the 10-acre site, but still in a manner consistent with the Community Plan and the G1JP. ATTACHMENTS: A. Ordinance B. Development Agreement and Exhibits* C. Location Maps (Area Band EI Camino Park) D. Project Description* E. City Council Excerpt Minutes of June 13,2011 * Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff COURTESY COPIES: Bill Phillips -Senior Associate Vice President, Stanford University Catherine Palter -Associate Director, Stanford University Marc Bruner -Partner, Perkins Coie LLP City of Palo Alto Page 3 PREPARED BY: Whitney McNair, Consultant REVIEWED BY: Amy French, Acting Assistant Director DEPARTMENTIDIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: ~~ ---------------------------------Curtis Williams, Director City of Palo Alto Page 4 ATTACHMENT A Not Yet Approved Ordinance No. --- Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving The Third Amendment to the Development Agreement Between the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University and the City of Palo Alto Dated August 14, 1997 The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Recitals. A. The City of Palo Alto (City) and Stanford are parties to a certain Development Agreement dated August 14, 1997 (the "Sand Hill Road Development Agreement" or "Agreement"), concerning the Sand Hill Road Projects, which include, as described in Paragraph l(k) of the Agreement, the Stanford West ,Apartment Project; the Stanford West Senior Housing Project; the Stanford Shopping Center Expansion Project; a collection of various roadway improvements, including widening and extension of Sand Hill Road, widening and improvement of Quarry Road, construction of a new Vineyard Lane, extension of Palo Road, extension of Stockfarm Road, and related roadway improvements; and the creation and annexation of a small parcel of property created by the relocation of Pasteur Drive at Sand Hill Road. B. Section 65868 of the California Government Code and section 8(b) of Palo Alto Resolution No. 6597 (Mar. 9, 1987) provide that a development agreement may be amended by mutual consent of the parties to the agreement. C. Pursuant to these provisions, paragraph 11 of the Agreement provides that the City and Stanford may amend the Agreement from time to time by mutual consent. D. Paragraph 6(i) of the Agreement provides that until December 31, 2020, Stanford shall not develop the approximately 139-acre parcel known as Special Condition Area B ("Area B"), as defined by the 1989 General Use Permit issued by Santa Clara County (the "County") for the Stanford campus, except for academic and recreational fields (including the golf course) and associated support facilities; provided that the Agreement allows Stanford to propose and construct faculty, staff or student housing within a specified portion of Area B regardless of the December 2020 date. Exhibit H-3 to the Agreement contained a map that depicted Area B. E. In April 2001, the City and Stanford executed a First Amendment to the Agreement ("First Amendment"). The First Amendment revised Area B to exchange restrictions on portions of Area B such that (i) development would be precluded until December 31, 2020 on a 13-acre area that previously had been slated for the near-term development of housing under the original Agreement in 1997, and (ii) development of housing would be pennitted on another, adjacent 13- acre area that had been restricted under the original Agreement until December 31, 2020. Exhibit B (dated Apr. 9, 2001) to the First Amendnlent amended Exhibit H-3 to the Agreement in order to show the revised boundaries of the housing development areas within Area B. F. Subsequently, in 2003, the City and Stanford executed a Second Amendment to the' Agreement C'Second Amendment"). This Second Amendment was intended to implement the First Amendment, by defining more precisely the boundary between that portion of Area B 1 120307 jb 0130938 Not Yet Approved where development was restricted until December 31, 2020, and that portion of Area B where the development of housing was permitted regardless of the December 31, 2020 date. To that end, the Second Amendment included a legal description and an accompanying plat map. G. The property that is the subject of this Amendment consists of approximately 10.25 acres of land. This 10.25-acre area will be referred to as the "Property." This Amendment removes the Property from Area B. Except for a small sliver of this land in the northwest comer of the Property, the Property is within that portion of Area B that is contemplated for development of housing under the Agreement (as amended by the First and Second Amendments ). H. Area B is owned by Stanford and is located within the land use jurisdiction of the County. I. In December 2000, the County approved the Stanford Community Plan (the "Community Plan") and a new General Use Permit (the "2000 GUP") for the Stanford campus, which established an Academic Growth Boundary and permitted the development of 2,035,000 net new square feet of academic facilities and academic support uses on the campus within that boundary on lands within the "Academic Campus" land use designation. J. In approving the Community Plan and the 2000 GUP, the County in December 2000 certified, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), a Final Environmental Impact Report (the "2000 GUP EIR") that evaluated at a program-level the environmental impacts from the maximum level of development on the Stanford campus that would be allowed under the Conlmunity Plan and the 2000 GUP. K. The 2000 GUP contains detailed procedures for evaluating individual, site specific building projects that Stanford proposes to build on the campus to implement the Community Plan and the 2000 GUP. L. The entirety of the Property is located within the Academic Growth Boundary on lands designated for Academic Campus uses, and therefore may be developed for academic and support uses under the Community Plan, 2000 GUP, and 2000 GUP EIR approved by the County. M. Stanford wishes to submit an application to the County to develop the Property as a new energy center that is anticipated to increase energy efficiency while reducing several of the environmental impacts associated with supplying energy to the campus, including greenhouse gas emissions. N. The precise footprint, design, and operational characteristics of the new energy center have not yet been determined. At such time when Stanford submits an application to the County to develop the Property, the County will review the application based on the 2000 GUP EIR and will conduct any further environmental analysis that may be required under CEQA, m accordance with the site-specific project review procedures contained in the 2000 GUP. o. By removing the Property from Area B, the City is not approving or authorizing any development on the Property; such development will remain subject to County review and approval. 2 120307 jb 0130938 Not Yet Approved P. The City leases land fronl Stanford along EI Camino Real that is improved with EI Camino Park and other facilities; this lease will be referred to as the "EI Camino Park Lease." Q. The City wishes to extend the term of the EI Camino Park Lease, and Stanford has agreed to a nine-year extension of the EI Camino Park Lease, conditioned upon approval of this Amendment. R. The City's Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council have given notice of intention to consider this Amendment and have conducted public hearings on the Amendment. SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council finds and determines that: A. Notice of intention to consider the development agreement has been given pursuant to Government Code section 65867. B. The City's Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council have given notice of intention to consider this Agreement, have conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to Government Code section 65867 and City's Resolution No. 6597, and the City Council has found that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby approves the Third Amendment to the Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City. SECTION 4. The City Clerk is directed to cause a copy of the development agreement to be recorded with the County Recorder not later than ten (10) days after it becomes effective. SECTION 5. The County of Santa Clara certified an Environmental Impact Report in December 2000 for the Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit (GUP). The City's approval of the ,proposed amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts than were disclosed and evaluated in the GUP EIR because the City's approval would not change any of the terms and conditions of the Community Plan and GUP that govern development of the la-acre site, which have been evaluated in the GUP EIR. 3 120307 jb 0130938 SECTION 6. after its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney 120307 jb 0130938 Not Yet Approved This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-fIrst (31st) day APPROVED: Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 4 This docunlent is recorded for the benefit of the City of Palo Alto and is entitled to be recorded free of charge in accordance with Section 6103 of the Government Code. After Recordation, mail to: Office of the City Attorney City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 ATTACHMENT B THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE SAND HILL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Third Amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement is entered into as of this day of , 2012, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered city of the State of California (the "City"), and THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of California ("Stanford"). RECITALS This THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE SAND HILL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Amendment") is entered into on the basis of the following facts, understandings and intentions of the parties: A. The City and Stanford are parties to a certain Development Agreement dated August 14, 1997 (the "Sand Hill Road Development Agreement" or "Agreement"), concerning· the Sand Hill Road Projects, which include, as described in Paragraph 1 (k) of the· Agreement, the Stanford West Apartment Project; the Stanford West Senior Housing Project; the Stanford Shopping Center Expansion Project; a collection of various roadway improvements, including widening and extension of Sand Hill Road, widening and improvement of Quarry Road, construction of a new Vineyard Lane, extension of Palo Road, extension of Stockfarm Road, and related roadway inlprovements; and the creation and annexation of a small parcel of property created by the relocation of Pasteur Drive at Sand Hill Road. B. Section 65868 of the California Government Code and section 8(b) of Palo Alto Resolution No. 6597 (Mar. 9, 1987) provide that a development agreement may be amended by mutual consent of the parties to the agreement. C. Pursuant to these provisions, paragraph 11 of the Agreement provides that the City and Stanford may amend the Agreement from time to time by mutual consent. 120308 jb 0130941 D. Paragraph 6(i) of the Agreement provides that until December 31, 2020, Stanford shall not develop the approximately 139-acre parcel known as Special Condition Area B ("Area B"), defined by the 1989 General Use Permit issued by Santa Clara County (the "County") for the Stanford campus, except for academic and recreational fields (including the golf course) and associated support facilities; provided that the Agreement allows Stanford to propose and construct faculty, staff or student housing within a specified portion of Area B regardless of the December 2020 date. Exhibit H-3 to the Agreement contained a map that depicted Area B. E. In April 2001, the City and Stanford executed a First Amendment to the Agreement ("First Amendment"). The First Amendment revised Area B to exchange restrictions on portions of Area B such that (i) development would be precluded until December 31, 2020 on a 13-acre area that previously had been slated for the near-term development of housing under the original Agreement in 1997, and (ii) development of housing would be permitted on another, adj acent 13 -acre area that had been restricted under the original Agreement until December 31, 2020. Exhibit B (dated Apr. 9, 2001) to the First Amendment amended Exhibit H-3 to the Agreement in order to show the revised boundaries of the housing development areas within Area B. F. Subsequently, in 2003, the City and Stanford executed a Second Amendment to the Agreement ("Second Amendment"). This Second Amendment was intended to implement the First Amendment, by defining more precisely the boundary between that portion of Area B where development was restricted until December 31, 2020, and that portion of Area B where the development of housing was permitted regardless of the December 31, 2020 date. To that end, the Second Amendment included a legal description and an accompanying plat map. G. The property that is the subject of this Amendment consists of approximately 10.25 acres of land. This 10 .25-acre area will be referred to as the "Property. 11 This Amendment removes the Property from Area B. Except for a small sliver of this land in the northwest comer of the Property, the Property is within that portion of Area B that is contemplated for development of housing under the Agreement (as amended by the First and Second Amendments ). H. Area B is owned by Stanford and is located within the land use jurisdiction of the County. I. In December 2000, the County approved the Stanford Community Plan (the "Community Plan") and a new General Use Permit (the "2000 GUP") for the Stanford campus, which established an Academic Growth Boundary and permitted the development of 2,035,000 net new square feet of academic facilities and acadenlic support uses on the campus within that boundary on lands within the "Academic Campus" land use designation. J. In approving the Community Plan and the 2000 GUP, the County in December 2000 certified, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), a Final Environmental Impact Report (the "2000 GUP EIR") that evaluated at a program-level the environmental impacts from the maximum level of development on the Stanford campus that would be allowed under the Community Plan and the 2000 GUP. 120308 jb 0130941 K. The 2000 GUP contains detailed procedures for evaluating individual, site- specific building projects that Stanford proposes to build on the campus to inlplement the Community Plan and the 2000 GUP. L. The entirety of the Property is located within the Academic Growth Boundary on lands designated for Academic Campus uses, and therefore may be developed for academic and support uses under the Community Plan, 2000 GUP, and 2000 GUP EIR approved by the County. M. Stanford wishes to submit an application to the County to develop the Property as a new energy center that is anticipated to increase energy efficiency while reducing several of the environmental impacts associated with supplying energy to the campus, including greenhouse gas emissions. N. The precise footprint, design, and operational characteristics of the new energy center have not yet been determined. At such time when Stanford submits an application to the County to develop the Property, the County will review the application based on the 2000 GUP EIR and will conduct any further environmental analysis that may be required under CEQA, in accordance with the site-specific project review procedures contained in the 2000 GUP. O. By renloving the Property from Area B, the City is not approving or authorizing any development on the Property; such development will remain subject to County review and approval. P. The City leases land from Stanford along El Camino Real that is improved with El Camino Park and other facilities; this le.ase will be referred to as the "El Camino Park Lease." Q. The City wishes to extend the term of the El Camino Park Lease, and Stanford has agreed to a nine-year extension of the El Camino Park Lease, conditioned upon approval of this Amendnlent. R. The City's Planning Commission and City Council have given notice of intention to consider this Amendment and have conducted public hearings on the Amendment. S. The City has found that the terms and conditions of this Amendment are fair, just'and reasonable, and provide benefits to the City. T. This Amendment is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare needs of the residents of the City and the surrounding region. The City has determined that the Amendment represents a reasonable balancing of the competing interests of the affected region. U. This Amendment will bind future City Councils to the terms and obligations specified in the Amendment. V. After review by City staff, its Planning Commission, and the City Council, the City has found that: 120308 jb 0130941 a. The provisions of this Amendment and its purposes are consistent with the goals, policies, programs and standards specified in the City's Comprehensive Plan; b. This Amendment will help attain important economic, social, environmental and planning goals of the City and enhances and protects the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City and the surrounding region; c. This Amendment will allow Stanford to apply to the County for development of a new campus energy center on the Property, which, if approved by the County, is anticipated to reduce the air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions and water use associated with supplying the Stanford campus with energy. d. This Amendment will also provide for a nine-year extension of the tenn of the El Camino Park Lease, thereby providing valuable recreational and open space benefits to the residents of the City and the surrounding region. e. This Amendment will otherwise achieve the goals and purposes for which the Development Agreement Act was enacted. PROVISIONS NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. The Property is removed from Area B and is no longer subject to the provisions of Paragraph 6(i) of the Agreement. 2. A revised legal description and an accompanying map depicting the entirety of Area B, as modified by this Amendment, are provided in Exhibit A to this Amendment. Revised legal descriptions and an accompanying map for those portions/of Area B that are contemplated for the development of housing under the Agreement, as modified by this Amendment, are provided in Exhibits A-I. A-2 & A-3 to this Amendment 3. Exhibit B to this Amendment revises Exhibit H-3 to the Agreement -as previously amended by Exhibit B (dated Apr. 9, 2001) to the First Amendment -in order to show the location and boundaries of the Property; the location and the changes to the boundaries of Area· B; and the location and the changes to the boundaries of those portions of Area B that are contemplated for the development of housing under the Agreement. 4. The provisions of Paragraph 6(i} will continue to apply to all other parts of Area B with the exception of the Property. 5. The parties shall execute the sixth amendment to the El Camino Park Lease to extend the lease tenn for a period of nine years, from June 30, 2033 to June 30, 2042. The sixth amendment to the El Camino Park Lease is attached to this Anlendment as Exhibit C. The sixth amendment to the El Camino Park Lease will beconle effective within 45 days after the final 120308 jb 0130941 passage of the ordinance approving this Amendment if that ordinance is not submitted to a referendum. If that ordinance is submitted to a referendum, the sixth amendment to the El Camino Park Lease will become effective only if the referendum approves the ordinance. 6. All other provisions of the Agreement continue to apply and are not affected by this Amendment. 7. The following exhibits are attached to this Amendment and are incorporated herein: Exhibit A: Exhibits A-I, A-2 & A-3: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Legal Description and Map of Revised Area B Legal Descriptions and Map of Area B Housing Parcels Amended Exhibit H -3 to Sand Hill Road Development Agreement Sixth Amendment to El Camino Park Lease (including Exhibits 1,2 & 3) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by the parties as of the day and year first above written. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney APPROVED: City Manager APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Director of Planning and Community Environment 120308 jb 0130941 CITY OF PALO ALTO Mayor STANFORD The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University By: __________________ __ Its: ____________ _ ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of ________ _ On before me, (insert here name and title of the officer), personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature: Place Notary Seal Above 120308 jb 0130939 EXHIBITS A, A-I, A-2 & A-3 TO THIRD AMENDMENT TO 1997 SAND HILL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 120308 jb 0130941 I I ,I ,I ~lkF EXHIBIt '~'Ai. Legal :Descl"tptlon REVISED AREA ,B (For Developml.lotAgreeJnent) JatlUllry 2S,'MI2 BKfl No. 2Qt2600'7 Page 1 Qf3 Realprop:erty In the'Coll~lY of Sante: Clara, State of CalifOrtlin, de-~ribed a.s fOlloWS: B~i.ng a portion ohhe lands of The :B:GatO of'ThUstee$ of'-the Leland Stanford luoiOr ,urii.verslty, a 'be&y ha~lng· @rpo(4ilO powers onder the 18"\~.S .. of ,the St~te of. California, more particularly' described 8.s' frillpw~ lmGINNJNG ~t' a potl.11 on tbe.s¢l:l.tbellslerly Une. ef '$fl.Qd-lJlIl. Rood, •. as saId.Road 18 deseJfbed fn tll'ilt: eertain' Basement for street DrId road'way purp.oses.. from The B.bard of"l'rustees of the Leland ,Slanforo Junior Unlvel'~it}'to the City of Palo, 1dl'0, ~.tdej:l June,1: 2002:.. underD.o-cument No. },6304199" Offlchi! ,Records of Santa Clara County, sai4 ,Pbint being al~ the nonhw~terly (~j:n:tirw:$ of that c~$jn Ma(iemlc Growth BOUllOlltY Ul)a; d~cJlibed 8S Area "B" H'Quslng Sire B:~un.aJlr)' ln' the·Second. Amemiment'lO: Development Agreement between City of Palo ~Ito IlIld, TlJe RallJ'd of Tntstees ,of tbe Leland Samford Illnior University", J'eCOlded peeernber ~3, 2003', )lnder,I)oournenl N:o. 1 75'4:4U8. Om:ola'l'l~:f;lCQrd,a' of said (Jaunty; ThenCe-:leaving said RoJnt and along said 'S;Outheas~erly lilJ,e of'Sand Hill R6ac4 South 41"10' (2" WeSf, 206.35 feet to tbe .tl'i0$1' 'soptherly earner -of ao1;I1' RQ«d .at;: c;lescdbed' ill' 'S~4 Easement for !ilreet and roadway P~UIJI~ (Ddc. J63()4199.~. ~d oomed~eing alsea·,point In the ceriW Un.e ot SM FllUlefflgUjlO Ct~eki Thence leaving Uld oor't!~r. and along said center line of SJln 'Prancisquito, Creek. SO\ltheflsterly, 11.80-f~ more or.le:s-no tb~ genend 1'\ortherl~ line of lunlporo Sel18 B_ou:lenrci: nnm~tlong"s81d. &.enei1!l norlher.lyline Of IuniperoSerrnl)01lleY:tli'd, easterly. Il6S,l feet more or les&-t(J ,the~eneml w.esterly line of Campll8 Drl~.e WesJ; Thence altm:g: ~_ .general weit~ly If!\~-of Camp.u~ Drive West, Mitherl)!. i 76.9 fc.et. mo;i'e-,or les,s to the~iQ.te~~on' 'With, th~northwesrcrl}' prplong~tI'O'Ir Qf"th.~ center Ijn~ of' Santa 'I'e~ S1reet; The)}ce I~Vi:ng said gene:ra.l Westerly 'line of. Campus Drl.\I~ Wost~ No\1ll 77Gfi'!/50" West, 167 feel'more or less to (be g*ra1 :C'enter-of P~m9tlt...R,(jad:' t1'l¢nce ,along ~Bid general center of Ff'emont. Road. soUthwesfer:)}f, 4U feet more or leu' to said Academ,lc Q'rOwth,Bound'ary line; I~' N.orth '3 I °S6~1.7" w.es~ 277.02 feel; 2) Nortll40"4?~5:8'1 W~.t. 40~,92f~t\ 3) .N6JlJl19Q57'36" West. 3-1'0:20 f~t. , . ~g~tOescrlpijQU r$vtSEP AREA a P*ge2ofS Tllencelt}Hving ~rottAead<'rnic ;Orowth Houndaryline., ,tJtefoll()Win~'fourteen (,14>cQurs~~l s· l) North154S1~o()~"a~l~ 416!~8 'f~~r: ~ $PUJh 14il03·i·00·'East~ 15BA2J ·feeli 3) NbrJlIOIQ26't)sn$!ast, '65'4.15 feet; 4} NQrth?Q.°$1~~7hE~t~ 2~!:16(~h $') Not1h~a9BJl·:1$Ji'E~!)t,11.Q~ -fee.t; .8) Nottlt 89·°Q-P4$it Ea:st, :57 iOO t~t~ 7) S_oulh 8.7P40'43nEMt~ 1] .54 feet; 8) 'SouthSao2S;t:O:SH all~t. ~O.57 feet; 9) ~~th 1:t"q;~8·~t~~lia.sfl 44.S3 fee~; to}. South. 719l6'I'j'2:I·'Ea~u, 6] ,40 feet; tl): Snu,tb 17Q$:c.}tt9~' aa~~, 46\42fee~; t2~S0tlt1n>'19ii14'~7'~~J:';~stt 7j.'.68 feet: l~lSqutlr 8Vb~2~44·· (I$Mff46 •. ,IOf$~H li~j NQl~q87~~4;t"1.(:)H13ast,2S~~3f¢et:t(;ltb¢.gei1.emJ we~tetty line.orOak l~Qadi Then~Je,~vf~t '$~ijdgeil~rill westotly'1J~~ Qf)'Ol\k .lQadj NQq~34~~] 1'(:Ea~1~ 5Z1&ettrlQteor le~$ tothe··S"QJlthwester,t}'lineof'Paste.urr:biv;~l:\s:;saidlin~J$'de.scdb.ed in Sijfd Basementfol' street and roadwa.~:Ptl"tllOSQs~'DQc;~;No .. l: 6$041',991; th~@~ aJ"JJtlJ slJi.d.$P1ltbw¢ste1'lY· HneQfF'as.~tlrnd~e.lb~·f:w:l1oWillgtour{4;" CQu.r:sest 1'): Nt1rlh 71oSa~'49'~ Viest,. s-ng~"S&feet t0~ thebeginnJngof:a 'taQ8¢nfeurve to~ tij'e fi~flt; havina a, ~tl,dip.$·pf';2Q9~Q0'f~¢t; - ~l 'Northwest~rJy al;()ng;snf:dcutV~, tbrougba.~¢ntr"JAl\tletiif2RP26~12~~i .for@.n:arc l.;¢ngth of 99,.26 ft-tt; . ~}North 4S027j.a7;) West,'lA3 feet. :to; ,tbe beginning .of u tange:ntCl!t;\le; to the l&ftt :ha~inga Ii~i\1S of 40.()O reet~ ., 4) rJQnh~estedl" ,alongisaid~ll,tve, ~hm~~b lt~eJl~lAllg(~9f'869t2~4~t'\fflrJUl :at~ 'Length .. of '6Q,19 fe~t'tQ$alQ$'Qulbea&terlyline,QfSMd;mUtRQad~, Thet)c~al()pg, s~id~()AtFteu,$t¢dy Htle.Qf$.~a:NmR,.efl~~tbeftdlowi'Ji.g' thr~(~)Qo1.),rses~· Ij~pJ;1tb4.8iP19~3'~~~ ~~t~ ~g.ZO,8Y· feet~pttJl~b.egi~niflg:~f a-·f:~gent: cUNe to tbe:leftr'navlnga. Badius of537.00-feet;: 2) S:outhwestetly atollgs~d c\lrve,th.rougl'18 central AggIe of n7°09'26~(,for ,~ ,~~ ~l1gtll Qf 6f}Qaf~et~ '~)S.op.tl\'41 q"lO' ll'I'W,s~r 49~4i'f~tlp 'h~ 'point ·of.aE~tNNtttlt~ r 'I ! j I 1 I ( i i ! I i I I l. } j . :1 1 1 ·1 , I . 1l1i~;d~.ctipDon was, pr~pll1e4·~)' 1lI~ .orqnder l:11y-(b'):e:cJ ~.ptlrviij,Q..r1. BRF Enghteew -JJ.. .' . '--. John J{()'tQ¥a~h p .L.s.. ,0 .. 888'3 .Li~nse expi~ 112~31 ... 2013 -fif.;.) .. 6'~, t ()f¥ Dated Lega.J ~~criptron RBV'IS:at> AREA B' Pag~.3 of~ Legen.d -----Ac::ademlc GrowtI1 Boondary , Re\l1Sad SJSlftIi J·'donditlon Art~·", ~~IoP'JlilllltP(fol~cI' ~ -until D.ecel11ber':Ji, 2020i;8XC'epl· ~QIJ:,8nd ·8¢.ld~~.f1eld$ ~ ~J811td ,up.P.9,rt. . .,.. 'kbuil~)JI.~ .... trowll. EXlnISIT'UA .. l ') LegaJ;UesCliptiop ~ pBOUSlliGEM$eEL 1 (For 'Devej opmentAgreement) Ja'nuary 25,2012- BKFNo.2Ot26007 p~ 1 (,\f2 Real property iu' the .counlY of'S.anta Clara. State'of Cali'fornja,.. des<ir:Jhe;d as fQl(Qwsl, Be/irs a portion-Of'th~ lands of'nle-Boat'd',.of'TnlSlees or tbe,Le1and-SUlnfQrd, lunio!' "l1n1versityi Q body' hav,jog cbrporate po.w~ under the, laws of the State of Ca1ifoqU~, more particularly ,de-s(:_rll:Jed a.& fOJ/!)W81 Beginning at a point on 'toe 'southe:as.ferly line' or S Wld' Hl.U Road; as sate! Road is 'deS(j(ib~(l ib that certain Bilsemenl for s_treet aod roadway purpose&> from The B'o6l'd of Trustees of the leland Stanfatd, Junior Un'ive£Slty to 'the 'City of Palo Alto, 'record'~-June: 1, 200~ under ,Do:cu ment No. l'6304l99, Official R.eoo~-bf Santa q~ra, county, said ~Int being aJso tbe northwe:sJ,erty .t.emUMs ,of tllat celJaitr Academic GrQwtt! BOl:ilic!ary Une. described a_s, aIejl '13" Housing'SIte- BoundBl)'-in the Second Amend'ment (0 Development A~t,nent between City of Palo AltO and :rt\e-B~rd of'Trustees of the-l.eland Stanford Junior 'tJni-'lersity., teeord.sxl December 23, 2003, \,IfI'~er Do"Cqm~ot N£). I 1544MB, Official ,Records 'of 8ai~ GP'unty~ Thence teaving laid southeaslerly line of Sand Hill Road and clang said Academic Growth BOl!lndarY'Jin~ t~ folJ!3WiIlg,-s·t~ (~ eourseal 1.) 's'o-ulli-Q9v03J 59-tj Eas.t. l'2.:SD f~t) 2) South '04PQS' OS" Eas~ za,01'feet; '3:) South OOP5-~"3l)" West, 3'2.13 feet: 4-) 'South 05"39,"44" 'East, 54.84 reet; .5); Nortb ,&()~Ol'4 l" &8t, 98'.98 feet; '6) North '_89"·30'Mj, ,Ea~t, :8'O.0tl feel to the-'tR.UE: p,QINr OF BE"SJNNlNG of this descdptioll: Thence I~avjhg said point lind cOI)(fl1.l.!jJJ$ a10ug s'!lid A~den'1ic Growth ~ouiidi1l'iY tfn~, ,he (QUowing two (2;):e,ourses: 1) -South Q1°36'42" West,", f,62;32' ~l; ~), S,o\ltb 7.(j,°5-?'J(/' East. i{49,60 feet;' Thenoe le~,vi,ng ~d, Academic, Growth 'Boundary line, Ihe.'followlng' rbree, Q). CGUrses: tJ North l-5.\>j7'(fO't:2ast, 37:a.nf~l.). 2) N:arth :S9"26"3l'i West;-S32.36,'fe:et; 1) South _02Q36'42" West, 23.12. feet to lbo' 'OltJlt P.0~ Of BEGlNNI:NG of this description. As. sbown on map entitled "Af('l):"allou,sirrg" ~t:t8ched-horetp IUld made a parJ be(e.of, I I ·1 ! r I I I I ! f ·Le.~ Description AREA 13 HO.uSIjI(O 'P.~GBI" 1· Page 2 6f2 Thi&-{~s'Qriptlof! w~ prepa.-eO hy me. or under'my direct ~1J~J'vtgjo.n. .jo~Koro)'ll.n, P,L... No, gg:~ -L~Qt"-i~~pire$ 12,.Jl..zo13· J;1¥J" 'r-~ ~,~ . Dated, I' j i ! ~Ikf E-xm:BIT "A,.l)' Legal D~criptiori' AREA B ,qUSING,MRGEL 2, (por Developrnenl.Agreement) January 25,20:1'.1 BKF No. 20126001 Page 1.0("2. .Befog .n"p.ortion of the lands ofThe:B.tlaro afTros~ .of the Leland StaJ)ford,Junior Universi~,.~ body havlng corporate· pOwets under the laws ,of the State of Califuiiiilb r/)ore particularly de&Cribe:d 88 follows: . Beginning at. point on the southeasterly line o(Sand HilI.Road. as said Rpad Is descrlbed in that certain Bilsement for street ~d roadWay PurpOSesl from The Board: of Trustees ,of tbe. Le\l!1)d StanfOrd, 1uhior UlliVe~ty to tho Ci~'y pf ;Pa,Io Alto" ~rded June /,,2002, utlder'DOOl,Im~t N,c" 16304:199', Official Records. of Sanla Clar:Il CQI,lniy ... SJlid. PQlnl being also, the, nor1.hw.~terly terminus of that certain Academic Growth lroundary Iin~ desdribed Ii&' Area "R" Housing Site Boundary.ln the Second Amendment 'fo; Development AgreeJl'101lt betw.eerr, Ctfy of Palo .Arto 1Ul~ 'The BCi!ard, ~f trustees of tl:\e Leland S~fQ.l,'d .T\lni~' Un'iveJ;"Sit:y. ,recol.'ded Dccemb,~ 23. 20~ .• ul1detiOoerulncwf No. 1154485~. Offi~i8f ~.!\ pf said COlIhtr,' Thence leaving' said sopthensterly !fne of Sand Hlfl. Road aDd along said Academic 6rowth l:Ioundary Jln~. the. fQlIowln'g, ten ,(~Q) CQ1lrS"es: 1), So.utb ()9T>O~' 59" EasJ, i2,50 feet: 2) South:94"otP0.8" E4st. 28.0:7 feet; 3) S()u.thoo'bS3·30"W~8t,32.13"fiset; 4) South OSD39~44"'Eaft. S4M leet~ ~ li..Qr.tl\ ~oOl' 41" Eastdl.S:98 feet;~ 6) ,North 89030;34" east, 80,00 feet; 7) South 02~~~42." W~.t. '262.32 ~eet; B) 'Soutll 19"Sl7'3!S(' Bist; 700',QO ~t: 9) SQuth 401047'$5" mt.·4Q:t ,9.1.·fCGJ; IO) ,South 31 °S6'1~" }ifst:.1.11JJ!l. feet to a pofnllg ih.6 'ge~l:Ul ce.ntar of 'Fremont" Road. said , point·bejn~olso thQ'QVe POINT OFiBEGINNING. af'l~i.s d~SYrl.l>nQlll l'hence f~v,in's wd 'point ,lIJId ~ilml~'g at~g ,~~ Acaruimic Growth .Bp,UDdIlJ'y line. the failowlng four Qt)cours(lS~ l:l SOtith 3J 0."i!S'] 7»"&''1'" s.~.U' feet; 1) :SCi)l1ttl71~45'·S8!FEast. 220,.52 ff:;eJ~ 3) SOuth 3"3<>(}7' 55" East. 694.3;' feet; 4) South 09°t9 .. 46'~West. 122.63 feet; 1) S~.uth 04~'"14n Wes,t •. 29.85 feet; 2) SOUl); r,05t\'''Q9'' West, 176.98 lUI: 3.} Sou.th. 11~'48" West. 19'1.60 feet: 4) South q6~07·0.9" Wesl, 14~;,98 ,~[t 5) SOu.th Q6"'H1''i3'' West. 9.a .04 f~t: Legal D~crlptlon AREA II HOUS1NG PfoRC)jL2 Page 2 of2 6) SQ\!th Q6~56'54!' West', .t 17 feet more or less to the gen~re1 northerl¥ Une of Iunipero, Serra Boulevard; Then~ flton& sai,d g~eOll nQ~th,~rl)' Uo:e:'o(1u\iipero Serra Boufeva.rd, ~teily, 178 feet more or less to the g,e~l westet1y Iin~ of Campus Drive West: Thence along,sllid,genora1 westerly Un~,of:Campus [))rive West. north~':.ly. 1169 (-eel mOle or less to tl}e iOtei'Sec'lion, with the north\ve8redy lJrohmgntlon of the center line of'Sanla Tere,sa S.lreeti Then~e leaving said' general westerly line: of Campus Drive West, North 77°03'-50" West'. V67 feet more or less to the ~ne(lll' center ()f FremontRo~d: Thence aJon8 sald general .canter of Fremont:R-oad, SouthweSterly, 413 feet more or less to the TRUE POINTO.F 'BEGINNING of-this descdplton. ~s shpwn onm,ap entitled" Area B Uousing'" attached' nereto ~d ll'fade 8-p811, hereof. ~BkF . , EX'lgBIT I/A~" lA~ 'i>~er1pttr,>n AREA B HOtJSINQ'PARCEL 3 (For: DevelGpment Agreement) lnnuary lS" 21)12 BKFNo.20126007 P-a~ I of'2 Belng 'a portion of the lands Of 'the Board ofTrusrees of the Leland St!nford lunlar UniverSity, n b.~ ,~~.yipg c:orp01'!1to power'S und.er the lnws (Sf 'the .$tll(e of Canfomls, In<;ire p'lirticulatly descri.b~£H18 fOIl!>ws': BeginnIng at &.;puint on the· s~easterly' 1il16 of Sand 'Hlil Road. as said Road 1& d.eS!ldlled ~lJl th.al cerialn-Easement' for &~t ·and oo!lAway purposes, from. 'The J30ard Qf TntSt~ of rne Ulai'ld Stanford J,uni't}f tlm'Yt:l'6ity tQ theCl Il' of Palo' AltQ. recol'ded June 7. 2002. llnder b(l¢Ujnen.l N~. 163041$.9; Offi!1ial ~e,c.o.rds of Bania Clara C-()uoty,;. nld point being &11IiP \hI> Jlortli~ferly faaninus of that cerlaic Acad~mic Qrowth B,oundary' Jine. described. 88 Area '-B:'" HO\l~lfl'& Site ;aonndDO' in the Second AmOll<lmelit tp p¢~lQp.ment t\greement between' City. of"P.alo' Alto and The BOArd of1'ru:&t:ees of Ih'~ LeJ,and S t.3Jl ford JuniOF Un;"eoo.ty. ~rVed,necember 23. 2003. under D,OCJJroent 'No. 17544B58. 00i'c1-aJ. Records-of Baid CQun.~ Thence ,losving, '~aid .aoutheas:terly-'liue of SruuI HIU .Road and along said Academic Growth Boo e dary, tine" th'e',(ollpwing teO (1 0) cotirses.~ f) South 09,°03'1:59," East. 12S0 '&el1 2) South 04°0S~O~""Ea'St, 2-8·.IJ1··f~ 3) SQ"4tJl··00tt53"'30'''Wen. 32.1 j f~t; 4), SqQlh ()5~~44" Eaat,·S4.-&'4·feet; .5) N'0rtb'86"01 '41';· Bast, 98,98:feet; ti) NOrth 89°30"34"'I3.ast. 8.0 .. 0.tYfeet~ 1) Sout.h 02°~J'6' 42··W~. 262.32 feet; &) 'SQJlth 19°51'.$6" East,.7G()'.OOfeet:; , 9-) South 40°4-7'55" EIl,st. 401.9Meet; 10) :SoulJr 3'1 °56' 1-'7" Ba.st, 3'3.41D 'feet; Thence Ie'aVlh.8 ,~aid Academic Growth B.OUlld!lfY. line and' aliiin~ the ten'~' ~~t1y Hne 'of Fremont'RG"', S6uth 'lS,o~~S9" West., 21'204 feet lb the TlliPE W)INT QF B~N.ING of tl'tfs.deseripfion;. TIlence. leaving-~d ,p-oi'ot and condnuing along .said genera'll eastetl>, line of Fremont Roid, .the following 116\>6)\ (7:) courses: n ,80001,40°45'55" West:; 1181.6H~': ,$) South fi]°1?'4'5" West, 199,01 ffl~,t~ 3) 'South 14°57'1(i"'West, 179.j9'fetl; 4) Souffll4:°12'32"'We.&t. M7.09 fet}t; 5) South 14D3!S'4S", West, 2J4.0p feet: i ,I I ! I I I 1 ! &) Souch 14"32'4Y'West,II9..45'feet; ~gal ,1)O$cription ARJl;A '8 HOUSIN,G BARcBL 3 P{lge 2. of"2 7) 'South 14"35"ilO" W~t\~8 feet I~Qre or I~s 16 !be general northerly lfne of-iUJiipero' Serra Bou:levard~ Thence;along said ,g~ner81 nQrlherly line of Junip,o~ Sen'll &ouievB!d. eiI$r1y. 711f~ t:Oj)~e ifr less; , Tnence I¢lving sa,l'd g~nernl nortllorly line Qf Juuipero Serra .Bo.lllevai'd.,theloU9'wtn'g ~level1' (:,( 1) .courses:, 1) No!'i1l 04~l' 52l ' 'West" (-60.67 Jee,f; 2J North 01 °50'47"~'t,,201.73'feet; 3) North 24:03~o'54" West, I L9.14 l'eet; 4) North '(W!W'gJ" West, tni.1Of~t; 5) North 1~ol~"20" B1Ii{t, 8!t~3 ~eet~ 6} North 0'6~28)~6' W~st! tSO.71 feef.; 7} N@rth 16"'20'47" West, 103.04 feet; ',~ N\:'ll'th ~Bo13(44" West. 77'.56 fee~, ~} N'~r:th ,17°51' 1 '7JO, West; ,6(;'.31 ,f¢e~ 10) N.orth ~~4"<l3" West;, lS3..3~ teet; tl}Norrn 19'O57'-5911' West, 94\41 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of flli.s d!}sc.t'iptiQn. n.1~ d~rlpfiQn was p('~pared by me Qi' uader 'my direct, supervision. ,BKF Eugfueers JJ.~.a...... ;lohn &oro~an:. Pi::N0'. '8'8'83 ,~i~8~exp'ltis 12,,3J -~13 :-/AN', 2~~'I~ .. 'Dnled -r. ' L~g,end ~d&rlilo GI'OY;th BO\l,i)dafY Rev~d Spadal Condition' Al.e!J e. DavelopmElnf pre,c)uded until Df!celJ\b$f" 3-1 , ~a2t!, 'e~t recreation II1Id academlo nelds 8f}d 8880,clated suppOrt USIIS, H9usih~ eJiOwed ull shoWn. F_8CU Itt'/StafflStudsn I ftciu81;r~ al[oW(id under' amel'lded .agreem S)l\. Golf Course ,_ t ,I EXHIBITB TO' THIRD AMENDMENT TO 1997 SAND HILL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 120308jb 0130941 Revision to Sand Hili Road Deveropment Agreement Special CondltJon Area B Amended EX,fiIbit H--3 . Re'v,ise'd' Area B ,BoundarY ,and~ P to· iRe fro,m Area,,·.' EXHIBITC TO THIRD AMENDMENT TO 1997 SAND HILL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 120308 jb 0130941 This document is recorded for the benefit of the City of Palo Alto and is entitled to be recorded free of charge in accordance with Section 6103 of the Government Code. After Recordation, mail to: Office of the City Attorney City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 SIXTH AMENDMENT TO LEASE This Sixth Amendment to Lease (the "Amendment") is made and entered into as of _____ " 2012 by and between the BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of California ("Lessor"), and the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California municipal corporation ("Lessee") in the following factual context: A. Lessor and Lessee are the parties to that certain lease dated as of June 10. 1915, as amended by five previous amendments, dated June 29,1971, February 26,1973, March 31,1981, July 31,1981 and January 18,2000 respectively (as amended, the "Lease"), pursuant to which Lessee leases from Lessor that certain real property more particularly described in the Lease (the "Premises"). Capitalized terms used in this Amendment without definition shall have the meanings set forth in the Lease. B. Lessor and Lessee now desire to, among other things, further amend the Lease to correct the legal description of the Premises, extend the term of the Lease, and modify the rent provisions with respect to a portion of the Premises. NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree to amend the Lease as follows: 1. Modification of Legal Description of Premises. The parties acknowledge that the legal description of the Premises as set forth in the Lease is inaccurate in certain respects. Specifically, the Lease, as amended on January 18, 2000, depicts those portions of the Premises that constitute the "Park" and those portions of the Premises that constitute the "Depot." However, there is a conflict in the exhibits to the Lease in that a small strip of land is depicted as part of the "Park" on Exhibit H-2 to the Lease (as that exhibit was amended on January 18, 2000), but this small strip of land is not included as part of the "Park" in the legal description of the Premises (as that description was amended on January 18, 2000). The parties desire to correct this discrepancy in accordance with their prior intention to include this small strip of land as part of the "Park." To that end, the correct description of the Premises, which hereby amends all prior legal descriptions, plats and other maps, consists of the following: (a) the Premises, as more particularly described on the attached Exhibit 1; (b) that portion of the Premises more particularly 120308jb 0130941 described on the attached Exhibit 2 (the "Park Parcel"); and (c) that portion of the Premises more particularly described on the attached Exhibit 3 (the "Depot Parcel"). 2. Extension of Lease Term. The term of the Lease as to the Park Parcel only is hereby extended to June 30, 2042. Such extension shall not apply to the Depot Parcel. The term of the Lease as to the Depot Parcel only shall expire on June 30. 2033, unless Lessee terminates the Lease as to the Depot Parcel as provided in Section 2 of the Fifth Amendment to Lease dated as of January 18,2000. 3. Depot Rent. The agreements stated in this paragraph shall apply notwithstanding the terms and conditions of Section II of the Fourth Amendment to Lease dated as of July 31, 1981 (the "Fourth Amendment"). Lessor and Lessee hereby agree that the rent for the Depot Parcel to be paid on September 28, 2012 shall be in the amount of $160,000 (the "2012 Rent"). Lessor and Lessee further agree that, in the event Lessee elects not to exercise its option to terminate the Lease as to the Depot Parcel as of February 26, 2013, the rent for the Depot Parcel to be paid on September 28, 2013 shall be based on the 2012 Rent, as adjusted based on the increase, if any, between the Consumer Price Index published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose Area, All Urban Consumers, All Items) ("CPI") in effect as of September 2012 and the CPI in effect as of September 2013 (the "2013 Rent"). Lessor and Lessee further agree that, in the event Lessee elects not to exercise its option to terminate the Lease as to the Depot Parcel as of February 26, 2013, the rent adjustment next due pursuant to the Fourth Amendment for the lease year commencing on July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015 shall be made in accordance with the Fourth Amendment, and the 2012 Rent and 2013 Rent shall not be the basis for such adjustment. Lessor and Lessee further agree that, in the event Lessee elects to exercise its option to tenninate the Lease as of February 26, 2013, the 2013 Rent shall be pro-rated through February 26, 2013, but Lessee will not be obligated to pay any portion of the pro-rated 2013 Rent to Lessor, provided that the sublessee of the Depot Parcel pays the full amount of the 2013 Rent directly to Lessor. 4. Grant of Easement. Lessor and Lessee are the parties to that certain Grant of Reservoir Easements dated as of January 20,2009 and recorded January 29,2009 as Document No. 20114059 in the Official Records of Santa Clara County, California (the "Reservoir Easement"), pursuant to which Lessor granted to Lessee certain easements in connection with Lessee's development of a reservoir underneath a portion of the Park Parcel. In addition to the easements granted pursuant to the Reservoir Easement, Lessee has identified the need for an additional access easement across the Depot Parcel (the "Access Easement") that was not included in the Reservoir Easement. Lessee has indicated that it will require this Access Easement once the Lease expires as to the Depot Parcel, or if the Lease is terminated as to the Depot Parcel before that time. Lessor and Lessee hereby agree that they will execute the Access Easement, substantially in the fonn of the attached Exhibit 4, prior to the expiration or termination of the Lease as to the Depot Parcel, whichever occurs first. 5. Effect of Amendment. As modified by this Amendment, the Lease shall remain in full force and effect. 6. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which together shall constitute one original of the Lease. 120308jb 0130941 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lessor and Lessee have executed this Lease as of the date first above written. LESSOR: THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY By: ____________ _ Its: ______________ _ 120308 jb 0130941 LESSEE: CITY OF PALO ALTO, a municipal corporation Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney APPROVED: City Manager ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of ________ _ On before me, (insert here name and title of the officer), personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/shelthey executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing para'graph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature: Place Notary Seal Above 120308 jb 0130939 !~.' :,B>k-'-.-., ~1i6\I/IU.l' Su.~f)'.oJl~/PtAIIIltt$ Park J!1t«1_~ 'EmmiT 1 141i1-D~rlp(ion March $-tOll BKF No. 201 ;6005 Pllge t,Mi ,Re-a.l pro,pluly -In .. the, Ow of' .PalQ' AIII5.< CoU'Oly of $Mta <;Iarn, SUUe of'Califomia., d,escribed -as foltow5: Seinga pot/.tQlJof'lho landt of "Che-J~()'cI1:d ofTru~tees of Qi~ ~,.tlli SI\Ultor'(1. Junior Vnl-verslly~ 5'ody, hll.vjl)~.eolj>.o'j'ale powers. li-ru!ieJ !he biw.-s o~ the Sta:~· o~ catifo)'lilllr des¢6b~ oas ft>tTow&:' :aelhg ·also 11 potrien of the I'llilds_ ~d.bed, as Bt .Camilli;> 'Pnl:k~ ill 'that certain 'R~olqtiG9 pas'~ -gud ad~p~d by the Cit\yCouMll of'the C((~ orPa(o~,A:lto on' February 26-, I ~7j: by R,esojrit;lon No . . 4109', re~(:)rded. 'February· 28, 1~13' to 'Book 257 '~~ PlI.ge 281; Oftlciai .Recoids.· of -S-.nln ·Clara 'C(),unty-:L1I1a l.h~ lIDi~ descl'ih~' I'~ ~bat ocutat!'t. :1)\~Jo(s O.eed (QutlClahtJ)~_ fi'om StaJe_ .of ~\i(Q'fni.a, 'Lo 'Fhe: }ibll,rd· or'l'ru.~~8o(·fbe.L.elarid StltO(otd Juni'QrUnivel'Si(y., ~_~March -~9, l,0f)4 as. 'Doc'Qmellt No. t %8:.6,57'1, OffkiaJ; Recprds of .said' CQu:n~y-, more panlcularl'y d'escfibed -as follows: - :iW:GINN'-IN.G at the· rtto,st' ~~.sterly (:or.qet of the PnJ() Alto :Stati.on Gt'J)urtd,s-. a.s wa~ Sl~(ion 'GfGuuds"s·'Ciesnribed ~n'n\at ~~_Bii1 Easem.ent from Leland ~lanf~~ ro' Sp.lI~em :pactm~ R.aliroad CQmpan:x, ~a:ted !November n. 1892-and ~!frded October 28. t915' in Vdlum.e 435' of Deeds lit :P~ge-'244-. R~rds of.S~t& CI..-a COU~J)tYi said comer Ming -also the moSl i:lor(h'er\y: ~Qmer-of ,the ~Jld$ dellCribed asP1,U"~el No.. 2 10', thaI ,eenain: Sob1etlSe, between City (jf-PalO -Allo; a mu..ilje\pa~ PdJ:pQy~ti-(jfI of tbe SUlt~ 'Pf. Catlfomi.a .and' .SouJhei1l ,PaeiJic ~'1~o4(l. ~~rnp.an~,l1 WWott1QfL, _~ri1,ed Oofobet~ J~t .19.39"111 Bqq'k:9M. ~t -p~~ S80,.-Omcia': ~~Qrds· o.f S$ta ClaUl:CQllnty~ "mlen:ee leaving ~d.' '~91et and a1Qrtg' tir~ g~iJ'er.a1 SO\1,lbw.est~1y nne of sgid Parcel'No. ~ (951 -a.It ~$Q), :th~ fQnowing twa (2) -COUI'~ ~d dill~n~~: 1.) Souih t~1~'2S'tTiailJ, 14~.13 ~t'i '2') Sooth 5:064G'3Q!~ EllsI, f3'6;47 feet-ta tlTe ,~.ost nottherly comeH)fthal,certai.'n paroel ·on~cl, d~iti.ed in that certain Assigom.ent 'And ,As8!1mptiQn Qr-·SubleaBe,. bef~n, the Cityc,f Pal~_ Allo'and. Th~ Hoard .ofT~ of the Leland 'Stanford llinfor University, ~corded .,Fel)JjUary 2-6'. ·~QOO·'8S' Dacgmen:l No, l..5l~2'4. Offieful R~Qrd~,of S~«t Clara Q5,umy;; Tbenc!%: leav-ing: -sai\;I GQtb~ 1l!'I¢. 'aJ6l1,g :ttl.,e-·n.Qnhw~terly., tlllc!. ~th.we!i~r.ly!\nes of $ai..c;l '.SlIblea:s~ t~, 1516;3'~4",lh~ .'folloWinrtWo:.(2-) .COUF'!.'e1I an'~ (ljst~; t~, South 19~11J'3tf West, lW,tlOifeetj 2), SbJlUl $0-9-40;~.O" ~. '2Q{);'OO fe.et 'to, -Ut!; D~'i,f.eSfurlY Hne Q[ -that cm~in plU'C~l of l.!md' ·desCribed ,II)' {hat c:e.tQlUI Ass'ig-nti\e)'lfanq As.sqmprion of_Sttbl~e. ~~een th~ CilS" of Pillo AIlo.-and T,l~ S6,ard ()f'Tf1lSl~ oft~ ~I~d IStJJJfoJd J,uffltiJ.:·Universlty~, ~orded February, 2$.:2ffOO' as D~ll~enl -No. "],S.163'82~, 'OftlcllilRe;co$ ohaitfCOIllltyi to:errc;'~' ,gloog StJid northwes{er~y' .iibe and, thE!' 8®QwlesterLy }_l!n~ of sal~ Subr~e (:000. ,1.s1.6;3~B22-) IO~ foIlQwjngtw~(2-) c'('juo;~ aod·l;li6tan6'e~~ - 1), SOI1\h J9n llng" We~L 1.';,00 Teel; Legal D~C;Jiptien EXHIBiT '1 -PARK & DEPOT PARCELS Page 2 ofi 2')' Soli111 50'040']O·"'B1..q, :129.02 reef.tO D, f)Obll on the MnhweJ\tel'ly fi:ne or Univet'illt.y ~ \',emte; stlid poi'llt PCill'g l,l1~ the ix;ginllillg of a· non-tangen.1 o,UTV.e; concn~e} 10 tile Si)ltlh,~~st" halt'j,3g 1\ Ra:cliu!I of ~6.flQ feet. (rojf\ th,e cenler of ~d cur\'l! a I1:Idilll III,!! ,bears North 81OS8'Or We!!k. 'fhel~e nlcln',§, sl{l'd oorfh\\le.~lerLY' dint of Uni~er.\\ty' Av.eOllo. rhe fp'lIowiJlg lWO (1) cotfl'l¢& .anp I:fisrllnce": I,) ·SOIi.lh\\'ester!~. ~lQ"g sWd cjli've. IhrO\fgb a ctJ\tl'1li ,!\r'lgle of 05'jS4"25'~, rOt aO'lIre Length of 7,01 fe_ell'o Ih~. beginning of a re·ve~ cur·ve, .cQneJl>/t'·t.o th.e northwest. h~vin8 a Radius-bf 33-.40' feet). from the-center o[.suid. cur,lIe, a t'll.dial Jim; b:etir:s' Sou!):l (f7"52.'-32·· Eal)'1: '2) 'Southwes.lerly. al~mll. ,!\aidc\Jm~, throu·gh fl ~ill(ltl Angle:o! 78(,211 "11 ", for. 'IIlllU,,·.Lengih qf 4~,!5B ~t 10 lite nOl1h(!llst~l.>: line of Ei CfuniIW Rea'I, -bcto8 I\.lsO Slale Htgli'W8¥ S-2-.; Thefl~ ttJ6lJg. ~llid l1or-tbe_lI,.~ter\y H[1e of Er Cnmmo IRca! .. ,Ule-following: eigN eS') C-OUJ:8e.~ aT(d dis1&nces: -, l) NQnh 5o<'ll'43"WeI\l, !i66. IJ feel : , '2)-N()~h 41°urSI" 'rie$(, 80.4~ feet ro the begInning qf 'i l1on·tnngerjt BUn'!; _COllea\'e lCf ~e 'Sou-lh-W'flSt. na"ing a IUdi u~ of I n3 ,~O fee\" (l'om lile. ccll~r,df sQ'id ,C'(.Ifve '~ Ji\d1.allfn~ ,btwt> Nor.th.48"'17"29,'! East; 3') Norihwcsttrly. along said curve, lh ruugb a ,cen I!1f!:_! Angle Qf O~ "24 ·00", for iln aoc Lengf\l' of 1!}.5A?'!eel\ . .. 4) .Nodh 50"06'31 \. "",'ISSI, t 71 .20·f~l; 5} ~orth·44~·S.7'·:'W' WC~I, 898,7~'·(t.e1.: 6-) Nm:lh 4{)"14'44'\'West, I 'j \',00 feet to Ihe bCglJ\tllng o( a ·Iangenl.curve to the righi, .having a Ra.d;u~,of f.02.00.fee~ 7) No~hwesfer1)', along :;{lid cur.ve.-'iomugh a C!'\itr.aJ Ao.g!e of 16"T-9LW', 'for 'un ·arc Length of ~9,06 &t !(;) f.~C b~ginn ingdf R C:Ql\"lpo~nd C)\m!Ci, concave-10-·lbe'iou(h~81. hlIving a. R!4dil\~ of non feet,. &om II,e oenter·-of·said' CUfven f~cHlIlllne'bt!<lf'll Sou\]l66°W-i.46" Wes\; 81 NC>r.lhe<!Sterly.nJong.·said curve. through· a central Angle of 9000',S· 53", for -M arc Length of ",&.:..~S-feel 10 11 Pf.ll'{lL on. I,he lioutberly lroo of Palo: Alto Avenue., said-sou1oer.l:Y line .. j's described 'irr dlat c;edain ,~cepljOlX lWee] fqr :<.aid RI .Ca~i.l1Q, Pllrk',per R-'<."X.Gluiion No.. 4709 (2j 7 'O,~, 28 n. '$lIid 'I?o.rti~ being aho tile 'beginnlng of. {I eompoumi cu l"Ve.-cOlic1tVe to Ott swtn,gllSt,· Oaving. tl R~dil,l6 of. r82.00 feet, 'nomthe ~J)ler of ~io. cutVc.l~ rndinl lint,'! be,a.rs -N-6rth 23·"l1.6~.2:1" We~t. slI1'd p.oi1~t beJh~ alSQ he~.after referred \(1 !IS 'P'oh)'t I~"; 'Thence ulong ~ai'd-.~uth6rrY line of' Putt>· Alto -A veti(le, lhe (orrowing 'three (3) t:earl!$ and; di!ltlll'lc~:: 1), "Ensterly a!ong ~and eUJ"\'e. through <t cellt~1 An&le .. of !,6°34'46·~. f(ire aJla~ Le.ngtj1 (if 52,Ifl:6 .feet;-. " , 2) .Nimh 8~o4g.'1S" ijac;t,6A \ ~ fe:et; ~) North 8'-5"4 t 'g~' '~~ 1,.54:4S f~, m Ithe f;$l\lil1\ .... 'e~erly \loe,of lh.~ Southern Pooific IfallfQad Comp.any right of yto:~! Legal'Descriptioo' EXHIBIT T ~PARJ<&J)~ OT PARcELS Page 3ni7 ~h~nee >:tlttng>~tljcl,SQutllwe~t~1"~yJilleoTSOll~~ern R~mcRflnto~d' Com,panr ri'ght,,,,fWA:y., Soulh 5,(i94Q'3,O!' East,. 514';Q4t~et'totbe 'mQS1'wc,stc~dy,;cOl~n~n<lf tbelandsdescf,ib~ S,l~'PAl'¢'t}il~0~ lin th'at~~rtaln Sub lens~?e:t~ve'elltityo~Valo, j;\ltQ •. ~::.l~~\~id~al<r(jr~qt~ti~J)"ol:,tJje ,gtnt6,iQfCWlfol1ntu' '(;,ln4:~og!thern Pa~iflq>Rai:lt?il(1 GUUlpa~);~ .~c9tpQrf:\tf¢I\, ttl'QQ"d~~l OQtQber 3{)~ ] 9£19 in IilQ~k9~1 at;Rag~ :5$Q, QfficialR.cc()t'e~9f Mlid! County:; '<1~heI1ee feoving ~8id c:omer ~ndatotlg the,sQuthwestetl,yllfltfO{ ,said RUfceJ N~;l{9~tO.R.580)t S~{Hh 45°S4'41" East~601i;O~f(tet to'thenorthwesterJyfhlenfthe flln:ds4'¢~'¢fiJjm~$ POrcellA j:ll thijJ~crlail1 QuholabJ')'J)eedfr0fl1~outtlel11;pacifie, l'rM~PQf(~ti~~'Onlpat1~'taDe\awate ~QrPQlaliQI110 . r~e BQatdof~Jil~toeKi'Qf the Leiand S~anford Junior !Jniveir$Hy~ recorded Augu$.{ 1; 1~8:1 in l3'QQk 0263 lttfklgt!iZ9,t\~,Q.fficinl ~ecQrds of aid CounlY~ 'thence 0101'18 said nOI1hwester'l~nne-Qfsaid Parcell:,A (G26.30.lt. 298),S'ouIhJ~(ft9j30'?'W~st, (jO,OO feel to lh.e point of BEGfNNfNG" J?aik Parcell 1$:eafl)'rope,rty jintheChyofPtllo Al1o~ County of Sanla CllltllkS't.ate ~)f California. dtJ;¢tfboo' ·t~ fm.JJ(l~s'. Behlg aportitmof'the lat1d~ of n,e BO~di.of 1'ttlSt¢t,~ Qf fh~t~:Ia),\(JSnmfotd'uniQr :UniversUy, a ;body hn viog corp.or~le PQwer$ under the tllw~ oObe S't:at~ o.fCalifQrnia)~descrihedas' f'QUow$~ ,l;ieJ,~8aJ~othe' tands,de$e~~(f a,s<p,areelNo. I itlthat;iCel1a11l :~llbJeaSe 'belWe¢q~it~ pf ~~lp: Pdt~~ :~1l1~»i~jp~t ~91)J~r:~ti()n~f. the', ,StaJ~ ~f ~H~o.l't1i;lrmd ... S,t)ttt~em,l1at;ifi~,\'Rl!iltQ~~j ~(i,rnp.IJf:l)hai ~qmrQtatjon~recQrq~ ,~CfoQ~~$~JH}3'~~i .,B'ook ~;$'l· :a;t '~i).&~'5i$(), Q("ifi'at ;S;~O[ds'Qf,Sanla (;;Jal"a, Count:y:, ,m()l"epm:tl~uJart)f. (i~crib,~di'!i f()H()W~f Tben!:¢;\¢aYing; ~md ¢QtJ)",r auo along the ~®th:~(J$f&rlf'lltli~ of s~id Laud~f NQrlb 390 19'30~IEa5tt ,5£M),(}t~et to a.. poih1on the, 'i~Quthwesterly tl'n~; ;o.f SOittlJ~triPacific 'Bj{ihiQad~o'l}l,panyrigbf0f \~Nty •. srudwllll..being al~o\tle; most ea~terl)' ~Qrn.erQj:$ailIPil:r~~l No.1; 'rb~l1ce;.l~ytrtg:$aicl comer andalQi)g ;said .:s()ud}:.w'~terlr 'line 0fSOil(h~m ,Fa.qif'i~Rl1j}r9ad taQ1l111al'J~' irigl1t o'f:Wi\¥~.Nptth 5Qt140' 3 O~>'Wen~ 6J:ID/0'~;f~~r tt}theq~Q,st;.'we.~t.~d}1. .cQro,~l'Qf'sajd ,P~tQ¢lWo, 1; Tbepte, J~{i~ifi$'$~id . C()m~r .attailll90g thl} south~e\$(~lyline! of sl11(tPareet .No. 1·(9~J ·Oi}'{.$8Q}~ SQU~fu. 45'°54'4~" J!a.~ti. o04ij()&::teet'~o,(he' poitltofB:EG11'QN'ING. ParJt P~ltccl~ L~gal[)e'$etj,jltiQJJ E'XHtB1T ,I """:PA.RK .& fJEP'Q1' PARCBhS P;Ige 4 of? Real prap~Ji~ ill IheCiry ofFplo Alrl}~, 'C'ollnt,>'·qf$i~ln~l Clorn. SO\IC of Cat i fOllJfa,.des(Wil1e"q ,;!~ f91Ipw.:. . 13.~fl~ga porti,on Ci>fiJheJ~uclsofThe: fJ:Q~rd. Qf"~Jl,J,st~e,~ oftl1e .lJJ,.hlna~ ~t8nford'TUliiQl' 'Ul1ive rsi.t)' \ a lKld~ ihA"'in~; ~Qrp:o\"at~ fJdwe[S [lOde r tfr~ laws. of the State of Cal i QMith desc ri1;t~ .j)'$; 'il;)J I OW$; Bcing ~d$lllt,P9~fQl~,\:if Ihlt14~¢S tJ~tj~iW' .})'!:f, ~I, ·~q~TIt~l~~~l'k\ in,tna( c¢1"t~d~ Re:;;~J:tl1j~l)i~flS$~d and udopl~4 ;byth~;Cit;¥.'Councj,J (;jflheC,,.ty ·(If Palnf\ltt(r()n;~'bruot1 26. 1973 QY :Re~qlMtlQb.~Q.I: 41(}~.,; r:ecord~~Jf~~nl'ar:,y 28, 1973 in :6ook 25i 1l.t.Pttg~ 2,~J"., Offidal RecorQ$Qf $'fJ;J1ta Oa(R ~ou;nt.Y\ moreopatti¢platly descTiJ,jed ~'if~UQWS: Thence lellv11~g~tlfdp0fnto.n-d atong tile nOr1heasteNyUne:'QfEl Cantjno R:~al\b~ll&a.l$9S1al~ tlighwaX,82, Nort113tYQO,9J0rf West., 85.S.3 feel to Jhel'lUJI<1.PQINT O.F B11Z~;~N~l:NGQf this l:f~'s~ti1itinn; 'fier\c:e'J~~¥ing:$'ai~' pCllnt~)fld, alQll~ s,uid · ilQrtheosterly Hne,Qr:E'l'C~nl~n:Q '~eal" ;tJ~¢ fOUQ,Wing two ,'~) cout efu nlld~·ctlstt)l;lc~~: - I ,"lSlprtl) 50~ 19· +1'" w¢,~t\ l2,.1.49,"ifeet~ 2~' M~tlft.48°30.:02:~\};,t~g:t\ 69.11 teet t~.i'th¢ C1$ntef'{hl(; ,of San Fmncisql1ilQ Creek; ~l~ncealen.g: 'sat(f," ce~1ter l:lJ'le Qf S:anFral\~isqldto C~el~f,fba falluwlng .. tWO! r2,lcolirses: and' fJ~~~n)lceSC ' .', ., h $~u(h~84r'55'3b" Ect~t, 164.52 fetm 2/) {\{ttltfn '6lJQaz~3q~' :~stli tt .. ~'~ fe¢[ l()~h;e ;$.Qll,tllw~:stt}tl): "tnc '&fS'Qntbem ~~cirrca:ttn#oa~ QQIll.p'an,Yrighi'of w 3Y' '{~li~n!:1eafot't~)~Ji:i:d southwi.lSjJefl~, ti"ne of SotrthetfJ,Pucific Railroad COmpafiiy iight Of ~flr .. t!'le, ~9,tlI!}Wim'K]w{j ,(2:rC{nH·se.~.,i1nQ djsttaoccs: .' lJ: $'~utn,~Gfl33);4tli';Eijsli 7,.9) fc¢u ~f) $Qutll 5Gv4{j'!::llU'~: EaSl.l~6.l3 f~up:tb~ cllQrtherl~' Itheqf !f?alo·,Ail)(l AV.teh'U:e.~isajd northerly line (s:aesc'iji~ fh"tbJtt cerfili'll' ¢X'cep~iol1pa~l~:for ;~aidE~C:.~mj,no park· ;p~w B.~olutiE)rl N:o;.4q;QJt '~'5Z D.lt. 281 )i ' Thence along $;aid oodhetf~ linJ;' uti .}lc(Ie,AItAA;Y¢tlll¢., tbe: tQH,aWitlgn,'{!';:!'(21 ~p~)rse.s .and i;tis'anc~~; 11 $()tnlf8~~.r'34"We!;r, 19,~i22.reet to the begiJlnin& Qf'1tfa:t~g6fitC.ut\{C:1D1he ligOl; having ~ RatWos bf'J8,;2\OG fe~r; , 1) W~sterl y. (~l~I1g suitJ ~1:IrY~~i tnrough a. c'entl'al ~~1~leQf07Q50lZ2:'\ .lor ,1t,)li' arc ,L.etlg~hof ;2",27 fcct f~rtlle TRUE POINt OF BEGINNlNG,,·Q(.,thi:$ tlescri.P.~i'Oll. . Col1ftliningian area of C:h(}9) acres:, 'inore<ot tes~'. S(titJg<1Us~Agsessor' s Par¢~tN(ifilfx:t120-3j:~fJ~H J)~r,rtdll Y eat ':2~rt l"~(n:t Legal'Descript1t1t1 Exfili3'lT J: ~,f.'ARK .~.,. DEPO'T p t\~;r;£tLs Pag¢ 5'0(7 I)£Qof.'))ar£~] ~ R~' I PfQP~J~;Y{H tn(!"(;XtyefP~dG Altol CQ1lnty 9r8:nnt~ Clnro Slate of Culitomjatd:~sc.rjfpea~s foIlO\y~: ? ;R -g 0 port rOfiflfd~ff Itttids ot~rhe i~oafd nIT ~ rf~.~ ,o~'lheLelatid ';8mn.f(~rd .Jl,! rrtQrl1nlver~i I y. £\ ,body havil)~ cQrp{jr.at~l?liW . ur cler Ih 'laW$of th~ Slnt~ of Califantla. desC:ftb~; a,~ tollow~: l$eirlg,:tlIsotlle luncl!\ de·stmibeq as Parcel lA 'In. thilt cerfiijiI1QuifolaJroD¢¢(J. from Southern Pae,iifl~ Transpottill1oI). COllipail'Y, ~J)ehlwar~corjl?:r.&ffon.UJ Tbe .·l:lfiJ.~ ()f lh,.,ree. of t,~~L&I:~i)tl Slanfo~ljU~iol':tl~jv~rsiIY~ .re~Oniea AU~".51j •. J98tl.in~ti?ktJ;26~.·a.tJla~e . ~9,~.9fl1c·i~1 >~~¢orn~ of arnrtC:I~~~.C~ruy >ltlldtn~h'll1ij~ :tJe~t;~il;lecta~?c1t9f3l~,Q,2 intha~ ~tt:~in. S1Jl11alls.e b~IW~J1 Cjty-of'Wf!to' AI~<'l;a mlm'ioi,pttJ ¢oll'-Qt~d(mpf the· Sr6lf! ~fCafi(omia ~O)d SQutlternp6clfi:c RailroadC'Ql'11)iU\I1)!, ai ,'qt;porati9P:~ rec~rd¢QQ~d~r30:, ] ~$' li\.Book: 95 1 at 'Pag~ 58.0,; Offici~J ,R~cordS qf s'oid Coohty.mbte pnrtltllf.Arly (J,~~-J:!ihl}das: fQ1Jo,w~'! Be~inn'in8 a(i! pol'Olo" ·it~let.s~ottQllbet\\t~e.'l tbe ¢~nt:et:(in~ .Qf ll~h/el'sity . ~venpeilP~ th~ s~ulhw~~d6dly Hn~,Qf;the P:~lo' J\lt.Q·.$ta(iQrt;Gr~l!t)tt$.; «~~!,\ldStaJiQt1· GtQtJticJs it{ d~$ytibed' ill that ~r~jJJ etl$~Ol~nt.ftQm··:J..eJan6S1al1fQl'{;I, lo$0l1then)P'4~lfi'C' JlA,itoad Compan;y.dtUedi~,Qi'lembet .2:11892 alto rre~Qi'ded Dclo~rz:g, l~iI';!). in Volume4J'S. qr,D~d$" al Page, :144. '~e¢()t4'S of Santa ~lIJrCl County; llt~~l'H;ie,.t.li!a~ng sn~'p t)~tt11 i£tilQ.ulon ~aid :-io,q:tbw~$t rJy 11ne of &~td RalD 14lro Sla(i~f\ ~roJlI16s, :No:it.hf··.5·0,14J'Or3Q"W:~$t.. 1 J:·~I.QS feet to a 'PQh1t9\1 ln~uor,({J\ye~~~tly 'line o1'SnW .. t1;p'iv8(sity; f:\. venue, $-Aid POlllt h(!ing 'alrm the ooglnlllng,Qf£lJ).on-fangent iI$Jli\fe'):~~O(faN'~"fQ~h~ :sat((h as(~ :~ul¥jns a R.nulUs of 300.00 feet, frQllllhc cefH~r'l1f &:uidcul c tA>ta~;i.lAnjne 1?~fl.t.:RNqrt1!J{2go45·3J~· West, ~aid pOint being iilso Ihc TRt.ra.IOJN;rOF BEGI'N'TS1NGor ,tijis,de:sct1p.t~tyJ;l: [he.nGe ,J~a ,/j og said PQinta:Qdal!Jll;¥tbf.lgenetal'nQ.rtlJvlestcrl~/H:ne J:)fs~lnUi1i\fersh,~ A~,enne.the ft1lfo,,~~,Jhg twa (2) cours~!u'nd d'iSll),oces: :3) :h1otth~st~tty\, ~lon3 SatdelJI1V~t. through, acent:raIAI1;Je ~r I t ~5'~~;5~?~f~raJ1 atcten gtb Q[ 62:4 7 {~t't~<' (b~ bcgitl:lthl~~r W non~tangeot~tJf'¥c)¢oJlcavc lirl. r.neSQ,t!:tl),-,!,C~';l,hQY~ng: .~ Radius pf I ~9;P0 feel. ft9rrt. tli~'e."l1,t~r Qf said l?itr.V~~ r:~(j~atdine bear$N(:)l1tr L~pr8 '04" East;; 4) SOutheasledY;~'i.dong q:id'rfnr:ve. tbtPugb.: a~¢~nlral A.ngle:pI 1.0~5$~?\ rQl'Cl~l;~j'(; Lengal 'lJf )'6,05 fe.et (<:t a. PQiQl~ said point t1etng ot the tntenJ,e,ctj~nt;lfn li'nedtaWl! SQ,(lO reer )lprt.hwe~letly~ ':mgnlsai'(gl me8$Urell),enl. from said cetll~fli;n~ pfUpr.yel1iljAwet:fu:e; thellc~ fea'viog$lid, ,~i.J)( .. f}~d;PataUe.lWjJh';$~M ·,gel'm.ftl~~~Qft1qJ(Iv;.erstl? ~l£~'et,jll~~ hl:Otth 3:9°S9130" l&a$t~ '2.~4 feet to tIle; m~}~l ;eus!etly .ct;wner'~f:St1l(l Fa;f(!"el 1 A (02 ' . ().~R .. S9~)~ lh¢t'1c.~le~ving ~id( Ctntftf!f' and along \he; nm1~erl y 1t.)eorsa.iqp,afc:¢1 tA,i,~'()tthi:50'?~{Y3iO" W¢$t~~&41.19 fee t fP tll~ m~~t nortl1erly\coq1~r;(}fs(lid Parcel I A (0261 D.R. Z98)~ ThenceJ~a.vft1g I1mo co.rm~taod alQng Jfu~:ttQnhw.es(et:1y lin~ of . aid Parcel lA: .. $'Quth'.J9}?Q,9,130n Wesll 1f.Lt)O r~t (0 tb¢.lnp~t: mniherly comer or saidi'p'U,l'cei No. 2 'Cf),~lQ,R,580)t ~Aid'¢Q(.net b~ill;g :a;J$;Q(he,1t:il()5t we~{erl.y comer of said Palo Alto Station Grounds (43:$E1~eJils 244.)~ , ' .. " , . .... ..' tegal'I)es~riptlMn Etrf~JHI1 1 -<·PARK '& i)EPf0.T. :pI\RCeLS l?~,ge.6,of7 Thci1p~ Jcovi n g , l(l~OrnerLHld al{Jng"the~~ltcr:ll .s(Juth\'\I'CSf¢tIY U,ll~ .of ~JJ2idl)~1rE:elN'o. 2.t951 0\1*. 580:)( the f(lI IOW,Jflg: rIve ($}~~lIr~,e5{)'l1q 'aj~tM';;~:S~ U i8(rlUti :l6C.1212g·'·~Ea~l,.14~;.13; feet :lJ 'Sou~h .• @o~~~o~a(J'" 'East 4:2()}9:~ Jt~~t to the. hegtnjlillg·of II tangen'loln've to lne l~ft{ h"ying:a Rn~illS'of 13.,{)4 '\lelt ~:). No~h~8t~~ly~.atQn~ ~j¢1Q(jfVe, thtOllgh ;l~e:nlrarAngleo1l 90000'OQ\'\ for an a't.cl.i;!I1s,th:,h~ 2 t ~$ f:~e;t t~ Jhe begjni1i:t~~of 0 reverse curv~~·{,'()nC(lvc: lo~he 50uche,ast.~~V.j;llg a: R4d,11;ls;af J ~.64 fee( •. 6[~tm:theQen,el"(jf -tiuld curve, H rgdinJ lhre,b:euTK Norfh SO,()40~'3t1~~· \Ye~lj . 4) Soulhea~lC'l~ij ,~lpJlg; s~itJ (:urv~, If}toU'!4Wa ;~bn.trall\ngJe Q,f 90 00" ()'~''. f'0( anatq Len-gtlui( .2.1 .43 feet~ $:) ;$9{jlh~ $(;)°4U·3(W~"h1~0.2~61 f~e~ taaj:)olnl, ~m said northwe!iterly line:t.lf s~Jtit lJnlversity, l\Yttmle. !itt l~ .. Pbitll~ei'll~ . aJs() .. tIle, .. oe~iJlilm~;()f '~ .. o Qn-tangcnt cUrve;, corrc.ave. t~;the' $W1tbeast iha\fi'lg n R,tdius of ~OO.OO fee~, frc;>,ll1! tll~'!?~Ater of ~ijfdcurve a tudial1in~;.b,:eaJ's: 'NrJl:1h;3:~,~i:4B'4t~" Wc.~t: ' ~b~ll~e north¢lt~tel'I~~lal1d; ;110118 ~afdnG~h~~SH~Fty n,nt?'of'~aip, tJQ1\'erS;!ts:' A¥enlt~,aIQtig su,(d ~,Ulv¢,tllIougha.;~~ll·t~Angle 0t. J;0643·1~t. fllr lltlar~ t.en,tthof~f),~:i4 feet :tn th~ tRW ~('j)liNT OF BJi!O;IN'NI1'S:~ of lhi. de;s'C.I'l,pti;oll. '"~PQt Parcelll' rt I propert")' tn. the CHyof' J?aloAlto,QoUllty .of Santa, etara~state()f C'ali rotlj'la" d:e$¢riped ,A~ f(;JU'Q\v;,s'~ :a~1118:~PQlt:11l~~~t~:e lil~nl~~ffhe];lcr~d;Q~ rttlst~:e$ ~f·tbe, 'Le'l~n4! iSfijJ'ifg:tdJ;tIOlpr ll ni V4t$i'tYt .3 ~Qdy ba\~ing}~.otptl1fJtecp;m;'ite~ Cln~[~r'thc l3;W$' ef;th,¢ Stal& QLca:nf{')".l'ia.dj~StlribJeli as: f oIlOx.vs,: ~eh)g :a,;I~~JQtl ;]~tid$·d~$cri·bedJ. aSP:~f:(;~:JIB irttb.~t,~g~~.p·~U:f~clalU1neej (£(9t11 !S~~lb.:tn ~~Ql:tI? ~FFll:~Sp?ffanon Company .at}cl~w;a,rB:~~q>omrlo", :lP,.~e .a~~tdQf T.ruM~~&~()f. :~~~.Leh"tJd S~~~t:Qf~Junj'o:Vf1iM~J",~it¥.,reQQ~(I~Alf~:~st 7. 1981 jl~~~gpk G~fi3.·af 'P-age 298,af,fi~i:afRe,~ntd~ '(JFS'an:taCla.t(,Ctu.1n(¥.JtlPll; ipardcuJ,arJx 'de.sc:t'i:bed as fi.1HQ\Vs; Begillning at .apdtrtt ;0£ liltetsect ion I)et,w~ttt~~ .~~·nle'lille 'Qr 'tJ.?jv~tift y Ayenue'an:n J~e souih;W~I~rt*,'lih~,of ,t~u~: ~~l~ }\1~~St~'rQ!lClf9~n~F~{4~ sait1'~f~tfcyn(3:Q'~Jllds. B d'. ribed J»'.t~at t ertnin Easemenlft(}fn Lelnnd$t~nfQrd ·to: 'Soulliem:~f.l<iin({Rnilrom.J,:~glt\~~.\~ \ daled ~oveirt~~r 23. 1892 and r~'~~"de.q: 9(,{'(()b~J,' 2.8* 11115 in, VQlume:43:; Qf ,m.~ds Ql·J;tflg~ ~2f,4,. ~~gQm~~f SJmla: Cla.ra COUnt); , th~nce lea\'ing sard~~ib,tilJJd along, ~,aUi;~9\.t~1l\V~terry fihe flf ~m4}[~lQ Alt0S.tB;f~;o~(.lrou}]d;sj 'South 50<;.40' 301 ' Ea~t.· 'lt~Jj8: feet .io l\:PPl11t Ql1' th,e soulheaslcrl y ltne of said. UniverSity Avenue. said pOlin being also Ih~rBWE POINTOFnSS:lNNING of this. ciescriplion; \ L~.guJ J)escriptiM E)'(.HlBIT I ~ P~'K 8? .P~POtPAR'CEJ;.S_ Page:1of? _Theru:e'-leaVing, said :point and, ... I~mg ,the, southwe,stedy line. efS'.lid P.arcel IE: (02& O)}t. M_8-)j said nnl!' being.-,all>o tile, D'ortheasterly HIla of POJtiI 2 of Lot 38, assh-own on tb.llt' eettatn: map entitled "SJ:ltvey of L{)~, 37 W\d 38, S1M1fotd t::111'lver-sity La_ttds.P-alQ Alto. QIlif6mhi",. d4!ted -AW1s~ 19~5. S,h~t> 2 'Qf 2, prepareQ oNUvJ;rence. C;, Bliat'l. ClvH Engi l1.~r1 s'Q\1lh-50.0-40'30" 'BasI. 1:61.50 ,feet '(0 the:mon SQulherly cQrner of-~id parcel I Bi ~Il~ I~vil\g Sl6d northeasterly 'Une' of Rarcel 2 Qf Lot ~8"NCJrtti 39°19'30" &S(, 7,(;,.00 (eeup the h\~LeIl$Jer.l.y 'com~r of s~tGi' Parcel I'B; theti¢:~ l~~n,g ~id ,cOOler Md .aicmg, t\1e .. ~iloJ'lll not'lheaSterly ljl'le of $llid parcel LR{G263 'O.1t '2,911). '-'be-'f(l'UOWiDg th[~ (3) C9,1iI'S6S' hil.Q Qlsfance.sr t) N.orth~o;00-46'·3J:)"We!iI' • .94~~~; 1) ,$'oUfu 39D WS'O'" West" 26:00 f~ -3) North. 50"40'30." Wes~, 95.74-f~l [0 a Rolnl' on said so~l)reast6{:ly Ilne of s!kid Uhi"mily AV'enue,said point be.lng i1Iso the beginl'!_mg, Of fl., rro!\.tal1$~t-curve. conCAve to the northwest;, ha~iJ(g a ~a,d.ilas of, 3-80;00' feet 'fmm ,ihe. center of said curVe-a l'1ldial ,line--beal'S Sooth ~1f'\S:~';lg" Easr. 'Tb.en~e sou.tb·we_'St_edy" ~Io.~g. s~jd curv~ .. t~(opgh ~ central Angle C1fogo42116".-.(OI·!ln, a(C Length. Qf57,73 fee( !Q.-the-mUB"PQIN,T OF BEGINNING oNtl i$d~Gtiptj'~rt, - C9ntal,olh8.an area of 0.157 ncre~\ more or-less. )]emg afso AsSessor's Pateel.Np:mber ' I '20-3~·O t~'-eer Ron Year 20H .. W12, Park Par~Js.l. 2 &. 3~ and Depot p~, A & 8, 85 show·n on plat enUtled'-u,&oXlimIT 11' .. ttsche4, he'r~to and Ibl}dep part ber:eof. J{K}' Eilg,fn~t$ ~~A)~ Jelm ~ylltl,'P,L .. S. 0.11883, I.;i~ns~.e.xl?i~ 1~1.-20J.'3 #l'1#l.fYI ~ i ~~I'1;.. i -_ iF -- Dnted: III '--'-""''''_. IMt _ PARqeL_ ~ or ~t.01' .-APN. ,fllO-~_~, '~ OC( ~~---' ~: :~ .~ Z ' ALMA. STRE£r -tL ------CURVE _TABLE ',' 'II , CURVE RADIUS, 1 DEl. TA -I LENG7H1 CJ tJJJ.OO' ' OB'24:00"11 1~5.43' C10' , .300.00', 1" '55'52·,11 62.47" C'2 '3.6'" 90t)O'oo· . 2'.4,]' '3.84' 90-1lo'OO" -~ . ..,. crJ CT4 JOOAlO' ~'-tr4-J-'fB· 65.;l4'. LINE TABLE , J,UNf BcARlNG : LENGTH, t7 , S"6"2'~B·E '43 'J~ -J,J S50'40'JO~E 1J6."7~ l. ~9'9'3Ct'W '20.00 L4 SSO·.fO".JO~ I 200.00' L6 $J9,'9'JO-W ' 15.00 , i8 ,N4n,s'51,·wi 80M' L7 N50't16'JJ ·Wll 'n~' Lu " SJ§,9'.:JI)*W 60.00', ~ I W -S50'40';3'O-t 2O.zj;j~ I I L30 'NJ9'1t';JO."e _ 5ClOD,' L'£GEND -P;~.B. PQIN'T Of ·/3fGlNNIN,G 'PAL·O Ai.TO. SliNT~ ~A«A,CO/)NTY.; C}J;JF()R!WI\ K~ \SUR.1.2\i~fJ006\OWG--\Pt.ATS\PA~K.& 'OBPM PAACEl.S Pt.Atdwg .. . .". s~ct ,P,A~~D DEPOT 'PAA'CgtS l~ or t:_~ STA~FORD JUNI.OR UNW, J"ob No, 20'1260Q6 . . -, t , 'By', JG' "Ptlte 03=05=:t2 Chkd'. JyI< SHEET 20f J' ~'_tW"'-' , , '. • I LEGEND , ! r.p.&JJ. rRv.e: P()Iffl OF 8~QWN'N~ I , l ""BkF -. - - ~r"-"'~ PAr« ,p~CEl. i ,t1.n'+, ACRES± APH 12D-J1-D{!9 tiNE TABLE UNE BcARING LI..ENG1F.I La 'N4D'1"'~·W ' 'lSf.tJ() L.9 N82'i8'2oE, 64.'2' t.fd ' N~'''J'J''-£ 15'4..~· LLf2 iNJO'D9~~·W "8"-5J' I UJ N.M'29~.fl,~ '23..9' I tf. N~':lO'02"W .. lI~I' 11~ S8.f~3O"F 16452' LIB N6J'J2:'JO'E .17:.2" U7 S50',JJ'.,-£ 'J-JJ3' _~f8 S$O'4O'JO·£ 19~ ,J.-f9' S8S'04r'.).·w ,192.22f.1 -, I , ~ I I 1- ~BkF 'Park RarfeJ 1 'PARK P'A'RQELS March S,lO't~ BKF 'No; 20126006 Page 1 of5 Rear'WQpeu,y if! the City of' Palo A lU" Count)' of SImla C1~Stllte or ('AlUforni.il" d,escribed as' feUo.ws;: Selng.: a 'pom:on 'of the-.l8l1ds oti'he Board drl'rusl~ of-the,l.eLancJ Sianford junior' Ur)I ver!iJ;y..ca liody'h8~lftg cq~~rate '~owe(S·under the laws of lhe-State. of Cnlifomi'a, descl1bed, as follows; Being· al!;'o a pOr1i,(i)i) Qf ;he Jan'd~ descr;i~ as-m, ~ili~~T:.k. l!l' that :,eerta(n Resa~liol1 passed' and a9QPced by It}e.-Cftf-CQuncil oftbe City o£hl~ Al.to Q(tF~bl:Ual'y2(» 1-973 'hy Resclutlan N,Q.. !i'.7Q9~ recorded' :Fet;>J:UIJ~~i U!; 1-973 in. B,ock 25'J i!f J'age '28'1, Official Records of, Smlta Clara Co,uo~y: _W)cl the lands described in 1l1a1' certwn 'DirecIQe~ Deed, (.Quitt11Iihu), fr~ State or calif{)!1)'~ to The 8'oard'ofTilJsCee&Qf the LeIf\~(fSt8T1ford JUnlof',t,:Jn1¥ersity. 'recorded MQi:th 29. 2004. as D.$!ument NQ. J 7,6'8~Sn. Offtcial ~,~j'ds of saId C(JQ.lJt,y. !'Dore parHcwllI'ty destrlb~ ~fGJlews: BE(;IN~(; IU the mOSt Westerly comer of the Palo, Alto Sratitm Grotinds" 'as $'aJd Statio" Gt0ll1\ds 1$ de$cri bed , in ih~ certain E~~nt frem Lelan<l Stanford to-S~the.m 'Pacific Iml,road, Company" dated ,Nov.ember ~.3, Hfn, and rec>c'l'ded. October 2..~'. 19-t5 In V olil.me -485 M-Dee.ds· at P~ge 244, Rec;Qrdscof. ~ta' CI~' c.Cront.Y. said40mer-,,~jng also fho ll\9St 'PQ\1.h!arlY COmer-of' the land~·desitFibed as P~l No; '2. In that' ,Uitldn '8l,lblease between CIty of]'alo Alto, a, municipal cprpQ[atio~ !If ihe Slate of Califi>(nia,and Sp,U(~cn Paj::jfic;, R:a1lr08d Compa">" a coTpOQlUcn. re<;Qrd.~ o.c(ober 3(:J, f.939 'in ItoQk 95'-at.-Page S~O. Offfula'1 Records of Slln~.Ciarn c()J:mtr, Th~ce. teli~lrig !lltd CAm,er and 1'lql;lg the ~en6~al Wltth~e's~l}' Hn~ of s:l1~ BuccI N:o. 2, (9S 1 c). R. S80), (he following two-(2) c'~({rses 1lJ)~, d~e,st t) 5Qutl) U)'oU'28'J"East, 143.1l-feet; 2,)-,South 'SD,040',30"' East, 136.47 _feet tQ th~.most n:9.rtlierly'.com-et'of that ~rt~J\ :pllre~1 of land ,d~s.oti~~ ,hi" tni!t ~t1ainl Assigfimerll1md A.$$l.lIl'!Jlflon of Sublo[J8e, ,\)~lW@o· t~~e Cit}! ",f-'P,aio Alla and 1'''\I~"Board !lft.rust~· ot!he lclBll'd $,tMfOrd· Junior t!1nfve'tSit-y.. -recordat' February- 28, 'OOO"~ kumertL NQ. J~l (i3~ Official Records of' Satlla Clam'Counly; Tne:o«e. 1~\'ll1g' &ala CQrnar itnd: ilf;J1'!g the-,northwesterly-and southwesterly :lines, Af 1!Bi.tl SU:bl~~ (Doc:.. ) S163g2.Jt;). 'the f'oJlowlng' lWO,(2) c6urses and dislasf@s: • l) SOllili 39"f9'3,0" W.esr, 116:00 (eetJ 11 S'oUlf) SO"4QY'30') East. 20<100 feet to the northwesterly lioe of lhat -certa1n' parcel of ,lMtj ~n'bed in ~·.certain As:.i~meRt lrod A3Sumption ofSubl~. betw~ Ute CiTy of p~o! Alto.and 'The.:B~d of'l'rust~S' of'the ~I~d $tan!9rd llinior Unive~tly;, «!CarCled Febnlai)' 2'&. iooo-~ DOcu~elJfNo, 151.()3S22~ Qffie1atR,ecordS 9f sajd, Co~n.ty. - T.he'nce alQng s-aid ns>tlliwes}er1y line and the southweste,dy lines ,of said S\lb1e:ue (DQt. 1 S'1'6~g22)-t1'u!l,,(Pl)nwfng 1,,\'10' (2.) cou:mes and dtstancftS: . !'J Soum Wl) \j' 30" West, lS.QD reeq ugJlL D,esariPliltn J;:X'HI:BlT 2, PAEK PARC6:lS P~e2'ofj 2) SOllth $O.<!~()' ,30" ,EII~1. 329;OZ'f~~J to 11 poInt on the ~OrihWI$.I:I-Jy Hne or-Ur,.iversiLY Avenue, ~'"Ilid po!'ol: beillg ~tso .the i:!egi'nniog of Q M.n-tMgenl curve, c,oncave to Ille ~)lth~'St. ha-\lillg a Rad'iu:~ of 68.00 feet, fr.6m the c:enl(!t of ~'Ilrd curve a rnd.fal JlI~e bears Norlh S 1°'58'07" Wesl~ Thence alohg 5<lid-norl!tv,ieslerly, line of UnIversity Av~ni,le. Ufe. foJ Jo\vi n'g' t-IhO (2) courses and 'cJi~lllnct5; n S'OOll'tw~{~r,)s', alo"l\'g said .eo n'e .. through a c-entro( Ang·le Qf'Os'''5W'2'5''', tOr an lire Lefl,gth-o'f 7,0'1 feel to the beginniilg' of Q ,~evep.;e ~urve. conc:t\le -\() the-north wast·, hl/ving a R!idrus of 33.-4Q feet. f'rBOl ,the ce,nt~ 6f sru'd curve a l'l\"dlal nne be:ars Soulh g7°52' 32" :Ea$t; 2:) S:o.UthWehlerly, aiong. $md G'UfVe, tlll'ough Il central Anglc t>l' 7'8~l';21". for an lire Length-of 48 .. 68 fe.~1 to·me nOl'thens1ctly Ii ne ofEi 'CilrriinQ ({elil, b~b~ IIlso .state H ~ghway' 8Z~ rh~l1cc 'along said' n'Orthe8!Uerly· Ijn~, of EJ Camlno"Renl. (fie foH,owirrg. els/ll (.8~ cour,seJ;-and dJsran~s: 1:) NortI150'bll'<t1'" West, 566.1,1 tee~; 2) J'fo,tth 41()18'51" West, 80,4~, fcM'to ,the beginnJng M 11 non-tangenl C1JrI~e. concave 1<'), the -t;OUt,hw~sl.. havi,ng " RadiUS: of \333".00 feet. fi:om·lhe center of saId cun'erll roti,nl, ii-f'l,e -b~n~, Nt:!rth 48°11'29" Eu~t; ~l North\\lestel"!?;, nl'on-g sllid.cl,Irve, throUgh 0 centitllf Angle ,of.'(i8"24~Of~. 'for an arc Lerrgth of 1·9~i.1I3-f~el; 4) &orth 50Q06'3:r'" West.. 111,:m feet: ,5) North 44 °5? '30" We'st, :S98.13 feet{ 6) Noi11I','40° 14>'44" W c~t. 1'51':00 -feet to !he beginnfng Iff Ii : UIilge.n I ourve \'0. the.rigbt-;. ha:viIig II R~lis of lQU)Ofeet.· , J)' .North,we~n~r1y, aTong said,wrYe, [hr.eugh II central Angle,qf l'6°l'9'30!\, ({jr an are ,Len'g-lh (If 29,06 feet to Lhe beginnin-g of-il CO"lP,QQlld:'!>Ilrve'. cO[Jeav,e, to ,the soulheast. having a ~adill,s ¢f 12. 00 f~1. from tho c:en~ of Strid ~1lNC: a radial line' bears South 66°0<1' 46'-' W'e~t,: ,8) Notthea:>terIx', .tllOlig sjl'id cu r.:l;, Ib'ro'-!gh a ccn.f,ctd Angl~ of. -96"0.8' 5 3" L for un 4tC' ,Wgth Of 18i88 feet to il poi1i! on the ~oiJthetly li~ of P4IG-AltO AV~\'Iue-. -l'tJtld soutller1y Hne ;s dc~ribe{l in ,thflf ~rr:aiit c~:cepllon ,parC~1 for 's!'\id' EI~ 'camino PArk ,p~ Res'oluI'iOll No. 4709' (257 O,.R. 2M)~ ~id·'p.oiW ~fug, also dlC beglnolng of a..~oJll.pQ..iJnd curve. concave 10 the, ~oi:Jtlte~~. hav~ng a Radlo-~ of 182,;00 feel • .from 'the -celfier Of said CtlI·\'& 11 radial' ,I@! beJJj'~ 'N~rlh '23"'46'21" WeSl, said 'pCli'fl\ being also neroa'fler rofua:ed (0 as Point '~A'~ TtJetlce alOllg said sOlltherly tioe 9; Pl\l-o Alto Avenue. Ib¢: foJlowingl))re,e. (3) courses ,and qil;tp.neel;-: I ) ~t'el(ly nloi\g said ,cU-r:ye,. :threug/1 a c.e:lltiaL~,ngJe of 16"34 '46". for an are Length (:If 5;2,6.6 fr~ . :2.) N.orth 81948'25" -easl. 64.l:Z feel'; ),) North' 8.5°41'34" Ea'it J 54.45 fei:t 1'0 tb.e SQll~WC5ti;rl)' nl)e Of tl\e S.Quth!lrn P.adfic Ratrroad COmpany'ri.ght of way; L.egal D~scrjpJi()n EXHIB-\T '2, -PART{ 'PARCELS Puge<p of:) Thence along said :\Qu:tllwestex1:y·ljne Qf S,o.u~b¢t'Il PJlcrOc RlIiiroai/ Comp.an f' tighl of Wl:I)" SOUJh- $O~4o'J6" &t>l 514.611 feel 10 !he mOli'r' ~'eswr:ly' conlcrof the lands~~~rib'ed, og ~lIrce' No.1 in Ih'an:er\ofn Suble.1:Ole Tmt~,n CIIY' of P.aJe Al(o, 'll munic.iPlll coll':orilfion crf the Slill'(: Of C~li(QJTlt;l, l\.nd'$'Quiht!m1>altit1c iAAfltoad Cotnp3f\Y),-ac,orpomti'On, r~cordea {)clob:er: 30, 1~~9 in 'B.Q.Q.k 9$.1 ilL P:.tgl! s:aO .. ,Omcial: ~C0'rJS Of'\iuid Cb~mY,: Tfu!~ Ie&\<j-n'g: S'/,lj'(1 QQrner and: a\'OIlg, the ~Glith'Westtrly' line _Gha.id Parcel No, 1 (%,1 0..\{-. .?aO). South 45°54'-4 it! ~~r" 6Q:1,()8 feet ro 'the ,o'orl'nw¢slerlt Ifn'e' of the land,s t.I~c.Tip:ed it'S' Pnreel lA in tIlet' te'rlM'!) -QuilC'lain'! D.red ~m S'Ou,tltem Pacifto TraJI'Sp6rtarion COIl'lP;l,\'fY, a Di:,[aware cor:p orati em 'to The 'ijoorP' (l! rru~rees"of tho ~O;eland $lttnford Jurum U\l'"ecsif~. ~tdBd Al.Igu!;t, 7. 1981 in-Ba_(!)k 'm63 al' Page; 29fs'. :OJflci'al,..R.~)"d~, m~ald COU'l\f:y~ l.'h~nce ,1,110([& sa~a nortl1\Yestc[j)y -tine of sailfP~c~1 lA (Q263 O:R. '298.). SOllln -3'~"'1'9"SO" West. ~;j)O {~t lO {he" poiflt-of'.BEGINNING'. C-Oi1roilJfng: all :area 'Qf '9', 714 ~s, :m~r~' or Jel;s., brk,~I;~\2 Real prope-rty jo, ,~hc City 0f P.lllo AltQ. e-OtlD(Y of San11\-'CllH1l.. State .of Calit0hri~ de!\cribed a,!;- fQIIPw;s; 13cing a:.pm:Uoll of the In'i'ltl$ of The: Board of Tr'llSle~ of Inc LeI~ndSt-allf:6rtl; Junior C:JiliVI;:I'lIlfY. a OOUy h~[l'fg-eorp(')I'ale powet's under thq -',8WI'), of,the SILUe 'O'f Culi iOl'n ill , d~sLrihed 'jl.S fol\,Q-w'~: -J3eing a1$0, the lalfd~ d~nbed as Parcel No. I-in tliat certain Sllblea;;ebelwcco -City Of PalQ Alta. ~ il1\Joicipal corprmliio'il of-tne :Slate. of OHfoml'a' lUl'd' SQUJhern Pacific RaiJrotl~r GompWlY. a ,eorpora.tiol1, I'eCdtoed OClober 30, J 939' 10 8:ook 951 at R&:ge 5130, Qfficial Rec0rd\; of .$anti) .. Clnra, CO\lniy. mOTe,particularJy des~uibe,d ,a,.;, follows~ B'E.c;~NNING ar (he mo,li{ ~1)1.HherJ.~ c..Qm~· ~f:;nid Pnu:e1.N'Q. -J (~M O.1t 5"8.0); , 1'herIGe :leavirrg ~a:ld' co:tn« ahd dlong the-~b\Jt-h.C8!ite:d~ fine :or!lald Lr)nd'S:, North '$'9.0 19 ',3:(Y' ElIst, ~O;@: f~e[ [Q a pOfnr 'an the SOllmwe'Sletly lI'ne of SO_Uitlel11 Pa01Ti-c R,aj)Joa</; C'Q01paO_Y' ri'ght ~f way,., ISliiO point bei'l1g a-l~(I thc~o~t~Il!9rlt ~otl1:er'of $aid f!i_~1 No, l',~ Tnem:ff le,aving 'said c"drh:er and 'along 'JlEU-,d \;,outbwe,Sterly lIne of SO!Jlliem Rac;:ifie R'ai,lr~_arl GomplU'lY tighi of WilY, North 50°40"'30" w.est" 60.0.00. feet to the mnsl w:~[erly ~orl'jef' ~f said Pitr~~ No. 1; - Thence lt41vin~, Sflid' Q('lmer fll1d' a,IOJ:lg Ibe so!lthwes~d~' 'Hne 0f said Par,o,e} No.1 (9.5<1 o.,R_§8Q~. S",uIIl459SIP4'\" En~I.,6.~W,(~,t (Q the point of.n~ING". Cdlituiniflg: en area of 0.3441l£res, mQ.te.-or-\ess, ~~ng '!Ilsp A~~or' s f-arccl Number ,j 20-31·008 perJ~oJ.l Y~r ~Qj f ~1iQ.)2. Le~al'ae~qriptiol) EXHlf{ITl ~ ,P~Rl{ ,PARCELs Puge4 pf5 larkPAr(;C!l;l &t}a)ptop~rtY ill :th~City(}fPaJo Ano~ CQuntYQf Santa Clar~~ S:tafebfe~Hf()rt)i~; deSCt'il;jed 'as follows: ]~eiJtg a portion of tb~ IUl1ds of'TheBoarciof Trustees of'tl)eLeiandStanford J\111l0r tJ:tlivetSity~ a bodY-Vl'i;i;t)rtg cQl>'PQrat,e,po\\lersundel" lh~ laws:"of:~he State dfCalifornia:. desCriQ,~d 'as f()l:)()W,S~ . B¢ingla:ls~ J,{ portiQl10ffhe· JaJtds; desctib¢dasBIC~tmbl(}' Park. :In. that "C~)1ain Res~lun'Qfi; passed -atl~t adup.tedl>}' lhe; City Coum.~Jlur (he~City o(:I."ido At~o oJ)February'26~Hn-3 b~ R~))QtUtt9P N(}, 4'tt9t re,'C~ffi:ded F~bruaryZB. 1972 JniOQK 251" at Page. 281, Uffichi.1 :Re¢Qrds :of Sant~', Clara ¢,Qunt¥i rtl(lTe particlllatLyde$:cribecla~ ,(dHows: le~lvh~g:S'tiid pOitl11!nd .alQllg, the llotttre~sterfy Un.e of et Ca.-mino Real, b~big al~o State H:tgl1way -&2. North 30'c09'a9~i' WOes!. ~5.5'3 fe~t :te the TRUE POINT OFBE(}INNIN{j{;?f c~his " aeset:iptjlm~' Tlaenc'e lea"r:ng.s'4llr:l ;PQintnn<ialong $(tid nOfrhe~st.er:ry Hnf:;of EJ Camino R:ea1, tht} fQf]£)wing: r~vQ cputs~;;atl{.t distances; 1J J~()rth u~ A9 'fe,et; North )I O"?I\~,I\"In .6,9,.) 1 f~et ~othe c~rltet lime: Qf S~Ji Fra,nci~quh()Cre¢k~< Tftei1~ealoi18 su:td ~entet Hne, of ,sal); Fr~n¢i~qpl1Q C:re~k> the fi'iHqwll)g t'W:(.~ (2)" Courses 'and. (fi~l(l,tl~es~ $01;lth84<t$·5" 3()i·'E~Sl. J 64,52 fe~t; -No-nil ·63rI3,~~3,Q~· :Eil~.t. 77 ,2,1 f~,ettQ :the s:(}vthW~~t¢tly :line Qrsouth~nl Papjf(G~ailr{)ad. «~omp~)frtg~l·ofW:~Y; Th:ell~~ ,along sa:id;s~utflwe~ueil~ line of StiQtbern Pnc'Lficl{ailrond' Company ri~tft;Qf way, ~th~ fQ!loWh\g:tWQc(1;) ,c~9t~~/tuld dista"ces: o SOltth $(;):'a3;'4 l" East~1;,9~ fft0t~ 2,~ S()uJb 50'~40'3Q"; Ea.'ll, 'i:9'60~2.Sfeet to the' no:rthe.tly line 'of Pal,,): Alto Avel1ue~;$ai:dI1Qtlhedy line!!) Q~~~d~eCl;ill that cemiill c}\ceptlb-trparcel: 'for ;si\i;d EI ,CaUlinoPatk iperRe~Qlution Nq:,,4'O(J{;~~7 c,tR. .. :&81 )~ 1':n~nce;~J~tlgsaid l),ortbet~y IJn~ ;of p'alQ Alto A:~et1\let the ;t()ltQWJflg, ,two (!J 'dQur$~s' ,and: disln!1ce:~:- r ,) Scutll,g5°41;::;4'~ West, 192;22 feet tb,tlte beglhl1ing of a tilt)get;11CllTve to the ;tig;ht, h;a~.dliga ~adl~s. ofS8~J)(}'f,e~t; . , ~l W~sterly.n'long~aid ¢tn~e~ inr~)llghac~ll~ral;Angle, ·of (};jl.).)O~t~ZU~ t~i 81) atc Lengtb ,PI 5~'1~1 feet t<> the'TRiWE '}J,OlNT OF' B'EG]$NlN'(j:' o1f tnls ct¢$cri:pli~l( c.Pj)~jning#n &,re(,i()f, 0.69'1 increS,n10re ('}r'les~. . _, Being ~t's~ .A,S$;essof~s, P~tcer Number 12.0~')1-nOl pet'l{<5H 'f'ear20:tt; 1 ~20f2r LegtlJ Q¢,SCriptiOR E~JaIT 2 ~ PA:RK P-ARCELS Pa~ 5 of'S ~;trk ;~r«:elS> l~ 2, and 3, as$bown 'C1n pl(lt.entftJed c"EKRmrr 2." 8«acbed h~~t() 4nd made 1l pari '~'erC4)t ; 1 1J1iS:description was.prepared .~ me;or;ubder my"directsupe!yjston-, BKI" -E'ngtneers -f~) J9bO-I<orQyan,' r .L,~--0.8&83 . .Liceose.tiplfe$. 'li~ 1.2QJ$ A?~q'G7~ &rz. LeGEND T.P;O:B: -tRu~ POINT OF ermf.JNtNG Bkf _ , ...... 1PLIIIIiI ~ --"- S~cl "Pt!WJr b;m2 ti· --,L~ OL __ ~F _ r= lJN1V.- Jp~ No. 20126006 _" I ',--' a, JG. , Dah 03-0.5::12 Chkd. JW< -,SHEET ,_ Or: t". 2'. _ LEGEND P,O,B. POINT 'OF BeGINNING PEN/HSUL.A CORR(OOR JOINT P.OM'RS BOAR(}} (FORJifER~Y sOVntf:RN P~C.lFlC RAJLRDI.D COMP-XNY) SSD'·4d·Jo~r_s ..... ' --• " ' 50~4l!i.!'W '80Q;Do.' -PM)( PARCEL J- , O.!.~f ACRfS::t' ,- ': A#J:.I-~g-._31-QfJ1_ ~\ .' " I: -' T.P'O,Et.'~PQf1; __ ~, :-----;...-'N:;"Uili5~JO~W"~;;i:B.;~7.,J;o----..... J~~':; ---~ .. ~f-~------"P~,A,~lKr'P-~~-~~--_J~ ______ ~~ __ ~fl_'·!'~,Q.~~:Ii~~:O~R!'~-"~~ __ _ (~A:n HIGHWAY J'AL --.:~ '" , ; ._' ';:J ~' ..... ~~' ~":-::-:~:r----1 ,~, ~~~~~~~=d :',!I '" ',I, Oi) :, 1,·1 BkF ~Bk,r DeD'ot .cacm A J~X'H'mrr3 Legal Descr.lption March ~ 20:1'2 ~KP No. '20126:006 Page lof3 R.eal propcny in the City ofPii\o. h\lto, COJlUly ~f San[a Clw-a,Stale of California,descnQed ali foJlowsi iletilg .a· portion af itI~ lands bf 'The' Soard of Trustees of tbe, Leland 'S~nfoi'd iilnior Unj ver:sity, a bod)' havin.g corporate. pDWefS under the .i'IlWS Qf the' State of'CAI'iJolTlla. desciibe.d·1IS follQW&: Be{ng also the,l:nnds described a6. Pru:ce] I A in that certain Qulte'laim Deed fro!1l SouJ.O~'t)l~I!.CI'.6t Tralt8pcJrt.adon· Company, a Delaware-corporation to The Board of ~s.te,.es of tbe Leland Stanfordlunior IJnlv,enJil'j. ~ed August· 7, H~alln 8'ookc;m;'l at-Page -2.9..8 •. Qffl.li:lal Records of Sa pta Clara. Cou!lty'iUld-tile iilI)d~ describe4 as: PDt~l 'No. 2 ~~ Il\al ~~itClil1 Subfease betweetl City of '(!alo Al~o, a· tn)lflTcipal Cbrpo'i;4tibn ot the Swe of Calif.omia and 'SoatheroPacme Railroad 'C<lmpany.· a, c.otpQQltil;)n, f!lcorded ,October 30, 1:939,\n Book 951 at 'Faile :58'0\ O(ficial R~r<I~ 'of gaid.:COti.nt¥. more plit\wlarly deScribed' as foJlows~ &g!(lJ\\h1! lit a ,pC!int of i'iller~lion lfetween tlie center lin~, 'of. Uni(.o,ersil): Avenlle and the So.uthWes.rer.ly line. of' me; Pal'Q Aho SrZUion QIoUnds~_ a$ S1ild StaUOf:1; GtOqnd& :is' descr.lbe({ ~n tl\.'Bt certain. E_asement from tAlllnd $tunfQrd 10 Soothem P&'ClfreRalfroaci CompfIJIY', .(Iat&'l NQv~{I)ber' 23, 1892 a,td recorded Ocio~r 2&:. 191:5' in Volume 43-5 of Deeds at Page 244, 'R~.itls of Santa Clara Coun~; Thenc~ leaving sald poilit ~d :along said ~authwe,s(l:Sfly tine of said Palo· Alta Station Gro\fnifs. N'orth 50"40'30" W~st. ] 12,O.S fe.e~ to ~ point ,on: tbe ncrU}we:slerly. line of. 'said UQlvel1riW ANoo.ue. said pdj~t b~ing al~b tf;-e beginning of ~n:Ori-t.angenl CUrv6, concave, 10 the SQ,Uth~~, having'a R~i~a Qf 300.00 feet." fl'9JTl tbl) center Qf~aid cur-ve~' mdlallin.e-bOOS North 28<'45'3-2" West>. saM pol'l'Ir beIng al$O Ihe TRUE POINT Ol!'BEGINNING of ihls d@crlpt\()n: Thencecleav\ng said poill,1 ,lltl~ along tt,-e.,ge:n§l'ilf ~on:liw.es~lY' llfJ~ orSllW Un~versity Avenue" the fQIlowing:two (2~ courses and di'Sta~ t), NOrIheas.lecly. al<mg'said cur-ve. Ihto,u'gi1 a' Qe'nf~41\ A,-1l81e Of 1.l"~5'52". fur .om 'at~ Length of 62.47~.r 10 ··th,e begihnlhg: ota flo~-llln8".nt cu.ry~ 1;0J)P:a~ ~ the SOJltl"fw.est, baving a. Radius of 1'8'9 :00 (eet..·fr'olinhe center ,of ~d ~u.rve' a ~i'i(ll1n~ IieIrs NOI'th 13 a,1'.8 '04.~ Ea&.ti 2) S,oll'lh~aterly, alO'ng ,s'lid: emnce. lhro.ugb ·8 ~ Angle. af t,()b·S.1\*4"'. for an.8I'(: ~Il~ =Of 36::05 'feet to -a p.oint. said t/Olnt being ,r),t the inl'ersettion of 8 1,1 I)e , (ir.a.wn SOiOll ~t I\(lJtb~.estedy. ri~t.~le ~ment, ffolU.<Sllid unter line ,ofU!\tvetshy; A!v,en'oei Thence leal(ing .saki paine ~ pamHet With 9a:1~. ctf)t~r Ifne '.Of OP.lversit)'. Ayonue., Nerth 39GS9' 3d'" East" 2.2~ rut to ~fle. most ea~rl.Y ,comer of s~id' Pan:cl 1 A. (0263 O.R. 29a};' Tbe:iJ~e lea\ri.ng slI,id comer andalon'g the. northe'Mteri'Y lirfe Qf said PatCel lAo NoOh~ $'QD"O' 3D" Wes.t., 847.79. feef: 'to lite mQst uortl:1erly cqmer of S!1id :Parce.ll A ,026'3 ·Q.R. 198}; · .•. . ...... ~galD ·ct1~ric;.n BXH1B1T}\c,. tlEPOT PARCELS Pag~~()r3 'rhenc~le4,iang s(dd'oomer mi{\: '~Hong the·J)t>I1I)weslerfy al;~ O:(~I.d4 Parcel I A, SO(ftti '3~¢1 9{]0'· 'W~Sh 70'J)0 fe.~l lQ th~ !l1()~t rlqtth¢,dY·~,911let.Qt:"~~~lt:J: 'pt;lr,cef~t6;.2 :(~$l Q.R .. 5,SQ.)isairl tonter b~i)lgalS'Q the lnOM wesl~rW~Qln~rof' s~iidRa10 l\1 tJJ:$tl)tiQnQJQlmcl!i(435r.lel!ds.'244); "f11~Jlee: leltvtt(gS'Llidu(l'l1:)et'8rl'd' 'afong' the;getJetat:~()uth\v~sted~)': Hntlo.f said li'at¢~tNQ.,2 (95 J ~.:R, . ~(!J1~tJ1¢JQHowhlg'five IS), cou rS¢satlddi~toall~~~ 1,) :Soutb l6RTl~~'~.BilS{! 14,.1J; ;f(}~M ·~~,$QuIll$G!'J4H·~.e'$·:east~4~Q~;9S ·t~~I, tQJh:~'begtt)Jll:n8of ,t$ ·t~llg~nt ~'i!~yet;o.·tlle Jeft~ Ila\'if:!ga R;l\din$' f:1f' tl,.~·.te~(~ . ~), Nt)11fu~~~tetly!.~lQi\g,!1~id'cur,:e. thrQugh ,4ljcenttal: '~i1g1e"nf9,(jQaO~£}o··. for ·a,tlllfc'f,;,ellgth of 41A·3 .feelIQlJ'te:oegtOllir-.tg0;f at.¢y·erse,~ur\.\e.. ooncave tUlbt! sou~heasf,h:a,~i.ng a ]Radius o( 1;3~(l4· :r~~l,(tOI'tI tb~C~11lei of$ai'd:,¢urv~~"t~d1M Jjp~,:b;e~f:,~~North 500.40'30" West~ 4J SQiJ.fbeaste'I¥,~lQ"gsaj4curve;. thrQ~~lJ~,t:.e)Urp.)! Aogf~';Qf9nbt)o'():o" _ . far an :at.cl.~ngtJ1 Qf 1l.A~feet:· . ~!S,O:Qth'50o40'30" Easl, 202.6i feel tq ia point 'Qn' saia;gnnhweSlerlM ti'ne,uf sai~JJnjver,~i,~, Avenue. said poim being al.~o, .thei '~ghlP.iJfit Df ' UtiDn-rangent €n)~;v:e. eOllCQ£~ :(6 ttte. sQuttleast. having a Radi\1$ of3(l~~JjQfttelt ':f~m·~h~ t[~fit~ Qf ~aidC;f:Hr.~i~;~ {aQ1A}'.irn~r bears N~J~h,39~8'48" West~ . llk¢nce ;l1fftlhell~tel'lyand :along$nld n~rtltwestet'ly line: ofsai~' Unlversi t)t'AvenUef,al(5n$,~~ltl q"tf\l,~,tl1roUgh, ;i eenttAl i\n·gl:eQfl,()943.' 16':1., for a~ nrc Length of 5;6-.J4f~~~. t4l~h~ 'Tlttr~ PQiN$ 0FBE,$INNING :ef.t~is'Qt;s¢ri,ptibI\~ . Depol ;Par.~elB; .. Real ,propeny 1n tbe City o;r pa10 AllOt L'.oWJt-)'of,$ahla Clata.,r 'iSt:@te 0,f. alifol'nia, desGribed as rbHowst Beit!~ a·:PQrtt~n .()f{~e :Jan~sotfhe Board of tt\1Stee.S.~flb~'Lefana :,{~nford.Jufilor Utl~\'eT~ityi~ .~ bQt;J:y;fi~~ftl~,,-¢or.porate;~(l)w~ts l}:nde;r (he laws ~{~U.w. $t~le.: of'Caltf(1)fOhl. 'i;i¢~~ri\Ml as (ollows.: B~i'llifil~at~A3nd$:desc-tib~d ~$iPJn'c,el1B in. tllllt;certain'Qufteburn lleed ft()nrSoutti~m l?q~jJ;jlt tt~"~PQIl!l(;iqtl 001l1p-an}'~8 'Del~ware, cQl};,etatipn' it>: 'The' :Soard of Tro~tees. ~rtJl~L¢latt<;f :$l~nf~td ·J1i.f\i()r ttpj-vcn;it y, recor(feti,Ao'gu81 7, 198 f lp,~:~~i Q2'3atBag~Z9a'f. Q:ffi¢.i~n;Q~cor,ds :of S:ant'4:~CIllT~(Cojjflly.,tllo):e purtltOI~l1'J, de~Q.f,ib~~l,gs tQl.JQW$~ ;Be,gJt:Ull'~~at .~ ,PQilX~ 'oJ inlef$~cti~ft ,\~e,(;w;¢e)), .,tbe 'c.ente.r Jtn~ .:llf"(J;.il\ler,silYA:veJl\l'e .. andl tbe SP~.t}jW~Sll;}rl)t lin~,Qt·(be.P"lo AnoSla(i(m:Gfoul1d~', ,as:s.a:i(J'Sta'tion GrQund~ is descr{~~ In lhtit 'C$aitlEQselllenf fhll11.'L~f~Ud~~~f!f~t~~?, S~u.U)em .'l';~~ifi.'O"Rantoad'C0nt ..... ' ...... ;·~at~NQv.emb~r 20l'1: 1'69jand ·r¢¢o.rQ~" 'Qc·tP~r·~8, :F9d $ 'in \l.Cijlt;Hlle :43'$9.t" ~t1e.~d~' nrpl:\~t¥ M,RecQx8.ir OfiS'a1*~ ;C'~l'.llC~upty; -Legal D~lption EXJtIBiT 3 -D"EPOT P,AR.CE1...S Pagelof'3 Tllen6e leaYing said poh,t and alon~ ,said southwesterlY, .Itlle of ~d !;lalo A:lto Station ,d.r91mcis. $'oulh 50°40'30" East, I 1.3 ,68· feet ,16 Ii point '00 '11:t~ s.Qutn~teriy nne-of S1lid University Avenue, said paiO r :beilfg al!)o, £he TRUB'POfNT OF 8EGlNNING of this descripti9n; - Th~nc,e lea"irfg ,s!iid 'fX5il\~ tI,110 &l,on'g tlie &,outh\V'eI)tet\}' Un'll Qf $a1d .PaI'C~[ 1$ (G26~ O:R. 2~g), ~ld line belng ~!;o the nor.the@~ly Jine· of Parcel :2 of L.Qt M •. as sha.Wn 0.0"1111;\ ~j'nl maJ>- etIliUed ''Surv.oy of Lois 37 and, 380, StanfQrd Uoj-versHy L,.ands, Palo A:lto, California", drj(ed August 1,9-.5S. Shool 2. of ? .... 'prepared by Lawte(\ce G. Bn8.nj ctvJl Engineer, South: 50°4n10" &st. )'6.1.S0.reet',tG the-mQ:st soulherly ootncr ofsaid Faroel 1'8.; 'Ehe\lce leaving Silid ilOJ1ne~(et\y line'orP'ar(]ef1 of Lot 3-8. North 39°-19'3'0" BaM. 7(;.00 feet to tJre-'most easteriy,c_omer of'said'FaTtel 'I:B';' - Thenc't leaving $aid comer and 1110n& the general northeasterly I toe ohatd P-&rcei, J'J;! {G263 O.R. 2-9a}~ _the fQJ lbwirig-tl'u'e-e t3) 'COll,m'S aod di'sfailCe$: I} North SJJ!'4Qc·3.~-' Wcest",94':S(>'feet; 2) Sooth 3~~.\'1·30" Wesl.;_,26.®,feet; 3) North 5()'o40!~" West 95.1.4 feet,to a poinl,on said sQurliea'sltflY line of SAId UI1N~rS.ilY AveilUe, said point b.ein,g, also tbe;:beginning.of II non-tangenf curve. concwe to -fhe,northw~. 'hav:ln~ a Radiu/; of 3StWO feel, from -(he; ~rt~~t of$'~itl' ctl~,e n, radial ,tib~' bear'§: South :84~55'lg!i East: 'tfien:co soull\W6Sterly" along SJlid, curve, through a central Angle.of'0r'42r I6'-'. fot' 'an, ~l.'C, Length 0J 57,13 feet ~o'(he 'tRUE POINT OF 1;\~ of this descriptIon. ," Seing.--a'IS9,Assessor's'Parcef NUmbeJll20~3Q-012 pt=t &011 Yeat'2(U t -2~12. D,epot' 'Parcels A and' B, as, sbbwil oil plat-entitled "''EXHIBIT :3" ~Chcd 'be~to and ' Il\llde-a, ,part: h~reof. 'J:t!is'descrlprl'on WaS' prepared by me.-or under my direct, sllpe(lIislon. ,lalrfl J{orr;yan, ':Itt,S.. O. 8883 Li~,el\s.o ,~pi,re9 11.-:31·2£)13 _A?A-It~ ~ /' "z o/'Z nate(i'· ,LEGEND p.;o.~' POINT O.F 8ECi.!NNING T.:p.fiB. rR(j'~ POJN7 or BE'c;lNNlNG rl'~.L .. (seQ W FBT), ~t.d At.:m ,SArITA Q4ARItCQ~~ CAUF'ORNJA ,K!'\SvR'2\ U60ol\j)~\PiAlS\OEPOT' PJ;A1;~ 1':,11',', ' "Ill . -~ .. , ......... - " , , , This document is recorded for the benefit of the City of Palo Alto and is entitled to be recorded free of charge in accordance with Section 6103 of the Government Code. After Recordation, mail to: Office Of The City Attorney City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 EXHIBIT 4 GRANT OF ACCESS EASEMENT For good and valuable consideration, receipts and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of California ("Grantor"), hereby grants to the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered city and municipal corporation ("Granteell ), an easement, as further defined below, in, on, under, along and across the real property of Grantor, as more particularly described in Exhibit _ attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Parcelll ), for the purpose of accessing facilities related to the operation, inspection, maintenance, repair, and replacement an underground water storage and distribution system located on the Parcel. I n furtherance of the foregoing, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Grant of Easement. Grantor HEREBY GRANTS to Grantee an easement for ingress to and egress from the Parcel in the area more particularly described in Exhibit _ and depicted in Exhibit _ each of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Easement Area"). 2. Reservation of Grantor's Rights. Subject to Grantee's rights under that certain lease dated June 10, 1915, as amended by that certain Amendment to Lease dated June 29, 1971, and by that certain Second Amendment to Lease dated February 26, 1973, and by that certain Third Amendment to Lease dated March 31, 1981, and by that certain Fourth Lease Amendment dated July 31, 1981, and by that certain Fifth Amendment to Lease dated January 1, 2000 (collectively, the "Lease"), Grantor reserves the right to use the Easement Area for any purposes which will not interfere with Grantee's full enjoyment of the rights hereby granted; provided that Grantor shall not erect or construct any building or other structure, drill or operate any well, plant any trees or construct any fence that will interfere with Grantee's access to and egress from the Easement Area. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Grantee agrees and acknowledges that upon the expiration orearlier termination of the Lease, Grantor may pave the Easement Area and use it for vehicular access, parking and pedestrian walkways. After the 120308 jb 0130941 expiration or earlier termination of the Lease, Grantee shall not make any use of the surface of the Parcel that interferes with Grantor's use of the Parcel. 3. Incorporation of Prior Grant of Easements. Grantor and Grantee hereby agree that the provisions of Section 2(b), and Sections 5 through 15 of that certain Grant of Easements recorded January 29, 2009 as Document No. 20114059 of the Official Records of Santa Clara County, California are incorporated herein by this reference and shall apply to the Easement Area and this Grant of Access Easement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and Grantee have duly executed this Grant of Reservoir Easements as of this __ day of ,2012. GRANTOR: THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, a body having corporate powers within the laws of the State of California By: Its: ___________ _ 120308 jb 0130941 GRANTEE: CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered city and municipal corporation By: . City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM By: . City Attorney ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of ________ _ On before me, (insert here name and title of the officer), personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) 'whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature: Place Notary Seal Above 120308 jb 0130939 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE This is to certify that the interest in real property created by the Grant of Access Easement dated , 2012, by THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, as Grantor, to the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered city and municipal corporation as Grantee, is hereby accepted by order of the City Council by the undersigned officer or agent on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. 4434, of the City of Palo Alto adopted on March 15, 1971, and the Grantee consents to recordation thereof by this duly authorized officer. Dated: ______ , 2012 CITY OF PALO ALTO By: _______________ __ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: __________________________ _ City Attorney 120308 jb 0130939 legend ~dllmlc Growth Boundary ReviSled Special Condillon Area B. Development precluded - -until December3i, 2020, except recreation and academic /lelds and essocleled supporluses. Housing allowed as shown. .~~~ ': Faculty !Staff/Sludent housing allowed under amended agreement Revised Area B Boundary and Property to be Removed from Area B ',,,",,,IJ-".. " Legend Il!I!I!IIm 8all Park Lease (EI Camino Park) ~::::J Depot-Intermodal Center (Subleased to VTA) r=:.J City Jurisdictional Limits The City or Palo Alto rttv."" 1 fll<x:-lNI!'I!'qIoSIQI.ladmhlS' .. _",..,. ... a,lI'Idbj Attachment C Summary ofEI Camino Park Lease Boundaries Area Map This map Is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS --, TN>doo..wnenlis~\IfOIphlc I 1M City 01 P.lo Mo .. ~ no "oponolboli!}l rO( .~y Mort (ll~9 ~ 2012 cny 01 Pllo,oJ", legend Academic Growth Boundary Re\'lsed Special Condltlon Area B. Developmenl precluded - -untl December 31.2020. 6XC8j)1 rea-salion and academic fields and associated support uses. Housing allowed as shown. FaoultylStafflStudem houSing allowed under amended agreem&nl Revised Area B Boundary and Pro rty to be Removed from Area B ''''''''''1."",- ATTACHMENT D STANFORD UNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION AMENDMENT TO 1997 SAND HILL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT 1 Attachment 1 January 27,2012 Development Review Application -Stanford University Amendment to 1997 Sand Hill Road Development Agreement Attachment 1 -Property Location As described in greater detail in Attachment 2 to this Application, the requested action is the amendment of the 1997 Sand Hill Road Development Agreement to (a) remove approximately 10.25 acres of land 'from Special Condition Area B, and (b) extend the lease of the approximately 10-acre EI Camino Park site by nine years, from June 30, 2033, to June 30, 2042. The 10.25 acres of fand that is proposed for removal from Area B will be referred to as the "Property." The attached map depicts the Property and the bound~ries of Area B, as revised by the proposed amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement. The Property is located within a portion of APN No. 142-06-001. The Property is within the permitting jurisdiction of Santa Clara County and is designated as "Academic Campus" in the County's 2000 Stanford Community Plan and General Use Permit. This designation allows the development of academic facilities and academic support uses. The EI Camino Park site subject to the EI Camino Park lease is located within the City of Palo Alto and includes APN No. 120-31-001, APN No. 120-31 .. 008, and a portion of APN No. 120-31-09. The site is zoned as both "Stanford University Lands" and "Park or Preserve." 22509630.1 STANFORD UNIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION AMENDMENT TO 1997 SAND HILL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT 2 Attachment 2 January 27, 2012 Development Review Application -Stanford University Amendment to 1997 Sand Hill Road Development Agreement Attachment 2 -Description of Requested Action Stanford University requests that the City of Palo Alto execute an amendment to the 1997 Sand Hill Road Development Agreement to remove an approximately 10.25-acre area (which will be referred to as the IIProperty") from Special Condition Area B. A map showing the Property is enclosed as part of Attachment 1 to this Application. In exchange for the removal of the Property from Area B, the City of Palo Alto has requested a nine- year extension of the lease for EI Camino Park. Accordingly, it is proposed that the 1997 Sand Hill Road Development Agreement be amended to (a) remove the Property from Area B and from any development restrictions and specifications that apply under the Agreement to Area B; and (b) extend the lease of the approximately 1 ()..acre EI Camino Park site by nine years, from June 30, 2033, to June 3D, 2042. The Property is within the permitting jurisdiction of Santa Clara County and is regulated under the County's 2000 Stanford Community Plan and General Use Permit ("GUPIl). The Property is within the Academic Growth Boundary and the Academ,ic Campus land use designation, which allows the development of academic facilities and support uses. Stanford University plans to seek County approval to build a new energy center on the Property to replace the campus' aging and increasingly inefficient Cardinal Cogeneration energy facility. The new energy center is an important part of Stanford's long-range Energy and Climate Plan, which is designed to increase energy efficiency while reducing the environmental impacts associated with supplying energy to the Stanford campus. Stanford is still in the planning process and has not yet proposed a specific project for the County's approval Stanford has identified the Property as its preferred site for the new energy center and accordingly submits this application to amend the Sand Hill Road Developnlent Agreement to remove the Property from Special Condition Area B. The Development Agreement prohibits development in a portion of Area B until December 31, 2020, except for academic and recreationa.1 fields and associated support' facilities. The Development Agreement allows the development of housing within another portion of Area B regardless of the December 2020 date. Except for a small sliver of land located in the northwest comer of the Property, the Property is located within the portion of Area B where the Development Agreement currently allows housing. Except for this small sliver of land, the City of Palo Alto already has approved development on the Property, and the requested amendment to the Development Agreement would change only the type of development that is allowed under the Agreement -from housing to academic and support uses. With respect to the small sliver of land that is within the non-housing portion of Area B, the requested amendment to the Development Agreenlent would merely allow Stanford to accelerate the development of academic and support uses in advance of the December 31, 2020 date. As expla.ined above, the entirety of the Property is deSignated for academic and support uses under the County's Community Plan and 2000 GUP. Removal of the Property from 1 Attachment 2 january 271 2012 Area B would not result in any changes to either the Community Plan or GUP, which both would continue to apply to the Property in full force. The Sand Hill Road Development Agreement has been amended on two previous occasions, in 2001 and 2003. Stanford's proposed text for the third amendment to the Development Agreement is enclosed as Attachment 3 to this Application. 2 ATTACHMENT E an amendment with the State. Council Member Price said Council but did not have a defensible methodology to count~~ Council Member projection BAG's methodology for the entire region but Palo Alto projections were questionable. ABAG in the same because Palo Alto did not have a MOTION PASSED: 9-0 11. Approval of Park Development Impact Fees to Fund Park Improvements at EI Camino Park in Conjunction With Utilities Department CIP WS-OB002 EI Carrlino Park Reservoir Project. Director of Community Services, Greg Betts provided a brief presentation. Parks & Open Space Division Manager, Daren Anderson said since June 2010 ,the Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC) discussed park design improvements at six regular meetings and one special on-site meeting at the park. The Comrrlission raised concerns regarding pedestrian/bike access to the park, restroom location related to safety and access, tree protection, maximizing parking spaces., fencing for dog exercise area, and lighting improvements. The Commission's guidance on design included the Recreation staff's input from various field user groups that preferred features such as synthetic turf, field size, and multi-use designs to accommodate various sports. The input provided direction for the conceptual design of park improvements. Some options were not taken into consideration because user demand was not as high as other features or did not compliment the field design. On February 22, 2011, Staff presented the Commission with two possible impact fee options and had recommended "Option A" that included synthetic turf for the north and south playing fields, a storage building for maintenance equipment, expanded parking lot, lighting conduit for future lighting of north field, mulch for non-turf areas, soccer catchment fenCing and funding for tree removal and design fees. This option would use $2,360,500 of the current impact fee balance of $2.B million. The Commission recommended ."Option B" which was similar to "Option A" except for natural turf at the south field, a lighted granite pathway and four picnic tables and would use $1,420,500 of the current impact fee balance which was $940,000 less than "Option A." Staff agreed with the 4-2 Commission vote that "Option B" represented the best use of impacts fees for EI Camino Park. 22 06/13/2011 Parks & Recreation Commission Chair, Daria Walsh, said the Commission wanted to see the park get used more by the residents. The soccer fields had the most value for the money but needed improvements. Synthetic turf allowed for more usage. Parks & Recreation Commissioner, Pat Markevitch, said she supported "Option A" because she believed in tearing down and rebuilding the park all at once. Shutting down the park twice would be more costly. She said south of the baseball field, between the park and the Red Cross building, was land that could be utilized for parking and she did not perceive parking was an issue. Paul Snyder, Seigfried Engineering gave a presentation that addressed design concepts. He said there were many connectivity issues that surrounded the sites such as the Alma crossing along the tracks, the Caltrain bus station, the Stanford Mall and the existing parking lot in the middle. The existing pump station was being replaced in the same position and the placement of the reservoir created additional issues. Efforts were made to preserve and enhance the urban forest. The northern field had the parking expansion, new buildings and the synthetic field. The southern field addressed the restoration of the park utilities project. His presentation included detailed information on how every effort was made to meet all amenities and desires of the community and Staff in creating a conceptual design. Herb Borock said there were several environmental documents that were missing from the Staff report such as a draft of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and a recommendation that action would be taken on an Environmental Review (ER). He noted that all the park fee funds would be spent on synthetic material for the playing fields. Playing fields were not the only park use and other parks needed money. He said it was a bad use of money and violated the environmental law. Council Member Klein asked Staff to respond to Mr. Borock's concerns. Mr. Betts clarified the plans were only conceptual plans and Staff had worked closely with the Planning Department in reviewing the plans. He said the conceptual plans and the allocation of funds were being presented to the Council this evening before getting too far down the road. All required environmental documents would be provided when final plans were presented to the Council. A top 10 list adopted by the Council in 2007 was in the Staff report regarding fund usage and included monies for the Bixby Park Hills expansion. He said there was sufficient money for that and other 23 06/13/2011 projects including the Magical Bridge project that was included in the budget. Council Men1ber Klein said the discussion was on the direction of funds and where they eventually would be allocated and was not being expended at this point. Mr. Betts that was correct. Council Member Klein said the plan called for 13 additional parking spaces and asked for the total number of spaces. Mr. Snyder said he thought it was in the mid 40's but not certain. Council Member Klein asked if there would be ample parking if both fields were in full use along with other activities. What would be the maximum amount of people in attendance. Mr. Betts said the north field would not have bleachers and did not expect any more than 20-30 people when the north field was used for soccer. Scheduling of events would be controlled and would limit the number of activities that could occur at one time and booking of major events. He said t~e project was on a bicycle route and transit corridor with easy access to Alma Street for overflow parking. Parking was being increased from 33 to 47 spaces and he felt it was the right size parking for the expanded capacity with multi-use of both fields. Council Men1ber Klein said Alma Street had limited parking area and raised concerns about getting cornplaints from offices and stores. He said Commissioner Markevitcl1 indicated parking use towards University Avenue and asked Staff to elaborate on its feasibility. Mr. Betts said the lot had potentials. There was a diagonal pedestrian pathway between Quarry Road and EI Camino Real, across from PF Changs Restaurant, into a field. The field has a number of utility vaults, water and electrical meters, and two power poles. A feasibility study of gaining automobile access and parking at the field had not been done and was a concern. Council Member Klein said it would be a trade off of EI Camino Real, which was a State highway and would require Caltran's approval. Mr. Betts sa id that was correct. 24 06/13/2011 Council Member Klein asked if there was an appropriate number of parking spaces in that area. Mr. Snyder said the area had several constraints and tree preservation issues. The biggest issue was a slope near the bus turn-around area. There would be approximately 20-25 spaces depending on Caltran's perrTlission, signal timing and accessibility. Council Member Klein asked if the Olympic Memorial trees located at the southwest corner would remain as is. Mr. Snyder said every effort would be made to preserve the trees. Council Member Klein asked where the dog park would be located. Mr. Snyder referred to a wall map and pOinted to the area where the dog park area could be fenced off. Council Member Klein asked how definite the dog park was in the plan. Mr. Anderson said the dog park was not definite at this time. The area was intended to be a passive recreation area. Issues and options needed to be studied during the conceptual phase. Council Member Klein said this was not a topic of discussion for this evenings meeting and asked Staff to see about changing the name Stanford/Palo Alto Soccer Facilities to differentiate the facility's location. Council Member Shepherd asked if a fence was planned along Alma Street across from EI Palo Alto. Mr. Snyder made reference to the wall map and indicated there was an existing fence in an internal area with shorter fencing for the dog park and would not limit access to the park. Council Member Shepherd c had issues on voting on an area with only the possibility for parking. She asked if there was an inventive way to create a pathway from the Red Cross building or the transit center to access the area. Mr. Snyder asked as an engineer or a person in a truck. Council Member Shepherd said a person in a truck. 25 06/13/2011 Mr. Snyder said the area had several obstacles and a person in a truck could possibly create a path through the area. The opportunity would be there for a planner or an engineer but they would need to deal with leased property. Council Merrlber Shepherd said it would eliminate dealing with Caltrans. She asked who owned the property. Mr. Betts said the property was part of EI Camino Park. One of the challenges was relocating a JC Decaux Public Toilet that existed at the end of the street past the Red Cross building. Council Member Shepherd said she was interested to see if access could be pursued in getting to the potential parking area. Ms. Walsh said most of the Commissioners were expecting the area to be part of the park and not for parking. Council Member Price asked what the life span was for heavily used synthetic turf. Mr. Betts said seven to eight years. Council Member Price said a comment was made that having two synthetic fields would bring a bigger demand for field use. She raised concerns regarding the cost for the additional parking area since it had not been included in the plan. She asked what the maintenance cost would be for a grass field where the base diamond currently existed. Mr. Anderson said he could not provide a hard figure or hours. He said grass whipping was required once every 1-2 weeks where grass grew along the fence line versus synthetic material that did not require mowing, watering, or trimming. Mr. Betts said additionally due to wear, a grass field required closing down for two months out of the year to reseed, reestablish, and re-thatch its growth. That would not be necessary for artificial turf. Mr. Anderson said artificial turf needed to be groomed but far less than a grass field. Another advantage was not having pest making trip hazards in synthetic material. Council Member Holman said Alma Street and the train tracks were impediments in getting to the park and asked if Staff had given more thought in providing connectivity to the neighborhood. 26 06/13/2011 Mr. Anderson referred to the wall map and pOinted to a pathway into Palo Alto Park. He said it required walking a few hundred yards along the park's edge which was not level and was unsafe. Council M~mber Holman asked Staff to point on the map at the path to the train station. Mr. Betts said he rode his bike almost daily from Menlo Park and took a route that crossed EI Camino, entered the park, continued along the north field, a path along the baseball field and connected to a path near PF Chang's. Council Member Holman asked if there was another path that ran along the tracks. Mr. Betts said not behind the train station. There was one between the depot and MacArthur Park Restaurant and over to Homer tunnel and behind the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, on to the backside of the Town and Country Shopping Center, over Embarcadero Road and behind Palo Alto High School. Council Member Holman said another reason for having one instead of two synthetic fields was because it left more funds for other projects. She said improvements would be cornpleted in 2013 which was 20 years from the expiration of the lease agreement. Stanford housing was considered for that area and asked Staff if the lease would be extended. Mr. Betts said if Stanford were to pursue housing they proposed not to move forward until after expiration of the 2033 lease. Council Member Holman asked what the likelihood was of having an extension of the lease agreement beyond 2033 or was 2033 the horizon when Stanford wanted to use the property for housing. Mr. Betts said in consultation with the City Attorney's office there had been discussions with Stanford whether or not the lease could be extended when they looked into obtaining the easement for the reservoir. City Attorney, Molly Stump it was her understanding that during the negotiations for the Stanford Hospital project the issue was raised and the City did pursue the extension. Stanford was not interested at the time and it was not included in the hospital agreement. 27 06/13/2011 Council Member Holman said that would be an indication that Stanford would not renew the lease when it expired. Ms. StUlTlP said that was the understanding at this time. Council Member Holman said during the presentation, Staff made a comment to continue working with PARC on furthering the design. The Staff Report did not indicate the process of moving forward and wanted clarification on pursuing the design. Mr. Betts said he would calion Seigfried representatives to provide the process in moving forward ·in finalizing specifications and design and ask Mr. Anderson to talk about the next steps in reviewing the project. Mr. Snyder said the next step would be to incorporate input from the City Council, City departments, PARC, and public feedback. They would evaluate any added elements and costs to the plan and move forward in putting together improvement plans for the park. Council Member Holman asked what was a typical practice in reviewing plans for a park. Mr. Anderson said Staff would go to the Arc~litectural Review Board (ARB) to get final approval on their recolTlmendations, return to PARC for approval and move forward in getting the project to 100 percent. Council Member Schmid asked whether 11 or 12-year children were scheduled to play on the field. Mr. Betts said that was not the intent at this particular field. Younger children are advised to use facilities that are surrounded by homes with not a lot of street parking and can safely be accessed by bicycle or walking. Council Member Burt said present use of the baseball field did include Little Leaguers and that would be a change in use to not allow younger children on the field. He said the bike path south of the Quarry area was makeshift bike routes started on the other side of the oval. It was a maze, dangerous and chaotic in terms of competition of bikes, vehicles, and buses. There was discussion of the getting the area redone with Stanford funds in getting connectivity and he raised a concern why that was not included in the Staff Report. He asked that be included in the record and to concentrate on the park portion. He was not in favor of extending the park into the dirt area south of Quarry area. He said the existing parking area was an oval 28 06/13/2011 between the two ball fields. He asked what prevented extending the oval towards Alma Street to add more parking. Mr. Snyder said the extension would be encroaching into Caltrain's right-of-, way and the structural section supporting the tracks and high voltage boxes located at the edge of the parking lot. There was already encroachment into the area for future restrooms and storage buildings. Council Member Burt said it appeared there was some latitude to extend the oval to allow for added parking in the area where buildings are located. He said he would advocate reexamining extending the oval. Mr. Snyder said he agreed there was some flexibility in the area. Council Member Burt asked if it was possible to move the baseball field 10 feet south to allow widening the oval for additional spaces. Mr. Snyder said there were challenges. The distance to the outField fence was short. He said a proposed wall would mass two utility boxes which were access pOints to the buried reservoir and would limit adding the extra space. Council Member Burt asked what the current zoning was. Mr. Betts said it was Parking Facility (PF) zone. Council Member Burt said PF was not necessarily recreational. Mr. Betts said that was correct. Fire stations, community centers, and libraries were zoned PF. Council Member Burt asked if zoning should be looked at for the park for retaining the land for recreational purposes. Ms. Stump said it was her understanding PF was the correct zoning for the present use. Stanford would need to pursue an amendment for future housing on the site. Council Member Burt said housing was one thing and asked if Stanford would be able to use it for other public facility functions different from the recreational park functions used by Palo Alto. Ms. Stump said she would need to get back with the information. 29 06/13/2011 Council Member Burt asked if Palo Alto would be incentivizing Stanford with Palo Alto's zoning that would cause Stanford to want to take the land back. Council Member Scharff asked if it would be hopeless to try to pursue extension of the Stanford lease agreement since they indicated they were not interested of an extension at this time. Ms. Stump said 2033 was a ways away and in recent discussions Stanford was not interested in advancing the issue at that pOint. Council Member Scharff said one of Staff's recommendation stated that the Council direct Staff to pursue a long-term lease with Stanford for EL Camino Park beyond the current June 2033 expiration date. He said the issue was confusing and needed clarification on what the Council was asked to do. Mr. Betts said that was a PARC recommendation and that Staff had not specifically gone to Stanford to ask them to reconsider. Council Member Scharff asked for pOint of clarification, was Staff asking for the Council to direct Staff to pursue the issue or not to pursue the issue at this time. City Manager James Keene said he thought the Council should direct Staff to pursue the long-term lease with Stanford. , Holman to accept S'taff recommendation to: Recreation Commission and Staff's suggested use of $1,420,50 Development Impact Fees (Impact Fees) to fund the Parks a ecreation Commission's recommended list of improvements to EI Ca . 0 Park; and 2) direct Staff to pursue a long-term lease with Stanfo or EI Camino Park beyond the current June 2033 expiration date. Council Member Scharff said PARC ha a lot of thought to the recommendation and felt the park an asset to the community. He raised concerns regarding Little uers no longer being able to play there. Mr. Betts clarified the . 'e· League park was primarily at Hoover and Middlefield Road. Li eague ma~tplay .some games at this park but it was cation and would only be used as.,.a backup. ' •• ~". '"", ... ~1'!tr'l~ ... , ''!·l-.,. ... ..:''rf~.~ in expending money' on,property control over but made it mOre 30 06/13/2011 Page 1 of 15 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 March 14, 2012 2 Verbatim Minutes 3 4 DRAFT EXCERPT 5 6 El Camino Park, between Sand Hill and Quarry Roads, Palo Alto and 10 acres near 7 Searsville and Fremont Roads in the County of Santa Clara (Special Condition Area B)*: 8 Request by Stanford University for Planning and Transportation Commission review of an 9 amendment to the 1997 Sand Hill Road Development Agreement to extend the lease on the El 10 Camino Park site for a period of nine years, from June 2033 to June 2042 and to remove 11 approximately 10.25 acres of land from Special Condition Area B. The amendment to the 12 Development Agreement would not change the environmental impacts analyzed in the General 13 Use Permit EIR. No additional environmental review is required. 14 15 Ms. Whitney McNair, Consultant: The Agreement covers land within the City of Palo Alto and 16 within the County of Santa Clara. City zoning applies to those parcels within the City limits and 17 the County’s 2,000 Stanford Community Plan and General Use Permit apply to the lands outside 18 of the City boundaries. Even though some of the land is outside of the City’s jurisdiction, it is 19 still covered by this Development Agreement and the reasoning behind that was to regulate some 20 of the timing of development along the Sand Hill Road corridor. 21 22 Development Agreements are a negotiated contract between two parties. Both parties have to 23 agree to the terms as well as any amendment. In this case the existing terms of the Development 24 Agreement are subject to tonight or subject to debate and before you tonight is a proposed 25 Amendment to the Agreement that involves two properties, the El Camino Park and an area off 26 of Sand Hill Road located in Santa Clara County known as Special Condition Area B. 27 28 Special Condition Area B is approximately 139 acres and is not within the City of Palo Alto. As 29 I mentioned earlier it’s within the County of Santa Clara and is on land owned by Stanford. The 30 area proposed for removal from Area B is roughly ten acres and is noted here in the brighter 31 orange color. I think it’s pretty clear on the screen. 32 33 The Development Agreement currently identifies the site as a possible site for housing and 34 restricts development until December 1, 2020. The time restriction does not apply to recreational 35 fields and support facilities. The proposed change to the Development Agreement would change 36 only the type of development that is allowed under the Agreement from housing to academic and 37 support uses which would then allow for development of this area prior to the December 2020 38 date. This accelerates development of this parcel by approximately nine years. Removal of the 39 property from Area B would not result in any changes to either the Community Plan or the 40 General Use permit. The County permits academic and support uses so this Amendment would 41 be consistent with their land use designations. Although the site allows for housing, no housing 42 is contemplated here and other sites designated for housing are still available and as shown on 43 the diagram within Area B there are still three other sites designated that still have a housing 44 designation on them. 45 46 Page 2 of 15 By removing the property from Area B the City is not approving any development on the 1 property. Stanford University is considering this site for a new energy center to replace the 2 campus’s Cardinal Cogeneration Energy Facility and representatives from Stanford are here 3 tonight and will be discussing this possibility in further detail. As is currently the case, all 4 approvals will remain subject to the County review and approval. 5 6 The second part of the Proposed Amendment involved El Camino Park. El Camino Park is 7 within the City limits and is the site of a new reservoir and ball fields. The land is owned by 8 Stanford and the City of Palo Alto has an existing lease with Stanford for the park. In June of 9 2011 the City Council, while they were discussing improvements to the ball field directed Staff 10 to see if Stanford would consider extending the lease on El Camino Park. The current lease 11 expires in June 2033. With this Proposed Amendment Stanford is willing to extend the lease 12 nine years from 2033 to 2042. In the Staff Report is a copy of the Development Agreement and 13 an exhibit to the Agreement is the amended lease. Representatives from Stanford as well as 14 Senior Assistant City Attorney Cara are here tonight to answer any questions you might have 15 about the lease. 16 17 There are no policy implications or resource impacts or necessary environmental review for the 18 Commission to consider. This Amendment is merely removing one property from a 19 Development Restriction nine years early to allow Stanford to consider the site for a new energy 20 center in exchange for an extension of the El Camino Ball Park lease nine years. The timing 21 allowances are roughly the same and the size of the parcels are roughly the same. Additionally 22 the City Council directed Staff to try to work with Stanford to get a lease extension for El 23 Camino Park. Staff supports the Proposed Amendment to the Development Agreement and 24 recommends that the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to City Council for the 25 approval of the Proposed Amendment. 26 27 The City Council is scheduled to consider this item at their April 9th meeting and that’s the end 28 of my presentation and representatives from Stanford are here as well. 29 30 Ms. Catherine Palter: Thank you Chair Martinez and Commissioners. My name is Catherine 31 Palter and I’m the Associate Director of Stanford’s Land Use and Environmental Planning 32 Office. As the Staff was mentioning, this Development Agreement dates back to 1997 when it 33 was approved by the voters and include the construction showed on this diagram, the widening 34 and extension of Sand Hill Road and some associated roads shown there in green, senior housing 35 in purple, the dark brown apartment housing and some expansion at the Stanford Shopping 36 Center. 37 38 As part of that was also you can see, I’m sorry the laser pointer just isn’t working on there but to 39 the left hand side is Area B which we were just discussing and to the right of your view there is 40 the El Camino Park leases. So the Area B land was included in the Development Agreement for 41 Stanford land that is located in the Sand Hill Road corridor in Santa Clara County and it places 42 development restrictions to include only allowed recreation and academic field however on about 43 37 of those acres the City did allow that housing could be built. Again, this is layered on top of 44 any restrictions that would occur as a result of County jurisdiction. 45 46 Page 3 of 15 There have been Amendments to this area already, the biggest being the location of where the 1 City did the housing. Originally the housing was allowed in a rectangular area which again I’m 2 sorry I can’t show you on this. It doesn’t read on the screen so… Okay. So originally this was 3 the area that the City said that housing would be allowed in in 1997 and in 2001 after there were 4 discussions for the General Use Permit in 2000 this piece was removed from consideration for 5 housing and this piece was added so that leaves us these 37 acres that the City said housing could 6 be constructed. The Development Restrictions placed by the Development Agreement would 7 expire at the end of 2020, a little less than nine years from now. 8 9 In addition, there was affect on the El Camino leases with the Development Agreement. The El 10 Camino Park Lease and the Depot Lease which includes the Intermodal Transit Center were 11 extended from 20 years to the year 2033. In addition at that time in 1997 the City returned the 12 Red Cross and MacArthur Park leases to Stanford and the City has a termination right for the 13 Depot Lease for the Intermodal Transit Center so that’s where we are today and the proposal 14 moving forward again affects Area B to remove this approximately ten acre parcel from the 15 Development Agreement and its restrictions and that would allow Stanford to have more 16 flexibility as it considers the citing and planning for a replacement Central Energy Facility. 17 Anything that would be proposed at this site would need environmental review and approval by 18 the County. 19 20 In the trade that the Staff was referring to would extend this ten acre parcel for a similar nine 21 years from 2033 to 2042 so again it’s kind of a swap of removal of Development Restrictions in 22 Area B of ten acres nine years early and extension of the City’s lease for the park for nine years. 23 Now I’d like to introduce Joe Stagner who is the Executive Director of Stanford’s Sustainability 24 and Energy Management Department to explain some of the new technologies that Stanford is 25 considering for a more sustainable energy supply for the campus. I also wanted to mention that 26 Bill Phillips, the Associate Vice President for Land, Buildings and Real Estate is here and we’re 27 available to answer any of your questions. Thank you. 28 29 Mr. Joe Stagner: Thank you. As Catherine mentioned I’m Joe Stagner and I’m Head of the 30 Sustainability and Energy Management Department at Stanford which includes campus utilities 31 and the ability to acquire and produce energy for the buildings and so forth. Some of you may 32 know but today we have Cardinal Cogen which is where most of the campus gets its energy. We 33 have electricity of course used in the buildings and a central district heating and cooling system 34 where we transport steam to the buildings to provide warmth and sterilization and so forth and 35 we have a chill water system of pipes that take cold water around from the central plant to 36 provide air conditioning for the buildings. Probably 95% of the campus’ energy is supplied by 37 the Cogeneration plant this way and that’s the source of the campus’ greenhouse emissions for 38 all intents and purposes so while it’s a very efficient system that was started in 1987 it still is not 39 as efficient as the things we can do today. It is the source of most of the greenhouse gas and it 40 consumes about 25% of our drinking water supply from Hetch Hetchy through evaporative 41 cooling. This is an aerial picture of the cooling towers at that facility and you can see even on 42 cool days how much heat is coming out of the cooling towers and how much water is being 43 consumed in the process. As you look at cooling towers on cool days you wonder why we’re 44 throwing away good heat we could heat buildings with and why we’re using a lot of our precious 45 drinking water in the process with these cooling towers. 46 Page 4 of 15 1 In considering that we have to have a new energy plant to eventually replace the Cogeneration 2 Plant which was built in the 80s and is about 25 years old now and nearing the end of its useful 3 life we really took a look at the total energy coming and going from our central energy plant to 4 heat the campus on every hour of the year to see if we could find some more sustainable 5 solutions. These charts show that we found a considerable overlap in the simultaneous amount 6 of heat we were making with the Cogen and sending out to the buildings and the heat we were 7 collecting from our chilled water system. So you could think of the chilled water system even 8 though its delivering cold water its really a system for collecting unwanted heat and if you think 9 if it reverse like that you realize hey, we’ve got this system that collects heat from all our 10 buildings and brings it back to a central location and then we throw it away out at cooling towers 11 and use a lot of water in the process. At the same time we’re making heat with fossil fuel and 12 sending it out for all of our buildings. So we decided to take a look at that in detail and see if 13 there’s an opportunity to do something better. 14 15 This shows in three seasons, summer, winter and the spring and fall shoulder seasons what a 16 daily profile might look like for the campus. So on the big picture on the left on a typical 17 summer day we have a cool nighttime weather here and so we have a low cooling load but of 18 course it peaks in the days, you can see on the blue line. During those same 24 hours we have a 19 constant need for heat and you may ask why that’s the case but today’s modern laboratory 20 buildings and computer rooms you have to cool air into a building going down to a certain 21 temperature to keep computers cool but then other areas that are occupied you might want it a 22 little warmer, you might want is 66 in the computer room and 72 here so you have reheat devices 23 in the air ducts that use heat to warm that 66 degree air to say 72 in here. That’s called reheat 24 process for those of you familiar with building HVAC design. 25 26 So that’s why there’s this big simultaneous need for heating and cooling of a very research 27 intensive modern campus like that and it also presents the opportunity though to take that waste 28 heat and to heat other buildings that need heat at the same time or perhaps store it overnight and 29 use it when you need it. So all those green areas show for each of the typical seasonal profiles 30 how much waste heat there is available that we can use to heat the campus rather than burning 31 fossil fuel to do it. 32 33 When you look at it over the course of a whole year you see our cooling loads over the course of 34 a year from January to December are on top and our heating loads for the campus are on the 35 bottom. The shaded area shows that if we took all the heat and the cooling heat recovery 36 potential area and redirected it, reuse, recycled it to heat the campus we can meet about 80% of 37 our heating load now using waste heat. The goal of our new sustainable energy system is to 38 create this new heat recovery energy plan powered by electricity from the grid and it will be 39 significantly more efficient than what we have today and certainly more affordably sustainable. 40 41 In summary, instead of having another say 100% fossil fuel Cogen Plant we’d have this new 42 plant and immediately cut our greenhouse gas emissions in half by reusing this energy and not 43 burning fossil fuel to make it. It allows the campus eventually to be 100% sustainable so when 44 the grid electricity supply is deemed sustainable and moved onto greener balance with the 45 Page 5 of 15 environment then so will Stanford as a essentially 100% electric campus so will Stanford be 1 empowered to be sustainable because all out thermal needs are being met by this new system. 2 3 The last thing is that given that the energy plant uses 25% of our water and we’d cut the use of 4 that water by 70% we’re actually saving 18% of the total campus water supply and so those are 5 the great benefits of the project and we hope to locate it somewhere on the north side of campus 6 over in the vicinity where the existing plant is because that’s where all the pipes and wires come 7 together on campus so its got to be in that general location. If this site is approved it would 8 facilitate perhaps putting the plant there as one of the better locations in addition to the other 9 locations we are considering along Sand Hill. And that concludes our presentation. 10 11 Chair Martinez: Okay I’m going to open the Public Hearing. We have one member of the 12 public to speak. 13 14 Vice Chair Fineberg: Herb Borock. 15 16 Chair Martinez: Mr. Borock you’ll have three minutes. 17 18 Mr. Herb Borock: Thank you Chair Martinez and good evening. I urge you to recommend to 19 the Council that they not take any action on this proposal and instead that you wait until Stanford 20 has a project before the County and if that project happens to be on this site that it can be 21 conditioned in the County on getting approval on a change to the Development Agreement. 22 Everything you just heard about the proposed Cogeneration Plant should be ignored because 23 there is no project and as the previous speaker said it may end up someplace else. You haven’t 24 seen on what’s before you where the current site is so you can compare what’s going to happen 25 to that site. 26 27 In addition, when you’re looking at El Camino Park you need to be aware of the other projects 28 that are taking place at the same time. Just two evenings ago on the City Council agenda there 29 was an item for approval of most of the City’s in lieu park funds for playing fields at El Camino 30 Park which was removed from the agenda so that Staff could revise the report to include 31 coordination with other local projects adjacent to El Camino Park. As we know Mr. Arrillaga 32 has proposed projects, a 250,000 square foot office building to be donated to Stanford and a 33 70,000 shell for a theater to be donated to I guess Theater Works but when the Council saw those 34 neither Mr. Emslie or the person sitting with the Theater Works people who looked very much 35 like Dan Garber provided any maps to show the relationship of that property to El Camino Park. 36 I took and assessed this parcel map and drew in the missing piece of the Red Cross building and 37 as you can see from the material before you there are between 50 and 75 feet between those 38 parcels and El Camino Real which is all part of dedicated park land which is El Camino Park so 39 you’re getting a proposal now to extend all of El Camino’s parks at least for a period of time 40 when if those projects come through a piece of El Camino Park is the front lawn of those two 41 projects which is supposed to be fronted on El Camino. 42 43 I think the best thing to do is follow normal planning practice and that is when Stanford has a 44 project that is defined for a specific site it should go to the County for approval and if that site 45 Page 6 of 15 requires amendment to the Development Agreement that should be one of the Conditions of 1 Approval that can be fulfilled by Palo Alto and Stanford. Thank you. 2 3 Commissioner Keller: So my first question is does it make sense to condition the use of the 4 space that’s removed from Area B as being used for a Cogen Plant and not for another use 5 without approval of the City. Is that something that is feasible? Is that something that makes 6 sense? 7 8 Ms. Silver: Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney. I don’t think that it’s necessary to do 9 that. It’s a possibility and I don’t think Staff would have any objection to that. You might want 10 to ask the Applicant if they have any objection to that since it is a negotiated Development 11 Agreement and they would have to agree to any revisions of the terms. 12 13 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Does the Applicant want to respond to that? 14 15 Mr. Phillips: Bill Phillips with Stanford University. We’d have no objection to that Condition. 16 That would be the alternative use we would see for that site. If we decided not to use it for that 17 the lease extension would still be in effect for the City and we would not use it for anything else. 18 19 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. While you’re there I would assume this would also allow 20 you to, the current Cogen Plant is currently in the middle of the western part of campus proper 21 and so that would allow for reuse of additional academic buildings but that would be within the 22 growth cap of the current GUP. Is that right? 23 24 Mr. Phillips: That’s correct. 25 26 Commissioner Keller: One more thing. There was a member of the public who responded about 27 the closure of the bike route on Searsville. 28 29 Mr. Phillips: Correct. 30 31 Commissioner Keller: Do you have any comments on that? 32 33 Mr. Phillips: The closure of the bike route that went from basically where Sand Hill and the 34 bridge occur took a diagonal path. I would say northeast over to Searsville or excuse me Stock 35 Farm and Oak. People liked that path because it was a short cut. When the University installed 36 the golf course practice facility it did not provide for a viable bike route through there but a bike 37 pedestrian route because it would have been right in the middle of where golf balls were going 38 back and forth so the bike route was relocated around the golf facility and its quite a nice bike 39 route but it’s a little bit longer than what they were used to. 40 41 I had been asked just recently whether we would take another look at the exact location of the 42 bike route when we did our planning for whatever would occur on this area to be removed from 43 Area B and in any reconfiguration of the golf practice facility and I said I would and we will and 44 we would meet with that person as we proceed with our planning. 45 46 Page 7 of 15 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I appreciate that and obviously that’s not directly in the path 1 of what we’re doing but I appreciate your cooperation on that matter. 2 3 Chair Martinez: While you’re up there, can I ask you to respond to Mr. Borock’s point. Why 4 would you not wait until you’re sure this is the site you want for the new Energy Center. 5 6 Mr. Phillips: I think what it really comes down to is the Application and the entitlement process 7 for a major new replacement energy facility will involve a lot of preparatory work, a lot of 8 environmental work, a lot of analysis and a significant amount of time and money in order to 9 conduct all that. We don’t want to proceed with that only to find out that there may or may not 10 be satisfaction by the City with respect to that proposal given the control they have over Area B. 11 So the proposal is to allow us to proceed with the difficult work of entitlement that will have to 12 take place with the County knowing that we have the ability to cite something in that area of 13 Area B. 14 15 Chair Martinez: So this is your preferred site? 16 17 Mr. Phillips: Yes it is our preferred site but it wouldn’t be if it wasn’t removed. 18 19 Chair Martinez: I understand. Thank you. Vice Chair Fineberg 20 21 Vice Chair Fineberg: Can we get an exact acreage on both parcels? I see it being referred to 22 approximately ten, El Camino Park maybe ten and a quarter and Area B 975. If Staff can come 23 back with that in a moment and let me continue. 24 25 In the meeting that we received minutes, Council’s meeting on June 13th of 2011 there was 26 discussion about the allowed uses on the site. This is mostly going to be directed at our City 27 Attorney. Thank you. Ms. Stump talked about the underlying zoning being PF but that housing 28 be an allowed use in the future should Stanford want to develop that but they would need to 29 amend the zoning if they wanted to build housing and then she would look at and get back to 30 Council about what other uses Stanford could make of El Camino Park should the lease expire at 31 El Camino Park. Do you know if any of that research was conducted? Do we know what 32 current use Stanford could make of that land as it is currently zoned as PF? 33 34 Ms. Silver: Yes thank you Vice Chair Fineberg. I just realized that with the new Chamber 35 configuration the code book is now locked up so I can’t look up what the uses are in the Public 36 Facility zone although Amy has a copy so we can also look that up now in real time and get back 37 to you on that. 38 39 Ms. McNair: I can answer your question about the size of the site. The Area B site is 10.25 40 acres and the El Camino Park site is 10.5 acres. 41 42 Vice Chair Fineberg: So let me just confirm. El Camino Park is 10.5 and Area B is 10.25 43 because on the map it shows it as 10.75 so I think we need, not tonight necessarily but we need 44 clarity on the acreage and that point is going to with the possibility that there is going to be an 45 incoming application by Arrillaga and Theater Works, how much land is going to be needed by 46 Page 8 of 15 that project? How much land is the City going to be asked to undedicated of that park land and 1 where I’m trying to go with that is are we swapping equivalent amounts if one starts off larger or 2 smaller and then we give up some of the park land? 3 4 Ms. McNair: Let me just pull up… Two points is I wanted to clarify on the map the property 5 showed 9.25 and I just want to make sure I know which map. 6 7 Vice Chair Fineberg: I think I said 9.75 but I may have been trying to talk fast. 8 9 Ms. McNair: So then you had a question about the area in which the City would need to request 10 undedicated for park land. That has not yet been determined because there is no application yet 11 for the project that’s being titled as 27 University. That project is looking at developing a site 12 generally in the area that is shown here but again until site plans are drawn up and an application 13 is presented the exact area of land that would need to be undedicated is yet to be determined. 14 The lease however still exists. The designation for park land is a City designation on that park 15 land and wouldn’t affect the lease. The portion of the site that may be possibly undedicated in 16 the future would be the area that is sort of next to, kind of in this area here and perhaps the area 17 that goes along the front but again that would all be considered when a future application comes 18 forward. 19 20 Vice Chair Fineberg: So forgive me if I’m unclear with my exact words but when they were 21 talking about the Comp Plan designation or zoning being PF, was that Public Facility or in the 22 minutes I think it actually even said Park Facility so I don’t have a copy of that designation. Is it 23 Public Facility or is it Park Facility? 24 25 Ms. French: The PF zone is Public Facility. 26 27 Vice Chair Fineberg: So what allowed uses would Stanford have for that if the lease at El 28 Camino were to expire and it reverted back to Stanford, what allowed uses would they have 29 without a zone change? 30 31 Ms. French: The intent of the Public Facilities is basically City land, basically City of Palo Alto, 32 County of Santa Clara, State of California governmental agency. There are instances where PF 33 is for instance Palo Alto Medical Foundation is a PF site zone but there are quite a few 34 conditional use permit entitlements and can be achieved or granted for neighborhood recreation 35 centers, outdoor recreation services, this kind of thing and the permitted uses include park uses 36 and uses incidental to park operation and basically that’s it between the two. The governmental 37 and the park uses. The rest are all Conditional Use Permits required and I can bring this up and 38 you can pass it along if that would help to see it in more detail. 39 40 Vice Chair Fineberg: If we can just at some point have clarity on the acreage of both parcels and 41 if the Chair would recognize either the Applicant or Commissioner Keller I think they have 42 feedback. 43 44 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller first. He’s been waiting. 45 46 Page 9 of 15 Commissioner Keller: If you look at Exhibit 1 which is Exhibit C to the Third Amendment to 1 1997 Sand Hill Road Development Agreement there is a map by BKF which lists Park Parcel 1 2 and Park Parcel 2. Park Parcel 3 being 0.691 acres and Park Parcel 1 being 9.714 acres. I did 3 the math and that comes out to 10.405 acres that reflects the El Camino Park and with respect to 4 the Stanford Special Condition Area B I don’t have any comment. 5 6 Mr. Borock: I disagree there’s a third parcel that’s marked as Parcel 2 which is 0.344 acres and 7 perhaps Mr. Phillips can either acknowledge whether that’s part of El Camino Park or not, I 8 think it is. 9 10 Commissioner Keller: Yeah I missed 0.344 acres Parcel 2. 11 12 Mr. Phillips: The referenced parcel that Mr. Borock mentioned brings you into not only the little 13 wedge that was brought into the park parcel which is just to the left of the depot parcel but also 14 the portion where the El Palo Alto stands and when you total all those up you will add up to 15 10.74 acres. So 10.75 acres. 16 17 Commissioner Keller: 10.749. 18 19 Vice Chair Fineberg: And are all those little bits and pieces in play or just portions of them? 20 21 Mr. Phillips: All those bits and pieces are in play and that includes the jug handle portion which 22 was quick claimed back to Stanford and then given back to the City under the lease at the time of 23 the rearrangement of the entrances to the shopping center after 1997. 24 25 Vice Chair Fineberg: So if I got it right then all the little pieces at El Camino Park add up to 26 10.75 acres and then do we know what the exact acreage is of the portion of Area B? 27 28 Mr. Phillips: It’s just short of 10.2 acres. Its exact acreage is measured in the analysis and we 29 come to I believe 10.19. 30 31 Vice Chair Fineberg: Thank you. 32 33 Chair Martinez: Vice Chair can you let us know where you’re going with that? 34 35 Vice Chair Fineberg: I wanted to know if all we were looking at was the number of acres how 36 the trade compared and then the impact if a portion of it was undedicated. If it started off at 37 uneven levels or just advantageous levels for either party and then the undedication pushed it 38 further in either direction and from what you’re saying we still don’t know about the 39 undedication amount but the El Camino Park is larger than the land at Area B so there’s just 40 simply a difference there. 41 42 Chair Martinez: Staff you said this but the undedicated part is not being used as park land right 43 now? Is that true? I mean it’s not part of the playing fields. 44 45 Page 10 of 15 Ms. French: My understanding is there are some utilities underground there and its being used 1 for utilities. I don’t know if there’s any more information on that. 2 3 Ms. Palter: Are you referring to the possible undedication that might occur in the future as a 4 result of the 27 University? That’s really speculative at this point. There isn’t a set of plans that 5 have even been submitted. 6 7 Chair Martinez: What do you mean? We lost a Commissioner over it. What do you mean? 8 9 Ms. Palter: We don’t have any footprints. It’s possibly that frontage area in front of Red Cross 10 and MacArthur Park and that currently is dedicated park land and it is in use as park land. 11 12 Chair Martinez: Okay. 13 14 Mr. Phillips: Can I mention one thing? The lease between the City and Stanford goes back a 15 long way. It does not include a use provision that restricts the City’s use to the parcel as only 16 park land so I think the extension of the lease applies to the lease and the use changes that could 17 take place within that extended time period are really up to the City. 18 19 Chair Martinez: Anyone else? Commissioner Michael. 20 21 Commissioner Michael: So I’m very impressed with the potential for the new energy plant at 22 Stanford. It seems it would be worth accelerating the time that you could commence this subject 23 to County approval and at a location that would be optimal. I’m a little bit distracted by the 24 symmetry between the exact acreage of the Area B and the park parcel. It isn’t clear to me that 25 the exact right trade off that’s negotiated is the exact same amount of acreage for the exact same 26 period of time. You may want to just explore what the real value there is. For example, if the 27 use of the park parcel is very attractive in terms of the University and the City is good neighbors 28 and getting closer to in perpetuity, is extended for ten years long enough? This seems to be 29 particularly since the whole study of the Rail Corridor and the diversity of uses in this area and 30 there being a real shortage and imporosity of parks, this is one that exists and it seems to be 31 enthusiastically used and enjoyed and its attractive even to people passing by on El Camino and 32 so forth so I just want to encourage people to be creative in terms of the negotiation. 33 34 I’m also curious, I didn’t quite get the details relative to the lease arrangement for the depot 35 parcels where the Intermodal Transit Center is and this again seems very central to the Rail 36 Corridor Study and a lot of the plans probably benefit again Stanford because of Stanford 37 employees and students using that transit to come to campus and then they use the shuttle. If an 38 extension of that lease might also be part of the arrangement I was just curious as to why that 39 wasn’t part of the proposal here tonight although I do think it’s an excellent proposal I want to 40 make sure that it’s struck in the interest of both parties. 41 42 Ms. Silver: If I could just respond to that question briefly, the depot parcel has been historically 43 discussed among the City and Stanford and essentially the depot parcel is really used by VTA 44 and they have built of course a bus turnaround on that parcel and then the historic building is 45 leased out to a coffee vendor and this City has essentially been serving as a middle man in that 46 Page 11 of 15 arrangement so Stanford leases the depot parcel to the City and then the City subleases it to VTA 1 and we have essentially been brokering sort of a deal and so it is not necessary that the City be 2 involved as that middle element. The City is very supportive of the depot operating at that 3 location as is Stanford and we are hoping that Stanford and VTA will take it upon themselves to 4 work out a private arrangement so that the City can terminate its lease under the terms of the 5 original Lease Agreement next year actually. If that’s not the case, if an arrangement is not 6 made the City has the ability to extend the lease further through 2033. So that certainly was 7 something that was considered and as another part of the consideration in terms of the 8 arrangement here there was a rent reduction that was factored into the equation. Thank you. 9 10 Chair Martinez: Anything else? Commissioner Keller then. 11 12 Commissioner Keller: Two more questions. One is are all of the identified 10.749 or so acres of 13 El Camino Park dedicated park land or El Palo Alto Park? Whatever it’s called. 14 15 Ms. French: I believe so. Yes, the Public Facility zoned these areas. 16 17 Commissioner Keller: Public Facility zoning is different from the City’s dedicated park land 18 according to the City’s Park Land Dedication Ordinance so I’m not asking about zoning I’m 19 asking with respect to the City’s Park Land Dedication Ordinance. 20 21 Ms. French: I could have answered that more precisely and I’m sorry about that. It is as you 22 suggest, all dedicated park land. 23 24 Commissioner Keller: Considering that that is dedicated park land and my understanding is to 25 undedicated park land or to apply park land to any use other than dedicated park land requires a 26 vote of the people, the citizens of Palo Alto in an election. Can Stanford make any use, let’s just 27 suppose on the hypothetical that in 2042 the land reverts back to Stanford. Can Stanford make 28 any use of that land other than as park land without a vote of the people? 29 30 Ms. Silver: At what point in time? After the lease terminates? 31 32 Commissioner Keller: After the lease is up, if this land is dedicated park land, can Stanford 33 make any use of the land other than park land considering that any land use change requires the 34 vote of the people. Am I off base there or am I on track to something? 35 36 Ms. Silver: The charter only allows the people to dedicate park land that is either owned by the 37 City or controlled by the City and so a long term lease would be under control of the City but if 38 the lease terminated then I don’t believe that the park land protection would still apply. 39 40 Commissioner Keller: So the Park Land Dedication Ordinance that requires a vote of the people 41 would not apply if the lease terminates? 42 43 Ms. Silver: I believe that’s the case. 44 45 Commissioner Keller: It would be helpful to explore that if that’s not the case. 46 Page 12 of 15 1 Ms. French: And if I may that’s when the zoning would kick in. 2 3 MOTION 4 5 Commissioner Keller: I realize zoning kicks in and I appreciate that thank you. I move the Staff 6 Recommendation with the restriction of the use of the land from Special Condition Area B that is 7 removed as part of this agreement be used only for a new energy plant so moving the Staff 8 Recommendation with that one restriction. Thank you. 9 10 Chair Martinez: Is there a Second? 11 12 SECOND 13 14 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Michael seconds. Do you want to speak to your Motion? 15 16 Commissioner Keller: Yes. I think this is an intriguing project. I see this as benefiting the City 17 in terms of having an assured use of El Palo Alto Park for another nine years. I see this as 18 benefiting Stanford in terms of being able to relocate the energy plant from the Cardinal Cogen 19 Plant that was state of the art when it was built but is far from state of the art now to this new 20 location. It restricts the new location for that use so if the use is to change from that then that 21 does come back to the City for further analysis. 22 23 It allows Stanford to continue its entitlement process with knowing that it can from the City’s 24 point of view be rest assured that it has the entitlements to build from the City that project. I 25 think also from the point of view of a plan for Stanford moving that industrial zone if you will, 26 the current Cogen building is right in the middle of academic buildings, allows for a more 27 sensible use of that land for academic uses within the overall 2000 general use permit for 28 Stanford so I see this as a rational thing to do and something that the Planning Commission 29 should recommend to the City Council to move forward with. Thank you. 30 31 Commissioner Michael: I agree generally with all that Commissioner Keller just outlined. I 32 would also just note that in response to the suggestion that we wait for action by the County 33 before taking this up and giving our approval now, I think that there are as I’m learning, 34 instances of the Palo Alto process that slow things down and make things difficult and I take 35 seriously the statement of intention from the representatives of Stanford that this would be their 36 plan to go forward with this facility at this location and that by coming to us first they’re not 37 looking to exploit our good relationship and on that basis I’m happy to further deepen the good 38 relationship with Stanford and appreciate the negotiation of the lease extension for the park. 39 40 Chair Martinez: Anybody else want to weigh in? Yes Vice Chair Fineberg. 41 42 Vice Chair Fineberg: As a general concept I believe the intentions of the Applicant to build a 43 more energy efficient plant are good. They are outside the legal bounds of our Palo Alto 44 incorporated planning area but just in thinking in terms of land use a project size of that site and I 45 understand our rules don’t apply to that land but a ten acre parcel that can achieve significant 46 Page 13 of 15 energy savings and water efficiencies is a good thing so I see that as it may be outside the scope 1 of the City’s control but yet a good use of land. I have reservations with the amount of 2 uncertainty about the proposed project that’s adjacent and how much park land would be 3 undedicated so there is a side of me that says while I’m in favor of approving it a pause might be 4 beneficial. 5 6 Part of Commissioner Keller’s Motion, the Condition that the land be used for the energy plant 7 answers the concern about how the parcel is used but without knowing and I’ve seen what’s in 8 the public that the project in the adjacent Red Cross area might be moving forward in three 9 months so I don’t know if there’s a way to accommodate the need of Stanford to be able to move 10 forward and not wait but kind of hedge the City’s ability to figure out what’s going on with the 11 adjacent parcel so one question I have for the City Attorney is there any way to execute the Staff 12 Recommendation but with either a Condition or a mechanism that the land agreement as stated in 13 the Staff Report would not be executed unless one condition might be if and when the 14 application for the Cogeneration Plant is either submitted or approved by the County so if it 15 failed to happen the lease wouldn’t be executed and some kind of mechanism for us to know 16 what’s going on and I don’t know how to word that and I’m not trying to create a delay but is 17 there any mechanism you could recommend… One do you think it would be better to not 18 execute the lease if there is no plant built, or I should say land swap, or two is there some way 19 for us to have some additional certainty about what’s going on in the adjacent parcel? 20 21 Ms. Silver: At this point I don’t think there is any way to have certainty about the adjacent 22 parcel given Stanford’s time requirements for the energy facility. They really do need to start 23 moving on that project and I understand that there is a small window of opportunity here and if 24 the time requirements are not met on this parcel they’ll have to look at an alternative parcel so I 25 don’t think that’s possible. Also I think that putting aside the land use issues which are really 26 only related to Area B which is in the County’s jurisdiction, if you look at this as a straight 27 contract deal the question you need to ask yourself is whether taking the deed restriction off the 28 portion of Area B is something that you would recommend to the Council and whether a lease 29 extension for even a portion of El Camino is something that would be beneficial to the City so if 30 you just look at the issue of the contract provisions I don’t know that there’s really a reason to 31 want to postpone this transaction because the City is getting something of value by facilitating 32 perhaps a cleaner facility on Area B and then also by extending the El Camino Park but certainly 33 that’s a policy called for this body and the Council. 34 35 Commissioner Tanaka: I had a few questions I wanted to ask. First one is I think the City 36 Attorney mentioned that we have the right to terminate if we want and I don’t understand why 37 the depot lease? 38 39 Ms. Silver: That’s just the depot parcel and there was an agreement that was entered into a few 40 years ago that carved out portions of the El Camino Park lease and one of those portions was the 41 depot parcel and it allowed for an early termination and the reason for that was that the City is 42 not in the business of operating a transit facility. That’s a VTA function and so the City at one 43 point took over the lease and helped with the historic renovations I believe but that policy or that 44 initiative now is completed and so really I think all parties envision that the VTA will be the 45 main player at that site. 46 Page 14 of 15 1 Commissioner Tanaka: Does that save Palo Alto money to get out of this lease arrangement? 2 3 Ms. Silver: Palo Alto passes on the rent to VTA but there is really for whatever reason it has 4 been a difficult lease to administer so there are some internal Staff costs associated with the 5 implementation of that lease. 6 7 Commissioner Tanaka: I realize this Area B is not in Palo Alto but are there improvements? 8 Does the property tax actually go to Palo Alto or does it stay with Santa Clara? 9 10 Ms. Silver: The entitlements? 11 12 Commissioner Tanaka: No the property tax? Santa Clara right? I see. Okay. For me it’s my 13 general comment and it seems to make sense for both parties so I can’t see why we would not 14 want to support this effort. Thanks. 15 16 Chair Martinez: This is kind of a first for us. Stanford is proposing a project which we all 17 support, its good for the environment and on the other hand there is an arts facility project that is 18 under completely our control and we’re expressing our doubts about. I think if we do have such 19 concerns when that project comes before us we should express them at that time and I think I’m 20 supporting the Motion that we recommend the approval of this amendment. Commissioner 21 Keller would like to add two things. 22 23 Commissioner Keller: The first is that the fact that Stanford is extending the lease of El Camino 24 Park including, I’ll call that section the pan handle if you will, that pan handle section through 25 2042. If it turns out that some of that pan handle becomes part of another project then in some 26 sense any reversion of that land to some other use removes value from Palo Alto perhaps and 27 Palo Alto would then presumably get compensated so extending the lease for another nine years 28 on that pan handle that does Palo Alto no harm and perhaps some good. 29 30 Secondly, continuing the Cal Train Depot Lease means that Palo Alto has more control even 31 though there is Staff effort involved. Palo Alto has more control over what happens at the 32 intermodal station. It means if there is a potential future use of putting say as part of the 33 undergrounding of Cal Train a hotel, multimodal station facility there with retail and hotel or 34 something like that that we’ve talked about as a possibility there’s a possibility that Palo Alto 35 would gain some revenue from that, that the lease was directly from VTA they would gain more 36 revenue from that so it would give us more control on the potential land use and revenue from 37 that. I think both of these are good things to continue. Thank you. 38 39 VOTE 40 41 Chair Martinez: Those in favor say Aye. Aye. And none opposed. The Motion passes 42 unanimously with Commissioner Michael, Keller, Martinez, Fineberg, Tanaka voting in support 43 and Commissioner Tuma recusing himself. Thank you all very much and good luck with the 44 project. 45 46 Page 15 of 15 MOTION PASSED 1 2